End of pretence of democracy rescheduled to 2024

Shortly after the election was stolen, I predicted that Republicans would never win anything ever again, and that Trump would go to prison, soon to be followed by most of the Republican party.

But, it seems that I was running on Musk time.   If you want to know what our enemies are up to, listen to what they accuse us of. Social Justice Warriors always project.

Hat tip PJ Media:

The Atlantic’s Barton Gellman wrote breathlessly, “the ballots cast by American voters will not decide the presidency in 2024. Thousands of votes will be thrown away, or millions, to produce the required effect. The winner will be declared the loser. The loser will be certified president-elect. The prospect of this democratic collapse is not remote. People with the motive to make it happen are manufacturing the means. Given the opportunity, they will act. They are acting already.”

“The democratic emergency is already here. We face a serious risk that American democracy as we know it will come to an end in 2024, but urgent action is not happening.”

So, if the usual inversion applies, 2022 will not be too blatantly democracy 2020 style, but 2024 will be.

Recap. The Democrats in 2020 had the usual fraud in place to deal with the expected Trump landslide, but got a Trump Tsunami instead, so had to stop the counting, and dump in lots of hastily printed ballots at four in the morning. These additional fraudulent ballots were centrally printed in the middle of the night, so unlike the fraudulent ballots issued earlier did not have the downballot candidates filled in.

The expressions of alarm reflect concern that the usual deniable fraud is not going to suffice, and they are going to have to go about it in a more obvious fashion, and stop worrying too much about pretending that democracy is still operating. But they figure the mask will fall off in 2024. Which does not mean it will stay on in 2022 – it fell off in the early hours of 2020 November the fourth, but they hastily put it on again and announced that no one had noticed.

1,211 Responses to “End of pretence of democracy rescheduled to 2024”

  1. […] At https://blog.reaction.la/party-politics/end-of-pretence-of-democracy-rescheduled-to-2024/ HerbR provides a good list of definitions of leftism: […]

  2. Kunning Drueger says:

    https://youtu.be/f9mw78px_DI

    Biden gets owned on phone call. Google “did Biden say let’s go Brandon” and enjoy the weak attempts at spin. I know this is a very minor thing, but it is tiny cracks that topple empires.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      Not minor at all! Getting pranked is low status, and high status is getting away with stuff. It’s just like that one guy shouting “Pepe!” during that Hillary speech.

      There’s a lot of pranking going on out there too. Straight outta Glasnost.

  3. Kunning Drueger says:

    From my family to all of you, every last one of you big brained, smart mouthed, keyboard jockey motherfuckers:

    Merry Christmas. Try to take a few moments and ponder what is good, what is worth fighting for, killing for, dying for, building towards. Dark times ahead, lads. I want to say a particular thanks to Jim, St. John, Aidan, HerbR, and Wulfgar. You guys are a strange and wonderful bunch. TC, Pooch, Starman, the dearly departed, and lurkers around; Merry Christmas, faggots. Wish you all could stop by, swill some vodka, and be happy. Here’s hoping for a tomorrow together, whenever that may be.

  4. alf says:

    I’d like to hear how near or off the mark I am on this one — war veteran describes what its like to kill a man

    My response, besides rolling my eyes, was thinking: nice humblebrag bro.

    • Prince Charming says:

      “I see it every night.” i.e. PTSD. He’s not bragging.

      • The Cominator says:

        American combat soldiers tend to come from semi religious places in flyover country and I have on a couple of occasions met ones who said they were bothered by it… mainly it turned out because they were afraid they were going to hell.

        In both cases they seemed considerably relieved when I said the proper translation of the biblical commandment was “Thou Shalt Not MURDER” not “Thou Shalt Not Kill” and that they could look this up.

        • Prince Charming says:

          PTSD is a healthy reaction of the subconscious to one’s act that, as the lawyers say, shocks consciousness. The reason we have so much PTSD whereas before WW1 it was practically not a thing, is operant conditioning and bombing weddings in Peshawar, while the state religion tells us that taking a life is the gravest sin (what the guy in the video intimates), and killing civilians is a most heinous “war crime” lol.

          All research into PTSD is bought and paid for by the DoD, and is basically a massive PR effort to obfuscate this.

          Your relocation divisions will sleep soundly 🙂

          • The Cominator says:

            I believe WW1 was for most people in it pretty damn traumatic and terrifying…

            In WW1 it was called shell shock and i believe stress from hearing constant shelling of fixed trenches was pretty real.

            • Prince Charming says:

              Shellshock is cattle realising they are cattle at the slaughterhouse, whereas previously they believed themselves to be fully actuated humans with a mission on Earth, or something. PTSD is a strict superset of this, and mostly comes from situations that are both objectively and subjectively individual.

              The “hearing more explosives go boom than in all previous wars combined” is a DARPA-sponsored copout. The soundtrack is not a problem, people could literally sleep through it, until some of them
              couldn’t.

              • The Cominator says:

                Well lets look at probably the only good thing to come out of WWI, Tolkien.

                Some aspects of his personality do strike me as a guy who never quite recovered from the war mentally. Making a whole fantasy world complete with languages… having to throw in the dead marshes and such.

                Tolkien never went around saying the war fucked him up a little, but in some ways he was clearly mentally um touched by it. So its not ALL fake and gay.

                • Karl says:

                  I like Ernst Jünger’s writing. Neither his writing nor his bio suggest that the war(s) fucked him up.

        • Oog en Hand says:

          According to Camille Paglia, abortion is killing, not murder.
          According to jim, killing demonspawn isn’t murder.

          And euthanasia…

          In Hebrew and Arabic, killing is KTL, murder is QTL.
          Why is the KJV so lousy at translating?

          • Prince Charming says:

            As you show, much murder gets redefined as either killing, or not even killing. If you think in words, you will be misled by wordsmiths. KJV is *obviously* not forbidding all killing. There will be a lot of killing of animals and plants, and indeed people. The Bible works as a useful reminder once you understand what GNON wants from you, which understanding cannot be gleaned from reading Bible alone.

            • Oog en Hand says:

              GNON = Holy Ghost

              No Sola Scriptura, but Papal Infallibility, amirite?

              • Prince Charming says:

                Wrong.

                Church tradition, consensus of the community of the saints, lived experience, and scientific method. Judge by the fruit, respect your father, nullis in verba.

      • alf says:

        Interestingly there was a discussion on that subject among reactionaries a while ago in which the consensus was that PTSD is mostly fake.

        • Kunning Drueger says:

          PTS is real. It comes in different forms. It can be survivor’s guilt, good men struggling with having to do bad things, bad men discovering morality, and many others. The one that is “fake,” as far as that goes, is soldiers internalizing the proggy narrative that being hard and cold is evil. So, yes, many of the midwit military folk susceptible to the influence of memetic Progressivism suffer from fake PTS. Real PTS is almost always survivor’s guilt. And it isn’t isolated to soldiers. Walk across enough minefields intact, and dream state v. waking life will spin up some pretty awful subconscious inclination.

          • Red says:

            The one that is “fake,” as far as that goes, is soldiers internalizing the proggy narrative that being hard and cold is evil. So, yes, many of the midwit military folk susceptible to the influence of memetic Progressivism suffer from fake PTS.

            The cathedral has made it crimethink to celebrate warriors and the mighty deeds that warriors do. It’s been this way all the way back to WW2.

            • Prince Charming says:

              Mighty deeds like bombing weddings in peshawar in order to better teach girls how to put a condom on a banana.

              If the guy were a warrior doing warrior things, no PTSD. But he is a peasant soldier doing shitty things in a country he has no business being in, and oh boy is that blood hard to was off.

              • The Cominator says:

                More PTSD with WW1 because the war was completely for evil and everyone involved eventually knew it.

                WW2 soldiers on the allied side felt good, they won and even if FDR and the allies were bad the Nazis and the Japs also did very bad things.

                Vietnam even if we were the good guys we lost, the army was betrayed, and American society spat on them.

          • jim says:

            > Real PTS is

            How come no one ever suffered from PTSD until demonization of warriors escalated spectacularly?

            My monkey brain is rather proud of having survived troubles.

            • Kunning Drueger says:

              I think we’re both treading on thin experiential ice here, Jim. Survivor guilt does not come from surviving. It comes from surviving the unexplainable. The bird goes down and your buddies are in puddles and you don’t have a scratch. An IED sends your MRAP to Mars and you walk away while you’re bro is mailed home in a jar.

              I’m going to speak for a few lads who cannot or will not speak for themselves right now: some shit just doesn’t compute, and the more you try to calculate, the worse it gets. No amount of therapy or happy talk will bring clarity and acceptance. Some people marshall their shit, others check out. I’m carrying a few flames for Bros that couldn’t handle it. No amount of explaining will fix the others.

              …but this is a very small group. The vast majority of dudes that talk about PTSD are cry baby faggots who have internalized a guilt narrative. I have neither time nor sympathy for them. But I have encountered a few of the legitimately broken, and that’s why I say PTS. It isn’t a disorder, it’s a consequence.

              • eretus says:

                It occurs to me that these examples you’re offering, like the MRAP to Mars, are not moments of personal power, as killing generally should be, but of impotence.

                A friend of mine was diagnosed with PTSD. And for what its worth he clearly is troubled by a particular incident. But like your examples, he pretty much wasn’t an agent in the event. He wasn’t even there at the time, close enough to hear but not close enough to see or do anything. But he has the sort of retrospective awareness that had he just talked to someone five minutes longer, hell even 30 seconds, they’d probably still be alive. Of course he had no way of knowing at the time.

                This guy is proud of his violent achievements, and he has them. He has the stories and scars to prove it. What bothers him is when there is nothing he could do.

                • jim says:

                  Of course he is troubled by the incident.

                  The shrink talking to him and attempting to make it into PTSD is, however, engaged in a hostile act against him.

                • Prince Charming says:

                  The shrink talking to him and attempting to make it into PTSD

                  Nuts right back at you, Jim!

                  You are overgeneralising your own tenuous interpretation of an n = 1 incident, an incident that you view from a very subjective viewpoint, a perception coloured by the then-recent trauma. And you are ignoring the mountain of evidence of all these people that obviously have something very wrong with them, people who vote with guns and bullets that their life is never going to be worth living, people eating the gun rather than endure the hell any longer.

                  People who never had seen the insides of a shrink’s office, who spend months on a waiting list just to get to talk to some slut who could barely scrape through the college, and who is just phoning it in. And you’re telling these people that their experience is iatrogenic, and that if they didn’t talk to that slut that is just phoning it in, they would not have had the experience for the past five years, and they would not have to want to eat the gun and end it all, they would not lose their job and their family, and they would not have to spend months on the waiting list.

                  If your explanation of a mountain of evidence involves time travel, perhaps it’s not the slut that is phoning it in causing it, perhaps it is not iatrogenic.

                • Jim says:

                  > And you are ignoring the mountain of evidence of all these people that obviously have something very wrong with them …

                  > People who never had seen the insides of a shrink’s office, who spend months on a waiting list just to get to talk to some slut who could barely scrape through the college, and who is just phoning it in. And you’re telling these people that their experience is iatrogenic

                  Are they?

                  Are people actually in distress over PTSD, or just pleased to have a socially approved justification for real or hypochondriac dysfunction, or a socially approved response to behavior they fear is socially disapproved?

                  The two examples of PTSD quoted in this thread is a chick who was looking to get brutally raped because PTSD, and a man who was boasting about killing another man having PTSD over it.

                  If having certain symptoms gets you off the hook in a society thick with pressure and disapproval, and your shrink puts pressure on you to have those symptoms, lots of people are likely to have those symptoms.

                  I am not seeing a mountain of evidence that people have distressing reactions to trauma. I am seeing a mountain of evidence that people have socially approved distressing reactions to trauma, which distressing reaction just happens to excuse all the things that they have done which are rightly or wrongly subject to ever intensifying social disapproval.

                • Prince Charming says:

                  not seeing a mountain of evidence that people have distressing reactions to trauma

                  Let’s use accurate terms.

                  The official theory of PTSD, and the reality portrayed in for example Lady Macbeth’s plight, is that traumatic events are inherently stressful; if the stress is not processed adequately, this will result in a disorder.

                  You are writing that you have zero stress response to a traumatic event. This is impossible, this is nonsense. I don’t believe that is what you mean. Does your heartrate remain static as you torture kittens to death? Do you compose your grocery shopping list as you beat the shit out of some unfortunate sob in the boxing ring?

                  I believe what you mean is that people do not have disorderly reaction to the elevated stress from violent events. In your narrative, trauma is perhaps not the right word, because you seem not to view violence as traumatic, and I would agree.

                  Is that what you mean?

                  In this thread, apart from the two examples of the chick and the soldier boy, you are ignoring the small detail of the WW1 trench infantry, the bomber crews and the fighter escorts Pseudo-Chrysostom mentioned, the vets The Cominator mentioned, and the commonly found affliction that Lady Macbeth represents.

                  people have socially approved distressing reactions to trauma, which distressing reaction just happens to excuse all the things that they have done which are rightly or wrongly subject to ever intensifying social disapproval

                  There is a lot of attention whoring, and people have “PTSD” from watching their boyfriend ejaculate on the pillow without their express written consent, but I don’t see those people’s functioning being affected. I have, on the other hand, PTSD wreak havoc in people’s lives, and it is hard to pin that down to seeking social approval for whatever they may have done, which was in the end quite insignificant compared to what they kept doing because of the disorder.

                • jim says:

                  > You are writing that you have zero stress response to a traumatic event. This is impossible, this is nonsense.

                  I have massive stress response to traumatic events. This is healthy sane, and normal. At the time the shrink was harassing me to have PTSD symptoms, I had, however, absolutely none of the symptoms he demanded that I have. He demanded that my stress take pathological and hurtful form, which form it did not resemble in the slightest. My stress response was so different from the stress response that he demanded as to be unrecognizable in his terms and his language, and I only now, at this moment, in response to your post, recognize that what he was fishing for was my actual response to the situation, redefined in pathological terminology. I did not recognize it then, and I only now recognize it.

                  At the time, and until this moment, this simply never occurred to me, that he was not conjuring up PTSD from thin air, but attempting to redefine my actual reaction to stress as an illness, as pathology. It simply did not occur to me until this moment that my actual response to stress was related to what he was fishing for, because my subjective experience of stress simply was not recognizable in his terminology.

                  The depression shrink came closer to the mark. And I told her I was rationally, appropriately, and proportionally depressed by objectively depressing events, and would get over it by and by. “Life’s a bitch and then you die. You have to laugh, or else you would cry” It simply did not occur to me to make a similar reply to the PTSD shrink, because his pathologization of stress made it unrecognizable to me. It simply never occurred to me until this moment that he was talking about my actual response to stress, translated into the language of pathology and sickness.

                  Until this moment, it seemed to me he was pressuring me to invent symptoms from thin air, but now that you equate stress with PTSD, it seems likely he was pressuring me to reinterpret and redefine my actual response to stress as illness. But I simply did not recognize what he was talking about as intended to be in any way related to my actual experience of stress. It seemed utterly and incomprehensibly alien to my lived experience, while what the depression shrink was talking about was recognizable.

                  Obviously I was badly shaken up by having had a rather rough time, but if PTSD is the medicalized and pathologized description of that, the description was not recognizable to me then, and it still seems mighty strange and alien to me when you equate the normal stress response with PTSD. It is absolutely nothing like PTSD.

                  If being shaken up by a rough time is “PTSD”, PTSD is a weird, unnatural, unrealistic, strange, and artificial description of it, which denigrates and belittles those who have been having a rough time, a strange, deceptive, and misleading newspeak originally cooked up by priests to belittle and condemn warriors.

                  If PTSD is the medical terminology for being shaken up by having a rough time, and this simply never occurred to me until you equated the two, it is just unrecognizable, alien, and irrelevant to way in which people actually get shaken up by having a hard time.

                  It never occurred to me until now that he was pressuring me to adopt the social role of victim because I had been having a hard time. I just thought he was babbling on about something weird.

                • jim says:

                  > I have, on the other hand, PTSD wreak havoc in people’s lives, and it is hard to pin that down to seeking social approval for whatever they may have done, which was in the end quite insignificant compared to what they kept doing because of the disorder.

                  If people have a socially approved disorder, they will wreak havoc, because they have socially approved superpower over other people. They are disabled, and everyone has to accommodate the disabled. Being disabled is high status, valorized, and state subsidized, so we get the enthusiastic mass manufacture of disability.

                  Disability is honored, subsidized, and empowered. Productivity is demonized, condemned, taxed, and intimidated. So, surprise surprise, we get more disability and less productivity.

                  If victims are honored, and warriors dishonored, warriors are apt to choose to be victims instead. If victims are honored, and the productive dishonored, the productive will choose to be victims instead.

                • Prince Charming says:

                  At the time the shrink was harassing me to have PTSD symptoms

                  I was badly shaken up by having had a rather rough time, but if PTSD is the medicalized and pathologized description of that, the description was not recognizable to me

                  You cannot have PTS*D* that close to the event. To an extent, it is a matter of definition, but the gist is, the symptoms (being shaken, having nightmares and even hallucinations, being dissociated, easily startled, aggressive or numb, depressed, not quite there) is perfectly normal in the aftermath of an event (the rule of thumb is approximately one month), and the prognosis is that it will just work itself out. After about a month, the prognosis is that something went wrong, and it will not just work itself out, and because the same symptoms going on for too long become ever harder to handle, it is by definition a disorder (i.e. an affliction that is uncommon and gets in the way of living one’s life in a functioning way).

                  So that close to an event, it is not disorderly, because it doesn’t get in the way of your living your life (any more than any other acute illness would), and because it is not uncommon or unexpected.

                  This close to an event, it is termed post-traumatic stress (not disorder), and the problem is, if you suppress that stress, you suppress the processing of the stress, and anyway, if you give a midwit shrink something, he will try to pigeonhole it. If I, an autistic, go to a shrink, he will probably be overjoyed I have this officially holy jewish disease, but when I was a kid, it was not a thing, so people would just think I was obtuse, and probably thought my mother didn’t love me, and tried to get rid of me as quickly as possible.

                  I cannot make heads or tails of at which point you’re talking of PTS and when of PTSD. I suspect you are using PTS, PTSD interchangeably, and also stress and sterss processing interchangeably, and also stress and trauma.

                  In your telling, the bad guy tries to talk your limbic system into having not had processed the stimulus. That cannot possibly work. Either he was talking to you shortly after the event, at which point he would be fishing for (acute, normal, expected) post-traumatic stress, or he would be talking to you after the deadline for orderly processing the event has passed (roughly one month), at which point you either had the (chronic, abnormal, disorderly, still expected but only in a fraction of instances) post-traumatic stress disorder, or didn’t, and no amount of talking could possible make your lizard brain travel back in time and change its mind.

                  Sure, you can reject the official model of how the biology and psychology of it works, and you can reject the official vocabulary, and the etiology of the thing, or that the thing even exists, or that it is one thing and not multiple disparate things, and I sure do that in parts, but if we are to have a meaningful discussion, we must keep to some definition of terms.

                  Your retelling is drastically divergent from the official doctrine on PTSD, not just in the sense that they would underhandedly do one thing and piously profess they are doing another thing, but that their supposed actions do not match with the official doctrine of what their actions should be. They act very roguish and maverick in your story.

                  he was pressuring me to adopt the social role of victim

                  That is probably the framing they adopt, and the reason they do it is officially they are non-judgmental, and unofficially DoD who pays for all the research insists that the soldiers that get it are the good guys. In fact if you have PTSD it is always your damn fault, by definition, according to my theory of it.

                  There certainly is something in the system that tries to derail the processing of the trauma, for example the Duluth model, but that is just kinda whatever. If one is not a victim, one is not easily talked into it. You turned out fine, after all.

                  If people have a socially approved disorder, they will wreak havoc, because they have socially approved superpower over other people

                  That is certainly true, but PTSD sufferers are treated like dirt. Any service that you need to access, be it medical, social security, financial, whatever — requires capacity for action that you at that point simply do not have; look at what VA does to vets, months on waiting lists to just talk to someone. You are holy if you get “raped” and parade your holiness in the newspaper, but the guys who eat a gun are not holy, they’re out of sight out of mind. Little boys who get sodomised are not holy. The plurality of PTSD cases are car accidents, but you wouldn’t know that, because it is not holy, it is performatively holy, but people with PTSD scarcely have the energy or desire to perform.

                • jim says:

                  > I cannot make heads or tails of at which point you’re talking of PTS and when of PTSD. I suspect you are using PTS, PTSD interchangeably, and also stress and sterss processing interchangeably, and also stress and trauma.

                  You are trying to process my words into language that has a lie at its core. Don’t do that. Your language is in large part the cause of PTSD. Your account of how people respond to stress is a lie. Stop being deceived. It is not like that.

                  Some people who have been very severely stressed are very vulnerable to suggestion for a quite short time after the events. Not all of them, probably not most of them, but a great many of them. This has been known for a very long time, long before there was such a thing as PTSD. If someone believes his immediate stress response was like that, this is what he has been told, not what he in fact experienced.

                  If doctors hastily get at someone who is still very badly shaken up, there is a good chance he will be persuaded to believe any bullshit he is told, and will internalize it. This is brainwashing.

                • Prince Charming says:

                  He demanded that my [processing of trauma] take pathological and hurtful form, which form it did not resemble in the slightest. My stress response was so different from the stress response that he demanded as to be unrecognizable in his terms and his language, and I only now, at this moment, in response to your post, recognize that what he was fishing for was my actual response to the situation, redefined in pathological terminology. I did not recognize it then, and I only now recognize it.

                  It that is true, and I have no reason to think it is not, it would mean that some of our biggest social problems will disappear like magic as soon as people adopt a new weltanschauung. While it is not possible to talk someone’s limbic system into not having PTSD, it seems that you had a much healthier, ancient subconscious frame, and what causes the rise of PTSD is the modern frame, the modern worldview. Nice thing is that we don’t have to understand how the new software subverts our biology, we only have to reinstall the old software.

                • Prince Charming says:

                  Some people who have been very severely stressed are very vulnerable to suggestion.

                  Sure, but only immediately after the event, not months or years after the event.

                  I observe first-hand, and hear second-hand, people being in a state of shock immediately after car crash; I observe nightmares after traumatic events indicating processing during sleep; I see people being easily startled or developing phobias, and gradually incorporating the phobias into their lifestyle. Most people who experience PTSD never talk to anyone, and when they talk to a professional, it is years after they could possibly incept PTSD into them. The official story is skewered with lies, but they are built on kernels of truth, truth that was uncontroversial hundreds of years ago when Shakespeare wrote about Lady Macbeth.

                  Your account of how people respond to stress is a lie. Stop being deceived. It is not like that.

                  Ok how do people respond to stress?

                  Talking to friends and acquaintances, and making it into a story is one of the ways to deal. Elation and renewed energy is another. What else?

                • jim says:

                  > > Some people who have been very severely stressed are very vulnerable to suggestion.

                  > Sure, but only immediately after the event, not months or years after the event.

                  Does not last very long, which is probably why shrinks like to get into action right away as soon as real doctor goes away and emergency lets them in.

                  What you are calling PTSD is a system of delusions pushed hard by shrinks, and adopted partly by people taught lies by shrinks, and largely by people seeking victim status and the social super power of victimhood – with people in the latter category being far more common and prominent these days.

                  > I observe first-hand, and hear second-hand, people being in a state of shock immediately after car crash; I observe nightmares after traumatic events indicating processing during sleep.

                  Sleep that knits up the ravell’d sleave of care,
                  The death of each day’s life, sore labor’s bath,
                  Balm of hurt minds, great natures second course,
                  Chief nourisher in life’s feast.

                  I wake, and the dream fades, ah, it was just a bad dream. And then I hug my wife, and in the morning she makes me coffee. I seldom remember my dreams. That is what dreams are for.

                  > making it into a story is one of the ways to deal.

                  Today, PTSD is a popular and high status story, because victimhood is high status and gives license for anti social behavior. When laughing in the face of danger, or going to sleep in a terribly dangerous situation because there is no way to escape the danger, and it just goes on and on, is high status, and licenses for anti social behavior are not so liberally handed out, you will hear different stories.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  >While the ability to dissociate is likely universal, or nearly so, some people are clearly more susceptible to dissociative states than are others. There is little question that someone’s innate ability to dissociate can be greatly enhanced — although not necessarily by ethical means. The most severe of the dissociative ‘disorders,’ MPD/DID, is in almost all cases created by psychological trauma so severe that the traumatic episode(s) cannot be integrated into the experiences of the core personality. By far the most common cause of MPD is early childhood trauma — usually, but not always, resulting from horrific abuse by a parent or other adult guardian. Dr. Frank Putnam noted in 1989 that he was “struck by the quality of extreme sadism that is reported by most MPD victims. Many multiples have told me of being sexually abused by groups of people, of being forced into prostitution by family members, or of being offered as sexual enticement to their mother’s boyfriends. After one has worked with a number of MPD patients, it becomes obvious that severe, sustained, and repetitive child abuse is a major element in the creation of MPD.” Dr. Deirdre Barrett, writing in 2001 for Psychology Today, offered a similar observation: “‘dissociaters’…have the following traits in common: Many such subjects reported a history of child abuse. Although some remembered this directly, some had been told by others that they had been battered…Other dissociaters who had not been abused had suffered childhood traumas such as prolonged, painful medical conditions and before the age of 10 experienced the deaths of their parents.”[…]

                  >[…]And how would that control be attained? Estabrooks shied away from the details, only alluding to the severe psychic torture that is required to split a person’s core personality and then exert control over the alter personalities that are created. The trauma is often referred to euphemistically as “a form of hypnotism.” In one passage, for example, Estabrooks noted that multiple personalities “are caused by a form of hypnotism in the first place! We will see that emotional shock produces exactly the same results as hypnotism.” Later, he came a little closer to the truth: “multiple personality [can] be both caused and cured by hypnotism. Remember that war is a grim business. Suppose we deliberately set up that condition of multiple personality to further the ends of military intelligence.” Still later, he came even closer: “everyone [can] be thrown into the deepest state of hypnotism by the use of what [I] termed the Russian method — no holds barred, deliberate disintegration of the personality by psychic torture…The subject might easily be left a mental wreck but war is a grim business.”[…]

                  >[…]Verdier went on to explain that in order to achieve truly lasting states of brainwashing (or mind control), it is necessary to subject the victim to “profound and deep emotional states.” The recommended emotional states are fear, shock, and anxiety — all of which have “an intense disinhibitive effect on the human brain.” Even more effective is pain — because, “according to the eminent neurologist, Dr. Wilder Penfield, sensations of pain from the muscular sensory system enter the sub-cortical brain regions directly.” With a passage seemingly lifted from Estabrooks’ writings, Verdier left no doubt that pain and fear are the most useful items in the MK-ULTRA toolbox: “Russian political scientists do support the belief that given enough punishment, all the people in any time or place are susceptible to hypnotic control.” Verdier echoed other of Estabrooks’ beliefs as well, including the idea that “brainwashing” could and should be widely utilized for “benevolent” purposes, and the notion that children are ideal candidates for mind control programming: “Brainwashing can be slow, insidious and sure when applied to children early in life.. .It is likely that there is a short period of time following corporal punishment when the child is in a state of decortication — hypnosis, so to speak. This is the ideal time to plant the positive instructions for better behavior in the future.” What the good doctor considered “corporal punishment” and “positive instructions” was left to the reader’s imagination.

                • Kunning Drueger says:

                  St. John’s quotes remind me of a book called The Rape of the Mind by Joost Merloo. Written in the 1950s by a Dutch Underground member who was tortured by the Nazis, then escaped. He later testified before Congress regarding the “treason” of captured American pilots in Korea. Free EPUB online. The book basically explains how actual mind control works. Fascinating stuff.

                  Jim, I detect what seems like bravado and braggadocio regarding PTSD. You’re the leader, so it is your job to tell us what we should mock, ignore, or exalt. At the same time, and this is anecdotal, I’m pretty sure there a lots of potentially useful men trapped in the “weltangshung” or whatever of modern victimology. Getting through to them without talking down to them is probably a useful tactic. As Gavrilo Princep taught us, even pussified skinnyfats can topple empires.

                  Prince Charmin Ultra Gay is basically outing himself as a flaming academe shill with his pronouncements about this or that mental affliction. Modern psychology in every one of its forms is alchemical at best, snake oil at worst. The former is a necessary misstep on the path towards actual scientific progress, the latter is grifterism. Faggots with degrees drawing make believe lines between imaginary afflictions is peak woke. Communism is always the haunt of mind-men. This is not to say there is nothing there. Mental affliction is exactly like the climate: of course it exists, and no your rain dances and human sacrifices have nothing to do with it. Notice how niggers don’t get PTSD. Octaroons do, but only if they identify as conservative. Notice how white man PTSD results in suicide and trannyism in no particular order. Notice how female PTSD results in pushups, pushup bras, and revenge. Notice how Nobel savages don’t get PTSD, they get even.

                  If you are in an elevator with everyone you love most, and it falls, and everyone gets pulped while you are unscathed, you’re going to have a bad time. You will have unhealthy responses to the stress you experience after the temporal effects of a given trauma have ceased. You don’t even have to script crazy horror movie happenings. Look at the little boys that get diddled by powerful sodomites. It’s the same thing. They aren’t being diddled anymore, they aren’t even kids! Snap out of it, wuss! It doesn’t work like that. Not will any amount of talking about it. Action must be taken. And some of those actions (suicide, perpetuation of sodomy, transference to innocents) are ameliorative and destructive. Other actions can be ameliorative and be beneficial. There’s little hope for the truly broken. But there are probably a ton of people who are vicariously victimized who need a very forward conversation, a very rigorous beating, and a new purpose with a good amount of oversight at first. This will cure them of the chronic ghey that ails them.

                  There’s too much noise and too little signal on this topic. Too much entertainment memery and no basic facts. Outside of personal experience, every single source on this subject is completely converged.

                • Prince Charming says:

                  > (((Joost Merloo)))

                  Early Life:

                  when he assumed the name Joost (instead of the more Jewish-sounding Abraham) to fool the occupying forces

                  Take a large pinch of kosher salt with whatever he has to sell. It won’t come as a shock to the readers here, but torture porn biopics are something of a shtick.

                  Kunning your inability to shut up about things you know little about is nauseating.

                • Prince Charming says:

                  @jim

                  victimhood is high status and gives license for anti social behavior

                  It really isn’t. Flaunting certain holy characteristics but only in very narrowly approved of ways is. So for example, it is holy to cut your son’s dick off, but it is very unholy to talk about the level of suicides (50%) this effects, and try to do something that actually helps. It is holly to go to gay pride, but it is unholy to go to conversion therapy. It is holy to be a nigger, as long as you stay on the plantation, but god forbid you don’t.

                  What you are calling PTSD is a system of delusions pushed hard by shrinks, and adopted partly by people taught lies by shrinks

                  What I am saying tracks well with observed reality.

                  You are stretching your narrative to fit reality reported to you by people and books, and you are stretching the narrative, and it doesn’t fit, so you ignore most of the points made in this thread that disprove your narrative:

                  Does not last very long, which is probably why shrinks like to get into action right away as soon as real doctor goes away and emergency lets them in.

                  Most people with PTSD never see any medical professional whatsoever. It is difficult to see a professional even if you want to, and there are delays that prevent you from seeing anyone very shortly after an incident, because long waiting lists. And the system could do that, you could have mandatory counselling after car accidents, but you don’t see that, the state is quite unwilling to even send a badgenigger, and drivers are disincentivised to report due to the massive (and unjust) financial penalty from increased insurance premiums. Car accidents being the plurality of PTSD cases, this would be a fertile ground on which to descend if you wanted to manufacture PTSD like your theory proposes is happening. But they disincentivise shrink intervention instead of incentivising. Under my theory, what they are currently doing would increase PTSD, and under my theory, this is why they are doing it.

                  Unlike Krueger, a blathering idiot who doesn’t ever know what he is talking about, nor never talks about anything he knows, I have experience with people with PTSD (not professionally, from personal life) — and Jimian advice, Jimian worldview, Jimian prioritising of strength, masculinity, laughing in the face of adventure would have helped them mightily.

                  It is not fruitful to try understand subversion on subversion’s terms. C S Lewis tried it with Screwtape Letters, and while it is entertaining light reading, the fruit is rotten, may Lewis rot in hell, reading his feminist screeds never helped anyone. Doesn’t really matter. We ought not to dwell on how (((psychology))) subverted our biology to introduce PTSD, all we have to do is resettle the jews, install the old software, and the problem will fast sort itself out.

                • jim says:

                  > You are stretching your narrative to fit reality reported to you by people and books,

                  No I am not. You are stretching my narrative to fit tall tales reported to you by people and books.

                  I am telling you, telling you repeatedly, that the books are hateful hostile lies from beginning to end, enemy lies intended to harm the patient, and that what is reported to you by people is distorted by self interest, desire to flatter the powerful, and psychiatrically induced delusion.

                  I am flat out unambiguously and plainly rejecting what is reported to you by people and books.

                  Enemy lies, enemy lies.

                  Look, I see in the workplace seemingly sane and normal people just not seeing female misconduct that gets right in their faces, and you think I should believe politically correct self reports by people who are, or claim to be, mentally disturbed?

                • jim says:

                  > Most people with PTSD never see any medical professional whatsoever. It is difficult to see a professional even if you want to

                  Bullshit. Not what I see in front of my nose. What I see in front of my nose is that shrinks get inflicted on unwilling people by state and quasi state institutions at the slightest excuse.

                  If someone has some event that might supposedly cause PTSD, or there is some incident of unusual behavior, cops or hospital or whatever is going have a shrink jump on him despite his total lack of enthusiasm for seeing a shrink.

                  Who are you hearing this crap from? It is from the shrinks, who are forever lobbying to get the authorities to inflict them on people even more than they get inflicted on people already.

                  People who wander the streets all day screaming at demons and causing trouble never get to see a psychiatrist, because there is no money there, but someone middle class, someone with assets, is going to have a shrink sicced on him against his will at any excuse. They bust someone, expecting him to go with the public defender, but instead he hires a lawyer. Bingo, then they want a psychiatric evaluation. Where there are people with assets who are in some kind of trouble, a shrink will appear whether they like it or not.

