The real election platform

The 2016 Republican Platform consisted of what little red meat still remained within the Overton Window – the biggest chunk of red meat being to prohibit transporting minor “children” over state lines for abortions without the consent of their parents – which is not all that red, and which, of course, they ignored, and instead funded Planned Parenthood, an organization that not only transports minor daughters over state lines for late term abortions without the consent of their parents, but sells the resulting corpses, treating them as meat, rather than dead babies.

In 2020, could not have a platform, because everything is outside the ever narrowing Overton Window.

So they dog whistled their platform.

The republican party platform is unpublishable, because it is leftism with all the unprincipled exceptions that make normal life, a normal market economy, normal jobs, a normal home, and a normal family, just barely possible.

Which is why it is unpublishable.

Hard to tell what the people at the Republican National Convention think, hard to tell what the the popular opinion on these issues is, for speaking stuff that was bland mainstream Republicanism a few years ago, will now get you fired, cancelled, demonetized, deplatformed, and very possibly beaten up or killed.

The Democrats hear their own voice, one microphone, a thousand loudspeakers, and think it is the voice of the people.

But if we restore those unprincipled exceptions, the only way to restore stability is to make them not unprincipled exceptions, but honor rightly due to nation, Gnon, family, and ancestors:

At the Republican convention, the Republicans kept uttering the name of Jesus Christ, something that Democrats have great difficulty doing respectfully. And I have found on my blog, the name of Jesus Christ is a good shill detector. Bad people, not all of them but most of them, seem to be worried that if they speak his name respectfully, they might burst into flames. It seems oddly and strangely effective in sorting the enemies of civilization from the defenders of civilization. When entryists took over the Church of England in the early eighteen hundreds, they had to concoct a formula where they could say the name, and mean something different.

When the left is out of power, they will probably recollect that formula, but for the moment, they seem to have forgotten it.

Albeit today, checking people to see if they can speak red pill truths about women, or even acknowledge what you said when you spoke or implied a red pill truth about women, is a far more effective test. It never fails. And no one at the republican convention could speak a red pill truth about women, at least not in public, not at the Republican National Convention. But if Trump must guard his tongue in public, we know what he says and thinks in private. And sometimes, when he utters blue pill pieties in public, he makes a little joke, that he is required to say that in public.

When being politically correct ceases to mean supporting chaos, demons, and Antichrist, and instead means supporting civilization instead of Chaos, God instead of demons, Jesus Christ instead of Antichrist, then people will discover that their principles are not what they thought they were, and forget that their principles were ever different.

The unmentionable and unspeakable Republican platform is:

  • The wall. An end to extraordinary legal, educational and welfare privilege for illegal immigrants.
  • Tax cuts: Was there ever an unpopular tax cut? Was there ever a tax cut that adversely affected the economy?
  • The coronavirus is a much-overhyped problem. Its not that dangerous and will soon burn itself out. States should reopen their economies as rapidly as possible. This does not seem make any very noticeable or easily detectable difference to the total number of deaths. Masking is useless and theatrical, if not outright counterproductive. As Trump sarcastically announces whenever called on Masks: “This is a peaceful protest. Science shows that china flu is not spread by peaceful protest.”
  • The country is gripped by a surge of crime and lawlessness as a result of the Black Lives Matter movement and its criticism of police. Police misconduct, such as that in the George Floyd case, should be punished. But the priority now should be to stop crime by empowering police.
  • Voting is a privilege. States should have wide latitude to regulate that privilege in such a way as to minimize voting fraud, which is rife among Black Americans and new immigrant communities. The federal government needs to prevent Democrats from abusing the U.S. Postal Service to enable fraud by their voters.
  • Anti-Black racism has ceased to be an important problem in American life, if it ever was a problem. At this point, the people most likely to be targets of adverse discrimination are whites, Christians, and Asian university applicants.
  • Climate change is a much-overhyped problem. It’s probably not happening. If it is happening, it’s not worth worrying about. If it’s worth worrying about, it’s certainly not worth paying trillions of dollars to amend. To the extent it is real, it will be dealt with in the fullness of time by the technologies of tomorrow. Regulations to protect the environment unnecessarily impede economic growth, and are usually implemented to demonstrate the holiness of those implementing them and destroy the enemies of those implementing, rather than implemented to actually protect the environment.
  • Trade war rather shooting war, and trade wars are to be resolved by trade deals. Peace through strength, and peace through the shared pursuit of prosperity
  • The American empire is the anti American empire. It is outdated, and unfair to American and Americans. Peripheral, unprofitable, and chronically hostile states of the American Empire need to be abandoned or thrown out. America still needs partners and alliances, but the days of NATO and the World Trade Organization are over. Peace on the basis of theoretical Westphalian equality, though whether states like Australia are provinces of the American Empire or Westphalian equals will be left delicately ambiguous. If the European Union continues its anti American policies, they can be an independent rival Westphalian equal – if they have the military capability for genuine independence, which they don’t, and if they are willing to make the necessary sacrifices to attain Westphalian equality, which they are not. If America acts decisively, allies will have to follow whether they like it or not—as they will have to follow U.S. policy on Iran.
  • Individuals should make their own best deals in the health care and health insurance market with minimal government supervision. Those who pay more should get more. Those who cannot pay must rely on Medicaid, accept charity, or go without. The effect of this is likely to a massive fall in the cost of healthcare. Hospitals should face truth in advertising laws, and be forbidden to engage in surprise billing and ambush billing. Drug prices are far too expensive, and are artificially inflated for Americans by regulator burden, a regulatory burden astonishingly profitable for those regulated, and astonishingly expensive for those supposedly protected by these regulations.

777 Responses to “The real election platform”

  1. The Cominator says:

    Do we all agree Pence (tradcon establishment cuck that he kinda is) massacred the bitch.

    • Not Tom says:

      I agree that you must have been extremely bored in order to watch a vice-presidential debate.

      • The Cominator says:

        It matters to enough people this time since even a lot of normie know cameltoe will be the real president if the unthinkable happens.

        • Strannik says:

          It won’t be announced that Pence won, but he won. I’m interested in the fact that Harris didn’t attack Pence personally, which is pretty much her thing otherwise. Most curious….@ Jim, @the Cominator, can you account for that?

    • Strannik says:

      Pence was measured, thoughtful, and very disciplined. He has Gravitas. I was very impressed with his performance.

    • Pooch says:

      Has Pence done enough to get killed too if Trump loses? His incredibly pathetic knee-jerk subservience to BLM immediately after George Floyd leads me to wonder about him but he seems to have come to his senses at least by now.

      • Not Tom says:

        Well, AP reported that he overruled the CDC:

        If Pence has designs against Trump or any excessive personal ambitions of his own, then he’s playing an almost inconceivably long game, even if it is traditional for the VP to run after the president’s second term.

        He appears to either be content where he is as Trump’s loyal enforcer, or plans to stay out of the spotlight as long as possible so he can run in 2024 as a blank slate. But if he intends the latter, he might very well lose the primary to a hardliner.

        • Strannik says:

          As the very balanced player with as I said; ”gravitas”, with discipline, calm, intelligence and command of the facts, thoughtfulness, a very cool demeanor, Pence actually reminds me of President Putin of Russia in some respects. Pence has sons in the military, officers, and the saying is that the ”apple doesn’t fall far from the tree”. They got their drive and discipline from their father.

          Pence has always been a factor in Trump’s calculations.

        • Pooch says:

          Extremely doubtful 2024 is a normal election.

          • Strannik says:

            Behind the scenes it isn’t, but I believe it will be more stable publicly than 2000 was. Biden will do the right thing and concede when it’s clear he’s lost. That’s his role before God; deny Sanders and the other lunatics the nomination, and lose.

      • Strannik says:

        I didn’t see anything like that about Pence and BLM, but at any rate, the guy does have steel in him.

        Recall what Mark Anthony did right after Caesar’s assassination? He became very clever, more clever than any time before or after in Anthony’s life, and briefly played along with the killers of his leader Caesar in order to turn the people against them, expose them for who and what they were. That wasn’t cowardly, it was strategic thinking.

        • The Cominator says:

          Well nobody has as much gravitas as HBO Rome’s Marc Antony.

          I wish youtube had the Rome scene where Marc Antony told the assassins to leave the city… “I have an angry mob that will ROAST AND EAT YOUR MEN OF QUALITY in the ashes of the Senate House”

        • jim says:

          I can see why Kamala got a ridiculously low vote in the Democratic presidential nomination primaries. Watching her with the sound off, I could see her evil.

          As people get older, their character marks their faces.

          Childless women frequently go evil and/or insane. Not always, but they are at high risk. Kamala may be sane, or may be good at keeping her madness masked, but she is evil. She wants everyone and everything to burn.

          I think Pol Pot genuinely wanted and expected the communist utopia, expected and intended to immanetize the eschaton, though when it failed to immanetize, his response was to murder all those close to him, since obviously the only reason why the eschaton did non imanentize must be evil people in power (it could not possibly be that communism was unworkable, and his left communism even more unworkable) but Kamala does not want the communist utopia. She wants to immanentize hell and erase the human species. She wants vengeance on the entire universe.

          In posed and still photos, she looks normal enough, and if you pay attention to what she is saying, it sounds normal enough, but when her face moves …

          • Strannik says:

            Yes, she’s not quite right. Political defeat would be the best thing for her, if she’d take that chance. I actually don’t think part of her wants a Biden/Harris win badly enough.

          • The Cominator says:

            Tulsi (the only democrat holding office I would spare and note that she is the only dem who’s face has not been marked by evil with her age) outed her immediately as such in their debates as a crooked prosecutor who railroaded innocent people.

            You have to be especially evil to do that job.

          • Starman says:


            “In posed and still photos, she looks normal enough, and if you pay attention to what she is saying, it sounds normal enough, but when her face moves …”

            “i know that face”


            • The Cominator says:

              I liked Dany until they ruined her character she should not be lumped in with that evil bitch Harris.

              How the show should have ended (with her as the model tradwife she always desperately wanted to be).


          • A Honest Indian says:

            Surprisingly my dad who doesn’t know much about American politics thinks that Kamala Harris looks deranged and evil. So there is definitely something about her that shrieks out evil even to people without much knowledge of US politics.

    • Green Fields says:

      Was the fly CGI or a micro-drone, or is that just 4chan zaniness? Predictably, twitter leftists are framing it as a grand victory

    • jim says:

      Everyone who makes alliance with Muslims against a common enemy always gets burned.

      Democrats, including presidential candidate Biden, are making alliance with Muslims against white America.

      Such alliances are apt to prove fatal in the long run, but in the short run the left will probably be too busy killing each other to worry about the long run.

      If some left faction wins, then then the Muslims will eventually kill them off and rule directly, but that is a long way down the list of looming crises.

      • Pooch says:

        I’m seeing gay pride muslim festivals in Western countries. Is this Islamic takeover of the left or leftist takeover of Islam?

        • jim says:

          Prog shills on the Harvard payroll, operating out of the US embassy. Astroturf.

          • Strannik says:

            Completely so. When the time comes the Muslims will slaughter any organized political homosexual allies of theirs

            • Yul Bornhold says:

              How do you know?

              Globohomo is the most powerful propaganda engine to ever exist. Mohammadens generally aren’t very clever. Their upper classes fall mostly into the category that we call “midwit”; the loathsome IFL SCIENCE soyface crowd in the west. According to a number of polls and anecdotes, the perceived importance of religion has declined dramatically in Muslim countries over the past two decades. Mass pozzing of a substantial segment of Mohammadan society seems likely.

              • A Honest Indian says:

                You grossly underestimate the power of Madrassas and the way Islamic doctrine is internalized from childhood. Today Islamists have merely camouflaged their cause whenever convenient and expedient to do so. Their hatred of civilization runs deeper even than the foul and powerful propaganda machines of the decadent progressives backed by the Cathedral.

                Note how easy it is for any Islamic terror organization to get suicide bombers by the hundreds and whether a progressive propagandist is even capable of recruiting even one.

                Progressivism has fed and grown on the inherent weakness of Western civilization since the beginning of the 20th century and not the other way round.

                • Strannik says:

                  This is the truth. For some time now, i’ve even been saying on this site that I believe that progressivism will be absorbed and converted by Islam and otherwise destroyed, before it even fully implodes.

                • Mike says:

                  Idk, this is one thing I do have some reservations on in comparison to Jim. Seems to me that if Progressivism could totally destroy traditional Christianity, Confucianism, and Shinto; and also heavily impact Hinduism (where it abolished their caste system) along with Buddhism (where Communism destroyed practically every monastery in all of China and Mongolia), what the hell makes us think it can’t convert or suppress Islam? It already did to an extent in the past, just look at how secular the intelligentsia and political leadership in the Middle East was from the mid 1800s to mid 1900s.

                • jim says:

                  From 1830 to 1963 the west was highly effective and successful in neutering Islam.

                  After 1963, failure.

                  What happened in 1830 was that the west quelled Algeria by applying near genocidal methods, because nothing else had worked. Up till then, they would surrender, then promptly unsurrender, taking advantage of the Christian commandment for mercy and forgiveness.

                  What happened in 1963 is the retreat from Algeria, and, simultaneously, the west launched war on males, masculinity, the male female polarity, and the difference between the roles of men and women in marriage and courtship. An effeminate and demasculinized west is both less attractive to Muslims, and also less capable of defeating them militarily.

                  As Russian Orthodoxy revives behind the shield of Putin’s nukes, Islamic Orthodoxy revives behind the shield of stubborn and successful war and terror.

                  Soft power is a cover for hard power. The Cathedral’s mysteriously effective mind control rays only work because of violence. Observe how everyone turned on a dime on gays, when gays were allowed to engage in mass violence while police displayed curious lack of interest.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Buddhism resists progressivism pretty well. Asian countries with it only seem to be weakly affected by it.

              • Strannik says:

                Basically, what ”Honest Indian” is saying. And you know from reading this and other sites how accurate Liberal blogs are. Muslims will say anything to Westerners to get what they want; they have a 1400 year old religion and culture that says ”Allah is the best of deceivers”, and Muhammad himself said ”War is Deceit”… For they are eternally at war with us. What is the West to seduce them away from Islam with? Islam already promises them material prosperity if they are pious enough in this life, and even material prosperity in the next life as well. They can take and use our goods, mouth our liberal platitudes, ally with anyone working to undermine the non-muslim civilizations from within, practice takfir and muruna and kitman in order to cheat and steal and kill if they have to and are so inclined, receive training in our trade/technical, university, and military institutions, and all the while hope that their work helps contribute to the conquest of the Earth by Islam.

    • Not Tom says:

      I don’t doubt that many Democrats are connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, just as many Democrats and Republicans are connected to AIPAC.

      And, as Jim says, I don’t doubt that the Muslims will stab them in the back the first chance they get.

      But, like AIPAC, these connections demonstrate influence, not an imminent takeover. People like Anonymous Conservative go crazy because of confirmation bias; they see a real pattern, but start ignoring everything that doesn’t fit the pattern, and develop an all-consuming obsession with the idea.

      Muslim organizations bribe, threaten, and cajole American politicians for influence. Muslim “refugees” are invading our lands and concentrating in specific areas to exert local control, which will become no-go zones if left unchecked. Muslims in academia manipulate progressives into supporting movements like BDS. Muslim Imams preach Sharia law and promote them publicly though proxies like Linda Sarsour. None of these facts are in dispute. We aren’t ignoring the evidence in front of our faces.

      The question is one of scale. Do Muslims have more influence than Jews, or Catholics, or faggots, or good old-fashioned white progressives? And are they using what influence they have to actually attempt a real takeover, or merely assist with idiotic proxy wars between Qatar and Saudi Arabia or Israel and Palestine?

      In other for an Islamic takeover of the left, the left would actually have to remain coherent and powerful long enough for there to be anything to take over, and I seriously doubt that would be the case. Sure, given another fifty years of unchecked Muslim immigration and influence-peddling, they could become a significant force in America, enough to rival black or Hispanic influence – but does anyone seriously think we could continue on our current trajectory for that long? Civil war is imminent, in fact it’s already started; if the left wins it, we will hit the left-singularity long before any Islamic takeover can happen.

      • jim says:

        > The question is one of scale. Do Muslims have more influence than Jews, or Catholics, or faggots, or good old-fashioned white progressives?

        You can piss on the eucharist, on the crucifix, you can behead a statue of the mother of Christ. You can behead a statue of the mother of Christ in someone else’s Church, and if you are wearing a BLM sticker the authorities will be strangely incurious.

        But if you drop a bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwich outside a mosque, you are going to jail, and in that jail you will be murdered, and the authorities will be strangely incurious about your murder.

        Because that bacon lettuce and tomato sandwich was a hate crime, while vandalizing the Church, and your murder inside the prison, was not.

        • Not Tom says:

          That’s in the UK, not the US. UK definitely is in the midst of an Islamic takeover.

          Mainstream Christianity is cucked, we all know that. Malign Jews or fags in public and it’s a different story.

          • jim says:

            > That’s in the UK, not the US.

            It is in substantial and rapidly growing parts of the US. UK is in the midst of an Islamic takeover, which reflects what is beginning to happen in the US.

            Remember the how Soros had Pussy Riot vandalize Christian Churches and monuments in Russia, and when they were sent to jail, the legacy media was outraged. Oh the horrible repression. Anyone been sent to jail for vandalizing Christian Churches in the USA?

            The war on Syria was in substantial part motivated by Assad’s refusal to affirmative action women beyond perfect equality in the education system to supremacy, but it was also motivated by his terrible repression in not allowing Christian Churches to be vandalized.

            • Not Tom says:

              And how much of this vandalism is being done by Muslims, rather than mostly-white communists?

              UK is 4.5% Muslim, which is well into the danger zone; US is 0.8% Muslim. There are more Jews than Muslims in the US (it’s the opposite in UK).

              Russia is supposedly more than 10% Muslim and somehow Putin is managing to keep them under control. Not that I’d want to live anywhere that’s 10% Muslim, but evidently it’s not a guaranteed takeover even at that level. It has to push up to 20-30% before the changes are irreversible (although 10% must be extremely difficult to manage, no doubt).

              Anyway, you’re taking examples of progressive/atheist anti-Christian signaling and violence and claiming that as evidence for Islamic takeover, but those two are not the same thing at all. The former predates the latter by a hundred years, at least. It’s not Muslims setting fire to churches in Texas, it’s Antifa and sometimes blacks.

              • ten says:

                Russia has muslims who are racially similar to russians in chechnya and central asian turkic peoples, not middle easterners, although chinas problem comes from their turkics, while their yellow hui etc muslims are ok. Russia is part nordic, part steppe, and they seem to handle their steppe muslims ok-ish, and china handles their co-racial muslims ok, and has figured out how to handle their turkics as well.

                I would rather not share their fate of needing to handle muslims, though, i like it when boys aren’t ass raped by huge gangs of cousins and then murdered by entire clans of second cousins if they don’t just take it like good little clanless non-persons.

              • The Cominator says:

                Don’t most of Russias Muslims live in regions where everyone is Muslim like Chechneya (which is more a vassal state than part of Russia, Putin didn’t think he could rule it without wiping out the whole population and resettling with colonists so setup one of the warlords as the ruler of the place).

                • Strannik says:

                  Yes, most Russian Muslims live in ethnic regions, nor are they particularly Muslim in belief for the most part, although that is changing.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I had heard that Chechneya is probably the most religious fanatical Muslim region in the world except for Saudi Arabia and maybe rural Pakistan.

                  Maybe other Russian Muslims are like the Albanians (who are far too fond of drinking smoking and womanizing to make good Muslims) but not the Chechens.

                • Jehu says:

                  Gotta have significant pro-social fertility, not just elite fertility in order to do effective ethnic replacement, unless you’ve go the will to go total Bronze Age extermination.
                  Thing is, if you were that hardcore, your TFR wouldn’t be less than 2, it’d probably be greater than 5.

        • Strannik says:

          Yes, and a lot of the BLM-type blacks are Muslims, blacks tend to become Muslim in prison for some reason.

          I’m not saying any of what I’m suggesting is happening, is happening tomorrow. But when the Democrats implode after losing yet another election, it will be seen much more clearly in my opinion.

          • The Cominator says:

            Nation of Islam Muslims are only pseudo Muslims.

            Its a we wuz Kangz scientology mixed with non literal Islam.

            • Pooch says:

              NOI blacks are actually the least problematic blacks of all. Their goal is to enforce moral standards on blacks and separate from white society entirely with healthy doses of criticism of Progressive Jews. They get predictably attacked and silenced by the Cathedral.

            • Strannik says:

              Pretty sure that the NOI types are a minority even among black Muslims, albeit a group with a higher profile.

              • Pooch says:

                Yeah their relevance faded after Malcom X was killed.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I agree they aren’t that bad, and Malcolm X despite regretably being pseudo Muslim was probably the most honest and redpilled black leader since Booker T Washington.

                  He could not be bought by the Cathedral/Democratic party, thats why he was murdered.

                  I strongly suspect LBJ ordered him killed.

                • Pooch says:

                  Exactly, and he was vilified and erased from history while MLK got statues and holidays. The Cathedral narrative was that he was the leader of a violent hate group which he would destroy masterfully in debate (bunch are on youtube). One of the highest IQ blacks I’ve seen speak to be honest. He even spoke along side George Lincoln Rockwell at an event I believe.

                  Malcolm’s black nationalism for black people implied white nationalism for white people and thus was a huge threat to the Cathedral. I think NOI killed him but they were probably infiltrated by the Cathedral at top, possibly LBJ.

                  If blacks get a leader like Malcom X after the war to destroy the left is over, Trump could hash out a solution to the race problem in 5 minutes with him.

                • jim says:

                  To murder their opponents, Democrats need someone else to do the killing and take the blame.

                  Biden or his handler’s plan is that when jihadis kill people, when they kill the right people, when they kill the people the Democrats want them to kill, the police and prosecutors will be strangely unable to do anything about it, much as they are strangely unable to do anything about church burnings, church vandalism, and the people trying to murder Kyle.

                  But, like Frankenstein, will be unable to control their monster.

  2. Mike says:

    My family members right now think Trump looks incompetent because almost his entire White House staff is infected. These people are all going to be vote for Trump mind you, but even they don’t like what they’re seeing. We can rationalize it away here on this blog, and our rationalization probably is correct, but our rationalization here, means literally nothing out there. The reality is, real Trump voters are telling me they think he looks stupid right now. Whether they’ve been gaslit by the media or not doesn’t matter. It’s a fact that his staff is almost entirely infected, and to normies, that looks stupid. Doesn’t matter how little of a threat the virus really is, or how immune our population has already become, or how the lockdown is being used to hurt people; people think it looks dumb when your whole political team is sick.

    • Not Tom says:

      Trump’s entire staff is infected, and two weeks from now his entire staff will be healthy and immune, with a 100% survival rate, and all of these chimp voters will have forgotten about the whole thing, mumbling “huh, guess it wasn’t that serious after all”.

      We know that MPAI, that normies are irrationally affected by media bullshit, and also that they have extremely short memories and that the bullshit doesn’t really change what they believe, only what they feel comfortable saying in public. Nothing has changed.

    • Not Tom says:

      Also, my family members, despite being tradcucks in the extreme, are apparently less easily swayed by yours. But then, some of them own businesses. I imagine yours must all be salarymen with remote-work options (or retired) to still not realize that Covid is bullshit.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      The best way to dunk on it would be if some or all of the staff took the trump cure/dr. zalenko’s protocol (zinc+hcq) and publicaly reported on how it helped them recover.

      It’s almost like a golden opportunity to blow the lid off of that particular matter, even.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        Very agree. Make it a reality show.

        These two are on Zelenko, those three are on Remdesivir, and those two over there are on that synthetic antibody stuff. Daily viral load scoreboard.

        I was really hoping Don was doing Zelenko, but I guess you can’t win them all.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          My guess was that Trump took Remdesvir (or merely said he was taking Remdesvir) as part of a deal with pharma / FDA to get them to stop blocking the vaccine.

          There have to be factions – some are money interested and can be peeled away by an olive branch in contrast to the many who are holiness motivated and are blocking vaccine approval out of religious fervor / spite.

          This story seems to indicate that my speculation was wrong or that the holiness faction blocked the deal but I guess the answer is that we’ll see what happens:

          • Fred says:

            When the feds signed that huge deal for remdesivir a few months ago, I wondered at the time if maybe there was a deal: you (feds) sign a huge deal for remdesivir, we (Gilead) lay off the anti-HCQ propaganda.

            • Not Tom says:

              Trouble is that Gilead can’t stop the propaganda, even if they helped start it. It’s become part of the “consensus” that HCQ doesn’t work and gives you heart attacks, so the bluechecks and WHO shills will never shut up about it as long as they live (which we all pray is not particularly long).

              This is what everyone inevitably discovers when they try to ride the tiger. It is more than happy to eat you as soon as you get off, so you’d better not get off.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      When his people get better, watch them sew special “Covid Survivor” patches onto their clothes. Make it cool. Something to earn.

  3. Not Tom says:

    Maybe a little OT, but there were discussions here a while back about Barr/Durham and why the report isn’t out, and these stories have been making the rounds for a few days:

    And via Vox, claims of stonewalling Congress which probably implies stonewalling Barr:

    So even after all this time, it still all comes down to personnel. Even if you don’t trust these sources, think about all the times you worked at some company and employees withheld important information from their coworkers or even their managers. They’ll find all sorts of excuses, and make all sorts of threats. Only way to solve the problem is to fire them (hopefully out of a cannon).

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      Funny thing; ivan had knowledge that shilldebeest et all were planning to concoct a ‘russian collusion’ angle between them and trump, and so started preemptively seeding disinfo for SD/IE/DNC stooges to find, resulting in such hilarities like watersports fantasies being unironically read out to congressional hearings.

      The kicker of course is that blue tribesmen just credulously ate that shit up whole regardless; a willingness to go with anything anyone came up with regardless of provenance as long as they felt like it had a directionality pointing away from trump. ‘Evidence of russian collusion planted by russians is evidence of russian collusion’.

      Saying someone is just making shit up is one thing; saying someone was duped by shit someone else made up is also one thing; but someone boosting shit someone else made up, while also already knowing it was made up, hits like a trifecta of malfeasance, incompetence, and laughability, each and all together intersecting in a way that somehow resonates beyond any of the other possibilities.

  4. Icon says:

    What the hell are even talking about Jim? You were hyping covid yourself before I got on here months ago and told you and your following to pay a visit to your hospital. Now you pretend to be wise when you’re not. You can’t say what tribe is running this scam when it’s obvious on its face because you are one of them.

    • jim says:

      Pretty sure I never told my following to pay a visit to the hospital. I told them that hospitals were a major vector for spreading the disease, and at the time there was no effective treatment other than supplemental oxygen, and at the time the hospitals were insistent on giving oxygen by ventilator, which is deadly.

      I told them that hospital and nursing home mistreatment was a major cause of the then deadliness of the disease, which deadliness has rapidly diminished, in part because of rapid evolution to less deadly forms (China flu is evolving into its own vaccine) in part because murderous mistreatments have been quietly discredited.

      • Strannik says:

        Indeed, I do recall that this was exactly the sort of thing you were saying, and I believe at the time it was a piece of prudent advice on your part.

      • Not Tom says:

        My guess is you said something like: “check out your local hospital to prove that it is mostly empty and not overflowing with Covid patients”. But since lefties and shills don’t understand the concept of context, all they took away was “Jim said go to a hospital, hrr hrr!”

      • ten says:

        Isn’t he saying that he himself got on here and told us visit a hospital, not that jim said so?

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        “in part because murderous mistreatments have been quietly discredited.”

        Is there any hard data on this? Ventilators have been quietly forgotten, including in connection with “second waves”, but no open retraction has been issued.

        • jim says:

          There is no end of anecdotal data that oxygen masks help, and ventilators kill – but it is forbidden to present “hard”, which is to say priestly approved, data.

          Ventilation is high priestly rite and right, administered with immense status – and immense indignity to the patient, while any nurse is authorized to give someone an oxygen mask, and private individuals can buy their own oxygen mask and oxygen supply. To notice that the high priestly right is counterproductive, relative to what nurses do, is the grossest impiety and downright sacriligious.

          But it was painfully obvious that most of the Wu Flu deaths were in fact ventilator deaths. A ventilator is only appropriate when someone’s brain or spinal cord or muscles are so badly affected that he cannot breath by his own will, as sometimes happens with Epstein Barre disease, and is vastly more dangerous and harmful than the old fashioned iron lung, which was quietly retired for lack of high priest magic.

      • Icon says:


        • jim says:

          That you were belatedly arguing that China Flu was no big deal is not evidence that anyone else on this blog was arguing that it was a big deal by that time.

          Link to me claiming it was a big deal, not you claiming no big deal.

    • Icon says:

      [*deleted because I am still waiting for you to provide a link to us arguing that Wu Flu was doom*]

      • jim says:

        Like every shill, you attribute to the opponents of progressivism the progressive position that you supposedly oppose.

        There is a rather noticeable difference between our position on Wu Flu and Cuomo/Biden’s position, and always has been.

        • Icon says:

          [*deleted because I am still waiting for you to provide a link to us arguing that Wu Flu was doom*]

          • jim says:

            That is not a link to us being wrong about Wu Flu.

            That is a link to you doing the standard shill tactic of attributing to the opponents of progressivism agreement with progressive premises.

            I called Wu Flu correctly back in April, in my first discussion of the topic

            To which post you failed to respond.

            If you want to argue about Wu Flu, argue with what I said in that post.

            In response to my post, we had doomsters and lockdowners disputing the post. We demolished the doomsters and lockdowners. You failed to respond to the doomsters and lockdowners.

    • Icon says:

      [*deleted because I am still waiting for you to provide a link to us arguing that Wu Flu was doom*]

      • Not Tom says:

        Look, the most pro-“lockdown” person here was me, which I make no attempt to downplay nor apologize for, and even I did not take the position you want to portray Jim as having taken.

        My position was “Covid moderate”, that it was perhaps 5 times more serious than seasonal flu, and that lockdowns were a necessary mitigation strategy because we fucked up contact tracing and border security, and should last only as long as it would take to properly implement contact tracing and border security (maybe a month or two). And even back then we were all aware that the WHO and CDC were lying though their teeth, flip-flopping on masks and promoting bogus “studies” against HCQ.

        Once it became clear that the ridiculous and partisan “health experts” had no intention of properly implementing contact tracing or border security and fully intended to keep states locked down in order to cripple the economy before a highly polarized election, I turned against it and so did every other former moderate. That was months ago, and it was in response to actual events and not your *cough* persuasive arguments.

        So if that was the most pro-lockdown anyone here was at any point in time, and it was very clearly a minority position, with the majority taking the stance that the entire thing was complete bullshit from the beginning and that we couldn’t trust any data coming out of China or anywhere else, then what the hell are you on about? You never contributed anything useful, one way or the other.

        • Icon says:


          • jim says:

            You keep posting a link to your own comment attacking us for supporting the Wu Flu hoax.

            I keep posting the link to us attacking the Wu Flu hoax.

            Post a link to us supporting the Wu Flu hoax.

        • jim says:

          A couple of stubborn lockdowners came out of the woodwork, and then disappeared, or were put on moderation for failure to respond with argument or evidence, but instead by mere endless reassertion of claims already rebutted.

          You, Not Tom, were the most pro lockdown person who is still around, and your position, given the storm of lies and the then absence of hard information, was reasonable.

  5. The Cominator says:

    They are now claiming Biden might be sick, what are the chances his handlers whack em and somehow blame it on Trump giving him Rona.

    • pseudo-chrysostom says:

      I’d say low, but stranger things have happened.

    • Not Tom says:

      Hard to make that claim when they specifically said he tested negative after the debate. They’re still saying it:

      It’s hard to even find this claim you’re talking about. All I see is one article on Politico saying that Biden might still get sick because incubation period something something super spreaders (basically 98% fnords). Doesn’t sound like the article you meant since it’s not claiming he’s sick now. I call bullshit on this whole story.

      • Filthy Liar says:

        Congrats, you’ve managed to see through the warmed over 4chan Cominator keeps bringing to the site.

        • ten says:

          Is that you, Koanic?

        • Not Tom says:

          You keep quiet. Cominator and I have our many disagreements but we’ll come together in the blink of an eye to relocate you to some beautiful oceanfront property without the property.

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            Remember, commies:

            You can run,
            But you can’t hide;
            You’re gonna get,
            A helicopter ride!

        • The Cominator says:

          Oh the irony why do I get the feeling I’m getting accused of this (when all I said is he might be sick or they might be pretending he was sick and what if the plan was to whack him) by of all things some kind of Qtard.

