The Cathedral’s position on right wing individualism is rendered obvious by the mindless conformity and rigid ideological uniformity of our tenured academics, and the robotic programmed speech of NPC leftists of twitter, and by the ever swelling apparatus to impose correct thought on everyone, for example the Human Resources Department.
But at the same time there is a problem with right wing individualism: Burke is the father of cuckservatism. The trouble with Burke is that the Burke of Liberty subverted the Burke of authority. When Burke condemned the French Revolution and assorted left anarchists and socialists, he had to invoke the throne and altar that he was otherwise busy undermining.
If no stationary bandit, going to have mobile bandits. If no state religion, going to have a worse state religion.
The text that the revolutionist is writing while interrupted by Burke says “On the benefits of atheism and anarchism”. And he is deemed a rat because he identifies with the ideas and principles of Burke, and takes them to their logical conclusion, which conclusion horrifies Burke.
The picture is “titled “Death of Charles the first, or the Glory of Great Britain”, the book says “Treatise on the ill effects of order and Government on our society and on the absurdity of serving God or honoring the King”
But that position is just the position that Burke took on the British Empire, applied to great Britain itself, applied terrifyingly close to home. And a terrified Burke promptly invoked the throne and altar that he had been industriously undermining, and continued to industriously undermine. The cartoon depicts Burke menacing the anarcho socialist revolutionary with a glowing cross in one hand, representing the state religion that Burke was probably an apostate from, and the crown representing the throne he was industriously undermining.
Burke engaged in lawfare against the East India company, launching a pile of frivolous charges against an individual member of the East India Company, in which he sought to find him guilty of governing India.
The crown had long ago given the East India company authority to make war and peace. Finding itself under attack by bandit kings, it made war in a horrifying fashion, employing devastating methods that frequently amounted to plunder, pillage, and ethnic cleaning. Victorious, it transitioned from mobile banditry to stationary banditry. Burke charged it, not with the horrifying things it had done as a mobile bandit, but with bringing peace, order and prosperity as a stationary bandit. The process was the punishment. The accused suffered more grief in successfully defending himself, than he would have if he had pled guilty and accepted punishment. Despite the accused being acquitted, Burke successfully established the principle that the British Empire was illegitimate and wicked.
Cuckservatives have no ground to stand on. If liberty, why should some people have property and others not have property, why should some people have authority and others not have authority, which is why Burke had to turn to throne and altar when viewing the catastrophic consequences of his own cuckservative doctrines. The Burke of liberty continually contradicts and subverts the Burke of authority.
But wholesale rejection of individualism is not an option, because then everything becomes a coordination problem, and coordination problems are at best difficult to solve, seldom have satisfactory solutions, and usually have only utterly disastrous solutions.
Consider the school lunch program: Turns out that it is much easier for a mother to feed her children healthy food than for a vast overpaid bureaucracy to feed an army of children healthy food.
At the same time, making individualism a religious principle leads not to freedom, but to totalitarianism, for freedom is secured by walls that separate the proper domain of my power and decisions from other people’s, and those walls are an intrusion on their freedom to set fire to the supermarket and steal a case of beer, leading to the socialism painfully familiar to the Chinese who produced this video.
And, as Moldbug argued, those walls have to be ultimately backed by a sovereign. Anarcho capitalism will always be conquered by tribalism.
But who defends the walls against the sovereign – and against the propensity of that sovereign to find himself surrounded by vast and ever swelling bureaucracy? Burke has a case – but the verdict of history is that Burkean liberty necessarily leads to surrender to those that so horrified Burke, and Burke’s ready resort to throne and altar foreshadowed the verdict of history. The inconsistency between the Burke of Authority and the Burke of Liberty reveals that one must devour the other. Conservatism has failed. Libertarianism reveals itself as unilateral disarmament, manifested by libertarians who cheerfully tell the baker “Just bake the cake” when a Christian baker is commanded to bake a gay wedding cake and cheerfully accept measures against husbands and fathers that would outrage them if applied against serial killers, libertarians who find it intolerable for president Trump to use the military to build a wall against invasion, but have no problem with using the military to build girl’s schools in Afghanistan to teach nine year old girls to put a condom on a banana.
Cuckservatism seeks to preserve the social technology that the restoration secured – while abandoning the principles of the restoration. This fundamental inconsistency bit Burke, and it continues to bite his successors. Conservatism has failed, endlessly surrendering. There is no alternative but to return to the throne and altar that Burke so readily returned to when order was under threat. Conservatism has failed. Libertarianism has failed. Only throne and altar can save us.
The alternative to throne is not liberty, but rather anarcho tyranny, a thousand Kings three miles away instead of one King three thousand miles away. The alternative to state religion is out of control religion, the social justice warriors.
Reaction will be implemented by reactionary methods, not by promising fifty one percent of the voters more bread and circuses. The cycle of history is that democracy gives way to the rule of one man. The end of the democracy draws near, the only question remaining being how many will be murdered in its death throes. That one man will find that guns do not suffice. He is going to need a priesthood, an official religion consistent with the rule of one man. Those who preach that the ruler rules by the will of God are in the running to be that priesthood.
Current technology is that a handful of able, well trained well equipped warriors can easily handle a mob of any size, and have little difficulty with a horde of poorly trained conscript cannon fodder. Our technological situation is analogous to what it was when the armored knight on the warhorse was the ultimate decider of battles. But guns alone cannot rule. Ideas are more powerful than guns. Our ideas are appropriate to the death throes of democracy, and to current military and information technology. Recent events have demonstrated that elections have already become largely irrelevant. Expect each election to be even less relevant than its predecessor. When the permanent government decided to ignore Trump, it decided to saw off the branch on which it sat. As Trump needed, and successfully used, the Federalist society, and the Federalist society successfully used Trump, the dictator is going to need us.
The recent parade in Italy reflects the increasing mass penetration of our ideas, in the meme of Emperor Trump, and the celebration of divine right warrior rule in the song Carolus Rex. Supposedly this is mockery of Trump – but you don’t mock by faithfully reproducing memes circulated by his most enthusiastic supporters at twenty times lifesize with loudspeakers blaring.
We are intellectuals, and the meme warriors disown intellectual analysis for meme warfare – but their memes encapsulate our ideas in their simplest and most compelling form. Meme warriors are our footsoldiers. If Trump fails, someone is going to succeed – the only question is how many will be killed before the return to simplest and most fundamental form of governance. The social justice warrior is trapped in a holiness spiral, and the position that all white males need to be killed is the next step in ever greater holiness. Let us hope we get a more stable form of governance before that happens. But sooner or later, and not very much later, we are going to get a more stable form of governance. Conservatism was born cutting its own throat. Libertarianism has surrendered. All that remains is reaction or socialist democide. Worst case outcome is socialist democide followed by reaction. We hope for a reaction that restores the social technology that has been destroyed, we hope for the restoration, and intend to provide an idea system that will make that reaction more stable, more secure, and less bloody. Restoration is the idea system that can provide the legitimacy that will make the coming dictatorship secure, peaceful, and more comfortable for everyone.
Another poster boy for whiggery run amok 18 years prior to the Caroline affair and 85 years prior to the publishing of The Bow of Ulysses: Thomas Picton, later hero of Waterloo and knight of the Bath, dragged back to England, tried and convicted for having a thieving mulatto whore mildly punished while governor of Trinidad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Picton
I was thinking about how to deal with individualism for a while. When things have a purpose, it is very easy to make value judgements. A good knife is one that cuts well, a good doctor is one that heals well.
Talking about the purpose of man’s existence or the purpose of citizenhood is not trivially easy, but then you know what is a good man and what is a good citizen, you can make objective value judgments.
The point is this: if man’s existence has a definite purpose, that both limits individual liberty and governmental tyranny.
Because then it is wrong to live in a way that it is not compatible with man’s inherent purpose, but it is also wrong for the government to treat, basically: use subjects in way that is not compatible with such a purpose.
Similarly, removing this idea of man having an inherent purpose, leads to individualism: I am free to do whatever I want to. But it also leads to tyranny: the government is free to do whatever it wants with you.
And the reason I think model is useful is that it is precisely what happened in eras like the French Revolution. Both anarchy and tyranny got unleashed.
So let’s try this. Figure out man’s inherent purpose. Or if it is too hard, then figure out the purpose of society, state, nation, civil association, which gives us an objective value judgement of man as a citizen. Yes, it is perfectly possible to have multiple purposes, you are trying to be a good doctor in one situation, healing people well, and a good father in another situation, raising your kids well. For the purpose of politics, we need to figure out what is the inherent purpose of having a civil association (or even question if a nation is really a civil association, the old Gesellschaft-Gemeinschaft divide) and thus figure out what being a good citizen is like.
When we have this, then we can say that individualism is too much when it lets people wander off the path of the good citizen. And we can say government is too intrusive (or intrusive the wrong way) when it pushes people off the path of the good ciitzen.
You don’t need any of this. If one does not want responsibility, he should not expect support. End of argument.
Are there actually any individualists in reality? From what I’ve seen it’s either a way to deceive your enemies into fragmenting or an excuse for hedonism.
What a remarkably off mark reply, completely ignoring what it replied to except for trying to derail it.
Essentially sabotage, like all your annoying bullshit.
I stand by my statement.
Your responses seem random and unrelated to material you are supposedly responding to.
Nope.
It is not hard.
From the bible our earthly purpose is survival and flourishing “fill the earth and subdue it”
And from Darwinism, the purpose every life form is survival and reproduction, but for men, survival and reproduction as men, to fill the human ecological niche, to fill the universe and subdue it. Rats also survive and reproduce, which is fine for rats.
We need to do this as individuals, and to build a society in which at least the elite can flourish, for at present not even the elite is flourishing.
Fine, but why did Hobbes and others define the purpose of the state as providing security/safety? Because back in the “Malthusian” ages reproduction was a given, people reproduced even in the most impossible circumstances except when they were physically prevented from it by getting killed, imprisoned or enslaved which is why safety was back then the most important and basically only important factor regarding reproduction?
I mean, AFAIK we are all more or less ex-libertarians of a varying shade. The safety of life, limb and property still matters. Why? Because they are prerequisites for reproduction?
What does as men, as humans mean? Do you mean Aristotle’s “rational animal”? By flourishing you mean that at least the elite should be able to live in a way that is compatible with being a rational animal by nature?
“Fine, but why did Hobbes and others define the purpose of the state as providing security/safety?”
The earthly purpose of the individual in the divine plan is different then that of the state.
Good, but politics is more about what makes a good citizen than what makes a good man. Being a good man is the business of the Church, being a good citizen is the business of the State.
So what the State should care about is 1) do not let people so individualistic as to stray much from the path of the good citizen 2) do not itself as a state, use, force, people in a (tyrannical) way that is incompatible with them being good citizens.
So we do need to figure out the purpose of the state / nation / citizenship. It MUST be done. You cannot just rely on the divine plan, what you get that way is a form of Islam, not the “two swords”.
(According to Voegelin, Calvinism IS a form of Islam, he called his Insitutes the first Christian Quran.)
Security and safety is the very nature of the State. States form as many individuals – and sometimes multiple tribes – band together for mutual protection, which invariably involves staking out and defending territory – borders. We are territorial animals.
Of course, that “safety” was until recently always understood to be safety from external threats. Not the “threat” of exclusion, which is always the prerogative of the tribe and/or sovereign.
State and nation are different entities, regardless of one’s attitude toward the nation-state model. We shouldn’t use “state/nation” interchangeably.
I was thinking about Jims idea of ending “open entry” into the priesthood and I agree with Jims rule that the supreme authority should be warriors.
So how should this be implemented… I think maybe certain priestly professions like maybe the law should be open only to veterans.. Something like the Starship Troopers movie society but with a monarchy. We should ideally make sure everyone in the priesthood has a military background.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvAsR4O4W0w
My reaction is that warriors make good warriors and priests make good priests; try to draw your knowledge faction from the warriors and you’re likely to end up with the born priests that you kept out of jobs and status positions forming their own unofficial, more naturally gifted competing priesthood. Unless you kill everyone with a high verbal IQ. But then you’ve got a state religion open to being outcompeted by ones made by more talented priests, unless you close up completely North Korea style (and even then it may seep in through cracks).
That’s not to say that you can’t instill some basic martial background and familiarity in the gifted people who naturally drift priestly.
Military officers tend to be on average pretty mentally impressive people (not all of them of course but their average IQ is 120 and some have IQs considerably higher then that) I’m not for requiring doctors and scientists to have a military background but lawyers and people with executive positions in the media… they should be required to have been a warrior before they went over to that aspect of the priesthood.
Also we don’t need brilliant lawyers we want lawyers to be simple and read the laws and traditions as written and not change them… we need media execs to love the country and know good entertainment. It would impose no great hardship IMHO to require all people in these priestly jobs to have been former warriors.
We do need brilliant scientists, doctors, engineers etc. but these are less political then other “priestly” professions so no need to require them to be warriors.
So I think the following professions should only be open to veterans with possible individual exemptions granted by royal decree.
1) Lawyers.
2) Media/news execs (but not all personnel of course).
3) Teaching of history or social sciences at any level and even in private schools though this would not apply to private tutors.
4) Actual clergy/priests/ministers of the official Orthodox or Protestant Church…
I think these “priestly” professions should be open only to ex warriors. What say you Jim…
High-ranking officers are certainly intelligent more often than not and even average enlisted men on the modern battlefield need to be fairly intellectually competent, as McNamara’s Morons showed. But talents and inclinations are distributed very unevenly. For lawyers in an already functional society, sure, put the discharged veterans there- but when it comes to building a new state religion, from scratch at worst and dust at best, we don’t need “okay”, we need exceptional.
The exceptional priests who conceived of and sold holy dogma like white privilege, intersectionality, hatred of skin color, identical cognition across sexes and all population groups, etc, probably never had any inclination to go anywhere near the domain of warriors. Our priests are not made of the same stuff as their priests, sure, but the people most naturally gifted by nature to create narrative and meaning for society are probably going to drift directly toward the positions that do that. Warrior oversight over which of them are allowed to take up those official positions, sure, but they shouldn’t be kept out of them because they weren’t warriors themselves.
The lawyers aren’t to make the state religion (and our state religion will have actual clergy) and we definitely DO NOT want them being the ruling class or anything close to it. We want simple but competent lawyers who will read the law as written and I think we want lawyers who have done something in their life for at a least a while besides the law.
If you want lawyers to be low status, making lawyers out of warriors or otherwise successful people is exactly the wrong way the go, specially in a society where the warrior class is in top. You want people to look down on lawyers rather than look up to them, right?
I suggest: make lawyers out of convicted felons. Such people are viewed disfavorably by society, and as a bonus, they would already be somewhat familiar with the courts. If this is a crooked profession, then following Moldbuggian Formalism, let’s just formalize the crookedness by making it a prerequisite.
Lawyers have always been considered dishonest but because legal cases tend to be VERY important for all involved its not really possible to make lawyers truly low status.
We have to make lawyers believers in the rule of warriors and the king… and one way to ensure at least a modicum of that is to require all lawyers (who do not have a private decree from the king exempting them) to be former officers.
>ts not really possible to make lawyers truly low status.
I don’t think that they would be truly low status in that scenario, because they would still be making lots of money, and also they’d be wearing impressive suits and have this “serious bad boy” halo over their heads. When my wife divorced me, I took up a lawyer who was a big mean asshole, and he did an excellent job.
People always talk about integrating former criminals into society. Obviously, the most hot-headed and reckless gangsters can’t be made into lawyers (and should probably just be executed). But in my assessment, people whose crimes required some mental sophistication and cognitive skills, and those felons smart enough to — in addition to their regular criminality — moonlight as con-artists, fraudsters, scammers, etc., as well as mob bosses who’ve grown “too old for this shit,” can probably make excellent lawyers.
People’s attitude towards them would be, “I don’t want to be friends with this guy, but I’d hire him to handle my case.”
>We have to make lawyers believers in the rule of warriors and the king…
No offense, but your spergitude is showing here. Lawyers are overwhelmingly nihilists, often psychopaths, who don’t hold any value dear to their cold-as-ice hearts, and are fundamentally loyal to nobody. People with a functional conscience don’t go to that profession. What is really needed is to prevent them from using their high verbal IQ to disrupt the Kingdom, and that can be achieved by making everyone know just how untrustworthy they are. Would you trust a drug lord to teach you anything about morality? I wouldn’t trust a drug lord when it comes to such matters.
A bigger problem is judges. Their selection process needs to be different than that of regular lawyers, because we don’t want judges to be such untrustworthy people. So perhaps you are right in that *judges* should all be former warriors or otherwise people with achievements. That makes sense and is defensible. But I stick with my idea of making lawyers out of convicted felons.
Formalism!
“A bigger problem is judges. Their selection process needs to be different than that of regular lawyers, because we don’t want judges to be such untrustworthy people. So perhaps you are right in that *judges* should all be former warriors or otherwise people with achievements. That makes sense and is defensible. But I stick with my idea of making lawyers out of convicted felons.”
“Lawyers are overwhelmingly nihilists, often psychopaths” generally these should be weeded out from the officer selection process. Though I can see limited circumstances where it would make sense to give psychopaths battlefield commisions… psychopaths do have their uses in war even in higher ranks. But we need to keep them out of law… and thats a better argument for them being former officers.
>we need to keep them out of law…
That’s the crux of the disagreement: I take it for granted that lawyers will always be unscrupulous people, and that this is not necessarily a bad thing, because unscrupulous people usually acquire rather unsavory reputations, in other words, not the highest status.
Formalizing it takes the sting out of the matter, because when everyone knows that lawyers are a decidedly amoral bunch, people just wouldn’t be inclined to believe them when they say, “Oy vey goyim, this man kept fucking his wife for 3 whole seconds after she murmured that she wants to pause, therefore it was RAPE.” They’d be kicked down the stairs right on the spot.
“Formalizing it takes the sting out of the matter, because when everyone knows that lawyers are a decidedly amoral bunch, people just wouldn’t be inclined to believe them when they say, “Oy vey goyim, this man kept fucking his wife for 3 whole seconds after she murmured that she wants to pause, therefore it was RAPE.” They’d be kicked down the stairs right on the spot.”
Everyone knows that lawyers are scum now, it doesn’t seem to help very much.
Moldbug had many brilliant things to say but I was never too impressed by “formalism”. Moldbug was at his best saying what was wrong with the current system, at the same time most of his solutions weren’t really feasible.
Furthermore I understand your “judges yes, lawyers no” argument but here is why it wouldn’t work. Judges would be appointed by the king under his royal perogative and with potential use of his dispensing powers. Hence if not all lawyers were warriors but all judges were normally supposed to be… I suspect the dispensing power would be very often used to make non-warrior judges from among the non-warrior lawyers.
But less of a problem if all the lawyers are former officers (or at least non-coms).
Wouldn’t the problem be rendered moot if only non-lawyers were appointed judges? These would basically be two completely separate classes with no overlap (unlike today, when most judges are lawyers): a low class of disreputable people with a criminal record, and a high class of former generals and officers.
A different flaw in my program is that by requiring lawyers to be felons, there would be a shortage of lawyers, because there just aren’t all that many criminals mentally suitable to practice the law. (If they were truly sophisticated, they wouldn’t be convicted, right?)
Then again, people sometimes complain, “There are way too many lawyers these days, and everything has become excessively legalistic.” Thus, perhaps the expected shortage of lawyers under my program will actually be a feature rather than a bug, because legalism will rapidly decline when nobody trusts the practitioners of the law, and when there are so many fewer of them.
Now you can say, “Their current reputation is not so good either, and yet people still look up to lawyers.” But again: would you allow yourself to be memetically corrupted by, e.g., a convicted arsonist? Probably not.
Another benefit is that the program will be in harmony with there being fewer laws in general, which has to be part-and-parcel of any proper Reactionary State, since today there are by far too many laws, and they’ve been made unnecessarily complex. Fewer laws means fewer criminals, therefore fewer lawyers. It all fits.
Obviously, Moldbuggian Formalism is better in theory than in practice, but still, there’s a reason why Jim calls the leadership of the state “bandits,” as in “stationary bandits” and “mobile bandits.” Jim recognizes that men are killer apes, and that leaders of men high up the statal hierarchy are simply the top killer apes. That’s a realistic approach, if nothing else.
Yet another flaw in this weird and wonderful scheme might be that, if you can only become a lawyer if you’re a convicted felon, but nevertheless you really desire to be one because it’ profitable and so on, that might incentivize you to commit a felony.
One solution is to simplify the law so that people with an average IQ — 100 — will be able to grasp it easily. Then being a lawyer won’t be so profitable and prestigious; many people will opt for legal self-representation. After all, the law has been made too complex, and needs to be simplified regardless of the plan to lower the status of lawyers.
Still better, if it were possible to have a population with an average IQ of 130, as has been suggested earlier, lawyers would be almost unnecessary.
I think the only thing a 20th century style totalitarian state could ever do to justify itself would be a successful application of mass forced eugenics. Mandatory universal surrogate IVF, cuck every man and woman in the country in the fanatical, brutalist pursuit of 130. But it would probably find a way to screw that up, too.
A state would not need to be totalitarian in all ways to practice eugenics an authoritarian natcap monarchy could easily restrict reproduction…
To get eugenic reproduction, easy: Just enforce the authority over wives and daughters of men who contribute to society and the state (warriors, taxpayers, and priests of the official religion) and decline to effectively enforce the authority of lesser men.
Also, make sure your elite actually is elite (entrance requirements where the test can effectively discriminate between IQ 130 and 150, while at present the entrance tests top out at about 110) grant higher status to your elite (the right not to be insulted, and the right to take effective action action against threats to their extended phenotype) and lesser status to Jeremy Meeks, so that a wealthy man can insult Jeremy Meeks, but Jeremy Meeks, being a stony broke ex criminal, cannot insult a wealthy man.
Women find browns hot because browns can insult whites, but whites cannot insult browns. Reverse this.
Lawyers, sure. I’m talking about the high priests- they wouldn’t be given the same status and power that the university professors of today have, but we do need to draw upon that same top .01% of natural priestly talent, and those born with it probably don’t usually drift toward the military.
“Intersectionality” is not pushed and spread by a quality priesthood (though the original Bioleninist idea of it was Diabolical in how evilly effective it was in destroying civilization)… when it comes to the priesthood the Cathedral’s motto has not been quality its rather been what Stalin said “Quantity has a quality all its own”. The Cathedral tries to make a priesthood of all believers and make all people who fit the Bioleninist mode into believers.
Also in some ways they hate non-believing minorities more then they hate white men… they may want to kill all white men in the end but they have very special deaths in mind for Ben Carson and Herman Cain and any black male who agrees with them politically.
>“Intersectionality” is not pushed and spread by a quality priesthood
If the religion conquered most of the world, and it did, then it was a quality priesthood. Lower quality as of late, it’s true, but still on the shoulders of giants. Admittedly since they swam with the tide of entropy, laziness, and covetousness rather than against it you can shave a few points off the difficulty score, but still gold medalists.
As I said its quality is quantity… “quantity has a quality all its own”.
Have retired warriors supervising the academy where the official priesthood is trained, but do not attempt to make warriors into priests. That is how saga period Iceland failed – the Godar could not compete with the Christians in priesting.
Who among the warrior class should oversee the lawyers outside the academy… leaving lawyers to their own devices is potentially very dangerous to warrior societies.
William the Conqueror had the solution to that problem, and his solution held for at least seven centuries.
“Forms of action”. He reduced judges to clerks filling out forms on slates covered in beeswax, and we will reduce them to clerks filling out forms connected to databases by remote procedure calls over the Internet.
Tony Abbot, facing a judiciary that in each particular court case infallibly ruled that anyone who said the magic word “asylum” had the right to move to Australia to live on crime, welfare, and voting against Tony Abbot and his party, implemented a similar solution, which has been one hundred percent effective, though alas it only applies to “illegal persons” (meaning people who illegally cross the border or overstay visas). Should be applied to ordinary criminals and lawsuits as well.
Reaction is about reviving ancient social technologies that worked. William the Conqueror’s “forms of action” worked.
I’ve tried several times to find information about how these worked in practice and can’t really get any…
Any online sources OR books you would recommend?
Impressive, this Mr. Trump you fellows have helped elect. While he talks and talks 1 million aliens come in per year!
“Between April 18 to April 22, DHS released about 7,000 border crossers and illegal aliens into the country.
At this current trajectory, by the end of the year, DHS will have released nearly 460,000 border crossers and illegal aliens into American communities — in addition to the projected half a million illegal aliens who will successfully cross the U.S.-Mexico border this year, undetected by federal officials.”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/04/24/dhs-releases-seven-thousand-illegal-aliens-into-u-s-in-five-days-released-every-day/
I read somewhere on the telly that Trump was elected on this matter of stopping immigration. Nothing succeeds like success, as some wag once said.
Hollywood. What would they do in a movie if 1 million aliens swarmed the border per year? It would be a cool movie if they used the words:
“1 MILLION ALIENS PER YEAR ARE CROSSING THE BORDER”! ! !
We all must wonder what kind of response Hollywood would depict.
Why is this border crossing matter so hard to deal with?
It’s as if there were an alien force in charge, leading the charge for more aliens.
Breitbart is hardly a reputable source when it comes to this topic, and that is no indictment on them. Counting illegals is a tricky business for a few reasons. There is no delineation between visa overstays, non-report leaves, wetbacks, boat people, etc. What is more, state vs. federal methodology differs in both counting and containment. Consider Newark NJ: they are a sanctuary city that doesn’t report catches or releases if they are normies, misdemeanors, or low level felons. But they also detain illegals of all level in Essex county prison facilities because ICE pays by head, per cell, per day, to the tune of ~40 million FY2018. Point being, if you ask Newark city govt what their policy on “undocumented” immigrants is, it will vary wildly from both Essex county LEOs as well as state LE entities.
So the numbers are screwy in the extreme. It isn’t 1,000,000 per annum though. Infrastructure alone tells us that. My guess is that you are a blackpilling shillbot because you are actually just Helper, pinwheel hat and all.
He is a blackpilling shillbot.
Trump for a year DID stop illegals then leftists started literally paying them to invade and not so much from Mexico but Central America…
“At this current trajectory, by the end of the year, DHS will have released nearly 460,000 border crossers and illegal aliens into American communities ”
It won’t continue at the current trajectory now armed troops are headed there. Its not Sessions time anymore its Barr time… the time of the Republic is over the time of the Trumpenreich begins.
[*deleted*]
Repetitious and unresponsive. Frederick Algernon questioned your facts and sources, and you responded by repeating yourself with double the confidence.
Been asking you for evidence. Your replies are unresponsive. When your replies contain actual evidence rather than bluster, I will stop censoring you.
Nonsense. I have made no falsifiable claims regarding 9/11, therefore it is logically impossible for me to provide evidence for claims I have not made.
(Please acknowledge that you have read this message in its entirety.)
What you have repeatedly deleted is my demands for the evidence you are using to make claims which are far more detached from reality than what is found in the official government reports.
(Please acknowledge that you have read this message in its entirety.)
Here are the falsifiable claims you have made:
1. “Massive terrorist damage” on the south side of Building 7.
2. Building 7 didn’t collapse into its own footprint.
Here is the evidence I will accept:
1. A link to a photograph of the south side of Building 7 showing this “massive terrorist damage”. This will take you no more than 30 seconds to provide, I’m sure.
2. A photograph showing the debris of Building 7 somewhere other than its own footprint. I know for a fact that there are pictures of the Building 7 debris field, so I look forward to seeing your chosen picture.
(Please acknowledge that you have read this message in its entirety.)
You also made a third falsifiable claim, which is that Robert Mueller is responsible for the 9/11 “conspiracy theory” phenomenon rather than its ruthless cover up, assassinations and all.
If true, show me the evidence!
(Please acknowledge that you have read this message in its entirety.)
You then use this claim to make an even more ridiculous claim, which is that “9/11 truth” is logically equivalent to and promoted by the very same institutions which relentlessly promote White Genocide, Veganism, Deindustrialization, Industry Offshoring, the Federal Reserve System, Usury, Endless Foreign Expeditions, the Federal Reserve System, Usury, Global Warming Catastrophism, Chinese World Communism 2.0, and others.
(Please acknowledge that you have read this message in its entirety.)
So for this third falsifiable claim I’ll also accept any scientist or engineer at any “mainstream” (Official Authority) institution saying anything “conspiratorial” about Building 7 or about the Great 9/11 Hoax in general.
(Please acknowledge that you have read this message in its entirety.)
I have already lost faith in the hope of your freedom from Our Benevolent Leaders’ mind control, but I remain interested in exploring the TV-programmed reflexes of the more intelligent Boomer mind. Please acknowledge that you have read this message in its entirety.
Your own photos show it did not collapse on its footprint. They are taken from the south side, and show a huge pile of rubble almost touching the buildings on the south side of the square. You just lie that the square is the footprint.
You have a one hundred and one photos of the rubble pile, and you call the rubble pile the footprint of building seven. If the rubble pile is on the footprint of building seven, where is the square that used to be to the south of building seven?
If building seven collapsed onto its own footprint, if the rubble pile is on the footprint of building seven where is the square that used to be on the south side of building seven in your own photos of the “footprint” of building seven?
All your rubble pile photos are photos of the location where the square used to be.
Your comments are a pile of ridiculous and repeatedly falsified claims about Marxism, Marxist history, and the collapse of building seven, never made explicitly, but rather by assuming shared agreement on supposed facts that we vehemently reject, as you presuppose shared agreement on the nonexistence of the square to the south of building seven.
Your photos are taken from the south side of what used to be the square before it was filled by the rubble pile of building seven, because the south side of the square is where the rubble pile is.
I have read your entire comment. It is a huge pile of ridiculous lies, absurd, and easily falsified lies, none of them made explicitly, all of them made by assuming shared agreement on facts not in evidence, presupposing shared agreement on lunatic nonsense that has been refuted far too many times already.
I will now return to silently deleting all your comments until you start making your claims explicitly, and presenting evidence for your claims, instead of presupposing shared agreement on them.
Deleted because that is the Third Positionist critique of Marxism, which is just “True communism has never been tried”. Third Positionism presupposes that the Marxist account of reality is true and that everyone, including me, already agrees that it is true.
Third Positionism “attacks” Marxism from the left.
Further, Third Positionists, despite supposedly being anti communists, are in fact entryists sent by regular mainstream Marxists from Harvard, and formerly from the Soviet Union, to enter nationalist and ethnic identity movements.
In the lead up to World War Two, and during World War II, the supposedly anticommunist, supposedly nationalist, and supposedly identitarian Third Positionists would switch their position from jingoist warmongering to pacifism and back again, every time the Soviet Union switched from anti Hitler to pro Hitler and back again.
It became transparently obvious that the supposedly nationalist, anticommunist, and anti Marxist Third Positionist movement was then in the pay of the Soviet Union, as it is now in the pay of Harvard.
There is no Third Positionist movement and there never has been. It has always been a creation of well funded and powerful Marxists, who call themselves Marxists, and then hire people to claim to be anti Marxists, racists, and jingoists, claim to be right wingers as the left imagines right wingers to be, who then sell Marxism to nationalist and identitarian movements.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
I guess it’s worth at least addressing these points.
I haven’t supplied any photos.
I had hoped that you would do that in order to present your strongest possible case.
All troofers are one troofer – you are part of the same organization, use the same scripts, answer to the same boss, and are paid by the same paymaster.
Whenever I present evidence against a Marxist or a Troofer, he proceeds to make twenty new claims without conceding his previous claim, then the next day assumes that I conceded his previous claim, and then the day after that resumes assuming that there is a universal consensus on his previous claims, and that everyone, including me, agrees with them.
And once again I ask you, if the rubble pile is on the footprint of building seven, where is the square to the south of building seven in those photos? And once again I expect no answer.
If building seven fell on its own footprint, where is the square to the south of it in those photos?
Building seven, as expected and predicted by people in the square to the south of it who witnessed the fire and terrorist damage, fell sideways towards the square like a tree, and then went into free fall only when it was no longer above its own foundations. Of all the buildings that fell, it was the one that was most obviously not a demolition.
[*deleted*]
I am still waiting for you to show me a picture of the rubble pile of World Trade Center building seven that shows a relatively empty square to the south of the rubble pile.
There are plenty of photos of the rubble pile. The question is: Where is the rubble pile?
And the rubble pile is directly adjacent to buildings on the south side of the square to the south of the place where building seven used to be.
And until you concede that World Trade Center building seven fell onto the square to the south of it, or show me a picture of the rubble pile that shows a relatively empty square to the south of the rubble pile, I am silently deleting all further comments from you.
Building seven was set back a bit relative to Verizon and the Post office, and building six set back a bit where it faced building seven, to create a broad pedestrian area between building six and building seven, north of building six, south of building seven. If building seven fell on its own footprint, rather than into the square to the south of it, show me that square.
You are the guy arguing for crazy shit that no one believes, not even you. The burden of proof is on you, not me.
[*deleted*]
Unresponsive.
You are changing the subject from the fall of World Trade Center building seven, while neither conceding it fell southwards into the square to the south, nor providing an image showing the square to the south of that is not covered in rubble.
And if I allow you to change the subject, you will very shortly return to presupposing that everyone agrees that World Trade Center building seven fell straight down on its own footprint as if in a planned demolition.
Not to mention that all your attempts to change the subject, while supposedly attacking Marxism, are Third Positionist “attacks” on Marxism, which I have seen before: “attacks” which presuppose that Marxism is true and right, and the only problems were Jews etc – you are saying that true Communism has never been tried, though in fact the there have been a thousand tries, and the more they were serious about true communism, the more people they wound up murdering.