                • Tityrus says:

                  > The official story is skewered with lies, but they are built on kernels of truth, truth that was uncontroversial hundreds of years ago when Shakespeare wrote about Lady Macbeth.

                  Lady Macbeth’s nightmares are obviously intended to depict moral guilt. She is not “processing stress”, she’s processing sin. Those scenes are informed by the Christian view of psychology, has nothing to do with PTSD.

                • alf says:

                  Psychiatry, especially in the 20th and 21st century, has a long history of violating primum non nocere.

                  Flaunting certain holy characteristics but only in very narrowly approved of ways is.

                  Is that so? Let us count the psychiatric ways…

                  – Depression is holy, for we have no end of women complaining how hard their life is, feeling very sorry for themselves and expecting others to acknowledge their self-pity.
                  – PTSD is holy, for war is the most toxic of masculinity and obviously every man must be troubled by his toxic masculinity.
                  – ADD is holy, for a diagnosis gives much needed bonuses in school.
                  – Autism is holy, as for a man to acknowledge that he is a loser is the first step to disavowing his toxic masculinity.
                  – Antisocial personality disorders are holy, for they are rewarded with plenty female attention, shrinks primary among them.
                  – Transgenderism is obviously holy, and as with all of these labels, the point of its holiness is not happiness, it is status through victimhood. Psychiatry never heals any of its patients, because its patients revel in their victimhood and are systematically encouraged to do so.

                  The list goes on and on. Psychiatry can be boiled down to ‘you are a victim, we are all victims, here are some holy pills for your victimhood.’ It’s toxic, and the only way to deal with it is to shut them out like you’d shut out a vampire.

                • Kunning Drueger says:

                  Charmin Ultra Gay is displaying every red flag of an academia zombie. Pretty soon he’ll be complaining about how unfair it is that holy psychology is not as fiscally rewarding as automotive maintenance. He is a rainbow lipstick faggot, just like Anonymous Fake, just like Carlylian Restorationist, and every other over educated, under experienced Trotskyite before him. Point and laugh as he desperately deploys scripted antisemitic memes to cover up his hand tip over PTSD.

                • Prince Charming says:

                  @jim

                  > Bullshit. Not what I see in front of my nose. What I see in front of my nose is that shrinks get inflicted on unwilling people by state and quasi state institutions at the slightest excuse.

                  Most people never see the insides of a medical office, never speak to anyone.

                  > If someone has some event that might supposedly cause PTSD, or there is some incident of unusual behavior, cops or hospital or whatever is going have a shrink jump on him despite his total lack of enthusiasm for seeing a shrink.

                  We are obviously talking about two disjoint sets of people. I am not talking about people who have resources that can be leached off of, but people who have abilities that need to be degraded or destroyed. As the resident marxist, I of course primarily empathise with the much larger foundation of the pyramid, the soldiers that eat the gun or the folks that got a job without commute because they had a car accident and the PTSD from driving a car was affecting their work performance.

                  I thought that I knew a lot about PTSD, but this thread really brought some new perspectives.

                  @alf

                  (((Psychiatry))) is much better regarded as an enemy psyop, which from the very beginning it has been. But we must understand that the enemy works by taking something real, and inverting it, some say that this is because Satan, unlike God, cannot create. [not a christian, leave me alone]

                  Depression is holy, as long as you do not try to point out that a depression coming from external causes that one cannot do anything about is vanishingly rare — and that is precisely the kind of depression that is not holy.

                  Autism, again, not holy. If it were, aspie-friendly places would not be destroyed by bringing in screaming little “autistic children” to trigger (correct use) sensory overload in us. Codes of Conduct would not be demanding us to speak socially approved lies. If autism were holy, (((Katie Bouman))) would be praised for making tea and coffee for her autistic (((colleagues))) who actually wrote the code.

                  … and so on and so forth.

                  To think that victimhood is holy is to cargo-cult jewishness. No. It is holy to be very powerful and be performatively a victim. The former is essential, albeit harder, do not expect people to fawn over you just because you play the victim: you need to beat them up first.

                  @trigger nigger

                  > yap yap yap longhouse drivel

                  Well you tried to be internet friends because you thought I was shitting on someone you didn’t at the time like, and now you just act like a spurned sheila. Case in point why women and their d&c, unfunny, solipsistic drivel ought not to be welcome in male spaces.

                  Sudo go make a sandwich, bitch.

      • jim says:

        He is bragging, and PTSD is a social disease, induced by doctors and society. If you are expected to man up, and you expect yourself to man up, you are 100% immune to PTSD.

        Some time ago a hospital sicked a shrink on me (I was in the hospital for the physical consequences, not the mental, and did not appreciate having shrinks inflicted on me) and I recollect how indignant and upset he was that I did not have PTSD in the slightest. You are supposed to have PTSD. It shows you are a good person.

        • Prince Charming says:

          If you did something which is according to your deeply held beliefs unspeakably wrong, you would expect that deed to haunt you, Lady Macbeth style. Almost no-one ever does things like that, and when they do, they get the demons, and it is low-key expected they do. PTSD is a product of our religion being insane and demanding people to do things, or allow things to happen, which according to the same religion are on that level of beyond bad. The experience has to be visceral.

          When you’re getting PTSD, you basically fucked up so bad that you and possibly your whole civilisation are going to hell, and it is time to reassess. Which we are, so more and more people getting it is not surprising. It is like depression, but deeper and more comprehensive. An evolved healthy reaction to a super unhealthy stimulus.

          • jim says:

            I like the definition that other commentators have been offering in this blog, that it is a real reaction to a sick spiritual system.

            Likely the nightmares and all that are completely real, but real in the way demonic possession is real. If you choose not to hang out with demons, not going to get demonically possessed.

            • Prince Charming says:

              That’s half of it. The other half is that if you done fucked up like Lady Macbeth did, you gonna have bad time. Her spiritual system was perfectly healthy.

              • Tityrus says:

                But the mechanism is the same whether it’s PTSD or Lady Macbeth.

                • Prince Charming says:

                  Lady Macbeth’s visions are PTSD. Why would you think they’re not?

                • The Cominator says:

                  IRL I haven’t really ever observed women with guilty consciences except for BPD girls.

                  For normie women the rationalization hamster absolves them of all responsibility. So called BPDs seem to lack the rationalization hamster.

                • Tityrus says:

                  No, I agree with you. You are saying that Joe Rogan guy and Lady Macbeth are having the same kind of reaction to very different religious systems.

    • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

      He might legitimately feel that way, or maybe he is just saying the appropriate thing. If he does feel that way, I suspect he would feel differently if he had been taken out for drinks and been celebrated after he smashed the other guy to death with a rock. I doubt I would have any doubts or regrets if I killed a Mohammedan with a rock, because he had it fucking coming to him for being a demon worshipper.

      • alf says:

        Yes there is a slight subtlety to it. Maybe he means what he says, maybe he does feel guilt through societal pressure or whatever. Like he understands that it is expected of him to feel guilty about taking another man’s and acts accordingly?

        But my monkey brain tells me I’d be pretty proud if I killed a man with a rock, and you can sell me a bridge if his monkey brain is any different.

        • The Cominator says:

          It really has to do with your religious sentiments…

          A lot of American soldiers think back and then default to their original shallow understanding of christianity and think in the back of their mind that they’ve committed horrible sins and will be horribly punished by God.

          I’ve met a couple…

        • Prince Charming says:

          You’re thimking about it too cerebrally, Alf. This works at the limbic level. The guy has a deeply held unarticulated belief that what he did was very wrong. His feelings do not care about your facts, as it were.

        • Prince Charming says:

          Plus, he’s lying. If a man intending to kill you sneaks up on you from behind, you’re gonna be too busy dying to do anything about it. It is typical of PTSD sufferers to retell the story in a way that helps them cope. If he could jovially relay “I got spooked by a kid, operant conditioning kicked in, fucker had it coming lol”, he would be in a much better place, spiritually.

        • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

          He is probably an NPC. A soldier at heart, not a warrior. The two of us can celebrate our base masculine desires and our successes on our own, because we can make it on our own and we operate around society, not within it. He needs that society, and so his monkey brain is telling him that he did bad society thing, make sad face, have bad dream. Our monkey brains would be saying, fuck yeah, me big ass-kicker, now go fuck and party, good to be ass-kicker; good to win. To him, society is what keeps him alive. To us, society is where we go to find our tools.

      • Arqiduka says:

        Issues relevant to the matter seem to be:

        1) PTSD is claimed to be pervasive nowadays, and was claimed not to exist (i.e. no recognizable symptoms described) before WW1

        2) Societal pressure – as either encoded or hijacked by the media of the day – can very deeply influence people.

        These two issues can be reconciled into either one (or even into a combination) of two very different explanations: either PTSD has been willed into being by a priestly class intent on clipping the warrior class, or PTSD was always a thing but it was considered cowardly to admit to being anything but elated at having pillaged a village, with all that this entails.

        Do Mexican cartel members feel horrible at night due to what they have to do on a daily basis? Do nignogs? I don’t know, but I sure know the easiest way to get wacked in that milieu is to admit to this, so we’ll never hear as much from them.

        Still, given that I would see zero evolutionary advantage to a PTSD module in our brains, I tend toward thinking PTSD is largely willed into being nowadays, but am not too confident.

        • Prince Charming says:

          PTSD is an evolved, adaptive response to an extreme stimulus. It is a more complex and more comprehensive depression. Same as depression, many people are currently being paid to muddy the waters about why it occurs and why it may be a good thing. Depression allows (forces) one to reassess priorities; it will allow (force) you to quit being an international playboy and find God (see: Roosh). PTSD allows (forces) you to entirely rewire your personality, something that is otherwise not really possible past puberty. Yes, it’s painful.

          To the extent that PTSD was not occuring before WW1, it is because it is socially constructed by the DoD to be totally different from e.g. the visions that Lady Macbeth has, and which everyone low-key expects people like her to get if they do what she’d done. We have an insane religion that from one corner of the mouth tells us to do things, and from the other corner tells us that those things are unspeakably awful, which is why we have more of it now, but being haunted by demons after committing a very bad deed is a human universal.

          • Arqiduka says:

            I understand PTSD to be different from just having a conscience in that people supposedly suffer from it even having fought like real gentlemen etc etc. In this sense, I don’t think “feeling bad about having been a gentlemam warrior” ever was a theme before WWI.

            • Prince Charming says:

              > supposedly … fought like real gentlemen

              Yeah, like who?

              • Arqiduka says:

                Hm, KD above speaks of guys who got it simply by surviving an IED, no fighting at all. The orginal shell-shock implies trauma from being under fire, nothing to do with any doing on your own part.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  A common element of all these different dynamics is the perception of control.

                  For example, during the second war of internationalist aggression, escort pilots in the continental bombing campaign had, objectively, a much greater risk of being shot down than the bomber crewmen; yet rates of combat fatigue were more than double in latter, as compared with the former.

                  The reason is simple and obvious; irrespective of the dangers in reality he faced, the fighter jockey, mounted atop his steed, felt that *he had control over his destiny*. Whereas individual crewman on the bomber, each having narrower remits, concordantly felt oft like that had precious little influence over their chances, could merely pray their number did not come up.

                  Shell shock is of like kind with this; a screeching wode swinging his axe in your face is something you can viscerally grapple with; but what do you do about falling death streaking over from beyond the horizon, while you are stuck sitting there in a trench? It felt, so oft, like all one could do is simply pray their number did not come up. It is that feeling of powerlessness, a feeling of *lack of control*, that sows the seed; which the milieu he participates in may exacerbate, or denature.

                  IEDs and survivor’s guilt, just as so. The perception of caprice, arbitrary chance, that either you were powerless to change anything, or that you somehow *should* have had the power, but failed to.

                • Tityrus says:

                  Yes. And as you have hinted, it would be a curious question to ask what kinds of religious ideas are better at keeping people from feeling too bad about these types of situations. Maybe Islamic-style fatalism?

                • jim says:

                  Having agency to address the problem makes a huge difference psychologically, even if the agency is not likely to make a whole lot of difference.

                  It is not fatalism that prevents old type Muslims from getting PTSD. It is a faith that says that killing and being killed is OK.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  Good point re feeling in control. I know people eho are terrified of earthquakes for that very reason.

                • Tityrus says:

                  jim, but what about situations where there is no control or agency, like the IEDs and other things that KD talks about above? He says: “some shit just doesn’t compute, and the more you try to calculate, the worse it gets”. Seems to me that there might be belief systems that make some of these things compute.

                • Fake says:

                  Kyle Rittenhouse appears to have ptsd. He had control over his situation. Was he just demonized into accepting trauma? Or is his breakdown during recounting the incidents during his trial not indicative of ptsd?

                • jim says:

                  Kyle Rittenhouse was traumatized not by his life being in danger, nor by killing people who needed killing, but by lack of social support for killing people who needed killing.

                  The cops who told him to go home when he attempted to get arrested, after he had told cops he killed people, in front of a crowd of hostile people telling the cops he had killed people, acted appropriately and correctly. But he had internalized that this is not how they would and should act.

                • Red says:

                  >Kyle Rittenhouse appears to have ptsd. He had control over his situation. Was he just demonized into accepting trauma? Or is his breakdown during recounting the incidents during his trial not indicative of ptsd?

                  Kyle was filmed wearing a shirt saying AR15s > Skateboards. He clearly doesn’t have any issues with killing those who needed killing. I think Jim’s got the right of it with Kyle.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  @tity

                  ‘IEDs are just something that happens’ illustrates the dangers of the passive voice. Solipsistic modes of thought inhabiting a world where things just happen to happen with no agency.

                  There is agency with roadside bombs and the like. What they are is an epiphenomena of an ostensible fighting force that is precluded from ruling the people around them. The ideological preconceptions of demotist theocracy by design precludes that which is more orderly rulership, and naturally soldiers under a demotist regime are obliged to operate under the same preconceptions, and also without any unprincipled exceptions the theocrats themselves may use to stay in power. Leading to states of affairs where the poor bastards are much like those abused rodents in the old learned helplessness experiments; they simply shut down.

                  When the Western Roman Empire had to deal with piracy in the mediterranean, what they did what show up in force at any of the ports the pirates would dock at, kill everyone, and bring in settlers to repopulate the area.

                  In the event, the roman lake was pirate free for more than four centuries.

                • Prince Charming says:

                  common element of all these different dynamics is the perception of control […] objectively, a much greater risk of being shot down than the bomber crewmen; yet rates of combat fatigue were more than double

                  Distress (external stress one has no control of) vs eustress (stress one can overcome by levelling up and getting gud). It is sinful and evolutionarily deletrious to allow oneself to be under distress, to be in situations where other can do unto us and we cannot do unto them. There is no paradox.

        • A2 says:

          Today’s PTSD is not much like actual shell shock, of course. It’s just a word that feminists use to signal their superior sensitivity and sacred victimhood.

          E.g., “Whlle I was staggering around drunk in a back alley (my drinks had obviously been spiked behind my back), some man put his arm around my shoulders — without my consent! — and steered me to a taxi, which took me back to my shared squat. He had already paid for the ride, showing he was part of the patriarchy! Ever since then, I have had trouble sleeping and have been diagnosed at the women’s medical centre with post-traumatic stress disorder. Subscribe to my patreon.”

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      This topic has indeed been touched on before.

      The most prosaic level is that of course the mindset of a labouring caste man is not adapted to life and death in war the way a man possessed of more warrior character would be. The warrior’s perspective is almost completely alien to the peasant’s (what do you mean you would not lose your nerve in a stressful situation? what do you mean this is not a stressful situation to you?). It is alien to many priestly types also – though better examples of the species may ideate it, by sufficient imaginative capacity.

      A second level is that ‘PTSD’ is the social custom. You are *supposed* to have ‘PTSD’. You can turn on broadcast tv and watch a few episodes of M.A.S.H. to see what some priestly heebs living in the city think how war and warriors are supposed to work. People watch media and internalize the narrative, the life plan. They see how each part plays it’s role in the act, and they follow the script. They are not consciously thinking in terms like ‘i am going to go into an adrenaline pumping situation and thereafter psychologically self-sabotage’, but their limbic system is learning the score. When they find themselves in a situation, they intuitively follow their rolemodels for that situation.

      A third level is that it is an epiphenomena of civilizational scale nihilism in general. Presently regnant underlords offer no good reasons for their soldiers to be doing anything they are doing – because they don’t have any good reasons. Aimless ennui, purposelessness, and listlessness are the rule, not the exception.

      • alf says:

        warrior’s perspective is almost completely alien to the peasant’s

        You’d expect a man who enrolls in the army to know what he signed up for.

        ‘PTSD’ is the social custom

        I think the comments to the short show this as well. No one is saying ‘lol cringe’. Instead everyone is posting inspirational quotes on the timeless horror of war.

        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          The US Army is, nominally, an all volunteer force. So yes, even if they are recruiting from all society, there is still some pre-selection effect at play.

          At the same rate though, many of the foregoing are also joining up mainly for economic reasons, getting their internments in modern seminaries paid for by the GI bill and all that. They’re not ‘really’ expecting mortal combat; or to the extent they do expect it, it’s in a ‘ill deal with it if it happens’ way, not a ‘Conan! what is best in life!?’ way.

        • Prince Charming says:

          > know what he signed up for

          It is not the killing and dying, but the murdering, and insane rules of engagement. How do you suppose it works. Was the guy, aged 17 or 22, supposed to disregard his teachers, all the patriotism instilled in him from cradle, the fact there are millions of vets,, some of them in his family, speaking of discharging their duty fondly, and say nah, there’s this guy on the Internet in the future in 2021, Prince Charming, and based on his poasts, I think the whole soldier thing is cringe and don’t do it!?

          One doesn’t necessarily want to insult vets. Those guys are on our side, and being a soldier is a big part of their identity. If you look at for example Fuentes, there is some beginning of how that rhetoric can be wrought, but it is not easy. What would be the point to spit on the core identity of the guy who is basically a victim here? But make no mistake. There is an enormous PR machine behind misleading the public about what PTSD is, and much of the comment section is paid shills or people who regurgitate paid shills. Organic response looks like Winter Soldier or PTSD awareness campaigns by vets for vets & spouses.

      • Aidan says:

        It is mostly that the organs of their official religion, not the nominally Christian but the Harvard religion, constantly tell them that they have done evil deeds, and like most good men, feel terrible and guilty about the fact that they did evil.

        Merely remembering life-threatening situations is adaptive. We are meant to remember danger because it helps us develop a plan for the future. We are meant to dream about danger because our dreams are a training dojo for real life. How we feel about these dreams and memories is another story.

        When I was a child, I watched a man die in front of me, and my response was “good, he deserved it”, because he did deserve it, and it never bothered me much. My brother also watched him die, and was quite traumatized for a while, because he considered himself somewhat responsible, which he was not.

        You get PTSD in society when you call war evil and warriors evil. Remembering war and violence is natural, but if you are remembering it with a guilty conscience, going to fuck you up.

        • jim says:

          We just tell our warriors that heroes frequently get killed, but on the way out they are doing their best to take as many enemy as possible with them, and our soldiers that when our enemies grasp women and children to act as human sandbags, the blood from those sandbags is on the heads of our enemies. No more PTSD.

          There is also a whole lot of fake PTSD. I myself have come under pressure from a shrink who was sicced on me to display PTSD symptoms. You are supposed to get PTSD or else you are a bad person.

          • Prince Charming says:

            Are you conflating post-traumatic stress with post-traumatic stress *disorder*?

            You are supposed to experience trauma as stressful, and you have to process that stress. There is a limited window within which the stress can be processed, about a month, and if it is not processed well, it becomes disorderly. Pressuring the client to stop denying he is experiencing post-traumatic stress (that is not yet disorderly) is exactly the think I would expect a shrink to do.

            • jim says:

              Nuts.

              I was there. I know exactly what happened.

              I suffered absolutely no post traumatic stress, and the shrink that was sicced on me was indignant that I did not. He was pressuring me to have post traumatic stress, and post traumatic stress disorder, and anecdotally, they pressure everyone.

              Their job is not to help the patient process traumatic stress, but to push people to wallow in it. Their job is to turn trauma into post traumatic stress disorder. They want people to have it. It is iatrogenic disease. I was right there, and your story about what the shrink was doing is just the lie that shrinks say to cover their crimes.

              • Prince Charming says:

                Their job is to turn trauma into post traumatic stress disorder.

                Indeed it is, and you can see that in the protocol for “rape” “victims”. But you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

                • Prince Charming says:

                  I would really like to figure out how to do blockquotes

                • Tityrus says:

                  It’s just the HTML tag.

                • jim says:

                  There is no baby.

                  Rough times are rough. Also water is wet. You are compelled to revisit rough times in your mind to make sure you don’t blunder into the same thing again. Revisiting rough times in your mind is no big deal. This is absolutely no big deal.

                  What is a big deal is being compelled to bemoan how terrible it all was. Rough times you survive are great. Observe that just about every story has the hero hitting some mighty rough times. A good story has no end of the hero encountering “traumatic stress”.

                  What is now called post traumatic stress used to be gentlemen telling each other of their exciting adventures and close shaves, when adventuring was honorable, brave, and something done by the better sort of people did. Since the priesthood despise that sort of people, you are now required to bemoan adventures.

                • Prince Charming says:

                  Jim, you are a righteous machiavellian genius hero, and are getting indignant at a peasant headshrink trying on you the shit he was told to try on peasants, shit that is plausibly suitable for helping with peasant problems. There is no need to project your own machiavellian tendencies on the midwit doctor, or surmise the poor dears share your steely psyche.

                  I was not there, so I’ll admit in your particular case maybe that’s what happened.

                • jim says:

                  What he was trying to do to me is harmful and hostile to the peasants. It would have been as bad for a peasant as for me, but more likely to be successful.

                • Mike says:

                  >Rough times are rough. Also water is wet. You are compelled to revisit rough times in your mind to make sure you don’t blunder into the same thing again. Revisiting rough times in your mind is no big deal. This is absolutely no big deal.

                  Nah, you’re being a callous idiot who is showing no ability to understand nuance. Sure, the majority of men, in your “average” war are going to be at the very least neutral about it, or even will desperately miss it once they come home. This piece, unfortunately behind a paywall, by a Vietnam vet in the 80s, is an excellent example of this. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFU4DrFUcAAiUdw?format=png&name=small

                  On the other hand, you had a whole generation of soldiers in WW1 who developed the best documented cases of PTSD up till that time who had no nexus of leftist social workers around them to prop up delusions in their head. If anything the doctors during WW1 were encouraged to ignore any mental symptoms the soldiers showed and get them back into combat as soon as possible, and there certainly was zero attempt to continue a sort of “PTSD make-work complex” after the war. So you’re talking out of your ass.

                • jim says:

                  > On the other hand, you had a whole generation of soldiers in WW1 who developed the best documented cases of PTSD up till that time who had no nexus of leftist social workers around them to prop up delusions in their head.

                  You have a valid point. But today, it is obvious that PTSD is overwhelmingly iatrogenic, and World War I was not a normal war.

                  World War I was an attack by the priesthoods of the respective countries upon the warriors of those countries, and they got PTSD because not able and not willing to take priesthood out and shoot them.

                  Violence and death is not psychologically disturbing for men. What is psychologically disturbing is helplessness caused by internal beliefs. Helplessness caused by external causes, or by one’s own errors that one has no difficulty recognizing as errors is rough, but I have been there often enough. It is not that rough and it is not psychologically disturbing. What is disturbing is internal causes that one cannot acknowledge.

                  The problem was not that they were being killed, but that they were being killed by treason within.

                • Mike says:

                  Just as men have breaking points in regards to failures/disasters in their career, their finances, their family and relationships, so do they have a breaking point in regards to combat. A man cannot go on and on and on through combat indefinitely without it eventually affecting him.

                  The reason PTSD is widespread today indeed has nothing to do with the above (in my opinion) real reason. The most common reason for it today is what Sebastian Junger has talked about, and it matches exactly what you’ve said. Namely, that warriors, when they come home to an effeminate and atomized home front, immediately feel totally disconnected and adrift, having lost the brotherhood of their military life. This of course, has nothing to do with the horrors of war and has everything to do with leftists destroying the social fabric.

                • Tityrus says:

                  Not going to argue this, jim has it covered. But I will link to an interesting essay by Borges about WW1 and Guillaume Apollinaire that Pseudo-Chrysostom posted: https://blog.reaction.la/faith/satanic-symbolism-at-the-vatican/#comment-2798053

                • alf says:

                  Namely, that warriors, when they come home to an effeminate and atomized home front, immediately feel totally disconnected and adrift, having lost the brotherhood of their military life.

                  Great point. I imagine that every warrior instinctively feels he should be rewarded for his valor in battle. But you come home and hey whats that, nobody gives an actual shit, and moreso, none of the victories and built brotherhoods in battle translate to any status at home.

                  Have to give it to leftists, they play well into this I think. Similar to workers’ unions, more benefits for veterans has often been their thing.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  Put in other words, it is not war that has changed, but the peace that has changed.

    • Prince Charming says:

      I thought I knew a lot about PTSD, being autistic and this being one of my special interests. But boy, is the rabbit hole deeper than I ever imagine.

      Jim’s point about iatrogeny is, though in my opinion flawed, nevertheless at least partially correct, as in the *Duluth model*, I think in the sense that they take something real, it being PTSD or depression or diabetes, and weaponise it against the population, against family, against the person, and the whole system that is supposed to cure or alleviate the problem in fact exacerbates it 10x in order to exploit the fallout, politically and financially.

      @ The Cominator

      The point that the good old white boys are scared of hell because of taking lives, that is perhaps the blackest of pills that I had to swallow, it is so simple and yet so obviously true. I always thought that the grunts knew to differentiate killing in war, but it is obvious, now that you mentioned it, that this is not the case, that it cannot be the case.

  5. Nicodemus Rex says:

    Piggybacking off the HR discussion from downthread, I run a small <10-person startup that has so far managed to avoid any entanglement with HR, mainly by outsourcing payroll to external companies and outsourcing other human resource issues (recruiting, health insurance, onboarding, etc.) to freelancers that we can fire if we have to.

    I imagine having HR in our company as a tentacle of the state would cripple our ability to hire (for example, forcing us to hire for "diversity" which luckily we've been able to avoid so far), and manage in ways that create value. I'm curious at what size exactly we will see pressure to hire dedicated HR people, as well as how to avoid this (i.e who to pay Danegeld to) for as long as possible.

    • Karl says:

      If you have outsourced recruiting, the organization you have outsourced recruiting to is certainly affecting your hiring.

      An outsourced HR is slightly better than an inhouse HR, but they heavily influence your hiring as you can’t hire anybody they have already rejected (and never showed you the application).

      Try to take back recruiting from those freelancers and you’ll find out how powerful the governments tentacles are.

    • jim says:

      Used to be fifty employees, but I am doubtless out of date

    • Jehu says:

      I do kind of wonder whether the way that sucks the least to do ‘HR’ is to just give every boss who commands a Dunbar number-ish amount of people a minion or two. Call them secretaries. They report directly to that boss who is accountable for their actions, and they handle payroll, insurance, onboarding and personal stuff, as well as assisting in recruiting (in practice, a large fraction of your recruiting is going to be done by your employees—they know people).

      • Red says:

        Nothing says that HR needs to handle payroll. Just have a payroll department.

        • jim says:

          The boss needs to have sole handling of firing, and the bookkeeper should handle the ensuing paperwork – which has become an intolerable flood due to government intrusion into firing, which is an external powerbase of HR within the corporation. External powerbases undermine the cohesion of the corporation and destroy its ability to act as one.

          Recruiting should be done by the boss, and by his existing workers with the boss’s approval and final consent. The people doing the work know other people with similar skills, and are in the best position to judge those skills. HR is notoriously useless and destructive in recruiting programmers. It is a massive obstacle sitting in your way.

      • jim says:

        The minion in question should be the bookkeeper. HR duties should be rolled into accounting, and those duties that cannot rolled into accounting are an intrusion into the authority of the boss, that undermines the corporate form by underming the capability of the corporation to act as one.

  6. Cloudswrest says:

    Interesting. Details are slim, but this does NOT appear to be an RNA vaccine, but an advanced form of typical protein vaccine.

    https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/u-s-army-creates-single-vaccine-against-all-covid-and-sars-variants/

  7. Yul Bornhold says:

    I’m vaguely aware of right wing nutrition but does anyone know a good place for finding an overview of the theory? Something more in depth than twitter soundbites denouncing seed oils.

    Saturated fat vs. non-saturated fat.

    Processed foods. What kinds of processing are bad and why.

    Agricultural chemicals and their consequences.

    That sort of thing.

    • Anonymous says:

      I know what you mean, but I’m not sure there are any aggregate infodumps for it. Bits and pieces you can infer from Goodrich’s blog (he’s the #1 anti-seed-oil guy) [1], then there’s JustMeat.co from the bitcoin carnivores [2]. I haven’t seen any strictly right-wing sentiment against processed foods, it seems very mainstream to me (Kevin Hall is extremely mainstream). Fat saturation is mostly a pony of the low-carb crowd, in opposition to Harvard, but I struggle to come up with a central figure here. Nearest to agricultural chemicals would be Time Mold Slime Mold’s series on obesity [3], but I’m not sure they’re right-wing.

      [1] http://yelling-stop.blogspot.com/
      [2] https://justmeat.co/
      [3] https://slimemoldtimemold.com/

    • Prince Charming says:

      If you read The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet [by (((Nina Teicholz)))] (a thorough study of how the scientific consensus of fat developed and changed) you will discover that peer reviewed material is like a barrel of wine to which a bucket of sewage has been added. Her account of the Mediterranean diet is a particularly entertaining depiction of the manufacture of consensus and the subsequent development of peer reviewed evidence for that consensus.

    • The Ducking Man says:

      What I’ve Learned and Dr. Eric Berg DC is my go to YT for anything related to health and diet.

      True story, I fixed my balding hair by listening to Dr. Berg which he said is often caused by gut issue. I drank probiotic regularly nowadays and the balding sign is pretty much gone.

    • Doom says:

      >Right wing nutrition

      lol wut?

      So left wing nutrition…
      “I believe in open borders AND eating 350 grams of high fructose corn syrup (that a giant mega corporation I hate prepares for me) every day”

      > Saturated fat vs. non-saturated fat.
      > Processed foods. What kinds of processing are bad and why.
      > Agricultural chemicals and their consequences.

      It’s all very, very simple. You have similar hardware to your pre-civilised ancestors.

      Yes, civilisation has forced our evolution to a degree, and there are less of us that suffer horribly from grain consumption.

      Jack Kruse hides good knowledge behind seemingly insane ramblings. He’s like the David Icke of nutrition. But worth examining his stuff.

      • G.T. Chesterton says:

        Left wing nutrition = Eat the bug, goy. Eat the soy, goy. Reduce cow emissions, goy.

  8. A2 says:

    An article on implementing a new (normie) currency. Might be of interest for those with big crypto plans too.

    https://www.johnkay.com/2021/12/08/currency-options-for-an-independent-scotland/

    (John Kay is a normie, but a worthwhile normie.)

  9. notglowing says:

    Kind of old news from 2020, but it seems always relevant.
    Another apple cart is knocked down, this time for people who sometimes have little or nothing:

    https://www.post-journal.com/life/viewpoints/2020/03/govt-outlaws-freelance-work/

    > Actually, more understand now, because they got a very personal lesson. Once the bill passed, Vox media cut hundreds of freelance writing jobs.

    > When Gonzalez was asked if she felt bad about that, she sneered, those weren’t “real jobs.”

    Being a freelancer myself, this makes my blood boil. At least I don’t live in the US.
    If they did this here, I’d just stop reporting any income.

    > “You’re thinking you’re helping us, but you’re not,” says musician Ari Herstand in my new video. He says the anti gig-work law could “crash the California music economy.”

    I bet they are quite happy about this. That’s a lot of people they’ve destroyed livelihoods for, a lot of damage they can boast about.

    > Why? Before the law passed, if he played a gig where he’d hire a drummer, bassist and guitar player, “I just cut (each) a check for $200. Now, I have to take that drummer, put him on payroll, W2 him, get workers’ comp insurance, unemployment insurance. I have to pay payroll taxes. I also have to now hire a payroll company.”

    I’d like to find Pseudo-Chrysostom’s (was it him?) post(s) about the leftist perspective on creating an artilect, their desire to systematize everything to the detriment of actual human action and responsibility. There was something about soviet submarines as well.

    • Fireball says:

      >freelance jobs are feudalism

      LMAO

    • Karl says:

      What are the apples that can be grabbed by this? I see only virtue signaling destroying the livelihood of freelancers.

      • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

        Anyone employing freelancers has to now go through the hiring process with them, bring them on with benefits, pay more taxes to the government, expand HR, get some diversity consultants to examine the impact of the new hires, and probably a freelancer-to-employee consultant. Unless you want to try to get an exemption from the law for your industry, which involves lots of parties being thrown for politicians and lots of campaign donations.

      • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

        Never underestimate the sheer spite involved. A parasite and social blight is offended that people are figuring out a way to make something, so she destroys it. She did it because she could, because to see productive people produce is a reminder of her utter worthlessness.

      • jim says:

        HR grabs control of your freelancers and you lose control when you have to hire a payroll company. Those are the apples. The entrepreneur who was paying those freelancers loses power, status, and money to the morbidly obese mustachioed lesbian of HR.

        • restitutor_orbis says:

          This is so true.

          One of the most painful moments in my life came after I had sold my company. Celebration turned to horror so fast. Within a month, the sort of banter that our team had enjoyed in the office for 10 years was leading people to get calls from, literally, the morbidly obese lesbian who ran HR. All it took was one snake with a grudge and a bat-phone to HQ. And even though I was the founder and ostensibly still in charge of the company (now a division of the larger entity) I was powerless to protect my people.

          The best talent left rapidly and I couldn’t replace them because new hiring had to go through the obese lesbian. Many of my best workers had been autistic geniuses who had dropped out of college to work on stuff they liked, and now I couldn’t hire people who didn’t have the right degrees.

