Defunding the left

Trump is defunding the left and lowering its status

The EPA will no longer take science advice from “scientists” who receive stupendous amounts of money for climate doom.

During the Obama years, the EPA packed the CASAC panel. Twenty-four of its 26 members are now agency grantees, with some listed as principal investigators on EPA research grants worth more than $220 million

Environmentalists, predictably, sued, alleging this policy would change the “science” advice away from environmentalism – as obviously it would.

In 2016, the World Bank announced it would spend 28% of investments on climate-related projects by 2020, which is roughly three hundred to four hundred million dollars of American taxpayer money per year. All Climate related projects, as near to all of them as make no difference, are scams that enrich political activists, and again, Trump cut this out.

A horde of journalists have lost their jobs, and their status.

Trump is now taking aim at “Disparate impact” If he succeeds with “disparate impact”, there are going to be mass layoffs of bitter angry aging cat ladies with vast unpaid college debt and credit card debt from Human Resources, radically curtailing the status, wealth, and power of the left.

OK, I hear you say, what about the wall?

Well, I said, wait a while for the dust to settle. I see Trump threatening the courts with a Jackson, and expect the courts to back down lest their impotence be revealed, as happened in Australia. If the state of emergency goes through, the poison pills in the budget are largely rendered irrelevant. It is going to take a few days or a few weeks to see what has happened, what is happening and what is going to happen. And then I am going to post on the wall, the poison pill budget, and the State of Emergency.

These are all big moves, and are throwing the left into hysterics. But it is reasonable to doubt that they will suffice to save the day, for the biggest source of wealth, power and status for leftists is academia and the judiciary. The dissolution of the fake news media is a good start, but to win, will have to dissolve academia and the judiciary.

On the other hand it is a reversal of the movement to ever more wealth, power, and status for leftists. The enemy has revealed he can bleed.

But the real key to power, as Hitler realized, is the FBI, which is still engaged in criminal violence against Trumpists. Fixing the FBI would in practice be the coup, which I have long been optimistically predicting, and my predictions have not been fulfilled. But I can see an increasing number of Republicans uncucking over the FBI. Not enough yet to give the color of legality to the coup.

Of course, we are reactionaries here. You cannot rule without a religion in your pocket. Hitler could put a Nazi in charge of every boyscout troop and every union chapter. Trump cannot put a Trumpist in charge of the FBI. Getting away with violence is high status. Suffering violence done to you with impunity is low status. German Nazis were high status because they could get away with violence. Radical leftism is high status because they can get away with violence. Reaction is low status because violence is inflicted upon us with impunity.

When Constantine made Christianity the state religion, Christians could get away with violence against pagans. The extent of the persecution of paganism by Christianity gets hugely exaggerated. There was not in fact enough of it to erase every pagan temple and wipe out every pagan priesthood, or even a significant fraction of them. But there was enough of it to make paganism low status and Christianity high status, which over time had much the same effect as if Christians had done what they get accused of having done. The pagan temples came to be unused, and then Christians could smash them all. The real Christian clampdown came when there was nothing much left to clamp down upon.

Homosexuals became high status because they were granted aristocratic privilege to engage in violence The disrespectable gays were openly intimidating people with the tacit support of the 100% respectable elites. Alex Jones fans cannot intimidate anyone because they are not violent enough and don’t have that tacit support. Compton’s Cafeteria got Kristallnachted twice. And so on…

And thus gays became respectable.

We are low status because Faith Goldy has been physically assaulted by protesters as Canadian media companies sat back and filmed. She has been scrubbed from every online payment service, making it impossible for her to support herself. Ads for her Toronto mayoral campaign have been banned by Rogers and Bell Media. Her life has been destroyed. She is shouted at in public and assaulted in the street

To halt the left wing singularity is going to require some serious and substantial violence against leftists, and we are very far short of that. Lacking numbers, cannot control the FBI. Not controlling the FBI, going to lack numbers.

I had hoped and expected that Trump would simply put a Trumpist in charge of the FBI, and everything would fall into place. Hillary for Prison. That is not happening, in part because though Trump has a reliable supply of federalist judges, he does not have a reliable supply of Trumpists.


422 Responses to “Defunding the left”

  1. The Cominator says:

    Ancient Rome arguably also had something close to corporations, publicani were capital associations (not sure of how the capital was pooled and what rules governed it) of multiple propetitors. The worst of them were “tax farmers” but others served more benign purposes such as construction and shipping.

    Its more like they had to recieve Senatorial charter or at least approval from a senior magistrate (praetors, proconsuls or consuls and maybe later the emperor) so probably more like pre general incorporation corporations.

    • jim says:

      But, in Rome, we did not see Ayn Rand’s engineer CEO using other people’s capital and other people’s labor to advance technology and make that advanced technology widely available.

      The difference may have been that Charles the Second not only made it permissible and high status for corporations to be profitable, he made the scientific method high status.

      • The Cominator says:

        I think a number of things.

        1. Too many slaves. Julius Caesar perhaps being the only Roman who really saw this as a problem (he made a law ordering that all large employers in Italy had to have 1/3 non-slave employees except I think for quarries and mines).

        2. Under Charles II shareholding was high status, in Rome any business except agribusinesses and to some extent moneylending was beneath the dignity of a man of the Senatorial class (though Crassus is certainly known to have flouted this flagrantly).

        3. As you said no scientific method. Intellectual speculation was considered more Greek then Roman and the Greeks believed that reason could triumph over empiricism.

        4. The time the Roman corporations developed coincided with the political situation becoming extremely unstable and frequent civil wars.

  2. BC says:

    I have a tactical question when it comes to big corporations oppressing the right is it more effective to go after the corporations for anti-American values or to do go after the puppet masters pulling the strings? I doubt it would be possible to get people that worked up at puppet masters they can’t see.

    • jim says:

      Obviously more effective to go after the corporations, way more effective. They are vulnerable and terrified. Kick them when they are down. Remember when they pulled Zuckerberg in for questioning. He looked like a deer in the headlights.

      And best model in this regard is Vox Day

      As soon as you do that, commies will come out of the woodwork and say “Hey we are on your side. You are ruled by capital, you want to overthrow capital.”

      Don’t believe them. When a commie tells you he is on your side, he has you on the list of people to be eliminated when the time comes. But that does not mean you should not go after the people they are supposedly in favor of going after, because pretty soon they will be telling you that your real enemy is the peasant with two cows and the man who runs your local Domino’s Pizza franchise. Just don’t go after the Domino’s Pizza franchisee, or very soon you will find yourself telling him to bake a gay wedding cake.

      But by all means go after the Domino’s pizza franchisor – recall how we memed Starbucks into providing free office space and wifi for blacks. That was great, and a really good idea. Make our enemies live up to their own rules.

  3. Mr.P says:

    Hi Jim.

    I threw a short-stack of $5 bills in the collection plate today.

    I made, in total (to date/time), three comments under the appellation “Mr.P”.


    – I did okay.

    – I should have used “cultural marxism” instead of “marx, dialectical materialism” in the second comment.

    – Third comment: In this context, very good (but I could be wrong).

    Conceptual and tactical coaching much appreciated.

    All the best,

    • jim says:

      Good stuff.

      You inspired me to add a comment.

    • The Cominator says:

      This was written by an old style Stalinist type leftist who understands politics but not economics. He attributes widespread understanding of politics to the American right (that we KNOW we NEED TO get rid of Democracy to survive) that most of the American right does not in fact have, most of the American right understands economics and not politics. NRxers get it and a few hardcore Trump supporters get it but most of the American right doesn’t get this.

    • Polifugue says:

      I read your comments and they were really great.

      I will use these comments in further interactions with the enemy

  4. BC says:

    Jim, Do you have a post/link laying out why the Nazis were socialists?

    The only one I could find is this:

    And I’m less than convinced by the reasoning used, making it a poor tool to informer others with.

    • pterantula says:

      Why they were socialists? CR is a national socialist.

    • jim says:

      Hitler said he was a socialist, and, like Venezuela, ran into a food crisis caused in some substantial part by setting the price of food too low, discouraging production of food.

      • Koanic says:

        And then he set the price of Russian land too high, and ran out of soldiers! That’s one way to fix a food shortage. If only Nazis could appreciate the joke!

      • The Cominator says:

        The original sin was abolishing the private market in trading food.

        Walter Darre made the state the monopoly buyer of farmer’s food. Conquering new territory (under the Darre system) actually tended to make the crisis worse, as they HAD TO under Nazi ideology treat non-German farmers worse and hence they grew even less food.

      • BC says:

        >Hitler said he was a socialist, and, like Venezuela, ran into a food crisis caused in some substantial part by setting the price of food too low, discouraging production of food.

        I know this, you know this because we’ve both read books on the subject. I picked up the farming bit when reading Panzer Commander: The Memoirs of Colonel Hans Von Luck when he talked about the farmer’s black market. However, no one in online debates reads books anymore. If it’s not posted in a simple to read bite online it might as well not exist for most people.

        • The Cominator says:

          Hitler himself talked about the black market in “The Table Talks” (yes I think they are authentic).

          But its clear from “The Hunger Plan” and severe famines throughout occupied Europe that areas under Reich control just consistently weren’t producing enough food.

        • The Cominator says:

          One stunning revealation about American History…

          When they talk about Jamestown they talk about it like it was a mostly benign commercial settlement. It becomes clear if you actually read the “Lavves Divine Morall and Martiall” that it was a penal colony. The agricultural equivalent to a concentration camp. And that probably none of the non-gentry/non-soldier population went there voluntarily at all.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          I know I said I wouldn’t be here, and to be fair I’ve not offered comment on the actual article, but seriously you guys are so close to seeing things as they really are……. you’re not anarcho-capitalists but you’re still clinging to the j-right prejudices that cause so much harm…….

          [Not sure who said this but BC quoted it]: “Hitler said he was a socialist, and, like Venezuela, ran into a food crisis caused in some substantial part by setting the price of food too low, discouraging production of food.”

          I’m not going to accept or deny this assertion – for all I know it’s true.
          Let’s ASSUME it’s true. Your conclusion (everyone here, pretty much) is that because that was the case, the solution would be a free market in food, devil take the hindmost.
          (As I’ve observed before, and been called a Marxist for it, civilised societies do not step over starving people in the street, so if you do that, you get welfare. But that’s not my point here.)

          An alternate solution would be to simply direct people to produce more food, and pay them accordingly.
          Sure they’ll complain but in the long run even those producers being ordered to farm will be better off, because the incomes that come from those lower prices will be less able to command goods and services, *and prices will adjust accordingly*.

          You have to lose this prejudice that the command economy is a bad idea. It’s not. The libertarian objection to the command economy is that it involves unjust coercion, and as reactionaries you don’t CARE about unjust coercion coming from the state, so long as it’s genuinely in the national interest.

          I’m not even a reactionary these days. I still regard myself as a Carlylean and I still have every bit as much admiration for the Habsburgs, the Bourbons and the Stuarts as ANYONE HERE, but this “private property is sacrosanct and the free market will set us free” stuff? No time for it at all.

          It’s garbage.

          • jim says:

            >Your conclusion (everyone here, pretty much) is that because that was the case, the solution would be a free market in food, devil take the hindmost.

            In countries with a free market in food, we have an obesity problem. In countries where the government intervenes heavily in the food market to feed the hungry, we get mass starvation, as for example the Venezuelan crisis, the Holodomor, the hungry ghosts famine, a famine directly caused by “The iron ricebowl”, directly caused by a government guarantee that everyone would have enough to eat.

            Where there is a free market in food, the hindmost are fat.

            > An alternate solution would be to simply direct people to produce more food, and pay them accordingly.

            That is roughly what the Allende government did. The result was not exactly a famine, but people went hungry. There was not much to eat except bread, and bread was short. The conflict between farmers and the government resulted in cattle being slaughtered, or just dying.

            Directly commanding people to produce more food is exactly what the Pol Pot government did, and the result was one of the worst famines ever.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:


              • jim says:

                Unresponsive, unrelated to the content of this blog, unrelated to my responses to you, and unrelated to the reality I experience.

                Are you even reading this blog?

                You repeat your claim that capitalism is a new system as if everyone, including me, agreed with it.

                Supposedly the recent past was communism, and you are a reactionary because you propose to return to communism.

                Why are the examples I gave of capitalism from the early iron age onwards not capitalism?

                Not going to allow any further comments that repeat that claim unless you are prepared to defend it.

                Please respond. Lets have a conversation about economic systems, but I am not going let you give us a one way lecture.

                Now you are making a whole new batch of claims, equally evil and insane, about capitalism, about socialism, about libertarians, about economists, and about us, telling us about the world as Marx and Marxists imagine it to be and if I respond to your new claims, you are going to ignore my response.

                Your comments are just one way Marxist spam – a lecture from the parallel universe imagined by commies, not a conversation. You are not listening to us, but you want us to listen to you.

                Not going to allow you to post anything new, unless you respond to responses. If you are not listening, it is just spam. It is the same problem with Marxists as with troofers. A troofer will tell you there was no plane wreckage at the pentagon, and the entrance hole is too small, and if I point out that the entrance hole is the size and shape of a commercial airline and the entire area around the Pentagon was littered with handkerchief sized bits of plane so that the ground crunched under the feet of people walking around, he will just move on to a dozen new claims, equally false, then in due course repeat the old claims, proudly telling us that everyone knows they are true and no one has ever rebutted them.

                Please respond to my lengthy response listing capitalist societies all the way back to our our earliest written records.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              “Directly commanding people to produce more food is exactly what the Pol Pot government did, and the result was one of the worst famines ever.”

              The usual lazy boomer selective comparison.

              The EEC did the same thing and the result was literal mountains of surplus food, to the point where they ended up paying farmers *not* to grow any more food.

              It’s not inconceivable that a Leader could order enough food to feed the people without the slightest recourse to ‘the free market’. In fact not only is it conceivable, it was precisely this method of running a country that prevailed throughout the golden age of Europe until the Enlightenment philosophes insisted that since all men were created equal, it wasn’t fair for some to issue orders and expect others to follow them: instead we must have a market in labour, in which every man created equal can pull himself up by his bootstraps and achieve greatness.

              Carlyle documents what actually resulted.

              Basically if we carry on down this road, eventually automation and immigration will result in mass unemployment such that every female will live in a cubicle, working as a cam girl during the day then handing her wages over for the privilege of sleeping in her work bed. Food will largely depend on tips, so at least they won’t be obese…. hmm ok that can’t work because who’ll keep MacDonald’s in the standard to which they’ve become accustomed? Some sort of welfare state…. dammit why does libertarian capitalism always end up with everyone on the dole!

              • jim says:

                No, the EEC did not directly command people to produce food. It set food prices artificially high – which of course has the reverse result to setting them artificially low. It directly commanded people to pay more for food. It did not directly command people to produce food.

                > Carlyle documents what actually resulted.

                Again you are repeating your claim that the past was communist, and Carlyle, therefore, was defending communism. No it was not, and Carlyle was not. Carlyle was defending serfdom, slavery, and the enforceable apprenticeship system.

                And from now on I am going to delete any comment that repeats this claim that you have not attempted to argue or defend, until you are prepared to argue it or defend it, even if the comment is otherwise responsive and relevant.

                Why are the examples of capitalist societies that I gave dating back to our earliest written records not capitalism? Reply!

                Debating commies is like debating troofers. You just move on to some new claim, and shortly thereafter repeat the old claim as if it was universally accepted and had never been refuted.

                The claim that capitalism is a recent system is as absurd as the Troofer claim about 9/11 that there was no commercial airliner sized entrance hole in the Pentagon and no commercial airliner plane wreckage.

                Lets stick with that issue and debate it.

                • Encelad says:

                  > It set food prices artificially high – which of course has the reverse result to setting them artificially low.

                  Wait, hold on. How does this work? Do ridiculously high prices push people to buy only the bare necessary and therefore sending food business bankrupt or forced to sell undervalue at the black market?

                  Bottled water seems quite high priced to me, but still sells a lot..

                • Ron says:

                  Probably bc it makes food worth producing.

              • The Cominator says:

                People might buy less food total at artificially high prices but if the producers have to be paid more by wholesalers anyway will tend to produce more food.

                If the government is the wholesale buyer and is guaranteed to buy the surplus artificially high will get mountains of surplus food.

                The situation in say Nazi Germany was the government was the monopoly buyer but started stiffing farmers almost immediately and in the occupied territories stiffed less than Nordic Aryans even worse resulting in severe famine which resulted in the Nazis having to make decisions about who got to eat. “No surplus mouths to feed” – Hermann Goering.

              • Oog en Hand says:

                > “The EEC did the same thing and the result was literal mountains of surplus food, to the point where they ended up paying farmers *not* to grow any more food.”

                Boterberg, melkplas…

                Yes, I know all too well. That stuff. Also, “communist” Europe has pouring people in. (Yes, the East, too. White Christians are emigrating en masse to Hungary etc.)

          • The Cominator says:

            If you want fatties to lose weight don’t destroy the free market in food just make being fat a crime.

            Fatties subject to arrest and being taken to fat camp where they do forced labor until or military training until they’ve lost the weight, that kind of thing.

          • pterantula says:

            > and as reactionaries you don’t CARE about unjust coercion coming from the state, so long as it’s genuinely in the national interest.

            CR, you say it like it isn’t a grave slander. In your opinion, what political tendencies like justice? Can you state the royalist party line on injustice from the Sovereign?

            > I’m not even a reactionary these days.

            These aren’t flavors of ice cream.

            Don’t say you understand how history and politics led to the legal and political and theological superstructure of the pre-modern economy and society. They were men, and unlike modern men, from the lowest serf to the highest lord, they knew what their rights and duties were. You’re an intellectual, out of respect for Jim, yourself, and God, act like one.

          • The Cominator says:

            > “You have to lose this prejudice that the command economy is a bad idea. It’s not. The libertarian objection to the command economy is that it involves unjust coercion, and as reactionaries you don’t CARE about unjust coercion coming from the state, so long as it’s genuinely in the national interest.”

            Command economies just don’t work very well and also make the sovereign a prisoner of the bureaucrats unless he wants to resort to Stalinesque terror see Throne Altar and Freehold. Command economies can increase short term output of some military stuff at the expense of everything else so perhaps can be run in dire total war situations short term but NEVER should be run long term.

            Destroying your own nations economy generally not in the national interest (though to be fair it would stop 3rd world immigration).

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:


              • jim says:

                You once again presuppose, without evidence or explanation, that the Marxist account of history is true, and that your interlocuter agrees that it is true, that everyone agrees with Marxism.

                Where and when is this illiberal command economy that actually worked?

                Tell me.

                You have to argue for Marxism, not just push the frame on people that they and everyone else already agrees that Marxism is true.

                If Restoration England was command economy, if early Iron Age Israel was a command economy, explain why that woman who advanced her family from spinning thread, the lowest paid occupation, to vineyard owner, by hard work, thrift, applying capital to its highest value use, and by physically creating capital, was not a capitalist.

                Carlyle was arguing that things should be the way they had been back around from about 1603 to 1800 or so – a capitalist and corporate capitalist economy, with widespread enforceable apprenticeship and indenture, a small amount of defacto serfdom, and fair bit of outright slavery, nearly all of it overseas.

                That is the restoration I want.

                Where and when is this illiberal command economy that actually worked?

                Tell me.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive. I tell you why your posts are being deleted, and you just repeat yourself.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  I told you, I am not letting you post comments that presuppose that Marxism is self evidently true and everyone agrees with it.

                  Present evidence for you claims: Explain to me why the good woman depicted in Proverbs was not a capitalist, explain to me that Solomon was not telling his people that capitalism was endorsed by priest, God, and King, and that successful capitalism is morally good.

                  Present some actual evidence that Restoration England and King Solomon’s Israel were command economies and let’s debate that evidence.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  All of your comments that tell me what I or anyone else is saying will be deleted, because in every case, as in this case, it is not what they are saying. You put Marxism in our mouths, and progressivism in our mouths.

            • jim says:

              > Command economies just don’t work very well and also make the sovereign a prisoner of the bureaucrats unless he wants to resort to Stalinesque terror see Throne Altar and Freehold. Command economies can increase short term output of some military stuff at the expense of everything else so perhaps can be run in dire total war situations short term but NEVER should be run long term.

              If you are being invaded by the Germans, a command economy is a really good idea, especially if you have a Stalin in charge.

              If you expect to be invaded by the Germans in a decade or two, or you are planning to invade the Germans in a decade or two, not such a good idea even with a Stalin in charge, and a really bad idea if, like Cuba, Venezuela, and Chile under a Allende, you don’t have a Stalin in charge. Germany’s economy ran out of other people’s money mighty fast even with Hitler in charge.

              The English command economy of World War II started falling apart toward the end of the war, and could not handle the peace. By 1949, famine loomed.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                You’re gonna have to get off the fence about Stalin. Either he was a needed corrective to the leftist purity spiral, bringing a brutal but ultimately sustainable order to a dangerously out-of-control leftist ‘paradise’, or else he was an evil murderer and the union stabilised after his death because suddenly leftists grew a conscience.

                Again, when I look at the Brezhnev-era USSR and Verhofstadt-era EU, I know which is better.

                • jim says:

                  Stalin’s order was eventually unsustainable, as events proved. But he cut off the left wing purity spiral, which was rapidly turning Russia into Khmer Rouge Cambodia.

                  Stalin cut off the left wing purity spiral, which was great, but he failed to undo socialism, which stank mightily. He had to kill a lot of political activists to halt the purity spiral, and he had to kill a lot of bureaucrats in order to make socialism barely work.

                  Had Stalin been prepared to stop socialism, would have only had to kill people who needed killing.

        • jim says:

          It would be good if you could post some book extracts, or at least give me the links.

          I don’t have links. I kind of picked up the food crisis and controls on food by osmosis from people who were around at the time. Old folks’ anecdotes. Hitler also made international trade a state monopoly, resulting in a self imposed blockade even before the war. You know how difficult and dangerous it is to sell anything to the US federal government. It became difficult and dangerous to sell anything to Germany or buy anything from Germany.

          • The Cominator says:

            The international trade monopoly was arguably much more successful then other aspects of Nazi socialism given that Weimar just had zero gold or foreign currency and was dependent on food imports even before the Darre policy.

            It was also initiated almost immediately (Hitler prior to late 1935 didn’t otherwise do socialistic things and was in fact privatizing things hence why initially Nazi economic policies were successful and then failed when Hitler turned more socialist) and had the full support of Hlamar Schadt (who did NOT support other aspects of Nazi socialism). Using “barter” rather then gold allowed them to import essentials whereas arguably they would have been able to import nothing without the “barter” policy (the reasons why are complicated but had to do with German war reparations and Dawes plan repayments, Hitler was not in a position to repudiate all foreign debts until later but while Germany was paying them they could just not hold onto foreign currency or gold).

            • jim says:

              Barter was a good idea while they were pretending to comply with the surrender terms. Monopolizing trade was very bad idea.

              • The Cominator says:

                Yes I think that is a good breakdown of what worked about the policy and what didn’t. Schadt tended to support the “barter” aspect but would have preferred to do it with as little state involvement as possible. But it was hard to do it without state involvement given the need to strictly ration foreign currency.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Wages of Destruction by Tooze

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      My take:

      Nazis: ‘For the Fatherland.’
      Commies: ‘For the Motherland.’

      All the distinction i need at this point.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        Commies were anti-motherland until Stalin Naziified the USSR to fight WWII and then exported this ideology to the third world to weaken the European great powers.

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          The best example is the national anthem which was The Internationale until 1944. It took until nearly the end of World War 2 before the Stalinist state could praise Stalin in its anthem.

  5. Off-topic: Jim, have you seen what happened to Scott Alexander? What’s your take?

    • jim says:

      I told him this was going to happen.