So: All comments by you that neither concede the tower fell on to the square to the south of it, nor provide evidence that it did not fall on the square, are going to be silently deleted from now on.
Perhaps a million aliens do. But unlike previous presidents, Trump is doing something about it.
He has also radically cut back H1Bs. You tell me he has increased H1Bs, but that is not what I see.
Perhaps the problem is coup complete. When Tony Abbot stopped the boats, he had to pull something mighty close to a Jackson, in the face of the High court effectively ruling that anyone anywhere who said the magic word “asylum”, no matter how transparently absurd the claim, had the right to move to Australia and live on crime, welfare, and voting for the left.
Chances are Trump is going to have to pull a Jackson also, which is difficult when the Democrats are looking for an excuse to give him the perp walk, but if anyone pulls a Jackson, it is going to be Trump.
I see Trump is the right’s Obama. There will be no Trumpenreich. There is delusion in the water supply.
Trump H1Bs are the same as always, 65,000 regular cap and 20,000 for master’s cap.
Trump’s rule changes have reduced Indian techs but not the overall number.
Oh so tricky tricky!
U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services has announced already full at the petition limit for 2020:
https://www.uscis.gov/news/alerts/uscis-reaches-fy-2020-h-1b-regular-cap
That means companies can petition for more now. Entrants can bring in family members!
As per the USCIS report, there were 419,637 foreign national working in the US as on October 5, 2018.
H1B visas: 500,000 here now; 85,000 incoming this year and next.
Official legal immigration: 1 million per year.
Aliens incoming: 1 million per year.
That’s some Prez! With winners like Trump who needs losers.
Official legal immigrants must now meet an enhanced “public charge” standard which means all riff-raff other then refugees are excluded. It surprisingly has yet to be held up in the courts. I suspect it will “mysteriously” in practice drop below a million a year from now on and more of them will come will be from Europe China Korea and Japan.
The illegal numbers under Trump have at no point been a million a year and with the 9th circus allowing “remain in Mexico” and Mexican public opinion turning hard against them with that they will not reach a million a year.
I suspect you won’t acknowledge any of this because I think if you do you won’t get your 2 cents a post from David Brock anymore.
Nuts.
Whatever your source, he is lying.
I can see that H1Bs have been radically reduced. Ask any engineer. Suddenly his bosses plans to replace everyone with Indians have evaporated.
No one cares about the cap. What they care about is approvals – and suddenly it has become enormously harder to get an approval. You have to supply copious documentation, make an economic case, and call your pet congressman who is able to phone Trump – and suddenly all those guys who were cultivating Democratic congressman find an urgent need to cultivate a congressman who can talk to Trump.
I hear about the phone calls, which never used to be necessary, and I can see the documentation, which never used to be necessary.
Throttling back H1B’s hard is not only great for white engineers, it is great for Trump, as large numbers of formerly left businessmen have quietly changed their politics. If you are a left businessman, no H1Bs for you. Your businessman has to redirect large amounts of contributions to a congressman who can talk to Trump, and few Democrats, and not all Republicans can talk to Trump.
And even if your boss can have a friendly chat with someone who can have a friendly chat with someone who can have a friendly chat with Trump, he still has to create a horrifying pile of documentation justifying the request for an H1B.
Jim would greatly appreciate your opinion on my idea about having certain priestly professions restricted to ex military.
To ensure warriors on top, priestly seminaries for the official priesthood should be supervised by retired warriors who have faced danger and seen battle.
We start by doing this for military educational institutions, and expand from there.
I’d have a preference towards actual combat officers too but there may be times of long peace where such are in short supply. What to do then?
When has the US ever had long periods of peace?
Good news on the border.
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/04/pentagon-prepping-22m-expansion-to-southern-border-mission-eases-migrant-contact-rules/
Translation: The border will now be actively guarded against illegals by the army and soldiers will actively interdict and detain them. The actual formal arrests will be made by border patrol but the army will be calling the border patrol to transfer them over when they are caught.
Right now it is only 300 troops but once the precedent is set easy to expand.
https://www.wired.com/story/h-1b-visa-rejections-spike-under-trump/
Pattern recognition is a pretty cool trick.
He has made engineering white again! God bless the man.
Off-topic:
Look at this idiot Neil deGrasse Tyson (short clip):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fMnpuKI2sM&fbclid=IwAR2MxVCUOUbX2C7jONq_61HWP9A5D4HKd4aGdsJoCjlTlGkaXKsBe_Wde4o
Pfff…
That guy is really not that bright – black science man!
“Skin color” – do a google image search for “albino black people” and it’ll cure you of using skin color as a metonym for “ancestry”.
Pretty sure that abomination got his info from a few lines in Guns, Germs, and Steel. Which Cochran humorously reviews here:
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/09/04/guns-germs-and-steel-revisited/
He trivializes Diamond’s ridiculous claim echoed by Tyson in that clip.
He concludes the review:
“Conclusion
We could use more serious work on macrohistory and the rise of civilization: it’s an interesting and important subject. In particular I’d like to see a really smart and detailed comparison of the two totally independent births of civilization in the Old and New Worlds. But this book isn’t serious. The thesis is a joke, and most of the supporting arguments are forced ( i.e. wrong). Perhaps the most important thing we can learn from Guns, Germs, and Steel is that most people are suckers, eager to sign on to ridiculous theories as long as they have the right political implications.”
Tyson is a ghastly little freak. Diamond is a joke. Cochran is altogether normal and wise.
Also, some time ago, I found this amusing:
https://thefederalist.com/2014/09/16/another-day-another-quote-fabricated-by-neil-degrasse-tyson/
I don’t like shitting on people for shitting on peoples sake. But lying to your fellow black men rubs me the wrong way about things that are so deceiptive and obviously wrong. If he actually believes that, then he’s lacking common sense.
There are many kinds of foreign domination, though I find it intensely amusing that your mind jumps straight to the Jewish variety.
I’d love to get your take on the “Easter Worshippers” thing that’s going around.
I remember a year or so ago you replied to someone — and of course I’m paraphrasing — that yes, the left/cathedral does indeed have centralized control, as evidenced by X, Y and Z. It’s not just an emergent phenomenon, like a school of sardines all swimming around together in unison. It’s just that us plebes are always arguing about just who the central controllers are.
Well. I didn’t quite believe you then, but I believe you now.
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=ufxmA_1522772211
It’s not called “the Mighty Wurlitzer” for nothing.
Hold on, Fred. Thank you for that reminder, BUT…
The LiveLeak video you linked above was a mash-up of identically-speaking local news people, yes, but those people work at stations that are all owned by the Sinclair company. The fact that they’re owned by Sinclair is fully public. The Sinclair company’s whole business model is buying up local stations, cutting staff, and then replacing them with corporate HQ copy-and-paste operations whenever possible.
Like how all McDonalds come out with the new flavor of milkshake on the same day.
The “Easter Worshippers” thing is of course the same phenomenon, but only evidently, at the proof-in-pudding level. It’s the same flavor of milkshake all right, but who and where the heck is the “HQ” that’s copying-and-pasting the recipe? You can’t figure it out just from their tax returns or whatever.
Or do you disagree?
I do not disagree. This phenomenon is pretty widespread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjUvfZj-Fm0
It is an interesting question, too. One that might not be solved by assessing financial data (tax returns) and does not necessarily need to by a hand rubbing, shut it down type conspiracy. It could be that there are very few news sources and mostly news aggregators these days. I don’t know where i come down, given Hanlon’s Razor.
They hate Christians. It’s a troll. And, a pretty good one.
Would you therefore recommend that we stop using the word “Muslim” in the same way and for the same reasons? Or does it not work for us because we don’t have power?
Does (accurately) using the words “Muslim” and “Islam” too much just make them look bigger, badder, more monolithic and dangerous?
This is super interesting.
Use Mohammedan. It’s less respectful, and reminds of what they really are: Pedophiliac legalistic raiders.
“Muslim” literally means follower of God, or follower of the true religion.
“Mohammedan” is precisely equivalent to “Christian”, therefore should be preferred under the rectification of names.
“Musulman” is also fun, considering how physically weak their men tend to be in the west.
They’re a complicated animal though – in many ways there’s scope for us to work with them (eg. on the wamynz question, sodomy and so on) but not while they’re re-homesteading our nations.
Musulman, like Muslim, defines Islam as the true religion.
No one ever succeeds in working with Mohammedans. They always demand submission.
I suppose too that when you do convert, your white ass goes to the back of the line for 16-year-old virgin brides. If you want pussy *now*, pull off a mass-casualty suicide attack and collect your reward in Paradise.
“Mohammedans” it is then. Freeze it and personalize it. They’re not a “real” religion. They just worship this Mohammed guy.
And what did this Mohammed guy DO, you ask? WELL…
Brilliant.
Was not thinking that far ahead. But yes, Mohammedans sounds good.
Banks decide to burn the coal.,,
https://www.wsj.com/articles/small-time-crimes-a-dealbreaker-for-banking-jobs-11555851720
The alt right: Fuck intellectuals.
Neoreaction: HoLd mY aVoCaDo 🥑
White identity is growing as a natural backlash against minority status and attacks on whitey. Will continue to grow. Red pilled moral larping is growing as a natural reaction against a degeneracy hangover. (Most will drink again the next night) still, as degeneracy escalates, will continue to grow.
I’m seeing lots of red pilled kids but few new inductees into reaction. Maybe i’m looking in the wrong places – in a bubble? (It’s bubbles all the way down.)
Truths talked about by ‘intellectuals’ will never go out of style but Neoreaction might. Not so many alt right kids wanna be effete intellectuals. Does Moldbug’s resonance have staying power?
Left intellectuals are effete, because masculinity is politically incorrect.
Reactionary intellectuals are manly, because masculinity is demanded and expected, because we tell each other about the social rewards for masculinity: Gives you charisma, scores chicks, keeps wifey in line, prevents sexual harassment and rape allegations, even if you engage in sexual harassment and rape, even if you grab them by the pussy. I am the only guy I have ever seen who engages in workplace sexual harassment, and everyone that I am aware of who was accused of sexual harassment was far too terrified of women for the charge to be plausible.
And we tell each other of the biological rewards for masculinity: raises your testosterone, making it easier to lose weight and gain muscle.
Right intellectuals are socially expected to lift iron, engage in High Intensity Interval Training, and eat plenty of red meat and animal fat.
Right intellectuals are socially expected to get inner frame, which raises your testosterone, improves your charisma, and enables you to get away with behavior towards women that would land lesser men in jail.
You get inner frame by being courteous but manly and firm in interactions with other alpha males – and by being grossly discourteous, manly, and firm, when disrespected. Act like Burt Reynolds, you will get inner frame.
Because of this, we exercise effective influence over the entire alt right movement, as male Jewish intellectuals once exercised effective influence over gay rights, feminism, black lives matter, etc, though they now being devoured by the demons that they summoned.
The right wing intellectual as a masculine superman is a recent thing. BAP (intellectually incoherent as he may be and despite being a homosexual) is probably more the father of that idea then anyone else.
I think NRx influence is rather strong because its the closest thing to pure truth out there and when exposed to it its not easily forgotten.
You haven’t seen me then. 🙂 Seriously, it’s insane. I’ve done it all on a regular basis in my 20s and early 30s. Not one ounce of trouble. Poor weird guy, good worker, and friend, is misunderstood socially because normies can’t get a good read on him. He’s funny, but his humor is stock. Usually joking about the incompetence of everyone that climbs the ladder. He said something harmless about wearing yellow to a woman and she went after him. Had to sit in a different area of the building. Then they forced everyone to go to class. Lawsuit was online and public. What in the actual fuck people? All the guy cares about is making his lawn more beautiful than everyone else on his block, and then BAM… his life was turned upside down.
To top it off this woman dressed like a slut. Acted like a slut. And was dating a big gorilla on site. This still grates me to this day.
2008 was a time for big-brained intellectual theories, because cathedrals weren’t on fire and presidents weren’t being sued for getting elected.
Just as endless discussions of the non-aggression principle faded with Ron Paul, endless discussions on neo-cameralist formalism faded with Moldbug.
There’s just too much going on that needs urgent action, and that action has to be simple and popular. The public already agrees with us on immigration: 80% of the British public wants immigration to STOP, as in completely (source: SDP). Farage’s Brexit party’s about to clean up in the European Parliamentary elections.
The dissident right needs to get on board with everything the public wants, because we need to ‘accept power’, as the Social Matter types would put it.
We know what needs to be done, but a big part of that is doing what the people want to be done, and that means a lot of what ‘Jim’ would deem ‘Marxist’ policies.
The government, if it’s to be legitimate, has to ensure that ordinary people under its care can have normal families.
Whatever’s required for that to happen, MUST HAPPEN. The rest can wait….. including my kind of propositions to ban foreign globalist corporate chains and tax the hell out of air travel.
It may mean (pace Ron Paul) Modern Monetary Theory and a massive role for the printing press.
It may mean (pace Moldbug) direct democracy to find out what people genuinely want, backed by the perceived legitimacy of the democratic meme.
What it absolutely HAS TO mean is putting the citizens of countries FIRST, not profits, not principles and not vested interests of any kind: the citizens FIRST.
Populism trumps Trump, trumps Moldbug and trumps Ron Paul.
In other words, resume electoral politics as usual. Supposedly yet another Democratic party candidate will save us.
We explain complex theory to the meme warriors, the meme warriors encapsulate our explanation in simple and compelling symbols. That is what needs to be done, that is what we have been successfully doing, not campaigning on bread and circuses. Ideas are more powerful than guns, and fashion more powerful than ideas. We work on ideas, which the meme warriors translate into fashion.
Neoreaction, the alt right, and the meme warriors brought Trump to power. Trump is considerably less than we need. We need Caesar. But Trump is vastly more than another Republican cuck.
We work on ideas that prepared the way for Trump, and will prepare the way for a Caesar or a Cromwell. If we are brave and lucky, an Attaturk, a General Monck, or a Deng Xiaoping.
No it is not time for “action” as usual. It is not time for popular policies that will energize the proletarian masses. The next Democratic party president will not only murder us, he will himself be murdered by the demons that he has summoned, as the revolution devours its children, as violent leftism is repeatedly overthrown by an even more violent leftist.
We are in this pickle because “action” only works in one direction. People vote for Brexit, do not get brexit. People vote for a wall, do not get a wall. The British public never wanted transformative immigration, never wanted to become a hated and despised minority in their own land, savagely condemned and endlessly punished for the ineradicable sin of whiteness and maleness.
It is time for thought, for understanding out why “doing something” does not work. Why voting does not matter.
And the reason that “action” does not work, is because “action” is based on lies – on your lies, that you are being paid to tell us. And the reason that Trump clobbered the cuckservative candidates is because people realized that voting for a cuckservative would just mean more leftism. And they realized this because we, the intellectuals, explained this to the meme warriors, who explained to the voters that politics as usual was just a charade.
When democracy reaches this decadent state there is only one solution: Caesar, Napoleon, Cromwell, Stalin. And it is our job to bring about understanding of this, and to spy out the path to Caesar taking power, and, once he has power, provide him with a better tool for rule than guns.
Any “action” that does not have Caesar as its endpoint is a stupid action, and that wicked or stupid people advocate stupid actions means that we intellectuals have to lead, have to understand what is happening, and explain what is happening.
We cannot outbid the left, because they are willing to spend unlimited amounts of other people’s money.
We have to explain to people that the left intends, that you intend, to enslave everyone and murder very large numbers of people, and are very soon going to do so.
Trump’s big obstacle to becoming Caesar was always what a fucking traitor Sessions (who I think we all loved before he became AG) turned out to be.
William Barr otoh embraces the idea of the “Unitary Executive” and things have been going smoothly since. I don’t see Trump losing so as long as he remains of sound mind for the next 5 years king Trump I isn’t far away.
You have it exactly backwards: sacking Sessions was the single most retarded thing Trump did.
Trump should have sacked Sessions the day Sessions recused himself, thereby revealing himself an enemy. Compromising with cucks is like compromising with social justice warriors. They just escalate their demands.
Any time you compromise on anything with a cuck or a social justice warrior, it is like bleeding into shark infested waters. No compromise is possible. In the end, we will kill you, or you will kill us. You are not agreement capable – not capable of peace. Any concession, you just pocket it and then demand twice as much. Total surrender does not bring peace, because then the victors just fight each other. You are incapable of cutting a deal and sticking to it, because you lie, or believe that there is no truth, everything is a social construct.
It is a creeping coup, and the end outcome of a creeping coup is that though everyone tries to stand on the sidelines, and not commit themselves one way or the other way, in the end you have to commit to the winning side, because everyone that commits to the losing side is going to die.
Thing is, if Trump wins, that will be the end of it. If Mueller and Sessions win, there will be no end of it, there will be coup after coup after coup, and each time another losing side dies.
Once a color revolution succeeds in the heart of empire, there will be no end to it, there will be one color revolution after another, probably involving nukes, until everyone is so sick of it that they hunger for a King to be succeeded by his heir.
You think if Trump gets the perp walk, normality will return, but who replaces Trump? If one president was successfully removed by illegal and unconstitutional means, so can another president be removed, and there will be no end to the replacing.
The Mueller inquiry was the pursuit of power without rules or limits, and the end result of the pursuit of power without rules or limits is total war. The logic of Mueller inquiry leads to civil war. If defeated, Mueller will probably need to die. If victorious, Trump will need to die, then Trump’s replacement will probably need to die. You imagine that a Mueller/Sessions victory will lead to the restoration of normality, but once one man takes power by such means, why not another man?
Trump should have sacked Sessions the second he heard of it before the media even had time to compose a narrative. That he delayed made it impossible because Sessions was protected by friends in the Senate.
CR once again you reveal yourself as an enemy leftist, I knew that Q was enemy propaganda right away because it defended Sessions. Sessions let the Justice Department become a safe haven for Trumps enemies, and allowed it to be used to persecute and prosecute his friends (and not prosecute his enemies). Sessions needs to go down in history with Marcus Junius Brutus, Judas Iscariot, Benedict Arnold etc. as one of histories great traitors.
On the contrary: Sessions was the only one doing anything remotely approaching building a big beautiful wall on the southern border.
Trump’s enemies persuaded him to turn on his ally, and it’s no surprise to me that the likes of you running dogs see things exactly backwards.
You’re dishonest, corrupt and hopelessly cucked.
Nuts.
Sessions fought the wall, fought the restoration of the Texan and flyover economy, and fought for the impeachment of Trump.
We get the wall and everything else if Trump gets something close to absolute power. Sessions stabbed Trump in the back and let his enemies control the justice department. Barr otoh seems willing to let Trump control the Justice department and if Trump can control prosecutions is closer to absolute power.
Kto kovo?
To prove Sessions needs to go* all you need to know is that CR opposes his going. It would be bad for CR, therefore good for the country, QED.
*A fact I had no opinion about earlier today. Demotism is warty. It’s foolish to debate which warts are the wartiest.
Carlylean Restorationist, I see you’re still here. I’m still not a libertarian just to get that out of the way.
You remind me of this guy I took a topology course with in college. He loved answering the professor’s questions to the class. (To remind you how question answering happens in school:People tend to answer questions at the top of their range of understanding. Too easy, everyone knows. Too hard, they don’t know.) Anyway this guy wasen’t dumb (he was capable of learning topology – I’m sure he got A’s on all his tests) but he thought he was a lot smarter than he was. A friend and I developed a game to entertain ourselves. We competed to predict which questions he would try to answer. Double points if we could predict he would try to answer and answer incorrectly. Ten points if we could predict the wrong answer. By the end of the semester we had the guy down pretty well. Just like him you systematically fail to understand insights that have just been explained extremely clearly. Then open your mouth and confidently reveal your ignorance. The set of things he would have trouble with took a bit to figure out. You’ve got a really obvious blindspot for crimethink. That’s one of a few things that makes me think Jim is right about you.
If you don’t agree with your interlocutors points, evidence, and arguments, you have to rebut them, not frame him as never having made those points, presented that evidence, or made those arguments.
Virtus accuses you of having a blind spot. An appropriate rebuttal would address matters in that blind spot, thereby demonstrating that you are not blind. Bonus points if you demonstrate that we are wrong about the facts in that alleged blind spot.
Virtus Dormitiva, do you care to elaborate on this ‘blindspot for crimethink’?
If I’m going to answer your claims, I’ll need to know what they are and why anyone should care.
I see your ‘blindspot’ and raise you a very blind spot: you say you’re not a libertarian. Care to give one single example of something that matters to you that Tom Woods, Jeff Tucker and/or Jacob Hornberger would disagree with?
There is your blind spot right there. In his previous comment, Virtus implied support for views (or at least mentioned those idea systems without noticeable flinching in horror) that would cause Tom Woods, Jeff Tucker, and Jacob Hornberger to flee to the hills hysterically screaming “nazi racist sexist misogynist homophobe”.
You never commit the most minute thought crime, and in your universe, none of us do either.
I have complained about this in hundreds of replies: that “you presuppose that your interlocutor agrees that …”
Respond to the positions and arguments that I set forth in “Throne, Altar, and Freehold” rather than presupposing that Marxism is true, and that I agree that it is true.
Reactionaries don’t make the argument that you attribute to us. You are responding to what Ayn Rand said, not to anything I have said, let alone anything Virtus said, and responding not to what Ayn Rand actually said, but to what she would have said had she agreed that Marxism was true and that she was on the side of evil.
Reactionaries never say anything resembling the position you attribute to us. The position taken by Ayn Rand can be superficially misunderstood as the position you attribute to us, but only by someone obstinately determined to misunderstand Ayn Rand.
If this was an Objectivist blog, your comment would be on topic and the Objectivist running it might have allowed your comment and responded by explaining the actual Objectivist position – except that if this was an Objectivist blog, the Objectivist running it would have got tired of endless repeating the actual Objectivist position in response to Marxist entryists endlessly misunderstanding the actual Objectivist position, and would have eventually started deleting your comments to avoid endless repetition.
But since this is not an Objectivist blog, your comment is off topic, as well as attributing to us a position that no one would ever take. You would have been on topic had you imagined me as an Old Testament Ten Commandments Marxist, rather than an Ayn Randian Marxist. Respond to my account of King Solomon’s Book of Proverbs, and my account of the Ten Commandments, where I do say something that arguably constitutes a biblical endorsement of Objectivism – though I doubt an Objectivist would think it an endorsement.
@Communist Revolutionary
Speaking of blindspots…
What is preventing ordinary men from starting families and why?
Deleted for presupposing that the problems that you list are the result of demand by the public, are what people want and that we agree that they are the result of demand by the public and are what people want.
I would have allowed your comment if you had framed your position as something that you were arguing, that you were disputing our interpretation of the causality of those problems, but disallowing it because, as always, you presuppose a consensus position that is very far from being the consensus, except among the excruciatingly and meticulously politically correct. Even the woman problem is not what women want: it is men failing women’s fitness tests because males are not allowed to back each other up. Women want conquest and want to be the spoils of the victors.
[*deleted*]
Unresponsive.
Your reply to Rocket’s question presupposes that Rocket is a Marxist, that everyone is a Marxist, and that no one could possibly ask the question that Rocket asked.
I am not going to allow anyone to “reply” by derailing the conversation and changing the subject.
Secondly, “Starman” asked why “the ordinary man” is under full-spectrum assault.
And if he reads Richard von Caudenhove-Kalergi, he will discover why.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi
This explains why advertisements sell race mixing instead of selling the product that makes the company money.
It is irrelevant to the question that Rocket asked, revealing that you are incapable of thinking such dangerous thoughts, or that you are attempting to derail the conversation from reaction to Marxism.
The attack on the family begin not with the European common market, but with the Puritans in England beheading Charles the First. It was reversed in the restoration, and stayed reversed until about 1790-1820 or so, and then resumed, in full swing around 1820, with the attack on manhood, warriors, and masculinity later called “Victorianism”.
Which predates Richard von Caudenhove-Kalergi by quite some time.
I would put the real attack on the family as beginning in the progressive era early 1900s. To get state to go after you for being abusive in the Victorian era you either needed to kill your wife and kids or send them repeatedly to the doctors…
And I’m not so sure the state shouldn’t go after you if you are THAT bad. Fertility rates didn’t collapse in the Victorian era anyway…
> Fertility rates didn’t collapse in the Victorian era anyway…
It did among the elites. Regular people resisted for a lot longer the elites did.
In 1820, things went wrong, and fertility rates suddenly and abruptly started falling when the King was unable to divorce Caroline, despite being massively cuckolded, and despite her total disinclination to hang around near him. We don’t have statistics that separate the elite out from the masses. But we do know that in 1840, there were no longer a whole lot of younger sons of the British elite going off to rule the empire.
The legal attack on family though did not begin in 1820.
I’m not sure how much the popularity of Queen Caroline was genuine or based on the fact that the British public already hated George IV because he was an unworthy, fat, lazy, extravagant, drunk (I’m not sure how inclined he was to fuck the wives of other aristocrats though… Henry VIII and your man Charles II were reportedly much worse along these lines) and rallied around the queen as a figurehead to try to be rid of him as Edward II’s enemies rallied around his queen Isabella of France. I’m not sure he lost power because he was cuckholded either.
George IV lost power over a number of factors in which the Queen Caroline crisis brought to a head but since kings weren’t overthrown violently in favor of other kings generally (as they OFTEN were in the Middle Ages) so the king just sort of lost power without being replaced and thus kings lost power.
The problem of supranational empire, an empire inherently hostile to rations, races, and ethnicities is real problem and worthy of being discussed, but it is a red herring to the woman problem.
I would paraphrase your comment as “If you swallow the red pill on women, then obviously you don’t hate
Jewssupranational empire enough”, while I would paraphrase Communist Revolutionary as “if you swallow the red pill on women, you obviously hate women – but that is OK because I hates them also. In fact I hates them twice as much as you do.”.Hence, deleting both comments for failure to engage your interlocutor’s argument. Women don’t respond to negs because of Jews or supranational empire, they are not hypergamous because of Jews or supranational empire, and they don’t give men difficult to pass fitness tests because of Jews or supranational empire. And we do not strive to pass women’s fitness tests because we hate women, but because we love women.
I would have allowed your comment had it been relevant to the post or the conversation, but it looked suspiciously like an effort to derail the conversation – paraphrasing your comment: “hey look at that horrible enemy over there – thus you and I are on the same side so let us move right along from discussing women.” Whenever a Marxist tells me he is on my side, I check my weapons.
Soon I will post on the American Hegemony, and I would be happy to discuss it there, in the context of the reactionary interpretation of the EU as the empire of Babel, and as a vassal empire of the American empire – in the context of a reactionary, rather than Marxist, frame on supranational empire.
Deleted for telling me what I think.
Which is pretty much the opposite of what I have regularly said with great force, and unresponsive to the comment that you purportedly reply to.
Id est,
WOMEN DIDN’T EMANCIPATE THEMSELVES, YOU FUCKING PEA-BRAINED, CRIMESTOPPED MONGOLOID.
FEMINISM WAS NOT AN ORGANIC PHENOMENON IN AMERICA ANY MORE THAN IT WAS IN JAPAN.
SOME REVOLUTIONS ARE ACHIEVED WITHOUT FIRING A SHOT.
OTHERS ARE ACHIEVED BY KNOCKING DOWN THREE BUILDINGS WITH TWO AEROPLANES.
Fuck Boomers, and fuck you. I am unbelievably rustled.
Fuck.
Your timeline is off. Females were emancipated first, supranational empire came later.
Further, regardless of whether your timeline is off, you are not addressing the question of why female emancipation is a bad idea, not addressing the question that was asked, and if you don’t respond to repeatedly being asked, I am going to start silently deleting all your comments as unresponsive.
Its a test, you see. We want to see if you can commit thoughtcrime, or even acknowledge other people’s thoughtcrimes rather than framing their thoughtcrimes as hatred of women, Jews, and blacks. Not impressed by you claiming you hate women, Jews, and blacks twice as much as we do(thereby implying that we hate women, Jews, and blacks) if you will not acknowledge the reasons why female emancipation was disastrous
The position that women were naturally chaste and did not like sex, therefore restraints only needed to be applied against men, not women set in around 1800 or so, with wives being emancipated from their husbands 1860 or so.
The theory that the races, ethnicities, and nations should be abolished did not set in until 1906 or so, and we did not get a supranational “international community” at work abolishing them until after World War II.
So your timeline is off.
Women did not emancipate themselves, but the timeline of emancipation starts with the Puritans being holier than thou.
In 1820 things went critical because the idea that women were naturally chaste was weaponized against Kings and aristocrats. Supposedly you should hate Kings and aristocrats because they were making women do bad things.
Once female virtue became the left position, leftist holiness spiral sets in, and female emancipation becomes the left position. Once females are emancipated, it becomes horrifyingly obvious that females are not naturally chaste, so the left adjusts its position to that females should be sluts and whores, and the more you approve of depraved behavior, the holier you are.
Further, regardless of whether your timeline is off, you are not addressing the question of why female emancipation is a bad idea, not addressing the question that was asked, and if you don’t respond to repeatedly being asked, I am going to start silently deleting all your comments as unresponsive.
Jim probably best to start silently deleting (and if possible finding some way to hard ban) these NPCs…
I think discussion would be better served if you engaged in talking more to your actual reactionary posters…
Jim, what event or document do you have in mind that shows the ascendance of this idea around 1906 or so?
The evidence that it was built by Hebrew gold miners is quite compelling. There is an illiterate black tribe/ethnicity that practices as much Judaism as can survive illiteracy, and which had a much higher level of stoneworking, metal working, and gold working than neighboring tribes, and which believes their male ancestors immigrated from some place in the middle east in order to mine gold, and that their ancestors built the great Zimbabwe.
Recently they were gene tested and yes, Y chromosome largely Jewish in the male line, their hereditary priesthood is descended from the sons of Aaron in the male line. So the great Zimbabwe, rather than being evidence that blacks can build things without whites or chinese supervising them, is evidence of the perils of race mixing. It was built by Hebrews, or more likely by blacks supervised by Hebrews.
Academia censored the evidence that the Great Zimbabwe was built by Hebrew gold miners, not black people, starting around 1906 or so.
These ideas start in Academia, and at first are positions that no one takes seriously and have no effect in the outside world. And then academia trains students into an cadre of leftists that infiltrate government institutions, and twenty years later, the idea starts to have outside world impact, forty years later it is holy writ, and daring to doubt it mean that the state allows you to be beaten up with impunity, and will destroy any business that hires you. Hence surpranationalism cannot be assaulting marriage until after World War II – in actual practice, did not start assaulting marriage till 1963.
I don’t hate anyone, except Boomers.
I think the thoughts you are unwilling to think.
For example, you think that the Japwomen were emancipated from their men in an act of Japman emasculation. I agree.
I take it a step further: the Americanwomen were emancipated from their men in an act of Americanman emasculation.
I take it another step further: no men anywhere desired the emancipation of their women.
One more step: all emancipation everywhere is a sign of the subjugation of a defeated people.
Therefore, it is indisputable that if your women are emancipated, someone has defeated you. A concrete someone, not a mysterious woo-woo “winds of history” inexplicable phenomenon.
It is much easier to pass largely unenforced laws proclaiming the emancipation of women than it is to declare war and send millions of men to their deaths. Therefore, we should expect the former (feminism) to precede the latter (transnationalism, supranationalism, whatever) chronologically.
THERE IS ALWAYS A WHO
The Catholic-Jewish triumphal television series Mad Men correctly portrays “divorce” not being a thing until the 1960’s. It’s called the “Sexual Revolution” for a reason, you mongoloid. It was the de facto moment of emancipation. Not 150 years before, or neither you nor I would literally exist.
I observationally, clinically, and unironically think that women are basically animals.
“Hate” doesn’t play a role. The word is hatred, by the way, fuck you and your commie neologisms.
Ceterum censeo [the Semites] esse delendam.
Unfortunately, men tend to desire the emancipation of other men’s women so that they can fuck them, as King George the Fourth fucked them. Then, to their great surprise, it turns around and bites them, as it bit King George the Fourth.
Any story about the emancipation of women that does not start with King George the Fourth fucking the wives of men on whom his power depended is erroneous, and usually starts far too late.
And, in any case, your post is unresponsive, because you were challenged to demonstrate your bonafides by discussing the nature of women, and you are not discussing the nature of women.
Unresponsive. We asked you to demonstrate your bona fides by addressing the women question. I will discuss the Jewish question with you after you respond.
“Unfortunately, men tend to desire the emancipation of other men’s women so that they can fuck them”
Maybe up to a point… but I’m a sperg with no natural game and the women who like me and the women who come onto me sexually (on the rare occasions it has happened) are not only girls in relationships but they tend to be girls who are happily in relationships who have no intention of leaving their boyfriend (I have not done anything with married women… but that has been my decision)
Single women otoh never have any interest in me and I cannot really think of an exception… I’ve had girls who pretended to be single but turned out to be taken later.
I do not want it to be this way… but it is.
Unfortunately, a lot of men, men in power, do desire this.
Female emancipation most dramatic 1st order result is increasing the number of single er feral women.
But feral women are NOT easier to pickup then girls in relationships and married women unfortunately at least for normie men quite the opposite is true… Jeremy Meeks and Charles Manson have better chances with single women. Elon Musk has a better chance with a married woman or a girl who has had the same boyfriend for 3 years…
So its rather stupid for the ruling class to support female emancipation in order to bang more women… unless the member of the ruling class is a psychopathic vampire he’ll have an easier time nailing a non feral woman. The non feral woman is also a lot more likely to keep her mouth shut and not cause trouble in the future about it then the feral women are.