          HR policy backed by corporate law is nowadays designed to make sure that a successful entrepreneur is brought to heel and forced to kowtow to the appropriate diverse gods.

          • Kunning Drueger says:

            Hey man, have you given any thought to my sort of, kind of proposal? Not completely off topic, either. Is it possible to run a modern company without an HR division? I feel like HR was invented as a place to reduce drudgery for leadership as well as a “safe place” to park side chicks and fuck pigs. If this is the case, one solution is leadership biting the bullet and carrying some of the hire/fire burden. Is it a law that a company has to have an HR department as well as delegate hiring responsibilities to them?

            • The Ducking Man says:

              Even without HR department you still need few dedicated employee to process payroll (which are often under HR department). You’ll just end up renaming HR while not solving the core problem which is HR having any power at all.

              The current corporate structure on big picture are result of decades of natural selection of business world. IMO the big map corporate structure is already correct, only problem is modern corporate implement the correct design into disaster.

              Think like 737. All 737 and most passenger plane for lay person looks very similar. It was only until 737 Max that disaster starts to happen. 737 basic design is fine, 737 Max specific design is disaster.

              Modern corporate disaster starts to happen when they give support department (HR, Finance, IT, Audit, etc) equal power to department who actually do the job (Production).

              • Arqiduka says:

                Payroll can be – and in many companies is – subsumed to Finance instead of HR. Its a mechanical function with no power at all in and of itself.

                Alos disagree with you interpretation of the issue: I don’t thinks its support vs production, its rather anybody at all not being fully subsumed undet the CEO or Board, be they HRBPs, CROs, GenCos, Heads of Audit etc. Let the COO at Mitsubishi talk back to the CEO and you woll get exactly the same issues down the track.

                • jim says:

                  > Payroll can be – and in many companies is – subsumed to Finance instead of HR. Its a mechanical function with no power at all in and of itself

                  The contractor in question was complaining about the whole bucket of manure, not one item in the bucket. The entire bucket of manure is attached to payroll and all that. The details are irrelevant, and are deliberately complexified and uglified to hide and evade reality.

                  Further, the problem is not subsumption under the CEO, for he is probably an entrepeneur, nor subsumption under the board, who want a profit. The problem is that that CEO and board are rendered powerless and terrified by Human Resources, Accounting, and Legal, who want superior holiness and despise the mere ignorant hateful plebeians, like the CEO, who create value and are trying to see value created.

                  The man who posted that article complaining was a CEO.

                • The Ducking Man says:

                  >its rather anybody at all not being fully subsumed under the CEO or Board … let COO talk back to the CEO

                  Organization having infighting has been happening since dawn of time. No amount of organizational engineering will prevent infighting.

                  As you said, HR function (keeping payroll, gathering resume) are mechanical function. The correct design is we should not give will power to something that is mechanical.

                  When I say that I only fresh grad intern, I don’t need HR adding “minimum 2 years experience required” on the job post. HR like other supporting departments are just a tools for departments who actually run the company (whether it’s marketing or production).

                  Having a say in who to fire are willpower of CEO that HR as mechanical tool should not have.

                  HR as department is not the problem, giving willpower to HR is the problem.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  Well, Plpayroll – not HR – is the mechanical function. HR more broadly is tasked with serving as collector and first instance adjudicator of complaints and , as a direct result, will come to propose policies to limit these. These are usefull functions that have to be performed but it becomes immediately obvious how this can be perverted by those intent on bridling a firm. A resonable solution is to make the CEO supreme over any policy, but realistically the CEO will not have time to worry if Jane’s dress really is too short.

                • jim says:

                  If Janes dress is too short, her supervisor should handle it. If the CEO does not like the way her supervisor is handling it, should have a private quiet chat with her supervisor. Why should some other department be involved?

                  The way you describe things happening is not normal, not business as usual. It is disruptive, destructive, disgusting, and foul. Being used to the way things used to be done, I am endlessly shocked, horrified, outraged, and disgusted. It is like a man wearing a dress. It is pathological, evil, shocking, abnormal, and disgusting. It is the degeneration, collapse, and disintegration of the corporate form.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  Sounds like a sub-Dumbar setup to me Jim, not sure this informal system scales to anything approaching a global behemoth. Could be failure of imagination on my part ofc.

                • jim says:

                  Getting above Dunbar scale requires the exact opposite approach to the way you think is normal. You have to create separation between different subcenters centers in ways that avoid overlapping and mutually interfering authority.

                  Chain of command. Your boss has a boss, but as far as the employee is concerned, his boss is the boss, and his boss’s boss, and all departments that do not answer to his boss, are irrelevant. Militaries were the first organizations to attempt to go above Dunbar scale, and they figured this out a very long time ago – which knowledge was abandoned starting in 1860.

                  The way, the only way, to go above Dunbar scale is to make sure that as far as Jane is concerned, it is Dunbar scale. There is no alternative.

                  We are seeing the collapse and destruction of the corporate form.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Scaling anything in an insane theocracy other than an omerta mob with ethnic solidarity is going to be painful.

                  BTW I didn’t like the security company idea but I do like the idea of waiting ten years (for the security state to become totally Shaniquaized) and forming a sort of mafia like organization… Sicily was the original anarcho tyrannical clownworld.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  So, the Team Lead’s time is better used being a TL 80% of the time, an HRBP 10% of the time and an accountant 10% of the time, which I think would be the straightforward interpretation of the principle? Is there no scope for specialisation and ensuring that this team operates under the same standards re overtime as the other team and is not dependent on which side if the bed the TL woke up on?

                  I understand that overlapping authorities, even if specialised, are dangerous but I see no alternative to getting above Dunbar, other than having the team accountant report to the TL. Let’s not even get started on audit.

                  Probably works decently for militaries, not so much for orgs I think.

                • jim says:

                  > So, the Team Lead’s time is better used being a TL 80% of the time, an HRBP 10% of the time and an accountant 10% of the time, which I think would be the straightforward interpretation of the principle?

                  HRBP should not exist, and there was a time very recently when it did not exist. It is as if you are telling me that if I don’t send my kids to drag queen story hour I would have to put on a drag queen performance myself, and sodomize my kids myself. “Human Resources as a Business Partner” is evil, ruinously destructive, and disgusting.

                  The bookkeeper should have zero authority, so zero percent of the team lead’s time should be spent bookkeeping. The bookkeeper records what is done, he does not decide what is to be done. The accountant is the guy who figures out what the books mean, and decides what columns should go in the books. The accountant is charge of the bookkeepers, so zero percent of the team lead’s time should be bookkeeping, because the accountant should have zero operational authority over anyone except bookkeepers. His job is to figure out what the books mean, and make sure the bookkeepers keep them in a meaningful way. His job should be to track the movement and creation of value by people doing stuff, not to tell them what to do, but figure out what happened as a result of what they did. Sometimes you need his help in deciding what value will be created by a proposed course of action, but he does not get to tell people what course of action to take, and should not be the final authority on anything at all, other than how to keep the books, but may be an advisor whom the man who makes decisions may need to consult from time to time. Preferably seldom.

                • HerbR says:

                  ensuring that this team operates under the same standards re overtime as the other team

                  That’s the responsibility of the boss’s boss, going all the way up to the CEO. It’s not like this is hard. Send out a spreadsheet and tell the department heads to fill all the total overtime hours. If any look suspicious, ask them for a breakdown by employee.

                  and is not dependent on which side if the bed the TL woke up on?

                  First of all, that’s life. Second, only shit managers drag down the whole team just because their kid is sick that day or whatever. And finally, almost no teams operate this way, with or without HR – especially when you’re using words like “TL”, you’re obviously talking about high-skill work, and those managers don’t micromanage. They meet once a week with the team for an hour, or do a 5-minute update each morning, or something.

                  If a manager’s direct reports can’t go 5 minutes without a catastrophe unless they’re under constant supervision, then that team or department has already failed. That’s not a problem you can solve with MORE process and dotted-line reporting chains.

                  You’re parroting some serious bugman stuff here. Please to be eliminating words like “HRBP” from your regular vocabulary.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  Request denied, HRBP is the job title and I see no reason to pretend it isn’t. Silly request, please stop making such.

                  On the rest, I see what you are saying: “I choose to trade unity of command for specialisation”, which is a fair choice but I think one thta cannot possibly scale more tha 3 reporting levels. This system is basicaly saying “yeah, you are big boys, figure it out” which works wonders for a small team and looses steam fast.

                  But I freely acknowledge the point being made by Jim and you, that adopting paralel, overlapping hierachies will introduce the rot. It will, the question is, it this fair price to pay to gain scale?

                • jim says:

                  > is this fair price to pay to gain scale?

                  It does not gain scale, it loses scale.

                  To scale, each bottom level unit is a Dunbar group, and the top people in several units form another higher level Dunbar group, and the top people from several higher level Dunbar groups form yet another even higher level Dunbar group, a system summarized as “chain of command” You don’t want your generals getting between the sergeants and the troops still less do you want a committee of generals getting between the sergeants and their troops.

                • jim says:

                  > Request denied, HRBP is the job title

                  It is a job and job title that did not exist a short time ago, just as Drag Queen Story Hour is a performance that did not exist a short time ago.

                  A business needs that job done about as much as it needs antifa arsonists burning the place down.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  Jim, that sounds better than it works. Take the shop accountant: who does he report to? The shop manager? Obvious issues with that setup, you have written much on these. No, he has to report to an accounting TL, and so on to the CFO. A paralel structure is workable , one that goes all the way to the top and only ends in the CEO. Audit is even worse, ends with the Board! Is HR a justified such structure? I think so, you need policy and consistency thta cuts across the org.

                  In the army, it is no issue to hav ethe mortar guy report the same lime as the machine gunner or further up the line, the artillery guy.

                  But I have not seen a time when HR was not there, as you claim you have. Maybe I’m wrong.

                • jim says:

                  I have seen a time when HR did not exist, and until quite recently it did not exert the ruinous and destructive power it does now.

                  HR is a tentacle of the state in your business.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  Huh? So what? Shall I pretend it does not exist now? What a curious concept.

                • jim says:

                  Drag Queen story hour exists. It should not. You are asking who would do the job. The answer is that anyone attempting to do that job should be be instantly terminated.

                • jim says:

                  > Shall I pretend it does not exist now?

                  You are being unresponsive. No one denies it exists now, any more than anyone denies that murderers, arsonists, robbers, and pederasts exist.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  You would terminate those who would want to work as HRBPs? Because you dislike the job title?

                • jim says:

                  HPRBs need to be terminated because business exists to create value, and they destroy value and get in the way of creating value. But you cannot terminate them because the regulatory state that they represent would then destroy your business.

                  The corporate form is being destroyed by being dissolved into the chaos and disorder of the anarcho tyrannical regulatory state. This renders large scale cooperation impossible, which is why we cannot build nice things any more.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  Agree that HR is the leash on which firms are held close. But this is because the CHRO reports outside the firm, not to the CEO (de facto.) Should there be no HR in tomorrow’s world, they would find legal or finance to do the same. A firm cannot fight the state.

                  That being said, HR itself appears to me to be a valuable function and must run paralel in order to perfom. BUT the CEO should.always override the CHRO. I think that the shop manager should not overide the Hr advisor though: only the CHRO should do that.

                  I will drop the issue now.

                • jim says:

                  > HR itself appears to me to be a valuable function

                  You need someone to track payroll, holidays, and stuff, but this should be a bookkeeping function, not an administrative one, providing information to employer and employee on the employers upcoming obligations. In particular, no role in hiring and firing, other than to figure out what a dismissed employee is owed.

                  HR should merely be an aspect of bookkeeping that is of special interest for employees.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  I was being unresponsive to your claim there, not what you said, and I apologise.

                  But you quoted my response to HerbR who was asking me to stop using the term, which led me to mistakenly link your and his request.

              • Kunning Drueger says:

                I appreciate the perspective, but I disagree on both counts. The 737 is an excellent airframe with plenty of crashes, just like the Queen. Yes, Max is a great example of Pajeet being given far too much power with no oversight. But HR was an exploit discovered, not crafted. I still maintain that it was laziness in leadership. Arqui response is better than I could put forward regarding the other elements.

                Unrelated, impregnate your lady. Come what may, it is better for a man to have children.

                • The Ducking Man says:

                  >I still maintain that it was laziness in leadership.

                  True story, when my company had to fire 250 domestic workers during financial crisis. The COO was too lazy devising the plan, the job was delegated to local HR manager, not to production manager.

                  They ended up firing productive workers and curses from near retiree for being fired instead of retired in good term.

                  The BoD was wiped clean 1 year after, and the company went to bigger problem.

                  Laziness is no issue when done correctly and delegated to correct person (I myself is lazy supervisor). Issue starts give HR willpower to decide instead of strictly processing the firing memo and severance pay.

                • jim says:

                  > The COO was too lazy devising the plan

                  It is highly unlikely he was too lazy.

                  It is highly probable that he was too terrorized, terrified, and broken.

                  HR will tell you if that if you fail to jump through a very small burning hoop the company will be sued into the ground, meaning that HR is going to instigate a legal and regulatory action to make sure the company is sued into the ground.

              • jim says:

                The problem is that legal, accounting, and HR are tentacles of the state, and have a powerbase external to the corporation.

                And the law in question is to force you to hire a bunch of expensive people who are backed by state power to interfere in your business.

                • The Ducking Man says:

                  I agree that those fuckers in legal, accounting, and HR should stay quiet when I told them something to do, only say something when I told them to.

            • restitutor_orbis says:

              I have but I can’t quite fathom how to cross the chasm on it. Even though I agree it’s a good idea, I don’t really have the hitting power of someone like Jim to move this forward.

              • Kunning Drueger says:

                Ok. An associate of mine already has started building something similar to what we discussed, but it is still in its infancy. Hopefully having a meeting with him and his guys soon. I’ll report back if/when things start going forward.

                The big hurdle now is figuring out a safe way to take conversations from here to a more formal place while maintaining the integrity of this place. I’m not quite sure what the best method for that is.

      • notglowing says:

        What Jim said, but also the article shows how they are directly benefitting from it:
        https://i.imgur.com/VFyR70M.png

      • notglowing says:

        Thank you very much. I had trouble finding these posts again, only had a few screenshots saved here and there.

        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          I don’t think i found them all either honestly, but those are some that i remembered or stumbled upon while searching.

  10. Aidan says:

    I don’t believe that leftism has no essence. Leftism in its many forms through history is multifarious because the essence of leftism is hatred of reality, the desire to overturn natural law and impose manmade law onto the fabric of the world. There is only one natural law, and an infinite number of ways in which one can reject, pervert, or invert it. All leftisms are thus different, but we still know it when we see it.

    The leftist may, as Jim says, simply want to knock over the applecart and steal some apples, but in his elaborate justifications for doing so he is strangely zealous, and his ideology in all places and times can be distilled to a singular motive; that he hates reality.

    The Jim theory of leftism, applecarts and envy, equates the leftist with the barbarian who sacked Rome. Yet I can’t help but feel that the leftist is defying the natural order and the barbarian is fulfilling it.

    • HerbR says:

      These definitions require a shared frame. The devout leftist believes in a different natural law, the zeitgeist or the arc of history. And though the Zeitgeist is clearly not Gnon, is probably a demon if he exists at all, there’s something ineffably similar about them. Both always manage to reassert themselves even after appearing to be totally vanquished.

      The Greek philosophers tried very hard to define things like “reality” and “natural law”, and didn’t entirely nail it down after centuries of work and millions of words. I don’t think you’d be able to do it in a few sentences. To use your definition of leftism, need a shared definition of something much more complex and harder to agree on than leftism.

      It’s not just knocking over applecarts that constitutes the Jim theory, it’s the coordination to knock over ever more and ever larger applecarts, which requires communication, which is how the elaborate justifications emerge.

      • Reality is in your blood, bones, flesh and the air you breathe, the world around you You cannot describe reality or natural law generally because it is within and outside you and defies precise definition. Yet we are born intuitively aligned to it.

        Yet we all know reality when we see it and human instinct is connected to it.

        It is the leftists who need elaborate and infinite justifications to defy reality. Leftists who take themselves seriously become evil and insane over time while the cynical leftists are merely thieves and opportunists looking to increase their power and status. We find it hard to define leftism because they have an infinite number of ways to reject reality.

        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          The central infirmity of the gnostic is his presumption that his standards for judging what constitutes evil are prior to Nature’s God.

          Id est, the central infirmity of the gnostic is that his intuitive perceptions of what constitutes evil are incorrect.

          Id est, gnosticism is the sentimental heart, or animus, of leftist behavior in praxis.

          • HerbR says:

            So what?

            The question isn’t whether or not the definition is intelligible to you, or your buddies. It’s whether or not the definition is robust enough to resist entryism at Dunbar-plus levels.

            “I know it when I see it” definitions are navel-gazing, paradoxically ignoring the reality that such definitions don’t survive contact with the real world for very long.

            • yewotm8 says:

              “I know it when I see it” definitions work when everybody wants to see them. Is it not possible to create a priesthood where every member wants to see it, and those who don’t are removed?

              • HerbR says:

                You’re looking for a Green-Beard Meme, which might very well require an actual Green-Beard Gene to propagate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green-beard_effect

                The implication of such a meme/gene would be to almost immediately outcompete all others, so I guess my answer to “is it possible” would be “I hope so”. But it is very rare to find these traits in nature, with increasing rarity as the organism itself grows more complex. It is doubtful that such a meme exists today, because if it did, would have already outcompeted all the others.

                • jim says:

                  Every state religion attempts to be a Green Beard Meme. Whereupon its enemies adopt protective coloration. Every time a biological tribe conquers the state, it attempts to be Green Beard Gene. Whereupon the tribe finds power in the hands of those not particularly loyal to the tribe (the Khaldun cycle).

                  But the protective coloration does not really work that well.

                  Every successful Christian state priesthood has found effective shill tests, and it destruction was always failure to apply them, immune system dysfunction.

                  Reflect on our latest entryist, (there may be more around who have yet to reveal themselves). The basic flaw is that they want to use their meme as green beard meme for themselves, and as protective coloration for entryism, and the one must conflict with the other.

                  With past Christian priesthoods, usually it was usually some Christological issue – the enemy failed to embrace the paradox. But our “I am a deist” entryist could not pull it off either.

                  Moral of this history, both the history of this blog and all of Christian history, is that you cannot really have a meme that reliably identifies our guys – but you can spot the memes that reliably reveal a cohesive and coordinated enemy attack. You cannot reliably detect our coordination, but you can reliably detect their coordination.

                • HerbR says:

                  Moral of this history, both the history of this blog and all of Christian history, is that you cannot really have a meme that reliably identifies our guys – but you can spot the memes that reliably reveal a cohesive and coordinated enemy attack. You cannot reliably detect our coordination, but you can reliably detect their coordination.

                  I agree, and I’m glad to finally be back down to earth in this thread.

                  And I further stipulate that “inversion of reality” or “against the natural order” aren’t reliably effective ways to detect their coordination, which is why no Christian state (or any other successful state religion) has ever tried to rely on a definition so vague.

                  The bible has a lot of words, and most of them are there for a reason. And one pattern you see in the bible is that it tries to take a lot of difficult, nebulous, high-minded ideas and reduce them to simpler parables and rituals and affirmations that ordinary(ish) people can understand. When I see people doing the opposite – taking relatively straightforward memes and tests and observations and inflate them into exceedingly vague, abstruse, subjective-sounding generalizations – well, that’s when my defenses go up.

                • jim says:

                  > When I see people doing the opposite – taking relatively straightforward memes and tests and observations and inflate them into exceedingly vague, abstruse, subjective-sounding generalizations – well, that’s when my defenses go up.

                  I have a collection of shill tests, which work astonishingly well, and looking back into history, this is a very old tactic. Why could not T. Rex Sex even disagree with our position in a way that stated what the position was that he opposed and disagreed with?? He could say “Y is true”, but could not say “Y is true, therefore X is false.”

                  This slipperiness is the eternal and unchanging reveal. They will never say what they are saying.

                  The bible represents generalities by concretes. When Christ talked about the spirit of the law, he told us to look past the concretes to the generalities, but refrained from purporting to reify the generalities.

                  Leftist, and evil, therefore, can only be revealed by specifics and concretes, and any useful tool for recognizing leftists must be adapted to the particular times, albeit we can look at past tests for inspiration and example, my demon worshiper test being a collage hastily pasted together from stuff that has very been very useful and effective for well over a millennium.

                  The specifics of a particular time and place need to be understood in the context of the generalities over the past few thousand years, but one cannot expect a useful definition that can be mechanically applied by steam engine in any particular time and place. For my demon worshiper test, I looked to the spirit of many centuries, and grabbed those particulars that are relevant here and now.

                  Our enemies equally grab particulars, but they do so with malicious intent, to turn the spirit upside down.

                  This is obvious in the general discussion of left and right, both here and in the broader society, but it is particularly obvious with more-christian-than-thou demon worshipers, for that discussion has been running hot for two millennia, and priestly types are more apt to write stuff down, while the discussion of who is left, who is right, what is left, what is right, has only been running hot since the French Revolution, so it is a lot easier to do meta analysis, analysis of analysis, on the discussion of who is Christian and who is not.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  >And I further stipulate that “inversion of reality” or “against the natural order” aren’t reliably effective ways to detect their coordination, which is why no Christian state (or any other successful state religion) has ever tried to rely on a definition so vague.

                  I mean, christian monarchs very explicitly invoked the idea of natural order as justification. Does throne, altar, and freehold ring any bells? Divine right and all that? See Robert Filmer for a reference example.

                  They are absolutely effective; but of course, not all detectors of natural order, in the first place, are created equal.

                • HerbR says:

                  Does throne, altar, and freehold ring any bells?

                  It does indeed, and Jim would not have written an entire feature-length blog post about it if the entire concept could be reduced to a few pithy phrases that everyone intuitively agreed upon.

                  Throne, altar and freehold are the names we give to the ideas, not the whole ideas. So it is with “natural order” – it’s a nice phrase, but it is the definition that matters, and declining to have a non-tautological definition fails as a Schelling point.

                  When Christ talked about the spirit of the law, he told us to look past the concretes to the generalities, but refrained from purporting to reify the generalities.

                  Interesting paradox, isn’t it? We cannot become too attached to the letter of the law, because heretics and apostates will always find ways to subvert the letter of the law. Yet without something concrete, the spirit of the law is impossible to divine.

                  It’s almost as if the men who wrote the bible kinda sorta knew what they were doing by relying on this earthy storytelling rather than either a tightly-scoped code of laws OR gassy metaphysical abstractions. Then again, the devil can quote scripture for his purpose… no method is so perfect that it can’t be screwed up by weak or ineffective leadership.

                • jim says:

                  > So it is with “natural order” – it’s a nice phrase, but it is the definition that matters

                  No it is not the definition that matters. Socrates long ago pointed out the futility of definitions. Obviously we can know a violation of the natural order when we see it. Sticks out like dog’s balls.

                  In practice, a species is defined by a type specimen preserved in a jar. Drag Queen Story Hour is your type specimen right there. They define the whole left, including Burke, even though he would have called on throne and altar to burn them in a fire.

                  The antifa mug shot makes another good type specimen.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  You’re vacillating between saying you want pithy phrases and bemoaning the evils of pithy phrases as convenient.

                  One of the things from my point of view is that i am not really interested in or trying to ‘universalize’ leftism as a concept, a tendency which i feel underlays many of these issues (that something either must be a universally applicable concept, or else it is bunkum – the characteristic fatality of the ‘enightenment project’).

                  ‘Leftism’ is evil, but not all that is evil – or ‘adharmic frame’ as our dot friends might say – is leftism. The matter of leftism particularly concerns such internecine affairs which may weaken a body politic with regards to a telos of it growing to become a predominant super-organism over creation – the theophanic implications of such we will simply note in passing here. Creative destruction is not leftism, as my good friend Nicky Land would vociferously argue. There is no need to impute some form of manichean necessity into the idea, once you stop needing to inflate it beyond it’s scope. Cutting off a rotting bough, separating the wheat from the chaff, physically removing social democrats from your hoppean libertopia, et cetera et cetera, are all good and natural and inevitable operations of entity working to export entropy for creating local order.

                  As this conversation progresses, it has started looking more like this is coming from a projection of your own difficulties in wrapping your head around the idea, in seeing the same things we are seeing.

                • yewotm8 says:

                  >And I further stipulate that “inversion of reality” or “against the natural order” aren’t reliably effective ways to detect their coordination, which is why no Christian state (or any other successful state religion) has ever tried to rely on a definition so vague.

                  My point (and I believe Pseudo-Chrysostom’s before me) was that you can in fact reliably detect enemy agents in this manner. You don’t need strict definitions of wrong and right if the people doing the deciding are all in tune with Gnon. They can “feel” when something is wrong. When reading shillposts, you can tell that something is off, even if you don’t know what it is. Hence, you know it when you see it.

                  I remember around 12 years ago I felt that something was wrong with all of the ideas I was encountering. I had a thirst for something else, without realizing it. Even though I was still a teenager eating up most of the “stereotype threat” bullshit I was fed, I was still scouring the same “science” articles that fed me it for the truth. Then one of them by happenstance linked to Roissy’s blog. I knew right away that he was right and all the other bullshit I was reading was wrong. Took me a long time afterwards to find Jim’s, but I had the same feeling when I found it. You really do know the truth when you see it, even if you need to go back and look your own experiences to prove to the conscious part of your brain that the model fits observed reality better.

                  Of course, this requires a brain that is 0% NPC; as Pseudo mentioned, not all detectors are created equal. But good detectors are not only able to detect ideas well, they are able to detect the ability of other detectors quite well also. And then sort accordingly, an unfakeable green beard.

                • jim says:

                  HerbR:

                  > > And I further stipulate that “inversion of reality” or “against the natural order” aren’t reliably effective ways to detect their coordination, which is why no Christian state (or any other successful state religion) has ever tried to rely on a definition so vague.

                  yewotm8:
                  > My point (and I believe Pseudo-Chrysostom’s before me) was that you can in fact reliably detect enemy agents in this manner.

                  Recent case in point, the arguments with T Rex Sex, about capital, usury, and Soros.

                  And of course, the type specimen of leftism, Drag Queen Story Hour.

                  Works.

                  Obviously you cannot use it in your shill test, because the other guy is going to tell you and everyone he is in touch with reality and you are ignoring it, which is entire shtick of the troofers, but it nonetheless sticks out like dog’s balls.

                  The Drag Queen Story Hour performers will tell us that we are ignoring the reality that some men want to be women, but the their exaggerated femininity is ludicrous unfeminine, as the exaggerated masculinity of a leather boy is ludicrously unmasculine, and their interactions with the small human sacrifices that parents send to Moloch is sexual rather than paternal or maternal – they don’t act like men or women who tell their children stories.

            • Is there any way by way of intellectual argument/proof to get everyone to agree about what they see in front of their eyes and feel in their bones?

              For that matter is there any way to define Reality other than by using symbolic names at some level?

            • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

              The solution to those ultimately imperceptive of divine law is not ‘meme harder’ – such is the fatal conceit of the cuckservative – the solution is to Physically Remove And Separate such beings from society.

    • I wrote something along those lines in my latest blog post

      I neither identify as a traditionalist in the conventional sense nor a conservative in the modern sense. The position of this blog is what I can describe as the “Dharmic Right”. It is an absolute position grounded in Dharma. Chaos and disorder may have a thousand faces and manifestations, but viewed from a Dharmic frame, are all identifiable as adharma.

      I feel too much energy is wasted on debating a moot question of whether Nazis are leftists or right wing.

    • jim says:

      > The Jim theory of leftism, applecarts and envy, equates the leftist with the barbarian who sacked Rome. Yet I can’t help but feel that the leftist is defying the natural order and the barbarian is fulfilling it.

      That is a compelling argument. Obviously I am indeed missing something.

      The difference is between attacking the applecart with a sword and axe, and using poisoned words to disarm the owner, then knocking over the applecart while pretending not to, then declaring the applecart fell over by itself while you scoop up the apples in order to be helpful.

      • Tityrus says:

        So the solution is to combine the priest and applecart definitions. Sounds right to me—I can’t think of any counterexamples to it.

      • simplyconnected says:

        Perhaps something about leftists not being strong and impressive people, so steal through lies and subterfuge, instead of physical aggression?

        • simplyconnected says:

          Note I wrote that before you wrote the second part of your comment so I pat myself on the head.

        • Contaminated NEET says:

          Why does GNON care at all about this? I understand why we might prefer the strong straightforward barbarian to the slippery false friend, but the universe doesn’t give a damn. If a strategy works, it works, and those who employ it will succeed and out compete those who don’t. Hasn’t Leftism proven itself to be a very effective strategy? Hasn’t it, in fact, shown itself to be far more effective and better adapted to our current social environment than Christianity, Rightist, Jimism, NRx, or any other alternative we might prefer?

          Somehow, though, we say the cold and indifferent laws of the universe despise Leftism even as Leftism succeeds beyond all other memes and all other strategies. I suppose I should distinguish between the success of Leftism itself as a meme and the success it brings its human hosts, but even if we just look at the hosts, Leftism pays them off nicely as long as they’re clever and cynical enough to know when to follow it wholeheartedly and when to grant themselves unprincipled exceptions.

          • jim says:

            but the universe doesn’t give a damn. If a strategy works, it works, and those who employ it will succeed and out compete those who don’t. Hasn’t Leftism proven itself to be a very effective strategy?

            So is the strategy of cancer cells – until the organism dies.

            The direction of life, humans, and civilization has been to higher levels of cooperation at broader and broader scales. Screw it up, you disappear from history.

            Multicellular animal life started out as a single celled life form that looks a bit like a sperm, and a bit like a white blood cell. They are still around. They swim around till they run into another small life form, then they eat it. Or it eats them. They did not like that part, so they ganged up, a team of them like a wolf pack, so that if they ran into something big, they could take it. Such small teams are still around, but some of them evolved into rather larger and more highly organized assemblages of cells. And here we are.

            Leftism, like cancer, is a failure of extended cooperation.

            I expect that those teams of single celled organisms had and have a problem with some members of the team defecting at an inconvenient moment, and hostile aliens swimming up and saying “hail fellow team member” An inquisition is to a civilization what an immune system is to an individual. Our civilization is suffering from advanced acquired immune deficiency.

            • alf says:

              This definition, incidentally, is closest to my heart.

              Leftism is cheating. Now all’s fair in love and war so you’ll see plenty of cheating in both, but really, cheating is about screwing over your supposed in-group, thus the goths sacking rome was more a thing of Rome’s internal leftism finally killing it.

              When you have a soccer match, even though both parties are opposed, the match is ritualized — there’s stuff you and cannot do. Everybody cheats now and then, but the fun is in seeing them punished. What happens with rampant leftism is the cheaters no longer gets punished; even the referee starts cheating. Good for the referee in the short term, kills the sport in the long term.

              As with the soccer match, so with society. Thus, leftism as cancer, a breakdown of extended cooperation.

            • simplyconnected says:

              I keep on my computer one of those pictures of antifa mugshot collages to remind myself who these people are.
              We all recognize them. Leftist are “sneaky fuckers” who can’t cut it in the natural dominance hierarchy and try to cheat and steal their way up. Like those fat women writing articles about beauty at every size (for women) but how they’re not attracted to fat men. They can’t compete with attractive women so they try subverting by lying and shaming instead.

              As Jim says, a healthy immune system would’ve ensured these people are kept in their proper place.

              • The Cominator says:

                Leftists are NOT sneaky fuckers because sneaky fuckers work alone and leftists work ALWAYS in groups.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  Also there are some impressive leftists, although among the really impressive I doubt prevalence is so high.

                • jim says:

                  There used to be some impressive leftists long ago, for example Bertrand Russel.

                  Not seeing any impressive leftists around today. Maybe Soros, who has one foot in the grave. There are some young impressive leftists in the tech priesthood, but they have found themselves cast out of the left priesthood as insufficiently woke. Any tech priest in good standing in the left priesthood is startlingly stupid – at best he would be useful as a quality assurance engineer.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  That’s a fair point.
                  I must admit, when I see this, I see a sneaky fucker.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Well if you want me to admit that there are apparent leftist who act like leftists most of the time but do not actually believe in leftism even a little the “this is what a feminist looks like” sneaky fucker is a REAL example of that.

                  You’ve got a real greengrocer there…

                  But sneaky fucker is an individual defection strategy, generally by a guy who tends to stay rather aloof from the male hierarchy as much as possible. The classic example of the sneaky fucker is a guy looks for wives of deployed soldiers and such…

                • simplyconnected says:

                  Not sure I understood very well what you meant.
                  The guy in the cartoon tries to get close to women by being an “ally”: him being an “ally” is a reproductive strategy for unattractive herbs, I think it’s exactly a sneaky fucker.

                  I may be stretching the meaning of sneaky fucker. I understand a sneaky fucker is the lion that fucks the lioness while the alpha lion is distracted.

                  I suppose it would be useful to have a word for the commie that incites revolution because he expects to have higher status and access to women after he wins the revolution.

                  The point is simply that both the sneaky fucker and the commie are trying to bypass the dominance hierarchy, or the natural order or whatever you may call it. The commie is trying to subvert and kill his way to high status. He wouldn’t be trying to subvert and kill his way to high status if he had honestly earned high status to begin with. I see a very similar behavior to the sneaky fucker, though your point about leftism being a group strategy stands.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The sneaky fucker does not want to fight for status at all… he wants to avoid all that dangerous stuff and just bang chicks above his pay grade (women’s excessive status relative to men tends to make this not work in America now).

                  The sneaky fucker would not be a leftist because generally they would have an entirely cynical mentality. I can understand the sneaky fucker in a way I could never understand the leftist (I can predict leftist behavior to some degree but the way they really think is utterly alien to me) because the sneak fucker’s worldview may be cowardly and underhanded but its at least fundamentally logical.

                  I suppose for the leftist bioleninist dregs that make up antifa they imagine there will be some magical heavenly kingdom on earth where they will be other than biolenist dregs but it won’t ever happen… they also want to belong to something.

