God Emperor beats Democrats at 4D chess

Time and time again Trump does supposedly stupid stuff, supposedly demonstrating what an ignorant stupid buffoon he is, and then, strangely and mysteriously, wins.

The explanation for this strange mystery is that he is playing the game at a level his enemies do not understand, playing a different game by different rules to that which his enemies are aware of.

Recent events need to be understood in terms of the left’s theory of legitimacy, and Moldbug’s theory of the uniparty.

The Uniparty

Democrats are inner party of the uniparty, the high status inner members of the uniparty, Republicans are the outer party, the low status outer members of the uniparty.

Until the Kavanaugh nomination, Republicans were utterly determined to lose the mid terms in the house by any means necessary. Even though individual Republicans want to win their races as individuals, they don’t want other Republicans to win their races, because this would put them in a position where they are under pressure to implement Republican policies.

Democrats wield the carrot and the stick over Republicans.  The carrot being “Cuck out and we will allow you to crawl close enough to us for us to spit on you”, the stick being, as we have seen in the Kavanaugh crisis, actual stick.

Trouble with wielding actual stick is that if you wield too much stick against too many Republicans, the two party system is likely to rise from the dead.  Remember all those complaints that Trump’s Kavanaugh tweets were not helping?  They were helping collapse the uniparty system.  Trump knows how to trigger his enemies into acting unwisely.  Today, the two party system rose from the dead.  Today, Republicans voted on party lines for a judge that will rule that it is legal for Republicans to govern.  In the next month, chances are that Republicans will campaign to win the house.

Legitimacy and Color Revolution

Legitimacy in general means, “Should be obeyed, even when you disagree or don’t like it.” But the only people who are supposed to ever do this are conservatives, because when progressives don’t like it, it’s illegitimate. The Democrats are the party of the priesthood, the party of Harvard, and the priestly class gets to define legitimacy.


If people vote or some lower authority figure acts against progressivism, any other institution whatsoever is fully justified in neutralizing and reversing the outcome by whatever means necessary, and those institutions are portrayed as ‘legitimate’ which means that it is everyone’s holy duty to defer to them, at the very least, surrender and acquiesce in submissive and obedient resignation, but more often, they are supposed to recognize that the action really does flow from the ‘rule of law’ and accurate universal principles and the “true meaning of democracy vs mere populism” or whatever.

On the other hand, when the shoe is on the other foot, these institutions are illegitimate, biased, corrupt, tribal, ultra-partisan, extreme and radical right-wing, etc., etc., usually racist, and basically Nazis. And “anti-democratic” as opposed to anti-populist or pro-Constitutional constraints. They deserve zero respect or deference – indeed, constant criticism, protest, public shaming, and personal destruction – and progressives should feel free to ignore any pronouncements of such an institution as presumptively suspect and inherently invalid.

The priests denounce the sovereign as illegitimate, and this sometimes manifests as color revolution: a handful of priests storm the winter palace, successfully applying hard power, because the warrior class, who could crush them like ants, have been neutralized by priestly soft power. To do violence to violent priests would be “illegitimate”.

Today, a handful of priests stormed congress, and the warrior class crushed them like ants.

From time to time some judglet from Hawaii rules that Trump’s policy is racist, therefore that judge gets to exercise executive, legislative, and fiscal authority and overrule the President of the United States. I have been urging and expecting Trump to pull a Tony Abbott, and use military power to overrule the courts, or to pull a Duterte, and just plain terrorize the courts, but to my surprise he has so far adopted a more moderate course, and appointed judges who will reliably rule that the elected president and the elected party have the right to govern.

This will put the priestly class in the interesting situation of claiming that the president, the congress, and the Supremes are illegitimate.

If Trump is to assume his rightful place as God Emperor, he will sooner or later have to pull a Duterte, but perhaps he judges that the time is not yet. Likely, when the priestly class is campaigning on the grounds that President, Congress, and the Supremes are all illegitimate, the priests will burn the Reichstag.

200 Responses to “God Emperor beats Democrats at 4D chess”

  1. vxxc says:

    This is dunnofuckingwhat Dimensional chess.

    Zulu King says nobody touches the Boer’s lands- because the Zulu nation would starve.


    This is ^n Dimesional Chess.

  2. vxxc says:


    “I am a captain in the army, my speciality is killing.”

    “Pinochet should have killed more people.”

    “We’ve got to let everyone have guns, just like in the United States. I’d let truck drivers and security guards have guns, for example. It’s like the Wild West out here, but only one side is allowed to shoot.”

    “A kid that begins to become that way, a bit gay, leather him and change his behaviour.”

    “I am prejudiced, and proudly so.”

    • jim says:

      Sounds pretty good.

      • vxxc says:

        In other ^n Dimesional Chess: has anyone noticed the collapse of Blue Empire minding other people’s business?
        China disappears an actress for getting too uppity (we will not have celebrities in Emperor Xi’s China) and an Interpol chief.
        The Pope goes to the Emperor at the Canossa of Beijing.

        Saudi Arabia shows the shortest way with dissenting journalists.
        It seems Westphalian relations are quietly being restored.
        As no country can withdraw like the USA – as we’re an island- it just happens.
        This is where Trump purging the State Dept up front pays off.
        Soon hopefully he’ll do same with DOJ.

        He could have fired DOJ the first day except for Russian collusion nonsense.
        As it worjed out they’ve hung themselves.

        Long Live The Three Emperors: Trump, Putin and Xi.
        As Trump is basically his own Bismarck we may be in for decades of peace and prosperity. Any wars may be short and sane- as conflict should.

        • jim says:

          Trump successfully dealt with the primary short term power center, the state department, the instrument that would have instituted a color revolution against him.

          Trump successfuly dealt with the longer term power structure, the Department of education. The program of convicting frat boys for heterosexual rape regardless of the facts and evidence has quietly gone away.

          But the FBI, the Doj, and the judiciary remain huge problems.

          That the Democrats propose to delegitimize the judiciary suggests that these problems may be about to end.

          • vxxc says:

            When DOJ falls we shall have our Walls.

            Yes Walls.

            After the external Wall we may want internal ones.

  3. BC says:

    These NPCs have become very annoying.

  4. Neurotoxin says:

    “This will put the priestly class in the interesting situation of claiming that the president, the congress, and the Supremes are illegitimate.”

    Sure enough, right on schedule, the New York Times Opinion pages, October 5:

    Title: The Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Crisis
    Subtitle: It’s not about Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged behavior. It’s about justices who do not represent the will of the majority.


  5. Legitimacy is a tough thing. Mosca is telling us that people simply don’t accept rule by pure force, they need a political formula they can believe in, that makes ruling legitimate. A classic example is divine rights monarchy, but that already means the ruler’s legitimacy is decided by the priesthood, after all they are the experts on divine matters. Perhaps that is when balance between warriors and priests got upset, in the divine rights period.

    Go before that period and what you find is property rights and these comical rules of inheritance that you can fiddle with in Crusader Kings game, like semi-salic gavelkind ultimogeniture or whatever it is. And it looks like in this case the legitimacy is decided by lawyers, which is not a big improvement over priests and has the same issues.

    For a pure warrior rule you need something like the Ottoman system, where whichever son of the Sultan managed to kill his brothers first wins. But it does not sound very civilized.

    • eternal anglo says:

      Problem: People don’t accept rule by force alone. They need a political formula, a moral belief in legitimacy.

      Solution: Make Moldbug’s meta-capitalist justification of rule by force alone into the official political formula. Or make Jim’s justification of monarchy part of the state religion propping up a Jimian monarchy.

      Now this is what I call DIALECTIC.

      • The Cominator says:

        “Problem: People don’t accept rule by force alone. They need a political formula, a moral belief in legitimacy.”

        They DO but it makes things more difficult. You need guards all the time you need to keep them from running away etc. If you get invaded they’ll collaborate and if you put them in the army they’ll run away first chance they get…

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          That’s not true at all.

          Throughout most of history, virtually nobody has had the vote.

          The illusion today is that without the vote, what you just described would quickly happen: The People would be living under conditions of occupation and The Resistance would quickly prevail.

          Reality is people just want to get on with their lives without having people screw with them. Sure if someone’s offering a cheap short-cut, they’ll go and vote for it, but take that away and as long as the alternative’s viable, they’ll take it.

          Of course, Ancapistan is NOT viable, but if the peasantry had jobs for life and the ability to build a family in a family home, I very much doubt anyone would miss being able to choose between marginal tax rates of 51.1% or 51.3%

          • The Cominator says:

            Not having the vote didn’t mean that governments justified their existence by force alone…

            Haven’t you heard of the Divine Right of Kings?

          • Wrong as usual, but it is important enough to explain this time.

            The concept here is indirect consent.

            Andrew dies and his nephew Bob inherits Andrew’s bakery. He can run the place as he wants to, he requires no (direct) consent from others in it because it is his property. We as “society” have no say in the business policies he implements and our opinion if he is doing it well or badly does not matter except so far as not shopping there. He does not require our direct consent for running his property as he wishes.

            But he requires an indirect consent, that “society” accepts that it is indeed his legal, legitimate property.

            Suppose Andrew’s long lost son Charles returns and sues the estate at a court. At this point a judge will decide whose property it legally is. The judge exercises “society” ‘s indirect consent.

            Or maybe the people in the village are strongly convinced that Bob poisoned Andrew’s son Charles to get hold of this property, they push the police to investigate the case and indeed it is proven true and Bob goes to prison or to the gallows after a conviction by a criminal court. But what happens with the property? Clearly it will not be Bob’s son Dave who will inherit it as Bob himself acquired it illegitimately. Maybe the court will find Charles’ closest living relative and he will be the heir.