This is largely UN/WHO/OECD data so take it with a grain of salt but…
In the arbitrary data set [France, Netherlands, Germany, UK] we see declining fertility that correlates roughly with Jim’s assertion (1820). The trend really picks up speed in the late-late 1800s. You can see steep declines followed by atypical inclines during then after wars [WWI,WWII,Colonial Actions] with the monumental drop coinciding with the Sexual Revolution. The atypical inclines could be attributed to manly men returning from combat with their heads on straight…
This tool [gapminder] is invaluable and it is even better that it is one of the enemy’s weapons. They hate it because it shows some stark realities. It is available on github and, as i have asked in other forums, the code inclined should consider making an Nrx fork.
Germany, France, Netherlands, UK fertility rates 1800-2015:
https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#_state_entities_show_geo_$in@=gbr&=fra&=deu&=nld;;;;&marker_axis/_y_which=children/_per/_woman/_total/_fertility&scaleType=linear;;;&chart-type=linechart
South Africa and Zimbabwe life expectancy 1800-2015:
https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#_state_entities_show_geo_$in@=zwe&=zaf;;;;&marker_axis/_y_which=life/_expectancy/_years&scaleType=linear;;;&chart-type=linechart
US, Russia fertility rates 1800-2015:
https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#_state_entities_show_geo_$in@=rus&=usa;;;;&marker_axis/_y_which=children/_per/_woman/_total/_fertility&scaleType=linear;;;&chart-type=linechart
FUCK
The hyperlinks broke; apparently their is a semicolon limit lol. You can copy/past them or just got to gapminder.org, click on “tools,” and run the simulations yourself too.
“The Catholic-Jewish triumphal television series Mad Men correctly portrays “divorce” not being a thing until the 1960’s. ”
Divorce wasn’t as big of a thing until the 1960s but it was certainly a thing long before then and briefly after WWII divorce rates were at modern levels as some of the postwar couples found that not all of the USO marriages worked out.
I will definitely allow that reply – if he replies – but predict he will not reply. He has already posted an enormous pile of stuff in response to your question that I promptly deleted because it frames your question as everything except your actual question.
Hint to Communist Revolutionary: This is a reactionary blog, and you should read questions in a reactionary frame, not in a Marxist frame, the Marxist frame being that all problems are problems of who grabbed stuff first, and all questions are questions about grabbing stuff.
Rocket’s question was not a demand for government housing in a vast government housing project. Read up on Duluth in order to answer. You will not find the answer in Marx.
Maybe this will be my first deleted comment…
I thought a lot about your question. I thought about what would be the most popular answer, or what i could write that would be stunningly incisive and earn my the (You)s i so desperately crave. I wrote out a few drafts, changed stuff.
It was all bullshit, or just convoluted arguments belaboring an arbitrary point, like an assignment that requires 10 pages where 2 will suffice. So this is my answer, the reason i started a family far later than i should have:
Fear.
There is no point elaborating. All roads lead right back to fear. We need to make a world wherein ordinary men are not afraid of making a family.
“Fear” is the wrong word, for it implies that all men have to do is merely man up. What you meant to say was “danger”.
If you are alpha, it is not dangerous to form a family, but in the eyes of women, only a small minority of men can ever be alpha, and that small minority of men tend to have fun alternatives to forming a family.
You may be right. I’m not sure.
I was afraid to do what needed doing. My wife erased that fear. It isn’t perfect. It is fucking terrifying. But the terror comes from dangers: public schools, diversity initiatives, pop culture. In this sense i get exactly what you’re saying. So i will amend my answer:
The question: What is preventing ordinary men from starting families and why?
Ordinary men are prevented from starting families by the fear that is caused from both the incentive structure currently in place in western society as well as the dangers inherent to the process of family building, rather how very easy it is for some shifty cunt to wipe out their legacy at the drop of a hat.
This is the result of women’s emancipation, equalism becoming sacrosanct, and materialism replacing family as a primary motivator for success.
The last time I was here you were refusing to see female misbehavior. You also have an obvious blindspot for the repeated, catastrophic failures of socialism. Jim has even given many succinct explanations of why and how it fails which you pretend to have not been given and do not address.
“example of something that matters to you”
My position on the woman question: God or Gnon made men to rule over woman.
A huge number of today’s problems arise from us defying God in this area. The Jewish problem, which I do think exists, is getting smaller. Our woman problem is getting bigger. A father should rule over his daughter and a husband over his wife. That means legal rights. Jim’s position on woman’s nature and the woman question is one of the best I’ve read. He came to the position by observing the world – the same way I came to the position. This is characteristic of right wing thinkers. What novel, contrarian, or controversial position have you adopted by observing the world?
>What novel, contrarian, or controversial position have you adopted by observing the world?
That competent people should be politically subservient to incompetent people, forever.
I can’t tell if this is sarcastic or not because there are actually people on the left dumb enough to say something like this.
The obvious truth is that incompetent people do not rule competent people for that long. Power needs to be maintained and if maintained incompetently will be lost. If the ‘subservient’ people are lead incompetently the ‘object’ under power will be lost.
It is characteristic of leftists to whine and bitch at God.
“the world is so unfair”
“my life is so unfair”
The world operates by cause and effect. Everything is part of a pattern. God reveals his nature if we are humble enough to look.
We serve God and so God serves us. This is why we will win.
>The obvious truth is that incompetent people do not rule competent people for that long.
Right, that’s why we need people like CR to rule over us with an iron fist; otherwise the strong will thrive and the weak will dissipate, which is morally unacceptable. You’re not a *mean person*, now, are you?
(I’m condensing CR’s 888 to its essential premises)
‘Jim’ is watching you very carefully Virtus: you’re exactly what he wants from his censorship régime: the person who swallows the host’s lies and never wonders why someone would delete first THEN respond – the person who never thinks “what’s he trying to stop me seeing here?”.
No way will any comment of mine get through, because he loves that you believe his caricature of me, which he knows is a fantasy based on outright lies, knowing distortions, deliberate out-of-context partial citations and inferred meanings which are obviously the opposite of stated meanings reiterated over and over.
But here’s the rub: you’re going to be SURROUNDED by “deleted”; not just from me but from anyone who might alert you to the reality of this toxic community.
As the host’s paranoia grows, more and more will have to be suppressed.
He’s like the neurotic Jew who believes Alex Jones must be silenced at all costs, and Gavin too, and Rise Above, and Patriot Prayer, and on, and on, and on…….. he flatters himself that he’s Shlemiel but really he’s Shylock.
The only honk comes from his crooked nose.
Nuts.
Stop telling us what Virtus thinks, stop trying to derail to conversation into a conversation that presupposes and takes for granted universal, unchallenged, and unchallengeable consensus on Marxism, Whig history, and the blue pill, and your comments will get through.
You can presuppose Marxism and the blue pill all you like, so long as you acknowledge that your interlocutor disagrees vehemently..
And similarly Mandela can tell us that there was no fire, and no terrorist damage at building seven all he likes, but he cannot tell us that I have presented no evidence for fire and massive terrorist damage, that we all agree that building seven suddenly and mysteriously went into free fall for no apparent reason, or that we have not presented a reason for it going into free fall. It went into free fall after falling sideways like a tree, so that it was no longer on top of its foundations but instead over the square to the South of it, which the video shows and the rubble pile proves, which is what those people who had been in the square and got the hell out of that square expected and predicted on the basis of the fire and the terrorist damage that they witnessed. The people on the spot to the south of World Trade Center building seven correctly predicted it was going to fall into the square, therefore nothing surprising or odd about it falling into the square. The fall is only mysterious if you only look at the building from the north. And similarly the hole in the Pentagon is commercial airliner sized – unless you only look at the exit hole and not the entrance hole.
And similarly, the reason that Marxism fucks up disastrously is that you will not acknowledge that Solomon’s good woman is creating capital, and using the market place to apply capital to its highest and best use. Supposedly, the only way to acquire capital is to grab it by political power. The Marxist looks at civilization, and see not an elaborate and dangerously fragile machine to enable and enforce cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, but a jungle full of loot for the grabbing. If capitalists have stuff, they must have stolen it from Kings and Aristocrats, therefore capitalism must be recent.
If instead of ignoring and denying the ten commandments, the Book of Proverbs, and words of Governor William Bradford, you attempted to rebut them, your comments would go through.
What I will not allow is argument by fake consensus. Any time you tell us what we supposedly believe, or what people we admire supposedly believe, your comment will be deleted.
I delete all your numerous and lengthy replies to Virtus because he asked you tell us what you think and you know, and instead you tell us what Virtus supposedly thinks and supposedly knows.
And what he supposedly knows is the truth of the blue pill. It is just that we red pillers want to “beat and belittle women”.
You always tell us “Hail fellow white jew hating black hating reactionary”. And now you tell Virtus “hail fellow woman hating red piller”
It is not that we want to “beat and belittle women”. Hating women is not the red pill. Rather, one part of the red pill is noticing that women rather like men who beat and belittle them.
We don’t hate women, we don’t hate Jews, and we don’t hate blacks. It is just that men and women can never be friends, only lovers, that Jews need their own country and we need their own country back, and that blacks need supervision and in the modern economy, not worth giving them supervision.
You tell us what reaction is and what the red pill is, and will not listen when we tell you what it is. The red pill and reaction is not hatred, but knowledge, and you refuse to accept that knowledge, or even acknowledge that we believe it to be true.
Who can tell whether or not your characterisation of what you just deleted is truthful?
Perhaps I’m the one misleading people and sowing the seed of doubt.
Censorship always works this way: they try to stop us saying how uncomfortable we feel living among blacks, and all that happens is people get curious, look into it, and decide that they too would rather not live among blacks.
You absolutely DO want to beat and belittle women, as anyone who’s read anything of yours knows, and in the current year, it’s not the most unreasonable desire.
What I ACTUALLY SAID was that while Roosh agrees with you about that, he yearns for a healthy society where it’s not necessary, whereas you think it IS necessary in a healthy society and in fact societal health is defined BY the belittling and beating of women.
You’re still trying to correct my test paper and let through correct answers that consist entirely of red pills while scolding incorrect answers involving blue pills.
The thing is, I don’t respect your score sheet and I don’t WANT a diet of all red pills. Some of the blue pills are good too, in their proper context and environment.
Like Roosh, I love women and yearn for the day when I can relax around them.
Unlike Roosh, you love women as they are now, because it justifies your own poor behaviour. That’s true in the status quo, but in the status quo ante, you would have been seen for what you are: inferior.
I never wanted to speak harshly to you, but your conduct requires it. You shill for the Whigs. When anyone asks the new property owners where their noblesse oblige is, and they respond “I’m not a nobleman and I bear no such obligation”, you congratulate them on their modern, forward thinking and enlightened outlook, preferring to blame the poor for being poor, and smearing anyone who disagrees as a Marxist who wants us to starve in bread lines like millions did in the 1980s in the Soviet Union and hundreds of millions are doing in the China of 2019.
You think you’re so conservative, but it’s the conservatism of………….. Edmund Burke
Allowing this comment through so that people will know why I silently deleted the hundred other comments that tell us what we think and what we believe.
They can tell it is truthful because I have allowed through far too many comments by you that say the same thing. Over and over and over. If I allowed you, this blog would be full of repetitious Marxist spam.
We have seen it all before. All your comments are a waste of bandwidth because you are not discussing evidence or making arguments, but rather trying to frame the conversation.
As I have said many times, over and over again, being alpha as women understand alpha is stressful, and I mightily wish, Roosh mightily wishes, that I did not have to use negs, insults, and coercive force. I wish that women understood manliness as men understand manliness, but they don’t. I wish I could be alpha the way I naturally want to be alpha. Remember my story of the dog and the pool? Genuinely heroic and manly alpha does not work. I have tried it.
I love women. Women, in their proper place, are indeed wonderful, and they love to be put in their proper place. But to test your alpha credibility, they keep pushing out of their proper place. And sometimes they push mighty hard. Women want bad men, and you have to give them the semblance of what they want.
The red pill only leads to the black pill, wanting to beat and belittle women, if you fail, and the number one reason for failing is the purple pill.
In the movie “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom”, the men enjoyed it because Indiana Jones bravely rescues the damsel in distress from certain death. The women enjoyed it because he hits the damsel in distress with a whip. I have tried it both ways, and I know what women want. They want to be conquered. They want to be the spoils of the victors, and we have to have a civilization that gives them the controlled semblance of that, as a garden is a controlled semblance of our ancient savanna. The family law of the Old Testament, as interpreted by King Solomon, gave them a controlled semblance of that. King Solomon emphasizes the role of the offended husband dealing with adultery, and only indirectly implies the role of Sovereign and Temple.
The Christian Church stopped preserving and protecting that social technology in about Anno Domini one thousand, and we have to revert that heresy all the way back to the seventh century consensus of the Communion of Saints, and family law back to what it was England from about Anno Domini 1660 to 1800. The Sacrament of Marriage should be unilaterally administered by the husband under the supervision of the priest, and female consent to marriage should be reward of virtue and chastity, rather than an inherent part of the sacrament. The Church has to back the state doing what it did in Australia in the 1790s, and any priest that fails to back the state supported imposition of order on feral women needs to be defrocked and driven forth from his church in a public and humiliating way. Feral women want strong men to impose order on them, the state needs to back men imposing order on feral women, and the Church needs to back the state and individual men imposing order on feral women.
“Carlylean Restorationist” to Jim:
This silliness asserts that someday… when things are different… women will be different. It assumes that female behavior of the kind we’re concerned with is produced by environmental influences, and not by genetically hard-wired factors.
In other words, it’s just the New Soviet Man notion applied to women. You didn’t actually say it, but I can sense you holding yourself back from saying, “After the advent of socialism, women will prefer nice guys, because the material superstructure of the (blah blah)…”
We who lived in china curiously fail to notice the hundreds of millions in breadlines.
Living costs in the countryside are low enough and bread, or well, rice, plenty enough for everyone to afford their daily bowl and to blow the rest on north korean meth even if they do more or less nothing.
In cities, the poor are self employed in crappy unambitious microbusinesses, privately employed in low skill sectors which chinese perform well and on time in contrast to some others, or publically employed in soviet style useless cleaning and guarding jobs, where the useless get daily demands, and social relations with the locals of the block they clean or guard. Some money, some meaning and some dignity apparently is enough to keep the meth away.
The last one i assume is right up your alley, CR.
Moldbug discussed the effects of prohibiting automated gas stations – providing teen boys with some money, some meaning and some dignity, while economic efficiency takes a slight hit. China does this by not automating guarding or garbage collection or street cleaning. Every block has an old often quite friendly cleaning man.
When the chinese were actually practicing socialism, there were not breadlines, but mass starvation, the hungry ghosts famine.
China is in many ways more capitalist than the US: Deng has been accurately paraphrased as “it is glorious to get rich” I own a lot of Chinese products, such as my phone and several of my computers, all of them made by private enterprise, made by firms owned primarily by rich people and run for private profit.
“Socialism with Chinese characteristics” looks remarkably like capitalism. Hong Kong received old type capitalism, Manchesterism, from English pirates and opium smugglers. It preserved it into modern times while the west became considerably less capitalist, and then China absorbed Hong Kong type capitalism in the special economic zones, from where it rapidly spread to the rest of the country. China is in many ways more capitalist than the west, because of its Hong Kong heritage.
Chinese television shows are in many ways far more supportive of capitalism than western shows. I loved this episode for its devastatingly accurate depiction of socialists and socialism. You will not see socialism depicted like that on western television.
Bible says God hated Esau. The modern Jew is infinitely worse than the Pharisees Jesus damned in his day, much less Esau. Hating the Jews is right and proper.
I would have allowed your comment, except for one line. “The second created poverty”
That is Marxist history ( that capital accumulation immiserated the proletariat.) and it is nonsense –
You are allowed to argue for nonsense, but you have to present it as an argument, not an unquestionable truth that we all agree with.
I would love to debate Marxism with you, but I am not going to allow you to present it as fact and then move right along as if no one had ever challenged it.
I would be willing to allow you to present Marxist history as an unquestioned truth, if you were willing to debate it when challenged. But you have not been willing to debate it.
If you want to present argument and evidence for that claim, if you are willing to debate it, then in future I will allow you to present Marxist history as unquestioned truth – if you are willing to debate these supposedly unquestioned and unquestionable truths when questioned.
But I am not going to allow you to present Marxism as simple unquestioned and uncontroversial truth if when people dispute Marxism, you just ignore their replies and go right on presenting the same absurd lies as simple unquestioned and uncontroversial truth and reframe disagreement as people agreeing with the Marxist account of reality, but for some inexplicable reason supporting the bad guys.
No the second did not create poverty. Now are you interested in presenting evidence for the claim? Are you willing to discuss the claim? If you are not willing to discuss Marxist claims, I am not going to allow you to make Marxist claims and will delete an entire comment for one Marxist lie.
Jim, you should head over to Spandrell’s blog, where CR now concentrates his efforts to convince reactionaries that capitalism needs to be abolished. E.g., in the latest thread:
https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2019/04/23/debt/
Spandrel’s problem.
He should do a red pill post. That would expose the entryists.
Spandrell should cut the blackpill shit on Trump out. Even if he can’t win in the end hes certainly slowed down the enemies program.
Spandrell’s latest post he sounds like Anne Coulter ranting about “Blonald Blumpf” betrayed us.
Maybe he’ll listen to you on this…
I agree that Spandrell and Coulter sound like whiny bitches, but at the same time i don’t see it as necessarily a bad thing to remind GET that he still needs to deliver. Spandrell’s post is an exercise in caveats that mitigate the message entirely if you pay attention; he basically says that he has no opinion and that the ghost of his opinion is irrelevant, then goes on to bitch and moan, which makes sense as i believe he is some flavor of European. Coulter is a town square jester; her job is to play the fool to show the wise what is at stake.
Regardless, all of this pre-posturing is idle. The race hasn’t even started and Biden, Beto, and a few others are falling apart. We still have many habbenings, revelations, and race hate hoaxes between now and coronation day.
Anecdotally, when i wore my TRUMP 2024 tshirt to school before Russia Hoax revelation, i was jeered, followed, and threatened. Since Barr’s ascension, i have had a handful of people corner me when no one is looking and say they love it and wish they had the stones to show their support.
I have not seen a Trump 2024 T shirt.
I was thinking of creating a “Trump Holy Emperor 2024” T shirt based on an image similar to this one
What does your T Shirt suggest for 2024?
Good shirt but give the blonde longer hair… hair above shoulder length should not be permitted for women in public those that have it should have to wear a wig on pain of a flogging.
Among other things the Restoration should make women’s hair long again.
http://www.returnofkings.com/27536/publishers-response-to-girls-with-short-hair-are-damaged
It just says TRUMP and under it the date 2024 in the campaign style. I believe the joke is he deserves a third term. It is excellent for me because if directly confronted, I can just say the Constitution forbids 3rd terms and laugh. So few people see the date though; they see his name and make their assessment.
My wife got the shirt for me on Red Bubble BTW.
CR is an NPC shill.
He is repeatedly told that capitalists don’t actually rule and what things would look like if they did rule for instance media editorial policy actually changing rather then cranking out Cathedral propaganda despite it causing them to hemmorage viewers, and that capitalists would be allowed to fuck their secretaries without fear of sexual harassment…
But he just can’t understand.
He also bizarrely seems to blame the poz on restaurants people traveling private swimming pools and other private petty luxuries in a way even most leftists would probably find a little bizzare (they would of course ban those things for little people but his fixation on them would seem strange even to them)… and he cannot seem to learn anything.
Deleted for presupposing that the The Cominator agrees, that everyone agrees, that capitalists rule.
Reaction 101: We are always ruled by priests or warriors.
“Deleted for presupposing that the The Cominator agrees, that everyone agrees, that capitalists rule.”
If he said this its exactly why we say NPC spambot.
I not only said that CAPITALISTS DONT RULE I mentioned some very specific policy changes you would see immediately if capitalists did rule. The very 1st would be sexual harassment laws going away… Capitalists would MAKE SECRETARIES FUCKABLE AGAIN.
So you just wrote on your blog:
>I must direct the reader’s attention to a hidden assumption at the heart of capitalism: the equality of all men. Literally “all men were created equal”.
Do you understand that for most of the Actual Right, “capitalism” means the precise opposite of that; that it is fundamentally the abstract force of Darwinism translated and applied to economics and society (which, of course, actual reactionaries consider to be a positive thing, not a negative one)?
Have you considered the idea that capitalism is inherently discriminatory, in that it gives preference to competence over incompetence, success over failure, incentivizes the former and disincentivizes the latter – and, consequently, does the same to the *biological specimens* possessing these respective predispositions (which, again, is a positive thing from the reactionary perspective)?
Atomized secular humanist capitalism makes that assumption, but it does with the Boomers (long may they burn).
eyy you got a blog
>tfw his posts start getting replaced with *deleted* + explanation messages *<:^)
>Grand Inquisitor with official Inquisitorial hat emoji
‘Anti-capitalism from the right’
Not to brag, but I do believe that is pretty exactly the tagline I suggested.
He really is cranking out the freshest Marxist takes on everything there at an astounding clip.
He’s written 10 000 words in three days, still yet to receive a single comment. I had my doubts when Jim first accused him of being a paid shill, but no longer. It’s simply amazing.
I don’t find it amazing. There are some sorts of people who can keep up a steady low-IQ patter. This is the written equivalent.
>CR signs up for Adsense
>improves SEO
>blog now has banner ads for Domino’s Pizza and pop-ups for flights to Honolulu
CR makes a debut appearance on Spandrell’s blog:
https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2019/03/23/acceleration-by-yang/#comment-29456
We will see what happens when he explains to Spandrel that Spandrel is a Marxist.
As an ex Marxist I know Marxism better than CR, and way better than Spandrel. I changed my mind about Marxism when I saw the Marxist response to the Cambodian autogenocide. Until the day before the Soviet Union authorized Vietnamese invasion, every academic in every university in the entire US hegemony without exception, libertarians and anarcho capitalists included, supported the Cambodian autogenocide. The day after the Soviet Union authorized the Vietnamese invasion, every academic in every university in the US entire hegemony without exception, libertarians and anarcho capitalists included, suddenly remembered that they had always believed that Pol Pot was installed by Ronald Reagan and that they had always opposed Pol Pot and the Cambodian autogenocide.
I however, opposed Pol Pot as soon as news leaked out about what happened when Phnom Penh fell, and opposed Marxism as soon as I saw that I was entirely alone in opposing Pol Pot. I had long been aware that my fellow Marxists were apt to murder their fellow Marxists, and that the police showed a curious lack of curiosity about the curious disappearance of problem Marxists. After the fall of Phnom Penh I realized that if they took power, a whole lot of people, likely including myself, were going to mysteriously disappear, that my objections to what happened when Phnom Penh fell likely got me put on a list of dangerous unreliables. Hence my reaction whenever a Marxist explains that he is on my side. When they murdered a hundred million, it was mostly people that had been told that they were on side.
Remembering Pol Pot as installed by Ronald Reagan is like historians recording the French Revolution as capitalists seizing power, rather than socialists seizing power.
Honestly shocked you were a leftist once. Generally nothing can cure them except severe trauma (David Horowitz) or actually living under it and of course death…
Generally speaking, smart people follow power. Since the left is actually in power, most smart people are left. The right attracts dumb people because only dumb people think that the world is really controlled by 19th century WASP capitalists via their CIA and US Army cronies, a story which if it were ever true has not been true for over a century.
Smart people become rightists when they decide that although those people are not in power, they should be.
If leftism dies, it will be by cutting off promotion avenues for competent people, creating too many of this sort of reactionary. Legacy rightists never understood and were never much threat to the system.
Exactly. Around here, every conservative boomer has a well stocked shed with all kinds of tools he tinkers with. They follow power, might not always like it, but eh, life’s good. They are allowed to be competent in their own circle of influence.
What drives people to the right is when these people are no longer allowed to be competent. Few millenials have a well-stocked shed.
Google purged its smartest people. Linux is now purging its smartest people. NASA purged its smartest people way back after the Challenger disaster. Itar never had any smart people on board in the first place. What are the smart people going to do now?
Read Jim’s blog for starters.
In my experience smart people are not being thrown onto unemployment. What is happening is that their departments are quietly becoming back office, with productivity neither expected, facilitated, nor desired, while HR becomes the new front office. Smart people continue to cash their pay checks, which continue to be higher than in HR, but no longer control the business or achieve more than nominal productivity.
This makes sense to me. The purpose is to neutralise the technician/officer class, not to back them into a corner where resistance becomes obvious and they have nothing to lose from it.
For sure, such people are not really happy. But if they leave, where do they go? Every business is like this. At least they are getting a check.
> Few millenials have a well-stocked shed.
When the Internet coordinates local handyman specialization, there’s little need. Compare Boomer toolsheds to Millennial computing power.
Working with your own power tools makes you more of a man.
Plus, look at the homes and furniture of those people. It is crap.
The guy that has his own power tools winds up purchasing better stuff and hiring better handymen, perhaps he understands the physical things that he buys, and understands what the handymen he hires do.
I don’t disagree. On the other hand, I find my time completely absorbed by my IT specialization and mission.
In any case, it isn’t apples to apples to compare capital goods across generations without accounting for the personal computer revolution.
It’s funny that you say that, I was trending leftward because I could see who was in power, right up until 9/11, at which point I decided that leftism was guaranteed civilization death in the long run. I’d read enough history to know the proper response to 9/11 was to glass Afghanistan, not invite in 500k Muslims a year to America.
“Smart people become rightists when they decide that although those people are not in power, they should be.”
I think the right attracts people who aren’t that interested in power too but just wish to be left alone… and we on the far far right attract those who understand the left will never leave us alone.
It was just always apparent to me from boyhood that leftism incentivized bad behaviour and was death to all who practiced it.
Real leftists generally can’t be cured and as such they must become part of a Final Solution to the Leftist Problem… very shocked that Jim (despite a few disagreements the ultimate redpill) was ever on the other side.
I’m not a boomer I generationally identify as Gen X though some people put my birth year in the older millenial category.
“I think the right attracts people who aren’t that interested in power too but just wish to be left alone… and we on the far far right attract those who understand the left will never leave us alone.”
People who want to be left alone are left wing on every issue where the left won’t leave non-conformists alone. Which means that people who want to be left alone are functionally left wing, unless for some reason such as stupidity they believe the left’s lies that a big right wing conspiracy is actually in power and would actually protect them from the left.
Some people will publicly oppose what the left will not allow you to disagree with tomorrow, even though they will not publicly oppose what the left will not allow you to disagree with today. But these people are also stupid, because they will inevitably have to publicly change their position soon anyway, and not everyone will forget that they used to be on the other side.
This whole trend is called “cuckservativism”, cuck because it always ends in the supposed dissident coming over to his opponent’s side, not only failing to change the direction of change, but also looking weak, foolish, and untrustworthy.
David Horowitz was cured of leftism when he figured out that nazis kill their enemies, but commies kill their friends.
Everyone starts off a leftist, because the education system and the media are leftist, because they have been raised on lies.
I used to be a great admirer of David Friedman. Then I asked him what he had said about Khmer Rouge Cambodia during the time that Pol Pot was the acme of political correctness, and every academic piously used Pol Pot’s argument about agriculture on a flood plain as an argument for government works and government planning.
He had said nothing. There were quite a lot of people outside academia who bravely spoke, but not one tenured academic, not one tenured academic in the entire USG hegemony.
Every academic in the entire west has blood on his hands, in that he at best remained silent while the institution of which he was part supported terror and mass murder. Because some courageous men spoke out, everyone knew what was happening, and everyone in academia at best piously ignored this inconvenient information, and at worst lied about it. All of them. Everyone in the education system either actively supports terror and mass murder, or at best goes along to get along. And that is why everyone starts out a leftist.
“Everyone starts off a leftist, because the education system and the media are leftist, because they have been raised on lies.”
I was one of those in constant trouble in early school because the indoctrination didn’t “take” with me at all. When I say I was always a rightist I mean it (I had other school problems too being a sperg).
Every time you tell us what someone else thinks, you deceive and manipulate. Comments by you giving a representation of someone else’s position will be silently deleted.
Other way round, and what I said was “go read Spandrell”, which cannot possibly be a misrepresentation.
I’ll say it again: go read Spandrell’s Yang piece and Spandrell’s Tucker piece.
Go read them.
Go read them.
You lie about your own words, as you lie about Spandrel’s words.
Let’s assume you’re telling the truth. I lied about Spandrell, you censored me, then I responded saying “go read Spandrell” and you let it through because you’re a man of great deep integrity.
Let’s say that’s 100% absolutely what happened.
Fine: GO READ SPANDRELL
Deleted for repetitious assertion that Marxism is not Marxism, but the simple well known uncontroversial truth, without any presentation of evidence for that supposed truth, or any discussion of evidence refuting that supposed truth.
It is obvious that you know full well that you are a Marxist, and that Marxism is a lie told with the intent of enslaving or murdering those deceived by it, for if you thought that Marxist history was not Marxist history, but the simple truth, you would be willing to debate the facts and the evidence, willing to discuss the French Revolutionary Maximum and Solomon’s good woman.
If Marxism is the simple truth, present evidence in favor of Marxist history and whig history, and against reactionary history.
If you truly believed, you would be interested in discussing the French Revolution and First Temple Israel. That you refuse to discuss the relevant evidence reveals guilty knowledge of the evil intent and lies of Marxism.
Your definition of Marxism presupposes that Marxism is true, and everyone already agrees that it is true, so that there is nothing that needs to be defined.
Your definition also defines Marxists as the good guys, so if anyone believed that definition, and was not a Marxist, he would consider himself a bad guy.
If you are going to tell us that Marxism is true and good, going to have to address our evidence that it is wicked and bad. I will delete all such comments that fail to acknowledge and respond to our evidence – as for example the murder of nuns in Revolutionary France and Civil War Spain, and ancient discussions of socialism and capitalism. Respond to our evidence and I will allow your comments.
I’ve found this scene very helpful in explaining the holiness spiral to children:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_Yaa_LMDcs
They made up “Level 5 Vegan”; the actual hierarchy is roughly vegetarian < vegan < raw vegan < no-dig raw vegan < something < something < breatharian < nonexistentarian. My kids made up that last word, but it's the surest way to achieve zero carbon footprint.
Enjoy more of Lisa's virtue-signalling here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnRt_JEoBRU
Immigrants drive birthrate cuz our women go to college.
OK. As it happens we can’t probably stop women going to college.
We can stop college.
Its called : school burns, your debt erases.
Incentives.
Its all about incentives being aligned.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/immigrants-propel-population-growth-in-10-of-u-s-counties-11555560061
Modern problems require simple solutions. 😉
That Watergate was a coup is now going mainstream, at least mainstream right.
https://amgreatness.com/2019/04/16/nixon-marini-and-the-russia-hoax/
How did the media ally so closely with the Deep State? One hypothesis is that the Office of War Information took the media under state control, and after the war this control evolved into a cooperation.
“How did the media ally so closely with the Deep State?”
Look at Zuckerberg and facebook.
Zuckerberg didn’t want facebook to become an arm of the Cathedral (with community standards censorship and favoring Democrats) NOT because of the goodness of his heart he just rightly thought it would be bad for business.
Then all his dirty laundry started coming out after he resisted (another issue was he WAS planning to just buy the Democratic nomination).
Been doing some thinking on our friend CR.
CR vehemently agrees with all of us, and without losing breath goes on to propose a bunch of new rules, or more specifically his evil, he insists on the creation of dozens of committees to implement said rules.
So, if it were up to CR, we’d create the Committee of Good Restaurant Conduct, which would go on to completely destroy any good restaurant. He’d create the Baker Protection Committee, which would consequently demolish all bakeries. Furthermore he’d create the Non-Frivolous Flying Committee, which would soon enough make any kind of flying impossible.
And when all these committees do exactly what communist policies have always done, he will insist that we need even more committees. That is the essence of communism, of leftism: to expand priestly power more and more and more, until you’d need CR’s permission to take a shit (file a permission request to the Defecation Quality Control Committee, after all the people have been living from diarrhea to diarrhea and it is absolutely unacceptable!).
Thing is, it is a scam. It’s a power play. It is saying: ‘hail fellow white males, yes I completely agree the priestly class is evil and abhorrent, let us give them more power!’
And people know. People aren’t dumb. People have developed defenses against such scams and infiltration.
So the way leftism/communism works is that they need to, in some way, cheat. Cheating is the way to victory. Now, life offers many ways for cheating. CR’s preferred method of cheating, being an academic, is likely that he claims he is having an objective discussion, whereas in reality the platform on which he is discussing is completely controlled by priests who have no interest in having an objective discussion whatsoever.
But this is Jim’s place. Jim does have an interest in having objective discussion: all arguments here are judged by their merit, not by a secret committee. Discussions here are fair — something CR is wholly not used to. So he reverts to shouting ‘censorship!’ and ‘deplatforming!’ as if he were treated unfairly, e.g. the way he treats other academics in academia, but he does not realize that he is in fact treated fairly, and that we all know he is treated fairly.
So, after numerous debates and exchanges, it becomes exceedingly clear that, out in the open, in a fair ritualistic exchange, a communist cannot plausibly maintain ground. The comment section has turned against CR, and even though CR consoles himself that silent readers on his side, this is pretty obviously a lie as well. He has lost, he loses more every time he posts another comment.
What is the next step for CR? He keeps coming back for more, giving a lot of credence to the theory that he is in fact paid to be here. But all he accomplishes is confirming that communists exist, that they will try to infiltrate, that they must be repelled. If he is fine with that, sure, I guess that will do. But if he wants more, if he wants to win as much as communists have won in the 20th century, he will have to find a way to cheat, because this fair play is fucking him up royally.
The zblog has a book review today on a book describing how Western civilization is getting dumber over the past 12 generations, even accounting for immigration. It touches on two achievements from the past that we can no longer do, moon landing and the Concord.