                  Leading leftists just want power and will burn down everything to be king of the ashes.

                  I cannot understand non dreg but non powerseeking leftists at all… I think they are just dangerous lunatics.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  The sneaky fucker does not want to fight for status at all… he wants to avoid all that dangerous stuff and just bang chicks above his pay grade

                  Definitely. I think I understood you from before.
                  This is why I said I may be stretching the meaning of sneaky fucker.
                  In biology everything is ultimately about reproduction. Status acquisition is about access to women, just as everything men do they do to gain access to women (better women, more women..).
                  The commie using lies and subterfuge to acquire status is not literally fucking women sneakily. But he’s going around the status/dominance hierarchy to try to acquire status in order to get access to women. The fact his ultimate goal is fucking women, not status, should be obvious.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  Animals sneakily fuck the alpha’s females while he’s distracted.
                  Commies sneakily acquire status through lies and subterfuge in order to fuck women that, in a more honorable competition, rightly belong to a stronger and more impressive man.
                  Possibly the term sneaky fucker isn’t the right one, because it means something precise in evolutionary psychology. But there’s a strong parallel (ultimate goals are the same, means are similar).

                • Starman says:

                  @SimplyConnected

                  ”Not sure I understood very well what you meant.
                  The guy in the cartoon tries to get close to women by being an ‘ally’: him being an ‘ally’ is a reproductive strategy for unattractive herbs, I think it’s exactly a sneaky fucker.”

                  Cross-dressing male cuttlefish.

                • Prince Charming says:

                  @ simply connected

                  > when I see this, I see a sneaky fucker

                  Do male feminists have game? Seems to me they are more in the orbiter friend zone than anything.

              • The Cominator says:

                Leftists are more like cancer cells, but these cancer cells also come with a religion that cancer is good and that opposing cancer is evil..

                • HerbR says:

                  Do we need the “also”? No matter who you are, no matter what you do, you are going to come up with some kind of rationalization for it in which you are the good guy. Have you ever met anyone who straight up tells you “yup, I’m a total dirtbag, but I’m not proud of it, please hate me”?

                  Even if the rationalization is just “following orders”, which it rarely is – eventually even the order-follower comes to either identify with the order-giver, or overthrow them, or flee.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  I believe real cancer cells also have a way of turning off the immune system against them.

            • Neurotoxin says:

              For now we could just accept the paradox:

              Leftism is part of nature and consistent with Gnon’s will.

              and

              Leftism is against nature and directly opposed to Gnon’s will.

              On one hand, leftism is, as Contaminated NEET has said in this thread and elsewhere https://blog.reaction.la/war/where-we-are-now/ a memetically evolved super-meme:

              Leftism is weaponized envy, right? It’s all about knocking over applecarts to gather other people’s apples… Leftism taps into this power. It’s not just a set of memes that happened to be lying around when the holiness spiral started; it’s a set of memes that justifies and harnesses envy on a mass scale. It’s an extremely powerful and well-adapted memeplex, a miracle of evolution; only the great world religions come close.

              On the other hand…

              The current incarnation of leftists in western society call male-to-female transvestites “women” and talk as if there could ever be such a thing as homosexual “marriage.” Clearly this is spitting right in Gnon’s face.

              In economics, leftist ideas amount to “take stuff produced by other people,” which is, to put it gently, not scalable or sustainable. It’s not scalable or sustainable for the same reason cancer isn’t. Is cancer consistent with Gnon’s will? Fuck no. Clearly not.

              Environmentalism’s extreme adherents are already saying the human species should render itself extinct (seriously). And its tendency, even in its “non-extreme” variants, is in that direction. Advocating extinction of your own species is the second-most disgusting thing one could do, second only to trying to actually do it. Obviously this is violently opposed to Gnon.

              None of this can last. Indeed, it isn’t lasting; the society that is host to this sickness is rapidly and obviously dying.

              • HerbR says:

                For now we could just accept the paradox:

                Leftism is part of nature and consistent with Gnon’s will.

                and

                Leftism is against nature and directly opposed to Gnon’s will.

                Perhaps this is a paradox we need to accept, but didn’t you leave out one of the possibilities?

                Leftism is part of nature and opposed to Gnon’s will.

                It doesn’t logically follow that because X spawned Y, Y must be carrying out the will of X. After all, nothing is more dangerous to Leftism N than Leftism N+1.

                Many natural processes are terribly destructive. They have important functions in isolation, but tend to spiral out of control. And no, I’m not making a Petersonesque “balance” argument – to presume that we can even know, much less control, the exactly correct balance of some destructive process, would be to claim that we know better than God. We still avoid the destruction as best we can, because that is all we mortals can do.

                • yewotm8 says:

                  >Leftism is part of nature and opposed to Gnon’s will.

                  I seem to recall that religions or thought-systems which imply that Satan/evil are natural and existed alongside the benevolent creator don’t do so well, as they imply an equivalence between good and evil. In Abrahamic religions, God creates Adam and then Satan tricks him into becoming a fallen man. The lesson is to always return to God, our natural state, and ignore Satan, who came later, and doesn’t have an equal hand (or any at all) in our creation or shaping.

                  >For now we could just accept the paradox:

                  I don’t think this is a paradox. The left are not following Gnon’s will, but Satan’s. They are gaining some temporal status over their ingroup in exchange for fucking their own shit up. Gnon’s will in this case is “you shouldn’t fuck your own shit up” and “if you see somebody else fucking his own shit up, you should go fuck him up and take his shit before he can fuck it up too bad”.

                • Neurotoxin says:

                  Whoops, I took a Christmas break from the Net for a few days, I didn’t mean to check out of this discussion.

                  HerbR wrote:
                  “didn’t you leave out one of the possibilities? Leftism is part of nature and opposed to Gnon’s will.”

                  Now that you mention it… Leftism is cheating in ways that are good for the cheater in the short run but bad in the long-run, like a cancer that kills its host. Leftism is self-destructive; that’s why it’s against Gnon.

                  It’s also inherent in the nature of things for game-theoretic reasons.

                  Briefly: leftism is cheating, and there cannot be an equilibrium with no cheaters, because…

                  If there were no cheaters then we’d have no reason to have anti-cheating measures.

                  But there if there are no anti-cheating measures then cheating is a successful strategy. So it will appear and spread.

                  Therefore: There is no equilibrium with zero cheating.

                  Like any sane person I fucking hate this and maybe someday people who come after us will find a way to destroy this situation. But I think we’re stuck with it for now.

                  Of course, this doesn’t mean that there’s no hope of reducing the amount of cheating from something huge (now) to something small (the foreseeable future, I hope). I like to think that, precisely because leftism is self-destructive, we’re close to peak leftism.

                • jim says:

                  Blockchains are designed with considerable care against various subtle forms of cheating, and this design is profoundly difficult, complex, and notoriously subtle and difficult to correctly implement.

                  The way of the future will be to move bookkeeping, accounting, and various other measures against cheating to the blockchain. We will also go from double entry account, which ensures that the books of the corporation are internally consistent, to triple entry accounting on a blockchain, which ensures that the books of the corporation are not only internally consistent, but that its account of its obligations and transactions with clients and partners is consistent with their account.

                  The fundamental force moving us to a blockchain based world is an untrusted and untrustworthy elite.

              • Neofugue says:

                > Leftism is part of nature and consistent with Gnon’s will

                Leftism, the categorization of systems of which those create to destroy order for personal gain, is the product of human will turned away from God. It is not God’s will that nations have Leftism, rather that men turn their hearts towards the Devil in their pride and destroy their neighbor.

                • Kunning Drueger says:

                  Leftism is a plague, GNON’s punishment reserved for weak men.

          • Starman says:

            @Contaminated NEET

            ”Hasn’t Leftism proven itself to be a very effective strategy? Hasn’t it, in fact, shown itself to be far more effective and better adapted to our current social environment than Christianity, Rightist, Jimism, NRx, or any other alternative we might prefer?”

            Globohomo got its ass kicked by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

            Meanwhile, the McChurch continues to get its ass kicked by Globohomo.

            • simplyconnected says:

              Agree. Leftism is a life strategy for people who aren’t strong and impressive.

              As Jim points out the left does not really have a new crop of genuinely impressive people (the ones they had getting long in the tooth).
              As for strength: there was a reddit screencap going around where some antifa types were discussing getting stronger to get ready to fight. One of them replied that it was a bad idea to go to the gym to become stronger because it is well known that as soon as people work out and become strong, they also become right-wing.

              I regret generalizing too much, and “sneaky fucker” may not be a good characterization in general. There is definitely an element of defection involved, trying to subvert the dominance hierarchy. It is a difficult task to precisely characterize leftism.

              • Pooch says:

                Left and Right have no meaning outside of a political context and within a given political context they define the two poles in conflict: The Left being evil and wrong and the Right being good and true.

                • Mayflower Sperg says:

                  I see Left and Right outside the political context.

                  Rightism creates order. Leftism destroys order. A farmer who tills a field, grows grain, and stores it in bins is a rightist. A mouse that eats that grain and shits in the bins is a leftist. The cat that catches that mouse and eats it is a rightist.

                  A rodent that eats only wild seeds is a rightist, for it does no harm to any higher life form. Rather, it benefits higher life forms by collecting food into a compact, nutritious package for them to consume.

                • The Cominator says:

                  This is the entropy definition of leftist, that we represent order and that they represent chaos and yes that is true in a sense but its also not sufficient, creatures of the animal kingdom are not political they just follow their instincts to eat and survive. They do not act according to a political motivation or ideology.

                • jim says:

                  Animals do not have much large scale cooperation, so that there is not much to defect on.

                  Leftism is parasitic on social order.

                  Though chimps make war, so they must have some.

                  I saw an interesting video of wild cattle. The lions broke up the herd, and when the cattle were running wildely in confusion grabbed a calf. And while they were busy, the cattle reformed into formation, shoulder to shoulder, and marched on the lions. With the cattle acting very martially, as one, holding formation, they dealt with the lions easily.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Well leftism cannot be defection on the social order in a demon worshipping leftist theocracy like ours because it IS the social order… that is the terrible situation we are in.

                • Mayflower Sperg says:

                  Rightists create order. A “leftist social order” is usurpers exploiting, consuming, and destroying order that past generations of rightists created.

                  Detroit was the last city the rightists built and the first that the leftists destroyed. Now all cities have turned necrotic and the cancer is spreading into the suburbs.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  A ‘leftist organization’ is always a contingency; it can not exist, or does not exist, without something vital to define itself against; it holds no greater object in of itself.

                • Aidan says:

                  I don’t favor the order/chaos distinction for rightism and leftism because though the left produces chaos, its methods are not chaotic. The left substitutes its own law for the natural law, and its law may be constantly and radically changing (purity spiral), but it needs law in order to interface with the world and effect its changes.

                  The Left always operates through false gods and evil laws, never really believing in “no gods, no laws”.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Aidan good summation, your blog is missed.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  “I saw an interesting video …”

                  Battle at Kruger

                  https://youtu.be/LU8DDYz68kM

                • Mayflower Sperg says:

                  Aidan, leftists use laws the way Muslims use passenger jets and skyscapers. They exploit order to destroy it.

                  The Homestead Act was nine pages. The Affordable Care Act was two thousand pages. Laws written by leftists are chaos, not order.

                • Red says:

                  >The Left always operates through false gods and evil laws, never really believing in “no gods, no laws”.

                  I’ve never seen the left follow the law as written. It’s always an excuse to commit some act of evil and when the law doesn’t agree with those acts, they ignore it.

            • The Cominator says:

              Western leftism is clearly particularly designed to exploit christian mercy, which is why they should not recieve it.

              • Oog en Hand says:

                No mercy to the enemies of mercy. No tolerance for the intolerant. Those who are kind to the cruel will become cruel to the kind.

      • simplyconnected says:

        The point is that leftists steal by breaking the natural order, they are the equivalent of the sneaky fucker of evolutionary psychology. They take what is not rightly theirs from being strong and impressive. Just from that I would expect them to be the most petty and least likely to share once they acquire it.

        • Contaminated NEET says:

          The sneaky fucker is not breaking the natural order. The strategy has evolved independently countless times in countless different species, from lizards to fish to dung beetles. Clearly it works, and thus it is blessed by GNON.

          We don’t want it to work, and non-sneaky-fuckers are acting in accord with GNON’s will when they try to expose and expel the sneaky fuckers, but similarly, the sneaky fuckers are acting in accord with GNON when they try to fool the rest of us and get some sneaky sex without going through the dominance challenge ritual or provisioning the females.

          • simplyconnected says:

            We can call it whatever you want. I would call it the dominance hierarchy, which should have a more precise evopsych definition.
            Sneaky fuckers break the dominance hierarchy. When I said they break the natural order I mean to say the break the dominance hierarchy. Obviously they are part of nature and can be a winning strategy some times (not without risks).

      • Anonymous says:

        I think the way to reconcile applecarts and envy with barbarians fulfilling the natural order is that the barbarians are attacking their outgroup, not their ingroup. A strategy along the lines of what you say, “using poisoned words to disarm the owner…” and so on, can only work when it comes from a traitorous ingroup member. Leftists being dangerous to other leftists, leftism being a circular firing squad, that is against the natural order.

      • The Bidenator says:

        In my experience leftists are more concerned with tipping over applecarts. Picking up the fallen apples is just an added bonus.

        “There is no way anyone needs a billion dollars.”

        They cant truly expect any of Elon Musk’s money will end up in their bank account, but want it taken from him all the same.

        • Prince Charming says:

          The dynamic of the leftist agitator trotskyite going hail fellow rocket haters, why I too have a sister named Nell, and she too had done be bit by a rat, and there’s Whitey on the Moon, is gaining zero traction, perhaps because it has nothing to hook into, there is no real or imagined grievance that normies would imagine having against the Star Prophet.

      • HerbR says:

        I don’t think you’re missing anything, Jim. I think the sidebar is – unintentionally, I’m sure – driving an unnecessary wedge into the issue.

        Listen, friends: leftism is part of nature, like cockroaches and ants are part of nature. You don’t want them in your buildings or anywhere near you, and you have to fight them, constantly, and take proactive steps to keep them away. But they were put on this earth by the same God or evolutionary process that created you and your big brain. If we didn’t have them, we’d be up to our elbows in shit – literally.

        Ants and cockroaches and flies eat the garbage people throw out, or sometimes the garbage that nature itself throws out, like dead leaves and such. It’ll decompose anyway, eventually, probably, but not nearly as fast as those pesky little insects can take care of it. These bugs are only really a problem when they’re under your roof, and only a crisis when they’ve somehow managed to evolutionarily adapt to thriving under roofs in general, like those Satan-spawned German cockroaches that can’t even survive in the outdoors.

        Leftists are normally the scavengers that swoop in when rulers are no longer worthy and institutions are already becoming decadent and corrupt. One of those paleoliberal guys, a few years back, I forget which one, took a really excellent look at all of the corporations that had begun humiliating themselves with woke advertising, and found an interesting pattern: all of these corporations were already financially sick, if not outright hemorrhaging cash then at least having clearly passed their peak. This is consistent with Founding Questions’ (great link, btw) observation that companies turn to open leftism when they try to exceed their mission, for example due to market saturation.

        Leftism comes from Gnon just as Satan comes from Yahweh, and while the gods may marginalize or even hate their own creations and certainly not want them to gain too much power, they were created for a reason. Some institutions need to die, not necessarily because of anything we’d intuitively recognize as “leftism” but because they’ve become decrepit, weak, ossified, calcified, unable to perform. The natural rightist says “we don’t have the authority to interfere” or “the market will take care of it”, the natural leftist says “no way, fuck that, these assholes need to burn”. And 95%, maybe 99% of the time the leftist is horribly, catastrophically wrong, but the 1% of the time that they’re right is how humanity manages to keep breaking through developmental plateaus.

        You know this in your bones as an athlete or bodybuilder or scientist or writer or engineer. Consistency is the key, almost all of the time, just put in the effort and keep it up… but when you hit that plateau, you know you have to try something different, because doing the same thing isn’t working. Even if the new thing is totally back-asswards, even if it’s obviously stupidly hilariously wrong and causes you to lose months of progress (or centuries of progress, at civilization scale), you might learn something that lets you finally break through. Your injury causes you to pay closer attention to your form and technique, you manage to salvage the one good idea from hundreds of pages of gibberish, you realize one of the basic assumptions you made in your algorithm was wrong… whatever it is, your attempt to do something different may have been an abject failure but it gave you the experience you needed to do the right thing.

        I’m not saying that God wants you to be leftist – God forbid. But there is nothing really unnatural or unreal about destruction. Yahweh personally destroys a whole bunch of shit he’s disappointed with in the Old Testament, and is even sometimes willing to destroy the good and wholesome merely to test an individual’s resolve. No matter how horrible and destructive leftism is when it gets out of control (and it gets out of control mighty fast, no argument here), it has a function.

        So what’s the difference between the barbarians at the gate, and the leftists inside the gate? Nothing, except which side of the gate they’re on, and maybe some evolutionary changes from being inside for too long. If the civilization is still strong, it will fend off the barbarians and nuke their camps, and it will disempower or purge the leftists. If the civilization has become militarily weak, then the barbarians will raze it, and if spiritually weak, then the leftists will raze it. It’s the exact same thing, viewed from different angles.

        • jim says:

          > I think the sidebar is – unintentionally, I’m sure – driving an unnecessary wedge into the issue.

          “The sidebar”? To what do you refer

          • HerbR says:

            This branch of the conversation. Is there a good shorthand for “top-level comment reply to a wordpress post, especially one that is not a direct reply to the original blog post”? I don’t think “thread” sounds exactly right.

            It’s just a word I used. Unlike the majority of my reply, it didn’t have any deeper meaning behind it.

        • Tityrus says:

          But they were put on this earth by the same God or evolutionary process that created you and your big brain.

          Christianity precludes this idea. It understands all good to proceed from God and all evil to proceed to man’s sin.

          • jim says:

            Christianity does not preclude this idea.

            It depicts Satan as one of God’s angels, on an alarmingly long leash, who is giving effect to God’s will by acting seemingly contrary to God’s will.

            So, all evil proceeds from man’s sin in the sense that we made the choices, but God put temptation, or allowed temptation to be placed, in our way. Who stuck the tree in the middle of the Garden of Eden, and the serpent in that Garden, and then wandered off from the garden for a bit?

            Consider it the cookie test.

            • ten says:

              To grow, we need an opponent. A sparring partner that doesn’t actually try to beat us is good for training and learning, but without overcoming an actual determined opponent we will be lesser.

              And so the enemy of Man finds his evolutionary niche, and it is filled by God’s highest angel, because it is the most important task.

              Or at least this makes sense to me, while it also worries me, because it is at most a single step removed from satanism.

            • Aidan says:

              I see Satan as really trying to rebel against God- that his rebellion plays into God’s plan is something he well understands, but he can’t help but continue on the path that he chose.

              The rebellion of Satan is the same rebellion against natural law as leftism. “Why is He God and not me? I could be a better God than He is, could make a better reality.”

              But all Satan can actually do is tempt men and lead them to destroy their souls, the only way he can actually stick it to God.

            • Tityrus says:

              Ok, you are right.

              I notice that the Catholic catechism answers the question of why God did not prevent man from sinning this way: “the victory that Christ won over sin has given us greater blessings than those which sin had taken from us”. That is interesting.

          • HerbR says:

            It understands all good to proceed from God and all evil to proceed to man’s sin.

            On top of what Jim already said, this is an illogical argument even if we accept the premise. If evil proceeds from man’s sin, and man’s sin proceeds from man’s free will, and God created man and gave him free will, then God owns the whole shebang. The buck stops here.

            The question of “why does God allow evil to exist?” is an ancient one and has spawned many holy wars. Maybe the answer is unknowable to us, too profound for our puny mortal minds to understand, but none of that invalidates the question. Good and evil come from the same source because all creation comes from the same source. This does not make them equal – that is the path of heresy – but evil is not alien.

            Unless you believe in more than one god, or none at all, at which point you’re very far away from anything resembling Christianity.

            • The Cominator says:

              The best refutation to the is God evil thing I’ve seen is that if god was evil you’d be suffering like the characters in the I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream game (where the computer was considerably more sadistic than the short story).

              • HerbR says:

                Of course God is not evil, that’s the black-pilled and heretical answer to why evil exists. Evil is attributable to the creator, but to further conclude that the creator must be evil barely even qualifies as composition fallacy.

                If I build a wood shed, and the shed catches on fire, does that mean I am flammable? There’s no transitivity here – the properties of the things I create are not properties of myself, and the properties of God’s creations are not properties of God.

                Well, okay, man was created “in his image” – but that still implies we are imperfectly so, either we lack some properties that God has or we possess some that God doesn’t have. Or both.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Its hard to not blame the creator for not creating a suffering free world when you with your limited human perceptions don’t really understand the purpose of suffering…

                  So until I saw the simple brilliance of the refutation of the problem of evil being the sadism of God himself being that… no if God were truly evil your suffering would be astronomically worse… it was a problem for me.

            • Tityrus says:

              Good and evil come from the same source because all creation comes from the same source.

              Seems to me that many Christian theologians have tried to deprive evil of ontological equality with good, by regarding good as a positive thing but evil as simply the absence of good, etc etc. But you are right, the opposite view, as well as being appealing, straightforward, and logical, is completely compatible with Christianity.

              • The Cominator says:

                Gotta be careful with Theologians.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUSTKisEgTo

                “Theology is a device for enabling Agnostics to stay within the church”…

                • Neofugue says:

                  To try to comprehend unbegottenness (Father), begottenness (Son), or procession (Holy Spirit) leads to insanity.
                  -Gregory the Theologian

                  Theology should only be the study of what the Church says as pontificating on each and every little detail leads to heresy. It is fitting that HerbR and Tityrus are doing “unbeliever” theology, but this practice is as ancient as Origen, his work prefiguring Biblical criticism and Modernism.

                • Tityrus says:

                  I’m curious, neofugue. Do you think that evil was created by God and in what sense?

                • jim says:

                  Satan, who was the highest of the angels, is created by God, And Satan fell. Then God stuck the tree of knowledge and Satan in the garden of Eden, then went for a little walk, then Eve fell, then Adam fell.

                  A universe without free will, or without choices that matter, would be extremely boring. When a programmer makes a game universe, he is going to fill it with monsters, and if he could give them free will, he would.

                • Tityrus says:

                  The problem I see with this explanation is that it reduces God’s creation to the creation of contingent truths, while implying that the necessary truths exist apart from him and are not under his control.

                  For any of these deductions to work God would have to have had the choice set before him, “should I give humans free will and allow them to sin, or should I not give them free will and not allow them to sin”. For this to make sense we have to say that God did not create this “or”, that there are necessary limits on what he can create that are outside his control.

                  We might allow this, but it runs into the difficulty of why we should care about God instead of focusing all our attention towards the necessary truths which limit everything, even God.

                  Seems more reasonable to say, “yes, God actively wanted to create evil and didn’t just do it because he was forced to”, or, “evil actually has no being and cannot belong to the class of things that were created (because it is choice/vacuity/etc), therefore God didn’t create it”.

                • jim says:

                  > The problem I see with this explanation is that it reduces God’s creation to the creation of contingent truths, while implying that the necessary truths exist apart from him and are not under his control

                  If God is like a video game programmer creating a game universe, if God is little bit like me, or rather if I am a little bit like God, I would do stuff similarly. Of course the video game you create is ultimately under your control in some sense, but in another quite important sense, if you have done it right, it is not.

                  When you are writing a video game, you should exercise your control to make sure that you do not have control.

                • Neofugue says:

                  > I’m curious, Neofugue. Do you think that evil was created by God and in what sense?

                  God created neither death nor suffering nor evil. Evil has no hypostasis or existence as such, rather it is the absence of good, with death being the absence of life. Evil is the alienation of the created being who has estranged himself from God. The Orthodox Tradition accepts that the entrance of death into the human race was realized as a consequence of man’s subjugation to the devil, after having disrupted his communion with God. God created us free and gave us the right to choose on our own the way of good and of virtue, or the way of sin and evil. If He had created human nature without free will, by this imposed condition He would have rendered the created intelligent being purely passive in nature; the creature would simply submit, not having the possibility of doing otherwise, since it would not be free. However, God wished that, after a fashion, we too should be His co-workers in His creation and be responsible for our own eternal destiny. God knows in His infinite wisdom how to transform the causes of evil into that which is profitable for man’s salvation. Thus God uses the consequences of evil so as to make roses bloom forth from the thorns, although He never desired the thorns, nor did He create them in order to use them as instruments. He permitted these things to exist out of respect for our freedom.

                  Free will and death and basic doctrine quoted from OrthodoxInfo.

                  Relevant to the above comment by Cominator, I am not doing my own theology rather quoting doctrine enshrined by the Church.

                • jim says:

                  > I am not doing my own theology rather quoting doctrine enshrined by the Church

                  Sound and correct theology. Though I look at it from the perspective of a video game programmer, not that I have been a video game programmer for a very long time.

        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          War is, at further remove, the process of ontological priority. It both asks and answers the question of what has what priority.

          When an entity engages in warfare with another, it is asking the question: which of us has priority? And asking the question also occasions it’s answer. The entity that exists has higher priority than the entity that no longer exists.

          War is the process of ontic priority. Those modes of being that exist and continue to exist and have more frequently or less contingently existed, then, have demonstrated higher priority than such modes of being that do not exist, have passed out of existence, have less frequently or more contingently existed, or could not exist.

          For an entity to be described as virtuous at warfighting, for it to become more virtuous at warfighting, then, is for it to be something that participates in such higher priority modes of being; to anticipate them, even; to be something that can anticipate them.

          If there is any one sentiment that finds the greatest extent of representation in defining modernity, it fear of power.

          Demotism, because fear of power (‘noone can have power over me, because they might do something bad to me’).

          Gun grabbing, arms control, because fear of power (‘other people having strong tools would increase their ability to do bad things to me’).

          Superhero stories where people with fantastical abilities are depicted as isolated loners, because fear of power (‘if people have power, they could do bad things to me’).

          A cuckservative is also something that fears power, in it’s own way; it fears playing the game of power, doing the sort of things that would lead to power. The cuckservative can sense, on a more or less conscious level, that if he starts playing to win, the same way those who hate him and want him to die are playing to win, that it will mean war, in very short order.

          Which is to say, it would mean a transformation of circumstances, out of the state of affairs they feel comfortably understand of, into a brave new world, where they have no mental script to follow; and this terrifies them.

          They prefer to be ‘principled losers’, to be disenfranchised, and then carp at the foibles of their disenfranchisers, because that at least feels familiar to them. They prefer one way war (also known as ‘mopping up actions’), to two way war, because the former at least allows them a short time to continue pretending civil cooperation exists.

          The script given by enemies of civilization to society is of course purposefully designed to allow them to win, and to channel any instinctual defenders of civilization into the ranks of loserdom; but it’s the only script the cuckservative knows, so he follows it to the only conclusion he can.

          >”One of those paleoliberal guys, a few years back, I forget which one, took a really excellent look at all of the corporations that had begun humiliating themselves with woke advertising, and found an interesting pattern: all of these corporations were already financially sick, if not outright hemorrhaging cash then at least having clearly passed their peak.”

          Rather, this is all but always and exactly what pseudosanctimonia is for, which is usually what is being referred to specifically when people speak of ‘virtue signaling’ in pejorative senses, which is a broad label that can include very good things as well.

          Where one might find pharisees, gnostics, leftists, or other synonyms of congenital solipsism, in any particular vocation, they will be competing, not in terms of the vocation as such, but with *you, personally*.

          They might be on a football team, but they are not ‘about’ football; they might be in a company, but ‘the company’ is not what they are about; they might be in America, but ‘being American’ is not what they are about.

          Whatever particular positions they might happen to fill, subjects they might be embedded in, topics they might appear occupied by, is a mere function of historical contingency; any and all serve only as equally inerchangeable vehicles for expressing the vituperative animus of their chronic backbiting syndrome.

          They can never ‘talk shop’; whatever object a given band of men is ostensibly ‘for’, they will all but inevitably derail by inflating the scope of discussion with simplistically adulterated ideograms that they are capable of wrapping their heads around, which they might fain to call ‘universal principles’, in order to furnish such pretexts for such poison of spirit.

          The more parochial a matter, the more deterministic it is, the easier it may be for such kinds to find their empty charlatanism exposed as devoid of any real virtue. Whereas, matters much more transcendent are often also comensurably more difficult to verify; and hence, a perverse irony; that such kinds are so often most attracted to such fields that they are also least qualified to traffick in; indeed, the very *last* sorts one would ever want.

          When it comes to motivations, well, there are lots of ways to make a living. Why chose the business of unholiness? The only way a man could tolerate such a spiritually poisonous existence, is if his soul was already poisonous. Payment is a ‘bonus’ for creatures like little George, and that is what makes him more ‘reliable’ for his function. If he wasn’t fronting multinationals, he’d be in an NGO pseudopod somewhere spreading poz; and if he wasn’t in an NGO pseudopod, he’d be on twitter signaling about poz. They love the ability to use poz as pretext to loot people, but lack of loot does not commutatively lead to a change in heart, because poz is their heart.

          The cultivation of subversive intellectuals, particularly regardless of whether they personally considered themselves ‘communist’ or not, was one of the soviet union’s chief strategic weapons used to advance its interests in other countries around the globe, and against the US in particular. In the event that the soviet union fell, what happened to all those men in all their positions all over society? Did they collectively go poof? Have a change of heart? Renounce the devil and all his works and et cetera?

          In fact, not only did they not disappear, but they doubled down even. No longer did people ask what the party line in Moscow was: now, they considered themselves even holier than Jesus – i mean the politburo.

          When a lesser shitlib, for instance, agitates for the advancement of mud people or the like, it is an idolization nominally denotated as and conflated with mud people, that exists in their mind, that they are agitating for, not mud people (or whatever else it is) in reality.

          But of course, it is that same unfortunate reality that receives the fallout of their psychosis all the same.

          What is the xenophilia of a such a man? Consider world-formation capacity as an ‘aperture’, through which greater or smaller ‘sections’ of Being can go through, or be held by, the subject. A subject of such comportment, then, can hardly *see* that which is farther; if he is more cognizant of anything in greater truth of entirety, it is that which is more obvious in his sight. Ie, that which is *nearer*.

          When the solipsist perceives lack of virtue, it is most of all *in his neighbors* that he sees it; whereas on the other hand, he does not see lack of virtue in the far away, because in fact *he does not see it at all*.

          When he experiences annoyances of life, perceived slights, injuries and insults, it is, generally, his neighbors that he experiences ‘doing’ these things he sees to him, these people who rudely intrude into his narrativization or puts it to lie, while at the same time *lacking a broader vision in which to place such experience into context*. In his mind, he truly and earnestly believes *his neighbors are all the ills in the world*.

          When he feels fellow-feeling with ‘the alien’, it has been because ‘the alien’ to him is in truth an empty cypher; it is precisely *because* he does not truly ‘see’ it, that he can fill the space under it’s nominal heading with a totem of his own making, all his hopes, aspirations, and idealizations… a projection of himself, in fact, what he *desires* to be himself.

          When dealing with personages suffering from chronic backstabbing syndrome, one of the first mistakes one can make is thinking of such as cynically pragmatic consequentialists.

          Reason is a tail wagged by the dog of sentiment, and in cases where one might sense more rational praxeology in actions of such sorts, it exists only in a delineated sense, to serve the animating impulse, which comes first, as reasons are found to rationalize it.

          Imagine for a moment that there is a basketcase/shit together continuum, with an ascending scale of how much shit someone can have together. If you could indefinitely expand franchise to ever greater swaths of the basketcase continuum, surely then you could outnumber the people in one place who have more of their shit together, and coterminously recruit the loyalty of the former with the promise of eating for lunch the latter. Of course, you would then no longer have any shit together, and you’d find yourself presiding over a crumbling enfamished wasteland, a vacuum open for some other group with more sense to come in and conquer the easy pickings left over; but hey, death of a society is a small price to pay for a temporary spot on top of it’s status hierarchy, right? Such is the nature of congenital solipsism.

          The existence of men with virtue, groups with virtue, societies with virtue, is an existential threat to the leftist’s self-esteem, defined by his insecurities. He both at once cuts down what comes before, and also ensures naught can grow up behind him, all for the same reason. So does ‘leftist organization’ also exist in only a contingent, delineated sense; it cannot exist except for something vital to define itself against; and by the same token, cannot exist against itself either. It is the nature of the game being played, the ultimate ironic wage of the playact; to be left is to die with no successors, no heirs, no legacy.

          And broadly of course, it is about ensuring everyone else is in the same boat. Misshapen pieces, modes of thought ill fitted for existence in this plane; tormented by simply being in this world, they are driven towards death – but don’t have the decency to die alone. Such is the nature of thanatos.

          That is one crucial difference between the barbarian besieging the walls of pozopolis, and the pozer inside of pozopolis; the barbarian is an exponent of a rising society his sons will inherit, the pozer has neither. One form demonstrates it’s ontological priority over another.

          The question of whether one prefers one existential state of affairs over another is ultimately a question of what divinity speaks through your blood. It would be appropriate for my enemies to not share my faith, that beings which do observe it may prevail over them all the easier.

          Not even the subversive themselves can fully anticipate what dysfunctions they will lionize in the future. Rather, the world moves, dysfunctionalities become apparent, and ‘leftism’ inevitably converges towards them. Such is its nature.

          • You should really start a blog. I think your comments here deserve to be articulated as complete essays in their own right.

            • HerbR says:

              Personally, I thought most of it was rambling and missing the point. I wrote a long post, so he wrote a longer one.

              PC is making the same error that a lot of people on the right make: relying on a model of the left that is tinted, almost to opaqueness, by the modern practice of leftism. Thus the obsession with leftists as weak, effeminate, cowardly, demotic, pozzed, against nature, NGOs and lawyers, and so on. This is all true – for the modern context.

              What of Locke, Hume, Voltaire, Kant? Leftist and subversive, yes, but hardly solipsistic. And what of Stalin, Mao, or Genghis Khan – are you going to call them weak or effeminate? Give me a break.