      Scott thinks that appeasing his enemies will solve his problem.

      Way back I told him his friends are his enemies and his enemies are his friends, that he will be accused of doing and saying all the things that I actually do do and say, and he will eventually be executed for the terrible crimes that I commit and he does not.

      Scott stands condemned for saying all the things I say, not because people and views like mine were allowed in the Culture War thread, but because we were not allowed.

      Condemned as I expected and predicted. I guessing execution around 2026, 2028 or so.

      He complains:

      your political enemies, power-hungry opportunists, and 4channers just in it for the lulz can convince everyone that your entire brand is about being pro-pedophile, catering to the pedophilia demographic, and providing a platform for pedophile supporters. And if you ban the pedophiles, they’ll do the same thing for the next-most-offensive opinion in your comments, and then the next-most-offensive, until you’ve censored everything except “Our benevolent leadership really is doing a great job today, aren’t they”

      Failing to notice that a whole lot of arguments, topics, issues, positions, and points of view that one would think would be of interest to the Culture war thread and The Motte are mysteriously not covered – that the thread has already gone a mighty long way towards censoring everything except “Our benevolent leadership really is doing a great job today, aren’t they”

      • EH says:

        I don’t get why people don’t recognize that Scott Alexander is the leftest of the left, a true degenerate and moral imbecile. In the above linked article, after piously proclaiming that only 9% of the Culture War Reddit thread participants disapproved of trannies and a similarly tiny percentage weren’t, like all reasonable people, fully celebrating men butt-fucking each other, Scott says: ” I am a pro-gay Jew who has dated trans people and votes pretty much straight Democrat.”

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      A similar thing happened to Heterodox Academy except behind closed doors. Haidt has been replaced by an Indian guy and comments are eliminated (as well as past ones- a wholesale purge).

    • Steve Johnson says:

      Notice that nowhere in that post does Scott condemn the idea of hate mobs going after anyone even slightly right wing – he merely protests that he’s innocent of the hurtful accusations of having right wing sympathies.

      Scott would never come out and directly condemn the idea of going after the right wing with hate mobs because he’s on the left and he supports them.

      • alf says:

        True, although at the same time he cannot help himself from expressing forbidden right-wing thoughts. Talk about painting yourself in a corner.

        • The Cominator says:

          The only good thing about leftists is they purge each other of course but if the left doesn’t shoot him we need to helicopter ride him and people like him.

          The rights COMPETITIVE problem is its too clement and too tolerant and thats a mistake. Believers in marxist economics, female equality or universalism should just not be allowed to live in the restoration state.

          • alf says:

            Gotta give people a chance to switch sides. But dunno, maybe I am too easy-going.

            With a guy like Scott Alexander, I can’t help feel a bit bad for him. He’s pretty readable. Too verbose, too purple pill, but pretty readable.

            At the same time, if he ends up as bad as Jim predicts him to end up, I’m like ¯¯\_(ツ)_/¯¯. He did get himself into this mess.

            • The Cominator says:

              I note the difference between Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar.

              Octavian/Augustus though certainly intelligent was not the genius Julius Caesar was, but Augustus never made the mistake of letting any defeated enemy live. Thats why he survived and Caesar was murdered.

          • pterantula says:

            The left sees ideology, the right sees cool people and degenerates. We’re not going to be cool people who talk about leftism to win votes in the next election or to gain the approval of degenerates. It’s like, oy vey, how do these people not realize that the anti-wealth canard that billionaires cause leftism will lead to anuda french revolution, they’re blamed for not contributing enough to globo-toto-gaiety while being blamed for contributing, the gay lobby as seen on South Park is Randy Marsh is more enlightened than you and PC Principal has a world-view that justifies and supports him in crushing pussy. What does the non-heretical American cool guy say?

  6. Carlylean Restorationist says:


    • jim says:

      Not what I said.

      I delete your comment because it attributes to me and this blog a position that directly and flatly contradicts what I have said in the plainest possible way many times over. I delete your comment rather than repeating myself yet again to make my position clear yet again because to do so yet again would be a waste of reader bandwidth.

      • Mike says:

        I’m not saying this will work, but this is why I am surprised you care so much about what the courts will say. Who cares what the courts say if the legislature overturns it. That being said, the Senate is majority Republican so this probably won’t work (I assume both the House and Senate have to be on board).

  7. […] done a good job of using the federal bureaucratic system to undermine the Left in its institutions. Defunding the Left and removing its access to official funding and support removes a lot of status in and of […]

  8. BC says:

    Jim, what’s your thoughts on the left’s girl-Hitler? We haven’t seen a demagogue of this caliber since Huey Long and she’s rapidly converting the Dem base to her camp. Normally I wouldn’t worry about a woman demagogue, but Mexicans have a history of falling prey to female demagogues pretending to be living goddesses or the alike. Might be a bad combo with how heavily Hispanic the armed forces are now.

    • jim says:

      I don’t pay much attention to low IQ politicians wooing low IQ voters. Stupid people will elect stupid politicians. Stupid politicians will do stupid stuff: Venezuela.

      The dems are run by moderately intelligent octogenarians, who got into position when we had a more intelligent electorate, and a massively more intelligent academia. The generational change is inevitably going to involve a massive reduction in IQ, partly for reasons of race, partly because of what happened at Google and Itar.

      Apart from stupid Democrat Party voters due to the mass importation of voters to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democrat, the elite is far less IQ selected than it used to be. The mean IQ of the college educated has collapsed, as colleges select on political doctrine instead of ability to read and write.

      The generation effect and the race effect is hitting the Democrats all at the same time.

    • The Cominator says:

      If Cortez ever got her communist state she’d be outmanuvered and purged quickly because she is just too stupid in a way that even low cunning can’t make up for. She appeals (as a leader though some right wing guys want to give her a right wing hate****) only to stupid millenial women really.

      • jim says:

        Stupid people do not get purged except by a cohesive group of smart people. All the smart people in the Democratic party are pushing eighty, and they have not managed to purge her.

      • Doug Smythe says:

        That people are even discussing this vacuous and mediocre girl, someone destined by Nature to make coffee for her boss and sit on his lap, goes to show that they’ve lost the capacity to run a serious country.

        • Doug Smythe says:

          The bright side is that it’s death rattle of democracy, which dies not in darkness, but under the bright spotlight of the circus tent. Clown world, in order to continue to exist, depends on a social infrastructure in the form of a serious State that keeps the tent up and the power running. Under President Cortez, the circus tent collapses and blows away in the wind, and Restoration is at hand.

  9. anon says:

    so now Jims “god emperor has taken it up the ass voluntarily from pelosi and the kike after two years of ryan and co humping him i just had to see if Jim was still shilling this 3d shit and sure enough he is. Jim there is at this point only one explanation moldberg was a jew entryist you are his running dog as is land and all the neoreaction cucks who if you think about it are just neocons telling anew generation of mothless boys how you can make their lives meanful serving their jew techlords hope at some point you cucks get rounded up

    • jim says:

      Trump now has a State of emergency, plus seven major deep state elements of the FBI fired or “resigned”.

      Worst case outcome is that he lets the State of Emergency be stalled till it gets to the supreme court.

      The wall is being built.

      The left has suffered massive defeats on Global Warming.

      Despite piously announcing he is in favor of massive legal immigration, Trump just whacked half of what remained of H-1B

      Trump prevented the deep state from making war on Syria and is now belatedly engaged in his long promised withdrawal from Syria and abandonment of Isis.

      Trump killed NAFTA, the Paris Agreement, and The Trans Pacific Partnership, as promised and on schedule.

      Trump ended college rape convictions.

  10. Anonymous Fake says:

    Any comments about the Marshall Plan or Operation Paperclip? The liberal West managed to assimilate literal Nazis who were literally just Obeying Orders. They were given careers and families for as long as they changed their programming, which they did without a second thought, and probably without a first thought.

    The right has never shown an ability to make careers for former leftists. There are either no careers, or deleftification doesn’t succeed. It’s a single sided contest about who can employ whom.

    • jim says:


      When has the right purged leftists?

      When have communists been unable to get careers?

      When Communism fell, it was not suppressed the way Nazism has been brutally suppressed.

      Communists have always been welcome, without ever having to repent and change their minds. The neocons are, for the most part, still Trotskyite commie, and the Republican party is full off them. That is like a senior Nazi becoming a senior member of the Democratic Party without ever having to repudiate Nazism.

      The Transpacific Partnership was Trotskyite Marxism, the Paris Accord was Cultural Marxism, and the Neocons were and are full on board with both of them.

      The Republicans, let along the Democrats, are full of commies. Yeltzin and Putin were senior ex commies. See any senior ex Nazis running Germany?

      And at least Yeltzin and Putin are excommies – unlike the commies in Congress.

      Leftists murdered about one hundred and sixty million people during the twentieth century. How many people have been murdered by rightists in the last few millenia?

      The secret police committed a huge pile of crimes keeping East Germans down. Have any of them had to say “sorry”?

      Where is the neocon who had to say “Maybe I was mistaken about capitalism”?

      Huge numbers of Venezuelans have died of famine, disease, and violence. Do you think anyone is going to have to say “Sorry”?

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        It’s one thing for closet communists to consistently work their way to the top of an institution because conservatives play fair and don’t cheat on exams. It’s another thing entirely when the rank and file cannot find careers in exchange for legitimate merit.

        Purging infiltrators is a hard problem. Employing good people is easy, but the right won’t do it. I lean on evolutionary psychology as the explanation for this, and I’ve seen a lot of explanations. What’s your’s?

        The “black pill” that leftists are stronger and smarter and more sociable and better looking than conservatives isn’t true at all, at least around here. Conservatives always look to be beautiful losers for no reason.

        • jim says:

          There is absolutely no comparison between right wing treatment of ex communists who have never repented, and left wing treatment of anyone vaguely connected to excessive rightism, no matter how many abject grovelling apologies he issues.

          As I said, what happened to Stasi ex police officers. What happened to Trots who announced themselves neocons without showing the slightest indication of repenting?

          • Anonymous Fake says:

            That’s not the case of conservatives employing them, though, but their weaseling their way to the top. The employment problem is the inability for the right to fill up and institution with either its own people, or average leftists, and make them loyal.

            The apology gap is very telling. I suspect most cuck apologies are from demoralizing agents, and they *are* being compensated somehow, but in a way that the base doesn’t detect. The “failed apology” has to become part of the record to make an example, but what happens quietly afterwards is hushed up.

            • jim says:

              Commies don’t have to weasel, they don’t have to conceal their affiliation. Anti communism is deeply unfashionable, not in spite of the fact that communists killed more than a hundred million, but because communists killed more than a hundred million.

              And anti communism is deeply unfashionable in the Republican party – hence the neocons.

  11. Anonymous Fake says:

    What would you say if I mentioned that most private schools are just as pozzed as government schools? They’re just as feminized and disconnected from the labor market’s demands as anywhere else. In the most Orwellian cases, they are sometimes actually nominally conservative but they are so expensive they require 2 incomes to pay tuition, sometimes 3 (divorced beta alimony). No one can afford them with any ordinary wage income.

    Merchants are noticeably bad at replacing priests at school, just as at capitalism. They actually fail at cooperation, while warriors can set aside their competitiveness and offer cooperation to the best people of any caste. That’s why we like them.

    • jim says:

      Merchants are not “noticeably bad” at replacing priests at school. They are not allowed to replace priests at school. There has already been reactionary research efforts into creating non pozzed schools and private universities, and the left armored up against this potential attack shortly after the War of Northern Aggression.

      You can get in under the religious exemption, but this requires you to have your own recognized priesthood in your pocket, and even with that in our pocket, it would be hard. Quite likely doable, but far from easy.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        Do you think Trump University was false opposition? What about home schooling? How did that even happen?

        What 19th century schools were reactionary? Engineering schools? Even Catholic schools couldn’t keep the leftists out. Muslim schools do have a proven success record for their own context, but I’m not sure that’s a good thing.

        I suggest that all schools are rigged to favor the left because they’re the ones cheating on their exams, and conservatives aren’t, but there has to be some kind of fair exit option for conservatives who made “Solid B’s” (actually, the highest grades without cheating) and want to have a career that can support a family in exchange for their work.

        Really, it is only the underclass/shudra/pariah that thinks in terms of entitlements based on caste. Every other caste has some kind of belief in compensation for doing work. Priests just happen to show up the best in our era.

        • jim says:

          Trump university was defeated. If Trump cannot do it, we cannot do it.

          People have been trying this for a very long time.

          Trump did not understand the Cathedral back then. Maybe he still does not, though he is coming around. We, on the other hand, have been studying the enemy.

          Home schooling works, and is still legal, though has been criminalized in Europe.

          • James says:

            Homesteading, homeschooling, and keeping a housewife is my plan. I don’t see any other way to keep my home from becoming pozzed — and even then, it will be work.

            It seems to me that in 20 years, we may see the growth of hybrid professional-homesteader households that homeschool in the middle and upper middle classes. I wonder how effective the Left’s counterattack will be — and a lot of that will be determined today.

            • The Cominator says:

              Women tend to get pozzed by their herdlike desire to be like other women. So unless you can find a true sowing circle of trad housewives I don’t see much hope in the US anyway.

      • Bob says:

        Even the LDS school, BYU, is embracing the poz with its instagram campaigns to welcome gays. Its sister school in Idaho, however, fired a teacher a couple years ago for advocating gay marriage in class. I wonder how long they’ll hold out for.

  12. Ron says:

    “, there are going to be mass layoffs of bitter angry aging cat ladies with vast unpaid college debt and credit card debt from Human Resources,”

    All kidding aside, that is seriously the best thing that could happen to them. I mean that out of simple kindness and compassion.

    They might actually end up with grandchildren and a man that loves them.

    • Eli says:

      One of my coworkers, a divorced woman in her 60s, with a PhD in chemistry from Caltech, once casually mentioned how her second child was a result of unplanned pregnancy, which happened during her forced sick stay for several months at home.

      Basically, her favorite son, the kid whose custody she ended up keeping (she lost her other child to her ex) was a result of a lucky accident that forced her to be a housewife. Had she not had this situation, she would’ve likely ended up considerably more bitter, as an older woman.

      The idiot woman is a feminist, of course: the kind that calls to report on a man that “beats his wife.”

    • jim says:

      It is obvious that the career girl path is not working out for them. They are not happy, and their income just enables them to run up bigger credit card debt, which makes them less marriageable, while they imagine their income and socioeconomic status makes them more marriageable.

      When I spend money to buy status, makes me more attractive to women. When women spend money to buy status, makes them less attractive to men – to which they respond by spending money they cannot afford to buy status, the classic example being the freshly divorced woman burning the family assets on round the world trips.

    • Anonymous Fake says:

      This is the final proof that there is no way to stop the left by voting. The left is empowered by voting. They can always pretend to be right, the right cannot pretend to be left, so elections are always de facto rigged from the start.

      The Taliban gets it. They’re the smartest men in the room, which is how they have embarrassed America for a generation now. Anyone can pretend to be a moderate Muslim, but no one can pretend to be an assassin. The assassin wing of Islam, and in fact every open religion that matters, has to be integrated into the faith. There has to be some kind of loyalty test as strong as whatever the left has, and they can stoop deep. Otherwise, infiltration and subversion becomes a one way street and the religion becomes discredited.

      If assassins can’t be stomached, then random selection by means of monarchy is the solution to the leftist problem. Conservatives who “hold their nose” are the best fake opposition in history.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        I am loving this rehash of the “men in black pajamas” meme. So retro.

        The “failures” in Afghanistan are a direct result of priests directing wars and warriors obeying. Indeed, every Great Power that has failed in Afghanistan has done so because of the forces of impetus, not the forces of arms. I’m not debating whether the Taliban are le based red pill xD faction. But to act like they are an even semi-competent standalone fighting force is to deny facts. They still exist because Pakistan gives them safe harbor, just as the NLF continued to exist by exploiting safe harbor in N. Vietnam. In both cases, political interests in the US maintained the integrity of said safe harbor.

        • The Cominator says:

          I think Afghanistan is a special case. The only person in history who succeeded in sort of establishing any real central control over Afghanistan was Tamerlane and he was both a native and probably history’s most ruthless conqueror bar none (and even with him it fell apart immediately after his death).

          The Soviets unlike the US were willing to deal with rebellion and insurgency very ruthlessly (though certainly not as ruthlessly as Timur) but even they had no luck controlling Afghanistan.

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            Method is downstream from Motivation. Why a force is present in a region dictates the outcomes of what the force can/will do and can/will achieve because the Why of it all dictates the interpretation of outcomes. Tet Offensive was a massive loss for the NLF and yet it is interpreted as a win for the Cong purely because of interpretation by American elites. The South crumbled when the US Congress cut off military support, not when the US military pulled out.

            Here comes the danger: I predict that Haquani Network will usurp the Taliban ~2 years after the Final Drawdown and they will do so by using a nationalist/xenophobic interpretation of the Status of the Battlefield. The Taliban is in too deep with ISI/Pakistan and will always be seen as their pet goat.

            • The Cominator says:

              We should leave Afghanistan but I don’t think a properly run war could win there either (at least not without way more cost then its worth) is my point.

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                The only outcome to a “properly run war” is victory. Pyrrhic Victories are a battle level phenomenon. We don’t know what a Pyrrhic War is like because it hasn’t happened. It is Boomer Logic + Cultural Marxist cant that has instilled the idea of “victory at too high a cost.” If the victory holds no value than the war was unnecessary. If you can accurately categorize a war as unnecessary, then 100% of the time you will find a priest or politician behind it.

                • The Cominator says:

                  WWI was a pyrric war victory war for England and France.

                  Their leaders had plenty of WILL to win but were using the most incompetent tactics in history.

                  Yes I get that they couldn’t flank the trenches but why couldn’t they just attack with infiltration units at night and break through a line of trench pre-dawn.

                  The war should have ended with a negotiated status-quo ante peace after the informal Christmas truce…

    • Anonymous 2 says:

      Trump once again rewards his base. More seriously, the homo lobby is quite powerful.

      • pterantula says:

        the homo lobby is a paper tiger, the just click heads and even lift culture are calling each other fags again online despite the obvious threat of banning

        so the next question is whether the Christians are ready to recieve their prodigal sons. Meanwhile CR should level up by talking not of global but Divine happiness when arguing that some transactions are degenerate

      • Koanic says:

        I read that Trump knew nothing of this.

        • Anonymous 2 says:

          Perhaps a very Jimian case of the Emperor signing the many documents handed to him by various bureaucrats?

    • Koanic says:

      “God bless the USA” just keeps getting funnier.

      Yes, bless it like Pharoah’s Egypt! The peace of a parking lot upon her! May she reflect Sol’s glory like an unbroken sea of glass.

  13. Anonymous Fake says:

    Does anyone here notice that the corporate/capitalist class doens’t exactly distribute career information very effectively *outside* the schools? I don’t just mean that they ignore college, or aim at preK-12 first before college, but that they keep salaries very hard to uncover in any case at all.

    The market is phenomenally effective in price signaling for consumers, but not for workers. This destroys the ability of average men to earn value in the eyes of women, in exchange for having a career that can support a family.

    If red pill sexual competition doesn’t explain this, what does? The market can and does work for goods, and the golden age of capitalism was based on materials and trade in materials. But as soon as services are involved, meaning the labor of average men who want a good job, the fog of war gets so thick it can be cut with a knife.

    Why do math professors, obviously high status to everyone, make much of the same lousy salary as LGBTWTFBBQ professors, only high status to the fringe of the left? Why is salary information so bad even as goods information is better than ever?

    In more masculine times, it is notably the opposite. Getting stuff and information about stuff was hard, but everyone knew what a worker in any given field earned based on his labor. Women could pick solid men easily, and they did.

    • jim says:

      Your example of unrealistic salaries is priestly salaries:

      > Why do math professors, obviously high status to everyone, make much of the same lousy salary as LGBTWTFBBQ professorsThe salary of the priesthood is not set by the market.

      As an engineer, I can tell you that the market does work for engineers in the genuinely private sector. Not so much in the quasi governmental sector, which is primarily defense related engineering.

      So, as usual, you are blaming evil capitalists for the power and crimes of the priesthood.

      You are telling us that the priesthood should fix the market by overruling the evil capitalists. But to the extent that the market is broken, it is the priesthood breaking it.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        Engineers might be aliens as far I can tell. They’re not extroverted merchant types, but somehow they figure out where all the good careers are in spite of a media blackout in the schools, television, and even newspapers. In all dead seriousness, this skill is more important than any technical skill they have. Indians and Chinese grad students have the greatest technical skills in the world, and it doesn’t give them any serious money or prestige.

        Obscure web sites might work for the most recent generation, but for normies born in 1990 or earlier, maybe a bit older, there was no information access for that kind of career if you didn’t personally know someone. Again, pure vaishya territory, no matter how much engineers want to be warrior-merchant superpositions.

        • alf says:

          Engineers might be aliens as far I can tell. They’re not extroverted merchant types, but somehow they figure out where all the good careers are in spite of a media blackout in the schools, television, and even newspapers.

          Such a strange thing to say. Everyone knows where the good careers are. You just ask yourself: ‘how much value is there in that career?’ And you will often find that to be true. There is no mystery surrounding engineers: they’re just men who know how to build, and surprise surprise, there is value in that.

          But, that kind of thinking is alien to you. You don’t think in terms of value, you think in terms of holiness. ‘Engineers make money? But they are simple plebs! Proletariat! Where do they find this money?? It must be an evil capitalist conspiracy’

          • Anonymous Fake says:


          • I think it is simpler than that. Engineers are the types who just have to be engineers. Love it, feel that they are talented for it, and so on. They would do it cheaper. They would just do it in a different country. I mean, everybody understood in the Soviet Union that the real career is in the Party, not in engineering, but engineers are not cut out for politicking, they are cut out for engineering. And they were not allowed to leave, so what could they do, suck it up and engineer. So there was no lack of them. And often didn’t even do a very bad job, simply because engineers love their craft: the badness was on the production level, not on the design level, they simply could not manufacture the necessary precision the blueprints required.

            The sad truth is that one could enslave engineers, treat them like dirt, but just give them something interesting to work at and they will work at it enthusiastically. And young men who are cut out for that would go to engineering school even if it meant chains and daily beatings.

            Without these fanatical-in-a-good-way traits, our decline would have been a whole lot faster and steeper.

            • James says:

              I’m an engineer and wouldn’t bother with it if I didn’t earn well into six figures. Sure, I enjoy it, but I enjoy plenty of other things that are less stressful and difficult. The typecasting of engineers as weird freaks is a means for people who made different career decisions to justify their choices to themselves, in my experience. The freaks account for maybe 10-20% of engineers, tops.

              • Thales says:


              • Eli says:

                In former Soviet Union, engineers were treated like dirt, and yet there were engineers (my grandfather included). But then again, virtually everyone was treated like dirt. At least, as an engineer, you didn’t have to actually shovel dirt every day.

          • Truth is, most engineers are “fanatics” and would do it even if they were offered peanuts. They would just do it in another country or if not allowed to move, like in the Soviet case, they would sigh, suck it up and try to find interesting projects.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:


            • jim says:

              Instead of blaming the crimes of the priesthood on capital, why won’t you explain to us s why an early iron age woman buying land with money saved from sewing and spinning, and using it to creating a vineyard is not capitalism?

        • The Cominator says:

          American entry level engineers who weren’t part of a quota group or top of their class got screwed between 2000 and 2016 (when Trump came along and cracked down on the entry level insourcing epidemic). Take it from one (and one who managed to make money anyway but I didn’t do it through my career that was done through extreme parsimony and a very good investment).

          • James says:

            It was definitely rough being an entry-level engineer in the 2008-2016 timeframe (not 2000-2008 — that was a golden age), but I managed to go from $45k to $78k in 3 years graduating in that time slot. The reality is that you just had to hustle a little harder and be more strategic in your career.

            • The Cominator says:

              2005-2006 wasn’t a golden time (I can’t speak to earlier but I don’t think early 2000s were a golden time either… you had the tech bubble bursting and 9/11). I got an okay job after that prior to being laid off again in January 2009.

              Got a job again two years later… always underemployed. Keep in mind I’m not a poor man now… but my “career” wasn’t my path to prosperity.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  Deleted for telling us what non Marxist economists think. It is not what they think.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You’re weak and retarded. My take on Bastiat was pure canon, as well you know.
                  You just can’t cope with the truth because you’re a bieder-Meier Whig yourself.

                • jim says:

                  When you tell me what I am saying, you tell me that I admit that Marxism is true, and when you tell me what Bastiat said, you tell me that Bastiat admits that Marxism is virtuous.

                  You attribute to Bastiat intent to immanentize the eschaton, and belief that this intent is wise and virtuous.

                  Marxists intend to immanentize the eschaton.

                  Bastiat does not, and thinks intent to do so an indication of horrifying and indescribably savage evil.

                  Whenever you tell me what someone else says, they are always supposedly agreeing with whatever claim of Marxism they have most famously and vehemently rejected.

                  I, who say that capitalists do not matter and proles do not exist, get to supposedly endorse Marxist Class theory, and Bastiat who famously described those who would bring about Utopia as “sculpting in human flesh”, gets to supposedly be a utopian.

                  This is analogous to Troofers claiming building seven as decisive proof of their story because it is the most decisive disproof of their story, being the building whose fall was most obviously not a demolition.

                  You tell me person X says Y, not because he says something that could be confused with Y, but because he is the most conspicuous and effective speaker against Y.

                  Instead of responding to critics of Marxism, you pre-emptively tell us we have already agreed with whatever aspect of Marxism we have most devastatingly condemned. And no one condemned utopianism better than Bastiat.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  If you think I’m going to repost what I originally wrote, so that you can censor it a second time as a show of strength, forget about it. Anyone can register and run a blog, it doesn’t make you right. It just makes you trigger-happy, which is always and everywhere a sign of weakness.

                  The gist of what I noted was that our friend who likes to boast about his six figure salary doesn’t seem to be terribly happy, which isn’t what Bastiat predicts when people voluntarily trade with one another.

                  Maybe, just maybe, some kinds of goods DON’T work like Walter Block’s tie vs pen thought experiment.

                • jim says:

                  You attribute utopianism to Bastiat, presupposing he agrees with those aspects of communism that he most famously rejected and denounced.

                  Bastiat does not predict free market economics is going to make everyone delirious with joy, but if we compare capitalist societies with socialist societies, everyone is obviously better off. Everyone in socialist countries is frightened and desperate, even the ruler himself, and most people are hungry and have bad teeth and toothaches.

                  Further, in our society a six figure salary tends to require compliance with progressivism – wherupon you won’t get laid, your marriage will fail, and your family will be destroyed. This is not the fault of capitalists, but the fault of the priesthood.

                  Your method of argument is to defend Marxism and priestly power not by presenting argument and evidence, but by telling us that everyone, including me, already agrees with Marxism.

                  Looks like there is a substantial difference in happiness between Cuba and Singapore, as predicted by Bastiat, even though Singapore fails to immanentize the eschaton.

                  If you are Cuban, likely have a toothache, and not enough meat, beans and vegetables. While a six figure US salary is not guaranteed to make you happy, particularly if the wife leaves, burns the family assets, destroys your children’s lives, turn them against you, and you cannot get laid, hunger and toothache is definitely going to make you unhappy, as accurately depicted by Bastiat.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  It never ceases to amaze me how tenacious Jews are.

                  You’re NEVER going to stop repeating that same lie, no matter how many times it’s refuted. Nevertheless, like scratching when an ant crawls on your arm, I feel compelled to state once again that I am in no way sympathetic to egalitarianism, including Marxist redistribution.
                  I am sympathetic to the models of the PRE-CAPITALIST world because I’m un-sympathetic to the results that capitalism has produced.

                  You say Bastiat doesn’t predict Utopia. I never said he did. What I said was that Bastiat’s primary model of laissez-faire trade (not even capitalism, just trade at the micro level) is the dual inequality of wants.

                  That’s just a statement of fact and you waste your own bandwidth, which you routinely pretend to care about, by pretending not to understand this.

                  Nevertheless your readers DO understand it: to channel Walter Block, Bastiat predicts “you like my tie more than your pen while I like your pen more than my tie, so if we were to swap, we’d both be better off and the total happiness in the world would have increased compared to how it was previously”.

                  Cominator’s a notoriously successful, high-earning guy and by no means shy of telling us so lol nevertheless he now tells us he’s not especially happy in this economy. Now I am absolutely NOT pretending to know why that might be. I’m making a very modest claim, which is that if the rich and successful aren’t happy then those who failed in comparison are likely not any happier, and if that’s true then Bastiat’s prediction’s false, at least vis-a-vis labour, which is the claim I was trying to make when you censored me:

                  Labour, housing, food, clothing and several other crucial goods and services, are special types of good, and Bastiat’s dual inequality does not apply.
                  If you were starving you WOULD obtain food, and it definitely does not follow that you’d automatically be happy with the terms by definition.

                  Laissez-faire economics over-generalises and as a result makes faulty predictions. As an Austrian, I immediately see the reason: it’s an aggregation of the subjective.

                  Mises is right, Rothbard is wrong.

                • jim says:

                  Your attack on Bastiat consisted of attributing to him the claim that exchange could immanetize the eschaton, attributing Marxism to him, and to me.

                  The pictures I posted in my previous reply shows that Bastiat is correct, which is why you have to lie about what he and I say.

                  Bastiat does not claim that free exchange will make everyone happy.

                  He says that free exchange will avoid the spectacular and conspicuous unhappiness shown in the pictures above.

                  You were not really disputing the theory of double coincidence of wants, for no one disputes that.

                  You were projecting your Marxist utopianism onto anti communists.

                  You were not saying that Bastiat argues double coincidence of wants, for everyone argues double coincidence of wants. You were not arguing that he and I are wrong to argue double coincidence of wants. You were telling us that to expect free exchange to result in Utopia is unreasonable – which implies that I and Bastiat are utopians, like communists, that we expect free exchange to wipe every tear from every eye.

                  Nah, just fix toothaches and breadlines.

                • jim says:

                  You lie about Mises, you lie about Rothbard, and you lie about me.

                  The claim is not coincidence of wants, therefore free exchange will bring about utopia and immanetize the eschaton

                  The claim is coincidence of wants, therefore free exchange will bring about well stocked supermarket shelves, your local Domino’s pizza franchise, and good dentistry when you have a toothache.

                  And when Trump milks the Venezuela crisis, that is what he implicitly argues.

                  When Gorbachev liberalized travel, and ordinary Russians were able to visit the supermarket, they thought it was a Potemkin village, that shelves had been stuffed full for their visit, and would be emptied after they left.

                  When the Sandinistas bribed the leadership of the Nicaraguan Indians to detach them from the Contras, they bribed them with trips to Cuba to get their teeth fixed, which dentistry was not available to ordinary Nicaraguans or ordinary Cubans.

                  And that is Bastiat’s argument about double coincidence of wants.

                • The Cominator says:

                  CR not “high earning” I said I never had a job where I made over 50k and was very unhappy with the Bush-Obama economy.

                  I was able to “make it” through wise use of the stock market and extreme parsimony. Men aren’t happy under the Cathedral because it fucks up everything, Trump has made things better in most respects (partially by reestablishing capitalism in more areas) but putting women in their place (which would make men much happier) is currently beyond his power.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive: Your comment is not part of a conversation between Marxists and reactionaries, but between Marxists and Marxists.

                  The phrase “dual inequality of wants” does not appear in any libertarian book, nor any economics book, nor in any reactionary canon, nor do any of the thoughts that you attribute to them.

                  Your reply attributes, without explanation or evidence, a theory to advocates of laissez faire that absolutely none of them would recognize. I have read Rothbard, Mises, and Bastiat. You are reading a script written by a Marxist paraphrasing another Marxist paraphrasing yet another Marxist lying barefaced about Rothbard and Bastiat.

                  Your reply presupposes that what makes Marxism Marxism is equalism, despite the fact that no Marxist state ever gave more than perfunctory lip service to equalism, while the enlightenment proclaimed, and actually took seriously, that all men are created equal.

                  Obviously that is not what I think Marxism is, and that it is not what Marxists think Marxism is: What makes Marxism Marxism, what makes you a Marxist, is Marxism is Marxist history, Marxist Class theory, and Socialism. Equalism is a minor concession to progressivism, instantly dropped in actual practice for the vanguard of the proletariat.

                  What makes Marxism Marxism, what makes you a Marxist, is Marxist history, Marxist Class theory, and Socialism.

                  If dropping equalism could make Marxism work, most Marxist states would have worked.

                  If Marxists were bothered by ditching equalism, they would not have been so keen on Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Stalin’s Russia, or Castro’s Cuba.

                  If you reject the theory that you mischaracterize as “dual inequality of wants”, you get breadlines, bad teeth, and toothache, recently on display in Russia, and currently on display in Venezuela.

                  Equalism without Marxism gets you Greece. Marxism without equalism gets you Russia and Venezuela.

                  Marxism is the theory that the priestly class should be on top and should steal absolutely everything and command absolutely everyone.

                  Neoreaction plans to be the priesthood, but we think warriors should be on top and should steal sufficient to fund the army and the state, that warriors should do warrior stuff, merchants should do merchant stuff, and priests priestly stuff.

                  Our current problems are the result of an excessively numerous priesthood overflowing and intruding on the activities more properly performed by merchants and warriors. This excess of priests is a result of priestly dominance, open entry into the priesthood and the resulting overflow of people into the priesthood. We plan to cut off open entry into the priesthood.

                  In a reactionary state, the state will enforce marriage, and end open entry into the priesthood. Military priests will be trained in military academies under the control of retired warriors. Women will be forced to honor and obey the first man they have sex with till death do them part, and will be denied access to men who are not yet contributing to the state and society.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:


                  Your not responding to me. You are responding to what your script says I should be saying.

                  Try quoting from a libertarian, anarcho capitalist, or a reactionary, not from a Marxist telling me what libertarians say, and give me a quote long enough that it does not need or have your frame around it explaining, what he really means, and then I will allow your comment.

                  We are always hearing Marxists talking to Marxists. We have heard it all before. It is a repetitious waste of reader bandwidth. If you want to talk to non Marxists, respond to what I said, or at least to what a non Marxist said. I want a conversation, not a lecture.

                  And even if your comment fairly quotes a reactionary source, if it also attributes some stupid Marxist position to me or some other reactionary, I will still delete it. Stop telling me what I or other reactionaries think.

                  If you tell me what you think about what we in fact say, then I will allow it. Respond to me, or to anyone who is not a Marxist, and I will allow it. Quote me or someone else, and don’t tell me what he supposedly really means.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  Don’t tell me what other people say.

                  Bastiat’s theory of value was incorrect, but when modern economists disagree with him, you presuppose that they or he or both are agreeing with Marx’s theory of value or frame them as agreeing. Not even Marx agreed with his own theory of value.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  I delete all your comments where you say person X says Y, because in every comment where you said person X said Y, and I knew what they said, it is not what they said.

                  Even when you quote someone, which you seldom do, you always frame what he said with a frame that implies that he agrees with Marxist theory, when he is usually disagreeing vehemently with Marxist theory.

        • Nikolai says:

          “Indians and Chinese grad students have the greatest technical skills in the world, and it doesn’t give them any serious money or prestige.”

          Engineers in general don’t get much prestige, but I personally know Indian and Asian comp sci majors who made six figures straight out of undergrad. I’d assume grad students make even more. And sometimes they do get a bit of prestige, CEOs of Microsoft and Google are Indian, though I’m unable to name any Asian CEOs without looking it up.

        • James says:

          I was born in 1987 and had no problem finding information. Literally all you need to do to get started is google “salaries by college major” in your teens, “average and starting salary for ____” for a few options after you graduate, and then “Glassdoor ______” for relevant jobs when you have experience. It’s incredibly easy and if you can’t figure it out you deserve you be poor.

          • pterantula says:

            > im an engineer because it’s very competitive in terms of remuneration
            > therefore not a freak designing my lifestyle around what I believe to be important
            > furthermore it is natural for men to choose remuneration over other factors such as the favor of other men in selecting their career
            > which is why we are ruled by capitalists
            surely you don’t go so far as to continue, may God and Jim forgive me for repeating this blasphemy, …who are servants of the great capitalist himself, who accepts the bread and wine labor value substance men worked for the fields, and applying his divine capital, changes its value immensely

            One can choose to worship the Word through Whom all things were made, or worship something else, but to be an engineer is ontological, either a man is the man who attaches things to other things, or the man who uses things, or maybe either one by participation. Money is a token of appreciation and there are other ways the world can appreciate the engineer, but the engineer is satisfied by his creation as God is satisfied by His, though there is always another patch, because only God is perfect from the beginning.

            The gnostic says God is bad because His creation is deficient in blah blah blah or whatever, but St. Thomas Aquinas says
            > But if someone objects that, since God is almighty, he could have saved the human race otherwise than by the death of his only-begotten Son, such a person ought to observe that in God’s deeds we must consider what was the most fitting way of acting, even if he could have acted otherwise; otherwise we will be faced with this question in everything he made.

            There are questions that can’t be answered by math and revelation is always subject to the question of evidence. God isn’t your mommy to comfort you when bad things happen, you were not made for comfort, you were made for greatness. Make your creed the kind of faith that could inspire this:

    • Steve Johnson says:

      Getting stuff and information about stuff was hard, but everyone knew what a worker in any given field earned based on his labor. Women could pick solid men easily, and they did.

      More dispatches from crazy-world where the main problem is that women don’t have sufficient information to pick men based on income.

  14. Anonymous Fake says:

    Just keep in mind that a lot of “Marxist” elite discussions are designed to keep out the boomer conservatives as much as the Marxists, who are more interested in victory parades and getting laid.

    By the way, black nationalists complaining about redlining were actually being paid by the bankers, who wanted to bury the issue of usury in real estate by making it into a black issue. Conservative cucks completely fell for it. They were blindsided by the housing bubble and ensuing demographic collapse, oblivious the entire time.

    An understanding of Marxist theory is acceptable in treating people who grew up in Marxist schools through no fault of their own fairly during the restoration. If you aren’t interested in justice for the innocent, you’re indistinguishable from the thugs who just want to knock over the apple carts to grab a few apples. Trying to beat the left at its own game ends up like Charlottesville. Or Trump University.

    • jim says:


      “Redlining” was a disinclination to make loans to people with no income, no job, and no assets, which disinclination of course had massive disparate impact.

      Abolishing “redlining” led to the great minority mortgage meltdown, which resulted in the share holders of most major banks losing those shares. Which outcome makes it unlikely you can blame the protests about (nonexistent) redlining on evil capitalists.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        Look at the demographic collapse of South Korea, and yet the inexplicable cost of buying a house even as the population hollows out to make room for North Korean “unification” (conquest) within just a couple decades. In developed countries only 1% of the work force actually builds the houses, but people pay 40% or more for the right to live where the bankers decide. They also determine the number of children large populations will have, and they determine that South Korea must have very few children.

        The mortgages DESERVED to melt down. Good people should not be sterilized by the cost of owning a home. Bad people breed like rats no matter what. The black nationalists who attacked redlining were burying the issue by making it associated with their other truly idiotic ideas and their nasty character in general. They and the bankers were all in on it.

        Like any real reactionary, I say excess wealth belongs to gold hoarders, not real estate speculators. Mortgages linked to banking and usury are always population control. They’re the single most obvious destructive capability the Federal Reserve possesses. The NINJA retards are only obnoxious losers compared to the damage that overpriced housing does.

        • jim says:

          > Look at the demographic collapse of South Korea


          Nothing affects fertility significantly except female emancipation and female status.

          Timor Leste proves that if men have the opportunity to be patriarchs, they will not let poverty stop them. They will do whatever it takes.

          If, however you deny men the opportunity to become patriarchs, they hang out in their mother’s basements and watch cartoon porn, regardless of whether their society is rich or poor.

          > The mortgages DESERVED to melt down

          The Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown was white people paying for nice houses for brown people people brought here to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democrat to live in, and we did not deserve to have to pay. In the end, most of them were eventually evicted, but a mountain of money was lost in the process.

          • Koanic says:

            I bet we could recoup a lot of that by selling the Left’s organs, societal and personal.

          • info says:

            Why do Israeli seculars have such a high fertility rate despite being highly feminist and leftist?

            • The Cominator says:

              To my knowledge they don’t, Israeli Ultra-Orthodox have a high fertility rate.

              • Eli says:

                The secular Israelis’ fertility rate has risen, as of about a decade or so ago.

                Reason: Having more children has become more statusful. It’s a weird fashion among the Israeli feminists now. Kind of like “natural birth,” “holistic medicine,” and “anti-vaccine” here, among well-off white American women. As with all fashions, it is not clear whether it’ll hold up, but that’s the case right now. I don’t exactly understand myself the dynamic of this fashion, but my guess is that it has been mainly influenced by the Orthodox, which is definitely a positive phenomenon.

                It’s also the case that Jewish men tend to be very compliant with regards to their wives, and the women are high-testosterone. There might be a hyena-like evolution in play here. (In hyena families, the females are dominant.)

                • Starman says:

                  Fashion is very important.

                • jim says:

                  The secular Israeli fertility rate among Ashkenazi Israeli Jews is still catastrophically low, though less catastrophic than the secular fertility rate among Ashkenazi Jews outside of Israel.

                  Israeli secular fertility reflects the importation of very large numbers of brownish low IQ jews, who may well be less culturally assimilated than they let on, since a generation ago, women were entirely property among them.

                • Eli says:

                  You are likely right on this one. I haven’t checked the statistics as broken down by region of origin.

                • jim says:

                  Q: What is the difference between Trump and the Jews attacking him?

                  A: He has Jewish grandchildren and they do not.

                • Eli says:

                  Good one! I’m going to use this one to troll IRL.

        • Starman says:

          Anonymous Feminist gives his fellow feminists the pussy pass… again.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      By the way, black nationalists complaining about redlining were actually being paid by the bankers, who wanted to bury the issue of usury in real estate by making it into a black issue.

      Typical Marxist class theory worldview based bullshit.

      Banks pay off leftist black orgs because leftist black orgs have the state on their side and the banks have to pay them off.

      Marxist analysis assumes that the leftist priesthood doesn’t exist and so can’t be exercising power. Since power is clearly being exercised the Marxist points at the actor paying money to another party and assumes the party paying the money is the party in power due to some nebulous benefit they get out of it – bullshit. The much more straightforward model is that the party paying someone to do nothing is the party that’s being extorted.

      The Marxist can never argue against this so this is where he starts to accuse anyone disagreeing with him of being in the pay or service of the capitalists – nope – just people who can recognize that the Marxist arguing for one way ingrouping is doing it for malicious purposes.

      • Starman says:

        Other than being bluepilled, controlled opposition can also be detected by physiognomy, deliberate incompetence, and reckless disregard for info security. Incompetent finance is another big indication but it doesn’t apply to Richard Spencer (it applies to David Duke though).

        Spencer’s reaction to being punched and the structure of his face (think of the creator of the Kony2012 video) is a physiognomy dead give away. It was my first indication that Spencer was controlled. For Weev, it was Spencer’s reckless disregard for info security and the obvious incompetence.

        • barf says:

          I can see how Spencer and the Kony video guy have similar physiognomy, but I’m not good enough at reading it to know what their faces are saying. Could you spell it out a bit?

          • alf says:

            Weak chin/jaw, weak eyes. Also, entirely unsubstantiated, slightly gay vibes.

            Which is to say, he’s probably an OK person, but just completely unfit for this line of work. The point about his response to being punched is spot on: his first instinctive response is flight. Pretty sure we want someone who’d stand their ground.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:


      • jim says:

        Unresponsive and irrelevant.

        When are you going to explain to us why an early iron age woman buying land with money saved from sewing and spinning, and using it to creating a vineyard is not capitalism?

  15. Anonymous Fake says:


    • jim says:

      You take for granted, without evidence, explanation, or argument, that it is capitalists that beat up Watson and purged Chagnon.

      If you want to argue that, I will pass your comment and debate it. If you are just going to assume it as universally agreed, obvious, and uncontroversial, not going to allow that.

      Doubtless there are lots of capitalists who would beat up Watson and purge Chagnon to gain the approval of their betters, but they are not the ones doing it.

      • Anonymous Fake says:


        • jim says:

          Deleted for telling me what I really think.

          I make what think abundantly clear.

          Try addressing the arguments I make, rather than the arguments your script tells you I am going to be making. A conversation between characters invented by your script is a waste of space.

          • Anonymous Fake says:


            • jim says:

              Repetitious spam. Address the arguments I make, not the arguments your script assigns to me.

              • Anonymous Fake says:


                • jim says:

                  This comment asked me questions as if I thought in terms of Marxist Class theory, as if everyone thinks in terms of Marxist class theory, as if Marxist class theory was entirely obvious and uncontroversial.


                  Try asking questions that presuppose I think in terms of reactionary class theory, that most people around here believe that Marxist class theory is wrong, stupid, evil and crazy. You can argue for Marxist class theory, you can even presuppose Marxist class theory, but I am not going to let you presuppose that I accept Marxist class theory, not let you presuppose that everyone else accepts Marxists class theory.

                  All your purported questions have been answered many times over in the plainest possible fashion. You are just trying to get me to accept Marxist frame on those questions. You don’t actually care about the answers to your purported questions. Not accepting Marxist frame, not allowing anyone to impose Marxist frame on the plainly expressed reactionary position.

                  Reactionary class theory is priests, warriors, merchants, and everyone else, and only priests and warriors matter for political power, though merchants matter very much for revenue and technology. Our present problems are due a swollen and excessively powerful priesthood, which is devouring merchants and warriors.

                • Ron says:

                  This one comment is probably worth more than the entire internet put together. You’ve just pointed out the essence of the Great Con.

                  In retrospect it’s obvious. Like any shit test given by a woman, failure depends on accepting the frame.

                  Now I need a rigorous definition of Reactionary Frame

                • jim says:

                  Work on it. Offer me an account of reactionary frame.

                  Frame is a set of assumptions about the conversation and the interaction, and in order to facilitate communication and the interaction, we tend to tacitly accept the assumptions without conscious awareness.

                  My frame that male society consists of priests, warriors, merchants, and followers, and the female population is not a society, but consists of feral women and women under the authority of a husband or father, that women are only part of society through an intimate relationship with a male authority.

                  Whenever I reference “priests” I immediately clarify by making it clear from context that I am referring to professors, judges, social justice warriors, and suchlike, as if everyone already knew and already agreed that progressivism is a religion, and that it is the officially unofficial state religion.

                  I have not been consciously and intentionally promoting reactionary frame, the way Heartiste has been promoting alpha asshole frame, and maybe I should, but I have been holding frame in the face of stubborn efforts by some commentators to shift the frame.

                  I intend a restoration modeled on Charles the Second: Fertile semi hereditary aristocratic elite, divine right monarch, openly official state religion, which one must affirm for state or quasi statal office, modern corporate capitalism, with a restriction that the business plan be approved and adhered to. Investors need to know what they are investing in, and governments need to know that large successful corporations will not start investing in unrelated activities that buy them political influence and restrain competition. One corporation should have one business model.

                  The situation immediately preceding Charles the Second resembled today’s American Hegemony: An officially unofficial state religion that had suffered a leftist singularity, which singularity was ended by Cromwell, not Charles the Second. He ended it with far less bloodshed than Stalin ended it in Russia, though bloodshed is frequently unavoidable, and more difficult to avoid the further leftism has gone.

                  The American hegemony also resembles the Turkish empire, which had become the anti Turkish empire as the US State Department has become “The International Community”. It was the Turks, not the provinces, that revolted against the Turkish empire. I had hoped that Trump would be Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, would be Atatürk, Cromwell, and Charles the Second in one man, but that is a tall order. An Atatürk needs to be a military man, and the left has taken precautions against such a man.

                • The Cominator says:

                  > “Whenever I reference “priests” I immediately clarify by making it clear from context that I am referring to professors, judges, social justice warriors, and suchlike.”

                  Lawyers (who tend to be the day to day ruling class even if academia sets doctrine long term) and writers are also priests/Brahmins. Priestly type professions tend to overwhelmingly oppose Trump.

                • The Cominator says:

                  > “modern corporate capitalism, with a restriction that the business plan be approved and adhered to.”

                  I still think this will mean crony capitalism and much slower economic growth.

                  Economic policy was optimized in the 19th century not the 18th.

                • jim says:

                  > Economic policy was optimized in the 19th century not the 18th.

                  Maybe, but I suspect whig history, generated during the brief and entirely one sided alliance between “classic liberals” and evangelicals, during which “classic liberals” agreed on and supported the abolition of enforceable apprenticeship and slavery, in much the same way and for much the same reasons as modern libertarians support gay marriage, abortion up to and immediately after birth, affirmative action for women, women working in men’s jobs, sex changes, transsexuals in women’s sports, and will tell you “bake that gay wedding cake, why don’t you”.

                  Classic liberals believed, or purported to believe, that the abolition of slavery would result in former slaves working the same way, but now with better wages and working conditions. In fact, of course, what happened is that very large numbers of slaves predictably starved, much as the Victorian abolition of coercive restraints on female sexual behavior predictably resulted in an intolerable number of bastards born in the dark alleys in the rain and on the mud, resulting in the welfare state and the substitution of child support for marriage.

                  The restriction on business plans generally did not result in crony capitalism, because businesses of moderate size could be owned by a single wealthy individual, who was free to pursue any business plan he felt like.

                  So if you pulled strings to prevent another corporation from being formed to compete with you, you would find sole proprietorships would still eat your lunch.

                  It is not likely to have much effect except on giant corporations, such as Google and Amazon. And obviously we want to effect the behavior of corporations like Google and Amazon. It is not going to bother the guy who owns your local Domino’s Pizza franchise.

                  Domino’s Pizza might pull strings to prevent the Pizza Hut corporation from being formed, but if they tried to extract monopoly rents from their franchisors, their real competition is not Pizza Hut, it is franchisors taking down their Domino’s sign and putting up their own individual sign.

                • Koanic says:

                  Ah, frame. In the tradition of Haman, we should dispose of the Left on the device of their framing. FEMA camps for Pussy Hats, never rations for Never Trumps, and biological weapons testing on Sodomites! Or perhaps a reality show panopticon reservation in which capitalism, patriarchy and Christianity are abolished, with violators summarily sniped. I’m sure Amazon would be happy to manufacture a stylish explosive collar with embedded mic, camera and GPS. What an opportunity to turn political science into actual science! They’ll have to earn tenure by beating the betting prediction market. It turns out Leftists are good for something besides organ harvesting after all! Get your Hippie Hell kidney today!

                • The Cominator says:

                  Non-corporation businesses with a lot of money or whos owners have a lot of money are prime targets for lawyers. Though under our system the legal profession will be curtailed and viewed with suspicion its probably not something we can get rid of completely. Besides I’d even go further then the modern system on general incorporation and abolish the “qualified investor” restriction for IPOs. If you want to form a publically traded company with 20 grand and a bunch of poor investors as long as you can meet the requirements of some exchange great.

                  Economic growth was probably the highest in history in the mid to late 19th century partially due to the general incorporation reform (the biggest major change from the 18th century). 18th century economic growth was anemic in comparison and the post-progressive era is anemic in comparison.

                  I’m with you on enforceable apprenticeship though the abolition of enforceable apprenticeship hurts modern high school cost low trust America a lot more then it hurt 19th century America or 19th century Britain (low training school cost and high trust). Entry level tech jobs would certainly benefit from enforceable apprenticeship.

                  Slavery should not be a permanent part of the economic system it creates externalities for free people in the market that interfere with the smooth functioning of the market, in the event of war against the left its probably something we should do to leftist but otherwise young attractive women (since it would be bad to kill them all) on a non-hereditary basis.

                • jim says:

                  > Non-corporation businesses with a lot of money or whos owners have a lot of money are prime targets for lawyers.

                  This is the anarcho tyranny that ensues when you have a thousand kings instead of one king.

                  The solution is not limited liability, but William the Conqueror’s forms of action, so that you can no longer sue anyone for anything in any jurisdiction.

                  The objection to forms of action was that real and grave wrongs went unpunished, because somebody did not do their paperwork. They failed to keep a receipt, or they failed to explicitly write down an agreement about property that the actions of both parties clearly implied.

                  Well cry me a river. The paperwork was pretty simple, even in a largely illiterate society.

                  The practical effect of forms of action was that you could not sue someone unless you had a waxed slate in standard format, there being a very limited number of standard formats, saying he cannot do something or must do something, and if he does it or fails to do it, must hand over money or property. You did not have to be able to read the forms, you just had to know which form you had to have, what the numbers were, and which item of property.

                  The classic example of a great and grave injustice arising as a result of forms of action, is Bob needs to go off to war in the holy land, so he tells Dave “take care of my property when I am gone”. When he returns, Dave tells Bob “You gave me this land and I am keeping it”.

                  Hard biscuit. Bob should have asked Dave to sign a form saying “This property belongs to Bob or his heirs, and Dave or his heirs must return it on demand.”

                  The problem is that there is no way of giving judges general discretion to remedy any obvious injustice, without giving them general discretion to order anyone around for any reason or no real reason at all.

                • Koanic says:

                  Yet another Yankee abolitionist. God will abolish Yankees before man abolishes slavery!

                  Slavery is a punishment from God, and the nation who bans it will find herself enslaved, same as the nation who overuses it.

                  It’s the same as banning bankruptcy for corporations.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Yet another Yankee abolitionist. God will abolish Yankees before man abolishes slavery!”

                  If you want to defend the institution make an economic argument. I’ve argued that people who can’t function in an optimized free market should just be sterilized. Slave societies are just not economically very efficient. If you want to get to the stars you want maximum economic efficiency and history suggest that slave labor is at best a short term stimulant with horrible long term effects.

                  Slave labor distorts the labor market in a negative way the same way mass immigration and H1Bs do. Also if British colonist never adopted the institution from the Spanish America today would probably have no racial problem.

                  Standing up for slavery is more based on reactionary purity/holiness spiraling then based on sober thought. Even Moldbug’s argument for it was based on “pure” acceptance of the “nomos”. I want to do what works.

                • Koanic says:

                  BS. The economic inefficiency of the South was due to the government’s institutional bias towards the plantation class of nigger-owning aristocrats. The Biblical system precludes that by binding land to the patrilineages. Abolishing slavery just makes all men slaves.

                  Remember when we were arguing about the efficacy of knees? Here’s what happens when a pro fighter doesn’t know how to defend the Thai clinch. Pretty much the same thing that happens when one doesn’t know how to defend the low kick. Meet Dieselnoi the Diesel Knee:


                • The Cominator says:

                  “BS. The economic inefficiency of the South was due to the government’s institutional bias towards the plantation class of nigger-owning aristocrats. The Biblical system precludes that by binding land to the patrilineages. Abolishing slavery just makes all men slaves.”

                  The South until the Civil War did not have a very intrusive government at all other then subsidizing slave patrols so what institutional bias? Are you glosoli channeling a preference for inflexible Old Testament law?

                  Rome was stunted in developing industry because it was a slave economy, Julius Caesar clearly planned to solve this long term but unfortunately was murdered.

                  “Remember when we were arguing about the efficacy of knees? Here’s what happens when a pro fighter doesn’t know how to defend the Thai clinch. Pretty much the same thing that happens when one doesn’t know how to defend the low kick. Meet Dieselnoi the Diesel Knee:”

                  We personally to my recollection have never argued about boxing or MMA nor have I ever discussed those topics on this blog…

                • jim says:

                  Looks to me that these fights were primarily punches and low kicks with a bit of grappling. Did not see knees being used to any great effect. High kicks worked, but sometimes went horribly wrong, even though applied by an expert.

                  Sky High Knee guy’s highest knee was lots of strikes to the groin, none of which seemed to have any great effect. I watched the video only half way through, but what I saw looks like any street fight: Punching, low kicks, and grappling.

                  The only move I saw that a regular untrained guy would not have used were the high kicks, and they did not seem like a great idea.

                  The boxing gloves severely reduced the effectiveness of grappling. A real fight would have had more punches and more grappling, not more knees.

                  Hands are the most effective weapon for a man with bare hands and humans, unlike apes, are built to fight with a weapon, not bare hands.

                  If you are in a real fight against a roughly equal opponent, grab anything handy and whack him with it.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jim can you elaborate more on how the form of action system worked and what primary sources on how it worked there are? I know you have mentioned it but while I’m a history buff I’m fairly ignorant on this subject.

                • Koanic says:

                  I’m sure the plantation aristocrat class was screwing the yeoman farmer and retarding the development of industry all kinds of different ways, but I don’t need to look it up. The proximate cause of the Civil War was forcing freemen to act as unpaid slave catchers, in direct contravention of Biblical law. Even if the South was your supposed laissez faire utopia, which beggars belief, the expansion of plantation estates using cheap slave labor to drive the yeoman into the hinterlands is prohibited by Biblical land law. Ergo the South deserved everything it got. You don’t understand the difference between a slave society and a society that has slavery.

                  Jim, there were not multiple fights, just one fight. Maybe you were confused by the beginning snippets to introduce the two fighters. There were no knees to the groin. MMA sees plenty of effective knees; lighter gloves make them more effective, not less, since one can grip the opponent better in the clinch. Dieselnoi’s knees in the main fight were far less effective than normal due to the rules forbidding knees to the head, which would have quickly ended the fight. In general, Thai fighters don’t go for the quick win.

                  Last week I recently became minorly famous for repeatedly breaking the heavy-pole kickboxing bag at a Southeast Asian resort. By which I mean, I popped the nuts off the screws holding it upright, requiring tools to repair. I did it all barehanded. Hands are by far not the best weapon to strike with. Elbows are best for hitting the head, shins for kicking low, and knees deliver the heaviest power. The strongest strike the hands can deliver is the clothesline, which strikes with the wrist. Just hold pads for some Muay Thai guy and let him knee you a couple of times. It’s not hard to verify.

                  Striking with the hand is actually quite difficult to do at full power without injuring oneself. It requires precision, practice and conditioning, and things can still easily go wrong. The only blow that’s worth striking with knuckles is the uppercut, which is otherwise impossible.

                  Anyway, it’s ridiculous to argue about. Everyone in MMA uses knees, and only people who have never eaten one are deceived by the lack of dramatic arc into thinking that they’re ineffective. F=MA.

                • jim says:

                  After the horse collar was perfected, and mining methods improved, most people were more valuable as taxpayers than slaves.

                  So it came to pass that pretty much everyone who was a slave was someone who would not work except under the whip, or prone to engage in acts of violence and destruction so that no one wanted him around if they did not have discretion to punish him severely.

                  Of course, it is really bad to give people an incentive to import such people, but reality is, these people are unable function as independent individuals. The welfare state is a profoundly unsatisfactory solution: Results in Detroit.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Of course, it is really bad to give people an incentive to import such people, but reality is, these people are unable function as independent individuals. The welfare state is a profoundly unsatisfactory solution: Results in Detroit.”

                  I’m aware of this aspect of the problem and as I said they should be sterilized. Slavery creates other problems.

                • Koanic says:

                  Is this really true? It seems to me that white slavery ceased in the West because masters were too oppressive, and slaves were too successfully rebellious, in their victory banning the practice. Which is merely lurching from one excess to the other, as idiot humans are wont.

                  Under a rational and humane system of slavery such as the Biblical one, I think I’d make a cheerful and highly valuable slave, should I fall on hard times.

                  If anything, the obsolescence of the lower IQ sections of the workforce argues for more slavery, not less. Leave them alone to drink in their trailers and you will get Communist Revolutionary trying to “fix things”. I think it’d be great to have some low IQ white slaves, for both parties. They’d get competent direction and I wouldn’t have to answer stupid fucking questions.

                  What do we want? SLA-VER-Y
                  Who’s it for? THEE NOT ME

                • jim says:

                  I don’t think there have been any successful slave rebellions.

                  Slaves do not have what it takes to pull of a rebellion except the central power wants them to rebel.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Leave them alone to drink in their trailers ”

                  After sterilizing them.

                • Koanic says:

                  It was quite the shift in the Plantations, from the Revolutionary War soldiers being re-enslaved after their military service, to the gradual abolition of white slavery. One needn’t have a directly successful slave rebellion in order to make this happen. Instead, one has a three way war between the escaped slaves, the Indians, and the civilized elites. The Vietnamese did not stage a successful rebellion against their American overlords, but the Americans retreated nonetheless.

                • The Cominator says:

                  > “I don’t think there have been any successful slave rebellions.”

                  Haiti and the Mamelukes (of course the Mamelukes were slave SOLDIERS which was stupid on the part of the Islamic rulers of Egypt).

                  Spartacus made the same mistake Hannibal made in not marching on Rome immediately after destroying their army…

                • jim says:

                  Haitian slaves only won because the French government and priesthood was on their side.

                  Mamelukes were a successful slave rebellion, but they were higher class of slave. Warriors routinely rule, and find it easier to do so when priests lose their faith.

                • Koanic says:

                  Speaking of warriors and priests, we need a combat sport that doesn’t involve Traumatic Brain Injury so that being a priest and a warrior isn’t mutually incompatible. It sucks that I can’t get punched in the head without reducing my ability to commit genocide with my pen.

                • Koanic says:

                  I guess the answer is paintball/airsoft and BJJ/wrestling. Even with armor, blows to the head cause concussions, which accelerate cognitive decline. Unarmed combat is useless anyway once pozz is abolished and everyone goes armed, but it builds character.

                • jim says:

                  Paintball is as realistic as we can get without killing people. Humans have always used weapons. Weapons made us human, and weapons make a man a man. Also, paintballs should hurt, and generally do hurt.

                  Wrestling is more realistic than boxing, because grappling, holds, and submission holds work in real fights. Any combat with substantial gloves is unrealistic. That is not how apes fight, and not how men fight bare handed in real fights.

                  Catch wrestling is more realistic than Brazilian Ju Jitsu, because too many holds are out of bounds or artificially discouraged in Brazilian Ju Jitsu. But Brazilian Ju Jitsu is good enough.

                • Koanic says:

                  Sounds good. I know nothing about this shortcoming of BJJ or catch wrestling.

                  Hey, I was just going over the /by-Location/ section of my notes, and I found that global geographic options for escaping the pozz are a bit thin. Why not take mobility and geo-arbitrage to its logical conclusion, with the shipping container home? Skip the indoor plumbing and have a local bathroom + kitchen onsite. Get two and leapfrog them. I like my computer chair /just right/.

                  Combine that with a remote job at a fully remote company. Containerize yourself, and become a virtual citizen!

                  As you grow rich, add more containers to your traveling mansion…

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  > “Domino’s Pizza might pull strings to prevent the Pizza Hut corporation from being formed, but if they tried to extract monopoly rents from their franchisors, their real competition is not Pizza Hut, it is franchisors taking down their Domino’s sign and putting up their own individual sign.”

                  It always comes back to the junk food culture, and I think rightly so.

                  I don’t know what ‘Anonymous Fake’ thinks about this because he’s been ruthlessly censored, which leads me to guess he probably has a few issues with it, but that would be telling you what he thinks so I’ll stay on the fence: for all I know, he thinks Kentucky Fried Chicken is the fun place to go if you want to talk to the locals and soak up some traditional folk atmosphere.

                  Is it fair to say that, no matter what else happens in the coming upheavals, you’d like there to be something like fast food franchises left standing?

                  I expect this is a dividing line that transcends many of the established categories, because I’ll tell you right now: if I could live in a multi-ethnic, socialistic society with next to no crime and a total absence of KFC, Bella Italia, Pizza Express, Marvel Comics and The X Factor, I’d be intensely relaxed about choosing that over a Christopher Cantwell minarchist ethno-state with booze and hookers.

                • jim says:

                  Why don’t you move to Venezuela or North Korea then?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  If you’re going to tell people critical of capitalism to move to communist countries, you probably need to rebrand because that’s not an intellectual move, it’s just a partisan mainstream conservative move.
                  Your takes are a lot colder than Tucker Carlson’s once you say something like that, and you really might just as well be a Sean Hannity type commentator going on about special snowflakes and SJWs while applauding the Trump tax cuts.

                  Meanwhile actual right-wing dissidents need to take on board things like this:


                  The Guardian’s ‘solution’ is to leave everything just as it is, but create new tiers of bureaucracy to ensure compliance with a new batch of regulations, always playing catch-up to the consequences of liberal capitalism through mass franchise democracy.

                  Pretty sure someone else could do better than them, but instead your position is basically that the insurance companies are either

                  1. Doing nothing wrong and old folks should just learn to code


                  2. The government must be making them do it

                  Pretty sad really.

                • jim says:

                  You enthusiastically urged the measures taken in those communist countries: socialism, detailed command control of the economy, and in particular the absence of junk food – which tends to be accompanied by the absence of any food other than bread, for which one must queue in long lines.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  THAT’S your response to insurance companies screwing loyal pensioners who think they’re their friend?


                  My father’s a conservative. He’s 78. I just sorted his home insurance out and saved him £660 on his £770 renewal premium by telling his very respectable, old-school, trusted insurer to go jump in the lake.

                  He found the whole idea of changing home insurance providers too stressful and was afraid that meddling with direct debits carried all sorts of complicated risks. He was going to just let it roll over for peace of mind.

                  They knew this of course, and they also knew what The Guardian said in that article: if they lie and claim it’s a good deal, you can sue them…… so in his renewal letter it actively says he’s been with them for a long time and could probably get a better deal by shopping around.

                  They were relying on him not doing that because he’s old and his phone doesn’t do ‘apps’.

                  And your answer is that to complain about this means you favour the liquidation of the Kulaks and 1950s Soviet bread lines? ROFL

                  I don’t know why I’m laughing. People like you are all over the right, keeping good people on the reservation.

                • jim says:

                  Free people often make bad choices, because decisions are difficult. Often one does not have the information one needs.

                  You are going to solve this by making all their decisions for them, even for faraway strangers of whom you know nothing.

                  Been tried.

                • alf says:

                  Once again, you blame the capitalists for the problems caused by the priesthood.

                  The problem with insurance companies is not capitalism, for capitalism allows competition – Delta LOYD screws you over? No problem, switch to another company. All other companies screw you over? Unlikely, but still no problem, cancel insurance.

                  Where insurance becomes evil is when the priesthood makes it mandatory. When I moved neighborbood because i bought a house, my car insurance went up from €20 tot 45€ a month. Angry, I called the company, who informed me that this is standard procedure, and after investigation I indeed discovered that ALL mandatory car insurances have the same ridiculously high premium. But, because the priesthood has made the insurance mandatory, I cannot cancel. So I am stuck, screwed over by the priesthood.

                  Of course you will not see journalists writing about this, because being part if the priestly class they run psy-ops for the priesthood, while, just like you, they have intense hate for capitalists and attack them at every opportunity.

                • pterantula says:

                  Okay? Cheating is a sin. It’s also an unreliable business practice (am I a libertarian exchanging spiritual evil for temporal inefficiency, and, in Aquinas’ estimation, immoral and unjust, because anger is the correct response to injustice?). What would Carlyle have said about your father being cheated and how would the Englishmen of the 18c have resolved that situation?

                  It’s actually pretty easy not to get cheated in a competitive market because businesses go out of their way to advertise their prices and why their quality is superior to other outfits. Normal people, when they see a bunch of different things on offer, will buy the standard package expecting not to cheat or be cheated. Marketers in uncompetitive markets will determine what combination of features and price points will maximally frustrate customers. Well, if competition hasn’t worked so far, when will it, say the marxists, as they said 150 years earlier about Christian social doctrine.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  You deduce from Alf’s words beliefs that would only follow if he accepted that Marx’s theory of classes was true, and that it was readily possible to immanentize the eschaton, that would only logically follow if he was a Marxist.

                  You are debating everyone from in the frame that Marxism is true, and there is no need to discuss it because everyone agrees that it is true.

                  Now how about presenting some actual evidence for Marx’s theory of history: Present some evidence that Restoration England and King Solomon’s Israel were command economies, that they were not far more capitalist than today’s west.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Solomon’s Israel probably had some aspects of a command economy later on. It definitely has biblical backing that he resorted to requiring a term of forced labor on temple construction for able bodied Israeli males.

                  I would guess that Solomon’s Israel was a mix of capitalist and command economy.

                • jim says:

                  King Solomon’s Israel had taxes, conscription for war, and conscription for state work and state projects, and state project were built by command. But private consumption goods were provided by private production, and private production operated by capitalist markets, where private individuals created capital, directed capital to its highest value use, and hired wage laborers on short term contracts to do stuff using their capital.

                  The Book of Proverbs is a lecture on incentives in Solomonic Israel: “Do this good thing, and you will prosper, people will like you and your social status will rise. Do this bad thing, bad stuff will happen to you, and maybe people will kill you, and if they kill you, King and God will not care because you had it coming.”

                  It is the same stuff as the copybook headings that Kipling refers to.

                  The enlightenment piously declared that you could not deduce morality from reason, but the Book of Proverbs is a pious lecture confidently deriving morality from reason, and you get kind of irritated because you feel that you are being addressed by a powerful authority figure who is confident in the righteousness of his religion and his social order.

                  So King Solomon explicitly tells us what the incentives are under his social order, and implicitly that priest, King, and God approve of these incentives.

                  But the incentives imply a social order, so he is implicitly telling us that priest, King, and God approve of this social order, and that it is backed by the potential violence of the King’s mighty men.

                  And what are the incentives? Among them are that hard work, thrift, and wise investment, purchasing capital wisely, applying it to its highest value use, and creating capital industriously, will make you wealthy.

                  Publishing a book that is about incentives, rather than that such and such is commanded, and such and such prohibited, presupposes a predominantly capitalist society.

                  King Solomon has no difficulty deducing morality from reason, because he implicitly presupposes a private capitalist market economy of free and independent agents – and that this order is backed by priest, King Solomon, and God.

                  Conversely, the enlightenment was unable to deduce morality from reason, because the question they are really asking is “after we liquidate the kulaks and immanentize the eschaton, what then?” If you can remake reality at the minor cost of a few kulaks here and there, then of course you cannot deduce “ought” from “is”.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  Deleted for putting words in my mouth.

                  Lets have a discussion about the evidence. Let’s have a discussion of the words of King Solomon in the Book of Proverbs.

                  Let’s talk about what ancient sources tell us about King Solomon’s Israel. I gave you my source, and it is early iron age. What is your source?

                  The argument you attribute to me makes no mention of any evidence, you have me merely attempting to argue from Marxist theory and Marxist principles to non Marxist conclusions, which argument you then correctly point out is invalid.

                  You make up an argument for me that presupposes that I agree that Marxism is true, that we are disputing history of King Solomon’s Israel within the Marxist frame, and then rebut the argument you invented for me. You have us as two Marxists disagreeing about the implications of Marxism for King Solomon’s Israel.

                  Nah, we agree perfectly about what Marxism is and what it implies about King Solomon’s Israel. It is just that Marxism is as nuts as flat earthism.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The biblical account of Solomon is that he was a wise and good king in his youth and something of a dissolute and tyrannical king in his declining years (having been somewhat corrupted by foreign wives).

                  I think he changed for the worse and in his eagerness to build grand state projects probably moved his economy more towards the worse (ie towards something closer to an Egyptian style command economy).

                  I would suspect the Book of Proverbs to reflect younger better Solomon.

                  This is all just speculation of course.

  16. Zach says:

    Bruh! Trump choose that fuckwit at the FBI. He could have done otherwise.

    If knew Trump, I would mock him endlessly for placing that goof in there. And others…

    • pterantula says:

      if trump ever tried porting the government to redhat microsoft would come out with all manner of tco studies showing that redhat isn’t competitive and is basically an inappropriately politicized choice lead by some dumpy old commie whose text editor uses non-standard keyboard shortcuts and has a custom extension language

      • Zach says:

        Trump should show up on Shark Tank with a new machine that combs your hair. One needn’t lift a finger. Trump should call it “The Comey”.

  17. vxxc says:

    O/T: after 18 years I finally got the GWOT mission statement:
    “Greater Jihad” that is spiritual struggle.
    Personal improvement not war.

    The doctrinal authority is TRADOC.

    Yes no shit.
    Progress has been saying this for 15 years.
    I just finally heard it.

    Mind you any mission is better than none.

  18. Let’s suppose John Lukacs was right when he said the predominant emotions motivating politics in a democracy are fear and hatred. Sounds ugly, but if you just start with love and hate, and realize that the strongest emotion deriving from love is the fear of losing what one loves…

    So let’s suppose every adept manipulator eventually finds out that the strongest motivation for the “troops” is a combination of hatred and fear. This would lead to depicting the enemy at the same time strong yet vulnerable, scary yet defeatable, a giant with feet of clay.

    Which reminds me the weird scary-yet-comical kind of WW2 caricatures. And how every leftist propaganda seems to use this – there is a big fearsome system of repression, but it has feet of clay. Combining these two emotions, fear and hate, is not really straightforward. I don’t think people really feel both at the same time, but more like emotionally rollercoastering from one to the other and back.

    Hitler’s speeches were also all about this. Taking turns describing Germany as an innocent victim and as a super-powerful entity taking its revenge. Putting the audience on a rollercoaster of being scared in one moment and a kind of a power trip in another.

    Everybody always wants to seem like the David killing Goliath.

    This is also how the Wiki on Stonewall Riots reads to me. A tale of repression, injustice and rebellion. On one hand, a big scary gorilla keepin’ the gay man down. But reading between the lines, there is the other story, the opposite story, that they felt quite confident they can win a violent confrontation. “Drag power, support gay power”.

    When people are truly weak, repressed and so on they get depressed. This is observed all the time. A spanked child, a bullied schoolboy, a beta chimp beaten up by the alpha chimp doesn’t strut around around yelling “power” because that would just lead to another round of the same medicine. Some think this is literally why depression evolved, as a defense mechanism of the beaten-up.

    But it really takes either looking deep into the facts or learning to develop psychological shields against emotional manipulation, because, man, this fear and hatred thing is really working.

  19. Anonymous Fake says:

    Why can’t the right set its goals to more reasonable level and work with the preK-12 system instead? If it can’t burn the universities, the least it could do would be to distribute economic information to younger students who want to earn a secure living that can support a family. They have their stupid local schools, and they don’t even use them the right way.

    Most young students are conservative in the first place. Most of the rest will become conservative when they have children. Most of the rest will when they hit 30. Being conservative means being normal. It’s easier than ever, in many ways. But they have to have a career established first.

    Honestly, based on how well foreign (spies) students do well in Western universities, it looks like preK-12 is the problem and it’s much easier to tackle as well. The right isn’t doing it because giving away jobs to nice students would anger the corporate elites who want to live their beta male power fantasy, even if the left/Chads eat them in the end.

    This also explains why moron immigrants and outsourcing to retards in streetfecesstan are so powerful. The affirmative action demographic takes the place of potential competitors to the corporate elites. It’s how they pull up the ladder after themselves. They don’t want to promote a future rival. They think about sexual dynamics, and business health is a far secondary consideration. Even government NPC’s have a better economic sense than corporate elites, just because they are so sexually retarded they aren’t even in the game.

    • jim says:

      > Why can’t the right set its goals to more reasonable level and work with the preK-12 system instead?

      Because the whole damn thing is controlled by our enemies, and we cannot fix it until after we take power. The only solution is home schooling, or, like the Amish, setting up our own schools, which would require a geographically concentrated group. And we are not in the business of setting up geographically concentrated groups, thought this might happen spontaneously as more whites become refugees.

      And what is this crap about bad career advice? No one pays attention to the schooling system’s career advice anyway, except women who do not matter. Schools always wind up training people for priestly careers and advising people to take priestly careers. Schools should not be in the business of giving career advice, nor in the business of training people for careers, except for military schools which should train people for military careers under the close supervision of battle hardened vets who are too old for battle any more, and priestly seminaries, under the supervision of both vets and priests, which train people for priestly careers.

      We are going to replace nine tenths of academia with an enforcible apprenticeship system. Academia is too damn big. Our plan is the dissolution of the monasteries, not the reformation of the monasteries. Schools and academia should not be part of the career path for the vast majority of people, and they were not the career path for the vast majority of people until quite recently.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        No one pays attention to the schools *now*, but the millennial generation sure did. There was no internet when they were growing up, just like with boomers, but they also didn’t have the postwar prosperity of the boomers who could take careers for granted. Going to college en masse and abandoning entire regions for a pseudo-elite career (sadistic working hours, high cost of living) in a deep blue city is the textbook life history of that generation. They’ll only have 1.4 children, at best. And they had no fair information distribution about any major life decisions.

        The kind of people who looked up the most to the school’s career advice were in fact the most Christian, good kids who always did their homework and studied the most extracurricular subjects, etc. The more leftist, interestingly, the more likely to drop out and become an entrepreneur or a tradesman. It’s the exact opposite of what you would expect, and it’s why I say most college leftists are just faking it to intimidate the corporate elites into giving them a career. The corporate elites certainly don’t care about the study robot grinders, and no one else does either in our darkening age.

        It’s interesting that you mention the lack of geographical concentration. Leftists have dozens or even hundreds of 90% blue cities, but conservatives have no major city that is even 60% conservative. Or more like 40%. Most skepticism of conservatism is probably rooted in its inexplicable inability to build cities. It sure does love its commuter subdivisions, though, certainly not a traditional way of life. Nothing is traditional about housing bubbles or usury either, but that’s life.

        Apprenticeships or any new system have to take a leap of faith and treat the existing population fairly, or they will be smashed on the spot. A redistribution of wealth from young and informed students to badly informed aging millennials would be a good start at reforming the credentials needed to earn a career.

        It would be best, of course, to fight the culture war in the first place, but in this world people must have the grub first, then ethics.

        • jim says:

          This story is completely inconsistent with what I am seeing.

          Conservatives build cities, leftists bring in hordes of low IQ voters living on crime and welfare to take control of cities built by conservatives, and then destroy them: Detroit, whose future was accurately depicted by Ayn Rand when it was still prosperous, being exhibit A, but Chicago is a fair way down the same path, soon to be followed by San Francisco. New York is following the same path.

          Leftists generally follow the path set by their schools, generally into the priestly professions. Rightists tend to cut their own path.

          > Apprenticeships or any new system

          Apprenticeships are not a new system, but a very old system that leftists fairly recently smashed in order to have more opportunity to indoctrinate the young, with undeniably disastrous results, and to create more jobs for the boys.

          Restoring apprenticeship as the primary career path for most people is part of the reactionary program of recovering lost social technologies and rebuilding Chesterton’s fence.

          Around here we go by the wisdom of the ages, not the wisdom of 2019.

          • Anonymous Fake says:

            Fleeing a city and rebuilding a new one is something. Fleeing a city and building sprawling subdivisions unfit for elites (they’re too valuable to lose 3+ hours a day stuck in traffic) is something else. Conservatives have consistently burned the bridge to elite respect by failing to develop new cities, even when new technologies like self driving cars that require new infrastructure demand it. No, they instead build strip malls and office parks and subdivisions without any consideration for governance. They demand governance, no matter how loudly they deny it, but supply nothing of the governing work force because they don’t have any cities. So Cthulhu keeps up his swimming.

            There’s a reason why so much of university appeal and booster behavior revolves around architecture and development, not the classes. Elites simply like having everything they want within a 5 minute walk. They’re willing to put up with the underclass mob and the priests just to have this. If conservatives developed an alternative, a network of dense red islands, we would have a real competition on our hands.

            Rightists will cut their own path if they were given good starting information. But entrepreneurship is usually associated with dunces who spent more time in school trying to get laid than their study duty. They’re not a founding stock for a movement, although their alt-right antics are at least moderately amusing. They all think they’re too intelligent to prove how intelligent they are by working, but the truth is that work is all that matters and they know this deep down.

            I think the government giving small business financing to high school students with good grades (or more likely a universal merit exam, because leftists cheat so much more than conservatives) rather than scholarships would be the first step to making entrepreneurship worthy of respect again. Making entrepreneurs more like the corporate sector, rather than the domain of the bad boys who want to play pirate, would force more competition into the system and reduce the influence of our de facto monopoly corporate sector, especially the tech companies. The bottom needs to get heavier. Apprenticeships are a derivative of discipline, like in Prussia. Corporate monopolies at the top balanced by hustlers at the bottom don’t have this.

            • jim says:


              Now what I am seeing. Conservatives are always building new cities, in the sense that sleepy villages grow under white flight, and then the californicators follow, and then the low IQ voters living on crime and welfare are moved in on top of them.

              Obama famously bombed a location he did not like with enough Somali rapeugees to get the political outcome he wanted. He would have done less damage with actual bombs.

              California’s white population is falling. Where do you think they are fleeing to?

              It is not New York.

              All your programs consist of asking the priesthood to rule us in a less unfavorable manner. Not bloody likely.

              • Anonymous Fake says:

                The black pill is that conservatives are building cities like Dubai or Hong Kong, not American cities. American conservative cities aren’t really cities. They’re just places you drive through on the way to the city. Real cities, where you park your car and walk anywhere you want to go in 5 minutes if your elite, or 10 minutes by public transportation if you’re bourgeois.

                We need to accept some strategic ignorance when it comes to schools, and not just for the sake of argument. The left owns them, and we know that, but most of the right doesn’t know that. They can show up with the job applications and get into a fight with campus activists they could actually win, in fact, because they feel that it is an injustice.

                You can’t justifiably throw aside highly intelligent conservatives who got good grades in school if you don’t give them exit options first. They interpret “entrepreneurship” as “go pound sand” when they rightfully feel like they earned a real career. Instead of just attacking them as losers, the right has to give them choices first instead of doing nothing and then slurring them after the fact of their education. Apprenticeships are good, but they require a certain economic context to work. They need well financed small businesses tied in to school performance, set up as alternatives to college for the most intelligent students.

                • jim says:


                  White flight builds real cities, progressives attack and destroy those cities, turning them into festering hell holes.

                  White flight is real conservatives.

                  > American conservative cities aren’t really cities. They’re just places you drive through on the way to the city.

                  You think that white flight from California is building cities that they drive through to commute to San Francisco?

                  White conservatives built the cities, then when those cities came under attack from a flood of voters imported to live on crime, welfare and voting, they fled to the suburbs. Now the suburbs come under attack, they flee California to build new cities in flyover country. And then Obama launched the attack on those cities.

                  > They can show up with the job applications and get into a fight with campus activists they could actually win

                  No they cannot win and they know it full well. The game is rigged. It is been rigged from the beginning. It has been that way for over two hundred years. Harvard was always a theological college, and now it is an even more theological college.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Most California whites are idiot liberals who cannot notice because crimethink what conditions drove them out when they flee. They go to other states and vote to make it like California. The white shitlib is the scum of the earth and even worse then the MA shitlib (where I come from) is the California shitlib.

          • Encelad says:


            Some corporations offer apprenticeships while explicitly bashing debt ridden academic system.
            Once on a while, i get a spark of hope.

            • Anonymous Fake says:

              That’s an awesome example because of the high amount of prestige a Rolls Royce has. They just have to do more than twitter (paging President Trump, paging President Trump…) and establish a physical presence at the compulsory high schools, with on campus recruiters and the boxes full of job application forms. That would get more attention than any university representative.

              When you think about it, they just have to act more like the military. The highly educated right, the optimates, respond best to explicit incentives made in person. The right’s great mistake is its allegiance to extroverted vaishyas who try to do everything themselves and accomplish nothing. They don’t build institutions. Merchants do not have loyalty.

              • jim says:


                The schools belong to our enemies. We cannot establish a physical presence there without coming under physical attack. We cannot establish a physical presence at the school until we can put our enemies on helicopters and drop them in the pacific. To establish a presence in the schools, we must first defeat our enemies with physical violence.

                • Anonymous Fake says:

                  I’ll outright tell you that the military of all institutions generally got respect even at elite universities even when they didn’t accept homosexuals. There were a few radical activist types who protested before scurrying off, but most students liked to see those job applications and their friends getting good careers. Leftist opposition was broad, but thin, in the face of money and confidence. I personally saw this.

                  Rolls Royce representatives in expensive suits, setting up a promotional career desk right next to the latest model parked in the campus quad, would absolutely annihilate any opposition. Period. Students would be signing up and dropping out left and right, and the truly worthless activist class would be given a hard hat thrashing from the silent majority who are just looking for work.

                  Do you really think the left would attack the “union thug” demographic?

                • jim says:

                  The orthodoxy on homosexuals changed abruptly.

                  And now the military have to accept homosexuals, and if they did not, I guarantee they would get violence at elite universities. And similarly, Rolls Royce executives in expensive suits would have to tell students that they are hiring women and blacks, because women are wonderful and blacks are wonderful.

                  And if they did not, would be subjected to physical violence.

        • pterantula says:

          Apprentinceships are new? Okay, we’ll let companies offer noncompete clauses in exchange for more training to interns.

        • >The more leftist, interestingly, the more likely to drop out and become an entrepreneur or a tradesman.

          ?????? wut ????

          Okay, there is perhaps a case to be made for that kind of leftists who are weirder than most and cannot really fit in to an office job, and rather try to make a living selling artisan bongs and dildoes.

          But while they are noticed because they are weird, there are far more who are just left enough to swim with the mainstream, who are just left enough to fit in, the kind of priest who does not try to be holier than the pope, he is just repeating what the pope says. They are on a clear path to a bureaucratic job. You just maybe don’t notice them because they are so boring and uninteresting, the ever conformist.

          • Anonymous Fake says:

            Leftists usually write better essays than the right, or at least the teachers think so, but the key to to remember about them is that they do not reliably do their home work. They specialize in trying to get others to do so, hint hint.

            The right just won’t accept that its ideal base consists of elite-tier employees. They go to college now by default because it has a monopoly on elite employee positions, but that isn’t historically the norm. The right keeps trying to play anarchy and encourage entrepreneurship instead of creating any alternatives to our current prestige career system.

            • jim says:

              > Leftists usually write better essays than the right


              When my kids made a study of how to be successful at student applications, they rapidly figured out that your essay for university application should consist of telling the university you are a leftwing activist and give the university a list of police you have thrown rocks at and reactionaries whose children you have beaten up.

              Their fellow students created an elaborate system of fake leftist activism, faking left wing activism for student applications, a system of “activities” designed to create the appearance of left wing activism for college application essays, in which my kids cheerfully participated.

              Every student at the better high schools knows that it is a lie that college application essay has to be good. If you are white or East Asian your college application essay has to present evidence of leftism, hence the fake activities at my kid’s high school. And since leftism is stupid and rapidly getting stupider, your essay needs to be stupid and getting stupider.

              East Asians are experts at this. They have made a highly scientific study of what student essays work in college applications: And what works is stupidity, cruelty, a high disgust threshold, malice, and evil, whereupon they created student organizations for simulating stupidity, cruelty, a high disgust threshold, malice, and evil. A third of the kids claimed to be transgender in their essays, though obviously none of them were, and all of the kids, as near to all of them as makes no difference, participated in what was supposedly left wing activism, even though it really was not.

              There were a lot of east Asians at the school, so the faking was more than is usual at most schools. But what they are faking is not good essays.

              • Anonymous Fake says:

                Transsexual black midget studies were seen as stupid when I was in school, but now I can see how many people get jobs specifically because a transsexual black midget in the government or corporation liked their scholarship and activism in that area.

                The phenomenology of epistemology or somesuch was seen as an elite field of study when I was in school, but now we see that no one’s getting hired or fired for having the wrong opinions in this field, and it’s now just a way of showing how rich you were *before* college. Like most rich status symbols, it comes and goes, and now the quaint philosophical fields might as well be written in Greek. Actually, they usually are, not that it matters. They don’t matter anymore, if they ever did.

                The problem with the right is that it mocked the old left union thugs for not being educated, and then it mocked the worthless college degrees. Just mocking, no ground game. The kill shot is that the worthless degrees are usually the old elite “Dead White Man” degrees, and the angry identity group degrees are the ones that open doors to any institution with any presence of the angry identity groups.

                Really, people just want good careers and for the work they did in school to be honored. The priests suck, but they’re the only ones who are showing up to this fight. The warriors are absent and the vaishyas think Trump University was a good idea.

                The homeschool apprentice revolution will happen when existing good people who happened to be stuck in an evil system are treated fairly.

                • jim says:

                  > The phenomenology of epistemology or somesuch was seen as an elite field of study when I was in school, but now we see that no one’s getting hired or fired for having the wrong opinions in this field, and it’s now just a way of showing how rich you were *before* college.


                  People regularly get fired for having the wrong opinions. When a new orthodoxy comes down overnight, every academic in the entire western world changes his opinions overnight, and fails to remember ever having held a different opinion. Not one academic disagrees, not one academic remembers disagreeing.

                  Cthulhu only swims left. This stuff has been steadily getting more and more evil and insane for two hundred years, and it never gets saner. It is not a pendulum. It only moves in one direction.

                  The abrupt and completely uniform reversal on Khmer Rouge Cambodia when Russia sponsored a Vietnamese invasion was as flagrant and embarrassing as the abrupt reversal on Hitler when he invaded Russia, but no one remembers it. Everyone supported Khmer Rouge Cambodia until the day of the invasion, everyone opposed Khmer Rouge Cambodia the day after the invasion, and no one in academia or the mainstream media remembers formerly supporting the Khmer Rouge.

    • IAMAgnostic says:

      School should end at the end of Grade 6, just like in the good ol’ days. Way back in time when we created real wealth that’s what we did.

  20. Anonymous Fake says:


  21. Jamie_NYC says:

    What makes you think that Trump is working to abolish ‘disparate impact’? I haven’t read anything about it anywhere else.

  22. Unrelated, but your work on the LQ has paid off. The idea is getting recognition from TDS, where AA has been writing a series on the topic.

    Once it got to kids doing ASMR, it was pretty obvious that there was only one way for this to go.

    • jim says:

      LQ? AA? TDS? ASMR?

      Go easy on the acronyms, please.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        From context AA is Andrew Anglin and TDS is the Daily Shoah.

        No clue what LQ is.

        ASMR is porn for guys who jerk off to chicks whispering.

      • Yeah I thought I was being too indirect.

        TDS is The Daily Stormer (I like to include the T)

        The LQ is the loli question you were discussing last summer. Underage girls being whores and all that. Anglin’s been big on that recently due to a spate of men being charged with sex offences after being deceived or seduced by underage girls.

        Ignore the haters, you’re on the right track.

            • jim says:

              Indicating a certain amount of unrest on the loli question.

              Threesome gone wrong, as threesomes are apt to do. And, of course, they blamed the boy for the ensuing fallout. The Chinese ideograph for “trouble” is two women under one roof. Spinning plates is always tricky and prone to drama, and women love drama.

              • alf says:

                He says that he kissed the two girls and fingered the older, but with her permission. She wanted more, but he refused

                The immediate Jimian thing that comes to mind is: it didn’t go wrong because he fingered her, it went wrong because he refused to give her more.

          • Cloudswrest says:

            That IS really creepy! And I say that as a person who is extremely responsive to ASMR. This is the first time I’ve ever seen clips of a video with a kid doing it. And I agree with the host in that it is psychologically unpleasant. It’s right up there with those male child tranny dancers. ASMR isn’t just sound, but that’s pretty much the only vehicle for it via a video. I’m almost 60 and have experienced it since I was a kid. For example I would get a “buzz” or tingle any time I was physically *measured*, for example by a tailor, or having my pulse taken by a nurse or a doctor. I never knew what it was called or that other people experienced it until a few years or so ago. Those who don’t experience ASMR probably have no idea what the fuss is about. I looked it up on Youtube and there are a lot of practitioners, like Valeriya, who is quite a hot Russian, who mix ASMR with egirl thottery innuendo.

          • yewotm8 says:

            Putting aside how unsettling the video clips of the girl are, the man in the video is a curious case. Biologically, he seems quite masculine in his bone structure, his voice, and his movements. However, his beard, glasses, and the nerdy paraphernalia in the background suggest a soyboy. He could easily look like a masculine man if he got rid of the glasses, shaved his face (or wore stubble), and shortened the hair on the sides of his head. But he chooses not to look the part. Why?

            • alf says:

              Seems like a gruff soyboy. He is a bit womanly in his manners, but with enough male common sense. It’s a good niche: not overly hipster, not overly rightist.

      • Cloudswrest says:

        ASMR stands for Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response. It is a physiological response that some people have to certain external sensory triggers. You can read about it here on Wikipedia.

  23. […] on defunding the left, including a nod to Canada’s own Faith […]

  24. Anonymous Fake says:

    Women sleep with the bosses for the promotions. The winners in the end are Chad and Tyrone. This has been obvious since the 60’s.

    The academics who want to secure pro-family careers in exchange for getting good grades in school are the good guys in this conflict. The corporate elites are the villains.

    The truth is that much of the left are actually conservatives who will give up their apparent leftist beliefs as soon as they secure a solid career in exchange for their school work. They just go through the motions, and naive conservatives actually believe them and refuse to employ them, oblivious to what’s actually happening.

    The buck stops at the corporate elite level because they control economic information, and they refuse to distribute it in the schools. They encourage credentialism and debt. They screw with their employees, literally. And they wonder why the unironic left always wins.

    • jim says:


      Bosses generally don’t get laid, except, of course, for Hollywood and porn, because actresses are whores.

      And even Harvey Weinstein’s sex life was pitiful. Sex with whores actually is not that much fun.

      If bosses got laid, billionaire Bezos would not have been hard up, and Weinstein’s sex life would have been less pitiful.

      The problem is not that women are gold diggers, the problem rather is that they are not gold diggers.

      Capitalists are terrified and terrorized. Being fearless gets you laid. Capitalists are fearful and intimidated by accounting, HR, academia, and the judiciary, and therefore, generally do not get laid.

      Balls will get you more sex than the ability to hand out promotions, and Academia, HR, and accounting have deballed capitalists.

      If chicks slept with the guy corner office rather than Chad Thundercock, we would be way better off.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        To be fair, the 60’s golden age of pathological heterosexual beta male elites is fading (Mad Men, Bonfire of the Vanities, Wall Street, etc), but even from the beginning it should have been obvious that competing with Jimi Hendrix types was insane for any corporate worker, even a Bezos. They were too hard-wired by the depression and WWII to imagine what the combination of liberation and prosperity would do in the sexual market.

        An official state credential for every career, rather than the babble of academia, is the solution to finishing off any delusions of harem building for bosses. If this doesn’t happen, sharia is just a matter of time and adultery will be a crime punished by public decapitation, and so far it looks like this is where we’re going.

        The GOPe just has a sickening fetish for corporations, and even for entrepreneurs, every bit as nasty as the left’s fetish for government. The truth is that solid employees who want a guaranteed income to support a family are the base of the right. They’re a dying breed because they don’t have fair economic information from school about careers, and are easily fooled by cost of living manipulation or working hours bias in many supposedly prestigious careers. They have too much debt and too few children.

        • Starman says:

          @Anonymous Feminist

          “They have too much debt and too few children.”

          Another entryist is very generous with giving feminism a pussy pass.

          For any coup plotters lurking here on this blog, if any member of your secret fight club gives women and feminism the pussy pass, 90% chance that he’s an FBI informant.

    • Theshadowedknight says:

      Is this the new disinformation strategy? Just shotgun a horde of different low-effort trolls at the comment box, and watch the quality go down? I can see what Jim means by a script. Capitalist are bad and rule and poor helpless academics are your friends and natural allies. Hello fellow “insert group name here,” I am here to help against these terrible capitalists.

      Amazing how far the intellectual rot has set. They are actually incapable of understanding us when we slowly and clearly speak directly to them. It is like children burying their head in a pillow to block the sight of something they dislike.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        You didn’t speak clearly about worthless college degrees, sleazy bosses, outsourcing, fake income due to cost of living in global cities, or net present career value with a realistic discount rate when I was in high school. How many guidance counselors do you think are conservative?

        The left keeps winning because it keeps showing up where it matters, in the key family formation years of life. The right has nonexistent interaction with students who just want to unlock good careers, and they could be made into Trump Youth just as easily as pozzed progressives if they thought it would open doors for them.

        • jim says:

          The left does not “show up” It owns the universities. Always has. Harvard was, and is, a theological college, created to inculcate the state religion of puritanism with official state backing.

          Over the years, puritanism has mutated to ever greater holiness – first it was holier than thou, then it was holier than Jesus, and now it is holier than God.

          • Anonymous Fake says:


            • jim says:


              You are sticking to your script, and ignoring my response because my response is off script, because my response is not covered by your script.

              I already replied to all that stuff, and am not going to reply yet again.

      • Starman says:

        The rot is so deep that even the Premier Sword and Shield of the Deep State, the FBI, could not even grasp the red pill on women when they promoted a dossier that claimed that a charismatic celebrity alpha male billionaire paid women to have sex. Even when this concept has been talked about for years on the Internet before the Trump campaign.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          The weakness of having a coalition made up exclusively of losers and freaks is that they can’t even imagine the minds of non-losers and freaks – which is why projection is about the only intellectual tactic they ever use.

          • Neurotoxin says:

            Starman and Steve Johnson:

            The funniest example of all is the story about Trump allegedly pissing on a bed because he’d heard that Obama had slept on that bed.

            LOL, that risible piece of fiction is the most hilarious gamma projection fail in the history of the U.S.

            At least the USSR had competent agitprop operatives.

        • Nikolai says:

          While the piss dossier is obviously bullshit, it’s not uncommon for wealthy charismatic high status alphas to pay for sex. Charlie Sheen and Jordan Belfort being obvious examples.

          • Starman says:


            Is that a whiff of blue pill I see?

            • Nikolai says:

              One generally smells whiffs not sees them.

              In any case, high status alphas often do pay for sex, not because they can’t get laid, but because they want expediency, discretion and quality. It’s not difficult to find examples of politicians, actors, athletes and wall street types seeing prostitutes. Hell, back in the day nobles and aristocrats would fool around with courtesans.

    • Women sleeping with their bosses would be a problem in a relatively politically and culturally reactionary world that includes female liberation, it was a problem in 1925, 1955, would be a problem in Moldbug’s neovictorian cameralist state that leaves female status intact.

      It is not a problem today any more than women cucking their husbands in general is a problem today and the solution is restriction of female liberty, not trying to hammer in a wedge between the common straight white man and rich straight white men.

      In an ideally reactionary world the labor of a woman is owned by her husband, that the wife and daughter are employees of the patriarch, which enforces the proper sexual dynamics between wife and husband, wife gets bossed around all day and comes back to the house dripping wet, and this was indeed how the economy worked in the middle ages when every man was either a small business owner or a partner/shareholder in a company.

      • jim says:


        Women sleeping with their bosses is not a problem in today’s world. What is a problem in today’s world is women sleeping with bad boys and failing to sleep with their husbands.

        If we win, we then we are going to face the problem of elites scarfing up all the hot chicks, and leaving the men who work and fight losers and alone. The solution to that problem is well known, one of the many ancient social technologies we plan to restore: Restore the authority of husbands over their wives and fathers over their unmarried daughters.

  25. Eric says:

    The deep state has been committing democracy threatening crimes with impunity for at least 55 years. They were responsible most likely (perhaps you don’t believe this but you should) for the assassinations of the 60s, for 9/11/01 as well as the 93 WTC bombing and the OKC bombing, for the IRS targeting conservative groups, for arming Mexican cartels under both Bush and Obama, for more lies to Congress under oath than I could count, for the murders of Michael Hastings and Hunter Thompson and numerous other journalists went off the reservation, for extensive illegal surveillance of US citizens and foreign politicians, For the so far failed coup against the Trump administration as well as the illegal surveillance of same before the election, and etc. etc.. I’ve diagrammed point by point proofs of some of this here:

    if you click on any of the boxes and scroll down you will see details and a button to reply adding further point by point proofs or refutations. (Please add any rational arguments you have.)

    so far trump has not been able to punish any of this. I’m still hoping he will get around to it after the Democrats make themselves look even sillier, but I’m losing faith.

    Further evidence of how this happened is provided in this diagram:

    which gives a point by point proof that almost everything almost everybody believes is fake including most news, much science, and etc. and explains to some extent why people are so easy to confuse.

  26. IAMAgnostic says:

    “You cannot rule without a religion in your pocket”

    So what’s your religion again

    Having read your replies on the Lord’s prayer and Job I’m guessing it will be more made-up beliefs about what is said instead of the Word. Understandable given social reality but is it True and Right?

    Gandhi was low status because violence inflicted upon him, and then became higher status by practicing non-violence and wondering aloud whether all the ideals of the West had any substance.

    I’d like to think leftists are losing status but I’m not seeing it. Leftists whimper and screech in public but make sure the government bill or agency does what they want.

    I don’t see anything being done at any level that is going to meaningfully stop the flood of people coming in to the Western countries. People make nations. Trump still wants massive legal immigration.

    • alf says:

      So what’s your religion again

      convert today my brother

      • IAMAgnostic says:

        Link reports:

        “Your connection is not secure”

        Clearly, a Sign. Just shows what rules this planet, like a broken computer program.

        The casual view of Trad X common among Rightist bloggers is based on the mores that came from a more difficult era, not the religion itself.

        Christianity, as we can see today, morphs along and colludes with the social views of our time.

        “… that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” Revelations 12:9

        • jim says:

          Gnostics are much the same thing as commies and satanists.

          The Satanist tells us God does not back the husband and the father, the commie that God does not back the prince or the guy who own’s the local Domino’s pizza franchise, and the gnostic tells us that God does not back any of them.

          • IAMAgnostic says:

            Looks that way in the real world these days, doesn’t it?

            Let’s read what the Bible says:

            “We know that we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” 1 John 5:19

            Gnostics see the unpleasant Truth.

            The problem with reactionaries is they claim to see hard truths about race and women yet won’t see it about scripture.

            Perhaps a movement does need to be built on necessary illusions but then the foundation is illusions.

            • jim says:

              Gnostics are heretics who spread the black pill. You guys lost for a reason.

              Further, your reading of the bible is indefensible. You have a few ambiguous lines snatched out of context here and there. I have the book of Job and the Lord’s prayer, not to mention two thousand years of the consensus of the community of saints on how the bible should be read.

              Gnosticism is a solution to the problem of evil, to problem of Theodicity, but the book of Job addresses the problem of theodicity at length, and even if you don’t think the answer the Book of Job gives is satisfactory, the answer it gives is not Gnosticism.

              You can argue that Gnosticism is a better answer to theodicity, that the answer God gave to Job is profoundly unsatisfactory, but Gnosticism is not the biblical answer nor the Christian answer.

              • IAMAgnostic says:

                If you defend Truth based on whether it lost then your side has been losing for 50 years, looks to be losing in the future, and therefore is not True.

                It’s a bit bizarre to dismiss Gnostics based on acquiring organized power. You’ve got the same problem.

                Job and the Lord’s prayer do not address what you said they address, and when I’ve asked for clarification you make assertions that reflect what you want to believe, not what is in the text.

                I agree Gnosticism is grim and probably not for public consumption.

                However a large and growing Christian organization, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who take the Bible very seriously, believe and quote as I do.

                That quote from John is from their website about who rules the world.

                So you can have a large and growing, traditional Christian religion that believes what you say doesn’t work.

                • jim says:

                  > Job and the Lord’s prayer do not address what you said they address

                  Job asks God about theodicity. You may not like the answer, nobody likes the answer, it is not much of an answer, and gnostics have a way better answer. But God’s answer to theodicity, the biblical answer, is not gnosticism.

                  Gnosticism rejects two thousand years of Christianity, Judaism, and the Old Testament.

                  The problem with Gnosticism is not that it has been losing but why it has been losing. Gnosticism has been losing because it is the black pill, it is entropic. Like leftism, always self destructs in the end.

                  If you are gnostic, you think that Nature’s God is Satan. If you think Nature’s God is Satan, you wind up worshiping the Gods of the market place, instead of the Gods of the copybook headings.

                  And the Gods of the copybook headings always return in the end.

                  Gnosticism is like choking on the red pill, and winding up with the black pill. I love women for what they are, not what the blue pill ascribes to them, and Christianity loves the world for what it is.

                • IAMAgnostic says:

                  Not Nature’s God is Satan, Nature’s Nature is what it is.

                  Satan’s venue is that which the prince of air rules: the media, much of communications, a lot of current culture especially beliefs about sex and religion, creating chaos through misunderstanding, lies, and deception.

                  “Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe.” 2 Corinthians 4:4

                • jim says:

                  Sure Satan has, but that is not because he rules this world, but because men have chosen to follow him.

                • IAMAgnostic says:

                  What basis in scripture do you have for the idea that it is always men’s choice to follow Satan?

                  Jesus says:

                  “And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts”. Mark 4:15

                • jim says:


                  They follow the Gods of the Markeplace for the reasons given by Kipling.

                • IAMAgnostic says:

                  Kipling’s thoughts are fascinating no doubt but what is the basis for your claim in scripture, if any?

                  You’re going to have to look a long time because it isn’t there.

                  John disagrees with you. So does the Apostle Paul.

                  Jesus Christ says it is explicitly otherwise to your claim.

                • jim says:


                  You have no scriptural basis for gnosticism, other than some one liners ripped from context with a strange and arbitrary meaning forced upon him. I have got the Book of Job, the second book of Genesis, and the Lord’s prayer.

                  Plus, for two millenia, the community of Saints have been reading them the way I read them.

                  Gnosticism has no real scriptural basis. It just swallowing the black pill on Theodicity.

                  Gnostics tell us the bible was purged and rewritten around three hundred anno domini, which is an implicit admission that their position is unscriptural.

                • alf says:

                  I don’t really see how the story of Job explains evil. If I were in the shoes of Job, I’d have stuck up both my middlefingers to God and feel pretty good about myself.

                  I don’t see why the explanation of evil is such a big deal. Isn’t it the same category as proving the existence of God? God just exists, evil just exists. No need to overdiscuss the point.

                  Why should God be infinitely good? Life can be a lot of fun, so God in this sense is pretty good. But life sometimes sucks, so God may sometimes suck as well. Who knows. Has always seemed to me that evil from close up seems satanic, but from a distance is just facepalming stupidity.

                • jim says:

                  Gnostics have an explanation for evil.

                  Book of Job does not.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Why should God be infinitely good?”

                  If he is all powerful then he is truly evil if a sadist. So to avoid the gnostic demiurge explanation you need to explain why hes not an evil sadist.

                  The best explanation I’ve ever read was by Scott Adams in God’s Debris who I’m more and more convinced is truly a genius.

                • jim says:

                  Too big a God does not permit human flourishing. Observe the failure of Orthodox Judaism and of peoples recently conquered by Islam to do science

                  To allow room for human flourishing, God had to be flogged through the streets of Jerusalem.

                • IAMAgnostic says:

                  Jesus, John, Mark, Paul, and Timothy are the greater authorities.

                  The Adversary was seen as real and in control of formal power such as kingdoms. How else could it be for the devil to offer Jesus the kingdoms of the world?

                  “…the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” Mathew 4:7

                  Jesus and the Apostles spoke of this often because it was common knowledge among them.

                  Paul says:

                  “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience…” Ephesians 1:22

                • jim says:

                  > The Adversary was seen as real and in control of formal power such as kingdoms.

                  Proverbs 9:

                  1. By me kings reign, and princes decree justice.
                  2. By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.

                  Romans 13

                  1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
                  2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
                  3. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
                  4. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
                  5. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
                  6. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
                  7. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

                  Verse 7 was particularly topical at the time, as the Jewish community was drifting to a suicidal war with Rome, in substantial part over the issue of taxes. When war came near, Jewish Christians headed off to Rome.

                  Not only does gnosticism dismiss the tax collector as a minion of Satan, to which point of view I am quite sympathetic, but also the husband, the father, and the guy who owns the local Domino’s pizza franchise as minions of Satan, to which point of view I am considerably less sympathetic.

                  Gnosticism has a point when it claims tax collectors are minions of Satan, and its explanation of evil is the only good explanation a religion with an overly powerful God has come up with, but the price of that explanation is that Gnosticism is a suicidally evil and insane religion. Gnosticism chokes on the red pill, and swallows the black pill.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  That interpretation of Matthew 4:8 is hilariously out of context.

                  Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6“If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:

                  “ ‘He will command his angels concerning you,

                  and they will lift you up in their hands,

                  so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’ c ”

                  7Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’

                  The actual Matthew 4:7 commands you not to put God to the test – exactly what Gnosticism does (and declares that He fails their test). At least write your own stuff rather than trying to sell the opposite of the plain meaning.

                • Nikolai says:

                  The Christian position, from the Catechism of St. Pius X

                  On the first article of The Apostle’s Creed

                  “20 Q. Can the demons do us any harm?
                  A. Yes, the demons can do us great harm both in soul and body, especially by tempting us to sin, provided God permits them to do so.

                  21 Q. Why do they tempt us?
                  A. The demons tempt us because of the envy they bear us, which makes them desire our eternal damnation; and because of their hatred of God. whose image is reflected in us. God on the other hand permits these temptations in order that we may overcome them by His grace, and thus practise virtue and acquire merit for Heaven.

                  22 Q. How are temptations conquered?
                  A. Temptations are conquered by watchfulness, prayer and Christian mortification.”

                  On the seventh and final petition of The Lord’s Prayer

                  “39 Q. What do we ask in the Seventh Petition: But deliver us from evil?
                  A. In the Seventh Petition: But deliver us from evil, we ask God to free us from evils, past, present, and future, and particularly from the greatest of all evils which is sin, and from eternal damnation, which is its penalty.

                  40 Q. Why do we say: Deliver us from evil and not: From evils?
                  A. We say: Deliver us from evil, and not, from evils, because we should not desire to be exempt from all the evils of this life, but only from those which are not good for our souls; and hence we beg liberation from evil in general, that is, from whatever God sees would be bad for us.

                  41 Q. Is it not lawful to beg liberation from some evil in particular, for example, from sickness?
                  A. Yes, it is lawful to beg liberation from some evil in particular but always in bowing to the will of God, who may even ordain that particular affliction for the good of our soul.

                  42 Q. How do the tribulations, which God sends us, help us?
                  A. Tribulations help us to do penance for our sins, to practise virtue, and above all to imitate Jesus Christ, our Head, to whom it is fitting we should conform ourselves in our sufferings, if we wish to have a share in His glory.”

                • IAMAgnostic says:

                  Romans 16:20:

                  “The God of peace will quickly crush Satan under your feet.”

                  Still waiting. The metaphysical belief of who rules at that time is clear.

                  How could the devil genuinely tempt Jesus if the devil couldn’t genuinely offer Jesus the kingdoms of the world?

                  Romans 13 advocates for obedience to authorities saying God placed them there.

                  That means you should submit to them.

                  In Romans 12 argues for no action taken against enemies, instead:

                  “‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay’, says Jehovah”

                  You’ll have a hard time with a political program with those views.

                • jim says:

                  The black pill is false. And that the blue pill is false does not make the black pill true.

                • IAMAgnostic says:

                  We agree about the social utility of Gnosticism. There’s nothing to sell to the befuddled masses to gain worldly power.

                  You say Gnosticism is evil and insane yet Catholicism is seen similarly by many.
                  Reactionary-ism would be seen, hell, IS seen as evil and insane politics.

                  When you bring up the husband, father, and business owner you must notice the nature of this world, this system of things, and how they are treated.

                  You ideally want them treated a certain way, which I understand, but what is?

                  And why would that be then?

                • jim says:


                  Lots of people see as you say. They are stupid and in many cases evil. What they see does not matter.

                  > You ideally want them treated a certain way, which I understand, but what is?

                  I want the husband, the father, and the business owner treated as commanded in the Old Testament and as commanded by Paul.

                  As head of the family, as the alpha male, it is valuable to be backed by the most alpha male of them all. God The Father. And Gnosticism denies me this backing.

                  We also need a commandment to engage in rational argument, to play by rules likely to result in truth. Unfortunately most people are not up to that, so what Christianity does instead is give irrational people irrational reasons for acting rationally. You have to employ ethos and pathos as well as logos, and Christianity necessarily relies primarily on ethos and pathos.

                  But what Christianity does do is identify Christ with the logos. This raises the status of logos. Observe the irritating tendency of progressives, Jews and Muslims to reject logos, which undermines and derails their cultures and civilizations. As soon as the evangelicals became holier than Jesus, they abandoned logos in favor an over the top reliance on ethos and pathos.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Befuddled solipsist construes rationalization for befuddled perception of creation; meanwhile, has no practical insight or edification (on account of solipsism). News at eleven.

                • Koanic says:

                  There is no conflict between God’s power and Man’s fall. There is only a conflict between what pussies imagine a “good” God to be like, and the existence of evil. Jehovah had His own Son crucified. Repeat that to yourself any time you start to think thoughts of the form, “A good God would never permit…” Then contemplate Hell for a while, and you’ll lose your desire to engage in theoidiocy. As the Bible always points out, it is not evil we should fear, but Jehovah.

                  As for this moron spamming the comments with his miscapitalized “Agnosticism”, he is further proof that the Bible has a reading comprehension floor, and rather looks as if it were written to permit fools to indulge in the heresy that best fits their flaws.

                • IAMAgnostic says:

                  Jesus says:

                  “Whoever is fond of his life destroys it, but whoever hates his life in this world will safeguard it for everlasting life.”

                  John 12:25

                  According to Vincent Law’s Word Studies:

                  “in this world” refers to

                  This earthly economy, regarded as alien and hostile to God.

                  Jesus and the Apostles don’t care for this worldly system.

                  Their focus is on the next world, on Heaven, on God, and not the pragmatics of of gaining political and media power.

                  “Now there is a judging of this world, now the ruler of this world will be cast out.”

                  John 12:31

                  Lot of references to who rules this world.

                  You want power in the domain ruled by the Adversary.

                • jim says:

                  The bible disagrees with you.

                  Two millenia of Christians disagree with you.

                  Further repetition of your claims will be deleted.

                  Christianity is realistic about this world. You are black pilled about this world. That is an important and fundamental difference, though it is bit subtle to be clarified in single lines snatched from context.

                • Koanic says:

                  My favorite part about theodicy is that the appropriate response would be God deleting the whiner for his wickedness. The problem of evil is self-correcting! Oft repeated scene on Judgment Day:

                  Q: “Why didn’t you believe in God?”
                  A: “Because a good God would never tolerate evil!”
                  Q: “You are correct. Bind him and cast him into outer darkness.”

        • Koanic says:

          Y’know, when Satan employed selective quotation to persuade Jesus, he replied:

          “It is written…”

          “For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.”

          Case in point, you’re not fooling anyone. For supposed keepers of secret wisdom, Gnostics sure can’t find what’s plainly there. That’s why they need a secret to feel superior. The truth’s too hard to bear.

    • jim says:

      Ghandi was created by western progressives, by western governments, and would not have amounted to a spoonful of beans on his own.

      No violence was inflicted upon him, and had violence been inflicted upon him, would have folded and disappeared.

      • Mike says:

        This. Anyone with a brain should know that the British of 1945 India were not the same British of the Amritsar incident. The British of Amritsar would have shutdown Ghandi in a hurry.

  27. Karl says:

    I understand your argument of Trump threatening the courts with a Jackson, but actually fail to see how it can work the way you hope. Any lawsuit starts at some lowly court. The Leftists will make sure to pick the court with the most radical judges.

    Even if these judges think so far ahead that the realize that Trump might do a Jackson, I don’t understand why they should fear it. Theses judges are judges of a lowly court. Whenever they are overruled in an appeal to a higher court, they are shown to be powerless. They are used to issue verdicts that are never enforced – that’s life as usual for a judge at a lower court.

    So I expect Trump to loose at the lowly courts. He will appeal. After two years or so the case will go to the supreme court. Trump has a majority there. Hence, I expect him to win there.

    The problem of a Jackson is in the lowly court issueing not just a verdict that builing the wall is illegal (which doesn’t matter if an appeal is filed), but also issuing a temperory injunction ordering builing to stop. A temporary injunction has (as far as I know) immediate effect. Apeals against a temporary injection are treated rather fast by an appeal court, but “fast” in legal terms still often means several months (especially if one side is actively trying to stall proceedings).

    The court deciding on the appeal to the expected temporary injunction is not the supreme court, probably some Californian state court. Anyway it is still a court full of leftists judges hating Trump. These judges know (or at least expect) that the supreme court will back Trump. They are still used to being overruled. So I don’t see why they should not simply affirm the temporary injunction of the lowly court and thereby hand everything to the supreme court.

    Will Trump keep building the wall even if there is temporary injunction saying that building is illegal? He might want to, but he needs to order people to do it. At present, he can’t even order the FBI to follow the law. Hence, I’m not otimistic that he can order the army to break the law, i.e. act against a formally valid injunction

    • jim says:

      Trump can, and has, ordered the army to build wall, and been obeyed.

      Past experience in other countries are that when the ruler does a Jackson, and the army does his bidding, judges are reluctant to call it out and openly confront.

  28. Neurotoxin says:

    The dissolution of the fake news media is a good start, but to win, will have to dissolve academia and the judiciary.

    In principle, at least, the judiciary can be dealt with a la Jackson. What will happen there, who knows. Trump has been too patient with judges’ crap so far. But if they are brazen enough to say, “The US military is not allowed to defend US soil from an invasion,” that’s just clownish. If he has a limit to what he’ll put up with from judges, that must be beyond it.

    Academia is a much bigger foe, in a way. I haven’t been able to think of how to deal with it without either a civil war or a financial cataclysm that forcibly defunds it.

    • alf says:

      I think that, to tackle academia, you need to tackle the women problem as well. Defunding needs to happen, but all the university educated women will lash out in a nuclear shit-test.

      • Anonymous Fake says:


        • jim says:

          Deleted for telling us what the right thinks.

          That is not what the right thinks, it is what commies imagine the right to think.

          • Mackus says:

            Any chance you post some selected quotes of deleted commie hallucinations?

            • The capitocuck is unable to distinguish advocacy of mercantilism from advocacy of marxism.

              Not being a careful reader, the capitocuck is unlikely to be a careful deleter.

              Consider the Catholic analysis of capitalism:

              The honest intellectual would inform you that capitalism subverted both the divine right of kings and the rightful stature of the Church, but don’t expect the capitocuck to permit you to read that fact on his outpost of fake history and general blasphemery.

              The only question in my mind is whether the capitocuck has the absolute gall to backdate the origin of Marx to that of before Christ in relegating the New Testament to the status of a minor footnote in the venerable corpus of Marxist thought.

              • alf says:

                waaait a minute… I don’t recall seeing your name, but your response shows some level of familiarity with the discussions here…

                Wait a minute… Have we made secret forum leftist enemies?? Are you having heated discussions behind closed doors coming up with names like capitocuck?? I’ll give you: not bad…

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Communist Revolutionary was sent in alone but called for aid.

              • Mike says:

                For a non-retarded take on the relationship between the divine right of kings, aristocracy, feudalism, and so-called “capitalism”, here is a decent link that is actually part of the Reactosphere:


                Warning, I say “decent” in that it does not come out as mumbled garbage. I am almost 100% certain that Jim would disagree with this guy’s opinion as well, but at least it is actually intelligible.

              • Starman says:

                @iris the entryist

                Chivalrous courtship subverted divine right of kings.

                Will you denounce courtly love?

              • jim says:


                Capitalism has been around for thousands of years, since at least the restoration of order during the early iron age, and probably since the Y chromosome bottleneck, therefore cannot have subverted the divine right of Kings.

                Further, modern type capitalism, corporate capitalism, the for profit limited liability corporation, was introduced under the divine right monarch Charles the Second, and the divine right of Kings was still going strong all the way to the Regent successfully declaring himself regent by divine right, and only expired when his failed divorce revealed him as totally cucked.

                So, divine right in England successfully coexisted with with corporate capitalism from 1663 to 1820, and on the continent we saw divine right monarchs all the way up to World War I.

                So we had divine right monarchy, aristocratic power, and modern type corporate capitalism together like ham and eggs all the way from 1663 to 1914, two hundred and fifty years.

                Capitalists are inherently incohesive, because they are always competing with each other, hence never have significant state or political power, never have significant coercive power.

                We are always ruled by priests or warriors, always have been, always will be, because priesthoods are inherently cohesive (a story is more persuasive if you get it from seemingly multiple sources) and because warriors are inherently cohesive (warriors only effective as an army)

                The least bad form of government is a priest/warrior coalition, where the priests (the official religion) provides the warriors with cohesion and a code of conduct, and the warriors exercise coercive power.

                • Mike says:

                  For the record Jim, if that article had been in existence at the time I was kvetching about capitalism in earlier blog posts of yours, I would have immediately posted it as a prime example of supposedly right-wing critique of capitalism. I wish it had been around then, because I think this whole uproar around economics that has been going around on your blog as of late could have been avoided. Why do I say that? Personally, I think this article by Neo-Ciceronian Times perfectly encapsulates many of the feelings/arguments I and many others had been trying to put into words, but couldn’t. Seeing you take what I see as the best argument for capitalism being a problem, and then browbeating said argument, helps put my mind at ease.

                  Thank you.

                • jim says:

                  Which article is this?

                • jim says:

                  I love his statement:

                  As it turns out, one king who is three thousand miles away is far less overbearing than three thousand kings who are one mile away.

                  This article contains the reactionary critique of capitalism, which is different from and entirely incompatible with the progressive and Marxist critique of capitalism.

                • Mike says:

                  Oh well shit, I thought it didn’t line up in some spots. Good to know I guess!

                • jim says:

                  It does not line up in some spots, and I disagree with quite a bit of it, but overall, not bad.

                  The essential difference between the Marxist critique and the reactionary critique is that the Marxist critique is that “capital” supposedly has coercive and political power, and therefore, as in Venezuela, we need to steal capitalists stuff, which invariably manifests as killing the cows of the peasant who has two cows to the supposed benefit of the peasant with one cow. CR wants to go after the guy who owns your local Domino’s franchise. Marxists blame Harvard’s program on the merchants, even though it is manifestly a priestly program.

                  Marxists want priests to take charge of pizza. NeoCicero wants warriors to take charge of violence. My disagreements with him are unimportant.

                  The problem with the social matter program is that its emphasis on not making enemies and avoiding conflict results in cucking out. We want power, our enemies want power, conflict will ensue. And since we are an intellectual movement with as yet zero power, that conflict will ensue over those ideas that are most threatening to the elite – those ideas that most directly threaten our enemies power.

                  We cannot let our enemies’ rewards and punishments shape our ideas – that path results in Jordan Peterson and the Intellectual Dork Web. You wind up purple pilled.

                • Iris Print says:

                  Iron Law of Rebellious Tools: the Intellectual Dork Web is not an organic (sponsorless) phenomenon.

                • Starman says:

                  @Iris the Entryist

                  Aren’t you going to answer my question?

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  >The second change that took place occurred as the money power destroyed the traditional mediative capacities of the genuine nobility.

                  Certainly, money power was an efficient cause in facilitating the disontonation of ancien regimes. Over time, innovation of money power’s exercise, an apotheosis if you will, of a power *source*, constituted the now existence of a great source of power not invested within the sovereign. Such that, naturally, when power-sources are divided against each other, conflict is an inevitable entailment, until something becomes supreme; supreme enough to begin curtailing conflict. Thus ” a power vacuum was created “, but nature of course favors no vacuums; if not you who fills them, then you will find them filled by… things.

                  ‘Money power’ is not, however, that which provides goods and services for a reasonable fee; money power is that which controls the money supply, itself.

                • Retinal Identification of the Supreme Being says:


                • jim says:

                  Argument by assertion.

                  We have heard it all before, far too many times.

                • Retinal Identification of the Supreme Being says:

                  The word “capitalism” is well defined and commonly accepted. You don’t have to like Marx, but you have to understand that everyone else is using his cladistically deriven definition of that word.

                  And not necessarily because they themselves like Marx, but because they understand that capitalism as it exists today is an historical phenomenon, the artifact of a series of unique and irreproducible historical watersheds of organizational techniques of exponential power.

                  Literally no one disputes this except you.

                • jim says:


                  Argument by fake consensus. Marxists are liars who have been caught far too many times, and no one believes their story any more, not even Marxists. You tell me everyone agrees, but you have been telling me that I agree. The nutty commie story has fewer believers every year.

                  You want to argue that Capitalism appeared a short time ago. Present evidence and argument.

                  Why was the system of wage labor and capital accumulation that the Book of Proverbs takes for granted and endorses not capitalism?

                  Why was the system of wage labor and free agreement between employers and employees that Jesus takes for granted in the parable of the Vineyard not capitalism?

                  Why was the system of finance and capital accumulation that Jesus takes for granted in the parable of the talents not capitalism?

                  Caesar got his big break by being financed by a private fire fighting and fire insurance business. How was that business not capitalism?

                  Antonio, the merchant of Venice, has a liquidity problem, because his assets are all ships at sea. Was he not a capitalist?

                  Something did change three hundred and sixty years ago: What changed was the appearance of the for profit corporation. We first see Ayn Rand’s Engineer CEO mobilizing other people’s labor and other people’s capital to advance technology and make it widely available three hundred and sixty years ago. How is this not modern corporate capitalism?

                  Explain to me how these things were not capitalism. Don’t tell me that everyone agrees that they are not capitalism for some reason never explained. If there is a well known definition of capitalism that excludes them, what is this definition?

                • Retinal Identification of the Supreme Being says:

                  Muh frin’, I back the former category because I prefer the company of great men to the company of soulless cybernetic collectives.

                  Not because I’m a Marxist.

                  Because I’m a man and I want to live in a world of man over soulless cybernetic collective, not a world of soulless cybernetic collective over man.

                  Or you can give me the crypto-keys to the firearms of the master soulless cybernetic collective, and I’ll rule you all with the gleaming iron fist of divine right natural law.

                  Do you see where this leads? You should.

                • Koanic says:

                  I can see why you’re worried, Iris. Your “reasoning” is eminently replaceable by Markov chains, and at a huge profit!

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:


                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:


                  I asked you why those examples were not capitalism, and you are not answering.

                • pterantula says:

                  > I prefer the company of great men to the company of soulless cybernetic collectives
                  The problem with the corporate world is that corporations are too beholden to the interests of the shareholders? No, the problem, everywhere, is activists who don’t have any accountability for the consequences of their decisions. And that has nothing to do with the definition of capitalism, except for a desire to escape the consequences of definitions.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  >The problem with the social matter program is that its emphasis on not making enemies and avoiding conflict results in cucking out.

                  I have, over time, noticed that there are roughly three levels of squid inking that the ‘leftist security system’ employs to make sure the clown world tent over the bioleninism show doesn’t get deflated.

                  The first of course is flat denial or occultation (conditioned occultation): ‘only crazy people think people collaborate to gain and maintain power; certainly not on their own time or through their own channels!’

                  The second is redirection: ‘There are secret powers corrupting our good way of life, and it’s the FASCIST CAPITALIST PATRIARCHY’. Id est, the Noam Chomsky detour.

                  The third is identification: ‘Sure there are secret powers orchestrating our way of life, and they’re a good thing!’

                  Which is to say, neutralize the threat of potentially meddlesome people or groups of people by making them think the same way the incumbent oligocracy thinks.

                  A perfect example of such in practice would a spirited squirt of cephalopod screen by Carrol Quigley, Bill Clinton’s favorite academic professor:

                  >(((This radical Right fairy tale, which is now an accepted folk myth in many groups in America, pictured the recent history of the United States, in regard to domestic reform and in foreign affairs, as a well-organized plot by extreme Left-wing elements … This myth, like all fables, does in fact have a modicum of truth. There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the Radical right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other group, and frequently does so.)))

                  Or, in other words, you can believe anything you like, as long as you continue out-grouping those ‘radical rightists’, continue believing them low status and excludable from ‘polite society’.

                  It wishes to, by inculcating people to view things through the same lens as the leftist security system, adopt it’s weltanschauung, perceive power they way it (wishes it) does, remove any principled basis for objection; turn potential problems into potential toadies, even. The aim would be to pose it’s methods, the character of it’s conduct, as not merely accidents, but in fact, the natural and inevitable course any and all persons would follow, the best of all possible worlds even!

                • Corneal Glint of the Lightbringer says:


                • jim says:

                  Projection. Although you quoted him, the quote clearly did not have the meaning you attributed to it, nor would anyone except a Marxist understand it as having that meaning.

                  You are still trying to impose Marxist frame on a reactionary blog.

                • Corneal Glint of the Lightbringer says:

                  @Koanic “I can see why you’re worried, Iris. Your “reasoning” is eminently replaceable by Markov chains, and at a huge profit!”

                  Ultimately, we’re all dispensable to the economic system. And then we’re dispensable, period.

                  First it was farmers. Then it was factory laborers. We’re currently standing on the precipice of the holocaust of the bumbling office drone.

                  And after them it’ll be you.

                  The economic root of tech nerds’ salaries is broad, but not deep. It has no institutional support whatsoever, because as a group tech nerds are socially inept and utterly clueless. It’s a complete historical accident that your garden-variety schlub programmer makes well north of 100k/yr, and the underlying economic conditions won’t last.

                  If you’re smart, you’ll quit your job, start a business, make a quick fortune in facilitating the holocaust of your fellow cubicle dwellers, and get the fuck out.

                  What you do with this advice is your problem.

                • jim says:

                  It is not capitalism that caused the hollowing out of everywhere except the great cities, the great centralization, but Obama and Clinton, who wanted to move white working males from federal electorates that were roughly balanced between Republicans and Democrats, into federal electorates where they would be massively outvoted by people brought in to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democrats, so set about systematically destroying jobs in flyover country, because people with jobs, especially people with jobs in flyover country, tend to be white and male.

                  With Trump in charge, the great centralization has been replaced by the great decentralization. Those manufacturing jobs are returning in large numbers.

                  Again, you blame capitalists for the crimes of the priesthood. With Trump in charge the white exodus from bicoastal megalopolis areas already overwhelmingly flooded with Democratic voters has greatly accelerated, because of the availability of jobs, with the effect that they are moving from areas where their federal votes are utterly irrelevant, to areas where their federal votes are likely to matter, where housing is cheaper, where they are physically safer, because they can now get jobs in those places.

                  It used to be primarily retirees, but now, with jobs, young people are going.

                  Now its the fire sector – finance, insurance, and real estate hollowing out, as working class whites leave the bicoastal megalopoli for manufacturing jobs in Texas and Nevada.

                  Employment growth from December 2017 to December 2018

                  New York State 1.3
                  California 1.7
                  Texas 3.2
                  Utah 3.1
                  Arizona 3.4

                  If that difference continues for six more years, it is going to have a big impact on federal electoral outcomes, as excess crime and welfare votes in the blue megalopoli are wasted, and it looks to be accelerating.

                  That is those manufacturing jobs coming back, employing overwhelmingly white male votes in electorates where their federal votes are apt to matter.

                  If Texas had flipped, and under the Obama economy, with all the white male voters moving to the Bay Area and New York, it was going to flip, Republicans would never have won another federal election. Thanks to the return of manufacturing, not going to flip.

                • Corneal Glint of the Lightbringer says:


                • jim says:

                  You did not answer my questions on capitalism.

                  As with a troofer, you just move on to new points, preparatory to moving back to your old points as never refuted.

                  After we discuss when capitalism began, then we can discuss the impact of corporate capitalism on the advance of science, technology, and industry. And since the impact started when corporate capitalism began, under an aristocratic government and a divine right monarchy with an officially official state church, you are going to “refute” my replies on that topic by once again confidently taking for granted that capitalism started yesterday, and that therefore corporate capitalism cannot be credited with the advances of science, technology, and industry that I attribute to it. And that everyone, even me, knows that capitalism started yesterday.

                • Corneal Glint of the Lightbringer says:


                • jim says:


                  Lets first discuss when capitalism began and when corporate capitalism began.

                  Your questions are all intended to frame me as already agreeing with Marxist account of reality, rather than defend or argue that account of reality, that Marxism is so obviously a true description of the world that it is not worth discussing.

                  I reject your frame.

                  First, we have to argue Marx’s theory of history, rather than simply assuming it to be true. You don’t want argue it, instead you presuppose that everyone, including me, already knows it is true.

                  Just as I cannot discuss building seven with a troofer who confidently presupposes, without evidence or argument, that building seven suddenly and mysteriously went into free fall, while refusing to defend the claim or present evidence for it, I cannot discuss the impact of corporate capitalism on science, technology, and industry with someone who confidently presupposes, without evidence or argument, that capitalism began yesterday, who insists that he is not a Marxist because everyone, including myself, knows that Marx is correct, while refusing to defend the claim or present evidence for it.

                  Science, technology, and industry took off under an aristocratic government and a divine right monarchy with an officially official state church. You are going tell me that Charles the Second practiced communism, that Carlyle was defending and endorsing communism, that capitalism is a new system that recently appeared, and we true reactionaries should go back to the good old communist system that was so successful in producing science, technology, and industry.

                  You are not interested in what you ostensibly propose to discuss. Your don’t want to debate the things you ostensibly want to debate. Rather, you want to talk about anything at all within the frame that Marxism is so obviously true that it is not even worth discussing.

                • alf says:

                  You are not interested in what you ostensibly propose to discuss. Your don’t want to debate the things you ostensibly want to debate. Rather, you want to talk about anything at all within the frame that Marxism is so obviously true that it is not even worth discussing.

                  goddamn truth bombs being dropped.

                  It really is a shit-test. The thing about frame shit-tests is that you have to resist them from the first moment, otherwise they come bite you in the ass. But its hard because you don’t always recognize the frame someone is laying down; it takes time and practice.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I’ve got a few minutes so I’ll play your stupid Jew game for a bit longer.

                  You produced a few fun examples to back up your assertion that capitalism is not a new phenomenon, so for the duration of this comment, and only for the duration of this comment, the reader must suspend disbelief and forget that you regularly talk about the genesis of capitalism during the Restoration.

                  “You want to argue that Capitalism appeared a short time ago. Present evidence and argument.”

                  Prior to the Enlightenment, most people did as they were told by people higher up than them in the hierarchy. For most people this meant the land-owner you worked for, and who provided you with everything you needed to live a good life and raise a family. For some outliers this meant a more regimented system of ranks and titles, but either way, there was a general understanding that some people decided what happened and others made it happen.

                  After the Enlightenment, when all men were declared fundamentally equal, the idea became this: you find what other people want, that isn’t being currently over-provided by others, and you make it your business to meet those most urgent of the as yet unmet needs of your fellow Man in order to produce value, and by those means secure for yourself a place in the world, thereby providing for yourself a place to live and the wherewithal to raise a family.

                  I assume you’re not claiming that the examples to follow are examples of the pre-existing Enlightenment of the Middle Ages and antiquity, but rather than simply declare QED and trigger a new round of censorship for not having refuted in detail each and every one of your ‘shibboleths’, let’s have at it.

                  Once again, dear reader, the host makes a very simple matter appear complicated before instructing you that any dissent from the boomer-capitalist J-right position is proof of Marxism: apparently it’s not only classical liberalism that existed throughout the ages but Marxism too, but for the duration of this comment, we shall suspend our disbelief and pretend we’re discussing in good faith. The question then, given that capitalism’s origins in the Enlightenment are in dispute, the case for capitalism’s Enlightenment origins must account for the following examples………

                  “Why was the system of wage labor and capital accumulation that the Book of Proverbs takes for granted and endorsed not capitalism?”

                  Not very specific, so will answer in conjunction with the following:

                  “Why was the system of wage labor and free agreement between employers and employees that Jesus takes for granted in the parable of the Vineyard not capitalism?”
                  Because the labourers were neither at liberty, nor obliged, to go forth and set up their own vineyard. Instead it was understood that a hereditary, privileged hierarchy owned the means of production and the grand masses of the people were sent forth to labour.
                  Under exceptional circumstances, the landowner directed his staff to plan and administer his business for him, and he appraised their good sense accordingly.
                  If you want instead to claim that it wasn’t Marxism, we can agree on *that*.

                  “Why was the system of finance and capital accumulation that Jesus takes for granted in the parable of the talents not capitalism?”

                  Again hierarchy is assumed, and capitalism is about the abolition of hereditary titles and unearned privilege in favour of a new hierarchy, ever-changing and open to all, of the current users of capital.
                  If you want only to claim that long-term planning through saving existed, that’s fine. Long-term planning through saving existed in this parable and indeed long before.
                  Had this been a sufficient condition for ‘capitalism’, there would have been absolutely zero need for any Enlightenment classical liberal revolution to *establish* capitalism, since nothing would have needed to be changed.

                  “Caesar got his big break by being financed by a private fire fighting and fire insurance business. How was that business not capitalism?”

                  It wasn’t Marxism, so if the kernel of capitalism’s definition is that anything non-Bolshevik is automatically capitalism then yes indeed that was capitalism. If this *is* how we’re invited to think, then take your pick of any social democratic Western state and simply declare it a laissez-faire capitalist paradise, from the welfare state to crony capitalist arrangements, to subsidies, to interference with the money supply, to whatever you want: so long as it isn’t Marxism it’s capitalism.

                  If you *don’t* want to use so broad a brush, then what you described is simply lending, expansion and the spreading around of resources for implementation, rather than a cartoon picture of Ayn Rand’s hero engineer doing all the work him/herself.

                  “Antonio, the merchant of Venice, has a liquidity problem, because his assets are all ships at sea. Was he not a capitalist?”

                  He was a merchant. If you want to simply assert that all merchants are capitalists then there’s no need for any of the Whig revolutions of the Enlightenment. Every single innovation of the 17th and 18th centuries could have been flatly refused, and everything kept at Elizabethan levels of mercantilism and guild control, and capitalism would have been just fine.

                  If you’re *not* inclined to grant any of that then you cannot avail yourself of the assertion that what went before your necessary conditions for capitalism was itself capitalism.

                  You may have your bread, or you may eat it. Eat and have it you may not.

                  “Something did change three hundred and sixty years ago: What changed was the appearance of the for profit corporation. We first see Ayn Rand’s Engineer CEO mobilizing other people’s labor and other people’s capital to advance technology and make it widely available three hundred and sixty years ago. How is this not modern corporate capitalism?”

                  Well again, if every single person were not only at liberty to, but also obliged to, find his own way and make a life for himself on the free market in labour, then yes indeed: all the necessary and sufficient conditions for capitalism were met.

                  If so, the Enlightenment liberal reforms were completely unnecessary. If not, you can’t have it both ways. Labour knew its place at the time of the first corporations, and rather than a ‘labour market’, the first capitalists (if such you want to call them, which is fine) sourced their labour from the peasants and other plebeians they were responsible for as part of their natural position in the world.

                  Noblesse oblige, not a market in labour.

                  “Explain to me how these things were not capitalism. Don’t tell me that everyone agrees that they are not capitalism for some reason never explained. If there is a well known definition of capitalism that excludes them, what is this definition?”

                  A society founded on capitalism, such as 19th century America, involves an assumption that no man (save perhaps an outright slave) is fundamentally *beneath* another in terms of his legal rights and societal obligations.
                  Each of us must go out onto the labour market, choose a desired profession and then offer up the commodity of our lives to be bought through the free and consensual interaction of legally equal-footed actors in pursuit of happiness and prosperity.

                  In the pre-capitalist world, this labour market was pretty much absent: the peasant who lived on the manor knew that he, like his father, was destined to look after the horses *or whatever* and that was all there was to it.
                  His master would ensure he had a roof over his head, and when the time came for him to get married, he could without excessive worry about cost, and the community as a whole was expected to help him and his family.

                  Today we simply take out a loan and throw a party. When the chocolate fountains have been dismantled and the last hit of the 1990s has been played, the guests go home and the bride and groom (etc.) go back to their jobs. If they’re lucky, their shifts will coincide sometimes, and if they’re very lucky they may eventually be able to qualify for a government subsidy to obtain their first home before climbing the ‘housing ladder’ and taking out a second mortgage to indulge their inbuilt Wanderlust to explore the taste of Domino’s Pizza is a dozen slightly different places.

                • jim says:

                  > the reader must suspend disbelief and forget that you regularly talk about the genesis of capitalism during the Restoration.

                  Lying about what I say again.

                  Capitalism is ancient. Corporate capitalism began in the restoration.

                  Corporate capitalism made a big difference since it made possible Ayn Rand’s heroic engineer CEO, using other people’s capital and other people’s labor to advance technology and make it widely available.

                  Every transistor everywhere in the world is built by an engineer who learned it from an engineer who learned from an engineer who learned it under Shockley. There are very few such capitalists, but if no Shockley, no computer on your desk. One Shockley goes a mighty long way. All you need is one.

                  > > Why was the system of wage labor and free agreement between employers and employees that Jesus takes for granted in the parable of the Vineyard not capitalism?”

                  > Because the labourers were neither at liberty, nor obliged, to go forth and set up their own vineyard. Instead it was understood that a hereditary, privileged hierarchy owned the means of production


                  You are just making this crazy shit up out of thin air, argument by assertion, like a Troofer.

                  Early Iron age: Proverbs Chapter 31:
                  13: She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.

                  14: She is like the merchants’ ships; she bringeth her food from afar.

                  15: She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.

                  16: She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.