            Replace judges with lords with large armies and you roughly get the War of the Roses, Hundred Years War etc.

            Indirect consent in this sense is necessary for a peaceful resolution of conflicts. Property rights mean precisely indirect consent. Otherwise you have pure might makes right. And of course it is always true that *ultimately* might makes right, but the difference is precisely in that ultimately vs. immediately. This is the exact same difference between putting a velvet glove on the iron fist or not, or civilization and barbarism.

            Albeit “society” is probably not the right word here.

            Note that this is an important aspect about the old Scott Alexander – Moldbug debate. Both agree that voting is a proxy civil war where noses are counted and the largest “army” is declared winner. Scott argues that it is better than real civil war. Indeed it is. The proper reactionary argument is that this is not a good conflict resolution mechanism. The largest army of voters just says we want that guy to rule and these policies to implement, just because we like it, full stop. While in a system of royal legitism you can actually argue that your candidate has a right to the throne because of the logic of the semi-salic primogeniture whatever laws you have. So the reactionary argument is that something like a legal debate about a property right is a good conflict resolution mechanism, Scott’s democratic argument is that whoever is strongest because has the most followers, just gets whatever they wish. In a way, the democratic argument is a more direct might makes right system. But the real problem with the democratic argument is actually that it requires the army of followers to consent to the policies implement, while the reactionary argument says the legitimate king does not have to be popular even among his own followers who accept the legitimacy of the claim.

          • peppermint says:

            Marginal tax rates is technically correct, which makes this a berret than average CR post.

            HR is lvl 2 and 3 ghouls, Antifa is lvl 1 and 2.

            A lvl 2 ghoul has a lot of energy but can only see talking points, thus looking like an NPC walking a dialog tree.

            A lvl 3 ghoul can tell if you’re using approved talkinh points to furtively say something life-affirming.

            With lvl 2 ghouls, if threatened, spam talking points until they decide you’re one of them, because, to a lvl 2 ghoul, or any other casual observer, sounding like a ghoul exactly means being on their side.

            With lvl 3 ghouls, spamming talking points will make them think you’re causing trouble, instead play dumb and let them walk you through the talking points, because lvl 3 ghouls understand that most people aren’t interested in discussing politics with ghouls.

            (To survive encounters with lvl 1 ghouls, don’t talk about having nice things, which they resent; talk abot fast food and pussy and part time jobs, because that’s all they care about)

            CR is obviously lvl 2. He could lead a group of antifags or serve an HR department

    • Steve Johnson says:

      Go before that period and what you find is property rights and these comical rules of inheritance that you can fiddle with in Crusader Kings game, like semi-salic gavelkind ultimogeniture or whatever it is. And it looks like in this case the legitimacy is decided by lawyers, which is not a big improvement over priests and has the same issues.

      Nah, it’s decided on the battlefield as long as the winner has some kind of claim that doesn’t undermine the legitimate of the other rulers. In the game that’s enforced by the game engine – in real life it’s enforced by, well, force.

  6. This can be formulate as a law. Every religion has a vulnerability at what assumptions it makes about the heretics and enemies. They can be easily manipulated into believing their common stereotypes about them, which in fact they themselves are doing as well, to whip up support. But heretics and enemies can also exploit it by convincing them they will do the stereotypical thing, and then doing something else. hence misdirection and setting traps.

    The basic assumptions libs make about their heretics and enemies are that 1) they are stupid 2) they are “authoritarian personality” types 3) they are in for the money.

    This is exploitable and the easiest exploit is just to pretend to be stupid. They will gladly play along while you are preparing to pull a smart trap on them. W. Bush perfected this – he played a role, not that of the 4.0 GPA Harvard Law grad he was, but that of the nucular backcountry dumbass.

    The other two are harder to exploit.

  7. TBeholder says:

    From time to time some judglet from Hawaii rules that Trump’s policy is racist, therefore that judge gets to exercise executive, legislative, and fiscal authority and overrule the President of the United States.

    And this problem doesn’t go away, just steps aside for a little while. “Checks and balances” don’t work with courts.
    And even not necessarily steps aside for long. A “random lonely madman/madwoman” may assassinate Kavanaugh tomorrow. The poor tramwayteased baby won’t even have much to fear from a sufficiently pozzed court, or nice people from the Church of Freud Trice Reformed who can override it anyway. Unless shot during arrest or eliminated as a witness by the puppeteers, that is.
    Then what?

    to my surprise he has so far adopted a more moderate course, and appointed judges who will reliably rule that the elected president and the elected party have the right to govern.

    He plays the Good Cop, obviously.
    So when Swamp high-ups wonder if a totally random intervention of a “lone madman” would help, they check who on Trump’s team could do much without him, then notice Erik Prince on the list and suddenly it doesn’t look like a great idea at all.
    Also, Trump is careful, in that he roars loudly, makes the enemies lose ground one way or another, but doesn’t corner too many at once, or if unnecessary.

  8. Calvin says:

    How long do you think it will be before Schumer and Pelosi are out-lefted and devoured by their own? They’re white and (((white))), elderly, and they failed to stop Kavanaugh. The left being a considerably less forgiving master than Darth Vader, I’d imagine they aren’t long for politics. Probably to be replaced by some room temperature IQ mud, which can only be good for us.

    • jim says:

      Hard to predict the manner in which glass will shatter.

      (((White))) Democrats are riding the tiger. There have been lots of people who road the tiger all the way to despotic power, and considerably more that got eaten on the way to despotic power.

      Expect a demand for browner and more female Democratic party after the mid terms. Their current plan for resisting this demand is to get a majority in the mid terms, then use it to impeach Trump, impeach Pence, impeach Kavanaugh, double the size of the supreme court, and install one of their (((own))) as president, probably from the FBI or the Justice department.

      Anything short of this, they are rather likely to be devoured. But the closer we get to the singularity, the more we should expect the unexpected.

      • Calvin says:

        Now that Trump and (to some extent) the Republicans are actually showing somewhat effective resistance, do you think the Dems are actually likely to get anywhere in the midterms? I don’t think they’ll seize either branch of Congress with their increasingly obvious insanity and malevolence, and when they can’t impeach will promptly assemble the usual circular firing squad and start devouring anyone and everyone in their party with skin lighter than shit.

  9. Green Fields says:

    Jim, I don’t understand your reference to the Reichstag fire as an instance of priestly power display or usurpation. Surely the Reichstag, the parliament of the Weimar republic, was a loci of priestly power in Germany.

    The Nazis were originally composed of disaffected WWI veterans looking for post-war solidarity and meaning, so surely the burning of the Reichstag was an instance of the warrior class destroying the last hold outs of the priestly class in the transition from Weimar (preistly) to Nazi (warrior) Germany.

    I suppose, if you consider the socialist aspect of National Socialism to be sufficient to classify the Nazis as priestly, it was a case of a religious warfare between competing priestly classes. But it seems to me the Nazis were a warrior class, although they were not reactionary, but rather fascistic. I wouldn’t say the rule of the Nazis discredits warrior classes as rulers, anymore than Caligula discredits monarchy (warriors). Rule by warrior classes may be necessary but not sufficient for just rule.

    Mea culpa: My understanding of NRx is piecemeal and incomplete.

    • jim says:

      > Jim, I don’t understand your reference to the Reichstag fire as an instance of priestly power display or usurpation. Surely the Reichstag, the parliament of the Weimar republic, was a loci of priestly power in Germany.

      Commies are priests, commies lit the Reichstag fire, which Hitler then proceeded to milk to the max. Similarly, I expect the Dems to murder the supremes, or something equally stupid, which Trump will then milk to the max.

  10. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    The good times continue: shaping up to be a great day for Brazil as well.

    So much for ‘Menos Marx Mais Mises’: you blow the whistle, we bring the dogs.

  11. Mr.P says:

    Thank you to both “jim” and “Carlylean Restorationist.”

    Your thoughts are helpful.

    For me, this particular subject is important to nail.

    • Alrenous says:

      Support for CR is perhaps simply evidence that Jim does indeed need to counter those arguments.

      However, the fact this comment is posted twice is extremely suspicious. Look out for tag-team shill tactics.

  12. Mr.P says:

    A serious question (that I’m wrestling to answer).

    “Democrats are inner party of the uniparty, the high status inner members of the uniparty, Republicans are the outer party, the low status outer members of the uniparty.”

    Agree completely. However, what I’m not clear about is how the 8-year Bush/Cheney regime fits into this scheme.

    Bush/Cheney clearly were not conservatives (they _conserved_ nothing and squandered much), nor were they reactionary, as in hearkening back to a golden age — does that mean that I should see Bush/Cheney as right-wing Uniparty Progressives? I’m sympathetic to this view (the NYT, after all, approved and cheer-leaded Bush’s Iraq war), but somehow this feels intellectually unsatisfying.

    In any case, Bush/Cheney did seem to enjoy high status and exhibited enormous power, not to mention ran a tight, efficient ship of State. They were not mere cucks of or a useful-idiot-foil for the Left; they were not whiny, mendacious Democrats in RINO sheepskin nor low-status outer members of Power.

    How do you, channeling Moldbug perhaps, see Bush/Cheney?

    • The Cominator says:

      Bush Senior was the former head of the CIA. He was deep state/uniparty and the point man to make the Republicans indistinguishable from the Democrats.