              Leftism in a historical context doesn’t look much like leftism in a modern context, and when you become fixated on the modern context, that’s the beginning of the end – the slide into irrelevant cuckservatism, or worse, nazi larping (because everything is nazis vs commies in the mind of a modern).

              If one’s definition of friend and foe requires constant hair-splitting and razor wire to avoid outgrouping friends and ingrouping foes, then it’s time to revisit your priors.

              • Aidan says:

                Leftism in a historical context looks a lot like it does in a modern context. Locke, Hume, and so on were indeed opponents of the natural law, seeking to improve on nature by appealing to nature, as the Pythagorean cult was recognizably leftist. The earlier the leftist, the more he argues that he is fulfilling the natural law by overturning it. Should not be fooled.

                Let’s take a look at Khan as a leftist. Refer to Hulagu’s letter to the Mamluk sultan. It implies that the Mongol religion saw living in cities an affront to natural law. The Mongol hordes had the character of a Crusade, a holy war. The Mongol tested his conception of the natural order against the civilized world’s conception of it. That Khan burned their cities and raped their women proved that the cities individually had grown too weak to defend themselves; they had in that historical moment strayed too far from the natural order to protect what was theirs. That we still have cities, and that Mongolia is a backwater, shows that civilization better adheres to the natural order in the long run that barbaric pastoralism. I have a spiritual affinity for barbaric pastoralism, but Vae Victis.

                Sure looks like a test between two different conceptions of the natural order, the way men have constantly tested their adherence to natural law through warfare since the beginning of days.

                • Yul Bornhold says:

                  Need to be careful when defining what “works.” Agriculture and civilization beat savage hunter-gathering but the life of a savage is, by many metrics, better than that of a graincuck. Still, numbers and superior organization will tell.

                  Sometimes barbarian pastoralists beat civilization. Sometimes civilization beats the barbarians. The life of a barbarian obviously better than the life of a graincuck.

                  But our civilization is so technologically advanced (i.e. rich) we’re no longer graincucks. The American redneck is naturally taller, stronger and healthier than his borderer ancestor from 500 years back.

                  Of course, the borderer was happier because his wife belonged to him, his liege lord didn’t subject him to abuse by holy minorities and, while his diet was technically inferior, he couldn’t pollute himself with anti-nutrition in the way that is so common to us.

                  Better than any of these possibilities: just be the aristocrat ruler lording it over everyone else. Even in the age of graincucks, Hammurabi was no stunted grass eater. Automation could theoretically make everyone an aristocrat, not in terms of status, but at least economically. But sooner or later you’ll run up against space concerns.

                • Aidan says:

                  Historically, the cities did not rise until barbarians conquered graincucks and became their shepherds. Civilization beat barbarism because civilization had a barbarian elite that could organize and lead the graincucks in war; and the aristocracies of early civilization maintained their barbarian habits, hunting and riding and training for war.

                  “The thicker the hay, the more easily reaped” said Alaric to the leaderless and uncoordinated graincucks of Rome. Numbers do not win; graincucks do not win except for being organized by warriors. In fact, graincucks do not exist except for being under the protection of warriors. But the warriors eventually disappear, and some barbarians realize that the cities are full of graincucks, with no real warriors on top, and move in to rectify this imbalance.

                • Yul Bornhold says:

                  We still have warriors, of a sort. Unfortunately, they’re slave warriors. Subordinates. This is to say; the effective parts of the police and military. This complicates taking over the cities. The communist states had the same problem. A slave military following the pozzed elites.

                  In present America, we face a perplexing problem. Where’s the wealth? Very few farmers, as a percentage, and that’s complicated by subsidies. The holy minorities don’t produce much wealth. The arms and agencies of the cathedral produce even less. A vast amount of manufacturing has been offshored, so we’re not making much either.

                  This is all in regards to hypothetical barbarians seizing a city. What precisely are they trying to control?

                • Aidan says:

                  Rome had “warriors of a sort” when Alaric sacked it.

                  The productive capital of our civilization is in energy, engineering, and distribution. We do not make as much as we used to, but we make plenty. The barbarians will take control of and provide physical security for factories, highways, power plants, the mining operations that provide fuel for the power plants, and the communities of human capital that produce high technology.

                  None of these require cities. Let the skyscrapers crumble under a month-long barrage of constant artillery fire. Let the yuppies and hipsters be put to the sword and their crying women be shackled and marched off en masse. Or let the cities stand as safari zones in which we can train our sons in live-fire urban warfare exercises against the naked and starving savages that will continue to inhabit the ruins like it’s a Robert E Howard novel.

                • jim says:

                  > None of these require cities. Let the skyscrapers crumble under a month-long barrage of constant artillery fire. Let the yuppies and hipsters be put to the sword and their crying women be shackled and marched off en masse.

                  The economic need for cities was never very great. The transport net can and routinely does deliver anything from anywhere. Los Angeles is now a great bottleneck obstructing a great port.

                  Cities came into being as meeting places where a priesthood hung out to reach consensus, and still today primarily exist in order for the elite to hang around the elite. When a non urban elite conquers an non urban elite, they suffer radical shrinkage.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  That is an enticing vision at a base level, but let’s be real, you need cities, and big ones too Aidan. Regardless of how many times we are sold the Zoom life, you need millions to congregate in CBDs for a modern economy to work. Raze the current ones if need be, but new agglomerations will spring up. Dis is da wae.

                • HerbR says:

                  “By their fruits” is indeed a truly excellent and clarifying test of what is for or against the natural order. Unfortunately it can only be directly employed with hindsight. The historical analysis is what gives rise to all of the individual, more practical models that provide some (not always reliable) foresight.

                  X failed because it was against nature. We know X was against nature because it failed. That’s a tautology. What specific qualities make X against nature? How can we predict if Y is likely to fail based on its similarities or differences to X? Predictive power is what makes a model – description without prediction may as well be pointing and grunting.

                  You can’t say this is unimportant. Every major religion has been fundamentally focused on the question of what nature (or God) favors and what it abhors. And since there are many different religions, many of which have been very successful in at least some sense, including Islam and Confucianism, obviously there is not universal agreement on this question. We need more than “let’s collect all the people who agree and remove the ones who don’t” – that’s a goal, not a plan.

                  Jim has often stated that there needs to be at least an affirmation. Probably several affirmations, all of which need to be periodically tweaked.

                • jim says:

                  > “By their fruits” is indeed a truly excellent and clarifying test of what is for or against the natural order. Unfortunately it can only be directly employed with hindsight.

                  Well their memes were obvious enough then. Were they recognizable as leftism then?

                  Well the left as an organized large scale faction becomes obvious when you have party politics. But as an intellectual movement? Burke was recognizably the left, and was the first prominent leftist to become frightened of those who out lefted him. Rousseau was obviously the left. The thing existed before there was a word for it, and people were seeing that thing as a thing before they had a word to talk about it.

                  Similarly, game and red pill on women goes back a very long way, and only became a concept when that body of lore and knowledge was suppressed to an absurd extent and became largely lost.

                  The left goes back a very long way, and recognizing it is not that hard.

                  And what you see when you look back a very long way, millenia, in priestly writings, is that the regnant priesthood is losing its grip, numerous counter priesthoods want to take its stuff for good or bad reasons, and the left is what you get when the counter priests are not much worried about whether the reasons are good or bad, they will grab any bludgeon handy.

                  Which undermines the fundamental cohesiveness of the counter priesthood, being united by opportunism rather than any deeply held and stable beliefs, resulting in a propensity to holiness spiral when they succeed.

                • Aidan says:

                  I am of course talking about Yul’s scenario in which barbarians invade; he sees a lack of productive capital that barbarians have the capacity to exercise stationary banditry on and keep civilization going, and I say there is plenty, but not in cities.

                  I don’t necessarily want to destroy the cities; I fantasize about it, because I hate urban life and especially the two-legged vermin that infest it, but it’s not really a part of the program, and probably not a good idea.

                  Herb: “What specific qualities make X against nature? How can we predict if Y is likely to fail based on its similarities or differences to X?”

                  We know history, which repeats itself. Codifying natural law and reaching consensus on it is an entirely separate issue, but it turns out that most of the work has been done for us. The Old Testament is a hit of uncut, pure natural law. We can have a discussion of what constitutes natural law, but Jim’s entire blog is a discussion of what constitutes natural law. How does war work, how do human castes work, why to we need to kill fags, what is the proper structure of governance, how must women be treated, etc.

                  You say “natural law is what works” is a tautology, but everything that is true is a tautology. “The sun rises every morning” is a tautology. If you accept Logos, reality is real, and thus everything that is true and real proves itself true and real. Telos is how we both define, delineate, and qualify reality. I could write a treatise on how teleology solves the problems philosophers have been wrestling with for ages, but the fact that they do is gay, and it would be gay for me to write it.

                  Properly understood, teleology is not only the study of purpose, because purpose inherently implies action. Things are defined by what they do, not the properties they possess. Because actions can be either effective or ineffective, teleology implies natural law. A balloon shaped like a hammer is a poor hammer because it cannot bang in a nail or break anything. Is implies ought. “Hammer” is just a word. The reality and existence of hammers is in the action of banging in a nail and the end of two objects firmly affixed with a nail. “Hammer” is the word we apply to objects especially useful and effective for this purpose. It is impossible for a man to live without teleology, or he would be banging in nails with balloon hammers. We must make value judgements from what works and what reality is. We already do, all the time, instinctually and inherently.

                  My program is Natural Law, Logos, and Telos. The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.

                • jim says:

                  > I am of course talking about Yul’s scenario in which barbarians invade; he sees a lack of productive capital that barbarians have the capacity to exercise stationary banditry on and keep civilization going, and I say there is plenty, but not in cities.

                  > I don’t necessarily want to destroy the cities; I fantasize about it, because I hate urban life and especially the two-legged vermin that infest it, but it’s not really a part of the program, and probably not a good idea.

                  The mines and the farms are of course not in cities, the factories keep moving to the outskirts of cities, and the outskirts of smaller cities. The distribution network bypasses the cities to the maximum extent that it is allowed to, which frequently is not all that much, and new distribution networks keep popping up because the older distribution networks are being strangled by their urban nodes.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  That’s an interesting take on cities. You reckon the move you see is fundamental or due to the influx of vibrancy and other clients to big cities? The largest city in earth, and growing agianst a backdrop of demographic devline, is Tokyo, so I’d hazard the former.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  * the latter, lol

                • Tityrus says:

                  >I could write a treatise on how teleology solves the problems philosophers have been wrestling with for ages, but the fact that they do is gay, and it would be gay for me to write it.

                  You should do it.

                • Prince Charming says:

                  @ Yul Bornhold

                  the life of a savage is, by many metrics, better than that of a graincuck

                  This is a Marxian interpretation of the agricultural revolution. The aphid dreams of the golden age when it was an ant.

                  The graincuck is the product of the hunter-warrior realising that they could enslave their conquered enemies and less-productive offspring, instead of killing them. The graincuck’s ancestors indeed were hunter-gatherers, but whenever you introduce a domesticated animal back into the wild, they will inevitably not make it; the very reason they are a domesticated animal is that their ancestors, or the particular selection of genes they inherited from their ancestors, couldn’t have made it in the ancestral environment.

              • The Cominator says:

                I think Kant was soliphistic, what exactly was leftist about Hume (I’m no expert on the guy) and why are you leaving out the worst leftist of all, truly the devil in human form worse than even Marx, Rosseau.

                Genghis Khan was a pastoral conqueror not a leftist.

                • HerbR says:

                  Hume wrote a lot of stuff, but the one thing he is remembered for is his saying that you can’t get an “ought” from an “is”.

                  Which saying Jim flatly rejects, and which saying is most assuredly leftist if you take Aidan’s perspective that leftism is opposition to the natural order. Hume says outright that what happens in nature should not be our guide.

                  If you just look at Hume’s bio on La Wik, it’s obvious he was a raging leftist. And yet he was best buds with Adam Smith. That should at least be a mild head-scratcher. He did not get along well with the Whigs. I guess you could say he was like an ancient Jordan Peterson or Carl Benjamin, very much a product of his time but in many ways trying to push back against the tide.

                  Genghis Khan was the ultimate alpha nigger. Barbarians didn’t produce civilization, they destroyed it.

                • Tityrus says:

                  Hume wrote a lot of stuff, but the one thing he is remembered for is his saying that you can’t get an “ought” from an “is”.

                  It is unfortunate that he is remembered for a misinterpretation of one offhand remark in the Treatise. But Hume’s real single most important contribution was his inductive skepticism.

                • Tityrus says:

                  Just looked over my post above again and I realized it might come off as a little rude. Sorry about that. Was in a hurry.

              • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                Seems like the most opaque think here is your reading the post (or non-reading, as it may happen). Nominalism is an intellectual expression of congenital solipsism. So yes, Locke and Kant (and others of like ilk) absolutely were solipsistic in character.

                Stalin was a lesser Napoleon. Mao, very unambiguously a leftist. What benefit did China reap from him? I once again question your strange perceptive resistance to seeing spades as spades. I really wonder what ‘leftism in a historical context’ means to you, because, for example, the seeds one may see in 16th century ‘enlightenment humanists’ are very clearly related to the blooming ‘flowers’ you smell today. If you have difficulties with this, i can recommend a refresher course in neoreaction 101 here: https://radishmag.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/democracy-and-the-intellectuals/

                So it is like, because a given figure is not completely impoverished in every single way, you can’t label them with a political snarl word? Not All Leftists Are Like That? This is really bluetribe, categorically imperative style thinking. (You know, very much like those thinkers so mentioned.)

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  To wit: the contingencies of leftist behavior, generally, are relative to the broader milieu it subsides in – in virtues and vices alike. A figure’s point on a line at an isolated moment in time is not the most essential part, it is their *cardinality* that is what holds the great matter; what directions they effect to move things, what destinations they imply, what teleologies they serve to advance.

                • HerbR says:

                  Stalin was a lesser Napoleon. Mao, very unambiguously a leftist. What benefit did China reap from him?

                  You are responding to me as if I said that any of these figures were not on the left. What I clearly said was that your definition of leftism must be wrong if it fails to place these figures on the left – and since these men clearly had a lot of strength, and balls, and ruled with an iron fist. They were exactly like ancient barbarians, and so a definition giving effect to barbarism as the anti-left clearly has some problems.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  Well clearly then you have spectacularly failed to understand ‘my definition of leftism’.

                  Neither myself nor Aidan in the first place necessarily equated ‘barbarism’ with ‘anti-leftism’; he brought up an example of an invading army surrounding Rome, and sophistical traitors inside of Rome. Both entities are aligned against ‘Rome’, broadly construed, yet he perceives significant difference between them. The fact that you do not perceive any significant difference between then is perhaps a significant data point here.

          • Neofugue says:

            > That is one crucial difference between the barbarian besieging the walls of pozopolis, and the pozer inside of pozopolis; the barbarian is an exponent of a rising society his sons will inherit, the pozer has neither. One form demonstrates it’s ontological priority over another.

            The entire post, not just the linked comment, is a more comprehensive position of which I was trying to elucidate here.

            Leftism is not natural in and of itself, rather it is a perverted form of a natural instinct. Without hunger one would starve, but perverting it into gluttony is evil. Leftism focuses on material gain through attacking social order and social technology, which separates the Leftist from the bandit or plunderer.

      • ten says:

        The barbarian is good to himself and destructive to the city, he is a predator.

        • Red says:

          >The barbarian is good to himself and destructive to the city, he is a predator.

          The weak tribe dies so that the strong tribe can conquer the stars.

      • ten says:

        I accidentally hit enter and sent an incomplete post.

        The barbarian is a predator. Surface level leftism is predation and the waylaying of applecarts – mobile banditry.

        If that predator finds predation terribly exhausting and opts to instead attach himself to the lifeblood of the prey as a parasite, then he is dependent on keeping the prey alive, or at least to be able to move along to the next prey. Depth 1 leftism is parasitism and taxation of applecarts – stationary banditry or carpetbagging.

        If that parasite loses sight of its dependency on its host and wants all the blood, it is a cancer or terminal infection that also kills the parasite. It destroys without gaining life itself, it is a karmic black hole. So depth 2 leftism is anticosmic satanism. A (caco)demon in the parlance of the dark enlightenment.

        If the parasite instead GNONcompliantly and wisely cultivates its host and maximizes his applefarming, it is the good stationary bandit, the good state, rightism, and it is a symbiote, not a parasite. An eu-demon.

        • Aidan says:

          This is a distinction I want to replace. You claim rightism grows from leftism and enters back into it. There are many good and beautiful things which can only result from the “parasitism” of stationary banditry. The stationary bandit is not a parasite, unless a shepherd is a parasite.

          That the predator benefits from becoming a shepherd is simply part of the natural law. A predator -always- benefits from becoming a shepherd. If the predator is a dumb nigger who lacks the competence to be a shepherd, he is just an animal, and his predation is a zoological phenomenon rather than a historical one.

          That sheep should be under a shepherd is natural law. A horse was made to be ridden by a man; the fact that man managed to domesticate horses makes it retroactively true that the horse’s telos was always to be the steed of man. Leftism is not the parasite that decides to drink all of the blood; it is the sheep who thinks he can do a better job than the shepherd, or hates the idea of being beneath a shepherd.

          • ten says:

            Indeed, predator->parasite->symbiote. The stationary bandit can be both detriment and boon to the host. Not railing against all stationary bandits.

            I think rightism grows from (aryan) conquerors trying out this city and peasant caste thingy that those rich ass middle eastern priest castes got going, implying cultivation of productivity among free men rather than mass slavery/command economy, so in that sense..

            Peasant caste leftists are those sheep. Traitor priest caste leftists are not.

          • Prince Charming says:

            Is there really a distinction of kind, instead of a gradient over several traits or modalities?

            The husband-cattle, or rather husband-homestead dynamic is the natural outgrowth of private property, which is the natural outgrowth of forclosing the commons.

            Problem: tragedy of the commons
            Solution: forclosing commons
            Unintended consequences: private property => growth of homesteads => institutionalisation of natural law to resolve disputes between patriarchs of individual homesteads

            • Prince Charming says:

              So we say that the institution of slavery, or a patriarch husband, or a shepherd, having absolute or near-absolute domain over his chattel is a good thing, because we value the surplus that is only possible by eliminating the tragedy of the commons, and we don’t like leftism, because it leads to levelling, it leads to everybody being equal in hunger.

              But there is no sharp distinction between a parasite and a farmer, and a phenotypical sheep has as much a chance of fulfilling the farmer role as a phenotypical wolf.

      • Aidan says:

        If we use the definition “envy plus defection”, treason being a great crime, we have to deal with the issue of men who usurp kings, many of whom rule well and cannot be called leftists.

        Was Caesar a leftist? Reasonable people can agree that he saved Rome; I would say the the natural order required that Rome become an empire or collapse, and Caesar, then Augustus, fulfilled natural law, despite taking advantage of the leftist party, the populares, to do it.

        • Pooch says:

          My interpretation of Late Republic Rome is the Populares were populist-right (with my definition of right being those on the side of the good and true) and the Optimates were elitist-left (with my definition of left being those on the side of evil and wrong).

          • Aidan says:

            I hate to be the fag who links an entire fucking book for you to read

            https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Ancient_City/vUwzAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0

            But there is an entire fucking book you (and everyone here for that matter) should read

          • Red says:

            Leftism was dead in Rome by the time of Caesar because Sula killed it. What was left was faction reaching towards Monarchy and Empire(Populares) and a faction trying to re-animate the corpse of the Republic that they’d grown fat off looting(Optimates, today they’re the Cuckservitives/Brezhnevites).

            We have a triple system today with Left pushing a new state religion, the Cuckservitives/Brezhnevites who hold most of the power, and a small very large but politically powerless Populares movement searching for a king. Trump was a man who stepped into that role for the Populares, but he was too weak to rule.

          • Red says:

            Reposted because the formatting was bad on the first go around:

            Leftism was dead in Rome by the time of Caesar because Sula killed it. What was left was faction reaching towards Monarchy and Empire(Populares) and a the Optimates were trying to re-animate the corpse of the Republic that they’d grown fat from looting and destroying. Optimates filled the role that today is filled by the Cuckservitives/Brezhnevites.

            We have a triple system today with Left pushing a new state religion, the Cuckservitives/Brezhnevites who hold most of the power, and a very large but politically powerless Populares movement searching for a king. Trump stepped into that role of the leader of the Populares, but he was too weak to rule and did not have the will to be a king.

            • Pooch says:

              Leftism was dead in Rome by the time of Caesar because Sula killed it. What was left was faction reaching towards Monarchy and Empire(Populares) and a the Optimates were trying to re-animate the corpse of the Republic that they’d grown fat from looting and destroying. Optimates filled the role that today is filled by the Cuckservitives/Brezhnevites.

              I’m actually more hesitant to apply the left-right axis to the Roman Republic. It doesn’t track well. The theory that Sulla stopped a leftism spiral is not convincing. There was no holiness spiral on the state religion because Rome had an official closed priesthood, unlike ours. Marius/Sulla were simply just the leaders of their respective political factions who violently suppressed their political enemies for a time (with Sulla ultimately giving back control to the Optimate Senate with the institutions purged of any Plebian/Populares power). Our triple system just doesn’t fit there.

              The class conflict of Rome does track extremely well though. It was HL v M all the way (with the slaves acting as the Low). You’re right there was no priestly political faction in Rome like the Democrats. The Optimates acted like our Republicans more or less, content on the mass importation of slaves for cheap labor, but not for any religious or idealogical reason.

              I do believe Trump will get another shot to become in 2024. It’s shaping up that way, but this time if he’s too weak he’ll be Gracchus’d.

              • Pooch says:

                become king*

              • The Cominator says:

                “I’m actually more hesitant to apply the left-right axis to the Roman Republic. It doesn’t track well.”

                The ancient world didn’t really have many utopian leftists it had more simple robber leftists (but often in response to simple robber crimes by the elite) advocating hardcore redistributive politics but generally they did not promise a magical utopia for all.

                Rome had a “radical” populares faction which corresponded with this kind of simple robber leftist but Sulla wiped them out entirely. Right wing populists are not leftists.

                • jim says:

                  In the civil war with Sulla the Populares were allied with the Samnites, and the Samnites intended to kill every Roman male and destroy the walls of Rome.

                  Sulla had a two front battle – entering Rome, and fighting the Samnites. Sounds like the modern left to me.

              • Red says:

                >I do believe Trump will get another shot to become in 2024. It’s shaping up that way, but this time if he’s too weak he’ll be Gracchus’d.

                They’re currently setting him up to be a foil against DeSantos. Biden and co praising him for his vaxcuckery is a bad sign. The threat of the DOJ locking Trump up on one side and feeding him the flattery he so desired from the media on the other is a great way to control him.

                • Red says:

                  DeSantis*

                • Pooch says:

                  Trump’s vax cucking is very worrisome (although he did say no mandates which gets glossed over), but Trump is still the only existential threat to the regime being the charismatic leader of a mass populist movement. As the leader, only Trump can use the mass movement to win the democracy game, then demand and take absolute power.

                  DeSantis is a life long GOP politician and just a product of the existing regime with no charisma. The elite are not scared of him one bit, which is why Con Inc. and Populist Inc. continually shill for him.

                • Red says:

                  >As the leader, only Trump can use the mass movement to win the democracy game, then demand and take absolute power.

                  LOL, wut? Did you miss what Trump did last time? He cucked around and found out.

                  >DeSantis is a life long GOP politician and just a product of the existing regime with no charisma. The elite are not scared of him one bit, which is why Con Inc. and Populist Inc. continually shill for him.

                  DeSantis is an elite. Military service, extremely effective leadership in Florida including shutting down the Dems vote rigging. They were afraid of Trump because they thought he might be Ceasar, instead he was just a cream puff and they’re starting to use him as such. DeSantis could be a Ceasar, he’s got the right background for it. Trump proved he isn’t capable of it.

                  >but Trump is still the only existential threat to the regime being the charismatic leader of a mass populist movement.

                  Populist moment that he did nothing with. He didn’t put his supporters in power, he didn’t use his supporters in street battles against antifa, instead he tried to make deals with people who hate him and us. And then there’s Trump’s insane criminal justice reform that let thousands of hardened criminals back on the streets.

                • The Cominator says:

                  DeSantis is not really a warrior (I mean he was a Coast Guard JAG but calling that a warrior is really really stretching it) and I’m not sure he can counter the election rigging but hes smart and hes capable and less likely to cuck.

                  If there is anyone more likely to stop the fraud and take power I would rather back DeSantis rather than Trump… who IMHO is compromised. I think he was told to talk like a conservative inc normiecon and shill the vaxx and they won’t indict him or his family or something.

              • jim says:

                > The theory that Sulla stopped a leftism spiral is not convincing

                Look up Sulla, Samnites, and Populares. Allying with the Samnites while the Samnites were at the walls of Rome and intended to overthrow the walls of Rome and kill ever Roman male looks like modern left wing insanity.

              • jim says:

                > I do believe Trump will get another shot to become in 2024. It’s shaping up that way, but this time if he’s too weak he’ll be Gracchus’d.

                Democrats are prepared to do whatever it takes. And in the early hours of 2020 November the fourth, they proceeded to openly do whatever it took.

                The census results have been retroactively adjusted to prevent blue states, which are losing population, from losing representation to red states. The votes in 2020 were retroactively adjusted. The Republican primaries are being prospectively adjusted, and as we go into the 2022 elections, will be retroactively adjusted. Followed by the 2022 mid term elections, which are being prospectively adjusted, and will be retroactively adjusted.

                Should Trump survive to 2024, there is no way Trump can win unless he is prepared to deniably organize violence on the ground during the voting process.

                The only possible way to have a fair and free election is to apply the methods used by Caesar and the NSDAP, and these are such as to produce one fair and free election once.

                And Trump has demonstrated he is not the man for that.

                • Pooch says:

                  The only possible way to have a fair and free election is to apply the methods used by Caesar and the NSDAP, and these are such as to produce one fair and free election once.

                  Not necessary if Trump Republicans fail to certify fraudulent vote counts in contested states, but failing to certify fraudulent vote counts is merely the first step upon a series of steps that necessarily ends with Trump demanding and taking absolute power with armed men at his back.

                  The path Trump started walking in the battle of Lafayette Park when he had Antifa, blacks, and journalists beaten like stray dogs to save St. John’s Church may necessarily end in victory or him being Gracchus’d in 2024. Riding off into the sunset may not be an option this time.

                • Neurotoxin says:

                  Trump is worthless. When everything was at stake… when we were in a gutter knife fight for the survival of our society… when it really mattered that he fight, and fight to win…

                  He whined that the left wasn’t playing fair, and folded like history’s biggest pussy.

                  He conclusively proved that when the chips are down, he won’t fight.

                  And he damaged us immeasurably because his victory in 2016 taught the left they had weaknesses, without using those weaknesses to destroy them. They patched those weaknesses on election night 2020. That might be a catastrophe we cannot come back from, because now no other non-uniparty candidate will get elected to the presidency ever again.

                  I don’t want to hear any more about Trump.

                  Unless you’re selling me tickets to the Pay-Per-View when the left executes him. It will be amusing to watch him bleat, as he’s being dragged to the gallows, “You totally can’t do this, because it’s illegal!”

      • Doom says:

        I think that the easiest way to characterise this is
        > Barbarian sees a game prize he wants, assumes it was taken by force, since it’s the only game he knows, goes ahead to play the assumed combat game and win, and take it. No resentment involved.

        >Leftist sees something he wants, also assumes it was taken by force, since it’s the only game he knows, knows the he *cannot win that game*, attempts to subvert the rules.

        Bonus round : Leftist doesn’t care as much if he wins, just resentful that someone else won.

        I think the Jim theory of leftism isn’t entirely incorrect as both are outcomes of covetousness based on the assumption that anything anyone else has was taken by force, rather than generated through co-operation.

        • jim says:

          Spot on.

        • Neurotoxin says:

          “covetousness based on the assumption that anything anyone else has was taken by force”

          Leftists don’t care whether what you have was taken by force or not. They just want what you have. (And barring that they want to destroy what you have.)

          When they say that what you have was taken illegitimately – it’s stuff the evil white man stole from the noble non-whites, or distilled blood the capitalists sucked from the bodies of the workers, etc. – it’s just pre-emptive propaganda designed to justify their planned grabbing of your stuff. Don’t pay too much attention to that; it’s just a robber saying “I have the right to take your stuff because…” blah blah.

    • Neofugue says:

      Leftism has no essence. It is our categorization of systems whose adherents develop and utilize in destroying social order for personal gain.

      As societal organization is the outward application of morality, Leftism is primarily a spiritual phenomenon rather than a doctrinal axis. The political spectrum models attempt to simplify the divide along economic and socio-cultural issues but fail to account for interchanging ideologies, eras and cultures. Chaos in one era may be considered order in a different one. The National Socialists of the 1930s were Leftists because their system supported many of the Weimar Republic’s destruction of ancien régime institutions among them monarchy, caste and coverture. However, because of our twenty-first century perspective National Socialism appears as relative order, thus contemporary National Socialists are spiritually not-Leftists even if ideologically of the Left.

      The natural order is outlined in the shibboleth “God, King and Country,” the implementation of social structure based it on a shared religion or religio. Rather than seeking to change the world at a fundamental level, these societies accommodate fallible man and raise him to the best of his ability, which is why traditional societies are highly stratified. Leftists seek to destroy this organization for personal gain, and Leftism is the justification. The foundation is the same but the justification varies, which is why as Jim says, the Leftist simply wishes to knock over the cart and steal its contents. The Barbarian who plunders another country is not a Leftist, but the demagogue who sacks the aristocracy is a Leftist. In one era, Leftism is nineteenth century Nationalism in undermining of the monarchies of Europe; in another era, Leftism is twenty-first century Internationalism seeking the destruction of the nations of Europe. The ideological content varies, but the spirituality remains constant.

      TL;DR: Rightism is, Leftism is not:

      Cry ‘God for Harry! England! and Saint George!’

    • Fireball says:

      Why would the barbarian fulfilling the natural order?

      • Kunning Drueger says:

        Rome abandoned GNON. Entropy is a part of the cycle. This is part of my opposition to the TC solution. On paper, I 100%agree; carve out the rot. But leftism is a cancer. You can’t just carve out cancer. Sometimes, cancers win because they completely outclass the healthy cells in terms of survival. So it’s not just a question of fittest in the moment. Look at cultural Marxism, it is clearly the superior short term strategy given the system it is consuming.

        GNON and Zeitgeist. 2 gods that are free to take up whichever method they deem appropriate.

    • Ex says:

      Set aside the word ‘envy’ for a moment, and I think this is the distinction:

      The barbarian wants what Rome has, and he’s willing to use force to get it, depriving Rome as a side-effect. If prosperity grew on trees, the barbarian would be happy to pick some instead of invading Rome.

      The leftist is mad that Rome dares to have prosperity, and feels insulted by it. The leftist wants to deprive Rome first, and any stolen apples are a side-effect of upsetting the applecart.

    • The Cominator says:

      Good post Aidan, leftists are other than simple robbers…

      The simple robber understands what he is about… the leftist does not.

    • Some more thoughts on the difference between the barbarian and the Leftist (As expressed on my blog, reproduced here)

      “The difference between the barbarian who wants to sack Rome and the Leftist is that the barbarian instinctively recognizes natural law and respects real strength, probably even ready to retreat on facing a stronger foe, while mercilessly attacking weakness as he perceives it; whereas the Leftist is boiling and seething with rage over the very existence of Reality as expressed through natural law and wants to weaken and destroy the strong, not by his own strength but by subverting natural law because he himself cannot be strong.

      Another point: the Leftist does have a certain spiritual energy (of a negative kind) which cannot entirely be defeated or destroyed using intellect alone. Any opposition to adharma has to derive strength from Dharma, and cannot rely on non-Dharmic means or intellect alone.”

  11. The Cominator says:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011460/Journalist-stages-rape-cure-PTSD-caused-Haitian-womans-real-sex-attack.html

    LOL here is a REAL redpill on women article. Roastie journalist sees rape, can’t suppress her urge to be violently raped… her fellow woman therapist agrees that being violently raped is really hot and she should make it happen.

    But it was caused by “trauma” from witnessing it.

    • The Cominator says:

      Wait headline is wrong she didn’t even witness the “rape” she just met someone (the dark part is the woman she met actually got mutilated)…

      The headline story was better but its still good…

    • G.T. Chesterton says:

      Not pinpointing you, but i never understand why people on alt sites post links with faceberg trackers. Happens everywhere. Especially odd is seeing twitter trackers on links at gab. You’d think those guys would autostrip them out.

  12. Red says:

    On asperating the clotshot: Data from Norway and Demark is in. Clotshot in Norway without asperation has around 1 case of myocarditis per 33k. In Demark with asperation 1 in 14k. Asperation cuts down the risk bad heart inflammation by 2.5x. The root of the problem is still the spike proteins from COVID damaging your system. In most people they eventually hit the blood stream and fuck you up but the quantities are certainty lower if they miss a blood vessel and most people probably recover from it. Though it seems likely that athletics will aggravate the damage unless the time is taken to let body heal from the damage.

    • Red says:

      Grr, reverse those numbers. Demark 1 in 33k. Norway(no asperation) 1 in 14k.

    • Prince Charming says:

      If the numbers were so vanishingly low, we would not be seeing footballers keeling over on live TV.

  13. The Ducking Man says:

    Hi Jim, sorry for posting another off-topic, but I need advice from someone who experience on this forum.

    What is the recommended dose of testosterone for (1) inhibit procreation and (2) therapeutic (non-sport) use?.

    I plan to have my wife free of birth control because even without it she already have difficulty managing weight and hormone level. Somewhere along in this forum I read that THT in male is damn good birth control so I’m thinking “why not?”.

    I am now 27 y.o., generally healthy with good BMI, but below average athleticism. I don’t plan to increase athleticism. This purely therapeutic and birth control.

    If you can share specific brand and it’s doses that also would be very helpful.

