This Witch Hunt must end NOW with a trial in the Senate, or let her default & lose.

Trump wants a trial in the Senate at which Democrats get to call witnesses, Trump gets to cross examine their witnesses and Trump gets to call witnesses, and they get to cross examine his witnesses.

During which he gets to put on the greatest show on earth, unlike the ratings killing impeachment investigation.

The Democrats want a trial in the Senate during which they continue their aimless, endless, boring, and fruitless fishing expedition for something, anything, everything, to pin on Trump, but Trump does not get to call witnesses or cross examine their witnesses.

The cucked Republicans want it all to end now, before Trump gets to hang out all the Uniparty and Deep State dirty linen in the Senate.

I have been expecting and predicting a color revolution attempt, but that Nancy is sitting on the articles of impeachment indicates that this is off the table, at least for now. Maybe not until 2026, when revolution will be riper. But if it is off the table, the tiger she is riding is going to get even more difficult and fractious.

Nancy Pelosi is using the Republican desire to avoid letting it all hang out as leverage to continue the forever investigation of Trump, which has been running since he nominated in 2016, but agreement is unlikely. She cannot even find agreement within the Democrats. Making deals is hard, and it is now becoming impossible, since there is no one to make a deal with. The only possible resolution of the impasse is to drop the whole hot potato into Judge Robert’s lap, and if neither side is offering that, neither side wants the impasse to end.

But both Trump and the tiger Nancy is riding do want the impasse to end. So, expect the unexpected. But probably not the most dramatic outcome of them all, color revolution.

274 Responses to “Impeachment”

  1. Karl says:

    Less than a month later, Nancy is no longer on the articles of impeachment but passed them on to the Senate.

    Sitting on them indefinitely was impractical, the next attempt to prevent escalation would be doing an impeachment trial without any serious attacks that could lead to actual impeachment and therefore warrant no serious all out defense. Possible, but very difficult to do as such things have a tendency to escalate.

    Normal elections in November are still a possibility, but things are coming to a point

  2. jack boot says:

    another episode in the clued in boomer series

    Young people today are extremely unlikely to have the kind of success that you and I had. I was Class of ’82 at MIT. 50% of applicants got in. When I was growing up, any dentist who worked full time could afford a house on the beach near a big city (e.g., Cape Cod if he or she lived in MA). Now the lot alone would be $3 million.

    what is your response?

    • jim says:

      I totally support the “self made rich bastards” in the story, whose spoiled brats, in particular the daughter in the story, are screwing up, probably due to overly generous handouts from their parents. Probably should have been firmer with their kids when they were little.

      My sons are spoiling their children. (Spoiling grandchildren is supposed to be grandpa’s job.) I raised my kids well, they got good jobs, got wealthier than I am, have children of their own. I reminded my younger son how much better he was behaved than my grandson when he was my grandson’s age. My sons are not screwing up, but the kids in the story are screwing up.

      • jack boot says:

        ah yes. more typical fuck you i’m a boomer mentality

        why are people reduced to living in garages in formerly the richest whitest and most beautiful state in the country?

        plus here’s a friendly message from one of your gen x pals (comment on the blog)

        I graduated in 2004 and am often stunned by the market level entry level wages of kids who are clearly smarter than me. On a straight numerical basis recent graduates who are more qualified than I was make barely more now, but rents for the kind of apartments or houses 22yos need have quintupled. It’s impossible for these kids to save anything, whereas I did manage to accumulate quite a bit of capital for a decade. On top of the rent, vehicle/transportation costs have way outrun inflation. The new honda civic I bought for cash in 2004 doesn’t exist anymore. In real costs it’s more than double; who cares if the new one has power windows but mine were manual. Even public transit ticket prices have gone insane. The price of some rail routes in BosWash I rode regularly have tripled.

        The most significant factor is immigration, in my estimation. The corporations are hell bent on importing people who hold all the entry level jobs for years on end at low cost with minimal turnover. Those jobs used to be entry rungs on the ladder, from which young people trained up. The massive number of foreigners who I see walking around now (they weren’t here 15 years ago) sit in jobs forever. They come on H-1B/H-4, but then after that they’ll still sit with their green card in some near entry level job for ages and ages without moving on.

        have you walked around san francisco lately? it’s surreal

        more coming right up

        • jim says:

          My sons are as successful as myself.

          If you are a loser, it is because you fail to create value.

          The economic troubles of the Millenials are the Obama economy, disinclination to do anything useful, the fact that a whole lot of them are brown, which means both disinclination and inability to do anything useful, and extremely expensive Master of Art degrees in intersectional lesbian basket weaving. I see smart hard working white kids (such as my kids) doing very well.

          > have you walked around san francisco lately? it’s surreal

          Try walking around Austin instead. What you are seeing is the dysfunction of a state that has imported the political and economic social order of Mexico.

          Four months ago I did indeed walk around San Francisco, and then I walked around Austin. Third world and first world.

          The shiny new modern San Francisco buildings containing Facebook and the rest, full of wealthy whites and East Asians, are toppling into a third world sea.

          • jack boot says:

            yes i know “tech” is the one growth industry in america for the past 3 decades

            it reaches into every home and sucks out value

            on one hand the profitable companies like google directly monetize your personal information

            on other hand the unprofitable vc companies are sustained by value stolen thru inflation

            and yea as minor tech barons you and your sons are doing well. i commend you.

          • Mr.P says:

            Which is which? SF third world or first world? Austin first world or third world?

            • jim says:

              San Francisco is a few islands of shiny new tall buildings full of affluent whites and east Asians about to drown in a third world sea. Austin is a first world city with a few islands of third world.

          • Jsd says:

            I wonder if it is worth it as a millennial. This society hates me. If I succeed my money will be taken and given to people who hate me. I have lost respect for most people as a consequence of the current state of things. There are few marriageable women. Is it worth it to put in the effort to make a lot of money? It almost feels like it would be safer to fly under the radar on a working class income. Having a lot of money would put a target on your head. Unless maybe you can get out to a rural area.

  3. jack boot says:

    let me tell you about a guy i know. he’s in his twenties, younger than me. he’s in a trade training program. did some other things before that. reliable sort. bright but not brilliant. ~120 iq

    his parents (plenty of money) are paying for his living expenses while he completes the program. once he completes he’ll make 60k or so. 90k is probably about the absolute max he can expect ever

    here we have a guy. good looking too by the way. here we have a guy equally as talented as his parents. not hyper frugal but but frugal, not wasteful. hasn’t been able to save much after several years of working.

    this guy went to a good but not great college. got a “good” degree. after graduating couldn’t find a job in his degree. his parents picked up the tab. then he muddled about for a few years trying to make ends meet. now his parents are paying for the trade school.

    in a previous generation he’d be on a mid level track of doctor or lawyer or accountant. or manager. successful businessman, whatever. but today … not so much.

    many such cases. and you insist everything is fine.

    because you’re a boomer. there’s no other explanation

    • jim says:

      If he is “completing the program” then of course he is not able to save money. Prolonged education is a prolongation of the parent child relationship, with priests in place of biological parents. University is kindergarten, and these days the main value of a degree is that employers know that a degree holder knows what is crimethought and what is not, and that Human Resources is apt to require a degree, because of the incestuous relationship between Human Resources and the state, and the university and the state.

      If the “program” does not give him an accreditation from respected holy seminary, then employers will not trust him to refrain from accidental crimethink in the workplace, therefore will not give him a position that could expose the company to the wrath of Human Resources, so one is a whole lot better off demonstrating one’s capability to create value by actually creating some value.

      If you are doing something called “the program”, sounds like a bad life choice.

      The best tactic is to get the holiest accreditation possible in the shortest possible time, while wasting as little time in academia as one can while meeting the nominal course requirements, and focusing on actual value creation rather than official academic bullshit, making some money while still nominally a student, so that one exits artificially prolonged childhood with an accreditation that assures employers that you know what thoughts are thoughtcrimes, and also a resume of value creation that assures employers that you are able to create value and interested in doing so.

      If sufficiently holy accreditation takes too long and costs too much, forget about it and focus on getting a resume of demonstrated value creation. And it does not sound as if “the program” results in him creating value during the “the program”, therefore unlikely to impress employers.

      • jack boot says:

        his degree was a good degree in what adjusting for degree inflation would’ve been a guaranteed borderline middle upper middle class job before the neoliberalisation of everything

        from any state school.

        and now you need an ivy league degree to even get an interview. or so i read on the internet. he seems to be living it.

        because the ceiling is slowly descending. like that scene in star wars basically.

        and i just want to point out. because he has a credible threat of unionisation he’ll still CAPTURE >50% of the value he creates

        “the program”
        “the program”
        “the program”
        “the program”

        i don’t know the terminology, sorry. i’m too busy CAPTURING 2% of the value i create for my employer

        • jim says:

          If you have a resume demonstrating value creation, it will serve you better than a degree.

          Ivy league gets privileges, but these privileges are awarded by Human Resources, not Capitalism.

          The value of an Ivy League degree is rapidly diminishing, because the Ivy League is sending so many crap people with crap degrees to employers, so employers are finding ways to bypass the Human Resources barricade. As a result, while Ivy League degrees used to be a good way of getting a good start, their value is rapidly diminishing.

      • jack boot says:

        btw it isn’t at a university.


        it’s a trade.

        the only trades taught at university are engineering and comp sci

        (to make the nerds think they’re middle class)

        • jim says:

          Learning a trade is a good idea – but you are not going to learn a trade in a “program”. You learn a trade by working for someone in that trade. I know a few tradesmen, and they are doing very well. And while you are learning the trade, not going to save money, you are going to be poor. But you will not be poor for long. In the event that your friend actually learns a trade, he is going to be well off, and if he is thrifty, he will eventually have substantial assets.

    • The Cominator says:

      I couldn’t get an electrical engineering job in the Bush Obama depression after school and my parents could afford shit because they got divorced right as I was entering school… also I suck at job interviews have no writing skills and I’m an uncoordinated fuck who can’t work with my hands.

      I got a middling CAD job (a VERY high stress one) that I had to join the freemasons (a friend got me in) to get, invested all my spare money for years and I did fine. Its easy to make money under Trump, no one gives it to you you have to take it…

      • jack boot says:


        • jim says:

          We have heard the Marxist account of how corporations work already.

          Bored now.

          You were more plausible when you gave us the entirely accurate Dilbert account of how decadent corporations work and then span it to be consistent with the Marxist account. Are middle managers capitalist founders or oppressed employees?

          They are neither. The stinging and accurate Dilbert critique of actually existent capitalism is inconsistent with the entirely surreal Marxist critique.

          Scott Adams is not worried about other people having stuff. He is worried that bureaucracy prevents people from creating value.

          • jack boot says:


            • jim says:

              I am an engineer, the father of engineers, and the friend of engineers, and the world you depict could only be imagined by someone who does not know any engineers. Maybe someone whose job is pressing buttons on a screen whose software someone else wrote and someone else maintains.

              • jack boot says:

                not my story, a), and b) how is it that google replaces half its workforce every 3.1 years “and no one notices”

                i know for a fact you your son and your friends are being screwed out of oceans of cash because i know how much negotiating power a single engineer has against these organizations. almost literally none.

                in relative terms you’re CAPTURING 5% of your created value or less. and you think you’re winning because 5% of e.g 15 million is 750 thousand. or whatever your son CAPTURED, fuck it, i don’t care

                in absolute terms more than most vps of most companies, but you should still find it insulting. because it is.

                linus torvalds created capital t trillions of dollars of value and when red hat went ipo they threw him a million dollars out of pity.

                he made google possible. what substantial fraction of google does he own?

                richard stallman changed the course of world history and his organization to this day is basically a volunteer effort

                meanwhile stewart butterfield is a billionaire for making a photo hosting website and a proprietary irc in a browser

                and here you’re telling me i’m a burger flipping loser for saying engineers should be way richer than they are

                where is your killer instinct?

                why do you insist on shitting on one of the vanishingly few people who wants you to win?

                someone tell me where to find the language appropriate .info file accessed by (geiser-doc-look-up-manual &optional ARG)

                • jim says:

                  That large numbers of googlers wander off to another job is not an indication that engineers are interchangeable and replaceable. It is a problem for google, not a problem for engineers.

                • Not Tom says:

                  how is it that google replaces half its workforce every 3.1 years “and no one notices”

                  They tend to retain the ones at the head of the Pareto distribution, like Jeff Dean. From their published reports, the churn seems typical; it’s 10% above average for white engineers, but 20% below average for Asian engineers. (No one except HR and journalists cares about attrition for black and brown “engineers”.)

                  To the extent that the churn is high, and it really doesn’t look like it is, that could help explain why Google isn’t innovating as well as it used to.

                  linus torvalds created capital t trillions of dollars of value

                  He offered a product for free. Linux would never have become ubiquitous if it wasn’t free. Even today, it can’t really compete with other operating systems on features. Proles still use Windows, designers and producers still use Mac OS. Linux is particularly useful when the primary and often only concern is licensing and overhead. It is a low-cost solution which, through sheer volume, has become pretty good in certain niches, largely thanks to the contributions of people who are not Linus Torvalds. He is undoubtedly a great man, but he is not the personal owner of everything open source.

                  It’s very difficult to quantify the value of something that is free, which is why so many investors lost their shirts throwing money at “Web 2.0” startups that were able to generate lots of traffic but no revenue. Eventually all of these companies just started throwing ads up for revenue, but digital advertising looms ever closer to being exposed as a fraudulent revenue model. In general, if people aren’t willing to pay for your product, then it isn’t very valuable.

                  Again and again, you write with the assumption that you can simply declare value to exist in people and products and property where the market has not assigned it. Value does not work that way. Only communists believe it works that way. Some people may be bad negotiators, but bad negotiators lose 10%, or 20%, or even 90%, but they do not lose 99.9999%. If it looks to you like someone is losing that much money on a deal, then the problem is in your own assumptions, because no one who is smart enough to produce that much value is stupid enough to leave nearly all of it on the table.

                  Sometimes people may have good ideas, but either fail to execute or fail to make something commercially viable – like Xerox. Brilliant products that aren’t commercially viable, like the HTC Vive, don’t make much money. Reality can be harsh.

    • Not Tom says:

      So, what’s the point here, that university is an unreasonably expensive seminary school that burdens most students with usurious loans and keeps them in a state near poverty, and families keep sending their kids there anyway because HR requires it? We point this out all the time; no one says it is fine, in fact it is one of the Cathedral’s primary sources of income, influences and entryism.

      But what does this have to do with capitalism, or financial opportunity? I had my pick of top-tier schools, but embraced my racism and went with mid-tier for the better demographics, and in order to avoid the stink of the Ivy League and the reputational taint of a party school. Then, after making all the recommended choices and graduating with high honors, I found out there were no entry-level jobs available in the field, because a few epic rounds of layoffs at big companies had massively diluted the talent pool. Why would any company hire a fresh college graduate when 20-year veterans would work at the same salary?

      Some of my colleagues migrated to rural or unpopular areas, and easily got high-paying jobs. I stayed, but switched to a different field, started with a position paying less than a typical intern’s salary, and within a few months had negotiated a permanent position at a comfortable (for a new grad) salary. I did this a few times, each time negotiating directly with the management and pointing to the money I was very clearly making or saving for the company. In X years (and for privacy reasons I will not reveal X, except to say that it is not a trivial X like 2 or 3), I make roughly X times where I started. Literally the same X, so if hypothetically I’ve been employed 7 years then I’m making 7X. I make more than the average person with a degree in this specific field. The property I own is from my own savings and investments, I received no financial help from my parents like your friend is getting.