                  So she spins and sews, and with the proceeds, buys food in the market, and land in the market, and then plants vines on that land. Why vines?

                  Because vines take a long time to grow, and are thus a synechdote for capital. She is not just purchasing capital, she creates capital. She proceeds from spinning and sewing, the poorest occupation, to vineyard owner, one of the wealthier private occupations. Or more likely her husband owns the vineyard, but she is managing it and she earned it.

                  This is one of the many endorsement of capitalism and capital accumulation, including capitalism in land in the book of Proverbs. The vineyard was the prototypical biblical example of a private business and private capital resulting from private capital accumulation, in part because grape vines require a lot of time and patience, thus are a significant investment, worth more than the land on which they grow, representing the creation and patient accumulation of capital over many years. The vine is repeatedly used in the bible as a synecdoche for capitalist creation of capital through patience, hard work, and foresight.

                  There were always yeomen owning substantial amounts of land, there was always the butcher, the baker, the blacksmith, the cobbler, the wheelwright, the cartwright, the candlestick maker, the innkeeper.

                  In the oldest surviving book ever written, late Bronze Age, over a thousand years before Christ, the epic of Gilgamesh: Gilgamesh, exhausted and driven half mad by his questing, goes to an inn, and the innkeeper, of course, gives him wise advice. We are told she is notable and famous for her brews. We are told Gilgamesh goes to her inn and drinks her brews, and gets wise advice from her. We are not told he goes to Lord Such’s inn, drinks brews prepared by Lord Such’s brewer, and gets wise advice from Lord Such’s innkeeper.

                  Fairy tales usually have a grandmother or grandfather figure who gives the hero, and implicitly the reader, wise advice. This figure is never part of any hierarchy, always an independent agent. In this case, the grandmother figure is an innkeeper. This only makes sense as a literary trope, only works as a story, only works as a literary device, if the typical late bronze age reader took it for granted that an innkeeper is an affluent independent small businessman, that typical reader in the late bronze age interpreted the innkeeper who gives Gilgamesh wise advice during the Bronze Age is same social role as the man who today owns your local Domino’s pizza franchise. We are told her fame as a brewer to imply that she is authority over her inn and brews, rather than being just an employee, to identify her as occupying the social role of the man who owns your local Domino’s pizza franchise, rather than his pizza boy.

                  That we have distinct words for wheelwright and cartwright implies that the independent businessman who made wheels had a market relationship with the independent businessman who made carts.

                  That the writers of the epic of Gilgamesh used an independent business woman as their outside-the-hierarchy wise grandmother figure, rather than a witch, a fairy, a wizard, or an actual grandmother, implies that in Bronze Age society, independent businessmen had significant social influence and prestige, and the Epic of Gilgamesh directly tells us that the story’s grandmother figure had significant social status.

                  Everyone except academics knows this stuff, because everyone except academics reads old books, if only the bible, while academics only read twenty first century academics writing about what other twenty first century academics write about what other twenty first century academics write about old books that they have not in fact read.

                • alf says:

                  How friendship with a leftist works:

                  On day one, he says: ‘the sky is yellow.’ To which you reply: ‘no the sky is blue.’ A discussion ensues.

                  On day two, he says: ‘you were right, the sky is blue, how could I be so stupid.’

                  On day three, he says: ‘you were right indeed, the sky is purple. I am glad we had this discussion.’

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  Not what I said, not what I am likely to say, not what anyone who is not a Marxist is likely to say.

                  You are back to your old game of framing everyone as Marxism, and framing Marxism as universally agreed and undisputed.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  Your exposition and analysis of our positions not only presupposes Marxism, and takes Marxism for granted without any attempt to present evidence and argument, it also presupposes that we are Marxists.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  Presupposes and takes for granted that we believe in whig history. Not starting a new argument, until we have dealt with the primary argument: Marxist history. Like a troofer, you are moving on, instead of responding.

                  Not letting you move on, because as soon as we have moved on to whig history, you will declare victory and that I agreed with Marxist history.

                  Explain to us how that early iron age woman who moved herself and her family up the social scale was not a capitalist, and then we will discuss the whig history of the enlightenment.

                • Mister Grumpus says:


                  “It really is a shit-test. The thing about frame shit-tests is that you have to resist them from the first moment, otherwise they come bite you in the ass. But its hard because you don’t always recognize the frame someone is laying down; it takes time and practice.”

                  Thanks for that.

                  Time and practice. Time and practice. It’s like seeing the Matrix really. Then you have a hope to dodge da’ real bullets.

                  But BOY what a skill. And to be able to do it fast, in verbal real time too is, like, wow man do those people impress me.

      • Neurotoxin says:

        to tackle academia, you need to tackle the women problem as well… women will lash out in a nuclear shit-test.

        They will, but it won’t only be women. Education that is “free” or funded by gov’t loans has become so embedded in expectations that’s it’s now effectively an “entitlement.” No politician can go anywhere near the subject of de-funding it.

        So, like the national debt, it won’t be dealt with until the finances simply collapse.

        Though I do like the idea of taxing university endowments. That would be a fun thing to push into the Overton Window because it’s an issue that pits one lefty group, academia, against other left-wing groups, the “Give me tax-funded gibs” crowd.

        • alf says:

          In the Netherlands, from 1986 to 2016, students were paid an unconditional study grant, about 100 – 500 euros a month, higher if poor parents and if living on your own.

          But, in 2016 it was canceled. Of course, student protest and unfair yadayada, but canceled nonetheless. So can be defunded.

          The problem is that when we defund the universities, we are defunding the religious branch of the cathedral. Which really is striking the beast at its core. Now, the universities as a religious institution meme is picking up speed, but at the moment too many high status people are still invested in universities as knowledge institution, and a large part of those people are 100+ IQ women with beta boyfriends.

          • Neurotoxin says:

            That Netherlands example is encouraging as a proof of concept.
            But there’s a lot of space between that and the politics of the US. Actually the left here is currently pushing the left edge of the Overton Window in the opposite direction, the direction of
            “Free” education for everyone!

            The problem is that when we defund the universities, we are defunding the religious branch of the cathedral. Which really is striking the beast at its core.

            Exactly. They’ll fight with everything they have, because with the media having lost much of its power, the educational system is the only way leftism has to perpetuate itself across generations. In the long run, it’s existential for them to keep academia.

            Hmmm. Most leftists are not inclined to think about the long run. I wonder if we could use that somehow.

            • alf says:

              Actually the left here is currently pushing the left edge of the Overton Window in the opposite direction, the direction of
              “Free” education for everyone!

              Not the European left, which currently runs on pretty much two issues: EU good, global warming bad.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:


    • John Morris says:

      There is really only one way and since we supposedly have a couple of States with sufficiently “red” legislatures it is notable that nobody is even trying to start the ball rolling.

      Cultural Marxism is a religion, it is in fact the established State religion, only unofficially because officially of course we aren’t permitted a State Religion. Use this lie against them.

      Get one Red State to officially declare the bloody obvious, that Cultural Marxism meets every dictionary definition of a religion. That it is thus subject to “Separation of Church and State” in exactly the same way they go on about. It can’t be taught in State operated universities, they can no longer act as theological seminaries. No government tuition assistance can go toward it. Tenure is revoked for any State uni professor whose only skill is the teaching of religion.

      Strike hard, one solid blow and the entire edifice is destroyed at once. After a multi-year legal battle culminating at SCOTUS of course, for no major social policy change is permitted without the nine robed ones giving their consent and a mere State lacks the power to change that rule.

      • Koanic says:

        Yes, the solution is more separation of state, we just need to make the Left play by their own rules. It’s foolproof, what could go wrong!

        • John Morris says:

          Where is the weak link? If the topic of “Is Cultural Marxism a religion?” is put up for debate in a State legislature, would it not be hilarious to watch the usual suspects kvetch and try to blow smoke? Because the one thing they couldn’t do is actually argue the point, it is self evidently a religion.

          So once you win that argument, you move to the argument that it is currently the Established Church, that government is spending taxpayer dollars supporting the State Religion, operating religious seminaries, etc. That is not an argument the Left will like either. They either abandon their “Separation of Church and State” dogma, it no longer offering them the protection is does now or what exactly? Any result is upside for us at this point in the debate, we just have to force them to this point.

          • alf says:

            Does seem to me that calling out the religious elephant in the room is the inevitable thing to do. Progressives don’t have a real defense, except deny.

            To change the frame from ‘scientific institution’ to ‘religious institution’ seems solid. it destroys their status as holders of truth and authority.

            + helps a lot that they’re getting stupider and more overtly religious with each year. Agree, amplify, accelerate.

            • Kevin C. says:

              Won’t work because to too much of America, particularly the legal system, religion = theology. That is, that religion refers entirely to what one believes about god(s), afterlife, and the supernatural. I’ve seen plenty argue that Confucianism is not a religion, but a “philosophy,” because it doesn’t focus enough on theological doctrines, and even some argue that *Buddhism* is not a religion, on the grounds that its theological beliefs usually come from the local polytheism, and is compatible with both that polytheism and (via some Theravada sects) atheism, and is therefore not itself a religion, but a “philosophy” which often combines with local religion.

              Read Winnifred Fallers Sullivan’s “The Impossibility of Religious Freedom.” America’s “religious freedom” began as a détente between various strains of Protestantism over their doctrinal differences, and has in practice only ever functioned as such — Catholics, Jews, and others have only fit into the framework by significantly “Protestantizing” their modes of worship and understanding of religion’s place in life — see the evolution into “freedom on conscience.” (I also am reminded in recent news where a Somali Muslim woman pointing out AIPAC’s disproportionate influence is “anti-semitism,” but New York state trying to force GloboHomo into private Orthodox Jewish schools is not.)

              They will argue, successfully, that whatever the anthropological definition of religion, no matter how much Woke Progressivism looks like a religion, acts like a religion, plays the part of a religion, etc., its lack of explicit dogmas on the number of gods or existence of the afterlife make it, under American jurisprudence and precedent, *not* a religion, and thus its clear Establishment not a violation of the First Amendment.

              • alf says:

                They will argue, successfully, that no matter how much Woke Progressivism looks like a religion, under American jurisprudence and precedent, *not* a religion.

                They don’t argue, they preach. Mock them for it.

                If it smells, looks and behaves like a religion, people will know it to be a religion.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Except they haven’t and don’t. I agree very much with the premise that calling out CM as the religion it is is definitely on the Path To Power, but expecting people to see the Emperor’s clothes or lack thereof when they have nothing to gain from the revelation is a fool’s hope. On a long enough timeline, every sandwich board wearing doomsdayist is correct, but they get no credit for a perennial prediction.

                  I think the idea of getting a deep red state to declare Atheism or Progressivism or Environmentalism a religious institution is a very hard but no less real possibility. I think everyone here including Jim should round table this idea and then come up with a set of policy proposals that could be forwarded by a hired lobbying firm. I can help draft the proposals and build the Jacket for them. I think that Reaction should actually do something for once, particularly because of how bad we failed in 2016. Be honest with yourselves: what do we stand to lose by putting our intellectual money where our ideological mouths are?

                • alf says:

                  but expecting people to see the Emperor’s clothes or lack thereof when they have nothing to gain from the revelation is a fool’s hope.

                  But they have: the people our pitch will appeal most to are men with wives, children and freehold, or men aspiring to that. These men have a lot to lose with these religious crazies in power, are losing things as we speak. Every time they encounter a blue-haired women from HR, or another transgender bathroom, or a demand for the latest CO2 tax, they will think: ‘hmmm, maybe there is something to this…’ And they are right: there is something to this.

            • Javier says:

              I agree with this, the religious angle is a good one to push.

              What I notice with leftists is they are conditioned to see religion = Christianity and Christianity = bad, while the left = science and science = good. When you point out Left = religion, it short-circuits the thought process so badly they literally cannot comprehend the concept.

              I have noticed this with both run of the mill braindead libtards and even ‘highly educated’ Harvard grad students (whatever little difference there is). They just can’t wrap their minds around this at all. It tends to promote a flurry of blanket declarations, like reciting scripture, and derails whatever nonsense they were trying to push.

              When James Damore was fired I had hoped he would sue for religious discrimination rather than political. He danced around the subject in his memo and discussions when he pointed out the left treated their dogma as moral absolutes, but he wasn’t willing to test the law on the matter.

              • calov says:

                Tucker Carlson constantly points out on his show how the left functions as a religion. Pretty much every night. It doesn’t seem to be making any headway outside of his show, but it is interesting to watch how his liberal guests react to the characterization. (They are nonplussed and simply don’t respond to it)

                • jim says:


                  The key insight of the Dark Enlightenment is that we always have a theocratic state.

                  Similarly, Trump is picking up and pushing Heartiste memes. Donald Trump Jr calls out social media for pushing hate crime hoaxes and censoring hate crime hoax exposes.

                • alf says:

                  The fact that Tucker discusses the left as religion shows the idea is getting traction.

                  Soon the left can no longer ignore it and they’ll pull the same defense they did when they invented the fake news meme: ‘no YOU’re the religion’. Then we’ll have them.

          • Koanic says:

            The weak link is cuckservative failed thinking. Identify the enemy religion as what it is, the pederastic coprophagic niggerphilic worship of demons and death, and then /make the case for their extermination/.

            • John Morris says:

              Which argument do you think we might succeed in making, here in the real world?

              1. Cultural Marxism is a total philosophy with a definition of good/evil, Man’s purpose in the world, etc. If Buddhism is a religion, then Cultural Marxism is too. So if the State can’t allow Christians or Buddhists to teach their faith in government schools you guys can’t either. Fair is fair.

              2. The actual Truth about who the Left actually worships.

              And just to add more mental stress to em we can hit em with their Science Denialism. We Reactionaries are the ones doing Science and they are Deniers with their Equalist dogma.

              • jim says:

                All of these are good arguments, and the response of the left is to silence and ignore them. You can tell an argument is good if the Dork Web will not touch it with a ten foot pole and Social Matter will not discuss it.

                • John Morris says:

                  Of course they ignore it, because ignoring works when you control the commanding heights of culture and information distribution. Which is why I’m suggesting finding ONE Red State legislature to pass a bill. At which point ignoring stops working and they have to move to fighting it. If we can draw them into a public fight over it we might be able to actually win the argument. And if we can’t, we lose; not like we don’t have vast experience with losing. Does anyone have a better way we should be trying to carry the fight to the Foe? If not we should give it a try, you are going to lose 100% of battles you never even try to win.

                • jim says:

                  That is already happening, in that a couple of red states have passed laws forbidding schools from engaging in advocacy on issues that are part of one party’s platform. It is worth something, but it is hardly a game changer, and does not seem to be reshaping the debate.

                  It is worth doing, takes the battle to the enemy, and yet …

                • calov says:

                  well, that explains the reaction Carlson gets to pointing out how the left’s fanaticism is religious that I noted above.

              • Koanic says:

                In the real world, people can tell you don’t actually believe in your position because if you did you would want to exterminate Leftists, not cohabitate with them under fairer rules.

              • calov says:

                The problem is that education is always religious, so the attempt to make schools religion-free is impossible by definition. The way things work is that the only acceptable religion to teach in public schools is progressivism, or perhaps some slightly more conservative version of the American civil religion. And most Americans, even Christians, agree with this version of separation of church and state, because they have been taught to believe that it is possible to separate education and religion.

      • Cyril says:

        Very likely will need push boomers out of office or wait for them to die/retire for something like this to happen.

        • jim says:

          Cthulhu swims only left. The majority of young people will shortly be non white, the majority of young white females are not getting married, thus the younger generation is lefter than the boomers.

          • Cyril says:

            There will be red states where majority of young people will still be white after the boomers are out of power.

            They might be the ones who have the will to purge their local universities.

            • jim says:

              There are no such things as local universities. The war of Northern Aggression put an end to that, and world War II put an end to national universities. All universities everywhere in American hegemony are the same university.

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                I really want to disagree with this statement on semantic grounds given Private Universities and Vocational Schools, but I have 0 experience with VCs and of the PUs I have summary knowledge of (Bob Jones, Pensacola, Liberty, Eastern Mennonite U) the pozzing is occurring on two vectors: curricular constraints brought about by accreditation necessities AND the Pink Pathway (the vagina).

                Completely unrelated, has anyone here given thought to the Antiversity as both concept and/or exercise?

                • jim says:

                  We have given a great deal of thought to antiuniversity.

                  A university is inherently a priestly operation, and we aim to become the official priesthood. So we are going to need to train priests, but until we get revenue and economic demand for our priests, an antiuniversity that resembles regular universities is not viable.

                  Self improvement programs similar to and containing red pill, PUA, martial arts, physical fitness, and similar are viable. We are getting a lot of traction out of red pill.

                  Moldbug’s concept of the antiunversity was a system for determining truth, rather than a system of training. Well, we already have a system for determining truth, and I am enforcing it on my blog commentators. It was stated by Robert Boyle in the introduction of “The Sceptical Chymist”, or rather it was stated well before that, but Robert Boyle’s book is particularly significant because Charles the Second gave it Royal backing, making “the invisible college”, the original anti university, into “The Royal Society”.

                  Puritans were hugely pissed by this, and attempted to shut it down and lower its status by physical violence (which violence is why it had previously been invisible) whereupon King Charles sent his men at arms to meetings of the Royal Society, thereby further raising its status.

                  The Dark Enlightenment is the new invisible university. And in due course, we aim to become the new Royal Society. When Milo gives a talk and the state thumps Antifa the way the cossacks thumped Pussy Riot, then we will be the new Royal Society.

                • alf says:

                  Seems to me the antiversity, being a rival to the university, and the universities being churches, means the antiversity was really just Moldbug’s way of saying we need a new religion.

  29. Steve Johnson says:

    Homosexuals became high status because they were granted aristocratic privilege to engage in violence The disrespectable gays were openly intimidating people with the tacit support of the 100% respectable elites. Alex Jones fans cannot intimidate anyone because they are not violent enough and don’t have that tacit support. Compton’s Cafeteria got Kristallnachted twice. And so on…

    And thus gays became respectable.

    It’s amazing how hard the person whose argument you’re addressing here works to not notice this instead concluding that it’s a giant mystery.

    • jim says:

      Leftists encounter a whole lot of giant mysteries.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        Paraphrasing P.J. O’Rourke’s quip (“life is full of ironies – if you’re stupid”) “life is full of mysteries if you’re willfully deluded”.

  30. Anonymous Fake says:

    What the right doesn’t understand is that 99% of people just want a comfortable lifelong career that can support a family. Somehow, they put their trust in corporations, which are controlled by high status “alpha males” who want to destroy monogamy and family and tradition so they can have 3-4 women for themselves. This is why they are notorious Islamic sympathizers.

    This is also why the former Soviet bloc is so based. They never had “alpha male” capitalists trying to poz everyone else so they could hoard women for themselves. The Muslim world had its degenerate Ottoman period for centuries before the 99% learned to embrace terrorism and thuggery to be attractive to women, rather than money, and even the Saudis are aware of this.

    Even the universities would be spontaneously abandoned if everyone were just guaranteed a comfortable government job. “Woke capital” and its anti-family welfare state ideology could go pound sand and no one would miss it. Capitalism worked great until the birth control pill was invented, and now ordinary workers justifiably hate it and the fake opposition on the left isn’t cutting it anymore.

    Violence is overrated. What matters is what kind of people are motivated to fill up the civil service and threaten a coup. Street protests are a 20th century ritual with no (post?)modern importance. Somehow, the inner cities that employ most government workers were left to the underclass, mostly homosexuals, by a population oblivious to the reality that “personnel is policy”. But now everyone talks about The Swamp and who it consists of.

    I bet the (((elites))) throw away the LGBTWTF’s away rapidly if Trumpism continues long enough. The swamp can only get so big, and that tent has to snap at some point. The fringe coalition isn’t going to lose the Jews.

    • jim says:


      It was not our “corporate overlords” who OKed the StoneWall riots and the beating of Faith Goldie, and I see our “corporate overlords” being terrorized by fat childless HR ladies with a hundred thousand in college debt and credit card debt.

      If Bezos cannot get laid, our “corporate overlords” are powerless and frightened. I can get laid, because I am not afraid.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        “It was not our “corporate overlords” who OKed the StoneWall riots and the beating of Faith Goldie, and I see our “corporate overlords” being terrorized by fat childless HR ladies with a hundred thousand in college debt and credit card debt.

        If Bezos cannot get laid, our “corporate overlords” are powerless and frightened. I can get laid, because I am not afraid.”

        Destroying monogamy so bosses can screw the wives of their employees means normal men have to figure out a new way of displaying male value. To show that they aren’t afraid, and they want to get laid, etc. This is where violence comes from.

        Homosexuals are a special case of violence in that they are the derivative of black violence which drove white families out of the cities. As soon as ordinary whites fled, homosexuals figured out they could riot too, and the blacks wouldn’t oppose them.

        The HR harpies wouldn’t exist if corporate elites simply distributed fair pay information about careers in high school. There wouldn’t be any college debt, or even HR for that matter, if people simply knew on the spot what they would earn for a career, rather than the pointless credential creep and ambiguity about commissions, cost of living, and other ways capitalists rip off their employees.

        The bottom line is that Bezos types want women indebted for “essential” credentials simply because that’s what makes them spread their legs for rich old men. They want young men indebted because it destroys their competitive value.

        Without capitalists and their sexual appetites, we would have a 20 hour work week for men and women wouldn’t work at all. They have been anti-family ever since the birth control pill. They are chasing a beta male power fantasy and the Chads at the bottom are the real winners. The most noble people, the employee class, is losing.

        • jim says:

          > Destroying monogamy so bosses can screw the wives of their employees

          Bosses screwing the wives of employees is a minor problem, in part because the jealous cat ladies of HR will come down on the boss like a ton of bricks.

          The problem is bad boys screwing the wives of employees.

          That Bezos could not get laid shows us that bosses screwing the wives of employees is not a problem.

          > The HR harpies wouldn’t exist if corporate elites simply distributed fair pay information about careers in high school.


          In american businesses with fifty or more employees Human Resources exists to impose political correctness on corporations, and a big part of their work is destroying the lives of straight white male employees. They are not there to protect employees, but to ruin them.

          I speak from experience. I have been in that battle – not that they were trying to ruin me, but they were trying to ruin my co-workers, and my boss gave me that problem to deal with.

          • James says:

            How hard is it to hire non-HR HR? It seems like you could just put someone in there who fills the official role but is actually company loyal.

            • The Cominator says:

              Probably very difficult in big companies anyway, probably possible in companies of 200 or less people.

              You would need an all male HR department for one thing.
              Completely loyal women are almost nonexistent… they have to be brainwashed to see you as some sort of living god (think Charles Manson) or been family close to you since childhood. Nothing other then that works.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        OK, Buster:

        If I’m perceiving an irony here then it must be because I’m stupid, so help me out please:

        “Reaction is low status because violence is inflicted upon us with impunity.“

        “I can get laid, because I am not afraid.”

        You have to at least “act afraid” out here in zee public space through religiously maintained fake identities and all that. (And I still don’t understand how you don’t get doxxed through your DNS and web/IP information.)

        And yet in the private sphere you’ve learned how to “act unafraid” to get what you need from women, etc.

        Is it just a matter of not being autistic that allows you to keep up this “double life” circus act? How do you not go crazy? What’s Your Secret?

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      “They never had “alpha male” capitalists trying to poz everyone else so they could hoard women for themselves. ”

      They made divorce and abortion easy and legal, promoted women’s education and workplace employment and decriminalized homosexuality. The reds triumphed over the poz because Stalin murdered everyone who wielded it, not some inevitable trait of communism.

    • Ted says:

      LoL 😂 the perfect shill or what?!

Leave a Reply