    • Red says:

      Wouldn’t you be better off telling your wife to lose weight or knocking her up? Bitches seem to have no issues losing weight when they’ve decided to hunt for a new man or want to be attractive to men who won’t fuck fat chicks.

      As far as test goes, there’s a small chance of losing your ability to have children altogether from it. I’m the told the odds are low, but it’s a possibility.

      • The Ducking Man says:

        Her gaining weight was coupled with erratic period and mood swing is what suggests me she has hormone issue.

        Thanks for the heads up, I should be more cautious on this.

    • jim says:

      Hard to answer, because the official truth is that there is no male contraceptive, and so they are in denial and full of lies, but it does not take all that much additional testosterone to knock your sperm count to zero.

      However it takes several months for it to fall to zero (hence cylcing. If you cycle right, your sperm count is only moderately depressed.) But quite moderate steady usage, zero.

      And if you go for too long at moderately steady usage, permanently zero, so don’t do that.

      But as I said, every doctor is cowering in fear of this usage.

      • Tityrus says:

        Why would they be afraid of male contraceptives?

        • jim says:

          Oh, they are working hard on male contraceptives, looking for some variant of testosterone that has the contraceptive effect, but not the masculinizing effect.

    • Aidan says:

      Don’t be a fag, knock her up.

  14. ExileStyle says:

    So EU seems poised to approve Novavax, which a “subunit vaccine” and thus allegedly more traditional. Does anyone know anything about it, or its technology? Any thoughts generally?

    https://www.nzz.ch/international/coronavirus-weltweit-die-neusten-entwicklungen-ld.1534367

    • Fireball says:

      I believe it is a reliable and safe technology used in children vaccines. If the EU isnt feeling to bloodthirsty it is a way to keep boosters and passports forever without slowly fucking up the entire population.

    • Varna says:

      Russia came out swinging at the very start with three vaccines: a vector clotshot (Sputnik), a trad vax Chinese style (KoviVac), and a subunit “mild clotshot” (EpiVac).

      EpiVac was aggressively marketed to seniors as having mild side-effects. Today the scene has changes: everyone gets Sputnik for free, fat cats with connections pay out of pocket for the trad KoviVac, and EpiVac the subunit “benign clotshot” has been quietly shelves and isn’t talked about anymore. Especially after one whole family (mom+dad+grandma) dropped dead at the same time after getting it.
      https://ngs.ru/text/health/2021/08/03/70058306/

      The official response was not what you think safe and effective factckecked and debunked, but nevertheless this was the last straw after which EpiVac sort of faded away and is not talked about anymore. Now instead of three vaccines there’s just two: the free for all Sputnik clotshot, and the out of pocket trad KoviVac.

      EpiVac is still, however, used in Turkmenistan, where it is mandatory.
      Iran made its own subunit clotshot, called COVAX-19/, and a second one, Razi Cov Pars

      India has COVOVAX, which is a clone of Novavax, just like Covishield is a clone of Astra Zeneca. India is the world’s producer of cheap farma, so now they’re learned to twist the arms of overseas clients China-style and get to clone everything.

      Taiwan’s vaccine is also the subunit Medigen

      Cuba’s shots are also subunit, Soberana and CIGB, the latter being also used in the allied nations of Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Vietnam.

      China uses 4 types of trad vaxes for civilians, the vector clot shot (CanSino) for the army, and a subunit shot Anhui, used manly by Uzbekistan and Indonesia.

      So not, the subunit is not ‘more traditional’, it is still in the ‘artificial spike protein pieces’ clot shot family, midway between the true clotshot and the trad vax. It just uses bits and pieces of the alleged spike protein, which in theory is enough to teach the body to react, without introducing an actual spike protein.

      It is supposed to have more benign side-effects at least initially, but the Russians are now pretending this was never a thing. Whereas Taiwan, Iran, Cuba, are proudly using their own versions on themselves, and India and China are exporting their own (or in India’s case, cloned) versions.

      Maybe it works if you don’t fuck up during manufacturing and then during transportation and storage, and this can’t be done across the endless tundra of Russia, but can be done across smaller distances like Taiwan or Cuba. Although if China is exporting it to Indonesia and Uzbekistan, maybe it’s just a question of being tech that needs to be handled by non-drunken non-Ivans, whereas the cruder Spunik clotshot can be whipped up by any random Tajik immigrant.

      Bottom line. If no choice:
      1) Take a trad shot
      2) If no trad shot–take the subunit shot
      3) If not subunit shot–take a single-shot clotshot like Janssen or Sputnik Lite
      4) If not single-shot–a double dose clotshot
      5) If not double dose clotshot–an RNA serum

      Once you go into clotshot and RNA serum territory–prepare a 90-year old man routine. Be a lazy vegetable a few days prior, and then a lazy vegetable for at least a month afterward, as the people dropping with heart attacks and stokes after the shot appear to be clustering in sports and gyms and pilot-like professions. No physical stress whatsoever. Let the spikes circulate slowly and they will with some luck do less damage than at full speed.

      Also aspiring and sheit.

      And don’t get on the booster ride. If you get the shot once, to get the system off your back for a while–use this breathing space to plan how to not get sucked into the booster ride. On the booster ride all bets are off.

      • India also has homegrown Covaxin a traditional vaccine. I’ve been resisting vaccination so far – mostly pressure is from family. If inevitable I’ll take the trad shot.

        • someDude says:

          There has got to be a way to get our names on the database without taking the shot. In a country where everything is fake and everything is on sale, it is strange to “have” to take the shot.

          I haven’t taken the shot yet nor do I have a cert, but I am actively looking and it seems strangely difficult. I think we need a friend of a relative in or a friend of a friend in the database entry department.

          • Karl says:

            Strange indeed, considering that the risk of detection is very low. What punishments are threatened by the government?

          • The Cominator says:

            In India it can’t cost that much to have the nurse throw the shot in the trash can it?

            • Karl says:

              It can, if the punishment is severe enough.

              Where I live, any waiter in restaurant who doesn’t know you checks your vaccination documents because you might be a police officer who will fine him for not checking

            • someDude says:

              That’s exactly what I would have thought. I have never heard of anyone who has done that. This, in a place where I know people who can get you fake Educational certificates, fake land records, fake property deeds, fake compliance certificates, mobile sims without giving them your UID … you name it. Yet, I strangely do not know anyone who can get me a Covid cert without vaxxing.

              I, and another colleague at work have been trying all our contacts and coming up blank. Even he is perplexed at this state of affairs. Even asking this question (do you know anyone who can get us on the national database without the shot) of friendly strangers one has just met in a train or bus evokes accusing glances from people who happen to be overhearing or sitting close by.

              No one will bat an eyelid if I ask where to get fake Edu certificates or how to contact an agency where they can do a student’s final year project, mind you! Strangest blood thing I have witnessed. Maybe people in this country really believe this Covid nonsense.

              • There is a lot of people especially in the cities/elite class who believe in it. Outside of cities you can hardly find any masks.

                I have staunchly refused vaccination so far. There is growing pressure from family to get it.

                If push comes to the shove do you object to Covaxin? I believe Jim has also agreed that traditional vaxxes should be safe or at least much safer than the clot shots.

                • someDude says:

                  As a practising Engineer, I firmly believe in “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. I haven’t fallen ill for a single day since March 2020. Clearly I have natural immunity. Why would I do something that is not required? I don’t change working designs just for the heck of it. Why would I do something unnecessary on a working design (my bodily immunity) far more complex than any engineering device I ever worked on?

                  I’ve got the fake certs. Now lets get on the national database. The only advantage of being in India is that the Government is too incompetent to make push come to shove and everyone knows it including the stray dogs and the neighborhood cat. I’m sure I can get on the database, just need to devote more time to figure it out.

                • someDude says:

                  Just get a fake cert and tell your family you’ve got the vaxx and show them that fake cert to prove it.

                  Don’t fight unnecessary battles.

                  Don’t try to wake up a person pretending to be asleep

                  Dont reason with people who don’t have that faculty. Just lie to them. That satisfies them

                • Karl says:

                  If you have got fake certs, why don’t you walk up to whatever offical place that puts names in the database and present your fake certs for registration?

                  If the cert looks good, how could the clerk entering your name into the database find out is fake?

                • At least Indian doctors are not follow the cathedral line on omicron and admitting that it’s mild and cold like.

                  https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/omicron-symptoms-mild-mostly-cold-like-doctors/articleshow/88399416.cms

                • someDude says:

                  @Karl

                  Good question. They way it works in India, is you first get the Jab, then your name gets entered into the national database and you are given a Login/ID. Then you use those credentials to log in and download the Cert.

                  So you can’t go up to the clerk and ask for an entry into the national database based on your cert. If he does not find your name on the national database, he will assume that your cert is fake because of course he will and you will have to bribe him just for not calling in the Cops.

                  I think the more expensive hospitals in India that are offering the mRNA based vaccines might be an option for getting on the national database for a hefty Fee without the jab, wink wink nudge nudge. I’ll take that option should push come to shove.

                  Now I know there was a time when people were getting the mark of the beast without getting on the database. Now suppose I could get a fake cert dated to that date and walked into the office and asked for an entry into the database?

                  Thanks Karl, You Genius!

                • Karl says:

                  @someDude

                  The idea of a national database into which entries are made whenever anyone is vaccinated by the person doing the vaccination is considered in Germany as well. It really makes fakes somewhat harder.

                  However, there will always be exceptions to the rule of entering at the time of vaccination. You mentioned the fact that some vaccinations were made before the database was created. So there must be a way to enter old certifications.

                  Moreover, people might receive a vaccination in a foreign land. Instead of forging a certification of their home country, people might forge a certification of a foreign country. When they present such certification for entry into a national database, they simply say they were travelling and received a vaccination abroad.

                  What can a data entry clerk do? Ask her supervisor whether the foreign cert is real? Call the police because she suspects it is fake? What can the police do? Investigate whether some physician in Pakistan or Bangladesh really gave you a vaccination? If the police has no easy way to prove that the certification is wrong, they’ll give up.

                • someDude says:

                  @Karl

                  Thanks for this idea #2. That said, You will find the Bureaucracy always tends towards inaction. So if you bring in a cert from a foreign land during your travels abroad and if the clerk does not know the rules, he will simply refuse to enter your name into the database or will enter it for a bribe. But at least the fraud is not obvious. And you won’t get arrested.

                  My problem is if they ask to see the stamps of the foreign country where I supposedly got my Vaxx on my passport. I really haven’t travelled abroad since this Kayfabe (Gayfake) started and have no plans to till this madness dies down, which well might be never. The sheer incompetence and corruption of the Indian state gives any man with a three digit IQ plenty of breathing space.

            • somedude says:

              I must clarify. Getting the fake covid cert that looks real enough is easy. Getting your name on the national database as having taken the shot without actually having the taken shot seems to be perplexingly difficult. It’s the name on the database we are looking for

        • someDude says:

          I’ve told my family and friends and everyone who will hear that I’ve taken the shot. Strange that they are so insistent on the shot given that within the family, a relative was recently hospitalized in seruious condition with the virus in spite of having taken the shot. God, what Theatre!

          • Varna says:

            Friends and family can be a very strong source of immediate social pressure, so diffusing this in one way or another can help a lot, at least in the short term. Cuts the pressure by half at least, leaving only the media and the state.

  15. Pooch says:

    Welp and here I thought the holiness spiral was losing steam. 2022 is setting up to be fun…

    https://twitter.com/echo_chamberz/status/1472828155194789893?s=20

    • The Cominator says:

      There are contradictory reports about what the senile retard plans to announce.

      The sane option, we must learn to live with coronavirus – I find this unlikely, Biden only does sane things when foreign governments bribe him to (ie the Russian pipeline) and he doesn’t think he has to worry about how unpopular this will be

      The insane option, tripling down on stupid – Lockdowns travel restrictions mayber camps etc.

    • Fireball says:

      To stop would mean defeat there is only the way forward.

    • Starman says:

      @Pooch

      Tim Woods is a fictional character from the 24 TV series.

  16. The Cominator says:

    RE speaking of diversity…

    Think I saw three of Biden’s fly in illegals when I was out in Florida last night. These did not seem like Florida spics with one sort of speaking English and having the barrio menance looks about them…

    Our spics tend to seem whitish and civilized, hopefully I don’t start seeing more.

    • jim says:

      The plan is to fly in six hundred million of them over the next eighteen years. I am not making this up. They are not saying, or even thinking, the specific number six hundred million but their plans are enormous, and if their plans come to fruition and are implemented successfully and continued for two decades, it is around six hundred million. They are getting in a lot, and think it not nearly enough.

      • G.T. Chesterton says:

        This reminds me of a Soviet quote, when asked why they have a bio weapons program, since they already had nukes. (paraphrased) A billion Chinese want to take our land. Is impossible to make enough bullets.

  17. A2 says:

    By the way, it looks like it’s time for Chile to fire up their helicopters again.

    • Fireball says:

      Gabriel Boric Font

      -Involved in high school politics
      -President of a student organization
      -Leader of student protests
      -Law student
      -The name of the party is Izquierda Autónoma

      Considering the general international situation i am betting on Chile starving really fast.

  18. G.T. Chesterton says:

    Cops have Christmas party at a bar. Lieutenant sitting in chair minding his own business, when all of a sudden twats ring out. Rookie copchick gives lieutenant lap dance, lieutenant kicked out of his job while the holocaust is being investigated.

    Not only can the CEO no longer fuck his secretary, he now gets fired if she bends over to pick up a pen and begs him to look.

    https://nypost.com/2021/12/19/nypd-rookie-gives-boss-lap-dance-at-wild-holiday-party/

    Quotes from the article say how the boss “f-ked up”, and the chick “doesn’t know any better because she just came on the job.” Pun probably unintended. Photos reveal the guilty spectator’s face, but blurred out the innocent instigator.

    • The Cominator says:

      Its stupid but regime tranny jannies are not our concern.

      • someDude says:

        Absolutely! Every event that reduces their cohesion within is worthy of Cheer. Let those bastards f*** each other over.

      • jim says:

        That is your flaw. The psychology of regime tranny jannies is our concern. Know your enemy, know yourself.

        I just added the blog “Founding Questions” to the sidebar, because it is a deep investigation of our enemy’s psychology.

        Though female psychology is of more immediate practical importance, and will remain of great practical importance even after victory, while enemy psychology will vanish like dew beneath the sunlight.

        • The Cominator says:

          Them undermining the morale of their enforcers like this is a good thing.

        • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

          This is easily understood. Women are perfect angels who can do no wrong, unless evil white male mind control rays make them misbehave. There was clearly a misbehaving woman, so you must find the source of the evil male mind control rays. The lieutenant was giving them off, because he had status in the police chain of command and was receiving the misbehavior. This is a evil white male cop, so if he emits evil mind control rays to make a woman give him a lapdance, probably also emitting them to make blacks drop out of school, smoke crack, and commit crimes. Better can his ass.

          From our perspective it is just as easy. They put a fertile age female around a male with female preselection and a dominant role in the local social hierarchy, and put her in a subservient position relative to him. Then they had a party where they could let their hair down. Anyone could see where this was going. A tale as old as time.

        • simplyconnected says:

          Jim wrote:

          I just added the blog “Founding Questions” to the sidebar

          “Founding Questions” wrote:

          Nonetheless, I know something crucial about spies, spymasters, and other assorted intelligence professionals, based solely on historical observation: They’re nerds. […] Strip out the identifying details, and you’d be very hard pressed to distinguish “a major intelligence operation” from “a really intense game of Magic: The Gathering.”

          At the very least he’s pretty funny.

          • simplyconnected says:

            “Founding Questions”.
            This is terrific stuff.

            • Karl says:

              Indeed. I wonder how Jim finds such gems as “Founding Questions”

              • simplyconnected says:

                His post on learned helplessness is, I think, spot on.
                Sadly, the fact that they will learn nothing seems true too.

              • It was linked from another blog on Jim’s blog roll.

                I read some of the stuff. Very good and uniquely rambling writing style. Also Uses entertaining code language to avoid the Eye of Sauron.

              • The Cominator says:

                They will learn nothing seems to justify my pov on the shitlib question…

                • simplyconnected says:

                  He claims progs’ brains are broken so they don’t learn, just blindly follow doctrine. Once the doctrine changes they may simply switch over, since they don’t have a problem contradicting what they thought last week (chocolate ration was 30 grams last week but they don’t remember now that this week the great leader raised it to 20).

          • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

            It’s true too, i’ve observed much the same myself in the past.

            At a base level, there is a certain kind of mindset that finds an atavistic attraction to the idea of ‘secret action’, broadly construed; and that is people who find the idea of personally, or openly, or directly dealing with other people to be a daunting proposition. Hence one finds a disproportionate selection of such types in the ‘intelligence community’.

            And thus, to avoid dealing with people, which they perceive as messy and complicated, they concatenate even more messy and complicated machinations to give effect through more discursive means to their desire for control – which they feel no less keenly; indeed, so much more so even.

            • Aidan says:

              Indeed. Would be interesting to hear some fantasies of violence from commenters here to pinpoint what kind of man they are.

              • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                What kind of fantasies of violence do you mean? What kind of violence we see ourselves committing when we imagine a fight? That sort of thing, or something else?

                • Aidan says:

                  Large-scale violence, violence against our enemy on a societal level. We can pray for Caesar, but I’m sure we all imagine scenarios in which the forces of good and evil have to fight it out. I’m recalling TC’s desire to ‘relocate’ leftists, and it seems relevant to the ‘nerd’ theory of secret operation and institutional action.

                • The Cominator says:

                  There is someone here I strongly suspect is a former corona Karen under a new name…

                • Kunning Drueger says:

                  Most here are nerd-spook types. If we did a Jim Blog camping trip, our style ;), I feel confident in saying at least half would fall out before we got halfway. I’ve found that the more grandiose the violent fantasy, the less likely there’s any real capacity for Hard Work. It’s the same with Leftists: the ones that fantasize about camps are the ones who are utter failures at physical anything.

                • jim says:

                  I am a nerd, but I have done quite a lot of personal violence, which the Cominator quite obviously has not, and have a few times wandered long distances in wild country, sometimes without food for long periods (the no food part was not intentional).

                  When I was cruising for chicks, I had broad shoulders and powerful muscles, and for part of that time, reasonably small pants. But lately, settling down happily to domesticity, I have allowed myself to lose considerable muscle mass. Still wearing reasonably small pants, but though my pants size has not increased, my shirt size has decreased considerably.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  Some day – God willing – Jim will be able to shed anonymity from a position of strength. On that happy day, he shall be so kind as to share photographic evidence of this rock phase he speaks of, for our merriment and undoubted amusement.

              • jim says:

                This morning, before I woke up, I had a dream. In the dream I was my teenage self, not yet fully grown, and a really big man proceeded to beat me up and humiliate me. I could not do much about it. I retreated, or got away, and then I heard my Dad calling for help. I rushed over to find the really big man attacking him, and because the attacker failed to focus on me, I was able to attack him from the side. I got the attacker in a strangle hold and cut off the blood flow to his brain. After a bit he stopped struggling and collapsed, taking me to the ground with him. I continued the strangle hold, then I woke up.

              • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                Mine are either tossing a chemical bomb into some regime building and me and the boys gunning down anyone who escapes, or ambushing a tactical team that comes to my house and executing the survivors on a livestream. Those are the two main themes.

              • HerbR says:

                I only have the very visceral fantasies of pummeling them with fists, or a bat or some other blunt object.

                It doesn’t scale up, obviously, but it’s hands-on. I mean, literally. And there’s always a chance you get to hear them beg for mercy and promise to change their ways (which you should never believe).

                No idea what kind of man that makes me. Probably would say a common thug, but fantasies are fantasies because they ain’t real. Still, I feel that nothing beats a direct confrontation, assuming the enemy gives you that chance.

              • Kunning Drueger says:

                My dreams are running community checkpoints, checking in on core families and farms, staring down refugees, and pushing boundaries outward with leapfrog kibbutzes and fortified hamlets.

                My nightmares are guerilla ambushes, long distance destabilization attacks, alamo standoffs, and figuring out minimum KCal allocations.

                There’s a fantastic element to both, and I believe it demonstrates exactly the type of man I am: a subordinate leader (xo) focused on logistics & supply and regional security, which translates quite well to cell leader. The former is optimistic, the latter is pessimistic. I never really fantasize positively about fighting because I’m always terrified of running out of food, water, ammo, and defensive depth.

              • Anonymous says:

                Beating up some niggers.

              • alf says:

                This morning I dreamt that I had plastered a wall but it was all wrong.

                Can’t even remember my last violent fantasy… Years ago I had a dream in which I killed a hord of zombies with an automatic rifle.

              • Arqiduka says:

                I sometimes dream of maning the neighbourhood watch in a situation of no rule of law, overwatch positions, budies, all of that. Entirely irrelevant to my actual situation on so many levels, but some fun to think about. When fancy realy strikes, a roaming guerilla band establishing a bare-bones govt as we go.

              • someDude says:

                Mine is me and my Platoon getting into an urban gunfight with the Regime apparatchiks and taking down 50 of them for every one we lose

              • Neurotoxin says:

                My violent fantasies are varied in that some of them are personal, up-close physical violence and some of them are impersonal, distant.

                But they’re mostly directed at the liars of the Empire of Lies we live in.

                E.g., some of the impersonal fantasies involve the headquarters of certain media outlets and a looooot of explosives.

                We could totally win this war in a couple of years if we could just shut down the fucking lying.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I wouldn’t fantasize about boom devices… boom devices have collateral damage and are impersonal.

                  I’d like to personally minecraft delete them with my minecraft acme projectile shooting device… I imagine it would feel like God himself was pulling the trigg#r and that I was just an instrument of pure righteousness…

                • Neurotoxin says:

                  “I wouldn’t fantasize about boom devices… boom devices have collateral damage…”

                  What?

                  What?!

                  Did the Cominator, of all people, just fret about collateral damage?!

                  Comie, you ol’ softie! 🙂

                  I also have the fantasies involving hand-held kinetic energy weapons.

                  As to the indiscriminate approach: Well, they’re just fantasies. But.

                  We are at war with people who plainly intend to genocide us.

                  This is no age for saints.

                • alf says:

                  Sooo @neurotoxin you’re back commenting? I mean, by all means, welcome back. But you realize we are still saying horrible things about women.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’ve always wanted to spare innocent people while showing absolutely no mercy to guilty people…

                  And in my view leftists are all guilty no matter how low their rank.

                • Neurotoxin says:

                  “Sooo @neurotoxin you’re back commenting?”

                  I have self-control issues, it seems.

                  “I mean, by all means, welcome back. But you realize we are still saying horrible things about women.”

                  I’m pretty sure you’re being sarcastic, but: I love this place. Five years ago, if someone had told me there’s a place on the Net where I wouldn’t be the most red-pilled commenter, I’d have been like, “Oh shush, not possible.” Yet here we are.

                • alf says:

                  Well fair enough good to have you back.

                • Kunning Drueger says:

                  Who are the regulars of ~5 years who haven’t ragequit, renounced, or sabbaticaled? This place is a lot like what /b/ once was: if you ever truly get here, you can’t really leave.

                • Neurotoxin says:

                  @ Alf: Thanks homes.

                  @ Kunning: “if you ever truly get here, you can’t really leave.”

                  Yeah, this place is like freakin’ Hotel California in that regard.

                • alf says:

                  Who are the regulars of ~5 years who haven’t ragequit, renounced, or sabbaticaled?

                  Browsing through the comment section this time five years ago, it’s a completely different vibe. Contaminated NEET and PC stick out as long-time regulars. I also see Karl, Grumpus, Oliver Cromwell, Cloudswrest, and apparently also arqiduka. Also more I’m surely missing. For instance I see ‘red’ commenting over ten years ago, not sure if the same red as commenting now, but that makes him senior commenter over me by at least a few years.

                  It’s fun to think of how this place changed over time. I’d say very roughly there’s been three periods. Ok, four.
                  period 0 — Starting out. Good content, very few comments.
                  period I — ye old NRx sphere cross fertility. Quality comments, many commenters with their own blog links.
                  period 2 — NRx is over its top and its commenters disappear. But, Jim gets his own regulars. Quality varies.
                  period 3 — Jim’s reputation grows, and especially in the Trump and post-Trump era, comment section explodes. Quality control has gone up.

                  Who knows what the future has in store.

                  if you ever truly get here, you can’t really leave.

                  Ha, yes.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  Lol, 5 years ago? Maybe some isolated off-hand comment, but I struggle to remember that far back.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  I am curious about how many left and came back with a different username. How many of us would be recognized if we went back to our old nomme de guerres?

              • ten says:

                I used to dream about needing to fight but lacking strength, or needing to run but lacking fatigue. At that time i certainly lacked neither, and fought regularly at a martial arts club as well as occasionally on da streetz. After having a dream where i needed to fight my dad, and i ripped him to gory shreds, i never had those dreams again, and when i have had some dream where violence is going on, they all end in animalistic rain of blood and limbs.

          • Jehu says:

            I’ve met a fair number of NSA types in my day, and that characterization of them is pretty accurate. I’ve NOT met CIA types in general, so I can’t comment usefully on them.

    • Tityrus says:

      “To be honest with you, at a family restaurant, that shouldn’t be happening,’’ said a customer who only gave his first name, Elias. “But what can you do?”

      Blue-pilled men treat female misbehavior as a fact of life that must be endured, like death, taxes, and the weather. “What can you do?”

      • bomag says:

        What I see as blue-pilled men are the guys who send their daughters to lap dance school, along with tranny and lesbian school.

        Hands-in-the-air guy still has hope that a leader will emerge and stop the spiral.

        • HerbR says:

          You’re confusing blue-pilled with woke. Most men are blue-pilled, only a tiny fraction buy into Stunning and Brave.

          Unless what you actually mean by “lap dance school” and “tranny and lesbian school” is just college, period, and in that case you’re correct. But sending them to get a degree in chemistry or engineering is just as blue-pilled as sending them to queer studies.

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      Some years ago, the head of a national fraternity once wrote an article for their house magazine, wherein he gave advice to the young men in school on how to positively handle one of the most dangerous threats to their academic career – house parties – and in particular how to handle the most dangerous component of house parties – female coeds. Such as, making sure they don’t arrive to a fraternity house early, making sure they don’t stay late, sending then home if they look drunk, intoxicated, or indeed for any trouble at all, and so on.

      With each dab of colour that came together to paint outlines of life, the implication that arose was that just being in the vicinity of women was inherently dangerous for a male student’s continued stay at university, and indeed for his life prospects in general, and great care needed to be taken to modulate the possibility of such encounters.

      Or in other words, plain simple common sense from an otherwise ordinary man who, though not possessed of world-historical consciousness, merely observed happenings around him with a clear eye. Naturally, this became something of a minor cause celibre that rippled across the internet, with tastemakers from all the usual rags lining up to point and sputter.

      Because, you see, you are supposed to follow the rules, but you are not supposed to acknowledge them. Descriptions of the circular firing squad weakens it’s power. The official reality is that a female student cannot take two steps outside her dorm without being accosted by gangs of tall, phenotypically aryan varsity starters on degree tracks in [elite membership badge] – which we must say many are quite upset by not getting – which you must be seen to acknowledge, even as you try to square it with the reality where that official reality is a social weapon of mass destruction to sends terrified men running to the hills left and right, which you must not be seen to acknowledge, even though the logical conclusions the purveyor’s own prescriptions for the former lead naturally to the latter, in any case.

      The only thing that replaces a supremacism is another supremacism.

      • Thales says:

        q.v. The Billy Graham Rule/Mike Pence Rule.

      • Neurotoxin says:

        I suspect traditional restrictions on inter-sexual associating were more to protect men from baseless accusations of sexual bad behavior, as they were to protect women from actual bad behavior.

        Thales mentions the Mike Pence Rule, and you also see this with men in the business world and academia increasingly saying they’re reluctant to mentor female employees/students.

  19. […] Jim notes the expected date on which the pretence of democracy ends. […]

  20. Arqiduka says:

    I’d humbly advise Jim to make a post re the nazis being left, if he’s still interested in the argument (looks like he may not be anymore though)

    I was and still remain of the opinion that they were rightists, and far, far too much is being made here of their supposed socialism, where various posters consider deficitary spending, foreign exchnage controls, rationing and control of big business socialist. You know, like Nixon lol. I’ll read up a bit more on the economics of those years and come back prepared on the argument.

    • The Cominator says:

      Nazi autarkhic socialism in preparation for total war may be excusable…

      Nazi socialism as a fundamental end goal (which Hitler talked about) and retarded inefficient socialism in agriculture is not excusable and puts them on the left.

      You can’t be right wing and favor a planned economy in the long term, it grossly violates the freehold principle.

    • It’s more than economic socialism. Nazis were egalitarian in social outlook with exception provided for Jews and inferior races. Also purple pilled on women. They hated aristocracy and monarchy and any natural order of society.

      Also a lot of Nazism looked like communist state: secret police, increased centralized security forces, killing fields.

      You’re falling for the Harvard and cathedral definition of left and right wing.

    • jim says:

      It depends on the kind of socialism.

      “Vote for me and you can take other people’s stuff” is the very essence of leftism and the core and essence of Hitler’s program. See Shakespeare’s parody of the eternal leftist, Jack Cade. It has been centuries, and they have not changed in the slightest.

      Unfortunately the elite had been busy robbing people with funny money, an activity that undermined popular support for property rights. The kind of people who would ordinarily shoot socialists were now feeling sympathetic socialism, having been hard done by the elite. The same thing may well happen in America if hyperinflation hits, as is looking likely.

      If, on the other hand, Ghengis Kahn tells his army to loot and burn a city and kill anyone that does not look useful as a slave, it is right wing socialism, and will lose the long term benefits of conquest. But it may well be sound to forgo the chance of a reliable tax base and good logistics to ensure one does not have enemies at one’s back.

      • The Cominator says:

        I think its when socialism is a utopian end in itself that it becomes unforgivably leftist.

        I would certainly promise that the priesthoods houses property and daughters would be distributed to people on our side after they were “resettled”.

        • Red says:

          The losers in a war generally lose their shit to the victorious side and our warriors must be rewarded. Though we shouldn’t take what was gained through useful labor. Looting the Jews in Nazi Germany only harmed the Germans.

          Women in general should be a socialized good were every man of property is given one and only one woman as his official wife. Letting the alpha, the rich and the powerful hog all women shouldn’t be allowed.

          • The Cominator says:

            The people on my purge list who ever did anything useful you can count on one hand.

            • Red says:

              Purge lists have a tendency to expand beyond the guilty to those who are merely rich enough to loot while pretending they belong on the list. It’s good to set hard limits.

        • Arqiduka says:

          I’ll check re agricultural policy, seems a promising lead.

          Obviously planned economy is left, but I see no signs of a planned economy AFAIK, indeed strong effort to resist setting up one. Mises tries mightily to make nazis look like soviets and fails in my eyes. He’d be a primary source, I reckon.

          • The Cominator says:

            “Obviously planned economy is left, but I see no signs of a planned economy”

            They literally had “The Office of the Four Year Plan” which was supposed to be better than the Soviet Five Year Plan.

            • Arqiduka says:

              I am ignorant of this office, will check out.

            • jim says:

              It scarcely matters.

              The Nazis are leftists because selling socialism, not because attempting to implement it.

              Central planning is invariably chaotic, so invariably devolves into something very like Ghengis Khan’s right socialism.

              The issue is, they are promising people who want to loot that looting is on the table. It is not what they actually did, for what socialists wind up doing is never what they thought they were going to do.

              If Hitler said, “Only looting foreigners. German capitalists we need, and they are going to be fine and keep on with business as usual”, then nazism would have been primarily nationalist, and only incidentally socialist. But that is not what he said, and not what he wound up doing. But what a movement actually wound up doing is irrelevant to whether a movement was left or right, since leftists never do what they thought they were going to do. Their theory (which was always merely an ad hoc rationalization for knocking over the applecart and grabbing some apples) gets abandoned for pure entropy, and entropy is formless and predictable only in that it can be predicted to be unpredictable.

      • Tityrus says:

        Jim, what do you mean when you say that the Nazis derive from “the radical Lutherans that Luther helped crush”? Are you talking about the Anabaptists?

      • Arqiduka says:

        Perceptive as always, you mention the distinction that matters. I strongly suspect the former situation, judging by analogy to what I see nowadays and the hollowing out of libertarianism.

        As I said, Hitler had the support to go much further left than he did in the ’30 and declined to, so seems like right-wing reaction with a severe entyism problem. But I’ll read up some more re econ.

        • Kunning Drueger says:

          “Could have gone lefter but didn’t” is your qualification for what is Right… I may be a midwit, but that’s fucking retarded.

          • Arqiduka says:

            It is would be retarded, thankfully also not what I said.

            My standard of right is the middle vs the alliance of high and low, nothing to do with policy, economic or otherwise. The point you reference was made to drive forward my idea of nazis as rightwinger with a severe entryism problem, not to prove them being right-wing.

            • The Cominator says:

              “My standard of right is the middle vs the alliance of high and low”

              That is stupid. The right stands for eternal truth and natural law…

              The left promises to immanentize the eschaton generally by knocking over apple but ends up bringing about hell on earth.

              • Arqiduka says:

                Lol, went from retarded to just stupid.

                Watch me make my way in the world boys

                • HerbR says:

                  It is stupid, though. I don’t know what instigated this recent zerg-rush of “here’s what I think left/right really means” comments, but I wish it would stop.

                  We know the Jouvenelian model. And we know the cladistic model, the social-network model, the antinomian model, the revolutionary/regicidal model, the economic model, the R/K model, the status-maximizing model, the warrior-priest model, the game-theoretical model, and the thermodynamic model, and that’s just off the top of my head. It’s been done. We don’t need remedial classes by people who appear to be freshies themselves.

                  The usually good and insightful discussion that happens here is all of a sudden being drowned out by recycled alt-lite debates which weren’t that interesting in the first place. Let’s reverse the trend.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  Surely even you would agree that when challenged to explain whether I think this or that is right I would explain myself. Or should I rather decline to answer a straighforward question lest I offend those who disagree?

                • The Cominator says:

                  The definition of leftist is important and I haven’t really seen it defined to my satisfaction ever…

                  In fact if you can list all those models (I’m familiar with SOME but not others) it would be good.

