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.
>The rewards for science […] are simply too immense…
Do you happen to have a recent example of the immense rewards of science?
There has been some progress in biology and still some in computer tech but most fields have been in decline at least since Bell Labs closed and most advances since that time have been miniturization and engineering improvements on things that were discovered in the 1960s at the latest.
Japan (not being infected with the progressive mind disease and being a clever group of people) continues making some real advances but they are hampered by their racial lack of creativity.
As for you lecturing Jim neoreactionary ideas have been gradually taking over and displacing the cuck right for years. What do you advocate bluepilled white knightionalism?
Huh? Rephrase.
Orgy claimed you were ineffectual.
I said that your ideas and Moldbugs ideas have been gradually penetrating the mainstream right.
As exemplified by the parade in Italy. Trump for God Emperor – well, we want to preserve two millenia of Christian social technology, the wisdom of the communion of saints, so the correct reactionary position is not Trump for God Emperor, but that we need a Holy American Emperor with warrior credibility, while Trump is the great negotiator, a businessman and a showman, not a warrior, but when the Meme Warriors distill our ideas down to simple and compelling essence, such subtleties are necessarily discarded.
I am in the area of supposedly hot progress, and you are not.
The prophecies of the singularitarians started failing when the Concord was quietly abandoned, and have been falling further short ever since. My desktop was supposed to be smarter than me before you were born. The prophecies of the singularitarians, like the prophecies of the Climate Change Doomsters and the prophecies that the second coming is imminent, keep being recycled with a small change in the date.
Google has quietly realized its self driving car is not going anywhere, Linus was purged, and Musk, foreseeing and already implementing the required purge, has quietly abandoned his plans for a re-usable earth to space rocket. Today’s Ivy League graduates are dumb as posts, and they are who Musk is going to be hiring from now on. They may not know much about rockets, but they know the really important stuff like how many genders there are.
I still have trouble getting across to colleagues the points expressed in:
https://blog.piekniewski.info/2018/05/28/ai-winter-is-well-on-its-way/
Colleagues don’t buy it, but don’t refute it either, probably because there is money to be made.
As Musk said in your link, AI is brittle:
“Progress” consists not of actually accomplishing the Turing test in some Moravec domain, but of gaming the Turing test.
It as if we wanted to fly, and had no idea how birds managed it, and set about building shoes with springs in them, and wound up building bigger and bigger springs.
My interpretation of the problem is that intelligence is easy, but consciousness is hard, in part because we have no idea what consciousness is or what it does.
Somehow consciousness distills 10K dimensional image space down to something that is in effect eight or so dimensional data space, and does so mighty fast.
We can do some very interesting things with dimension reduction. Maybe there is some obvious trick to it that we are not using – I would guess that the trick involves throwing very large numbers of random dimension reduction tactics at the data, a process that takes living creatures days to years, and somehow recognizing the ones that correspond to understanding the data. And then doing the same trick recursively, so that we have high level understandings of low level understandings, rather than doing dimension reduction in one big step. And once the living creature has learned the correct data reduction, it can do this in about three hundred milliseconds.
But, having understood the data, if we could do knowing and awareness, we would then need to do wanting, desiring, and intending. We need a car that knows there is an obstacle, and wants to not hit the obstacle and chooses a path that intends to avoid the obstacle.
Which does not remotely resemble current AI methods, which are not even a step in the direction of doing that sort of thing. Rather existing AI is brute forcing ten thousand plus dimensions, which is clearly not what the descendants of the urbilatarian are doing.
Various illusions demonstrate that living creatures are doing full prediction of all perceptual input, and doing it fast, which current AI is not doing. When doing dimension reduction on the input, living creatures decide what the input should have been.
> I would guess that the trick involves throwing very large numbers of random dimension reduction tactics at the data… And then doing the same trick recursively.
That is effectively done now. It’s unclear a change of basis (keeping all the data), plus some non-linearity wouldn’t work fine, since the next layer could “learn” to use only the important dimensions from the previous layer anyway. Some of the limited theoretical knowledge works this way (e.g. scattering transform).
A lot of people missed that Hinton called to scrap backprop and restart AI from scratch:
https://www.axios.com/artificial-intelligence-pioneer-says-we-need-to-start-over-1513305524-f619efbd-9db0-4947-a9b2-7a4c310a28fe.html
But current techniques have now specialized hardware, and NVidia is pushing their AI hardware to avoid having the GPU be integrated into the CPU. There is a lot of momentum.
Consciousness is semantics. Physics is encoding.
Encoding is arbitrary; physics can only exchange one cypher for another. Since physics sees only cyphers, it can only identify one thing with another when the cyphers themselves are identical. (Or slightly perturbed according to simple rules, which is why deep learning identification will always be hackable using patterns invisible to humans.)
In physics, there is no such thing as a tiger. There is only patterns of black, white, and orange. (Actually no such thing as orange either.) The two-dimensional pattern is completely different, in physics, to the three-dimensional pattern. In a computer, each individual 2D pattern has to be painstakingly projected from the 3D pattern, and then back-addressed, as expanding a 3D pattern from a 2D one is NP complete.
In consciousness, a tiger (in 2D) is a tiger (from the front) is a tiger (from the side). Because if what you’ve passed to consciousness through Descarte’s pineal gland is not a tiger, it will see something else. (A norange, perhaps.) To pass it to consciousness at all means converting it into semantic form.
You can see this in the fact that Boston Dynamics robots work really well if they QR code everything. As long as a human has done the decoding-into-semantics work for it, the robot can function just fine. “If you see a cypher identical to [this] then it’s a door, so perform [door routines].” Similarly, computers can already outperform human eyes. Eyes take perfectly normal digital bits and perform some Fourier transforms on them, and that’s about it. This has not helped computers to see, because to them it’s still bits, but the brain converts it into meaning.
Because consciousness is semantics, it gets similarity comparisons basically for free. A thing being similar to another thing is part of each things’ inherent nature, and consciousness deals directly with inherent natures. The trick is to make sure the pineal gland is passed the correct idea. And thus consciousness can see a tiger as a tiger – or, technically, as sufficiently similar to a tiger archetype. It can see that a white tiger is tigerish enough the first time it sees one, and not simply get confused. It deals with meaning directly and can decompose the tiger into its component ideas, and recognize that the ‘colour’ idea is not necessary for the function of the ‘claws’ idea. Perhaps you have experienced this decomposition for yourself. By contrast, cyphers are nonlinear and extracting the function of ‘claw’ from an image of ‘tiger’ is, shall we say, nontrivial.
For a pineal gland to exist, there must be something which is both an encoding and semantic. Thus physics merely has to pass the correct encoding to the gland, and the semantics will appear.
We can make some educated guesses about how this is done from the nature of the-thing-called-free-will.
Free will is not determinism. It is also not stochasticism. Not unrelatedly, you can forge a robot which can mimic any action I perform. Or indeed any sequence of actions I can perform. However, robots cannot prospectively generate the same sequence of actions as I can. The issue is not one of actions, but of decisions and distributions.
Therefore, we’re looking for a theory and a device that breaks classical probability.
The fundamental law of probability is that individual events are independent. Thus we find that intuitions that consciousness has something to do with recursion are probably correct. If we make a device where every event is fully dependent on all previous events, then it turns out not to have a probability at all in the usual sense, and we have a candidate for what Descarte’s pineal gland looks like in practice.
Subsequently there is the matter of working out what each physical encoding means, when put into an example of this device, in semantic space.
Naturally all this first requires acknowledging that physics is the wrong kind of thing to be conscious and vice-versa.
> From Alrenous:
> Similarly, computers can already outperform human eyes.
You mean low level vision (ventral stream)?
Even that is questionable. Better performance on imageNet than human just means that humans don’t know the 30 types of birds that the computer was trained on.
So the computer beats humans because humans haven’t had time to study all the categories in the imageNet database.
> Therefore, we’re looking for a theory and a device that breaks classical probability.
> The fundamental law of probability is that individual events are independent. Thus we find that intuitions that consciousness has something to do with recursion are probably correct. If we make a device where every event is fully dependent on all previous events, then it turns out not to have a probability at all in the usual sense, and we have a candidate for what Descarte’s pineal gland looks like in practice.
We may be out of our depth when it comes to consciousness.
We may not currently have the analytical tools to understand it. The modern computer may just be the wrong model for the brain, the way the steam engine was before.
You can build a camera with higher resolution and better framerate than a human eye. It can then reduce the image size in the same way as the optic nerve tree. I think this is even affordable. Costs something like $2000?
Von Neumann machines have L1 cache and L2 cache. So do human brains. Von Neumann machines have a clear distinction between RAM and hard drive while the brain doesn’t, but the brain still has a gradient between recent memory and long-term storage.
You can build a steam valve computer if you like. It’s more expensive than silicon transistors, that’s all.
Even the cheapest camera has enormously more pixels and higher frame rate than the eye of an eagle, but the eagle knows what it sees, while the camera knows nothing at all.
Not just the camera. Neural networks know nothing at all:
https://medium.com/bethgelab/neural-networks-seem-to-follow-a-puzzlingly-simple-strategy-to-classify-images-f4229317261f
> Von Neumann machines have L1 cache and L2 cache. So do human brains. Von Neumann machines have a clear distinction between RAM and hard drive while the brain doesn’t, but the brain still has a gradient between recent memory and long-term storage.
Long and short term memory may be a good metaphor, but it’s not clear at all it’s a good model for how the brain works with memories.
As for current AI: David Donoho (a genuinely smart guy) had a course at Stanford on theoretical foundations of deep learning.
His personal opinion is that DL is a brute force approach. Once you have huge parallel computation capacity (+ tons of data), there are lots of things you can solve with brute force function approximators (DL), which you previously had a hard time solving with traditional (more “hand tuned”) techniques.
You can add reinforcement learning on top, but then your data requirements increase even more. You have to run your autonomously driven truck off a cliff 10,000 times to learn how to take a turn properly.
You’ll notice that the big success in go and chess are games where you can simulate a full games in parallel effectively thousands of times per second. It’s still pretty much brute force. There’s no intelligence happening inside, as you and I understand it.
> From Alrenous:
> Similarly, computers can already outperform human eyes.
For a nice explanation on how this is very dubious, see a nice talk by David Forsyth on why imageNet results are not a good measure of human-level vision:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZZivNnZBpk
> go and chess are games where you can simulate a full games in parallel effectively thousands of times per second
Note the full game tree is of course not simulated. There is a brute-force function approximator (DL) being trained to evaluate the position, used to prune the search space. Run in parallel on dedicated ASICs. It’s very sophisiticated, but fundamentally a brute-force approach.
> Von Neumann machines have L1 cache and L2 cache. So do human brains. Von Neumann machines have a clear distinction between RAM and hard drive while the brain doesn’t, but the brain still has a gradient between recent memory and long-term storage.
> Long and short term memory may be a good metaphor, but it’s not clear at all it’s a good model for how the brain works with memories.
Apologies. I meant to say “human brains have L1 and L2 cache” is not clearly a good model for how the brain works with memories.
The mind has no access to L1 and L2 cache in the brain, unless you have savantism.
Probably because the brain does not have an L1 and L2 cache. Brains do not work that way.
@Jim
The eye doesn’t know anything. The eye, and its nerve tree, is a machine to turn photons into bioelectric signals.
The visual cortex might have known things, but provably can’t: all it can do is turn some electric signals into others. If physics can tell the difference between some electric signals knowing things and other not, then literal magic is real.
Nuts
The transformations that the retina performs before transmitting stuff to the optic nerve are high level transformations, which our computers are unable to emulate. We can isolate a patch of a frogs retina, control the inputs and read the outputs, but cannot reproduce them by any known computer algorithms.
Not only are we a very long way from doing an emulation of a human, not only are we are a very long way from doing an emulation of Caenorhabditis Elegans, even though we have mapped every neuron and every synapse in Caenorhabditis Elegans (all three hundred or so neurons) we are a very long way from doing a emulation of a patch of the frog’s retina, even though we have mapped every neuron and every synapse in a frog’s retina.
Obviously my retina does not know stuff in the sense that I know stuff, but it does know stuff that computers are incapable of knowing, and may well be architecturally incapable of knowing.
Moravec’s paradox is more extreme than Moravec was prepared to state. Not only is it hard to program a computer to do what a four year old child does, it is hard to program a computer to do what Caenorhabditis Elegans does, it is hard to program a computer to do what a patch of a frog’s retina does.
Agreed, and it is even worse than that. All the complexity on the physical side still does not generate a human consciousness, which is a spirit not composed of or generated by physical things in c-space at all, only connected to them. Engineers trying to build a human emulator are like Minecraft avatars trying to build a Minecraft avatar.
Maybe consciousness is something beyond known physics.
Or maybe it is just an algorithm that will be obvious once it occurs to someone, just as it was obvious after the Wright brothers that planes needed three axis control, but strangely unobvious before the Wright brothers.
Maybe consciousness is just a recursive dimensional reduction algorithm with full data prediction and the high levels and the low levels somehow looped around, so that over short time scales the algorithm is hierarchical, but over longer time scales it recurses with arbitrarily deep looping from high level to low and from low to high again. Maybe we are having trouble noticing the algorithm not because it is hard, but because we are inside, and cannot see it as fish cannot see water.
As I said, I will censor any discussion of consciousness that does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge Moravec’s paradox. Which includes any discussion of consciousness predicated on the left progressive priestly definition of consciousness, which is designed to define only talmudism as conscious – and what I call talmudism, you probably call dialectics, because your priesthood wants to piously declare itself scientific, having destroyed science, while wearing its stolen labcoats, and therefore disowns its puritan and jewish ancestry, renaming the priestly institutions and methods with twenty first century names. We are discussing what the eagle sees, while you are discussing the tricks of rhetoric.
From Vinge’s 1993 essay on the singularity. His projection if it DOESN’T happen soon. Seems rather prescient.
—————-
If this is true (or for that matter, if the Penrose or Searle critique is valid), we might never see a Singularity. Instead, in the early ’00s we would find our hardware performance curves beginning to level off — because of our inability to automate the design work needed to support further hardware improvements. We’d end up with some very powerful hardware, but without the ability to push it further. Commercial digital signal processing might be awesome, giving an analog appearance even to digital operations, but nothing would ever “wake up” and there would never be the intellectual runaway that is the essence of the Singularity. It would likely be seen as a golden age . . . and it would also be an end of progress. This is very like the future predicted by Gunther Stent,6 who explicitly cites the development of transhuman intelligence as a sufficient condition to break his projections.
> From Jim:
Since some time ago, there was excitement that measured low-level vision neurons’ output is Gabor filter-like (localized in frequency and space). And DL models can produce Gabor filter-like output in their first layer. There was a lot of discussion of what the output of the “second layer” (whatever that exactly means in humans) should look like.
Given that the level of discussion, in comparing brains and DL, it’s pretty safe to say that at the moment we have no idea how the brain does what it does.
Similarly with the connectome.. mapping all connections was somehow sold as providing insight. Maybe some information, but no insight as far as I am aware.
We mapped all the connections in the retina and in Caenorhabditis elegans. Which turned out to predict a great deal – but something terribly important turned out to be missing from our ability to predict the outputs.
Jim> Or maybe [consciousness] is just an algorithm that will be obvious once it occurs to someone
The proof to the contrary is fundamentally verbal, and conceptually relates to the reason that one cannot construct an abstract number such as “2” out of c-space physics either, no matter how many computers one makes that operate in binary. But I have no illusions about explaining such a thing to this visuo-spatially tilted audience. The inductive approach gets only at the physical side, which loses track of consciousness past the quantum epistemological veil, long before reaching a subject.
The atheist will mock this as the final retreat of the “God of the Gaps,” but Biblical miracles are characteristically power-efficient, as if the natural order were difficult for angels and even mortal Jesus to alter. For Jehovah it is of course possible, but often accompanied by severe side effects, and in any case it is something He is rarely willing to do. Which suggests that the continuous supernatural interference of a man’s spirit with his natural body and vice versa must be extremely refined and undetectable indeed, since we are nowhere near those power levels. It is the signature of the God of Order, GNON.
Obviously if you have a wiring diagram of a nematode worm’s brain, but can’t figure out what the wiring does, you don’t actually have a wiring diagram. You’re missing functional components.
Most likely the retina exploits these components, and is not particularly conscious. As a stupid example, neurons are both analogue and digital. The axon transmits digitally, but the neuron can also release non-targeted neurotransmitters, the signals of which vary by serum concentration.
Of course one of these components is the metaphorical pineal gland itself, so there’s that.
Though honestly I find it difficult to believe there really isn’t a known algorithm. It produces a simplified image. I find it more likely that scientists lack imagination, especially regarding computer codes.
If this is true, then literal magic is true. If consciousness is merely some special algorithm, then the algorithm does regular math things, has regular math results, and then also as a side effect produces qualia, which functionally do nothing. There’s a literal magic formula which, when invoked, summons consciousness, exactly like drawing a pentagram specifically for the unpredictable effects of its shape.
Unless you are proposing something like addition+, which is a special function or operator that happens to produce, in addition to transformed numbers, consciousness? This doesn’t help, but explaining why is more complicated.
Jim, any insight into Google’s claim about achieving Quantum supremacy any time now?
Quantum computers are a long way off, and if they were near, which they are not, Google has lost the capacity for technological innovation, and is reacting to loss of capability by escalating vaporware promises.
Quantum radar is feasible. We have known in principle how to do it since the 1970s, and with the development of stealth aircraft, there is an urgent military need for quantum radar. (Since the stealthing that hides them from regular radar makes them even more visible to quantum radar.)
We know, in principle, how to build quantum radar. We don’t actually know even in principle how to build quantum computers with a useful number of qubits. Trouble is that more quibits, the bigger the decoherence and scaling problems.
Indeed. Let’s take the factoring problem. Say you want to factor a 1024 bit number. Create two 1024 bit qubit registers. Combinatorially multiply them together, preserving amplitude and phase through the whole network path, and compare the product with the composite number, again continuing to preserve phase and amplitude. Feed the result back in such a way that there is only one stable quantum state, the solution. If you’re lucky the system will “collapse” into that state. Good luck with that. I have a hunch that the stability/halflife of a multi-bit entangled state is inversely proportional to the negative exponent of the number of bits.
You use something like Shor’s algorithm for factoring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm
And proponents are devising quantum error correction codes to deal with some of the issues. From what I’ve seen, they need quite a lot of error correction qubits. Quite a lot.
Personally, I do agree that quantum computing seems like a long shot for many reasons. For instance, same year as Shor published his work, we also quickly got this:
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9406058
Yet there also are companies claiming to build and run QCs. I wonder to what extent this is real vs scam?
Trying to build a better computer via excluding decoherence is a fool’s game.
The way to do it is to deliberately exploit decoherence. Figure out how to set up superpositions and measure their collapse as rapidly as possible.
Isolating one qubit is pretty okay. As soon as you have two or more interact, so you can process data with more than one bit, they will destabilize each other. Most likely the destabilization rate increases with the cube of the number of qubits or some similarly absurd exponent.
It’s completely absurd to believe that the state of technology today is something to praise or admire.
Most modern devices work – SOME of the time.
How easy do you find your smart television to actually use? Don’t you find yourself waiting for it to ‘warm up’ when you first turn it on as it downloads its ten million updates every day? Don’t you notice that factory default settings are restored after a large update, or certain options you’ve always fought hard to turn off always seem to be turned on again periodically?
Consider that “Jet Set Willy II” crammed hundreds of unique puzzle rooms into 48k while a modern computer can’t keep the lights on with physical RAM of less than about 8GB and Facebook Games (that are in most regards simpler and less interesting than those old 80s titles) require top-of-the-range processors and graphics cards!
Consider that Office 2000 fits into 200MB or disk space and loads instantly, while the newer suites require multiple DVD disks and take forever to do anything.
Consider that it’s almost impossible to send anything through email anymore without the risk of it being helpfully deleted in transit.
Sure, some developments in high res monitors have produced genuinely prettier things to look at….. but is that really better than the golden age of programming environments when you could make your computer work for you?
What about the reality of AI, voice commands, etc. etc.? It’s awful. Your devices are very good at spying on your tastes and interests, but issue a direct request and you can forget about it.
Then consider our ability at a societal level to do basic infrastructure work: where a road could be built from scratch in the 1970s in a month, a set of traffic lights on a junction now takes six months to a year.
As the quality of the people declines, the quality of the innovation declines. We operate in a ‘bloatware’ environment because our IT professionals operate in a ‘high level’ environment. Show me the modern computer nut that can write you a device driver from scratch in assembly language and fit it on a floppy disk!
Even the super-realistic video games for your console are glorified art projects written to fit on an ‘engine’ based loosely on a prior model of the same……..
No, we’re in a leaden age of innovation in most areas, but technology most of all. We’re not even the javascript generation: we’re the playing-at-‘coding’ generation, configuring pre-determined options to mesh with the progressive ideology engine.
The time’s rapidly approaching when bright people just go entirely offline.
Again don’t get me wrong, I’m not belittling the genuine benefits of the internet and modern computing: there are classical music videos on YouTube in which the score’s tracked to the music. These are an enormous resource. The same for old books scanned and downloadable.
These need to be cherished, because the day is fast approaching when they’ll be banned and this will be the only way to access them at all.
Then you’ll want your disconnected Windows XP / Linux-Mint computer to play/read the files on.
As for this blogger posting his picture, etc.
A) I don’t want to see the hook-nosed wanker in his silly hat
and
B) Even a milquetoast boomer free market conservative like ‘Jim’ stands to be doxxed and executed as a Nazi in this environment so keeping a low profile is very sensible and YOU, snarky know-it-all, should do the same: after all, your palpable ‘white privilege’ is a fast ticket to the gulag no matter how good you are at configuring an ‘app’ for Android.
>tfw Orgy of the Wank makes CR seem only moderately retarded
@orgyoftheqill
Here’s some hard data about AI development. I think Jim is totally right on HI and the hard data is me right now using voice to text to make this post on. Ard doesn’t know it could solve problems but he doesn’t know what it sees just as Jim talked about how the Eagles I can see but the camera cannot. I spent a large amount of time correcting AutoCorrect and correcting voice to text because the AI doesn’t know a damn thing what it saying it is not conches as Jim has said, he is right .