      And the point I’m making here is not that I am special, but precisely that I am not special. This wasn’t some grand plan I had since age 14, it was just a bunch of stuff that happened. Lots of people do what I do, in different industries and different companies, all the time. Lots of people do much better than I do, they start their own businesses, have much more freedom and diversified income, and still make more than I do. Some of my friends and colleagues haven’t done as well financially, but still did great in other areas, such as starting families or getting to do the traveling they always wanted to do.

      Smart and ambitious people don’t have trouble making ends meet. Not counting sudden tragedies (health issues, natural disasters, etc.), generally speaking, struggling financially is a sign of either serious mental illness, chronic laziness or low ambition, the latter of which are related but subtly different traits. Low-ambition people “work hard” at their jobs but don’t put effort into improving themselves. I think your friend is low-ambition, not a lot of pride, isn’t embarrassed to ask his parents for money; whereas you are lazy, and covetous, and just want to take other people’s stuff.

      • jack boot says:

        > I think your friend is low-ambition, not a lot of pride, isn’t embarrassed to ask his parents for money

        sort of a friend. more of an acquaintance. and no, not really. he did all the right things from what he was told he should do. got fucked, picked himself up. descended the ladder, worked hard. years later he told me he realized wasn’t any better off than he’d started, maybe worse

        > whereas you are lazy, and covetous, and just want to take other people’s stuff

        why lie?

        other people have taken my wealth. they’ve persistently distorted the economy. debased the currency. robbed my country blind. sold off for parts.

        what i want is the opportunity to reap the value i create. not others’ value. MY value.

        and yeah, i want others to do well so the whole bell curve shifts. so when i’m doing 2 or 3 (or 5) sigma well i’m living as an arrogant multi deca millionaire instead of as an insecure wage slave

        which according to you is COMMUNISM. so i wanted to be a capitalist but maybe you’re right. time to bring on the COMMUNISM.

        “the lolberg cries out as he strikes”

        • jim says:

          You did not create any wealth, so you don’t deserve any wealth. No one took “your” wealth. In a just society, you would starve.

          • jack boot says:


            • jim says:

              A transparent lie – suddenly you are a capitalist insider, even you don’t know anything about how corporate capitalism works in practice.

              • jack boot says:


                • jim says:

                  We have heard this all before, far too many times, you guys tell us the same absurd Marxist bullshit is said over and over and over again, and when we don’t believe, you find a new way of saying the same old same old. Heard it all the first time. Waste of space and reader bandwidth.

                  I am not going to refute Marxist economics for the umpteenth time. It is a dead horse.

                • jack boot says:


                • jim says:

                  Marxist economics deleted. We heard you the first time.

                • jack boot says:

                  in most people, self interest is upstream of ideology

                  but not you. you’re holier than those people

                  who do they think they are, acting in their interest?

                  to think about labor to act in its interest is marxism. and marxism is evil. therefore self interest is evil. and altruism is good. and you are evil.

                  besides. i don’t need to negotiate with my employer. my corporate overlord is generous and fair. and magnanimous.

                  i believe in free market capitalism and the holiness of the heroic individual. that’s why i sell my labor to a planned economy bigger than most nation states

                  i’m a unique special snowflake and if the planned economy isn’t living up to its obligations i’ll just leave. they’ll be sorry! (shakes fist)

                  why hr treats engineers like children ™

                • jim says:

                  > to think about labor to act in its interest

                  Observed behavior of those that want to use state power to force unionization upon engineers is that they are not in fact engineers, hate engineers, and wish to harm them.

                  It is Trotky saying “hail fellow peasant”. He was not a peasant. He was an urban Jew and failed money lender, and he always intended to murder the peasants, and when he had the power, proceeded to do so, causing famine.

                  Doctors have a guild, and lawyers have a guild, and the lawyer guild is genuinely pro lawyer. The doctors guild is more complicated, but it is largely pro doctor. But these guilds are priesthoods, not unions to negotiate with employers, and they do not negotiate with employers. They are priesthoods for priests, not unions. The doctors guild is subverted by Harvard, and arguably does not like doctors. In many countries, is quite hostile to doctors, though the US guild is arguably still pro doctor. But the doctors guild does not negotiate with hospitals on the supposed behalf of doctors, and even less does the lawyers guild negotiate with law firms.

                  People who want to unionize frequently hate the people they are unionizing. Prole unions are frequently leg breakers, as in the infamous British coal strike, in which the union boss, the NUM President, Arthur Scargill, acquired a mansion, and the people who want to unionize engineers are always leg breakers and doxers, always hate engineers, and are never real engineers. Arthur Scargill was not a coal miner, and even less are the people who want to impose unionization on engineers engineers.

                  Arthur Scargill never worked as a coal miner, never mined coal in his life, never even worked for a coal company in any capacity, while people who want to unionize engineers frequently do work for software companies, and have degrees relevant to engineering, but never do any actual engineering and always hate actual engineers, as Trotksy hated the peasants. Arthur Scargill started the great British coal strike with a big union and a small house, and when it ended, he had a small union and a big house.

                • The Cominator says:

                  > “Doctors have a guild, and lawyers have a guild, and the lawyer guild is genuinely pro lawyer. The doctors guild is more complicated, but it is largely pro doctor. But these guilds are priesthoods, not unions to negotiate with employers, and they do not negotiate with employers. They are priesthoods for priests, not unions. The doctors guild is subverted by Harvard, and arguably does not like doctors. In many countries, is quite hostile to doctors, though the US guild is arguably still pro doctor. But the doctors guild does not negotiate with hospitals on the supposed behalf of doctors, and even less does the lawyers guild negotiate with law firms.”

                  Its only pro academic doctors at Harvard and other elite universities (though not all the academic doctors are bad there are a few genuinely good ones) it otherwise hates doctors and patients and serves academia and the government. My father a doctor (who went to Harvard medical school) bitched about this all the time.

                  Doctors were largely independent operators up until the 1980s, the doctors guild served to force them into large organizations and basically made them underpaid employees of hospitals and the bloated medical bureaucracy.

                  Now the nurses union despite being 90% composed of women somehow actually cooperates better and is genuinely pro nurse.

                • jack boot says:

                  union, guild, professional society, or other, the end is to boost negotiating power, the means is what works

                • jim says:

                  In whose interest? The doctor’s professional society represents the interests of Harvard, which wants medicine socialized and doctors reduced to clerks. When the dust settled on the great coal strike, it became obvious that the strike had been in Arthur Scargill’s interest, the interest of the labor party, and the interest of the communist party, and had advanced his political career and added greatly to his wealth, but not in the interests of the coal miners.

                • jack boot says:

                  fair points cominator.

                  don’t underestimate the importance of the river of government cash from medicare and health care insurance scam

                  and the corn syrup to health care pipeline. perfect symbiosis. you would be excused for noticing vertical integration.

                • jack boot says:

                  whose interest?

                  my interest.

                  which is labor now and capital if i can get it.

                  but like infamous goy henry ford i believe in noblesse oblige.

                • jim says:

                  If you, backed by state power, get to impose a union on engineers, it will surely be in your interest but highly unlikely to be in their interest.

                • jack boot says:

                  if state power has to “impose” a superior negotiating position on software “engineers” then they don’t deserve it.

                  which is why everyone with teeth is recruited into senior management.

                  but i don’t think they need to be coerced to make more money. i think a third are clueless, a third are improperly arrogant and a third know if they got together they could get raises for everyone

                  btw what is the free market libertarian theology position on the steve jobs wage fixing cartel?

                • jim says:

                  We engineers are doing very nicely without you guys imposing proletarian union status on us. It is only losers who want to collectivize so that they can ride on the backs of those that actually create value.

        • Not Tom says:

          what i want is the opportunity to reap the value i create. not others’ value. MY value.

          And you want this by what mechanism? Lower taxes? Fewer regulations? Less bureaucracy that diminishes your ability to produce? Abolishing HR departments that literally destroy any value that employees create? Fewer women and H-1Bs to create downward pressure on your wages? OK, we’re with you on all of those – some are “libertarian” policies, others are quite authoritarian.

          But you don’t seem to want any of those things, you just want to take what other people have, doesn’t matter which people and doesn’t matter how. How have you even calculated the value that you are so sure that you create? How are you measuring, if not by what others are willing to pay? If you are so good at creating that value, why not go freelance or start your own business where no one else can interfere?

          Or maybe “value” is just a buzzword you use to mean “shit that I think I deserve”.

          • jack boot says:


          • jack boot says:

            for sure it’s shit throwing over what kind of slavery is superior. who fucking cares really. that’s what’s up.

            because i think it’s becoming clear to everyone the only solution is COMMUNISM backed by the iron fist of THE STATE

            • jim says:

              Some people might think you are being sarcastic, because they did not see your arguments for that position, which I deleted for all the usual boring reasons. But, in the context of all the material I have been deleting, sounds like you are serious.

              Only the iron hand of the state can ensure a fair deal, like that which the peasants got in the Holodomor, and people in Venezuela are enjoying right now.

              • jack boot says:


                • jim says:

                  Deleted for using our shibboleths with Marxist meanings, postmodern meanings, and simply incoherent meanings. The enemy attacks our words, to prevent us from communicating.

  4. Dan Jackson says:

    Why would any conservative NOT want a Senate trial?
    Oh, I know one– Mark Levin. Now WHY would (((he))) not want one?

  5. Not Tom says:

    On the actual topic of impeachment: the power struggle is officially out in the open now.

    Biden is trying to pretend he’s in the same position as Trump, and claim that potential lawful subpoenas from the Senate are just petty partisan politics, same as the House’s totally unlawful and partisan impeachment process.

    This is obviously false, but what’s really being said here is: “So, are you going to arrest me? I dare you to try.”

    He is either very stupid and demented – a definite possibility, with Biden – or he and his handlers believe that the praetorians do not have enough power; that even if the Democrats cannot arrest Republicans in the Senate, it will at best be a stalemate and the Republicans will be unable to arrest any Democrats.

    Perhaps the brass cannot successfully execute the coup that Democrats want, and we see that Democrat confidence in them has been severely shaken; but they are still confident enough that the brass can successfully thwart any countercoup.

    • jim says:

      The Democrats have been massively engaged in illegal spying and the use of police power against their enemies since 2012, have engaged in flagrant corruption since 2008. The Hunter Biden scandals started in 2008.

      All of this stuff has just been sitting around and well known for many years. If Trump and his family does not go to jail, much of the Democratic Party and the deep state will go to jail.

      The Republicans would much prefer a deal where nobody goes to jail, including corrupt democrats and deep state operatives who use state power to compel politicians, but war is easy, peace is hard, the negotiations keep collapsing.

      You will notice that Trump and Barr seem to running for the cop and soldier vote. This indicates that they give significant likelihood to the gloves coming off, that there are going to be a sudden slew of orders to arrest Democrats, and a slew of orders to arrest Republicans, and when the dust settles the outcome is going to depend on which orders were obeyed.

      Going after the soldier and the cop vote indicates a lightning coup, rather than a creeping coup, which surprises and puzzles me, but they are in a better position to know what is coming down than I am.

      • BC says:

        Going after the soldier and the cop vote indicates a lightning coup, rather than a creeping coup, which surprises and puzzles me, but they are in a better position to know what is coming down than I am.

        The front page of reddit is full of stuff trying to shame the brass and the troops into getting rid of Trump today. The prosecutors leaked the video testimony of those traitorous Seals and they’ve been working themselves into a frenzy about it.

        • jim says:

          They mistake astroturf manufactured by the priesthood for actual support among the warriors.

          The warriors hate them, and hate their astroturf.

          I very much hope their delusions will lead them to try something before Trump gets re-elected in 2020, but I fear they will have enough remaining shreds of sanity to hold off till 2026 or so, when they will have a better chance.

          Let us pray that their madness leads them to destroy themselves sooner rather than later, for the later it happens, the better their position to destroy us along with themselves.

          • Not Tom says:

            Yeah, warriors don’t tend to use the word “toxic” a lot. That’s an SJW buzzword. The whole thing screams astroturf.

            • jim says:

              The prosecution of heroic warriors resembles the prosecution of Trump. They would try one thing and it would not stick, then they would try something else and it would not stick either, so they would convict him on some triviality and act as if he was guilty of all the terrible things they had claimed he was guilty of, but somehow failed to find evidence for.

              Supposedly this guy went around slaughtering women and children like a madman, but somehow all they could find him guilty of was a big fat nothingburger.

              He was convicted of posing with a dead body, but they talk as if he was a convicted mass murderer. That is not members of the warrior class talking.

          • BC says:

            They mistake astroturf manufactured by the priesthood for actual support among the warriors.

            The warriors hate them, and hate their astroturf.

            They actually do know this. It confuses them which is why they’re attacking the warriors over it. They also know the brass is on their side.

            I very much hope their delusions will lead them to try something before Trump gets re-elected in 2020, but I fear they will have enough remaining shreds of sanity to hold off till 2026 or so, when they will have a better chance.

            Currently, it’s not looking like Trump will be able to trigger them into a coup but he’s about to pull American troops out of Afghanistan so there’s another opportunity there. It also looks like Trump is going to go forward with the greatest show on earth staring Hunter and Joe Biden even if he doesn’t get his trial. Rudy’s done great work.

            BTW, notice that Hunter Biden now has more kids than the average TradCon? In progressive America it pays to be a criminal.

      • Karl says:

        Difficult to keep a lightning coup from happening. If the Democrats continue with impeachment, things will accellerate. If they do’not, criminal prosecution of Democrats is overdue. Not prosecuting them would be sign of weakness that will embolden them to try a coup sooner rather than later. Prosecuting them will result in a coup.

        • jim says:

          Doing illegal acts and getting away with it is a creeping coup. If one side can do illegal things, and the other side cannot, the illegal things eventually escalate till the side that cannot commit crimes flees the country.

          Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
          Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

          Right now there is considerable uncertainty over whether it is safe to commit illegal acts in order to overthrow president Trump. But this is an unstable situation. Uncertainty gets resolved with the passage of time. If treason is safe, Trump will be overthrown, likely with fatal consequences, because if he remained alive after a questionably legal removal from power he would remain a threat and focus of resistance.

          If on the other hand, the traitors go to jail, if it is really bad for to be caught trying to remove sitting president by illegal means, most of the Democrats will likely follow, on charges of corruption and stuffing ballot boxes, and Trump becomes Caesar.

          After he becomes Caesar, he will, like Cromwell, have a problem with our current state religion.

          • Karl says:

            Yes. I assume that Trump is aware of the creeping coup and knows that he will loose if Democrat crimes go unpunished. If he starts procesecution, traitors will go to jail or he will go to jail.

          • The Cominator says:

            I think Trump is holding off for now because he is searching for a way around the DC jury pool (and the best he can hope for there is an all lower class but non-felon black jury, hes better off with that then with federal government employees) but most of these big Democrats also committed crimes in foreign countries so I think one thing Barr Durham and Giuliani are doing is trying to set up cases in foreign countries that they can be expedited too so they won’t get a Kate Steinle acquittal by a D.C. jury.