          • Strannik says:

            Let’s get back to first principles then. We know certain things; the Biden campaign has been very protective and secretive concerning Biden’s health and state of mind, and even were he lucid an illness with COVID-19 could really hurt or even kill him. President Trump coming out of it apparently alright is the Biden campaign’s nightmare, as they’ve wed themselves to a narrative of fear as their ticket to the White House. Somehow, they have to blame Trump for something without making their candidate look even weaker than he’s already perceived to be. Now, if they know they’re going to lose, they have to pump up the polls to make Biden seem popular, so that when he loses it’ll look once more like Trump ”stole the election”, in order to make Democrat strongholds ungovernable well into President Trump’s next term. In my opinion, this is so the reins of control over the Democratic party can be handed over to the likes of Ilhan Omar, who you might have noticed criticized Biden’s campaign for suspending negative commercials during President Trump’s hospital stay, saying that Trump wouldn’t have done the same for Biden had he been the one taken sick. She’s clearly positioning for her and her like minded Muslim pals to finish the takeover of the Democratic party by Muslim radicals.

            • INDY says:

              I like this one.

              1. Say Trump hid his diagnosis
              2. Give Biden the flu
              3. Old Man die
              4. Orange Man Bad

              • Strannik says:

                I guess that’s one we’d have to see play out. I could definitely see President Trump being blamed for anything gone wrong with the Biden campaign, as with Clinton’s race in 2016.

                More likely is a conspiracy theory that Biden and the establishment democrats gave the election to President Trump by selecting Biden as the nominee, in order to prevent a radical/muslim takeover of the democratic party in 2020. In other words, something designed to anger the radical left/muslim alliance and make them even more extremist over time.

              • Not Tom says:

                It’s just not plausible. If they were going to kill him, they’d want to do it after inauguration so that Kamala Harris could rule. That’s clearly who they want, but she’s wildly unpopular with blacks especially.

                Doing it before the election makes Kamala the de facto presidential candidate and that would crush what little chances they have.

                But it’s all silly speculation anyway because leftists do not plan that far ahead. The left is coordinated but opportunistic, not strategic.

                • Strannik says:

                  So the primary crux of your argument is the assumption that the leftists are not strategically minded. That is an unfortunate assumption to make, unless one knew that if they did have a ”general staff” of sorts it was already taken out.

                • jim says:

                  The left’s general staff is taking itself out. We are in the phase equivalent to the early French Revolution or 1906-1917 Russia.

                  What we need is for Trump to read the insurrection act proclamation from the Whitehouse steps, and then start stashing leftists in internment camps, with not everyone stashed in an internment camp ever reappearing.

                  The post election situation may give him good excuse for that. If not, better and better excuses will keep happening, as the left singularity cuts in.

                  The problem is that to excise a state religion that has turned into a metastatic cancer, you need a healthy and vigorous counter religion, which we lack. Even if Trump rolls up the left, he has not rolled up the left until Harvard has been levelled, or put firmly under the control of a saner state religion.

                  The restoration of state Christianity in England by Alfred, his sons, and his ancestors took several generations, and he was operating in a vacuum, with no vigorous hostile state religion.

                  Constantine had to build a new Rome. It is a big project. Constantine had death squads, but could not drain the swamp.

                • Not Tom says:

                  The left cannot plan very far ahead. If it was ever capable of doing so, it has not been capable for a solid 10 years and has been laughably incompetent for the past 5.

                  When you select for high time preference, you get high time preference.

                • Cis Scum says:

                  @Jim “The problem is that to excise a state religion that has turned into a metastatic cancer, you need a healthy and vigorous counter religion, which we lack.”

                  But do we really lack it? The US is majority Christian and a majority of Americans possess a Bible. The key we seek is right in front of us.

                  The Bible starts with Genesis, wherein God creates the nations and ends with Revelations, wherein the nations assemble at His side.

                  So right there we know that it is Deus Vult for the nations to reach the End Times intact, ie not mixed up into a globohomo blob. Plank one of Restoration Christianity: Race mixing, integration and assimilation is sabotage of God’s Plan in defiance of God’s Will. Advocacy thereof is the work of the Devil.

                  In Samaritans Jesus is asked, what is the quick summary of the Faith, the executive brief? Jesus replies Love thy Neighbor. Not everyone, mind you; neighbor and only neighbor. In case he wasn’t clear Jesus tells us a second time: a man walks by and ignores the fallen traveller, that man is not a neighbor. The category of not neighbor exists therefore neighbor is not everyone. In order to be extra clear Jesus tells us a third time: another man walks by, another non neighbor, therefore neighbor is not everyone.

                  So right there we know that the Iesus Verbus, the Word of Jesus, is Nationalism. Not universalism, nationalism. As stated three times, no less. Plank two of Restoration Christianity: The litmus test is Iesus Verbus, if you read Love thy Neighbor to mean love of your people you are Christian, if you read Love thy Neighbor to mean love of all people you are not Christian. Reinterpretation of what is clearly stated thrice over stands in defiance of Iesus Verbus. Advocacy thereof is the work of the Devil.

                  So that deals with the core issue, the one with most pushback. Christianity is nationalist, not universalist. Doesn’t mean other nations should be hated. You can love them, hate them or be neutral. Up to you; the Bible doesn’t say. As a Christian you must love your people and you must hate the enemies of God, the rest is optional.

                  The other issue, the traditional family, is not in serious dispute. Nobody seriously believes that the Bible supports female emancipation, sodomy or moral laxity. The question is, does the Bible support enforcement, preferably vigorous.

                  It does. Insofar as witches, sodomites and perverts are enemies of God, Psalms 138:22 calls for them to be met with perfect hatred. Plank three of Restoration Christianity: Perfect hatred means no compassion, no mercy and no clemency toward the enemies of God.

                  Perfect hatred also means no discussion. You think we should talk it out? That we should consider the feminist point of view? Do you know what a Christian is? A Christian is not someone who believes in God. Satan believes in God, so what. A Christian is someone who obeys God. God commands you to no compassion, no mercy and no clemency toward feminists. Are you doing that? Well then why are you saying we should talk to them? You are in a state of intentional disobedience. Are you really Christian? Then what part of perfect hatred don’t you understand?

                  The Right is defence of Faith, Family, Nation. The Left is hatred of same. The Bible, read literally, supports all three to the fullest extent. There is no need to look further.

                  We can call it Biblical Christianity. What’s that you ask? It’s Christianity as defined by the Lord not by some flatulent theologian. We have a litmus test, Iesus Verbus. Simple and straightforward. If you abide by the Word of Jesus you are a Biblical Christian, if you fabricate interpretations you are not a Biblical Christian and come to think of it not a Christian at all. In fact likely an enemy of God, someone we are commanded to destroy. And so we will. Vigorously.

                • jim says:

                  > Psalms 138:22 calls for them to be met with perfect hatred.

                  I cannot find this verse. My copy of Psalms 138 is rather short.

                • Starman says:

                  @Cis Scum

                  “But do we really lack it? The US is majority Christian and a majority of Americans possess a Bible. The key we seek is right in front of us.”

                  American Christianity is a joke, not one single major American pastor can pass the Joe Rogan test on the evil American family courts and divorce industry.

                  “The other issue, the traditional family, is not in serious dispute. Nobody seriously believes that the Bible supports female emancipation, sodomy or moral laxity.”

                  Every single major American pastor preaches that the Bible supports female emancipation, contrary to what the Bible actually says. Not one tele-evangelist has questioned or denounced alimony and family courts the way Joe Rogan and Bill Maher did.

                  American christianity has the vigor of a zombie. Jim is right on this one. America really doesn’t have a vigorous replacement religion against Harvard Progressivism.

                • jim says:

                  Russian Orthodoxy seems to be finding its balls under Putin – but the process is taking a while, and Russian Orthodoxy in America is as cucked as the rest of American Christianity.

                • Cis Scum says:

                  @Starman “American Christianity is a joke”

                  Indeed, no argument there. What I have outlined, let’s call it hyper textualism, is a coup complete solution. A religion is a necessary component toward implementing and maintaining a Restoration but is not necessarily what will get you one.

                  The current crop of church leaders are careerists. If they do their duty as Soldiers of God they get hammered by Big Vagina et al. And so they don’t.

                  Instead they yell “Praise Jesus!” at regular thirty second intervals because that’s the one thing they’re allowed to do. Until of course that too becomes controversial and then they will meekly cease doing even that.

                  Being careerists their God is incentive and their Devil is disincentive. One cannot reasonably expect anything else of them.

                  The Restoration implies that their incentives and disincentives would be reset to a different standard. The proposed hyper textualist standard is this: If you don’t stand up against Big Vagina et al, then you’re disobeying God. Therefore not Christian, therefore deceiving the flock, therefore enemy of God, therefore subject to perfect hatred, therefore to be destroyed. Mercy, compassion or clemency toward you is forbidden.

                  Having to deal with religious fanatics who are screaming for your head is not at all appealing to a careerist. If today the careerists sing the praises of Big Vagina, and do so in perfect unison, after the reset they will denounce same, and do so with equal fervor and choreography.

                  My point is that Restoration Christianity already exists. It requires no fancy theological gymnastics, rather the opposite; one need only eradicate all theological interpretations and read the Bible literally. The Deus Vult and Iesus Verbus are what they are. Period. If you reinterpret or modify either in any way, you’re point blank an enemy of God, subject to perfect hatred, to be destroyed. Period.

                  It is the systematic persecution of opinion that has allowed and continues to allow Big Vagina et al to dictate interpretation to the Church. It follows that systematic persecution of opinion will likewise be the device that eradicates and replaces the false doctrine with biblical doctrine.

                  We just happen to be really lucky that the required replacement doctrine is 100% coincident with the Bible. No need to fabricate theological contortionism nor to spend a century infighting on which version suits best. We already have the required religion, it’s ready and it’s right were we want it, hard coded into the Bible for maximum credibility.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Big Vagina

                  I like this for the double entendre. But somehow I doubt it will catch on with the mainstream.

                  Anyway, if American Christianity is a skinsuit then I am not sure how you go from the skinsuit back to the original animal. I don’t think it’s possible; the animal that the skinsuit was made from is already dead.

                  The new and healthy animal might look very much like the old dead one, but it is not going to be the same animal.

                  There have been a great many attempts at “religious revivals” and they all end up in abject cuckoldry. There will be no religious revival, only religious replacement. We may call it Christianity, and we may quote from the New Testament, and we may say Jesus is Lord, but it is not going to be the same as the old Christianity.

                • jim says:

                  Looking at the broad sweep of history, old social technologies get resurrected or rediscovered, and Christianity has a habit of coming back from the dead.

                  But it seems to take a while.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Southern Baptists and certain types of Evangelicals are not a complete skinsuit and you can tell by how they vote.

                  Catholicism is of course a complete skinsuit (and international churches are bad news anyway) and all the Church’s properties and institutions in the US ought to be confiscated and Henry VIII into a newly established American Orthodox church on day one.

                • Ex says:

                  > I cannot find this verse. My copy of Psalms 138 is rather short.

                  Appears to be a typo for 139:22.

                • Cis Scum says:

                  @ Jim “I cannot find this verse. My copy of Psalms 138 is rather short.”

                  Sorry, my mistake. I was going by memory and it failed me. It’s Psalms 139:22

                  21 Do I not hate them, O Lord, who hate You?
                  And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?
                  22 I hate them with perfect hatred;
                  I count them my enemies.


                • ten says:

                  Cis Scum, what do you think about forgivneness, redemption, mission and loving thy enemies?

                  How does hyper textualism and perfect hatred bond with hyper textualism and these things?

                  Not a gotcha, hyper textualism needs to have a good answer that is hyper textual and not cherry picking.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Leftists are of their father the devil and certainly aren’t our neighbors because they do not conduct themselves as such. They need to cease being leftists before being forgiven until they cease being leftists the correct approach to them is Old Testament not New Testament.

                • Cis Scum says:

                  @ten “what do you think about forgiveness, redemption, mission and loving thy enemies”

                  Thank you for the constructive objection. The Biblical view is that while you are required to love your personal enemies you are not required to love the enemies of God nor the enemies of your nation.

                  Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

                  Note the subject is your enemies. I’ll add that technically you are called upon to exercise benevolence toward personal enemies, not love as such. The Greek word used was agapan, benevolence, as opposed to philia, love.

                  Either way, whether it’s love or benevolence, forcing a stop to petty intragroup squabbles promotes social trust and is good social technology. The alternative, eye for an eye and the relentless generational clan warfare that follows therefrom is hugely wasteful.

                  Yet there have to be limits. You can’t open endedly love everyone or you become human cattle, open to invasion and exploitation. Hence the duality; love the ingroup member, do not love the enemy of God or nation.

                  As for forgiveness and redemption, that too is consistent. While one is an enemy of God, they are to be met with hatred. Should they cease and desist, effectively surrendering, they are no longer a threat and should be treated accordingly. It goes without saying that repentance must be genuine.

                  A former enemy of God may even be recruited. That’s force multiplication, the more the better. Moreover, as Sun Tzu observed in 7:36 Maneuvering, you must always leave your enemy an avenue of escape, lest he fight with the courage of despair.

                • ten says:

                  Good answer, it implies a bunch of open(able) doors for them to go through which were unimplied in your previous post, a hand ready for cooperation to those not in animosity.

                  Which i think is absolutely necessary, or we might start chopping up peasants to launch their ground flesh and gore over undefended city walls in catapults – all lightning, no sun.

                  I suspect many will have differing opinions on what is the correct and primary interpretation of Iesus Verbus, as always, regardless of if reinterpretation is considered heresy. It would be an evil to meet Nikolai with perfect hatred. And wordbenders will use the word of the law against the spirit of the law, also as always.

            • The Cominator says:

              Biden can maintain some appearance of semi lucidity when doped up and wired for sound, but not for all that long. He was lucid sounding in the 1st half of the debate, not so much in the second where he was stammering and seemed unfocused tired and weak. I tend to think that if Biden were given medical care in good faith he’d easily survive Kung Flu because Biden is not a fatty with diabetes even if hes old… The question is rather whether he would be treated in good faith if his handlers percieved an advantage to Biden dying…

              On the question of Islam… as I’ve said Islam and progressivism are different religions.

              Illhan Omar is trying to straddle both worlds in the manner of the Iranian revolutionaries (shes obviously not a real religious Muslim because religious Muslim women wouldn’t publically cuck her husband the way Ilhan Omar has) and the progressives are trying to keep some sort of alliance with Muslims but your SJWs and typical shitlibs aren’t converting to Islam anytime soon and alliances with Muslims never work out if the Muslims are anywhere close to you.

            • Not Tom says:

              Well, your first principles are basically sane, but everything after that is one insane intuitive leap after another.

              We don’t know that Biden is at risk for Covid. He’s probably not; yeah he’s old and senile but appears physically healthy.

              We don’t know that they think they’re expecting to lose. All evidence points to them expecting to win via vote fraud and other tricks.

              We definitely don’t know that there’s any kind of Islamic takeover going on, which is as retarded a theory today as it was 3 days ago when you refused to back it up with any evidence.

              • Strannik says:

                Any evidence I give is something that you are innately biased against receiving as evidence, given your general tone and all. I don’t perform at other’s beck and call; and what I see happening is something that is going to have to be seen when it comes to fruition, in any case.

                • Not Tom says:

                  A convenient excuse. When Jim and I say that power is transitioning from Jews to Indians and other browns, we can point to specific Jews being displaced and specific Indians and browns being promoted, in both business and politics. What have you got?

                  Evidence is evidence whether or not your interlocutor is hostile to your position. That is what Anglo-Saxon procedural rules have been based on for a thousand years, and is more or less a fundamental tenet of the NRx platform.

                • jim says:

                  > Evidence is evidence whether or not your interlocutor is hostile to your position. That is what Anglo-Saxon procedural rules have been based on for a thousand years, and is more or less a fundamental tenet of the NRx platform.

                  Well said.

                  The Dark Enlightenment truth by reality. Debate must appeal to evidence.

                  Indeed, empiricism is a religious principle. If Christ is the logos, then the way the world works manifests the will of God. Evil triumphs because of the sins of its victims. To say the same thing in the language of evolutionary game theory, the human telos is extended cooperation, in the same way as the heart’s telos is to pump and a bird’s telos is to fly, and large scale cooperation is not easy.

                  Leftists are the primary victim of leftism. I have a good life, children, a house, a garden, a young wife, the sunrise in the morning and the sunset at evening. This lifestyle is life we were designed for. Leftists don’t have what I have, don’t have what Trump has and want to destroy it for everyone. Biden, or rather the people operating him, intend to destroy the suburbs, in the same way as they burned Detroit.

                  Argument by assertion, and argument by appeal to consensus leads to error and the rule of evil. Whosoever invokes consensus is likely dishonest, and is at best facilitating dishonesty.

                  We are morally obligated to use methods of discussion that are likely to lead to truth and reveal the truth. To deviate from this is not only foolish, but evil.

                  Consensus is truth by agreement. The Dark Enlightenment truth by reality.

                • Strannik says:

                  I might also add, that specific examples exist to support my hypothesis; Ilhan Omar and Rasida Tlaib, among others.

                  These people would not have existed even in the Democratic Party of Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden a few years back, and yet here they are, not censured or taken care of by DNC political operatives at all.

                  They can exist now because the Left’s Matriarchal and Racial masochism has come to it’s peak and they work with absolute impunity.

                  I contend that they are the camel’s nose in the tent, and before long, they and people like them will be running the show. A little while longer given Islam’s innate patriarchal theology, and Muslim men will be openly running the Democratic party.

                  But it’s not quite enough to see perhaps, until it’ll be too late.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I won’t pretend to know much about Rashida Tlaib, but it’s obvious that Ilhan Omar is first and foremost a progressive and only “Muslim” in the same sense that Chuck Schumer is “Jewish”. She was endorsed and, I believe selected and promoted, by the Justice Democrats, along with AOC.

                  If you were predicting a takeover by browns, many of whom happen to identify as Muslim or have Muslims in their families, then I’d say you’re about right. But you are specifically predicting an Islamic takeover, and that is not in evidence from a mere 2 out of 232 seats in the lower house of congress belonging to quasi-“Muslim” women who look increasingly likely to lose reelection.

                  Of course, if you want to say that even one Muslim in Congress, no matter how liberal, is too many, then again I will agree with you there. But to claim that it is evidence of an Islamic takeover… nah.

                • jim says:

                  > it’s obvious that Ilhan Omar is first and foremost a progressive and only “Muslim” in the same sense that Chuck Schumer is “Jewish”. She was endorsed and, I believe selected and promoted, by the Justice Democrats, along with AOC.

                  The question then is to what extent progressive “Muslims” are a Trojan horse for actual Muslims.

                  Efforts to Epcotize Islam have been partially successful, but the historical record is that they repeatedly fail horribly and catastrophically. Recollect how Clinton and Obama repeatedly over estimated their success in assimilating Islam, with repeated catastrophic consequences.

                  Alliances with Muslims always end with the Muslims devouring their allies. Progressives will be devoured. We have over a millenium of history for this.

                  In America, infinite leftism, the left singularity, is much closer than Muslim takeover of the left, but eventual Muslim takeover of the left is baked into the cake.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Islam will displace the left maybe but not take it over, two different religions both which cannot tolerate others in power at the end.

                • @Not Tom, @Jim

                  “Evidence is evidence whether or not your interlocutor is hostile to your position. That is what Anglo-Saxon procedural rules have been based on for a thousand years”

                  I was blinking at this – clearly The Royal Society is not a thousand years old – then I got it: it is the

                  Well, yes. But even the adversarial system was based on the idea that the both the prosecutor and the advocate of the defendant are honest gentlemen of good standing, good Christians who would be fired from their guild (inn) and professionally and socially ruined if they would lie. So it was based on some amount of mutual trust still. Generally speaking it was based on the idea that your interlocutor is hostile to your position, but not hostile to things like justice, truth, or the interest of society. The prosecutor and the defense advocate should still be able to meet next day at the church and respect each other. Meaning they would rather lose honestly than win dishonestly. So still very much a trusted ingroup thing.

                • jim says:

                  What we see today is methods of discussion and standards of evidence that are inherently and intrinsically hostile to truth, to reality, to justice, to virtue, and to human survival.

                  Eliezer Yudkowsky and rational Wiki exemplified this demonic evil, particularly in its later stages, as does peer review.

                  I am not necessarily implying that literal demons are puppeting Eliezer Yudkowski, in the sense of conscious supernatural beings possessing him, but he is a tool of a memetic system that propagates itself at the expense of the hosts that carry it, which memetic systems are usefully thought of as demons.

                  The term “demon” is usefully and accurately used to refer to parts of your mind that are hostile to you and seek to destroy your life, without necessarily implying those demons are alien hostile supernatural beings. In this sense, Yudkowski is owned by his demons, as much as any homeless bum on a street corner ranting at the lamp post, even though he is better than they at stringing sentences together with the appearance of lucidity and meaning.

                  When such a hostile memetic system ascends to state power, it is usefully and accurately referred to as “Moloch”. Which does not necessarily imply that Moloch was or is an actual supernatural being, but does not necessarily deny it either. The Old Testament has a bob each way on the question, and there is no need for us to be any clearer than the Old Testament on the issue.

                  Moloch wanted people to murder their own children in Old Testament times, wanted people to murder their own children in Roman times, and wants people to murder their own children today. Is this because he is the same person, an immortal evil being, hostile to humans and the human telos, or is this merely an infectious failure mode in the human mind and heart, a memetic system that propagates itself at the expense of its hosts?

                  It makes little difference. We cannot know, and should not care.

                • Pooch says:

                  A little while longer given Islam’s innate patriarchal theology, and Muslim men will be openly running the Democratic party.

                  I see black/brown women as the most holy of the holy for the left. Much more holy than black men.

                  Right before the left singularity is reached, if allowed to escalate unimpeded, it will likely be a black female coralling us to the slaughter house.

                • Not Tom says:

                  the adversarial system […] was based on some amount of mutual trust

                  Trust in an impartial judge, in the code of laws, and the sovereign making those laws, I would argue. Not necessarily trust in one’s adversary to follow the rules, but trust that they will be held accountable for breaking them.

                  And in this little corner at least, Jim is the judge. Commenters will make their arguments, sometimes nastily, often (figuratively) shouting over each other, and not uncommonly ribbing the judge himself. That’s actually quite normal in most courtrooms if you’ve ever been to one – the sterile Law and Order stereotype is not normal, even now. If someone starts acting in bad faith, rather than merely out of passion, they’ll be asked politely to cut it out and subsequently removed (i.e. put on moderation) if they refuse.

                  Rules of evidence are ancient and only require a fair and trusted judge. And if you don’t trust the judge, then why are you here voluntarily?

                • I haven’t been following up on Yudkowskis later stuff, his early stuff on Less Wrong Wiki was mostly “the most rational thing you can do is to give me money”, scammy and fitting a certain stereotype hilariously well, but not really demonic. The Rational Wiki is an entirely different bunch of people, crazy SJWs.

                • jim says:

                  Cults don’t usually start off demon possessed, but they usually end that way. If the cult is successful, have to recruit additional operators, the evil and the insane wind up setting the agenda, and the cult founder is sucked in.

                  And towards the end, the evil and insane were setting the agenda, and soon enough Yudkowski was sucked in.

  6. Strannik says:

    Recall during the Presidential ”Debate”, when President Trump said there would be a ”vaccine” for COVID-19 very soon, sooner than people think? Well, he was given the experimental antibody cocktail Regeneron… He’s already getting a polling bump from his being COVID positive-just wait until he comes out of it.

    I’m not saying he planned on being sick, he didn’t of course. But God Himself has planned this.

    • BC says:

      It takes guts to take such experimental treatments.

      I’m not saying he planned on being sick, he didn’t of course. But God Himself has planned this.

      Because of the lock downs drawing out how long it takes COVID to burn itself through the population, pretty much everyone is going to get it. If we’d had a fast burn like Sweden or Japan, high risk pops could have sheltered away while people who won’t die from the wu flu could have gotten it and gotten over it quickly. As such, Trump had to know he’s eventually get it and appears to be prepared for it.

      • Strannik says:

        It does take guts to take an experimental treatment, even from a company owned by a friend of his that already has a DoD contract for this antibody cocktail. It bodes well for the future for not only him but for America.

    • Jehu says:

      I’m convinced God was meddling in the 2016 election, in a big way. And I think He is meddling in this election too.

  7. Adjudicator says:

    I hate to bring bad news, and I normally dismiss such media reports at first. However, Singapore’s state media, having at least some journalistic standards, means that I can believe that a matter of such import is verifiable:

    Trump is infected with COVID-19.

    I do believe he can weather through this.

    What I am worried is the deep state might attempt to go for the kill, via “He died of complications while hospitalised”.
    They then get a disgruntled relative (Mary Trump?) to retrieve the body and cremate before any further autopsy can be done.

    It may sound unbelievable, but I read on such a case happening before. Granted, it was in Malaysia, but the precedent and setup, is alarming for me:

    I will quote the section that is prominent enough for me:

    “… was further affronted when the new Attorney General approached the surviving brothers personally with a supposed ‘golden handshake’ of RM580,000 for the loss of Kevin, in return for signing a closure document.

    He says he refused what he considered to be blood money, but that the brother, who eventually removed the body and cremated it last week behind the family’s back, had been willing to do the deal. – Estranged brother Richard Morais illegitimately removed the body from the hospital morgue with apparent support from the authorities.

    Why did this government department interfere and oppose a second post-mortem and why did its officials plainly connive, according to the evidence presented with Charles’s statutory declaration, with a separate brother who had no legal authority to secretly remove and burn the body?”

    Hope somebody more versed in how things really work in the US can say that this or a similar outcome is unfeasible.

    • The Cominator says:

      Hes going to be fine… Trump is not going to put himself in a position where unknown medical personnel can bump him off at the hospital.

    • Not Tom says:

      Yeah, not happening.

      1. He’s quarantining in the White House, not some filthy public hospital.
      2. We don’t even know if he’s symptomatic, he probably gets tested every day given his position.
      3. Trump knows that people are trying to kill him. If he didn’t, he would not have survived this long. He’ll have his own doctor come visit.

      Ginsburg dragged on for years with terminal cancer. I think Trump can manage a little bat flu.

      • The Cominator says:

        He is going to Walter Reed but apparently has his own personal apartments there.

        • Pooch says:

          Anyone wishing death to the President at this moment is someone who is going to need the helicopter when it’s all said and done.

          • The Cominator says:

            Let them make themselves look bad to normies while we point out it won’t happen because covid is mostly bullshit and Trump is going to get treated well for it.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            This “Trump has Covid, oh goodie goodie” thing is practically helicopter bait at this point.

          • Dave says:

            Twitter has a new policy: No posting wishes for Trump’s death. They hear the helicopter engines warming up.

            • Strannik says:

              By God they should fear something, in order to restrain their evil.

              • Thales says:

                They fear bad optics for Lefties, thus helping Trump. That is all.

                • Strannik says:

                  I believe there is more to it than that, on a tactical and a strategic level.

                  Tactically it’s bad optics for the Liberals, but the fear is genuinely felt as is the reality of that fear.

                  Strategically, they know they have to play the long game, longer than that game played by Gerontocrats like Biden or Hillary Clinton. Pope Francis just came out with an encyclical basically allowing Catholics to be Communists/Socialists and work with them, while Muslims like Ilhan Omar have come out and critiqued the Biden campaign for suspending negative anti-Trump ads, saying that Trump would not have done so if the sickness roles were reversed. She has a point perhaps, but her criticism of Biden running for second place tells me that Omar is the face of the continuing struggle that will go on after Biden loses and even after Trump. And obviously Pope Francis is playing his own Jesuit long con too.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      Who cares. It is too late to change course. Whatever happens will happen.

  8. A Honest Indian says:

    Jim or anybody else here. Is there a source of news on the US Elections that is not corrupted and subverted by leftist propaganda? The international media in cahoots with google seem to have almost no right wing or even neutral coverage of the election?

    Also I am not much familiar with NRx though I have read a lot on this blog and a few others. Would it be fair for me to assume that you view that progressivism is cultural Marxism and communism is the political left and that both are two heads of the same monster?

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      As long as we are being honest, i’ve always had the sentiment that the ‘news’ format, in of itself, is inherently prone to degeneratation of discourse.

      Your best source of current events is peers, as today, just as it was millennia ago, as well.

      The question basically comes down to how you define ‘news’ in the first place really. Anonymous mongolian basket weaving appreciation forums for example are great sources for current events, in my experience. Smaller, more insular communities of like-minded folk who have been together for a long time, like this blog, are also good sources. With larger platforms, less anonymous platforms, comes more stultified signaling; signals for the sake of performance; signals for the sake of self-defense; signals to signal what everyone else is signaling.

      As a general rule, a discourse is only as good as it’s lowest common denominator; the larger you scale it up, the less nuanced the messages can possibly be. Communication only really happens between people familiar with each other – not simply the word, but the person using the word, and thus thereby their word. Different spheres of a society can be using the same words, but speaking different language, in practical sense. More nuanced messages can be scaled up, as long as they are no longer ‘conversations’, as such.

      There are many consequences to the ‘uprootedness’ of our contemporary internment system, but one that is as profound as it is subtly easy to miss, hard to grasp hold of, is the degree to which no one becomes familiar with anyone. A constant procession of shuffling and separation, from one setting to another, each stranger to each other in all; from class, from neighbors, from family.


      When it comes to the kind of writing you could call ‘journalism’, a usual rule of thumb is that the more specialized the publication is, the better it is; id est, the less like journalism it is. ‘General news’ is a font of power; and in a demostist environment, one of the most important fonts; and hence, an inevitable impetus to converge it to pronounce more demotism.

      The point being gotten at here is that while one certainly could give examples they are personally familiar with, that they might feel are relatively lower on the objectionability scale (such as takimag, vdare, chronicles, zero hedge, or the like), one should deal with an perspective of the clay that is being worked with, to start with.

    • Sam says:

      Pseudo-chrysostom got the first part.

      Cultural Marxism is progressives telling Marxists that true Marxism is progressive as opposed to those promoting socialist masculinity in accordance with the Soviet line.

      As for heads… Jim has a useful saying ‘leftism has no essence’. Left wing ideology is just an excuse to justify the current attempt to loot society.

      The monster, the root cause, is a combination of power vacuum and evil people looking for a way to indulge their desire to screw over other people for fun.

      • Cloudswrest says:

        “Jim has a useful saying ‘leftism has no essence’. Left wing ideology is just an excuse to justify the current attempt to loot society.”

        Indeed. And traditional conservatism basically has no essence either other than maintaining the status quo. The old tv show Get Smart basically had it right in naming the two sides, Kaos and Control.

      • Leftism as an excuse: do read Spandrell about this, some useful details:

        • A Honest Indian says:

          Thans for all the explanations. Excellent writing in that link which clearly explains a lot of things.

          thedividualist I also like your writings. Very clear and concise philosophy. I especially like your idea that there is no such thing as a vertical class struggle between the elites and the masses (Marxism) and it’s all just one set of elites fighting another set of elites for power.

          We cannot have enough intellectual tools to dissect and discredit the modern leftist disease.

          • That’s not mine – got that from Moldbug who got it from Gateano Mosca’s The Ruling Class. Vilfredo Pareto’s Mind And Society is also very good and similar. Sociology done well. Both can be found on Highly recommended.

            Moldbug also praised Indian sociology for inventing the concept of the ‘vote bank’. Clearly this is something that now exists in the West, too. That is one way you could make yourself useful around here: explaining the development of the concept of the vote bank.

            • A Honest Indian says:

              Vote bank politics is essentially appealing to a particular identity group with a strong internal cohesion to vote en masse for a particular party or candidate. The way that happens is basically to appeal to the leaders or influencers of that community to get their people to vote X or Y. The community as a whole is led to believe that candidate or party X or Y will protect that community’s Interests. They don’t vote out of individual choice but as a collective block.

              In India this works along caste and religious lines especially minority religions or castes considered oppressed because there is usually a tribal elder or leader who can influence sufficiently enough to get his people to vote as he says. This has been working for many regional parties as well by appealing to regional identity.

              It doesn’t work for the majority which is dispersed ideologically and where voters tend to make individual decisions.

              Note that this is not the same as saying that women vote for X because women believe that X is good for women. Because there needs to be a cohesive identity group that listens to certain leaders or influencers of their own identity and usually vote unconditionally in favour of their leadership choice.

              In India news channels spend a lot of energy and time in studying these trends with voting patterns across regional religious and caste lines during Election time.

    • Not Tom says:

      If you understand Progressivism to be holiness-spiraled Christianity, and Marxism to be holiness-spiraled Talmudism, then the “cultural Marxism” of the Frankfurt School is the result of them both getting very drunk one night and fucking without a condom.

      Marxists, including Marxist entryists in the alt-right, love to disown it while simultaneously calling attention to it because it is a perfect example of “not real communism”. Marxists are the regretful father saying “he’s not one of mine, who knows how many other guys she was fucking”. And Progressives, as the embarrassed and angry spurned mother in this couple, will shriek and rage and lash out at you for even bringing up the subject.

      Because both groups react so negatively to the mere mention of cultural Marxism or the Frankfurt School, one might get the idea that this is an effective way to hurt them. I, however, believe that criticism of it (as well as other names for it, like “postmodern neo-Marxism”) is ceding frame, unintentionally implying that either Marxism or Progressivism would have been fine without the other, when the reality is that two very ugly ideologies produced an even uglier offspring.