                • jim says:

                  I have one model that explains them all.

                  Leftism, as a broad group with many conflicting factions that nonetheless coordinates and cooperates effectively, is the group that is continuously cooperating and coordinating to take other people’s power, money and status, without regard for how those people earned their money and status, and pursuing power without regard for the mandate of heaven, without regard for whether that power is being used judiciously to provide a safe and functional environment for everyone where everyone has the ability to pursue their own interests in positive sum ways.

                  Rightism does not want anyone to lose money and power and status to someone else, unless there is a good reason for it, a reason that is broadly accepted, and broadly accepted for good reasons – the logos. The rightist does not like instability, and does not like unstable power. The leftist is always coming up with “good” reasons.

                • HerbR says:

                  I’m surprised, because I thought all of those models had been covered to some degree on this blog. But if commenters who’ve been around much longer than I have aren’t familiar with them, then I guess I’m mistaken.

                  To avoid an insanely long rambling post, I’m just going to write one sentence on each:
                  – De Jouvenel AKA HLvM: Elites weaponizing underclass (collectively “left”) against middle class (“right”).
                  – Cladistic: Leftist ideologies all share common memes and derive from common ancestor(s).
                  – Social-network: Leftism inferred from personal/institutional ties, parties attended, etc.
                  – Antinomian: Christian definition, elevating “divine grace” over established law, usually to describe Puritan/Quaker movements.
                  – Revolutionary: Actual etymology of “Left/Right”, the revolutionaries vs. royalists – more generally, hatred of non “consensual” authority.
                  – Economic: Leftism as destruction/”redistribution” of capital, rightism as capital creation.
                  – R/K: Leftism/rightism as manifestations of different reproductive strategies (r and K, like rabbit vs. wolf).
                  – Status-maximizing: Leftists as “sociopathic status maximizers”, best to just google it.
                  – Warrior/priest: Jim Lite, leftism as priestly rule, rightism as warrior rule.
                  – Game-theoretical: Leftism as defect/defect, rightism as cooperate/cooperate.
                  – Thermodynamic: Leftism as social entropy, that which creates disorder and regresses us to a more primitive state without constant energy input.

                  But this list isn’t supposed to be a “pick any one you want” buffet, the reason the list exists is that all of the models have some predictive power (some more so than others) and none of them are complete. Because leftism has no essence. You could no sooner come up with a definition of leftism that is neat and tidy and accurate than you could make Communism work in practice.

                • jim says:

                  Good answer.

                  My answer was intended as a generalization of the common element of each of these excellent answers, the commonality in all of them, not intended to contradict any of them.

                  The R/K model lacks predictive power in the short term, and fitting it to current events is driving its author insane, but it has considerable power in describing the long term cycle of races and civilizations.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  Leftism is basically cancer in the national organism.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  Hey HerbR, you neglected to tell us which of those are stupid, come on don’t leave us hanging.

                • jim says:

                  All of those definitions are excellent, none of them are stupid, except that R/K definition lacks short term and current events predictive power, and attempting to over apply it will drive you mad.

                • HerbR says:

                  I have no problem with the definition Jim just posted either, of course. Certainly much better than the freshie definitions polluting the comments over the last few days. The only caveat I’ll mention is that the definition itself relies a lot of subjective or hard-to-define terms (“power”, “status”, “coordinate”, “functional”, etc.), which, while I would expect most reasonable people such as us to broadly agree on their meaning, can still become exploitable weak points for entryists over a long enough timeline. Wrongification of names is their signature move.

                  Some of the models, like cladistic and entropic, also rely on subjectivity and judgment. But others, like game-theoretical and r/K, do not, they are based in literal math or incontrovertible easily-observable phenomena. That is why one should not come to rely too heavily on a single model – if you suspect you’re in the presence of an entryist, can fall back on any of the other models to test the hypothesis. Fault-tolerant systems always have built-in redundancies.

                  P.S. WordPress’s aggressive indentation and full-text justification made my last post look like a lot more of a garbage heap than it really should have been. Sorry for that, don’t think there would have been any way to clean it up.

                • HerbR says:

                  Hey HerbR, you neglected to tell us which of those are stupid, come on don’t leave us hanging.

                  I’m not sure if you were aiming at humor or petulance there, but I’ll answer the question [again] anyway:

                  What’s stupid is becoming highly invested in one specific, narrow theory of what the political left or right means, and arguing for supremacy of that theory.

                  I do think HLvM has fairly low predictive power on the scale, mainly because it is more of a tactic than a trait, and modern progressivism is mostly a middle-class phenomenon. But it is still worth keeping in the toolkit as a means of checking whether some idea that made it past all the other filters is actually crypto-leftism. It’s not the idea that’s stupid, it’s the elevation of that idea above all others.

                  “Left” and “right” themselves are just shorthand anyway, like Cathedral or Globohomo. It’s not worth the ink to argue about whether X is left or right, only whether it is good ideas or bad ideas. Communism and Nazism were both big piles of bad ideas, Nazism having slightly fewer bad ideas.

                • HerbR says:

                  fitting it to current events is driving its author insane

                  Okay, one more effortpost and then I’m (hopefully) done.

                  I think that trying to fit any universal theory to both the history and present is liable to eventually drive its holder insane.

                  If you hold rigidly to the economic definition of leftism, you’re going to do be doing a lot of mental gymnastics if you want to maintain that Locke and the Libertarian Party are on the left – it’s really obvious when you drop the economic definition and use almost any of the others, but if you reject all the others, well then they’re “obviously” on the right.

                  Similarly if you’re engrossed with de Jouvenel, you’ll spend all year trying to explain away the creature known as SWPL. Exclusive to r/K, and the fertility rates alone will make no sense to you. Antinomianism explains progressivism really well but Marxism horribly. Even the game-theoretical model is imperfect as leftists are clearly capable of engaging in short-term cooperate-cooperate as long as they are cooperating with other leftists to take status or power away from those who naturally earned it.

                  The right-wing mind, maybe the human mind in general, is strongly inclined toward hierarchies and especially those with one entity at the top. But nature is a lot messier than that. There are species for which biologists still argue over which genus they belong to. Is Pluto a planet, or just an asteroid? Taxonomies always seem easy until you try to implement them, then they get real hard. Our taxonomies and hierarchies are imperfect because we are imperfect.

                  Instead of arguing over the One True Model ™, we could apply our intellect toward refining the models, understanding when and how they apply to different scenarios, like physicists do with Newtonian mechanics vs. general relativity vs. quantum mechanics. None of the models are wrong, they just have different uses, and attempts to create a useful uber-model continue to fail spectacularly.

                • jim says:

                  No one model fits, and yet not hard to recognize leftists from all over history.

                  I know them when I see them.

                • p says:

                  >and modern progressivism is mostly a middle-class phenomenon

                  People make a good argument that it’s rather a phenomenon of too many middle class people in elite occupations (due to everyone going to college etc.)

                • Kunning Drueger says:

                  Excellent Herb, thank you. I’m a broken record on this, but the last year of my life has forced me to accept that, within the confines of my chosen tribe, I’m a midwit. Within my social circles I am above average. Within my profession, I’m borderline polymath. The relative nature of my capacity to contribute in these varied environments has done a number on my self-esteem. Cry moar faggot, indeed. Emoblogpost is a caveat for stating that I am out of my depth here. I can keep up with most of the fellas, but reading is not comprehending. Herb, your QRD on those systems of analysis are immensely valuable to me. I’m pretty sure I could do what you did, but it would require gallons of spilled ink, turning signal to noise. While ensconced in this monastery of bits, it is important to maintain high barriers to entry, elevated discourse, and harsh repercussions for fed/tard/low effort posting. But at some point, we’re going to have to sally forth, and it would be wise to have double jacks, mallets, screw drivers, tweezers, and photolithographic… doodads, at our disposal. There is a value to stating the presumed obvious, because there’s no guarantee of high worthiness in the future recipients of the great and good work being done here. For any that might have missed it, St. John just posted a miniature essay that is quite simply brilliant (for me, could be very obvious for others). It will pingpong in my cavernous skull for a while, and over time more truths will reveal themselves. Such are the talents he possess. GNON’S wonders never cease. But your concise list has a power all its own (again, to me; others may find it pointlessly brief). I’m not going to ponder it, reread it, discuss it with my wife, etc. I’m going to save it, memorize the basics, and inject it into my rhetorical rhapsody immediately. Value exists in application, and the capacity to apply varies wildly.

                  So thank you, my nigger, even if it pained you to pen it.

                • yewotm8 says:

                  https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/66qjzr/well_well_fight_you_for_it/

                  Basically what Jim said, straight from the horse’s mouth.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  @HerbR,

                  Both humor and petulance, and am not done.

                  For my benefit, when a debate around the proper classification of a movement rages on, it is apparently stupid to take a side based on a simple model which can be falsified, is it so? Would the smart thing to do be to generally hold nazis of the right or left bases on no prior model, but switching implicit models in accordance with the ebb and flow of the conversation?

                  Not challenging the established fact of my stupidity, or the futility of the debate of course, but one always seeks improvement.

                • jim says:

                  Not seeing any of the models on which Nazis were right wing.

                  – De Jouvenel AKA HLvM: Elites weaponizing underclass (collectively “left”) against middle class (“right”).
                  Check. Peasants and impoverished former middle class promised the stuff of the middle class and the rich

                  – Cladistic: Leftist ideologies all share common memes and derive from common ancestor(s).
                  Immediate descent from volkish german movements and cross fertilization with fascist movements.

                  – Social-network: Leftism inferred from personal/institutional ties, parties attended, etc.
                  When Hitler was in charge of the National Socialist party, no such personal institutional ties, but loads of ex commies in the Nazi party, and before Hitler, lots of interleft links.
                  Moldbug argues that this shows the Nazis right wing, but I argue that all it shows is that the usual interleft internal quarrels turned as nasty as the often do.

                  – Antinomian: Christian definition, elevating “divine grace” over established law, usually to describe Puritan/Quaker movements.
                  Racial consciousness suspended all laws. Much as woke now suspends all laws.

                  – Revolutionary: Actual etymology of “Left/Right”, the revolutionaries vs. royalists – more generally, hatred of non “consensual” authority.
                  Revolutionary, they said it all the time.

                  – Economic: Leftism as destruction/”redistribution” of capital, rightism as capital creation.
                  Socialist

                  – R/K: Leftism/rightism as manifestations of different reproductive strategies (r and K, like rabbit vs. wolf).
                  Nazis were not much for marriage.

                  – Status-maximizing: Leftists as “sociopathic status maximizers”, best to just google it.
                  Inapplicable till Nazism became the state religion. Before, not true, after, totally applicable. Within the Nazi party we saw plenty of holiness spiraling, which of course rapidly worsened when goodies were on the table, among ordinary Germans, obvious status maximization.

                  – Warrior/priest: Jim Lite, leftism as priestly rule, rightism as warrior rule.
                  Hitler and the Nazis hated the aristocrats, and put the generals firmly under the thumb of the politically correct.

                  – Game-theoretical: Leftism as defect/defect, rightism as cooperate/cooperate.
                  Of Hitler and Stalin it is said that the most untrusting of men (Stalin) trusted the most untrustworthy of men (Hitler) The ideology of Nazism was that everyone should cooperate under state and leader, but Hitler went into alliance with Papen, which, as so regularly happens with radical left/moderate right alliances, wound up burning the moderate right.

                  – Thermodynamic: Leftism as social entropy, that which creates disorder and regresses us to a more primitive state without constant energy input.
                  Nazi socialism rapidly developed the usual disorder of socialism, which really bit them hard during the occupation of Greece and the invasion of Russia.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  HLvM is my go-to model, so I’ll only adress that part of you post. All of the below is based on my imperfect understanding of the era, so happy to be contradicted on any factual point.

                  Nazis came to power specificaly on the back of a movement that used street gangs to protect paying small businesses from roaming commies, the very definition of a middle-class movement. Some here have floated the same idea.

                  They did promise other people’s stuff, but always foreigners, so not relevant to the internal political discourse. Whilst they did expropriate many german citizens – notably jews – these were always sold as interal foreigners.

                  Finally, their whole propaganda was premised on the Jew being a quasi-1 percenter who used his position of power to steal and leech off the nation, etc, so typical HLvM propaganda. Anglin uses the same nowadays.

                  On the “low” front, they banned trade unions and froze wages. La Wik claims real wages never rose during the entire regime, when adjusted on a per hour basis, pretty serious if true for a movement that got started at the hieght of the depression.

                  Many confounding factors on the econ front, but no planning ever on an econ-wide basis, though much planning relevant to foreign exchange controls. 1943 and Speer are debatable, but rather clear Hitler resisted the move until he thought no other way of winning was possible.

                  Very same as italian fascism really, or Hungarian or Romanian movements, all nations that suffered a red wave inthe ’20 and learned the hard way.

                • HerbR says:

                  when a debate around the proper classification of a movement rages on

                  I don’t see a debate raging on, I see 2-3 individuals making a boneheaded controversial assertion, being chastised at first politely and then with increasing exasperation by the majority, but irrationally refusing to concede the point, then coming back hours/days later to “and another thing”-ify it, like a caricature of the 3rd letter of the Greek alphabet that Dr. Professor Sigma Game UHIQ, Esq. shills relentlessly, more commonly known as having enough sand in your vagina to build a Cray Supercomputer.

                  Certainly, the topic continues to be discussed, it’s plain as day that we don’t all share the exact same inner monologue about this overhyped single-dimensional ideological E-meter, but I’m almost positive there was nothing “raging” about it until the hissy fits and flitty flounces started a few days ago.

                  Jim has made his position on the subject rather clear, in my very humble and totally not smug at all opinion, and while he is entitled to refine that position and frequently does, it is his blog and we should roll with the punches. This is our roleplaying/practice sim for the position of trusted advisors and lieutenants and bishops, quietly offering the occasional “sir, [audible comma], don’t you think maybe you should…” in the commander’s ear when he starts talking nonsense after the fourteenth glass of single-malt, but always remembering our place and why we’re here in the first place, because none of us could spin up a community this size and maintain it for 12-aught years. Well, maybe Aidan if he hadn’t self-terminated out of justifiable paranoia.

                  In summation, your latest question presupposes that this debate, if it can so be called, was simmering beneath the surface for months – roiling, even, and desperately needed to be had, lest we all break out into fist-E-cuffs over our total mutual incomprehension and ensuing asabiyyah collapse. In reality, I think, it was at most a very minor point of inconsequential disagreement – that even if some fellows thought that Der Fuhrer was more Right-Wing than Charles II and Charles the Hammer combined on account of some obscure technicality, we all agreed that his butt-buddies weren’t the sort of club we’d want to emulate because of its total and catastrophic failure. And since Moldbug himself (apparently the “root cause” of this tiff) said that the NSDAP was an object lesson in how not to have a Reaction, there was really never much of a debate to be had, except as academic wonkery in the nascent but burgeoning field of leftometry.

                  To put this in real succinct terms for the differently-attention-spanned: Nazism being “left” or “right” is a bikeshed problem. What actually matters is that it’s a big pile of garbage ideas that produced garbage outcomes, because GIGO. It matters as much as where Mainline Protestant Megachurch Franchisee #314159 lies on the Secular-Pious Axis – i.e. not very much at all.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  I see, so what really incenses you is the debate itself, and thus all those who disagree of such a minor point are fools. Obviously not for our host, who has but to let us know and I trust all (well, at least I) would drop it.

                  Please notice though (ex. This very thread) how the issue is brought up again by others, not by me. I’m happy to disagree on this if it suits our host as per the very head of this thread.

                  Agree on one thing though, it matters not at all.

                • Kunning Drueger says:

                  Herb, it’s going to happen again. Multiple times. You’re right, it wasn’t simmering, but Nazism, meme or otherwise, has an action potential that absolutely terrifies the calcified elite. There’s this appeal to the symbolism, the history, the taboo… Something about it gets people going. It should not be a surprise at all that young men who are stomped on find it and cling to it. Chuck Klosterman (I spit on him, thrice) said something like, “Every straight male has a Led Zeppelin phase. Some get over it by the second playthrough of Stairway, others spend their whole lives in it.” Nazism is the Led Zeppelin of NRx. I don’t know why, but this “spat” has definitely created a bit mine to return to when it flairs up again.

                • jim says:

                  > Nazism, meme or otherwise, has an action potential that absolutely terrifies the calcified elite

                  Nuts.

                  Look at what Soros shills like Rex are shilling. They want us all to become Nazis as they imagine Nazis to be and to believe, as they want nazis to be and believe. They are doing their damndest to deniably spread nazism as imagined and invented by the elites (which version is very similar to actual Nazism, except expurgated of all elements that are actually revolutionary against existing actual elites)

                  They would love us to become nazis, they would love a living and vigorous nazi movement made in their image, because it is a fellow brand of leftism that they could and would assimilate, that they have been lovingly designing for assimilation since 1940.

                  Here is their ground plan, implied in shill post after shill post. Their pet nazi movement gets let off the leash to attack the Rothschilds. Unfortunately the Rothschilds have fled to their private island, so the nazi movement knocks over the Jewish pawnshop, and moves on to the bagel shop and the liquor store. And then it is business as usual for the elite, who are rapidly replacing their Jews with their dot Indians already.

                  Their pet nazism is subtly different from nazism. It is third positionism, which was from day one an entryist movement against Nazism and fascism, originally fostered by Stalin, and they have been lovingly fostering it all these years as the antidote to reaction, actual Nazism, and fascism. And the big flaws of actual fascism and nazism was that it was too damn close to third positionism. Papen therefore believed it assimilable. It was not, but Soros obviously has total confidence that third positionism is assimilable, and it obviously is, having been designed for that purpose from the beginning.

                  Rex is trying to sound like a Nazi, but he does not sound like a Nazi. He sounds one hell of a lot more like a commie than the actual Nazis did. That is third positionism, and that is what the elites want.

                  The Nazi line was that capital was productive, and businessmen were productive, but they needed to produce under the command of the state. Rex, and the rest of the Soros shills, are telling us that capital is unproductive, businessmen are unproductive. Wealth is just there for the taking. The woke think wealth and value spontaneously sprouted from the fertile soil of subsaharan Africa and colonialists stole it. The third positionists that it spontaneously came forth from America’s magic dirt, which sprouted supermarket shelves and continues to fill them. That is the modern priestly elite line, not the Nazi line. Rex is cover for Biden crushing fracking. Hitler would probably have crushed fracking through socialist fuck up, but he never would have thought it virtuous and wise to intentionally crush fracking. The hand of the state, Harvard, and the priestly elite in a thousand nazi shills sticks out like dogs balls, and did so from the beginning, sixty years ago.

                  It has been standard operating procedure for a thousand years. Corrupt, decadent, and treasonous elite hires Jews to do their dirty work. The masses get truculent. “Oh” say the elite “It is those terrible Jews” Jews get expelled, then back to business as usual. Usually works out as planned. Sometimes the things go bad, which is what happened with Hitler. Third positionism is Nazism retooled by our masters to make sure that this time around it works out as planned, with a Recucklican as Papen, and some poor sucker as Hitler, and this time around the poor sucker will do what Hitler was supposed to do and expected to do, be a garden ornament giving democratic cover to business as usual.

                  Third positionism is their cure for what they feared Trump would do and what I hoped he would do. They plan to do Papen and Hitler all over again. It failed last time, but it has worked fine hundreds of times before, and they have complete and well founded confidence that this time it will work out as planned.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  @Jim,

                  If the continuation of this is annoying (ex. As HerbR is claiming), please feel free to edit my response above to yours. You have my full support to do this, I sincerely mean this. Sometimes i may not know when to shut up 🙂

                • jim says:

                  I would love it to continue if all parties observed the usual high standard of debate. One side has been failing to observe that standard.

                • HerbR says:

                  I see, so what really incenses you is the debate itself

                  Incensed? Not at all. That’s either an incorrect reading or maybe negative transference.

                  My usual emotional range runs the gamut from polite eyebrow-raising, to sarcastic eye-rolling, to facepalming frustration and eventually to derisive laughter and the whackin’-it gesture, and this is no exception. Maybe I felt a twinge of anger at the whole proving-a-negative thing because of all the memories it brought back, but that was the only record skip.

                  Condescending, maybe, and assholerific, guilty as charged, but fury is a much different emotion. I reserve that for the people who want to invade my home, my kin, my wallet and now my literal blood.

                • jim says:

                  > Maybe I felt a twinge of anger at the whole proving-a-negative thing because of all the memories it brought back.

                  I felt more than a twinge of anger.

                • HerbR says:

                  Nazism, meme or otherwise, has an action potential that absolutely terrifies the calcified elite.

                  “Yes, but…”

                  It is the action potential itself that terrifies them, not Nazism. I am positive that on a primal level, they understand that they are meat, and unguarded meat at that. Nazism is just the only language they have to express that angst, because it is all tangled up in the Third Founding Myth.

                  In the bugman’s bug-brain, everything threatening ties back to Nazism somehow, no matter how absurd the connection. Kenosha, I.VI, [148]8chan and QballAnon all have something to do with Nazis, don’t ask us what, maybe the ADL can explain it.

                  You know how Jim talks about female regret and how the only language Globohomo gives them to express “bad sex” is rape, so rape is what they’ll call it? Or how the Covidian shivers about “breakthrough” cases because they don’t have words like “non-sterilizing immunity” in their vocabulary? It’s kind of the same thing. Soft power fears hard power, demon worshipers fear the authentically holy, omega males fear the gigachad, but the only approved language they have for it is “fascist” or “nazi”. They actually used to use the word “reactionary” – like, decades ago – but I think that word itself triggered crimestop and therefore had to go.

                  Hitler is the bogeyman, and Pepe and the OK sign are the bogeyman’s shadows on the wall at 4 am, but “bogeyman” is also just a word, he has no form or substance. The mistake of Sieg Larp is thinking that the Untermenschen fear the form of Nazism, which is just silly, because it’s been portrayed millions of times in popular culture, and not always satirically. What they actually fear, what absolutely scares the living snot out of them, is the ghost of a hint of a possibility that they might be wrong about the End of History, that any non-left movement could successfully organize and maybe even overtake them. They fear being dominated – the men do, anyway.

                  Anything that is scary enough to them will get linked to Nazis, somehow. But the converse is not true – having something linked to Nazis does not automatically scare them. It may trigger their memetic immune system, regardless, and that tends to end badly for the ones doing the triggering – but it does not hurt or scare Globohomo unless it presents a real threat.

                • Aidan says:

                  The elite certainly fears right-wing populism. It is not that they are necessarily specifically afraid of LARPers with black sun tattoos marching down the street in jackboots, but their worldview requires them to believe that their immantization of the eschaton is at constant risk of being thwarted by a mob of unenlightened kulaks, either voting for a dictator or rolling up in their flannel shirts and pickup trucks to execute politicians for sacrificing babies to satan on Epstein Island.

                  It is the action potential of right wing populism in general that scares them. And not without effect. The only reason I can see that the US is not as far gone as Europe is that the American elite is scared of Amerikaners with guns, and tries to boil the frog much slower as a result.

                • HerbR says:

                  The elite certainly fears right-wing populism

                  What is right-wing populism and how is it different from left-wing populism?

                  Not asking for lofty ideals and flowery illustrations here. Just the simple and basic and semi-rhetorical question of how right-wing anything can be right-wing without legitimate authority, or how anything with legitimate authority could be classified as populism.

                  The idea of “populism” emanates from a democratic frame. One would have to be a leftist to imagine such a thing as a right-wing populist, because to a rightist it ought to evaluate to the null set. Which, I guess, means leftists really can fear “right-wing populism”, even if it is make-believe, but that goes back to my original point about fearing the formless bogeyman.

                  Revolutionaries fear other revolutionaries because they know what revolutionaries are capable of. But there are no right-wing revolutionaries.

                • jim says:

                  > The elite certainly fears right-wing populism

                  > What is right-wing populism and how is it different from left-wing populism?

                  Trump is a populist, obviously. And in his populism he was always praising the people who built America, both the welder and the boss.

                  He was attributing dignity to the worker in his role, without taking it away from the boss in his role. Populist, but not low versus high.

                  Right populism becomes a viable strategy when the masses realize the priesthood hates them, despises them, and wants to take away their stuff, their dignity, and their status.

                  It is “right” under my favorite definition, because the masses are defending their applecart.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “What is right-wing populism and how is it different from left-wing populism?

                  Not asking for lofty ideals and flowery illustrations here. Just the simple and basic and semi-rhetorical question of how right-wing anything can be right-wing without legitimate authority, or how anything with legitimate authority could be classified as populism.

                  The idea of “populism” emanates from a democratic frame. One would have to be a leftist to imagine such a thing as a right-wing populist”

                  This is nonsense.

                  Julius Caesar was a right wing populist and Trump was a right wing populist (now hes become a cowardly shill lately).

                  The left wing commie populist says rich people have things and the government should take them and then you’ll have them.

                  The right wing populist says the corrupt elite have screwed you over (and hes not lying) and you need to empower me the one man on your side to stop their stupid policies that ruin you.

                • Aidan says:

                  A right-wing populist is a man who whips up a mob to defend natural law rather than tear it down. No need to defend natural law when it is not under attack, so naturally it can only exist in leftist times and a decaying society.

                  Populism itself cannot stop leftism, but populism can be an excuse or put one into a position where he can commit the necessary violence to stop leftism.

            • Aidan says:

              “My standard of right is the middle vs the alliance of high and low, nothing to do with policy, economic or otherwise”

              The kings of old invented the class of knights as lesser nobility to exert some control on the greater nobility. Likewise with chartering towns, granting self-determination to repubic-esque councils of burghers in order to circumvent the hierarchy of vassalge and obtain an immediate tax and soldier base. And the greater nobility would play even lower people against the middle. The Jouvenalian dynamic is not cut and dry, it is messy and omnipresent throughout history. Everybody engages in HLvM. It is simply a fact of power dynamics. Patrons always find clients to use to advance their interests. Nothing related to right/left about it.

              • Arqiduka says:

                Agree that HLvM is a simple fact of stable coalition-building and cannot be gotten rid if short of Fnargl and his Ring.

                I disagree that is has nothing to do with left v right: it IS left v right, hence I never expect that conflict to go away. Coalitions just reshuffle after a loss, and the center moves. Hopefully some elites are moving to our coalition as we speak, to boost the middle in hope of future victory. (I reckong bith Jim and Moldy are trying to attract them). Lack of coherence among the left as per Jim makes sense but the high and low coalition having become too big explains the same set if facts on the ground.

                Trump and Brexit make no sense if not under the lense of part of the elite defecting.

                • jim says:

                  > disagree that HLvM is has nothing to do with left v right: it IS left v right

                  It is just a tactic, a tactic that tends to be more useful among leftists and more common among them. But the tactics the left uses are just whatever is likely to knock over the applecart, though the the middle is apt to have most of the apples that they want. Depends on the circumstances.

      • notglowing says:

        I’ve talked to national socialists online, and they aren’t outright against property rights, but they are part of an increasing faction on the right that supports certain measures of economic socialism, and see themselves as the true alternative to a false dichotomy of communism and capitalism, which prevents any meaningful change for the better of their people.

        They are mostly Americans who have seen republicans bend over backwards for big businesses who follow leftist lines, rob their people, and ban them from social media, with the other side being democrats pushing leftism and succeeding in it virtually unopposed.
        They also see libertarians not only being ineffective, but in many cases pushing downright poisonous ideology and accepting many liberal principles as part of libertarianism. A libertarian accepts degenerate behaviour, attacks on Christianity, and social media companies silencing right wing discourse.
        They identify jews with both big business, and leftism, and therefore unrestrained private business with leftism, and see communism and libertarianism as both ways to atomize individuals, making them self-centered, and seeing themselves as god.
        National socialism is the alternative to the atomized individual, giving money to care for his people only, and not accepting it means not accepting necessary sacrifices to the tribe, and believing in atomizing/selfish/jewish/libertarian/capitalist philosophy, meaning one isn’t willing to submit to something more than himself, meaning one cannot believe in God, only himself. See objectivism.
        So individualism is identified with evil and antisocial predatory behaviour which is identified with degeneracy, usury, and exploitation rather than contributing to your nation.

        It can be difficult to argue neoreactionary ideas with National Socialists, because they will see it as a version of libertarianism which is individualism which is atomization which is in their view the enemy tactic, and worse, a form of entryism.
        If you said you believe every man should be the king of his own house and family, you would be playing into that idea.

        This is made more difficult by the fact that boomers often argue that national socialism is socialism, without really understanding the nuances of the subject, and making bad arguments around it. The well is very much poisoned for supporting any form of “capitalism” when it’s seen as a form of jewish subversion and misdirection, and a way to prevent people from cooperating.

        I would also like to see Jim make a long form post about it.

        It’s possible to argue that:
        – Hitler didn’t really adopt traditional systems, and was rather a progressive in some ways, but this is not very convincing because the context is too different from then. Even Stalin seems like a traditionalist compared to the average acceptable political opinion today. Also the elites at the time betrayed the germans, which makes many actions look justified.

        – National socialism was purple pilled on women. Also not an easy argument to make in practice, since national socialism did push for fertility and nuclear family that national socialists care about and see as important. They tend to not be fully redpilled on women to begin with, and pushing true red pilled ideas can be difficult while avoiding accusations of either being contemptuous towards women (which they correctly see as homosexual behaviour) or being seen as a pick up artist, who sees relationships from a too cynical perspective, not conducive to respecting the sanctity of marriage. I also cannot argue this line easily myself, since I am not married.

        • HerbR says:

          I find it almost impossible to tell the difference between an unironic internet “natsoc” and a fed shill, and this summary isn’t making it any better.

          It’s not even a coherent position, just a big bag of shill memes duct-taped together. Probably why PC wants us to call them fednats.

          Dedicating a long-form post to a giant nest of fed shills doesn’t seem all that productive, and in my opinion sets a bad precedent that people can post any inanity in the comments and expect Jim to put serious effort into a response. There is tons of good information out there on the topic already, people are just flat-out refusing to look at it.

          • notglowing says:

            > just a big bag of shill memes duct-taped together.
            To be fair, I am illustrating a whole range of opinions rather than one person’s particular worldview. It’s certainly not coherent in the sense that there is a system to it, in its current form, in the way that Jim’s ideas or neoreactionary ideas are organized.
            There’s also no consensus, and their big issue is a lack of measures to prevent shills and entryists from operating.

            There’s a spectrum of people who are part of this, and what they have in common that distinguishes them from other groups is their opposition to communism/leftism while also being distinctly against “laissez-faire capitalism”, with jews as a monocausal explanation for societal problems, and the exact economic position as well as how much they favour social programs varies a lot. But Hitler and National Socialism or Fascism are seen as the model, and they tend to call themselves National Socialists or Fascists. They do distinguish between these two, but the in-depth understanding of what they entail varies.

            There is still overlap between reaction and this group of people, in terms of ideas, but most of the overlapping concepts are only partially overlapping.
            The economic acceptance of varying amounts of socialist ideas, and the ambiguous position on women are what distinguishes them. I will also note that these spaces seem to have a presence of women greater than most right wing spaces, especially girlfriends or wives of the men who are part of the community.

            I interact with these types a lot on the fediverse, the decentralized, or rather federated, alternative to twitter. Which is very active. Fediverse is split along political lines.
            The “mainstream” instances run by mastodon, which are left-liberals and in particular pro-tranny. These are technically the biggest individual instances, but they are disconnected from most of the rest, because they cannot stand anything opposed to them.

            Then there’s spinster, the radical feminist, trans exclusionary instance. Obviously cast out by leftists, they are basically pre-2015 feminists, but their opinions on trans stuff overlaps with the right wing instances. Being outcasts, the radical feminist and the right wing instances federate with each other, leading to hilarious interactions.
            There is one woman on spinster who rants about all men being rapist in blatant fantasies on her timeline all day, which leads to men from other instances making fun of her.

            The only other political faction is libertarians, meaning objectivists, anarcho-capitalists, and other groups of that sort which are almost extinct today.

            There is no significant reactionary presence. I try to expose people there to ideas from this sphere, without explicitly mentioning that they are neo-reactionary, and frame them in a way that would convince them, considering where they are coming from and what they believe.

            • jim says:

              > what they have in common that distinguishes them from other groups is their opposition to communism/leftism while also being distinctly against “laissez-faire capitalism”, with jews as a monocausal explanation for societal problems

              If they push Jews as a monocausal explanation of societies problems, there is one Jew that they are strangely reluctant to mention, and also strangely reluctant to mention the problems that he is causing. If, when pressed, they do mention those problems, they minimize and euphemize them.

              They are Soros shills, nearly all of them.

        • jim says:

          > I’ve talked to national socialists online, and they aren’t outright against property rights, but they are part of an increasing faction on the right that supports certain measures of economic socialism, and see themselves as the true alternative to a false dichotomy of communism and capitalism, which prevents any meaningful change for the better of their people

          You are talking not to National Socialists, but to the third positionists, who were exposed as shill/entryist movement in the 1940s. A very old shill organization. They have been around for a while. They originally worked for the Soviets, as a shill movement against fascists and nazis, and when the Soviet Union imploded, got new employment with the Cathedral.

          When Hitler slaughtered those nazis even holier than his very holy self, Stalin looked for Hitler’s Trotsky, could not find one, manufactured him. Trotskyism is, or recently was, a real communist faction opposing Stalin/Mao communism. Third positionism was never a real fascist/nazi faction opposing Hitler/Mussolini/Franco fascism.

          All big conspiracies leak, and this one leaked horribly a very long time ago.

          Although Trotkyism is not a shill movement, it is an entryist movement, which has very similar functionality – Trotskyist show up all over the place saying they are something that is completely the opposite of Trotskyism – but Trotskyism has pretty much expired for lack of a deep pockets sponsor, while the third positionists continue to robotically spam much the same stuff they have been robotically spamming for seven decades.