          • Mr.P says:

            If I woke up tomorrow morning to learn that Trump has declared martial law, is making arrests, I would immediately climb back to bed and sleep like a baby.

            Why not this?


  6. jack boot says:

    did you delete my comment about how big corporations negotiate 90% discounts on commodity industrial inputs like electricity, servers and software engineers?

    lol. 😂

    • jim says:

      I arbitrarily delete some of your more insane comments for shear lunacy unworthy of rebuttal.

    • Starman says:

      @jack boot

      Gee, I wonder why you can’t answer a simple multiple choice RedPill on women question?

      Is your FBI/CIA supervisor not letting you?

      • jack boot says:


        • jim says:

          You were unresponsive, and claiming that you had been responsive by taking your original claims for granted as self evident truth is not a response.

          Women are not enslaved to the corporate state. The corporation is enslaved by the cat ladies of Human Resources. I have been in those power struggles and I am just not going to let you repeat your absurd assertions. Take a look at any sexual harassment case. Who is in power and who is out of power?

          • jack boot says:

            yeah, i’ve seen the struggle sessions too. unlike you from the other side of the effort thermocline


            but whatever.

            • jim says:

              The Mcleod classes exist in a Dilbertesque private company, and there are plenty of them. But the priestly classes, government jobs, and quasi government jobs, such as academia are notoriously vastly more Dilbertesque than even the worst of the private sector.

              Similarly, compare the lack of trust and cooperation in the post communist societies. Communism was an attack on trust and cooeration, because communism is burning down the supermarket to steal a case of beer.

              It is also burning social trust and cooperation to murder your friends. When a commie says he is on my side, he is plotting with other commies to kill me, when he is not plotting with his commie faction to kill commies of other commie factions.

              Capitalism rewards trust and cooperation – albeit rather less so in the more Dilbertesque corporations.

              • jack boot says:

                your bdsm abuse of “communism” as defined by cold war propaganda (30 years old) make me think communism might not be a real thing

                when soviet russia went from a planned public economy to an unplanned private economy its gdp plunged. the whole country was raped by international bankers of the usual ethnic flavor and ultimately only an accidental dictator preserved russian sovereignty

                • jim says:

                  You talk about the “cold war”, and I talk about the murder of a hundred sixty million people, most of them for the crime of creating value, which crime you have repeatedly demonstrated your hatred for.

    • The Cominator says:

      “did you delete my comment about how big corporations negotiate 90% discounts on commodity industrial inputs like electricity, servers and software engineers?”

      You’re not even a real Marxist (or I even think a shill) because even a real Marxist would understand that a capitalist getting 90%+ margin on outputs that they could discount to bulk purchasers was insane you are just a lunatic.

      Bulk purchasers always get discounts on margin but they don’t get discounts to the point that the bulk seller is taking a loss on the sale. That is sheer lunacy.

      • jack boot says:


        • jim says:

          Marxist economics proves if it was not for those capitalists, we would all be rich.

          If your premises were correct, they would prove your conclusion.

          I delete your reasoning and evidence, because your reasoning and evidence presupposes your premises.

          • The Cominator says:

            I don’t know what he said but whatever he is hes not a real marxist…

            Marxist economics is stupid and insane but even real marxists are somewhat aware that per unit profit margins outside monopoly botique pharmaceuticals are not 90% per unit or anywhere close.

            • Not Tom says:

              I don’t think a lot of Marxists are actually aware of that. They see nothing wrong with a 90% tax on billionaires, and since most of a billionaire’s wealth is equity, that proposal implies the assumption that billionaires have 90% or better margins on their business.

              • jack boot says:


                • jim says:

                  We have already heard that the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor is a capitalist plot.

                  Many times.

                  It does not sound any saner with endless repetition.

  7. jack boot says:

    more alex jones tier sheer insanity, declassified docs on women’s lib as deliberate fertility suppression of intransigent populace

    just a crazy conspiracy theory lol

    • jim says:

      We know that women’s lib is deliberate fertility suppression of an intransigent populace.

      We also know that Alex Jones is shilling for the people who are doing it. When we were discussing Alex Jones the first time I remarked that the CIA is responsible for Second Wave Feminism, and probably also responsible for Alex Jones.

  8. info says:

    Its a shame that the administration still has to kiss the gay ring:

    It’s pretty annoying.

    • Not Tom says:

      Remember, Trump is a New York Democrat, originally. He may be our best hope, a natural alpha and a great president, but he isn’t a reactionary and never was.

      I don’t think he has a problem with this stuff. Obviously we have a problem with it, but as the article indicates, he has homos in his administration, homos that he personally appointed. He’s not going to be the guy who shuts down the lavender mafia; that will have to be done by the priesthood.

      • The Cominator says:

        “He’s not going to be the guy who shuts down the lavender mafia; that will have to be done by the priesthood.”

        Trump knows its not wise to go after gays now because his female voters generally are still broadly in favor of most of the homosexual agenda.

        The priesthood should have ZERO secular power underived from the crown other than over their own membership and their own property.

  9. Allah says:

    On Alex Jones: Someone else linked this 2000s leftist “ISGP” site on this blog a year or two ago, it goes into detail about Jones and portrays him as an establishment disinfo agent. Thoughts?

    • jim says:

      Have not made a study on Alex Jones, because he talks too much and says very little, and I cannot find transcripts of him, but after a few minutes watching, thought he sounded mighty like an establishment disinfo agent.

      If it is true he said that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, working for Mueller. There was a Wiley Coyote style airliner sized and shaped entrance hole going in, the landing gear came out and landed on the lawn, and the entire area around the Pentagon was littered with handkerchief sized bits of flight 77 with flight 77 paint job on them so that the ground crunched when people walked.

      The not yet in power left think he is working for the in power establishment left, and the out of power anti establishment right tend to think he is working for the in power establishment left. I have not examined the matter myself, but looks plausible.

      • jim says:

        And since you have raised the question of Alex Jones, Jack Boot is now allowed to tell us what a great guy Alex Jones is, but not allowed to pretend he is engaging in the crimethink he was challenged to engage in, and promptly failed to do.

        • jack boot says:

          i can say whatever i want to say. and i said women were first enfranchised and later employed deliberately to double the work force, halve wage earning power, suppress fertility feminize society break up the family and discourage saving

          but it was the puritans who did these things to themselves, sure. okay. like modern art, manson, woodstock and others were organic phenomena. yes.

          • jim says:

            Women have always been employed in women’s work. Waitresses, checkout girls in the shops, cleaning ladies, nurses, vets, have been women since time beyond memory.

            The big change was that employers were forced to employ them in activities that they disrupt and do badly, and then forced to ignore the ensuing disruption. This is clearly not in the interests of employers.

            • Steve Johnson says:

              The big change was that employers were forced to employ them in activities that they disrupt and do badly, and then forced to ignore the ensuing disruption. This is clearly not in the interests of employers.

              Part of this is requirements but another part of it is principle / agent problems.

              Some hiring managers like having women around because men like having women around and he figures she might give him a blowie at some point in the future – he benefits from that but doesn’t pay the cost in having a less effective team. Corps can’t hunt down this inefficiency because they can’t formally notice it. Here’s an example of employees routinely screwing employers for personal gain that hasn’t been rooted out yet:


              A bunch of people in corps *really believe* in diversity and that IQ tests are flawed, etc. and a free market is going to take a while to get rid of those beliefs because it can only hire people as they exist.

              • jim says:

                True, but the fact is that after World War II, to about 1963, women were just not hired for men’s jobs, even though they might have provided blow jobs. This reflects the fact that women in men’s jobs have an obvious and detrimental effect on the entire workplace – the problem is that they disrupt, so everyone gets less work done.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Of course.

                  You need cultural cover that allows the defection.

                  If the cultural assumption when a man hires a woman to do a job that no woman is suited for is that he’s doing it because she might under some circumstances blow him then he faces scrutiny immediately and it’s much harder to get away with defecting in that way. If everyone thinks (or isn’t allowed to gainsay) that she’s perfectly capable of doing the job then he doesn’t face scrutiny.

                • jack boot says:

                  purely coincidentally a ww2 vet in 1963 would’ve been in deep middle age, fat, and probably wheezy smoker lung.

                  your mistake is thinking too small. it isn’t about what’s best for any one company in any hypothetical muh free market. it’s about THE SYSTEM.

                  women are far more pliable than men. dutiful, reliable, studious, conscientious. less likely to demand raises. less likely to unionize or organize.. more conformist. less autistic. plus in positions of power they’re harder than any man. that’s considered a feature not a bug

                  stop thinking like a good little worker bee. start thinking like a winner,

                • jim says:

                  The destructive effects of women in the workplace are obvious, except that no one is allowed to see what is in front of their faces.

                  If women doing men’s jobs were useful, they would not have been laid off at the end of World War II, and only hired when HR, which answers to the state, not the boss, forced their rehire.

                  Reflect on the amount of money capitalists have pissed away on women in management. This is obviously not a capitalist plot.

                  Capitalists pursue each their individual interest. If they are not pursuing their interest, it is the hand of the state. And women doing men’s jobs is not in their interest, still less women in management.

                • Not Tom says:

                  start thinking like a winner

                  Says the NEET virgin who never stops complaining about the wealthy to the software entrepreneur who spends his spare time trying to help men get laid and hold onto their women.

                  You think mid-level managers in big companies are the “winners”? They have even less freedom than the worker bees. It’s a crap job. A few years after one of my old bosses started getting Director-level positions, he told me he wished he could go back to what he used to do, but no one would hire him for that anymore because he looked overqualified.

                  Oh, but I forgot, it’s not managers, or the executives, it’s “THE SYSTEM”. And who exactly runs the system? Well, actually, we know who more-or-less runs the system, it is the priests and their proxies in consulting firms like McKinsey and Company, but I’m sure you are going to tell us that actually it is the Kulaks who run everything.

                • jack boot says:


                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive. You are repetitiously saying capitalism does not work, when we see it working – compare America before and after Trump’s cut of corporate taxes, Cuba and Venezuela before and after socialism, China before and after Deng Xiaoping Theory.

                  And then, without evidence or argument, you just repeat that capitalism does not work.

                  The masses do not want to own the means of production. They would have no idea what to do with them. They want to own the virgins.

                • jack boot says:

                  trump tax cuts don’t work for the same reason trickle down economics is a farce. for the same reason qe infinity didn’t create infinity inflation even as asset prices went through the roof.

                  because capital dollars only “escape” into wages and commoner income due to capital ineptitude, and capital is highly competent


                  when trump goes to hollowed out america towns and says we brought the jobs back we cut your taxes etc people grin and take it because it’s an optimistic lie. it’s what might happen.

                  but it’s a lie because it hasn’t happened yet.

                  i think trump would be better off if he was honest and said we’re working on taking back the wealth former administrations sent to china but it hasn’t happened yet because the swamp is blocking us everywhere

                  people would respect that. i would respect it.

                • jim says:

                  > trump tax cuts don’t work for the same reason trickle down economics is a farce.

                  But Trump tax cuts did work. Businesses formerly subject to a high corporate tax rate on profits responded immediately to the cut in the tax on profits with immediate bonuses, wage rises, and shortly thereafter expanded investment creating new jobs

                  .but it’s a lie because it hasn’t happened yet

                  Happened immediately Trump was elected. In the first one hundred fifty days, all those carbon related jobs that Obama killed, coal, steel, oil and gas came back, and America which had been an energy importer, became the major energy exporter overnight, or rather over five months. Shortly followed by one hell of a lot of the jobs that had been sent to the third world, which are still coming back.

                  The great centralization was abruptly reversed. We now have the great decentralization, with the white population of flyover country rapidly growing as people head out from the bicoastal megalopoli to where the jobs are.

                  Supposedly the great centralization was the inexorable result of technological trends. “Those jobs are gone and they are not coming back”, but within a few months of the election of Trump, the moving companies found that all their vans were leaving the bicoastal megalopoli full, and coming back empty.

                  Look at the population figures and employment figures for the former rust belt – not only has unemployment declined, but the proportion of people deemed not part of the workforce has declined, while large numbers of people are showing up from out of state to join the workforce.

                  The abrupt turn around on carbon industries had instant and obvious effect on employment for people working on coal, oil and gas, the corporate tax cut had instant and obvious effect on wages and bonuses.

                  You are still repeating the Democrat’s 2016 election lies, even though they were spectacularly falsified a few months after the election.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Not only did the Trump’s tax cuts work fantastically well but he doesn’t get enough credit for them as people sort of have the impression that the corporate rate cut was a Republican establishment idea when that is false and Republican establishment shills like Rubio and Lee almost torpodoed the whole bill because basically they wanted to give tax credits to single mothers.

                  Cutting the corporate tax rate was Trump’s tax plan from the early primaries, I remember reading it on his website in either summer or fall of 2015.

                • jack boot says:

                  > Says the wage slave to the software entrepreneur who spends his spare time trying to help men get laid and hold onto their women.

                  fair point. i could be nicer.

                  i’ll be nicer.

                • jack boot says:


                • jim says:

                  You googled up data that was irrelevant to your claim – a random distraction. Try googling coal, oil, and gas jobs before Trump was elected, and coal, oil, and gas jobs six months after he was elected. But you probably did that already, and like an Anthropogenic Catastrophic Global Warmer, discarded what did not fit the narrative, which was everything relevant. Also, please provide actual links, rather than your interpretation of what these mystery links supposedly say.

                  You are still telling us those jobs are gone and they are not coming back, but what are people moving to flyover country doing? In substantial part, factories, fracking, and supplying goods and services for factories, fracking, and for people who work in factories and fracking.

                • jack boot says:

                  i don’t buy your claim trump has been great for the real economy not just the stock market. and unlike you i’ve recently driven through the places you claim supposedly have a lot more good jobs now. we’ve known for ages the government have been fudging statistics. 4% unemployment is a farce. labor force participation rate is 60%, a depression like number. and i read a convincing report that the vast majority of this job creation was low end low or no skill and less than 10% went to native born whites.

                  i’ve already said trump is a solid status quo president. people aren’t radically poorer than they were in 2016. but they aren’t radically richer either.

                  and unfrotunately your cheerleading for trump reveals you to be as hypocritical as any of obama’s cheerleaders.

                  i wont be a part of this

                • jim says:

                  You can tell the growth is real from the moving vans and the coal ships.

                  The statistics show the economy growing, and the job ads show the economy growing. Real wages are clearly rising, and people who dropped out of the labor force are getting back into the labor force. Where we look at the new jobs, it is people producing real things, not insurance, administration and bullshit. When we look at the moving vans, it is people moving from the big cities, where the jobs frequently do not produce anything real, to flyover country, where the jobs generally do produce something real. And we see a lot more real stuff being shipped out of America, notably oil and coal.

                  That is real growth, ships full of coal, while supposed growth under Obama was things like “Cash for clunkers” where the government paid money to destroy stuff and “quantitative easing”, which manufactured the appearance of growth by stimulating paper GNP. Which paper GNP, the FIRE economy, grew spectacularly during the Obama years while everthing else withered.

                • Not Tom says:

                  labor force participation rate is 60%

                  The way it’s currently calculated, the labor force participation rate should always be below 50%, otherwise we haven’t solved the real problems.