      Bush Jr just seemed like an idiot especially after his first year.

      Cheney is more interesting then either of them and its hard to tell where he fits in… his friends certainly used the Bush wars to profit immensely and hes apparently so feared within DC that a person he blatantly and “accidently” shoot in the face with birdshoot APOLOGIZED TO HIM. But for all this he endorsed Trump pretty early I think pretty quickly after Trump eliminated Jeb.

      Before Trump the only decent Republican in my lifetime was Newt Gingrich (I know hes been called an entryist here but he really wasn’t, Gingrich as speaker actually tried to govern the way a Republican is supposed to).

    • jim says:

      New York Times is the voice of the uniparty. They granted Bush/Cheney high status – for a Republican. But definitely outer and inferior relative to Clinton Obama. Obama was the lightbringer.

    • Mr.P says:

      Yes. Cheney is interesting and tricky.

      To state my question differently:

      Having taken Moldbug’s teaching to heart, I find myself telling my Liberal friends, who espy a Nazi on every U.S. street corner and see Trump as a right-wing authoritarian despot, “Don’t worry! You won! The universities are Leftist, Liberal, Progressive (LLP). The Press is LLP. Washington, DC, and most state capitols are LLP. Republicans are 1950s Democrats, actually. Even Trump is a Liberal! You have nothing to worry about, except for Liberalism itself. Liberalism cannot and will not bring about the bright future you imagine but its dystopic opposite.”

      But if what I say to my liberal friends is true, then what do I say when asked about Bush/Cheney? To be consistent, I’d have to say that Bush/Cheney were LLP, too, albeit on the necon right-wing end of the Uniparty spectrum. But I can’t say that with a clear conscience. Bush/Cheney were different — and, to my mind, dangerous and destructive.

      • The Cominator says:

        Moldbug to my recollection had a very clear position on Bush, that he would have done almost the exact same things as Gore differing only really on invading Iraq.

        I would say that otoh Gore would likely have gone more full retard on Global Warming.

        • Mr.P says:

          If you happen to have a link to Moldbug’s position on Bush, I would gratefully check it out. (I did a search on http://www.unqualified-reservations.org and didn’t find anything.)

          Bottom-line for me:

          1. If there’s only ONE party in the U.S., the Uniparty (no argument from me!) …

          2. If the Uniparty is leftist, liberal, and progressive, with left and right extremes on its spectrum …

          3. Then, by definition, Bush/Cheney were (a) members of the Uniparty and (b) leftist, liberal, progressives, albeit right-wing.

          As I wrote before, that is intellectually unsatisfying to me (which doesn’t mean that it’s not true). Bush/Cheney did not strike me as right-leaning leftist, liberal, progressives but something else altogether. Also, it would be a tough argument to make and win with a liberal that Bush/Cheney were, actually, right-wing liberals. At the very least, I wouldn’t be able to make and win that argument.

          • jim says:

            Bush Cheney are not right leaning either.

            That Bush Cheney are rightists is “real communism was never tried”

            The left denounce them for their wars, because they lost, but their wars were just the first pass at “arab spring”, and the left loves arab spring, and similar genocidal programs around the world aimed at the extermination of Christians and superior races.

            The left hates them for losing a left wing war, and attributes the defeat to insufficient leftism. Hence falsely attributes rightism to them. Libya was supposedly going just great, because run by properly leftist inner party members, which is why Hillary refused to allow military support for the embassy when Al Quaeda launched a conventional military attack on the Benghazi embassy.

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              The wars would have worked if Arabs didn’t perceive Americanisation as stealing their wives, which it was, and cratering their fertility to autogenocide levels, which it was.

              The Kurds were OK with the Americans because they already embraced autogenocide when they took Soviet money.

              If there had been no wars Bush would be remembered for federalising the schools and the Hispanic mortgage crisis.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            It depends on the date of the snapshot.
            By 1950 standards, Bush jnr was astonishingly left-wing. He conceded basically every liberal talking-point of the ’50s and most, if not all, of the 70s and 80s.

            The neo-cons notoriously came from a Trotskyite background, thoroughly globalist-internationalist, favouring ‘the international community’ in the form of the UN and so on, while being completely lukewarm about economics.
            Bush was very much for tax cuts, which was right by 1980s/90s standards, but left by 1820s standards.

            If you’re craving an objective, cool analysis, the way to think of it is order vs disorder. Bush did not want to shore up established institutions, he wanted to ‘reform’ them. Institutions already ‘reformed’, he either wants to keep the same or else to further ‘reform’, never to restore.

            He was very much an actor of Moldbug’s ‘outer party’, and under Jim’s analysis he’d add the nuance that he favoured the red empire above the blue empire, to some extent (ie. he was oriented towards military bases rather than embassies). *To some extent* and compared to the alternatives at the time.

            To a leftie of 1910, Bush would’ve been a radical, right out on the fringes of the left.

            To a leftie of 2018, he’s literally Hitler.

          • The Cominator says:

            I believe it was covered SOMEWHERE in the open letter but don’t remember where. I DO know he talked about Dubya and said that Iraq was the one major thing he did differently then what Gore would have done.

            • Mr.P says:

              Thank you to both “jim” and “Carlylean Restorationist.”

              Your thoughts are helpful.

              For me, this particular subject is important to nail.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                You should probably take what I say with a pinch of salt. I’m an anti-capitalist Salazar-style fascist.

                Cominator’s a pretty orthodox Dark Enlightenment guy of the Nick Land accelerationist variety.

                Jim’s a libertarian-leaning reactionary very into the Georges.

                What are your own thoughts on Bush?

                • jim says:

                  Salazar’s socialism failed horribly, and he backed out of it almost before it began, very quickly moving towards protectionist capitalism, and before long, eased up on the protectionism. If you want a plausibly socialist right winger, go with Hitler. During the sixties Salazar sounded like a standard issue free market capitalist, carefully erasing his past socialism and quietly playing down his past protectionism.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You’re attempting the same trick Roberto tried before.
                  You’re perfectly aware that any comment about Hitler short of “he did something wrong” is literally illegal in Europe.

                  Once again you conflate intervention to stamp something out with socialism. Salazar telling the gambling and gin dens to GTFO is not the same type of thing as LBJ transferring capital from savers to spenders, no matter how many times you repeat the same lie.

                • peppermint says:

                  The fact that it’s illegal for you to talk about Hitler is your problem.

                  It’s hard to find nationalists who rose to power through stealing memes from socialists, the socialists have never forgotten how Hitler was seen in the 20’s.

                  As to nationalists who implemented socialist policies, there are unfortunately many, and the purpose of this intellectual exercise is to figure out how to prevent it from happening in the future.

                  Government run education makes everyone as incurious and incapable of following an argument as you, government run pensions steals all the money and then, 50 years later, mysteriously pays out to other people, government run healthcare is mysteriously unavailable to working men. But no one would even call the postwar British government nationalist, they were nothing but socialist and anti-British.

                • jim says:

                  Salazar would have shot you as the commie that you are.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’m honestly not too familiar with Land.

                  I’ve read all of Moldbug and most of Jim years back. Spandrell I’ve become more aware of recently but he writes very infrequently now.

                  Land I’ve gone looking for him but can’t find too much, I THINK xenosystems was his blog?

                • Roberto says:

                  CR himself is obviously only superficially familiar with Land. If he actually understood what Land’s “thing” is, he wouldn’t and couldn’t stop talking about it. (And would have the most vivid of nightmares) This is too long a discussion to delve into right now, but suffice it to say that Land and CR actually share some premises, except that the worldviews they derive from those premises are *diametrically* opposite in a manner that’s outright fantastic. Indeed, if Land saw CR, *he* would be incessantly talking about *him*, at least for a few weeks. If we put Land and CR inside the same room together, the universe might just collapse, lol. I’m curious if there are other commenters here besides me who get what this is about, and are as amused by it as I am.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  I find Land’s style somewhat annoying – it’s as if he’s completely allergic to clear, simple language and concrete illustrations. (I’d love to see Land vs Jim some day, not so much for any clash of worldviews as for the hilarious contrast of style. Land: garbage-collection of high time preference ratchet-jammed offshoots of intelligence’s cosmic Darwin-bootstrap. Jim: kill niggers)

                  That said, Land really is delightfully inhuman. Reading Hellbaked, understanding the principle therein, and being able to entertain the implications of the principle without melting down into matronly hysterics would be a good test to screen the hobbitpunk poseurs and Peppermintian ghouls from those who are truly autistic enough for the real Dark Enlightenment.

                  “Nullius in verba” is great for most science, but for the DE, i.e. real social science, “Coldness be my God” is a welcome addition.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  Oh, btw, here’s a power trio: Jim, Land and Bronze Age Pervert. Jim won’t read BAP’s book because BAP is too Nietzschean for paragraph breaks, and Land apparently thinks BAP is being ironic, which he is — and isn’t. Restoration Christianity 2.0 would be great, but it would be simply ebin if at least part of the post-Cathedral power structure has its origins in a vitalist pagan weightlifting cult started by a misogynistic shitposter.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Roberto I’m not a particularly original thinker.
                  I’m giving more or less the party line of people like Eric Striker and increasingly Mike Enoch.
                  In fact I expect Jay Oh de la Ray and Alex McNabb have some sympathy with many of the anti-capitalist talking points, and Seventh Son certainly agrees which side big business is currently on in America.

                  It’s essentially the TRS position.