      It’s all just Leftism, and all Leftism is fundamentally the same and fundamentally evil. Sometimes, such as in a debate, it can help to positively ID which actual ideology you’re dealing with – but rarely, because they never debate in good faith, and in any case the ideology is just a strategy, not a genuinely-held belief.

    • hrtvhu says:

      Sometimes I think about starting a dissident blog by an Indian Hindu for Indians Hindus. but then I despair and give up. Also, from within India, good opsec is extremely difficult-to-impossible to maintain while creating/managing a website.

      • jim says:

        Any time you create and manage a website, you normally do it with ssh, which is secure. What is the problem?

        Pay for a host outside of India with bitcoin, manage it with ssh.

        • Not Tom says:

          Yeah, I guess he’s thinking about how everything is tied to your mobile number over there. Less than half the country has a bank account but everybody’s got a phone, so carrier billing rules.

          But a credit card in the US is no more secure. If you’re really worried about opsec, you use cryptocurrency and a VPN, and you can do that in any country.

          Getting people to listen, that’s another story entirely.

        • hrtvhu says:

          Buying Bitcoin in India is next to impossible. It was de-facto illegal until very recently, and even now no card processor or bank will allow you to touch it.

          Bitcoin ATMs, you say? Well:

          Zebpay, an online Bitcoin seller, recently re-started operations in India. What is the first thing they ask when you sign up? Mobile number, of course, for “KYC” (Know-Your-Customer) purposes. Which mobile number is digitally tied to national ID, of course, and can be correlated in an instant by Govt or whichever hackers who have those data now.

          So buying BTC “anonymously” or even pseudonymously. in India, is impossible. Of course, you theoretically _can_ purchase it for cash, from criminal syndicates, but at that point running a dissident blog is the least you’re on the hook for. In the 80s, criminal syndicates were the go-to for quality footwear also, so things have now improved, I guess.

          The only way I can get BTC is by somehow earning it without exposing my identity, which jobs, like captcha-solving etc, are not worth my time.

          Then there are second-level problems like anonymising BTC by tumbling, which you seem to approve of but I find suspicious, or that Monero, which we both find acceptable, is not quite as widely accepted as BTC (i.e., nowhere apart from criminal syndicates). But the first and major problem is getting hands on crypto anonymously in the first place, in India.

          • jim says:

            Buy Bitcoin traceably from Zebpay. Move from Zebpay totally government monitored wallet to your own Wasabi wallet running on your own hardware. Run your own bitcoin core or bitcoin knots server for your own Wasabi wallet. Mingle your coins. Other people, random strangers, will be using your bitcoin core to inject transactions into blockchain, so that your wasabi wallet is using it to inject transactions will be opaque.

            This is the main value of running a full bitcoin node on your own hardware. I have a machine dedicated to the purpose and used for nothing else, and several redundant copies of the full bitcoin blockchain on several disks.

            Wasabi wallet is not a full bitcoin node, and needs to use someone else’s full bitcoin node – the various random strangers using my full bitcoin node are creating cover traffic, quite a lot of cover traffic, but my wasabi wallet uses my full bitcoin node as its primary.

            I see a lot of Indians relying on gold to avoid the mark of the beast. Bitcoin to gold, and gold to bitcoin, should be easy. Middle East full of Indians, full of people transacting in gold, full of people transacting in crypto currency. India full of Indians transacting in gold. India full of Indians going back and forth between India and the middle east. Middle East full of financial institutions that specialize in removing the mark of the beast.

          • Cis Scum says:

            If you’re not tech inclined the simplest way to convert Bitcoin from traceable to untraceable is to:

            1. Open an account with a crypto exchange (Ex_1) using your regular email account (Email_1).

            2. Set up a VPN

            3. Using the VPN set up an anon email account (Email_2)

            4. Using the VPN and Email_2 open an account with a second crypto exchange (Ex_2)

            5. Set up Bitcoin wallet 1 (BTC_w1)

            6. Set up Bitcoin wallet 2 (BTC_w2)

            7. Set up a Monero wallet (XMR_w)

            Now you’re ready.

            8. Buy traceable Bitcoin

            7. Send Bitcoin to Ex_1 and convert to Monero

            8. Send Monero from Ex_1 to XMR_w

            9. Send Monero from XMR_w to Ex_2

            10. Convert Monero to Bitcoin

            11. Send Bitcoin to BTC_w2

            BTC_w2 now contains untraceable Bitcoin.

            • Cloudswrest says:

              Perhaps, but I would think even legally purchasing a significant amount of Bitcoin would pique the interest of the Beast, let alone invisibly disposing of it.

              • jim says:

                A humungous amount of bitcoin is being purchased, and a humungous amount invisibly disposed of. If it piques the interest of the beast, the beast is going to be mighty busy.

                • hrtvhu says:

                  Thank you for your valuable advice, everyone.

                  The problems here are many. You can’t just “purchase” commodities. You need to maintain proof of purchase, proof of holding, and proof of sale when disposed, which you have to show in your tax return. There are ways to avoid this by buying gold (for cash, at a discount) or real-estate, but BTC is _very_ high on Govt’s monitoring priority. Jim is right that physical gold is useful as a medium for transaction, but a goldBTC trader is difficult to come by, even in grey market. BTC, unlike gold, are not fungible. Money laundering services based in the Middle East are numerous, of course, and one can easily buy BTC there, but that will be in the same market also selling AK-47s, cocaine, and “Russian” prostitutes. Not to mention that most of these markets also supply various Muslim terror/insurgent groups and linked crime-syndicates, and it is not for the faint of heart. The only plausible cover is pretending to have a “job” in the ME and sending back “remittance” to India. This is a huge industry, of course, but it is run by the kind of people not worth dealing with just to open a website!

                  Until very recently, there was a huge fine and _prison_ time for doing any trade in BTC whatsoever. Having a significant amount of BTC “disappear” from Govt-controlled wallet to another wallet is a red flag that can and will be traced. As reported in local news a few years back, Govt has the capability to automate BTC tracking right up to a tumbler. Indian financial law makes it the responsibility of the person transferring money to maintain proof of transfer of assets, and it is a financial crime to not have any explanation for a major expenditure. This is common for real-estate, gold, and even automobiles, doubly so for BTC. Secondly, use of a tumbler is officially considered “money laundering” by itself, and is a crime too.

                  Running a BTC node is beyond unthinkable, and will quickly get domestic/mobile Internet cut off. I investigated this when I was looking to mine some crypto using cheap electricity and GPUs. The only relatively safe way is to do all internet activity over Tor (which is not currently banned). But then I can’t transfer my known-account BTC to a Tor wallet without breaking anonymity. Mining is completely unviable now, of course, based on equipment cost alone.

                  “Cover traffic” is also illegal in India. Any computer operator is fully liable for any and all activity on his system, and is responsible for ensuring that it is all legal and covers all the regulatory requirements. The only reason WhatsApp/FB and the like are able to get away with things like e-2-e encryption etc is because they are big enough to offer bribes at eye-watering levels. There is no “platform vs publisher” distinction in India.

                  Again, none of this matters if a regular criminal enterprise is doing it. Once you’ve made up your mind to break laws, it makes sense to break any of them. The goal then is becoming big enough to get into politics and succeed, at which point there is a degree of immunity, or get killed in the process. For a person committing _thought-crimes,_ however, the full weight of the law will be brought to bear. A ridiculous example — even the CollegeHumor website is banned in India(!) Govt can and does go after random blogs with warrants demanding user info from ISPs, which usually immediately comply. The list of unofficially censored websites is huge.

                • jim says:

                  It is obvious that India has a massive gold economy for in person transactions. You also have a gigantic money laundering business in Goa.

                  It looks like your government has shut down the methods that westerners use to access the bitcoin economy, but there has to be an interface available in India, given the size of the gold economy, and size of Goa’s money laundering business.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Isn’t India so corrupt that you can bribe yourself out of any crime that doesn’t involve mass murder, murdering important people or a newsmaking scandal?

                • hrtvhu says:

                  @The Cominator

                  > Isn’t India so corrupt that you can bribe yourself out of any crime that doesn’t involve mass murder, murdering important people or a newsmaking scandal?

                  Yes and no. Briefly, the bigger and more brazen the crime, right up to the level you mentioned, the easier it is to go scot free. No rioter/looter ever got punished in India. Even murdering important people may have no consequence with good timing. Warlords/crime-bosses/politicians are nearly untouchable.

                  But people with earned wealth are different — we are seen as targets by gangs (of which Govt and police are also members). The higher our profile, the more numerous and serious the threats for extortion become. Getting involved in a legal action is a sure way to financial ruin, hence bribing is required. But it only buys _temporary_ reprieve, as in the (real or fake) charges are never really dropped. A bribe only moves them to the bottom of the pile, and will lead to escalating demands in the future.

                  Even arch-merchants like Mukesh Ambani pay through the nose to every Govt.

                  Classic anarcho-tyranny.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Indian financial law makes it the responsibility of the person transferring money to maintain proof of transfer of assets

                  “Yes sir, I used this money to buy Bitcoin, but my computer crashed and I never wrote down the seed. My neighbors said it was the first time they’d heard several of those curse words! Ha ha! I guess I’m just not very smart.”

                  “Why did I sign up with a VPN? To watch Netflix, of course. Why else would I want one?”

                  (It’s the exact same thing as gun grabs in the US. “So sorry, officer, they were lost in a tragic boating accident.”)

                • jim says:

                  > “Yes sir, I used this money to buy Bitcoin, but my computer crashed and I never wrote down the seed.

                  No no, you clicked on this email attachment, and the next thing you knew your bitcoins had been spent and the balance in your wallet was zero.

                  This seems to be happening to a huge number of Kraken and Coinbase customers 😄

                  Needless to say, the evil hacker immediately tumbles the stolen bitcoins.

                • hrtvhu says:


                  > It is obvious that India has a massive gold economy for in person transactions.

                  It is true. We all know that fiat currency is for cucks.

                  > there has to be an interface available in India, given the size of the gold economy,

                  Cash-BTC traders do exist, and do actually work, but only for in-person transactions (obviously). Also, you can expect them to maintain meticulous records of every transaction they make, upto and including recording all phone conversations and chat logs with you, as well as CCTV footage that identifies you when you transact. All of which is available to police if/when they get caught. Why do they do it? Lack of trust. Any one of their potential “customers” can rat them out to police, so they maintain kompromat on everybody.

                  A bigger problem is that these mechanisms serve the bulk of AK-47, cocaine, and Russian prostitute imports (the last two are huge in Goa, arms are more a Middle East thing), so your name being on a list of customers among arms dealers, drug lords and international pimps will tend to make things go very badly (for you ;).

                • jim says:

                  Surely the Cash-BTC trader does not want the customer to have the trader’s government ID and living address, in which case he has no need to know, and no great desire to know, the customer’s government ID and living address.

                • hrtvhu says:

                  @Not Tom

                  Unfortunately the police don’t operate like that. First, they identify you as an extortion-worthy target, then start harassing you (may include physical beatings and/or destruction of property). They keep at it until you pay up, which buys you a temporary reprieve. They’ll pay you a visit again the next time they need money. There is no “logic” you can use to “stay out of jail.”

                  The only winning move is not to be identified as an extortion-worthy target in the first place.

                  Based on _The Godfather,_ I imagine New York police is (or was) similar.

                • hrtvhu says:


                  > Surely the Cash-BTC trader does not want the customer to have the trader’s government ID and living address, in which case he has no need to know, and no great desire to know, the customer’s government ID and living address.

                  You can only reach a trader through “friend of a friend of a friend” type social networks, in which case he has complete info about you. In case he does not get your info, he will not trade. If he doesn’t like your name, he will not trade. For his own safety, he’ll make sure you’re not a cop/informant/rival agent before trading. You, OTOH, only know him as “the trader.” Of course, it is completely possible to generate a fake Govt ID, get a mobile phone with that linked, and use that for all transactions. In fact, this is what the trader is probably doing himself. But it is too much of a hassle and risk. In India, mobile number == Govt ID.

                  Bottom line: Govt has made it as difficult to buy BTC with cash as it is to buy cocaine or rent a Russian prostitute. Not impossible, but not worth the risk. Local booze and high-class local hookers are much easier to obtain and almost zero risk. Same with gold.

                • jim says:

                  > You can only reach a trader through “friend of a friend of a friend” type social networks, in which case he has complete info about you.

                  Then why don’t you have complete info about him?

                  A friend of a friend of a friend should not necessarily be easily able to locate your government issued ID.

                  Social networks that facilitate illegal activity tend to be opaque.

                  I am familiar with the remarkable lack of effectiveness of western law enforcement. I have heard that Indian law enforcement is even worse.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Well, I would certainly never advise anyone to get themselves in trouble with local law enforcement. You should definitely obey the law.

                  On an absolutely and totally unrelated note, have you ever noticed how the financial laws tend to be structured so that it’s effectively impossible to do business without breaking at least one? It must be awfully difficult for the authorities to keep track of. I wonder, idly of course, just how much gold or Bitcoin a man would actually have to lose track of before someone up high decides that he should have kept better records.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “so your name being on a list of customers among arms dealers, drug lords and international pimps will tend to make things go very badly (for you ;)”

                  Probably not, those rackets are operated by glownaggers or under their umbrella and they don’t want those things looked into.

                • hrtvhu says:

                  @Not Tom

                  > …how the financial laws tend to be structured so that it’s effectively impossible to do business without breaking at least one?

                  Yes. And businessmen pay through the nose. From the street-corner vendor to Mukesh Ambani, they all have to pay off various Govt organs and criminals. And they must always live in fear. You know why India scores near the bottom of “ease of doing business” indices? That’s why.

                  > It must be awfully difficult for the authorities to keep track of.

                  Not really. They simply extort everyone they can get their hands on. If anyone is not being actively extorted, it is certainly not for lack of trying.

                  > …just how much gold or Bitcoin a man would actually have to lose track of before someone up high decides that he should have kept better records.

                  For gold, the limit is actually codified in law:

                  Gold holding without proof of purchase is limited to 500g/married woman, 250g/unmarried girl, and 100g/man in a family. Any more gold than that needs to have full documentation or it can be seized.

                  For BTC, there is no de jure limit, but since BTC transactions are amenable to automated analysis (unlike gold which is traditional, offline, fungible), the de-facto limit is zero. Trading BTC unnecessarily paints a target on one’s back, as Honest Indian pointed out.

                • jim says:

                  That does not seem too bad. Assuming you have a wife, you can own six hundred grams of inexplicable gold, and if you own more, how are they going to know? You are not going to be keeping more than six hundred grams on you or in one place.

                  For bitcoin, I doubt the omniscience and omnipotence of law enforcement. Operate a wallet over a vpn, they are not going to find out. If you don’t trust a friend of a friend of a friend, you could buy bitcoin for cash or gold while overseas.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Since it sounds like in India you become a target for “law enforcement” if they THINK you have any money and it sounds like there isn’t even some known system to pay them off for a flat rate (the way NY used to be) my advice would be to go to Singapore or if you don’t want to live in a city go to Thailand (Thailand I think has fairly lax immigration standards as long as they don’t think you are a criminal or likely to be a welfare case).

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jim I think you are misreading what the dot is saying…

                  It sounds like there is a theoretical legal limit but since India is a leftist anarcho tyranny and a kleptocracy of the kind that California has only just gotten started becoming he says the cops start targetting you if they even think you might have money and unlike NY or Chicago in the old days its not like you can kickup a small % to Frank Costello or Tammany Hall and they will make them go away… it sounds like there are a bunch of seperate authorities with no reasonable payoff system.

                  Hence I said my advice is to leave, it sounds truly intolerable.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Sure, but he also seems to be implying that they’re going to shake you down no matter what, if you’ve got the assets.

                  So if he has the assets, and they’re going to shake him down at some point anyway, why not keep the assets in a form that’s harder to track or confiscate?

                  I’m just not following the train of logic.

                • jim says:

                  We are already at that point in America. If it is worse in India, and I hear told it is worse, might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.

                • jim says:

                  The state, quite reasonably, wants all interactions in a form it can scrutinize and regulate.

                  And then it regulates, and is overwhelmed.

                  The Sovereign attempts to make non compliance expensive and dangerous but, losing control of his overly numerous and overly mighty servants, he finds he has also made compliance expensive and dangerous.

                • A Honest Indian says:

                  Mostly in India cops are not much bothered about ordinary civilians doing ordinary business and earning an income. It is only those on the border of legal-illegal businesses who have to worry about this kind of harassment and of course street vendors who have to pay regular baksheesh. Note that I am not talking about the usual government red tape and corruption but about the police being interested in you. If you are mostly law abiding and stay under the radar the cops will generally leave you alone. Ambanis operate at a totally different level and they have to pay off politicians and not policemen and for different reasons altogether.

                • jim says:

                  You greatly over estimate police and administrative effectiveness.

                  Everything is illegal, whether it should be illegal or not, and police and regulators fail to enforce these rules, whether they should be enforced or not.

                  If no complainant, then inertia, inefficiency, laziness, and incompetence is on your side, and you can get away with murder.

                • A Honest Indian says:

                  @jim you are right and actually this is true of local law enforcement and state police but then trading in BTC will trigger central Investigation agencies like CBI and ED who are much more interested in cracking down on any suspicious financial activity because in recent times Modi is strongly cracking down on foreign funding and activities of anti India NGOs and Islamic terror groups. The risk of attracting such attention may not be worthwhile.

                • jim says:

                  Well then, don’t let them detect that you are trading in BTC.

                • Not Tom says:

                  because in recent times Modi is strongly cracking down on foreign funding and activities of anti India NGOs and Islamic terror groups

                  If this is the case, then I strongly doubt that you would get in serious trouble for using Bitcoin to host a pro-Modi, pro-Hindu blog, even if they did find out how you were using the money. You seem to waffle between being worried about the legitimate government and being worried about Cathedral corruption; whom do the police actually serve?

                  But I think we’ve all said our piece, and you’ve said yours. We’re just talking in circles at this point. The real difficulty with having a public platform is not funding, it’s getting an audience.

      • A Honest Indian says:

        @hrtvhu Why not simply start an anonymous WordPress blog with a throwaway mail id to begin with? At least you can remain anonymous and even if you are censored the worst that may happen is that your blog shuts down. With enough luck your writings will remain under the radar of censorship. Using bitcoin over here seems to be like putting up a huge target disc on your back.

        @jim. In India these kind of Grey market traders are akin to mafia. They will find out a lot more about you than would be comfortable. Even if you know their real identity you cannot really threaten him except exposure to the police and in all likelihood if you do that you will be on the top of his hit list. Moreover he may be in a better position to pay off the police than you are.

        • hrtvhu says:

          @A Honest Indian

          WP has gotten much more censorious in the relatively recent past, about the time they banned Heartiste and Diversity Macht Frei. I don’t think they use automated systems like FB, but respond to manual reports by SJWs. In all probability, Soros orgs and definitely ADL are trawling WP on a regular basis.

          The sensitive topic that will draw the Eye of Soros is Islam, of course. Somehow their Semitic enemies, the Jews, feel it their duty to defend their murderous cousins from all criticism, I got locked out of Twatter for criticing Islam (completely factually and with zero rhetoric) when I was in the “Free Speech” and “honest discussion” era. Then WP started banning right wing blogs.

          I don’t have complaints against WP at all. They were the last large platform to cave to SJWs.

          That said, some remnants of NRx are still on WP and haven’t been kicked off, so we’ll see. I would really like to own my platforms, though.

    • hrtvhu says:

      Welcome to the dissident right, btw, which is the actual right, which is Ram Rajya. Don’t take the Western “right’s” Christian LARPing too seriously. 🙂

      • jim says:

        How long has it been since Hinduism was a functional state religion?

        Established Anglicanism was a fine state religion, which lasted from 1660 to 1832, giving us the scientific revolution, the industrial revolution, and world empire.

        How has Hinduism been doing?

        • hrtvhu says:

          > How long has it been since Hinduism was a functional state religion?

          Marxist historical blindness aside, the official date is 1818, at which point the last great Hindu Empire was definitively absorbed by the British East India Company.

          Notably, the various smaller states who came into being thereafter preserved Hindu rule under EIC, which had a hands-off approach to social engineering — the Maharajas paid them off and they did their own thing. About half of present India was under Hindu rule till the Fabian takeover of 1947, and Hindu Religious Law was only abolished in 1955-56 (, which gave birth to Jana Sangha, and “Hindutva politics” as it is now known.

          > Established Anglicanism was a fine state religion, which lasted from 1660 to 1832, giving us the scientific revolution, the industrial revolution, and world empire.

          Which are all examples of short-term gains at the cost of long-term catastrophe. This is a slow-motion version of Hitler’s “Thousand Year Reich.” Anglicanism was itself a result of Imperial weakness, and Henry VIII should either have been put to death by the rightful Imperator, or declared himself Imperator and put to death any impostors in what are now France, Germany or Rome. As it happened, neither Henry nor his enemies had the strength to destroy each other.

          Moreover, it is debatable how much of the “scientific revolution” was also attributable to resolutely Catholic states like the Italians, and also to Byzantine scholars fleeing Muslim conquest. Much of the “Renaissance” knowledge was derived from Byzantine/Greek sources, while the movement itself was clearly Leftist spiraling.

          As for “world empire” enabled by technology, the “British Empire” was a joke, unable to execute a bunch of traitors in 1661, and again in 1776, due to convergence. It was an ersatz “Empire” built on the rubble of Rome.

          > How has Hinduism been doing?

          Pretty badly, I admit. Fabian law has accomplished what Muslim and later English rule could not, and Hindu society is being destroyed. The Hindu elite is now completely demoralised, and has extremely low fertility. Which is why I want to start a dissident blog. I might be shouting at empty space, for all I know, but then posts like “An Honest Indian” above remind me that I may in fact be in a state like the average Western rightist, where media saturation forces us to keep our thoughts to ourselves, which results in us thinking each of us is alone in this — classic disinfo-demoralisation psyop.

          PS: “An Honest Indian” needs a shill test. Commentating on various fora is a professional job in India. BJP pioneered this, but others are now in the game too. FWIW, this actually ended up helping our cause because “online shakha” workers got heavily red-pilled 🙂 Any Leftist meme on Indian social media gets laughed out almost immediately, and Twitter has to help almost every single anti-Hindu trend. This is all called “trolling” and “harassment” by legacy media, of course, but I know the score when I see it. 🙂

          • jim says:

            > PS: “An Honest Indian” needs a shill test.

            This was not apparent to me. If he is a shill, he is a shill working for the Indian government or its proxies, and of course I would be unfamiliar with his script, so would not recognize it, nor would I notice the things he is forbidden to say, or even acknowledge, the gaps, the unmentionable topics in the script, because they would be different from the gaps in the US shills’ scripts.

            Suggest a shill test for Indian shills employed by the Indian government. (Indians employed by the FBI are easy to spot, they glow in the dark.)

            You should ask “an honest Indian” a few questions, see if he dodges them when a person of his purported views, posting under a pseudonym, would rant enthusiastically.

            What gives away a shill is that a shill supposedly believes what you believe, but is unable to talk about, or even acknowledge, the usual and obvious reasons for believing those things.

            • A Honest Indian says:

              I don’t understand what you mean by shill test. Nevertheless, I believe in Ram Rajya in India and I hate the Left with a passion for which the NRx philosophy have drawn me with their intellectual dissection of Leftism and their agents. I hope I have made that amply clear in my posts.

              I am neither working for, nor engaged by the ruling party or the Government of India (or any of their agencies.)

              • hrtvhu says:

                @A Honest Indian

                > I believe in Ram Rajya in India

                Welcome, brother.


                This is my first level of filtering. Seculars recoil in horror at the mere mention of “Ram Rajya.” Even Mahatma Gandhi, a Leftist by our standards, was a devout Hindu and staunch advocate of Ram Rajya, which only exited the Overton Window after the 50s.

                Leftists would not even mention that _we_ support Ram Rajya, for fear that the average Hindu still thinks “Ram Rajya == Good” and will cause us to gain support. This used to be a cucking point of BJP and the swine right. Vajpayee was ambivalent about it. Modi has changed that, and even the Socialist Congress is forced to acknowledge it. This is what the Overton Window moving right looks like:


                • A Honest Indian says:

                  Yes. Ram Rajya is the core of Hindu Dharmic rule. Luckily I have a firm basis in my faith as a Hindu and I am lucky to have been born in a family with some grounding in our traditional values where concept of good and evil are not distorted by moral relativism.

                  It’s unfortunate that many Hindus especially in the Metro cities in India are ashamed of their own past and heritage and even saying such things in public will be treated as a Fascist Right wing Hindu by our leftists and even moderates. This is no doubt due to the constant Marxist culture and education war waged by our old school leftists and currently supported by their progressive comrades.

              • Rhovanost says:

                For those of us not familiar with Indian culture, can someone explain what Ram Rajya is?

                A quick google/duckduckgo search just lists the titles of old Indian films. The size of the information gap on the English speaking side of the internet is fascinating, to say the least.

            • someDude says:

              Try the woman question. It never fails. Considering that their BJP is also packing the armed forces with women, it might just work.

              • A Honest Indian says:

                I have read Jim’s views on the red pill and while I certainly agree with traditional patriarchy in society most of what Jim writes on women seem alien to me. Of course patriarchy is something that can only be fully restored in Ram Rajya and not in the current environment of women empowerment. Also in India unlike the West this is one topic that the progressives haven’t really been able to make too much impact culturally speaking though laws favouring women have been enacted. Except in cities where Hindus have become progressives due to the mimicking of current western lifestyle most of rural India is still nominally patriarchal and fear of becoming social outcasts is still a strong deterrent against misbehaviour.

                You must understand that since independence there has been a strong anti-western culture narrative which has helped curb the influence of progressives in this area. Even traditional leftists in India are reluctant on this topic though they will make the usual noises of equality and such.

                I also think this is because “Women empowerment” in India has taken a different route than your Western society. English being the de facto language of progressives and large parts of India especially rural and semi rural Indians aren’t influenced culturally by what is viewed as decadent western culture. Even Successful career women mostly still stick with their husbands and don’t divorce at the drop of a hat. Single motherhood and broken families are still frowned upon by society despite the progressives’ best attempts at normalizing it. And for Sure there is a constant need to fight back the progressives on their continuous attack on normal family values. But right now it’s mostly a battle to be fought under the radar and not by loudly proclaiming the restoration of patriarchy which will be counterproductive.

                Though things are changing slowly and in recent times progressives are becoming more and more aggressive in their attack against traditional Hindu family values I don’t think it is politically relevant at the moment. If Ram Rajya is restored the traditional family with traditional gender roles and values will be restored.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  If we were to put it too a finer point, then; what are those traditional gender roles and values, and why did they become tradition, in the first place?

                • A Honest Indian says:

                  I believe women should take care of the home and raise family and men should take care of providing for the needs of family. I believe in arranged marriages because it is the only institution that has kept society from degenerating. Women being free of such restrictions is bad for society as a whole.

                  I believe this is the dharmic way and hence natural order of life. I haven’t really delved since philosophically on this subject though.

                • A Honest Indian says:

                  @ Pseudo-chrysostom it is almost sad that we need to test on the basis of such questions. It shows the extent of degeneration of western society that even asking that women do their duties as good wives and mothers and not become degenerate godless “empowered” sluts is a crime think.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Warpspawn flee from the light of gospel; and the possessed feel it’s pain as their own.

                • A Honest Indian says:

                  I don’t get your last remark?

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  As you say, it is indeed amazing from one point of view that such a basic precondition of possibility could ever become an issue of contention; but then, it is that very bascicity that makes it such an important target for hostile forces; such a reliable indicator *of* hostile forces.

                  It’s one of those ‘first in, last out’ kinds of issues, in a way that few others are, regarding the course of a civilization. One of those things that cut to the heart of matters in such ways, that, an agent of Chaos could not be what it was, and be capable of rejoin it in any forthrightly way, at the same time.

                • A Honest Indian says:

                  As I said I base my faith in Hindu dharma just as Jim bases his on traditional Christian morality wherein right and wrong, good and evil are not moral relatives but bound on the order of nature. Once people lose this compass there is bound to be confusion and social decline. Of course I long ago realized even before exposure to NRx Ideas that this moral decay is the prime cause of societal and civilizational decline and used as a weapon by progressivism to try and destroy it completely.

  9. hopinforabetterfuture says:

    The usual suspects are REEEEing after POTUS directed the Department of Homeland Security to publicly defend Kyle rittienhouse (the kenosha kid).

    • jim says:

      They were not directed to publicly defend.

      They were told to refrain from endorsing the the storm of lies being manufactured to justify state terror against people who attempt to defend themselves.

      • hopinforabetterfuture says:

        which is about the same thing, atleast in the eyes of the media.

  10. The Cominator says:

    Trump won decisively with Hispanics lol…

    • jim says:

      Trump won decisively.

      The “white supremacy” question was the key to it all. He rejected their frame. It is not “white supremacist violence”. It is the left attacking ordinary people who are just trying to live their lives, and if you try to defend yourself, you are a white supremacist, even if you are black.

      • Fred says:

        Biden’s odds seem to have improved for some reason.

        Sportsbet is offering $1.45 on Biden winning the second debate, although the CNN snap poll is used to settle it.

        • jim says:

          They are relieved that Biden did not drop dead on stage and the moderator did not have to perform “”Weekend at Bernies” with his dead body the way they have been doing with Ginsberg’s body.

        • jim says:

          If Biden remains conscious during the second “debate”, and the interviewer does not wind up answering his own questions, he wins the CNN snap poll.

        • Pooch says:

          I’d ignore the betting markets. They had Hillary a substantial favorite in 2016. The fact that the odds are better for Trump this year as a slight underdog is a good sign.

      • Pooch says:

        And at the same time, he flipped it around and gave Biden the chance to disavow Antifa, specifically, which of course Biden refused to do. That was a strong moment for Trump. Predictably, the Cathedral is freaking out about the White supremacist/proud boys comment today.

    • Karl says:

      Does is matter? Did anyone change his opinion as a result of the debate?

      I don’t think anybody did. Even if any voter should have done so, I don’t think votes will be decisive in this election.

      The function of such a debate is not make anybody change his opnion, rather it is a ritual to keep up the pretense of having a democratic republic. Nothing wrong with that. Rituals are important, but their function is to not to change anything.

      • Nils says:

        I have noticed since debates don’t change any minds they do not seem to be properly egalitarian forms of social organization, without an authority to force at least the appearance of conforming to a decision based on a debate why bother having it. Of course God emperor Trump will dispense with this charade of useless presidential debates, and the pathetic Oxford ones too, and we will have good old fashioned reason and quiet in the public sphere, instead of some possessed and Alzheimer’s ridden old man mumbling discredited as if it was a new word a todler just learned. weird how Biden was taller on the computer screen last night despite being three inches shorter, and what the heck was with that guys eyes? He was high off his rocker or worse with pupils like, never seen anything like it.

        • The Cominator says:

          “I have noticed since debates don’t change any minds”

          Debates change minds of the undecided normies who generally decide elections (though that is more questionable this year because of the who counts the votes factor) and Trump won this one despite Biden being doped up and wired for sound.

          Trump also served noticed in the debate that despite some pozzed generals he had the military and the police behind him and that the militias should stand by and that he will not accept a fraudulent election.

          He just told them in the event of civil war he’ll win and hes not backing down either.

          • Strannik says:

            That in itself may make many of them back down. Firm and resolute strength prior to a Civil War makes the rebellion that much easier to beat. This may be more ”Whiskey Rebellion” than American Civil War 1860-65

            • Publius says:

              In this scenario, it’s the Trump faction that’s the rebellion. Trump controls part of the state, but the left controls all of academia and almost all of tech.

              • Strannik says:

                Napoleon once said that ”morale is to material as three is to one”. That is, much more important. When the time comes, the evildoers and traitors will have their rebellion put out, more like the ”Whiskey Rebellion” than the American Civil War.

                They just don’t have the leadership, not yet. They are a coalition, and their type of coalition does not lend itself to having true leaders. When they get beaten in 2020, they’ll be even more beholden to organizations and networks like the Muslim Brotherhood, and they’ll supply the lack in leadership.

      • jim says:

        A huge number of voters saw Trump unfiltered for the first time. Pretty sure that would have changed their opinion.

        • Strannik says:

          And seeing him they’ll accept him, especially in contrast to what his enemies are offering.

  11. Hopinforabetterfuture says:

    Trump laid out a call to arms in his answers to the election questions in the debate. He essentially said if he believes the election is fraudulent (it will be) then he will not concede or accept defeat. He also told his voters to watch their polling places very closely.

    He also would not disavow militias which is getting him branded as a white supremacist again. his exact quote was “stand back, Stand by” in reference to proud boys and militias.

    it was all very clear instead of behind metaphor tonight.

    • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

      That Trump has great instincts is something we knew, but turning “stand down” into “stand back, stand by” is raw political genius.

      Refuter of Blood Libels, Summoner of Armies, Coiner of War Cries, Inverter of Enemy Memes. We will not see his like again.

      • jim says:

        That moment, he won the debate. Total genius.

        • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

          I’ve only seen the transcript, not the video, but from that it looks like Trump also won every other minute of the debate. What’s interesting is how little of Trump’s usual rhetoric and slogans were there, he unleashed bomb after bomb of much-needed realtalk to disrupt the script. Reading it, the effect is just devastating, he mops the floor with Biden and at times the moderator. Maybe it’s not the same 99% victory on video due to Trump’s abrasiveness, but wow, this was the most substantive debate performance I can remember. 2016 vs Clinton was political theater, that Trump also does well, but this one was completely lopsided destruction against an idiot mouthing nothingness.

          • The Cominator says:

            Trump’s greatest debate victory was in 2020 vs Hillary in the 2nd debate (and he needed it was right after pussygate) but this was good enough.

          • Pooch says:

            The transcript reads much better for Trump than the live debate, which is a shame.

            Most times when Trump interjected Biden, Biden and/or Wallace continued to speak leaving the view to hear conflicting speech with a result of hearing nothing but chaos. Just like the talking head shows, multiple people talking at once does not play well for live tv.

            • The Cominator says:

              Trump won well enough given the numbers I’ve seen from everything but CNN (lol).


              • Pooch says:

                Yeah seems like they are pushing the white supremacy thing hard today instead of the pre-written headline “Biden wins debate”, which indicates Trump won.

                • Pooch says:

                  And also calling out their mail voting scheme, they aren’t happy Wallace was unable to censor Trump when he exposed them.

              • Anonymous 2 says:

                From scanning Twitter, I’ve seen quite a number of disgusted D-voters who no longer want to vote. Because the debate was such a sordid, non-classy affair, they claim, though I’ll leave open the possibility that Biden was too visibly the weak horse. In other words, blackpilling on the left.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Yes this is what I see on twatter and facebook…

                  Most of the lemming leftists (as opposed to the hardcore) are breaking ranks and fleeing.

        • Strannik says:

          He is with his men, and his men are with him. Biden and Harris will be trounced because they are hired hands with hired hands paid to follow them.

  12. The Cominator says:

    I told you the left was getting scared… some of them in the wake of Saint Kyle seem to sense they’ve started a war they have no hope of winning…

    • Pooch says:

      May be time to move to Florida if that law gets passed.

      • The Cominator says:

        Fuck off we’re full.

        JK but Florida already has stand your ground laws and shall issue (no open carry but concealed carry is better for keeping people well behaved).

        • Pooch says:

          The problem is laws are meaningless if they aren’t enforced as written.

          • The Cominator says:

            You shoot a rioter in Central and Northern Florida and the cops would high five you.

            I’ve heard South Florida is different but Central Florida is politically a pretty redpilled place, even a lot of the local redneck broads are heavily armed and like to post facebook statuses about shooting rioters.

            Now that is still a more masculine identity than we would ideally hope for women in the society we would want but at least here in the South the broads don’t mindlessly side with the enemy I guess the rednecks are alpha enough to prevent defections to the progressive cult…

            Florida (not South Florida) does a good job in general with converting people who in other parts of the country would typically be leftists over to our side. We do a good job on keeping the spics voting right wing do much better with the nigs than most of the country too…

            And to my shocked there is sort of this wiccan/new agey town which is a fun place to hang out sometimes… you’d think they’d all be shitlibs but its the exact opposite they are the most right wing people outside of here and /pol if you get them talking politics…

    • Not Tom says:

      The irony is that the sorts of cuckservatives who like to “own the libs” are exactly the ones who would never kill, even if it meant suicide for them.

      As usual, they try to shame the squishy middle. They’d never dare address the “far right” directly, because that would mean acknowledging our existence.

      • The Cominator says:

        “The irony is that the sorts of cuckservatives who like to “own the libs”

        Have you ever known any National Review Nevertrumpesque cuckservatives in real life I have. They are absolutely not into owning the libs. The people who ARE into owning the libs otoh by 2020 fully fucking hate them.

        Cuckservatives desperately want to believe they can talk the left out of their insanity if the far right would fade into the background. They are genuinely excessively nice personally successful people (I wouldn’t helicopter them) but they just don’t have enough darkness in them to see the evil of the modern left.

        Now the good thing is its become increasingly obvious and most are (not happily) signing on with us. This is also probably another reason why so many Mormons are cuckservatives, too nice too happy… reluctant to see the pure evil of the other side.

        This article is not about shaming the center, the center cannot hold. This article is an expression of genuine fear.

        • Not Tom says:

          Yes, I have known and still know about a dozen of these people, who literally and unironically use the phrase “own the libs”, and most of whom still don’t even own a firearm of any kind.

          Boomers especially. Some were of National Review stock, others the Quillette crowd (“Intellectual” Dork Web).

          • The Cominator says:

            My experience is they aren’t into owning the libs my experience is they desperately want to make peace and think they can talk to leftists as if they were reasonable people (I’ve converted leftists successfully but only with my hardcore right wing script) into doing so.

            Owning the libs is a kind of reddit corruption of what /pol liked to do. Cuckservatives have never been into that.

            • Pooch says:

              This is exactly right. My family is full of cucks. They think that if they just continue to make sound reasonable arguments the left will eventually come to their senses and meet in the middle, unable to see the time for debate ended long ago. However, I do see that it seems they are firmly behind Trump, whereas in 2016 they weren’t.

            • Not Tom says:

              My experience is they aren’t into owning the libs

              Of course they aren’t. The phrase “owning the libs” is always, without exception, accompanied by some action or gesture that is not in any way owning the libs.

              It’s one tiny step removed from the decades of fist-shaking and empty threats: “if they [the left] don’t stop… well, they’ll be sorry!”

              The people who think that progressives will be persuaded by their boring arguments and the people who employ infantile phrases like “owning the libs” are generally the same, or at least have a very large intersection. Men of action do not utter inanities like that.

            • jim says:

              Debate is over. They cannot hear. To hear a thought crime is a thought crime, and the Overton window has closed, making everything a thought crime.

              If we cannot speak to our enemies, we will inevitably drift into war with our enemies. Maybe in this election, if not in this election, not very long thereafter.

              Kyle shot back.

              In this sense, war has begun. Many more shots will be fired soon, for the same reasons as Kyle shot back.

              The murder of those deemed insufficiently left wing is not being restrained by prosecution and judges, but by the likelihood that the offender will be shot “while resisting arrest”

              • Publius says:

                I find myself yearning for the final white-hot phase of the culture war. Win or lose, we’ll settle this issue like men — in the open, with dignity, once and for all. There’s honesty in cruise missiles, siege garrisons, and concentrated artillery fire. This is the end-game: all the analysis is done; every argument advanced, rebutted, debugged, and patched to impregnability; and every open mind has been persuaded. What’s left is only to count armaments and heads, pray, and cross that final Rubicon. History will count the years from whatever comes next.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Its coming but the entropy and the God of War have their own schedules.

                • jim says:

                  As leftism goes ever lefter, ever faster, it reaches the point where it is killing people in large numbers and destroying stuff in vast quantities.

                  This is inevitable and inherently baked into leftism.

                  The question, however, is whether the people that leftism attacks will be shooting back.

    • BC says:

      The media should be scared. The primary response I saw online to Chris Wallace behavior is he’s going on the list.

      • Strannik says:

        That’s why the media’s favorable ratings regarding public trust in them are going steadily down, and why logically speaking the Media’s polling on the issues is not to be trusted either. Wallace has had it out for Trump since 1988, when he attacked Trump while they were on the floor of the Republican National Convention that year.

        • The Cominator says:

          Media’s credibility has crashed because you can get away with lying occasionally some of the time but if you lie your ass off 24/7 all the time eventually enough people wise up.

          And its not just Trump and progressive issues they lie about…

          The media for instance claims that a boomer who was a “professional video poker player” (not mathematically possible to be done profitably, it is a rather simpleminded way to launder dirty money though) snuck an arsenal into a casino hotel room with no camera footage and then proceeded to go postal from his hotel room window into a country music concert for no reason… oh and then btw his brother was promptly arrested for child porn (no way that was planted at all) and never heard from again.

  13. Strannik says:

    Tomorrow is the first presidential debate of the election. Biden will likely do better than expected by conservatives, and the media will be carrying water for him, so it will be declared a ”win” for Biden or at worst from their side, a ”draw”. But since it won’t dispel the doubts about him, it will be a ticking time bomb and thus a ”loss” over time. I suspect that he will pull out of future debates over ”heightened COVID-19 concerns from sick staffers” or some such BS, and they’ll coast along to defeat.

    • Not Tom says:

      One and done seems likely, but I think most of the debate will be taken up by Trump arguing with a hostile “moderator” while Biden looks on passively.

      This may backfire on them, however, because everyone still in the media is an idiot lacking self-control, and they run the risk of making their loyalties too obvious. (It was obvious in 2016, too, but was subtle enough for some of the tiny slice of undecided voters to remain in denial.)

      That’s what I think, anyway. For Trump, this debate isn’t about convincing viewers that Biden has mentally checked out or is weak on trade or anything else. Everyone already knows that, including the swing voters. It’s about convincing them that the media has moved farther left than ever before and is now an undisguised mouthpiece of the Democratic party.

      And judging by the clearly illegal “leaks” one day before the debate, it shouldn’t be that hard to prove.

      • Pooch says:

        Yes, Chris Wallace is a huge lefty and was very combative when he interviewed Trump a few months ago, constantly trying to fact check him and trap him. I’d expect that to continue for the debate.

      • Strannik says:

        President Trump has a habit of making his enemies strengths work against them, whether he does this instinctually or not it doesn’t matter. The Media is clearly in this for the Democrats as their propaganda wing, but their tone and barely contained hysteria is what will do in the credibility of their narrative.

        This is going to be terrible for them.

        • Mike says:

          So far Trump has been looking pretty good. He interrupts a lot, but he’s always been that way. Can’t be helped when Biden says things that really do require a response. The only moment Biden looked ok so far was when he said Trump “doesn’t have a plan” for Covid or Obamacare. His opening to the race question was alright, just because the American public reacts so powerfully to race-baiting. But I must admit Trump had a great response, I was worried at first with how much Wallace was coming for him with the original question.

          • Pooch says:

            I don’t remember Trump interrupting Hillary this much. He probably avoided it since she was a woman. Still, I think the interrupting is not helping.

            • jim says:

              Trump is trying to provoke Biden. Even the best are apt to be incoherent when angry, and Biden is not the best.

              • Pooch says:

                I would have let Biden speak since he is mostly incoherent. Trump exerted himself as the strong horse though. Either way, the debate is unlikely to change anyone’s mind.

              • Mike says:

                I don’t mind it too much, simply because I know it’s how Trump is, but it always looks awful to normies to act that way. Can’t be helped. They think that there still is common, civic ground between the Left and Right when there isn’t, so they think the debate should be civil when that really shouldn’t be expected.

                • Pooch says:

                  This is accurate. I would wager this is approximately what a pre-civil war debate looks like.

                • BC says:

                  The fact that Biden refused to shake Trump’s had says that civility is dead and war is to follow.

            • Not Tom says:

              Trump didn’t interrupt Hillary all that much because she was actually debating, or at least he could have believed she was, as opposed to Biden who was obviously fed all of the questions and answers in advance.

              The debate was meant to be a staged scene between Wallace and Biden, and Trump interrupts to take them off-script.

              • jim says:

                Yes, I see a continual struggle between Wallace trying to get the interview back to the script for which Biden had memorized the answers, and Trump taking the interview (it was not really a presidential debate) off script.

                • Strannik says:

                  Bingo, exactly so. Biden got slaughtered tonight, and in my opinion (having spent almost 20 years in Hospice and Health Care work) he is showing clear signs of Senile Dementia that even a med like Adderal couldn’t hide. His blinking eyes, stammering and stuttering and slow thought…. His wife and campaign should be prosecuted for elder abuse.

          • The Cominator says:

            I think Biden lost pretty badly. Wants to close the country again and didn’t deny wanting to raise taxes…

            • Mike says:

              I’m seeing some consensus that Biden not being able to answer Trump’s, “Name a law enforcement group that supports you” question as his worst moment.

            • jim says:

              In the echo chamber, they think that closing the country and raising taxes is popular.

              And it is popular with the people who do not pay taxes and do not work, and the people who “work”in taxpayer supported sinecures, who think that the food magically appears in supermarkets and the electricity in the wall socket.

              • Not Tom says:

                They really do. Trump was saying “people want their schools open” and Biden was responding with “people want to be safe”. Trump was speaking to suburban housewives, and Biden was speaking to bluechecks and cat ladies in San Francisco.

                Enormous amounts of time were spent on Covid madness, and most people are just sick of the theater and the lockdowns and want it all to end. Biden’s handlers no doubt believed that this line of attack would be playing to his strengths, but I think it only plays to their echo chamber.

              • The Cominator says:

                On my facebook there is a sort of sane moderate lefty otherwise a smart guy who just seems to hate Trump inexplicably but not to the point of total derangement (like he’ll mention when media attacks on him are complete bullshit if its 100% factual, like he was quick to say business carry over losses and depreciation are something everyone in business does).

                He wrote a sort of lament post after the debate where he said hey vote for him because he promises not to lockdown or raise taxes…

                So he knows Trump won just on those issues and when I said the same thing in response to him he essentially confirmed it to me (not too happily).

    • ten says:

      I do not share the positive view here espoused of this debate.

      Biden lied through his teeth. Trump interrupting him on his lies and getting into shouting matches, well, it greatly annoyed me, and many around me thought it unwatchable because of it. Biden didn’t seem very provoked by it and didn’t lose his script.

      Trump often seemed flustered, looked frustrated.

      Facing a storm gale of lies in a hostile setting doesn’t make him look the strong horse.

      • The Cominator says:

        1) Look at the Telemundo numbers Biden got massively crushed with spics and the Democrats aren’t going to win without them.

        2) More lockdowns and raising taxes are the opposite of a winning platform.

        • Not Tom says:

          Telemundo appears to have used a Twitter poll, so may not be representative of the average viewer.

          Of course I doubt that a bunch of right-wingers went and brigaded a Telemundo poll. But all the same, I wouldn’t read too much into it.

          Anyway, we know that votes don’t matter in this election.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        On an aesthetic level, static and discord is offensive to the ears, and an NPC viewer can certainly associate that unbellyfeel with Trump, even if, on a more intellectual level, you understand how the counterpart and quote unquote moderator were instigating it.

        It’s not unrelated to situations like where a social justice warrior would enter into a space, start antagonizing a community member through forms everyone can sense are validated by power, and if that member pushes back, *they’re* the ones who other community members start standing up against, for ‘causing a fuss’.

        If you act through the approved forms, then by definition you aren’t ‘causing a fuss’. (The thing of course is that implying there are approved forms is also an unapproved form in a liberalized society).

        Blue tribe perceives the regressive banditry as acting within their approved forms, and therefore acting to put such banditry down is ‘causing a fuss’; while the bandits of course are well ‘within their rights’ to do what they do; the ‘new normal’.

        The over-all impression i’ve gotten from people’s reactions to the debate over several spheres, is one of crystallization; fence sitters are getting off the fence, and going further in the directions they were theretofore leaning.

        • jim says:

          This is the fundamental argument of leftism: Argumentum ad baculum

          The underlying situation is that leftists want to take down Chesterton’s fence so that they can knock over someone’s applecart and snatch some apples, and people are reluctant to disagree in case their applecart gets targeted.

          For two centuries the left have been getting ever more indiscriminate about the applecarts. Raising taxes, shutting down the economy, and burning the suburbs is everyone’s applecart.

          When Trump says “Proud boys, stand down, stand by”, he is saying “I am the president of the united states, and I have a club also”

          When they press him to disown “white supremacism”, they are pressing him to disown Kyle Rittenhouse and Nick Sandmann so that they can murder them unopposed.

          But leftism is now entering its final point, where it knocks over everyone’s applecart.

          Argumentum ad baculum is less persuasive if you are going to get clubbed regardless. So then you look for someone with muscle to protect you. Such as the president. And when Trump says “stand by”, he implies the cavalry is, if not on the way, ready.

          The argument the moderator was making was “Let us kill Kyle, let us kill anyone who resists having his apple cart knocked over, let us steal the election, or it is civil war”.

          And Trump’s reply was “OK, civil war”

          Which is music to the ears of a soccer mum who fears she may be burned out of her house and her children will be beaten up.

          • Pooch says:

            Not sure if that’s what he meant with the Proud Boys. Today he said he has no idea who they are but they need to stand back and let LE restore law and order.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              He knew the question for the trap it was, and therefore recast it in hos own frame.

              Real Americans hear that, and know that he has their back.

              The tanzis say ‘resistance is sinful, and law enforcement is sinful too for that matter’.

              Trump says ‘law enforcement is great, but be ready too just in case’.

            • jim says:

              I am pretty sure he went into that debate ready to fire that line upon hearing the words “Proud Boys”. Watch how fast he interrupts, not to address the person he is interrupting, but to address the Proud Boys.

              He instantly fires off a line that precisely walks a subtle distinction – declaring readiness for civil war, without declaring readiness to start one. That line had to be readied in advance.

              And now he is walking it back – but the meta message is that if Law Enforcement is not allowed to restore law and order …

              • Strannik says:

                Right. And I still believe that the Proud Boys (who have a black man in leadership-such ”White Supremacists”!) understand better than most that the President has got their backs.

          • Not Tom says:

            The only thing that disappointed me was that Trump didn’t flip the question back on them by demanding that they disavow the BLM and Antifa rioters. He sort of hinted at it but didn’t quite get to the point.

            I watched Styx’s analysis, as we know he’s crap with philosophy but good on current events, and mostly agreed with his take. Obviously the debate was not intended to be fair, it was a farce and Trump still came out more or less on top – but he had several opportunities for “knockout punches” and instead continued to parry and jab. Which of course is still better than adopting a defensive stance, which most Republicans would do.

            Another thing I would have really liked him to bring up is the lack of “social distancing” at all of the riots and protests whenever they tried to bring up Covid. Like I said before the debate, debating Covid is a waste of time because the statistics are manipulated and what may have happened in this or that case is all hypothetical; he clearly knew the score but didn’t quite seem prepared. He blamed China but didn’t blame Biden and the Democrats for outsourcing parts of the medical system to China, and he insisted his rallies were safe and mocked Biden for wearing a mask in totally unnecessary situations but never drove home the left’s enormous hypocrisy and selective enforcement.

            I maintain that it was a good debate for Trump, though not a great one. He did what was expected, showed us all the stupidity of the spectacle, and didn’t lose any ground, but I’ll bet the polls (to the extent that they tell us anything useful at all) will show that he didn’t gain any either.

            Styx thinks he’ll do better in the second debate, which is common for all incumbents and would explain why the Democrats are trying to get Biden not to participate in any more.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              They’ve got the pretexts lined up already too; ever more bald-faced manipulation of the format, as the illusory figleaf of ‘neutral platforms’ becomes ever more farcial, and then say ‘oh look at this rowdy president not going along with the rules, guess we have no choice but to…’

              It’s kinda like how in boxing, when one fighter gets called out by another he wants no part of in the ring, he’ll name an exorbitant sum for the purse, which he expects the other party to not agree too. That way he can duck, while saying he is not ducking.

              • Strannik says:

                Exactly. Biden (or rather his backers) are ducking. They know they are going to lose. From this point on I don’t expect much effort from them, they’re demoralized.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  They don’t “know” they are going to lose. They are trying to win the fraud, not the vote, or create enough ambiguity to run the color revolution. If internal polling tells them they can win honestly, they will fraud for a landslide or the Senate. If it says they are losing, fraud to salvage endangered seats in Congress. It is baked in, the mechanisms are in place and already starting to roll. They will not waste the crisis no matter what.

                  Nobody at the DNC is stupid enough to believe in Weekend At Bernie’s as a campaign strategy for votes; the point of debates is to keep the kayfabe going that Biden is viable, politically and metabolically. In that sense they “won”, or tied, the first debate, by Biden showing up, speaking in mostly-OK English and not falling asleep. Unless Biden is so far gone that his ability to do the same two more times is questionable, they will have him do the full schedule of debates, with media creating distractions or suppressing viewership as needed.

        • Cloudswrest says:

          This is similar to what I was saying elsewhere in the comments about Critical Theory. They are using the legitimate ports of communication for illegitimate/destructive goals. It’s like a DDOS attack, but against social capital rather than computers.

      • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

        Decorum is not important after Trump 2015 came on the scene. Dominance and fighting back nonstop, are. The “be nice and think of England” faction of Beautiful Losers has been exposed and nobody misses them except each other and their Democrat dungeon masters.

        Dislike of Trump’s nastiness and limitless escalations is already “priced in” to his support levels. Both his supporters and (far less consciously) his opponents watched the debate in order to see Trump performing the part of Top Alpha. Treating Biden or the moderator as equals he has to engage according to some rules that apply to all, would be to fail the test from the beginning. Trump wins by treating them with the contempt they deserve. That is being Presidential in the lion’s den. In a friendly setting he could afford to be magnanimous; revealing how hostile and rigged the process really is was an excellent outcome of the debate. Remember that Trump is running against the media, not Biden.

  14. Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

    > the anti American empire
    > is outdated, and unfair to America and Americans.
    > NATO and the World Trade Organization are over.

    Trump said this stuff explicity to the UN General Assembly one day after your post.

    One of the many great things with Trump is his monomania about trade. Every foreign policy speech and interview, no matter the topic, he connects it to trade and US bottom line financial interests. He spent most of the UN speech trashing China and demanding they be held “accountable” for the virus, by which he means money, trade. It’s all trade war (and trade deals) all the time.

    • Not Tom says:

      Between “creepy Joe” and “Beijing Biden”, I wonder which meme is going to be more effective in the next month.

      He’s been preparing the field, so to speak. The media and idiotic debate moderators are going to endlessly try to trap him with Covid questions, which are a trap because no one can prove all the what-ifs. But one thing Trump can do very effectively is blame China, and by extension, blame Biden because he helped cause it by outsourcing the entire medical and PPE industry to them.

      The media can’t help themselves, they will “fact check” every single one of his claims about China Flu, and as a consequence, implicitly concede Trump’s frame and break their own.

      • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

        Trump needs to use the captive audience and drop bombs for 2 hours on the actual enemy: media, China, BLM, Soros, Pelosi, critical race theory, Ilhan Omar, while celebrating his own successes. Basically replicate his campaign rallies. Biden and the farce of a “debate” are just an occasion and a pretext. There is no need to show mercy to Biden personally, Trump can and will out him as senile, but Joe is irrelevant at this point.

        Peter Navarro has been raging that the media have “blood on their hands” for suppressing HCQ, Trump should use that.

    • ten says:

      Sargon speaks of the cathedral now too.

  15. A Honest Indian says:

    Hi there. Indian from India, reading this blog and several of your articles. Lots of interesting thoughts here. Like most sane people, despite all the huge negative propaganda of the Leftist press against Trump, I believe there is a huge well of support for Trump in India especially among Hindus (of the non-leftist kind). I am also fervently hoping that the Hindus in America consolidate in favour of Trump, as ultimately our civilizational values align more closely with Traditional white values, and not with the Progressive Leftists who are out to destroy our values, our families and the very foundation of civilized existence. I am sad that a lot of my Indian family living in the US are Democratic and rabidly anti-Trump. It is well nigh impossible to have any sane discussion of Trump with them. Or for that matter, Narendra Modi.

    The worst of it is that this Progressive madness is infecting Indian politics as well in recent years.

    I have come to the conclusion that the god Emperor is needed for India, as much as a god Emperor is needed for the US. I am hoping that Modi would be that Monarch.

    For the future of humanity, hopefully the Leftist holiness spiral that you talk about has descended to lunacy and may soon burn out. Hopefully the burning will not hurt a lot of us on this side.

    • The Cominator says:

      80-90% of dot Indians in America are leftist bordering on hardcore communists.

      • A Honest Indian says:

        According to Indian media here there is a considerable rise in support for Trump since he has taken an anti China stand vis a vis India and he recently also invoked Modi. Also Indians haven’t forgotten Kamala Harris’ vehemently anti India stand in the Kashmir issue and the CAA. I am hoping that Hindus who are not infected by the disease of progressivism at least rally behind Trump. Even the MSM in India has acknowledged that the Modi Trump factor may play a role

        • The Cominator says:

          “I am hoping that Hindus who are not infected by the disease of progressivism”

          Dinesh D’Souza and two friends of his…

          • Octavian says:

            Mr. D’Souza is many things but Hindu he is not. Born in Bombay to Goa Catholics, he discovered the miraculous wonders of post-modern evangelicalism after coming to America.

            He also married and divorced an Anglo and then remarried to Venezuelan ‘conservative political activist’. So he is not exactly caste-pilled either.

          • Mike in Boston says:

            > Hindus
            > Dinesh D’Souza

            Dinesh D’Souza describes himself as a Christian.

            Separately, there’s a case to be made he’s also a BS’er.

      • Octavian says:

        I think it depends on the Indians. I’ve met a number of outspoken Trump supporters that are Indian men.

        Of course, I’ve also met a number of shockingly degenerate, liberated Indian women.

        And according to a poll conducted by Indiaspora released in September 15th of this year, 28% of likely Indian voters support Trump. Of course, 66% support Biden, but this is itself a drop from 77% supporting Clinton in 2016 and 84% backing Obama in 2012.

        Granted, it’s a poll and we all know how fake those are – especially when their sample is only 260.

        This information is from indiaspora dot org. There is also a commentary on Firstpost dot com (an Indian news site) on this subject if anyone wants to punch it into a search engine. Not sure what the link posting policy is around here. Indiaspora has an interesting report on their relevant page, worth a read if anyone is interested in their version of Asian voting patterns.

        • The Cominator says:

          Never met a Republican indian not one. I suspect that stats are distored by Modi supporters in India…

          • Octavian says:

            Their data comes from AAPI Data – some outfit run by an Indian and his three Chinese and one Vietnamese female researchers. All of the ladies have suitably disturbing backgrounds and the Indian has a PhD from Princeton – so it’s all pipelined from the Cathedral.

            I didn’t bother to try and dig for an explanation of their methodology, but I suspect the smallness of their team explains the pathetic sample size of 260.

            My instinct is that they would, if anything, try to undercount support for ‘right-wing’ politics, But who knows, maybe they are fiddling the other way.

          • A Honest Indian says:

            I think you are unduly pessimistic on the percentage of Dot Indians with respect to Progressivism though I admit many of them are irredeemably progressive. But equally I do know the typical Indian mindset. In the past most Indians may have voted Democrat because other high status Indians voted Democrat. But Indians are not typical ideological voters – their vote is tactical and driven by self interest.

            The difference this time is that Trump has openly wooed the American Hindu. Something no other US president has done. Also the Democrats have taken the wrong side on extremely two emotive issues in India: Kashmir and CAA. To my knowledge except the most hardcore leftists and progressive, across the political divide Indians believe in the territorial integrity of India and this means Kashmir is an undisputed part of India.

            Maybe Dot Indians who are born in the US may have no religious or cultural ties to India except their parents but most first gen immigrants are closely tied to extended family living in India and are influenced by what happens in India. So I am optimistic that Trump’s outreach to Modi will have a positive effect.

            If the leftist news media in India reports a surge in Trump support among Indian Hindus in the US I pay attention. There is definitely something going on which Trump seems to have noted.

            • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

              For the reasons mentioned in my other comment, it almost doesn’t matter what the opinions and values of the adult immigrants are. Their children are de-ethnicized and progressivized in the first generation, at school and university. AoC’s puppetmaster, Saikat Chakrabarti, is an illustration of the phenomenon.

              Trump is peeling off some Indian vote among the parents but in the long term, Indian immigration is Ashkenazim 2.0 in politics and occupational profiles, with the saving grace that it’s proportionally smaller proportion than the Jewish immigration.

              If Modi and the BJP gets rid of the post-colonial poz in Indian politics over the next few decades the problem will solve itself at the source. Indians in America will meanwhile have integrated into the elite, whether leftist or Trumpist by that time.

          • someDude says:

            If Trump smashes the left and you get the coveted Job of executioner, Indians will demand to be allowed to join the Ku Klux Klan. Indians, like women, always always always support what they believe is the stronger horse. They just believe that the Democrats call the shots and until now, they were largely right.

            Remember, never take Indians seriously or personally. Treat them like a weather Vane of public opinion. The rising trump support from Indians indicates that Trump is showing Cojones. That’s all.

            Like women, most Indians cannot distinguish right from wrong. And like women, they have a preternatural sense in detecting weakness.

            • A Honest Indian says:

              From what I’ve read I understand that dot Indians in the US have only become politically radicalized in the last decade or so extremely loyal to the Democrats for reason of ideology rather than opportunism.

              But then again I am an outsider and my knowledge of American politics is not first hand.

              • someDude says:

                Sorry mate. Indians have no ideology. They only have survival. It must be the result of natural selection due to numerous invasions and having to have lived under foreign subjugation. When foreign subjugation happens to any group of people for a long time, only those survive who are extremely flexible (I won’t call it opportunistic) about things such as loyalty and ideology. And this flexibility, I have observed among Indians.

                This must be the root of the Gandhi worship that afflicts India. You do what you need to do to get ahead. Before Modi, that meant Gandhi worship. If Modi proves to be a strong man, then Hindutva worship begins. Post Ram Temple, Lots of Indians suddenly can’t remember that they used to once consider Gandhi the greatest saint that ever lived.

                • A Honest Indian says:

                  Interesting analysis about survival instincts. My own analysis is that we Indians aren’t as ideological as Americans but there is a considerable and systematic effort made by the leftist forces to radicalize Indians on ideological lines both in India and the US by the Cathedral and their agencies. Precisely because no traditional right wing existed in Indian politics after independence.

                  Hindu society used to be patriarchal before independence but post independence increasingly Hindus are being emasculated in the name of empowerment of minorities. Nehru’s socialism and Gandhi’s passives became the official religion of the state. In today’s India Hindus are not even able to manage their own temples without government interference in our religious affairs.

                  Yet A lot of Hindu progressives for example hate Modi so irrationally. I can only attribute it to ideology.

                • jim says:

                  Everyone needs to go further left, faster, but what is further left is undefinable. It is like women’s fashion. By the time a woman knows what is fashionable, it no longer is fashionable. So the only safe way to be even further left than you were yesterday is to hate Modi or Trump even more than you did yesterday.

                • A Honest Indian says:

                  @jim precisely. The problem with India today is not Gandhi worship but that for today’s progressives even Gandhiism is a right wing Hindu “FASCIST” ideology.

                • someDude says:

                  @A Honest Indian

                  Say what? How can an ideology that says the violence is wrong even in self defense be considered a “Right wing fascist ideology (RWFI)?” How can passivism be seen as a RWFI ?

                  Something wrong here. Are you exaggerating just for effect?

                • A Honest Indian says:

                  @somedude yes that’s the extent to which the left has drifted leftwards. To many modern progressives Gandhi is not only insufficiently holy but an enabler of fascism and racism. See here for example

                  Of course it’s not yet mainstream leftism in India to call Gandhi a fascist but I can see the drift.

                • Dave says:

                  As a young man in South Africa, Gandhi was like Thomas Jefferson — indignant that Englishmen didn’t regard Indians as fully equal to themselves, but not even slightly bothered that blacks were treated as subhuman vermin.

                  In the future, today’s leftists will be reviled for not seeing dogs and cats as equal to humans.

      • someDude says:

        80% – 90% of Indians in America are looking for their General Butt Naked. I suggest you provide Him to them after Emperor Trump offers you a Job.

    • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

      The problem of Indian immigrant progressivism can only be solved in India, just as Israel has been slowly but surely solving the Ashkenazi Jewish prog problem. This leads to Israeli immigrants to the USA being well to the right of American Jews and the commie migrants of 1880-1920.

      Indian high-caste and high IQ immigrants are version 2.0 of the Jewish immigrant communism problem, Ashkenazis on steroids. The IQ of imported engineers and professors is higher than the average IQ of European Jews was, there are more smart Indians in the world than there are Jews, and the Brahmins were literally a priestly caste for thousands of years, with a much more complex equivalent of the Jewish dietary and priestly rituals to keep them thinking of themselves as priests even when dirt poor ( Ramanujan is the icon of this). They have the highest income of any immigrant group and all their children go to universities, rather high ranking universities, where the indoctrination erases any sanity of political opinion the parents might have had.

      Modi can be the prophet who leads the country to the promised land but he will not enter it. He will have to prepare the ground and pick a young, based, hard-right successor, maybe someone from the military (a non-pozzed intelligence officer or something) who is alpha with a large family that can tap into the Indian tradition of family rule a la the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty.

      • A Honest Indian says:

        You may well be right. But Modi alone cannot bring about the changes by himself. A draining the swamp is required in India as much as the US.

        THIS article by swarajyamag is interesting because it pretty much concurs independently with what Jim says about left holiness spiral and how the campuses in India are pretty much dominated by leftist doctrine.

        Also India having been a socialist country since independence (and still mostly socialist in areas despite economic liberalization since the 90s) it seems much harder to root out the leftist dominance in mainstream academia and culture.