                  Of course, it should obviously be calculated differently. It matters who is in the labor force, not just how large it is.

          • Not Tom says:

            Even after suffrage, women didn’t really become a serious part of the American workforce until World War II, when all of the men were away fighting.

            Who drew all of the American men into two world wars that really had nothing to do with America, and several other pointless wars afterward? Not the farmers and factory owners.

            As for this:

            i can say whatever i want to say.

            On your own platform, maybe. Reactionaries aren’t the free-speech crowd. We recognize it as the entryist tool that it always was.

            • jim says:

              And immediately after World War II, women promptly got laid off again, because employers do not employ women in men’s jobs unless someone is holding a gun to their head.

              • The Cominator says:

                Judging by extremely high war production women did okay in doing work during WWII (I suspect that they had matrons backed by male supervisors in every factory to keep their troublemaking tendencies in check and back then there was no law against that) but employers would rather have men in most jobs AND given that the Cathedral was sane in the 1940s it wanted the returning men to have jobs and the women to get married.

                Furthermore women before the CIA created second wave feminism wanted to be housewives with children they did not want to work in factories or even in offices their whole lives.

                • ten says:

                  I suspect women do well at factory assembly line work – it requires nothing. They seem to do well in chinese manufactury. That was their main line during ww2 america, correct?

                • Dave says:

                  Chinese factories used to staff their assembly lines entirely with women because they’re more docile and obedient. No unions or labor laws in China means that troublemakers of any sex or ethnicity can be summarily fired.

                  As the supply of peasant girls dries up though, factories are now forced to hire large numbers of sexless young men, and fights often break out on the factory floor.

                  In pre-WW2 America there was tremendous social pressure *not* to employ women because it interfered with their raising of children, and deprived men of jobs that could support a family. Now women take all the good jobs and complain that they can’t find a man with a good job.

                • Not Tom says:

                  This is also why women were a lot more prevalent in what we politely call the “software engineering” profession out of respect for the older generations, but which at that time involved a lot less abstract design and symbol manipulation and a lot more menial work with punch cards, time-shared mainframes and hideously verbose programming languages like FORTRAN.

                  There are, in fact, certain jobs which women are particularly well-suited to do. The problem is not [always] their ability to do a certain job, even though today they are chosen for many more jobs than the ones they are actually capable of. The real problem is that when you put these women in a workplace with men, who are responsible for the majority of productivity, all of the group cohesion falls apart when the women start shit-testing and forming cliques, which they inevitably do.

                  And more importantly, while women might be well-suited to do those jobs in a factory, their labor would be much more valuable to society in supporting a husband and children at home.

                • Dave says:

                  Ha, FORTRAN is the epitome of beauty and elegance compared to COBOL, a language invented by a women.

      • Allah says:

        The author places great importance on family and personal connections and going by Jones’ connections, suspects he is a part of the “conservative CIA”, which in NRX lingo would be the red empire.

        Equally important to ask is the question to what extent Jones himself should be considered the Oliver North of the conspiracy industry. Along with partner-in-crime George Noory of Coast to Coast AM, today Alex Jones occupies the most sensitive position in all of conspiracy land. Millions upon millions of people have watched his documentaries and are listening to his radio shows. I have little doubt Jones built his enterprise almost entirely by himself, but without the connections of his family I suspect a lot of people and media outlets would not have accidentally or purposely crossed paths with him, never worked with him, and never promoted him. If he would have tried to continue as a truly independent player, he would have starved to death and only had a very small audience.

        • jim says:

          CIA is not red empire. Military intelligence is red empire of the bases. CIA is blue empire of the consulates. Some of the five eyes, notably Australian military intelligence, are red empire, and some of them, notably Canadian and British, are blue empire.

          CIA is responsible for modern art, second wave feminism, and cooking up grounds to impeach Trump. And if the not-yet-in-power left think that Alex Jones is CIA, plausible.

          • Allah says:

            I was mistaken, the author elaborates on the “conservative CIA” here:

            Essentially meaning right wing controlled opposition, not “whatever small part of CIA that is right wing”. However, he puts Trump and Geert Wilders in this category too.

            • The Cominator says:

              Trump’s intelligence sponsorship (and yes he had it they didn’t create Trump’s campaign I don’t think but Trump certainly made a deal with them) was from the DIA/Red Empire not the CIA.

              Erik Prince, Peter Theil and Michael Flynn (who Trump needs to do more to get released it is disgraceful what happened to him) were red Empire people and also known to be very sympathetic to reactionary ideas.

          • The Cominator says:

            There are right wing elements in the CIA but really only the branch that deals with Latin America. In the 1950s there was a stronger right wing element but i think they lost out after the bay of pigs.

            • Howdy says:

              CIA was an independent actor that skewed left but had influx of RW in ‘50s after mccarthy scare. Post Church Committee reforms allowed for centralization of CIA, which gave the leftists in the bureaucracy more power. Agency released a lot of field agents who were part of the patriot classes they sucked in during height of cold war. CIA became more aligned with Blue Empire State after that focus on sigint and destruction of humint networks.

              • jim says:

                CIA was already blue empire when they created modern art and first wave feminism. They have been leftist all the way back.

  10. > Trump wants a trial in the Senate at which Democrats get to call witnesses, Trump gets to cross examine their witnesses and Trump gets to call witnesses, and they get to cross examine his witnesses.

    If the above supposition is correct then I hope someone smuggles an episode of Real Coffee with Scott Adams to the President because I think the Scott Adams two sentence trial is preferrable.

    A am open and willing to hear opposing positions on this.

    • Not Tom says:

      Scott Adams needs to start posting transcripts if he wants people to care about his arguments. I know he wasn’t happy with his blog comments, but I for one am not going to sit there for 40 minutes listening to him talk.

      • The Cominator says:

        Agreed he is a hilarious and insightful writer and I think a genius but a much much more boring speaker.

        • The Cominator says:

          Also there is no need to “smuggle” Scott Adams to Trump, Trump has invited him to the White House and he knew damn well who he was years ago.

          • C4ssidy says:

            Scott Adams is listenable if you distract the rest of your brain with another task, such as grinding an mmo or doing menial tasks at work or home. Goes for podcasts in general. Grab a pair of AirPods or beats along with a high level iPhone

  11. Karl says:

    Hasn’t Pelosi tried to stall or even stop impeachment before? How long before the Democrats get rid of her because she is sitting on the impeachment articles?

    The situation is not stable, not even on a time scale of months. It is too tempting for a Democrat to be holier than Pelosi by pressing for impeachment to proceed.

  12. 68er says:

    Trust the plan!

  13. info says:

    Cucked Republicans may be compromised from the start.

    • jim says:

      We are seeing the Republicans uncucking, as it becomes apparent the uniparty intends to discard its republican wing and rule directly as a one party state as in California. Which is likely to be followed not long after by a similar purge of Democrats.

      Rage, hatred, and malice is the new measure of holiness, now that they have run out of room to be ever holier on sexual deviance. They could not normalize men having sex with nine year old boys without normalizing men having sex with seventeen year old girls. (Or they could have, gays being oppressed and toxic patriarchs not oppressed, and they started heading off in that direction with drag queen story hour and public sex on the library floor, but they wound up going with hatred and malice.)

      • info says:

        Hopefully congress dont spend so much money as they are doing now with all the entitlemenrs state and military waste.

  14. Gack says:

    I doubt Trump can depend on Roberts. remember, he was picked by Mr. deep state.

  15. AnotherGuy says:

    Jim, you had mentioned before about impeachment that if the Democrats tried to launch a coup with the assistance of the military. They would horribly fail; As the average white joe warrior in the common ranks will not follow their orders to get Trump jailed (or is it just the Praetorians who would not follow the order? I’m not clear on that).

    If so, how come they succeeded using the military in the past like in Little Rock Nine? Where they got the 101st airborne to forcefully end desegregation. I looked at the pictures of these white guys putting their guns behind the backs of other white guys and it doesn’t seem like any warrior from the airborne division was questioning what he was doing. Maybe it was because Eisenhower was in completely in-line with the Cathedral since he already started desegregation in the army before. But what is stopping The Cathedral from pulling the same trick here? I’m guessing the answer is a loss of coordination power, integrity, and status with the army. But if there’s something I’m missing let me know.

    • Starman says:


      The Cathedral was a lot smarter and more adept in the time of Eisenhower. They also had sole control of the megaphone.

      But decline happens eventually to every ruling structure.

    • jim says:

      There is a big difference between obeying the commander in chief, and obeying some top brass who hates you and is disobeying the commander in chief. The latter is likely to “undermine the discipline and unity of the armed forces”.

    • AnotherGuy says:

      ‘forcefully end desegregation.’ Ah, I meant to write segregation. Well, it doesn’t seem like they ended this practice yet as the Virginia Governor might call the National Guard to confiscate firearms if the sherrifs won’t follow his orders (maybe one of the rare moments where the police are not in the pockets of the Democrats).

      • Not Tom says:

        They’re not going to try to call in the national guard, that’s just misdirection away from the actual plan of bench-warranting gun ownership away.

        • BC says:

          They were testing the waters to see what they could get away with.

        • BC says:

          Also, they’re getting ready to pass a bill requiring all new housing be apartment complexes instead of single family homes.

          • Dave says:

            No, Ibraheem Samirah’s bill only forbids single-family *zoning*. It addresses the main problem with racial integration, which is that we’re running out of healthy white communities to Section 8 all that diversity into. Affluent white liberals always preach and vote for more diversity, but when affordable housing comes to their town, they fight tooth and nail to stop it.

            • The Cominator says:

              Im in favor of repealing ALL zoning the Democrats are quite unintentionally doing a good thing.

            • Dave says:

              I favor a different kind of zoning:


              • jim says:

                The unmentionable truth is that if we could impose zoning by character and origin, no one would care about zoning the kind of property you can build.

  16. jack boot says:

    yeah, ok, whatever.

    nothing will ever happen because nothing ever happens

    • jim says:

      The wall is going up, the asylum loophole is closed, H1Bs are down, the jobs that were gone and never coming back have come back, and lots of people in the State Department and the FBI are “retiring” – which is a good step towards lots of people in the Democratic Party, the State Department, and the FBI going to jail.

      I am a little disappointed that Democrats seems to be backing away from trying color revolution prematurely, but I always predicted 2026 or thereabouts, so disappointed, but not surprised. They will have a better chance in a few years, so I was hoping, but not expecting, that they would try it sooner. Chances are that Trump will get his show in the Senate, which will be effective without shattering the pretense that the Republic still stands.

      • The Cominator says:

        “I am a little disappointed that Democrats seems to be backing away from trying color revolution prematurely”

        The wokesters won’t be able to contain their rage when he is reelected. They’ll try it in a fit of crazy anger. I suspect McConnell will get his way in the Senate (as he ussually does) but it will make no difference in the end.

      • jack boot says:

        legal immigration continues apace, silicon valley is half asian and getting less white all the time even by america’s degenerate standard of white, trump gives an hour long speech at turning point usa and praises shameless paid shill charlie kirk who openly brags of his donors plans to “staple a green card to every diploma”

        • jim says:

          Legal immigration is primarily H1B, and H1B does not continue apace. Trump has introduced one hundred and one restrictions on legal immigration, the biggest one, with the biggest impact, being actually enforcing the laws and regulations that were theoretically in place on H1B, but were universally ignored until now.

          • jack boot says:

            i don’t fault trump for trying. but his claims of winning so much ™ are optimistic lies. and your cheerleading often strays into dishonesty. the stock market is up 75% since election because he’s pumping a hyperexponential amount of money into the fiat world system. a meaningful fraction of his voter base will have died off between 2016 and 2020 and everything is fucked in 2024 anyway.

            • jim says:

              Obama was pumping a hyperexponential amount of money into the system to inflate values – notably quantitative easing. Under Trump, vastly less. Values are rising because they are real.

              The jobs came back. Real jobs, real value. The stock market reflects this creation of real value. The creation of real value is up. Trump reopens a coal mine, the stock market goes up. Trump allows a pipeline to be completed, the stock market goes up. Trump makes a favorable trade deal, the stock market goes up. Under Obama, fake money created fake jobs in the bicoastal megalipoli. Those “shovel ready jobs” he threw money at conspicuously failed to shovel anything. Trump got coal and oil moving in the first five months. Oil moves the stock market better than paper money.

              His election prospects are excellent. In a president’s second presidential election, voters always vote for peace, prosperity, and the manliness of the president. There is no way the Democrats can beat him, and they act as if there is no way they can beat him.

              The trade war with China rightly frightened the stock market, but then China devalued, so that it was China largely paying the tariffs, so the stock market recovered, they changed their supply lines and brought jobs home to adapt to the trade war, so the stock market recovered, and then the trade war came to a satisfactory conclusion, so the stock market went up.

              • jack boot says:

                one does not simply stop pumping hyperexponential money into a system requiring hyperexponential money to remain in existence. every dollar is a debt with an interest payment baked in. and trump has made no fundamental changes to the structure of the world fiat system.

                he’s imposed a few paltry tariffs and forced other countries to accept more of america’s shitty corporate food products because the socialiss countries weren’t injecting enough soy and high fructose corn syrup and real life holocaust horror factory farmed meat into everything

                of the supposed jobs created around a low single digit percent of them went to white males. wages (yes, including supposedly salaried supposedly white collar workers) haven’t outpaced inflation in consumables let alone housing education or healthcare

                trump has been a solid status quo president. continued spying, perennial war, expansion of the military, no concentration camps, no dramatic liquidation of non performing assets (a.k.a. economic catastrophe from the perspective of the incumbent bankers and capitalists) etc

                and absolutely nothing will change until he can credibly point a tank turret at fed hq lobby

                • jim says:

                  The best measure of this problem is the debt to GDP ratio. Which is still, as you say, very bad, but it got radically worse under Obama, and Trump stabilized it.

                  Demanding that he reduce it is demanding that Republicans pay the credit card bills that Democrats run up. When he is Caesar Augustus, if he is not killed first, doubtless he will set about reducing it in order to bequeath to his descendants a better social order, but reducing it right now would just play into Democrat hands.

                • jack boot says:

                  it doesn’t matter what party is in charge. the problem is systemic and intrinsic to debt based currency itself. the national debt can never be “repaid” because the debt is where the dollars come from.

                • jim says:

                  Dollars should come from debt on assets of real value – the real bills doctrine. That is workable, and if Trump becomes Caesar Augustus, will quite likely work.

                • jack boot says:

                  how about no. establish a value based currency backed by the value of labor. i think this may have happened once before. then there was an economic miracle such as the world has never seen before or since. and an engineering and artistic miracle to boot. and then the world fiat system came crashing down on its head. but that’s probably just a coincidence.

                • jim says:

                  Labor has no value.

                  The value is in what the labor does. Deciding what is to be done, the tools with which to do it, and the application of those tools is the hard part, which is in short supply.

                  Debt secured by real assets, and shares in real assets, are the only form of real underlying money. Crypto currency inherently has an edge here because it is difficult to obstruct its movement or seize it. What we need is crypto shares in real businesses.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “how about no. establish a value based currency backed by the value of labor.”

                  This is what some internet wignats think Hitler (but it was really Hjalmar Schacht) did not what he actually did.