Too Dumb To Make It: https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=17046
The book is called “At Our Wits’ End: Why We’re Becoming Less Intelligent and What it Means for the Future (Societas)” by Edward Dutton and Michael A. Woodley: https://www.amazon.com/At-Our-Wits-End-Intelligent/dp/184540985X
The keys to space bucks are 1) Billionaires who want to be Trilionaires and have planetary/space station colonies named after them; 2) The actual Trillionaire the Pentagon being told that’s their future Trillion dollar budget.
A budget that can grow.
Grow infinitely.
And you’ll see how suddenly our Admirals and Generals rediscover Strategy, helped by 535 greedy Congress critters.
A plan that has worked many times before.
What perhaps isn’t known is our Flag Officers always knew strategy.
They just can’t apply it to war. Since McNamara “Experts” develop Strategy.
Their expertise works as well as it always does.
Denied Victory our Flag Officers go for the money.
For some time now.
Who says we’re losers?
We can’t “win” making them White.
We damn sure win battles.
We damn sure win budgets.
We damn sure don’t want to cede the ultimate high ground.
What’s missing is incentives.
Truth is the Navy should get primacy or at least peer competitor funding for space and you’d see better results.
The USAF weak morally, soft, venal.
Navy understands the need to dominate the seas.
We do domniate the seas.
We can dominate space.
Just align the incentive$.
The WP actually told the truth for a change:
Young Men 18-30 Are Having No Sex Has Increased To Record Highs
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/29/share-americans-not-having-sex-has-reached-record-high/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0b45f492b42a
Is it just possible the young men not having sex WOULD have sex if instead of 2 person masturbation ie hookups they could….get married and have children.
Family formation rights are worth civil war.
In fact for that I get behind Hitler, Stalin, Mao, anyone.
I’d genocide for 2 reasons and only as ultima ratio:
1. The territorial integrity of North AMERICAN America.
2. Family formation rights – Traditional Fatherhood.
More sh*t.
Roger Scruton was my advisor when I was a graduate student in the mid-90s in the University Professors program at Boston University.
“Roger Scruton: An apology for thinking”
https://spectator.us/roger-scruton-apology-thinking/
Fun fact: Scruton’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Desire_(book) draws heavily on Continental Philosophy, Husserl, even Hegel. This is really interesting because it implies he thinks 1) Hegel actually makes sense 2) Right-Hegelianism can still be a thing, after all.
Right Hegelianism no more makes sense than Right Marxism.
The English Reform bill of 1831 was the political triumph of leftism, the beginning of our troubles, and Hegel did not think it went far enough.
Hegel is unthinkably right wing by today’s standards, but so is Clinton and Obama.
Okay, I looked it up. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/er/english-reform.pdf It’s weird. Most of the text sounds exactly like a leftist-reformist one, pushing all kinds of social reforms. Yet the essay ends on a different tone:
“But should the Bill, on account of its principle rather than of its terms, open the way to Parliament, and so into the heart of the power of government, for principles opposed to the system exist-ing hitherto, these principles might appear there with greater influence than radical reformers have been able to gain up till now. If so, the battle would threaten to be all the more dangerous, in that between the interests of positive privilege and the demands for more real freedom there stands no higher mediating power to restrain and adjust the dispute. In England the monarchical element in the constitution lacks the power which in other states has earned gratitude to the Crown for the transition from a legal system based purely on positive rights to one based on the principles of real freedom, a transition wholly exempt from earthquake, violence, and robbery. The people would be a power of a different kind; and an opposition which, erected on a basis hitherto at variance with the stability of Parliament, might feel itself no match for the opposite party in Parliament, could be led to look for its strength to the people, and then introduce not reform but revolution. ”
Okay, this part looks like standard cuckservatism. Or rather the kind of defeatist elite attitudes Moldbug mocked. “Let’s address their real grievances, else they will rebel! Let’s be leftists, else the leftists will win!” And then finding that the more you address the grievances, the more new and new grievances are generated and more and more rebelliously. But.
Still. Isn’t it strangely prescient? As a prediction? Even going so far that the King does not have enough power? As for his claim that in other states Kings mediated social reforms and it managed to strenghten, not weaken their throne, I have to look into it, I don’t know.
(BTW Right-Hegelism is not this stuff but something far more philosophically abstract.)
(I find it amusing that marxists.org, which is for me very much like satan.org, is a good source for finding all kinds of old texts.)
King Louis XVI mediated social reforms, which immediately created a suppurating sore, and he and his wife died of it.
Alexander the liberator mediated social reforms, which immediately created a suppurating sore. He gave the serfs the land collectively rather than individually, and they could not manage it, resulting in endlessly multiplying leftist bureaucracies managing the land for them, creating a power block of leftists and leftism surrounding the throne, which eventually murdered his descendants.
It is the standard problem of Burke and cuckservatism. Addressing their purported grievances immediately creates more grievances, because their grievances are entirely designed to create more grievances, and create a multitude of jobs for an ever growing government bureaucracy and ever more numerous academics who are in the business of creating grievances.
Agreed. But. While it is clear the King should not always side with the plebs against the elites, nor should he always side with the elites against the plebs. He is the judge of equity, justice, which is not something automatic. Some reforms may be okay. Especially the ones that lead from feudalism to capitalism.
So I wonder if Hegel meant his own country. Which was a very stable and quickly improving monarchy until it got beaten in WWI. I took a quick look.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Reform_Movement_(1806–1815)#Agricultural_reforms this sounds like the exact opposite of Alexanders: land owned by the nobles actually grew, many farmers sold their small, unsustainable lands, and with the new freedom of movement and occupation granted, became agricultural workers or industry workers. Thus, it seems to be, noble estates were turned into agribusinesses relying on hired, not forced labor, and capitalist industry also had a big hiring pool. And the army a bigger recruiting pool, likely. This sounds like a very successful reform of feudalism into capitalism.
So I propose to take a closer look. For example, one thing Hegel criticized as oppressive and exploiting the poor, were the (unreformed) Corn Laws. Indeed, they don’t sound very capitalistic to me.
If the elites benefit from crony capitalism or other corruption and are acting in a way unbeneficial to the country in such cases the king should side with the Plebs as Julius Caesar sided with the Plebs in such cases. Caesar’s mistake was showing clemency to enemies. He should have acted as Sulla and Octavian did and proscribe them all… and its bad that he didn’t because Octavian may have had better political sense but Julius Caesar’s economic policies were better. (wanted to get Rome off slave labor)
Asking on whose side a proposed social change is is Marxist.
Asking about the “Justice” of a proposed social change is Marxist.
Society is a complex highly evolved system, the result of past design work by Kings and priests, and natural selection of societies, in that a functional society tends to conquer its neighbors.
Any change to such a system is apt to break stuff, often in surprising and unobvious ways.
The correct response to such breakage, is to use source control to return to the last known good state, and try to figure out how to do it right, learn what went wrong by comparing with the known good state.
But what is apt to happen is that people make further changes to try to “fix” the breakage. And since fixing is hard, the fixes are apt to cause more breakage. Instead of debugging your program, you deprogram your bugs.
So what is your stance on Julius Caesar siding with the populares in say limiting senate land grant cronyism and forcing the latifundia to employ a certain % of nonslaves?
Jobs for Roman males was an important step in dealing with the looming shortage of Roman males. The trouble was that ordinary Romans were being replaced by foreign slaves – and without ordinary Romans, who is going to keep those slaves and foreigners in line?
But the long term solution would have been to strengthen the family, to enforce the durability of marriage and the authority of the husband.
Roman law theoretically had this (at least until Augustus) the problem was that in practice a Roman wife could go running back to her own family at any point and I think while theoretically you could kill your wife for any reason I think in practice that if she went back to her own family and said you disrespected her in any way it could cause a blood feud.
These were some Zen master type of slaps. Not feeling good, but helping one to get back on the road to full Dark Satori. I guess: thanks. Further thoughts after Easter. Now family.
You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
In real English, the words “Marxism” and “justice” have meanings beyond that which you consider to be heresy. Rectification of names means obligating yourself to use the correct definitions of words.
1. Proposed changes have winners on one side and losers on the other, and the forthright acknowledgement of this fact has nothing to do with any sociopoliticoeconomic system.
2. Justice is a real concept. In fact, it is a transcendent concept. It existed before Der Ewige Boomer sacrificed it on the “caveat emptor” altar of his satanic deity in order to feed his material “life style”, and when Father Time finally triumphs over the Boomer it will return in full force.
I can’t decide which I’m looking forward to more: the extinction of the Boomer plague or the brave new world of 2030.
Yes, “Justice” in the sense that Marxists ask the question, is Marxist, and “Justice” in the Marxist sense leads at best to breadlines and malnutrition, and at worst to terror, mass murder, and artificial famine.
Marxism interprets the social order as a chimp interprets the jungle, as just stuff for the grabbing, and like a chimp in the jungle assumes that there will always be more stuff to be grabbed, so supposedly the only question that matters is who gets to do the grabbing.
Marxists interpret history as who grabbed what, which interpretation is factually false, for it writes out of history who created what.
Marxists interpret economics as who grabbed what, which is why Marxist economics leads to breadlines at best, and frequently leads to famine and mass murder.
“Justice” to ordinary people involves every man getting his due, which necessarily means asking who created what, a question Marxists redefine as meaningless, so that Marxist justice is inherently unjust. The Marxist tells the peasant with one cow that the peasant with two cows is oppressing the peasant with one cow, and then he kills the cows of the peasant with two cows. Justice!
Reactionaries ask what worked in the past, ask what social technologies existed, how they worked, and how they failed. Since in the past the Christian Church was primarily responsible for preserving social technology through the dark age following the fall of the Roman Empire, and before that the Aaronic priesthood and the first Temple primarily responsible for preserving social technology through the dark age following the fall of Bronze Age civilization, this overlaps considerably with asking “what was the position of the Bible and the communion of saints?”
Marxists refuse to understand the question as meaningful. What makes you a Marxist is rejecting the question, rejecting the possibility of asking the question, denying that the question is thinkable, denying that we ask the question.
Society exists by facilitating cooperation, which means that lots of dispersed people who do not know each other particularly well cooperate. The bread shows up in the shops, there are enough tires made that cars have tires, and people obtain stuff without killing each other, unlike Venezuela and Soviet Russia, where obtaining stuff necessarily involves killing people. Marxists wind up killing people and killing each other because they will not ask the question, or even comprehend the question.
Coordinating lots of large, complicated things, necessarily means that some people make lots of important decisions, and most people don’t. People who make lots of important decisions are necessarily going to be privileged, and defining that privilege as unjust leads to disaster, and even asking whether the privilege is just is the wrong question. The question, rather, is to what extent that sort of decision needs to be made by rather few people, and to what extent it is necessary and desirable that they are able to personally and individually benefit by making good decisions.
I’d characterize my moment of weakness as of a Rawlsian, not Marxian nature. I confused distribute justice with fairness.
Justice: the exact execution of known rules.
Distribute justice: the exact execution of known rules for distributing common goods, public goods. Distributive justice does not say what rules it should be, it just says we should stick to them and no special exceptions. Usually what makes sense is to make a rule that ties the distribution to a proportion of something, like contribution to creating those public goods, but the relationship does not have to be direct, all that matters for justice that there is a clear rule like you get a farmland of X size after Y years of soldiering.
While fairness means precisely the debates about what those rules should be and it is highly subjective.
The concept of fairness only makes sense from a subjective perspective, in a trade, you can consider a low offer unacceptable, a higher one barely acceptable, an even higher one fair, and an even higher one generous. But it is subjective. And ruling isn’t a set of trades, so while fairness as a concept makes sense in subjectively evaluating a trade proposal – a fair proposal is one you find neither too low nor generously high, but about okay – trade is a wrong metaphor for ruling. I guess that is the key. Rulers don’t trade. Their job is not to come up with rules everybody finds okay, but to come up with rules that lead to good outcomes for social order.
I think this guy is one of the old British Lords. Traditional noble blood speaks.
In a proper world he and his mates would have the journalist fired and exiled for sedition and libel. The board at the university would be disbanded for their inability to understand a basic intellectual position with a mere one degree of subtlety.
It’s a good argument for aristocracy when someone like Scruton gets canned by a bunch of apparatchiks for speaking truth to the unrelenting power of modern conformist drivel.
Problem with OP is classic white man’s mistake. Totally reversed causality confusing what produces what. Typical of the last 70 years. Time to bring it to an end.
Truth is Ideologies are created by biological types. A few penned screeds are not governing the biologies that make a nation.
Irish are leftists by bio-type. Republicans, socialists, Kennedy’s, and other assortments of rot.
Bio-type recognition and modification as percentage of nation with loyalty to Right alignment maxed by legal and societal protection and validation. Only way forward.
Leftism is a tactic to seize power. You cannot be leftist by ethnic biotype because you need power to be available to be seized in the first place. “Always trying to take power” is a trait of low IQ populations who are unable to effectively coordinate in order to run a civilization.
The issue with the Irish is similar (but much weaker) to Jews- they aren’t Hajnals and have a higher level of clannishness. Without other ethnicities in a single state to compete against there is no reason to believe they’d be any more leftist then anyone else in Europe.
Irrelevant.
There’s every reason to believe the Irish would be as they are because that’s how they’ve been for hundreds of years.
Saying IF no other ethnics they would be the same is idiotic. There are always other ethnics. There is always power to be seized.
Burke was Irish. That tells you all you need to know with 98% accuracy.
Ideologies are externalizations of DNA interests by those of a certain bio-type.
Bio-type recognition and modification as percentage of nation with loyalty to Right alignment maxed by legal and societal protection and validation is the only way forward.
I think your position might be tenable if you had a table, rather tables, of data correlating what you refer to as “bio-type” (I think you are conflating this with ethnicity but it sounds like you are a half blood that hates one of your halves; happa’s dilemma lol) with political preference, longitudinally over, say, 3 centuries (enough time to establish real societal trends, similar to Colony Personality in types of ants where the Personality outlives the lifespan of the ant by magnitudes). But you probably A) have no such table(s) because B) you neither have the capability, acuity, or wherewithall to generate them, nor do you rub shoulders with those that might because C) it as actually you who are embodying the Boomer stereotype in that muh God Emperor didn’t GTJ;RWN and so you are blackpilled as well as constantly attributing to scientific reality what is actually a personal bias laid down by your mom’s ex-boyfriend who did some time with the Terrys during the Troubles.
“a table, rather tables of data correlating … ” WTF?? You nerd!
All you need is
Eyeballs and balls!
Confirmed for tremendous faggot.
“There’s every reason to believe the Irish would be as they are because that’s how they’ve been for hundreds of years.”
They’ve been subjects for hundreds of years. Prior to that their behavior wasn’t very different from Serbs.
“Saying IF no other ethnics they would be the same is idiotic. There are always other ethnics. There is always power to be seized.”
People react differently depending on the degree of relationship. The Jews in Israel have different behavior then Jews anywhere else.
“Burke was Irish. That tells you all you need to know with 98% accuracy. ”
Burke was Irish in a state run by Englishmen. There are plenty of historical Irishmen who had power whose plan for seizing further power involved violently beating the shit out of other Irishmen, not subversion.
Why not re-state your original points pointlessly?
The Irish were the same when they had freedom in the USA. Ever heard of the Kennedys? The fat one put through the immigration act that everyone is now living the nightmare.
“The Jews in Israel have different behavior then Jews anywhere else.”
What exactly is your solution in real world terms? Repatriate the Irish to Ireland and make it a homeland like Israel?
I like the Irish so my way is better.
Perhaps Irish-Americans wouldn’t have been so gung-ho for freedom if they’d known it would lead to Africans invading their neighborhoods and faggots marching in their parades.
The Irish DO tend to be more biologically inclined towards leftism then other whites (and the fact that they stayed Catholic didn”t help) the neetsoc is right about this… they stayed Democrats far longer then the Italians did and still tend to vote Democrat more.
The Scots-Irish just the opposite though closely related (a bit more English and Lowland Scot) the Scots-Irish are the most fanatically right wing whites (and not pozzed either they generally voted for Trump in the Republican primary) in the country beating out even emigre Russkies and Germans…
Trump openly announces that if the sanctuary cities want illegals he’ll ship them there. Which is of course what Obama did to GOP counties. That’s why we have MS13 on Long Island.
Trump’s no cuck. He’s not done fighting either.
You believers are so lame. Trump theatrics have done nothing meaningful. He just talks and does nothing.
The sanctuary cities are saying, great, give them to us.
If Trump shuttles millions of aliens into sanctuary cities do you think they will just stay there? They’ll be in your backyard before you know it.
Demographic overrun has no known antidote. Without demographic overrun there would have been no USA.
Trump has done nothing meaningful for increasing quality of life. He’s only tweaked economic data. So blacks and mexicans are a bit better off. Big deal.
Lifespan down, overcrowding up, future for America as it was is now at terminal velocity of decline.
Demographics is destiny.
Wall is getting built.
The great centralization has been reversed, which will have a major impact on electoral politics in 2020 by reversing Obama’s forced movement of white male working people from places where their federal votes mattered to places where their votes do not matter.
America has become a major oil exporter, the coal mines have restarted, the manufacturing jobs are coming back. Which means that white male working class voters are coming back to places where their votes matter in federal elections, coming back to places where they are not massively outvoted by a hostile enemy population imported to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democrat.
You commie shills don’t fool anyone.
Trump threatening to dump them all in San Francisco and LA got the 9th circus to back off. It forced the Democrats to either reveal their position even to stupid NPCs or alienate the left.
Now I wish he would just defy the courts on all non-domestic matters and just announce that he takes the view that the courts have no power to protect any non-citizen from presidential emergency police power… but he thinks hes not ready for that yet and he tends to be right.
Trump does not remotely have the nature to do the military actions you dreamers fantasize. He’s a boomer business guy. That’s it.
The Wall will be built in some form by any party that gets into power. If it’s the Democrats they will pull a Bill Clinton and legitimize their version of the wall.
It won’t matter.
Demographic overrun has no known antidote.
70,000 aliens in one month. 9th circus allows return to Mexico of a mere 1,000 asylum seekers.
70,000 aliens in to 1,000 out.
What will happen in the next ten years will show the power of flesh ueber alles.
Likely you are right – we need a warrior, not a merchant. But if Trump fails, nonetheless he prepares the way for the one who will come after. The time of democracy is ending, repeating the pattern of past endings of democracy. If we are lucky, democracy will end with Emperor Trump, the first of his name, and without much bloodshed. But if it does not end with Emperor Trump, the first of his name, democracy will end soon enough, perhaps in a river of blood. The deep state is sawing off the branch on which it sits.
Bezos and Musk are boomer business guys, and that is all there is to them. Trump is something considerably more.
Maybe Trump is not Cromwell, Napoleon, or Stalin, but if are lucky, he will be Deng Xiaoping, who was not a warrior either, and if we are not so lucky, Trump prepares the way for a Kemal Atatürk. The end of democracy is near, and Trump points the way.
Bezos’s social class is merchant, and the only reason why his space company Blue Origin is going to be a competitor to SpaceX is because he chose VTVL. Rockets should land as rockets should land.
Elon Musk’s social class was merchant. Mohammed’s social class was merchant as well. Joseph Smith was a farmer.
Elon musk‘s decisions are closer to that of a Prophet for both good and bad characteristics. A mere merchant would shy away and cower before the Eye of Soros even if the Eye of Soros’s sword was temporarily bound till 2024. The Prophet defies the Quraish even as the Quraish’s sword threatens him.
Looks to me that Musk is cowering before the Eye of Soros, but we shall see whether from now on Musk works on developing an earth to orbit stage that can land as a rocket should land, or like NASA, works on proving that women and blacks can be rocket scientists and that all white science was stolen from Muslims and blacks.
One big problem with Musk is he is at least 80% conman… if my money weren’t tied up in AMRN stock I’d be short Tesla and CVS (badly run idiot SJW CEO and Bezos has targetted their business, CVS is doomed).
Based on photos and video from Boca Chica, Prophet Elon Musk is ignoring the Eye of Soros… at least for now.
I wonder what path he will take when his Meccan phase is over and the Medinan phase starts. There’s Muhammed’s path, and there’s Joseph Smith’s path… among others.
Link and date please.
The eye of Soros fell upon Musk when he launched a Tesla to Marx orbit, and it was noticed that his rocket scientists celebrating their accomplishments were all white and male.
Have we since then seen any montages of all white male groups accomplishing great things and proud of their accomplishments?
@Cominator
Speaking of hucksterism, I think that’s a feature of every single prophet and religious founder. We don’t have much on Yeshua, since “Yeshua” was a common name in First Century Judea. But we have some on Muhammed and plenty on Joseph Smith. We can even get court records on Joseph Smith!
I’d strongly advise you not to short Tesla.
Yes he’s a conman: more than 80%.
Yes ‘space’ is, and always has been, mostly bullshit.
Yes the government’s up to its filthy neck in the stock market, corporate finance and capital relations.
That doesn’t mean – to put it mildly – that the stock’s performance next year will change for the worse.
This unsustainable crony-capitalist system was unsustainable and crony in the 1970s.
Doug Casey is on record on mainstream television in the 1980s telling everyone to short the markets and buy gold.
One wonders why he’s still doing it, until one observes, as always….. cui bono
Who’s doing WELL in 2019? You? Me? ‘Jim’?
No, but Elon Musk is lol
@Communist Revolutionary
“Yes ‘space’ is, and always has been, mostly bullshit.”
With reusable boosters now a thing, you and your fellow academics now know space settlement is going to happen… unless you make it illegal. The Eye of Soros cannot just proclaimT space travel illegal, otherwise normie progressives and liberals will start to notice evil. And the Pentagon will start to notice…
Thus backdoor methods such as demanding diversity to effectively ban space travel.
Prophet Musk considers the Eye of Soros as legitimate as Prophet Muhammad considered the Quraysh establishment legitimate. He gives them lip service at the same time he despises them.
The links above show that Musk is building prototypes in defiance of the Eye of Soros. Plenty of photos and videos.
@jim
POsted the links further up this thread. See bocachicagal and nasaspaceflight forums forums
Jim’s spot on about AI. I’ve been fighting Autocorrect everytime I post, ditto for voice to text.
THe tests were just a few days ago. The posts in forums s are da dated of course.
And those who think AI will be conscious anytime soon are full of shit.
Musk has promised us the BFR, consisting of the starhopper with re-entry and landing capability on top of the superheavy booster with landing capability. Two stage to orbit.
Superheavy booster does not yet exist, but is just a scaling up of his existing technology. Except he laid off the team that gave him landing capability.
The hard part is going to be re-entry. The relatively easy part is going to be landing capability, since that has already been done once. But as yet, not seeing any tests of landing capability, which is going to require a complete prototype spacecraft – as yet no complete prototype starhopper.
Untethered hop tests will be a test of landing capability and a testbed for developing landing capability.
It is early days yet. We cannot say that he has lost the capability to actually deliver based on performance as yet. But neither is existing performance indication that he retains the capability to deliver. Successful untethered test hops would indicate he has not yet lost the capability to deliver landing technology, but would not necessarily indicate he still has the capability to advance rocket technology, to deliver controlled re-entry capability.
I conjecture he has lost the ability to advance rocket technology, because if he had it, we would be seeing white male scientists up front saying they can deliver.
The tethered fire vehicle looked mighty crappy and did not look much like the proposed starhopper, looked like he had hastily whipped up something in place of the real thing – looked like a fake demo to provide the appearance of progress.
The proposed re-entry shields on the starhopper seem more like a crazy idea for a technology, rather than a technology. Stainless steel melts with spectacular swiftness at mach four or five. Stainless steel heat shields seem to me blue sky dreams, like the Google self driving car seemed to me. You are going to need blankets of silicon carbide fiber. Re-entry is a hard problem, and stainless steel is treating it as an easy problem.
Stainless steel heat shields incline me to doubt that Musk is serious about a re-usable earth to orbit rocket.
@jim
Since there’s a a shit-ton of posts now, reposting the links here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47729.520
https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1114390314565787648
Unresponsive.
Your links show rockets going up, but they have strangely ceased to show white males causing rockets to go up.
Which foreshadows inability of white males to cooperate on getting rockets up, because they have to defer to black single women and pretend that black women are sending rockets up.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47729.620
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47352.msg1923745#msg1923745
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47184.240
This has more photos of full size STarship upper stagea being built
I will type out more detail after I get back to AB keep a keyboard, fuck AI
Because the Eye Of Soros has fallen upon him, Musk is abandoning efforts to get an upper stage that can return from orbit and land as a rocket should land, because he cannot politically afford the white male team that would be needed for such an effort.
@jim
The rockets are clearly going up. Prophet Muhammad had to give lip service to his Quraysh enemies, while despising them. Looks like Elon Musk is doing the same thing that Muhammad did in his Meccan days.
The men who made the rockets go up have been hastily hustled off the stage.
The rockets will stop improving and in time stop working. There will be no earth to orbit stage that returns to earth as a rocket should return.
Routine economical access to space requires a reusable earth to orbit stage. We will not get it, until women are sent back to the bedroom and the kitchen.
@jim
Are you referring to the carbon fiber workers?
The Starship/Superheavy is now made of stainless steel. Not carbon fiber.
I refer to absence of images of white male engineer celebrating their successes. Stainless steel is a symptom of a disease that starts with codes of conduct and rapidly proceeds to credits. Stainless steel is downstream of the problem. Further downstream is strange absence of an orbital stage making a controlled landing.
@jim
Huh?
They just tested the Starhopper to verify that the Raptor engine and integrated vehicle can fly up against the tether in the correct direction before they can start untethered hops.
The choice of stainless steel was already explained in my previous posts upstream of this thread.
As for absence of televised images, it looks like Musk is giving lip service in much the same way Czar Vladimir Putin gave lip service to liberalism in the 1990’s, early 2000’s and Muhammad gave lip service to the Quraysh in the time he was still in Mecca.
If anyone wonders what Jim and I were talking about referring to the Eye of Soros.
Behold the Eye of Soros!
https://youtu.be/FbzegGHkk8c
Notice that the comments are overwhelmingly in favor of Prophet Elon Musk, and overwhelmingly against the Eye of Soros.
@jim
“Stainless steel melts with spectacular swiftness at mach four or five. ”
Stainless steel starts to lose strength at 1700 – 2100F depending on what alloys you’re using. Mach 25+ re-entry temperatures can get higher than 3000F in the hottest places.
Note that the Falcon 9 first stage separates at Mach 7 – 10, much higher than Mach 4 – 5. It uses a re-entry burn then a titanium transpiration cooled heat shield at the base to protect itself on re entry.
The transpiration cooling is supposed to keep stainless steel below the temperature where it starts losing strength. The idea was proposed in the 1970’s to replace fragile silica tiles or replace ablative heat shields. VTVL and building steel rockets out in the field were proposed in the 1970’s also, and weren’t done until DC-X (VTVL) and SpaceX started doing it.
If anyone is curious, go to the beginning of the phase one thread where people were incredulous (in December, they thought it was a water tower) that you can build methalox propellant tank rocket bodies on a field by the beach. You can’t do that with carbon fiber.
It goes past Mach 5 up where the air is too thin to burn it. Trouble is when it comes down again back into thicker air.
Titanium can handle higher temperatures than stainless steel, and orbital re-entry is far hotter than stage one re-entry.
So if stainless steel was not good enough for stage one re-entry, not going to have the chance of a snowball in hell on orbital re-entry.
Dragon one re-entry uses a heat shield composed of a knitted carbon fiber blanket impregnated with resin, similar to the fibreglass plus resin material used on surfboards and some boats.
I would argue for knitted silicon carbide fiber, but everyone is using carbon fiber, which is known to work. Carbon fiber has a considerably higher heat resistance than silicon carbide fiber, but it burns, hence the heat shield is ablative and would have to be replaced after every flight. Maybe silicon carbide fiber would be more appropriate for a re-usable vehicle.
A reusable vehicle earth to orbit vehicle should re-enter tail first, so should have a movable heat shields, or group of heat shields, that on re-entry moves to cover its tail, instead of a fixed heat shield on its nose.
A booster wants to enter tailfirst, the closer a re entry design respects that, the more likely it will succeed.
In reality, nobody – including Musk – knows what a reusable upper stage looks like until they fly and test the designs until failure. This is how SpaceX got its reusable first stage to work. In 2016 I gave Trump a 50/50 chance of winning due to the fact that he actually fights and has a powerful charismatic ability with billions behind him. I give Musk a 50/50 chance of successfully getting a reusable upper stage before the Eye of Soros gets its physical means of state violence back after 2024.
Because his social class is “prophet,” for good and bad reasons.
https://mobile.twitter.com/NORADCommand/status/1118208899893604353
If anybody wants to discuss technical aspects, I put the links up thread from Nasaspaceflight forums.
I know what a re-usable upper stage looks like. It has deployable heat shields that it can deploy around its base and engines. Before re-entering, it turns tail first and fires its engines to brake, so that it will enter the atmosphere. It deploys its head shields, and it enters tail first. When it approaches the ground, it raises its heat shields, deploys its landing struts (possibly partially deployed heat shields may double as landing struts) and fires its engines,
And that is not what Musk is building.
A heat shield composed of knitted silicon carbide fiber might be re-usable for many missions. A heat shield of carbon fiber (which is what everyone is currently using) is going to be single use and the outer part discarded during landing, because you are going to land with it on fire. Carbon fiber has greater heat resistance than silicon carbide fiber, but it burns.
Complex structures of boron carbide fiber can be fabricated by the method of simply weaving plain cotton into desired shapes, saturating it in a solution of boric material, and firing it, leaving you with an elegantly made nanostructure compositions on large scale.
“70000 to 1000”
Show your source. I haven’t read this anywhere.
Booker has not shown his source on the 70000 to 1000 claim.
If he does not it should be assumed to be commie bullshit.
What have you read anywhere?
How many aliens came in in January 2019?
How many aliens came in in February 2019?
When you falsely claimed Trump’s theatrics caused the 9th circus to back off what is your source for How many will the 9th circus send back?
Commie liar. The administration said they would be making all asylum seekers after a certain date remain in Mexico.
The 9th circuit then said this was not allowed… then they said it was at least temporarily. There was nothing about 1000 out of 70000 only. You shills always give yourselves away.
Lazy wretch.
“The Administration said”. With your childish beliefs I won’t let you waste more of my time in the future.
Here are links you should have been able to find on you own:
“Since January, the administration has sent more than 1,000 asylum seekers, mostly from Central America, back to Mexico to wait the months or years it can take to process claims through an overloaded immigration system.”
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2019/04/13/Appeals-court-temporarily-allows-return-of-asylum-seekers-to-Mexico/3391555175156/
As for aliens coming in:
76,000 in February alone.
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2019/04/09/maga-border-crossings-hit-decade-high-in-march/
In the future make sure you have backing for your pathetic wishful thinking about Trump.
Whether you are a commie liar or a blackpilled neetsoc you have moved the goalposts. You claimed that the 9th circus has only allowed him to send 1000 asylum seekers back. That is b.s.. As to homeland insecurity being a typical inefficient government bureaucracy and full of liberals Trump just fired almost their whole leadership… They’ll still be inefficient but you won’t get mass deportations until bounty hunting illegals becomes a thing. You expect the impossible from Trump while we still have a Democratic government but with the system we have now Trump is as good as it gets.
@Booker
Jim has photos and video on his side regarding the construction of the wall… you have Hunter Wallace, a goddamned COINTEL controlled opposition.
Hunter Wallace routinely disregards infosec and routinely fails the RedPill 101 test in women among other things.
See “weev on hunter Wallace.”
For today, so far, all of them, in the sense that Trump is ignoring the asylum loophole, in the sense that for some time Trump has been shipping every Mexican claiming asylum back to Mexico to await processing, and the ninth circuit Oked him continuing to do so – modulo various loopholes, such as the accompanied minor exception.
In this he follows the footsteps of Tony Abbot and the Australian government, which ships all asylum seekers who set foot illegally on Australian soil off to some third world shithole to await processing, while ensuring that they are entirely safe from the real or imagined threats that they are supposedly fleeing – which processing never results in entry to Australia.
Theories based on temporary rulings are nothing. Trump is a master at signalling and not delivering.
He may send back a few thousand. So what? There are tens of thousands of aliens coming each month.
The Trump administration grants record numbers of H-2B Visas too.
Now he wants to boost legal immigration.
Trump is doing nothing that every government is now doing.
Even Trudeau in Canada is stopping the flow.
The river of flesh cometh.
Trump is delivering the wall. You can see the wall.
Trump delivered on coal, on oil, and on the return of manufacturing jobs.
I, too, wanted Trump to be great. But he’s great only in comparison to the pock-marked hellscape in which we would today be living if Clinton had been President.
I look forward to the day that Trump announces his declaration of IC castration, but until that day — don’t try to put that fucking bullshit over me.
Liar.
You are a commie, and commies intend to murder everyone like me. I have been on your very long list of people to be eliminated come the revolution for a long time.
You also intend to murder everyone who looks like the kind of person who voted for Trump, everyone who looks like the kind of person who might have voted against Saint Hillary.
Every Trump hater hates Trump because Trump is not Hillary, not Obama, and has not made a good start on murdering every non Jewish white heterosexual male.
Every Trump hater hates Trump because Trump is inconveniently in the way of mass robbery, mass murder, and the dispossession of white males, and is irritatingly slowing down your program.
“Demographic overrun has no known antidote.”
Oh sweetie. IT CERTAINLY DOES. Demography is LIFE.
LIFE has a well known antidote.
However if your certain there’s no point your a free man, thing…person..something…. do free yourself of your mortal coils.