          “Rothschilds rule the world” are a Soros shill meme, and third positionism seems to be a different group, albeit they are pushing a very similar shtick. They are all ultimately run by Harvard, so all ultimately the same group, but Soros is run by Harvard via the State Department, and his shills have different script writers distinct from the shills run by Harvard via the FBI, while I have no idea who is running the Third Positionist shills, perhaps Harvard via the CIA. Could be the same organization as the “Rothschilds rule the world”, with two different script writers. But until Stalin died, they were run by Stalin.

          • The Cominator says:

            Wasn’t Gregor Strasser Hitler’s Trotsky?

            • jim says:

              Yes Gregor Strasser was Hitler’s Trotsky, but Hitler killed him and everyone like him, so Stalin had to manufacture replacements. The Third Positionists started off as Stalin’s stooges, totally fake from the beginning and still totally fake to this day, while Trotsky got away, and the Trotskyists were totally real from the beginning, and probably still are to this day, albeit Trotskyists are always generating innumerable totally fake movements and the CIA has lots of entryists in the Trotkyists. Maybe Trotskyism is now a fake movement puppeted by the CIA, I have no idea, but it was plenty real when I was a young man and as far as I know, still is.

          • Kunning Drueger says:

            Trotskyism is alive and well. They go by the name International Marxist Tendency. They actively recruit on college campuses, are a pipeline for Antifa recruiting, and are lousy with FBI CIs. They often meet up at Whole Foods or Starbucks.

            https://www.marxist.com/

        • jim says:

          > or being seen as a pick up artist, who sees relationships from a too cynical perspective, not conducive to respecting the sanctity of marriage. I also cannot argue this line easily myself, since I am not married.

          In a world of sexual anarchy, you always start from defect/defect, so you always have to start as a pick up artist. I was a pick up artist before the phrase was invented, and the art and theory posted on the internet.

          Unless your patriarch acquired a wife for you from a patriarch with whom he is in cooperate/cooperate, because kin or members of the same male hierarchy, you are going to start with your women in defect/defect, also known as pickup artistry.

          The only way to have a world in which men are not required to be pick up artists, is to have a world in which you generally acquire a wife through your patriarch acquiring a a wife for you from another patriarch with whom he is in cooperate/cooperate, where you acquire a wife from Dad’s kin or Dad’s status hierarchy, so you are starting out with her and her family in cooperate/cooperate.

          So if Christianity demands that men not be pick up artists, it must also demand a world in which women’s husbands are generally selected by their families. Because otherwise you are going to either plow through a pile of whores looking for a wife, or else wind up single, childless, and alone.

          It is contrary to the will of Gnon that those obedient to his commands shall wind up single, childless, and alone.

    • p says:

      Nazi economy had two phases, under Schacht (until he quit in 1937) and under Goering. Neither of these distinguished gentlemen was a socialist.

  21. @pooch,

    Replying to your post on Aryan centric nationalism of the Nazis.

    Ethnocentric Nationalists are not extreme right wing. That’s a leftist meme. Depending on the other policies it may be left wing.

    Lots of modern nationalists including ethno Nationalists are merely less left than the international humanists/progressives. Hence right wing by their definition .

  22. Red says:

    https://www.freightwaves.com/news/exclusive-central-freight-lines-to-shut-down-after-96-years

    Inflation sinks trucking company. They couldn’t hire enough drivers at a price that allowed them to operate with a profit.

  23. G.T. Chesterton says:

    Rumor out of NYC, that bums are renting their arms for vaxx surrogacy. Cute, but each clever “life hack” against the tyranny, rather than the deserved reaction, is just allowing them to inch closer to chipping everyone.

    https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/093/453/322/original/cccd0dd1d3488802.png

  24. C4ssidy says:

    What can followers of this blog do to help rectify the Earth’s shortage of CO2? I’ve always preferred the texture of disposable cutlery so might use them in the house full time . I always buy new reusable bags in supermarkets and use them only once, but thinking of buying several each time and throwing them in the trash on my way out

  25. Pooch says:

    Not to belabor the point, but to everyone who says National Socialism was a left-wing movement, congratulations you’ve come to the same conclusion as the New York Times best selling author and liberal cuckservative Jonah Goldberg.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism

    • Red says:

      We’re struggling with a lack of primary sources here. Moldbug does a lot of hand waving on the subject and Goldberg is a neo-con grifter and can’t be trusted. What is quite obvious is a lot of Hitler’s program was very leftwing, and Hitler’s 3ed way socialism, or regulatory socialism is the model that a lot nations like the US Venezuela now practice. Hitler also got more socialist as the war went poorly for Germany.

      TIK’s videos on the subject are interesting, have lots of primary source material, and he gets attacked regularly from cathedral trolls over his work. I’m more inclined to believe him over a proven liar like Yarvin and Goldberg.

      There’s little doubt that Hitler was practicing war socialism with his confiscation of capital everywhere he gained power. One of the few areas of the Reich that actually produced good in large qualities was Czechoslovakia which was one of the few occupied areas that was practicing capitalism under SS occupation. Everywhere else saw a massive collapse in the production of all goods as the Nazis stolen everything they could, much like the Soviets.

      • Pooch says:

        TIK’s videos on the subject are interesting, have lots of primary source material, and he gets attacked regularly from cathedral trolls over his work. I’m more inclined to believe him over a proven liar like Yarvin and Goldberg.

        You’re not understanding my comment. TIK is arguing the exact same logic as Jonah Goldberg. They both argue NS was some sort of left-wing movement. And Moldbug is not a proven liar. Yarvin is. There are mountains and mountains of primary sources that Moldbug cites. I’m not going to regurgitate his whole blog here. Anyone interested should check out https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/

        There’s little doubt that Hitler was practicing war socialism

        No one is arguing he wasn’t. It’s in the name! The debate is if that precludes fascism (and nazism) from being a reactionary movement.

        • Red says:

          >The debate is if that precludes fascism (and nazism) from being a reactionary movement.

          Was there a large movement of Monarchist who supported Hitler? Did the Nazis try to restore the Kaiser? I rest my case.

          >They both argue NS was some sort of left-wing movement.

          Seizing capital from one group to give it to another is socialism. The Nazis absolutely cut back on the degeneracy going on in Germany, but their economic program was all leftwing, just less leftwing than the Commies. Their social program was stopping at leftwing position X on social issues but not going more leftwing. Letting women vote, work, and not restoring the patriarchal family isn’t rightwing.

          • Pooch says:

            Was there a large movement of Monarchist who supported Hitler? Did the Nazis try to restore the Kaiser? I rest my case.

            Yes. Particularly in the judiciary and the security forces.

            Seizing capital from one group to give it to another is socialism. The Nazis absolutely cut back on the degeneracy going on in Germany, but their economic program was all leftwing, just less leftwing than the Commies. Their social program was stopping at leftwing position X on social issues but not going more leftwing. Letting women vote, work, and not restoring the patriarchal family isn’t rightwing.

            All true. It’s likely we are in a pointless semantics battle. If you want to put the Nazis on the extreme right or the “less extreme left”, as Jims says, it makes no difference.

            Nazism was a violent reaction against liberalism, ironically borne out of liberal democracy (which is why it was shit). It is the reason the Allies came down so hard on them and the mere mention of Nazis today makes progressives and liberals gasp in fear.

            In the 20th century, it was not the reaction we (or Papen) wanted, but it was the reaction we got.

            • The Cominator says:

              Hitler had genuinely reactionary supporters Pooch is right about that part at least but ALL of them ended up eventually regreting it.

              • Pooch says:

                Yes, particularly when it became glaringly obvious that Hitler was mad man.

                • Red says:

                  Hitler was a madman? That’s a cathedral trope. Most of Hitler’s behaviors were quite rational, though often acting from a incomplete understanding of the world and he wasn’t exactly the brightest guy.

                  The reactionaries got sucked just like everyone who allies with leftists get suckered. Hitler never tried to restore the Kaiser and instead preferred to rule as a priest.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Hitler was relatively sane for a socialist up until at least 1938, Hitler frm 1942 was batshit.

                • Pooch says:

                  Most of Hitler’s behaviors were quite rational, though often acting from a incomplete understanding of the world and he wasn’t exactly the brightest guy.

                  Not slaughtering the British army at Dunkirk because he wanted to create some sort of united Anglo-Germanic racial empire was not particularly rational.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Hitler was very intelligent but with an insane worldview followed later by actual insanity but Von Braun said that even in Hitler’s later mad days he came away convinced after a discussion of rockets that Hitler was a genius.

                  He also had an photographic memory for every technical detail of armament… Hitler’s mental flaw wasn’t stupidity.

                • Red says:

                  Not slaughtering the British army at Dunkirk because he wanted to create some sort of united Anglo-Germanic racial empire was not particularly rational.

                  The context for what happened there is missing because Hitler was never interviewed on the subject. But the move seemed to be mostly about taking the time to secure the Panzer’s flanks with infantry, something that the German army high command and Hitler were both scared shitless about since nothing like a armed column attack had ever been attempted before. They felt at any moment the allies could smash through those very thin lines and chop the panzers up.

                  The initial halt order was from General von Rundstedt and Hitler later endorsed it over the objection of many in the German army. Hitler wasn’t a brilliant military commander and often made mistakes when he took tactical command, much like Lincoln or FDR.

                  But the majority of the German army thought the German air force would sink any UK shipped that tried to get the troops out of Dunkirk. But the UK got it’s shit together and established air superiority over the beach for most of the duration, greatly limiting the air forces ability to sink the transports removing the troops from the beach.

                  Hitler was very intelligent but with an insane worldview followed later by actual insanity

                  Hitler like most German statesmen and leaders never could understand anyone besides Germans. The moves they made always showed a profound ignorance of the true behavior of other peoples and the elites from those nations.

                  Later when he was being drugged up pretty regularly he was defiantly not rational, but actions like going the Ukraine for it’s food and oil during the invasion of Russia was quite rational.

        • HerbR says:

          There are mountains and mountains of primary sources that Moldbug cites.

          Not in this area, he doesn’t. Which I pointed out before and you are still ignoring. Moldbug’s portrayal of Nazism is conspicuous for its lack of primary sources.

          I don’t really care what Jonah Goldberg has to say on this subject or any other subject. This “anti-citation” is an inherently silly and puerile argument, right up there with “Pepe the frog is an Alt-Right hate symbol because the Daily Stormer posted it once”.

          • Pooch says:

            Not in this area, he doesn’t.

            Cite evidence.

            • HerbR says:

              You want me to cite evidence of Moldbug not citing evidence? How fucking ridiculous can you be?

              • Pooch says:

                Prove your points with evidence or fuck off.

                • Red says:

                  Pooch, cite Moldbug text and his sources. Then we’ll debate the issue.

                  I’ve read the collective works of Moldbug multiple times. I was impressed with his Nazi stuff at the time, but my own continued reading of history doesn’t support it, especially on the economics side(Nazis economics was not rightwing). It might be time to review, but there so much extra crap in his stuff that picking parts to debate is quite difficult. Moldbug was never focused.

                  Since you’re the one making the arguments it’s up to you to pull the sections of text and the sources.

                • Pooch says:

                  I’ve already linked once below when this was originally debated.

                  Here’s another:
                  https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/04/open-letter-pt-2-more-historical/

                • jim says:

                  Moldbug is not a source. And he is too full of wind to find his sources, and when you do eventually after much effort find them, you will find his sources on nazism, unlike his other sources, are secondary sources that date from after the time that official truth did a 180 on nazism, from being radical left, to being radical right.

                • Pooch says:

                  Moldbug mentions Hitler in practically every post on UR. It’s a main theme of his blog. I’m not going to just post the entitreity of UR here but those are 2 that come to mind.

                • Pooch says:

                  from being radical left, to being radical right.

                  Arguing that the Nazis were radical left or radical right is semantic battle point that I’m wiling to move beyond.

                  The main point, that I hope we can all agree, is that Nazism was a reaction against progressive liberalism, albiet a poor one.

                • Pooch says:

                  is a semantic battle at this point that I’m wiling to move beyond.* bad proof reading

                • jim says:

                  Herb complains that Moldbug does not cite evidence, and you demand that he provides evidence of Moldbug not citing evidence.

                  You, Pooch, are being unreasonable and silly. No one can provide evidence of a negative.

                  It is your job to provide evidence of a positive. If Moldubug cited any plausible sources, you need to find them and present them, not Herb’s job to fail to find and present evidence of failure.

                • Red says:

                  Having red that post Moldburg cited a Liberal Italian PM saying that Fascism used Reactionaries to come into power. It doesn’t speak to Reactionary character to Fascism. Nor is citing a Liberal PM who probably called everything he opposed Reactionary particularly persuasive, since that’s been the standard leftwing slur since the French Revolution.

                  Citing talking heads isn’t evidence of reactionary behavior, rather it’s evidence of talking heads opinions from a different age.

                  Nor is Fascism the same as National Socialism. You’re going to need a better post than that.

                • Pooch says:

                  I’ve already wasted too much time on this likely meaningless semantic battle (labeling of “left” or “right”).

                  But again, is no one refuting that Nazism was a violent reaction against liberalism? If not, we are done here. Even Com seems to agree with that one.

                • jim says:

                  > is no one refuting that Nazism was a violent reaction against liberalism?

                  Woke is a violent reaction against liberalism. And the number of liberals it has beaten up or killed is starting to catch up on the rather small body count of liberals killed by the nazis.

                  The more radical left devours the less radical left. What is new?

                • The Cominator says:

                  It was a reaction by nationalist working class vet commies against internationalist jewish priestly commies, but they were all different branches of commies.

                • Pooch says:

                  Woke is a violent reaction against liberalism

                  Woke was derived from liberals in Harvard. They are just more extreme liberals.

                  Nazism was not derived from Harvard.

                  Big difference. Now you are getting ridiculous and arguing against your own blog posts. World War 2 was when Harvard conquered the world. You coined that phrase.

                • jim says:

                  > > Woke is a violent reaction against liberalism

                  > Woke was derived from liberals in Harvard. They are just more extreme liberals.

                  And the liberals derive from the super protestants, who derive from the holiness spiraled post puritans of the civil war, who derive from the Puritans that Charles the Second purged, who tended to be a lot more radical and power hungry than the Mayflower Puritans were.

                  While the Nazis derive from the radical Lutherans that Luther helped crush. The quarrel in Germany was Anglo derived left versus the left with Germanic roots. But it was just yet another interleft quarrel, though its roots go back earlier than most.

                  And so it was seen until America entered alliance with Stalin.

                  Nazis are commies and commies are nazis, near enough as makes no difference, and that is how everyone saw them until the alliance with Stalin.

                  As with all interleft quarrels, the smaller the difference, the more likely they are to kill each other.

                  > World War 2 was when Harvard conquered the world. You coined that phrase.

                  And in course of conquering the world, defeated all variants of leftism not derived from their own roots.

                  Albeit communism was always something of a thorn in their side, being derived partly from Judaism, and partly from the holier than Jesus puritans that Cromwell crushed, rather than the Puritans that Charles the Second expelled.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Woke was derived from liberals in Harvard. They are just more extreme liberals.

                  Nazism was not derived from Harvard.

                  You sure about that…

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Hanfstaengl

                  https://www.historynet.com/hitlers-harvard-man-ernst-hanfstaengl.htm

                  https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna6487029

                • Tityrus says:

                  While the Nazis derive from the radical Lutherans that Luther helped crush. The quarrel in Germany was Anglo derived left versus the left with Germanic roots. But it was just yet another interleft quarrel, though its roots go back earlier than most.

                  Could you expand on this? That is, about Nazism deriving from radical Lutherans.

        • jim says:

          > There are mountains and mountains of primary sources that Moldbug cites

          Does he? Normally he does, but on nazism, no seeing any

    • Mr.P says:

      Read Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.

      Notice whose name is in the title. If you find Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrong about National Socialism, refute him here, on Jim’s Blog.

      No doubt will make for a good conversation.

      • Pooch says:

        Moldbug already refuted him and cites him extensively in UR. Again, everything I’m saying was already said by Moldbug decades ago.

        • Pooch says:

          over a decade ago* (not decades)

        • The Cominator says:

          Tik is the leading authority on this and nobody has refuted him yet.

          Watch the damn Tik video and try to make a detailed rebuttal of that or stop this nonsense.

          • Pooch says:

            Just stop with Tik. I’m not watching facefags on Youtube that have nothing to do with NRx. Read some basic Moldbug first before commenting on this.

            • The Cominator says:

              Well plenty of people on here were very impressed with Tiks work on this here and Tik absolutely doesn’t care if leftist like him much (he does want to avoid getting banned by youtube) but thats it so if you want to argue a POV that is massively against the boards opinion you’re going to have to familiarize yourself with the massively well researched and detailed arguments of TIK and refute them.

              Saying Moldbug said this doesn’t inpress… Moldbugs a smart guy but look at his views on covid he can be very very wrong about things.

            • Kunning Drueger says:

              You’re being ridiculous. I am a diehard Yarvin supporter and I’ve read his position. It is shit. What’s really going on here? You keep moving the goalposts over a pointless topic…

              • alf says:

                Yes slightly strange discussion.

                If the debate is to continue on topic, Pooch should point us specifically to Moldbug citing primary WW2 sources.

                • Red says:

                  I’m not sure how there can be a debate. Any close look at Nazi Germany economics shows socialism oozing from every pore. Yarvin got a lot of shit wrong in some areas. The Nazis were not as degenerate as Weimar Republic, but they went right on debasing the currency, instituting price/wag controls and industrially under performing during WW2 because of it.

                • Pooch says:

                  Too many words have been wasted on it and I don’t really intend to waste much more but as my final comment on the matter:

                  Moldbug cites primary sources but none regarding the Marbug Speech which Jim particularly uses to address his position. I will cite one here: New York Times in depth expose of the Nazi Party 2 weeks after the Marberg Speech July 1st 1934 (you may have to pay to see it).

                  https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1934/07/01/95049451.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0

                  It appears we are all sort of right and sort of wrong. At this time, in 1934, there were left-wing and right-wing factions vying for control of the future direction of the Nazi Party.

                  The NYT lays out in detail the various members of each faction. Hitler appears to not be very interested in the economics side of things. Von Papen is not the leader of cuckservative party, as Jim says. He is the leader of the monarchist faction within the Nazi Party according to this article.

                  To quote the article:

                  His address was interpreted as a challenge by the conservative nationalists to the more radical elements in the party, among whom there has been great unrest.

                  So it was intraparty conflict. Pretty interesting article. And keep in mind this was before Night of the Long Knives in which Hitler seems to have killed off elements of leftists and rightists within the party.

                • jim says:

                  > There were left-wing and right-wing factions vying for control of the future direction of the Nazi Party.

                  Not there were not.

                  Rather were extreme left and less extreme left factions vying for control of the future direction of the Nazi party, and I don’t see the New York article as disagreeing with that account. By “right” they mean, in context, the right wing of the nazi party, not Junkers, Aristocrats, and Papen.

                  The New York Times article summarizes those to whom Hitler appealed as follows

                  peasants or members of the former middle class, whose money and hopes were wiped out during the inflation

                  The New York Times article summarizes Hitlerism as follows:

                  Adolf Hitler struck upon these vast stretches of political virgin land. His appeal was irresistible because he preached revolt not only against the economic system but against the poltical order. The combination of nationalism, so dear to the heart of Germans, and as socialism as the promise of the future, won the battle for the National Socialists.

                  “revolt”, “socialism”: Does not sound right wing to me, and did not sound right wing to Papen.

                  Papen was appealing right to his own party base, moderate cuckservatives, to Christians and Christianity, and far right to the Junkers and the aristocratic generals. Those were not nazis. Some nazis were more acceptable to the cuckservative right and to the far right than other nazis, but that does not make them right wing. It makes them the right wing of a far left party.

                • Pooch says:

                  Title of Article is:

                  “LEFT VS RIGHT IN GERMANY
                  Hitler’s Party Is Divided Between Those Who Want Social Reform And Those Who Would Preserve the Present Economic System”

                • jim says:

                  And, of course, surprise surprise, they did not preserve the current economic system, which is what Papen was complaining about when he implied that Nazis were commies.

                  Papen also complained of class dictatorship, which is very much a Marxist concept.

                • alf says:

                  (you may have to pay to see it).

                  Of course I’d love nothing more than to pay for a NYT article.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I do not believe that Papen was ever a member of the NSDAP.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Re Roehm and the radicals.

                  Yes Hitler suppressed them, but then after he suppressed them he got not less socialist but more socialist.

                • Pooch says:

                  Yes he was from 1938-1945 but in 1934 he was “independent” but unofficially officially a member.

                • Pooch says:

                  Of course I’d love nothing more than to pay for a NYT article.

                  Recommended way to upload a pdf?

                • Tityrus says:

                  Here’s a free download for the article: https://ufile.io/ui4209kn

                • Pooch says:

                  The New York Times article summarizes Hitlerism as follows:

                  Adolf Hitler struck upon these vast stretches of political virgin land. His appeal was irresistible because he preached revolt not only against the economic system but against the poltical order. The combination of nationalism, so dear to the heart of Germans, and as socialism as the promise of the future, won the battle for the National Socialists.

                  “revolt”, “socialism”: Does not sound right wing to me, and did not sound right wing to Papen.

                  Is nationalism not right-wing? Is Hitler’s brand of Aryan White nationalism not extreme-right wing?

                • jim says:

                  Is nationalism not right-wing?

                  Leftism has no essence, merely tactics. In the age of empires, late nineteenth century early twentieth, when empires were the shaky applecart full of nice apples, nationalism was very obviously left wing.

                  Nationalism was very obviously left wing back when British officers were aristocrats, wore splendid uniforms and big hats. Very obviously right wing in the age of Globohomo, because these days it is “international” organizations doing the grabbing and kicking over the applecarts.

                  Nationalist opposition to the Austro Hungarian empire was leftist, quite obviously leftist, because that was the shakiest applecart around.

                  Nationalism was invented by the French Revolution, which was pure essence of leftism. But at the time of Hitler, when globohomo was getting started, left wing or right wing according to the circumstances. Versailes and Wilson was the beginning of globohomo. Woodrow Wilson internationalism, leftist, World communism, leftist.

                  It was a split in the left between nationalist leftists and internationalist leftists. Internationalist leftists won, so now nationalism is right wing. In a little while, in may be leftist again. Leftism has no essence, it is just entropy.

                • alf says:

                  Here’s a free download for the article: https://ufile.io/ui4209kn

                  thank you.

                  I’m not sure how there can be a debate. Any close look at Nazi Germany economics shows socialism oozing from every pore.

                  Instinctively this seems very logical to me. The twentieth century was the century of different strains of leftism fighting it out, an argument I even remember Moldbug making, but judging from other comments here I might be misremembering.

                • alf says:

                  Is nationalism not right-wing? Is Hitler’s brand of Aryan White nationalism not extreme-right wing?

                  No it isn’t, this has been extensively discussed before.

                  Nationalism was the old leftism, the holiness spiral on monarchism. In time, as leftists became globalists, the cuckservatives became the nationalists.

                  Socialism is a state planned life, which is exactly what Hitler had in made, only he wanted it planned for his countrymen — hence national socialism.

                  The old NYT article, if anything, absolutely confirms all this. It talks about a fight between the right and left wing sides of the party. On the right wing it names Hindenburg and von Papen, who want a return to monarchy, on the left wing it names Goebbels and Rosenberg, who want socialist reforms.

                  It is rather obvious which side won.

                • Red says:

                  Is nationalism not right-wing?

                  Leftist invention, though it’s useful if you live in a nation that doesn’t have Monarch. Works well combined with a civic religion. The left largely rejects nationalism now, but they pop it back in whenever they think it will be useful.

                  Is Hitler’s brand of Aryan White nationalism not extreme-right wing?

                  You really need to watch those TIK Hitler videos.

                  National Socialism took Marxist class theory and turned it into National Socialist Racial theory. He substituted Germans for the Workers. He wanted Germans in charge of all businesses because that would resolve the conflicts in society, so he seized all businesses owned or run by non Germans and gave them to Germans. In practice this meant he seized all non German businesses and Businesses who wouldn’t support Hitler and gave it to himself and Nazi cronies, typical socialist behavior.

                  Then he instituted wage and price controls while the Nazis debased the currency slowly, and caused a food shortage that began before WW2 with socialist farming policies that resulted in farmers selling mostly on the black market.

                  Racially, whites are wolves to whites, so not much point to invoking white or German unity. Hitler was always pissed the British for not buying into his German unity BS.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Nationalism can be right or left wing depending…

                  Nationalism of the ancient kind is greater tribalism based on shared language religion history and perhaps dynastic affiliation… this is right wing.

                  Romantic 19th century extreme nationalism is leftist and stupid.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  Nationalism can only be a merely coincidental window dressing that could just as easily be a pretext for doing leftism as not, if the groups characteristics of various clades are merely coincidental window dressing, who could just as easily work in one nation as an other, that one nation can work as easily with one melange as any other.

                  But, since this is obviously not true, equally obvious that less given towards doing leftism – obvious that different things are more or less given to rationalizing more or less leftist action in this or that context.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  In his memoirs, von Mellenthin wryly observed that the soviets quickly started bringing czarist military traditions back into vogue after getting their shit kicked in in the opening movements; such as impressive looking high status officer’s uniforms, shining epaulets and all. Even the orthodox church was catered too.

                  Is this to imply that czarist military traditions were the devil’s work? No, it implies that there was an extent to which the soviets were willing to make nods to divine law for the sake of their survival.

                  (A delineation of attitudinal comportments presents itself; those optimizing for hedons, and working to arrange for their guarantee when necessary; those optimizing for potency, and indulging in hedons when convenient (or that to which what is potent and hedonic is identical even); and those optimizing for death, insensitive (or antipathic even) to both.)

                  The most damaging ideologies in history are not pure fatuity, but fatuity agglomerated with certain kernels of truth; such that they are more easily accepted, more easily rationalized; such that actually do gain power, and thus thereby, actually can do such damages they promised to.

              • Nazis were nationalists but also

                – Purple pilled on women
                – believed in state control of economy and not free markets
                – nationalized and centralized the police forces and security apparatus much like communists everywhere
                – wage and price controls
                – did not believe in natural hierarchy of society I.e. were egalitarian though obviously it didn’t extend to Jews and inferior races.
                – hated the aristocracy I.e the monarchy. Hitler had lot of contempt for the Kaiser and his supporters as well as the Prussian officer class.
                – Nazis had killing fields which is a dead giveaway of socialism (read Jim’s old website on why socialism needs killing fields)

                Seems a lot left wing except the international brotherhood/humanism part of communism.

                Ergo nationalists and socialists.

            • HerbR says:

              You haven’t even cited Moldbug here, you just keep saying “Moldbug Moldbug Moldbug” and linked to the UR home page. Reminds me of the “I don’t have time to educate you” posturing SJWs I used to deal with. What exactly are you citing and what is it based on?

              If you don’t want to watch a YouTube video then fine, but if you’re possessed of the smallest level of self-awareness, you’ll stop shouting out irrelevant and repetitious “but Moldbug said so!”s like a five-year-old having a conniption fit. Especially don’t tell other people to “just stop” when you’re the one who necroed the topic.

              • Pooch says:

                Scroll down fucktard. Btw we all know you are the same Not Tom who bought into the covid hysteria after it was already hilariously obvious a Cathedral op.

                • HerbR says:

                  Don’t know what you’re talking about, slick. I never took the coof seriously. Moved to the middle of nowhere just to get away from the hype, and was out there mocking face diapers while Glorious Leader Supreme Commander Trump was still huffing and puffing about Operation Warp Speed. Whenabouts did you realize that it was all a scam?

                  And quit changing the subject. That’s another SJW mainstay. If you’re going to pick fights, then fight like a man.

        • jim says:

          Moldbug, normally a big fan of old primary sources, suddenly turns to total reliance on modern secondary sources.

          Nazis are commies, and commies are nazis, near enough has makes no difference. They were the less extreme faction of the radical left, and everyone saw them as the less extreme faction of the radical left. Then we went into alliance with the commies, and it suddenly became the official truth that nazis were radical right, and suddenly everyone forgot that yesterday they had been radical left.

          Papen in his Marburg speech is speaking to and for the moderate cuckservative right, and also speaking to the radical right. He is calling the nazis commies, and that is what everyone at the time thought. That was the mainstream normie position, until it suddenly was not.

          • Pooch says:

            Do refute that Nazism was not a reaction to liberalism? If not, then probably not much to debate on the issue for all intents and purposes.

        • jim says:

          > Moldbug already refuted him and cites him extensively

          Bullshit.

          To refute an evidence based argument, you need evidence.

          Where is the evidence?

          Nazis were commies and commies were nazis, near enough as makes no difference, and that is how everyone saw it until official truth did a 180 when we entered alliance with Stalin. Orwell tells us that the only people who thought there was a big difference were nazis and commies, and that was true until official truth suddenly made the commie view official.

          • Pooch says:

            We were allied with Communist Russia well before Stalin. We created created communist Russia. America is a communist country. Communism comes from Harvard.

          • HerbR says:

            The SJW playbook:

            1. Start with outlandish or divisive claim
            2. Double down when challenged, saying “it’s obvious” and “everyone knows”
            3. When presented with contradictory evidence, roll eyes and say it’s from a discredited source or complain that it’s tedious
            4. Continue repeating original claim while progressively raising the bar for opposing evidence, e.g. demanding proof of a negative
            5. If cornered into presenting favorable evidence, make vague references to people and books who supposedly agree (but avoid direct quotes)
            6. Blame the other party for either starting the argument or dragging it on too long, while making sure to have the last word in every dialog branch.

            Trouble with SJW tactics is that they’re only effective with a brigade, which is only effective with no moderation or sympathetic moderation. One person doing it all by their lonesome is just sad.

            • jim says:

              > Continue repeating original claim while progressively raising the bar for opposing evidence, e.g. demanding proof of a negative

              I got seriously pissed when Pooch demanded that you prove a negative, and then declared victory because you had not.

              That is not the kind of debate that I hope for in my blog.

              • Kunning Drueger says:

                Jim, maybe a master list of Right and Left associations, philosophies, movements, etc? It could be an ongoing thing, too, and a containment post for “””discussions””” like this. Hearkening back to something I brought up a while ago, is it possible to have a “lobby” or some place for regulars to meta- discuss? Sorry if that’s a dumb question, not web developer.

          • p says:

            >Nazis were commies and commies were nazis

            Not seeing a difference between commies and nazis is like not seeing a difference between races. Nice if you can afford it, but at the time, one of those groups was significantly more likely to kill you depending on who you were.

            • jim says:

              If you were a Jew in Germany, it mattered, (nazis more likely to kill you) and if you had a small business in Nazi Germany, it mattered (commies more likely to kill you). But, under present circumstances, does not matter.

              The holy faith of woke has so far proved vastly less lethal than commies, though they have tasted blood, and I fear for the future, while commies were more deadly than Harvard even in the west where they were out of power and operating underground while Harvard was in power. Though lately Harvard has been horrifying lethal in Africa, but still small potatoes compared to commies.

    • yewotm8 says:

      And the majority of cathedralites/NPCs/antifas think nazis are far rightwing. If you are trying to use some sort of inverse association logic (dumb people think something therefore it must be false) then that would backfire here horribly.

    • Aidan says:

      I find this debate tiresome. It is news to me that Moldbug calls NS a right-wing movement now. He called it a mutation of democracy on UR.

      If you take the historical perspective of an eagle, sure looks like NS is a resurgence of 19th century “romantic nationalism”. Which was leftist in its time, attempting to dismantle the institutions of the old aristocracy, and leftist in essence, boiling down to a notion that a nation is to be ruled by the “spirit” of that nation, as expressed through the collective democratic will of the people. Arguing over whether the Nazis were real socialists or not is missing the point; they are leftists because of the “nationalist” part.

      By the 20th century, the fact that nationalism acknowledged the reality of blood, or race, and the fact that it believed that the spirit of the nation could be embodied in a single great leader to whom the masses hand over absolute power, made it intolerably right-wing in comparison to the leftism of the 20th century. If you are debating within the 20th century frame, nationalism is indeed right-wing, but with a proper historical frame it is not. Hitler revived an older and saner form of leftism to combat a newer and more insane form of leftism.

      The reactionary position is that a nation is not ruled by its racial spirit, but its elite, and it is the blood of the men who do great things that defines the nature of the nation. I know a rare few “National Socialists” who believe in aristocracy, and that the path to a new aristocracy lies through revolution, closing the door behind them as they take power, and that the will of the people is merely a last resort, using leftist tactics to install an ancient order. I disagree with them, but I can also call their position right-wing. Chances are, though, that any given NS you run into is not one of them.

      • p says:

        Moldbug’s latest, https://graymirror.substack.com/p/monarchism-and-fascism-today, is what he thinks of fascism now. He calls it populist. “Right wing” doesn’t appear.

        Calling nazis “socialist” makes little sense except to an American. In the post-WWII American domestic political classification, “socialist” is a catch-all term that describes one side (the wrong/left one) fairly accurately. Trying to place Goering there is of little practical utility. (To paraphrase a well-known philosopher, if your political classification system puts tax increases and Goering in the same category, of what use is your system?)

        Interestingly, this system is becoming obsolete even in America. When you go from “we must destroy the economy by taxing capital gains” to “we must destroy the economy because climate change” to “we must destroy the economy because covid” to “we must put the unvaccinated in camps”, the tried and true “socialist” label has more and more difficulty keeping up with the challenge. This is a slide into insanity, not a slide into socialism.

        • Tityrus says:

          The “crypto-governance” system he describes is basically the one jim is building right now.

          But going on a Default Friend’s podcast? Default Friend doxxes right-wingers on Twitter and gives the info the journalists. It is so irritating that he hobnobs with people like that while giving jim and the rest of us the cold shoulder. I know he has to because he’s a namefag and a facefag, but still.

          • Kunning Drueger says:

            Take it FWIW, but Yarvin actively dissociates from all of NRx sources, as in actively ignores them. I think it is terrifying in the extreme to create something over which you have no real control. He birthed a babe, walked away, and now his child is a powerful man grown. I’m probably cutting him too much slack, but when I choose to incorporate a loyalty, it’s full on ride or die.

        • Kunning Drueger says:

          Socialism is organized insanity. Many such cases.