                  Hjalmar Schadt printed more fiat money BUT he also privatized businesses that the Marxists had nationalized during Weimart but because the Third Reich had virtually no foreign currency reserves he greatly restricted foreign currency and trade (which was at a trickle during the depression anyway) and mostly had the 3rd Reich conduct trade on a “barter” system for needed raw material. There was at no point a labor based currency and MIFO bills were just a clever way of the Reich government to finance rearmament without the allies finding out.

                  This indeed worked pretty well as Schadt for the most part DECREASED the role of the government in the economy (Weimar was dominated by semi Marxist Social Democrat governments), the problem is that Hitler from 1935 onward started intervening more to put more socialism in National Socialism and this did not work at all. The Reich’s agricultural policy was especially disastorous.

                • jim says:

                  > This is what some internet wignats think Hitler did not what he actually did.

                  Commies spin Nazism as Marxism to real and ironic nazis, as they spin Marxism to Libertarians (they frame Adam Smith as supporting the labor theory of value), Jesus to Christians (Christ as community organizer) and Carlyle to reactionaries. Similarly the narrative about the commons.

                  No matter what your belief system, Marxism is supposedly the truest expression of it. I have not heard a Marxist spin on Ayn Rand yet, but on a mailing list I sometimes frequent, there is a fellow profilicly giving us the Marxist spin of anarcho capitalism.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Re Marxist anarcho capitalism.

                  Anarchy in reality defaults to warlordism so property rights are not secure so in that sense it is not all that capitalist…

                • jim says:

                  We have various real life examples of anarchy. Generally does not become warlordism, but the insecurity and instability of property rights is apt to have a really bad effect on the standard of living and the technological level.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  how about no. establish a value based currency backed by the value of labor.


                  The perfect expression of Marxist nonsense.

                  “Then on day zero we will establish a true currency based on labor and there will be no more exploitation of the workers”.

                  That proposal sounds like something that would have been floating around on a version of the internet that existed in 1915.

                • jack boot says:

                  labor has no value, says the engineer.

                  just how does one respond to that statement? i don’t know.

                  perhaps this way. if you don’t value your labor then no one else will.

                  and if we’re both engineers and neither of us values the other’s labor then we’ll both be ruthlessly exploited by people who get us together under one roof, pit us against each other and pay us a pittance of the value we produce for the company

                  and if i succeed in business then i’ll be the one doing the ruthless exploiting.

                  maybe it comes down to whether you want to play the game or set the rules of the game. personally i want to set the rules of the game.

                • jim says:

                  Nobody values my labor, nor should they. They value results – whose relationship to labor tends to be slight.

                  Anyone who worries about LOC in engineering is a fool. Unfortunately there are more fools than there should be in management.

                • jack boot says:


                • jack boot says:

                  the value you produce by the sweat of your brow is called “labor”. there are people called “professionals” and they sell their labor for a living. the meaningful difference between a professional and a “laborer” is the professional belongs to a cartel that has set industry minimum standard of competence (e.g a bar), regulates the supply of laborers, negotiates with employers, lobbies congress on professional’s behalf

                  lawyers got together and passed laws so they don’t report to management (i.e sheeple farmers). they report to their fellow lawyers. then those lawyers report to the board.

                  you are not white collar

                • jim says:


                  If you sell your labor for a living, you are doing what a machine or a horse can do better than you can, and you deserve to starve.

                  Labor has no value. Knowing what needs to be done and how to do it has value. And LOC have no value.

                • jack boot says:


                • jim says:

                  We have heard Marxism asserted to be true far too many times already. You are going to have to present an argument that Marxism is true.

                  Labor is not valuable. Knowing what needs to be done is valuable.

                • greginaurora says:

                  “Demanding that he reduce it is demanding that Republicans pay the credit card bills that Democrats run up. When he is Caesar Augustus, if he is not killed first, doubtless he will set about reducing it in order to bequeath to his descendants a better social order, but reducing it right now would just play into Democrat hands.”

                  This isn’t a serious bit of speculation, just something that made me smile.

                  The debt is owned by (((them))). Trump has recognized that (((they))) are a nationality. As Caesar Augustus, he allows a war with their (((nation))) to happen, declares all of (((their))) debts absolved as a condition of the then peace, and like that poof we’re solvent again.

                  Like I said, just a funny thought.

                • Not Tom says:

                  the value you produce by the sweat of your brow is called “labor”

                  Sweating doesn’t produce value, which is why I don’t get paid to lift. In fact, most people have to pay someone else for the privilege, because they don’t own their own gym equipment, which is the actual commodity that is in demand.

                  I could get someone to pay me for lifting their furniture, but then they aren’t paying for the sweat, they’re paying for their furniture to appear in a new location, and will pay considerably less if any of it gets damaged or ends up in the wrong location, even I produced ten times as much sweat to deliver it in poor condition to the wrong location.

                  Value can only be determined per transaction, and is determined by the closing price: the point between the bid (price they want to buy at) and the ask (price I want to sell at). And the exchange does not have to involve any labor at all; it can be labor for labor (barter), capital for labor (employment), capital for capital (retail), or even capital for future capital (investment). In every single one of these cases, there is no objective value, only what the buyer and seller can agree to.

                  Essentially all technological advancement is predicated on the capital-capital exchange; generally, currency for goods, or currency for productive equipment. It is literally impossible for those transactions to ever exist in a “labor theory of value” market, because the labor may not exist at all, and if it does exist, cannot be quantified.

                  Proposing a “labor-backed currency” is literally insane. There is no standard unit of labor that can ever exist; 10,000 hours of primitive subsistence farming is not nearly equal in value to 10,000 hours spent inventing and producing tractors, which itself is not nearly equal in value to to 10,000 hours spent inventing and producing indoor plumbing. The only way such a currency could ever function is if all labor were considered to be equivalent, i.e. if all technological development were immediately halted and rolled back to stone-age levels, so that the only labor available is subsistence farming. And stone-age societies don’t really have much need for currency.

                  tl;dr – STFU you dirty stinking commie, you know nothing, your ideas are stupid and destructive.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Sweating doesn’t produce value, which is why I don’t get paid to lift. In fact, most people have to pay someone else for the privilege, because they don’t own their own gym equipment, which is the actual commodity that is in demand.


                  Even the literal *iron* in gym equipment reflects this.

                • jack boot says:

                  not tom, people in the past saw industrialization and predicted five hour work weeks. with five hours of work per week we can produce everything we can ever need or want, they thought.

                  why didn’t it happen? because under capitalism the commoners (earners of wages and salaries) exist to serve the interests of the nobles (owners of capital) and for no other reason.

                  and if less expensive labor can be had in other places then we’ll ship whole industries overseas dessicate the heartland and pesky natives who think they deserve to inherit a country can fuck off and die. we’ll sell them opiates and weed lmao on their way out.

                  under soviet communism it wasn’t much better because all assets were owned by a sluggish state monopoly instead of a profiteering corporate oligarchy but communist and ex communist public spaces look like a garden paradise compared to today. (including civil liberties)

                  when robots do everything is when it get interesting. maybe robots make every human a self-sufficient plantation owner 2.0. free energy, free labor, infinite leisure. or maybe they drive down suburb streets and shoot a single bullet into every human head. or maybe they just make the second amendment totally irrelevant and the republican living areas are basically transformed into a reality tv show game preserve for amusement purposes.

                  i’ll build a nuclear bunker with floor to ceiling popcorn.

                • jim says:

                  Commies promise that everyone will be rich on other people’s money, but observe what happens.

                  You guys burn the supermarket down and steal the beer, and there is free beer for a day, Hey it works, everyone is rich for a day. And the next day, there is no bread.

                  Observe what happens every time the priesthood robs the merchants. Every single time. How many more tries do you want?

                  We have tried anti capitalism thousands of times. Thousands of supposedly different forms of anticapitalism, for example the French revolutionary enlightenment. The outcome every time the same. Breadlines, if we are lucky. Famine and mass die off, if we are unlucky.


                  The rage you feel against prosperous farmers tells me you are planning the Holodomor all over again.

                • Not Tom says:

                  because under capitalism the commoners (earners of wages and salaries) exist to serve the interests of the nobles (owners of capital) and for no other reason.

                  No matter how people respond to you, you flat-out refuse to address the arguments and repost the same rambling word salad you’ve posted a dozen times before.

                  FALC is just as retarded as regular communism. You’ve been reading too much trashy pop sci-fi.

                • jack boot says:

                  you keep telling me i’m a communist like you know me better than i do. which is both a lie and inaccurate. and then you say how much i hate “capitalism” like capitalism is some kind of perfect abstract theoretical system instead of a real system in a real world (which i’m locked out of because i wasn’t born in 1950). to steal a comment from z blog

                  Said a guy typing this lolbertarian laughing gas on a Windows or Mac computer plugged into a Cisco worldwide backbone eating food he bought from one of five major grocery chains with money from a half-dozen national banks, echoing the neo-liberal agit-prop he heard from one of the media outlets owned by six companies in America.

                  But at least I still have muh craft beer & muh Gubmint Motors-financed crap-wagon.

                  from his latest post:

                  z man has his finger on my pulse. you’re just an out of touch boomer.

                • jim says:

                  > you keep telling me i’m a communist like you know me better than i do.

                  You assume Marxism is factually true as if everyone already agreed. You hate the kulaks. You walk like a duck and quack like a duck.

                  > from his latest post:

                  Zman is not a commie. You like him because he is black pilled.

                  But I will address his post. Amazon is not one big seller. It is a centralized market place with too much power, but in which many private sellers transact world wide with many private customers. People, myself among them, are working on blockchain solutions to the centralization of marketplace power, which results from market places siloing reputational information.

                  This centralization is a very bad thing, and Zman very rightly complains about it. But it is also decentralization in that people are buying stuff from many sellers through Amazon as through Ebay, more sellers than they used to, and the same decentralization can be carried further, and the technological trend is that it will be carried further. YouTube’s crackdown on cryptocurrency is because of Lbry – because people are using blockchain methods to undermine YouTube’s power. I hope to make a pile of money undermining Ebay’s power and Amazon’s power, though someone else may beat me too it. If it works, which eventually it will, someone is going to make more money desiloing reputational information than Bezos made siloing it. We are going to do to Amazon, Ebay, AliExpress and Alibaba, what Lbry has made a good start on doing to YouTube.

                  Walmart got rich decentralizing the movement of goods, so that goods went directly from the factory to the hypermart, bypassing the big warehouses in the big coastal megalopoli, which was both decentralization and centralization – and the left hates them for decentralization. Ebay and Amazon got rich decentralizing trade (many buyers, many sellers) but centralizing the reputational information that makes trade possible. This process can be carried to another level. People can get control of their own reputational information – at the cost of switching currencies to the preferred currency of the group enabling them to get control of their own reputational information, which is Lbry’s gimmick which is getting YouTube so hot and bothered.

                  But Lbry’s reputational management system sucks, and may well cause their project to fail. I have a better solution.

                • Not Tom says:

                  which i’m locked out of because i wasn’t born in 1950

                  Total horseshit. You could maybe argue being locked out of real estate, which would be true and also not the fault of anyone currently working in real estate. But being “locked out” of capitalism, the ability to make beneficial trades or invest money wisely? Ridiculous.

                  What you mean is that you either don’t have any ideas, aren’t willing to take any risks, aren’t willing to work harder than your peers despite your bellyaching about “sweat”, or don’t have any skills that are in demand. That’s on you; not on capitalism, not on the imaginary construct that communists call capitalism, and not even on the people who crippled capitalism in America. It’s ALL on you, and you alone.

                  You could have bought Apple shares in the early 2000s for a dollar a share, and made 300x your investment. You could have bought bitcoin for under a dollar in 2010, and made over 20,000x your initial investment. Or, you could, right now, go start a farm or any kind of small business in one of the rural states where they will quite literally give you land for free if you develop it yourself. Seriously, you just submit a proposal for development, and if it’s not totally retarded, you can have the land for free or at a ridiculous discount like 90%.

                  “Locked out”? Shut up, stupid commie.

                • jim says:

                  He is “locked out” because he does not understand that value is created. If other people have value, they must of just snatched it up from somewhere before he got his fair share.

                  So the thought of creating value does not occur to him.

                  It is commie equivalent of feral women hitting the wall. Commies tend to people who fell out of the upper class, while those around them did not.

                  Must have been cheated. 🙃

                • jack boot says:

                  Fraction of all US wealth owned by Boomers & Gen-Xers when the average member of each was age 35:

                  Boomers, 1989 21%
                  GenX, 2008 8%
                  The average Millennial turns 35 in 2023. Right now they own 3%.

                  There will surely be political implications.


                • jim says:

                  Recollect that in 1989, boomers were a much larger portion of the population, so this is indicating more of population than wealth per member of the population.

                  The problem is not that wealth is maldistributed, but that the population pyramid among white people is inverting. Fewer young people, not fewer assets per young person.

                  The problem is not lack of assets, but lack of wives and children.

                  We don’t need redistribution of wealth from Bezos, but redistribution of virgins from Jeremy Meeks. Pussy matters more than anything. Commies promise free bread, and provide famine at worst and breadlines at best. We promise young, virgin, and obedient brides.

                  The masses have no idea what they would do with the means of production, but have a good idea of what they will do with the means of reproduction.

                • The Cominator says:

                  It was very hard to make money under Dubya (well you could but it involved doing things that were ordinarily stupid like borrowing on easy credit to buy a bigger house than you can afford and dumping it at the right time) and Obama, its not hard to make money under Trump.

                • Allah says:

                  We don’t need redistribution of wealth from Bezos, but redistribution of virgins from Jeremy Meeks. Pussy matters more than anything. Commies promise free bread, and provide famine at worst and breadlines at best. We promise young, virgin, and obedient brides.

                  The masses have no idea what they would do with the means of production, but have a good idea of what they will do with the means of reproduction.

                  Pussy redistribution is not necessary. What’s wrong with just saying you can do anything you want with women you own?

                • jack boot says:

                  sorry jim. there aren’t 7 times more boomers than millennials. there aren’t 2.5 times more gen x than millennials.

                  in america each generation is poorer than the last. do you understand a bell curve? the 99.99 percentile millennial is doing as well as the 80 percentile gen x and the 50 percentile boomer. do you understand how totally fucking insane that is?

                  and that’s just material wealth. as jim correctly points out the boomers destroyed the culture far more completely than they raped the economy.

                • jim says:

                  Each generation is indeed poorer than the last – largely because they are brown. Brown people generally do not save money.

                  > sorry jim. there aren’t 7 times more boomers than millennials. there aren’t 2.5 times more gen x than millennials

                  Most wealth is owned by old white people, because wealth takes time to save and time to create. The ratio of old white people to young white people is indeed about seven times what it was in the 1980s. Indicating not that Bezos is stealing all the wealth, but that Jeremy Meeks is stealing all the virgins.

                  For your figures on wealth by age group to be to be meaningful, you need to take into account the proportion of the population that is of that age group and white.

                  What your figures show is not that white thirty year olds are poorer than the 1980s, but that they are substantially smaller proportion of the white population than in the 1980s. Largely because the 1963 “sexual revolution” made it very difficult for most men to get sex, marriage, or children. Not scoring a virgin is a bigger problem than that someone substituting corn syrup for sugar in soft drinks that are bad for you regardless of whether they have cane sugar or corn syrup in them.

                • jack boot says:

                  value creation is a very middle class attitude. the capitalist attitude is value transference

                  80’s lolbergs called it maximizing shareholder value.

                  the gordon gecko types had their greed is good.

                  friendly boomer grandpa warren buffet says he looks for moats ( like impossible regulatory barriers)

                  college administrators made student loans eternal and uniquely immune to bankruptcy (literally an indenture)

                  government subsidize massive corn production and food conglomerates put high fructose corn syrup in everything, funneling people into the food to health care pipeline. a very wise man once said carbs are the trojan horse of the pharmaceutical industry

                  unsubtle math nerd peter thiel says verbatim competition is for losers and every valuable company is a monopoly or near-monopoly with pricing power.

                  and great swinging dick tucker carlson exposes the role of immensely powerful vulture capitalist and gentile investment strategist paul singer in the deliberate and very lucrative dessication of small town protestant america

                  but the granddaddy of them all is a currency regime with usury built in. no one ever hears from those people. which probably says something in itself.

                • jim says:

                  The idea that corporations and employees are in adversarial relationship is falsified by what happened when Trump got a corporate tax cut. A large proportion of that tax cut was immediately passed to employees in bonuses and wage rises – largely to non supervisory employees.

                  Obviously the corporation and the employees are cooperating to create value. And then they split up the value that they create. Some of it goes to the CEO, some to the shareholders, and some to the employees. And the corporation wants to keep cooperative employees who successfully create value around. So, if they have more money in the pot, they share some of it around to employees who are successful in creating value. And that is what they in fact did.

                • Not Tom says:

                  “They have more wealth than us, therefore they stole it from us” is literally Marxism. To make that argument immediately after a denial of being a communist is laughable.

                  The boomer generation fucked up a lot. So what? Whining about it won’t change that, and if the kinds of people who whine nonstop about the boomers ever actually get hold of boomer wealth, they’ll destroy it even faster than the boomers did.

                  When it’s time for the boomer inheritance to get distributed to millennials, it needs to go to people like Evan Spiegel, Brian Armstrong and yes, Mark Zuckerberg. Not commie faggot anon NEETs who do nothing but complain.

                  Nobody is preventing the younger generations from making money. However, a lot of people are preventing all generations from having obedient wives and large families. It’s obvious which one of the above needs more attention.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Pussy redistribution is not necessary. What’s wrong with just saying you can do anything you want with women you own?

                  That’s exactly what all of us are saying – as long as “anything” doesn’t include emancipation. You can love your women or bury them, but you can’t let them run wild in the streets.

                  The redistribution thing is an attempt to put it in language that Marxists understand, which I personally believe to be a pointless exercise, but who knows, maybe one or two of these guys have been swayed.

                • Not Tom says:

                  government subsidize massive corn production and food conglomerates put high fructose corn syrup in everything, funneling people into the food to health care pipeline. a very wise man once said carbs are the trojan horse of the pharmaceutical industry

                  Your rants really are just a grab bag of random pointless shit, aren’t they? Every time you post, you bring in something new that has nothing to do with anything that came before. There’s no rhyme or reason, no point to any of it, just “blah blah wealth blah blah boomers blah blah capitalists”. I mean, corn syrup? At least talk about endocrine disruption or something important.

                  I think this welfare bro might be a legit scatterbrain, can’t focus on any topic or argument for more than a few seconds, which would explain why he can’t hold down a normal paying job.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “That’s exactly what all of us are saying – as long as “anything” doesn’t include emancipation. You can love your women or bury them, but you can’t let them run wild in the streets.”

                  No you should not be able to just kill your wife without a very good reason. We should revert back to what 18th century family law actually was… we should bring in any arabesque innovations to it.

                • jack boot says:

                  Deleted for pointless repetition

                • jim says:

                  Already replied to. Please respond to my reply.

                  The proportion of wealth owned by young people is down because the proportion of young white males is down relative to old white males.

                  The proportion of young white males is down relative to old white males because Jeremy Meeks gets all the virgins.

                • jack boot says:


                • jim says:


                  Not what Not Tom said. (Though if he had said it, it would have been true)

                  He refused to be distracted by your random irrelevancies, and here you are repeating those random irrelevancies and telling us that Not Tom was talking about them.

                  No he was not.

                • jack boot says:

                  there are about 23 million white boomer males and about 18 million white millennial males, a decline of about 25%. assume only whites had property, the most favorable position to your argument. at age 35 the white boomer males owned 21% of the country’s capital stock. at age 32 the white millennials males own 3%, at 35 they may own 4%.

                  gee i wonder who could be behind this 🤔

                • jim says:

                  The absolute decline in white young people is relatively small. The relative decline over two generations is about a factor of seven.

                  The number of elderly white people (who have most of the wealth, because saving and creating wealth takes time) has increased enormously, as the boomers, who hugely outnumbered their fathers and grandfathers, grew older and richer.

                  When the boomers were young, it used to be that granddad had about eight grand children. Now he has about one or two. It is the virgin shortage, starting in about 1963.

                  When you compare the proportion of wealth held by young boomers with young millenials, you are comparing the proportion of wealth held by aging World War I vets with the proportion of wealth held by aging boomers. Naturally old boomers have a larger proportion of the wealth compared to aging World War I vets, because aging boomers are a far larger portion of the white male population today than aging World War I vets were back then.

                  The problem is not that Bezos hogging all the wealth. The problem is that Jeremy Meeks is popping all the virgins.

                  The proportion of wealth held by young white males is down because the proportion held by old people is up. The proportion held by old people is up because there are more old people, and there are more old people because boomers were the last generation born of mothers who were virgins when they married.

                  The cure is not to smash capitalism even further than it has already been smashed. The cure is a system where young men enter the work force early through apprenticeship rather than college, and marry as soon as they have income and assets, and young women marry as soon as they are fertile and stay married. Also they need to be forced to stay virgin till they reach fertile age. Everyone is worried about “pedophiles”, but no one seems to worry about nine year old girls going crazy whenever they meet an adult alpha male with adult female preselection.

                  The corporate capitalism of King Charles the Second gave us science, technology, industry, and empire. Female emancipation and the sexual revolution gave us incel men living in their mother’s basement and fapping to cartoon porn, late non virgin marriage, and the missing grandchildren.

                  The problem is not that Musk is rich. The problem is that your wife is always going to remember the night Jeremy Meeks gave her a midnight booty call. Hence the missing grandchildren.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Isn’t most of the “capital stock” primary residences? So the statistic is giving us the Earth-shattering revelation that boomers own and millennials rent. Big whoop.

                  Maybe – and evidence I’ve seen for this is inconclusive – the boomer generation was able to acquire a lot of property cheaply through government debt, which the younger generations are being forced to pay. But if you believe that, then your prior rants about how Trump has not paid off all the debt make no sense at all; you should want him to be taking on even more debt to give millennials the same privileges that boomers supposedly had, while also making savvy financial decisions that will enable paying off the debt faster in the future. Which is kind of exactly what he’s doing. Your own stated positions contradict each other.

                  And assuming boomers did get to play on easy mode, that doesn’t mean you need to be salty about having to play on normal mode like every other generation before and after. You can still get property very cheaply, improve that property and make it worth as much as the boomer property. You just have to move to a place where it’s cheap.

                  That is the real reason millennials are generation rent. They refuse to leave the big cities where property prices are inflated, thereby contributing to that inflation as well as their own poverty. If millennials, all at once, stopped being such shitlibs and communists, moved out to the country, started their own farms and shops and factories and software companies, and saved their earnings, they’d have double or triple the capital share that they currently do within a decade or two.

                  And again, nothing stopped any of you from investing in Facebook, or Apple, or Bitcoin. It was easy money if you were smart enough to grab it.

                  I sympathize with the frustration a lot of millennials have when boomers tell them to “just work harder”, because that’s bad advice lacking in self-awareness. What they should be telling you is to MOVE – to GTFO out of the urban shitholes because even though wages are a bit higher, property prices and regulatory overhead is obscene. They should be teaching you how to form a family, which is the basis of real wealth. So they give terrible advice – but mindless effeminate bitching and shilling for communism isn’t a useful alternative to that bad advice. It’s just about the only thing that’s actually worse than “work harder”.

                  Maybe wealth is less easy for you to come by than it was for your parents, but you can still create new wealth, and if you don’t know how to create new wealth, then you don’t deserve that capital any more than you think your parents do.

                • jack boot says:

                  virgins don’t matter more than cash. if you’re a freshly minted adult male you need a virgin sometime in the next few years. but you need food and shelter and a vehicle and insurance and ideally a fuck you money fund right now.

                  right yesterday actually

                  and because labor is worth one fifth what it was when you were a freshly minted adult male you think yeah this is a great system works fine

                  all kinds of total losers have gfs. there isn’t a gf shortage. but all kinds of immensely talented people don’t have equivalent employment

                  read some more z man. that boomer is a youngling whisperer

                • jim says:

                  Every young male has enough bread, and enough ham to fry in butter, fry the bread in butter, and put the ham on top of that bread. Few young males have some pussy. We have an obesity problem, and a pussy problem, not a food and shelter problem.

                  Marxism is only attractive if people have no bread, and west of the Hajnal line, young men have for the past thousand years had enough bread, except during times of war or socialism.

                  Anyone who shows up on time, can understand directions, will follow directions, and refrains from getting into fights with customers and coworkers has no trouble getting food, shelter, and a vehicle. Ninety percent of success is showing up on time.

                  Virgin fertile age females, however, are in seriously short supply. Used to be they were locked up. Now they are banged up.

                • Not Tom says:

                  all kinds of total losers have gfs

                  “gfs”? Yeah, there’s the blue pill right there.

                  Regardless of my personal thoughts on Zman, he isn’t saying anything remotely similar to the Marxist spew that you attribute to him. Neither is Tucker Carlson. When he uses the phrase “vulture capitalist”, he’s not saying capitalists are vultures, which is you want to hear in order to feed your raging hate boner for the Kulaks; he’s making fun of the venture capitalists who often aren’t really capitalists at all.

                  You’ve got food, you’ve got a roof over your head, and so does everyone else your age. You’d have a lot more if you could stop being human garbage. It’s obvious that you’ve been cast out of all your other (former) social and professional circles and several other blogs, otherwise you wouldn’t be wasting your time here Marxsplaining to the most hardcore anti-Marxists on the internet. Fix your own problems first, then you’ll find that several of these other problems miraculously fix themselves.

                  You aren’t oppressed by structural inequities, you just want to kick over some more apple carts. Don’t try to hide behind proxies like Zman and Tucker, they don’t agree with you and probably blocked you already.

                • jack boot says:


                • jim says:

                  When you say “Z-man and Tucker are not Marxist”, this presupposes that we think that they are Marxist, that Marxism is just widely accepted reality, even on the right. Z-man and Tucker are far from being Marxist

                  I will not allow you to presuppose that people not present to defend themselves agree with you.

                  If you want to argue that rich people got rich by value transference, don’t confidently tell us they got rich by value transference rather than value creation. Name one particular specific rich man and we will debate how he got rich. But don’t tell us that Tucker and Z-man agree.

                • jack boot says:

                  it’s really pretty funny tbh. i explain i’ve been kulakized. and i’m doing much better than everyone else i know have been much more kulakized. and i look around and notice big business run amok crushing small businessmen. paying labor a small fraction of its value and abusing my privacy for profit. so you accuse me of marxism insufficient capitalism and exhort me to redouble my loyalty to capitalism

                  so it’s funny

                  but it’s also it’s all so tiresome

                • jim says:

                  You see the world as Marx imagined it to be, when reality is smacking you in the face.

                • jim says:

                  You are poor because you will not create value and you hate anyone who does create value – not just big rich people who create value, but successful farmers and successful shopkeepers.

                • Not Tom says:

                  and i look around and notice big business run amok crushing small businessmen.

                  Obviously. Should big businesses just lie down and wait for upstart competitors to take their market share? They got big in the first place by being either highly driven or highly competitive. The question is, did they do anything wrong in the process of crushing the smaller competition, or were they just better?

                  paying labor a small fraction of its value and abusing my privacy for profit.

                  Labor has no fixed value, and no matter how many times you make that assumption and assume that we all share that assumption, it is not going to magically become true.

                  The value of labor is whatever employers or clients will pay for it. That is why we say that immigration and female employment devalue labor; by increasing the supply, it can actually lower the value. Likewise, labor can be devalued by outsourcing and offshoring (a consequence of bad trade policy, which Trump has been trying to fix), as well as automation – which requires enormous capital investment and almost always leads to the creation of many more jobs as the industry expands.

                  What is really depressing wages is not the big corporations, it is low/zero tariffs and unnecessary expansion of the labor supply. The “financialization” of the economy is not because of the big corporations, not even directly because of Wall Street even though they clearly benefit, it’s because of criminally mismanaged tax and trade policy at both the national and state levels.

                  As always, you blame the wrong people for the wrong problem.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “What is really depressing wages is not the big corporations, it is low/zero tariffs and unnecessary expansion of the labor supply. The “financialization” of the economy is not because of the big corporations, not even directly because of Wall Street even though they clearly benefit, it’s because of criminally mismanaged tax and trade policy at both the national and state levels.”

                  Financialization is because the priesthood killed any real growth in the economy for the last 16 years before Trump (and even before Trump most real growth has been anemic since the 1970s) via excessive regulation. Stagnant wages are a combination of this, immigration and women working in male jobs.

                  We have some real growth again now but Trump still has a lot more to do, if Trump had a free hand we really could get 5%.

                • jack boot says:

                  > You see the world as Marx imagined it to be, when reality is smacking you in the face.

                  here’s a reality. the web is an open standard and an open platform. thanks to thinkers and makers employed by university in the 70’s 80’s and 90’s anyone can send any information to anyone else anywhere in the world for almost no cost

                  here’s a reality. if you make a video and want anyone to see it, it has to be on youtube. google owns youtube. and if google wants to derank you in their algorithm or outright ban you then no one will ever see your video. and you have no recourse legal or otherwise.

                  here’s a reality. if you want a smartphone you have 2 choices: apple or google. land of the free, suckahh

                  here’s a reality. if you want to buy an american airliner, you have 1 choice. boeing. if you want to buy an airliner, you have two choices: boeing or airbus. and maybe in the next decade you’ll have three choices: boeing airbus or a chinese company

                  here’s a reality. if you want to a movie or tv series or newspaper, you have 6 choices. 6 companies own more than 90 percent of all media in the united states. and they’re all on the same page obv. except fox, which is slightly out of step but not too out of step.

                  so yes. reality is smacking me in the face.

                  > You are poor because you will not create value and you hate anyone who does create value – not just big rich people who create value, but successful farmers and successful shopkeepers.

                  lots of people create value. i create lots of value. many millions of dollars of value. each and every year. and yet i’m not a millionaire. not even close. why?

                  because “big rich people” may or may not be good at creating value. whether you’re good at creating value doesn’t matter to becoming successful.

                  you can create trillions of dollars of value and if you don’t capture any of it you’re exactly as poor as you were before.

                  what matters to becoming successful is CAPTURING value

                  and creating value and CAPTURING value are non overlapping skillsets.

                  and so yes. you’re right. it’s up to me to figure out how to stop creating many millions of dollars of value and start CAPTURING many millions of dollars of value


                • jim says:

                  > here’s a reality. if you make a video and want anyone to see it, it has to be on youtube. google owns youtube. and if google wants to derank you in their algorithm or outright ban you then no one will ever see your video. and you have no recourse legal or otherwise.