        • someDude says:

          Modi’s got Yogi and Shah who are almost his near equals. If one can turn in 3, I’m pretty sure 3 can turn into 9, 9 into 27 and so on and so forth. I’m pretty sure that after Modi consecrated the Temple of Lord Rama, lots of progressive Indians suddenly discovered that they were Hindus as opposed to Seculars. Am I right?

          • A Honest Indian says:

            There has been a lot of kicking and screaming in our secular left dominated media about the Ram temple in Ayodhya but most Hindus are happy about it.

            certainly Modi has stemmed the Leftist side for now. But you’re right in the sense that Indians love a strong leader. And certainly traditional Hindus know right from wrong but unfortunately the traditional Hindu has become a near extinct species much like your traditional Christians in the West.

            • somedude says:

              Let Modi and Co keep this Temple building up and the whole country will suddenly be populated with Traditional Hindus. Display your own strength and your enemy’s impotence for all to see and traditional Hindus will sprout up all over the country like mushrooms after a monsoon rain. Ditto for traditional Christians sprouting all over Russia post Putin.

              Hasn’t one of your revered sages said that Weakness was the only Sin in this world?

        • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

          Modi is the transitional figure like Trump or (as a more precise comparison) Netanyahu whose dharma is to initiate the battle, consolidate early successes into the beginnings of power, and reverse the balance of forces to redefine progress as rightward motion so that open rightists can follow. Only rarely (short of physical civil war) does power come fully and quickly enough into the hands of an Orban or Duterte who can start the reforms after a single change of government.

          • jim says:

            The normal way leftism stops is that a leftist in power has big and bloody confrontation with the radical left, halting movement leftwards, halting the destruction of society. (Because he is in power, and it is his palace now, so he is no longer so keen on burning the palace down)

            At best you get someone like Trump or Sulla who zizags right and left.

            Either way, once the shark is stopped from swimming ever leftwards, the shark drowns.

            And, once the shark drowns, you get a smooth and undramatic transition from leftism.

            Trump has to stop the shark from swimming, with the result that it will drown. Then all things become possible.

    • >The worst of it is that this Progressive madness is infecting Indian politics as well in recent years.

      Well, you know your country better than I do, but my impression is that Gandhi-the-London-lawyer and by continuation the whole Indian politics under Congress was infected by the early 20th century version of British Progressivism to the root, granting that this progressivism was less extreme. And only recently, under Modi, are there attempts to undo it.

      • A Honest Indian says:

        Well, after independence, Indian politics was dominated by anti-imperialist Nationalism followed very soon by Soviet style socialism. Over the course of his life Gandhi himself evolved into an Indian Nationalist who rejected Western style modernization and development for India. The few British and English educated intellectuals in India quickly became Sovietized and proponents of socialism with some customization for India. Though India was nominally non-aligned, most Indian intellectuals desired Soviet style development over Western democratic styled development.

        Until the 1990s (when the economy was opened up) India has by and large remained kind of insular to modern Western thinking and politics. And after the advent of widespread Internet and mass media, this exposure has increased much more.

  16. Cloudswrest says:

    My wife had on CNN in the background (she claims for meta-news, i.e. reading between the lines). Some talking head was berating Trump for raising FUD regarding the legitimacy of the election. These people are shameless. They’re doing everything they can to raise FUD regarding the legitimacy of the election, presumably to give them color revolution leeway. When Trump complains about it they accuse HIM of raising FUD regarding the legitimacy of the election.

    • Dave says:

      Whenever my parents started to tell me something about Trump, I interrupted with, “Did the media say anything good about him?” When their silence implied an answer of “No”, I said, “Good, that means he’s still on our side.” Had the answer been “Yes, they complimented Trump for his…”, I would have seriously considered not voting for him.

    • The Cominator says:

      The lies of the MSM make my blood boil with rage within minutes now.

  17. Dathruk Davilan says:

    Jim, what do you think Trump’s strategy is in promising to suspend the Social Security payroll tax permanently? Is using other taxes to fund the program better in any way? Allowing Social Security to run out of money would be political suicide, causing older Republican voters to leave the party, and there’s no way for him to use the threat to extract concessions from the Democrats because they can simply allow it to fail and blame Trump.

  18. INDY says:

    I’m pulling for Mittens and company to sandbag Amy Barrett.

    • jim says:

      Trump looks like the strong horse today.

      He silenced critical theory, he quelled the violence, starting in Lafayette Park, and now in Portland itself. I predict we will see the never Trumper’s signing up with the strong horse.

      • INDY says:

        Why did the strong horse commit himself to selecting a woman? And then choose this one?

        • jim says:

          He chose this one long ago, and was just milking it for drama.

          The Federalist society has been plotting to get her on the Supreme court for twenty years. They are in Trump’s pocket, and he is in their pocket. The fix was probably in before Trump was elected, because he cut a deal with the Federalist society during his first election campaign, before he became president.

          She is an originalist – meaning she wants to roll back the constitution to what it was long ago. That is a mighty radical position.

          The Federalist society was originally created and funded by what Moldbug called the Optimate faction of the Republican party. Trump is the last optimate, and the first one in power for a very long time, so this alliance goes back a very long way. Trump is paying his dues.

          • Strannik says:

            President Trump was intended to be President for a long time by a sane faction of the Elites, recall he tried to run on the Reform Party ticket in 2000, and his connections to Reagan and Nixon via Roger Stone and Roy Cohn, etc… People say he’s ”just a businessman” not a politician, but I suspect he was being groomed for the role for a while. Surely he knew years before 2016 what his general plan was to win for good, so i’m sure he and his allies planned out to at least 2020.

            • Gedeon says:

              You know he was not only groomed, but protected, because the IRS + FBI + Five Eyes + GCHQ + SSCI + HIC + Special Counsel + NSC could not find a single morsel of anything to prosecute him on.

              [*I think you meant she*]

              The odds of this being possible in any other scenario infinitely small. Taking it one step further, his entire crew is so well protected that all of those organizations couldn’t even succeed in manufacturing a fraudulent prosecution with the media and cathedral blasting. Have you guys seen what the federal prosecution rate is?

              Amy Coney Barrett, is a choir girl like choir girls are supposed to be and she is beautiful and now we get to see Kamala the gobbler try and alpha woman her on CSPAN. All that triggers the left is good.

              • Not Tom says:

                There’s no such thing as an alpha woman.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  I disagree. The alpha female is not the same as the alpha male because their spheres are so different. An alpha female is the counterpart to her alpha male. She would be a social mover and shaker in the female sphere, support her husband, take care of her children, etc. The alpha female is the feminine component of the power couple. I dont know what ACB’s husband is like, but she gave him 5 children, she looks pretty, has long hair, and they are still married. That is an alpha female as far as i am concerned.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Agree with Shadowed Knight there definitely are though their positions are less stable, I think alpha females can even be scientifically shown to exist.

                  In sororities you know how all the women’s menstrual cycles eventually sync up, supposedly it aligns to the cycle of the dominant aka alpha female.

      • BC says:

        >Trump looks like the strong horse today.

        And yet no Durham report. Either Trump’s saving it to decapitate the coup, which isn’t a good idea without having on going charges before the election or it’s never going to happen.

        • Strannik says:

          Who says that the head of the serpent hasn’t already been decapitated in some fashion?

          The trials should come after the election, should they even be necessary. These scum are no doubt turning on each other to avoid being punished harshly themselves, and nothing indicates to me that any kind of rational thought (evil as it may be) is coordinating anything very well on their end.

          There’s always coups and conspiracies going on, but most are from very stupid and arrogant people out of touch with reality.

        • Not Tom says:

          There’s so much emerging outside of the Durham report that I’m not sure if the report even really matters anymore.

          For example, the DoJ has dumped an enormous amount of Obamagate info into the public domain as exculpatory evidence in the neverending Flynn trial. The fact that they were able to obtain all of this information from the FBI suggests that the current FBI brass is either cooperating or powerless to interfere.

          I’m guessing what you really want is to see arrests. Personally, I’m hoping for secret tribunals. If they do want to make arrests, it would be wise to wait for this SCOTUS confirmation, as it all but assures their victory in the judiciary. I don’t like Barrett for a lot of reasons, but don’t think she’d defect on this issue.

          • BC says:

            >I’m guessing what you really want is to see arrests.

            You’re not a strong horse if you can’t punish your enemies, especially your enemies caught red handed committing treason.

            • Not Tom says:

              Punish, yes. But are arrests the ideal form of punishment?

              They’d probably go free thanks to Soros DAs and activist judges. They don’t really seem to fear arrests. By contrast, they chimp out over having their security clearances revoked. But given what they shriek the loudest over, I think what they really fear is being quietly bumped off.

              Public arrests would be cathartic for the voters, for sure, and I’d like to see a few of them too, but they do not seem to be what his enemies truly fear. And the Durham report, I don’t think they’re concerned about that at all.

              • jim says:

                Trump has arrested a large number of antifa, and brought serious charges against them.

                As you say, they don’t seem worried.

                The Durham report is strangely late. Durham is sitting on a pile of political dynamite. It is very worrying.

                • Not Tom says:

                  With the low-level Antifa it’s a little different: they aren’t afraid of the local police, but they do have infamous meltdowns when rounded up by federal agents or transferred over to them. That puts them out of reach of Soros DAs, and Antifa’s own internal comms indicate they are terrified of this and have already backed away from several theaters (such as the “White House Siege”).

                  But I think the big players, the Andrew McCabes and John Podestas of the world, they have too many connections at the federal level to be genuinely worried about the same thing. They may fear being Epsteined or Gitmoed, however. And eventually, of course, they should fear being helicoptered, but we are not there yet, and I sense we are still a long way from there.

                  Still, with respect to the Durham report, I think its utility is not so much the report itself – does anyone here really believe that the prosecutorial system gives a lick about the facts? – but rather the investigation and the facts it uncovers, which can be used to defund, decapitate, and demoralize the leadership of the ongoing coup attempt. It would not surprise me if whatever they do eventually release is either so heavily redacted that it’s impossible for any of us to understand, or conversely, is a pile of damning facts that we all already know about because it’s all been disseminated or applied in other, more subtle ways.

                  Maybe that’s just irrational optimism – but I honestly can’t see what good another report would be at this point. We’ve all but dropped the pretense of Rule of Law, and elites on both sides are admitting it’s a coup or at best a power struggle animated by dirty politics.

                • Rhovanost says:

                  (I’m not sure why there’s no option to reply to “Not Tom’s 2020-09-27 at 21:19” comment, so I’ll leave my reply directly above)

                  Trump has the loyalty of the police, but not the courts (at least not in the big cities). He can disrupt Antifa activity on the street level, but can’t arrest their members or supporters.

                  I think Trump is focused on securing key locations and personnel in the event of civil conflict. Antifa cannot threaten these locations and VIPs. Their job is to intimidate and control regular citizens, not to go after political figures. Trump doesn’t need to prosecute Antifa to weather the storm. Furthermore, letting Antifa members leak through our courts like sand through a sieve would make him look weak. If Trump wins the power struggle, it will be easy to roll up the organization and its supporters.

                  I suspect that aggressive prosecution based on the Durham report would be a sign that we have already won, rather than a step towards winning.

                • jim says:

                  The legacy media, Facebook, Twitter, and Google need to be demonetized and deplatformed. Harvard, the Universities, and the judges need to be disempowered, demonetized, and deplatformed.

                  When Australia introduced indefinite administrative detention for illegal immigrants and people violating the terms of their visa, not a dog barked. The progs screamed and wept, of course, but nobody listened, they got no traction. Lawfare against administrative detention went nowhere. The judges, intimidated, realizing that they had overreached by legalizing illegal immigration and visa overstay, refused to accept the cases.

                  I was in Davao when Duterte was mayor. His death squad solution was hugely popular. I did not see anyone opposing it, except people who probably needed killing.

                  Every time someone in power bypasses the judiciary, the judiciary silently fall into line rather than ruling it illegal.

  19. simplyconnected says:

    Does this make sense? 500G$, Is it accelerationism?
    Has there even been a lynching (what people actually understand by the word lynching) in the last 100 years? This is beyond puzzling…

    • jim says:

      It is election year pandering.

      And its foolish, because the black vote for Trump is the minority of property owning blacks – the rest of them are not up for grabs – although they are up to do some grabbing.

      • simplyconnected says:

        Thanks for the explanation. I hope it doesn’t hurt him, because there are bigger fish to fry, but that seems like a big blunder.

        • Strannik says:

          It’s aimed at independent voter but more liberal whites, who secretly want Trump President but want him to do or say something good on black’s behalf so they can covertly vote for him.

          • Jehu says:

            It’s all about ‘nice white ladies’, a demographic that should NEVER have been given the vote. All of the pander crap to minorities is aimed at that group, to give them plausible cover for doing what they SHOULD be doing, which is voting the interest of their families and husbands.

    • Hopinforabetterfuture says:

      Not a chance at passing though as it declares antifa a terrorist group if i remember right. plus the dems wouldn’t vote for a trump bill ever. much like the amnesty deals its a media play.

      • jim says:

        Well that is ideal: Trump can promise as much money as he likes, and blame the Democrats for not spending it.

  20. The Cominator says:

    Looking at their records… If Trump was to pick a woman he’d be better off with the Cuban than Lockdown Amy. Here is Cathedral CIA rag bitching about her.

    Lagoa apparently was asked to recuse herself from the felons voting here in Florida case, and she then refused and then voted that despite the Florida referendum they needed to pay all their fines and court costs (which 99% of them never do)…

    If she were a cuckservative she would have ruled that wasn’t what the Florida referendum said and she would be literally speaking right… but she voted the politically reliable (but not necessarily super popular) way.

  21. Oscar C. says:

    I don’t see that Republican platform so unmentionable and unspeakable.

    Republican candidates have regularly derided climate change, single-payer healthcare, immigration, illegals, coronavirus… Of course, no Republican is likely going to say that anti-Black racism was never a thing, but they probably think it ended with Martin Luther King or something (as probably the average white conservative boomer does from what I read online).

    The problem is that once in power they basically focus on the tax cut part plus Israel first, to the detriment of strict immigration controls, serious healthcare reform and more important issues.

    You usually mock the so-called wignats, but I just fail to see how Americanism of the Nick Fuentes variety is going to prevent the Brazilification of the country.

    I came across this list of Trump’s achievements, you might find it interesting. The blogger in question alone is worth checking out:

    • jim says:

      > Republican candidates have regularly derided climate change, single-payer healthcare, immigration, illegals, coronavirus…

      Have they?

      Seems to me that they stopped doing that after Sheriff Joe was arrested for speaking the unspeakable about immigration and illegals.

      They dog whistle it. They are dog whistling it now. But saying it? Link me to a mainstream candidate pushing the Republican platform today.

      The loudest and clearest dog whistle is Trump. And he is not coming flat out and saying this stuff.

      • Oscar C. says:

        I was talking off the top of my head, and yes, a quick search confirms your thesis: Republicans seem to start to warm up to climate change acceptance. I was not up-to-date it seems.

    • Not Tom says:

      Israel first


      You usually mock the so-called wignats

      Nah, that’s me and the Cominator. Jim likes them.

      but I just fail to see how Americanism of the Nick Fuentes variety is going to prevent the Brazilification of the country.

      It isn’t, particularly considering that Nick is just another grifter. Who here made any arguments to the contrary? As usual, you debate against positions not held by us, but rather by people whom you apparently imagine must be like us.

      • Oscar C. says:

        Fair point, I was under the impression that Jim considered wignats infantile and delusional. To be fair, it is hard sometimes staying up to date with all the drama/infighting/changing positions within the alt/dissident sphere.

        • jim says:

          If we have a shill problem, the people you call wignats have a hundred fold worse shill problem. But Andrew Anglin is the real thing. He was great, is great.

          • The Cominator says:

            But people who are too stupid to spot shills and feds aren’t useful. A crew of mafosi who are easily infiltrated by informants are a liability to the whole crime family…

            • jim says:

              Well, yes, obviously it is unwise to trust that mob with operations information, but we don’t trust anyone with operations information. It is very closely held.

          • Oscar C. says:

            Really? I often hear people like Colin Liddell say that he is fake, just like Weev is a Jew.

            Although Anglin is probably red-pilled on women (according to your standard) considering recent pieces such as “On the unmanageableness of the cunt class”.

            • jim says:

              Shills always say that anyone who is not a shill is a shill. Social Justice Warriors always project.

              Whenever Bob says Ed is a shill, check out Bob, before you check out Ed. If Bob is a shill, you know that Ed is definitely no shill. Check out Bob for social justice.

        • Not Tom says:

          Doesn’t seem that hard to me, or that mercurial. About a third of us (give or take) have a negative outlook on wignats, while Jim is essentially positive. Neither the makeup nor the positions expressed have substantially changed, for as long as I can remember.

          If there are other dramas or shifting positions – what are they? Some infighting is normal in any group, but I think it’s mostly you who is getting us and our shibboleths confused with not-us and not-ours.

          • Oscar C. says:

            Yes, the NRx side is quite calm compared with the former alt-right, where the pettiness is neverending. Matt Forney is constantly bashing the National Justice Party/TRS crowd for instance.

            I follow Bryce Laliberte on Twitter and he refers from time to time to how he was betrayed by some people he trusted, but does not tell much. Nick B. Steves has a private account and does not accept new followers. Ryan Landry of The American Sun seems to be at odds with him and briefly referred to the disappearance of Social Matter a while ago (very regrettable, since that site was great).

            I also came across this piece by the former PT Carlo in which he sort of settles some scores, you might like it:


            • jim says:

              Your link complains:

              > The harsh truth is that the Trump phenomenon is a movement that is almost entirely reactionary, in the most literal and negative sense of the term.

              Of course the Trump movement is reactionary. There is no solution other than to reinstall the working social technology that we used to have long ago.

              And anyone who opposes that is enemy. You are linking to an enemy site.

              We are reactionary because we are reacting to the destruction of Chesterton’s fence. We have no vision of a brighter future different from the past in terms of social technology, we long for a past that is not lost, but is under overwhelming attack.

              We expect and intend a brighter future by physical technology, we plan to fill the universe and subdue it, and we intend to restore eugenic fertility. We plan that men shall once again have real families, and this, the restoration of kinship and family, and the end of diversity, is the core of our longing for the past and for the social technology that has been destroyed. The future will be brighter because we shall bring back that which was destroyed.

              > briefly referred to the disappearance of Social Matter a while ago (very regrettable, since that site was great

              That site was in the end entirely controlled by enemy shills.

  22. Inquiring Mind says:

    “Police misconduct, such as that in the George Floyd case, should be punished. But the priority now should be to stop crime by empowering police.”

    Jim, is this how you regard what happened to Mr. Floyd, or are you acting as the messenger of your understanding of what the Republican Party members believe?

    There is other video as well as medical evidence to support the hypothesis that the police officers regarded Mr. Floyd’s frantic pleading to avoid being placed in the back seat of the police officer at face value that he was experiencing a medical crisis, with a high likelihood being brought on drugs he admitted to have consumed, rather than malingering or excuse-making?

    It is said that early on, the officers called for paramedics, whose ambulance took its time getting there on account of traffic congestion. The officers are not doctors trained in emergency medicine let alone trained as paramedics, but they acted in good faith on the basis of what they understood, from their training, to be the correct course of action in placing Mr. Floyd on his stomach, and then restraining him with the knee hold, not as punishment of a recalcitrant suspect but as a safe method of restraint, to prevent harm to Mr. Floyd or to bystanders, of an “excited delirium” reaction to the drugs he was on.

    It is often said that Officer Chauvin maintained this restraint for minutes after Mr. Floyd stopped complaining “I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe”, at which time Chauvin should have started CPR on the then unresponsive Floyd. The bystander video released to the press, taking the whole sequence of events out of context, sure likes like Officer Chauvin choked Mr. Floyd to death out of spite for his resisting arrest. The body-cam footage giving more context, where the officers were bargaining with Mr. Floyd to enter the squad car, offering to roll the window down to alleviate his claustrophobia, turn the air conditioning on to make him more comfortable belies the claim that the officers were sadists. It also reveals that the officers observed Mr. Floyd to be foaming at the mouth very early on, leading them to question him if he was on drugs and leading them to call for the paramedics early on.

    “Excited delirium” may be one of those things police diagnose freely, just like “he had superhuman strength — he must have taken PCP” back in the 1970’s. Mr. Floyd may have survived this incident if the police had better medical training. But to me, the claim that the officers expressing “systemic racism”, with the one officer especially being a sadist who wanted to punish Mr. Floyd for his lack of cooperation, something many, many people, even Conservatives believe, is just that. It appears to me that the officers were acting in good faith taking actions that they believed, based on their training, were to help Mr. Floyd.

    Have I drunk on the alt-Right Kool Aid to believe this, or do you think there is some basis of what I have stated here?

    • jim says:

      Yes, of course the Republican position concedes far too much to the cop killers, but that is politics – you are always trying to build the largest possible coalition.

      The Republicans are saying that stuff not because they believe it, not because anyone believes it, but because they want to prevent white folk from being guilted into voting Democrat, and hope to win black votes among that minority of blacks that own property which is likely to be burned to the ground under the Democrats.

    • Mumble says:

      Ideally all repeat offenders would be euthanized so that such career criminals would not need to be arrested again in the first place.

  23. Sic Semper Tyrannis says:


  24. Sic Semper Tyrannis says:


  25. Sic Semper Tyrannis says:


  26. Sic Semper Tyrannis says:

    “Climate change is a much-overhyped problem. It’s probably not happening. If it is happening, it’s not worth worrying about. If it’s worth worrying about, it’s certainly not worth paying trillions of dollars to amend. … Regulations to protect the environment unnecessarily impede economic growth”

    Why do you hate capitalism?

    • jim says:

      All your comments are one comment – redefining capitalism into the Dems international Fabian socialism, and anarcho capitalism into rule by antifa. I randomly allowed this one through to show my readers why I censored all the others.

      • Sic Semper Tyrannis says:

        *Unresponsive, and incorrect use of our shibboleths*

        • Sic Semper Tyrannis says:

          Whatever you do, don’t mention UN, BIS, World Bank, or IMF. I am the only trve capitalist, oy vey.

          • jim says:

            I mention the UN, the World Bank, and the IMF all the time – because they are the enemies of capital and capitalism, and have laundered gigantic amounts of taxpayer money, my money, to George Soros.

            And now, back to censoring everything you say, until you name the Jew.

            Tell us what George Soros has been spending my money on, and I will let it through.

        • jim says:

          If you want to argue for the Democrats international Fabian socialism, I will allow you to argue for it, but you have to acknowledge that when we and all Trump supporters look at the wolf in sheep’s clothing, we do not see the fellow sheep (capitalism) but the wolf (socialism), a wolf that has murdered well over a hundred million of us.

          Your argument is unresponsive because it fails to acknowledge our position, and the position of half of America’s voters, fails to acknowledge what you are arguing against.

          You have to acknowledge what you are arguing against, when you argue against our position. I will not allow arguments that simply presuppose that the claim you are making is simply obvious, uncontroversial and universally accepted.

          The 2016 election was in substantial part over whether the Democrat’s international sheep is actually a wolf dressed in a stolen sheepskin.

  27. Sic Semper Tyrannis says:


  28. Pooch says:

    Well the left and the cucks are flipping out over Trump’s “We’ll see” comments about the transfer of power. Maybe Civil war is back on for 2020.

  29. Anonymous Fake says:

    [*deleted for posing as social conservative*]

    • jim says:

      If you are actually a social conservative, tell us about child protective services, drag queen story hour, lawyerettes making house calls, and eight year old girls attending an Ariana Grande concert unaccompanied, and then you can debate the sexual activities of the rich.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        [*deleted for posing as a right winger and social conservative*]

        • jim says:

          As I said, not allowing you to post as a right winger and social conservative, until you tell us tell us about child protective services, drag queen story hour, lawyerettes making house calls, and eight year old girls attending an Ariana Grande concert unaccompanied, and then you can debate the sexual activities of the rich.

          Drag queen story hour operates in government facilities on my tax dollar. Tell us about that.

          • Sic Semper Tyrannis says:

            [*deleted for pretending to be a social conservative while unable to notice Drag Queen Story Hour or Child Protective Services*]

            • Sic Semper Tyrannis says:

              [*deleted for purporting to be socially conservative while unable to tell us who is funding and organizing drag queen story hour, and unable to mention child protective services*]

              • jim says:

                And purporting to be anti semitic while still unable to name the Jew who is burning down our cities and murdering our people.

                • Sic Semper Tyrannis says:

                  [*deleted for still not telling us what Soros has been up to lately, nor how he got his money.*]

                • jim says:

                  If it is the Rothschilds, rather than Soros, which Rothschild? And what exactly did this Rothschild do lately?

                  The Rothschilds have been powerless and afraid since Churchill double crossed them over the Balfour declaration. And rapid loss of wealth followed loss of power. They have been powerless since Churchill, and their wealth today is insignificant compared with current billionaires. Where are the Rothschilds today on the Fortune 500 list?

                  These guys rule the world?

                  If they rule the world, how come they cannot stop Soros shills from blaming them for everything from the rising oceans to street crime? If they ruled the world, how come they could not stop Churchill from shafting them?

                • The Cominator says:

                  To be fair the Rothschilds may have more hidden wealth and power then is seen they were corresponding with Hillary. Otoh they were not truly that powerful even in the 19th century being middlemen for even more powerful people…

                • jim says:

                  They corresponded with Hillary?

                  I don’t recall that. Of course I was not particularly looking for that. Can you give me a link.

                • Sic Semper Tyrannis says:

                  [*deleted for being unable to speak of the deeds of Soros*]

                • Sic Semper Tyrannis says:

                  [*deleted for ranting about “Rothschilds” while unable to name any particular Rothschild who owns anything in particular nor identify any specific thing that any Rothschild has done since before World War II*]
                  [*And for being unable to speak of the deeds or funding of Soros*]

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  @The Cominator

                  That only tells me that Lynn Forester de Rothschild is a sycophant begging for attention from an actual overlord. For me that’s hardly any evidence of anything except what we widely known, Jews are not us and they’re more prone to defection, non-Orthodox Jews all converted to progressivism and in your flying records.

                • Sic Semper Tyrannis says:


                • jim says:

                  That is not where Soros got his money from – that is a whitewash

                  I will debate with you about the source of Soros money if you can tell us what he has been doing with that money lately

                • First prove that you are not a shill. Here is a photograph:


                  Tell me the name of the person on the left, the name of the person on the right, and the name of the painting in the background.

                • jim says:

                  That is an image of Jacob Rothschild with some random Jewish woman, probably one of his numerous girlfriends, and the painting of Satan summoning his legions. Might be evidence of something if you had evidence that the random Jewish woman thought herself a witch or claimed to be priestess of some postchristian faith, but there is precisely zero evidence of this, which makes her name irrelevant. Which means that the image is evidence of nothing more than that Jacob Rothschild has good taste in art.

                  Now. Your turn. Prove that you are not a shill by writing something that you could not write if you were writing from an office paid for by a George Soros organization, on a computer owned by George Soros, under a supervisor, most likely a Jewish supervisor, hired by George Soros, with your shilling work being potentially visible to the Human Resources department of your George Soros front organization should they care to look at it.

                  Let’s talk about buildings being burned down, people being murdered, and governments overthrown.

                  Or better, since you pretend to be a social conservative, lets talk about the woman question, which no Human Resources Department will ever tolerate, hence a reliable shill detector.

                  An actual social conservative, writing on his own computer, under a pseudonym, will spontaneously say no end of things that someone writing from an office with a Human Resources department potentially seeing what he writes, cannot say.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Indeed, this exchange shows Hillary politely blowing off the Rothschild, and the Rothschild begging for “minutes” of attention at some other date.

                • Oh, my God.

                  “That is an image of Jacob Rothschild with some random Jewish woman, probably one of his numerous girlfriends, and the painting of Satan summoning his legions. Might be evidence of something if you had evidence that the random Jewish woman thought herself a witch or claimed to be priestess of some postchristian faith, but there is precisely zero evidence of this, which makes her name irrelevant. Which means that the image is evidence of nothing more than that Jacob Rothschild has good taste in art.”

                  Now this is trolling, holy shit.

                  Holy fucking shit.

                  Perfect. Unparalleled. Unrivalable. Unreal.

                  Absolutely 10/10.


                • Sic Semper Tyrannis says:

                  Seriously, however. I will need a name. Full, first and last. And a link to her Wikipedia article, as you have made me ask again.

                • jim says:

                  Whoever she is, she is insignificant. You have to provide evidence that she is significant. I don’t believe she is.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  Lynn Forester de Rothschild is neither Jewish nor much of a Rothschild. It’s a childless third marriage both for her and her husband, who was in his 60’s when they met. Both have children by previous spouses. It’s a sunset marriage in which she gets to play socialite, he gets a wife 25 years his junior, and Mr Rothschild’s children get the family assets.

                  Mr Rothschild is, genetically, 1/4 Jewish and not by matrilineal descent; something like that is true for the entire family by now, they intermarried into the European aristocracy a few generations ago.

                  Niall Ferguson’s book on the family estimates their wealth. Most of it dissipated over generations as with most old fortunes.

                  In other, Ilhan Omar news, it just came out (Project Veritas, James O’Keefe, and her perennial nemesis David Steinberg) that her campaign is the poster child for illegal ballot harvesting, just in time to be a Trump card in the first debate with Biden.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  I think the woman on the left is Marina Abramovich, spirit cooker.

                • jim says:

                  OK, in that case, the image our Soros troll linked presents an arguable case that Jacob Rothschild is a demon worshipper.

                  But the question is, assuming he is a demon worshipper, does he rule the world, or is he just an insignificant spawn of a once wealthy and powerful family finding ways to kill time.

                  Supposing he actually is powerful, what has he done lately? We know what Soros has been doing lately.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Indeed, this exchange shows Hillary politely blowing off the Rothschild, and the Rothschild begging for “minutes” of attention at some other date.

                  It’s the standard Marxist anti-logic: “Billionaires must rule because we see billionaires abasing themselves and pissing away their fortunes for a few seconds of recognition by the political or academic elite.” And point to some pity photo taken with Hillary or one of her goons – see, that totally proves it!

                  Just replace “billionaires” with “Rothschilds”, the argument is identical in form.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  Speaking of George, has Trump named the Soros? I haven’t seen it in the news, but Trump has been saying lots of based things at his rallies that the news has been avoiding. It seems they prefer not to give him airtime for messages that would help his re-election, even if it means missing some opportunities to brand him a conspiracy theorist.

                  Tucker Carlson has named the Soros, Trump watches Carlson religiously, and Carlson speaks directly with Trump. If Trump were to blame Antifa on Soros at the debate that would be tremendous. It would get him votes in his usual style of provoking a controversy with horrid completely correct statements, but he may be weighing whether his current philo-Semitism power level is strong enough to pre-empt the noise that will ensue about anti-Semitism.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  The decadent elites have long had, to some degree, a taste for art with satanistic imagery. What’s surprising is that this should surprise anyone. Contempt for your inferiors includes graphically mocking their most cherished values.

                  Where the elite is of the left there is an additional element.
                  Anywhere and everywhere, the left first uses traditional imagery to attain power, then promotes tradition-destroying memes and imagery once it is firmly enough in control that resistance is futile and traditionalist sentiments can’t be used against it. This cycle is repeated endlessly at every scale, most recently with World War T and drag queen story hour.

                • Deleted for continued inability to pass the shill test.

                • jim says:

                  You are unable to tell us how Soros got his wealth, and unable to tell us what Soros is up to lately.

                  You pose as a social conservative, but are unable to acknowledge, or even mention, any of the social justice attacks on fatherhood or family. Tell us about who is funding Drag Queen Story hour, starting from the buildings they work in.

                  You are unable to say anything that could not be said by a shill working in a shill office with a supervisor and a Human Resources department.

                  And, not only that, you cannot say what the shills answerable to Soros cannot say, but which FBI shills can say.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  > who is funding Drag Queen Story hour

                  Is there any branch or twiglet of Poz *not* funding and promoting such things? Once gay normalization, then marriage were a done deal the goalposts immediately shifted to BDSM, trannies and prepubescent whoring on all frequencies. When the psychological warfare has been prominent in all media and educational organs for years what does it even mean to ask who is funding it? There are some drag queen story readers and critical race theory instructors who *take* the funding, and people whose job it is to intimidate all public and responsible persons into giving the money, but the funding itself is practically growing on trees as a result of said terrorism.

                • Not Tom says:

                  When the psychological warfare has been prominent in all media and educational organs for years what does it even mean to ask who is funding it?

                  Easy enough to name some representative samples. George Soros. Michael Cornfield. David Brock. Joan Blades. Eric Schmidt. Susan Rosenberg. John Podesta. Barack Obama. Take your pick, they’re all good choices and would (I assume) all pass the shill test.

                  Hell, you could just mosey on over to, click on random links and copy and paste names you’ve never heard of. Of course, an unrepentant shill like this one isn’t allowed to acknowledge that a website like that even exists.

                • Sic Semper Tyrannis says:

                  [*deleted for inability to pass the Soros shill test or the woman question shill test*]

                • jim says:

                  Say something a social conservative would say if posting under a pseudonym without his Human Resources Department looking over his shoulder.

