Yes, but ideas usually do rule

This is a reply to “Ideas never rule“.

Ideas never rule, in that it is always a human backside on the throne. Ideas always rule, because no man rules alone, so he has to maintain cooperation over a group of men considerably larger than close kin can supply.

Men rule, but how do they rule?

Through guns, ideas, and fashion. Ideas are more powerful than guns, and fashion more powerful than ideas.

Aidan contrasts Napoleon, man of action, with Maximilien Robespierre. But Robespierre had no title, no legal authority. Rather ideas ruled, and were personified as “Robespierre”, their most notable advocate, after they cut off Robespierre’s head. Infogalactic describes him as “a French lawyer and politician, and one of the best-known and most influential figures of the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror.” Notice the complete lack of any job titles or executive authority in that description.

As for Napoleon, man of action: Napoleon, man of action, lost his army in Russia because of logistics, and logistics failed because the “Continental System” was ideology over economics. Napoleon, man of action, got himself into a holy war with the Spanish people over religious issues. Napoleon, man of action, chose to converge Christianity to the Cult of Reason, and the Spanish did not feel like being converged.

You could say that under Napoleon ideas ruled considerably less than they had when Robespierre was “influential”, because there was a human backside on the throne, whereas when Robespierre was “influential”, the throne was empty. But ideas ruled Napoleon, caused him great losses in Spain, and destroyed him in Russia.

And what of America today? Does Trump rule, or Harvard rule?

Mostly Harvard. And Harvard would not put its backside within ten feet of the throne. Harvard rules ideas, and ideas rule America. Do men rule Harvard – obviously, but they rule facelessly, through secret peer review, much as Puritans ruled in the time of Barebone’s parliament.

And what of Russia today?

Putin rules. And Putin, like Napoleon, like Cromwell, like Caesar, is a warrior. But he is also a priest. His background is the secret police, the inquisition, who are warrior priests.

When he causes weapons to be created that can deny the US airsea superiority over Russia, the warrior is thinking and acting. But his major concern is not America’s airsea advantage, but Russia’s spiritual security. He is building magnificent weapons, and magnificent Cathedrals – the one as much to resist American power as the other.

Putin knows you need a State Religion to beat a State Religion. Soviet Russia collapsed because Stalin killed all the true believers in communism, so Putin is reviving Russia’s old State Religion. Putin rules, but he knows how Harvard rules. Harvard rules by manipulating language and ideas.

Does Putin believe in Russian Orthodoxy any more than he believed in communism? Or does he think both of them are glue to hold society and state together, and Russian Orthodoxy is better glue?

Maybe, maybe not, but it is easier to believe in Russian Orthodoxy, for its important claims are not of this world, and not subject to falsification by the facts of this world, while cult of reason was embarrassingly unreasonable.

Whether Putin believes or not, white people are once again building magnificent Cathedrals, after centuries of abandonment and desecration. There is an idea, made manifest in steel and glass, and that idea rules, denying Harvard the power to rule.

So, do men or ideas rule? When the ideas are useful, true, beautiful, and good, hard to tell the difference. When the ideas are evil, stupid, and apt to destroy ruler and ruled, easy to tell the difference. Ideas are ruling us today. A black mob burning, looting, and smashing is not black men ruling, but white men bowing. And what are they bowing to? They bow to an idea: “Black Lives Matter”. A chimp would look at that and see black men ruling, but the chimp would be wrong.

In Putin’s Russia, men bow before the altar.

177 Responses to “Yes, but ideas usually do rule”

  1. vikor-liot says:

    Very interesting article. It is worth noting that the author gave a fairly accurate description of what is happening at the top of the government of the Russian Federation. The global strategy of cultural development can give its results, but will the people of Russia take this path?

  2. BC says:

    Trump just bound the Catholics to him much as he already did with the Evangelicals:

    • Pooch says:

      Ha I just literally watched that. Catholics could be the swing voters that put Trump over the top.

    • The Cominator says:

      We’ll see, papists are pretty pozzed.

      • Pooch says:

        Well the white non-fully pozzed catholic vote I should say. Kennedy Catholics turned off by the modern left’s athiesism.

    • Atavistic Morality says:

      Never knew this guy existed, he’s pretty good. His bestseller sounds like Jim talking about the lavender mafia.

  3. The Cominator says:

    Speaking of shills… something weird is going on…

    I see far less volume of shilling on facebook shitposting groups and pol then I’ve seen in a long time. Also I haven’t been zucked once on my alt account on fagbook for any Kyle the commie killer memes yet (I go to facebook jail a lot).

    Has anyone noticed this and why has the shilling operation been scaled back??? I would expect that if anything it would be massively massively intensifying now.

    • BC says:

      The Shilling operations actually gotten worse on reddit in terms of the amount of manpower they’re putting in and the trolls are getting more effective in not being spotted but they don’t have a message anymore. Smells of disunity.

      • The Cominator says:

        I don’t do plebbit so can’t speak of it but ive heard its been a shill cesspool for years.

        • BC says:

          Ya, it’s pretty bad. I’ve stuck around mostly push a red pill here or there from time to time but it’s no longer proving useful. I’m getting worried about the admins IP doxing with how quickly things are sliding left and I nuked my account.

          I could restart with an account behind a VPN but I get banned so quickly from major subs it’s just not worth the trouble. There’s not going to be any to the right of Mao allowed on reddit before the election. Probably the right time to leave.

          The other interesting thing is a how dark reddit’s gotten as the as the commies have consumed it. I head over to the and it’s just a fun place to hang out and reddit feels more like a satanic temple.

          • Gedeon says:

            The DNC is bankrupt and shilling is expensive. I know someone very well who allocated $1mm of corporate money for a legislative appropriation PR campaign that involved comment sections. I am new to this internet real estate, but I have read enough to know with absolute certainty you would be happy with the appropriation, though.

            Reddit is likely out-of-pocket on the shilling within their property just like rioting is only happening in prog safe spaces. FWIW, Reddit is just an echo chamber and has had shadow bans for over a decade.

            Setting aside the very real issue of shilling financial costs, there is a clear legal exposure for election interference on a real name platform like Facebook that doesn’t exist at the same level in the pseudonym and anon universe.

            Lastly, the biggest reason why shilling normies doesn’t matter anymore is because the DNC has gone all in on terrorism to achieve their political outcomes. People will talk about destruction in their communities and the message is simply you will have more of this if you re-elect Trump.

            In this sense, the left is telling as close to a truth as they can. Shilling is necessary for reinforcing lies because lies can’t stand on their own.

    • Dave says:

      Might this be a rerun of 2016, when the surging BLM movement suddenly vanished without a trace the moment TV networks called the election for Trump? If Trump wins Minnesota, the Dems might decide that BLM is too great a liability, unplug it permanently, and (as with the recent impeachment) never speak of it again.

      • BC says:

        It’s less than clear that they can unplug it this time. Chanting about burning down churches is pretty counter productive but they’ve been unable to restrain it. They’ll probably try another false flag but I predict it won’t work nearly as well with Barr in charge.

      • jim says:

        Having created Antifa and Black Lives Matter, they now face the same problem that Hillary and Obama faced after they created ISIS, (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) in 2014 in order to genocide the Alawite minority in Syria.

        It is easier to summon demons than to dismiss them.

    • Fred says:

      Is your Facebook account in your real name? Just wondering because I had a Facebook account in a false name that got banned after a few years of escalating demands for my phone number (like fuck I’m going to give Faceberg my phone number).

      • The Cominator says:

        One is the one I use while under Zuck isn’t. I don’t work for anyone else and I don’t have customers I’m a speculator now so they can’t cancel me financially because completely independent.

      • BC says:

        If you want to fuck around with face book, I recommended a burner phone that you use cash to buy time with.

  4. ten says:

    Off topic:

    I never bothered investigating the anti-darwin crowd until now, just noted teddy spaghetti seems to consider it a done deal.

    Been reading the three people i see usually carrying the argument, Berlinski, Meyer, and Gelernter.

    Here is Gelernter, writing in a tone that makes my spider senses say i’m being lied to, but raising some good points.

    The typical protein has ~150 nucleopeptides selected from a codon base of 20, 20^150 == 10^195 combinations, of which 1/10^77 are maybe useful, while the total number of bacteria that ever existed is given as 10^40, equalling the total number of selection events, making the basic mechanism of random mutation under natural selection statistically impossible to be the one responsible for creating those proteins.

    Also, fruitflies have been made to suffer mutations to their structurally meaningful codons, every single one, and not a single mutated fruitfly survived to mating, thus exhausting the space for viable mutations and showing every single possible mutation lethal.

    The important part of darwin is not random mutation, but natural selection, and i expect there eventually to be found greater code blocks in DNA that enable cambrian explosion creatures and their later descendants to inhibit certain blocks and enable others, and to swap entire extremities from tentacles to spikes, etc. There is either a coded active exploratory agent that actively fills niches in the environment by recombining and reconstituting its offspring, or it’s the base function of the soul.

    There literally has to be some great and unknown function operating on DNA to make sense of this. Right?

    • jim says:

      It is statistical gibberish.

      What he is proving is that a single complete functional protein cannot appear from nothing by random chance.

      But no one thought it could.

      Which makes the first life form a hard question. It is an argument for life being created by God. But it is not an argument against evolution.

      • Atavistic Morality says:

        Well, leftists are very happy to tell you that you are a blank slate golem spawned from random electrical currents and dust. It’s an argument also used to justify abortion, “just some random cells”.

        • jim says:

          Leftists love evolution as a non God creation myth that happened long ago and far away.

          They hate evolution by natural selection. They hate evolution in the present.

        • BC says:

          Leftists certainly don’t believe in evolution today and I suspect they never did. It was just a useful club to beat the life out of Christianity.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Darwinian evolution is an Anglican idea that fits just fine with Anglican theology and political theory, as already set out by Paley a century before.

            When it originally appeared in America it was attacked by low churchmen as an argument for Anglicanism, hence progressive William Jennings Bryant prosecuting at the Scopes Monkey Trial.

            Later, after Anglicanism was destroyed, Darwinian evolution was repurposed as a weapon against Southern Evangelicals, having been subtly reformulated to ‘prove’ that “the earth is very old” rather than “God made them high and lowly, and ordered their estate.”

      • ten says:

        It doesn’t read like statistical gibberish to me, but i’m as noob in this as can be, so maybe that’s my problem.

      • yewotm8 says:

        I don’t think it can imply evolution by natural selection doesn’t occur, but it can imply much more than God creating just “life”. It seems to imply independent creation of different types of species, without much chaotic change between each one, as it is “statistically improbable” that random mutations can have the magnitude of effect that pure Darwinism suggests.

        Which way the physical evidence points in this case I do not know. But judging by the fact that we have mammals and birds now but did not have them 100 million years ago, it would seem that even different phyla of Animalia can come to exist, meaning natural selection can exert a hell of a lot of phenotype alteration. “Statistical improbability” of randomly getting new, usable protein sequences therefore is likely untrue for reasons we do not know, and may not even be all that significant in terms of the evolution of species.

        • jim says:

          > It seems to imply independent creation of different types of species


          It implies no such thing. You, like your source, are not making any sense.

          > which way the physical evidence points in this case I do not know

          The physical evidence was long ago pointed out by Lamark: Between any two supposed species, we usually find an intermediate kind, and it is a tossup whether to assign it to species one, assign it to species two, or invent a new species for it. And having invented a new species for it, we then usually find another kind intermediate between the newly invented species, and one of the previous two species. Consider, for example, the ever proliferating tree of species related to the lion, the tiger, and the common house cat, many of which keep having sex with the common house cat resulting in kittens.