DEATH IS THE ANTIDOTE.
Take the Blue Pill ..take em all.
You’re an imbecile. Theoretical antidotes are not antidotes.
How is death as an antidote to life theoretical? You must be in quite a mother’s basement if you honestly believe that. Your blackpilled horseshit needs censoring.
Anti-Trump = Enemy leftist. Every time.
This isn’t a problem with Libertarianism (whether as a movement or as a theory).
It’s a result of “libertarians” (in USA, at least) being thoroughly infiltrated by both Progressives and Conservatives in-all-but-name trying to flank each other. They even repeat respective memes, up to and including shibboleths. Of course, Progressives wearing fig leaves would say all that.
Now, complete inability to resist even most brazen infiltration is an obvious and probably unresolvable problem with Libertarianism (as a movement). :]
LOL at the idea that conservatives being able to infiltrate anything they are as ill suited for spying as they are at winning at politics.
[…] The origin of cuckservatism Jims Blog of course. […]
Burke was Irish.
That’s all you really need to know.
Burke is the better man.
Of course! He spawned a whole line of noble losers, so he must be the noblest of them all!
Impudence. Nonsense.
I wish I were a photoshop type I’d make a meme of a monarchist pepe gassing the cuck Burke.
The best takedown of Burke i have encountered is James Anthony Froude. I recommend The Bow of Ulysses as well as all of his other numerous works. He very succinctly explains what is wrong with Burke and his ilk, far better than any contemporary, Burke’s or ours.
Frederick: Froude’s prose style is pretty good. However, I do not notice Burke’s name (nor any obvious reference by title, office, etc.) in the table of contents of The Bow of Ulysses. Would you like to direct my attention to a specific chapter and section?
Bow of Ulysses – Pg. 14 – Chapter II – – – “The silent men do the work. The talking men cry out at what is done because it is not done as they would have it, and afterwards take possession of it as if it were their own property. Warren Hastings wins India for us; the eloquent Burke desires and passionately tries to hang him for it.”
This chapter is an aside reflection penned by Froude on his way from the City to the Port as he is embarking on his journey. He is speaking directly to Gladstone’s critique of Tennyson’s “Locksley Hall.” He invokes Burke only once here, but it is within a rhetorical structure intended to argue for the doer of deeds and against the twisters of words.
“Institutions are the slow growth of centuries. The orator cuts them down in a day.”
“The periods were the orator is supreme are marked always by confusion and disintegration.”
Thank you. I have now read the extended passage in the original. I cannot say that I find the passage instantly or wholly persuasive but Froude makes a point worth considering, does he not? His prose credits him, at any rate. That is something.
Do you have an original bound copy?? I have a PDF printed into a book. I treasure it for its intellectual value, but i would love to have an actual copy.
To me, that section of Chapter II is one of the best parts of an incredibly good book. The whole book is fascinating, but this section is incredibly relevant in terms of where America sits in comparison to where the UK sat during the time of BoU’s writing.
I fantasize about doing an homage to Froude by touring America’s colonies that have been abandoned to their own devices; Liberia, Japan, Philippines, Honduras, Colombia…
Abebooks seem to have numerous copies at various price points. I naturally recommend the 1888 edition.
https://www.abebooks.com/
Thank you for the link. I might pick one up. If i ever “make” it i will track down an original.
Here is one i am looking forward to buying. Maybe you will find it interesting…
https://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Swearing-Profanity-Language-English-speaking/dp/0765612313/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=the+encyclopedia+of+swearing&qid=1555565934&s=gateway&sr=8-1
The whole thing is up on https://archive.org/stream/englishinwestind00frouiala/englishinwestind00frouiala_djvu.txt which makes Ctrl+F “burke” easy but not so ideal for reading the whole thing.
I read at Archive.org as @TheDividualist said, only the copy I read was a scanned PDF of an old codex. If one can search a scanned PDF via control-F, I had not known that.
Orator => sophist. Without exaggeration, sophism cannot make, it can only mock.
Sophism was reintroduced in the West when the library at Toledo was recaptured around 1100. The library held Greek texts as well as derivative Latin works.
Other then Moldbug’s indirect attack on Burke which made me think I had seen the face of God the 1st time I read it (other then his unrealistic cryptographic sovcorp solution and strange liking for the Catholic Church).
Damn that sounds good. Link?
I refer to Moldbug’s Open Letter… it attacked conventional American conservatism as an insane deluded controlled op which fundamentally dare not disagree on too much with the ruling religion… I always thought that was the best attack on Burke.
Surely I’m not the only one who read the “Open Letter” and thought (about the parts where he described American politics, not about the parts where he said what his solutions were) that it was almost a transcendent epiphany of truth.
I am under attack from NPC spambots, and the filter algorithm is getting mighty trigger happy.
If your comments are suppressed, just wait a while, and I will lift it out of the moderation queue. Sometimes it goes all the way to spam, and I don’t see it in the moderation queue. If that happens, let me know, and I will search the spam pile.
I wonder why we never get feminist spambots saying the “As a woman NPC script” here… its always Marxists and white knights but no feminist shills or shills claiming to be a trad woman who nevertheless thinks we should continue this and this feminist policy and is shocked and appalled that we think she should be property again…
Cominator,
Saw the link you posted below to the Open Letter. Will read. Thank you.
For some reason I tried to respond and my comment was under moderation and then didn’t appear. I don’t know why…
I referred as I said to Moldbug’s open letter which also attacked conservatives (who at least theoretically followed Burke) as a hapless controlled op and outer party quite brilliantly.
http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/moldbugs-open-letter/
Man… finding Moldbug rather a slog. Everyone said he’d blow my mind…
It’s impossible to digest Moldbug in one sitting. His essays were meant to be read ~weekly.
Perhaps because you are somewhat familiar with some of the ideas… back when he wrote them they were pretty novel. The closest (non ancient) writer with remotely similar ideas (and they were still far different) was Jerry Pournelle but he only had part of it (though he went into more detail into how science was pozzed).
>Cloudswrest, Cominator.
Will keep reading. I’m not giving up on him yet.
He’s erudite as fuck-all, I’ll give him that.
I like neither the open letter nor Dawkins re: pwned.
Read the formalist manifesto, the very first post. Literally the rest of the blog is an expansion on that post.
Also read the latest two – brown scare and Mr. Jones is concerned.
Then read anything else that strikes your fancy. If you feel something is insufficiently supported, then you can probably get specific recommendations.
Always thought How Dawkins got Pwned was his best. But reading Moldbug is a bit of a chore because he uses thousand words where ten would’ve sufficed. Erudite as he is, he only got away with that because those ten words were absolute genius.
I’ve heard lots of people say Moldbug used too many words, and so far zero of them have been able to give an example. Can you? Summarize some Moldbug without losing anything?
I always thought Moldbug’s big strength was describing how our current system (pre Trump… its a bit more chaotic now and some things really have changed) REALLY worked.
I always thought formalism was one of Moldbug’s weaker ideas (and most of his solutions left something to be desired)… I think this is because (and I’m not particulary anti-semitic) Moldbug being Jewish couldn’t resist trying to be at least a little utopian.
So he said instead of restoring what he would call “Optimate-Vaisya” regimes (what Jim would call “warrior” regimes) he wanted to try to outdo history with some kind of technocracy which in practice would probably be dystopian in its own way no matter how much theoretical right of exit existed.
How Dawkins got pwned is almost 40.000 words. That’s a book. And it’s only one of his many essays. It’s no secret that Moldbug is verbose.
“Professor Dawkins is pwned because he’s chosen quite unthinkingly to lend his literary talents to a received tradition I call Universalism, which is a nontheistic Christian sect. Some other current labels for this same tradition, more or less synonymous, are progressivism, multiculturalism, liberalism, humanism, leftism, political correctness, and the like. ”
There. 40.000 words condensed in, what 20.
Formalism: depends on what it means. I don’t like the idea of joint-stock corporate states much. But the basic formalist idea of not lying to ourselves, of making informal relations formal makes my inner autist happy. Normies would never accept it because like playing that game, navigating informal rule-systems, precisely because informal power is not tightly linked with responsibility as much as formal power is. And politicians and suchlike are supernormies.
The real problem with formalism is that it is not really possible. Remember the Ethereum DAO hack story? Code-as-contract is the closest thing we have to formalism, and a lot of people argued that there should not be a hard fork to fix it for this reason. But others argued that the way Ethereum and even Bitcoin works is that the miners are the judges. That is, if they find some transaction wrong, immoral, unjust, whatever you call it, they have the right and ability to roll it back. This is written right into the technology. Thus, code-is-contract was a somewhat misleading term. Those who interpreted it as something unbreakable were wrong. Those who interpreted it as something you can make a case in front of a court of law, where the judges are the miners, got it right. When it became clear a lot of folks got disgusted. I proposed back then that if the miners are a Supreme Court of Ethereum let’s formalize that and there should be a process of formal appeals to that court. https://dividuals.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/why-the-code-is-law-hence-no-fork-position-with-regard-to-the-ethereum-dao-is-inconsistent/
We need one man with power and ability to make exceptions to the rules. The problem with informality and officially unofficial rules is that you get a thousand people able to make exceptions to the rules.
Further, the difference between official reality and actual reality deceives, confuses and misleads people, often with fatal consequences, and is intended to deceive.
I’ve never felt that Moldbug was too wordy or dense. His style always reminded me of Terry Pratchett or Douglas Adams. It’s fun, delicious, potent writing (other than the Ashkenazim identitarianism).
I just noticed these additional posts on entry points for Moldbug. Will keep reading.
I agree with Alf about Moldbug’s wordiness.
There is something interesting here. https://archive.org/stream/englishinwestind00frouiala/englishinwestind00frouiala_djvu.txt Ctrl+F Cicero:
“Institutions are the slow growths of centuries.
The orator cuts them down in a day. The tree falls, and
the hand that wields the axe is admired and applauded. The
speeches of Demosthenes and Cicero pass into literature,
and are studied as models of language. But Demosthenes
and Cicero did not understand the facts of their time ;
their language might be beautiful, and their sentiments
noble, but with their fine words and sentiments they
only misled their countrymen.”
It is interesting because Cicero played a role similar to Burke in the history of conservatism. Burke was himself an avid Cicero reader.
Cicero, to me, sounds like very much the textbook “libertarian conservative”. Who is overly afraid of power. Take, for example this: http://www.historymuse.net/readings/CiceroJustifiesAssassination.htm
It is very good so far that Cicero was on the side of the Optimates, not the Populists. That is a good rightist thing to do. But Cicero’s fear of kingship, personal rule, “tyranny” is similar to that of Burke type Old Whigs. If he just said they need a different king, less like Caesar and more like Sulla, that would have been okay. Because Caesar came from the left much like how Napoleon came from the left. But the categorical refusal of personal rule is something else.
Indeed. The Bible warns of the burdens of personal rule, but also illegitimizes resisting it, either as institution or individual king. It is clear that even the sovereigns of foreign nations and empires, who could not possibly have been anointed by a priest of Jehovah, nonetheless are set up and brought down by Him. Only a fool calls a God-instituted form of government illegitimate.
Those not smart enough to figure out from the text that it is sometimes legitimate to topple a king, in times and places of God’s silence, when no word or instruction is given, have no business attempting it anyway.
If the constitution and institutions of Burke’s Britain retained predominance and a degree of integrity, then I would wish to conserve them. It is precisely because the constitution and institutions of Burke’s Britain have lost predominance, integrity, or both that I read Jim’s blog. Others may have other reasons to read but Reaction has something useful to say under present conditions at least. This is my view.
Burke was indeed an orator (as, at this moment, are you and I) but, otherwise, the quoted passage describes the opposite of Burke. Burke felt that it was his king who was cutting down the slow growths. Burke might have been wrong, of course (though I doubt it), but tyranny is not really an institution, nor is it a slow growth.
Regarding Cicero, I know too little to comment.
Cicero was an enemy of Julius Caesar, opponents of Caesar among Roman politicians are as worthy as say opponents of Trump among American politicians.
Mark Antony was quite right to insist Cicero be on top of the proscription list.
Greatest show in television history:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H9JGAbMijg
LOL this is not at all relevant but I’ve been rewatching that series lately. They really make poor Lepidus look so much dumber then he was.
Its too bad they rushed the series due to budget reasons… love Mark Antony’s character and actor…
Froude accurately foresaw the future. He know of what he speaks.
Froude interpreted Burke as destroying the institutions of centuries.
Froude was there. I interpret Burke as destroying the institutions of centuries, destroying social technology, Burke’s ready resort to throne and altar confirms this, Froude interpreted Burke as destroying the institutions of centuries, and Froude is a good authority.
When Burke attacked the King as destroying the institutions of centuries, this is like today’s progressives telling us that to fail to do gay weddings is unchristian, that to oppose abortions without the husband’s consent is unchristian. This is like pastors adding mutual submission to Paul on marriage.
Noted.
I admit that, having read hundreds of pages of Burke, I am unlikely to abandon decades of admiration of Burke on this new advice. Nevertheless, yours and your readers’ is the first substantive criticism from the Right of Burke I remember reading. I will remember it.
The Burke of Authority is great. The Burke of Liberty is the father of cuckservatism, sawing of the branch on which the Burke of Authority sat.
Froude is consistent – he paints a very unflattering picture of Cicero in Caesar: a Sketch. He shows Cicero as a someone who gained what power he had only through oration and had no idea what the actual problems facing Rome were and what could be done to solve them. Caesar was unacceptable because he was going to change the dysfunctional status quo but Cicero understood how to exercise power in the status quo.
An example that he cites is when Caesar introduced the Julian calendar because the contemporary Roman calendar had drifted months away from the seasons – Cicero attacked him saying that Caesar was arrogant enough to think he could change the date – surely an effective rhetorical attack but opposite the reality and more importantly an attempt to block a solution to a problem that a *leader* wanted solved because the leader had responsibility. Perfect encapsulation of the orator / leader gap that Froude discusses.
I will have to read him having long had a very skeptical view of Burke and always having had a negative view of all of the opponents of Julius Caesar including Cicero (I hate people who become prominent based purely on bullshit and that is all Cicero ever was).
Various replies have made a few interesting points but one suspects that some (including me) have read too little Cicero and (excluding me) have watched too much television drama about Cicero.
That some here should verbally attack Cicero for being verbal strikes me as ironic, or maybe strikes me as merely clumsy, especially when Cicero’s verba were so much better than ours.
Caesar and Cicero are historical figures. Bugs Bunny and Batman are television characters. You and I are neither, so we should learn to tell the difference.
When looking at American politics in our time it really is as simple. If you oppose Trump you need a free helicopter ride.
When looking at Roman politics during the time of Julius Caesar it really is simple… Caesar’s opponents all needed a free ride off the Tarpeian Rock and Cicero was an opponent of Caesar.
Trump is no Caesar. Trump is not even a Pinochet.
I had hoped that Trump would be much better. I was wrong.
Trump doesn’t have that kind of power yet and he had a two year delay because of Sessions but even with that two year delay he has made things a lot better (even if the left has gotten a lot worse to outside appearance them taking the mask off is a good thing really not a bad one).
Things are going smoothly now with Barr… NRxers are the “vanguard” of the right. Stop blackpilling, set an example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOnEcQGZhcI
Jeff Sessions, though perhaps in declining health, was the best man the Trump administration had. Donald Trump has not done everything wrong but is overall a gaudy disappointment—except to Zionists, for whom he is a ridiculous tool.
If Trump and Sessions did not get along, you can blame whom you want. I blame Trump.
Unless you expected Sessions to go full Alt Right (and he went more Alt Right than Trump ever did), Sessions chief fault was that he was too honest a man for a rogue like Trump to employ.
Instead of blaming Sessions for incorruptibly honoring an innocent recusal, Trump should just have fired Rod Rosenstein. Would that have been so hard?
An ordinary private citizen, I can nothing to ameliorate the many failures of Donald Trump, but to make excuses for the man is an activity that no longer appeals to me. Your mileage may vary.
Nuts
Jeff Sessions was in on the attempted color revolution and coup against Trump.
In the end, the revolutionaries are going to kill Trump and his family, or Trump is going to kill them. If we are very lucky, he is going to kill them.
Jeff Sessions, Mueller, and many of the top people in the FBI deserve death as a traitors.
We have been for some time sliding towards a situation where power struggles involve violence rather than politics. Unpunished treason needs to be punished.
If Jeff Sessions and company are not eventually executed, we will continue to slide towards civil war and/or democide, for if Trump is removed by conspiracy and color revolution, the leftist that replaces him will find himself deemed insufficiently left, and will also be removed by conspiracy and color revolution – as happened in revolutionary France and revolutionary Russia.
The government conspired to remove the Tsar, and thought that once they removed the Tsar, they could return everything to normal – but instead the left devoured the left.
It the fallacy of the last move. The leftist sees he can get something by breaking rules, but does not see that this will result in someone else also getting it by breaking rules and breaking them harder.
The people around the Tsar, and the people around the King of France, thought they could just send him off to summer camp, and after that small bit of illegality, everything would continue as normal, except with themselves in power. But power fell into the street, and everyone started grabbing for it.
Similarly, Jeff Sessions thinks that Trump can be arrested for some crime or other and sent to some pleasantly comfortable prison for elite white collar criminals, without the inconvenience of an impeachment, and everything will go back to normal. It will not return to normal. If someone gets power by breaking the rules, then very quickly everyone is going to be breaking the rules. So in the end, the struggle for power is going to be quelled by executing people struggling for power, and the sooner Jeff Sessions is executed, whether by Holy American Emperor Trump for excessive leftism or by a holier-than-thou brown lesbian socialist president for insufficient leftism, the sooner normality will return.
To get stability, we need a rule that if you strike the King and fail to kill him, you die. The only question is how many deaths it will take before that rule returns.
Loyalty’s a funny thing. I must admit I was baffled when I said something similar about Sessions being one of the high points of the administration and was met with such a harsh push-back, but now I see it wasn’t just personal.
I’d forgotten about Rosenstein, but of course now it makes perfect sense.
Loyalty’s a funny thing.
Trump is our leader. He is not one of us, but we are one of him.
Disloyalty to our leader is unacceptable. Sessions was disloyal.
Further, if we are going to become Caesar’s priesthood, we need a demonstrated record of loyally supporting potential Caesars even if they are less than ideal, for we are never going to get an ideal Caesar, and Caesar will never trust us if we demand perfection.
The time of democracy is ending, and Session’s participation in attempted color revolution means the end is happening right now. It is time for Caesar, and time for state religion that endorses rule by Caesar.
If Trump fails, we should nonetheless conduct ourselves in such a way that the coming Caesar knows he can rely on us.
Sessions deserves death, and if, as is depressingly likely, we do not get a Holy Emperor Trump the first who executes him, we are likely to get a holier than thou brown lesbian socialist president who executes him, and lots of other people. But when she is outflanked on the left, she may realize that she needs us. And if she does not, the person who kills her, or the person that kills him, will likely eventually figure out that he needs us. But by that time the mass graves may well be rather large.
We should conduct ourselves as if we are already in the time of Caesar, because we are already in the time Caesar, it is just that no one has yet realized it.
I just got my first Nuts from Jim. ‘Tis an honor, sir. Rare is the blogger who can pull nearly a thousand comments by a single post.
I cannot agree with you about Sessions, though, for whom I have long retained a warm regard. I believe that you should regard him warmly, too. Sessions is an honest man stranded in our postmodern age, an age not made for men like him, alas. Trump critically failed by omitting to find a way to work productively with a man like that, which should have been easy for Trump to do. This is my view.
When Ann Coulter observes that Sessions alone did more to implement the agenda outlined in Trump’s inaugural address than Trump ever did, and that Trump did as much as anyone to kick away Sessions’ otherwise safe Senate seat, I believe that Coulter has a point.
Thus, against Sessions, I believe that you go too far.
Telling Jim of the Blog that he has gone too far has seldom, as far as I know, persuaded Jim to pull back! I get that, it’s a point of style without which the blog would hardly be what it is; but I still think that you err on this point.
I am not the scholar of 17th-century England you are, but one might find a suitable parallel figure for Sessions. Surely the 17th century too witnessed honest men who loved their country. (I hesitate to ask, though. If I know you, the parallel of whom you think will turn out to be someone whose head rolled in the Tower—and your story, if you ever told it, would be as edifying as it were entertaining—but, still, all the while, I will stand by Jeff Sessions.)
Thanks for the colloquy.
If his understanding of the duties of Attorney General required him to abandon his power and authority to men that he probably knew, and surely strongly suspected, were engaged in illegal acts with the intent of overthrowing the president, then it was his duty to resign.
“Sessions is an honest man stranded in our postmodern age, an age not made for men like him”
Was it honest to beg Trump for the job of AG and then use the power of that office to cover for his enemies all in the name of “muh rule of law” which is a stupid and meaningless lawyer bullshit phrase anyway.
Its especially treasonous because Trump is the 1st President in generations who is truly on our side and it took a lot to get them where he was. Sessions piously pleading muh rule of law muh fair indepedent Justice Department does not mitigate that its instead hypocritical and disgusting.
Sessions is a traitor and traitors need to die in disgrace, leave their families with their name in disgrace and have their estates confiscated.
You have rightly rebuked some others for unresponsiveness. I should thus specifically respond.
I can hardly prove that he was not in on it, but my sense of the matter differs vastly from yours. You may judge me to remain benighted on this point.
I am not brave enough to comment on specific high public officials who might get killed, but, yes, I believe that you place the present dangers in a proper historical frame.
You frame the context clearly. I have nothing to add to my already-stated my view on Sessions and should not broaden my scope to Muller today, but I believe that I grasp your context, I acknowledge the fairly immediate pertinence of the context, and, within the context, recognize your logic as sound. I still think that Trump should easily have found a way to get along with this particular man, though.
Skilfully put. I will think about it.
(Your next several paragraphs, which lend hard historical context, speak for themselves and require no response from me as far as I know.)
He does? This is more than I know.
As far as I know, our fallen world has always been so. Power struggles will be Byzantine, even in America.
It would be unreasonable for me to ask you to elaborate on every point, so I do not ask, but as for me, I doubt that executing the mild Jeff Sessions—of all persons—would hasten the return of normality.
When Jeff Sessions recused himself, he granted his power to enemies of Trump performing criminal acts to overthrow the president. End of story.
Well, not quite the end of story, because if criminal acts to seize power go unpunished, they will escalate.
The why of Jeff Sessions treason doesn’t really matter… if we win and he hasn’t expired naturally he needs to die. Regardless of whether he was a good guy in the Senate before he became a traitor.
When you’re a traitor there should be no getting you off for old times sake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFqgRFal35A
Your reasoning here waxes profound. To add to or subtract from it exceeds my ability. Very quotable.
Notwithstanding, there is more than one kind of loyalty. I will stand by Jeff Sessions.
War approaches. Good men who are on the wrong side must die. When war approaches, the side that moves first to war rules – which is at present the left – has the advantage.
And I do not believe Jeff Sessions was a good man, playing by rules that the people he delegated power to failed to observe, and that he must have known were not observing and not likely to observe. If he felt his moral duty required this, his moral duty required him to resign.
And resigning would have had better prospects for his long term survival.
We’re not planning to kill him personally, when Sessions dies it should be the result of Trump “lawfully” ordering his execution.
But Trump should order his execution the second he has the power to do so (along with the entire Democratic party that holds office and a lot of the Republicans who have been less then reliable as well). A RESTORATION is not a dinner party.
Harrison I’m very glad to see a conservative exploring alternatives. You mentioned somewhere else on here I think that you hadn’t encountered critiques of capitalism from the right. (Maybe it was on a different blog.)
I’ve been struggling with this writer for a long time. Our views aren’t compatible. I’m sure the far right is a broad church and there’s room for a wide range of opinion on matters social and economic. One man’s restoration is another’s degenerate hellhole.
I’ve finally caved in and started blogging.
The host may decide it’s not his obligation, or not in his interests, to ‘promote’ ideas with which he vehemently disagrees, so you might not see this link, but here it is anyway: there’s only a very small amount of content so far but this is the central bone of contention – the fundamental case against consumer capitalism and individual freedom from the right:
https://chromium.fashion.blog/2019/04/24/degeneracy-perfection-and-human-rights/
Apologies for the URL – I’m a cheapskate and might not stick at this blogging thing. It seems safer than YouTube videos, and for the moment is less susceptible to persecution from the state or from woke capital, but we shall see. I’m too ‘black pilled’ for sticking my head above the parapet.
>Jeff Sessions was in on the attempted color revolution and coup against Trump.
No.
A little over 2 years into the Trump administration and almost of the early adopters, the true believers in Trumpism, have been purged from high positions. Exactly one prominent one remains- Stephen Miller, perhaps protected by his Jewish plot armor. Miller- who would not be out of place on any far-right blog or image board, who the chans affectionately dubbed Goebbels, and who the left reached a similar conclusion about, with good reason.
Do you know where this LITERALLY NAZI jew gem came from? Jeff Sessions plucked him fresh out of graduation and made his career. Trump’s immigration policy paper, the first major document issued on his campaign website, was drafted “in cooperation with” (i.e., completely written by) Sessions’ office. The voice of the early Trump policy, when the campaign first crossed over from fun bluster to something with actual content, was the voice of Session’s office.
Sessions fucked up, without qualification and without excuse. The appointment of the Special Counsel was a wildly destructive mistake and shows that Sessions never should have been made AG.
But Sessions’ failings were a matter of personality and an inability to judge his enemies properly, of a belief in long-gone gentlemanly decorum and due process in American national politics- not a matter of ideology or intention. Sessions was a true immigration hawk and belonged to the incredibly small number of relevant politicians who actually understand what is happening to the US and don’t like it.
Decorum is an excuse for cuckservatism, and cuckservatism is a best cowardice, and at worst treachery. Sessions, by recusing himself, delegated power to those who used it to promote and support treasonous and illegal color revolution.
Stephen Miller stayed loyal it has nothing to do with him being Jewish. Bannon leaked constantly something of an egomaniac and Trump couldn’t keep a guy like that around. He didn’t commit a Judas Iscariot level betrayal the way Sessions did though.
If Trump ever gets the power to do so he absolutely needs to have Sessions shot there are no excuses for what he did. The special council isn’t his only betrayal, what about the Clinton email case and the Awan case the man was a TRAITOR. Sure he was a good guy in the past… nobody is a traitor until they are. Trump would be king now and the Democrats would be in GITMO with the immigrants being moved out on trains but for Sessions. I hope Sessions goes to a very special hell with Ted Kennedy and John McCain when he dies.
Its bluepilled and naive to say he did it because he was stupid, old-fashioned, ignorant etc. The special council wasn’t the only thing he stabbed Trump in the back over. I think he was in some way financially corrupt and the Dems compromised him in this way.
From my understanding via loosely following Qanon, Sessions stepped down so that Rosenstein and Mueller, secretly controlled by Trump, could totally exonerate Trump in a way that would stymie the Left. Which has now occurred.
You don’t think a billionaire New York real estate developer who came back from a negative net worth and then ran a game show featuring a conspiracy every episode can play the Democrats? It’s all he’s been doing his entire life.
Nuts
Q was and is bullshit and if you follow it you’re an idiot.
There would be no need to “exonerate” Trump if this bullshit never occurred in the 1st place. If there was a real investigation into the Clinton Foundation, the emails and the Awan case a REAL AG could have locked up half the officeholding Democrats in the country and plausibly subjected the party to RICO statute. Trump would have been king in all but name by now if we had a real AG…
Now it might still happen but Sessions betrayal caused a major delay and Q-tards were a big force in preventing him from being fired early.
>Miller stayed loyal
Lewandowski stayed loyal, Michael Anton stayed loyal, even the mostly-useless cuckservative Christie stayed loyal, but he’d put Charlie Kushner in jail.
Loyalty is not the deciding factor that keeps jobs in Trump’s Washington. Most of the old guard were purged because they were evil white nationalists and chauvinists. Miller is an evil white nationalist and chauvinist but also a member of a protected victim class.
Don Jr, presumably, is loyal as all hell, and is allowed nowhere near the annals of power, whereas the leftist Democrat sister who despises every single facet of Trumpism both broadly and specifically is one of the most influential people in the administration.
Trump is the greatest President since Coolidge, but a clear eye is important.
Lewandowski is loyal but however was apparently screwing up left and right with the more boring organizational aspects of the campaign and he did alright out of the campaign. The Roger Stone situation disturbs me more he was loyal I think but still under Muellers persecution (though he and Lewandowski for whatever reason hate each other with a passion)… Manafort otoh apparently was stealing but I still think he should be pardoned.
It took Augustus twelve years to be Augustus.
Augustus marched on Rome at the head of his army. Could execute anyone he pleased. Found that swords did not suffice, and that the Roman government continued to ignore him and act anarcho tyrannically. Took him twelve years to get from being able to kill people, to actually being able to govern people.
Trump’s State of emergency is a good step in the right direction. We had hoped for, and expected, much bigger steps, much sooner, but there is a lot of space in between being Pinochet and being merely another cuckservative.
A sign of your weakness, not letting comments through with hard evidence of the evils of capitalism.
Not seeing this hard evidence of the evils of capitalism.
I don’t let comments through for the stated reasons – usually appeal to fake consensus and presumption of facts not in evidence, or similar illegitimate forms of argument.
I silence illegitimate forms of debate to maintain the quality of commenters on this blog.
If you think I silenced a comment containing hard evidence of the evils of capitalism, try resubmitting this hard evidence by itself, without accompanying it by illegitimate forms of argument.
Capitalism does have the occasional evil.
The rich will pay out the nose for luxury plants, which compete for farmland with food. This drives down the supply of food, and thus drives up the price.
CEOs make so much money that it’s hard to motivate them to care about even large changes in the property under their care.
https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/RUSS-final.pdf
There was that one firm that forced every envelope to be labelled twice because it was cheaper than fixing their envelope machine.
Doubtless glosoli is proposing to instead be ruled by angels, though. The known competitors against capitalism have much, much worse evils. The envelope thing particularly amuses me – it was in a twitter thread about how communism kills all the kulaks. “But, but, inefficient envelopes!” Really? That’s all you have?
Plus, please don’t get me wrong: I don’t give a damn if the poor starve due to being unable to afford food. That kind of thing leads to racial IQ increases.
“The rich will pay out the nose for luxury plants, which compete for farmland with food. This drives down the supply of food, and thus drives up the price.”
Not an evil and does not drive up the price of food it can marginally drive up the price of land as it tends to subsidize excess farmland but excess farmland can be good in the event of war when that land can be turned over to food crops. The problem of land is connected with the problem of rents… and while I agree with Jim that Georgism in its pure form hasn’t been tried semi-Georgism is very successful and the monarch in the restored state should adopt a primarily Georgist tax structure.
Death by starvation: Slow and painful
Death by helicopter ride: Quick and painless
Incentive structure, incentive structure…
Adam Smith already gave us a solution for the occasional problems of capitalism: that dual system where people want both money but also the respect of other people i.e. status, and the later tends to reduce their greed. Status and money are basically parallel economies, you can buy status for money (highly public donations to good causes) or money for status (get money by some dirty means and get caught).
But you see the issue with the status economy is that it requires immobility. That is, if people disrespect you, you should be having to face that every day without the ability to go somewhere else. And if people respect you, they should generally stick around and give you that respect every day.
So our issue is the highly mobile, globalized nature of the economy and the facelessness of the city and all that. When people were born, lived, and died in the same small town, a business owner would not try to pull tricks that could make him crash from the status of being seen as a pillar of the community to someone universally loathed. But now that people keep moving around, the elite is called the jet set because they fly a lot, this doesn’t really work.
The status economy would work a lot better for a limiter of greed if people were more rooted and immobile.
This is not a novel idea, I got it from a more mainstreamly conservative but smart friend, who named this concept “embedded capitalism”. That is, business as a part of the local social life. His example was that if a town has a river or creek and the business owner lives there all his life, then he will not just dump industrial waste into the river. Because everybody would spit in his face. He would lose his friends, and would not be invited to parties. But if the business owner lives half a planet away, he does not care. Hence regulation and hence all the usual problems of regulation.
I know this idea is not very convincing for everybody. For example, one could argue that in the age of social media a bad reputation follows someone wherever they go, while in the 19th century people could really start a new life in another country leaving all their reputation at home. But what I see is that putting the problem this way, that globalized capitalism is not embedded enough in the local fabric of social life, and we should want a more local, more embedded capitalism is something that seems intuitively true in my corner of Europe. Because it seems it happens more frequently here that global corporations dump their various negative externalities here, while they don’t really dare to do that in the US for example because the government and the media is very powerful.
The problem of embeddedness or the lack of it is not just something that is relevant for capitalism but for everything. Another issue is hit-and-run international experts, giving policy advice to less developed countries, but they aren’t around when they turn out to be disastrous. Or international media, commenting on and putting pressure about things they don’t really know and have no skin in.
Don’t tell us what we are saying. The position you attribute to dividualist is the opposite of his plain and direct words.
Stop listening to NPCs. You are assuming capital and capitalists are the problem when its at least 95% the priesthood The media is controlled by intelligence agencies which are recruited from Cathedral universities.
Jeff Bezos does not control the Washington Post and the shareholders of Time Warner do not control CNN. If Jeff Zucker (the CEO of CNN) was accountable to capitalists he would have been fired and if those capitalists ruled in the name of capital he would have been executed for his awful performance. Also if capitalists ruled it would still be legal for them to fuck their secretaries.
Yes, the notion of having ‘skin in the game’ doesn’t just apply to money, its also about status as well. People with ‘skin in the game’ are inherently way more trustworthy than those without.
Dude, in these circles it DOESN’T apply to money ROFL
Money’s apparently indicative of nothing: Jeff Bezos did nothing wrong, the HR lady made him do it.
The HR lady destroyed Bezo’s sex life.
Or maybe he’s an awkward dweeb who fell head over heels for a 50 year old.
Alrenous also repeats the thoroughly debunked trope:
“I don’t give a damn if the poor starve due to being unable to afford food.”
Show me the place where this has been allowed to continue and I’ll take your word for it. Not until.
Every time that starts to happen, you get some form of welfare – usually church- or charity-based but eventually morphing into state hand-outs and government support.
It’s as predictable as night following day, and if you’re inclined to talk about ‘incentives’ and so on, the mere existence of starvation is the beginning of the slippery slope. Human nature does not change, but introduce starvation and you get the welfare state; don’t introduce starvation and you don’t get the welfare state. QED.
Disprove my claim by citing ONE EXAMPLE of a society in which starvation was stable over time. You can’t because it doesn’t exist.
Most socialist societies have stable mass starvation over time, currently Venezuela and North Korea. Observe the shape of those escaping.
Cuba had stable starvation over time when I visited in 1992, in that though people had enough bread and sugar, they had only bread and sugar, and were going blind from nutrient deficiency. Also, they lacked the most basic medicines, and were dying of problems trivially treatable in the west. Cuba had been like this most of my life, and everyone loved it.
And observe how happily our western elites reacted to mass starvation. They loved the Holodomor, and the love current mass starvation, provided that the right people were being starved. Just have the state religion explain that whoever is starving are bad guys, and everyone who knows which side his bread is buttered will be fine with it. The state religion of progress loved the holodomor, they loved the hungry ghosts famine, and they love the genocide of the Tutsi in the Congo and the genocide of white South Africans. A civilization with our current level of abortion on female whim, without the consent of the husband, demonstrates that people will very cheerfully go along with anything that happens to strangers, provided the state religion tells them this a fine thing. See also the worship of Moloch, whose worshipers we have come to resemble. If the state religion decrees that ninety nine percent of the population should be tortured to death, the remaining one percent will be morally untroubled. And we are rapidly moving toward a state religion that will declare a large portion of the population needs to be murdered.
That’s a completely different kind of starvation, and I realise that your strategic rhetorical style anticipated that response in advance lol
I asked for an example of a society in which non-starving people were content with the fact that others were starving.
The case can be made that the level of intimidation that prevailed in the early USSR led to large numbers of non-starving people ignoring the starvation of others through fear of speaking out.
That isn’t the kind of society that people like Alrenous and Roberto have in mind: they’re talking about functional, restoration type societies, not totalitarian hell-holes.
Note also that as the USSR matured, even this kind of starvation was unstable. Ditto Cuba.
I’m inclined to concede that Venezuelan egalitarian socialism was always likely to produce problems with the food supply: it IS a pattern with that type of society as you rightly point out.
Just how stable the current situation in Venezuela will be is an open question: it wasn’t stable in Cuba, China or the Soviet Union.
I’d also tend to note that Venezuela (and perhaps some of the other communist countries in the 20th century) is subject to some of the most stringent international embargoes imaginable. Some of that’s understandable: they’ve built a reputation for reneging on debts and obligations so what did they expect!
Note also that the problems with food production don’t just stem from a Misesian higher-order catallactics problem: they stem from the wrong people being given control of the farms – the kulak is expropriated so that the moron can achieve equality.
This means that there’s no basis of comparison whatsoever with a hierarchical restoration society practising active prohibition and central planning of food production. Under no circumstances would any moron ever be given a kulak’s farm to run in a society like that – by definition.
On the contrary, those farms which happened to be held by morons would if anything be transferred to kulaks!
We are a society which is content with the fact others are starving, and starving in large numbers. What is different about it? What makes the starvation of which you approve different from the starvation that our “society”, aka our priesthood, of which you are a member, is mighty happy with?
In our society, you are content that Venezuelans are starving, and our society was content with the Holodomor and the hungry ghosts famine. Are the kulaks not “others”?
No one is starving in the USA, because of capitalism, but some fathers are having their much wanted children murdered. You are content that they have their children murdered. You are content that Tutsi women in the Congo are vaginally impaled with objects larger than themselves, content with white genocide in Africa.
You are English, and you are content that Englishmen suffer the agonies of toothache, that could easily be treated.
You are English, and you are content that healthy but excessively white English pensioners who go to hospital with an easily treatable lung infection are deliberately starved to death on the Liverpool pathway while being heavily tranquilized so that they are unable to complain. You are English, and you are content that some Englishmen are starving because of socialism.
If you are content that other Englishmen suffer unnecessary toothaches, content that other Englishmen unnecessarily lose their teeth, content that other Englishmen have their children murdered, content with elderly Englishmen being deliberately starved to death in significant numbers, and content that Venezuelans are starving in large numbers, you would be content with Englishmen starving in large numbers, which time will come soon enough, the toothaches and the murder of the old and unproductive prefiguring more drastic measures against the white minority whom you blame for the dysfunctions of British socialism.
No one cares what happens to strangers and people not like themselves, if the state religion says it is OK. Which is demonstrated by the horrific crimes enthusiastically endorsed by the current state religion of England. When England hosted the Olympic games, they had a big show celebrating the murder of the elderly. Hitler deliberately starved a lot of Jews to death, but he did not put up movies celebrating it. The religion of Moloch, on the other hand, does put on spectacles celebrating their hideous crimes.
So socialist starvation is fine, but capitalist starvation is completely different.
Yes, what is different about is that under socialism the worst eat, and the best starve, and starve in large numbers, while under capitalism, no one starves.
Is there perhaps some other difference that you had in mind?
Explain to me what makes the entirely hypothetical starvation that people care so deeply about different from the deliberate starvation of elderly pensioners happening right now in England, which no one cares about, different from babies wanted by a woman’s husband being torn apart, which no one cares about – except of course the husband. When I was in Cuba, no one starved in the sense that they had enough bread and sugar, but quite a few people were going blind because all they had to eat was bread and sugar, and nobody cared.
What makes real life socialist starvation of good people who spent their lives contributing to society happening a short distance away from where you live in England morally fine, while purely hypothetical capitalist starvation of useless and bad people that has not happened in peacetime in real life for one hundred and seventy years is so unimaginably abhorrent that no society could endure it?
Answer me.
Non answers will be deleted.
This is a convincing argument.
I take it back: if the poor were simply thrown to the wolves and allowed to starve, things have indeed gone far enough that plenty of people would be perfectly OK with it.
It seems your fans could have their eugenics holocaust after all.
I can’t really argue with your reasoning or your evidence. The time for compassion does seem to have been one of the casualties of The Enlightenment taken to its natural conclusion.
This is a lamentable fact in my opinion, but I really can’t argue with your logic and evidence there.
We don’t plan for the poor to starve. The deserving poor will be taken care of, but not necessarily allowed to reproduce, unless they have prior history of being productive and useful. The undeserving poor will go hungry till they start hunting other people’s cattle and gathering other people’s crops, whereupon they will be enslaved. If unresponsive to whip, then executed. Some undeserving poor may refrain from criminal conduct, but nonetheless have character faults that render them unemployable or disinclined to be employed. They will starve, but I doubt there will be too many of them. No “holocaust” – rather it will be much smaller than the current murder of pensioners in Britain.
Dole and sterilization is better then slavery…
Trouble is that the devil finds work for idle hands.
In 2012, WSJ ran a six-part series titled “Starving in India”. Not because of any war or crop failure, just millions of people so poor that they cannot afford enough to eat, dying in the hundreds every day. They aren’t rioting in the streets because they haven’t the strength to get out of bed.
WSJ is not a reliable source.
Lalit would know the truth.
Lalit?
India was and is an extremely socialist country. Modi has been trying to move away but as long as they are a Democracy hes not likely to have total success.
cui bono
It’s just another disgusting vision of the future.
To your credit, this community doesn’t hide its violently oppressive intentions, which is certainly a step up from the current régime, but in terms of Tucker’s vision of what government should be there for, it’s shitty and inadequate.
Sure Jeff Bezos might pay a bit less tax – wooooooo
So ordinary people will still feel inadequate and under-skilled, they’ll still live paycheck to paycheck, and when things go wrong, they’ll still be shit out of luck.
The only difference is they’ll have tougher assessments for the dole, and probably get sterilised even if they are deemed “deserving”.
Carlyle’s carthorse is just going to ‘snort derisive’.
Now is it sustainable? I’m intellectually honest, unlike some, so I must concede that at this point in history, with this much ‘progress’ under our belts, it’s quite possible that people will be atomised enough, dumbed down enough and obedient enough to just step over mutilated peasants in the gutter on their way to the latest birthday celebration: Arron turns 57 today, we’d better get the ice cream out.
This isn’t a vision that would kill Faust dead on the spot.
We need an Emperor Trump who’ll actually DRAIN the swamp, not just tweak it to suit a different bunch of evil bastards.
–
–
A marsh along the mountain chain
Infecteth what’s already won;
Also the noisome pool to drain–
My last, best triumph then were won:
To many millions space I thus should give,
Though not secure, yet free to toil and live;
Green fields and fertile; men, with cattle blent,
Upon the newest earth would dwell content,
Settled forthwith upon the firm-based hill,
Up-lifted by a valiant people’s skill;
Within, a land like Paradise; outside,
E’en to the brink, roars the impetuous tide,
And as it gnaws, striving to enter there,
All haste, combined, the damage to repair.
Yea, to this thought I cling, with virtue rife,
Wisdom’s last fruit, profoundly true:
Freedom alone he earns as well as life,
Who day by day must conquer them anew.
So girt by danger, childhood bravely here,
Youth, manhood, age, shall dwell from year to year;
Such busy crowds I fain would see,
Upon free soil stand with a people free;
Then to the moment might I say;
Linger awhile, so fair thou art!
Nor can the traces of my earthly day
Through ages from the world depart!
In the presentiment of such high bliss,
The highest moment I enjoy–’tis this.
Allowing this one through, just in case anyone wonders why I have been suppressing so many of your posts.
The normal, ordinary white males does not live paycheck to paycheck. He lives in a house in the suburbs, and he or his family owns their house. Leftists live paycheck to paycheck. The typical person living paycheck to paycheck is a leftist lawyerette with a six figure salary, six figures of college debt, six figures of credit card debt, no assets, the wall looming, her eggs drying up, and Jeremy Meeks no longer sends her booty calls shortly after midnight. Trotsky was a wealthy Jewish money lender and the child of Jewish money lenders who could not make it as a Jewish money lender because he pissed away money faster than he got it. Trotsky lived paycheck to paycheck.
That is why you hate the man who owns the local Domino’s pizza franchise, you hate the peasant with two cows, you hate the people who live in “ticky tacky little boxes”, you hate people who are not fat, and you hate that you are fat.
The reason housing projects, Soviet and British, are to horrible and soul destroying is that you intended them as your vengeance upon the people who, unlike Trotsky, are able to live in “ticky tacky little boxes.
Poverty is not a salary, it is not an income level, it is not a standard of living. It is a lifestyle choice and people who choose that lifestyle, mostly feral women and boys raised by feral women, who therefore never grow up to become men, create problems for normal people. Even third world peasants usually own a patch in the jungle and build a shack on that patch, and invest a lot of time and money (well a lot of money by their standards) making that house very nice, using wood and rocks found in the jungle, and odds and ends imported from the garbage dump of the nearest village. Peasant furniture, made from wood they cut down from their garden and the jungle, and finished with a machete and a grindstone, is often impressively beautiful, thought and work for the future made manifest and touchable.
Normal people do not live paycheck to paycheck, irrespective of the size of that paycheck.
Socialism and welfare does not free people from the poverty lifestyle, it enforces that lifestyle on everyone by confiscating people’s property, and massacring those that decline to live that lifestyle. Hence the infamous housing projects of Britain and the Soviet Union.
We intend to restrain that small group, an overwhelmingly female group, mostly feral women and their numerous offspring by numerous thugs, from causing the problems for normal people that they cause.
Jim, There is no mass starvation in India. Hasn’t been since 1942. Yes, there is some food insecurity. But the poorest Indians are very hardy. They can survive of sprouted Gram.
But there is no starvation.
The big issue in is lack of clean, assured drinking water for anyone not in the middle class, which is now 2/3 of India’s population. That’s an issue and that is why relations with Israel have become so important. They were always important, now even more so.
Perhaps the WSJ should focus on starvation of pensioners in England.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a-million-lonely-pensioners-left-to-starve-in-their-homes-qkjtmcv22
This is similar to the BBC going bally-ho over one rape case in Delhi (Nirbhaya) which led to mass protests in the Capital, all the while ignoring Rotherham, telford and a whole bunch of grooming scandals in Brtiain as pointed out by Tommy Robinson. This is plain misdirection and a tad evil.
“Normal, ordinary people don’t live paycheck to paycheck – that is a left wing myth. They live in houses in the suburbs, and their family owns their house.”
In high tax blue states they often did especially younger then boomers pre Trump…
But in red states not so much and less so everywhere since Trump so to the extent people do live paycheck to paycheck… more due to socialism then capitalism.
@lalit
What do relations with Israel have to do with India’s drinking water?
@general
Survey says a supermajority live paycheque to paycheque. I have my own reasons for declining to credit this figure (clever lie) but I’d like to hear everyone else’s take on how this number is produced.
The paycheque to paycheque figure is social justice warriors projecting their own lives onto those that they hate. The typical social justice warrior has seven figures of income, no assets, except she probably divorced a husband and has the ruins of his assets, seven figures of college debt, maxed out credit cards, and unpaid back taxes. Also, her furniture is new, but it is garbage.
Since any assets that they have, they stole, they figure that the guy with shop got his shop the same way. So they burn down the shop, and then figure it is racism when it is not replaced. In less advanced countries, for example Soviet Russia before Stalin, and Chile under Allende, they kill the cows of the peasant with two cows, and then blame mysterious spells cast by the minions of Wall Street for the ensuing mysterious milk shortage.
If she cannot snatch whatever she wants from the supermarket shelves, it must be because the evil minions of wall street failed to assign her a supermarket. Hence Communist Revolutionary’s refusal to believe that the guy who owns his local Domino’s Pizza franchise owns it, and in substantial part personally built it.
>but I’d like to hear everyone else’s take on how this number is produced.
It says how.
“Thirty-eight percent of employees said they sometimes live paycheck-to-paycheck, 17 percent said they usually do and 23 percent said they always do.”
And when fat ugly hairy chested lesbians interviewed cute female college students, fifty percent of them supposedly said they have been raped.
The interview technique is simply to refuse to take “no” for an answer: “So what you are saying is …” And unless the interviewee punches the interviewer out, he gets recorded as saying what the interviewer tells him he said.
Doesn’t seem to be the case here. Looks like the surveyed employees were asked “do you live paycheck to paycheck” and the answers were
– never (22%)
– sometimes (38%)
– usually (17%)
– always (23%)
This appears plausible. “Sometimes” may well mean “once or twice in the last ten years.”
http://press.careerbuilder.com/2017-08-24-Living-Paycheck-to-Paycheck-is-a-Way-of-Life-for-Majority-of-U-S-Workers-According-to-New-CareerBuilder-Survey
Yes, quite plausible, but your link does not actually tell us that that they were literally asked “do you live paycheque to paycheque?” in those actual words, as in a form where you select option A, option B, or option C.
They were asked … something … quite a lot of things … and someone interpreted their answers as meaning “paycheque to paycheque”
That link’s not mine, it was in Alrenous’s article.
I have to wonder why you insist Americans don’t live paycheck to paycheck though.
This link is mine: https://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of-americans-dont-have-enough-savings-to-cover-a-500-emergency/
It references three separate studies.
“Americans”
Reading comprehension problems.
I am claiming that capitalism could quite possibly starve the peasants. CR is objecting that this never happens. Apparently CR claims that Real Capitalism has Never Been Tried? I’m happy to agree but I doubt that’s the intended message.
Oh and actually it happened all the time in the dark and middle ages. Excessively documented by Gregory Clark in Farewell to Alms. They wouldn’t necessarily starve, but the lower classes would fall to childhood disease due to malnutrition, and their line would die out. Which is much of why Europe is peaceful and Africa is not.
If we want Zimbabwe to be Rhodesia again, all that’s stopping them is five or eight centuries of grinding peasant poverty. No pain, no gain. If you can’t stand a few million tragic sets of parents mourning their children, get out of the kitchen.
I also like the part where my opinion about a hypothetical is supposed to be a concrete claim about reality. It’s funny, and you should do it again.
Doesn’t work if peasants starve while hunter gatherers don’t – then it does the opposite.
‘Jim’ writes:
“try resubmitting this hard evidence [for the evils of capitalism] by itself”
Alrenous tells us how terrible it is that rich people have luxury plants – that’s as bad as capitalism gets! How shockingly horrid of them, the privileged bastards, right!
“Capitalism does have the occasional evil.
The rich will pay out the nose for luxury plants, which compete for farmland with food. This drives down the supply of food, and thus drives up the price.”
Allowed.
Let’s see if this BARE FACTS list is allowed:
1. Chaturbate/Clips4Sale
2. BetFred: guy bets his wages and has to tell his children
3. Night Clubs, complete with intimidation, noise until 3am and vomiting into the gutter
4. Blacked dot com, ball-busting porn, lesbian vomit shows, scat
5. Wonga/QuickQuid
Everybody knows what else I’d include on that list but I’m going for BARE FACTS that ought to be allowed through if the host’s being honest.
My proposition is that the host is not being honest: the host is suppressing the evils of capitalism even when stated as bare fact, just as glosoli claims.
That is the feral woman problem, not capitalism. And we intend to fix the feral woman problem.
Nothing to do with capitalism. You plan to make everyone a slave, but even slaves gamble, and some gambles one loses.
There is no night club problem. There is a woman out of control problem, a feral woman problem. We intend to bring the woman under control. Night clubs are irrelevant. Bring women under control, and as women quietly transition to being wives, clubs will quietly transition to being gentlemen’s clubs.
Plus, when I go to a bar, I don’t see intimidation, vomiting, noise at three AM. The problem I see is feral women. I think you are having a displacement fantasy. Nightclubs are disturbing, but it is politically incorrect to notice or even think about what the problem is, so you make up something else that you are supposedly disturbed about to explain your sense of disturbance. Much as women complain of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment, when men wimp out under brutal shit tests, failing workplace shit tests backed by the authority of human resources.
Not for sale – camgirls can depict any obscenity except realistic female submission. More visibly producers of rock music videos are forbidden to dance the courtship dance. Only Chinese videos can depict men conquering and women surrendering, men performing and women choosing.
We have the most severe, and most puritan, censorship of sexual matters in history. Every other civilization could depict romance realistically. Our degeneracy reflects not consumer demand for abnormal sexually oriented material, but the brutal and extreme censorship of normal material, the most extreme of any civilization, any culture, of recorded history. The extraordinary severity and puritanism of this sexual censorship reflects the closeness of the left singularity.
If it was consumer demand that was driving the video depravity, if we did not have extraordinary and extreme levels of sexual censorship on videos, including our most hardcore porn videos, we would see stuff like the bit at 41:44 on western television.
The problem is not that abnormal sexuality is allowed, but that normal sexuality is forbidden. Obviously we intend to reverse this. We will forbid what is now allowed, and allow what is now forbidden. Overall, censorship levels will be vastly less severe. You will notice a huge improvement in music dance videos. The problem is not the free market in sexually oriented material – there is never a free market in sexually oriented material, and there will not be one when we are in power. The problem is that the censorship is perverted, disgusting, abhorrent, and extraordinarily severe. You just cannot see a woman resisting, then capitulating cheerfully on Western soap opera, western music video, or even western porn. You can never see the “no” that means yes.
What are you talking about? Sounds like a government lottery.
Lotteries are a tax on stupid people, and yes, when we are the government, we plan to go right on taxing stupidity. I suppose that if capitalists were allowed, they would cheerfully tax stupid people instead of the government taxing stupid people, but capitalists are never allowed, except that the government gets the lion’s share, and when we are the government, we will go right on not allowing them except that we get the lion’s share.
Repetitious and unresponsive.
Address your interlocutor’s arguments – and when I say “address his arguments”, I don’t mean tell him that what he is really saying is what he would be saying if he agreed with cultural Marxism, progressivism, Marxist history, and whig history.
Okay – he may have a point that British night clubs tend to be more disgusting than in Europe and likely more than in America as well, there is a real problem of binge-drinking too fast and passing out on the street and all that. There are these infamous photos: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1182373/Welcome-binge-Britain-Polish-photographer-documents-years-drunken-revelry-Cardiff.html
But yes, it definitely looks like a feral women problem. The men look more or less like standard working class guys, sometimes they drink too much, sometimes there is a nose getting bloodied, but this isn’t really a big deal. But the women look like nothing I ever saw IRL outside Britain. Whole new level of WTF. When I was young most guys over here had their wives or girlfriends as designated drivers. It was unseemly for women to be seriously drunk.
When I saw this binge-party culture in, say, Birmingham, the whole thing was centered around fat, drunk and very loud women. Men played a secondary role.
You worship demons and want to establish the devils kingdom on earth so don’t talk about evil.
Participate beyond allowed to show up. Can’t be asked to say a prayer or hold a calling, which they do to every warm body over the age of 12 that comes regularly.
BTW some people a couple weeks back were arguing with me that the mainstream Mormons are NOT fully pozzed (I said the universal and almost organized Nevertrumpism among them during the primaries proved it).
Well read this…
http://faithful-nation.com/2019/04/06/the-sodomite-agenda-marches-on-mormons-to-allow-participation-of-gay-members/
The Mormon Church will be organizing slutwalks and gay pride parades in 5 years.
Why do you trust a source that quotes Buzzfeed?
If you’re curious…
The LDS Church has moved gay marriage from the list of automatic ex-communicable offenses and put it on the list of cut-it-out-now-or-get-ex’d offenses. It’s now on the same list as straight couples living together. If a straight couple doesn’t come to church, they’re encouraged to attend. If they attend, they’re encouraged to marry or move out. If they do neither, they’re excommunicated. Gays who are married are now not automatically ex’d, but encouraged to come back to church and get a divorce. If they don’t, they’re ex’d.
They can in no way participate unless they get out of their gay marriage.
Look at a voting map and the “universal” and organized NeverTrumps are around the four universities and in SLC. Look at the towns and suburbs that are majority LDS and they were majority Trump.
So let me guess what this really means… being gay married is now okay as long as you pay the 10% basically?
Yes Mormons voted for Trump in the general reluctantly and grudgingly after fighting like mad to keep him from being nominated. If Trump wasn’t your first choice you are probably cucked and definitely if you were for anyone but Rand or Cruz.
Trump got something like 17% in the Utah primary and even in the general 20% of the state voted for McMuffin (and were it up to me anyone who supported McMuffin would become part of the Final Solution to the Leftist Problem).
>So let me guess what this really means
You know jack about Utah and the LDS Church.
Cruz won the primary, where McMuffin got zero votes. In the general, Trump beat McMuffin three to one, where McMuffin got any votes at all.
Did you do any reading about this or just peruse Buttfeed?
McMuffin wasn’t part of the Republican primary so of course he got nothing.
I know Cruz won the primary (he was the only competitor to Trump with any shot at the time) but Cruz was clearly compromised since he aligned with the Bush family after Super Tuesday, if Mormons aren’t at least somewhat pozzed why wasn’t he their first choice?
>in the general reluctantly and grudgingly
>will be organizing slutwalks and gay pride parades
>very few Mormons had Trump as their 1st choice
>Anyone who isn’t pozzed had Trump as their 1st choice
You assume to know a lot that can’t be known. You’re full of crap.
>Cruz was clearly compromised
Your average LDS is as politically informed as your average American. Clearly.
>the mainstream Mormons are NOT fully pozzed
>if Mormons aren’t at least somewhat pozzed
Dude, it was me who wrote how some LDS were pozzed.
Do you have a coherent point you’d like to make?
Mormons may not be quite Democrats yet but they are Paul Ryan type Republicans is my point and that is almost as bad and will slide left even more over time. And yes Paul Ryan is a leftist and needs a helicopter ride.
>they are Paul Ryan type Republicans is my point
Since you’ve been wrong about everything you’ve stated about us, why should anyone believe you? Why do you think we’re all the same?
>will slide left even more over time
Name a group that won’t. Go on. Even one.
I have not been wrong. During the primaries most Mormons loathed Trump. And the Mormons have been loosening the rules on gays. Organizing pride parades and slutwalks isn’t far away.
You’re the Mormon equivalent (I assume you are LDS) of a Catholic in denial about how left wing your church has become. Before the 1970s yes the Mormon Church and the average Mormon were both far right but that is no longer the case.
“Name a group that won’t. Go on. Even one.”
Southern Baptists and Southern Evangelicals have tended to get more right wing, most of them supported Trump in the primary he was their 1st choice.
Fundamentalist Mormons probably have gotten more right wing as well but mainstream LDS have not.
I can understand how the niceguy Mormons were initially repelled by Trump’s clownishly brash alpha persona; it was not constructed for them. If they have come around, seeing the quality of character beneath, good for them. We are allies in this fight. There are worse heresies, and redemption is possible for all but the reprobate damned.
>During the primaries most Mormons loathed Trump.
How could anyone know that? Did the news tell you that, after they said that absolutely everyone hated Trump and that true Islam was progressive? Was it Buttfeed that told you? Or was it one of the polls that said Trump would lose?
My personal experience says otherwise. What is your source?
>in denial about how left wing your church has become
I’m open about how leftist it’s leaning and give specifics about who and how, but the LDS Church isn’t what you think it is or what the news portrays. You mirror the news’ declaring nonsense like Islam is feminist and peaceful. My Church is holding the line in important ways and giving ground in some. There are plenty of ways to criticize it, so you don’t have to exaggerate what the news misrepresents.
>Before the 1970s yes the Mormon Church and the average Mormon were both far right
Surprise surprise, we weren’t. We had women speaking in church and in leadership over other women since the 1800s. Utah was one of the first states to give women the vote, sadly. But we’re still telling women to stay at home and have kids and keeping women from leadership over men. Again, you know nothing about us. It’s not clear-cut left/right; your paradigm is incomplete.
>Southern Baptists and Southern Evangelicals have tended to get more right wing
The president of the Southern Baptist Convention last year called for more recognition of women’s equality and raising up women in leadership and ministry, “like for our sons”.
(Starts at 2:10 https://jdgreear.com/blog/w4yw_southern_baptist_convention/)
>they are Paul Ryan type Republicans
If that’s true, then what of baptists?
The SBC pres: “The Summit Church must continue to be a place where gay and lesbian people feel welcome as they seek repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, a place safe to “come out” with struggles of any kind.”
The LDS Church and BYU’s rules are still more strict than this.
You could have made an argument for the Amish, btw.
There has indeed been an attempt by the Cathedral to poz the Southern Baptist Convention but its had zero effect politically because of its decentralized nature of the actual Southern Baptist Church (each local congregation has total power to ignore them) and because the Southern Baptist anticathedral (Liberty University etc.) is still in the hands of the same radically right wing people who founded it.
The Mormons also had their own anticathedral (and one of higher education quality then the Evangelical universities) centered around BYU but my understanding is the Mormon universities have been successfully converged by leftists (on this I don’t claim to be an expert but I’ve been told that the BYU professors are now all leftists).
The Amish have started voting against progressives (up until now my understanding is that they didn’t vote at all) because they know the progressives will exterminate them in the end. I don’t think the Amish can be converged per se.
While, I don’t know anything really about Baptists, so I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, I’m under the impression that the pres was voted for by the leaders of the member churches. Liberty U sounds like it’s holding the line.
The three BYU profs I know are very leftist, the pres, Kevin Worthen, is pushing BYU left alarmingly fast, and BYU’s media campaign is all about accepting gays and pushing women to work.
Its sister school in Idaho I’m not as familiar with, but they did recently fire an instructor for supporting gay marriage on facebook. So there’s some hope, I think.
And the leadership of the Church last week had the biannual worldwide conference, restating what they said in 1995 about the family (men work and lead, women nurture kids, marriage between men and women) causing the usual facebook screeching.
The poz is creeping upwards, though it hasn’t reached the worldwide leadership or afaik the regional leadership. I’m very curious to see how far it’ll go.
Okay good you are clearly now speaking truthfully in good faith so can I ask you…
What does the common Mormon see in that commie snake piece of shit Mitt Romney. Yes I know hes also LDS… but so what. Mitt Romney was the good guy back when he was trying to take out Ted Kennedy… then he created Obamacare in what was (but thankfully no longer is) my state.
Then he carpetbagged over to yours… though hes really from Michigan. How are any of you fooled by this guy… hes a f***ing Democrat.
The people I’ve talked to who voted for Romney have a starry-eyed view of him as an honest politician because he’s a true blue latter day saint. Really, the state and church are full of NPC’s. People here are just that dumb. For instance, there’s a prophecy attributed (falsely) to Joseph Smith that the LDS men will save the Constitution. The LDS Church isn’t a great candidate for a reactionary state religion.
Bob, I just wanted to say that’s a good answer.
And good on both of you for putting up with each other.
Don’t be too disappointed with Utah being full of NPCs. Everywhere is full of NPCs. Optimistically I presume it’s from Prussian school, but it’s possible that it’s the natural state of humanity.
Jim
Burke was a Whig, therefore, not a failed, cucked conservative or reactionary, but more like an unusually sane liberal, maybe linkable to Scott A. Burke never called himself anything like a conservative.
The problem is with Buckley, who started the conservative movement and invoked Burke’s spirit. But if a conservative movement imitates the least insane liberals, it by definition becomes an Outer Party and thus self-cucks.
I have a certain hunch that before Google Books, it mattered which books are available, and Burke was available because were read in US high schools not for the political ideas, but as studying style, studying how to write well. So one possibility is that Buckley wanted ideas that are available from books that are held in every town library.
I don’t really know why exactly Burke was a Whig. It is clear that his secret project was to try to make things better for Irish Catholics, mostly for his in-group and faith reasons, not because that is necessarily the best principle. But why exactly he seeked that on the Whig side, which was Cromwell’s side, and not on the Tory side who were leaning towards some kind of High Church Anglo-Catholicism anyway, is not clear to me.
A simpler metaphor I can use to describe Jim’s position and orgyofthewill’s position would be the affinity paths presented in the game Civilisation: Beyond Earth.
Jim’s position is similar to the Purity Affinity – Restore, Preserve and Improve mankind. Emphasis on Restore and Preserve as immediate priorities
Video showing the quotes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ7XZ8u4Th0
orgyofthewill.net’s position sounds a LOT like the Supremacy Affinity. Embracing technology and accelerating evolution.
Video showing relevant quotes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr-5L__8hug
The last affinity, Harmony, is not relevant in this discussion as we have yet to discover Alien lifeforms.
I will just include the quotes video for brevity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26F0eDUnli8
Had to use an example that already exists, in a game, no less, just so that newcomers will be able to better understand the rational, reason and philosophy behind the proposals to break the technological stagnation.
Need to restore before you can improve.
And The Supremacists will not want to waste time restoring. Just build / code on top, while cleaning out / debugging the bottom. Iterate and reiterate the process quickly and efficiently to clean out the bloat and obsolete / render irrelevant the problematic parts.
Doesn’t work. The Cathedral is not capable of managing “The Supremacist” agenda effectively.
Off-topic: Civilization is overrated. RimWorld and Dwarf Fortress kick the crap out of it. Consider that in Civilization one needs to solve the game to play optimally. Anything mapping to that dumbed down game will map horribly to any reality, anywhere, ever.
It’s a fun little game for the masses though.
Vox Day has given his IQ on his blog. Fact. I’ll look for it tomorrow. I think it was 151? It’s in the post giving IQs to famous people from old SAT scores. Rush Limbaugh was higher than Vox.
I will be impressed if he got 151 on a Mensa controlled IQ test. Considerably less impressed by results inferred from PSAT or somesuch. Tests related to university entrance are corrupt and have been getting more corrupt, and the higher the status of the connected academy, the more they are corrupt. Historically black academies are, strangely, less corrupt, though logically one would expect the reverse.
Speaking of Vox, he just put up a post endorsing socialism as a way of stopping usury. That boy is going full national socialist.
It was not an inference, it was a real IQ test.
Here:
https://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-definitive-iq-list.html
He claims it was 151. I claim it’s not 151, even though I don’t care. He probably crammed any and all IQ tests then grabbed the biggest number ever and made it official.
Similarly, Jordan Peterson put his at 140-something. I’m pretty sure it was the low 140s going from memory. I got this from a podcast he did.
IMO IQ tests do a horrible job of filtering genius after 130 or so. And I’m not talking about the technical definition of genius.
Normal IQ tests are accurate for normal people and noisy for over 2SD. Over 130, you have to take a test for gifted if you want a reliable result.
Genius.
I’ll take a gander.
Peterson claims verbal IQ of low 150s. I endorse this rating. There’s a lot going on there, even though it’s mostly talmudic bullshit.
Way more ready to believe Peterson has 150~ iq than vox day (but not really. I know a few very high iq people. They are consistently sharper and quicker than Peterson in all regards). Perhaps vox’s insecurity makes him seem stupid in his dorkstreams. Masturbatory unsubstantial droning.
Peterson is elite jewish, so he probably has a 20 point verbal skew.
I haven’t detected anything useful in Vox. If he has interesting ideas, he doesn’t put them on his blog. His videos suck. Jordanetics is accurate but written in toddler English. Fuck me if I’m going to probe any deeper.
I harbor strong suspicions that the Jewish verbal IQ skew is a myth, as is the concept of verbal IQ itself.
What’s called “verbal IQ” was probably the low-hanging fruit explaining the Flynn effect.
Hillary at 140+, Feynman at 123, and the creator of the list puts himself at 151.
Skeptical alf is skeptical.
Feynman’s 123 is self-reported, but he was most probably lying.
https://crisisofthemodernworld.wordpress.com/2018/04/26/was-richard-feynmans-iq-really-125/
When I read his book Surely You Are Joking he struck me as a very intelligent man.
Nuts
Feynman was a genius, and anyone who reads his books without realizing that he is in the presence of genius is dumb.
Bit of a con man too, though, and the low IQ bit does draw suckers in, thinking they can imitate Nature’s gift.
Yes well Vox is who he is.
That good old Scandinavian gamma streak.
It’s suspicious that Vox Day never clearly states
(1) when he took the IQ test
(2) which IQ test he took
(3) what was his specific score measured by the specific IQ test
I’ve seen him mention his Mensa membership (≥132 IQ). I’ve seen him brag about being a National Merit Finalist (top 15000 out of 1.5m as per la Wik, so 1 in 100, so ~≥IQ135). But I’ve never seen him clearly state a specific result from a specific IQ test. The fact that he feels the need to resort to his National Merit Finalist status indicates that he doesn’t have a better credential. Which makes intuitive sense to me. I’d peg him at around 135 IQ based on his writings.
Also, in the same thread linked above, his discussion of Richard Feynman’s IQ demonstrates a lack of understanding as to what a ≥3 sigma entails. Note that Richard Feynman received the highest score by a large margin on the Putnam exam. I’ve hanged around IMO medalists, and Putnam participants. I enjoy attempting to solve IMO & Putnam type math problems. If you believe a 125IQ can achieve top rank in an IMO or Putnam type exam, you simply have no idea what actual ultra high intelligence entails.
This is his discussion of UHIQ: https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-iq-delta.html
As I said above, this rings true to me.
Vox is bad at visuospatial, which likely explains the Feynman failure. The rest of your analysis is garbage.
Yes, inability to understand actual high IQ people reveals a ceiling on Vox Day’s IQ.
False premise. People with high IQ scores due to verbal tilt are by definition actual high IQ people. Words mean things.
#+begin_quote
8. VD August 07, 2014 9:20 AM
> That source must be screwed up because Feynman was a genius.
It’s not. The source is his sister, who saw his IQ test results. You’re confusing IQ with genius. The latter is much more important. You will note that I have ALWAYS opposed the equation of IQ with genius. I have a high IQ. I am not a genius.
9. VD August 07, 2014 9:21 AM
> Never would have expected that, given his writing style.
His success is not an accident. And he has a very inquisitive mind. It’s a little higher than I would have pegged him for, but not much. I figured he was right around the sub-Mensa 130 level.
96. VD August 07, 2014 11:19 AM
> Richard Feynman won the Putnam by the highest margin ever, and was the greatest American physicist of the 20th century. While he made a lot of jokes about his IQ, it was certainly north of 150 and more likely 170+.
You’re absolutely wrong. We know for a fact what his IQ was. In fact, his sister’s IQ was only one point higher, at 124. Don’t fetishize IQ. Feynman is evidence of the fact that IQ is not genius.
I have no doubt that he wasn’t actually all that smart, having read some of his books. He commits major logical howlers on page after page. I could absolutely demolish him in a debate about nearly anything but math and physics. But his mind was exceedingly well shaped for grasping those subjects, which is not the same thing as intelligence.
Look, it’s no different than writing. There are some people who have a talent for prose. They write beautiful grocery lists. That doesn’t mean they are smart. And being smart doesn’t mean you can write in a beautiful manner. My writing is evidence of that.
103. VD August 07, 2014 11:25 AM
> Feynman 123? I don’t believe it sorry
PROBING THE MIND OF RICHARD FEYNMAN: A CASE STUDY OF GENIUS
One of the longest running experiments on intelligence, however, suggests that true giftedness may depend equally as much on other factors like creativity and motivation. Since 1921, psychologists have studied a group of approximately 1500 children with an average IQ score of about 150 that were originally selected by Lewis Terman. The members of this group, known as the Termites, all grew up to be highly successful and productive, but not one of them achieved genius-level contributions. Genius seems to elude the best efforts of psychologists to capture its essence in a standardized test. If intelligence quotient scores alone could predict genius, then Feynman would be a curious anomaly. Feynman’s younger sister Joan, also a physicist, once said that “[Richard] had a normal IQ. When I was a kid, I sneaked off and got into the files and looked up our IQ’s. Mine was 124, and his was 123. So I was actually smarter than he was!” Feynman himself refused to accept the notion that his success came from being smarter than other people, instead citing his habit of solving problems in his head. Feynman once told the wife of a friend who suggested that he apply to MENSA, an organization whose members must have IQ’s of 150 or more, that he could not join because his intelligence scores from high school were not high enough.
How many times do I have to tell you? Don’t fetishize IQ. Genius is much more rare than high IQ.
104. VD August 07, 2014 11:29 AM
> I am just pointing out the limits of the system you are creating.
It’s not even a system. It is a simple heuristic flawed by incomplete information. On the other hand, it does prevent the vast hordes of idiots from claiming that Bill Clinton had a 187 IQ and Obama has a 1200 IQ because both of them would have taken the SAT based on where they went to college and neither of them were National Merit.
113. VD August 07, 2014 11:42 AM
> Perhaps Feynman was a freak, but a childhood IQ test, reported by his sister, does not at all establish that his adult IQ was not extremely high, especially for a boy.
It most certainly does. Your IQ doesn’t magically change.
> Stephen Hsu’s analysis of scientific prize winners (STEM sciences) shows that a great majority are 3+SD above average, and quite a few 4+SD, which would be 160+.
Totally irrelevant. Your argument does not testify well concerning your own intelligence. Look, I know four kids in a very elite math program. The top kid is off-the-charts in terms of IQ and performance. The second kid is very smart. Then there are two kids who are otherwise normally intelligent, but have what the professors call “math minds”. They outperform the second kid regularly, and even occasionally outperform the first kid… on the math tests. But they are very clearly not as smart as either of the two kids otherwise.
Hell, if all IQ tested was spatial relations, I’d be retarded. Literally. Feynman had a unique mind, but he wasn’t across the spectrum brililant. All you have to do is read his books to realize that. And 123 is hardly an idiot; it’s still in the top 6 percent of the population.
#+end_quote
https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-fact-that-Richard-Feynman-scored-an-IQ-of-124-and-yet-became-such-a-leading-physicist-coincide-with-our-understanding-and-perspective-on-the-IQ-test
Relevant points:
> The Putnam test was not timed.
> Feynman’s IQ was likely understated by the test, due to his visuospatial tilt hitting the test’s ceiling.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-the-next-einstein/201112/polymath-physicist-richard-feynmans-low-iq-and-finding-another
> Feynman received the highest score in the country by a large margin on the notoriously difficult Putnam mathematics competition exam, although he joined the MIT team on short notice and did not prepare for the test. He also reportedly had the highest scores on record on the math/physics graduate admission exams at Princeton.
IIRC from the biography Feynman was preparing his whole life for the mathematics exam by creating lots of math shortcuts for fun. It was his style of doing things, as his lockpicking activities demonstrate.
Feynman is beloved primarily for his simplicity of explanation. But he was not a complex verbal thinker who learned to brilliantly distill his insights into parables. He was just a simple verbal thinker with a vast visuospatial reservoir of content to express, and a culturally-unique (to Americans) pragmatic Jewish perspective.
In my view, the largest reason to doubt Feynman’s test, besides the ceiling-tilt point, is that it was a childhood IQ, which is more malleable than adult IQ. I don’t know why Vox apparently denies this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1159719
#+begin_quote
gwern on Apr 8, 2010 [-]
Gleick’s bio actually puts it at 125. There are a couple reasons to not care about this factoid:
– Feynman was younger than 15 when he took it, and very near this factoid in Gleick’s bio, he recounts Feynman asking about very basic algebra (2^x=4) and wondering why anything found it hard – the IQ is mentioned immediately before the section on ‘grammar school’, or middle school, implying that the ‘school IQ test’ was done well before he entered high school, putting him at much younger than 15. (15 is important because Feynman had mastered calculus by age 15, Gleick says, so he wouldn’t be asking his father why algebra is useful at age >15.) – Given that Feynman was born in 1918, this implies the IQ test was done around 1930 or earlier. Given that it was done by the New York City school district, this implies also that it was one of the ‘ratio’ based IQ tests – utterly outdated and incorrect by modern standards. – Finally, it’s well known that IQ tests are very unreliable in childhood; kids can easily bounce around compared to their stable adult scores.
So, it was a bad test, which even under ideal circumstances is unreliable & prone to error, and administered in a mass fashion and likely not by a genuine psychometrician.
As the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data, and this isn’t even a very good anecdote. (I charitably assume that Feynman isn’t joking here about the score; Gleick gives no source.)
#+end_quote
What some of you fail to understand is that if Vox is visuospatially retarded, he is verbally transcendant. Visuospatially tilted thinkers have no clue what that means, but I’ll give you a hint: it starts at reading and comprehending faster than you imagine humanly possible, then easily performing manipulations on the resulting huge database of knowledge. See John C. Wright for an even more extreme example of verbal tilt. As someone who is verbally tilted myself, I can assure you that Vox unmistakeably exhibits extreme signs of this mode of intelligence.
As someone who is massively tilted in the nonverbal direction, it is possible that I failed to detect Vox’s mode of intelligence.
The idea that Feynman genuinely had a sub-130 IQ is absurd.
Even if we posit that it was from averaging an extreme verbal and spatial disparity, then he would be unable to write engagingly. He bombed the test, either deliberately or due to Asperger’s syndrome.
Presumably there are other conditions that cause IQ results to be invalid, perhaps Feynman had one of those. We also can’t rule out a drug-related hangover.
Vox’s IQ is in the 135-140 range. I would say he is around as smart as Nassim Taleb. This is obscured by the fact he lies a lot. As a student of rhetoric and as a natural salesman, he deeply understands that the truth and what plays well are distinct. What plays well will sound less intelligent than his real beliefs.
Seeing how iq has two parts, verbal and performal, and seeing how I am also tilted towards performal, yes, I might miss the verbal aspect.
But IQ is the average of performal and verbal, and performally he does not impress me so much.
It would also help a lot if he didn’t front as much as he does. Taleb-esque heuristic: If someone gives you daily reminders of how genius he is, probably not a genius.
Midwit thought is useless due to imprecision. Vox regularly denies being a genius.
Vox regularly fronted about how special of a person he was.
He has toned it down a bit, I notice when scrolling through his recent posts. Only the excessively calling everyone a gamma is still over the top, but I get how that’s his trademark.
He has not “toned it down” as if he cared about your Scandinavian norms. He has converted it into an official post and directed queries there, as he does with many issues.
In the game Apex Legends, there is one character whose verbal IQ is markedly higher than the rest: Mirage. Guess his character archetype: the bamboozler.
High verbal IQ tends to translate to high social capital; people who are good with words are good with talking, good with people. But of course, this means high verbal IQ people are often leftists, liars or bamboozlers: the typical politician who tells you exactly what you want to hear and then proceeds to do the exact opposite.
Vox is obviously not a leftist. I consider him on our team. But I cannot make more of him than he is. People with high verbal IQ are logically inconsistent in their ideas in a way that irks performal IQ people. Vox tagging himself with a 151 IQ yet denying he is calling himself a genius is a typical example. It’s like, come on man, we all know what you’re doing.
The guy with the high verbal IQ makes the best first impression, but the guy with the high performal IQ makes the best last impression.
More midwit nonsense from you as usual. Vox has a great respect for genius. He considers Eco and Wright and Feynman to be geniuses.
I read as quickly as my eyes can move and I have a small handful of nines in memory, comprehension, and synthesis.
If Vox is so great, show me the goods.
Intelligence and wisdom are two different things. I do not regard you as wise enough to be worth bothering to persuade.
I asked you for a link, numbnuts. Evidence is the best argument.
>> The Putnam test was not timed.
Where do you get that? (thru a quick google search, I could confirm that the first Putnam was timed as usual)
> Richard Feynman’s sister says:
> Mine was 124, and his was 123. So I was actually smarter than he was!
The obvious explanation here is that Richard’s envious sister lied, and Rich, confident in his manifest brilliance, humored her and everyone else.
> IIRC from the biography Feynman was preparing his whole life for the mathematics exam by creating lots of math shortcuts for fun. It was his style of doing things, as his lock picking activities demonstrate.
It’s not the type of competition you can dominate just by ‘preparing really really well for it’. This is not Jeopardy, nor the SAT. Just take a look at a list of Putnam fellows. This is what mathematically unsophisticated people don’t get. A very intelligent person (2 sigma) will never get a gold, or even a silver medal in IMO no matter how hard he studies. This is not a matter of training really hard.
> he is verbally transcendant. Visuospatially tilted thinkers have no clue what that means, but I’ll give you a hint: it starts at reading and comprehending faster than you imagine humanly possible, then easily performing manipulations on the resulting huge database of knowledge.
Look, signs of verbal giftedness are not hard to spot: Sam Harris (real time eloquence), Steven Pinker (eloquence), Jordan Peterson (eloquence), Moldbug, Nick Land. (Don’t get me wrong, the first three are either sophomoric thinkers or liars, but their verbal intelligence is undoubtedly off the charts). [As an aside VD recently estimated JBP’s IQ at 117, which again tells me that VD is bad at intuitively gauging people’s IQ, including, perhaps, his own.]
VD’s vocabulary is unimpressive. VD’s speech pattern is unimpressive, choppy, and repetitive. His analyses (social commentary) are good, usually insightful, sometimes impressive. That said, reading, or listening to Gregory Cochran humbles me. Vox Day: not so much.
> VD writes:
> He [Richard Feynman] commits major logical howlers on page after page. I could absolutely demolish him in a debate about nearly anything but math and physics.
No. Logic is not hard.
> Where do you get that?
From the link directly above it.
> The obvious explanation here is that Richard’s envious sister lied, and Rich, confident in his manifest brilliance, humored her and everyone else.
Nuts. You have a weird sociosexuality.
> It’s not the type of competition you can dominate just by ‘preparing really really well for it’. This is not Jeopardy, nor the SAT.
Your quote is not what I said. Feynman’s recreational mathematics clearly prepared him for the Putnam, as described in his biography, “Surely You Must Be Joking, Mr. Feynman.” Your points are irrelevant.
> Look, signs of verbal giftedness are not hard to spot:
You conflate verbal IQ and eloquence. VD has always denied being eloquent.
> VD’s vocabulary is unimpressive.
False. He is multilingual.
> VD’s speech pattern is unimpressive, choppy, and repetitive.
Because he is thinking.
> That said, reading, or listening to Gregory Cochran humbles me. Vox Day: not so much.
Pride goeth before a fall.
>> The Putnam test was not timed.
>Where do you get that?
>From the link directly above it.
Liar. There is no such information in the linked thread, and now I resent you for making me read all that staleness (I had ctrl+f’ed ‘time’, ‘putnam’ before asking).
> Nuts. You have a weird sociosexuality.
Little girls are prone to lie for reasons of sibling rivalry, or jealousy in general. It is the more plausible hypothesis in this case. Your personal attack is noted.
>Feynman’s recreational mathematics clearly prepared him for the Putnam
There’s nothing you can do to prepare to dominate Putnam if you’re sub130 (more like sub145) is the point. It’s not a matter of learning ‘tricks’. It’s not like getting good at solving Rubik’s cube. You don’t get this because you can’t tell what makes a math problem hard. Terry Tao didn’t win bronze at 10, gold at 12, just because ‘recreational mathematics prepared him’ for the occasion.
> You conflate verbal IQ and eloquence.
It is possible to have high IQ without being eloquent (stem types). But if you can neither demonstrate stem type competence, nor eloquence, then it is safe to say you’re not that special.
> He is multilingual.
I meant his English vocabulary. Being multilingual is not impressive. Average children do it.
>Because he is thinking
Again. You can be smart w/o eloquence. But if you’re spatially retarded while claiming an IQ of 151, you better be eloquent as fuck or I’m not buying it.
> There is no such information in the linked thread
Speed-reading error, probably. I only included those summaries because Jim disliked it when I posted links without commentary. As it was a detail ultimately irrelevant to the question of Feynman’s IQ, which was concluded to be higher than the childhood estimate, I discarded the lead.
> Your personal attack is noted.
Your unnecessary parenthetical asides are noted as further evidence of sociosexual weirdness regarding women. I think Feynman had a lot more game than you do, and that you are unqualified to speculate on his behavior towards women.
> There’s nothing you can do to prepare to dominate Putnam if you’re sub130
I don’t care. It is irrelevant.
> It is possible to have high IQ without being eloquent (stem types). But if you can neither demonstrate stem type competence, nor eloquence, then it is safe to say you’re not that special.
Eloquence and high verbal IQ are not the same thing. Vox’s active English vocabulary is impressive, however, he communicates with the audience and purpose in mind. Try it.
> I meant his English vocabulary. Being multilingual is not impressive. Average children do it.
Vox’s English active vocabulary test result:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/07/wounded-gamma-loses-again.html
Active vocabulary is a proxy for verbal IQ, across all languages known. You are tedious and foolish. I do not wish to communicate with you any more.
>There’s nothing you can do to prepare to dominate Putnam if you’re sub130 (more like sub145) is the point.
Yep. From reading about it,
“The examination is considered to be very difficult: it is typically attempted by students specializing in mathematics, but the median score is usually zero or one point out of 120 possible, and there have been only four perfect scores as of 2010.”
my prediction for someone of IQ 123 would be to have zero points, regardless of how many recreational math problems he’s solved.
>Vox’s English active vocabulary test result:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/07/wounded-gamma-loses-again.html
[30150]
FWIW, I just tried the same test, mine is 29754, and my English isn’t even that good.
>You are tedious and foolish.
He is actually neither. You haven’t spent any time doing math for recreation, and you haven’t participated in any math competitions, whereas aswaes probably did both. (I did, too.) He’s right about the Putnam. There’s absolutely no way for someone with IQ 123 to prepare himself for achieving a good result on it by solving math problems for fun. No way.
> Here is a passive-aggressive insult about your socio-sexual status
> Ok noted
> Haha your unnecessary parenthetical is further proof of my insult. I hereby insult you again.
Ok gamma boy.
> he communicates with the audience and purpose in mind.
If he did demonstrate half a Moldbug level of word-smithing for once, that would be enough. Or show me a spark of unmistakeable brilliance. I have never seen it.
>active vocabulary test result:
Why is he resorting to
(1) an online test
(2) Mensa membership
(3) National Merit Finalist status
if he has an officially controlled score? It’s trivial to cast all doubt once and for all by publishing the result sheet obtained from wherever he was tested.
@pdimov
National team qualifiers?
Mensa score resulting from a Mensa controlled test is a reliable indicator of IQ. If Vox Day tells us Mensa membership, but not Mensa score, then he barely scraped in to Mensa – which fits with my estimate of his IQ.
And, as always when criticizing Vox Day, I add that he has achieved great things, I am a huge admirer, and you should buy his books on Social Justice. But his fiction is purple pilled, and the heroes of his fiction are incurable betas.
Richard Feynman was an obvious genius with an IQ too high to measure accurately. A smart person can sense his genius on reading his books, and if you cannot sense his genius, you are not a smart person. If he failed on a childhood IQ test, it was for being smarter than the writers of the test – a common problem for very smart people on IQ tests prepared by mundanes and calibrated to mundanes. No IQ test reliably measures genius, and most IQ tests do not reliably measure people above 135-140. College entrance tests are not a reliable indicator above about 115. Even the Mensa test tends to crap out at above 145 or 155. Its a good test for typical Mensa level IQ, but very high scores on the Mensa test reflect gaming the test, not IQ.
>National team qualifiers?
IMO silver.
> IMO silver
Wow. Congrats dude. Actually impressed. Didn’t occur to me to look you up on IMO. We used to extensively browse teams and people on IMO site, and gossip about people like Scholze (way before he got the Fields medal).
> > Here is a passive-aggressive insult about your socio-sexual status
My insults are openly aggressive, not passive aggressive, you fool. It is beyond me how gammas like you engage in passive aggressive sniping and then call the overt, direct response “passive aggressive”. What do you need, caps lock?
> If Vox Day tells us Mensa membership, but not Mensa score, then he barely scraped in to Mensa – which fits with my estimate of his IQ.
No. Vox started putting the Mensa membership at the bottom of his WND column to stem the tide of stupid emails calling him low IQ. He put Mensa because people do not know what Triple 9 is.
I am now fully reminded of why I hate communicating with the visuospatially tilted. They completely lack an ability to hierarchically orient themselves inside a verbal argument. All they are doing is blathering about le STEM to measure each other’s rock grok, and projecting their personality onto everyone else they don’t understand.
Given Vox Day’s claims, a Mensa score would be considerably more impressive – unless he only scraped in.
I don’t understand your comment.
Why do you keep repeating that anyone who doesn’t recognize Feynman is a genius is dumb? Vox recognized that Feynman is a genius in the comments discussion beneath the IQ list post, which I quoted. It is irrelevant.
I’ve read that the lowest IQ genius was Victor Hugo. Genius != IQ.
Why is it so important to back vox up?
As a person, he seems disingenuous. His arguments re Petersson are either stupid or dishonest, not to mention strangely obsessive and annoying. I trust my prejudice of mental capacity and character, and vox seems neither cognitively brilliant nor trustworthy.
I believe i am verbally tilted and so should not suffer from this supposed inability to appreciate verbal thinkers, and vox is nothing, his reasoning is nothing. I have spent many hours, days even, by now trying to find something about the guy that would change my mind and there has been not one single moment of brilliance, while the obvious errors are everywhere.
He is a bookworm with delusions of grandeur. Reading his description of a gamma, i was at first genuinely surprised that it wasn’t intended as a self description. The ridiculous masturbatory “sigma” mary sue, his alter ego, is just a gamma who evades a critical eye. Which is also his main difference with Peterson: Peterson does self criticism obsessively, reaches aquisition and projection of power as ultimate purpose through analysis of psychosocial relations through reproductive narratives.
Vox thinks vox is perfect, like an annoying bald child, and tries to project power into the world from the get go, gets confused and infuriated by complicating issues, does obviously not understand Petersons heroes Jung and Nietzsche. He thinks Peterson doesn’t make sense on the most basic bitch topics, and his understandings of Petersons inner workings are childishly stupid. E g, Peterson is asked if he believes in the literal resurrection of Christ, goes silent, declines to answer. Vox, not unlike an absolute retard, thinks this means Peterson never even considered the quesstion before. E g, vox repeatedly says that Peterson never read the bible before starting his bible series. This is a recurring statement, from a guy that wrote an entire book fighting Peterson. The internet is awash with clips of Peterson from before doing the Bible series discussing the same biblical stories, or discussing how he gained understanding of some of them upon reading them some 25 years ago, et cetera. So vox is either straight up lying, or wrote a book out of his ass, or has a very clouded mind, where once his absurd ideas gain foothold cannot leave.
He would need the same self criticism and -doubt he considers Peterson a pathological liar for subscribing to.
Now Peterson is absolutely controlled opposition, working for a “balance” between crystalline tradition and corruption creep from the Outside that can never be balanced and always accelerates towards destruction, and so is too antipathic to tradition and too enthusiastic about dissolution. But vox’s take on him shows beyond any doubt vox is dumb and dishonest.
Apparently he has accomplished impressive things, I fail to find them.
How to pull off a Vox Day:
1. Attach yourself to popular e-communities while subverting their leadership hierarchies and misconstruing their ideas;
2. Claim credit for the successes of people who never heard about you, and while at it, crown yourself their leader;
3. Make a whole lot of SENSELESS NOISE — aka the retard’s marketeering strategy — about things you scarcely understand;
4. Sabotage your potential allies whenever they might steal your thunder, but make sure to blame them for being “compromised”;
5. Pretend that your verbal IQ is 15 points higher than it actually is (a common goonlord tactic) while spouting very mediocre stuff;
6. ???????
7. Congratulations, now fellow neckbeards (literal/figurative) worship your every brain fart.
I disavow the last two comments from user Ten and DG. It is unfair to say Vox Day is “dumb and dishonest.” He’s not. He is impressive in his core competence. What he does has the potential to dwarf everything else the current dissident right does. I admire his resilience, his fighting spirit, his loyalty to his in-group, and his work ethic.
(1) Infogalactic (huge potential, extremely important)
(2) Dissident tv
(3) Castalia house. Publishes geniuses like Martin van Creveld
(4) Venture into comic books publishing from scratch
(5) Authoring one of the most important political books of the last decade (SJWs Always Lie)
(6) Conducting lawfare against IGG (which has large positive externalities for the entire dissident eco-system)
(7) Causing massive grief to SJWs
I like 99% of what VD does. Dunning-Kruger Effect implies that whenever someone that doesn’t sound remarkably sharper than us claims to be so, we need to diligently check to see if we’re being victims of D-K effect. If the person’s claims of extraordinary brilliance checks out, then we must afford special respect to every utterance of said person, no matter how stupid they may sound. It’s a question of filtering: tuning out cranks, and tuning into our superior’s broadcasts.
That’s why I paid extra attention to VD’s IQ claims. My own conclusion, for reasons laid out in this thread is that he’s significantly exaggerating his IQ for reasons of persuasion.
A final note. I think his socio-sexual categories alpha-bravo-delta-gamma reflect reality to a useful approximation (not so sure about sigma). Gamma: A man who’s in denial about his low socio-sexual status and instinctually tries to take down higher-ups whom he resents, aka, a secret king. It’s unfortunate that VD’s gamma followers (exhibited by K*anic in this comments section) will shit on it by projecting, misusing, and overusing until it is just another unrecognizably disfigured term of abuse.
> aka, a secret king. It’s unfortunate that VD’s gamma followers (exhibited by K*anic in this comments section
See, that’s passive aggressive. It’s passive because you’re attempting to avoid confrontation by not spelling my name.
Your theory of Feynman’s behavior regarding his sister and his IQ score was actual secret king projection, revealing your gamma streak.
Unlike Vox, I am perfectly sympathetic to neuro-diversity and how some legitimate phenotypes don’t get a fair shake in mass culture. But words mean things, and your mass culture rank is what it is.
Neuro diversity is a legitimate reason to be incapable of understanding Vox. But it also means you’re likely incapable of understanding the majority, because Vox is not that far separated from them, except by IQ. And you should have noticed that fact by reaching adulthood.
>you’re attempting to avoid confrontation by not spelling my name.
Ok walk me through this K*oanic. How am I avoiding confrontation when I contemptuously bleep out your name, to your virtual face?
>you’re attempting to avoid confrontation
Projected K*oanic shortly after writing:
>I do not wish to communicate with you any more.
>actual secret king projection
Meh. People sometimes humor children. It’s an actual, observable behavior. Was Feynman humoring others when he deprecated his own IQ based on hearsay, or did he actually believe he had an IQ of 123?
You are amazingly stupid when it comes to psychology. But I will walk you through it, and then I’m done wasting time on your thick skull, which is obviously only good for rock grok.
Gammas such as Scalzi passive aggressively criticize others without spelling their name in order to avoid having the criticism found easily via text search, thus reducing the likelihood of a response.
Here’s a point I wish more people would grasp:
Social norms are evolutionarily and culturally constructed. The amount of directness that is appropriate for aggression between men thus varies by context. For example, aggression generally becomes less direct as one moves from Europe to East Asia.
There is a Neanderthal-influenced Western European phenotype which exhibits visuospatial tilt and small-group socialization. Among its features are relatively greater matriarchy, low hierarchy, high altruism, high honesty, and indirect intra-group conflict.
This phenotype tends to perform poorly in modern hyper-scaled socialization, but compensates by gravitating towards milieus in which it is adaptive, such as STEM.
Certain features of this phenotype such as indirect conflict, poor large-group social skills, and higher status for women tend to overlap with a subset of a different phenotype: the gamma male of the large-group socialized majority European phenotype. Since the two populations interbreed, there is a gradient between the two groups. However, the gamma subset is also characterized by traits not characteristic of the first phenotype, such as dishonor, dishonesty, weakness, and large-group socialization.
Therefore the priority for individuals of the first phenotype should be to avoid being mistaken for members of the second when engaged in large-group socialization.
Gamma males aren’t real they are some bullshit Vox made up even if he seriously believes in them, NPCs ARE real… but the NPC probably mostly sincerely believes what the MSM tells them the way our own NPC CR seems to sincerely believe the scripted bullshit he posts was true. Spergish social outcast have many problems… dishonesty is not generally one of them.
Lets paraphrase the alt-rights favorite leftist on NPCs
The more I argued with NPCs, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn’t help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn’t help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The NPC had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn’t remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.
Gradually I began to hate them.
You only believe in the social classifications visible to you from your position in society and viewed through your neuro-atypical lens. Since you are not part of the large-group social hierarchy you are not aware of gamma attempts to disrupt it.
Visuospatials are so busy translating their concepts into words that they often fail to notice the bigger verbal picture. Here is one important aspect thereof: Due to the ambiguity inherent in language, neurodiversity, difficulty of ascertaining truth, etc., it is impractical to discuss most topics without some focusing point or purpose. Because a di-scussion involves 2+ people communicating within a shared context, of which the implicit dwarfs the explicit.
In engineering, the material goal serves as that focus. In the verbal world, the argument supplies that context.
Unsolicited meandering dissertational monologues are a fine trait for apprenticeship knowledge transfer in a small-tribe environment, but that solution absolutely does not scale, for reasons any network engineer should grasp. In a small tribe, not only is the holistic context shared, the number of network nodes is low.
7 billion people on 7 continents, and the Neanderthal still blathers pointlessly, because his sociobiology is pre-rational. Thus annoying everyone who is optimized for large-group information transfer. One more reason for the divide between Maker and Manager.
Perhaps we could unify the two perspectives via the underlying thermodynamics which determine both whether an engineering project succeeds and whether a group functions adaptively. But I suspect that is too big an ask.
>verbally transcendant
Vox’s chosen profession of game designer argues against this theory. Game design requires “ordinary” general intelligence. “Verbal transcendence”, were it to exist, would not help him with it. He’s undoubtedly smart and talented, but neither “visuospatially retarded” (he’s good at soccer) nor “verbally transcendent”.
The only way what you are saying can be true is that he whiffed the visuospatial section of his IQ test by e.g. attempting to use verbal thought on Raven’s matrices due to lack of engineering exposure, and is actually much more intelligent 151 IQ, which I do not believe. The holes in his thought occur where visuospatial should kick in. He is smart enough to know if the test result misread his visuospatial ability.
Vox is basically a pattern-matching engine that applies historical reading to current events. Don’t expect more from him and you’ll get along fine.
Pragmatism is not ‘culturally-unique’ to legacy American’s; they literally wrote the book on it, rather (eg, Charles Sanders Pierce, William James, and et cetera).
>Feynman’s younger sister Joan, also a physicist, once said that “[Richard] had a normal IQ. When I was a kid, I sneaked off and got into the files and looked up our IQ’s. Mine was 124, and his was 123. So I was actually smarter than he was!”
Childhood IQ tests are very unreliable, which is why they are a favorite tool of “scientists” who want to show no correlation at all between IQ and something else.
Who cares? . Vox Day for all his flaws has accomplished more for the dissident community than nearly anyone else.
And sure there may well be people with a higher IQ than him, what matters is what he gets done.
Attractive Wife? Check
Multiple properly educated children ? Check
Asa far as I know one of the only coherent ideological documents in the Dissident Right ? Check
Right Wing Wikipedia ? Check
Dissident Right Media publication? Check
Author ? Multiple Check ?
We need our own infrastructure including Right Wing Twitter On the Way
And sure he’s arrogant, a bit in love with his own sexual social hierarchy and arrogant as hell.
He’s earned it
There’s no such thing as an IQ of 151.
Half the white population has an IQ of a hundred. Just over a quarter has below 85 and a quarter above 115. This level of resolution falls sharply at the next standard deviation: 1% has an IQ below 70 and 1% above 130. This then falls away again.
The difference between an IQ of 140 and 150 is going to hinge on one or two test answers, and remember it doesn’t actually matter *which* test answers, so if someone screws up by mistake on page one of the Ravens type visual similarity questions, he falls behind by almost ten points lol
The whole thing’s completely childish.
The appropriate use of an IQ test is to test for
a) retardation (ie. IQ below 70)
b) exceptional ability (ie. IQ above 115)
The rest’s just wank and means absolutely nothing.
This is true of university entrance tests, which top out at 115, but the Mensa test gives meaningful results up to 145 or so.
IQ Tests written by smart people for smart people give meaningful results for smart people.
Seeing the debates on the comments section allows me to understand Jim’s position better.
To summarise and to simplify as much as possible, I will use the analogy and metaphor of a computer and operating system which is so full of bugs and issues that nothing productive can be done (Stalled scientific progress, corruption, etc.), and the powers that be generally have no interest in fixing the problem because they are profiteering from excessive “service fees”, “maintenance contracts”, “corrective maintenance charges” etc.
Jim’s reaction proposal, sounds very much like performing a “software rollback” to the “last stable productive version”, which Jim identified as 1660 to 1810 Charles the Second era, and to attempt to move forward from there, espousing more vigilance to prevent the same problems in history from recurring.
The pros is that such a restoration would provide a “foundation” and a “safety net” of “what worked before”. A known “rally point” to fall back on and to gather strength.
The cons would be that such a “reset” could make people too comfortable with the old version and the old days that it would lead to another kind of stagnation and complacency. Hopefully Jim’s proposals of a priesthood and warriors to instill discipline and loyalty to mitigate these issues would work, but given that history often repeats itself, and the notion raised that “Humans are too smart for that now” are real issues of returning to the past.
orgyofthewill.net’s proposal, sounds like rushing out an alternative patch / build or a completely new, superior product to install over the current version.