                  Say something a Soros shill could not say if his supervisor was looking over his shoulder. What has Soros been doing lately?

                • Sic Semper Tyrannis says:

                  [*deleted for inability to pass the shill test, in particular the Soros shill test.*]

                • jim says:

                  Since you have a bee in your bonnet about this obscure and unimportant priestess of Satanism, perhaps you could tell us about the well documented Clinton participation in her religious activities, and similar religious activities, which would seem rather more interesting and important than one of the numerous and ever less wealthy Rothschild’s getting close to her.

                • jim says:

                  Deleted because still unable to pass the shill test or the Soros shill test.

  30. Strannik says:

    I believe that the ”Cathedral” is in terminal decline. They will not and cannot turn back to Christendom, to Civilization, so no longer going Left, they will convert to the other ”Right” but contra Christendom; Islam. If I’m correct, the Cathedral’s moves as we get closer to and beyond the Presidential Election, will be coordinated with Islamist governments such as Iran’s, coordinated in their timing with what I suspect will be a regional war and Iran’s acquisition of native nuclear weapons.

    The other unsaid part of the GOP election platform in my opinion is dealing with this conversion, the literal but inevitable treason of some of our Western elites for the cause of Islam.

    • Mike in Boston says:

      Interesting proposition. A microcosm of the Cathedral getting friendly with Islam is Hillary’s choosing the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Huma Abedin as her right-hand girl, plus of course all the Cathedral support for color revolutions by Islamists.

      Why would you imagine them backing Shiite Iran, which seems geopolitically allied with the Cathedral’s arch-enemy Russia and secondary enemy Syria? Easier to make common cause with Sunnis, who are richer, don’t play ball with Russia as much, and (more subtly) seem to be to share more of the Cathedral’s antinomianism than do the Shiites.

      • Strannik says:

        Thanks. I don’t believe that Iran is permanently allied to Russia, I just think they have a couple of common interests at the moment geopolitically and this will change.

        Twelver Shia Islam has a history of rebellion against ”injustice” and uniting all the oppressed more than Sunni Islam, and the Shiite political and spiritual thinker Ali Shariati is well read in Western leftist circles. Iran has been a successful anti-western revolution so far and still resists the West, and this has a certain effect on Western leftists too. Marxism and even Identity politics is dead, so the only way to go is to a Right/Reaction that still wants to pull everything down in the European world and has a Messianic fervor to go with it; Twelver Shia Islam.

        And Islam will allow the former Left many of their vices within certain limits, as history attests.

        • Gedeon says:

          Iran has been a Five Eyes cutout state since the coup under Carter. The USSR story was hanging on a thread. Unlike the USSR bogeyman, the Iran bogeyman is self-financing because of their massive proven reserves of oil an natural gas. If you look at the moves made by the Soros/State (Five Eyes asset) administration against the crude oil paradigm (VW hoax by Mueller) as well as nuclear power plants (Fukushima and Germany) and then Warren Buffett’s move into trains and natural gas, the coup in Ukraine and attempted coup in Syria make much more sense.

          If Iran had more than a traditional humint intelligence capability and any actual military power projection they would’ve utilized it after General Soleimani was gifted a hellfire missile. The problem with Iran now is that it is a Chinese dog, but all but toothless without General Soleimani who represented a major single point of failure. The IRGC can bark and harass its neighbors with boots and small arms.

          If you go back in history to the gun powder empire, the Persians considered the Russians to be subhumans and their relationship consisted of smuggling silk around Bursa into the European market. When the British developed their naval fleet to float around Bursa, the Ottoman Empire decayed and collapsed without the tax receipts.

          If you want to read the formal think tank strategy behind the neocaliphate cum Muslim brotherhood and ISIS read Barnett’s “The Pentagon’s New Map” as it lays out what the 0 admin was doing.

          • Strannik says:

            Sorry, not buying what you’re selling. Iran=/=Islam, not exactly. With demographics alone Islam is a threat, and you combine that with the complete implosion of the Left into nullity, self hating anti-western fanatics are bound to flock to militant Islam even if it would be considered ”reactionary” today. Leftists are authoritarian dreamers, and there is an anti-western dream right there; against Christendom and Civilization itself.

            • ten says:

              This is a debate i have at least monthly with my father. He agrees with you.

              There is a zero conversion rate from elites to islam, and all converts are loonies and/or losers.

              Would we not see the inverse if your future map is true?

              Muslims are losers on the dole, criminals, and small time business long hour workers. The criminality and violence is attractive, the other things not, and their family foundation success is sparse. There are some muslims who get set up with a good wife and raise families, most are embittered lonely losers constantly scolded by their mothers for failing to find wives.

              When leftism fails, leftists must dwindle and die or change sides. I see plenty of #walkaway, where leftists move one step to the right, liberals move one step to the right, centrists move one step to the right, i see no steps towards islam, only appeasement of their violence, which is not the same. I see muslims take steps both towards the european left and right.

              Do you see something else, or do you expect some threshold effect causing sudden and radical step changing when leftist cohesion fails?

              I think you’re right about the activistic core, but they are few and should die anyway.

              • Strannik says:

                Dear Ten,

                I guess you could call it the ”threshold effect”, what I’m seeing the precursors of in the Western world. In the Middle East, you had prior to the Islamic invasions lands ravaged by the 25 year final Roman-Persian war, and ravaged also by heresy, which alienated the populations from the Imperium and the Orthodox faith and which was supplemented by heretical elites who actively sought to surrender their territories over to the Muslim enemy after at best pro forma battles. Like this guy;


                And after the Muslims triumphed, the bulk of the population including the local elites went over to the Muslims and converted, past a certain threshold point just as you intimated, leaving small minorities of Heretical as well as Orthodox Christians to live in Dhimmi status with their Muslim occupiers.

                But it all starts with certain factors that work together to produce these effects; prior to conquest, a heretical elite of Priests alienated from the Imperium by failure to impose said heresy upon the Imperium outside of a province or two. A half-hearted at best resistance to and even treason with the invading Muslims, and after conquest, conversion past a certain threshold point. In Egypt for example this conversion of a majority was done almost immediately after conquest in Lower Egypt/Alexandra where the local elites mainly were, more rural Upper Egypt didn’t hit that point until the 9th century.

                • Dave says:


                  Cyrus says, let’s have a long, tedious debate about the true nature of Christ while barbarian goat-fuckers invade and pillage my country.

                • ten says:

                  No, i am not ready to hear that. That’s the way it went down when the muslim invasion was an actual invasion, when they were the strong horse by victory, albeit victory aided by treason and temporal weakness of byzantium.

                  There is no islamic army, and if they arrange their rag taggle band of clans into a gang army within our borders, they lack artillery (etc), so they can’t take that route. They must remain feuding clans, in the dirtiest, most dysfunctional reaches of society.

                  Once the floor slips from under their feet, when the welfare construct that holds them up goes away, those reaches will be in utter squalor. They have nothing but organization for small scale violence.

                  Your american muslims are of a partly different breed, not as pathetic. They didn’t choose your country because they were told they would get a free house and a blonde silicone valkyrie who is very curious about manly men and will convert to your superior religion, while you get a salary just for existing. They didn’t come to a country where if they ever manage to strike up a single conversation with a single swede, that swede will mysteriously not recognize them the next time they meet, while the only people that acknowledge you even exist in your empty hotel room have dreadlocks and smell of patchouli.

                  They are strong enough to drive us out of their ghetto suburbs, in fact they do not need to do anything strong, people leave even if they are peaceful, and are left alone to fester. It is not a conquering army to which one might defect, it is a social depression that everyone pretends doesn’t even exist, only capable of existing because the socialists pay for the existence.

                  Whatever violence they may be able to organize, which can not exceed bands armed with AKs, grenades and perhaps a few RPGs, will never be enough to turn into a conquering army, and noone will defect to their side.

                  Perhaps i am too optimistic, but i live in one of the most violent and mudslime infested areas, and its just a cesspool waiting to be cured by fire, or by just no longer propping it up. The weakest horse around, by far, in my estimation.

                • jim says:

                  > Whatever violence they may be able to organize, which can not exceed bands armed with AKs, grenades and perhaps a few RPGs, will never be enough to turn into a conquering army, and noone will defect to their side.

                  Britain has been repeatedly defeated by ragtag militias of goat herders. The British army has a hundred generals, but can only put a hundred boots on the ground. The French are losing France. If they could not hold Basra, could they hold Britain?

                  Our priesthood has been undermining the warrior class since 1860. If Hillary had won the election it would have been full speed ahead with concocted war crimes charges that would have gutted our military.

                  No nation with a gay parade has won a war.

                • ten says:

                  The swedish pozfest micromilitary is monitoring our muslim problem and runs simulations of the day they try to revolt in conjunction with leftists (which apparently the social democrats are fine with, they accept this is the military intelligence and that the military expects to be deployed against islam in sweden in the near future) and the military judgement of the threat is “easy peasy”. I, and the small contacts in the military that i know, share this judgement, and long for the day.

                  I have difficulty believing sweden would be in a better spot than the rest of europe, but am ill informed.

                • Karl says:

                  ten, so the Swedish military is confident in its ability to crush a muslim revolt. How do they keep the Swedish military Swedish?

                  Isn’t the government keen on giving minorities a job?

                  Once there are enough muslims in the militray, it won’t matter what equipment they are lacking. It is all in the military for taking. Trannies and women won’t stop muslim members of the Swedish forces from taking and using equipment of of the Swedish army.

                • ten says:

                  There are a number of them, but it’s not very easy to get accepted into the military units. It’s even hard to get accepted into the “mandatory” draft. I was rejected, even though i had excellent scores and was recommended for a position as counter-terrorism officer.

                  The muslims do not have excellent scores, and are drafted in supplies and logistics or maybe as armour crews – but only if they really want to, which they don’t unless they are baathists.

                  Some fags and progs, but not enough to stop them from actively plotting war against islam. Fags and progs join the army as an accessory branding item, i don’t think they matter a lot as long as the tip of the spear isn’t infected.

                  My friends say the hard hitting combat battalions are more or less nazis, and those friends are more or less nazis. But they know to be silent and accept without making noise.

                  I think the muslims and progs in the army will have very little success in stealing tanks or artillery, and since i know the military is planning for the conflict, i think it will be a very easy conflict. Hopefully delayed so long that they need to drop the hammer hard as hell.

                • Gedeon says:

                  One important piece of history that is not talked about because of the BRI (China) is that the Ottoman Empire only had its moment because of geography and the Silk Road. As soon as Europeans began sailing to their trading eager trading partners, which included China, Persia and India, the Ottoman Empire rotted and collapsed.

                  If you look at the countless stories of protracted boondoggle wars in the sand the enduring feature is that the Muslim culture does not organize cohesively. Muslim culture is chaos and if all your people aspire to is fighting wars of attrition through the promotion of chaos, they can achieve that. The British are legendary organizers and you can see it in their gardens and how those evolved in India.

                  What’s been done to Europe is a nasty form of international lawfare. The cathedral foments a war to generate refugees. As we saw with the Southern border dispute, the cathedral tried to foment war in Venezuela to force the Trump administration to accept aliens under the treaty definition of refugees. Europe has been loaded with refugees just like Minneapolis was with Somali and Hmong refugees.

                  The Hmong assimilated much better as they truly could not go back to China. The Muslim story is not about elite, it is about sowing chaos to destabilize organized, coherent and peaceful society. Once you get destabilization, people who expect stabilization, like Europeans, respond to restore stability in the first way they are conditioned to respond and that is the ballot box.

                  This is why we had the war against performance ENHANCING drugs (hormones) and masculinity writ large. 20-30 years ago it was still acceptable to give someone an ass-beating when they stepped out of line. Even the police would give someone a good beating as a lesson and let them go without the arrest and court system overhead. That is community policing, but the cops give benevolent beatings and protect the community enforcers in that paradigm.

                  The British SAS and SBS are extremely capable war fighters and you can see what the single SAS guy did in Africa.


                  The British politicians sold the British people a thick shit sammy with their EU relationship. They thought they were safe keeping the Sterling Pound until they saw all of the refugees being forced into their cities.

                  The wars offer the left a variety of opportunities, but the refugee treaty pumping is probably the most nefarious and least talked about.

                • Starman says:


                  I asked you directly on space when you claimed that you can answer anything on space.

                  You refused to answer.

                  I suspected that you were a fed shill, so I asked you a RedPill on women question.

                  You refused to answer.

                  If the RedPill question is too much thoughtcrime for you and your supervisor, why can’t you answer my space questions? They require no thoughtcrime to answer.

                  Not only are you a malicious shill, you’re a phony who knows nothing, not even the basics of spaceflight, yet you claimed to do so. I suspect your other claims are fake as well.

                • Gedeon says:


                  Again, I did not observe your demand and am responding now.

                  Women should be denied suffrage and be the best baby factories they were designed to be.

                  Females are incapable of being physically dominant versus males and have adapted psychological warfare to counter-balance male physical dominance. This is the root of the emotional instability and is analogous to islam does not dominate and build, it sows chaos and destroys.

                • jim says:

                  I mistook you for a shill.

                  Clearly you are not a shill, but debate with you is unlikely to be informative.

              • jim says:

                > There is a zero conversion rate from elites to islam, and all converts are loonies and/or losers.

                The elite feels that it is in power, and that Muslims are clients.

                That is about to change.

                • Strannik says:

                  That’s what I’ve been saying for a long time Jim, but seems few here are prepared to hear it. Those elites not getting on the Trumpian bandwagon in the future, and their acolytes are going Muslim.

                • Not Tom says:

                  …and their acolytes are going Muslim

                  No, they’re not. Post your evidence. Put up or shut up.

                  it’s one thing to say there might be Islamic conquest, with a society too weak or too pozzed to do anything about it, as in Sweden. That’s a debatable position for the US but at least it’s based on precedent and observable facts.

                  But this, you just pulled right out of your ass, and when people demand evidence, you either ignore it or go off on tangents. No one is “going Muslim”.

                • jim says:

                  Indeed, the reverse is happening. Muslims are going progressive – albeit a lot of them are crypto old type Muslims who keep showing their old colors

                  Under Obama there was a government funded missionary program to convert Muslims to progressivism, which Trump canned almost immediately – which canning may have something to do with his success in the Middle East.

                  Though he probably canned it for reasons other that avoiding pissing of Muslims. The missionaries spent more money and time converting Christians to progressivism, and arguably promoted the ethnic cleansing of Christians. Also, most of the money was being embezzled to fund Democrat political campaigns and personally enrich the missionaries.

                • jim says:

                  Muslims are concentrated in particular locations.

              • Gedeon says:

                Islam has never been about being elite. The elite class within Islam has always turned over because it is a murder cult. Islam can be summed up as kill the infidel. Infidel is any “other”.

                The elites within Islam are almost always protected by outsiders – including Saudi Arabia and UAE.

                Mamluk, Devshirme, Ghilman, “slave soldier”, etc.; it is a constant that they can’t even trust one another much less anyone else. Unstable elite = controllable social operating system.

                What Islam offers to the elites is a peasant management narrative that promotes piety = poverty and that is the purity spiral that NR nails.

                Putin is actively promoting the Russian Orthodox strain of Catholicism, but it hasn’t always been like this. The Mughals and Persians regarded the Russians as sub-humans because the practice of religion was not wide-spread while they were on top. Specifically Mughal miniatures, you can actually see their artists embracing Christian iconography like the halos around heads. Christianity is derivative of Judaism and Islam is derivative of both, so while there has been conflict forever throughout the Middle East that was demarcated by religious identities, it was a Silk Road money contest. One of the major frauds perpetuated by modern social elites has been that religion is the source of wars.

                The thing is, the history of war is extremely well documented because the winner necessarily must promulgate their dominance. The dominance narrative is codified through the artwork which includes the architecture, coinage, sculpture, literature, music, etc.

                Artwork = cultural substrate


                Religion has only caused about 7% of all wars throughout history. It is imperative to understand that the left will appropriate anything that offers it utility and that includes religion. Islam already has over 1 billion practitioners with vulnerable leadership, so why wouldn’t the left attempt to co-opt the whole shebang?

                The BRI is a rehashing of a war the Europeans won via the sea. This is why the US Navy has been the focus of subversion while China has heavily invested in their fleet for a form of distributed offense/defense of inferior boats because their technology cannot match American or British engineering.

                Lastly, I am not selling anything. I did not write nor publish the Pentagon’s New Map and I did not engineer a fraudulent narrative to invade Iraq and all of the ensuing coups and regime changes or ISIS. All of that happened because some people got together and dedicated substantial resources to planning, executing and supporting it.

                There is a reason Trump came out gunning against Islam generically and has prevailed so quickly and with such ease. It was a narrative perpetuated by our very own State Department among other sovereign counterparts.

                The caliph has no clothes.

                • Strannik says:

                  There’s no such animal as ”the Russian Orthodox strain of Catholicism”. What Orthodoxy is, is the real ”Catholic Church”, and we have what could be called, the ”Russian Orthodox Christ”. The Papists, the Latins? What they are is the root of progressivist heresy, their innovations have corrupted the Earth.

                • Dave says:

                  > Religion has only caused about 7% of all wars throughout history.

                  Progressives get cause and effect backwards. War causes religion by bestowing victory on the side with more cohesion and bravery, qualitites that religion is very good at fostering. Religious men are not more likely to start wars but are more likely to win them.

                • Gedeon says:

                  [*deleted for theological bullshit and political correctness.*]

                • jim says:

                  The Roman Catholic priesthood is full of faggots, the Pope worships naked pagan idols, and you are worried about infant baptism.

                • Gedeon says:

                  [*deleting for pontificating about the Christian faith, of which you know as much as you know about rocket engines*]

                • jim says:

                  I would love to debate infant baptism with someone who showed some slight awareness of the Christian debate on this topic.

    • The Cominator says:

      Islam is a theistic religion even if Allah can clearly be equated to satan the cathedral’s religion (while it may also be satanic at heart) is atheistic… most people in the cathedral dont know about the satanism of the Podesta’s and all and are not going to easily do a 180 towards a theistic religion.

      • Strannik says:

        Hello The Cominator,

        As they say; ”there are no atheists in foxholes”, I go further and say that there are no real Atheists, anyway. These people see (and even help implement) the waves of immigration and see the demographic situation, and know that Islam is (barring a miracle) going to be the primary religion of the future in 100 years. So they go towards the strong horse. And as you say, these people are led sometimes by actual Satanists…But they are led indeed. Right about ”Allah”.

        • evilrightwingbot says:

          I live in the US, and where I live has plenty of diversity, but I don’t see many Muslims. Idk how people think Islam is going to prevail here. Now if you live in France or Britain maybe…

      • Gedeon says:

        I have one minor or perhaps large quibble on this point. I would go so far as to say “The Cathedral” is not atheistic as much as anti-GOD. I believe they do recognize GOD and wage war against GOD. There is a difference and I believe in the left’s quest for power they have appropriated atheism as much as Wicca, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam and mainstream denominations of Christianity.

        All organizations can be co-opted because they are uniformly composed of fallible people of which I too self-identify as fallible. At the same time, I do not aspire to absolute purification in this body. The vulnerability of the church is the leadership tendency toward purity spirals, but that doesn’t mean we should toss the church or the Bible out. Moses, Noah, Solomon, David, Paul, etc. were all prolific sinners whom GOD showed his favor upon, but took them all the same.

        Islam is a deconstruction (Derrida) and destructive vehicle whereas Judaism and Christianity are constructive. Latin languages are systems of constructing thoughts to efficiently communicate with others as opposed to logograms like Chinese and Japanese. We have syntax.

        Arabic also has syntax and despite being the second largest language in the world, it (sharia) doesn’t have the legal lexicon much less vocabulary to deal with abstract legal concepts much less support dispute resolution through centuries of legal precedent like we have with Latin and our deep legal history.

        Unlike Chinese which are adapting pinyin, the push for Islam is as much about the Arabic language and imposing Sharia law. This is one reason why I prefer to call the core globalists “esperantists” because they not only grasped the significance of language, they also actively developed an efficient language that would be meta-culture to establish a neoculture.

        If I breach shibboleths, it is not malicious; it is a consequence of my own education being independent of the NR ecosystem.

        • Starman says:


          ” If I breach shibboleths, it is not malicious; it is a consequence of my own education being independent of the NR ecosystem.”

          You refused to answer my basic questions on spaceflight after you claimed you can answer anything on space:

          “What are the differences between SLS and SpaceX Starship?”
          “Do spaceplane boosters work, yes or no? And explain why?”

          Those questions weren’t shibboleths, they require no thoughtcrime to answer.

          • Gedeon says:

            I apologize for missing your demand, but a refusal is different from no response which could be and is, in this case. For other reasons.

            SLS is a solid fuel propellant booster, but inferior to the existing Russian offerings, Spacex uses a cluster of 1970s cheap liquid fuel boosters.

            The question do space plane boosters work seems very obtuse to me. Yes, boosters force air out the skirt at high pressure which can accelerate a mass if the numbers add up.

            The person who saved the Orion project is named Linda Karanian. Musk was an O bundler and Lockheed threw him an olive branch or there would be no Space X today. Blue Origin has the better booster which still isn’t as good as the Russian offerings.

            Rather than more shit tests, is there something you would like to learn about space flight that you do not already know or puzzles you? To be certain, I am not the space expert but I know more than average by association and casual conversation. I am going to try not to dox my association, but Jim could probably verify I am sincere in my statements. Jim knows who I am and has some google-foo and I would hope would preserve that privacy in good faith so we can correspond more freely.

            I like to learn as well and happened upon Jim’s post on status and violence in the comments somewhere and here I am. Far worse than the arrogant successful people are the arrogantly poor people. That post resonated with me and provided me with a more coherent description I had not thought to put my finger on. I am not a titles, trophies and ribbons guy, so I was admittedly blind to the discrete status incentive that is so powerful and prolific.

            • jim says:

              I am allowing this through because you were asked to respond.

              You have responded, and revealed yourself to be an ignorant idiot talking about stuff of which you know nothing.

              Future comments full of ignorant stupid bullshit will be deleted.

              • Gedeon says:

                [*deleted for ignorance about rockets and rocket development*]

                • jim says:

                  This discussion seems unlikely to go anywhere informative.

                • jim says:

                  If your rockets are not blowing up, you are not actually developing advances in rocketry. Musk is building lots of rockets, because he expects them to explode.

              • Gedeon says:

                [*deleted for not knowing anything about rocket engines.*]

                • jim says:

                  Your ignorance of rocket engines is so profound that you would be unable to understand the lengthy explanation that Starman would undoubtedly give you.

              • The Cominator says:

                Jim’s saying you are not a shill but someone who likes to make himself sound smarter than he is by faking knowledge of technical fields.

                There are people here who actually know about technical fields so don’t try to bullshit knowing about stuff you don’t.

                I don’t know much beyond the very basics of aerospace engineering and rocketry and thats okay, I don’t pretend to know more than that.

                • jim says:

                  Musk’s engines are full flow, which is a major improvement in the state of the art for rocket engines.

                  Part of that improvement is extraordinarily high pressure in the turbine that powers the fuel pump, which reduces the difference between an engine optimized for sea level, and an engine optimized for vacuum.

                  Of course a full flow engine is inherently more complex and expensive, making it important to recover the boosters

            • Starman says:


              “Spacex uses a cluster of 1970s cheap liquid fuel boosters.”

              I didn’t know that people landed 14-story tall boosters on barges and Cape Canaveral landing pads in the 1970’s like God and Heinlein intended (sarcasm)!
              No 1970’s rocket resembled the Falcon9 and Falcon Heavy, other than both are rockets. Let alone the SpaceX Starship (both stages fully reusable, and when I mean by “fully reusable,” I mean reusable like your car or boat. You don’t throw your car tires away after every drive do you?). No 1970’s rocket was fully reusable.

              1970’s expendable rocket.

              SpaceX reusable Falcon 9 first stage.

              “Musk was an O bundler and Lockheed threw him an olive branch or there would be no Space X today. Blue Origin has the better booster which still isn’t as good as the Russian offerings.”

              Are you implying that SpaceX’s reusable Falcon9 first stages and reusable Falcon Heavy cores are “inferior” to Russian expendable rocket offerings? Seriously?

              2020 successful launches to date:
              USA:24 (15 SpaceX with #16 coming soon, only 2 SpaceX launches used brand new first stage boosters)

            • Not Tom says:

              Rather than more shit tests

              I think you’ve misunderstood the concept of a shit test. Shill test is not shit test, not even the same category. Shit tests are passed by holding frame, whereas holding frame on a shill test will likely get you put on permanent moderation here.

              Far worse than the arrogant successful people are the arrogantly poor people.

              Oh? Certainly, the “secret kings”, as Vox calls them, are some of the most annoying individuals you might ever have the misfortune of meeting. Yet in terms of which group is objectively worse, who is actually capable of doing more damage to the fabric of society: a few deluded nerds living in shitty 1-bedroom apartments, or wealthy and popular elite who use their platforms to virtue signal and replenish the seemingly bottomless coffers of the Cathedral?

              Let’s drive the message further home. Who is a bigger problem: mentally deficient Antifa brick-chuckers, or the people who fund and organize them?

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              The point of a spacecraft is to travel through space. The manner in which a spacecraft should interact with atmosphere could generally be described as, ‘as little as possible’. Any mass given over to the formation of aerodynamic surfaces, then, is essentially dross that weakens it’s capability in it’s primary function.

              In this respect, a ‘spaceplane’ is more or less a contradiction in terms. An engine powerful enough to launch a craft past orbit, is also more than powerful enough for it to land the same way. VTOL simply makes plain sense.

              Of course it’s certainly also possible to have smaller craft carry more payload with less powerful fuel by having them carried part way into the upper atmosphere by other means that do interact with the air, such as balloons, dirigibles, or cargo planes; but these are not ‘spaceplanes’, the way the shuttle is a ‘spaceplane’; they too should be able to land under the power of their own engine.

              • Not Tom says:

                I know next to nothing of rocketry and propulsion, but it seems to me that the science fiction and gaming industries have understood this concept for decades. Spacecraft operate in space; in the future they will be built at dedicated space stations and will not be able to land on planets, and if one does accidentally land on a planet then it is probably not going to be in one piece and definitely not going to get back up into space again. Much smaller (or at least very different) vehicles will be used to shuttle people and cargo to and from space stations and spacecraft.

                We don’t try to build immersible aircraft or road-ready submarines, correctly understanding these to be separate responsibilities and separate design problems. What makes air and space so much more similar than land and sea, or air and land?

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  National Aeronautics Administration claimed jurisdiction over space for themselves, and chair-forcers have been masturbating over trying to make planes that go into space ever since.

                  The Army Rocket Corps, of course, held no such illusions.

                • jim says:

                  The army believed, rightly, that surface to surface rockets are artillery. But surface to space rockets are something else.

                  Hence the Space Force, which currently protects Musk from the tender ministrations of NASA’s range safety officers.

                  Space force range safety seems to be far tolerant of stuff blowing up, and seems a tad lethargic about ensuring that the engineers blowing stuff up have an adequate proportion of women and colored people.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Yes, the space force can’t be the army or the air force; it needs to be the Space Force.

                • Not Tom says:

                  NASA’s money (i.e. your money) hard at work:

                  Musk sends up a dozen rockets, while NASA literally frets over the comfort of women taking a piss, to the tune of $23 million.

                  If anyone’s still wondering why NASA hasn’t sent men to Mars, this should relieve them of all doubt.

    • Not Tom says:

      Nah. The left moves lefter, and Islamic conquest of the west is not imminent.

      • Strannik says:

        If they move any Lefter, their open official policy would be human self voluntary extinction to save the world from global warming. I’m not saying that Islam’s attempted conquest of the West is ”imminent”, far from it, but it is the goal.

        • Not Tom says:

          Really? You perceive absolutely nothing between the current overton window and the singularity? Then you have no imagination. Read the Babylon Bee for some help – they’ve transformed from satirists to clairvoyants.

          Sorry but you’re just way off. I don’t think you understand how progressives think, or in general how the US civic religion works.

          • Strannik says:

            Sorry, apparently my own version of satire fell flat with you. Since I am in fact I lifelong American born and bred, I think I do have a handle on the ”US Civic Religion” coming from the South and all, and doing a stint in progressive-land as well.

            These people are empty vessels. Ever read Eric Hoffer’s ”True Believer”? They’d make as good Jihadis as Antifa or BLM, maybe even better. And they will, I think, because most people of that type follow the strong horse.

            • The Cominator says:

              The zealous flaggelants of an athiestic religion like progressivism can not turn on a dime to a theistic religion the way that people could turn on a dime from Stalinist style communism to National Socialism (which are not all that different) and potentially back after 1945 in East Germany.

              If the SJWs were raised Islamic they could well be masculine crazed Al Qaeda fighters but its not going to be easy for an SJW even if they are tough enough to be a plausible jihadi to become a zealous Muslim. Fanatics don’t easily switch religions they die as martyrs refusing to convert.

              • Strannik says:

                But you’re not an ”empty vessel” like many moderns are. I personally knew of Iranian students who were die-hard Commies in Iran, in the Tudeh movement, and became super followers of the Ayatollah in about a year’s time.

                Atheistic Materialism does not satisfy, but an Allah who does appear to materially reward his followers here and in the hereafter even more so, is tempting to this sort. Allah is the kind of ”God” that Atheists and Materialists could accept-or at least pretend to-as Islam becomes stronger.

            • Not Tom says:

              These people are empty vessels.

              This is simply wrong. It’s a favored delusion among the moralfags that the left’s “godlessness” has left them somehow empty. This was true in the actual Enlightenment years when they were all busy killing God, but ceased to be true a long, long time ago, certainly by the early 20th century and maybe as early as the 19th.

              Progressivism isn’t an absence of religion, it’s its own religion with its own morals, dogmas, saints, sinners and status hierarchy, with clearly-understood definitions of true believers, uncertain believers, heretics and apostates. The whole thing may be evil and suicidal, but it is not immaterial; there have been many religions and sects like that, and many non-suicidal atheistic religions as well (look at Taoism).

              There’s no magic spiritual hole for Islam to fill. Progressives aren’t attracted to Islamic beliefs, only Muslims as another identity group to epcotize. The only way Islam seriously takes hold in the west is by conquest, and while a few European nations are teetering on the edge, the chances of that happening in the USA are basically nil. There are a dozen other groups that would get there first.

              • Strannik says:

                Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, or you me, or both, but what i’m saying based on personal experience is that leftists always go Islamic over time. Doesn’t mean they believe it, although I suspect that if they don’t they make up for it in formal zeal, but they do follow it as something both stronger than Leftism and if anything even more profoundly Anti-Western in essence.

                • Not Tom says:

                  based on personal experience is that leftists always go Islamic over time

                  Then your experience is bizarre and the leftists you’ve met do not resemble mainstream leftists anywhere.

                  Often they do embrace certain Mohammedan pet causes as they try to pal around with their new Muslim “friends”, but a minuscule minority of them are sincere enough to convert. It’s just not a thing. It doesn’t happen. Don’t tell us your subjective experience, show us these masses of leftists that turn to Islam aside from the occasional nutjob. Where are all of these converts?

                  You have a habit of hammering away at your pet theories nonstop despite having virtually no evidence and hardly anyone agreeing. Don’t just keep tediously explaining your theory in more and more minute detail – prove it!

  31. Latte says:

    How the hell has the EU policies that are in any way more ‚anti American‘ than Switzerland?

  32. Dathruk Davilan says:

    Most of the points seem to have come from here, albeit with the inevitably necessary alterations to turn Frum’s hostile characterizations of the platform into an actual reflection of the de facto platform. I’m curious why Jim didn’t include the point on abortion (which incidentally misstates the date of Roe v. Wade).

    • jim says:

      I don’t think the Republican party has, or is perceived as having, a policy on abortion.

      If Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett, that perception might change, but the reality is unlikely to change.

  33. info says:


    • jim says:

      Not interested in postchristian leftists debating other postchristian leftists on which version of their faith is the better postchristianity.

      They all need to be thrown to the lions.

      • info says:

        How is eastern orthodoxy post-Christian? Jay Dyer is Eastern Orthodox.

        • jim says:

          And the Pope worships naked pagan idols.

          Time to throw the apostates to the lions.

          • info says:

            I don’t the basis for your statement in regards to Jay Dyer.

            • jim says:

              I went to the link you gave me, heard him briefly, instant bad reaction. Postchristian, needed fisking, not going to waste my time fisking him.

              So I censored the link.

              If you were a commenter in good standing who recommended the link, I would have allowed the link and spent the time to fisk the “Christianity” that was being sold, but all your links are to evil people who are trying to sell evil things.

              • info says:

                Anon Conservative. 0 HP Lovecraft, Voxday.

                I got all those links from people who are connected to the Neoreaction sphere.

                As well as Far-Right Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestants.

                • jim says:

                  And yet, somehow, all your links are to bad people.

                • info says:

                  Well because many denizens of the reactionary sphere connects to them.

                  I simply followed the threads.

                  Maybe the Google algorithms have been misleading me. But outside of that I try the best I can to come across the truth.