                  Your recourse to being arbitrarily deranked or silenced by Youtube is to go to Bitchute or libry.

                  I like, and regularly use, the Dissenter comment section.

                  This is not a problem with capitalism, it is a problem with the priesthood. Capitalist mechanisms to deal with concentration of power are available and working – they just keep being subverted by priests intruding into merchant power, as in the dramas Gab had with Mastodon.

                  In a society with a lot of priestly power, you will have a lot of priestly capitalism. But that is despite capitalism, not because of capitalism. As Vox Day points out, and successfully demonstrates, priestly power undermines your business. His comics hit the best seller list on Amazon, beating out Marvel comics in relevant comics categories. When Marvel capitulated to the priesthood, it left money on the table for Vox Day to pick up.

                  One big problem is that we have no satisfactory alternative to the proprietary and corrupt ranking algorithms created by the big companies. Gab and Bitchute’s ranking algorithms are not politically correct, but just are not very satisfactory. But I have a ranking algorithm that works. Which I hope to make money off, so am not publishing it widely, though I have published it under another identity.

                  That the big, and priestly converged, businesses own the good ranking algorithms is not because capitalists stole them. It is because they created those algorithms and the priesthood stole them. So the solution to that is to create some more, and make sure they do not get stolen this time. Which will be difficult. The hard part being not creating them, but making money off them without priestly takeover.

                  When we are the state religion, YouTube and Google will be converged to us – but this is not capitalist power. It is priestly power.

                • jack boot says:

                  > As always, you blame the wrong people for the wrong problem.

                  i blame the federal reserve for inflating assets prices

                  i blame wall street for massive corporate consolidation

                  i blame walmart and amazon for destroying local businesses

                  i blame nestle for putting corn syrup and soy in everything

                  i blame ewg for subsidizing corn and jim’s successful supposedly independent farmers for being on the dole

                  i blame software engineers for being social incompetent and the worst negotiators in the world

                  i blame the disgusting fat middle american for being a total fucking schnook

                  but most of all i blame the lolbergs who think externalities aren’t real and the infallible free market prices everything appropriately and everything can be measured in dollars and cents and value creation is the same as value CAPTURE


                • jim says:

                  None of these are the reason that so many men cannot get laid. None of these are causing population replacement or the missing grandchildren.

                  No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to consume products based on corn syrup. Walmart undercut a distribution system fronted by small businesses, but which distributed goods from big warehouses in the bicoastal megalopoli.

                  You hate farmers that are successful and independent, which is most of them, you hate the kulaks, you hate everyone who successfully creates value.

                  “Externalities” is just the all purpose excuse for the priesthood jumping in to screw up capitalism. Observe what happens whenever you lot intervene to fix all these terrible defects of capitalism.

                • Not Tom says:

                  > i blame…

                  …everybody other than yourself, but especially the white working class and middle class. We get it.

                  We blame you for your own shitty life. If you were complaining about all the women in your community being banged-up sluts, we’d be sympathetic while still telling you that only you can solve that problem for yourself in the short term. Complaining about not having enough earning potential, though, that’s just stupid and we will continue to label you as worthless, because quality entrepreneurs and quality employees alike simply don’t have this problem. Not since Trump cut the corporate tax and killed the Obama-era regulations.

                • jim says:

                  In a comment that I censored, he deduced from Marxist economic theory that in a just society he would be getting about $400 000 per year. Which deduction added up and was supported by evidence in much the same way as it adds up that if we burned down the supermarket we would all get free beer.

                  I censored it not for the evidence and argument, which was entirely sound, given the Marxist presupposition that value is not created, it is just there for the taking, but for the Marxist presuppositions that have already been beaten to death far too many times.

                  The problem with the reasoning, both his reasoning and the reasoning of the rabble rouser leading the mob against the supermarket, is that it ignores the creation of value. Marxist economic reasoning takes the point of view of a hunter gatherer wandering the forest looking for something to eat. “Hey”, the hunter gather points to what civilized men have created “There is a huge pile of goodies in this jungle. Why am I not allowed to help myself?”

                  Marxist economic reasoning was nicely parodied in the video, where the rabble rouser declaims, as the mob make off with the peddler’s steamed rolls:

                  “Strike a severe blow to speculation and profiteering!”
                  “Be determined to amputate the tail of capitalism!”

                  He sees people who have nice stuff, he just hates them. “Why don’t I have nice stuff? It is not fair.” And, in the video, the mob beat up the peddler for the horrid sin of having created those steamed rolls.

                • Gack says:

                  Apparently this Oxford professor Unwin writing in the 1930s claims to have studied six major civilizations and 80 lesser societies and found unanimously that within three generations of unmarried people being allowed to have sex, everybody becomes stupid and society collapses, and conversely that this is always the cause of collapse.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Unmarried people”

                  This is using gender neutral terminology to blame men for the woman problem and anyone who does that should go right to the helicopter.

                • Not Tom says:

                  He sees people who have nice stuff, he just hates them.

                  Hence the Marxist criticism of Boomers. It’s always the same pattern: pick a group that people have legitimate grievances with, but instead of discussing those grievances, claim they’re evil because they own too much.

                  Vox scorns the Boomers because they turned citizenship into a cheap commodity. Shills hate the Boomers because they have too much stuff.

                  Greg Johnson scorns Jews because they act like they own the place (and run it into the ground) while obsessing nonstop over imaginary threats. Shills hate Jews because they have too much stuff.

                  Moldbug scorns the bankers, because their whole system is based on a flawed and deeply sinister premise that causes boom-bust cycles and requires constant government intervention. And Jim scorns them for making usurious, improperly-secured loans. Shills hate the bankers because they have too much stuff.

                  Styx and Adams scorn CEOs for being craven, short-sighted, and frequently incompetent. Shills hate CEOs because they have too much stuff.

                  Zman scorns the Federal Reserve because it’s created a debt addiction. Shills hate the fed because it’s run by Jews, who have too much stuff, and some of the fed money goes to CEOs, who have too much stuff.

                  It’s always the same thing, over and over again. “You should hate this group because they have stuff and you don’t.” Addressing the real grievance, of course, might leave the door open for some people to say “actually, that group isn’t causing much trouble for me right now, I’d rather focus on more serious issues”. But who can argue with all the stuff they have? And if you don’t have the same stuff, they must have stolen it from you!

                  And every time they do this, they think they’re being clever. They think, this time, everybody is going to agree. They think, everybody wants to kill those guys and take their stuff. And when people fail to express a sincere desire to kill those guys and take their stuff, the Marxist, frustrated and flustered, starts rattling off the old list of villains, just throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks. But the billionaires! The CEOs! The Walmarts! The Jews! Big Pharma! Agri-business! Surely you must hate one of these groups enough to want to kill them and take their stuff!?

                  It’s so predictable, and so sickening.

                • jim says:

                  People who have stuff never bothered me, even when I was poor. When I looked at someone who had stuff, I was figuring out how to create what they had created, not how to take what they had created. Gays and Jeremy Meeks bother me. As I said. Who cares about stuff? In a capitalist society everyone has an obesity problem, not a bread problem, or even a car problem. And in a progressive society, everyone has a shortage of virgin fertile age females. We have plenty of stuff – it is very hard to buy someone a Christmas present because everyone has everything, but we have a dire shortage of family.

                  It is bad if you let your women hang out with bad women, and a gay is like a very very bad woman. He will hit on you and encourage misconduct in your women. But if you hang out with wealthy people, they are apt to help you become wealthy.

                • jack boot says:

                  so thanks to your comment not tom i figured it out. thanks.

                  here’s what i figured out.

                  i looked around and i noticed while i was busy creating value a lot of people of less capable were a lot richer than me.

                  and i noticed other people who created a lot of value who weren’t rich or anything close

                  and i noticed mcdonalds and canned corn syrup was making everyone fat and offending my eyes by their very presence

                  and now i notice you believe in a big fat just world fallacy. you think when i decry huge concentrations of wealth in banking and food conglomerates, etc. i want to soak people who got rich as a reward for doing useful things.

                  which is a perfect inversion of reality. i want to soak useless parasites so useful people have a chance to get rich as a reward for doing useful things.

                  bureaucrats and aspiring bureaucrats will tell you they need to be taxed. but they don’t need to be taxed. taxes just entrench their monopoly power.

                  it isn’t necessary to tax parasites to soak them. you just have to force them to compete against better people. value creators.

                  which yeah. requires state intervention.

                  and disposal of lolbergs like you. who are mind pwned to reflexively defend corruption and immorality because muh free market. (which isn’t even real)

                  and sure. under my reign there will be some strict regulations. possession of corn syrup, cigarettes, tattoos, internet pornography will be verboten on pain of death.

                  because we have to have standards.

                • jim says:

                  You don’t create value. I can tell because you hate people who do create value.

                  I can also tell from our argument on the value of labor. If you think labor is valuable, it is because your labor fails to create any actual value. Likely your labor creates LOC, but LOC has negative value. If you work for non engineer boss, he may well think LOC is valuable, but if he does the project winds up with technical debt and eventually reaches the state of being “99% complete” with no prospect that it will ever ship.

                • jack boot says:

                  > in a just society 400 000

                  in a just society i would be getting whatever i can negotiate in a free market

                  and in a free market i have freedom of association

                  and so i would exercise my freedom of association and join a union or guild and together we would negotiate myself a raise to several million dollars annually

                  and then we would negotiate a much lower and more reasonable tax rate so i pay the same effective tax rate as, say, amazon: -1.2% (not a typo)

                  where is your lolberg god now??

                • jim says:

                  It is not the capitalist class that is preventing free association, and in free market, where you get your job from the boss, not from Human Resources, or Human Resources outsourced to a recruiting company so that Human Resources is not dangerously close and spying on the boss to find information that can send him to prison or ruin the company, enabling them to blackmail the board, you would not get a job better than flipping burgers, because the boss could smell your hatred of him for having more stuff than you do.

                  Bosses and farmer’s dogs hate commies because they can smell the hatred on them. Commies hate farmers because they own stuff, and the dogs can smell it.

                  Unions do not naturally form except for jobs where the workers are interchangeable and readily replaceable. Which engineers are not. One of my sons resigned from a well known internet company for family reasons. (In part because of dangerously aggressive child protective services in the state where he was located. He had to sell his house, for fear of child protective services, despite the fact that he is a wealthy middle class man who spoils his children far worse than I spoiled him, and fails to discipline them even with a cold word, and he has a stay at home wife and a part time housekeeper.)

                  The company did not want him to resign, and gave him nine months off with full pay on condition he not work for anyone else during those nine months. Hence the disinclination of the engineers to form unions. Presumably they did not want him going to work for a certain other well known internet company.

                  For engineers, each job is different, and for companies, each engineer is different, thus engineers have no incentive to unionize. Except that unproductive engineers want the government to force a union onto engineers so that they can ride on the backs of productive engineers.

                • Not Tom says:

                  lolbergs like you

                  Have been firmly authoritarian for many years now, which is anti-libertarian. Not surprised that a commie can’t tell the difference between being pro-capitalism and being libertarian.

                  who are mind pwned to reflexively defend corruption and immorality because muh free market.

                  Which is not what any of us do. To the contrary, eliminating corruption and immorality is what makes free markets possible in the first place, which requires warriors and priests. You want to institutionalize corruption and immorality in the form of covetousness.

                  and sure. under my reign there will be some strict regulations. possession of corn syrup, cigarettes, tattoos, internet pornography will be verboten on pain of death.

                  In order, you hate: farmers and their staple crops, things that raise testosterone, habits of warrior alpha males, and habits of heterosexual beta males.

                  In other words, you hate all civilization and want to destroy it so you can loot.

                • Not Tom says:

                  and so i would exercise my freedom of association and join a union or guild and together we would negotiate myself a raise to several million dollars annually

                  It is very amusing indeed that you think this could happen in an ancap-like environment (not that any of us are actual ancaps, but seeing as how you chose that particular thought-experiment…).

                  Unions are only able to exert power because of laws and lawyers and big men with big sticks protecting them. Absent that protection, if you tried to form a union with the other low-skill workers, you’d all be fired on the spot because you are trivially replaceable; there is an excess of low-skill labor supply. And if you tried to form a union with the high-skill workers, we would laugh hysterically at you until you slinked away in shame.

                  Haven’t you read about the SJW tech workers claiming to be future union bosses? No one wants any part of their shenanigans. Jim is absolutely correct; skilled workers don’t form unions because unions are expensive and skilled workers already have enough leverage, employment options and f-you money.

                • jim says:

                  > Haven’t you read about the SJW tech workers claiming to be future union bosses? No one wants any part of their shenanigans.

                  In a gaming company, when Human Resources makes them hire engineerettes, the company stuffs them in the art harem, where women are quite useful, and because they actually produce some value, despite producing far too much drama, they are not interested in unionization, but if the company does not have tasks suitable for women, and they are damned useless, then some of them want to form a union, figuring that if they cannot do real engineering, they can be an engineering union boss and push the real engineers around.

                • Dave says:

                  I recently showed my kids the PBS American Experience biography of Walt Disney.

                  In 1941, Art Babbitt, creator of the beloved Goofy character, led a strike at Disney to protest the unfair pay scale. Disney paid himself $1000 a week, Babbitt and the other top artists got $300, in-betweeners got about $60, and the girls doing ink & paint got as little as $12 a week.

                  Babbitt and many of the other strikers left Disney to join UPA, at which point PBS showed a clip of a UPA animation. Crude outlines, no color, no depth, bad music, it was the laziest piece of shit I ever saw. That, I told my kids, is what commies produce when not under the whip hand of a ruthless capitalist!

                • jack boot says:

                  like progressive fanatics, you keep accusing milquetoast people of hatred.

                  yeah, i’m milquetoast in this context

                  my “hatred” (if that’s even the word) is reserved for people who get rich making other people fat, dumb, numb, promiscuous, and other more subtle kinds of parasitism.

                  and real life holocaust horror factory farming, chipping at our karmic credit with every bite of that steak or burger or goulash

                  you accuse me of hating farmers and yet i would defend family farms from the depredation of big ag

                  you accuse me of hating working people and yet i would let them get together in unions and/or guilds and/or professional associations to negotiate with their corporate overlords

                  and btw all respected professions have professional organizations to defend their interests. that’s how the game is played.

                  with absolutely no information (!) you accuse me of being poor while paying a tax in the 40s. yeah even without collective bargaining i’m 30% poorer than i should be. corporate overlords [well known internet company] pay ~10% while their employees pay 40% at the low end. caveat emptor?

                  and for the punchline you literally advocate the lolberg line “make your own youtube”

                  it is to laugh

                • jim says:

                  You were spontaneously enraged when I said that when I am invited to a party thrown by a farmer, he is apt to have some nice toys.

                  A farmer with nice toys is the very archetype of someone moderately wealthy whose wealth derives from value creation.

                  Therefore you just hate people who have some of the wealth that they created. Which people who create substantial value are apt to have.

                  Commies just viscerally hate farmers, and the farmer’s dogs smell it on them. Because commies hate people who have stuff, and a farmer has stuff, because commies hate people who create value and a farmer creates visible and tangible value.