Pros: No time wasted “reinventing the wheel”, “performing a rollback”, “ensuring legacy compatibility”
Cons: Need to remove “driver remnants”, “legacy bugged code” and “registry cleanup” of the still-running system as it transitions to the new build, to prevent the old software remnants from unduly interfering with the update and execution process. There is also no tangible “fallback rally point” that is visible and known to the “run of the mill” user. Either adapt to the changes or cease being productive and relevant.
Still, the ultimate end goal of clearing the obstacles and the drag imposed by the current system in order to reignite scientific and technological progress is an ideal I can get behind on.
“The cons would be that such a “reset” could make people too comfortable with the old version and the old days that it would lead to another kind of stagnation and complacency.”
Why would it do that? Jims proposal would restore real science and technological progress and we’d probably reach space.
I do think Jim is wrong about a couple of things and have argued with him about them but overall his system would be much better and much less stagnant.
The removal of remnants will take the form of a Final Solution to the Leftist Problem.
Total rewrites, rewriting code from scratch, are always catastrophic, and usually result in the death of the business.
Or given that orgyofthewill.net has also read up on real history, he intends to keep updating the code of the current program while simultaneously debugging and excising problematic code in ever-faster iterations.
The code is in fact being expanded upon, debugged and cleaned up so quickly that to the untrained and the weak-minded, it looks like a rewrite from scratch.
I understand the sentiment of “tech created this problem, tech must solve it”. Given the current stalled progress of technology, it is very hard to have faith in technology to resolve the problem itself.
Even implementing such a solution would be scary, as accelerating the rate of change would mean that there are people who will be unable to keep up, and are thus left behind.
Repeating: Major rewrites are always disastrous, and social tech, unlike software, requires centuries to test and debug. Hence we need the communion of saints.
Refactoring works. You identify modules that can be rewritten without impact on the rest, the smaller and more localized the module the better, set up a test frame to detect any impact on the rest, and rewrite one module at a time with continuous monitoring to make sure the module rewrite does not impact the rest. The first goal of such a rewrite should be modularization to make further rewrites easier and module boundaries easier to recognize. This can in time get you a total rewrite without disaster. But because of the very long test cycle for social technology, a total rewrite will take a very long time. You will find your module rewrite surprisingly constrained by surprise impacts on other modules, but you don’t then cut loose and start rewriting them simultaneously.
Software engineering is kind of difficult. Sociology is hilariously easy. Intended results occur on the first try with shocking frequency. Most ‘disasters’ in the sociology arena are in fact intended. E.g. Prussian school is supposed to make you stupid and childish. Civil rights is supposed to destroy the black family. Divorce law is supposed to destroy the white family. Etc.
We are inherently better at people than we are at computers, but I am pretty sure that peer review was not consciously intended, or consciously expected, to destroy science and the scientific method, though in retrospect, its failure mode is obvious. Similarly it is not obvious, or even easy to explain, why open source projects die when they adopt a code of conduct – you can figure out in retrospect that it was going to kill the project, and how and why it was going to kill the project, when you see things like Linus being purged, but on the face of it, when a code of conduct is proposed, it is not obvious that it is going to lead to disaster.
Similarly, the intended results of socialism always differ wildly from the actual results. One of the reasons Pol Potism worked out so badly was that Pol Pot was, in a sense, genuinely saintly, and this impressed everyone around him. Surely no bad results would ensue from saints in power.</sarcasm>
Peer review was intended to bring science under State control, and they were indifferent to its effect on science quality. As per the control freak personality profile. And this has in fact occurred. Science the DNC likes continues to publish without any harassment at all.
Have you personally experienced peer review? I’ve read some first hand. How it works is they issue a scalding indictment, and then it publishes anyway unless the editor feels it is Outgroup and needs an excuse.
Codes of conduct are exactly the same. The point is to bring the project under the control of, specifically, someone who could never have made it themselves. (Or they would do so instead of seizing someone else’s. Similarly you can tell peer review was intended as State control because it immediately followed nationalization.) With no regard as to the continued quality of the project, as per the control freak personality profile.
Codes of conduct are worded to target specific individuals: anyone who might challenge the new owner for control. Naturally these will be the most prestigious contributors, and due to the nature of pre-CoC open source, these will be the most prodigious contributors, and purging them has the obvious result. In medieval court intrigue, this behaviour is so well known it makes it into popular novels related to the period.
Certainly this isn’t obvious to your rank-and-file programmer, because they are peasants. They have thought a great deal about bits, and are complete beginners at sociology. However, even for them, it feels weird and skeevy for random nobodies to propose a complete overhaul of the project’s governance. However, they’ve been taught to ignore their instincts by journalists, their school, and frequently their parents. On top of this, the CoC is very obviously what They say you’re supposed to agree with.
—
In both cases, there is always the possibility of rolling back the change. Even if you can’t see what will happen (and they can, that’s why it happens) you can see after it’s happened and return to the last known working state, as software engineers do all the time. This never happens, because as far as the new masters are concerned, the current state IS working.
Even if for some reason one project or another can’t roll back even though the new masters want to, they won’t try it on the next project. People give up on things that don’t work. CoCs continue to proliferate because they’re working as intended.
Of course they would prefer for science and Linux to continue to work as they did previously, as long as it’s under State control, but since the two are incompatible, they prioritize the latter.
—
Can’t agree.
Lenin thought communism would put Lenin in power. Stalin thought Communism would keep Stalin in power. They weren’t wrong.
Pol Pot may have struck people around him as saintly, but that was obviously false. Monkeys are stupid, go figure. When regular folk find out they need to kill large numbers of people, they choose to find another way. Even if he were merely highly sadistic, gulags were already a thing. Could have used those.
What Pol Pot most likely wanted was an excuse to kill large numbers of people. He was probably ecstatic to have found it.
Doesn’t this sound like icycalm/orgyofthewill to you? The difference being that icy frankly admits to his plan of slaughter, while Pol Pot still had the necessity of being (a little) discreet.
You can tell it did work out for him, because he continued to pursue it.
Pol Pot just liked the killin’. Revealed preferences and all that.
Of course Pol Pot would have liked to have maintained power long enough to reduce Cambodia’s population by 3/4, but he wasn’t willing to give up the killin’ long enough to consolidate his power. You can also see his lust for killin’ in the war with Vietnam, although this comment is already far too long.
Well he appeared saintly. Never is the devil more evil then when he appears as an angel of light.
Lenin was genuinely confused and puzzled when the economy went belly up. He eventually, and reluctantly, discovered unexpected consequences, and took appropriate action – half assed and inadequate appropriate action, revealing poor understanding and reluctance to believe.
Pol Pot, on the other hand, refused to notice unintended consquences, and when, reluctantly and belatedly, they were forced to his attention, he blamed an evil conspiracy of capitalist roaders and CIA agents, and proceeded to murder the entire Khmer Rouge elite, sawing off the branch on which he sat.
Nuts.
If he just liked killing, would have focused on killing powerless people whom he did not need, instead of torturing to death the Khmer Rouge elite on whom he depended, sawing off the branch on which he sat.
If he just liked power and killing, would have built a golden palace to house an enormous harem, and when he was physically unable to deflower any more virgins, would have tortured and snuffed a few – a comparatively harmless recreation, unlikely to have a large harmful impact on Cambodia.
Instead, he lived like a monk. His saintliness was in a sense genuine. His revealed preference was an unshakable faith that socialism would be wonderfully effective economically, and when it was disastrous economically, he concluded it was beset by enemies, and took ever more extreme measures, and ever more disastrous measures, to get rid of these enemies. His revealed preference was a desire to make socialism work as advertised.
> would have tortured and snuffed a few
Pour encourager les autres! Harem + serial killer game, for the refined despot.
He sawed off the branch on which he sat when he started a war with Vietnam.
He killed the people near him precisely because he liked killin’. He would have had to resist the urge to kill them every day, because that’s who he saw every day. When he obtained an excuse, the urge became unendurable, and he didn’t endure it.
It’s like claiming the so-called sex addict would have confined themselves to prostitutes. They’re going to try to bang all their lieutenant’s wives, because that’s the pussy they see.
Just like the philanderer is aware their behaviour probably isn’t super prudent, Pol Pot was aware that killing everybody might not work out well for him. But as far as both are concerned, the short-term benefits are worth the long-term risk. Considering that he continued long after he had fallen from any significant power suggests that Pol Pot was correct: it was indeed the correct choice. Life just isn’t worth living, for Sâr, if you can’t kill people.
—
Whether Lenin understood economics or not, he wouldn’t have been able to wander far from Communism because his power rested on it. For example, significant deviance would form a Schelling point for his inner council to hinge a rebellion on.
Lenin obviously didn’t sincerely believe because one of the first people he would have had to condemn was bourgeois university graduates such as himself.
When Communist theory failed to explain military matters to Lenin, he turned over administration of war to career generals. When Communist theory failed to explain…well, whatever you’re referring to…he didn’t turn over administration of the economy to former nobles or to economists, but maintained his own grip. The war was important to him. Suffering kulaks were not important – more likely, it was a bonus to him.
Pol Pot did not start the war with Vietnam. That is history written by the winners. Vietnam invaded because of weakness, to remedy disaster, desire for a saner neighbor, and ethnic solidarity with ethnic Vietnamese in Cambodia.
Before Vietnam invaded, he had wiped out the entire leadership of the Khmer Rouge and almost all of the original Khmer Rouge.
Pol Pot is a nice example because he seems like a very ‘pure’ leftist.
Leftism is knocking over the apple carts to steal apples. But, the leftist should not *really* know what he is doing, for if he did, how could he amass enough social capital for his plans? The leftist needs at some level to lie about his intentions, otherwise he is unpersuasive.
So, the leftist imitates a rightist: he pretends to work towards a better future, a glorious Cambodia, and he believes this is what motivates him. Of course his actions betray the opposite, betray that Pol Pot was very active in knocking over as many apple carts as possible, starting with the forced evacuation of the capital, ending with the mass execution of his entire party.
Humans are like machines in this way: programmed to do a certain thing, but likely completely unaware of the intent of their programming.
Observed behavior: Smash anything standing upright in the expectation that some apples will start rolling.
Sincerely held belief: Build a glorious future. The more wicked and destructive the deeds, the nobler the objectives for which the deeds are carried out.
The more the deeds destroy, the greater the leftist’s belief that he is creating. Hence socialism.
American war socialism worked because they were aware that it was a short term smash and grab program to deal with a temporary emergency. British and German war socialism less successful, because of greater levels of delusion.
You dispute these events?
(If not: since we know that Pol Pot killed people who did something he didn’t like, we can tell these are intentional because he didn’t apologize to Vietnam by sending them the heads of the offending platoons.)
Vietnam had been engaging in probing incursions into Cambodia for some time. It was obvious that they were considering invasion, and likely to invade.
“Leftism is knocking over the apple carts to steal apples. But, the leftist should not *really* know what he is doing, for if he did, how could he amass enough social capital for his plans? The leftist needs at some level to lie about his intentions, otherwise he is unpersuasive.”
Mao very much understood the real nature of leftism he was just consciously evil if you will.
Not my impression. In Li Zhisui’s book on Mao, Mao was interested in conversations with Li on Marxism and communism. Mao was genuinely interested in learning about leftism, it was not as if he had already made up his mind.
Mao was less a leftist than Pol Pot, but more than Stalin, in that Mao’s policies were more destructive than Stalin, but less so than Pol Pot. Unadulterated leftism inevitably leads to sawing off the branch upon which you sit, which Pol Pot did, but Mao had enough common sense as not to do that. Yes he knocked over the entire steel industry, but he did not knock over his own throne.
Again, was Mao aware of what he was doing? I say no, I say his neural wiring has vested interest in him NOT knowing what he is doing, for otherwise he would not have the moral conviction to sway those he needed to sway.
Stalin and the other top Russians when they met with Mao found out that he never read Das Kapital and had no real interested or knowledge of actual Marxist ideology. Supposedly Mao first became interested in the communists (after initially opposing them because he thought egalitarian ideals as farcical and stupid as we all do) when he learned that being a communist bandit er “revolutionary” leader basically meant killing raping pillaging and burning as you like while having a romanticized image.
I say that Mao knew all along… he was just https://i.imgur.com/U0F0vK4.jpg
The Chinese just aren’t as good at hypocrisy as Hajnal Europoids. Either they sincerely believe or their pretenses are paper thin.
I mean, prostitutes at weddings. Come on.
Not vigilance but that the forces that dismantled the old order aren’t there any more.
American power was rapidly growing and was in the hands of anti-monarchy ideological zealots. Mass conscription and industrial production took over the battlefield from a warrior elite. A particular king was weak in a particular way – which will be part of the curriculum of future kings (ok, that chance is always there so does have to guarded against).
I don’t know if we have a warrior elite but we do have a warrior class.
Same families, same groups.
Same families as cops.
Volunteers only bought out the warriors.
Before tactics vs strategy starts we don’t control strategy.
Expert idiots do. Really.
Look at the surge. That was AEI who blest it, not Petreaus.
He just sold it as academic warfare and then we killed our way out of it.
Then experts gave away the gains.
Which had already happened twice BTW.
We had won in 03 and expert Bremer blew it up.
Then we had won again by 05.
Held an election.
Retreated to bases cuz democracy and so gave away gains, insurgents came back and it blew up again 06.
07 surge.
Wait a little it will return.
They reset fast here.
But thats expertise for you.
This, to me, is the crux of the issue. The warfighter is pretty much a modular, thus swappable, piece of the machinery. To test this hypothesis, counterfactually, just put gooks in GI gear, or Nazis in Shermans. Does the outcome change? Maybe in certain situations, or even campaigns, but to a degree that doesn’t matter. The NLF (VC in boomerese) was utterly smashed between Tet (their Waterloo) and 1970. They “won” because Congress stopped the arms shipments and funding to The South. Likewise, it was the Command Decision to keep ~80,000 eightyeights in and around Berlin instead of sending them East where they were needed (German tanks had a total war averge of 1:12 per tank vs. Russia) because of the Command Decision to start bombing cities after the Blitz failed because of a Command Decision to fight an attritional air war because of the Command Decision to press the gain after the Glorious 8 week war that was a fluke due to regional commanders floughting Command Decisions. Worshipping superior technology has many benefits, but putting the warfighter on a pedestal serves only to salve grievous losses on the home front, as well as retroactively moralize a war.
Command Decisions are the absolute key to winning wars.
I can’t really disagree that Command Decisions win or lose wars.
I do disagree that warfighters are swappable, if that’s what you meant.
The quality of the soldiers and units are vital.
Now mind you can train a soldier in a few months to a year [longer is better] and build units in about the same time…if…IF you forget that it takes 16-18 years to ‘construct’ that soldier – and men are not unlimited.
That Berlin lost the war for their armies is quite true.
Mind you taking on the worlds 3 largest powers in manpower and industrial power – the UK, USSR and USA at the same time was quite the long shot to begin. Even if the Germans were taking out 12 tanks for every one they lost the Russians had more, the Americans had more, even England had more and not just tanks but everything.
I used to feel the same about warfighters/soldiers, but of late i am skeptical. I have come to accept Jim’s assertion that countries who tolerate or endorse pride parades can’t win wars. This is a point in your favor; these countries are turning out dross in terms of raw recruits and there is only so much you can polish a turd. At the same time, we have yet to see a modern (post-1945) military get turned loose in a war zone, free from political or social constraints. Without evidence, we are stuck with conjecture. And in that world, i maintain that the warfighter is swappable, but i will add the caveat that SOF defies this assertion.
On the topic of Special Operators, i feel that though they are immensely impressive in terms of capability in the short run, they are almost worthless in an actual war for a few reasons: the mortality rate is immense, the requisite training just to get a tier 3 operator rolling is long and hellishly expensive, and, most damning, they give politicians the illusion of a scalpel, as opposed to a hammer or a spear.
The last one is critical. Anyone who has spent any time remotely near an actual military operation, and isn’t female, gay or low IQ, has experienced the “echelon.” Rearward lies immense amounts of logistical supply and personnel, forward is a relatively small amount of men and armor. Force projection in between the two scales proportional to distance and risk. Projecting force from a military base into hinterland is limited to about 150 miles (average range of a helo), and that is if everything goes swimmingly. FOBs and OPs can supplement this but the expand risk face, sometimes dramatically and with no tangible benefit (Korengal Valley is a pretty good example).
I know you know all this, and probably better, but many people think SEALs hop on a C130, fly to Abottobad, and make tomahawks relevant again before flying home. The ass required to put 12 headhunters in the AO is immense and the chain can fail anywhere along the way. The links in that chain are fast becoming black single moms, illegal aliens, and Antwons who are only in the service to git gud so they can pop caps like the white man. I go to school with a fair amount of vets, active duty, reservists, and potentials. All the combat vets are white, bitter, and frankly cucked. All the reservists are foreigners and mostly female or effeminate. The active duties are dindus. The potentials are all Dreamers.
The interesting experiment will be seeing battle hardened JR and SR grade officers commanding the societal dross + technological superiority against a highly motivated but ill equipped Han ethnostate.
The ratio of logistics to soldiers in unreasonable. Ten logistics men for every fighting man is plausible. Our current ratio is immensely higher than that. The problem is that following the Crimean war, the priesthood set about devaluing fighting men by giving logistics solder’s uniforms and military honors, which resulted in everyone finding reason for more logistics and fewer fighting men.
Notice that our enemies do not have anything like the ratio that we have, and they do OK.
The proposition that the Han ethnostate will be ill equipped is deluded. They are rapidly approaching technological parity, and I expect them soon to have technological superiority. They are working on quantum radar, which can see through stealth. We are not. They have built a network of islands, which function as unsinkable aircraft carriers, and it will be soon revealed that such of our aircraft carriers as avoid running into each due to incompetent affirmative action officers, and are not permanently laid up in port as Democrat brothels and vote banks, are entirely sinkable.
I think the HEs will be ill equipped in terms of quantity of quality, not quality in isolation. They just have so many men they have to kit out. What is more, they have an ocean to cross to put nails in our coffin. Nonetheless, quantity has a quality all its own.
Your point about aircraft carriers is sound from my perspective. If it comes to a shooting war between coequal belligerents it is going to be the equivalent of an ice bath for 5eyes forces.
Without going any further into detail, there are elements in the US working on quantum radar as well as a host of detection capabilities, but it isn’t the USG, that’s for sure.
US culture needs a wake up call, and the military is the only entity that can do that. US military needs a wake up call, and only a real shooting war can do that. Shooting Wars have been in hibernation since 1945, and only an ascendant nation with hegemonic potential could awaken that beast IMO.
Men find gays disgusting on a instinctive level.
If your country tolerates pride parades it means that it has virtual signaling priests with enough power to force men to put up with disgusting displays that aim to take control of public spaces. If priests have enough power to do that they have enough power to ensure that your military isn’t effective either.
“Men find gays disgusting on a instinctive level.”
Our male sexual instinct is extremelystrong, but our anti-homo instinct must be even stronger, or we’d all forget about women and fuck each other instead.
Straight men will always find gays disgusting because that’s the only thing keeping us straight.
What if humanity’s future social tech will look vastly different from things you discuss (mostly restricted to existing, already tried or merely extrapolated social tech)?
I wonder how a perfect, endgame social system might look like – optimized yet still roughly based on human nature because it evolved from it:
If future understanding of genetic engineering and our brain structure – not necessarily all of it, only how to shape, or program, the human reward center – then we could create humans that are only driven by a single pleasure, while deleting distracting rewards like overeating, sex, social status – or perhaps just tone them done quite a bit.
If we would not try to engineer a social system optimal for wildly varying humans, but engineer humans to fit a social system – that might be something completely different and vastly superior.
Imagine humans biologically made into classes, or functions – merely by reshaping their reward center. There could be scientists that only feel joy when they do real science, and feel not too much reward in doing anything else.
Likewise, there could be workers, not as an inferior class, but as humans who only feel reward for striving for and being masterful workers.
And there could be warriors, not brutes without brains or self-preservation instinct, just humans who are only capable of feeling any pleasure for building their skills for being the best warriors they can possibly be.
Today’s humans are already purely reward-center-driven creatures;
it’s just that the specific rewards in humans vary much in scope and degree,
producing unstable individuals and unstable societies (because of inappropriate or conflicting reward-center-driven aims in individuals themselves and individuals in society – conflicts of work/lazy, eat/diet, sex/restraint etc. – and their society-wide effects of producing social classes, conflicts of politics/ideology (who gets what, when, how much etc.)).
Besides their function-specific reward center programming, those future humans would also receive programming to only feel pleasure when obeying an “emperor”, and feel pain, intense disgust by the mere thought of not wanting to obey and please him.
Besides that programming of only the reward center, there would still be mutations, diversity in character, recombination of genes, evolution – but only in terms of functionality as scientist, worker or warrior.
Those future humans would not be programmed slaves – they would still be free, but would just see no point of not being scientist/worker/warrior to their max. potential and effort, and just would not see a point in not obeying and wanting to please the emperor.
Today’s humans are also slaves to their reward center programming – people can’t escape obesity, sex/masturbation, laziness etc. – people see themselves as “free” today, but this obviously does not include their reward center programming, which defines what they want, and we are clearly not free at all to change what we want – we can only do or not do what we want, and if we choose not to do it, then this takes willpower, which is of limited supply, so sooner or later we end up doing what “we” want to do, that is, what our reward center programming defined as our life’s objectives.
The future humans with artificially created reward centers would be just as “free”, only have different priorities.
It might be that the first organization, or individual, which produces this technology and can apply it, would soon rule over humanity (from the new humans’ programmed loyalty to the emperor as well as tremendous productivity from fanatical devotion to their social function, which they derive their life’s pleasure from (worker/warrior/scientist) nearly exclusively).
I wonder if such a scenario is not much more likely than our always-imperfect squabbles over how to best run society – maybe the answer is not creating an utopia for all kinds of chaotically different and competing humans, but creating humans fit for a superior form of society.
I was obese, lost eighty pounds. Am now fit. I am unsympathetic to the doctrine that we are slaves of our desires. Used to be that just about everyone was fit, now just about everyone is fat. Weight loss is a solved problem, and the solution to the problem is widely known in the reactosphere, which is where I learned of it. I have a big problem with lust, gluttony, and wrath, and the first step to social and individual solution to these problems is to make sure that everyone identifies them as bad – today the only kind of wickedness that anyone acknowledges is caring insufficiently deeply about far away strangers in places one could not find on a map. Fat is a moral failure.
Getting people to be prosocial is also a solved problem, but it is a collective solution that can only be implemented by family, society, state, and the state religion, while fitness is an individual problem with an individual solution. To get prosocial conduct, you make sure that warriors and taxpayers get higher status, the right to take serious offense to insult, the right to potentially deadly response to injury to their extended phenotype, can get faithful virginal wives, obedient children, and a home to keep them in. If the option to be a patriarch is available, most men will do whatever it takes. You make sure that what it takes is prosocial and works reliably and predictably if carried out with normal competence and diligence.
And you make sure that anti social conduct, both the obvious forms like crime, and the more subtle forms like holiness signaling and collective organized lying (apostasy from the state religion and peer review) result in loss of status and vulnerability to insult, coercion, and assault.
This is because entryists in the US Department of Agriculture and US Department of Health, Education and Welfare rewrote policy to recommend carbohydrates over fats.
Did you actually think that the Moldbuggian interpretation of history only applied to popular socialism? LOL.
Remove stress or cut out carbs. It’s so easy that anyone could do it!
https://www.amazon.com/Obesity-Epidemic-What-caused-stop/dp/1907797475
Making sure that apostasy from the state religion results in loss of status and vulnerability to Insult, coercion and assault is something the cathedral has down pat.
[…] on the Origin of Cuckservatism. […]
Quit calling it the “Cathedral”, it’s the Synagogue and everyone knows it
Not the Zionist Occupation Government.
Read the voice of the Cathedral on the stoning of Alexander Levlolich.
You can tell who has the power, from whom Angelo bribed, just as you can tell who had the power, from whom Margaret Mead had sex with.
Yes, yes, the moral arc of history, &c.
I think there was once a guy named Butterfield who had a thing or two to say about that.
“The raconteur knows too well that, if he investigates the truth of the matter, he is only too likely to lose his good story.”
That is what bluepilled white knightionalists who haven’t done their due diligence think.
Don’t tell us what we are saying. I am tired of repeating myself and am apt to silently delete any comment that helpfully explains that the position of some reactionary is the direct opposite of his plainly expressed position.
British: conquered entire world. Twice.
Jews: homeland created by British whim.
Or we could go all Sailer and be afraid of Africans. Because, you see, Africa is pretty big.
We have been losing social technology since Christianity killed paganism. But what we gained in return was advanced civilization that NEEDS armies of soyboy techies sipping lattes in Silicon Valley, because that’s what specialization=civilization leads to: the fagotization/feminization of society.
Obviously, this situation—which has been highly profitable for culture—will not last forever, and what will succeed it is a new thing. And this new thing is Zarathustra’s 1000-year empire. Only the details remain to be hashed out, but one thing is certain: subhumans will have no place there because all their (low-level) functions will have been replaced by machines. So the question is how to get rid of subhumans. I say drones because that is the tech du jour, but I am not a wizard so it could be anything: bio-agent, or even Facebook by simply switching off of chipped brains.
In summa, stories of knights’ exploits are cool and we all love them but the future will have more in common with cyberpunk fiction than Ivanhoe.
You should join this forum:
https://www.vintologi.com
In my youth, engineers were the manliest of men, and engineering the manliest profession. We are being emasculated by progressivism, not progress.
We are being emasculated because most men cannot get laid. Most men cannot get laid because of uncontrolled hypergamy – which reflects the decline of social technology, not the advance of physical technology.
Notice that technology has been stagnating and is advancing ever slower, while emasculation proceeds ever faster. Sign up with a code of conduct, you will not get laid.
Engineers are fags compared to warriors, or even to say hunters. If your memory only extends to “your youth” you’ve lost the philosophy game because MY memory extends all the way back to the fucking Spartans, compared to whom your manly engineers were, as I said, fags. It was those manly engineers of yours that allowed progressivism to become increasingly unhinged, as it has been doing since the dawn of civilization, because that’s what civilization does to people: it feminizes them. You think the cause is progressivism whereas that’s merely an effect, a symptom, and the cause is civilization itself. Nietzsche says it somewhere, although he doesn’t explain it in detail, so that will be my job.
In any case, your program is hopeless. In short, you want to take mankind back to the Middle Ages… but with databases. And even more religion lol. That’s the essence of your program. You talk about marriage and apprenticeships as if that stuff will have much meaning in a world of sex robots, artificial wombs and cloning. There’s not a single word in your philosophy of quantum mechanics or relativity. Not a single word about the end of sexuated procreation, the end of politics, the end of thought even. I know that my philosophy won’t attract the idiots, but at least it will attract the intelligent, and those will be sufficient for my program. But your program won’t even attract the intelligent since no decent man today would be pursuaded to believe in a religion (unless it be philosophy, which is the religion of the future, but which won’t work on the masses that your program requires). And anyway I bet you won’t even get that far since you’ve been writing for a decade and all you have is a bunch of blog posts. Where is your manifesto, let alone your new religion? Will the acolytes need to comb through giant comment threads to put it all together?
You are out of your depth when you leave the field of politics. Where is your psychology even? With all your talk of happy marriages and pussy you sound like an Anglo-Saxon who thinks man’s goal is happiness, a naivety that on the continent we did away with over a century ago now.
Anyway, feel free to reply “Nuts” while ignoring what I am saying and proceeding to launch into an unrelated tangent about trivialities. Even if science is slowing down, and the solution to that is your program, and we enact your program, and it succeeds, and we speed science up again, we’ll still arrive to the point where the earth must be rid of several billion useless Homo sapiens to make space for our nanomachine factories to fight the aliens with, so the drones will still need to be used lol.
But I am sure you’ll say “nuts” again because you think there are no aliens and mankind will never have to fight them and there won’t be a Big Crunch or a Recurrence because you’ve never studied astrophysics or cosmology or even physics or philosophy and you entire mental horizon barely extends beyond the Middle Ages, apprenticeships, progressivism, sex, marriage and so on. So I will keep reading your analysis of what Trump does and if current events because it’s second to none, but when you veer into our sci-fi future and philosophy I will keep laughing, because you’re so out of your depth in these fields that it’s laughable man.
Everyone is fag compared to the warriors of old, but pretty sure now that sodomy is permitted on the front line, and is near to being required, and now that we have women and transvestites on the front lines, today’s soldiers are mighty gay compared to the engineers of not very long ago.
There are no hunters any more except recreational hunters, so I doubt that today’s hunters are all that manly.
And as for engineers today, if you submit to signing on to a gay code of conduct, then indeed that makes you gay, but I was talking about how engineers used to be back in the days when we had real and substantial technological innovation. Linus is not gay – which is why he was purged from linux, and linux now has a code of conduct that will result in bitrot.
The highest level of social technology in history was The Restoration and the following one hundred and fifty years, 1660 to 1810. The Restoration gave us the scientific method (Which King Charles the Second made high status and socially enforced in 1663) and venture capitalism (which he made high status and financially rewarding immediately on assuming power) without which we would never have created databases. I want to return to The Restoration, in substantial part because I want the restoration of the scientific method and the resumption of technological progress. As an engineer I find technological stagnation and decline immensely frustrating. We need to return to the Restoration in order to conquer space.
I want the Holy American Space Empire under the Holy American Emperor.
>I want the Holy American Space Empire.
Amen.
Well, okay, now we are getting somewhere. I am still unclear about your claims as to the Restoration, but I haven’t read enough of your blog so you might have explained it in detail somewhere. As long as you want technological progress and empire, and in space no less, I can get behind that.
As a philosopher, I tend to be focused on the long-term, chiefly. The medium-term might well play out the way you envision it. I’ll keep reading.
Peace Be Upon the Holy American Space Emperor.
“As an engineer I find technological stagnation and decline immensely frustrating. We need to return to the Restoration in order to conquer space.
I want the Holy American Space Empire under the Holy American Emperor.”
AMEN
I don’t care if we make it the Holy American Presidency BTW and neither should you. It was Holy many times before, may be renewing its holiness right now and will again in some form.
Jim – you have some wild ideas about the American warriors.
We’re about as gay as the Teamsters or Iron workers local.
We just have HR like everyone else.
Think: we’re not losing fights.
We lose the battle to make Diversity into white suburbanites after total and complete military victory many times over.
That’s us “losing”.
Well none have ever won that battle.
That battle has been lost in every American city.
In fact it’s a battle known to have been unwinnable since King Philips war. Every generation of Puritans must learn this it seems.
Some day the remaining niggers will be running casinos or the equivalent. Some day the worlds remaining Jews will have turned Israel into a tourist trap just as the former Empires of Greece and Rome are…. and Europe.
But if America goes to Space we will endure eternal.
In some form. (That might actually get you the Holy American Empire / Galactic Version).
You know Trump is headed the right direction with that with Space Force. The next big move I’d (humbly) advise is to tell the Pentagon to conquer Space or get Englands defense budget.
See our Generals do know and do strategy – its just not what people think. Our Generals don’t do a damn thing- unless there’s money it it.
I suspect that President Trump is fully aware that airplanes and orbital boosters / spacecraft are different vehicles. For an officer to get promoted in the Air Force you had to be a fighter jock to increase his chances. As a result the leadership in the Air Force and the leadership in NASA were past fighter plane pilots. They insisted on impossible spaceplane boosters instead of vtvl (the vtvl concept didn’t originate with SpaceX and Blue Origin, it was proposed in the 1970’s but the fighter jocks opposed it. Building huge rockets out of steel in the open was also proposed in the 1970’s as well).
Before Air Forces became separate branches of the militaries, they were once part of the army and in World War I some of these militaries made their pilots wear cavalry sabers and wore spurs on their boots as the young climbed into the airplane.
Hence Trump’s proposal for the Space Force by taking a part of the Air Force and turning it into a separate branch so that promotion fits the different nature of spaceships and orbital launch vehicles
As they climbed into the airplane not “younger clients into the airplane ”
Jim is completely right about AI! LOL
Working with old engineers (should be retired by now) and young engineers (fresh out of school) the old guys stomp the living shit out of these new manginas. Similarly, the old guys are ridiculously more manly, and have loads more common sense. Further, I can joke all day with the old bastards. The mangina group are frequently horrified by my jokes.
I thought you were making a more exaggerated and absolute case for technological decline and AI in particular. On closer reading, it makes sense. Google’s self driving car doesn’t sound very likely to me either.
He is not making a case for tech decline at all. None of us can make it, only leading specialists in every field can, and certainly not a guy who seems oblivious to the existence of science and technology at all. “Google’s car failed” and “Linus was removed” are not arguments. That he thinks they are is laughable. Is “nuts”, to put it in his language. Hard data from leading scientists or GTFO. The issue is too important and his allegations too extreme to take his word for it. The rewards for science and tech progress are simply too immense in the modern world for scientists to give up. The Chinese certainly aren’t giving up, for one, and they are but one example. It is ridiculous to take the word of some blogger dude who seems incapable of even scribbling a thing as simple as a goddamn BOOK on such a serious matter. Evidence or GTFO. Book or GTFO. Otherwise enjoy spending the rest of your life debating a handful of readers in giant comment threads that no one will ever get to read. And if you think you can ever lead a movement via the internet and a blog that doesn’t even have your picture, you know less about leadership than you do about science and technology and all the rest buddy (psychology and philosophy and all the rest of it).
The only one blathering about something he knows nothing about here is you.