> From Starman:
> I spent a large amount of time correcting AutoCorrect and correcting voice to text because the AI doesn’t know a damn thing.
According to David Donoho, the big surprise of DL is that a brute-force approach could take us that far.
Therefore the surprise is that the problems (rough translation, rough voice to text transcription, etc..) were in a certain sense easier than we thought.
The sense in which those problems turned out to be easier is that no particular insight into the specific problem was required. Pretty much the same brute-force approach would provide useful rough solutions, given enough computation capacity and training data.
(Perhaps a little dubious to claim that DL uses no particular insight into the problem it tries to solve, at least in supervised learning, since insight may be used indirectly through the training data.)
Note the difference between the people claiming that intelligence is “high competence by the same algorithm at multiple, unrelated tasks”, calling DL “general artificial intelligence” (Deep Mind), and those, like Donoho, for whom the surprise is that an obviously unintelligent brute-force method could perform “competently” at many tasks, with the conclusion that the tasks themselves were not as difficult as thought. Or as the saying in AI goes: once a problem in AI is solved, it is no longer an AI problem.
That is because the solution is always in some sense Eliza – a cheat – superficially faking the Turing test.
As if we wanted to fly like a bird, and started building shoes on springs.
We are trying to emulate high level human abilities, when we cannot emulate a small patch of frog retina, or Caenorhabditis elegans. We really should ask ourselves why we cannot emulate Caenorhabditis elegans. And we end up producing clever superficial fakes of human abilities. “AI” is Eliza. And that is why when AI solves a problem, it is no longer AI: Because the solution is always merely Eliza with a bigger database. We have merely been building bigger and bigger Elizas, as if we wanted to fly, and built shoes with bigger and bigger springs.
>> simplyconnected said:
>> Or as the saying in AI goes: once a problem in AI is solved, it is no longer an AI problem.
> Jim said:
> That is because the solution is always in some sense Eliza – a cheat – superficially faking the Turing test.
Or perhaps because the AI problems that were pursued were not in fact the kind of problems that truly require intelligence (like loading the laundry).
It was first thought that chess required intelligence, even creativity. Then it was found that a dumb as rocks algorithm could surpass any human. Now no one thinks chess is an AI problem, just an algorithmic one.
As you point out, we were attacking the wrong problems (those that cannot be solved without intelligence), and still are.
But who can blame them. It’s effectively low hanging fruit (e.g. going from trying to solve chess to trying to solve go), and the public still believes that the next slightly more complex rules-based problem requires intelligence.
The reason for this belief seems to be that people indeed use their intelligence to play chess or go. They may not be aware that intelligence is not actually required for the computer to play chess or go expertly.
Pretty sure that sorting and folding the laundry does truly require something.
If what it requires is not intelligence, so much the worse for intelligence.
I should mention Jerry Kaplan talks extensively about the fact that current “AI problems” are those that humans solve using intelligence, but don’t actually strictly *require* intelligence.
> As you point out, we were attacking the wrong problems (those that cannot be solved without intelligence), and still are.
I meant to say “[…] those that *can* be solved without intelligence […]”.
> Pretty sure that sorting and folding the laundry does truly require something.
Yes, intelligence. Maybe consciousness.
> Or perhaps because the AI problems that were pursued were not in fact the kind of problems that truly require intelligence (like loading the laundry).
Loading laundry was an example of a problem that likely cannot be solved without actual intelligence.
Chess was an example of a game that can be played well both with, and without intelligence.
> Pretty sure that sorting and folding the laundry does truly require something.
I wasn’t disagreeing with you.
You’ll see academics talking about “common sense”, or modeling “common sense knowledge”. But I don’t hear people talk about the need to understand or model “consciousness”, my guess is it’s too esoteric and they would be considered a bit crazy if they brought it up.
A good example in robotics of what we are discussing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXEtfGcF6hs&t=10m9s
[Punchline arrives a minute and a half later at at 11m40s.]
> But I don’t hear people talk about the need to understand or model “consciousness”
There’s a journal dedicated to consciousness, finding neural correlates of consciousness etc.. But among AI/machine learning, even theoretical neuroscience, I don’t hear anyone mention consciousness. (Unlike “common sense”, which they do talk about)
The problem with Jim’s commentary is that it seems oblivious to the existence of technology. You get all these asides and references to centuries old political events, at ages when technology barely existed, all the while pretty much 100% of the issues we face today have been CAUSED by technology, and therefore… will have to be ultimately solved by it too. Of course the alt-retards believe we can and should go back to the 1950s so they can get laid again (and that them getting laid will solve everything), but that’s where the drones come in once again.
We have been losing social technology since the restoration.
The advances in other forms of technology are more favorable to older forms of organization. Thus for example William the Conqueror instituted “forms of action” in order to keep judges under control, which system lasted to the early nineteenth century. “Forms of action” were in effect database remote procedure calls implemented on slates covered in beeswax, a slate being a thin slab of stone.
The Australian government was faced with the problem that judges somehow found that no illegal immigrant could ever be deported, so they in effect re-implemented William the Conqueror’s “forms of action” but using modern database remote procedure calls instead of slates covered in beeswax. Works great. If you overstay your visa, or enter Australia illegally, you will be imprisoned or deported without ever seeing a judge or a lawyer. You get carded at a strip club, it triggers a central database, and the next thing you know you are on your way to Villawood detention center.
Similarly, feudalism was based on the fact that knight in armor was a highly trained highly skilled athlete, who could move a long and heavy sword so swiftly that human reflexes could not react in time, mounted on a similarly highly trained highly athletic highly expensive war horse, the knight and the warhorse both being products of highly selective breeding and intense training, the knights equipment and training being incredibly expensive, which was based on a military technology such that handful highly trained and very well equipped warriors could deal with a great big pile of conscript cannon fodder. One hero could, and routinely did, be the deciding factor in a major battle with a major impact on political events. William the Marshal took two castles and arguably personally decided the outcome of a civil war over who would be King. Modern technology has recreated the situation that gave rise to feudalism. Mass armies of conscript cannon fodder were decisive from the Napoleonic wars to World War II. Today, they get effortlessly slaughtered, and the trend is back to a handful of well trained high quality well equipped heroes being decisive.
Similarly, serfdom, old style apprenticeship, etc, marriage as it existed from the restoration to the early nineteenth century, could be far more effectively implemented with modern databases.
Similarly, it is far easier to implement Robert Boyle’s rules for right conduct of science and debate using webs and blogs, than paper journals. Science and the scientific method is another lost social technology, which modern technology makes a lot easier to re-implement than when it was first implemented. The illegal science databases are in substantial part an attempt to re-implement the scientific method using modern technology, but are meeting state opposition, while the Royal Society, implementing it with paper journals, got royal backing.
Now that’s some exciting technology!
Jim,
I rest my case.
Australian Illegal immigration is precisely zero. Visa overstays are as near zero as makes no difference.
Yes, that does not solve the problem of race replacement, but it stopped the high speed race replacement.
Immigration doesn’t exist. The concept is a fake concept. The mass transfer of meatbags from one place to another follows conquest by some combination of war, disease, pestilence, or draught.
Mass transfer not following such conquest has no historical precedent. Drawing the obvious conclusion, another kind of conquest has taken place.
With the coming robotic armies, your remnant people’s latent military potential will be rendered irrelevant and your total physical extinguishment will follow shortly thereafter.
Accelerationism is your only hope. Do not go gently into that good night.
Thanks, Boomers.
Robot armies are not coming. Google’s self driving car is not coming. Robot fruit pickers destroy the fruit, and a robot cannot sort and fold a laundry basket.
When a robot can pick fruit and fold laundry, then maybe robots can fight.
Science died in 1945, technological advance radically slowed down in 1972, and continues to get slower and slower, with major technological decline happening at the leading edge: tall buildings, air superiority fighters, nuclear batteries, and nuclear weapons.
The left singularity ate science in 1945, and is devouring technology. Every time an open source project signs up to a politically correct code of conduct, it stops improving and eventually succumbs to bitrot, bugs, and misfeatures.
Now that Linus has been purged from the linux kernel, we are going to eventually need a new open source operating system kernel.
Those whizz-bang intertubes won’t amount to anything, young whippersnapper. Want tah know what’s going tah be thah burning hot new thing? Plastics!
Amazon won’t have any warehouse employees by 2030.
Internet got started in 1970. Progress since then has stagnated.
Science ended in 1945, when the scientific method was banned from universities. With the global warming issue, they are moving towards criminalizing it on the internet. Technological progress slowed substantially in 1972, and in leading edge fields we have had technological decline since about 2000 or 2010.
“Science ended in 1945, when the scientific method was banned from universities. With the global warming issue, they are moving towards criminalizing it on the internet”
It’s interesting to observe when there are real recent technical achievements, horror is expressed in the media. For example the recent baby gene edit in China. Also commercial companies that have perfected, and offer pet cloning (for a high fee). They are often denounced as decadent. Now I don’t give a flying f*ck about cloning pets per se, but if commercial pet cloning advances the underlying technology I’m all for it.
Your site has some pretty (dare I say it) based and redpilled stuff, but the Tech Question is a sticky point. I hope Jim does a Reaction 101 post on it some day. I don’t think you can blame Progressivism’s conquest of the world on technology, and I don’t think we’re on the verge of some civilizational phase transition due to drones anytime soon. And talk of the ‘end of religion’, let alone politics, is either trivial semantics or nonsense – at least until we get some real eugenics going, and even then I don’t know.
>Of course the alt-retards believe we can and should go back to the 1950s so they can get laid again (and that them getting laid will solve everything)
Pssst.
https://rgif.is/threads/a-great-psy-op-idea-involving-terrorism.1910/
Genius idea, I posted there.
Isn’t your manifesto a work-in-progress, though? Seems that you’ve written 899 points, and they still keep accumulating; probably better to attribute your work to random mass murderers after it’s finished.
Won’t be long buddy. A year tops. Then I am switching gears from writing to disseminating it, which will mostly involve the creation of a secret society/cult (called the Human Empire, using the Darth Vader track as anthem), but which effort can be bolstered by cool ideas like the one you linked.
Well, acquaint yourself with “Project Septuagint”: the creation of 70 fake internet profiles for the purpose of infiltration and entryism, each with its own unique idiosyncrasies, that will be activated when the time is ripe to disseminate specific content.
(Is it a real project? Or is it a meme intended to stress out the GITDs? Let’s keep them in suspense)
If you want to hijack the American civilization, I recommend immigrating from Central Europe and convincing Congrefs to pass you an infinity charter for a Third Bank.
There may be other ways, but I wouldn’t bet on them.
None of our problems have been caused by technology. Technology has no causal power whatsoever. Problems are caused and solved by people.
By people through technology. You are just confused by semantics and taking advantage of this confusion to dismiss philosophy, which is again a problem that drones can solve.
“TECHNOLOGY HAS NO CAUSAL BLAH BLAH BLAH”
Drones fly in, rat-ta-ta, stench of burning flesh…
And suddenly there’s one fewer worthless autist fagot on the planet.
Social decay is leading to technological decline. Our navy keeps running into things, in large part due to women and nonwhites being affirmative actioned into jobs for which they are incapable. Obama could not get the Obmacare website up for much the same reason as NASA could not get a rocket into space. Freedom tower is shorter and smaller than the two towers.
Specifically, greater wealth due to retro-regressions* of property rights result in the ability to afford more degeneracy. Nobody gets fired if a couple battleships run into each other and sink, because whatever we can build six more.
Naturally the six further ships are even more worthless than zero ships because they’re still piloted by pilots that can’t steer clear of other ships, but it appears to be affordable.
*They can’t be safely called ‘advancements’ since it was normal to be able to buy and sell political privileges in 1300s England. Their property rights system was simply better than ours.
It’s not a semantic distinction, bitch boy. You said tech changed the rules of the game and history no longer applies. And that’s wrong. Who has high fertility today? People who ban birth control. It’s really as simple as that.
The tech that nerds make always ends up in the hands of warriors, even if you try to inculcate nerds with a religion (sorry, “philosophy”) that they’re the Ubermensch. So it was, so it shall ever be.
Go ahead and build your drone armies. My boys and I will take em just like your shiny new toys on the playground.
Putting near before far, men of one’s own race, religion and culture before distant foreigners, acquaintances before strangers and so on, does not extend simplistically all the way to putting oneself before one’s family, or oneself before one’s mannerbund. In the former you’re cucking yourself. In the latter you’re being a nigger. (Which is the reason why stuff like the Nyadzonya raid can happen.)
War is the highest form of manly cooperation, which with intelligence is our species’ specialty. Cooperation cannot happen, and the fight is thus already lost, if every man believes every other is a traitor or a coward who will drop his comrades at the first sign of danger. The more credibly loyalty is signaled, the more powerful the cooperation – and the most credible possible signal is to actual loyalty, to actually be prepared to lay down your life for your comrades, for your King. Like a game of chicken: the genuinely insane player beats the actor. And over millions of years and millions of genocides, that is what we of the higher races have evolved to do.
100 warriors could round up 10 000 egoists like cattle. Maybe clever egoists, especially right wing ones, have some torturous way of defining egoism so that mannerbunds are allowed. But egoism taken at face value is the exact opposite of the path to power, as long as cooperative violence is victorious over individual violence – which is forever, barring flukes. When robots, cyborgs and AIs exist and vanilla humanity is long gone, if they want to destroy their enemies, they will have to be manly, courageous, and comradely robots, cyborgs and AI – that is to say, will possess some equivalent of the self-sacrificial insanity which allows a loyal man in a group of loyal men to kill his enemies, drive them before him, and hear the lamentations of their women.
@Aidan MacLear
It’s more like people who keep women in their place that have high fertility.
Deleted because Motte and Bailey
I won’t be connected to the internet for a week.
This is a very good opportunity to finally break the annoying habit of defending myself against your spiteful propaganda machine.
You’ll have to find some other target for your deflection tactics.
I think at this point it’s pretty easy for a reader to see that I’ve been advocating a reactionary vision of the world based on hierarchy and governance, in opposition to equality and anarchy….. not redistributive, regulatory progressive Marxism.
That’s a good basis on which to simply leave, and I should have done so by now. This is the opportunity to break the habit of trying to reason with boomer classical liberals.
Paraphrasing: “Hail fellow stupid evil white male. Can’t you see I am genuinely one of the bad guys also?”
You presuppose that the defining characteristic of communism is equality: As exemplified by the wonderful equality of every actual communist society.
What makes you a Marxist is Marxist history and Marxist economics, which sees the social order as just stuff to be grabbed, as a chimp sees the jungle as just stuff to be grabbed, and interprets capitalists as just the guys who most recently grabbed it, hence capitalism is recent by definition, as the chimp figures that after grabbing something, there will always be more jungle to grab stuff from.
When communists say the proletariat will rule, they mean the vanguard of the proletariat will rule. Bastiat told us long ago that communists seek a world of brutal extremes of power and powerlessness, and Shakespeare’s Jack Cade simultaneously promised equality and absolute power, simultaneously promised that no one would own anything, and that Jack Cade would own everything. Shakespeare’s Jack Cade could have quite truthfully told us what you quite truthfully tell us, that he and you pursue a world of hierarchy and governance in opposition to equality and anarchy.
Commies never cared about equality. When I was in Cuba passing as a commie, my fellow American commies were entirely untroubled by the difference in lifestyles between the masses and their communist overlords, provided that we got to enjoy the lifestyle of the communist overlords. When commies say the proletariat will rule, they mean the vanguard of the proletariat will rule.
The defining characteristic of Marxism is not pursuit of equality, but pursuit of priestly power through superior holiness, without regard for the telos of priestly power to make society function – that they just see society as stuff that is simply there for the grabbing, and they want priests to be the ones doing the grabbing. You don’t understand, or don’t care, that wealth comes from somewhere, that peace and order comes from somewhere, that society needs structure to get things done and keep people from killing each other. You will destroy the Domino’s pizza franchise and kill the cows of the peasant with two cows so that you can confiscate the Coke Zero from the owner’s fridge.
You guys wind up killing each other because the society that you intend and create is completely dysfunctional. When you argue Marxist history and Marxist economics it reveals that you don’t understand or don’t care that order exists so that men can peacefully work together, rather than that some men can grab stuff, that society is a system for enabling cooperation and for subdividing large problems into smaller problems so that those problems can be solved, so that particular men can solve particular problems. You guys look at society as a chimp looks at the jungle. You see things you want and you figure when you get what they want, there will always be more jungle. You consume the order of society as forest fire consumes wood.
Shakespeare’s Jack Cade was as much in favor of hierarchy as you are – but his hierarchy was just to grab stuff, not to make society function.
The communist sees the order of society, its organization, its structure, as mere obstacles and raw materials. You burn down the supermarket to grab a case of beer.
Hence I keep telling you “Let’s discuss the French Maximum and its opposite, King Solomon’s depiction of the good woman”.
Lets discuss society as an instrument for enabling people to get stuff done and avoid killing each other too often.
Which you, being a Marxist, refuse to discuss. And that is what makes you a Marxist: that you interpret history and economics as just people grabbing stuff, and figure that there will always be stuff to be grabbed. You don’t care about society as an instrument for peacefully getting stuff done, getting very complicated and difficult things done.
And this also shows up in your definition of consciousness, which definition makes a spambot script conscious, and me unconscious. You define consciousness as performing a low level priestly role that can be easily automated. Look at any church service or any Occupy meeting. If we had an animatronic priest, would make no difference.
Whenever you tell us what someone is really saying, it is always the direct opposite of what he said. Therefore any comments that explain what someone else is saying will be reflexively deleted.
Let’s discuss the French Maximum and its opposite, King Solomon’s depiction of the good woman, rather than explaining to me that I already agree with Marxism.
Lets discuss society as an instrument for enabling people to get stuff done and avoid killing each other too often.
I am now silently deleting your numerous posts explaining what my position really is.
He can’t go too much off script his shareblue handlers will stop paying him his 2 cents a post.
http://i63.tinypic.com/dmclep.png
Any comment about consciousness that fails to acknowledge or implicitly denies Moravec’s paradox will be deleted.
Any discussion of consciousness that defines the Moravec type tasks as unconscious is stupid, ignorant, and crazy.
Almost none of the issues we are facing are caused by technology. I used to think once we had gunpowder and peasants could shoot knights we just had to have democracy, but then someone wiser reminded me of China and the Ottomans.
Before The Pill, there were all kinds of contraceptive, abortifacient herbs. In fact Napoleon’s soldiers taught them to girls all over Europe. What do you think medieval prostitutes did, got pregnant all the time? Hence our problem with women are not of The Pill.
Industry in the sense of soulless but efficient jobs existed before modern technology, in the Arsenal of Venice, for example.
The kind of determinism I might be willing to consider is that all these world wars required new social technologies, in the sense that women just had to work while men fought, for example. But even this is tedious.
Great article as always Jim, but your conclusion is an error. The age of religion is over, and what dawns now is the age of philosophy. But the masses are incapable of philosophy, ergo the masses must go. The solution therefore is the final solution: armies of killer drones ridding the earth of billions of subhumans, until only a few hundred thousand Overmen are left to take on the aliens in the universe’s final stage. Most Homo sapiens create nothing anyway so they are useless for the final stage. There’s absolutely no reason for the earth to hold billions of them any more, and the drones will fix this issue. All we need then is for the drone owners—i.e. the techies—to understand this, and that’s what my philosophy is for, and it’s well on the way to achieving that since the only modern philosophy being seriously discussed in 4chan is mine (and 4chan is where the techies of the future will get their links from, as you said).
In summa, your political commentary is second to none, but we are fast approaching the end of politics, and just like the end of religion, and it’s philosophy that follows after that to take us to the endgame… and the next cycle.
Nuts
The future belongs to those that show up.
What I think is nuts is trying to solve present problems with past solutions, which is what the reactionary program does. Mankind will NEVER accept a religion again, which is the pillar of your program. We are too smart for religions today unless the religion is philosophy. And philosophy says: killer drones.
Go read Bronze Age Pervert until your understanding of le epic esoteric Nietzscheanism bears some relation to concrete reality, schizo.
Concidentally, have just read BAM. Dunno. The only worthwhile idea I find in it is that freedom isn’t something that comes from this or that law or kind of government, but rather the life of the city is inherently unfree, life on the steppe is inherently free, and the Western city is better than the Eastern city because it tries to preserve as much freedom of the steppe as possible. Other than that, it is full of ideas of the kinds that people come up with when they get high, and there is this aesthetical superhero-thing, the highest kind of life, which apparently equals the steppe or something. Dunno. Not really impressed. Maybe because I got over Nietzsche and aesthetical superhero lives at around 16. It was cool for a period, but not a very practical way to look at things.
Bap is intellectually incoherent. He is plugging an aesthetic, not idea system. He is not interested in being intellectually coherent.
No I’ve conversed with the guy online (he used to be a part of a forum I was on) I’ll tell you his actual ideas.
BAPs basic idea is that the rights victory will come at least partially through tons of individual victories… but instead of saying “clean your room” (which I agree is woman’s work) he says become strong and impose your will on the enviroment around you.
Now of course that doctrine is not sufficient because right wingers eventually must cooperate it takes a synthetic tribe to kill another synthetic tribe but there is nothing wrong with individual victories either.
True – but the point of the barbarianposting and #handsomethursdays is to make thinkable what was previously unthinkable in morality and aesthetics: to meme people from thinking ‘hey, what’s wrong with whites having own homeland?’ to thinking ‘hey, what’s wrong with looting and burning, killing our enemies and taking their women?’ He’s trying to resuscitate the manly paganism of ancient times, of which you’ve written favourably. It’s an absolute blast, even if he doesn’t succeed.
BAP is quite a bit deeper than he lets on, and he intentionally doesn’t let it on.
He wants to make masculinity and violence central virtues, so he pushes whatever aesthetics he can get his hands on that portray male cooperation and violence as high status. He knows full well that a group of violent men will create their own internal culture; trying to get a bunch of anons to cohere around a rigorous intellectual system is a lost cause.
Inspiring men to be masculine, violent, and contemptuous of leftist society is the first step on the path to power. You need Men before you can have a mannerbund that cooperates, and most of the online Right are not Men, they’re LARPing.
Most of the Right that are real Men are also older, settled patriarchs with wife and kids, the wrong demographic for a band of hungry, reckless warriors.
He also recognizes that being “warriors” is not for everyone.
Hes both more coherent and more complex then most think (unfortunate that hes a homosexual) but it would take very long to explain his philosophy.
Are you sure he’s a homosexual?
Pretty sure. He rejects the gay identity but the forum I was on he was suspended long term (he can come back now but hasn’t) because he sent gay porn in a private message to someone he didn’t like.
Straight men don’t tend to do that sort of thing.
Anti-social spergs always come up with bizarre rationalizations to kill lots of people. There’s something to be said in favor of the treatment that kookoos used to receive in the 18th and 19th centuries. In particular, lobotomy and electroconvulsive therapy would have set you straight.
Spergs don’t generally or probably ever (maybe there are exceptions but I don’t know) get into political power.
I favor a Final Solution to the Leftist Problem should the left push things to civil war but I think leftist deserve it and are a threat as long as they are alive. Orgyofthewill (who I’m sure comes from a white knightionalist background) proposal is marxists in its evil though, if innocent people need to go for eugenic reasons… best to just sterilize and not murder them.
You are talking about making war on entropy. Because that is what this really is.
You can no more exterminate all leftists than you can exterminate all criminals. Both are a result of human beings going off the rails.
The best way to deal with criminals is three pronged approach of arming the males of the populace, encouraging healthy religious teachings, and a healthy political environment.
Similarly the best way to deal with flu season, is to eat right/exercise, read the good book, and avoid situations which will weaken your body or emotional state.
The universities have to be defunded. That’s a given.
But something better needs to exist to replace it.
The Universities were given power bc they promised the young men social advancement with the increased probability of acquiring a mate.
The ability to acquire a mate was replaced with “free sex”. Based on Jims insight, what really happened is that ownership of those females was effectively transferred from the fathers to the university administrators.
Women must be owned, they will import savage rapists who will beat and enslave them if necessary but they demand to be owned. When we take away ownership of the fathers, the women then cast about desperately trying to find some authority to command them. That became the universities and all its horrific chaos.
Whereas before the owners of the university system had to please the young males, specifically the young highly competitive and capable males who demanded results, now they only have to tell the fertile females how to act in order to compel the males to continue transferring resources.
Which is why logic, reason, facts and anything else we expect from universities has been discarded. For the modern university, logic is actually a detriment for the purpose of acquiring POWER. Rhetoric and arrogance are far more useful when dealing with either women or weak males. That includes the weak males who allow their daughters to go to university.
This stops when eventually like locusts they run out of families to destroy in order to acquire more females, or more likely the remaining families will be immune to the bullshit used to convince the weaker families to hand over their daughters.
But as they run out of people to cannibilize, they will step up their efforts, especially as they acquire the power to overtly use violence. Imagine a con man who has managed to acquire vast wealth from the foolish townspeople. Eventually he runs out of suckers to con. Either his victims grow wise or grow too impoverished to steal from.
At that point the con man will either move on to new pastures or he will used his ill acquired power to stomp on the townspeople who were wise enough to avoid him
I think That’s the stage we are in now. The Left is running out of dupes, bc their policies effectively cause poverty and sterility. So they are importing savages and using their power to physically coerce the population to submit.
Killer bipedal drones running Koranic software on obsolete 3 lb wetware processors and self-replicating 6x per generation in a stone huts beat low-birthrate atheist tech spergs sipping soy in Silicon Valley designing social media apps for Zogbux. The only thing going extinct is you.
How stupid do you have to be to claim that atheist tech nerds will never believe a religion again when they currently believe sub-Saharans are equal to humans, something so ludicrously false that “blind faith” doesn’t even begin to describe it?
Jim disappointed me but the replies of the readers are at least hilarious lol
Not every techie is a retard. The non-retard techies will beat the retards because… they aren’t retards. And at any rate, it will be some Elon Musk type characters who’ll end up with the buttons. All that Musk needs is to read some real philosophy, and that will happen very soon. Once the 1% gets a hold of my site it’ll all be over.
You need to stick around so people will start regarding me as sane and humble.
You Andre Glos orgy and communist revolutionary should form a club…
FOUL, SIR. I made that joke, like, 4 posts back. They really are quite the funky bunch.
>present problems with past solutions
Please name at least one, but as many as you can muster, “present” problems that are wholly unique to this era.
>mankind will never accept an [x] again
Hidebound and ignorance borne of a caudled upbringing, a privileged life, and limited real world experience. Mankind as a concept is an abstraction based on neo-Protestantism that has no basis in either social or biological reality. It is a fantasy used to sell ideas and widgets. Further, what any given society will accept is bound be external parameters, not internal capacities. Seal off NYC completely and watch how quickly cannibalism starts up. Isolate a population from explanation of technology and watch how quickly tech savvy individuals become witch doctors. You don’t even need to use macro examples; you can look at families or relationships that have been shorn of traditional structures that turn incredibly primitive incredibly rapidly.
You are either a troll, or some weaboo faggot that wandered down the wrong internet tube. Put slightly differently, if you aren’t raising children, your words are wind and your beliefs are worthless.
Hot take
Why stop at a few hundred thousand? Obviously the guy with the biggest drone army is the true perfect specimen of humanity; why shouldn’t he liquidate all of his fellow ubermenschen and use the entire planet as his personal backyard?
That’s pretty much the endgame. Play the videogame Planetary Annihilation for an early preview: https://culture.vg/reviews/videogame-art/planetary-annihilation.html
So you’re a leftist techno weeb. Fair enough. Dream on.
Technology is never as fancy pancy as techno weebs make it out to be. Need an army of engineers to maintain an army of drones. You don’t strike me as the kind of guy who knows what it takes to maintain an army of engineers. Hint: it is surprisingly human.
Also, religion is never as outdated as post-religious leftists make it out to be, but feel free to establish your own drone religion.
Gotta read up on nanomachines and stuff. Your idea of tech doesn’t seem to extend beyond a decade or two. Need vision to grasp philosophy. Need a mind that can encompass millennia, not a pea size skull that thinks throwing the word engineer out to an aerospace engineer (University of Washington, 2001) somehow negates all philosophy from Heraclitus to today.
Well Im sure you and Koanic will get along swimmingly.
Nuts.
Due to social decay, science has ended, and technological advance has halted in one field after another, continuing only in an ever narrowing set of fields. How is Google’s self driving car coming along?
The leftist political singularity ate the technological singularity.
It is rather telling that the self-driving car is hyped, while we do not even have self-driving trains.
A seld-driving train is much more easy to do than a self-driving car. Train drivers cost a lot of maney, so there must be a market for self-driving trains. That fact that we do not have self-driving trains, indicates that even the problem of a self-driving train is too hard.
There are self driving trains – the big mines in Australia use them – until they derail and cost millions of dollars.
Ah, a singulatarian.
The technolgical singularity is the rapture of the nerds. Not going to happen. Science and the scientific method died when Harvard got the upper hand on the Royal society as a result of World War II. Technological advance slowed in 1972 and ended in field after field. You will have better luck expecting the return of Christ.
Science happened in large part because Charles the Second made the invisible college into the Royal Society, making the scientific method high status. Puritans sent thugs to break up their meetings, in order to make the scientific method low status. Charles the Second sent men at arms to defend their meetings, thus securing the status of the scientific method.
Today, the scientific method is low status. If you try it, will not get published, will lose tenure. If you insist on engaging in the scientific method while at a university, a group of black polsci professors with base ball bats and room temperature IQ will pay you a visit. If you flee the university and put up a website, search engines will derank your website, and governments will block it, as they block the pirate science websites.
The major reason I haven’t already founded an alternative university. The first step to successfully doing such a thing is armoured divisions in Harvard Yard and on the White House lawn.
No need for armour. Light infantry divisions would do
Here I’m using it as a shorthand for the price, rather than a specific recommendation on doctrine.
Technology has declined due to a religious failure making coordination impossible. Technological decline is thus generally true of everything except that which can be done by one guy in his parent’s basement, which includes a lot of software. Codes of conduct have pozzed much of open source, but some projects can still be driven by individuals. Also, AFAICT from reading Gwern AI is still advancing, mainly because computation is becoming cheaper. The IT singularity is hard to stop, it tends to snowball.
It stops the moment the lack of integrity in society leads to a necessary component breaking down due to a lack of any skilled technician willing to fix it.
The concept of AI running amok always struck me as a sort of perpetual motion machine. All systems contain errors, all errors build on themselves over time until the system collapses. True for machines, true for societies, and true for code.
@orgyofthewill.net
Gamma detected…
To be fair I’m not sure if gammas as Vox Day defines them really exist. I think there are Alphas, Betas and Outcast/Omega males.
Supposedly gammas are pathologically dishonest, yet gammas also display spergish traits and spergs tend to be far more honest then most men.
Vox also displays a lot of gamma traits himself.
@Cominator
The Secret King response of “I’m an aerospace engineer, Washington University 2001 !!!1!1!11!” Was the giveaway.
He’s not the secret king, he’s the drone king! Beware his deadly sound effects.
Orgy’s embarrassing monomania is one of the dysfunctions my cognitive transhumanism technology corrects. It’s a symptom of the inability of the human brain to process modern information loads, leading to cognition-conserving fudges and folds that eventually coalesce into castles in the sky, suspended from nothing, made from pure error. It is impossible to secure ideological agreement without coercion when everyone is committing such travesties just to get through the day.
The solution is mind augmentation via exomind, using idiot-savant computers to expand mental capacity infinitely, by ergonomic low-latency immersive textual database operations, as automatic as driving a car. Putting a human mind that has previously been confined to its biological brain into a brain+exomind environment is like planting a tree sapling grown in a plastic cup into the ground. The roots start stretching out in all directions and eventually the cramped central cluster becomes irrelevant.
The sort of people who claim Vox Day exhibits gamma traits either suffer from envious delusions or lack the ability to hold multiple perspectives simultaneously. Probably both. “Gamma” is not a synonym for “flawed” or “unlikeable”. It is as dumb as claiming Trump is driven by male insecurity. If Vox had a gamma phase, it was a brief one while he figured out how to fit into his ?high school soccer team. But I rather suspect he just went straight from omega to delta, due to disdain for the gamma valley of shame. Imagine yourself a mestizo in Minnesota…
Voxs insecurity and status hierarchy anxiety is palpable hence why I think his obsessing over his self created category of “gammas” is in part projection. This becomes clear when he starts attacking “nerds” when with his interest in science fiction and comics he is clearly somewhat of a nerd himself. Insecurity is the opposite of an Alpha trait (and I certainly don’t claim to be Alpha myself I’m a sperg with no game and no ability to read people).
His obsessive hatred of Jordan Peterson (who I dissent from many but I think despite his flaws JP is a useful fellow in giving shitlibs an alternative religion even if hes somewhat leftists himself) I also think is strange.
Vox has done many good things in trying to setup alternative cultural institutions and that is where his talent lay but hes not an alpha male expert on game or status hierarchies. Hes an omega who overachieved.
Vox Day is right about Jordan Peterson and the Dark Web. They are controlled opposition.
> I’m a sperg with no game and no ability to read people
Then you really shouldn’t try to judge people objectively at the top of the social hierarchy, any more than kids with Down’s syndrome should try to major in physics.
Indeed Vox Day is at best a high achieving, high functioning beta. And he is not nearly as smart as he so frequently claims. People who are actually smart don’t feel inclined to mention it at frequent intervals.
But his achievements are impressive.
The IDW in general is controlled op. Certainly I have nothing good to say about Shapiro or Harris…
Jordanetics lets agree to disagree. I think any alternative religion that isn’t Islam preached within the Cathedral is for the best.
The trouble with Jordanetics is that it is not actually an alternative religion – it is merely progressivism that flirts with some truths dangerous to progressivism, but does not actually make contact with truths that would piss of progressives.
Cleaning up your room and standing up straight is non toxic masculinity. It is not the masculinity that frightens progressives. Jordan Peterson will not help you get laid, nor stabilize your marriage. When he talks about masculinity, it kind of sounds as if he dissenting from progressivism, but he is not. People are hungry for unspeakable truths, and Jordan Peterson sounds as if he is speaking them, but he is not.
Jim> Indeed Vox Day is at best a high achieving, high functioning beta. And he is not nearly as smart as he so frequently claims.
“Smart” is an ambiguous word that can mean anything from “high IQ” to “wise”. If you are claiming Vox exaggerates his IQ, that is objectively false.
What “beta” behavior patterns does Vox Day exhibit? He certainly does not act like the Bravo in his version of the socio-sexual hierarchy.
Jim> People who are actually smart don’t feel inclined to mention it at frequent intervals.
This is a statement of ethos preference, not a scientific observation. The ultra-high IQ are split into the functional and dysfunctional. The dysfunctional do all kinds of bizarre things. The functional do what works, which rarely involves directly challenging the equalitarian ethos of the age in a way that provokes hatred, which IQ realism does.
Vox Day’s books have heroes that are one hundred percent beta. And I can tell who is smart and who is not. Vox is a lot smarter than average, but not in the league that he so frequently claims.
Indiana Jones was alpha. Han Solo in the first star wars movie was alpha. James Bond in the early James Bond movies was alpha. Most of the characters played by Errol Flynn were alpha. Heroes should be alpha, or should grow into alpha. Not so Vox Day’s heroes. Pretty sure that the hero of Summa Elvetica is a projection of Vox Day, and he is a nerd. Starts off as a nerd, ends as a nerd.
Ah you are getting to the crux of the matter.
The false god of the progressives is a jealous God and narrow is the path of nonsense required to keep the faith. A progressives faith cannot survive any concessions to reality… Jordanetics is a seed of poison that any who accept will destroy the faith.
JP in his actual lectures talks about ev. psych even if its not pure redpill ev. psych the shitlib worldview cannot stand any thinking along these lines without becoming poisoned.
So it might be a progressivism heresy rather then a truly alternative religion… but accepting it will destroy a shitlibs faith completely given time. It does retain some of the progressives hostility to nationalism and that alone might survive in a weakened form… belief in Marxism or female equality otoh will not survive at all.
Hence why I think Jordan Peterson despite his flaws has tremendous value to us still.
Evolutionary Psychology leads to truths that will sink progressivism. But Peter Jordan stops short of those truths.
>His obsessive hatred of Jordan Peterson
Public feuds with prominent figures is how VD stays relevant and visible.
I do not believe that your intuitive evaluation of Vox Day’s intelligence from his writeprint is more reliable than the actual IQ test he took.
Nor do I believe that Vox Day writes self-projections into his fiction.
The Christian Vox Day has adopted a lot of beta civilizing ethos, which he promotes through his art. That is his goal. Remember that he is not white. When John C. Wright talks about self-restraint, and Vox Day talks about self-restraint, there is a vast racial divide in the type of impulses that they are restraining.
An author’s earliest fiction provides the most naked glimpse of his sociosexuality. If one reads Vox’s earliest fiction, you find that it regresses towards an uncomplicated sigma-esque attitude towards life.
You are right that Vox is purple-pilled, but this is not due to his low sociosexual rank.
Challenging false shepherds is a legitimate Christian and alpha activity.
And the actual test result was?
>than the actual IQ test he took
The exact result of which he never published, if I’m not mistaken.
Neither is the test result a secret. He took it with some of his longtime friends, who still stop by at the blog, and has repeatedly reminisced on how his friend mocked his visuospatial performance. Vox does not lie about things in public.
>Neither is the test result a secret.
I’m not saying that it’s a secret, but I still don’t know what it is.
I’m also not accusing Vox of overstating his intelligence – he claims high IQ for rhetorical reasons in response to leftists, because in leftist reality, conservatives are stupid. (Also, while his observations about VHIQ/UHIQ people are accurate as far as I can tell, he was careful to not claim to be one of them, IIRC.)
But again, if you’re going to use his actual IQ test score as an argument, you have to say what it is.
Pdimov> But again, if you’re going to use his actual IQ test score as an argument, you have to say what it is.
No, I don’t. Both Jim and I are familiar with Vox’s claims regarding his IQ. Those claims are based on that IQ test, among other things. Jim’s claim is based on writeprint analysis. I do not believe Jim is that good at estimating IQ from writeprint.
Jim’s claim that Vox is beta is based on Summa Elvetica’s protagonist, whom Jim assumes to be an authorial insert. Actually, I suspect this was in imitation of Vox’s favorite author Umberto Eco, who also has written a realistically-naive church lad as a main character in at least one of his books. Having grown up as one of those, I have no quarrel with the accuracy of the portrayal by either author.
IIRC he says he’s 3 SD, it’s been a while though.
Assuming your recollection is accurate, a suspiciously broad result – which could mean above three SD or exactly three SD, which seems way too high, or could mean above two SD, which sounds plausible.
Above 2SD is certain because that’s the Mensa threshold.
Yes, from his non fiction books, obviously above 2SD. But I estimate, not very much above 2SD.
Vox claims 151 here: https://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-definitive-iq-list.html
He also states, in another post:
“I was a member of Mensa, so obviously my IQ is above 132. More importantly, I was also a National Merit Finalist prior to the 1993 renorming of the PSAT, so it is equally apparent that my IQ must also be above 140.”
Mensa is accurate and reasonably reliable.
PSAT was already corrupt before 1993. He could be above 140, but I would find that a little surprising. Trouble is that since around 1870, 1900, or so, universities have wanted to enroll stupid people because they want to enroll members of underrepresented groups (also members of certain highly overrepresented groups) and also wanted to deny that they are enrolling stupid people, so the corruption of everything connected to university entrance goes way back.
His book Jordarnetics shows all that is wrong with JP.
Once again you are inferring something about Vox from a biased writeprint sample. His nonfiction books are intended to be accessible to a general audience, and are therefore written with a simpler writeprint than his default mode. Just as his fantasy books are intended to be accessible to the population of nerds that reads fantasy books.
For a more representative sample of his nonfiction writing, try his earliest columns for WND or better yet his game reviews. Both of those are also aimed at a general audience, but I suspect his ability to write simply was not as well-developed then.
Actually, I think the best sample would be his earliest blog, since that is not filtered through an editor.
IIRC Vox has claimed he is visuospatially retarded. Whereas Jim is a heavyweight nonverbal thinker, by dint of long engineering practice, early reading of Feynman, and natural ability to observe phenomena that is for others masked by the fog of Progressive words.
It is perfectly understandable for visuospatial heavyweights to evaluate Vox’s intelligence and conclude it’s lacking. Just as verbal thinkers often fail to grasp the visuospatial mode, so also the reverse. However, typically a non-visuospatial thinker will at least be aware that he is terrible at math. The reverse is not necessarily true. Verbal thinkers cannot think about visuospatial topics at all, whereas visuospatial thinkers can think about symbolic topics by engaging with the content “below” the symbols. Therefore some visuospatial thinkers exhibit chauvinism towards symbol-centric thought.
Both modes have their weaknesses and strengths.
Yes, Vox lies. https://i.imgur.com/1SyNujY.jpg
Yes Vox does lie and does project. His gamma male category is not real but Vox is capable of displaying the kind of behaviours he attributes to “gammas” when he feels his fake alpha status is being threatened. Projecting aggression and supreme confidence (even if not genuine) is exactly right for dealing with SJW attack… but its alienating when hes insisting on his own infallibility to other people on the right.
I’m not denying the good things hes done, but he’d do a lot better if he admitted his character flaws and stopped projecting to cover up for them. He might actually move from purple pill to actual redpill…
My faults (gluttony, lust, and wrath) are entirely compatible with alpha.
Vox Day’s faults, not so much. His categorization the male sociosexual hierarchy is projection. His alpha frame is fragile and brittle, and he knows it, and if you follow his advice, you will fail to project alpha in a way that women will recognize. You will, however, be effective at dealing with social justice warriors.
>gets a degree in the least innovative field of engineering
>calls himself a man of engineering vision
Pick one and only one, bucko.
Also,
>naming his alma mater and year of graduation on a pseudonymous Karen ceremonial dress sewing blog comments section
He is an engineer in a field of engineering that is visibly regressing to a lower technological level, making silly prophesies of the technological singularity.
In his field, the technological decline is obvious.
AI is in my field of expertise. I always predicted that the Google self driving car would fail, and that launching the project was an indication that Google is no longer run by smart people. All the progress he prophesies is well outside his field of expertise – because in any area that is in one’s own field of expertise, one is apt to notice that technological progress has slowed or stopped, and in many cases reversed, as in the decline of the highest level of technology, the air superiority fighter.
The requirements for a ground support battle aircraft are the opposite of those for an air superiority fighter, and building a plane to attempt do both roles is just an excuse to cover the fact that we can build neither the ground support battle aircraft nor the air superiority fighters that we used to. And no one remains in the US who can build nukes or maintain our existing nukes. They were never designed to be stored for long periods without maintenance or checkups, and chances are that that our nukes do not work any more.
@jim
There’s definitely a decline in airplane tech.
To clear things up, “aerospace” refers to both airplanes and reusable orbital boosters… two completely different vehicles. Spaceplane boosters are as nonsensical as flying submarines and flying main battle tanks. One’s ideal proportion is that of a feather, the other is a lightweight bottle filled with heavy liquid. Hence the failure of shuttle and the X-33… and the success of DC-X and Falcon 9.
Soem argue that AI are possessed by NKISI demons. Your take?
Technologically, aviation isn’t declining, it’s just not improving very much. Boeing’s organizational QA may be declining.
The space of air-o-space, the rockets of Beezos and Musk, are improving at a remarkable clip.
The self-driving car is 98% of the way there. The last 2% is going to be very difficult, but there’s no essential obstacle to fully autonomous vehicles. It will happen, just not imminently. I predicted 15 years 5 years ago and I predict 10 years now.
VTOL craft resembling scaled-up quadcopters will also appear within the next decade. The FAA, in a remarkable stroke of competence, has been hard at work reworking flight rules and air traffic management to handle the coming drone swarms. The hard problems of the so-called “flying cars” will be noise pollution, graceful automatic failsafety complicated by very high disk loading, and type certification.
Social tech has been declining since 1913. None dare call it conspiracy.
Civil aviation is not declining, but it is not improving significantly. Military Aviation is in clear and obvious decline.
Rockets were in decline since the moonshot, leading to the humiliating situation where NASA had to hitch rides from the Russians. Musk advanced rocketry by using carbon fiber for lightweight rocket bodies, and built a booster that lands as a rocket should land, but the eye of Soros fell upon him, and it was discovered that his rocketry workforce was toxically male, and he now seems to have abandoned plans for a reusable earth to space rocket. The booster is all we are going to get.
The self driving car was never 98% of the way there. It relies on a map annotated by humans in excruciating detail, rather than looking at things and knowing what they mean. This was always going to only work 99% of the time – its basic fundamental underlying technology was always going to run into the limits that it is now running into.
Big data provides the illusion of consciousness, but animals don’t need big data. At the core of AI is a gigantic lookup table generated from an enormous database.
Drones represent a real advance in technology, but they inherently have short range, low speed, and low lifting capacity.
Yes, some areas are still advancing. A lot of areas, such as civilian aviation, are stable, improving in ever tinier increments. And some areas, notably art, tall buildings, bridges and such like, are, in the west, at the center of empire, in obvious and major decline.
Consciousness is an intrinsic property of the Universe, so yes.
St.Ungabunga writes:
“Consciousness is an intrinsic property of the Universe”
No it most certainly is not.
Are you happy with the idea that your inner life is indistinguishable in any way that matters from that of a monkey?
The whole point of inquiry into the nature of consciousness is to explain HOW and WHY we differ so much from all of the non-human animals.
Consciousness is that part of HUMAN BEHAVIOUR that needs to be explained in that way.
Simply dismissing it as some epiphenomenon of matter, with no work to do, means you’re explaining precisely nothing, because your conscious rock and your conscious gerbil are still very different from your conscious self.
Daniel Dennett’s account of consciousness is about as good as it gets, and while I’m not at all doing it justice to try to condense it into a soundbite (after all if that were possible, he’d have already done it himself), it amounts to something roughly like this:
“Consciousness is the story produced, in bits and open to continual revision, by the only person capable of producing it: the person that controls your body. That person is the one people address when they address YOU.” (impression, not quotation)
If you’re inclined to object that this sounds like LANGUAGE is terribly important in that view, and that focusing on language misses some important point, you should reflect further! Most of the parts of your inner life that can be adequately conceived of without reference to any form of language aren’t finally part of your conscious experience – they’re merely ‘sensual’, and again if you’re going to say that it’s precisely that ineffable ‘aboutness’ of the sensual that needs to be explained, then you’re answering a different question to “what distinguishes us from our gerbils”.
Daniel Dennett’s progressive cultural Marxist account of consciousness is considerably crazier than the proposition that rocks are conscious. At least it is impossible to prove that rocks are not conscious, while his account of consciousness is plainly insane and violently contrary to my everyday experience of myself.
It seems improbable that the universe is conscious, but you then immediately segue from such issues to delivering your usual progressive payload – that conscious thought is language. No it is not, which is fortunate for progressives have systematically destroyed language in an effort to make politically incorrect thought unthinkable.
I generally don’t verbalize my stream of consciousness in language, except when I am trying to write a blog post or a comment, and I am painfully aware that often, as when discussing framing, game, and long term relationship game, that language is poor fit to what I am trying to communicate. When interacting with women, the most important things are pre-verbal and non verbal.
PUA and reaction creates vocabulary, concepts, memes, and shibboleths to communicate what is at present often very difficult to communicate and to verbalize, and I spend a great deal of thought and energy trying to make things of which I am very much conscious verbalizable – which necessarily involves a great deal of non verbal thought.
This is part of the rectification of names. Most of your comments that I suppress are damaging to the rectification of names, because you use our shibboleths in ways consistent with progressive thought, when the whole point of our terminology is to render speakable what progressives attempt to render unspeakable.
Engineering also involves a tremendous amount of thought for which human language is a poor fit, and expressing the ideas in computer code and suchlike, which is often the only way they can be expressed, involves a tremendous amount of conscious thought inexpressible in human language. So engineers, like pickup artists, experience conscious non verbal thought most of the time, pickup artists when they are thinking about their interaction with women, engineers when they are thinking about engineering.
Musk has switched to stainless steel from carbon fiber.
Because at cryogenic temperatures, SS is almost as great in strength to weight ratio as carbon fiber. And can be used directly as a heatshield with transpiration cooling in places.
It’s vastly cheaper and can be built out in a field instead of a clean room or factory. The idea of a shipyard style building of very large rockets was proposed in the 1970’s. Now SpaceX is doing it. Both a Starhopper to test that idea out and wring out vtvl control is being tested while a full size orbital upper stage is being built… all outside.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47729.520
https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1114390314565787648
He is definitely ignoring the Eye of Soros due to the fact that the Eye of Soros’s sword and shield – the disparate impact bureaucracy and FBI management – are currently being dismantled or cornered by President Trump. I expect the Eye of Soros to get its sword and shield back after 2024, assuming the Trump Family doesn’t follow the example of the Julio-Claudian Family.
Mereological nihilism is true, so if consciousness isn’t an intrinsic property of the universe, it does not exist. In fact it’s even more intrinsic than mass. Objective physics can be constructed out of a purely subjective existence, but not vice-versa.
In shocking news, CR believes that what you’re happy with has any bearing whatsoever against what is and is not true. The whole point of inquiry…no, that’s your ill-informed guess. The point of studying consciousness is to find out what consciousness is. If that’s not the point, Reality will not bless you with understanding, for She is a jealous bitch.
As Jim has also established, there’s nothing uniquely human about the elements of consciousness; just as it is not impossible to make carbon compounds without elan vital. Perhaps you would like to join us in the 21st century?
“The mass of a rock and the mass of a gerbil are very different from the mass of a person.” That’s not a kind of difference that matters. Though it is certainly impressive to the monkey thinker, so it’s hardly difficult to work out why you think it matters.
Dennett is probably an NPC. If there is any mind there when he was born, it vanished many years ago. He is useful in the archeological sense.
—
It’s not difficult to describe what humans have that other animals don’t. It is not the following thing, though it is called that: free will. More accurately, the ability to sign and follow a contract. The ability to obey something other than your immediate impulses. E.g. you can control a pig but you have to be able to intimidate it at the instant it’s about to do anything you don’t like, or inflict learned helplessness on it via conditioning.
Language is obviously a necessary part of this ability. To form a contract, the second party must be able to communicate which actions the signee is supposed to perform. However, language is not sufficient. While simple, chimps do have a language, as do many birds.
I discovered this while investigating whether veganism has any legs to stand on. Since animals can’t sign contracts, they don’t.
The thing which isn’t morality but is called morality is based on the contract thing and reciprocity. If you deviate against a human, they will at the very least not cooperate with you again. The pig, by contrast, cannot cooperate even if it wanted to. As a result, deviating against a pig carries no cost. There is no reason to do anything to a pig except whatever happens to benefit you most at the time.
Contracts are required for proper technology. Proof by inspection.
Computers have the opposite problem: they can’t do anything except what they’re contracted to do. Any unexpected actions are due to glitches or due to humans not understanding their own contracts. Without consciousness, computers cannot value things and thus cannot be traded with.
Karlylean Restorationist,
Yes, it most certainly is. Consciousness is a matter of degree, not of kind.
And it isn’t about my “happiness”, it’s about the truth. The truth, which exists everywhere at all times in all places.
It takes a very special person to deny the consciousness of his dog. Did you know that you can teach your dog to sit, stay, come, roll over, or shake on command? Not only is that evidence of consciousness, it’s evidence of shared consciousness. Your mushy skull-jelly produces a meaning, massages that meaning into “meaningless” vibrations of air, and your dog’s slightly less mushy skull-jelly massages those “meaningless” vibrations of air back into meaning — your meaning, the same meaning.
And chimps are, on the whole, smarter than dogs.
As you read these words, (yes, I’m breaking the fourth wall), you’re sharing a small fraction of my consciousness: the same approximate fraction as you might share with your dog, the meaningful difference being its vastly higher resolution.
I have a residual sympathy for creationists, having been soulfully committed creationists just a handful of generations ago. But, I mean, fuck, man. We now know that dolphins and elephants recognize themselves in mirrors and mourn their dead. A surprising fraction of Africans don’t do the former and may not do the latter.
Language is probably the highest form of human experience in that it’s the most abstract and general. But when you have the opportunity to talk to a dolphin through a babelfish supersoniclicky translator, are you really going to try to tell me after that you shared consciousness with neither the dolphin nor the babelfish?
All organisms with finite lives have a sense of where they’ve been and where they’re going. The difference between you and a gerbil is that you’re marginally smarter, not that the gerbil doesn’t exist.
Motte and Bailey argument.
Any discussion of consciousness, to be relevant to this blog, has to show awareness of Moravec’s paradox – which is the Pons Asinorum for any discussion of consciousness.
Deleted for shear insanity. That simply is not what happened, and if you want to argue that is what happened, make some concrete references to concrete events.
I would have liked to judge for myself.
If this is a reply to me, yes. It’s much easier to argue for the consciousness of a dog than the consciousness of a rock.
I don’t know if I want to argue for the consciousness of a rock. I’ll admit an open question as to whether or not rocks are conscious.
But at least according to my latest thoughts on consciousness, I would lean towards no, at least at the supraatomic level, in the sense that rocks have, to my knowledge, no self-regulating feedback loops and no capacity for self-regulating feedback loops.
A self-regulating feedback loop, you will notice, is self-referential in exactly the same way as we perceive consciousness to be self-referential.
But then there is the implication that to take a static, unchanging form, rocks must be highly resilient to outside forces, and any resiliency would imply, somewhere in the universal code, a self-regulating feedback loop.
And while there is an entire universe of possibility space for the spontaneous self-organization of self-regulating feedback loops, there are probably only a few specific architectures of molecules and particles within which meaningful computational capacity might reasonably lurk.
Single-celled organisms and plants have hormonal computational capacity likely mediated entirely by ordinary molecules.
Animals have much greater computational capacity mediated by cascading chains of minutely separated electrically charged cells, a hybrid electric system some orders of magnitude faster than the purely hormonal variety.
Computers have electronic computational capacity mediated by ludicrously fast silicon, the speed of one impulse being limited more by the speed of light than by the epic voyage of a hormone across an intracellular gap.
And then there’s the interesting possibility of Rupert Sheldrake’s morphic resonance.
I have little doubt that the rate-limiting factor of computer consciousness is our own frustrating incapacity at adequately instantiating our own sub-verbal computation into either, or both, language and Turing-compliant algorithm. I would argue that we’re building from the top down for no other reason that the top is the part that we can formalize, and that to recreate sub-verbal consciousness into computers, we must successfully construct a virtual environment in which competent AI can evolve.
You look at an elegans and you see algorithms irreproducible by any known algorithm and you assume magic. I assume that the form of the worm has access to 4 BILLION years of precomputation that you’re not seeing.
I seriously doubt that a system of pure electrons cannot fully replicate cell function inside their own simulated universe. The “state” of the system would then be two: internal and external.
Does your inarticulable thought resemble high dimension motion?
You have already seen it two dozen times, and seen my reply two dozen times.
Carlylean Restorationist is a profilic NPC poster, and all his messages are composed by mixing together two or three items from half a dozen or so repetitious and formulaic scripts. He has more names that he has different scripts.
That was another “capitalism appeared last week” remix of scripts consisting of citing all the people we admire and all the people libertarians admire supposedly agreeing that capitalism appeared last week. Everyone knows, everyone agrees, that capitalism appeared last week. “Why were the leading lights of the Enlightenment calling for the introduction of capitalism, if it already existed?” he asks.
The science is settled, and, since the science is settled, no need to provide any actual evidence, and anyone who presents any actual evidence is being unscientific and anti intellectual. Albeit since everyone already knows that reactionaries are stupid, unscientific, anti scientific, anti intellectual, and proud of it, and since reactionaries supposedly totally agree that we are stupid, unscientific, anti scientific, and proud of it, he instead tells us that presenting actual evidence is Jewish.
I am trying to get him to deviate from script, in the hope of turning him into a double agent, but I suspect he has a supervisor watching his output to make sure he adheres to script.
At least he has stopped telling us that the French Revolution consisted of Capital seizing power from Aristocrats, which I suppose is a deviation from script.
I just noticed an important ‘strategic delete-then-respond’ and need to set the record straight.
The ‘motte and bailey argument’ was this: “you are happy” means “you are intellectually satisfied”.
The guy who said I was turning it into an emotional debate was lying. What I said was “are you happy with a theory of consciousness that makes no distinction between your consciousness and that of a dog?”.
It’s perfectly obvious that ‘happy’ does not mean ‘in an emotional state of contentment’: it means ‘in a cognitive state of satisfaction’.
I am ‘happy’ with Pythagoras’ ways of turning angle+height into distance, for example. It doesn’t mean I bounce up and down.
This is the level of intellectual discourse of children: haha you said “happy”, you cultural Marxist!
This was strategically censored because the host prefers the ‘misunderstanding’ to remain unchallenged.
You want a definition of consciousness that makes the priestly classes conscious, and your enemy classes unconscious.
The difference between my consciousness and that of a cat is, as Darwin argued, merely a difference of degree, and not a very large difference of degree. The difference between me and a computer is a difference of kind.
So pretty sure that the position attributed to you is accurate: That you are pushing a definition of consciousness that is flatly contrary to my lived experience, with utter disregard for intellectual coherence or common sense to make you and your class high status, and me and my class low status.
You are arguing from irrational and incoherent emotional desire, and projecting onto enemy classes the same argument from desire. Social Justice Warriors always project.
All your arguments are the same argument: We should agree with you because your position is high status, and disagreeing with you is low status.
Due to open entry into the priesthood, and the ensuing oversupply of the priestly classes, the claim of the priesthood that their ideas are high status has diminishing credibility.
Deleted for denying, without evidence or argument, that the Jacobins were anticapitalist, and ignoring their attack on private property in the means of production.
You can argue for Marxism, but I will not allow comments that presuppose Marxism.
Lets talk about what happened during the French Revolution – and not presuppose that everyone agrees with the Marxist account of history. Let us debate what the Jacobins did to smash capitalism.
Let us debate the flaming anticapitalist rhetoric and state sponsored attacks on capitalism by the Popular Society and the Committee of Public Safety.
Lets argue about what actually did happen, instead of presupposing that we are all Marxists here.
What happened in the French revolution prefigured the Russian Revolution. King Louis XVI, like Alexander the Liberator, attacked private property in the means of production, by taking control of grain, as Alexander the liberator took control of land. Grain shortages predictably ensued, whereupon the king deflected outrage from himself onto butchers and bakers, turning a blind eye to mobs sacking butchers and bakers, with the predictable result that in due course the mobs sacked the palace, and the anticapitalist rhetoric started by the King escalated to Jacobinism and the enlightenment.
Adam Smith was pro capitalism, and the physiocrats favored the free market in land and agricultural products, which was most of the market and most of the capital in the days when the primary source of energy was muscle power, but the enlightenment was an anticapitalist movement: the Church of Reason, the War in the Vendee, and the war in Spain prefigured the communism of the twentieth century. The Red Terror of the Committee of Public Safety and the Paris Commune was a rerun of Jack Cade’s anticapitalist terror parodied by Shakespeare, and prefigured the Red Terror of the Russian, Chinese, and Cambodian Revolutions. The enlightenment gave us the first two red terrors, prefiguring the red terrors of communism, the same causes predictably giving the same results. The enlightenment failed catastrophically, and Marxism is just leftists disowning the past disasters of leftism and attributing them to insufficient leftism. Your Marxism is just the enlightenment all over again, as today’s leftists blame Stalin for failing to take leftism far enough and seriously enough.
You can disagree with this and argue for Marxist history, but I will censor any comment by you that presupposes consensus on Marxist history, much as I censor any comment the presupposes consensus that World Trade Center building seven abruptly and mysteriously went into free fall. It went into free fall after initially and predictably falling sideways like a tree, as foreseen by people looking at the fire and the damage, until it was above the square beside it, and no longer above its foundations. And when it was no longer above its own foundations, then it unmysteriously and entirely predictably went into free fall.
We reject the enlightenment because it was leftism knocking over the apple cart to grab the apples, and you reject the enlightenment as you reject Stalinism, because it did not knock over the apple cart hard enough, nor hunt down with sufficient vigor the witches causing the mysterious ensuing shortage of apples.
Stalin was the good guy in the Russian Revolution, or rather the less bad guy, because like Napoleon and Cromwell, he stopped the madness. Trouble is he did not stop it hard enough – probably could not have stopped it hard enough. If Stalin had been as sane as Lavrentiy Beria, probably would have been murdered like Beria. Had Beria succeeded, Beria would likely have been Deng Xiaoping or General Monck. Beria was murdered not for his crimes, but for his sanity.
That is our version of history. I will allow argument against it, but I will not allow comments that presuppose consensus on Marxist and whig history. The whigs rewrite the disasters of the enlightenment out of history, and you rewrite capitalism and the disastrous results of anticapitalist movements out of history.
You can debate history, but comments that presuppose consensus on official history and Marxist history will be deleted. You can argue against our version, you can argue for Marxist history and whig history, but you have to acknowledge that we don’t agree with your version, and address the evidence that we produce for our version. If you don’t acknowledge our disagreement nor attempt to refute our evidence, your comments will be deleted.
Deleted for refusal to present evidence or argument.
But at least you acknowledge that we deviate from Marxist doctrine, if only to ridicule deviation from Marxism as self evidently absurd, so self evidently absurd that no evidence is required. That is a first.
As I said, I will censor any discussion of consciousness that does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge Moravec’s paradox. What cats do, what a spider does, but a computer cannot do, is hard. What humans can do but cats cannot do is frequently trivial and easily automated, and at best a minor difference (but therefore impossible to automate) and confident announcements without evidence or explanation that there is a huge difference will be silently deleted. The hardest human task to automate is stuff like sorting and folding a laundry basket, and anything a cat does and humans also do is usually harder than that.
And I am also going to censor any definition of consciousness that implies that most of my engineering work is trivial and does not involve consciousness, that what the priestly classes do involves consciousness, while what lesser classes do is robotic, and can be trivially automated. Engineering has more in common with sorting a laundry basket – therefore hard, while most of your comments could be issued by simple NPC script, and therefore do not require or involve consciousness.
Your only argument is that the science is settled, that your view is high status and lesser views cannot possibly be discussed, that is simply laughable to discuss non Marxist and non progressive worldviews. To demonstrate that you are a conscious being, and not merely yet another spambot, try discussing Moravec’s paradox, the French Maximum, and King Solomon’s good woman. That would require consciousness.
Beria actually also was never a communist (NEVER at ANY point believed in it) was slated to be executed when the communists won but the communists of course immediately started killing each other and he was able to join one group of communists arguing that he was with them because the other group wanted him dead.
I just silently deleted a bunch of your comments for discussing consciousness while denying Moravec’s paradox, and a few more for doubling down on Marxist history without argument or evidence. Let’s start by discussing the French Maximum, and the good woman depicted by King Solomon.
If you want to argue Marxist history, going to have to produce evidence for it and against our history, and present refutations of the evidence for our history, rather than telling us that evidence is low status.
Which no Marxist has ever done, revealing that you know that Marxist history is a lie. The French Revolution was an anticapitalist revolution: King veered left, got eaten by a holiness spiral he did much to start, as the descendants of Alexander the Liberator got eaten by a holiness spiral Alexander did much to start.
The method of argument that you and every tenured academic uses on this issue reveals guilty knowledge that Marxism is a lie, as the refusal of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warmists to show their evidence despite ancient academic rules and traditions and Freedom of Information requests reveals guilty knowledge that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a lie.
If you want your comments about the French Revolution to go through, you are going to have to discuss the French Maximum and attempt to rebut the reactionary take on The Maximum, rather than telling us that the science is settled.
No, the science is not settled. Let’s discuss the French Maximum and King Solomon’s good woman.
“Beria would likely have been Deng Xiaoping or General Monck”
Did Deng or Monck abduct and rape hundreds of teenage girls, and strangle them if they put up a fight?
The extent to which Beria did this for real is not known.
Beria is interesting to me and Jim because he was politically an anticommunist and reactionary who never at any point ever really pretended to have any sympathy for communism… yet kept getting promoted in the secret police (after joining them to escape execution) because the communist were more then anything interested in killing each other and almost ended up being head of state and dismantling the whole thing.
Alrenous,
lol/10
As for the rest of your comment … decent, but Man didn’t spring forth completely armed from the armpit of a clockwork Universe.
Voluntary contracts are not the defining feature of humans: you didn’t choose your “social contract”, you were born into its bondage. In fact, most of your bindings are not voluntary. That’s why the libertarian saw “voluntary community” is now a pejorative.
Atlas was a god of steadfast integrity until the Rand Clan, having abandoned its native homeworld of Krypton in order to incubate its young in the American Midwest, had yet completed its long march of must-go’ing Greco-Christian civilization into its stunned and stupified successor, “Judeo-Christian” “civilization”.
Short pigs are far smarter than you give them credit for. I honestly feel bad when I eat them.
Lots of other animals plan ahead for the future, whether motivated by overriding instinct or by an erudite philosophy of life independently and spontaneously produced from the infinite wellspring, cool and crisp, of “pure reason”. Whatever that is.
Jim,
And what of everything else? That, in accordance with Darwinian law, the definition of consciousness is a subset of the definition of life, namely, resilience to external perturbation.
Thus, your cat is as conscious as it needs to be in the necessary ways so as to maximize its fitness as a cat-like physical manifestation in a terra-like world.
An amoeba is as conscious as it needs to be… etc.
Computers have self-regulating, self-referential feedback loops. What if we manage to imbue one of them with a self-configuring, self-processing language?
Nuts
Jim,
lol, wut?
Everyone who saw it from the square on the south side expected it to fall sideways into the square, due to the fire and the massive terrorist damage to the south face of the building, and concluded that they should get the hell out of that square.
In due course, that is what it did. Most of the rubble wound up in the square to the south of it, and did not land on the foundations. Videos show it starting its fall by tilting southwards like a tree, and photos from the air show the rubble pile centered in the square.
Similarly the Pentagon had a Wily Coyote style hole, the size and shape of a commercial airliner where the airliner went it except for the wing tips, and a few smaller holes on the other side where the larger fragments of the airliner exited, the largest hole being made by the landing gear, which exited higher than the airliner entered.
Troofers, like Marxists, simply lie loudly and repeatedly. When one of their lies is rebutted, they ignore the rebuttal, and instead of responding, issue a dozen new lies, then return to the old lie, assuming not only that it was never rebutted, but that everyone, including the person who rebutted it, agrees that it is the obvious, unquestioned, and unquestionable truth – a style of debate that reveals that they know they are lying.
If Marxists genuinely believed that capitalism was recent, or that the French Revolution was a capitalist revolution rather than an anti capitalist revolution, they would respond to evidence and argument with evidence and argument. And similarly, troofers on building seven and the hole in the Pentagon.
That they knowingly lie reveals that they intend harm to their audience. The method of argument used by troofers, Marxists, Human biodiversity deniers, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warmists, and sexual difference deniers, reveals that they know the truth, or that they believe their is no truth, only power. Watch the sexual difference deniers method of debate. And if you find yourself debating with someone who believes there is no truth, only power, he regards all other people merely as obstacles and raw materials, and will wind up using the power he seeks to murder people. He will announce he is seizing the bakery for the people, and burn it down to steal a bottle of Coke Zero.
@Mandela
This has nothing to do with social contracts. You’re reading things into it that I didn’t say. I never said anything about a ‘defining’ connoting ‘primary’ feature. It’s a discriminator. A gator can completely hide its teeth, while a croc can’t, so this discriminates between them, but is hardly a defining trait.
Animals generally don’t plan for the future. You can tell because if you present them the discriminators of a likely alternate future, their plan doesn’t change. They do things with long-term benefits without any awareness of those benefits.
Commie liar
If you believed a word that you said, you would be willing to debate the French Revolutionary Maximum, the parables of Jesus concerning wage labor and investment, King Solomon on investment and entrepreneurship, and the laws of Moses on wage labor.
If you believed a word that you said, if you genuinely believed in Marxist history, whig history, and Troofer history, you would be willing to discuss the evidence. You lie, you know you lie, you intend to harm those that you succeed in deceiving.
No one gets to argue Marxist history on this blog unless they are willing to discuss Moses on wage labor, King Solomon on entrepeneurship and capital formation, Jesus on the employment contract, Shakespeare on socialist revolution, and the French Revolutionary Maximum.
Your going to have to discuss the evidence for Marxism. Telling us that everyone agrees that it is true, that even we agree that it is true, is not going to be allowed.
If Marxists, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warmists, and Troofers actually believed your own story, you would not use the methods of debate that you use. You would discuss the evidence, instead of telling us that we already agree with their story, instead of telling us that the science is settled, so no need to discuss any inconvenient empirical data.
Your refusal to discuss the evidence, to respond to evidence presented by other people, reveals that you know you lie. You lie about Marxism, you lie about Marxist history, you lie about whig history, and you lie about Bulding seven of the World Trade Center.
And when someone lies, he intends harm to those he deceives. You intend to murder me, come the glorious revolution, and the people who pay you will murder you should you accomplish their mission for them. Nazis kill their enemies, but commies kill their friends. And sometimes they kill their friends before the glorious revolution has actually arrived.
Let’s look to the reactionary literature.
Gertrud von le Fort wrote about the martyrdom of the Carmelite nuns of Compiegne, which is an historical fact.
Why, do you think, did the “”””anti-capitalist”””” French revolutionaries persecute Carmelites whose lives were defined by embracing the sins of others?
Seems very counter-intuitive if I may say so.
Isn’t it more parsimonious to view the revolutionaries as radical individualists who hated the very idea of “living for others” and wanted to defend the individual human rights of particular people in the face of such ‘collectivism’?
Walk us through it
Commies murder nuns, because they murder adherents of any competing religion. The murder of nuns in the Spanish civil war was done in the name of communism and anarcho communism.
The murder of nuns in Revolutionary France was done in the name of the “Church of Reason”, the enlightenment, which Church later got renamed “communism” after the Paris Commune. The Paris communards proclaimed themselves the true heirs of the Church of Reason which murdered nuns, the Church of Reason proclaimed itself the true heirs of the enlightenment, and the Spanish communists that murdered nuns in Spain proclaimed themselves the true heirs of the Paris Commune.
The enlightenment became the Church of Reason which became communism as Brownism became Puritanism which became Evangelicalism which became Congregationalism, Unitarianism, and progressivism.
So the French predecessors of the communists of the Spanish Civil War murdered the French predecessors of the Spanish nuns. Of course they did.
The enlightenment was early communism, communism murders nuns, capitalists, kulaks, and each other, the enlightenment murdered nuns, capitalists, kulaks, and each other.
Communism is the bastard offspring of Judaism and the Church of Reason via the Paris commune.
Progressivism descends from Brownism, via puritanism and evangelicalism, communism from the false Popes of Avignon via the enlightenment, the Church of Reason, and the Paris commune. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Progressivism and Marxism have married, the marriage being cultural Marxism, and its horrifying offspring being what Spandrel calls bioleninism, the stupid brown lesbian Democratic party and the stupid brown lesbian Harvard.
It simply absurd to suggest that capitalists would murder nuns. Capitalism is not a competing religion, not a competing state order, not a competing tribe. Why would they care?
Your question presupposes that capitalism is a competing religion, is a competing state order, is a competing tribe and that your interlocutor agrees that it is a competing religion, a competing state order, a competing tribe.
“Dialectical materialism” is just the Enlightenment’s “Reason” renamed, renamed because “Reason” had started to stink of unreason and stink of murderous opposition to reason, as “Dialectical Materialism” now stinks of the worship of Moloch and stinks of murderous opposition to the evidence of the senses. The “History” of Marxists is not history, but a supernatural being, the demon Moloch, hence the Marxist lack of interest in discussing actual history, just as Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warmists have no interest in discussing actual climate, or actual ice.
Is Moloch real? I doubt it, but I don’t know and I don’t care. He is real inside people’s heads. Moloch worship is real. Human sacrifice does not seem to be very effective in propitiating the gods, but it is wonderfully effective in convincing doubters of the faith.
Jim, riddle me this:
What is the logical connection between Building 7 and Marxism?
Why would you bring an irrelevant ideology to an engineering debate?
I ache to know.
Troofers are apt to be Marxists, Marxists are apt to be troofers.
Both use the same method of argument – they assume a consensus on facts that are not true and vehemently rejected with argument and evidence.
Thus a Marxist and a Troofer confidently deduces X from Y, and refuses to notice that his interlocutor has repeatedly rejected the claim X with great vehemence, and has also asserted that anyone who claims to believe X is plotting mass murder.
Example: When we say that women love negs, love coercion, love domestic discipline, and love rape, and that their purported resistance to these things is merely a shit test, a shit test that if passed results in them loving the men that pass it, A marxist will totally “agree” that due to capitalism, or the Jews, or the Masons, or some such, women are behaving very badly and he totally feels that he wants to denigrate and beat women just as we want to denigrate and beat women.
Which is to say, will not acknowledge that we vehemently dispute his claims about the nature of women.
Similarly Troofers on the fall of building seven. No matter how often we point out that witnesses in the square to the south of World Trade Center building seven saw terrorist damage and fire on the south side, anticipated that the tower would fall into the square where they were standing, and got the hell out of that square, and in due course it did fall into the square where they had been standing, a troofer will with great confidence announce that he has compelling evidence of no damage to building seven – which evidence is in fact irrelevant nonsense, and will fail to acknowledge that anyone has presented evidence of terrorist damage.
Similarly, if we complain about morons being graduated summa cum laud from Havard on the basis of skin color and political affiliation, a Marxist will totally “agree” that the trouble with affirmative action is that it permits able people of the wrong skin color to achieve what they are capable of, and this should not be permitted.
And the other resemblance is that Troofers and Marxists will tell you they are your friend, when they are your enemy, and in the case of Marxists, plotting to murder you.
@orgyofthewill: The age of philosophy has been with us for several centuries. And its organic philosophy is Leftism. Your typically Leftist programme for exterminating millions of people in order to attain an egalitarian social order of new men goes to show it all too clearly. At least normal Leftists get power and profit for themselves right now for talking this kind of nonsense.
Philosophy is of course the correct answer. Although philosophy is itself a religion. Quick check: philosophy reliably contradicts central points of religious doctrine.
However, it is also possible that the last race capable of executing philosophy will erase itself from the global gene pool exactly the same way the ancient Greek and Roman races erased themselves.
If so, most likely the world will be dominated by Arab style inbreeding, quite incapable of IQ reinforcement, until the Sun burns out.
You are saying it as if there was only one philosophy but multiple religions, hence the former a subset of the later. But there are lots of philosophies. Philosophies and religions deal with matters that cannot be decided empirically, hence the overlap. Non-falsifiable things. Philosophy does it by arguing, religion does it originally by authority, but very often sophisticated theology becomes indistinguishable from philosophies, thinking Aquinas.
If your philosophy is non-falsifiable you’re doing it wrong.
The belief that philosophy deals with such things is part of the con.
‘Love of wisdom’ was just a compound word Socrates mashed together and he left it a deliberately vague general case.
It’s literally an applause light yet people keep trying to impute some special meaning into it.
Tell me Jim, if a dictator of LATAM called you to be the priesthood, would you accept? would you learn Spanish?
I suspect that restoration will triumph first in some corner of the global south
The Turkish empire became the anti Turkish empire, and the Turks, not the provinces, revolted. The American empire has become the anti American empire, and revolt is far more likely in America than in its subject nations.
Well, in the case of Argentina, the country is on the verge of collapse and practically does not have armed forces worthy of that name … it seems to be an interesting opportunity.
The debates between CR and Jim are extremely important. This includes the deletions and the explanations for the deletions.
Great and very thought-provoking post Jim. Given you’re talking about the late 18th century, I have some thoughts I wanted to discuss regarding the NRx view of history and my (minor) dissent from it.
Would it not be better for the Enlightenment to have occurred in a way that simply replaced Christianity (quite a poor state religion given its ancestral leftism and hatred for hierarchy) with liberalism without demotism? I think classical liberalism had a strong royalist branch before the late 1700s (e.g. see Physiocrats, Turgot, Voltaire; check out https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/candide/section4/, I highly doubt Voltaire was a blue pilled demotist). If certain events had been different, e.g. Louis XVI not being a 90 IQ retard who fired Turgot, libertarianism and royalism would have never been disassociated. Given that it would be very unlikely for people with modern technology to still believe in the religion of Charles I, which denies evolution and teaches a virgin birth, I think old-line Christianity would be doomed in any case, the only question being what its replaced by, with the most likely outcome being neo christianity (what actually happened).
As a result, I don’t think you can blame the downfall of royal authority on the Enlightenment given that with gene cultural coevolution, it is only a matter of time before a christian people will put their teachings into practice. If anything, I think classical liberalism slowed the slide into leftism, since it at least ensured there were severe checks to demotism when it started. I’m not defending what happened since my view of post 1840 or so is exactly the same as yours and moldbug, but I also think it’s a stretch to say that given the Christian background leftism would have never triumphed without there being a radical change in the prevailing religion.
Another thing I want to question you is the military viability of anarcho-capitalism. I think in the past you had a different view, but now you keep mentioning past cases where a synthetic tribe defeated a roughly libertarian society, yet you also mention that in modern times (20th century / after) a small group of highly equipped troops can easily defeat a massive horde of conscripts. Don’t you think the latter demonstrates the (potential) viability of anarcho-capitalism? I highly suspect a re-run of the Pinkerton-Union conflict today would have a similar outcome to the Occupy-Rentacop conflict you talked about before. In addition, the presence of nuclear weapons would seem to heavily even the odds between a small, libertarian organization and a state with a powerful state religion.
forgot to include the link regarding Turgot to provide background regarding my assertions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Robert_Jacques_Turgot#As_minister,_1774%E2%80%931776
Occupy sang Unionist songs but wasn’t fighting for freemasonry, they were just there to express frustration about the nothing that happened in 2007 that John McCain used as an excuse to suspend his campaign over, and the college tards used the opportunity to experiment with pronouns.
Did rentacops have more freemasonry than Pinkertons of yore?
If the conservatives writing the Constitution hadn’t banned titled of nobility, could the Pinkertons have had more freemasonry?
It did completely replace Christianity. Remember the “Church of Reason”, the war in the Vendee, and the War in Spain. When Napoleon was defeated, Christianity was restored, and the enlightenment temporarily repressed.
Obviously not repressed hard enough. We are looking at the enlightenment through rose colored glasses, erasing its connection with the Red Terror of the Committee for Public Safety, with the mass murder of monks, priests, and nuns, and with the disastrous socialism of the French Revolution, which socialism was much the same as, and had much the same consequences as, today’s Venezuelan socialism. Napoleon was to the Enlightenment as Stalin was to communism.
Today’s glorification of the Enlightenment is similar to the rewrite of history that set in after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Classical liberalism was a short lived and entirely one sided alliance between the faction of liberty and the left, in which the faction of liberty swiftly abandoned all their principles and objectives for a tiny sliver of power, and in due course the shriveled husk of the faction of liberty was expelled from power, once it had ceased to be useful to the left. The history of classical liberalism was much the same history as the history of the Berkeley free speech movement and every popular front movement. You are invited to jump into the mouth of power, you find that you are required to speak your master’s words, and then the jaws close down upon you. Trying to find common ground with leftists always fails horribly. It is like apologizing to social justice warriors.
The Union was not an occupy mob. The Union had cannons and all that, without which the conflict would have been completely one sided. A synthetic religion can obtain and use highly trained warriors and advanced equipment also, surrounding their core of highly trained well equipped warriors with an expendable mob of the faithful to give the appearance of a victory by the masses. Visualize an occupy mob providing cover for people with light artillery, helicopter gunships, and rocket launchers.
“Classical liberalism was a short lived and entirely one sided alliance between the faction of liberty and the left, in which the faction of liberty swiftly abandoned all their principles and objectives for a tiny sliver of power, and in due course the shriveled husk of the faction of liberty was expelled from power, once it had ceased to be useful to the left.”
Wait what?
You’ll be censoring yourself soon and replying “Marxist”.
This is exactly right: liberalism sided with the left in order to destroy those parts of legitimate power that liberalism found inconvenient, such as but not limited to the right of a master to command his servant in matters not related to a narrow view of ’employment’ based on the mutual, consensual exchange of goods.
As soon as those aspects of legitimate power were thoroughly expunged from society, the left threw liberalism under the bus because the left wanted to destroy those aspects of legitimate power which were peculiar to liberalism, such as private property rights, freedom of association and so on.
Whenever I’ve made this case you’ve called it Marxist History. It’s not: it’s Reactionary History.
Perhaps if I use the term ‘manifest classical liberalism’ rather than ‘capitalism’, you won’t see Leon Trotsky behind every rock. Manifest classical liberalism needs to be reversed: the left approved of it for a reason – it was the erosion of legitimate power.
The trouble with your history is that you make capitalism a leftist innovation, which is insane, and pure Marxism.
The abolition of enforceable apprenticeship and enforceable marriage was not capitalism, but an attack on capitalism, and was accompanied by flaming anticapitalist rhetoric about chimney sweeps and such, and the attack on marriage was accompanied by welfare for bastards and single mothers. This was obvious in England, and even more obvious in France where the Popular Society and the Committee of Public Safety enforced Venezuelan style socialism with flaming anticapitalist rhetoric and Venezuelan style results.
The classic liberals abandoned all their principles, joined the crusade blaming capitalism for the sea of bastards that ensued when State and Church abandoned the enforcement of marriage, and in return for the abandonment of all of their principles, got a reduction in the tariff on imported corn. Big Deal.
I will not allow discussion of the origins of capitalism that does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge the writings of King Solomon, Shakespeare, and William Bradford and the actions of Queen Elizabeth and Charles the Second, just as I will not allow discussion of consciousness that does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge Moravec’s paradox.
I will not allow discussions of Marxist history that confidently presuppose that past writers agreed with it.
Marxist history is obviously insane, no one believes such silliness, least of all Marxists. It is, as Lenin implicitly admitted, a hostile lie intended to deceive those that you intend to rob, enslave, and murder, and further confident assertions that it is obviously true and past writers all totally agreed on its obvious truth will be silently deleted.
If you want to debate it, start with evidence and argument, instead of presupposing consensus on a history that is absurd and unsupported.
Let us discuss discuss the good woman depicted by King Solomon, who by working hard at menial tasks creates a vineyard for her family, Jesus’ parable of the vineyard depicting wage labor, Jesus’s parable of the talents depicting use of money to obtain profit, Shakespeare ridiculing socialism in his portrayal of Jack Cade, and William Bradford in 1624 dismissing socialists as “Wiser than God” – which sarcasm presupposes that God ordained private property in the means of production from the beginning.
Explain to me that Shakespeare is not ridiculing Chavism, Maoism, and Pol Pot, and William Bradford is not ridiculing you.
If you want to argue that capitalism is a seizure of power from Kings by capital, let’s start with the section of the Book of Proverbs written by King Solomon and then move on to Naboth’s vineyard.
The bible depicts capitalism as ordained by God at the beginning, and socialism as social decay and rebellion against God. William Bradford depicts it as pride and covetousness.
Unresponsive.
If you want to argue Marxist history, you are going to have to respond to evidence that contradicts it.
Whether or not Capitalism was divinely ordained, that Solomon believed it to be be divinely ordained is an indication that it is ancient beyond prehistory. So, if you are not going to debate the Book of Proverbs and Naboth’s vineyard, not going to allow claims that capitalism is recent, even when supported by what passes for evidence and argument among Marxists.
Capitalism is ordained by Gnon, as demonstrated not by the book of Proverbs, but by the disastrous results of every experiment with socialism. Capitalism is ancient, as demonstrated by ancient discussions of capitalism such as the book of Proverbs. Socialism is new, as demonstrated by Shakespeare and William Bradford pissing on it, and if you want to argue for Marxism, going to have to acknowledge and respond to Naboth’s Vineyard, the Book of Proverbs, Shakespeare and William Bradford.
“When Napoleon was defeated, Christianity was restored, and the enlightenment temporarily repressed.”
Jim it is my impression that Napoleon repressed most of the insane leftist features of the enlightenment himself, he retained some elements of a command economy in order to keep taxes above the Laffer maximum to sustain the Grande Armee (and Napoleon had zero sympathy for leftists on the woman question… despite being extremely forgiving of Josephine being a very bad wife personally) but in general he had zero sympathy with it.
Yes, Napoleon repressed most of the madness, but full restoration of normality, sanity, and the market economy did not happen till he was defeated. Better than a Stalin, but not as good as a Cromwell. The command economy was still justified by the supposed wickedness of capitalism and capitalists.
The point of a Laffer maximum is that it maximizes revenue so if a government taxes above it it’s demonstrating that its got aims other than revenue.
There’s a rather large difference between executing ancap by accident and intentionally leading an Exit-based society.
“There is a wonderful sympathy and freemasonry among horsey men. Be one of them, and you will know all that there is to know.” — Sherlock Holmes
“My dear Holmes,” said I, “this is too much. You would certainly have been burned, had you lived a few centuries ago.” — Dr. Watson
And regicide.
The other book on the floor is Sermon preached Nov 4 1789 by Dr R Price before the Revolution Society, in which Dr Price reveals to us that Christianity, properly understood, is Revolution, and expresses his horror, disgust and shock that Mr Burke could be such an outdated, redneck, horrendously extreme right wing Nazi as to oppose this.
>Redefines real patriotism is loving the whole world
>Invokes Good Samaritan, “Love thy Enemies”
>Even says It’s the Current Year!!!!! at one point
It’s unbelievable. These people just never change.
Loving your enemies, as interpreted by the armed and armored bishops appointed by Charles the Hammer, includes saving their souls by breaking their skulls with a very big hammer.
I mean, if you truly loved your enemies, you would bring them the benefits of the King’s order and the true faith.
Deleted for enthusiastically, but incorrectly, using our memes and our shibboleths.
For the rectification of names, I have to insist on correct use of memes and shibboleths. Incorrect use of memes and shibboleths damages our ability to communicate. Do your homework.
The goal and viability of consumption restriction has already been thoroughly demonstrated by the Amish. Anyone calling for consumption restriction in non-Amish ways has something other than consumption restriction as their goal.
Deleted for the same old reasons. Stop doing that. Tired of it. I have been lecturing you on what you need to do for your comments to be allowed. Do it.
If you want your comments to get through, present argument and evidence, rather than presupposing consensus on issues where reactionaries violently disagree with Cultural Marxists and progressives, and then deducing things from that presupposed consensus.
Deleted for hanging a frame on Alrenous’s position that directly and flatly contradicts his plainly and clearly expressed position.
Of course I posted it precise to see if I, too, could provoke him into doing so. Mission: successful.
The Shining City on the Hill, our Natural Rights endowed by our Creator, protected by His lieges on Earth. Service grants Citizenship.
Service to who? Gnon? The Social Justice State .
The military, an organization whose functional structure is entirely Marxist “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” and in the service of Trotskyites and Neo Cons ?
Starship Troopers ia a good read but its conceptually stupid
The entryist known as AB Prosper hates the warrior class
Good point: in fact Burke was a leftist.
Bad point: stationary banditry is also leftist. E.g. the population will resist, because it’s banditry. This will annoy the bandit, so they will import a new, more gullible (typically browner) population to replace the existing one. If they don’t, it’s simply because they’re a bit slow on the uptake and haven’t yet figured out the optimum strategies.
Alternatively, they (China) will breed out all thoughts of resistance. Which incidentally includes, apparently, creativity and the ability to cooperate spontaneously.
I have never found the idea of Burke as conservative to be convincing. As far as I can tell Moldbug mentions Burke once – noting that the other side appreciates some of his virtues. This is not some kind of oversight.
“Bad point: stationary banditry is also leftist. E.g. the population will resist, because it’s banditry.”
This is the ancap view. The problem is that ancapism doesn’t ever happen in practice as lack of a stationary bandit causes mobile bandits to move in. Power abhors a vacuum.
I’m pretty sure Alrenous’s view is only war is right wing. In the absence of external threat your enemies are competent people on your ‘side’.
War is right wing in terms of some things like the woman question. Feminist societies can’t win wars and even if they need to put women in factories need to damn well preach that the sexes are not equal. War also tends to have less tolerance for hostile aliens.
War tends to be left wing in terms of economics, command economy like features tend to appear to suppress civilian consumption taxes might increase that kind of thing.
Not sure where you get that idea. Take the US economy during WW2. The feds tried organize a top down centralized command economy and failed. Everyone ignored the committees and boards FDR put up. Instead the military put out huge contracts, picked multiple supplies, gave bonuses for making things faster and cheaper, and ignored the civilian goverment attempts to control things. The results was a massive war output. Attempts at rationing things like gas were laughable failures.
I’m not sure of all the details but I do know that the Federal government massively rationed things and essentially forbade most civilian production of consumer goods (except for alcohol and cigarettes generally). Car production was stopped almost immediately for instance and Henry Ford was deposed as head of his corporation because of the perception that he was too slow to stop civilian production and convert to military production.
The command economy fucked up disastrously. But it was successful in the short term in taxing far above the Laffer limit, thus in the short run was a big success.
Ford was replaced by an incompetent screw up, but that he was replaced ensured the transfer of resources from civilian to military.
Highly recommend James Holland’s WWII trilogy which goes into great detail about the logistics and infrastructure as well as Victor Hanson’s The Second World Wars. These 4 books make the economic and industrial picture very clear.
I will read them at some point… one of my spergish interests (they tend to change in a way I can’t control) is WWII… when I start obsessing over it again those are my 1st four books.
I understand completely. The focus of my academic work has been colonialism and post-colonial societies, specifically on warfare, conflict, and infrastructure, but i have read enough on WWII to pick up a minor. I never get tired of it.
You might be interested in this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqWI717s-6A
If my course load wasn’t so heavy i would do it in a heartbeat.
War is a form of discipline. The worst one, but it’s better than being on the far side of the zero.
War is, at further remove, the process of ontological priority. It both asks and answers the question of what has what priority.
When an entity engages in warfare with another, it is asking the question: which of us has priority? And asking the question also occasions it’s answer. The entity that exists has higher priority than the entity that no longer exists.
War is the process of ontic priority. Those modes of being that exist and continue to exist and have more frequently or less contingently existed, then, have demonstrated higher priority than such modes of being that do not exist, have passed out of existence, have less frequently or more contingently existed, or could not exist.
For an entity to be described as virtuous at warfighting, for it to become more virtuous at warfighting, then, is for it to be something that participates in such higher priority modes of being; to anticipate them, even; to be something that can anticipate them.
” ancapism doesn’t ever happen in practice as lack of a stationary bandit causes mobile bandits to move in. ”
Actually even if they solve that problem, ancapism doesn’t exist. By the time you have any kind of functioning covenant community that isn’t susceptible to invasion by bandits or immigrants, and is robust enough to cope with crime and bankruptcy/delinquency, the housing association (and associated insurance and security firms) are a de facto government and if you oppose them they just kick you out.
All ancapism does is take the name badges and put pretty stickers on them. Instead of “department of”, the badge now says “incorporated”.
Ancap covenant communities are to out-sourced tax-funded services as North Korean live-in work projects are to concentration camps.
Saga period Iceland looked mighty like well functioning anarcho capitalism.
They had an official priesthood with a monopoly power to interpret the law, the Godar, but not a whole lot of power to enforce the law, because a key point of the official religion was that everyone had the right and duty to himself avenge wrongs done to him, that a monopoly of legitimate force was dishonorable and offense against the Gods.
The posse was usually headed by a Godar with an axe and a sword, but “Godar” means priest, literally means God botherer. A Godar in practice did not act to settle a feud until both sides were tired of feuding.
Saga period Iceland had no monopoly of legitimate force, a market economy revolving around dollars, (silver coins from which the US dollar is named) and a social order in which the dollar was mightier than the Gods. Sounds like anarcho capitalism.
It needed corporations, and but did not have them, in part because of the resolute individualism of the official religion.
A gothe/gothi, gothar is plural.
My understanding is God meaning “invokee” and gothi meaning “invoker”, *ghut-, root *gheu(e)- , close enough to botherer(?)
Or maybe “libatee” and “libator”, *ghu-to-, root *gheu-, from cultic libations around burial mounds which was central to germanic culture during the time the words god and gothi petrified
Conservatives are Burkean – meaning Burke is a conservative, and conservatives are leftist.
If we had a population that would resist stationary banditry, they would already resist mobile banditry. Why are not more members of the Family court and child protective services disappearing?
In a sense everything except anarcho capitalism is leftist, but what are anarcho capitalists going to do when a group forms a synthetic tribe and sets to bending the law in its favor?
The defeat and torture of the pinkertons, and the ensuing seizure of the ironworks by the union, demonstrates that anarcho capitalism does not work. When push comes to shove, people will not fight for a contract and paycheck, while they would fight, and kill, and burn, and torture, for the union.
Uh Jim, it’s not “leftist” to have a state, if that’s what you are implying. Aristotle says in his Politics that “man is a political animal”, it is natural for him to want to rule and gather into hierarchies. In my opinion, if you are anarcho-capitalist you are just as insane as any Marxist. Rejecting the concept of the state is never a right-wing belief, it’s a fundamental case of trying to “immanetize the eschaton” like any leftist does. It’s only when the state becomes anarcho-tyrannical that it is evil.
No one is likely to mistake Saga period Iceland, the wild west, or late nineteenth century early twentieth century California for the eschaton.
Early twentieth century California was great, and Saga period Iceland not bad at all. Trouble is that early twentieth century California was utterly impotent to defend itself against the feds once the successors of the Puritans took it over, Saga period Iceland impotent to defend itself against the Christians, who acted as the takeover vector for a Christian King, and Pinkertons impotent against the trade union. All three cases demonstrated the impotence of anarcho capitalism against a synthetic tribe.
Anarcho capitalism is only successful if defended by something very like a state religion, which creates an obvious contradiction. Altar without throne is fragile. Warriors need to fight for family, tribe, King, and Altar. And the first of these is family, without which all the others are impotent. The King is the King because the patriarch of the family is the patriarch. And the patriarch needs property, and the Altar needs a King. Greco Roman paganism died for lack of Kingship, and Augustine dynasty destabilized by the impotence and powerlessness of the husband. The Pope was Pope because the Carolingian emperors made him Pope, and the Carolingian emperors were emperors because the Pope made them emperors.
Deleted for presupposing that Han Soyboy, Captainess Marvel, and the shaving ad that denigrates men, manliness, and masculinity “Shave with our razor and you too can be an emasculated soyboy” represents consumer demand, it is what customers want, and presupposing that this is so self evidently true that we agree with this and you don’t need to justify it.
Well I didn’t say that. You’re putting words in my mouth, as always. The reason you do that is that what I *actually* said can’t be dismissed as unreasonable.
What I actually said was that capitalism reflects the demands of its customers – the people who bring it money.
In a society in which the state is the source of profit and loss, it makes sense to please the state.
Some phenomena, such as Gillette, are well-explained by “Gillette is serving its customer the state”, while others, such as Domino’s Pizza, is well-explained by “Domino’s is serving its customer, stupid fat peasants with money left over after they were shut out of the housing market who can’t see when they’re being overcharged and poisoned”.
Either way, capitalism is resisting no evil. It’s not capitalism’s job to resist evil: it’s the state’s job. Once the state’s DONE its job, capitalism can serve healthy wants, not unhealthy ones.
What you actually said was that capitalism reflects the demands of its customers in the context of firms supplying leftist crap. But in this case, in the case of firms vomiting leftism over their customers, it is absolutely obvious that this is not what customers demand, therefore, by this excellent but selectively used definition, Han Soyboy, Captainess Marvel, Gay Weddings, the shaving ad attacking their customers for being men are not capitalism but socialism, that webcam girls are never shown to be under the authority of their pimp, and that music videos show male and female courtship roles as identical and interchangeable, are not capitalism, but socialism. Which of course, it exactly what it is.
Now, you are changing the context to Domino’s serving delicious pizza.
Well, when I go to my local Domino’s Franchise, which I do about once every couple of weeks, I don’t see any fat people, zero, and anyone there that I recognize is easily able to afford takeout from Domino’s every week or so, and everyone that I recognize lives in a house that their family own. The coffee shop in the mall on the other hand, is full of fatties, as is the bar near Domino’s, while the coffee shop by the sea has no or very few fat people, and the bar near the sea also has few fat people. The bar near the sea is somewhat more expensive and tasteful, and located near beauty, and the surprising sparcity of fatties may reflect the fact that it it gets a better class of people.
I absolutely do not believe that there is anyone so poor that getting pizza from Domino’s every week or so is going to impact their finances, and I am unaware of anyone eating pizza every night, except during some temporary emergency that that prevents them from home cooking.
And, looking at people dropping in to my local Domino’s to pick up a pizza, it looks like buying a pizza correlates very well with fitness, health, and affluence.
Venues that supply food for solitary individuals tend to be full of fat people, who for all I know are may well be shut out of the housing market by disinclination to save money and a lousy credit rating, but Domino’s pizzas, at least at my local Domino’s franchise, are primarily meals for at least two people. I don’t see one person pizzas on the menu at my local Domino’s franchise, and the people buying a family meal, or a meal for a couple, at my local Domino’s franchise, generally look like fit, affluent and high functioning individuals.
The pizza ad on my television is presumably directed at their typical customer, and it depicts the sort of people that I see at Domino’s. In the ad, the patriarch of the family, who lives in a suburban home that he presumably owns, orders pizza delivery as a treat for his wife and family, implying that it is something that does not happen all that often, and that pizza is meal for a group of people. There is no one so poor that he should not order pizza delivery for his family every now and then, and that is the behavior and the demographic that the ad targets, and the behavior and the demographic I see at my local pizza franchise.
Fatties tend to eat frequent small meals, hence seldom order pizza, and fat people tend to eat by themselves just as alcoholics tend to drink by themselves, hence seldom order pizza – Domino’s Pizza targets large family or group meals that are uncharacteristic of fatties.
Another thing I don’t see in my local Domino’s franchise is Coke Zero or diet pepsi. I suppose they must have it, but it is not readily visible in the fridge that displays drinks, whereas places that are frequented by fatties always have mostly diet drinks and diet foods on display, and it is what I always see fat people drinking.
>Either way, capitalism is resisting no evil. It’s not capitalism’s job to resist evil.
Yes, well put.
Next on Communist Revolutionary’s agenda is banning airplanes to Hawaii and replacing them with choo choo trains on train tracks to Hawaii. Of course, the trains will be powered by Unicorn FartsTM which are scientifically proven to NOT be greenhouse gasses…
IQ is associated with lower BMI. Unless you control for ‘education’. In other words IQ is associated with BMI unless you control for IQ.
Kanazawa believe low IQ makes you fat, but I think high mutational load makes you more vulnerable to metabolic disruption, and makes you stupid.
Capitalism normally doesn’t resist evil, but it does when e.g. it hires security guards. There’s demand for such things.
The State is evil by definition, so if it’s the State’s job to resist evil, you’re all fucked.
R7 Suppository doesn’t understand reaction:
“Next on Communist Revolutionary’s agenda is banning airplanes to Hawaii”
For pleasure trips? You bet! Private planes will need to pay hefty taxes for existing and for travelling each time.
In no other context is it legitimate for people to just randomly go to Hawaii just because they wanna.
That shit has to stop, 100%.
I don’t think you understand the anti-consumerist/anti-capitalist form of reaction: we want to undo the Whig revolution – all of it.
All these human rights you were bestowed with by the liberals, but prior to the point where you, or ‘Jim’, think they went too far: they’re to be rolled right back to where they were in the pre-Renaissance period.
If you’re Tom the son of the local baker, you will be a baker. You will bake according to guild standards, you will not ‘innovate’ and you will not lace your food with ridiculous amounts of fat, sugar or salt: good, plain, natural, healthy food as has existed since the time of Charlemagne **and nothing else**.
You will not be permitted to READ the bible, but you will be permitted to have it read TO you: in Latin.
If the priest wants to elaborate on the content in your native degenerate local tongue, that’s up to him, so long as he clears it with the bishop, the archbishop and all the way up.
Life need not be complicated by endless consumer trinkets: life is about family, community, society.
The ‘good bits’ of modernity can stay, under the control of the highest levels of the hierarchy.
The rest need to be thoroughly expunged.
This is, according to the more capitalistic-leaning reactionaries, a form of 19th century socialism, in particular ‘Marxism’.
Those pesky Mediaeval Marxists!
That is a Marxist lie about history, consciously intended to deceive those what you intend to murder and enslave. Lenin implicitly admits it to be a lie, in that he argues that the story is useful, rather than arguing that it is true.
There never was such a thing as guild socialism. There was guild capitalism: Guilds were not workers unions, but capitalist cartels.
The son of a baker could do anything he felt he was good at – but only the son of a man who owned a London bakery could own and invest in a London bakery, could take apprentices and hire employees to bake. But any man could get a job as a baker, and the son of a man who owned a bakery and employed apprentices to work for him could build a bakery and hire any man as an employee or apprentice to bake for him.
The right of some people to build and own bakeries, to hire employees to bake, and to direct them as they please, was sacred back then in ways that are no longer sacred, and in this respect, guild capitalism was not less capitalist than today, but rather substantially more capitalist. The baking guild of each little town had rights that the sovereign was not supposed to interfere with, just has he was not supposed to interfere with a vassal’s use of his fief.
And the man who had a feudal hereditary right to build a bakery, had a feudal hereditary right to bake in any fashion he damn well felt like. To attack the right of the baker to bake has he wished would be to attack the right of the Lord to rule his fief, and the husband to rule his family. Were a monarch to do that, he would, by attacking the hereditary right of the baker, be sawing off the limb on which he sat. If the baker’s cartel could not bake as the owners pleased, could the husband rule his wife, or the King his Kingdom?
The right of the bakers guild in each little town to bake as it pleased was a privilege and an honor, and the King was supposed to uphold such hereditary privileges and honors, and should he fail to do so, was apt to lose the support of such people, often with fatal consequences. Kingly power ends when the king screws the wives of aristocrats, or takes away the privileges he is supposed to uphold. Attacking the rights of owners, as King Louis XVI attacked the grain merchants, is apt to result in that King losing his head. King Louis interfered with the grain market, and his socialism, predictably, led to shortages, in France as in Venezuela. To redirect the wrath of the public from himself to butchers and bakers, he turned a blind eye to the mob attacking butchers and makers, as in today’s Venezuela, which mobs in due course removed his head. Socialism destroyed the power of Kings in France, as sleeping with the wives of aristocrats destroyed the power of Kings in England.
Guilds were cartelized capitalism, not guild socialism.
This system, cartelized capitalism, faded away in Britain some time about anno Domini 1400, and on the continent of Europe, faded away some time about anno Domini 1600.
Mercantalist capitalism lasted somewhat longer, and was one of the legitimate grievances of the American colonists, though most of their grievances were foolish or contrived. Bastiat was arguing against Mercantalist capitalism in favor of sovereigns making it easy for merchants to transfer goods from the protection of one sovereign, to the protection of another, but he takes free market capitalism within the area where private ownership is upheld by a single sovereign for granted as ancient, and the opponents of free market capitalism within a single sovereignty as at best nuts, and at worst terrorists.
How would you like to take a short course in aerodynamics 5000 feet above the Pacific in a private family autogyro, such as every affluent father will own come the Restoration? That’s my idea of a pleasure trip.
The guilds basically arose because local lords and local chartered towns had the right to sell monopolies and many did sell monopolies.
I disagree with you on one point… monarchs tended to EXTREMELY hostile to these localized fiefdom rights (and they tended to be very bad for the economy… Spain was the one Western country where this kind of thing lasted well into the 19th century and it killed their economy) and tended to abolish them whenever they had the power to do so (this is distinct from the monarchs themselves selling national monopolies which they sometimes did and that went on much later).
I think CR’s understanding of guilds is explicitly Marxist, but Marx can be somewhat forgiven, as the term “guild” had evolved by his time. The term already lost its pure capitalist meaning and already had statist connotations. Such understanding has roots that precede Marx.
Consider Russian merchant guilds. The Russian czarist government (certainly, beginning with the Romanovs) had been very centrist, top-down oriented in their rule of Russia. Something of a geopolitical inevitability on the Northern European plane, after the Mongols united Russia and introduced their institutions.
Russian merchant guilds started out as individual cartels, but it became very convenient for the central bureaucracy to organize merchants as de facto classes, in the late 18th century, for tax collection purposes.
Compare that to, for example, medieval Western Euro trade guilds or the merchant guilds in decentralized old India. They were obvious capitalist cartels.
Yet, whether nominally “guilds” meant a tax class or an actual cartel, members of said guilds were allowed virtually complete freedom in their operation, as it pertained to making money within their zone of operation.
It is preposterous to assume that a merchant or a baker would be limited (especially, by a third party, even if a sovereign) to only trading or baking in a way that his father and grandfather did. Although, for the reason that life changed so slowly, they often did so — but only on their own free volition.
By the fourteenth century, guilds in England were dying, by the fifteenth century dead, by the sixteenth century dead or dying world wide. So yes, eighteenth century guilds were either obsolete honors or socialism dressed in the stolen robes of ancient tradition. But it is still an anachronism to project recent socialism back to the past.
Socialism in our era started with absolute monarchs attempting to exercise absolutism routinely. Royal absolutism should be a rare exception, and the monarch is absolute in that he gets to decide when the situation warrants that rare exception. He is absolute every minute in that every minute he might decide to make that exception, but should make that exception very rarely, for when he does so, there are no end of unintended consequences. Hence De Maistre could quite consistently advocate absolute power for the King and simultaneously advocate absolute power for the Pope. Attempting to exercise absolutism routinely is invariably fatal for Kings, leading to loss of power and to their own death or the death of their children or grandchildren. Sleeping with the wives of aristocrats is less deadly to their lives, but more deadly to their power.
So now the baker gets state-applied rules too. Top of my head, what are you going to change?
– no more flying
– no more pizza
– no more fastfood
– no more swimming pools
– no more innovation in bakeries
Pretty your wish list of state law would even make Pol Pot say ‘damn son.’
It wouldn’t even be that stupid if you weren’t pretending to be one of us. God man you’re the most stereotypical commie I’ve ever met.
Alf you wouldn’t be worrying about these holiday type activities under the government of Cambodian Rogueianist it would be a holiday in Cambodia for all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KTsXHXMkJA
Brother No. 1 knows how to deal with you capitalist roaders.
Deleted for presupposing that Alf agrees that the origin of degeneracy is popular demand by consumers. Every rock music video and every camgirl demonstrates that degeneracy is imposed from above.
We intend to suppress degeneracy (by forbidding some forms outright and making all forms of degeneracy low status). However what you think of as degeneracy (pizza and international travel) is the opposite of what I and Alf think of as degeneracy, hence the solutions that you propose to impose are the imposition, not the suppression, of degeneracy. You want to forbid international travel, we want to enable space travel.
I will allow arguments that argue that degeneracy is demanded from below, but you have to argue it, not presuppose a consensus on a supposedly obvious truth.
Nor will I allow repetitious arguments that ignore rebuttals. You have to respond to what your interlocutor actually said, not what he would have said had he agreed that Cultural Marxism, Marxist history, progressivism, and whig history is self evidently true.
@Communist Revolutionary
Commie says, “I don’t think you understand the anti-consumerist/anti-capitalist form of reaction: we want to undo the Whig revolution – all of it.”
We don’t have a consumerist problem, who do you think is responsible for 80% of consumer spending?
In the USA, most professions require a state license. In some states you only have to take a certain number of course hours and pass an exam; in others you must either buy an existing business or convince the state licensing board, which is staffed by people you hope to compete with, that the present number of licensed practitioners is inadequate. Good luck with that!
Did the guilds really die out, or were their functions merely folded into the state?
Guilds died out as capitalist cartels, surviving primarily as merely ceremonial honors, in the fourteenth century in England, two centuries later on the continent of Europe. State licensing got going late eighteenth century, after enforceable apprenticeship was smashed, and did not really take over the world until immediately after World War II. So that is a gap of about four or five centuries of free market capitalism – albeit capitalism in each separate country, with considerable obstacles for transactions that transferred goods from the protection of one sovereign to the protection of another (Mercantilism) and no real existence of international corporations, except for armed and dangerous corporations like the East India company.
State licensing was a priestly power grab – the power that capitalists formerly exercised through the apprenticeship system was grabbed by academics. Naturally regulatory capture ensued, but the regulatory capture involves businessmen paying tribute to academics.
Were the guilds in continental Europe really dead by 1600? Certainly I don’t doubt that they were dead in places like the Netherlands and probably Italy, but I thought guilds were still around in France at the time of the revolution. If I’m projecting on France, at the very least I thought they were still around in the Holy Roman Empire by 1800.
Early guilds were local crony capitalism, later French guilds were part of Colbert’S semi-command economy.
Jim you’ve made an important claim. That Louis the XVI was a failure bc of his attempt to implement socialist policies vis a vis the French grain merchants
Can you elaborate or st least direct to another source that can do so?
I can give you sources that King Louis XVI intervened in the grain market, which intervention eventually became a complete takeover.
A major cause of the revolution was people complaining that they had no bread. I cannot give you any sources that say the reason they had no bread was the socialism of King Louis XVI, but the most characteristic symptom of socialism is breadlines, so I conjecture that his socialist intervention caused the crisis that it was supposed to be the cure for.
I cannot give you any sources that King Louis encouraged the mobs to attack the bakers and grain merchants, but mobs attacked the merchants and grain merchants without the government of King Louis XVI doing anything about it.
I can give your plenty of sources that the socialism of the revolutionary government caused shortages, and that they redirected the wrath of the mobs against the bakers and butchers. If the socialism of the Revolution did that, it is a plausible conjecture that the socialism of King Louis XVI also did that, but that is just my assumption, for which I have no sources.
Seems to me Louis suffered from an excess of compassion and a deficit of understanding. Aristocratic breeding worked, and produced a virtuous man, who was then hamstrung by aristocratic insulation.
When Lenin’s war didn’t work, he hired generals, and the obvious solution worked. When Louis’ intervention didn’t work, he should have shrugged and gone all “Let them eat cake, by which I mean grapeshot,” but was too compassionate to actually do so. A fatal mistake, as it turns out.
Louis at least can be forgiven for not knowing about phase I trials and double-blinding, Lenin really ought to have known.
What exactly inspired the Third Estate in Louis XVI reign to take the Tennis Court Oaths?
The revolution began with the Tennis Court Oaths and Louis probably could have stopped it if he sent in troops to shoot them all then… but afterwords it would have been harder because the French Revolution largely succeeded because the Royal Army defected to the rebels.
King Louise XVI had dropped power into the street by allowing popular mobs to enforce his socialism. When power falls into the street, you will find no end of people eager to pick it up.
His father disempowered the nobility. He failed to protect the property owner. Everything was up for grabs, so people started grabbing.
“A major cause of the revolution was people complaining that they had no bread. I cannot give you any sources that say the reason they had no bread was the socialism of King Louis XVI, but the most characteristic symptom of socialism is breadlines, so I conjecture that his socialist intervention caused the crisis that it was supposed to be the cure for.”
Royal socialism in France (in a partial but not total form) started with Colbert under Louis XIV. So I would say yes socialism existed but Louis XVI didn’t start it and it didn’t end until Louis Philippe who was overthrown purely by leftists and intellectuals (though partially his fault because he paid lip service to egalitarian ideas even though his economics were sound).
Well, i can say that California right now is at war with the Federal Government on most issues….and if you ask me the only thing that will save the world right now is to take the big corporations out of american politics…trump has made a mockery of the whole government…It’s a mess, and i would like to see a complete change of the guard in D.C. If the U.S. doesnt start leading by example the whole planet and future generations will have an impossible job to save it. Those rich old guys in washington don’t care…greedy fucktards….In my opinion its time to take the illuminiti out of the picture….and the solution is in our youth….They need to organize peaceful protests like Not Going to School which costs the government millions of dollars a day….and other out of the box ways to get people to change worldwide….i’m not religious but I believe Hell is the place most people live in right now on earth…poverty and population are sucking resources dry. And mueller may be responsible for the cover up, but I think Rumsfield, Dick Cheney, Guilliani, enyron, Trumps buddies, caused 911….Building 7 was rigged just waiting for an opportunity to destroy the world bank evidence. Funny how a few little fires brought a steel frame bulding into a pile of dust in less that 12 hours….and they were evacuating the building at like 11a.m. ….Anyway we need to get the younger generations organized and if they need a king….I’m not working at the moment….
Nuts
Not nuts …its change or you let Trump and Putin win…Not all politicians are crooks, but no effort means the rich get richer and your god doesn’t care about you…Just look around the world….the revolutions are already starting….we oust em or they keep on bombing and fighting over crude oil….Its time for good people of the planet to get off their butts.
The revolutions are instigated by the same people who are paying you to write this crap, and if Trump drains the swamp in Washington, rather than the swamp draining him, will vanish like the morning dew.
One other comment…Its time for the Illuminati or .01 percent to give back. It has happened before in history in the far east….they divided up land and gave it to the poor. Somebody needs to slap em in D.C. and stop wasting $$ on the Wall….an 8 year old girl just climbed the new un-climbable wall in around 1 minute. Intelligent people (those who didn’t vote for Trump) need to organize and bring down the greedy. Guns arent needed, but brains are….We have one planet, and global consciousness needs to change like tomorrow morning or the kids are doomed…that is reality…
Because the poor do so well under socialism. 🙃
Whenever you guys get full power, you murder millions, and right now it is a toss up whether Trump will get power, or you guys will get full power and begin the murder of millions – starting with the arrest of Trump and his family.
I read those comments like it was this speech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3gQJMMlt_E
If you’re not a Fed, I feel genuinely sorry for you
Want to get big corporations out of politics? End politics – end democracy.
Or at least get the priests out of the corporations, because it’s the priests, not the merchants, who dabble in politics.
Alrenous, where do you get your assertions re: China from? Old China’s state was way less strict in controlling breeding (and everything else) than the West was. The Ming couldn’t even get more than 30% of their population to pay taxes. There was no equivalent of the Catholic Church’s regulations on marriage, with marriage determined strictly by the clan patriarchs. East Asians are less creative but this can easily be explained by other factors like rice agriculture, clannishness and generally a much more competitive environment that penalizes risky mating strategies (betas were not guaranteed a wife if they couldn’t make enough since there was no rationing).
China had even more severe Malthusian pressure than Europe. (Ref: Szabo, Clark.)
China had the mandarin tests.
Result: China is almost entirely populated by descendent of people who passed the mandarin test.
What did the test select for? Today we have IQ 212 Chinamen who are satisfied with being a middle manager. If you want to build and run a chip fab, then a chink or jap is exactly the kind of person you want. However, the designs those fabs put out still has to be made by a European.
To exaggerate, the Chinese can mock, but they cannot make. If you need not only the next chip design but the next [i]type[/i] of chip design, then you can pretty much write off Asia entirely. Satoshi is not from Japan.
It’s also possible they started out hilariously conformist, but I rather doubt it.
Why do you doubt it? People come from apes, many of which are conformist.
Remember that time the West ran over China a few times because it was there and they could? That’s why.
Unresponsive.
“Result: China is almost entirely populated by descendent of people who passed the mandarin test.”
The gentry accepted ~100 graduates a year, maybe 130 if you count people who paid their way in. There is no way they even consist of 5% of the population genetically, especially if you consider the dilution from low status wives. There are very few people who can credibly claim descent from them despite how much Chinese like status and how bad the records have been since 1949.
“Today we have IQ 212 Chinamen who are satisfied with being a middle manager.”
Literally all major Chinese private businesses were started at a time where they were basically illegal and you could get arrested (Alibaba did not have a IPO until 2014, etc). There is also far more small businesses in the Sinosphere than Anglo countries (street food, etc). You are likely right about Japan, but I’ve met far more Chinese people with their own businesses than Anglos and I grew up in the Anglosphere. There is a creativity gap, but there is also a lot of venture capital / hardware innovation flying around in Shenzhen.
Should read “Alibaba did no have a bank license until IPO in 2014”.
>Satoshi is not from Japan.
Matz who made Ruby is. Granted it is a combination of Perl and SmallTalk, not quite a category innovation, but rather his achievement was making such an unlikely combination aesthetically very pleasing and elegant which is just what one would expect a jap to be able to do. We should be doing this, invent things and then hire japs to make them elegant. Elegant in the essential sense, purified, simplified, not looks. Leave looks to the frogs.
>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.
Does this require expensive tech only the state or super-rich can afford, like jets/tanks? Or is it night vision, aristocratic martial discipline, and patriarchal cooperation?
Both really. Saudi Arabia purchases all sorts of expensive military doo-dads but they have almost zero capability to use it effectively.
The US military has people who are quite capable of using it effectively but generally lawyers do not allow them to actually win wars (Afghanistan is unique in that I don’t think we could win even if we were allowed to, Timur was the only guy who sort of conquered Afghanistan and he was a native and probably the most ruthless conqueror in history bar none).
I am writing too fast in a stream of consciousness manner… I mean GENERALLY lawyers won’t let them. I wish this site had an editing function for comments from people other then Jim himself…
Pretty sure such a function would be abused as much as Jim abuses the comma.
Seriously? English is foreign language for me, but I thought that Jim writes flawless prose.
Jim likes commas, Spandrel likes full stops.
(I’m more of a comma man myself, but I can appreciate a good full stop.)
Bullshit! Afghanistan was conquered by the Greeks, then the Mauryas, then by Harsha, then by the Arabs, then by the Turks, then by the Mongols, then by Timur, then partly by the Sikhs.
The U.S. cannot keep Afghanistan or any other islamic country for that matter, simply because it is no longer a cohesive entity.
Greeks couldn’t hold it, Turks didn’t hold it. Not all that familiar with the others… the Arabs sort of held it long enough to impose Islam but they didn’t conquer it the way they conquered North Africa and the Levant.
Timur as I mention did hold it without much trouble but he was a native and probably histories most ruthless conqueror bar none.
In a previous post we discussed this already. The only groups that don’t win in an Afghanistan either do not actually want to win (US, USSR, Brits) or do not need to win.
Algernon said it best, but I’ll add one point because it presents such a juicy target.
Timur was not an Afghan! Wiki it.
The rest of your “facts” are also wrong, but that one was too juicy to let go.
There are no singular Afghans but my understanding he was an uzbek which is one of their major tribes.
Nope, the Pashtuns are the major tribes. Uzbeks and Tajiks are minor tribes. And Uzbeks and Tajiks are considered foreigners by the Pashtuns, originating as they do from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan respectively, having set up shop up north and never leaving in spite of the best efforts of the Pashtuns to convince them to leave via various incentives. Stubborn bastards.
Give it up, mate! We all make error now and then. No shame in admitting an error. No less a man than Jim cheerfully accepts his errors. Why shouldn’t lesser men like you and I?
Mongols held it the longest.
Heaven is not a democracy, and Hell has religious freedom.
The Lord is the Lord. The Lord is not the democratically-elected official.
The Lord also isn’t a mortal, and the Lord also doesn’t have to compete for power against others. We don’t live in heaven, unfortunately.
>We don’t live in heaven, unfortunately
No, we sure the f-word don’t, do we? Where we live gets closer to Hell every day because we have forgotten Hell exists.
The 2nd coming will involve violent subjugation of all nations under his rule.
> As Trump needed, and successfully used, the Federalist society, and the Federalist society successfully used Trump, the dictator is going to need us.
We’re going to have to organize and organize extensively to pull it off. The ideal model will be a hybrid of a) the Monastic colleges of scholars from which the modern University originated, b) conventional think-tanks like the Federalist Society, c) Masons, and d) outlaw motorcycle clubs.
Our current legions of mobile bandits are also gobbling up enormous resources, to the point that government is insolvent, and will soon make its taxpayers insolvent..That pressure will eventually lead to many kings, as the center cannot hold…
Most resources (aka capital) are a liability that require ever more resources to defend. Warlordism is a power vacuum open to whom can reduce the liabilities of resources, and is the chaotic Dark Age that the West will likely descend into over the next decades. Power vacuums are to be captured by those who can maximize the iron law of political-economics.
Jim’s main thesis of a State religion and an earthly King is incorrect, because for example a hierarchy of God, King, Man, Women isn’t stable given that a King who correctly admits he isn’t holier-than-thou and thus not a God, is vulnerable to a holiness spiral. Corrupt 501(c3) Christianity is not Christianity. The State religion was despised by Jesus. John’s account of Jesus and various other scriptures such as 1 Samuel 8 clearly indicate that we are not of this world and to come out of the State, rendering to Ceasar not the inalienable capital provided by our Creator. The 16th Amendment was never ratified and is an unconstitutional, non-apportioned tax. True Christians should never pay it. Jesus came bearing a sword. The Amish are not obligated to contribute to the corrupt Social Security scam. It is possible to resist for those who live by the principles which create inalienable capital. Capital such as belief in everlasting life which can’t be taken even by sword because they’re non-transferrable.
The solution is to come out of the Great Harlot system and live according to Biblical principles as correct interpreted, not according to false prophets (e.g. 501c3 churches beholden to the corrupt State) nor sacrificing Biblical principles for profitable. The burgeoning Knowledge Age (wherein the primary capital of a venture is your non-fungible knowledge and not the huge capex of farms or factories) and decentralization technologies such as Bitcoin reduce the importance of resources which are liabilities.
Jim is barking up the correct tree about females being a rib and not capable of leading a principled existence without guidance. Men who abrogate their responsibility to females deserve their fate. Ditto complacent men who keep fantasizing about a solution and not acting to live by principles which for example require they individually take action to come out of the Great Harlot.
9/11 is the result of Islamic terrorists and FBI incompetence. Building 7’s collapse had been expected several hours before it occurred by everyone on the scene. Troofers can’t stick with one single lie, but rather, fire rapidly thousands of lies and then play whack-a-mole between them.
The Beast from the Earth
…12 And this beast exercised all the authority of the first beast and caused the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose mortal wound had been healed. 13 And the second beast performed great signs to cause even fire from heaven to come down to earth in the presence of the people. 14 Because of the signs it was given to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived those who dwell on the earth, telling them to make an image to the beast that had been wounded by the sword and yet had lived.…
https://youtube.com/watch?v=XHK36Hmy6Yk
Pergamum (Revelation 2:12-17) — The church where ‘Satan’s seat’ or ‘throne’ is; needed to repent of allowing false teachers (2:16)
If the Jews had accepted Christ as their earthly King, which he gave them opportunity to do when he purged the temple, though he knew they would fail, Christianity would have been born as a state religion, in that the purged Temple hierarchy, the state religion of Israel, would have been Christianity, albeit a different kind of Christianity.
State religion is Gnon’s plan for man. We always have a state religion. Christ and Christianity is not opposed to state religion. It is opposed to false and evil state religions.
Agreed at least to the extent of the point of Romans which is often misinterpreted. We are not to obey an evil government but we should obey a good government.
Unfortunately good governments are rare and apparently unstable because men fall away from a Biblical principled life.
As the contention over liability-resources decreases (per my comments about a Knowledge Age), perhaps mankind advances to not needing States. I think that is precisely what Bitcoin is about. It appears to be ushering in the end of the nation-states. It’s a process and we still need to pursue a principled, Biblical life.
The Bible makes it clear that we are fallen creatures and we should not idol perfection. Thus we still need a decentralized means of adherence to Biblical virtue as a check and balance on the repeated devolution of the State.
Only less than 5% of the churches teach that Christians should defect on an evil State. We have a duty to come out of the Great Harlot.
Nuts
We are always ruled by priests or warriors, and even when warriors rule they need a priesthood.
Therefore, that priesthood should preach that which is right and true, or at least unfalsifiable. There is always going to an official priesthood, even when it is, as now, officially unofficial. And we should be that priesthood, because we know the truth, and support virtue, while our current ruling priesthood is going ever deeper into delusion, and is evil.
1 Samuel 8 Israel Asks for a King
5 They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead[b] us, such as all the other nations have.”
6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”
Water under the bridge. Gnon ordained Kings, because we failed to rule ourselves.
The story the bible tells is that before Samuel, God told the Hebrews no King, because direct rule by God. (Which is to say, the priesthood resolved feuds.) But, because too many people were disinclined to listen to God, God then ordained Kings. And here we are.
Maybe if everyone was IQ 130, we could do without an official religion and without a state. But every successful stateless society has had an official religion, and most actually existent stateless societies have been horrifyingly unsuccessful.
Unresponsive
No, 911 was not caused by FBI incompetence. It was caused by Mueller. It was caused by Mueller’s program of refusing to find Muslim terrorists, while determinedly searching for white male heterosexual Christian terrorists regardless of whether they existed or not. Every FBI agent rapidly discovered that noticing Muslim terror was a very bad career move.
The 911 troofer movement is a shill movement created by the FBI to provide cover for the malevolent use of the FBI to serve political objectives and to provide cover for Mueller. They invent dancing Mossad agents, while strangely failing to notice very real FBI agents conspicuously displaying selective blindness, while strangely failing to notice the entirely real activities of Robert Mueller.
Vacuous arguments couched in identify politics are intended to deceive by pulling on the strings of Nietzsche’s ressentiment.
Let’s have some actual evidence, Gaylord McSamefaggot.
If I were a betting man I would comfortably stake my life on your imminent failure to produce any such.
Let’s see you discuss the entirely real evidence of the complicity of Mueller and the FBI, instead of you glibly dismissing undeniable evidence that the fall of building seven was predicted and expected by those who witnessed the terrorist damage to the south side.
Troofers grab at any scrap of evidence that can be creatively interpreted as evidence that the FBI was not complicit, while ignoring the elephant in the room.
Maybe the reason you deny the evidence that the fall of the towers was caused by the obvious because you are crazy, but why do Troofers ignore the evidence that the FBI looked the other way, and Robert Mueller ordered the FBI to look the other way?
You might be nuts on your own initiative, but you are not ignoring FBI misconduct on your own initiative. You are ignoring FBI misconduct because of a paycheque.
Some “Troofers” think the FBI was complicit, but do not accept your reasoning on why they were complicit and whom was actually pulling the strings behind the curtain of 9/11.
Again the perpetrator(s) links to the very bottom as quoted below, not some simplistic identity politics explanation invented (by a false prophet) to lure the ressentiment of men to idol an earthly King:
Show us troofers exposing the FBI and Rober Mueller, or I am deleting all further comments from you.
Given what troofers claim to believe, they should believe that the terrorists were actors hired by the FBI, or that the FBI turned a blind eye because it was in on them being actors. Troofer’s purported belief system is internally inconsistent in ways that systematically favor the FBI, an organization notorious for sponsoring shills, from which I conclude that they do not believe what they claim to believe.
That troofers fail to acknowledge the terrorist damage to building seven is to be expected, given what they claim to believe. That they fail to acknowledge the FBI turning a blind eye is most odd, given what they claim to believe.
[*deleted*]
Unresponsive.
If you already showed us Troofers exposing FBI or Robert Mueller misconduct in 911, show us again. Give me a link that goes directly to a Troofer talking about Mueller or the FBI turning a blind eye to the terrorists – though I suppose a Troofer would say “the supposed terrorists”
You repeat yourself all the damned time. Repeat yourself on this issue.
> No, 911 was not caused by FBI incompetence. It was caused by Mueller.
One of your biggest findings IMO. I’ve learned to hate that cadaverous deep socket traitor, even if he is cooperating to save his skin. Put him in a tower and set it alight! Either that or give him a medal for striking DC and NY, then let the families of the victims run the afterparty.
What recent parade in Italy? Please explain what event you are referring to.
Some Italians, I assume Salvini supporters, had a parade with giant
Trump-themed balloons and floats. Was pretty hilarious and cool to see with how cucked most Euros are in regards to Trump. I dont remember what region of Italy though, may have been more to the South.
Viareggio; it is in Tuscany about 60 miles east of Genoa.
He’s talking about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWjC_mrucY4
Awesome parade. Police was notably absent. No Antifa crowds attacking the parade. Apparently, no one felt offended by the parade.
They told them that they were mocking Trump, and the morons believed it.
As I said in my post, you don’t mock by faithfully reproducing the memes circulated by his most enthusiastic supporters at twenty times lifesize with loudspeakers blaring.
And I think this is the reason that so many of the members of the dissident right come from libertarian backgrounds. It’s like they know something is wrong, but they diagnose it incorrectly, while getting some of the solutions and reasoning correct along the way. So then eventually they realize that libertarianism is missing something and they go full redpill. I can’t tell you how many reactionaries I’ve seen that are massive Rothbard fans.
The worst members of the dissident right tend to come from white knightionalists backgrounds and beta socon papists. These people it seems can NEVER get a proper understanding of how to address the woman question. The Papists also continously try to absolve their church of any role in the poz and the white knightionalists often cling to something very close to female equality.
The best have their roots as small l libertarians or the manosphere. They tend to develop proper economics and the woman question.
Also, people with libertarian and manosphere origins do not entertain terrorist sympathies, while people with skinhead or religious conservative backgrounds are liable to commit acts of terrorism.
Aw shucks, you make it sound like terrorist sympathies are a bad thing.
Christians never commit acts of terrorism.
Christians generally don’t (and I mentioned specifically socon catlicks not right wing Christians anyway) that tends to be white knightionalists. The only act of right wing political terrorism which ever hit anyone on the left that actually mattered was Brevik and he wasn’t a conventional white knightionalists (he believed in some of their points but didn’t blame Jews for his say his erectile dysfunction).
What a bizarre comment to make. The largest cause of erectile dysfunction is, obviously, genital mutilation, which removes the vast majority of erogenous sensitivity in the penis. Since male genital mutilation is practiced, propagated, and defended by Jews, and since the largest group of circumcised men are Muslims who took on the tradition with their adoption of Abrahamism, blaming Jews in part for erectile dysfunction is quite accurate for many of the people who experience it.
>The largest cause of erectile dysfunction is, obviously, genital mutilation
I’m all for banning genital mutilation and stuffing the mutilators into ovens, but this is bullshit. The largest cause is not GM (or, for that matter, “porn addiction”), but condoms, which literally make erection impossible for people with insensitive dicks. I know that when I tried fucking some bitches with a condom on, I had “erectile dysfunction,” and when I did it without a condom, everything worked just fine.
Erectile Dysfunction as a pervasive condition, not the momentary description of what happens when you wrap a latex bag around your dick. Afghan warlords were not bribed with Viagra because they were using condoms.
>Everything worked just fine
No, it worked like a partially amputated penis with no frenulum, no mucosal tissue sliding mechanism, and a keratinized glans.
Not denying the diminished pleasure aspect. Just not sure that a reduced capacity to experience sensual pleasure, even a *drastically* reduced capacity, is the cause of pervasive ED.
Mutilation certainly makes coitus and/or masturbation longer (i.e., it takes longer to reach climax) and less enjoyable, but since it does not generally reduce sexual appetite, should not substantially reduce the erectile function itself. It’s like if you lose a part of your tongue, so you’re less able to enjoy food, but your saliva production should be more or less the same.
But I’m no expert. Anyway, we agree that this practice should be eliminated and that it would be splendid if the technology existed to restore foreskins.
>not sure that a reduced capacity to experience sensual pleasure, even a *drastically* reduced capacity, is the cause of pervasive ED.
You just said that condoms make it harder to get and maintain erections due to the desensitizing effect.
Well, I don’t know which is more desensitizing, condoms or MGM. Since I manage to keep it up without a condom (despite lacking a foreskin), but fail to keep it up with a condom, I assumed that if other people would avoid condoms, their erectile function would likewise be okay.
I also think that mass ED is a relatively new phenomenon, which cannot really be explained by the prevalence of MGM, since — at least in the West — that practice is now dying out. What has increased, ever since the faggots falsely scared us about AIDS, is condom use.
People today are having less sex than ever, and the sex they’re having is usually promiscuous rather than in a monogamous context; and since the faggots told us that we’re all gonna die of AIDS, and the Feminists told us that pregnancy is a “danger,” people now usually use condoms, even when there’s no need for it.
Why call it “genital mutilation” when genital improvement is more accurate. Circumcision is the complete opposite from mutilation and should be considered genital enhancement. Not only does it keep the genitals more hygienic but it also reduces sexual urges.
Lust is a vice that many people struggle with, so if removing the foreskin helps people resist temptation and saves them from the fires of Hell, then so be it.
Circumcision is a gift and a virtue. If you could look past your obsession with sexual gratification then you would be able to see circumcision for the gift that it truly is. I support male and female circumcision. It reduces sexual urges and thus makes the world a less sinful place.
“reduces sexual urges” – sounds like an extremely bad idea.
I don’t think it does reduce the desire to penetrate and conquer.
>Well, I don’t know which is more desensitizing, condoms or MGM.
MGM, certainly. Covering something in latex vs. chopping most of it of with a knife. Yes, the condom covers the entire penis while prepuce amputation is only the top half, but there is basically no erogenous sensitivity lower down the penis; shaft skin is just skin.
Over 40% of the Arab world experiences ED and its not because the Muslims are wearing condoms to fuck their virgin wives. In contrast, the entire Asia-Pacific region- which holds the large plurality of the world’s population and where no one cuts other than the South Koreans and tiny Muslim minorities- accounts for just 16% of the ED medication market.
>Over 40% of the Arab world experiences ED
>the entire Asia-Pacific region… accounts for just 16% of the ED medication market.
Huh. Well, I trust your data, so I guess that settles it.
Some disingenuous people may now say, “Don’t blame the Jews! It was John Harvey Kellogg who introduced MGM to the Anglo-Protestant world, not the Jews.”
But would he be able to do that without knowing that Jews and Mohammedans practice it en masse? Kellogg would most likely have had a much harder time selling MGM to the general public had there not existed a handy Jewish example to point to.
Since Jews settled in America, Kellogg could simply argue, “Look everybody, our wise Jewish brethren over here are practicing it on their 8-day-old newborns, and everything is going just fine, so we can safely adopt that practice.”
So the Jewish responsibility lies in giving the goyim a bad idea by setting up a bad example, bringing darkness onto the nations rather than light.
As mentioned before I don’t suggest that the rise and continuation of genital mutilation in the US can be solely blamed on Jews; rather, that The Comintator’s attempt to use ED as a strawman example of pathological irrational Jew hatred, when the religion literally began with a divine order to chop up their sons penises, was quite dumb.
>I don’t suggest that the rise and continuation of genital mutilation in the US can be solely blamed on Jews
Right. As you wrote, it’s a partial responsibility, not a full one. I would, however, also mention the Jewish lobbies worldwide, backed by the Israeli Foreign Ministry, that fight tooth-and-nail to prevent the banning of MGM, together of course with Mohammedan activists.
Although “Religious Tolerance” is mostly a Quaker meme and not a Jewish one, it has been cynically embraced by Jews to advocate for keeping MGM legal in the West.
>the religion literally began with a divine order to chop up their sons penises
Actually, I read somewhere that the Sadducees only chopped the outer rim of the foreskin and not the whole thing; the Pharisees later extended MGM to cover the whole foreskin in order to make it impossible for Jews to pass for Greeks, to prevent Hellenization.
I also recall that the sections of the Pentateuch that call for circumcision are relatively late; the original Judaic legal code of the First Temple, and the original legends about the Patriarchs, did not mention circumcision. Most likely, circumcision took off during the Babylonian exile.
The Jews inherited MGM from Egyptian priests, who also practiced FGM; however, since the Jewish priesthood is exclusively male and patrilineal, could not inherit FGM. Presumably, originally only the Levitic classes practiced it, but then post-exile it became a national rite.
>Actually, I read somewhere that the Sadducees only chopped the outer rim of the foreskin and not the whole thing
I’ve heard this but have never seen anything supporting it; if I recall there’s an episode in the Old Testament where someone chops off the foreskins of 100 enemy’s as a war trophy so they were certainly cutting off the whole thing was a familiar idea. Also, circumcision seems to have been a clear delineator between Jews and non-Jews which likely wouldn’t have been the case if it was just a small snip, as foreskins naturally come in many sizes and some are very short.
Good point.
In the first place, circumcision in Afro-Asia was a post-war procedure enforced by victorious clans on the male members of defeated clans (that is, on those of them who were enslaved rather than killed), to set them apart as inferior and subjugated to the victors. It’s a practice that truly befits a slave population, not unlike eunuchism.
From what I understand, circumcision is good hygiene for taking war-brides of unknown provenance. Judah certainly wasn’t shy about dipping his wick, and he doesn’t seem to have brought it home. I would rather not be overwhelmed by pleasure like a woman. If you can’t get hard off feminine visuals, something biochemical has gone awry.
Good hygiene is bathing and not having unprotected sex with people harboring STDs. An intact human male is not “overwhelmed with pleasure like a woman”; nature did not select for that.
Yes, you can still get an erection fine with a partially-amputated penis, just as in the example mentioned in this thread of the mouth still watering at the smell of food even when part of the tongue has been cut off. But once coitus actually begins, the physical response no longer matches the neurological impulses- expected nerve responses never arrive because those nerve endings were cut off and turned into expensive facial cream for aging women; exposed mucosal tissue rubs raw against skin; the gliding that the penis and vagina are designed for never occurs.
At any rate, while I suppose a mentally ill adult who wants to amputate their healthy body parts and has found a surgeon willing to take their money should be able to do so, advocating the butchery of infant genitals is a level of degeneracy and evil that supersedes any political ideology.
Oh, don’t get mad at Koanic. He is feminine, and needs to explain what specifically differentiates him from a woman. Sure, “not be[ing] overwhelmed by pleasure like a woman” sounds like an odd, convoluted, and twisted rationalization to us, but that’s merely because our thinking is logical and masculine while his, evidently, isn’t.
The one explaining his masculinity is you, liar.
>The one explaining his masculinity is you, liar.
Most men are not so insecure about their own masculinity that they would need to resort to something like, “I would rather not be overwhelmed by pleasure like a woman.” Men generally don’t compare themselves with women, unless there’s a good reason to do so.
You used that bizarre, uncouth line in an intellectual conversation about circumcision precisely because your circumcision is what gives you confidence in your own masculinity, so you consider that to be a compelling argument in its favor. (Otherwise, you wouldn’t have brought that up)
I’m sure that many times you’ve looked in the mirror and thought, “Well, I am always emotional and moody and prone to tearful outbursts, but at least there’s one thing that definitely sets me apart from women: I am not overwhelmed by pleasure.”
Koanic is pious, and unfortunately the religion that the West inherited traces its origins to a divine covenant sealed with dick-chopping.
But if Paul abandoned it, 2,000 years ago, you can abandon it now.
Yes, Eynon, thank you for injecting some sanity into the conversation. I’m sympathetic to the anti-circumcisionist perspective, but loyal to my God. And I have stated my personal preference, that so greatly offends AK, which I flatter myself was reached objectively and independently of my religion. I have strongly preferred stoicism (in the colloquial sense) since puberty; it is innate. Anyhow, it is certainly a perfectly valid choice under the New Covenant to reject circumcision, but some of the more colorful moaning about it is overblown.
>Koanic is pious
If that’s the case, then he should have come out and admitted, “The bizarre line about not being overwhelmed with pleasure like a woman was just a silly rationalization that I randomly pulled out of the hat. Actually, I just follow my Abrahamic religion as best as I interpret it.”
People should be honest about their motives, shouldn’t they?
Anyone uncircumcised who reads Koanic’s, “I would rather not be overwhelmed by pleasure like a woman,” should feel insulted at being called womanlike for absolutely no reason other than Koanic’s deep-seated insecurity.
If, on the other hand, the real issue is religious piety, then it’s a different argument altogether. Koanic should apologize to all the uncircumcised people he falsely designated womanlike, and promise to not make retarded arguments in the future.
>but some of the more colorful moaning about it is overblown
That part I doubt. It’s damages are constantly understated or denied altogether on the exceedingly rare occasions that it gets any mention in the public sphere.
@AK
Since there’s no good reason to chop one third of your dick off, every secular argument for it from cut men, other than those stemming from genuine ignorance, is probably going to be rationalization rooted in religious doctrine or in denial because they feel nothing can be done about it anyway.
In reality, quite a lot can be done; non-surgical ‘foreskin restoration’ through tension-induced skin growth can create new, permanent tissue that mimics the appearance and function of a real foreskin and restores a lot of what was lost. A slow and tedious process, but a very real one.
Of course they’re overblown. If you can’t see the nuttiness in your own side you’ve lost perspective. It’s probably the biggest thing holding ya’ll back.
If it sounds like you’re describing FGM, you’ve gone too far. Keeping the Gentiles uncut should not be a hard sell. So don’t bloody oversell it.
@Eynon
Well, I come to Jim’s blog for high-level debate.
If Koanic were not intellectually lazy, he could say something along the lines of, “Some men who undergo circumcision in adulthood claim that its effect on their sexual function is rather minimal.”
That is a plausible argument, albeit a statistically irrelevant one (most men do report a loss of sexual function, over time) and prone to selection bias and post factum self-deception. Still, in his shoes, that’s what I’d go with.
(Actually, in his shoes I’d just admit that the real motivation behind being pro-circumcision is religious. Since he is supposedly “pious,” he should be able to at least be honest about what makes him tick here)
Instead of coming up with such a plausible rationalization, though, he came up with a very dumb one in which, perplexingly, he contrasted himself with a woman (kek), so I called him out on his effeminate, i.e., frivolous and illogical, line of thinking.
Anyways – personally, I’d rather just wait for a real foreskin made of my own stem cells to be printed in 3D and then attached back where it belongs. But I’m glad that in the meanwhile, other people find solutions that work for them.
@Koanic
It’s objectively comparable to female mutilation. Not as bad as some forms, worse than others.
The primary challenge when it comes to accepting that fact is that people think the glans (penis head) is the male version of the clitoris; it isn’t. There is no direct male counterpart to the clitoris, but the closest thing to it is probably the frenulum, which is almost completely amputated during circumcision.
“Don’t take a knife and chop off the healthy body parts of your infant children” should not be treated as one “side” in an argument.
Ok. Descend into self-parody all you like. It’s very persuasive, and doesn’t at all result in a ghetto of self-congratulating anti-evangelists. Every sperm is sacred, and every foreskin too! If you think Catholics stupid, I’ve got a pagan for you.
Wait, I’ve got another one:
Oh where oh where can my clitoris be,
Oh where oh where can she be?
With his hat cut short and his shaft cut long,
My dick is a full amputee!
>self-parody
You’re in denial. Now, denial is a powerful thing, so from a matter of strategy, it may be perfectly reasonable to ease people in to the reality of MGM with whatever bullshit is persuasive. But in a venue like this where we can be honest- male circumcision is not as bad as a full clitorectomy but it’s absolutely worse than labia cutting orbthe amputation of the clitoral hood.
Pointing out that the frenulum is the male equivalent of the clitoris, hence the similarity between MGM and FGM, is not “self-parody.”
If I were in your high-heeled, glamorous shoes, I’d quit making up lame rationalizations.
Perhaps you can contribute more to a different topic, e.g., “How I felt the first time Vox Day shoved his lanky dick up my ass.” About this, you can divulge your personal experience and then lightheartedly compare anecdotes with fellow cult members. Would be super educational.
> male circumcision is not as bad as a full clitorectomy
See, you need to lead with that so people don’t think you’re nuts, and keep bringing it up occasionally. Because a lot of the anti-circumcision people are nuts.
Another problem is talking about botched circumcisions without comparing to the health risks of having the foreskin intact.
Wailing about sacred bodily integrity is an argument that will appeal to women, not men.
Honestly, the only way to break through the wall of denial is with pictures and video. No words, however persuasive, can do it by themselves.
And some forms of male circumcision- the “high” cuts that remove nearly all of the male mucosal tissue or carve out the entire frenulum- are probably not much different than removing the (visible) clitoris. At that point you have a dull log.
>the health risks of an intact human body
Minuscule bordering on nonexistent compared to the risks and damages of mutilation. It would be exponentially more reasonable and less harmful to suggest that every girl get a double mastectomy at age 12 to stop breast cancer.
>Wailing about sacred bodily integrity
Strawman. Not what Eynon said, not what I said.
And you’re in no position to advise people about “how to avoid looking nuts.” A brief review of your posts so far is enough to establish that society would be much better off having you institutionalized and tranquilized.
By the way, when you wrote,
“It is possible that the Israeli government, in concert with Silverstein, guided the Muslim operatives towards their final destination.”
https://blog.reaction.la/global-warming/no-perceptible-global-warming/#comment-1880626
Were you being paid by Mueller, or was it your own nutty conjecture?
>Because a lot of the anti-circumcision people are nuts.
In general, someone who takes a knife and starts chopping off pieces of their genitals should always be assumed to be more nuts than someone who does not. Exceptions would have to be very extreme.
A lot of anti-circumcisionists are nuts.
> It would be exponentially more reasonable and less harmful to suggest that every girl get a double mastectomy at age 12 to stop breast cancer.
And you are one of them.
Breast cancer kills hundreds of millions, penile cancer that can be shown to maybe have rates .001% higher in intact penises affects a minuscule fraction of a fraction of a fraction of that. Genital mutilation permanently and drastically damages sexual function while removal of breast tissue does not.
Both are insane suggestions, one significantly more harmful and unnecessary than the other.
Presumably if one amputates a girl’s clit, she can’t get off with diddling, only with a pounding. I think it’s similar with circumcision. Diddling-centric forms of sex lose most of their appeal; pound-town is the ticket.
If men had sensitive nipples like women, and it was a religious custom to trim them down at birth, would I care that I’d received that treatment? No. I’d regard it as masculinizing.
I wouldn’t get an adult circumcision, or an uncircumcision, or give one to a son. I don’t mind having been circumcized at birth /in my case/, because it suits my extremely stoic personality. But it irritates me that this Judaizing element has penetrated the USA.
However it’s difficult to get clear information regarding circumcision health effects when you’ve got Jews on one side and lunatics on the other.
Nice utilitarian argument there, Eynon, you’re just sane enough for a high school debate team, by which I mean absolutely bonkers.
I suspect one of the effects of circumcision was to make Sodomite sex less appealing and more challenging, particularly before modern hygiene and lubricants. A vagina is designed for demolition in ways that a colon is not. My understanding is that Sodomy proceeds by stages, with anal being the last, and by corrupting young boys. So limiting the pleasure derivable from this process reduces the incidence of homosexuality. For example, blowjobs are much more pleasurable for the uncut. I’ve never valued them, aside from the dominance aspect.
>Presumably if one amputates a girl’s clit, she can’t get off with diddling, only with a pounding. I think it’s similar with circumcision. Diddling-centric forms of sex lose most of their appeal; pound-town is the ticket.
Pound-town is what gets severely disrupted by mutilation because pound-town is actually supposed to be glide-town. Nothing works like it’s supposed to.
>utilitarian argument
Yes, you created one when you suggested that the costs of chopping half your dick off should we compared to and weighed against the benefits of chopping half your dick off.
>I wouldn’t get an adult circumcision, or an uncircumcision, or give one to a son. I don’t mind having been circumcized at birth /in my case/, because it suits my extremely stoic personality
“It’s manly to have half my manhood” isn’t a coherent sentiment.
But at least you reached the “personally I love having my sex organs turned into skin cream for Oprah viewers but I won’t get it done to my son” stage. Mentally that’s probably going to be as far most Americans can go and hopefully it will be enough to end it for the next generation.
Yes, clit cutting reducing lubrication, but circumcision is merely ribbed for her pleasure. I doubt you have credible evidence that male circumcision reduces female pleasure.
What’s fundamentally unmasculine is attempting to define away the argument instead of having it.
The appeal to the unaltered human male form as the maximum in masculinity is incoherent. Nature contains species with greater or lesser sexual dimorphism. It is formally valid to argue that just as puffy nipples make a man feminine, so does being uncut.
You are doing such a bad job at this that I am actually converting myself into a pro-circumcisionist. You have to strain pretty hard to be less masculine than the Jews in a given argument.
2019-04-26 at 11:15
>circumcision is merely ribbed for her pleasure.
There’s significantly less skin after mutilation, specifically less bunching up behind the glans, and the ridged band at the tip of the prepuce is completely amputated, so it’s the precise opposite.
>I doubt you have credible evidence that male circumcision reduces female pleasure.
Not sure why you’re bringing up female pleasure, I’m talking about male pleasure. But it’s almost certainly worse for the female too because there’s less lubrication, less girth, no gliding mechanism. And it’s simply a less aesthetic experience all around, with the scar tissue, discoloration and whatnot.
>the male body as crafted by Gnon is feminine, it’s only manly once it has a crippled penis.
Good thing those masculine Jews fixed Gnon’s work. While you’re at it, be sure to burn off your tastebuds, lest you be overcome with emotion due to womanly flavors.
> so it’s the precise opposite.
Visuospatial fail. Removing the foreskin makes the glans brim more pronounced.
As for reduced glide, that’s also a feature. It’s easy for a novice do damage to the vagina if he skips the foreplay or otherwise lets her run dry. Which leaves girls unable to engage in the promiscuity of polyamorous primates. As he learns the mechanics of foreplay, he also develops better insight for recognizing signs of cheating.
Paul opposed circumcision due to its association with Old Testament Law. Today that association no longer exists. Progressive heretics use the New Covenant to preach rapproachment with the false Jews; an Old Testament mindset would sooner see them slaughtered man, woman and child. Therefore I am pro-circumcision for the same reason Paul was anti-circumcision – symbolic defiance of the Jews. And more, defiance of the Sodomite globohomo elite. To be circumcized today is a statement that Sodomy deserves decapitation.
It seems all you anti-circumcizers are the same – Jehovah-bashing pud-prioritizing solipsistic lunatic effeminates. All the more reason.
Yeah Koanic mutilate your own dick that’ll own those jews (sarc)…
Jesus Christ are you listening to yourself.
Unless you grew up in an evangelical household or some other circumcizing Christian denomination, you have no idea what you are talking about, and your opinion is irrelevant. As usual.
SO, while we are onthe subject, what Is the purpose of foreskin removal? Like, from Gnon’s perspective?
Seems to me mostly a power play: you thought you belonged to yourself? No no no, you belong to the tribe and never forget it. But it must also be a bit like a secret shared handshake, albeit with more shame involved than any regular secret handshake.
As I understand it, the underlying social purpose of such initiation rites is to delay sexual debut and, perhaps, reduce sexual potency.
(If you wonder about the latter, in some cases, initiation rites can include penis scarification, introducing pebbles under the skin of the penis (“Ribbed for her pleasure”.), urethrotomy, etc. Presumably it takes a while to heal up and perhaps leads to future sexual problems.)
For example
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6637950
Foreskin circumcision is a sign of patriarchy and K-selection. In the absence of a priestly father, the ruderal promiscuous strategy dominates, for which an intact foreskin is adaptive. Thus foreskin circumcision may be as old as patriarchy.
See Genesis 17 and Leviticus 12.
In the Bronze Age, warriors looted the pants off enemy corpses, because clothes were wealth. Hence “uncircumcized Philistine”.
Did the Romans circumcise, did Europeans pre 20th century?
Koanic somehow you’ve gone suddenly more nuts then Andre and Communist Revolutionary put together.
Some Native Americans circumcized; it is perfectly reasonable to speculate that the same was true of indigenous Europeans. You are as stupid as ever.
What the fuck is an “indigenous European”? Sounds like shitlib talk for barbarian.
Prior to the progressive era only Jews and Muslims a few barbarians did it.
Civilized non Jewish patriarchies (I think we all agree Muslims aren’t even really human) didn’t do it.
>makes the glans brim more pronounced
The glans is more pronounced in the sense that the penis is thinner with less flesh. The glans is also discolored, dried, and covered with a layer of desensitizing keratin after being constantly exposed to the air and a feces-filled diaper, then spending years rubbing against fabric.
The “I’ll chop up my dick to fight the Jews and fags” cope is a lot of fun but you already said you won’t circumcise your son (not that I would have thought you believed that anyway).
> What the fuck is an “indigenous European”?
The people who were there when Europe was stone age
Yes, Eynon, you changed my mind about that. Good job.
It slightly more complicated than that in that proto aryans conquered Western Europe from what is now Eastern Europe at the start of the Bronze age, and then the Aryans reconquered it after the collapse of Bronze Age civilization at the beginning of the Iron age, but yes, all Europeans, all white people fighting white people, and the Aryans predominantly blond or red headed, and blue or green eyed.
If you go back far enough, everyone was black, and in the neolithic, most people were brown, but Europeans were blue eyed and light skinned even in the paleolithic. The proto Aryans were lighter skinned still, and had diverse hair colors and eye colors. The proto Aryans were undeniably white, but the neolithic farmers of western Europe not exactly white, mostly rather similar to today’s middle easterners. The bronze age Europeans were as white or whiter than we are, in large part due to the proto Aryans killing all the men and marrying the women.
Libertarianism isn’t exactly wrong – it’s just incomplete.
How to govern? As libertarian as practical.
How to have that actually work? Be red-pilled about HBD* and sex.
*HBD isn’t just or even primarily about IQ.