                  Marxist economics is a windy and impressive way of saying that if we burn down the supermarket, we will score some free beer.

                • jack boot says:


                • jim says:

                  Vox Day’s critique of woke capitalism is correct. The commie account of woke capitalism is surreal and makes no sense, and we have heard it all before far too many times and I am just not going to let you tell us that account over again.

                  We are seeing the same problem in open source, as for example the ejection of Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman, where you cannot blame our evil capitalist overlords.

                  Capitalism is not causing woke open source, therefore capitalism is not causing woke capitalism. Vox Day’s account of Woke Capitalism and Woke Open Source describes the same phenomenon in the same way, the same forces causing the same results in the same way.

                • jack boot says:

                  > You were spontaneously enraged when I said that when I am invited to a party thrown by a farmer, he is apt to have some nice toys.

                  no. and if you doubt me just go back and look you colossal buffoon. it’s one of the comments you didn’t delete. quote me. i dare you.

                  i said, quote, i am not a proud man, i would become a farmer if becoming a farmer gave me millions in stocks, bonds and land

                  but the days of free (or cheap) farmland in the days of my great-great-grandfather to my grandfather are over. land is absurdly expensive as measured in hours of labor. (including all professionals and anyone who draws a salary)

                  now if you want productive land (for some value of productive) the best you can do is buy half of an acre for 50 thousand dollars near a large expanse of fertile public land and shoot a large ungulate as it passes through

                  and depending on the laws in your area that may or may not be legal

                • jim says:

                  You in that comment, and in this comment to which I reply, demonized that well off farmer as being granted that wealth by our evil capitalist overlords, or inheriting that wealth from the evil settlers who grabbed all the land, standard commie demonization of kulaks. In fact he created it most of it.

                  I wrote:

                  > > Or at any rate the farmers that throw parties to which I get invited are not struggling. They have some cool toys.

                  To which you replied, enraged:

                  > screw you, got mine.
                  > maybe you should feel the hand around your throat. it might change your mind.

                  And proceeded to demonize farmers with flaming rage in comment after to comment.

                  “if being a farmer gave me”.

                  “gave” is rage, hatred and demonization. No one gives anyone anything. All wealth has to be created. Commies see people with nice stuff, and think it was given to them, and are enraged that they did not get their fair share. Which is why commies hate farmers, and farmer’s dogs hate commies.

                  When a commie says “you did not build that” to the man who did in fact build that he intends to murder the man who did indeed build that. And in the twentieth century, you murdered a one hundred and sixty million of us.

                • jack boot says:


                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive: Was it capitalism and capitalists that purged Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman?

              • Not Tom says:

                Every time you respond, he changes the subject.

                “Nothing’s happening” – here is a bunch of stuff happening.
                “Legal immigration is up!” – actually, legal immigration is down.
                “Stock market gains are just debt!” – actually, debt ratio is decreasing.

                He’ll probably pivot to one or more other arguments, then come back the next day and start the entire script over again from scratch.

                Hard to tell if it’s a shill; I actually know someone like this who is nominally on the right but complete and incurably black-pilled. No matter what evidence you show that Trump is getting things done, he will insist that Trump is awful, totally ineffectual, no chance at winning re-election, etc.

                But shill or no shill (and “jack” seems like a literal commie), it’s impossible to get through to any of these people.

                • jack boot says:

                  the less wrong autists and peter teal call it steelmanning. i say i think trump is willing to do good things he just isn’t able and mention the strongest things he’s done which aren’t very strong. then i point out (as i am now) that iron ann is dissatisfied with trump’s supposed wall and realized immigration policy and how steve bannon went on cnbc and said almost literally verbatim, in 2016 trump won by 80k votes in 5 counties and 2020 is going to be incredibly incredibly incredibly tough

                • jim says:

                  Trump’s immigration policy has been great for engineers. I am very happy about what he is done to H1B. His most important promise was to bring the jobs back, and he has done so.

                  The currency is, as you say broken, but it was rapidly headed for collapse under Obama, and he has stabilized it, though at precariously high levels of debt.

                • jack boot says:

                  the system isn’t stable, lol. stable systems don’t require overnight “emergency injections” of more money than many countries gdps. if i still had anything in the market i’d pull out every cent. the sheeple fleecing will soon commence. wall street will show its fangs, go in for the kill. sharks, blood in the water. maybe when trump wants it, maybe not. aut right people have been joking about weimerica but they won’t be laughing anymore.

                • jim says:

                  Trump has stabilized the alarmingly broken system, which foreshadows him fixing it when he gets the power.

                • Starman says:

                  @jack boot

                  Spandrell is blackpilled but he is very redpilled on women. Let’s see if jack boot is red pilled on women:

                  Complete the following the sentence: Women misbehave because —————-
                  [A] Capitalism makes them misbehave, by economically incentivizing reckless high time-reference behavior over long-term planning. The capitalist class benefits from one night stands and sterility, as it benefits from third world immigration of spendthrift cheap labor to replace frugal whites.
                  [B] The Jews make them misbehave, since the Jews own the media and the entire entertainment industry from Hollywood down to the tiniest pornography studio, and use them to direct propaganda at women, telling them to fuck blacks and lowlifes. The Jews deliberately intend for dysgenesis to occur, as part of their long-term White Genocide plan.
                  [C] Sorry, but this is a misleading question. Women don’t misbehave at all. All misbehavior is done by men, who are vile pigs.
                  [D] Lecherous men make them misbehave, since men are ultimately responsible for all female behavior (including misbehavior), and unlike women, men have self-control and moral agency. Thus it logically follows that any female misbehavior would merely reflect bad decisions taken by irresponsible and lustful men.
                  [E] They are feral, blindly following ancient instincts from the time we were apes in the jungle, which instincts tell them to cruise for rape by alpha male Chads, and to resist kicking-and-screaming all attempts to restrain them from pursuing alpha male Chads. Stable monogamy has always been a conspiracy by men against women.

                • Not Tom says:

                  the less wrong autists and peter teal call it steelmanning

                  That is the opposite of what you do. You won’t address any arguments head on, you simply straw-man everything or, more often, ignore it completely and plow ahead with your own nonsense.

                • jack boot says:

                  jim, it isn’t fixed obviously. it’s temporary. he’s packing the barrel with powder. when the system finally goes nuclear he’ll declare a national emergency and we’ll wake up to a new currency. it won’t be as momentous as when the soviet union liquidated itself but it’ll be remarkable. don’t be in an urban area unless you have an airplane close at hand and a comfy destination. the suburbs may fare a little better but i wouldn’t bet my life on it.

                • jim says:

                  Temporary is a whole lot better than what Obama was giving us, which was heading to explode by now.

                  And Trump is not packing the barrel with powder. He is keeping the powder in the keg at its alarming Obama level. If he becomes Caesar Augustus, he can deal with this problem later down the track.

                • jack boot says:

                  welcome r7, the sock puppet of last resort

                  the woman question is very simple.

                  around the turn of the 20th century all bankers some capitalists and upstart pr men conspired to subjugate and dominate the western civilization

                  they did this because the scorpion stings the frog. or rather because of the inexorable darwinian logic of power.

                  in russia they pushed alcohol and sponsored the communist revolution. (to sweep down from the east) but naturally the open society of the american republic was the softest target. (to sweep down from the west)

                  in america they pushed alcohol and used reactionary prohibition to make massive profits and quietly solidify they position. they pushed through female suffrage because men look at facts but women respond to emotional appeals.

                  this was about the same time as men were being stripped of their agricultural holdings (official policy, look up the docs) and enslaved to wage labor under the corporate form. and then later they enslaved women to double the workforce and halve earning power.

                  fertility suppression was and is a constant theme. every baby unborn is a future soldier that doesn’t exist and an inverted age pyramid is fat and old and unlikely to rebel.

                  population management 101.

                  soy high fructose corn syrup and estrogen in the drinking water are immensely effective rearguard actions for those who slip through.

                  some have suggested they preferentially send english and german descent into the highest mortality occupations in wars.

                  it’s common knowledge these days, the suburban form was explicitly engineered to minimize male-male contact and bonding for demobilized gis

                  i prefer description to prescription. you’re free to tell us what we should do with women. i’ll stick to the facts of what happened and let you figure out who did it

                • jim says:

                  The shear insanity of this reply verges on self parody.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  the less wrong autists and peter teal call it steelmanning

                  That is the opposite of what you do. You won’t address any arguments head on, you simply straw-man everything or, more often, ignore it completely and plow ahead with your own nonsense.

                  Which is how the less wrongists use it too.


                  When I wrote Reactionary Philosophy In An Enormous Planet-Sized Nutshell, my attempt to explain reactionary philosophy, many people complained that it missed the key insight. At the time I had an excuse: I didn’t get the key insight. Now I think I might understand it and have the vocabulary to explain, so I want to belatedly add it in.

                  This is Scott admitting that he couldn’t bring himself to understand something (because it trips crimethink filters) and that *he argued against the point anyway* – by steelmanning it of course. Steelmanning in practice being him writing some argument that he allows himself to understand and dismissing that.

                • jack boot says:


                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive. You say “let’s talk about it”, and then you conspicuously decline to talk about it, changing the subject to random crap about Alex Jones. Who the hell is Alex Jones and why should anyone here care that he thinks whatever it is he does think and how does he have anything to do with the woman question? Or indeed with anything? Do any reactionaries show any sign of caring what he thinks? Does he think anything about the woman question? If he does you neglect to mention it. Does he have any crimethink thoughts at all?

                • jack boot says:

                  [*deleted because not crimethink, and not demonstrating the ability to speak or comprehend crimethought*]

                • jim says:

                  You were challenged to show you could commit crimethink – or even understand crimethought when it is right in front of you. So you babble irrelevancies.

                • jack boot says:


                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive. You were supposedly responding on the woman question.

                • jack boot says:


                • jim says:

                  Alex Jones is too terrified to commit crimethink on any topic, and evidently you cannot commit crimethink on any topic.

                  You were challenged to commit crimethink, and keep changing the topic.

                  I will not allow you to pretend to answer. Deleted for dodging the question.

                • Not Tom says:

                  The shear insanity of this reply verges on self parody.

                  It’s almost like the “A” answers is shaman’s multiple-choice tests.

                  Shaman, is that you? Is this all an elaborate hoax to get us to hate blue-pilled communists even more than we already do?

              • greginaurora says:

                “His election prospects are excellent. In a president’s second presidential election, voters always vote for peace, prosperity, and the manliness of the president. There is no way the Democrats can beat him, and they act as if there is no way they can beat him.”

                Something about this thought…

                What do you think the chances are that Trump has been trying to force their hand and bring about an impeachment trial, on purpose, during his first term?

                If he’s brought to trial, and wins, they won’t try a second time. If he wins, he’s free to ANYTHING (almost).

                All of the big plans could then be set in motion. None of the wins need to be subtle or arguable. At that point, he could begin ordering mass arrests and they’d have no recourse to stop him. Because they’d have already tried impeaching him, and the only thing that would have come out of it was more own-goal indictments.

                I’m not saying the 42d chess stuff is fo realz. I am saying he’s a smart guy and could have, just as an example, observed the incredible increase in power afforded to Turkey’s Erdoğan after the coup attempt, which could plausibly have been a fake coup engineered to create sympathy and allow for his own housecleaning of Turkey’s deep state.

                If they go for impeachment and fail, the only move they have left is violent coup/civil war. Trump’s entire second term could be devoted to firing bureaucrats and arresting traitors, and the only thing taking an actual shot at him would do would be to harden support for him.

                All speculation of course.

                • jack boot says:

                  can’t win again. first time was a fluke. an act of god basically. four years of ww2-era voters have died off and millions and millions of brown post 911 zoomed have turned 18 then 19 then 20 then 21. there are entire arab school districts in minnesota now. the last election was the last election. wait and see.

                • jim says:

                  The latest holiness spiral is hatred of whites.

                  Democrats have been winning because feral white women have been voting Democrat. Feral white women are starting to become afraid. White hispanics are starting to become afraid. Big surge in Trump votes among white women and white hispanics.

                  Jewish privilege has been going down the tubes, even progressive Jews, as their old job of doing the treasonous elites dirty work against the natives gets done by dot Indians. Significant surge in Jewish votes for Trump.

                  The Democrats figure they can win without the white vote. Not yet they cannot.

                • Allah says:

                  The way things were going, it was either going to be Fetullah or Reis who was going to win and take total power because all other opposition was already neutralized long ago. Erdoğan ended up outmaneuvering the cultists. Somewhat reminiscent of the rivalry between Trotsky and Stalin.

                  As for feral white women, what got them to change now? They saw what foreign bad boys were all about and the mystery went away?

                • jim says:

                  The change is not the boys, but women’s loss of status relative to transexuals and brown women.

                  The progressives put women into men’s sports, and they thought that they were being granted status. And then the progressives put transexuals into those sports, who ran past the women as if they were standing still.

                  The progressives helicoptered them into university courses that they could not do and which were dumbed down for them, and they thought that was high status. Then the progressives helicoptered browns into those courses, and dumbed the courses down further.

                  You will notice that Trump picked a fight over pretending transexuals are soldiers, but did not pick a fight over pretending women are soldiers, even though transexuals are less bad for soldiering than women. Not too many transexual voters. Too many white feral women voters.

                • Allah says:

                  Yes, but doesn’t the left keep doubling down on feminism to answer this? They used to use gender neutral language and other dishonest technicalities to pretend their feminism was consistent with their egalitarianism but I don’t see that as much now. Nowadays they tell you to your face it’s manlier to accept one’s inferior position as a man and a lot of men seem to eat this shit up for some reason.

                  Anyways, good to know white women still like foreign bad boys just the same.

                • jim says:

                  Because beta males are already invisible to women, women fail to notice male status being lowered ever further, while they do notice cross dressing men getting higher status than themselves.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Legal immigration is primarily family reunification. In terms of raw numbers, H1B is irrelevant. In terms of smart fraction numbers, H1B does matter more.

            • jim says:

              Trump has started enforcing the rules on chain migration, just as he has started enforcing the rules on H1B.

              • Omar is just a Trump card now says:

                Cuccinelli may be even better than Miller. They and a handful of their allies are waging war to not only enforce the rules, but to reinterpret and lawfare the rules in ways that reduce inflow and delay-deny-discourage applications.

                Refugee intake was zero as of a month or two ago.

                • alf says:

                  Whatever happened to that march of Mexicans that was going to cross the border? Media was full it, but then I never heard of them again.

                • BC says:

                  They ran into the concertina wire that the US military put up and went home.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  Trump threatened large tariffs on Mexican imports and a day or two later, Mexico stationed thousands of soldiers (or is it cartel members) at the border to stop border crossers. Prior US presidents “forgot” they have this leverage, and when Trump applied it, Mexico suddenly “remembered” its national boundary exists and can be patrolled.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  Also, the refugee scam has been shut down by the same method. Trump threatened to tariffs, end foreign aid and tax or stop money transfers at which point Guatemala quickly and miraculously signed a “safe third country” agreement to hold refuge applicants there while they wait a few years for their applications to be processed and denied. The same with another country (Honduras, I think) that signed on voluntarily rather than get the Guatemala treatment. As with Mexico, it was 95 percent stick and 5 percent carrot that created the leverage.

                • alf says:

                  Damn what a happy ending.

Leave a Reply