              • info says:

                What was the problem with the Transcendental Argument for God?

                Which means that being the Logos of all Existence. Logic and coherence is possible because God is Logos in his Son.

                That without God. Such a thing cannot exist.

                That’s the crux of the whole video.

                • jim says:

                  The argument was fine – but it was carrying a payload of subtext.

                • Starman says:


                  Are you going to explain why Jay Dyer cannot do what a UFC host and a snooty atheist can do?

                • info says:

                  I don’t understand. Although the YouTube algorithm put Matt Dillahunty and the debate front and center in the search results.

                  So it’s expected the Fedoras have trouble grasping the argument.

                • jim says:

                  We grasp the philosophical argument just fine. Alf made it on his blog – and made it without conceding prog post-Christianity.

                  To live, one must make a leap of faith, he argues.

                  And one needs to leap to somewhere that has solid ground under one, Unitarians exist, but do not live.

                  Positing a God that is somewhere else, supports seeing the world, but fails to support acting in it as a man. Unitarians are unmanned. Trancendentalists are not allies, they are enemies, just as Muslims are enemies.

                • polifugue says:

                  The Transcendental Argument works against atheism because it questions the basis of post-Enlightenment empiricist epistemology.

                  Without directly referring to Dyer, I have referenced his argument here:

                  While it is understandable here one would find Dyer objectionable, his views on subjects related to philosophy should be detached from his views relating to the domain of this blog. Almost all modern Christians today are bluepilled on women, yet not all Christians are enemies.

                  His views on conspiracy, women, and “geo” politics is indicative of lower consciousness caste, rather than cloaked hostility. Dyer is the type of person who complains about “satanic elites” and “human trafficking;” in other words, not sophisticated enough for Moldbug yet good at heart.

                  Having followed Dyer for a year and a half, he has indicated familiarity with certain subjects of the dissident right, and has admitted to avoiding such topics in order to keep his platform on Youtube. Think of him like Vox Day, useful in certain areas and worthless in other areas, good with theology and philosophy while lacking in regard to politics and women. When we take power, he will change his views accordingly.

                • jim says:

                  > his views on subjects related to philosophy should be detached from his views relating to the domain of this blog.

                  His philosophical views that I saw in that link were fine and I endorse them.

                  But they were not detached from his views on other matters.

                  What happened in the link that I suppressed was that he was debating leftists, and quietly conceded to them prog post-Christianity.

                  Maybe he is at heart one of us, but in the video link, he conceded what matters. One can philosophically defend deism, (why is there something rather than nothing? Why are we aware of that something? How do we know that we know?) but it is impossible to philosophically defend the proposition that God is Three and God is One, that Christ is wholly God and wholly man. So Unitarianism is a better fit to the philosophical argument, and he slipped into Unitarianism. And, just as Islam is inherently hostile to peace, to human flourishing, to science, and to technology, Unitarianism is inherently progressive, inherently hostile to science and technology, and inherently hostile to fathers, fatherhood, family, and private property.

                  Vox Day frequently takes bad positions of which I disapprove. But his contributions to the struggle are impressive. I enthusiastically endorse his books on Social Justice Warriors. I endorse Vox Day, without endorsing everything he says. His fiction features blue pilled heroes with one-itis from afar, and kick ass warrior women. He is a weak reed on the women question and on game, which is related to his rejection of evolution, for Game requires Game Theory (men are polygamous, women hypergamous), which only makes sense in the light of Evolutionary Game Theory, without which it is difficult to resist blue pilled readings of Genesis.

                  That video did not incline me to endorse Dyer. Maybe you have seen better videos.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “good with theology and philosophy while lacking in regard to politics and women.”

                  You are saying he is a leftist theologian and is NOT an enemy.

                  Those statements contradict each other.

                • polifugue says:

                  Jay Dyer is an open monarchist, not a Leftist theologian, and creates much content dealing with Leftists in Orthodoxy.

                  Dyer did a stream on “Nihilism” by Seraphim Rose:


                  “In the Christian order politics too was founded upon absolute truth. We have already seen, in the preceding chapter, that the principal providential form government took in union with Christian Truth was the Orthodox Christian Empire, wherein sovereignty was vested in a Monarch, and authority proceeded from him downwards through a hierarchical social structure.”

                  I’m not saying that Dyer is a Leftist, just that he is bluepilled on women and lacks the sophistication of Moldbug.

                  He is not one of us, more a rightist akin to Vox Day, not a rightist like Jim. Trump does not quote Jim. Tucker Carlson does not talk about racial differences in intelligence. Hans Herman-Hoppe does not make open pronouncements on the woman question. Not everyone outside this blog is an enemy. Most are neutral, some have value in some areas, some do not have any value at all.

                • polifugue says:

                  > One can philosophically defend deism, (why is there something rather than nothing? Why are we aware of that something? How do we know that we know?) but it is impossible to philosophically defend the proposition that God is Three and God is One, that Christ is wholly God and wholly man. So Unitarianism is a better fit to the philosophical argument, and he slipped into Unitarianism.

                  Having listened to Jay Dyer’s debate with Matt Dillahunty, I did not find anything objectionable in his debate. Dyer is neither a Kantian nor a Unitarian, and has repeatedly repudiated both in numerous videos. As a disclaimer, I cannot concisely delineate every aspect of Orthodox dogmatic theology in one single post, so I will focus on the broader picture.

                  The idea that Jay Dyer is a Unitarian misconstrues the subtleties in his explanation of the Orthodox view of God and the Trinity. It is possible to defend the position that God is Three and God is One, that Christ is God and Man, if one understands the conception of the nature/person distinction. Nature refers to the essence of God, and Person refers to the subject being described. God has one nature (divine essence) and three distinct persons (Father/Son/Holy Spirit), while the eternal logos, Christ, is one person with two natures (human/divine nature). An imperfect comparison would be the difference between body/soul/intellect (nous), each a different subject (person), yet each united in a man’s human nature. The second person of the Godhead did not die on the cross, his human nature underwent death. Christ is not a human person, that is Nestorianism. Jay Dyer does NOT in any way, shape or form support Unitarianism, that God is one person, which is an egregious evil heresy.

                  Jay Dyer is neither a transcendentalist in the sense of Immanuel Kant either; he uses a transcendental argument, an argument that reduces his opponent to absurdity on the paradigmatic level. I do not think you or Alf understand Dyer’s argument, because if you did you would know that Dyer does not argue along the lines of “why there is something rather than nothing,” in fact he denounces this form of argumentation in that it leads to atheism. Jay Dyer denounces Thomism, adopted by the West originating from the Great Schism.

                  In every debate Jay Dyer has with atheists, the atheist fails to grasp that what Dyer is arguing about is not “why is there something rather than nothing” but “why can I reason at all.” “There is no God” is absurd not because we can or can’t reason towards God, but that the statement assumes that we can reason at all, that man can reason independently of God. It falsely assumes that reason, an immaterial abstract logoi, has existence in a world consisting of solely physical matter, that it can exist outside of a personal God, God in connection to Man on Earth. In apophatic theology, God is NOT reasoned to, God is the origin of reason. There is no “proof” of God in that we can “reason” to God, God is the origin of “reason” and is assumed into the argument. This is why it is called Presuppositionalism, and he goes into potential objections in his debates.

                  I think Dyer had a more constructive debate with Dr. Alex Malpass. What makes the argument hard is not that it is difficult, but that it requires one to question logic itself. I love it because once you get it you can’t leave; the Transcendental Argument for God is deliberately unfalsifiable, and perhaps that is what NRX has been looking for all this time.

                  I hope that at the very least, if nothing else, what is taken away is that Dyer is not a shill, and that his inadequacies in certain areas may be if not forgiven overlooked.

                  I have oversimplified his argument as much as I can, here is a broader explanation:

                  List of theological terms:

                • jim says:

                  I understand his argument just fine, and I reject his argument. He rightly says we have to leap, and then fails to leap far enough.

                  The leap of faith argument has to end in the same place as the materialist argument, with us real and solidly in the world, but alive instead of dead.

                  If the argument ends with us as ghosts in Plato’s cave, viewing shadows on the wall, you have not leapt far enough.

                  Hence we need a Christ who was flogged through the streets of Jerusalem and felt every blow.

                  We have to leap to a reality where we are real, and make real choices, which the reduction to chemistry and electricity fails to give us, and experience reality directly, where we are real, and what we see and touch is real, where we can directly know and act upon reality, where our choices matter, which we cannot do from Plato’s cave.

                  We have to leap to a reality where mind and body are real, and are one.

                  We, being in the world, need to understand, believe, and internalize Evolutionary Game theory and Darwinian psychology. We need to believe that we can and should flourish, that right conduct leads to flourishing, and that conduct that does not lead to flourishing is not right.

                  Be harmless as doves, and wise as serpents.

                  What makes a serpent wise?

                  Tread on one and find out.

                  Mind body dualism turns us into limp wristed progressive soy boys. You have to believe that mind and body are one, without making mind unreal, as materialism does, or body and world unreal, as imprisonment in Plato’s cave does. And to believe that body and mind real and one is as unreasonable and illogical as to believe that Christ is wholly man and wholly God, that God is three and God is one.

                  If your leap does not land in solid ground, mind and body one, real, and real in a real world, you have failed your leap. The whole point of the leap of faith is to get your feet on solid ground. If the Orthodox are blue pilled, they are lost in the void.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I think Gibbon in Decline and Fall made the point that it was very hard for the Western Romans and the Germanic barbarians (who tended to embrace a form of Arian christianity initially) to understand how the greeks (who had a more sort of conceptual language and original translation of the scriptures) viewed the trinity and this led to endless theological disputes between Constantinople and the rest of the Roman (and barbarian) world.

                • polifugue says:

                  > it was very hard for the Western Romans and the Germanic barbarians (who tended to embrace a form of Arian Christianity initially) to understand how the Greeks (who had a more sort of conceptual language and original translation of the scriptures) viewed the trinity

                  Which is why the church needed seven ecumenical councils to solidify the faith.

                  Orthodox Christianity does not have dialectics, which means we do not conflate nature (what it is) and person (who it is), essence (being) and energies (action). Christ can be fully God and fully man, Christ can undergo death in his human nature yet have an immortal divine nature. The Logos can appear to Moses in the burning bush yet no man can see God’s essence and live. God can exist in the world and be present through his energies, yet the essence of God is separate from the world thus avoiding pantheism; God creating the world is not equivalent to the divine essence. Communion contains the divine energies of Christ, thus the bread and the wine are literally the body and blood of Christ while not his human nature. Since Christianity defines logic itself, we can make these seemingly contradictory statements and still be consistent.

                  Without this difficult and seemingly unnecessarily abstruse theology, however, the Christian system falls apart, and we get holiness-spiralling.

                • polifugue says:

                  > If the argument ends with us as ghosts in Plato’s cave, viewing shadows on the wall, you have not leapt far enough.

                  Dyer does not end the argument with impersonal phantoms in Plato’s cave; rather, he states the necessity of a personal God as a necessary bridge between the phantoms and Man, that the logoi, the particulars, are related to us through the Logos, who is Christ. Quoting “Numbers Prove God:”

                  “We have here an answer to the question at hand. Man is never “away” from God or the infinite, as God is presupposed in every act of predication. Anytime the “infinite” is considered, we are not and cannot be dealing with merely some impersonal force or meaningless void, but rather a personal Being. This crucial aspect is important for distinguishing the position being argued here from Platonism. Platonism might agree with the argumentation so far, yet for Platonism, the ultimate Monad or Mind is not personal. It is not hypostatic and it is not directly related to the world of flux in which we dwell. It is inaccessible and wholly other, and incapable of explaining how or why there are “many” things at all, and not just “One.” If the uncreated logoi are posited then, it is necessary that they are “contained” or related and associated together in an omniscient Mind that is able to connect and relate these infinite potentialities and relations. But this divine Mind cannot be cut off from our realm, as it is in western theism and Thomism, it must directly interpenetrate our world.“

                  The reality and necessity of the Logos becoming incarnate and undergoing death is the means by which we can connect and relate to the Logos and the logoi. Without a personal God who manifests in time and space, there is no way to connect logic itself, and as a result it becomes unknowable, such as Plato’s phantoms.

                  > We need to believe that we can and should flourish, that right conduct leads to flourishing, and that conduct that does not lead to flourishing is not right.

                  This is the concept of theosis, which in Orthodoxy is deification. As one participates in the faith, he repents and becomes one with God. Thus man rises and repents. Dyer is not endorsing Plato’s cave, he is saying that Plato’s cave is a necessary conclusion in a world without God, a problem resolved by accepting Christ as Lord.

                • jim says:

                  > > We need to believe that we can and should flourish, that right conduct leads to flourishing, and that conduct that does not lead to flourishing is not right.

                  > This is the concept of theosis, which in Orthodoxy is deification. As one participates in the faith, he repents and becomes one with God. Thus man rises and repents.

                  This sounds suspiciously like not actually flourishing. We need to flourish in this world as well. Kind of like prog Christianity kicks out James and Paul on women by declaring their words a metaphor for the relationship of the Christ and the Church – which position, if true, would make it a really bad metaphor.

                • polifugue says:

                  >Mind body dualism

                  Dyer is not promoting mind-body dualism; the normative view in Orthodox theology is panentheism, which is a result of the conclusions given from the doctrine of the Essence-Energies distinction. In the world, God is both separate in his essence and present in his energies. This is why God is present in the body and blood of Christ, yet the body and blood is not the divine essence.


                  In Orthodoxy, we do not dialectize the mind-body problem, so we can say that the mind, soul and body are one in the same way that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and multiple. Thus, one cannot say that Orthodox theology makes a distinction between the mind and the body like that of Descartes. We do not have the problem of declaring the existence of the immaterial presence of the logoi and the spiritual problems with dualism.

                • jim says:

                  Then believe what you say you believe, what your faith commands you to believe. When I see Dyer, when I see blue pilled Orthodoxy, they are not believing it.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Anytime the “infinite” is considered, we are not and cannot be dealing with merely some impersonal force or meaningless void, but rather a personal Being.

                  Not being a theologian, I couldn’t tell you exactly why, but this phrasing sets off a dozen alarm bells screaming in my head. Something is very wrong here.

                  I don’t know if it’s the strangely ambiguous “Being”, the scare quotes around “infinite”, the persistent idea that divinity is “personal”, the elevation of clearly comprehensible material concepts to the spiritual, or some combination or something else entirely. But it’s wrong, it smells wrong, smells like sophistry and wormtonguery and the kind of grifting sermonizing commonly associated with televangelists.

                  If this represents the essence of Orthodox Christianity, then I want no part of any movement that incorporates it into the priestly class.

                • jim says:

                  > > Anytime the “infinite” is considered, we are not and cannot be dealing with merely some impersonal force or meaningless void, but rather a personal Being.

                  > Not being a theologian, I couldn’t tell you exactly why, but this phrasing sets off a dozen alarm bells screaming in my head. Something is very wrong here.

                  I could tell you why, but I won’t, because it would bore you to tears, and because the Orthodox are imperfect and backsliding allies, while progressives are enemies, and it is more urgent and important to explain progressive doubletalk. Also, under Putin, we see the Orthodox celebrating marriage rather than celibacy, which is a striking step back towards ancient orthodoxy, so I would rather ignore this as silliness that will go away, rather than demonic advance.

                  Bottom line is that the jargon is a thick cloud of smoke to cover up aspects of Christian doctrine that they find rather embarrassing and old fashioned, Christian doctrine that progressives would call “ignorant”

                  Christianity has at its core several basic flat out contradictions, the humanity and divinity of Christ being the central one from which all others flow, and the jargon is constructed by people who don’t want to turn their backs on two millenia of Christian doctrine, but who are far too clever to accept a flat out contradiction.

                  We have been through this dance many times before. In the end this always winds up with one faction flat out rejecting basic Christian doctrine, and discarding the now unnecessary and incomprehensible jargon, and the other faction flat out accepting basic Christian doctrine, cheerfully accepting the contradiction in its most blatant and in-your-face form, and not bothering to comprehend the jargon. Then those that flat out reject Christian doctrine vanish quietly or self destruct spectacularly, or something of both. The congregationalists quietly vanished, but their Harvard brethren look to be about to self destruct spectacularly. Who today remembers Socinianism?

                • polifugue says:

                  > This sounds suspiciously like not actually flourishing.

                  The central aspect of Orthodox Christian spirituality is repentance, metanoia, which is found in the prayers “Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy upon me, a sinner.” It is in direct contrast with Progressivism, which removes the idea that men are sinful, in need of repentance and that declaring oneself holier above all else is wicked.

                  > I don’t know if it’s the strangely ambiguous “Being”, the scare quotes around “infinite”, the persistent idea that divinity is “personal”

                  It is most likely the word “personal.” When Dyer uses the word “personal,” they mean that it can be intrinsically related to the human being. It means that we have a connection to the Logos unlike the abstract impersonal “essentialism” of Plotinus. This is NOT the “personable” God that we find among the Evangelicals.


                  In layman’s terms, Dyer is saying that man cannot connect with knowledge itself without some bridge between Plato’s forms and the human being. Since the logoi (particulars, reason is an example) exist outside and independent of physical matter, there must be a bridge between reason and the human being, otherwise knowledge would be impossible. This is the concept of God in the Orthodox Christian system. God is, in Orthodoxy, a “he,” referred to as “the father,” because God shares this connection with us in this world.

                • jim says:

                  I don’t see the equivalent of Mel Gibson’s “Passion” coming from Eastern Orthodoxy, and it seems to me that if they took the proposition that Christ was wholly man and wholly God seriously I would see that.

                  I don’t see Eastern Orthodoxy confronting progressive sexual morality the way the patriarch of Duck Dynasty did, and it seems to me that if they took seriously the unity of soul, mind, and body I would see that.

                  Seems to me that official Church doctrine on these matters is an inconvenience to be ignored as much as possible, and rationalized away when it cannot be ignored.

                • Yul Bornhold says:

                  Orthodoxy attempts to internalize all holiness markers to prevent holiness spiraling, among other reasons. All descriptions of modern saints speak of the eyes of the saint’s friends being opened after the saint’s death, and only then realizing what truly marvelous and holy men they were.

                  Likewise, the point of injunctions against ‘judging’ fellow man isn’t to allow wickedness but to ward the mind against holiness comparisons.

                • polifugue says:

                  You find Eastern Orthodoxy confronting progressive sexual morality publicly behind the wall of Russian nukes, and privately behind closed doors.




                • jim says:


                  In Russia, Orthodoxy grows healthier by the day.

                  But I would not know it listening to Orthodox in America.

                • Yul Bornhold says:

                  “He is a weak reed on the women question and on game, which is related to his rejection of evolution, for Game requires Game Theory (men are polygamous, women hypergamous), which only makes sense in the light of Evolutionary Game Theory, without which it is difficult to resist blue pilled readings of Genesis.”

                  Not necessarily.

                  The vision of paradise is total cooperation/zero defection with unlimited resources. Obviously, that’s not our reality. The vision of Darwin is ruthless competition with a small side of cooperation for limited resources. Darwin used this to explain speciation but, long before the Beagle, people understood the relentless clash of living organisms. They spoke of it in terms of a fall away from paradise.

                  You can get something pretty close to evolutionary game theory by pointing to animals and observing the similarity to men and women. No Darwin required. The ancient Hebrews, for example, practiced red pill patriarchy with, I presume, a more or less literal interpretation of Genesis.

                • Not Tom says:

                  You can get something pretty close to evolutionary game theory by pointing to animals and observing the similarity to men and women.

                  That sounds like a precarious position that is likely to lead to either personification of animals (leftist holiness spiral failure mode) or hair-splitting over how humans are not like other animals (different leftist holiness spiral failure mode). Probably both at the same time, resulting in two factions or some obscure doublethink doctrine.

                  Analogy may be a useful conversation device but it is inherently anti-scientific. The worst theories have always derived from analogies based on incomplete, cursory, superficial observations: the elements, the humors, miasma, etc. These are slightly better than barbarism, but don’t lead us to flourishing. Empirical claims need to be grounded somehow, they can’t just point to other things and not bother explain why they’re connected.

                  And besides, any religion that makes testable claims contrary to empirical evidence is bound to fail. That is a key reason why the “rational” progressive religion is failing, it started making too many claims that are observably false. It is so painfully cringe when a certain intellectual who shall not be named triumphantly claims to have “disproven” Darwinism because he tortured a few equations, combined them with unreliable data, and couldn’t make them reconcile. When people paint themselves into an ideological corner, they begin to act dishonest, often without being fully aware of it.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “That sounds like a precarious position that is likely to lead to either personification of animals (leftist holiness spiral failure mode)”

                  Animal rights are not a civilizational failure mode historically. India (the most extreme example) has far bigger problems than the sacred cow or anything else to do with animals.

                • Mike says:

                  Having respect for animals is not a civilizational failure mode. Giving them rights definitely is. No one denies that a child torturing a dog is evil, it’s a known marker of a soon to be serial killer. But even your great grandfather would find modern notions of animal rights (discouraging the eating of meat, treating pets like kids rather than tools to be utilized, burying pets in cemeteries) totally bizarre.

                • Not Tom says:

                  the jargon is constructed by people who don’t want to turn their backs on two millenia of Christian doctrine, but who are far too clever to accept a flat out contradiction

                  You’re describing apologetics; but aren’t we doing much of the same, with ideas like Christ as the Logos made flesh?

                  It’s something different with this text – there’s something almost Foucaultian about it, lots of words but no discernible meaning, as though the objective is simply to confuse the reader or trigger certain emotions without the risk of being clearly understood and consequently being expected to defend the position. Because how can you defend nonsense? “God is infinite”, might as well be true but tells us nothing about anything. “Space is big” would be equally dull but at least it’s a statement of fact.

                  If what you’re saying is that he’s trying to stake out a center position between Christianity and Rationalism, then I guess that’s sort of like Pinker trying (ineffectually) to stake out a center position between Rationalism and Progressivism. The center cannot hold.

                • jim says:

                  > > the jargon is constructed by people who don’t want to turn their backs on two millennia of Christian doctrine, but who are far too clever to accept a flat out contradiction

                  > You’re describing apologetics; but aren’t we doing much of the same, with ideas like Christ as the Logos made flesh?


                  But …

                  > It’s something different with this text – there’s something almost Foucaultian about it, lots of words but no discernible meaning, as though the objective is simply to confuse the reader or trigger certain emotions without the risk of being clearly understood and consequently being expected to defend the position.

                  Exactly so.

                  Except that I understood the position being obfuscated, (only because I have read up on two millennia of similar obfuscations and evasions) and did not much like it.

                  He is being foggy because he attempts to be faithful to old type Orthodoxy (which as Polifugue points out is perhaps becoming young again now that it is protected by Putin’s nukes) while accommodating new post Christianity, which is more hip and respectable in progressive America. If he actually committed to old type Christianity, the terribly clever people might think him stupid and might not like him.

                  It is an evasion, falling between two stools. Polifugue sees him seated on one stool, and I see him sneaking off to sit on the other stool. And peoples, nations, cultures and civilizations that attempt to sit on that other stool come to a bad end. It is apt to lead to attempts to immanentize the eschaton.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “It’s something different with this text – there’s something almost Foucaultian about it, lots of words but no discernible meaning, as though the objective is simply to confuse the reader or trigger certain emotions without the risk of being clearly understood and consequently being expected to defend the position. Because how can you defend nonsense? “God is infinite”, might as well be true but tells us nothing about anything. “Space is big” would be equally dull but at least it’s a statement of fact.”

                  Read your history. Has to do with the nature of the Greek language, at the time of the late Roman Empire the Greeks could understand this stuff and the Germans and Latins were going mad trying to figure out what the fuck they were saying.

                  By their fruits you will know them, Orthodox Church holds up better than the Western Churches.

                • Not Tom says:

                  You’re wrong. It’s precisely because I have no problem understanding dense, metaphorical, and heavily abstracted ideas that I’m calling this out. It’s not that it’s hard to understand, it’s that it’s deliberately crafted to be incomprehensible, so that unaware readers will substitute whatever meaning they wish was there.

                  It’s simply a highbrow version of countless entertainment tropes like “you don’t want to know” or the “noodle incident”, where what actually happened is intentionally left to the reader or viewer’s imagination. And that’s a great and effective technique in fiction; not so much in philosophy.

                • Mike says:

                  I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on the history of Ortho/Catholic theology, but I can tell you that most of the concepts Dyer is referencing originate hundreds and hundreds of years ago. He’s referencing things which have been doctrines of the Church for a long time, the flowery language isn’t his invention. If the original Church, not a potential Internet wackjob, revealed this doctrine to the faithful explained in this way, why is it a problem that it’s “incomprehensible?” It worked well enough for 1500 years, and probably prevented the lower classes from understanding what they weren’t meant to understand. Jim talks all the time about how the Trinity *is* incomprehensible, so what’s the problem with the Orthodox Church having an incomprehensible explanation for an incomprehensible concept?

                • jim says:

                  The problem is that if one uses language that obfuscates or purports to explain away the basic contradictions at the heart of Christianity, a God big enough to create the world and small enough to be flogged through the streets of Jerusalem, is one accepting those contradictions or not?

                  And if not, post Christian.

                • polifugue says:

                  > It’s not that it’s hard to understand, it’s that it’s deliberately crafted to be incomprehensible

                  > what’s the problem with the Orthodox Church having an incomprehensible explanation for an incomprehensible concept?

                  What makes the transcendental argument difficult is not that it is complicated, but that it requires one to change the foundation of his thinking. You are not the only one who has thought that there is no argument there, it happens in every debate Dyer has with an atheist and such objections can be found in the comments sections of his opponents. And to an extent, your objection is correct. The transcendenal argument cannot work within the Western dialectical mindset where there are divisions between essences and energies, mind and body, nature and person.

                  The central idea of the transcendental argument is that God is the precondition for knowledge. We cannot doubt the transcendentals without using the transcendentals unless we can be certain that they are justified. How can this be? Revelation is the basis of knowledge, not a Kantian self-isolation in the mind. We can have certain knowledge of the self, or our perceptions, of logical principles, but the only way this can work is if they are certainly justified, and anyone who thinks otherwise should sit on a bed of nails and try to doubt that they are perceiving a stabbing pain. All of this is based on revelation, which comes from God, who Himself grounds all of these things and needs no justification other than Himself. It doesn’t come from some strange essence, or from empirical claims.

                  The church fathers say the Son proceeds from the Father, the Holy Spirit spirates from the Father. Do we know how this works exactly? Of course not, and the fathers admit to it. Can we explain how the Son and the Father are identical in essence yet different in person? Of course not. Can we explain how the body, soul and mind are in unison while rejecting dualism? Well, no. We don’t need to, because knowledge itself originates in revelation: “Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” It is not scientifically possible for Christ to rise from the dead, and it is perfectly rational to assume some more likely alternative, but it isn’t a problem for Christianity if revelation is the starting point to knowledge.

            • Starman says:


              ” How is eastern orthodoxy post-Christian? Jay Dyer is Eastern Orthodox.”

              Jay Dyer sucks:
              So here’s a video of I n f o ‘s so-called Orthodox Christian hero, Jay Dyer:
              In this video, Jay Dyer says this is his first time addressing the woman question (after countless “Christian videos” with no mention of the central question of our time). He starts by trying to have an “intellectual” “conversation” with a piece of property (a baby factory) on the upper left corner. Can you imagine having an “intellectual” “conversation” with your refrigerator or your dog? Why would Jay Dyer have such a “conversation” with a baby-making appliance?

              Now contrast the Jay Dyer video with this video of Joe Rogan and Bill Maher questioning the modern “marriage” scam immediately at the beginning (the first step of addressing the woman question). I n f o ‘s hero cannot even do what a UFC host and a smug atheist can do.

              I n f o ‘s “Christian” cannot do this?

              • info says:

                Hasn’t been a convert for very long. You expect instant change in character for the converted?

              • info says:


              • polifugue says:

                Jay Dyer is inadequate on the Woman Question, and I can’t argue with any of Starman’s points. He’s showing off his wife to his audience, and as a public person, does not go into the finer details of the red pill.

                All I can say is that I follow him and do not have any problems with accepting the red pill. I don’t think that Dyer’s theology is a problem, at least not for me personally.

                I have found that almost every single Orthodox Christian I have encountered has psychological problems with the red pill, particularly with regard to early marriage and consent. It is indicative of the general malaise of society.

                During the reign of Majorian, the Roman elite forced their daughters to become nuns to avoid paying dowries, with the inevitable result being their daughters getting up to typical single-woman degeneracy. Christianity is not a magic panacea that will make weak men strong again, it will allow strong men to take power and enforce morality on a declining elite. One does not become Christian because he thinks his problems are caused by being in the wrong religion, one becomes Christian by admitting that he is a sinner and needs repentance.

                • jim says:

                  In other videos, he may well recognize trancendentalists as the enemy, because they display no end of enemy flags and enemy shibboleths. Hard to miss.

                  But in the video in dispute, he failed to recognize the trancendentalist God as the cause of those enemy flags.

                • polifugue says:

                  The Transcendental (adj.) argument for God and Transcendentalism (n.) are not the same philosophical tradition.

                  Dyer rejects the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and Transcendentalism (n.) here:

                  Regarding Kant, Dyer states that when the individual’s mind is the reference point of predication, meaning and predication cannot be coherent. Kant oversteps the bounds between the phenomenal and he noumenal. Dyer has always argued in favor of tradition, monarchy, and obedience to the church.

                  Dyer blames Thomism for the cause of our problems:

                  “If all that is ever known of God are created effects in this life, or if God is placed on a continuum of “being” where the divine essence is likened to created being, then it makes no sense to believe in this God, especially when the starting point for theology is empirical. How could empirical sense-data ever give any “evidence” for a being that, even according to Thomas’ definition of divine simplicity, bears no real relation to created being? The absolutely simple divine essence itself has no cause, and is not itself caused or a cause, so what use is the analogia entis in saying it’s a “First Cause”? It’s a meaningless phrase, as it tells us nothing and still never bridges the impenetrable gap of Thomistic simplicity.

                • Yul Bornhold says:

                  Important to understand the conservative blue pill as a reaction to the progressive blue pill. The progressive teaches woman is holy and pure. Furthermore, she is a sacred slut; all of her fornications are justified and praiseworthy, except when she feels bad about them, in which case, man is at fault.

                  The conservative sees this as nuts and rejects it for the Victorian fantasy, which he fails to see is the same thing slightly toned down. The conservative blue pill is identical except that sexual immorality is not praiseworthy, though it’s still man’s fault. The conservative would never take any effective measures to prevent it but he *thinks* he is doing so. He has the right goal but his framework is insane. In contrast, the progressive has openly declared war on nature; desiring to replace birth with abortion, marriage with faggotry, women with trannies and so on.

                  This Victorian blue pill should be attacked on Christian grounds. As creatures of flesh, women are prone to sin with fleshly desires. As creatures made for submission, women are prone to sin by rebellion and rationalizations. Man rebels against God directly but woman defies God by rebelling against man.

                  The progressive virus is evolved to prey upon Christianity but the host’s immune system knows something is up. Any conservative contemporary Christian knows ‘the world’ is attempting to destroy the faith. We have to show them that the world is attacking by means of ‘equality’ rather than by Darwin.

                • info says:

                  There is a taboo that has been long standing in Western Europe about marriages that have too much of an age gap above 5 years.

                • jim says:

                  How long standing?

                  The gap between me and my wife is one hell of a lot larger than five years, and I am not seeing any hostile reaction, nor indeed much surprise, apart from the occasional joke that she is my daughter. Is anyone offended by the age gap between Trump and Melanie?

                  A bunch of washed up cat ladies who have hit the wall hard pulled this taboo out of their asses, but they are getting absolutely zero traction. It has no legs.

                • Starman says:


                  ” There is a taboo that has been long standing in Western Europe about marriages that have too much of an age gap above 5 years.”

                  After failing to acknowledge why Jay Dyer failed the Joe Rogan test, Info then promotes the feminist-invented marriage age gap limit.

                  An old baby factory is a shitty baby factory.
                  A young baby factory is a great baby factory.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  “An old baby factory is a shitty baby factory.
                  A young baby factory is a great baby factory.”

                  Forceful but accurate.

                • ten says:

                  I hear blue pilled men say “pedo” when 30 year-olds date or bang 18 year olds but it smells of slave morality – “i can’t, so you shouldn’t”, and their grumpiness is too down toned for it to map to their words, which if truly meant would come with fury, not grumpiness.

                  With women i hear various things. Some generally lefty women seem ok with banging but not with dating, which seems to mean they like the 18 year old getting banged, but don’t like it if something good comes out of it.

                  Most women regardless of pill coulour seem to put themselves in the shoes of the young women and wish they too were banged or dated by a 30 year old, and are obviously overcome by uncontrollable tingles at the thought of their male friend being able to pull teen virgins. Suddenly their view of you, your preselection, soars to the skies, and if they say you’re a horrible cradle robber taking advantage of innocence, they say it with a lustful radiant smile.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I have objections to the baby-factory analogy on practical grounds. Women do have value beyond vagina and uterus. For most of recorded history they’ve been highly valued for their labor either around the house, or as part of their husband’s business. They can do very good work in the charge of an alpha male, provided they do not congregate with single women or other alpha males. It’s not just because of looks that so many executives used to marry their secretaries, and no less a man than Heartiste has tagged waitresses and other service staff as ideal marriage material.