                  I may deviate slightly – the emphasis on the evils of consumerism, the importance of denying the equality of all men created equal.

                  But it’s essentially TRS.

                  I’ve not read much Land. I read “The Dark Enlightenment” twice. The first time I assumed I’d clicked the wrong thing because I was expecting clear rational arguments against globohomo and what I found was weird technobabble and academic critical theory speak.
                  (I’ve read most of the 1990s stuff coming out of Carnegie Mellon’s Critical Theory department and “Bad Subjects” magazine. VIA THE WEBSITE, conspiracy theorists!)

                  I don’t much care for his work. He writes very much like what he is: a poseur pseudo-intellectual gobshite.
                  I like straight talk, which is why I favour Jim first, then Moldbug, but most of all TRS.

                  Reaction’s better than libertarianism because Reaction understands the benefits of using power, the inevitability of power, and the importance of HISTORY.

                  Alt right’s better than Reaction because it’s not intensely relaxed about piles of dead white people and the importation of foreign labour and it’s not hung up on never going against private entitites.

                  They’re smarter than you and they see things you don’t see because of your prejudices. (Don’t worry, they/we have plenty of prejudices too but I just can’t do it. Illegal.)

                • jim says:

                  > But it’s essentially TRS.

                  No it is essentially entryism: You are giving us the Cultural Marxist party line, Communism as assimilated by the Cathedral in the course of assimilating the Jews, and telling us it is our line.

                  You are giving us the Obama line, the line of the Ferguson rioters burning the supermarket. “You did not build that”

                  Reaction 101. Capitalism did build that. Corporate capitalism and double entry accounting built that, Charles the second and the restoration built corporate capitalism, by making the joint stock corporation a for profit entity and making the scientific method high status, so we want another restoration so that humans will rule the stars. We want to restore capitalism, you want to burn the kulak’s crops and kill the kulak’s cattle.

                  You are also giving us the Cathedral line that its magic works by soft power, works by magic, whereas the reaction theory is that Culture is downstream of power, that soft power is backed by hard power, that there is nothing magical or particularly difficult to understand about the Cathedral’s magic. Human Resources puts up those posters for the same reasons and in the same way as Havel’s Greengrocer puts up those posters.

                • peppermint says:

                  Nick Land is a lunatic because it’s only legal to speak well of civilization in riddles in Europe.

                  Enoch was a libertarian and Striker’s whole thing is to know the entire history of the 20c and exactly where and when the communists have been right and the right-wingers have been played.

                  But TRS isn’t about Enoch’s angryposting and Striker’s history.

                  The reason people actually subscribe to TRS is to hear Sven tell them how to be normal.

                  What would Sven think of CR?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Peppermint made me laugh again

                  “incurious and incapable of following an argument”

                  Yeah totally incurious. Rejecting the received wisdom that capitalism and welfarism are contrary interests, incurious as f*&” brah

                • jim says:

                  Cultural Marxism is the received wisdom. Cultural Marxism is that capitalism and welfarism are in accord, that capitalism is welfarism “You did not build that.”

                  Nah, I did build that.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  pragmatically speaking, Nick Land can at least put the fear of postmodernism into a leftist.

                • Roberto says:

                  >They’re smarter than you and they see things you don’t see because of your prejudices.

                  Colossal Dunning-Krugger and colossal projection in one short breath.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Sven’s somewhat free market, as am I.
                He also recognises the poor behaviour of corporations.
                As far as I can tell, he has sympathies with the Third Position and certainly wants immediate regulations to be imposed on monopoly social media platforms.
                He was one of the original creators of the Kosher Sandwich concept, which paints libertarianism as a strategic play by our enemies to get right-wingers to eschew the power of government.
                Beyond that, I would guess he’d have substantial disagreements with my plans to shut down half the big corporate restaurant chains, ban private swimming pools and put a levy on air travel at at least a dollar per mile.
                Where we’d definitely agree would be that these things can wait until the big problems are sorted out, and once the big problems are out, all these ‘options’ will be available to God-Emperor Trump or whoever.

                Look, when I was a libertarian, I bought the whole ‘tariffs are bad, immigration’s good’ line. I’m sure most alt right people who came over from libertarianism and conservatism have a similar story to tell.

                The difference between someone like Sven and someone like Cantwell (who I also respect and admire) is that Sven regrets his old positions and sees them as faulty, whereas Cantwell tries to reconcile them as an ego-defence.
                That’s valid and legitimate as a strategy but I lean more towards Svennism.

                They both have fantastic degrees of contempt, which is what really matters, and I often fail in that regard.

                I don’t speak for him, you’ll just have to get yourself a Paywall subscription.

                By the way, all you capitalist apologists, here’s today’s Guardian regarding Facebook and tax:


                So you think Facebook isn’t glad there are bored ‘heroic single mothers’ with plenty of disposable income to play with for FarmVille credits?

                Seriously, grow up.

                Leftists think the government’s on their side.
                Conservatives know it isn’t, but hope it could be.
                Libertarians wash their hands of it but think everything private’s good, including Facebook.
                NRxers wash their hands of academia and the media as well, but think corporations are unaffected by The Cathedral’s religion of death.

                The alt right just wants our bloody nation back, and once clear authority’s in place to deal with THAT, it can then be used for all the other garbage, without recourse to inalienable rights and natural law and all the other fake&gay bs you guys believe in.

                • peppermint says:

                  Listen, jackass, Kosher Sandwich was first described by Revilo Oliver commenting on all the mainstream news about the rise of the Japanese cars discussing how Americans are allowed to try to compete economically but can’t be allowed to compete nationally.

                  That’s the 20c origin story for the late 20c “philosophy” of libertarianism.

                  You call people lolbergtardian as if they ever actually believed anything other than let’s be as right wing as our masters will permit.

                • Nikolai says:

                  CR I get that it’s frustrating to be labeled an entryist and repeatedly called a communist ghoul, but come on. Rejecting Jim in favor of TRS is like rejecting Charles II in favor Paul Nehlen.

                  I listened to the daily shoah religiously for a couple years and I still listen to FTN every week. So I can say with confidence TRS is largely composed of racist liberals who want just want to go back a few decades and lose all the minorities. TRS is for people who are 105IQ and think they’re galaxy brains because they’re not afraid to say the word nigger behind closed doors.

                  Eric Striker is a socialist who blames all the failings of socialism on brown people and jews.

                  Mike Enoch’s take on Moldbug was ‘he just hates democracy because he’s a jew afraid of the goyim’.

                  Jazzhands has repeatedly said he’d be a democrat if the country was all white.

                  Cantwell invites hostile left wing media to cover his activism and is then genuinely surprised when he ends up in legal trouble. And fuck him for doxxing Ricky Vaughn. Cantwell and Nehlen got rid of a guy with actual influence because he countersignalled autistic natsocs.

                  Anglin is actually pretty good since he’s mostly redpilled on women and doesn’t pretend to be an intellectual.

                  You can’t really call yourself a restorationist and align yourself with people who think the rot set in around 1930-1960. TRS is good for memes and funny parody songs and they’re generally right about race, but they’re shit on pretty much everything else.

                  “NRxers wash their hands of academia and the media as well, but think corporations are unaffected by The Cathedral’s religion of death.”

                  That’s the opposite of what people have been trying to tell you. Corporations encourage globohomo poz precisely because they are affected by the Cathedral. Culture is downstream from power, we are ruled by the left so corporations are going to be involved in left wing activism. If the right genuinely seized power, they’d turn on a dime and most people would not even notice.

                • jim says:

                  > Corporations encourage globohomo poz precisely because they are affected by the Cathedral. Culture is downstream from power, we are ruled by the left so corporations are going to be involved in left wing activism. If the right genuinely seized power, they’d turn on a dime and most people would not even notice.


                  Reactionary class theory in a nutshell

                  New regime comes, Human Resources puts up new posters. Old posters said “Four legs good, two legs bad”. New posters say “Four legs need care and supervision by two legs”. Human resources did not read the old regime posters that they put up and will not read the new regime posters that they put up.

                • Koanic says:

                  > CR I get that it’s frustrating to be labeled an entryist and repeatedly called a communist ghoul,

                  That tanless guy at the BBQ wearing shades and a boonie hat who keeps suggesting “hooomannnn FLESH”.

                • Nikolai says:

                  >tfw Jim finally gives me the attaboy

                • Roberto says:

                  CR wants to ban everyone’s fun because some people have fun irresponsibly (the pretext) and because he envies rich people who can afford leisure (the actual motive). He constantly accuses us of lying about what we truly believe, of being secret libertarians, because he himself is lying about what he truly believes, being a not-so-secret Marxist. I bet he got stuffed into a lot of lockers back in the day.

                • Nikolai says:

                  I could understand how someone born and raised in britbongistan could misread Carlyle’s arguments against autonomy for the low class and come to the conclusion that we should ban restaurants, porn and casinos to save the proles from themselves. I’d even be somewhat sympathetic to banning porn and hitting the heart attack grill with some excise taxes.

                  But trying to ban swimming pools and international vacations is obviously envy-driven nonsense and claiming poz and multiculturalism is in the interest of the capitalist class is just marxism dressed up as reaction.

              • Doug Smythe says:

                @Carlylean: Salazar was influenced by Catholic social politics which recognized an ironclad Natural right of property as a first principle, rejected Socialism literally as heresy, and wanted capitalism tempered not abolished.

  13. Invader Zim says:

    It does seem interesting, in terms of identity-representational politics: we have three females on the Court (four if you count Roberts), yet no actual women.


  14. pyrrhus says:

    “This will put the priestly class in the interesting situation of claiming that the president, the congress, and the Supremes are illegitimate.”

    The first shot has already been fired by the two fat lesbians on the Court, saying they are uneasy about Kavanaugh, though unsupported by RBG..So the two affirmative action members of the Court are attacking their own status…

    • Invader Zim says:

      It certainly invites some entertaining speculation: once formally seated, which Supreme will Kavanaugh rape first? The fat stupid yenta, the withered dried-up corpse-stein, or the Wise Latrina? You just know Roberts is waiting on the sidelines, hoping if he can just brush past Kav suggestively in the corridor, he too might get his chance…

      “I detect the El Supremo
      From the room at the top of the stairs…

      Show-business kids
      Makin’ movies of themselves
      You know they don’t give a fuck
      About any body else.

      While de poor people sleepin’
      With the shade on de light
      You know de Stars come out at night…”

  15. Mister Grumpus says:

    Did you have another post all written up also, for the cases where Judge K wasn’t confirmed? If so, please humor us and post that here also, because I want to read that one TOO.

  16. vxxc says:

    O/T somewhat: I just came back from Red State where I grew up.

    It’s a new country. Brighter colors, Brighter people.

    That’s the difference a Leader makes.

    We’re fucking winning and it’s not even taking yet Civil War – which we would have and still will win if we have to…but the other side is collapsing.

    I’d kill the entire world for that man.
    The whole fucking world.


  17. Alrenous says:

    Hey Koanic.

    I assert the Bible is the work of Man.

    Let’s start with this: Why didn’t Yehova just put a fence around the damn Tree? Surely we can’t use divine naivete as an excuse?

    • jim says:

      1. A universe where God is too big means men are too small, so God deliberately lets us get away with stuff. (Genesis)

      2. God allows evil because God is trying us, wants to see what we are made of, wants us to make hard choices that really matter. (Book of Job)

      3. The goodness and greatness of God is beyond mortal comprehension. If it does not make sense to us, if it looks to us that God is a mean bastard, hard biscuit. (Book of Job)

      4. God created an orderly universe of cause and effect, a humanly intelligible universe, and thus mere flesh and blood is apt to get squished as the cold logic of the universe unfolds. (Swiped from the pagan philosophers and incorporated into Christianity)

      • Koanic says:

        The Garden of Eden was an opportunity to live under divine protection from #4, which Adam blew.

        • The Cominator says:

          Eve blew it, remember the fall was the fault of women and Eve was cursed to live under male authority and both desire AND resent it at the same time.

          • Koanic says:

            Ribs grow back. Eve was replaceable.

          • peppermint says:

            > cursed to live under male authority

            She was constructed as his consort from the beginning.

            Calling it a curse is an insult to women. It’s what you say to your woman when you pin her down, not what you say to other men during the day.

            • Koanic says:

              It’s not an insult, it’s basic theology. Like saying man is cursed to work by the sweat of his brow.

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                Nay, ’tis a gift.

                The opportunity to earn GNON’s pleasure through good works is a blessed gift. Construing work as a curse is liberal claptrap.

                • Koanic says:

                  The Bible doesn’t say Adam didn’t have work to do before the Fall. It said his work would be with toil after it.

                  And lo and behold, the Japanese sararīman drops dead in his air-conditioned skyscraper.

      • Alrenous says:

        “Beyond mortal comprehension” is not a real thing. There’s nothing with more complexity than Turing completeness. If you can handle algebra you can, if you’re willing to do the work, handle anything.

        • The Cominator says:

          “Beyond mortal comprehension” is not a real thing.

          Of course it is… we are risen apes who percieve a limited portion of the EM spectrum in three dimensions and linear time. There is much beyond our comprehension and an eternal being like God is not something we can fully comprehend.

          • Alrenous says:

            Admittedly you can’t fake wanting to do the work, and an extraordinarily large number of people, including you, are not enthusiastic about the work.

            • The Cominator says:

              You can balance all sorts of equations for systems of different dimensions, does not mean you can really comprehend a universe of more then 3 dimensions.

              • Alrenous says:

                *more than

                There’s nothing more to comprehension than prediction. If you can tell me what it will do – which some people can – then that is comprehension.

                The above assertion is best refuted by counterexample. Sadly even if one exists I’m aware you can’t provide it.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Mathematics can make you something akin to a map but the map is not the territory.

                • The Cominator says:

                  When you say prediction you refute yourself right there, how do you “predict” a timeless being?

                • Alrenous says:

                  Work it out for yourself.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me. ” – Sir Isaac Newton

                  ““But instinct is something which transcends knowledge. We have, undoubtedly, certain finer fibers that enable us to perceive truths when logical deduction, or any other willful effort of the brain, is futile.” – Nikolai Tesla

                  “The existing scientific concepts cover always only a very limited part of reality, and the other part that has not yet been understood is infinite.” – Werner Heisenberg

                  So it appears that some of the finest minds in our history did not agree with you that all understanding can be derived from mere mathematics.

                • Alrenous says:

                  You know neither what I said nor what I believe.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  There’s nothing more to comprehension than prediction. If you can tell me what it will do – which some people can – then that is comprehension.

                  You’re right about that and it actually does prove that some things are beyond our comprehension.

                  Predict where a particular asteroid will be in 100 years. You can run it through the systems, solve the equations but you’ll be missing variables for other bodies – that’s one level of lacking comprehension.

                  An entirely other level of lacking comprehension of the entire system is the case where someone straps a rocket booster to that asteroid and moves it to Earth orbit for mining purposes. You didn’t and couldn’t predict that.

                  The asteroid is only moving in response to predictable natural forces yet you can’t make predictions with certainty about where it will be over some long time horizon – yet if you just wait 100 years the universe will continue running its natural laws and the asteroid will end up where it ends up. Perfect comprehension means you’re running a fully detailed universe simulation.

                • Alrenous says:

                  There’s a difference between something that can be predicted in principle and something that cannot. Namely, the former can be imperfectly predicted.

                • peppermint says:

                  Any algorithm that can be executed can be executed by any computer.

                  Understanding means accurately predicting.

                  Any more platitudes?

                  This is actually more annoying than gaywad from the last thread.

                  God rested on sundae which means He’s not omnipotent.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “Any algorithm that can be executed can be executed by any computer.”

                  Sure but at what speed lol

                  This is the John Searle switcheroo: man in room manipulates symbols on cards that he doesn’t understand and produces appropriate answers to questions posed in Chinese.
                  Yeah sure, given a hundred thousand years and a lot of amphetamines.

                • peppermint says:

                  CR, I’m actually impressed at how you manage to get disagreeing with a platitude wrong.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [projection deleted]

                • Alrenous says:

                  Obvious tribalism is obvious, peppermint.

                  I suppose you might be as stupid as you pretend to be, but it took a while to even occur to me.

                • peppermint says:

                  I understand that, each day, in order to facilitate the process by which I get warned of a mistake, an (average of an) Americium has to fission.

                  (maybe some day when I’m cooking I’ll calculate the rate at which I stop free neutrons if I’m a bag of water a foot thicc taking up .1 steradians)

                  (CR, here’s your queue to complain about capitalists selling radioactive waste and telling the pullulating pheasants it’s safety equipment)

        • Invader Zim says:

          Tao / can / be-spoken-of / not / real / Tao .

          • Koanic says:

            Whatever it is you’re talking about, I doubt it exists.

            Don’t mention it!

          • Alrenous says:

            It’s more that even if you do speak about it, anyone who doesn’t already know what you have to say about it can’t hear what you mean.

            • Koanic says:

              It’s not “more” that, it’s exactly that. Enlightenment 101, ask any commentary.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          A subsystem of a system cannot completely and consistently grasp the totality of the system without being outside the system and not actually fully contained by it.

          The desire for an intellectual ‘silver bullet’ is perhaps the most common and most injurious intellectual sin. A desire for an *automatic* principle, valid always and everywhere at all times, a golden scale upon which any matter may be weighed (and against which, the mattoid *will* attempt to bring all things to weigh).

          It is the inflation of contingent principles into universality; in who’s inflation the inflator does not realize their essential contingency; such is their deformity.

          Men have used (abused) many contingencies over the arc of history for this purpose. Sometimes the word is ‘equality’; sometimes it is ‘justice’; or ‘power’; or even, ironically, ‘intelligence’.

          It is the desire of a frustrated or confused mind, constantly finding itself bewildered by the vicissitudes of life, for some piece of absolute certainty they can hold onto uncritically; such is the ironies of life, such persons who desire in this is most acute, are also those *least* qualified to produce something like such a thing. A soundboard or look-up table that can be quickly applied to any situation; an engine that may be cranked to produce answers with no user input. It is, in short, a desire to *stop thinking*.

          Or in other words, on some level, the mattoid is in fact aware of his deficiency; that is the wellspring of his insecurity, his private dread, his wish for something that *circumvents* the necessity for his cognition, which he understands is lacking in some critical sense; yet which understanding will hardly be consciously expressed, least of all to himself. He, ironically, once again, precludes the very things that would in fact elevate him most. Tradition (that he participates in). Authority (that he is under). Such is the nature of narcissism. Such is their ultimate pathology.

          • Alrenous says:

            Physics as a whole is larger than any individual. Individuals can nevertheless grasp enough of it to do useful things. Across many individuals, very significant fractions can be grasped. There also exist techniques to combine the fragmentary understanding such that one person may, effectively (some caveats) grasp a larger portion than they can grasp.

            • peppermint says:

              > there’s too much physics

              because the parts of physics that any capable man can understand are known as undergrad physics (needs renaming)

              Some day string theory will be undergrad, like essential quantum is now, and the anti-quantum zealots will still hate everything as complicated as classical thermodynamics and even hydraulics and statics.

              By now group theory has advanced to the point that I can explain to you why you can’t solve a polynomial with radicals in the general case, and you’ll pretend Newton’s method means I’m stupid to think it can’t be done while waxing puilosophical about

              • peppermint says:

                the nature of the continuum and the limit points in the cauchy sequins your wife has on her shirt

      • info says:

        The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was a confinement area. But also a trap set for the final defeat of Satan as well as giving a moral choice that is necessarily entailed by the existence of free will.


        Immortal creatures like Satan cannot be destroyed. That’s why the war in heaven was only able to expel the fallen angels. With the final victory culminating in the second death of eternal torment.

        • The Cominator says:

          If God created it, God can destroy it.

          • info says:

            God cannot create a square circle. Just as he cannot create a rock that he cannot lift.

            Same with immortality. A logical impossibility.

            • Invader Zim says:

              “Same with immortality. A logical impossibility.”

              Yes, I am quite sure that the Author of the Heavens and the Earth, He Who made all things, both seen and unseen, is aktshually quite butt-hurt right now because you like totally pwned him with “logic”.

              Yep. Quite sure that’ll work.

        • Alrenous says:

          Dude contradicts himself roughly every 20-30 seconds. Of course that’s another way of saying he seems to be on track for at least 30 seconds at a time.

          First of all, there is a third option between mechanistic universe and libertarian universe, namely the stochastic universe. (It’s really obvious when someone hasn’t studied their physics.) Please don’t forget superpositions.

          He does not explain why Lucifer could be confined in a tree but not directly into hell. Omnipotent beings shouldn’t need to play at court intrigue. Either confinement violates free will, in which case Lucifer must be allowed to roam free forever, or it doesn’t, in which case immediate total confinement is the only sensible option.

          In other words, put a damn fence around the Damned Tree.

          There is a problem with the latter, but only if you accept that morality isn’t real, which I will boldly assume you don’t. If you give free will but immediately confine the entities that use it wrong, are they in fact free?

          However, this objection entails morality doesn’t exist. ‘Wrong’ is just ‘what leads to confinement.’ That’s not morally wrong, it’s merely imprudent, as pursing a value this way leads to being unable to pursue any further values.

          There’s a further transcendental reason this doesn’t work. Free will is analytically impossible.

          From the video, paraphrased: “Satan wants people enslaved to their animal instincts.” However, there is no causal possibility where people are not enslaved to some instinct or another, which necessarily originates outside themselves. For all entities subject to the laws of logic, not being enslaved to your own properties entails not being able to act at all.

          Humans could think free will is possible. The creator could not believe this.

          Apparently intervening to make Jews more virtuous is fine, but for no apparent reason intervening with everyone is not.

          This implies intervention is possible. Which suggests that intervening to make Lucifer more virtuous would have been possible. Christians really don’t like to think about the implications of their explanations. Though admittedly nobody does – game theorists have a large hole in their canonical beliefs for the same reason.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            Quantum physics based psychology/philosophy and the multiverse is just as eye-rollingly retarded as anything the postmodernists could come up with.
            We’re supposed to believe the 10-dimensional universe of string theory, untestable but internally consistent, is somehow a different type of bullshit to intersectional African-American queer studies.

            They both smell very similar quite honestly.

            If you want a common sense take on free will, Dennett leads the way. An entirely mechanistic universe, with or without tiny random events but WITH high-level predictability to at least a functional level, is 100% compatible with any type of free will that a sane person could ever possibly want.

    • Koanic says:

      We can certainly use mundane naïveté as an excuse for why you think it was a literal tree.

      • Alrenous says:

        A disappointing answer. You really think God can’t handle a metaphorical fence?

        • Koanic says:

          Not at all. After all, he put one against metaphors in your neurology, to avoid having to answer annoying questions!

          • Alrenous says:

            When I hit a point the Bible actually screws up, Christians instantly become stupid and evasive. Compare the above to this. Proggies do the exact same thing, except explicitly for the purpose of making Christians look stupid and evasive, which is why they win and Christianity loses.

            Let’s say for the sake of argument that actually, the Tree was not, in fact, a fenceable object. Then Yehova should have written a different story, which doesn’t use a tree, as trees fenceable in contradiction to the actual thing it is supposed to represent.

            Alternatively, Yehova isn’t in fact the creator god, and doesn’t have infinite power, which means when he screws up, it’s not some near-incomprehensible mystery.

            Note this isn’t the demiurge all over again. If a nonperfect being is communicating with other nonperfect beings, then mistakes are likely to happen. Alternatively declaring your god is perfect when they’re not has obvious political advantages. Imperfection simply makes more sense.

            Further, perfection makes the fact Proggies win vs. Christianity a near-incomprehensible mystery. Again, imperfection simply makes more sense.

            Even in the unlikely event the Bible was written by a perfect being, it was of necessity written down and moreover translated by imperfect beings. Expecting it to still be perfect is the height of Pride. Refusing to correct error makes you deserve your impending loss.

            • Koanic says:

              > Let’s say for the sake of argument that actually, the Tree was not, in fact, a fenceable object.

              Do you know what trees symbolize in the Bible? If not, perhaps you should not have begun by mocking your own ignorance.

              > Then Yehova should have written a different story, which doesn’t use a tree, as trees fenceable in contradiction to the actual thing it is supposed to represent.

              So you don’t understand the metaphor, but you’re sure it was inappropriate.

              And you wonder why I suggest that God simply doesn’t want you to understand and believe, because you’re an asshole? This is a parsimonious theory.

              • Alrenous says:

                Incidentally, the virgin birth doctrine is heresy. The reality is that Joseph impregnated Mary the usual way and provided Jesus’ flesh, but his soul was that of some great spirit. That’s why he was both man and god: the imperfect flesh of Man, but a divine soul.

                I will not support this statement. It’s merely for illustration: what a corrected, Platonically ideal Bible would look like. See the flavour of truth, contrast the actual thing.

                Having studied something that is actually perfect, physics, it is laughable to describe the Bible or Jesus as perfect. The Bible is clearly a political document, employed by politicians for political purposes. It still contains wisdom, but only, more or less, by accident.

                Curiously, did not Aquinas also acknowledge physics as divine and perfect? He existed before it was possible to study physics deeply enough to see its perfection, so that’s rather interesting.

                The Bible, as a political document, was at first able to agilely respond to the realpolitik of the day. However, as human institutions will do, it became ossified and gradually more and more outdated. As a result, newer, quicker predators have taken to feasting on the Bible and its adherents. The wisdom that remains in it coincidentally happened to not contradict any political goals during its time as a living document.

                Though my favourite part is the part where Philosophy has been feasting on all (other) religions for its entire lifespan. The Bible does not threaten the fallen powers of the Earth, and frankly if they ever thought it did, they were in error. Philosophy is what makes them submit to terror and panic. That Christianity was effectively Judaism + Philosophy is how it was powerful. But because it is not pure Philosophy, it reliably loses to Sophism.

                • Koanic says:

                  In your case, I am happy to agree to disagree. Wouldn’t have it any other way. Never change!

                • jim says:

                  > The reality is that Joseph impregnated Mary the usual way and provided Jesus’ flesh, but his soul was that of some great spirit.

                  The doctrine of Mind body dualism is dangerous and harmful, as are the monist doctrines that make one the creation of the other. Giving dualism divine sanction would undermine civilization.

                • Alrenous says:

                  “Creation of genuine thinking machines undermines civilization.”

                  Can’t agree.

                • Mackus says:

                  >The doctrine of Mind body dualism is dangerous and harmful, as are the monist doctrines that make one the creation of the other.
                  Eh? But certainly there could be doctrine stating that Jesus can be simultaneously Joseph biological son and Gods divine/adopted son. How would it undermine civilization?

                • jim says:

                  Sure, that doctrine would work. But the slightly more specific doctrine suggested by Alrenous is dangerously specific.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  “Incidentally, the virgin birth doctrine is heresy.”

                  Heresy … against what?

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  “Having studied something that is actually perfect, physics, it is laughable to describe the Bible or Jesus as perfect.”

                  How are things going, did you make relativity and quantum mechanics work together yet? Or have you become entranced by hypothetical small balls of strings? Or found yourself in a muddy landscape of small hills, listlessly searching for firm ground that simply has to be out there, by construction?

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  “But because it is not pure Philosophy, it reliably loses to Sophism.”

                  But then what use, except expedience, are pure word games?

                • Alrenous says:

                  Anonymous 2,
                  I predict you can’t say anything I haven’t already thought of, so there’s no point in talking to you. I will therefore stop at this.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  In hoc signo vinces.

                  (small victory lap)

                • Koanic says:

                  That was impressive, Anonymous 2.

                  This phrase, “by construction” – I know its meaning by feel, but not by fact. Would you expand?

            • Invader Zim says:

              The Tree was indeed a fenceable object, and He did in fact put a gigantic fence around it.

              The fence was His Word, saying quite clearly, You shall not eat of that particular and very specific Tree.

              “Whosoever hears these Words of Mine and DOES them, he shall be like a man who built his house on Rock.”

              We cannot speak of Tao, but Tao can speak to us, and anybody can hear Tao if they will sit still to Listen.

              • Alrenous says:

                That doesn’t make sense and I’m disappointed with you for thinking that it does.

                • Invader Zim says:

                  It isn’t supposed to make sense.

                  What part of “Tao / can / be-understood-in-words / not / real / Tao” is hard to understand?

                  Oh that’s right, I’m sorry, all of it. Until you are content to sit quietly and Listen to it.

                  “Whosoever hears these Words of Mine and DOES NOT do them, he shall be like a man who builds his house upon sand: and the rains came, and the winds blew, and Great was the Fall of that House.”

                  Cheerio, gentlemen. (Because I’m almost certain there are no chix here.)

                • Alrenous says:

                  Obvious status move disguised as argument.

    • pdimov says:

      >Why didn’t Yehova just put a fence around the damn Tree?

      He wanted to see what’s going to happen if he didn’t.

      • Alrenous says:

        Contradicts other exegesis and thus implies the Bible is imperfect. Namely that the creator god shouldn’t need to try things know what will happen if they are tried.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          That doesn’t follow at all.

          There is such a thing as ‘design space’. Not all designs are attainable, even in PRINCIPLE, no matter how many resources you have.

          God designed the universe to operate as a beautiful machine. He had ancap sympathies, as it were!
          In order to get the best results from this best of all mechanisms, it’s crucial to have guiding laws which aren’t mechanistic but are instead matters of qualitative good and evil, or morality if you will.

          The accrued designs of evolvability culminating (to date) with Man are part of the mechanistic universe that constitutes the best available design, even in principle with infinite resources, but left to their own devices, just like the free market, they tend towards moral entropy and self-destruction.
          Finite designers, such as Man, are easily fallen to sins such as covetousness (why try: just declare a grievance and seize), adultery (don’t worry about the future, there’s a pussy here today) and so on.

          That’s where God’s laws to Man come in, and even if you’re a right-leaning atheist, you must see the truth of their necessity, and of the easy slipping into of the sin of hubristic atheism declaring “morality is a social construct” or “morality does not exist”, hence the law that there is only one God and you have to cleave to Him.

          Now is The Message scientifically robust and satisfying to the intellectual curiosity of the top .001% of Mankind?
          No, but why WOULD IT BE?

          You’re thinking like a Whig: all men have the capacity to understand the universe so let’s find The Truth and just present it to them, then they’ll get it.

          No they won’t! Most people are dumb as a bag of rocks.

          What works, in design space, for normal people, is a set of specific prohibitions and the option to sincerely repent when you don’t follow them. In other words if you screw up, you don’t lose the rules and have to be parted from them forever: just stop sinning and start behaving yourself, even imperfectly in the future. It’s better than the alternative!

          Meanwhile we ‘sell’ the culture that following these moral laws is VITALLY IMPORTANT. We push it through the arts, story-telling, politics and commerce.

          That’s how it should work.

          In globohomo we push anti-Christianity, egalitarian belief in the sufficiency of Man, moral relativism and selfishness, explicitly in terms of content and implicity in terms of the structure of laws, little assumptions of equality like laissez-faire.

        • pdimov says:

          This is not a contradiction. He can both have to try things and know what will happen when they are tried.

          He tries things, sees what happens, rewinds the universe back to the point before he tried them, now he knows what will happen if they are tried.

          He exists outside your time, so you have no idea he did try in order to know.

          • Koanic says:

            The Bible makes no claim that Jehovah exists outside of time, and He certainly does not rewind.

            • Koanic says:

              Time in the physical sense has to do with the speed of light. But Time in the subjective sense is as lightless as the inside of one’s skull.

              I believe that subjective Time is part of the Logos that proceeds from the nature of Jehovah, the Just God Who changeth not: I AM THAT I AM.

              • It’s actually the speed of entropy. Time is pretty much defined as the direction of the equations in which entropy increases. The equations are time-reversible, entropy not.

                I don’t see how the speed of light matters. It is a fairly simple thing. If you drive north at 100 miles per hour and then decide to drive northwest at the same speed, your progress towards the north vector necessarily slows. In four-dimensional space-time, driving in any spatial direction necessarily slows down driving towards the time vector. When driving towards the time vector is zero, you have the max speed. That is all really.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  It is not just a matter of travelling orthogonal to the time vector. I can drive orthogonal to the north vector at 100mph, or I can travel orthogonal to the north vector at 200mph, or any speed you like, and my speed in the direction of the north vector is still zero. And in any case, if you are imagining the 3 dimensions plus time as 4 dimensional space, there is no such thing as ‘speed’ through that space, because speed is distance over time (you are sneaking in a second time dimension).

                  Being young and still very ignorant, I do not understand what c actually is, but I have a gut feeling that it is something a bit like what you describe. However, it cannot be what you describe.

                  When Jim speaks authoritatively on physics and other hard scientific matters, I trust that he is not bullshitting. I think that every reactionary should refrain from speaking on hard scientific matters unless he is absolutely sure that he knows what he is talking about and is not bullshitting (I have fallen into this trap), lest we give our enemies justification for labeling us as know-nothing kooks.

                • peppermint says:

                  speed of entropy = speed of quantum information = speed of carriers of quantum information = speed of light. You meant as apposed to the local speed of a subset of wavelengths in a material, like the speed of electricity in a wire and quarter wavelength antennas, and the speed of visible light though glass and consequent refraction.

                  PS gravitons are energy which makes gravitons slower. Which makes GR intrinsically nonlinear (so find a soliton solution), but usually the nonlinearity is ignorable and we can act like space is broadly flat with a graviton field overlain.

                  Time defined by entropy is what you hear from the miserable communist crackpot Sean Carroll. The meaning of entropy is that if you stack alphabet blocks to the ceiling and come back tomorrow the space of likely configurations will be much larger than the space of likely configurations the blocks started in, and if you run the experiment with time going backwards, the experiment with its a prior and posterior probabilities will behave exactly the same, modulo irrelevant CPT details.

                  You may object to alphabet blocks, so substitute in a mixture of nitrogen and water, with the water in liquid phase, and heat it instead of leaving it alone. Maybe you’ll invent a steam engine or heat pipe.

                  Unfortunately many people think themselves physicists having read a popularizing book about QM and ignoring classical thermdynamics.

                • jim says:


                  Future examples of gibberish pretending to be physics will be deleted with a nasty comment.

                  People read a popularizing book written by someone who does not understand physics, but thinks he does, and do not understand the book, but think that they do.

                • Koanic says:

                  Fortunately, even my poetical parallels are physically-founded. No entropy between these ears!

                • peppermint says:

                  you’re right Jim, that post was embarrassingly derpy, if I’m too tired to write coherent things I should just go play vidya or whatever

        • The idea that a text can be perfect is an ultraprotestant / muslim one. At any rate: “The tree of knowledge was for trial, and proof, and exercise of man’s obedience and disobedience; and hence it was named the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or else it was because to those who partook of it was given power to know their own nature. Now this is a good thing for those who are mature, but an evil thing for the immature and those whose appetites are too strong, being like solid food to tender babes still in need of milk.” St. John of Damascus

          This actually makes a whole lot of sense to me, of course I am taking it as a poetic allegory in an atheistic sense. Knowing human nature makes a you a cynic. It is hardly avoidable. Cynics have their uses, for example, they can predict things well. However cynicism prevents human cooperation. As Spandrell wrote about Chinese history: have an accurate view of human nature, have Warring States. Have government supported nonsense like Confucians teaching everybody can be educated into being good, and social harmony and all that, and you can coordinate an empire around it relatively peacefully.

          So not everybody should be a cynic, even though cynics are right. It is really for the mature who know when to shut up.

    • Simon says:

      Arguing about whose interpretation of the Bible is correct is boring. It would be more interesting to determine what is the correct definition of Christianity.

  18. Alrenous says:

    Trouble with wielding actual stick is that if you wield too much stick against too many Republicans,

    This is also the basic reason schools don’t use corporal punishment anymore. They don’t want the kids to recognize the basically antagonistic relationship the teachers have with them.

    but to my surprise he has so far adopted a more moderate course

    Remember America is the heart of the Empire. While I’m worried that Trump isn’t seeing what’s truly necessary, or isn’t emotionally willing to pull the trigger…it’s a very good idea to give the corrupt legacy system as much rope as possible to hang itself with.

    Does Trump know that his impeachment would provide as much or more rope as every previous misstep combined? It’s a backstop to this sort of brinksmanship.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      This is also the basic reason schools don’t use corporal punishment anymore. They don’t want the kids to recognize the basically antagonistic relationship the teachers have with them

      When schools used corporal punishment they were mostly acting in the students’ long term best interests. As they got rid of corporal punishment they also stopped acting in the students’ long term best interests.

      It’s an effective tool that they stopped using precisely because it was effective.

      • Alrenous says:

        >students’ best interests
        They didn’t beat you, so you think they’re on your side.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          No, the opposite.

          They stopped being on the students’ side even a little bit at the same time they stopped with corporal punishment.

          • Alrenous says:

            Hunter tribes don’t beat their kids. (They do beat their women.)

            Do try to rise above the level of savagery of literal savages.

            • jim says:

              Read the voyage of the beagle. Hunter gatherer tribes do beat their children, and often kill them.

              • Koanic says:

                I believe Aboriginees are an exception to intra-tribal violence norms, and would hesitate to extrapolate the behavior of sub-Saharans to super-Saharans.

                The relevant hunter-gatherers to examine for extrapolation of European behavior are the Indians of eastern North America, and also tribes fighting white conquest across the continent, who recruited heavily from whites.

                Indians did not beat their children or women, from what I have read.

                • jim says:

                  The Australian aboriginals were an exception to the intra tribal violence norms to the extent that their system worked. However their myths and legends are full of stories about times and places where it did not work, and we have plenty of records of Australian aboriginals behaving genocidally to each other. Sometimes they had wars, sometimes they had peace. Also bears shit in the woods.

                • Koanic says:

                  > I believe Aboriginees are an exception to intra-tribal violence norms

                  I mean that they were and are exceptionally violent to their own tribemates.

                  Maybe niggers do similar stuff, or some people related to aborigines in Oceania.

                  Otherwise, my impression is that intra-tribal violence is vanishingly rare in hunter-gatherer tribes. Violence is very high, but inter-tribal. Intractable internal conflicts are resolved by ostracization.

                • jim says:

                  > my impression is that intra-tribal violence is vanishingly rare in hunter-gatherer tribes

                  Your impression is incorrect. They are always on the edge of genocidal total war, even if most of the time they manage to avoid falling into total war.

                  Anthropologists like to interpret them as socialists, therefore angels. Actual behavior is rather like us, except less civilized.

                  Lack of stuff generally reflects lack of property rights. Lack of property rights results in high levels of within tribe violence, but the threat of absolutely genocidal inter tribal violence always looms over them. In the voyage of the beagle, they needed to reinsert primitives back to their original tribe, because they were usually kos to other tribes.

                • jim says:

                  Narrators of “Voyage of the Beagle” report high rates of violence within the tribe and between tribes. Recommend monarchy and property as a solution for violence within the tribe, and seem to take high rates of violence between tribes as business as usual and an ineradicable part of the nature of man.

                  The Beagle account of hunter gatherers is consistent with Chagnon’s account of the Yąnomamö.

                  Back when primitive people were actually around and readily observable, everyone knew that they were more violent than civilized people, but everyone also knew that the difference was not all that great, that no one had the magic highly effective solution for war between groups and order within the group.

                • Koanic says:

                  I’m not buying it, unless I see evidence that can’t be explained by the aboriginal racial strain’s intra-violence (Denisovan?) or the switch from hunter-gatherer to imperial/agricultural lifestyle.

                • Koanic says:

                  I don’t view Chagnon’s study of the Yanomamo as relevant. In the 1960s they were living in villages, doing agriculture. Agriculture is a sufficient cause for intra-group violence.

                • jim says:

                  That is precisely the claim that Chagnon refuted.

                  They were not fighting over land, of which there was ample supply (hence the coexistence of agriculture and hunter gathering). They were fighting over women.

                  The story about peaceful hunter gatherers is a myth.

                • Alrenous says:

                  Hunter tribe men will often kill other men’s children if they can get away with it, yes. My impression is it’s usually carelessness, rather than malice.

                • Kevin C. says:

                  “Indians did not beat their children or women, from what I have read.”

                  From what I’ve seen here, this certainly isn’t true of Alaskan Natives — and all those ads on TV with Natives talking about lowering our high domestic violence rates don’t exactly seem aimed at white people.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  The real take-away from Chagnon was that genetic relatedness is a LOT more salient than people think.
                  Relatedness (ie. in-group membership and the recognition thereof) produces co-operation.
                  Chagnon was Putnam 30 years in advance.

                  Diversity is a societal bad.

                • peppermint says:

                  CR, there’s a reason the Yanomami are getting bulldozed by whoever the hell from Brazil, and it’s probably that the Yanomami aren’t related to each other enough to stand against the Brazilian nation

    • peppermint says:

      elimination of cp was a prelude to promulgation of cp

  19. “Today the two party system rose from the dead”

    We may have witnessed a major turning point in history today. Real two-party politics, real democracy, means real civil war, sooner or later. I don’t think Trump understands this, I think he is a man who believes, like any good capitalist, in competition. And he means to outcompete the Left. So he revived the two-party system intentionally in order to do so.

    But the battle for sovereignty is not market competition. It’s fought through war. Fortunately, Trump is well-equipped to fight a hot war, though he will likely have to be drawn into it against his will, by especially violent leftists.

    If the civil war goes hot, Trump will win. If the war stays cold, the Cathedral will win and Trump will be that Egyptian Pharaoh who converted his nation to the sun-cult, whose new religion was forgotten and rolled back by the priests immediately after his death.

    • jim says:


      If the left calms down, lets Trump rule for six more years, and waits for demographics to roll over us, they will win in the end. But it is difficult for them to calm down.

      • The Cominator says:

        They won’t calm down but they WILL start fighting each other.

        The slightly less insane leftists are going to blame the SJWs and feminists for this defeat. The SJWs will blame the slightly less insane dems and cite Manchin voting for Kavanaugh.

      • Mister Grunpus says:


        If you guys recognize the “voice of leftist reason” out there, trying to calm their side down to wait for the numbers to win for them, please note it here. I need to learn to recognize that voice for myself.

        • The Cominator says:

          Michael Moore and Bill Maher are probably the sanest ones they have left who are still willing to speak and have platforms to speak, and they are STILL Trump deranged as all hell, they just haven’t entirely lost touch with reality (ie they acknowledge that Trump is almost certain to be reelected and Moore was the rare leftist who thought he was going to win in 2016). They will vocally and loudly blame the SJWs and feminists for the Democrats crushing midterm defeat.

          Manchin is going to switch parties after the election and probably going to try to prove he is the most fanatical right wing Trump supporting rightist in the senate.

          • pyrrhus says:

            Not sure why Manchin didn’t switch parties a while back, probably some kind of insider problems.

            • The Cominator says:

              I thought Bill Maher and co would wait til after the midterms before they start blaming the SJWs and feminists but he didn’t waste any time the Democratic civil war has already begun.


              • jim says:

                It will be over before it begins. Bill Maher is already capitulating.

                The question being debated is not whether social justice warriors went too far, but whether to go with the maximalist program – arrest Trump, Pence, and their families, install a Democratic president, and arrest Kavanaugh

                • The Cominator says:

                  They’ll start again when the Dems lose the midterms.

                  They won’t arrest Trump with no impeachment. Its possible that the remnant of the Brennan CIA faction tries to kill him because that is the only option they have left.

                  Rosenstein and that useless traitor sack of shit Sessions are gone after midterms, probably followed by Mueller after a decent interval.

                  I’m essentially saying be optimistic, I think we’ve won the war…

                • jim says:

                  If they have the self control to sit tight for six more years they win the war.

                  To fix this we have to disenfranchise women and non taxpayers, or install a King and disenfranchise everyone, which will require them to burn the Reichstag.

                • Mister Grumpus says:

                  > Its possible that the remnant of the Brennan CIA faction tries to kill him because that is the only option they have left.

                  No! There are still 999 possible deals that Trump can work out with those guys. Once a side declares bankruptcy, the possibilities for non-violent problem-solving really open up.

                  Q-Anon repeats “No Deals”, but you know that’s just a Bad Cop act.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Q is bullshit but its a mistake to leave these Brennan people running around… Trump needs to put them underground permanently.

                • Aboriginal rape says:

                  >If they have the self control to sit tight for six more years they win the war.
                  Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

              • The Cominator says:

                “If they have the self control to sit tight for six more years they win the war.”

                Trump will cause them to chimpout by purging the Justice Department and CIA after the midterms followed by the Universities after 2020 (when he passes laws similar to Orban’s forbidding women’s studies and other progressive poison courses). They will not sit tight for this.

                Even if they did the Brazil situation makes me hopeful, Brazil’s majority minority what the Democrats wanted to create here but they are still set to elect their own Trump president. Trump’s won over a very large amount of black and hispanic men… it is single women who are the real problem.

          • Cyril Holland says:

            They won’t blame “feminists”. They will blame “white feminists”

        • Steve Johnson says:

          The first example I read. “Hey relax guys, we’ll just demographically overwhelm and exterminate our enemies if you just wait – Trump isn’t even really going to stop that program unless you force him into it.”


          • jim says:

            They are going to come for him and send him to the gulag or guillotine before they come for me.

          • Anonymous 2 says:

            I don’t read Slate Star very often and find him a bit too facile and, if you will, usually more verbal than insightful. That said, now that I did revisit, there was a gem:

            “In some weird reverse of Conquest’s Law, any comment section that isn’t explicitly left-wing tends to get more right-wing over time.”

            from http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/07/ot112-opentagon-thread/

            • eternal anglo says:

              In particular, comment sections that are pseudonymous or anonymous and do not have voting systems get more right wing over time.

              In other words, remove status from the equation, and the truth tends to come out.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          The first example I read. “Hey relax guys, we’ll just demographically overwhelm and exterminate our enemies if you just wait – Trump isn’t even really going to stop that program unless you force him into it.”

          Looks like a post with links doesn’t go through so use a search engine for “slatestarcodex” and “crying wolf” for the post I’m referring to.

  20. […] God emperor beats Democrats at 4D chess […]

  21. The Cominator says:

    Good thread to make today. I think the battle of Kavanaugh is the Waterloo of the Cathedral. State church’s are not eternal and they don’t generally survive having a great and successful ruler who is an open heretic or apostate.

    Open destruction of the Cathedral will likely have to wait until after 2020, he’ll win such a landslide that he’ll claim a mandate to do it. I fully expect laws similar to Orban’s forbidding women’s studies and such in state funded institutions effectively ending progressivism as the state church.

Leave a Reply