          And now, cherry on top, we have the genetic evidence, by which we trace the family trees of closely related species in the same way we trace your family tree. Which tracing can not only locate the common ancestor of recently divergent species, like the dog and the wolf, but can locate the urbilatarian, the common ancestor of flies, worms, and men, in the same way we can locate your great grandfather.

          • Nils says:

            Any academic who says both, that species such as bison and cattle are separated by tens of millions of years and are totally distinct, while also saying that the untintended hybridization of the two species on the frontier in the recent past has caused significant damage to the unique bison genome, is to my mind, a big brained idiot. America is replete with evidence that species are stable variations on a basic platform that through monotrophic selection maintain genetic isolation, one such example is the extinct fossil “species” of deer living in a large Pennsylvania swamp several millenium ago, obviously its own special creature descending for millions of years with an extensive fossil record, until some Midwest hunter shot a whitetail and moose hybrid with the exact same skeletal structure and antlers. And of course there is the American cave lion which has been described as a jaguar or a lion but not ever considered to be a more recent Panthers composite. Hybrids are not always intermediate, differences in genetic strategy can result in non intermediate forms such as tigons or ligons, also in the case of almost all modern crops, which are heavily developed since the beginning with non intermediate traits in f1 offspring, usually stabilized in later generations although not so much with modern monopoly ag.

            • jim says:

              Modern corn is descended from an ancient grass. It is wildly different, unrecognizably different, but genetic analysis shows no hybridization. That is a gross species difference, that resulted from selective breeding over sever thousand years.

              If a clear and dramatic species difference in a few thousand years, what happens in a million years?

              The dog is descended from the wolf. When dogs reverted to the wild life in Australia, they reverted to wolf psychologically, because independent life selects for independence, but physically they are still very much dogs.

              Within my life, the carrot has changed dramatically, and changed in the same direction (more fruit like, less root like) as it has been changing for centuries. Is it the same species as its ancestors?

              Does not look much like them.

              • Nils says:

                Hybridization does not preclude speciation within a species as the main form of evolution. I apologise if I implied thatt. Internal species change over time is to my thinking still the better part, hybridization is just an unpleasant monkey wrench that is routinely ignored by scientism. Mostly it’s fruits are garbage. I use corn as an example because different corn varieties being crossed are in large part the reason for modern corn’s differences with tseosinte, hybrid crosses and extensive selection within a species are the main form of crop development historically, I use corn as an example of hybridization because not all hybridized traits are intermediate, f1 hybrids are likely to show some intermediate traits but the absence of such especially after many generations under intense selection is not evidence against a composite genetic record, whether subspecies or interspecies. Hybridization followed by stabilization is a major tool used by breeders like Burbank, the more similar the genetics the easier the cross. The biggest tool for people tho, is probably the ability to reduce the impact of negative traits and allow new organisms however they were developed, to survive “infancy” and build robustness slowly, a wolf that doesn’t have as many pups or very strong pups might win out if man babies it because of the more useful behavior, over time, selection can iron out wrinkles that would other wise be cause for a dead end. Nature has far fewer tools or reason to help high potential varieties survive any large handicaps at their arrival, which goes a long way to explaining how we make new things so much faster than nature. Something I am very curious about is whether insular dwarfism is a form of evolution as is proposed generally, or how far on the continuum of inbreeding repression it falls as it is often said to be as well, I would not be surprised if inbreeding increases genetic plasticity more than the obvious duh there is less competition. Anyway just sperging out, really irks me that science teaches that all evolution is through nice, gentle, man ordained Species with little changes over long times and never an ugly process of two related creatures creating an ofspring with perhaps radically non intermediate traits. Honestly it wouldn’t surprise me if hybrid speciation is a big player immediately post cataclysm where the barriers to niche hopping are drastically reduced, nature’s way of babying new species?

                • jim says:

                  Corn (maize) is not a hyrid. It is a new species that is 100% descended from its ancient ancestor teosinte, and we now have a complete and accurate record of the genetic changes involved. Four major mutations, and a lot of change in the frequency of certain gene variants.

                  Teosinte became corn by four mutations occurring millennia apart and thousands of miles apart and by human selection. No hybridization was involved.

                  Corn proves that one species can become a radically different species by selection and mutation over vast periods, through change in the frequency of existing gene variants and through a very small number of mutations, each mutation independently valuable and useful.

                  Corn proves that species give rise to radically new species over long human time. Hybridization slows the process of divergence whereby a successful species moves into new places and new ways of life, and gives rise to many subspecies (races) which in time diverge into fully distinct species.

          • pyrrhus says:

            The evolutionary problem with a species like the long-necked giraffe is that thousands of simultaneous mutations are required to create them from, in this case, the short necked giraffe, but those mutations would be independently lethal unless they were co-created simultaneously, which cannot occur by means of natural selection….

            • jim says:

              > The evolutionary problem with a species like the long-necked giraffe is that thousands of simultaneous mutations are required to create them


              That is not how it works.

              You can vary any existing feature by a ridiculously large amount with precisely zero mutations.

              Any existing feature size and position is controlled by numerous existing genes, that come in variants that make the feature bigger or smaller by a small amount.

              If the feature needs to be bigger, the variants that say “bigger” become more common and the variants that say “smaller” become less common.

              One species can change into an unrecognizably different species with precisely zero mutations.

              There are only four important mutations in which corn differs from teosinte, the rest is just change in gene frequencies, and I bet the number of mutations that make a giraffe different from a donkey are considerably fewer that that, it is just that because the giraffe/donkey species difference is older, it is harder to sort the mutations that matter, from the neutral mutations and mutations with little importance to the species difference.

              Corn differs from teosinte more than a monkey differs from a man, and only four mutations matter for that difference. The rest is change in gene frequencies of existing genes to accommodate and fit with those four mutations.

              They had a bunch of full genome sequences on corn, and they then did some full genome sequences on teosinte, found very few consistent mutations, then did hybridization experiments to find what mutations mattered, found only four. The rest is change in gene frequencies of ancient teosinte genes, plus background noise of mutations with small and uninteresting effects.

              Each mutation is independently viable, and independently make teosinte into a plant more useful for cultivation. They were not simultaneous, they occurred millenia apart, and thousands of miles apart, These independent mutations came to be independently cultivated, and eventually combined in the single species we know as corn.

              A teosinte with any one of the mutations, or any combination of them, is a plant more useful for cultivation than the original teosinte. The sixteen possible combinations are not corn as we know it, but they are not teosinte either – they are mutations of large effect, each one useful and independently viable.

              To be precise, one of the sixteen possible combinations of the four mutations that matter is corn of a sort, one is teosinte, and the other fourteen are cultivars that do not look much like either one.

              So we have a complete record of one species changing into an unrecognizably different species, and a complete record of the genetic changes that gave effect to this change.

              Four independently viable and useful mutations of large effect, plus numerous large changes in the frequencies of genes that were present in teosinte from ancient times. The other mutations are of small effect, and do not seem relevant to the species difference.

            • Starman says:


              The Creator is not a central-planning commissar.

          • yewotm8 says:

            My post must have been unclear. I did not mean to say that the source made a good claim to these things or that I have been at all convinced. I spent my entire second paragraph disagreeing with it and saying more or less what you put in your post.

    • Sam says:

      Natural selection is not randomness has been covered so I’ll talk about this.

      “Also, fruitflies have been made to suffer mutations to their structurally meaningful codons, every single one, and not a single mutated fruitfly survived to mating, thus exhausting the space for viable mutations and showing every single possible mutation lethal.”

      (For the curious this is called the Homeobox)

      Anyway they appear to be deceptive; I’m not positive since the language is imprecise.

      Basically there are 4 different kinds of mutations. You can change, delete, duplicate or move base pairs. I’m pretty sure they are only talking about the first two since copying or moving parts of DNA causes the number of possible cases you have to examine to explode.

      • jim says:

        Copying and moving major portions of DNA happens all the time – it is the major mechanism of evolution.

        At the level of individual proteins, there is a protein that does something important and useful, and also very marginally has some slight benefit in some other role. Its gene gets duplicated, and one copy continues to perform its original role, and the other copy gets optimized for that slight benefit, until it gradually becomes unrecognizably different, and provides some major and crucial benefit.

  5. David 'The Diversity Mastermind' Lammey says:

    Ideas always rule bc most of the population (all here know the demo) are idiots who follow the ideology the ruling class impose.

    Eg huge dindu on White crime. Yet gormless yards, degenerates, freaks Karen’s support Blax Looting Merrily!!!

    • “that the ruling class impose”.

      Yes, that is my point, that the ruling class rules, and uses ideas as a tool. If they are being used by the idea instead, collapse will follow not long after.

  6. Oscar_Cc says:

    Good take, Jim. Given the idealism so typical of the Right, this is the logical conclusion. Even mainstream right-of-center types talk about the “cultural war” now in Spain.

    Speaking about Harvard, just came across this short post on a HBD blog. You might like it:

  7. Link to Alex Jones presenting right wing truths within an untruthful left wing frame censored.

    • jim says:

      The truth he tells has already been covered here. The frame would be tediously lengthy to fisk.

      • Chevalier says:

        Kyle shot three people and one of them was a convicted pedophile named Rosenbaum.

        Try again.


  8. John says:

    Hi Jim,

    New reader here. Just married last year.

    Small question, is it considered shit testing if my wife keep bringing up about my ex during conversation?

  9. Pooch says:

    New WN party seems to have popped up by Mike Peinovich. Fed operation?

    • jim says:

      Looks like the real thing, not a shill operation.

      And, they are attacking Trump and the Republicans because they hope to replace Trump and the Republicans. Black pilled on Trump, but they scarcely mention Jews, in fact I did not find a single reference to Jews or capitalism. Looks like normal right on right factionalism, where they are attacking Republicans from the right, which is legitimate.

      They are not saying that Trump is a Jewish plot. Rather, they are calling out the failed narrative “Dems are the real racists”. But Trump is in fact scoring points with the blacks – not enough points to make a big difference in the election, but enough that white liberals who are now in danger of being burned out of their houses have an excuse for voting for him.

      Civil war is upon us. We will win if led by our commander in chief, will likely lose if not led by our commander in chief. They have a point.

      But I think Trump is correct to let the Democrats stew in their own juices for a bit longer. Looks like 4D chess to me rather than cuckservative weakness.

      The cuckservative right has been consumed between the left and the Trumpist right.

      Now the liberal left is facing the same fate. Eventually they are going to sign up with the Trumpist right, or be killed by their good guy friends to the left. Probably most of them will not sign up.

      • The Cominator says:

        Jim this NJP is being massively shilled on pol… It seems an obvious fed operation to me.

      • Atavistic Morality says:



        He doesn’t want to do anything for us, if he did he could and he doesn’t want to because he is in the pocket of Jared Kushner and Zionist Jews!

        Literally saying that Trump is a Jewish plot.

        The entire video is full of Jews bad, Jews are the problem. Have you actually watched the video or did you just read the text? There is no way this doesn’t glow.

        • jim says:

          Just read the text.

          The text does not read as if put out by Soros, and continually mentions things that a Soros shill could not mention. The video, on the other hand, does sound like Soros, and never mentions things that a Soros shill could not mention.

          So I would say that this is an operation coming under shill domination, much as Social Matter did, and when fully converged, will die, as the actual Nazis quietly drop out – that the man who wrote the text is not a shill, and the man who did the video is a shill.

          I was on Social Matter for a while, and there were shills, and more shills, and eventually the shills got the upper hand, much as they did on 4Chan

          Shills continually enter real organizations, and after a while the real people drop out, the organization becomes 100% astroturf, the shills realize that they are only talking to each other, and the organization quietly vanishes as Social Matter did.

          • The Cominator says:

            Okay lets say that is true that the actual nazis are just perpetual victims of being pwn3d by glownaggers. It seems actual nazis are even worse than libertarians at keeping out shills but unlike libertarians don’t tend to move onto politically more effective philosophies.

            How are they our friends when they just are continually pwn3d by the glowies the way they are. Wignats even if they agree on some things have such a bad reputation on the far right for a reason… I hope you won’t accuse me of appealing to false consensus when I say a lot of people here don’t seem to think much of them.

            • jim says:

              > Okay lets say that is true that the actual nazis are just perpetual victims of being pwn3d by glownaggers

              Actual neoreactionaries are also perpetual victims of being pwn3d by glownaggers. Recall what happened to Pol and Social Matter.

              You simply should not believe anyone who claims to be a member of the dissident right, unless he actually commits dissent. Every unconverged organization is under perpetual siege by paid, organized and supervised agents of the enemy. The enemy has been at state sponsored entryism against unconverged organizations since at least the third positionists in the runup to World War II. I see entryists everywhere. And everywhere I see them, I always attempt to engage them to speak thought crimes, and they will never do so, or even acknowledge my thought crimes. I then attempt to figure out who is sponsoring them, by trying to provoke them to speak ill of their sponsor, and nine times out of ten I have guessed the sponsor correctly.

              They glow in the dark.

              • The Cominator says:

                Social matter is an isolated example…

                The most glowie thing any prominent NRXer ever did was Yarvin acting like Covid was a big deal when obvious hoax was obvious.

                • jim says:

                  Yarvin is under enemy domination. Moldbug was not. We cannot trust Yarvin.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Yes the problem is he is a namefag in a deep blue America who seems overly afraid of being canceled.

                  He still says some good things but he can’t really be trusted.

                • Fred says:

                  It was an unedifying screw-up, but I don’t think it’s nocturnally luminescent.

                  My theory is that coronavirus hysteria a la Moldbug/Not Tom et al was an attempt by internet gigabrains to dunk on normies (ie. it was an attempt at status signalling), the logic being that the virus is a big threat and that normies, being stupid normies, would disagree, not take the virus seriously, allow it to spread, die in droves, etc.

                  Both of these contentions turned out to be incorrect – the virus was not a big threat (at least, no worse than a typical seasonal flu) but normies panicked. Internet gigabrains thus found themselves in the awkward position of being both a) wrong and b) on the same side as normies.

                  The dissident right conspicuously failed to dissent on coronavirus hysteria.

                  If the gigabrains had known in advance that normies would panic, they would have chosen the other side instead. Again, the point was to dunk on normies, demonstrating the point-deer-make-horse principle that you can’t gain status by believing what everyone else believes, so high-status beliefs tend to be contrarian beliefs.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Midwits were more afraid of the virus than anyone because midwits think they are smart because they follow experts. Actual gigabrains were more skeptical… though Scott Adams who is ussually right about everything in the news had an epic fail on this issue.

                  I for one don’t get how anyone over a 120 IQ (and I’m over this but not by too much) didn’t read this with their eyes closed, Trump’s election year, the measures ruined his economy, South Korean data (the only data I thought trustworthy early on because there were all sorts of indications everyone else was lying) suggest its not really that bad, and the worst death toll starting with Italy are all in corrupt places governed by shitlibs… Obvious Cathedral plot was obvious.

              • Gedeon says:

                As Eth& Walli$on, son of Pe+er, explained it to me, the Libertarians are just closet democrats trying to be edgy.

                POTUS Trump is in no way a Zionist plot and it has been bizarre observing grown men who previously aspired to have his lifestyle now bag on him. At the same, Israel punches above its weight class in everything because the do hard science and their culture has been steeped in intrigue and conflict for centuries. Sheldon is the primary Zionist GOP donor and he kicked in for MAGA 2016, but Trump isn’t groveling to him today.

                I know everyone here thinks the shill problem is bad, but you are only scratching the surface of how far, broad and deep the internationalists go to subvert all that is good.


                We will win. You know how I know? Because MAGA is righteous and Trump won election in 2016 against worse odds and the progs were unable to deny him his inauguration. This is not to say eggs won’t be broken between here and there and that there won’t be setbacks, because there will be, but the DNC is bankrupt both financially and morally and that’s why they couldn’t throw a convention.

                If the DNC was serious they would have run Mike O. + cuck Beto and had a proper festival of hate. Instead, they ran a dumb cocky old rich white man and attached a mulatto, married to a white guy, former prosecutor and known cock gobbling political climber who was destroyed by Tulsi in early debates. Harris is the RC Cola version of Sarah Palin, but to the DNC.

                • jim says:

                  A lot of Republicans think that if they hedge their bets on Trump, the Democrats will not kill them.

                  They are wrong. In 2016, the Democrats decided to dispense with the outer party, and rule openly. They have not changed their minds.

                • The Cominator says:

                  There were people who actually like Sarah Palin (despite normally being against women in politics I liked Sarah Palin) nobody likes Kamala Harris except the DNC insiders.

                • Gedeon says:

                  I have nothing against Sarah Palin and she clearly has a following, but she and McCain were not a serious ticket. I don’t know how many of you paid attention to Barry’s Senate run, but he was a distant third horse in that race behind Blair Hull (Early quantitative market trader-billionaire) and Tom Ryan (Goldman Sachs wealthy millionaire republican). Barry was a complete post turtle, but two things happened to leave him as the lone horse.

                  1) Blair Hull’s ex-wife accused him of domestic abuse
                  2) The comped courts unsealed Ryan’s steamy divorce filing which showed he liked sex and at least had swinging ambitions, if not a swinger.

                  This was back when feminism was peaking and before ordinary working people were shamed into proving they weren’t racist by voting for a mulatto racist reading from a teleprompter. HRC has the nomination on lockdown and Soros sat them down and said it is Barry and that was that.

                  I am with Jim in his reasonableness about how long this process can take, but I want to emphasize that Trump has not passed my own shit test of arresting and prosecuting the bureaucracy heads from the Barry administration. I do believe it is coming, but the internationalists have pulled a PR rabbit out of the hat every time it feels like we are getting warm. While it is angering and at times saddening, I am optimistic that the legacy powers have had to escalate as far as the pandemic psyop and rioting for felonious martyrs. To me, these escalations support the argument that MAGA is not just empty words and that it is effecting actual fundamental changes for the American benefit.

                  At the same time, the pandemic is several orders of magnitude more insane than Kavanaugh’s confirmation and the Vegas attack the year prior. Reading Turley today, it appears he is trying to force a jury trial in the Floyd death to avert a dismissal in a couple of weeks.

                  The other big development of optimistic note is Soros’ statement in the past two weeks about pulling out of speculating in financial markets. He was chased out of the game he rigged up.

                  In football, defensive linemen are trained to feel the pressure to figure out where the play is trying to go. This big anarchist push under the BLM banner shows MAGA is pulling black votes and has the LE unions on lockdown.

                  It is what it is, but the concerning reality to contemplate is that the DNC has a losing ticket and they are cunning AF, so what is the catch? If you have read alchemy of finance you will be familiar with Soros fancying himself as a philosopher-scholar first and a financial speculator by Popper-science as he applies his theory of reflexivity. In financial markets reflexivity takes the form of leveraged assets driving their own prices ever higher because looser borrowing begets higher prices which begets more lending potential due to collateral values and on and on until the trend is unsustainable.

                  Color revolutions are really just cycles of violence seeded by gathering protestors and then intel operators commit escalating levels of violence in the face of lawful governments responding by their respective books.

                  In the current context, we are witnessing a steady escalation of violence that now incorporates guns. Guns don’t kill people, People do, but Jane and Johnny cuck aren’t gunfighters and don’t want to be. The election is far away and if the internationalists kit-out mobs with non-Fudd weapons and send them into suburbia there is going to be a reflexive voting problem for MAGA.

                  People will vote on “not-guns” instead of Trump vs. never-Trump as the debate is currently framed. No amount of market gains, vaccines or tests will matter at that point and banning guns is not only a bad option, it would be massively counter-productive to MAGA twice over. It would betray a very important patriot (low cost soldiers) constituency and it would foment more violence among the disarmed and unarmed. The wrong kind of unholy spiral and very reflexive.

                  It is time to crack eggs Mr. POTUS and make the best omelette with what you have.

                  The DNC is all-in, 110% committed and this has to be their strategy as we close in on Election Day. If I am right, the explosion of violence will be stunning to even the prepped and it will be beyond the scope of BORTAC to quell and the NG cannot be unilaterally trusted.

                • Mister Grumpus says:

                  “A lot of Republicans think that if they hedge their bets on Trump, the Democrats will not kill them.”

                  Cue the Antifa/BLM types just happening to show up to raise hell outside the White House, just as all those well-dressed Arlington people are coming out of Trump’s RNC acceptance speech.

                  I mean they brought a fucking (stage) guillotine with a Trump doll to pose under it like they’re about to chop its/his head off.

                  Barely any of those elegant ladies and gentlemen had ever been within eyeshot of their would-be executioners before. It was all just beltways, golf courses, Fox Sports Grill and “I say I say old boy, Commie Man Bad” country club virtue-signaling to them, until right then.

                  Note the wives all being there, totting from the grounds to the hotels in their vulnerable dresses and heels.

                  “You thought only our proles were in danger, didn’t you?”

                  Yes, I’m conspiratorially minded, and yes, I can’t help but wonder if Trump made exactly that happen.

                  “You hedging your bets now, fuckers?”

                • Pooch says:

                  Rand Paul is a Trump ally all of a sudden. He’s calling for FBI investigation into who’s funding the mob.

                • Mister Grumpus says:

                  “Rand Paul is a Trump ally all of a sudden. He’s calling for FBI investigation into who’s funding the mob.”

                  What a surprise!

                  Rand “saw the elephant” when that one nutter bum-rushed him in his yard and broke his ribs.

        • Pooch says:

          Yeah the text seems legit enough but not being able to name Antifa and referring them to “anarchists” is suspicious. Mike Peinovich seems very Spencerish also.

          • The Cominator says:

            His biographical background doesn’t suggest Federal Agent the way Spencer’s does and apparently he has been banned from twitter but hes apparently a friend of Spencer so I would say typical actual Nazi under the sway of a fed… like most of them are.

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              Do you honestly believe the Company & Co only recruit from northern Virginia?

  10. Carlylean Restorationist says:


    • jim says:

      You list a lot of bad Jews doing bad things, but somehow neglect to name them.

      Tell us about what Soros is doing, and I will let it through. Tell us about Joseph Rosenbaugh in Kenosha, and then you can rant on about Jewish dominance.

      Or is it only some Jews exercising disproportionate power that pisses you off?

      • Eli says:

        It has not been confirmed that Rosenbaum was Jewish. I’ve tried researching this fact, but it is murky. He is definitely either Jewish or German or some admixture thereof (including both). But maybe you have better data.

        Also, from inspecting his facial features, the ambivalence still doesn’t go away.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:


          • jim says:

            You can name Rosenbaum.

            Let us see if you can name Soros.

            Rosenbaum is a Jew who has been doing bad things.

            Let me see if you can tell us what Soros has been doing.

            He has been doing rather more than “pushing increased immigration, LGBTQ stuff and so on.”

            That is not naming the Jew. That is whitewashing the Jew.

            • The Cominator says:

              I suspect Rosenbaum was not jewish likely he was descended from a Kraut in the male line with a very jewish sounding name (like Alfred Rosenberg), I watched the video of him screaming shoot me nigger…

              Seems like a hardcore wiggers… shitlib jews are many things but them acting convincingly as lumpenprole wiggers is not something I’ve ever seen.

              Jew or non jew based Kyle did a good job sending the commie scum to hell.

              • Pooch says:

                Yeah I don’t think him being a Jew isn’t really relevant. Plenty diseugenic rioter scum of all races mishmoshed in there.

                • jim says:

                  Kylie shot three people, and the worst of them was a Jew. But Jews generally delegate the actual violence to lumpenproles, so Rosenbaum is atypical of bad Jews. You will find more Jews and worse Jews sitting in offices writing the paychecks for people like Rosenbaum to beat up people like Kylie.

                • Pooch says:

                  I see.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        You misrepresented me. I never mentioned Soros.

        Paul Singer’s shenanigans are well known. I’d recommend Tucker’s coverage of Sidney Nebraska and the Delphi affair.

        Sheldon Adelson needs no elaboration, as well you know. His agenda is the standard neo-con pro-Israel line: bomb bomb bomb Iran.

        These are the people who fund and control the political process in America and these are the things they’re doing.

        If you’re interested in attacking Soros, as Arthur Finkelstein would love you to do, then go ahead. I suppose you think he’s a Nazi.
        I’m not defending him, and his NGOs including but not limited to the Open Society, are extremely damaging, forever pushing increased immigration, LGBTQ stuff and so on. Perhaps most interesting about Soros and the Open Society Foundation however is that it’s named after the concept of the same name first expounded by the Jew (((Karl Popper))).

        You’re someone with some sympathies for the libertarian scene. I’m sure you share the anti-logical-positivist perspectives of a (((David Gordon))) or a (((Walter Block))).

        Funny how both sides of every conversation are framed by Jews, be it (((Ayn Rand))) and (((Ludwig von Mises))) or (((Emma Goldman))) and (((Leon Trotsky)))

        To pretend there isn’t a big problem with Jews at the top of society, or that Jews do not in fact direct the course of societal travel, has only two reasonable explanations: in the pocket, or in the tribe.

        • jim says:

          > You misrepresented me. I never mentioned Soros.

          And that is exactly the problem. I keep demanding that you tell us what Soros is up to, and you keep talking about people are either powerless and unimportant, or actually on our side.

          > Paul Singer’s shenanigans are well known.

          Paul Singer is paying protection money to LBTQPPP. Maybe he loves them. Quite likely he loves them, though it hard to tell when they can have him beaten up, demonetized, cancelled, and deplatformed, while he cannot lift a finger against them. He is powerless and afraid. You can see it his face and the way he moves. He is weak and frightened.

          Maybe he thinks he should be weak and frightened because he is guilty of systemic oppression of women, blacks, and LBGTPQPPPP, that he deserves to be weak and frightened. Probably he does think that. Meanwhile Goerge Soros is burning down buildings and having people murdered.

          You are always going on about a vast and shadowy Jewish conspiracy. Tell us about the not at all shadowy conspiracy whose major figures tend to be progressive Jews.

          > his NGOs including but not limited to the Open Society, are extremely damaging, forever pushing increased immigration, LGBTQ stuff and so on.

          Commy liar.

          Soros/State Department NGOs are extremely damaging because they start revolutionary wars, arrange for people to be murdered, and for buildings to burn.

          And his servants mysteriously fail to face charge for killing, looting, and burning, at least so long as they stay off federal property.

          Soros/State Deparment NGOs are extremely damaging because they pay shills millions of dollars to shill.

  11. adtcbu says:

    men bow before the altar

    This is how it should be. Priests have memetic sovereignty over warriors,
    whether anyone admits it or not. This is also why non-monarchical systems
    are prone to priestly dysfunction, expressed as holiness spiralling. The
    sovereign, who must be a warrior, is the one who priests must defer to, and
    keeps them in check.

    Brahmin > Kshatriya always, except that the King must be Kshatriya and
    Brahmins are forbidden from holding political office or mercantile
    activities, living entirely upon the benevolence of the King.

    • ten says:

      Memeplexa are thrashed by warriors with trivial ease, repeatedly at every turn of history, and priests scramble post hoc to reassemble new memeplexa, explaining and justifying the new reality.

      This is not priestly memetic supremacy, which would require the priestly memes to remain unscathed in the face of warrior onslaught and reestablish themselves regardless of historical events, only adapting to caste-interior developments.

      With no memes, no priests, you and your buddies can cooperate, but every other gang is an enemy or an obstacle. The priests provide you and your buddies and the other gangs with cooperation principles, but when a different set of gangs with better priests slaughter you, it is the slaughter of warriors that drive the memetic change, while the priests enable them.

      And when the priests decide it would be nicer if everyone joins the seminar and stops all the ghastly slaughter, their memeplex is apt to get them slaughtered, by warriors who don’t much like it in the seminar.

      Priests create memes, so have memetic primacy over warriors, who kill people, so select memes, and whose actions, victories and defeats, are the stuff the priests craft their memes from.

    • The king “keeping the brahmin in check” means that the warrior is in charge, as far as the earthly sphere goes. It is not “Brahmin>Kshatriya”, it is the opposite. Even though the priest is treated as though higher on the spiritual hierarchy, actual power is exercised by the warrior class.

      Rather than saying that priests have memetic superiority, I would say that “priest” is he who has memetic superiority; memetic superiority defines the priest. In very, very ancient days, on the steppe urheimat and the lands immediately conquered by it, there was no caste distinction between warrior and priest, as can be seen in ancient Mycenae and early Rome. The clan patriarch was both warlord and pontifex of his gens.

      (This is evidenced by the fact that we have memetic superiority; every unmoderated space on the internet eventually converges to become right wing. Our memes win. But actual power is in the hands of the enemy’s state apparatus, so we have not been able to turn memetic dominance into actual power.)

      Eventually, priests were spun off as a matter of outsourcing, because warriors who focus on fighting and priests who focus on memeing present stronger memes and more effective war, but this also ensured that priests and warriors would struggle for power; the two castes have never been effectively and lastingly reunified.

  12. […] A recent exchange at Jim’s blog: […]

  13. The Green Mountaineer says:

    ” A chimp would look at that and see black men ruling, but the chimp would be wrong.

    In Putin’s Russia, men bow before the altar. ”

    And real men bow to no one.

    • jim says:

      If no one, real men will be killed soon enough. Large scale social cohesion requires some bowing, and if you don’t have large scale social cohesion, you will end up being killed by those that do. Better to bow to an altar.

      • The Green Mountaineer says:

        Western civilization started with the Greeks overthrowing their tyrant. The modern world started with the French and Americans overthrowing their tyrants. Even when the West was Christian they were at they were most succesful under Protestantism in which each man is his own high priest, or under heretical sects of the religion, such as the Reinnsance ‘heresy of the free spirit’ which were even more indivualistic then the Protestants, to the point of aboundening the concept of sin and divine commandments entirly.

        Bowing to a greater power is what slaves do. It always has been in the West

        • jim says:

          Trouble with that story is the cycle of history.

          1. A king successfully manufactures a virtuous elite.

          2. A virtuous elite does not really need a King, so you get a republic.

          3. The virtous elite declines in virtue so you get an oligarchy.

          4. The oligarchy eventually declines so far that cannot resolve their internal conflicts, they invite the masses to vote, and you get democracy.

          5. The democracy has a corrupt and degenerate oligarchy running things, and eventually you get the oligarchs using private and state violence against each other. America crossed the Rubicon when they funded antifa and arrested Sheriff Joe.

          6. Violence inevitably escalates, and eventually Caesar rules.

          1. A Caesar finds the governing apparatus unworkably wicked and corrupt, and sets to manufacturing a virtuous elite with which to rule.

          We were passing through 4, we are now passing through 5 to 6. There is blood in the streets. There will soon be a lot more blood in the streets.

          The reactionary program is to get to 1 as fast as possible.

          • The Green Mountaineer says:

            You’re wrong on the first fucking step.

            By historical accounts the tyrants before were shitty, it’s literally why we have the word tyrant as a negative word.

            The American people were NOT given by virtue by a king.

            The Protestant individualistic values were not from a fucking king.

            The heresy of the free spirit and similar individualistic forms of Christianity did not come from a king they came from inspiration by Greco-Roman mysticism and pagan religions.

            Highly individualistic, untyrannical points of Western civilization are it’s high points. The middle ages were our most tyranical and it was our lowest point. Bowing to an altar or king creates stable but stagnant societies in which the same ideas are simply repeated and nothing new is tried. That’s why the middle ages, the Arabic world, Chinese dynasties, had barely any progress, they stuck to century old traditions from medicine, to farming.

            Meanwhile, the plurality brought by individualism and freedom allowed people to experiment and compete to produce the best scientific models, the best medicine and farming methods, etc and go onto make all the important discoverers.

            Go to fucking Mecca if you want to bow. It’s just like the dark ages you cherish there.

            • The Cominator says:

              Democracy and Republics don’t “scale” beyond small homogeneous societies. When you try to have those forms of government in bigger heterogeneous nations you eventually get hostile tribal voting blocs and generally a hostile corrupt oligarch that they vote for, over time as the system doesn’t function the oligarchs create a big bureaucracy. As the oligarchy gets more dysfunctional the bureaucrats get more and more of the real power often strongarming the merely elected oligarchs… but the incentives of bureaucracy are the same as cancer (Pournelle’s Iron Law) so the only way to restrain the bureaucracy from destroying everything is for a Caesar (one man) assume all power.

              We are in the position where we need a Caesar. Now left wing purity/holiness spirals make every step here potentially worse (as of course do women voting) but they are not even necessary for this cycle of Democracy to happen.

              • Dave says:

                The difference between democracy and monarchy: Zulu President Cyril Ramaphosa wants to dispossess white farmers so that his people continue to vote for him. Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini wants to protect white farmers so that his people continue to eat.

                • Starman says:


                  Great post!
                  I’ll post it on my Gab account.

                • gmsfvd says:

                  Thank you for this clear reference. All too often we descend into meaningless debates about the competence and/or intelligence required for a monarchy to function. All bunk. Monarchy simply works: even an African King (who is an elite of his own people) has the clarity of vision unavailable to a mere “President.” For the King to be good, no more is essential than he feel a bond towards his people, and the latter towards him. The other good qualities are desirable, but not essential.

            • Karl says:

              Jim talked about kings, you reply starts withs tyrants. Arguably some kings were tyrants, but kings usually were not. A tyrant rules without restraint, a king rules in the name of god and is therefore restraint by religion. Of course, the king is no saint and should not be a saint, but he has to adhere to the offical religion.

              Jim talks about virtue and you respond that “Protestant individualistic values were not from a fucking king”. Do you consider protestant individualistic values a vitue? I don’t. Of course they were not from a king.

              Never heard of a “heresy of free spirit”. Please explain what you mean with that term.

              I do not share your opnion that the middle ages were our lowest point. I’d rather say that we are present at our lowest point, but that is a matter of judgment. The middle ages were not stagnant at all. At the beginning kings had tribes, but no marked territory and who was your duke or king was determined by your bood, not where you happened to be. Later, kings and dukes had fixed territories. Kings did not have a residence, but spent their lives travelling their land. Later they had a residence.

              Cities were founded and grew during the middle ages, etc.

              Which times do you consider the highly individualistic, untyrannical points of Western civilization? Today?

              • The Cominator says:

                Mostly agree with your post but some quibbles.

                Medieval allegiances were sometimes complex but they were generally tied to your place of residency, all who lived on the lords land owed allegiance to the lord with some rare and generally resented exceptions (Jews were royal serfs wherever they went but generally their residence were restricted, members of monastic knightly orders theoretically owed allegiance to their own grandmaster and above him the Pope alone). In the days of the fall of the Roman Empire before the more “feudal” order was more formalized they were tied to your tribe. The idea that everyone in the Middle Ages was a religious fanatic obsessed with burning witches is bullshit though. Witch burnings were almost nonexistent until the Renaissance (Charlemagne in fact decreed that in the event of an accusation of witchcraft the ACCUSER should be burned) and most people did not regularly attend church (people were prone to get sick doing that) to hear a sermon that not only could they not understand but often the priest could not. Most people outside Italy were probably drunk off their asses on mead and (much stronger than modern) medieval beer every night. By the time of William the Conqueror most people also had basic literacy though books were expensive and rare.

                Royal courts had to have multiple residences once the knowledge of Roman plumbing was lost (I think the biggest fail of the middle Ages was losing the knowledge of that for it not to be rediscovered till the mid 1800s) because the um human waste of so many people would build up and they had to have people clean it all up when the court moved.

                One of the most unpleasant aspects of Versailles was that since it DIDNT move like nearly every other court so Versailles as beautiful as it was it supposedly smelled like an outhouse in India at all times… hence the French aristocrat obsession with perfumes.

                • Karl says:

                  Maybe my reference to kings without residences was misunderstood. I was refering to the itinerant court (

                • Dave says:

                  You don’t need plumbing for sanitation; just cover your shit with something that keeps the odor in and the flies off, such as a half-inch of dirt. In Japanese cities, farmers collected “night soil” and fermented it in covered pits or large pots for two years until it was safe to use as fertilizer.

                  Because Europeans regarded human feces as useless filth, their cities were dirtier, smellier, and more pestilent than Japan’s, and their farmland was less fertile.

            • someDude says:

              You can make your point equally well without using the word “Fucking” even one time, let alone multiple times as you have done. It does not make you look cool, it does not make your statements any more truer and it certainly does not make you look tough. Not here, it doesn’t.

            • ten says:

              hey a fucking newbie cuck fuck getting fucking cranky from getting his cuck ass rapefucked by his pederast cuck fuckfather 666 times to sunday! Oh glorious day!

              Individualism and protestant work ethics good, cohesive state function bad, king equals tyrant, breaking free from “tyrant” leads to good, medieval = dark tyranny.. alright, diagnosis comes out ca 1900 progressive. Is that you, ca 1900 progressive?

            • Aldon says:

              Medieval Europeans and Muslims breed within their own kind at replacement levels while also keeping out racial/ethnic outsiders. Do you and your fellow anarchists/lolbergs do?

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Caesar, however, did not save Rome, and much evidence suggests he did not even slow the decline. He did not manufacture a virtuous elite, but rather contrived means to rule without a virtuous elite.

            The Molbdbug Solution

            After three centuries of this, not so long in the frame of historical time, Rome was not a nation but the person of the emperor; the emperor hid in the marshes; if he commanded more than one army the army he did not personally command would immediately rebel; his own army was small and ill equipped; it looted materiel in kind; eventually his generals declared themselves a new state.

            • jim says:

              That is an entirely possible outcome.

              After Rome abandoned Britain it remained in chaos for centuries. King Alfred, however, successfully created Britain in the culmination of a program started a century earlier by his ancestors to create a virtuous and cohesive elite based on state Christianity.

              I never said it was easy or automatic.

              While the Roman Empire in the west continued to fall apart as you describe, Constantine had some success, albeit less than Alfred, in building a virtuous elite based on state Christianity. However he had to abandon Rome in order to start over with a clean slate.

              • Pooch says:

                Did Rome have the leftism holiness spiral that we are having?

                Looks like they had the same problems (gay sex normalization, mass immigration, feminism, etc) we are having but was it all ingrained in the state religion like ours today? Perhaps this is why our decline seems much more rapid. Rome was able to survive another 400+ years post-Caesar even without restoring a fully-virtuous elite.

                • jim says:


                  Which was ended by Sulla taking dictatorial power and executing about six hundred people.

                  Hence my estimate that we will need to kill about six hundred people to end the crisis we are now entering.

                  Sulla reversed most of the leftism, but failed to de-emancipate women, resulting in a permanent crisis of elites failing to adequately replace themselves.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  The leftism spiral that finally killed Rome seems to have been feminism.

                  The Caesars restored clear authority and martial virtue, but did not stop the Roman nation and the Imperial smart fraction (including the imported part) from dying out.

                • Pooch says:

                  Did they have something analogous to our modern day Puritan-descended Egalitarian utopia that they were continually spiraling towards? I’m not familiar with their Polytheism, but I maybe they had something similar? “God of Equality” or something like that.

                • jim says:

                  No, their leftism spiral was aborted fairly early, and had reasonable reforms in mind at the time it was shut down – albeit rapidly becoming unreasonable.

                • Starman says:

                  If you want to know the extant of Roman feminism:

                  The largest temple in Rome was to the goddesses Venus and Roma.


            • The Cominator says:

              Rome lasted as a world power for a long time if you count the Eastern Empire a VERY long time.

              If Julius Caesar (who had superior economic ideas to Augustus, but Augustus understood better that you don’t leave your enemies alive) had survived the Roman Empire might have colonized the solar system…

        • Atavistic Morality says:

          You seem to have an strange accounting of history, very specifically the rewriting seems to be done towards some ideal classical liberalism.

          For example, you talk about the FF like they were born virtuous and this was in a vacuum. Without Alfred the Great there would have not been an England, there would have not been virtuous Anglo-Saxons like the FF, thus there would have been no FFs. So yes, the social hierarchical structure of a good king leading its people was required and was very much part of the reason why they were the men who they were. And without Americans accepting the authority and following the leadership of the FF, there’d be no US.

          But seriously your accounting is far too influenced by political propaganda from liberal authors. You talk about the Middle Ages being the lowest point then talk about the Renaissance, the Renaissance is a term coined by a liberal in the 20th century, never known or recognized as a “Renaissance” from a “Dark Age” by anyone before and especially not their own remarkable figures. Most historians today will tell you that the “Dark Ages” are a myth and propaganda, and the whole story is misconstrued. The “Renaissance” was the culmination of the Middle Ages and their functional social technology in fact.

          Also, the modern world is not considered to start with the French and American revolutions, it starts either with the discovery of the Americas or the Reformation depending on arguments. You think it starts with the French and American revolutions because those were the start of liberalism and your accounting is pure revisionism. You’re trying to tell us that we were “Enlightened” by liberalism, and thus able to become civilized and achieve so much, when it was in fact the opposite. We became civilized and achieved so much through Christianity but almost exterminate ourselves with two world wars and nuclear weapons thanks to liberalism and democracy. And the destruction continues with the evolution of liberalism into progressivism.

          Sir Isaac Newton was a Christian, not a liberal.

        • Lol. “A man who must work to live cannot be a citizen”. Who said that, in what time period? You are always ruled by an aristocracy, a monarchy, or a priesthood, contrary to your high school textbook version of history. When you see freedom, what is actually going on is that a king either granted the lower classes rights and powers to curtail his aristocrats, or the aristocrats curtailed or overthrew their kings to enjoy more personal sovereignty over their domains.

  14. Anonymous Fake says:

    Usually when you see a lot of national flags flying in the streets, it means a country is about to be overthrown by a globalist CIA color revolution. The loyalists don’t flag the flag, but rather show pictures of their rightful leader.

    The strongest nationalists might be outsider people who show loyalty to their host anyway, like Hungarians in Austria-Hungary or American Southerners. Pure and absolute nationalism is all too often fake and gay.

  15. Eli says:

    Stalin did not kill all the true believers in communism, even though he ended up killing a huge number of people. Stalin killed all the true believers in communism who *mattered* (those predominantly at the top, especially, his former comrades in the The Politburo and the security apparatus). And untold number of unfortunate, even random, bystanders and, actually, people who were suspected of not being true believers in the “bright future communism” (the old remnants of kulaks and bourgeoisie — or those deemed to be foreign interventionists — whether they were actually anti-communist or just being reported by their envious neighbors as such being immaterial). And these people’s families and relatives and, not rarely, friends.

    His other achievement was to also kill off the ideology of “heretics.” That is, along with Trotsky, out went Trotskyism.

    But true believers remained, and in fact, only because of that fact the party lasted for as long as it did. If it weren’t for this, people like Andropov — who was a true, honest believer — would not rise to the top, as the party was decaying.

    As to Putin himself, he has a lot of shit to resolve. Cathedrals are, probably, nice. But Russian fertility is dysgenic. His social welfare program encourages poor and dumb alcoholics to reproduce. Smart Russians, e.g. doctors and engineers, do not feel that they’re in the high-ranks of society. Putin’s efforts have still a LONG way to go to instill the kind of belief in the future and the idea of “Russianhood” to compel talented Russian men and women to create big families.

    I highly doubt whether the fault lies with him, personally, however. Mostly, I feel, the problem is because:

    1) Russia — and it started with the SU — allows great freedom to women, including to initiate divorce. Careers are also expected, even if not as strongly as in the US. Even if, culturally, there is still enough sane sexism to compel women to become mothers before age 25.
    2) Russia is poor and, as always, corrupt. In some counter-intuitive way, it might be a good thing, because it forces people to rely on their friends and kin more, but it still prevents talented, yet not politically-connected, modest people from financially succeeding. A lot of top positions are now handed to internally connected apparatchiks, which increasingly includes groups with high internal cohesion who buy their positions and promote their own aggressively. Chechens and Azeris, are featured very strongly. Meritocracy suffers.

    3) The structure of the economy is — and has since the collapse of the SU been — extremely geared towards resource extraction. People are used to handouts from the Russian Federal government in Moscow. In other words, most Russians are “White Niggers.” (Or, as Sergey Brin once referred to Russia, “Nigeria with Snow”, which was an apt analogy.)

    I kind of get why you like Russia, because there are some healthier views there on the relationship between sexes and what a woman’s role in the family should be, but:

    1) It is changing, because of Internet, Tinder and various sorts of American State Dept propaganda (there was a fag rainbow flag being displayed few months ago right on the whole wall of the embassy in Moscow). It is changing especially in central places, closer to the capital city.
    2) Russia is now an open country. If you want to control populace, while being poor economically, you need to close it off, a la North Korea.

    Honestly, I think you need much more than beautiful Orthodox Cathedrals. Educated people see the Christian Orthodox priesthood as being on the payroll of the government machine (the Patriarch wearing a Rolex doesn’t help fix the image) and are not very inspired. I suppose, your answer could be that the rotten educated populace does not matter, but it kind of does: they’re capable doctors, business people, and engineers. Many of them seek a way to immigrate out of the country, preferably to West or even China.

    Again, a lot of it is based on the structure of the economy. I agree that the political franchise ought to be limited. But the economic franchise ought to be open, and it is definitely NOT so in current Russia.

    • theprince says:

      Russia is only poor, and its economy primarily geared to resource extraction because its been an intention of the oligarchs who control the liberal international order for it to be that way.
      So instead of granting Russia access to European markets which would help them not only sell their goods and services but also improve them due to market competition we have Russia being sanctioned by the EU at the behest of the State Department because they won’t let NATO place nuclear warheads at their doorstep etc.
      And instead of letting European (primarily German/Austrian/Swedish) capital access the Russian economy in order to do what capital does, value addition, we again have the S-Department and their lackeys in the EU sanctioning any company that even so much as looks wistfully towards Russia, because Putin will use proceeds from such investments to help Assad butcher innocent Syrian sunnis who just want to establish another democracy in the middle east.
      And you’ll notice by the way, that China was hitherto not subjected to such deprivations by Globohomo, maybe because Putin (and Russia) were actually considered to be a more serious threat than the CCP clowns who run China.

      • jim says:

        > Russia is only poor, and its economy primarily geared to resource extraction because its been an intention of the oligarchs who control the liberal international order for it to be that way.

        Why was it poor when ruled by communists?

        All the communist countries were revealed to be poor when communism collapsed. Now that they have abandoned communism, most of them, Russia among them, are ceasing to be poor. China is the most notable and dramatic example, but Russia is following in China’s footsteps, recovering from communism almost as fast as China did.

        When communism fell, the place was then thoroughly looted, not by “the oligarchs who control the liberal international order”, but by Harvard carryon baggers. Now that Putin has gotten rid of the carryon baggers. Since about 2000, Russia has been growing at about seven percent a year, and is now, like China, rapidly approaching Western levels, which I expect it to soon exceed.

        The correct and successful solution to the poverty caused by communism was revealed by China, and Russia followed in China’s footsteps.

    • Starman says:


      Dmitry Rogozin is a stunning example of Russia’s weakness. Despite having very good rocket engineers, Rogozin is an albatross around their necks. Russian rocketwrights can build something like the SpaceX Raptor engine and Starship… but they don’t have Prophet Elon, instead, they have Rogozin who spat on the StarProphet’s shoe in the early 2000’s.

      • I look up his wiki page and all I see is politics. Not even politics, just rhethorics – Russia’s right to reclaim Alaska and similar empty stuff. How the heck did Putin managed to put such a windbag in charge of Roskosmos?

      • Eli says:


        Rogozin is just an epiphenomenon. I’ve personally known a young talented aeronautics engineer (used to work for either MiG or Su, don’t remember exactly now), a graduate of Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (Russian equivalent of MIT) — who immigrated to the US, because as ambitious as he was, there was not much opportunity for him there.

        I’m not even talking about financial rewards, although they matter a lot, of course. I’m talking about his technical ideas not coming through, not being taken by old-timers at the top. Stagnation, systemic.

        I don’t know how the USSR was, from that perspective, but it likely was better.

    • It is basically treading water / slowing down the decline until the Cathedral collapses. Best they can do because not even Russia can be memetically independent. The goalnis to survive the collapse of the Cathedral with as little degeneracy as possbile, and *then* build.

    • Mike in Boston says:

      Eli, your analysis is largely compelling but I have to quibble with one part of it:

      Stalin killed all the true believers in communism who *mattered* (those predominantly at the top, especially, his former comrades in the The Politburo and the security apparatus).

      Wouldn’t you consider Khrushchev a true believe in communism? Not just his public statements but many of his actions, for example his renewed campaign of persecution of the Orthodox Church, point in that direction.

      With Khrush and other true believers seen as personally loyal to Stalin and left alive, and with communism still the official ideology, it was natural for holiness spiraling among elites to continue after his death, and whatever unprincipled exceptions to it were made during the Stalin/Beria years were bound to be threatened after his death, as indeed they were. If the official ideology had gone a little more towards the position of (say) a Zyuganov if not a Deng Xiaoping, the second half of the 20th Century in Russia might have been quite different. As for why it didn’t, I think you are on to something when you write:

      In other words, most Russians are “White Niggers.”

      A hilarious letter to the old “eXile” newspaper pointed this out:

      Russians are Negroes!

      Negroes had slavery until the 1860s, Russians had slavery until the 1860s. Negroes mostly live in dilapidated highrises, Russians do too.

      Negroes don’t like to work, demanding payouts from the government, Russians don’t like to work, missing the days when they could get payouts from the government.

      Most Negro adult males have been to prison at least once, most Russian adult males have been to prison too.

      Negroes like to wear leather jackets and huge golden chains, Russians do too.

      When a Negro gets some money, he buys the biggest ugliest SUV he can find, so does a Russian.

      The most popular Negro style of music is gangsta rap, “tough” criminals singing about their crimes and women, the most popular Russian style of music is blatnoy shanson, “tough” criminals singing about their crimes and women.

      Of course it’s a joke but it also offers some insight into how the particular incentive structure of living in Russian has affected Russians.

      • The Cominator says:

        “Most Negro adult males have been to prison at least once, most Russian adult males have been to prison too.”

        Prison or arrested for drunkeness, I strongly strongly doubt most Russian men have been to prison I find that almost unbelievable.

        • Eli says:

          A huge number of Russians and, later especially, Soviets were incarcerated.

          Unlike here, though, most sane people in Russia knew that you could go to jail almost randomly. Sometimes, by caprice of some local [often also corrupt] bureaucrat, who had to meet a “quota.” So there was no such bad stigma (as here, in the US), for someone who went to jail/prison, unlike with those goody-two-shoe American cuckservatives.

          My grandmother’s sister went to prison in Norilsk for several years, barely surviving. Here crime? Being a radio operator for a military unit that surrendered (was surrounded by Nazis, in WW2). Should’ve never returned back to SU, after they released the PoW. Of course, rehabilitated during Khrushev era, but how can you ever compensate for the lives lost and mangled?

          Some more here. Scroll to Soviet Union:

          As the Russians say: “от сумы и от тюрьмы не зарекайся.” Meaning, roughly: “don’t boast you’ll never end up being neither a pauper nor in jail [because you just fucking might, you jinxy fool( — my edit for extra clarity)]”

          • Eli says:

            By the way, in Soviet Union, “prison” was worse than here. Forced hard labor camp would be a more apt description. Add in the climatic conditions and the food shortages (and nutrient deficiency), you get the horrific picture.

            But they got the Trans-Siberian road built. And most of world’s nickel comes from Norilsk’s mines. Etc.

      • Eli says:

        Thanks, Mike.

        I was looking for that letter for a long time!! I remember reading it more than a decade ago, and found it extremely pertinent and funny.

        Yes, Khrushev was a true believer. As so was Brezhnev. All the way to Andropov, the last believing dinosaur (but an honest, principled man, actually)

        1) Khrushchev was a protege of Stalin’s, enforcing his dictates and purges.
        2) He was mostly out of Stalin’s hair, in Ukraine.

        I would not be too sure, regarding his chances of survival — had Stalin lived 5 to 10 years longer — that Khrushchev would not have ended up dead prematurely. Khrushchyov did not waste much time on killing off Stalin’s “cult of personality,” which is pretty telling.

        • Mike in Boston says:

          You are welcome, Eli. I am glad to find another reader who appreciates both that great letter to the eXile and Market Basket. Try Russo’s in Watertown sometime.

          We’ve had a bunch of discussion on feminism in USSR/RussiaHere’s a piece I noticed by 1980s Soviet escapee Yuri Vetokhin on how feminism, divorce, and weakening the rights of fathers were part and parcel of the Soviet system, and served that system’s ends.

          There’s much to dispute in the writer’s perspective, but in the end he comes to conclusions that I think our host would agree with:

          … in prerevolutionary Russia, during its blossoming, strict laws existed against groundless divorces and imprudent interference by society in the internal affairs of the family. It was not without reason that the laws were directed towards consolidating the rights of the head of the family and increasing his sense of responsibility for raising the children.

          • Eli says:

            That was a good article, Mike. And I’ll definitely check out Russo’s, when I am in that area.

    • The Cominator says:

      “1) Russia — and it started with the SU — allows great freedom to women, including to initiate divorce. Careers are also expected, even if not as strongly as in the US. Even if, culturally, there is still enough sane sexism to compel women to become mothers before age 25.”

      I think the legal status of women relative to men is probably lower in Russia than anywhere outside the Islamic world. Putin decriminalized “domestic violence” Putin will have a hard time restricting divorce because the Orthodox church traditionally DOES allow divorce. The one thing they are inferior to the Catholic Church in regards to…

      • Eli says:

        Wrong. Wrong.

        Russian women have a great amount of power over Russian men. The salient difference is that in Russia:

        1) It is not yet as crazy as here.
        1a) Notably, the child support situation is hard to enforce and the awards are not man-rapes like here. And, again, enforcing is much harder.
        1b) People are generally poorer, so a bitch who divorces a man has much more to lose, in a real sense. It is also hard-to-impossible to kick him out of his place, because he usually has propiska.
        2) The police are not enforcing some of the laws as strongly. Speaking here as someone whose mother complained to militsia about his father. Back in the day.
        3) Women still are not *feeling* as empowered and not *propagandized* to act on even their theoretically possible power.

  16. Anonymous says:

    The difference between the Orthodox Church and the Cathedral is this: the Orthodox Church does not depend upon the power of the State for its continued existence. Nor does the State depend upon the authority of the Church for its power.

    As a result of this, the relationship between Church and State is mutualistic, as opposed to the American case, where the Cathedral is parasitic upon the State.

    • Eli says:

      >The difference between the Orthodox Church and the Cathedral is this: the Orthodox Church does not depend upon the power of the State for its continued existence. Nor does the State depend upon the authority of the Church for its power.

      This is utterly nonsense. At least, as things stand in Russia.

      1) As things currently stand, in Russia, the Orthodox Church is definitely directly supported by the Kremlin. I don’t think it’s a secret.

      2) Nor would you want the opposite. At least, when it comes to the top echelons of the priesthood, you actually WANT to have a situation where both the priesthood and the top rulers depend on each other’s validation and support.

      This is the whole crux of Jimianity, as far as I understand it: the authority of King needs to be validated by the authority of explicitly State church (or religious institution of the *sovereign state*, whatever that might be, be it Church or Temple).

      In Russia’s case, having a state-tied top priesthood with a defined dogma, started with Tsar Aleksey Romanov, with his nomination of Nikon into Patriarchy. Of course, Nikon decided to copy the contemporary Greek traditions, neglecting — or maybe purposefully not — to notice that the Greeks themselves had evolved their traditions. He then decided to kill off old Russian rituals and artifacts. Not particularly bright or independent, if you were to ask me.

      There was a big purge of the “Old Believers” (look it up), a lot of whom escaped into hard-to-reach places in the Empire, often beyond the Ural mountains. I didn’t study this closely, but I suspect that the relationship between the Romanovs and the Orthodoxy had been a very close one since then. Probably, a big reason for traditionally anti-Semitic attitude of the Tsars and his aristocrats, a pertinent problem that became to fore after annexation of huge portions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. (Speaking as a descendant of a Jewish cantonist.)

      Honestly, the big problem of tsarist Russia (which continued with USSR) is that they always try to assimilate or destroy what they capture. They did this to Jews and they did it with many other peoples. Including but not limited to Caucuses. The Ottomans were somewhat wiser. The Ottomans mostly wanted to collect profits, including jizya, usually leaving the people to their own devices. But Russian tzars wanted to make serfs of all people. Pretty sick. No wonder Nicholas II self-destructed the Empire. They made too many enemies and they made too many people who were their enemies be part of their apparatus. Naturally, that apparatus ate them.

      By the way, similar things happened to Ottomans, because of their Devshirme system (the Janissaries). The sultans were under constant threat of revolt from their own elite foreign-originated slave-soldiers. And even though sultan Mahmud II disbanded (killed off) most of the Janissaries, en masse, it is known that Bektashi Order, which was connected to and sourced a lot of its strength from the Janissaries, continued on. Not surprisingly, some prominent Young Turks were Bektashi or connected to them in some way. So, in some ways, the Ottomans were, too, like the Romanovs, consumed by the foreign apparatus that they created and “assimilated.” The irony…

      • I agree about the relationship of Russian state and church:

        However I think saying Russians assimilate or destroy everything is extremely wrong. To the contrary. I have always been surprised how such an extremely multicultural country could function in the past and can function now. Of religion, they had the official Orthodoxy, Lutherans in the Baltics, Catholics in Minsk (today Belarus) and other territories they conquered from Poland, Muslims in the south, Siberian people dong the shaman thing, and even Buddhist Kalmyks.

        • Eli says:

          Not true.

          OK, what do you know about Minsk? At the turn of the 20th century, do you know what was its demographic composition? Do you think it was populated by some peripheral Belarussians?

          Wrong. I can try to dig these official statistics up, but I know for *certain* that the demographics of Minsk, circa 1910 was as follows:

          Around 50% Jews.
          Around 50% Poles.

          It was a Polish city, with a huge Jewish presence, among whom I count my entire paternal grandfather ancestry. Guess what happened post-WW2? The overwhelming majority (something above 70% became Belarussian). Granted, the Nazis hugely contributed to this. But the Soviets were as guilty, especially, when it came to persecution of Poles and the Jewish traditional way of life.

          As to other religious minorities and peoples: with a few exceptions (Georgians and Armenians were, notably, huge beneficiaries of Soviet rule) ALL of them were either persecuted and/or converged in one way or another. Starting with Tsarist Russia and all the way to Stalin’s operations.

          Perhaps, a Buddhist Kalmyk from some village had a bit more leeway to exercise his traditions than if he were to reside in Moscow/Leningrad. But don’t even think for a second that Russia/Soviet Union would not converge/incarcerate him, if they had the tools of propaganda and enforcement not stretched thin already. A local Kalmyk was not very important to them. Plus it was quite hard to control nomads, pre-settling. Had they had the tech of the Cathedral and more zealotry (which began to wane post-Stalin), they would’ve pursued him too.

          Actually, read up on Kalmyks. They were indeed being converged and Russified by the Soviets. And by Russifying, I mean not only being edumacated (in schools) about Lenin’s holiness, communist activism via “Pioneer movement” and “Komsomol,” collectivization, and affirmation of “Bright Future”, losing their written language (alphabet), ridicule for prayers — but also literal importation of Russian population into those regions. Which is a powerful strategy that the Chinese are using also. Also, this

          Russia is a truly vast country. Getting people in and out of some places, and resupplying them can be a challenge. Russia’s imperial apparatus arms could only do so much and reach only so far. But they did conquer, uproot, and converge.

          Maybe the American Cathedral is ultimately crazier, but they’re yet to show the kind of mass evil, viciousness and organization that the Russian Empire and, especially, Soviets possessed and exercised.

          • The Cominator says:

            Poles did not have a good time in world war 2 or after generally… Hitler hated them and Stalin though probably not acting out of racial hatred considered them an extremely disloyal ethnic group so although when Stalin became dictator he mostly halted the mass murders of ordinary Russians (ongoing since the Russians with peaks and valleys) he tended to intensify it among the Poles.

          • Your case would be far more consideration-worthy if you would not keep conflating the Russian Empire with the Soviet Union. You are talking with reactionaries who are kinda positively disposed to Tzars and are very negatively disposed to Communists. You cannkt just put an / between these two and expect to convince anyone. If your case is that Tzarist and Soviet Russia was similar in some regards, you cannot just assume it, you need to make it, and make it well enough to overcome our, or at least mine, Tzar good, Commie bad priors.

            • The Cominator says:

              I hate communism more than the Russian Empire, but I like Stalin more than I like Nicholas II.

              Stalin was a lot better about killing commies and he is less to blame for starting WWII (though partially to blame) than Nicholas II was for starting World War I (world war one was almost ENTIRELY the fault of Nicholas II).

              • jim says:

                Stalin believed in communism, which was a disaster. Yet the men who halt holiness spirals, even if they merely stabilize them at horrifyingly far left, are always admirable men in that they are brave warrior types who see what needs to be done, and damn well do it. Cromwell was a hero. Charles the First, unfortunately, was not. Napoleon pretty good also. Trouble is that by the time anyone takes action, the military officer class is pretty far converged. I hope that Trump either takes power himself, or appoints a general who is, like Monck, sufficiently flexible to toss the existing state religion overboard for total dysfunction. If we wind up with an Obama general as Caesar, things are going to suck, albeit they will be a big improvement on what we have.

                If Beria had managed to come out on top, Stalin followed by Beria would have been similar to Cromwell followed by Monck.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  So what exactly do you expect Trump to do? Destroy progressivism and put Christianity or to simply turn progressivism back into liberalism? Because the second one seems a lot more likely to happen than the first.

                  Actually, I’d go so far as to say that it’s impossible to restore Christianity with the men that we have. There’s no way you can turn the average modern male into a patriarch, even a lot of reactionaries here have a hard time dealing with women properly.

                • jim says:

                  I have no trouble dealing with women properly.

                  You just have to be prepared to break the law and kill people if need be.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  You’re implying you are a representation of the average modern male Jim, I don’t think this argument has any validity.

                  I’m not saying it’s inherently impossible for the average man to turn into a patriarch, if that’s your angle here, but political change will not do that. Now, if there was some war where you could send them, or you artificially built some environment where they had to toughen up or die, then we are in business.

                  But the average modern male is not going to suddenly own his wife and his daughters, have the strength and courage to fight authority and kill people, just because Trump gives free helicopter rides to Mr. Prog up there in Harvard.

                • jim says:

                  > political change will not do that

                  Cultural change will do that. From 1933 to 1963, the media encouraged manliness and put up manly role models. Nowhere near manly enough, but a good start. And the media presented a world where the authorities let the good guys get away with violence against the bad guys.

                  Of course, what is really needed is authority letting males get away with violence against adulterers and against men who fornicate with their daughters and fail to marry them, or are not in a position to marry them, and media presenting such tolerance – which was kind of hinted at from 1933 to 1963, but was not true, and was not really shown.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  That’s not something Trump can change magically either.

                • jim says:

                  It changed magically before, abruptly and overnight. It can change magically again.

                  First wave feminism vanished overnight, and second wave feminism appeared overnight, with the content of the media changing in perfect synchrony.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  First wave feminism vanished overnight, and second wave feminism appeared overnight, with the content of the media changing in perfect synchrony.

                  True, but the population and behavior of the country did not change overnight.

                  Obama in his first term against gay marriage, Obama second term gay marriage is the best thing that has ever enacted. Plenty of bakeries still wouldn’t bake the cake and still don’t, even going to courts.

                  The beta that today talks about women and equality will not be a patriarch because you blast the media with Jesse James types. Perhaps the children who grow up with Jesse James on their TV will though, that is possible. And it’s also likely that such generation will have such “toxic masculinity” that they’ll run over their faggot parents for the better.

                • Pooch says:

                  I’m starting to think the best Trump can do in his lifetime is roll us back to 1980s leftism and hold it in place as Cromwell did. Trump has signaled zero interest in doing anything else and I’m not sure he has the tools to do anything else.

                  Yet still 1980s leftism is a tremendous improvement on 2020 leftism with manliness and masculinity still somewhat entact in the culture.

                  It may take whatever comes after Trump to get us to a full restoration.

                • jim says:

                  > I’m starting to think the best Trump can do in his lifetime is roll us back to 1980s leftism and hold it in place as Cromwell did. Trump has signaled zero interest in doing anything else

                  That is all he could accomplish in his remaining years, but holding it in place, as Cromwell and Stalin attempted to do, is not a viable option. The left must swim ever leftwards, or die. It needs more applecarts to knock over, it needs to create ever greater social entropy.

                  If you try to hold it in place, you are going to face even greater resistance that you are going to face for outright rolling it back. It is going fight against its death.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  Trump is a 60s Democrat with accolades for philanthropy towards African Americans that happily hires sufficiently competent career women in his own businesses where they have their uses, like accountants. His own daughters are, well, pretty liberated and infertile. He might admire Andrew Jackson by his own admission, but he is very clearly not Andrew Jackson.

                  You say progressivism cannot be turned back into liberalism and held in place, but I’m pretty sure this is exactly what Trump is going to try assuming he overcomes the Cathedral. Trump is trying to be Cromwell and Stalin, I see no evidence that suggests otherwise and a lot of evidence that suggests exactly this.

                  I’m not attacking Trump or trying to black pill anyone, like Pooch says, it’d be already a massive achievement if he were to succeed on this. The law would overlook patriarchs putting women in their place and wouldn’t be hostile towards CEOs that actually try to be CEOs. Society wouldn’t be a fully functional machine, but with some effort you can get your wife and have 4 kids while you work towards something even better.

                  What exactly makes you believe that Trump is going or even capable, considering the circumstances, of personally bringing back Christianity? Am I missing something here? He can do A, then try to persuade towards B like Putin is trying in Russia, that maybe, that sounds plausible. But that’s decades of work to see some serious result and he doesn’t have the time nor is he on the position to do so. You will still have career women and cucks, incredibly diminished in their status by comparison but still around, like in Russia.

                  This ride has been rode by other civilizations before and they fell anyway for a reason, it’s not a walk in the park.

    • BC says:

      I despises American cops. Every time I’ve asked them for help they blew me off and the only reason I comply is I know the score when it comes to cops killing you with impunity. No one cries they kill a white guy. Cops are a serious danger to middle class people if you have the misfortune of being targeted by them.

      But criminals are a lot worse than the cops.

      • Pooch says:

        Don’t break the law and you won’t have to deal with cops. They are basically NPCs who mindlessly enforce the laws. I don’t see many examples of them targeting law abiding citizens.

        • jim says:

          There are a remarkably large number of laws, and it is difficult to avoid breaking some of them, often quite a lot of them, often unknowingly.

          Cops, however, are not terribly active about enforcing most of them.

          • Pooch says:

            The laws they do enforce with some regularity are the laws you probably know of. If you are having bad encounters with the cops, you probably encounter the cops often and are knowingly breaking laws often.

        • BC says:

          >Don’t break the law and you won’t have to deal with cops.

          My first ticket was from a girl on a cell phone who T-Boned me and destroyed my car. Cops gave me a ticket because I couldn’t find my insurance card in the wreak. That ticket cost me 3 week salary to pay off because I was making minimum wage while working my through college.

          The thing that triggered this is watching this video again:

          I do everything possible to avoid interacting with American cops.

          • Pooch says:

            You violated the law by being unable to display your required driving documents. Has happened to me many times and every time the officer has politely told me to just go to court with the documents and they’ll drop the ticket, which they would then do.

            That Mesa story is one of the rare instances where a law abiding citizen was wrongly killed. He was mighty stupid though, handling an airsoft rifle in front of his hotel room window where other hotel guests could see. Could have been easily avoided if he didn’t do that.

            Avoiding the cops is perfectly sane and recommended behavioral strategy which the nogs clearly do not follow.

          • Eli says:

            Simultaneously heartbreaking and outrageous. His wife became widowed and his two daughters lost their father. That whole hysterical “you obey!” scream very much conveys the nature of what makes this line of work attractive to power-hungry imbeciles and nutjobs, many of whom are, deep-down, losers and cowards. Probably with balls shrunk from all the testosterone shots.

            I don’t remember riots after that though. Looking at the murderer, one can clearly see a tattooed imbecile, who lives for power trips.

            I read some articles about this case, but even if I try to be sympathetic to the police, I cannot understand: what was the need to make the victim CRAWL?? Why not just tell him to keep lying down, face down, with his hands visible, behind the back… They already had the gun pointed at him, at fairly close distance. Seems like they were setting him up for murder, on purpose.

  17. The Cominator says:

    Some quibbles on Napoleon.

    Napoleon seemed rather flexible ideologically, he maintained aspects of the command economy not because he strictly speaking believed in the efficiency of bureaucrat planning but because he needed to make sure a higher than Laffer maximum amount of the French economy was devoted to the massive standing army he had to maintain because the British would just not make peace with him.

    He probably ignored how ineffective his embargo of Britain was because there wasn’t much else he could do against Britain.

    By the time he invaded Russia (which was the REAL mistake he made) he probably was buying too heavily into his own legend. I certainly don’t get the impression he was a fanatic or stupid though (the way I DO get with Hitler)… but with the invasion of Russia hubris from years of success (with occasional setbacks of course) got the better of him. Napoleon did not have the historical example of how massively difficult invading Russia was that Hitler had, Charles XII of Sweden tried but he ran a small low population country Napoleon figured he could do better and he figured that the Russians would certainly make peace if he got to Moscow.

    To the extent Napoleon used ideas to rule… he mainly decided that he would have broader popular support in France (outside of the Paris mob) if he assumed the trappings of a divine right monarch.

    • jim says:

      It is pretty stupid for a land power to embargo a sea power. You are just enforcing the sea power’s embargo against yourself, saving it the trouble.

      The problem was that the French Revolution grew out of controls on the price of grain, which rapidly mutated into controls on everything upstream and downstream of grain, with the bakers being the most direct and immediate victims.

      These controls were obviously disastrous and counterproductive, but Napoleon never let go of them, revealing that the man of action and the divine right monarch was the slave of the ideas of the Church of Reason, which then as now hated the peasants and the small farmer, calling them kulaks, rednecks, and deplorables

      Xenophon shook down Kings and Lords as he marched, but he did his best to avoid shaking down the peasants, because he wanted the peasants to bring food, clothes, and munitions to the camp. If the camp has to go out to the peasants to shake them down, it opens itself to defeat in detail, what we would now call guerrilla war. In Spain, Napoleon suffered defeat in detail.

      • The Cominator says:

        Napoleon did however seem to be able to avoid any large scale food shortages during his reign (something which Hitler did not) I bet he did not impose the price controls in occupied countries and made the “allied” princes send him food or something to make up the shortages while maintaining the popular “cheap food” policy while magically making the shortages it should have caused disappear by imposing the real cost of the artificially cheap food on the tax base of foreign countries.

        Seems pretty politically pragmatic to me if that was his policy… I am speculating and don’t know the details but he does seem to have mysteriously avoided the kind of food shortages which were present throughout the Revolution.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      Hitler comes across a lot less crazy in Mein Kampf. He wrote it in prison, and his party had been banned, so half of it is a “For Dummies” guide to building a new Nazi party, presumably because he thought he and his version might not come back. He’s supremely practical and clear-sighted. It still reads as a very good guide to practical politics today.

      • The Cominator says:

        Hitler has a long rant about syphilis in Mein Kampf he sounds pretty crazy to me in it…

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          Yeah, those passages strike moderns as weird.

          Is that because syphilis wasn’t a problem, or because antibiotics were invented during the war?

          Developed countries back then had the problem we are now encountering again today, that dirty people spread diseases, and sometimes spread them to clean people, and not much can be done for those who get infected by such diseases.

          He also talks about TB. Another disease that can infect anyone, is progressive, and has no cure. TB is probably coming back, now that it is becoming resistant to all antibiotics simultaneously. Judging by peoples’ reaction to the superflu, they’ll freak out worse than Hitler did when that happens.

  18. I generally agree, but the your unconventional use of the term “religion” makes things a bit hard to understand accurately. In my understanding, 3/4 of “religion” through most of history was basically called just “law”.

    Law understood as: kings enforcing cooperation through telling people how exactly he expects them to cooperate and what will he do when they don’t. Because telling people “just cooperate however you think you can and I will judge that however I think about the results” would not actually result in any actual cooperation, it would result in Byzantine intrigue. I worked for firms that had flaky CEOs, and it sucked. In the best firm I worked at people talked like “according to CEO Order No. 11, we should…” and the first thing every white collar employee was made to do was to read them all on the intranet.

    75% of “religion” is law. 25% is “synthetic tribe” i.e. strong ingroup feelings.

    • jim says:

      > Law understood as: kings enforcing cooperation through telling people how exactly he expects them to cooperate and what will he do when they don’t.

      But in order to “do something if they don’t” he needs other people to do something if they don’t. The alpha chimp can personally whack troublesome chimps, but this does not scale to Kingship.

      • Which is why the law on succession is especially important, as it is precisely about the case when the alpha chimp is no longer around to whack uppity chimps.

        Which leads to my answer to NTSS’s challenge, what is the difference between a king and a dictator / caudillo? Kings sort out succession in a civilized way. Dictators do it the chimp way, the alpha chimp dies, the big chimps whack each other and each others followers until one of them emerges victorious.

  19. I wrote in that piece: “an idea on a throne means an empty throne, and in its name a simian struggle to occupy the spiritual center begins”

    It is not that the idea cannot sit on the throne for a little while while people kill each other in its name. “Black Lives Matter” rules right now, but it rules over violence, as “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite” did when Robespierre was influential. My point is that ideas rule over disaster, or swiftly cause disaster. The state of ideas ruling is what you call the holiness spiral, which is a quite personal struggle for power in the name of the idea, each person holier and a more true representative of the empty throne than the last.

    Napoleon took power as a man of action takes power. I can’t say what exactly was going through his head, but he eventually discovered that “a whiff of grapeshot” is insufficient to rule, that he needs to use ideas, as Putin discovered. You attribute his failures to ideology, and I agree with you; he was mastered by the ideas he tried to use as weapons. I see a direct parallel to the discussion in your comments section a while back about how Hitler’s strategic failures in WWII were due to ideology, though Hitler was an idea-man from the start and Napoleon only became so.

    Whether Putin is a true believer or not hardly matters, because Orthodox Christianity is a time-tested quality glue, a set of good ideas two millennia old. Even if he were a zealot, it is hard to imagine that any stupid decisions would come out of his true-believing Orthodoxy; maybe starting a war with Turkey to reclaim Constantinople, but the idea that Putin would do this is laughable; I doubt he been mastered by the idea, whether faithful or not.

    Who rules in America? I’d ask the question: “Why is America’s holiness spiral so slow?” FDR was a Caesar-like figure who hollowed out the content of the American Republic and left only its forms behind; real power passed to the three-letter agencies and the State Department. Ultimately, to Harvard, because Harvard instructs our Mandarin caste, but with a 20-year time gap, ensuring that the people wielding power are doing the bidding of the Harvard of the last generation, and that SCOTUS is implementing the design of the Harvard of two generations ago. FDR moved Harvard closer to the throne, but also said “this close and no further”.

    Trump’s struggle for power is ultimately a struggle with Harvard, but he does not need an idea on his side yet, because his first struggle is a struggle with people, with the “eunuch ministers”, the permanent government. Recently, and in reaction to Trump, our permanent government has been taking its cues more and more directly from Harvard, which is why “kill whitey and take his stuff”, which is being taught at Harvard now, is a matter of actual debate within the Democrat party of today, and not the party line of 2040.

    The fact that they are taking their marching orders more and more directly from Harvard means that we are faster and faster approaching a full-blown holiness spiral, that the idea is getting closer and closer to the throne, no longer keeping its plausibly deniable distance, and immense political violence is looming over the horizon.

    • jim says:

      Totally agree.

      > The state of ideas ruling is what you call the holiness spiral, which is a quite personal struggle for power in the name of the idea, each person holier and a more true representative of the empty throne than the last.

      And so you need a national state religion – with an occupied throne on top of the Archbishop and Grand Inquisitor.

      The Spanish Inquisition was a reaction to witchfinders and crypto Jew finders running out of control.

      But because no man rules alone, even your man of action needs to rule through ideas.

  20. Karl says:

    Good perspective on the top where the ruler is. Now look at the bottom where the ruled are. If a man is given an order and he obeys, he is ruled by the man who gave the order. Often there is noone around to give him an order. Then there is only law, religion, ideas and such to order him. This is when he is ruled by ideas.

    Very difficult to keep men under constant supervision and organize their behaviour by giving individual and specific orders. That is why ideas are necessary. They are what makes menbehave orderly when noone is looking.

    • Anonymous 2 says:

      If a man is given an order and he obeys, he is ruled by the man who gave the order. Often there is noone around to give him an order. Then there is only law, religion, ideas and such to order him. This is when he is ruled by ideas.

      My impression is that modern man becomes paralyzed and indecisive when he has to put his trust in law, religion, etc. One day this idea rules and the next day the other, so it’s safer to await the orders of the priests. A form of learned helplessness, if you will.

    • Man for most of history was seldom alone. Remaining in good standing with the men of his community is the primary motivation; when good Christian conduct is high status near the throne, its high status trickles down to the local leaders, and from them to the average man. It is hard for most people to be loyal to an idea when alone, very easy for them to be loyal to their friends and neighbors.

      Maybe I’m nitpicking, but the status of an idea trickles downward and finds itself grounded in actual people. Only a small fraction of people can be loyal to an idea; most are “true believers” because the men surrounding them are.

      • Karl says:

        True, but a man alone is not ruled by instinct alone. His behaviour is (by and large) predictable and depends on his cultural background, i.e. his religion (even if he denies having one)

    • Alrenous had an excellent point about it. Normal men are proud. They don’t like to look like cowards. So they don’t like to admit the only reason they obey is fear of punishment, even though in an awful lot of cases that is the actual reason. They need a way to be able to obey while saving face. Such as “I obey because I agree with those ideas” or “I obey because I believe the government is legitimate” or “I obey because laws are to be respected” and so on.

      IMHO this explains preference cascades. Some guy or regime rules and everybody seems to agree with them because the two other options, namely to challenge them and get punished, or admit you are a coward who obeys only out of fear, are less attractive. Better be wrong – as long as you are wrong with everybody else and with Power, that is not too embarrassing.

      And then that guy dies or the regime is toppled and suddenly everybody disagrees with the formerly popular ideas.

      And this is bad. Sycophant spirals where everybody tells the ruler all their ideas are absolutely great can get a regime dangerously out of contact with reality. And that is how you fail Gnon.

      The proper solution is, IMHO, cooperating around the idea legitimacy. That is, you are allowed to say what the King wants is stupid, but you do not question that even if he wants a stupid thing you will obey because he is legitimate.

      Thus, there is agreement “you want X, and that is great”, and there is meta-agreement “you want X, and that is bad, but you have the right to enforce whatever you want”, and it should be meta-agreement. You see spurs of this in democracy, too, in an electoral campaign, they are fishing for agreement, but once they won, then for one cycle meta-agreement is enough, because they are legitimate. This is weaksauce, so that is one of the reasons the Cathedral took over: the Experts are legitimate all the time, because they are The Experts.

  21. Stanon says:

    The most powerful ideas in history have gotten their power not from asking men to bow but to stand up. Not from subverting their natural power drive but by dovetailing with it.

    • The Cominator says:

      Yes and no men want to have purpose and use masculine energy for that purpose, but men also want to be a part and submit to something greater than themselves.

  22. Boswald Bollocksworth says:

    Putin good

Leave a Reply