                  And if you read older literature, it becomes increasingly obvious that female idleness at home was a catalyst for feminism. Women, not unlike men in this regard, have to be kept busy in order to remain happy; boredom is a recipe for disaster.

                  IMO, if the only thing your wife does is fuck and make babies then you don’t really own her properly.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  True, it’s not the only thing, but the first job of a family is creating and raising the next generation.

                  Personally, I’m not so interested in the modern role of woman as a co-worker bringing in cash. I might hire her if that’s the primary task, but I’m not so enthused to marry her.

                  If one has a couple of divorces under one’s belt and is done with the child rearing part it might be a different story.

                • Starman says:

                  @Not Tom

                  “I have objections to the baby-factory analogy on practical grounds. Women do have value beyond vagina and uterus. For most of recorded history they’ve been highly valued for their labor either around the house, or as part of their husband’s business.”

                  And that’s how women’s emancipation starts. And then the collapse.

                  There really should be a genetic mod on the X-Chromosome that shuts women up permanently so that men in the future won’t get tricked into thinking that the stuff that the girl says really means anything.

                • Not Tom says:

                  And that’s how women’s emancipation starts. And then the collapse.

                  No, it’s not. Emancipation clearly correlates with female idleness. In biblical times, when emancipation was not even a thought on anyone’s mind, women worked. In literal primitive hunter-gatherer societies, women gathered.

                  They didn’t “go to work”, obviously. But they worked.

                  The Jimian position (and the red pill position in general) does not express a dislike of women, nor does it consider them useless except for breeding. That’s BAP faggotry.

                • Starman says:

                  @Not Tom

                  “No, it’s not. Emancipation clearly correlates with female idleness.”

                  Women weren’t idle in the 1100s when the disgusting Romance Movement started.

                • Eli says:

                  Re idleness. Was it so much due to female idleness though? It seems, idleness negatively affected aristocratic males more. Idleness and security gave them more of a reason to corrupt the laws and find ways to justify their amorous pursuits, including adulterous ones. The fish rots from the head.

                  I mean 19th century women had plenty of things they had to do around. But the rot started even earlier than that. So female idleness is not the main explanation.

                • jim says:

                  The rot started in the 1100s with consensual marriage and the Romance movement. Which probably reflects gays getting into the priesthood.

                  The original troubador was conspicuously and spectacularly straight, manly, and alpha as General Buttnaked, so it suited his interests to give women rationale for adultery. The priesthood initially opposed him, but opposition collapsed. If we had had a manly priesthood, would have squashed him like a bug.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Can individual women be more than baby factories domestic servants and a hole… sure.

                  But culturally we should teach men that that is really all there for… their status needs to remain low and it needs to be taught that women are not to be considered equal or anything near it… let individual exceptions who want to be more gradually prove themselves to the men of their life that they are worry but keep the mass of women in the benign slavery that is best for society and that deep down most of them want.

                  Teaching that the mass of women are more than servants, baby factories and for sexual pleasure… down that road lies damnation.

                  Allowing men to make individual exceptions… sure. But it must be taught that the exceptions are not the rule.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Women weren’t idle in the 1100s when the disgusting Romance Movement started.

                  They were, actually – in the courts, where the courtly romance movement started.

                  Peasant women were not idle, certainly; but peasant women had nothing to do with it.

                  it needs to be taught that women are not to be considered equal or anything near it

                  Anyone care to explain how keeping house, tending the farm, and doing clerical work under the direct supervision of a husband or father somehow translates to equality?

                  What are the marital vows of St. Paul? They are not reciprocal, they are not “equal”. They also don’t describe the wife as a high-end fleshlight. That’s a satanic meme; faggots love to reduce heterosexual interactions to mere fucking in order to help normalize sodomy.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I think noble women in the Middle Ages were expected to pass much of the daytime hours working on embroidery and they were even sort of competitive with each other at this.

                  They were to be sure drunk off their ass every night (and possibly quite prone to trouble when drunk) but almost everyone in Europe during the Middle Ages was drunk every night.

                  Idle upper class women who partied drank and played cards (for high stakes) day and night and were almost expected to get into trouble were more a phenomenom of the era of Queen Caroline.


                  During the Middle Ages she would have at best been sent to a nunnery or back to her parents for screwing around and ending up in bigtime gambling debts no matter how well liked she was at court and probably would have been forcibly restrained from being drunk and gambling (especially if she lost… I could imagine she’d be allowed to gamble if she was good at it in any era) especially during the day.

                • Starman says:

                  @Not Tom

                  “That’s a satanic meme; faggots love to reduce heterosexual interactions to mere fucking in order to help normalize sodomy.”

                  Being a baby factory is a lot more than just “mere fucking.”

                • Not Tom says:

                  So female idleness is not the main explanation.

                  Indeed, it isn’t, and I didn’t say it was, and was in fact very careful to avoid saying that it was. I said it was “a catalyst” – it was gasoline, poured onto a burning fire.

                  The romance movement started it; this we know to be true. Men started it, and probably homosexual men. Yet it vastly accelerated when women themselves were freed up from household duties. What does an idle, well-to-do woman have to keep herself occupied, other than to shit test constantly and seek out powerful men?

                  The phrase “baby factory” sounds vaguely Catholic, but mostly it’s clinical and sterile, inverts cause and effect, and implies that women are unpleasant and merely an obstacle to put up with so that men can have children. Wouldn’t it be better if we didn’t need them, hrr hrr hrr? That’s either the morality of a faggot or the bluster of an incel. No husband who actually has 8 children says that about his wife. Even lower mammals pair-bond.

                • polifugue says:

                  Whether women work or not, they need to be kept busy. Idle hands are the devil’s playthings.

                  The degree to which women should work is relative to social class. In the lower class professions, women have the ability to function in the free market. Women can help the lord tend his field and run the textile machines at the factory. There are few professions in the lower class that necessitate long commutes. The man can work at the steel factory, while the wife can work at the cotton factory down the street.

                  However, women in the upper classes cannot compete without sacrificing their ability to bear children. From my contacts in NYC, women can be good lawyers, but they do not have many children. Only foreign non-white women get married, and if there are white women who do have children, they have a bastard out of wedlock and treat the kid like a pet dog. There are some but few exceptions, of course, but that is the general trend.

                  Therefore, it is necessary to create a social space for women that fulfills their need to be busy yet does not cause problems with family formation. My grandmother was a socialite, the wife of a wealthy buisnessman, and she lived in a time when there was still a thriving space for a wealthy suburban housewife. Historical societies, bridge clubs, knitting clubs, local newspaper, women’s clubs, country clubs, yacht clubs, church, et cetera. Much still exists today but not like what it was 60 years ago. In one of her exploits in climbing the social ladder, she was barred entry into a posher country club because her whore sister slept with a man on the Board of Governors and his wife found out. Women police other women, and her sister was eventually ostracised from upper polite society.

                  She became an expert at knitting, and she has given all of her grandchildren numerous items: scarves, bricks, pictures, all extremely professional. She can write and draw anything in knitting; it’s her pride.

                • Starman says:

                  @Not Tom

                  “The phrase “baby factory” sounds vaguely Catholic, but mostly it’s clinical and sterile, inverts cause and effect, and implies that women are unpleasant and merely an obstacle to put up with so that men can have children. Wouldn’t it be better if we didn’t need them, hrr hrr hrr? That’s either the morality of a faggot or the bluster of an incel.”

                  “No husband who actually has 8 children says that about his wife.”

                  Oh really?

                  Egyptian TV Debate about Wife Beating: It Is the Husband’s ‘Quranic Right’ to Beat His Wife; the Purpose Is to Humiliate Her

                • info says:


                  Specifically Anglo Countries. Where do you think the notion that people who stick to their own age comes from?

                  Other countries of course are different.

                • jim says:

                  Comes from the rants of bitter feminists who have hit the wall, and found that they are invisible to all men regardless of that man’s age.

                • info says:


                  But I believe you found a pretty based area to live in. But I think it really depends where you live in Anglophone countries.

                  In my country of australia. I see age matched couples as the norm.

                • jim says:


                  Gross age mismatches, older man, wife young enough to be his granddaughter, does not raise anyone’s eyebrows in Australia. If wife is similar age to husband, it is because they married while she was still hot. An Australian widower, if he remarries, does not marry an old bag. It would be a big surprise if there was no substantial age difference when widower remarries.

                • Atavistic Morality says:


                  You think consent in marriage goes hand in hand with emancipation and feminism? I sincerely hope not.

                  I’d never accept a modern marriage, but I wouldn’t like to genuinely force a woman to marry me. I’m not exactly talking about “consent” in the modern sense, but whether she actually likes me or not.

                  In the relationships I’ve had, I’ve set the pace, I’ve done what I’ve wanted, I’ve led and they followed, but they did so of their own volition. But if she wouldn’t want to follow, I’d tell her to get off the boat, not tie her up.

                  Virtue comes from choice, if you must violently force someone to “be your friend”, they’re not your friend. If I have to forcefully keep a woman beside me, what is the point of marriage exactly? And I’m talking real violence, not shit tests.

                  Marriage vows shouldn’t ask of women “do you consent”, but it should ask them if they swear to honor and obey. So the question is there, and she can always say no. And I’d want her to be able to say no, because then yes means something and I would most definitely hold her to it. Then I’d bring the violence if necessary, she would honor me and obey me, but she chose to.

                  In the Roman myth, they abducted the Sabine women but they also persuaded them and they came to be happy to be abducted. The white pill in the red pill is understanding that women actually want to follow and they’re happy to follow your lead. But now we disregard this and go straight to coercion? That sounds like a black pill to me.

                  Completely in agreement about the Romance movement though, of course.

                  @Not Tom

                  Women might be several different things, but they’re first and foremost “baby factories”. That’s what makes them women.

                  You say emancipation correlates with female idleness, but it’s a bit of cherry picking to suit your argument. Every vice and immoral attitude correlates with idleness, idleness is just bad and makes things worse, whether it’s a man or a woman.

                  The root of the problem is the Romance movement and refusal to acknowledge female nature. Even the queen bee is the queen for virtue of being a massive “baby factory”. The term is crude, but it’s technically correct.

                  Which analogy puts you closer to effective civilization, calling women angels or calling them baby factories?

                • jim says:

                  If a woman can consent, she can unconsent – which puts her back in prisoner’s dilemma.

                • BC says:

                  >You think consent in marriage goes hand in hand with emancipation and feminism? I sincerely hope not.

                  >I’d never accept a modern marriage, but I wouldn’t like to genuinely force a woman to marry me. I’m not exactly talking about “consent” in the modern sense, but whether she actually likes me or not.

                  >In the relationships I’ve had, I’ve set the pace, I’ve done what I’ve wanted, I’ve led and they followed, but they did so of their own volition. But if she wouldn’t want to follow, I’d tell her to get off the boat, not tie her up.

                  Women love to be compelled. Failure to do so is a sign of weakness to women. Women are not well adapted to consent and in fact hate men who wait around for them to consent.

                • Atavistic Morality says:


                  Yes, women love to be compelled, which is why if she likes you she gives you an opportunity for you to compel her, but there’s a difference between pushing the issue and being violent. She’ll feel the need to hang around you alone for some reason, which very conveniently gives you an opportunity to compel her, and after you compel her she very happily sticks around to be compelled some more and she’s suddenly talking about eternal love. Consent. Which is different to going to her house, pointing a gun to her head and then coerce her to marriage or death.

                  If her father tells her there’s this guy he wants her to meet, the father is a good patriarch, she will consent.


                  She chooses whether to take the vow, once it’s taken it’s forever, can’t refuse it.

                • BC says:

                  >being violent.

                  Women love it most when you are violent. Getting in between a woman being beaten by her man is likely to result in you being stabbed in the back by the woman.

                  Growing up I watched domestic violence happen with one of my friend’s family. I watched the wife berate the husband for nearly an hour, following him wherever he tried to escape to, and demeaned him mercilessly. Finally he hit her. It made her happy.

                  Talking to my friend he related that his mother would periodically do this to her husband until it resulted in her being hit or a beating. After which she was happy for months.

                  I once had a girl who told me straight up all her previous boy friends beat her. I failed to do so and she endless demeaned me trying to induce a beating from me. I refused to do so and broke up with her, and then she accused me of beating her anyways.

                  All women love violence and want displays of that violence from their men.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  It seems you and I have a different definition of violence and you’re getting things out of context as well. You’re talking about girlfriends and wives, there’s consent and choice right there. Your girlfriend even told you openly and honestly, as I pointed out, women go out of their way to give you a great opportunity to compel them when they like you.

                  In comparison to beating the shit out of a random woman walking down the street and forcing her to marry you at gunpoint.

                • Pooch says:

                  I just grab them and fuck them violently when they do that. More fun than actually beating them and works just as well (And probably better). When my woman starts demeaning me it’s because I haven’t fucked her well recently and it let’s me know I need to do it again ASAP to make her stop.

                • BC says:

                  >I just grab them and fuck them violently when they do that. More fun than actually beating them and works just as well (And probably better). When my woman starts demeaning me it’s because I haven’t fucked her well recently and it let’s me know I need to do it again ASAP to make her stop.

                  I learned my lesson and I generally reply with rough sex these days, but it’s not enough for some women.

                  >In comparison to beating the shit out of a random woman walking down the street and forcing her to marry you at gunpoint.

                  Kidnapping a women and marrying her is an old and honored tradition. Women love it and it’s a system that continues to be practiced today. It was the standard marriage practice for almost our entire human existence. The bible endorses and only pushes back against it when the man doesn’t keep her as wife.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Which analogy puts you closer to effective civilization, calling women angels or calling them baby factories?

                  I don’t do false dilemmas. The question is ridiculous.

                  Women aren’t angels, women aren’t men, they aren’t strong and independent and intellectually deep and inherently virtuous, and most of the time, not all that interesting themselves. They are pretty, fun, unpredictable, intelligent and creative in their own way, and generally make life much more interesting. As Jim has stated on multiple occasions now: without the wife, there’s no point in the garden. Wife, not children.

                  Of course society shouldn’t structure women’s lives with baby-making as anything other than the top priority, but work is the top priority for most men and yet it is not our sole function in life. You can’t “love and cherish” a factory.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “All women love violence and want displays of that violence from their men.”

                  All women want to think their man is proficient at doing violence but the degree they want it from their guys vary wildly.

                  Normal woman from a loving family with a loving father who is spoiled and grows up in a feminist society… probably is going to crave beatings BDSM all that shit.

                  A girl who regularly got the shit beat out of her for no reason by a drunk father… well one I knew didn’t even like being choked during sex which 99% of women like.

                • jim says:

                  Only a minority of women need to be actually beaten. But all women want a man who might beat them. All women are like that.

                • Atavistic Morality says:


                  And that tradition comes illustrated in the abduction of the Sabine women where there is in fact consent. It isn’t violent at all, it’s a “kidnapping”, meaning, stealing the daughter from the father and the daughter is very happy about it. Which again, is entirely different to using violence, beating her within an inch of her life and then forcing her to marry you at gunpoint.

                  You’re conflating modern consent with ancient consent, modern interpretation of sexuality with ancient representation of sexuality. You’re trying to conflate them so the kidnapping of the Sabine women includes a beating and a sword to their throats, it did not, it does not.

                  @Not Tom

                  I didn’t intent to present it as a dilemma, but you talked about practical grounds, which is why I chose angel in opposition to baby factory.

                  If you understand it’s the main function, why are you complaining? We often talk about men here in generalizations such as warrior, priest and merchant, which are not their sole functions or the sum of their lives but it doesn’t seem to bother you at all. But when R7 describes women as their main function/drive it’s bad, it’s like you are “muh womyn” us.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I didn’t intent to present it as a dilemma, but you talked about practical grounds, which is why I chose angel in opposition to baby factory.

                  No idea what you’re trying to say here. Apparently it goes something like this: “You think A is impractical? Well, B is also totally stupid – so there!” That’s not even an argument, it’s random neural firings.

                  If you understand it’s the main function, why are you complaining?

                  I didn’t say “main function”. Archetypes like warrior and priest describe people, not mindless machines. Systems that categorize people by function, like India’s caste system, tend to be pretty shitty.

                  I’m simply going to say again, the term sounds homosexual. It implies we could replace women with artificial wombs and nothing much would change. Fags would love that, I’m sure, but no one else. And I am ever watchful for fag entryism precisely because it is so subtle and insidious. It’s brought down many a civilization that was caught unawares.

                  That is not to say that I think he’s a fag, which I don’t, but I think the meme probably originated from a fag. There’s a particular strain of people calling themselves reactionaries and red-pilled who appear to genuinely dislike women, find them unpleasant, claim they’re ugly, don’t like the way they smell, think statues of naked men are the pinnacle of art, etc., and the whole spectacle gives a quite profound impression of faggotry.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “And that tradition comes illustrated in the abduction of the Sabine women where there is in fact consent. It isn’t violent at all, it’s a “kidnapping”, meaning, stealing the daughter from the father and the daughter is very happy about it.”

                  I think the point is it was violent but no so violent the women’s families were killed…


                  I like this portrayal of it… this kidnapped Sabine women is horrified at the prospect of what these Roman men might do to her… absolutely horrified.

                • Starman says:

                  @Not Tom

                  ”Of course society shouldn’t structure women’s lives with baby-making as anything other than the top priority, but work is the top priority for most men and yet it is not our sole function in life. You can’t ‘love and cherish’ a factory.”

                  I smell the stench of the Romance Movement in this sentence. This is where the degenerate behavior of whiteknighting begins and where disgusting organizations such as the “Order of the Garter” begin.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  Someone on twitter said ‘saying that all that women are good for is being wives is like saying that all that men are good for is being heroes’. To be a good wife is the noblest possible calling for a woman.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  No idea what you’re trying to say here. Apparently it goes something like this: “You think A is impractical? Well, B is also totally stupid – so there!” That’s not even an argument, it’s random neural firings.

                  No, I just made a logical jump and assumed your own viewpoint, and I don’t think I was that far away:

                  They are pretty, fun, unpredictable, intelligent and creative in their own way, and generally make life much more interesting. As Jim has stated on multiple occasions now: without the wife, there’s no point in the garden. Wife, not children.

                  This is how you chose to describe women, so you might as well have called them angels, angels that come to redeem and save men from the fallen world gracing us with laughter, respite and purpose.

                  The problem with this is that while you understand that they are also baby factories, blue pilled cuckservatives don’t and they’re unable to maintain civilization. So from that perspective, a political perspective, it is far better to describe them like R7 does than you do.

                  I didn’t say “main function”. Archetypes like warrior and priest describe people, not mindless machines. Systems that categorize people by function, like India’s caste system, tend to be pretty shitty.

                  Okay this is what you said:

                  Of course society shouldn’t structure women’s lives with baby-making as anything other than the top priority, but work is the top priority for most men and yet it is not our sole function in life

                  If baby-making is their top priority, and most men’s top priority is work, and this is not their sole function… yes, you implied baby-making is their top function. Maybe it’s the fact that English is my fourth language but I’m pretty sure that you made the connection there yourself.

                  These archetypes define men based on their functions and their drives, it is not that different to calling women baby factories.

                  It doesn’t sound gay to me, it sounds autistic and blunt. But if there was a factory where humans were bred and nursed to adulthood, it’d be a baby factory, and that’s what identifies mothers…

                  I’m personally not too worried about “entryism from men who hate women”, I’m a lot more worried about a disturbing lack of thoughtcrime. If it contains thoughtcrime I endorse, I don’t care, keep pushing the Overton window until I can publicly call women baby factories and be received with a standing ovation. Then I’ll worry about if we’ve gone too far.

                  @The Cominator

                  That is not violence, it’s a measured and rational use of force, because it’s good, positive and productive. If you use a wrench to turn a screw you’re not being violent, you’re using force towards a creative end.

                  Violence is dropping 30k tons of explosives over a country because they don’t like sodomites or teaching 9 year old girls to put condoms on bananas. Or like I said, going down the street and randomly beating a woman to almost death then force her to marry you at gunpoint. She wouldn’t smile so much, I’m pretty sure.

                  It would have been violent if they had taken them at swordpoint after beating them to death, killing their brothers and their fathers, but they didn’t do any of that. They just had a forceful approach, which Gnon finds acceptable and women love.

                • info says:

                  I am not quite so sure. Perhaps I have a sampling bias when I go out to shop.

                  But age matched couples are the norm.

                • jim says:

                  Aged matched couples are, and should be, normal but not normative.

                  Your claim was that they are normative. They are not normal when widowers or divorced men remarry and are not normative for anyone.

                • Starman says:

                  @eternal anglo

                  ” Someone on twitter said ‘saying that all that women are good for is being wives is like saying that all that men are good for is being heroes’. To be a good wife is the noblest possible calling for a woman.”


                  @Not Tom

                  ” I’m simply going to say again, the term sounds homosexual. It implies we could replace women with artificial wombs and nothing much would change.”
                  “ That is not to say that I think he’s a fag, which I don’t, but I think the meme probably originated from a fag.”


                  Ismail Wahwah, “ The wombs of this nation’s women have not ceased to give birth to heroes. This nation is abundant in women giving birth to heroes and mujahideen. It has always been so and will continue to be so until Judgment Day.

                  Georgette Attiyya, “ The Palestinian woman’s womb is a factory for the conflict; it produces fighting children. After this fighting child is produced, he is taught: “This is your land, this is your country, you will fight for it, stand on it, and die for it.” Therefore, a very important connection exists between motherhood, land, and blood.

                  Palestinian Muslim birthrate: +4 per woman.

                  Lands of the “Order of the Garter” and whiteknighting birthrate: 1.8 per woman

                • Atavistic Morality says:


                  1.8? I think you’re being far too kind, half of those must be muslims and immigrants for sure.

                  The origin of the troubadours is France and they are going to disappear and be replaced by muslims in 3 decades, say no more.

                • info says:

                  Alright my mistake. I based my comments on some stories I read on Roosh. Forum.

                  Many commentators hail from the UK and those men were unable to marry younger women.

                  Sure fornication is easy but where they are from or at least the area they frequent long-term relationships with an age gap above 5 years are non-existent.

                • Oak says:

                  Sons are a woman’s best avenue to reproductive success. Women who were not repulsed by men who sought consent had sons who picked flowers and wrote poetry for girls. Women who were repulsed had sons who violently dragged girls onto the back of their horse or made it evident that they were willing to do so.

                  This doesn’t only apply when women had sexual selection as husbands who seek consent would also have fewer children.

                  Women seem to like the idea of being wooed by the nice guy. But their bodies won’t let them.

        • Strannik says:

          There are good simple folk in the back woods of Siberia I know, Orthodox Christians, who would consider Jay Dyer something of a heretic and untrustworthy.

          • Strannik says:

            And I say that because he still reeks of Scholasticism, attempting to throw pearls before swine and philosophize about Christian dogma. Orthodoxy is lived as well as thought, but it isn’t an intellectual exercise to show off one’s excellence. Belief is an everyday leap of faith and trust in God, to live an everyday way of life by His commands.

            • polifugue says:

              Religious debate is throwing pearls before swine in hoping someone sees the pearls. Having followed Dyer for almost two years, he posts numerous comments, tweets and DMs of people who convert and apologize for being belligerent to him.

              Fideism is the philosophy of dying religions. What Progressive says there is no reason for the sacrament of gay marriage? What Progressive says there is no evidence for climate change? Could one imagine a Progressive saying that we can’t reason why society should be more equal, we just have to “believe?” Have not the church fathers defended the holy faith against unbelievers since the beginning? Is not every one of the seven ecumenical councils dedicated to strengthening the faith against heresies? Belief is a leap of faith, but that doesn’t mean we can’t philosophize about it.

              • jim says:

                > Belief is a leap of faith, but that doesn’t mean we can’t philosophize about it.

                Does not mean one can leap anywhere one pleases and expect to find solid ground under one’s feet either.

                You should have noticed that I philosophize quite a bit, but I don’t use portentous and obscure language to do it, because I intend to be understood, and Dyer does not want to be understood.

                • Strannik says:

                  He may have abandoned his Papism formally, but he is still a Scholastic at heart, and uses portentious and obscure language to hide his lack of inner heartfelt understanding of Orthodoxy even from himself. He should have spent more time after conversion being silent for a while and learning and living more of what he converted to, first.

                • polifugue says:

                  > Does not mean one can leap anywhere one pleases and expect to find solid ground under one’s feet either.

                  That’s exactly what he and I have been doing this entire time, and we can do that because our starting point to knowledge is revelation. If there is a “contradiction,” the church fathers come up with various new leaps in order to make the Christian system work. If the leap is not understood at first, it is simply a matter of effort.

                • jim says:

                  > > Does not mean one can leap anywhere one pleases and expect to find solid ground under one’s feet either.

                  > That’s exactly what he and I have been doing this entire time, and we can do that because our starting point to knowledge is revelation.

                  If you are not landing on solid ground, your starting point is not revelation, but philosophical hair splitting.

                  The relevant revelations are:

                  John 1 1

                  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

                  Since, in context, not the modern English meaning of “word”, so would have been better to not translate the Greek word “Logos”, which means, among other things “word”, but also means the underlying logic and rationality of the universe, and moral implications of that logic and rationality, but I will not argue with decision of King James.

                  John 1 10-13

                  He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

                  He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

                  But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

                  Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

                  Which implies, among other things, that all Christians are kin by adoption – and that if some one is not Christian, not necessarily kin.

                  John 8 58

                  Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

                  And the place where you want to land is that the world is real, you are real, you are alive, you see and touch real things and real things touch you, your body and mind are one.

                  The starting point where Tyler is leaping from is unclear, and I do not think he is landing in the world with body and mind one, with himself real, the world real, and himself embedded in and part of the world.

                  You also want to land as part of a tribe, with the Gnon the top alpha of that tribe, and the top alpha of that tribe backs a common ethical system and common system of expected and right behavior. Not at all sure that Tyler is a fellow tribesman. He seems to think he is part of the intelligentsia tribe. He waves their shibboleths around, and neglects to wave the relevant Christian shibboleths around, as if Christians were ignorant, stupid, and unwashed for their unsophisticated belief in mutually contradictory things.

                  I am an intellectual, but not a member of intelligentsia. Whenever I see someone who identifies as a member of the intelligentsia I reach for my revolver.

                  The ethical implications of his philosophizing are empty, and likely resemble the contents of one of those “click to signify you have read the terms and conditions” agreements.

                • polifugue says:

                  Using ancient Christian terms such as hypostasis, essence and energies does not mean we do not land on solid ground, it means the way we perceive solid ground is first influenced by revelation, since such terms exist at the fundamental level.

                  In the Orthodox system, contrary to the Western Thomistic mindset, we do not start by looking at the natural world and reasoning to God. Christ is God and he is also man, and the Logos through the logoi is the relation we have to the underlying logic and rationality of the universe, with moral implications concluded from such. I do not disagree with your conclusions reached in John; however, I am resisting empirical theology, where we begin with looking at the natural world and then reason to God.

                  I am saying that we must begin with God, and then reason about the natural world from our starting points being revelation.

                  In his article “Numbers Prove God,” Jay Dyer points out the idea that the identity of objects does not equal predication, thus removing an object from the state of being “one” does not mean that the transcendental of “one” is removed from existence. The transcendentals are not connected to the object. This relates to the inevitable conclusion of Hume, the problem of induction.


                  The only way to justify causality is through a God, both seen and unseen, who exists and is grounded in this world.

                  Given your article, I now understand why you find Dyer’s theology dangerous. If the only way to truth is not through God, but through revolution, that does justify the terrors of the Russian Revolution. In a way, when the Russian elite apostatized because of the adoption of Western Thomistic ideology, they became hardcore Communists as a result.

                  The ethical conclusions of the transcendental argument is that the only way to right and wrong is through revelation. It is a direct repudiation of the Enlightenment, which states that man can reason outside of God, that observation of the natural world, scientism, is the basis of knowledge. All of the past thousand years of moral “progress” is false because it is a rebellion against God.

                  I think the transcendental argument works because it anchors reason to revelation, which rejects the entirety of man-made philosophizing, the entirety of the Enlightenment, the entirety of Leftism.

                • jim says:

                  > Using ancient Christian terms such as hypostasis, essence and energies does not mean we do not land on solid ground, it means the way we perceive solid ground is first influenced by revelation, since such terms exist at the fundamental level.

                  These ancient Christian discussions resulted in and from heresy, internal conflict between Christians and postchristians, and social decay, well exemplified by the failure and fall of Alexandria and Egypt, and the Socinian takeover of the Church of England.

                  This is an ancient mode of Christian failure.

                  At best, such words were used while attempting to engage intelligent enemies in intelligent discussion – which discussion always led to disaster because the enemies were in fact enemies using words as weapons in the pursuit of power and status, not colleagues engaged in the shared pursuit of truth.

                  The correct response to intelligent discussion of the fundamental contradictions that are the central heart of Christianity is “Beyond mortal comprehension”

                  Saint Patrick also had a good answer. He gave three explanations of the Trinity in simple humanly accessible language, all of them mutually incompatible, each corresponding to a different dangerous heresy, and affirmed all of them true simultaneously – which is not heresy, the heresy being to affirm that one of the explanations is true, and therefore the others are untrue, and therefore the person making the argument is a better Christian that all those dumb ordinary Christians who do not notice or care about the contradiction, and therefore the person making the argument is higher status and deserves more power than those dumb ignorant unwashed trailer park Christians.

                • polifugue says:

                  > The transcendentals are not connected to the object

                  To be more precise, I’m not saying that the transcendentals are not connected to the object at all, I’m saying that we know the transcendentals can be used to describe the object because man is made in the image of God. Without a God who transcends time and space, mind and body, we cannot know anything, as shown in the problem of induction. Christ is the Logos, the connection between man and knowing the underlying logic and rationality of this world.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  Speaking of ancient Christianity, etc., what do y’all think about those recent articles on Unz claiming the historically spec’ed chronology of the first millennium AD is all fucked up? The author states that the current calendar did not exist until the second millennium and historical events in the first millennium were retconned to fit an assumed chronology. He basically claims the 700 years of dark age is dark because it doesn’t exist, LOL. Classical antiquity is 700 years more recent than listed on our calendar. He claims that various culturally historical centuries happened in parallel rather than serially and were basically the same events recorded by different cultures, leading them to be interpreted as different events. He also claims that when archaeological stratigraphic data conflicts with historical chronology the archaeologists have deferred to historical chronology and try to make their data “fit”. Where’s Revilo Oliver when you need him?


                • jim says:

                  He is an idiot.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  The calendars that existed prior to the 2nd millennium have no common absolute reference, so basically the chronology was built up like the way a DNA sequence is built, by matching overlapping segments and concatenating them together to build up the whole. But the chronology “froze” a long time ago, well before a much greater wealth of archaeological and historical evidence was uncovered, and this freeze, i.e. “consensus” has corrupted Mediterranean and European archaeology ever since.

                • jim says:


                  We can see the chronology in the traces of copper smelting and lead smelting residues accumulated in ice layers in Greenland and other glaciers. We can see the chronology by carbon dating shipwrecks, and thus carbon dating the periods when piracy was suppressed and long distance trade was safe. If shipwrecks of cargo ships, order in places they were carrying goods to and from. Which periods of order match the traditional chronology.

                  This gives us an absolute chronology of the rise and fall of civilizations, one chronology, and the usually accepted placing of the segments fits this absolute chronology.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  “He is an idiot.”

                  I would tend to agree the author doesn’t make his case and used discredited references, but it does raise the issue about the reliability of the chronology and makes one think about it.

                • jim says:

                  The collapse of Bronze age civilization, and the collapse of Rome’s ability to maintain long range order and long range trade, have absolute carbon dates.

                  The carbon date of Ipuwer’s scroll, lamenting, among other things, the collapse of long distance trade and burning of cities by rioters, agrees with the carbon dates of the collapse of long distance trade and the burning of the cities of Bronze age civilization, similarly for the fall of the Roman Empire in the west. The usual and traditional dates of writings describing the fall of the Roman empire agrees with the carbon dates of shipwrecks, and the icelayer dates of copper and lead smelting.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  Are you talking about Fomenko? He is an accomplished mathematician, pretty good sci-fi/fantasy artist and technical illustrator, doing a second act in life as a crackpot historian. But if you read the history as fictional alternative history it’s pretty entertaining and interesting just as Isaac Newton’s decades of work on alchemy and bible chronology would have been if he had written them up as books.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Unz Review is a sewer. Perfect example of what you get when you platform some nominal right-wing people but allow shills to run rampant. It’s what Xenosystems and Social(ist) Matter would have become had their caretakers not had the good sense to take them down completely.

                  Sure, they’ve got Steve Sailer and John Derbyshire, but the fifty or so fringe nutters who also write columns there don’t deserve your attention just because they happen to share a domain name with Steve.

                • polifugue says: