Where we are, and where we are going

This blog has never been in the business of covering today’s news, but rather of covering the long sweep of history, and putting today’s news in the long sweep of history.

And today’s news amounts to the fact that we are not going to get a good look at the ballots printed at midnight after the voting finished until and unless Trump proclaims the Insurrection Act:

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it-

so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

We have a conspiracy hindering the execution of the laws of numerous State, and of the United States within those States. And the conspirators need to be detained, preferably in Alaska as far from Washington as possible, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, and questioned, by military intelligence and loyalist federal cops.

And now, back to the long sweep of history.

A King creates a virtuous elite, as King Alfred the Great and Charles the Second did. A virtuous elite, having internal cohesion and trust, is quite capable of running the country without much Kingly supervision, and the King is apt to be quite content to focus on fornication, partying, and hunting, so the Kingdom gradually becomes a Republic, at first de-facto, and eventually in name and truth.

But a Republic lacks effectual means of dealing with misconduct in the elite, so cooperation and trust in the elite breaks down. They turn to the masses to resolve their internal conflicts, and the Republic becomes a democracy. As evil flourishes, and cooperation continues to break down, it eventually comes to pass that the stakes on the table are too high, so the Republic, or the Democratic Republic, dies.

Democracy requires a level of trust and comity between the parties that no longer exists.

The loser has to believe that loss will not be total, permanent, and result in his destruction.

Because the Democrats have been indulged by law enforcement for a long time, they have committed all manner of crimes, and will go to jail if law enforcement is done in an impartial manner.

Because law enforcement is not done in an impartial manner, the Republicans will go to jail if it is not fixed. If Republicans lose power now, they are permanently and irreversibly out of power, and many of them will wind up in prison or worse. Paul Rand times ten thousand, because the man who attempted to murder Kyle on video is free as a bird.

Caesar became an enemy of the Republic by crossing the Rubicon, but he had to cross the Rubicon because otherwise would have been charged and convicted of no end of political offenses.

However this thing ends, one side or the other is going to jail, and if it ends with Trump out of power, Trump’s family will eventually be executed. Initially they will only be imprisoned, but as $#!% continues to hit the fan, they will eventually, like the Romanovs and the family of Louis XVI, become too dangerous to live.

Fixing law enforcement is going to require proclaiming the Insurrection act, and it may well become necessary to call out the unorganized militia and organize it. Nothing less is likely to suffice.

Too much is on the table for democracy to continue, and it has not continued. To restore a genuine Republic requires the creation of a well behaved elite. It will take at least a century, even if we start right away.

Trying to fix ballot counting requires sending a pile of people to prison, which ups the stakes even further. There is no way to bring the stakes down to something consistent with a Republic, because our elite is corrupt, degenerate, and decadent. You have to create a new, virtuous, elite. Start by purging Harvard, or leveling it to the ground and building a new Harvard, a Harvard run by men who are married, God fearing, Christian, and have well behaved children. (Or, in the case of India, gods fearing.) The battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton. We are going to need a Caesar Augustus, and Caesar Augustus is going to need, like Constantine, a state religion that works to produce a virtuous elite.

Caesar’s problem was that all the genuinely virtuous gods fearing people were on the side of the Republic. He had only bad people. And the problem that all the genuinely virtuous gods fearing people had is that they were on the side of a Republic that had died a long time previously. Don’t do what they did. Trying to fix harvesting and registration is doing what they did. You cannot do it unless you purge or dismiss the the three letter agencies, and if you purge or dismiss the three letter agencies, the existing Democrat organization is going to jail.

Marius failed because he upped the stakes so far that the Roman Republic could not continue. Sulla’s problem was that he restored a dead Republic. Caesar’s problem was that he was an enemy of the (undead) Republic and had only bad people around him. Augustus Caesar succeeded because he “restored” the Republic – but made sure the fact that it was dead was not a problem.

But Augustus Caesar had a problem in that insofar as he had a live state religion, he had a hostile state religion. He tried emperor worship, the equivalent of Deng Xiaoping theory, but nothing worked until Constantine adopted Christianity as the state religion. Constantine also built a new capital far from the swamp.

What Putin is doing, making Russian Orthodoxy the state religion, is working. What Deng Xiaoping did looks like it is sort of working so far, but, like Augustus Caesar’s emperor worship, obviously fragile. Deng Xiaoping theory is “learn truth from facts”, which is a mighty good start, the main fact from which they learned truth being that socialism does not work, but the since the state religion is incarnated in the head of state, the facts are what the party says they are.

Charles the second instituted the rule “Nullius in verba”, which obligates you to check stuff for yourself, or at least identify the person who checked stuff himself and listen to what he said, rather than what someone else says he said. I walked in the footsteps of Leonardo da Vinci and Lyell, and I myself verified with my own pickaxe and my own eyes that the Earth is immensely old, not because I had any doubt that I would see what they saw, but because I was raised to believe that one had a moral obligation to use primary sources or, better, much better, one’s own observations, that the Wikipedia style reliance on highly derived sources is not merely unwise, but wicked.

462 Responses to “Where we are, and where we are going”

  1. Pooch says:

    Jim is right referencing the RT article here. Trump just admitted he may not get to the Supreme Court in an interview today, even going so far to ask if the President can’t have a case heard, what is even the Supreme Court?

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/29/trump-acknowledges-the-supreme-court-.html

    To me he seems to be preparing that he may not have any SCOTUS decisions in his pocket for when he needs to invoke the IA. If he gets state legislatures on his side, that may be good enough for legitimacy.

  2. TBeholder says:

    > What Putin is doing, making Russian Orthodoxy the state religion, is working.
    Good one. These guys are a joke.
    The still-living stereotype is “bless a Mercedes” sort of services. The previous ones were: “converted” ex-political officers — and before that, “livechurchers” doubling as KGB informants.
    And back when it was the state religion, the Russian Orthodox Church had rate of substance to appearances was better, but not great. Which was a part of the problem, of course — at least as much as the military chaplains were unable to stop the hostile demagogues. That’s where the nastiest ones (including Tukhachevsky and Dybenko) have started. If so many mutinies wouldn’t happen, perhaps the Civil War couldn’t begin. Not before the new government would fuck up a lot, anyway.

    He does, however, seem to have made it at least a state religion placeholder. Something like modern British “monarchs” — it’s not a real thing, but there’s no empty place in which anything more serious could crawl in and make its home.

    • neofugue says:

      Orthodox Christianity died among the elite in 1905. Even Seraphim Rose, a moderate American monk, wrote on the absurdity of constitutional monarchy, that liberal Christianity is nothing more than an apostasy. After Pobedonostsev was forced into retirement, the Russian Revolution of 1918 was all but inevitable as all of the elites were now Leftists in varying degrees, only professing a fake Christianity as a formality.

      https://russian-faith.com/lets-have-more-teen-pregnancy-n3506
      https://russian-faith.com/family-values/eleven-kids-in-a-one-room-apartment-n2138
      https://russian-faith.com/russian-wisdom-get-married-while-youre-young-n1490

      Quote: “Of course, what the modern culture calls an “early” marriage (age 18 to 25), did not used to be considered “early”. In the eighteenth century, Russian brides were as young as 13, and bridegrooms could be age 15. Then in the year 1830, by decree of the emperor, the marriage age was increased to 16 and 18 years, respectively. Interestingly, parents often appealed to the authorities for permission to let younger girls marry. In such cases, a priest would examine the future bride, to see if she was properly prepared to be a wife and mother. If the priest gave his blessing, then the wedding was allowed to take place.”

      If Orthodoxy was truly dead, the above would never have been published.

      • Strannik says:

        Maybe this is the case with ”official” Nikonian Orthodox churches, and I happen to agree, but as something an outlier there are the Russian ”Old Believer” Orthodox Christians, who always have had large traditional Orthodox families, and marry young, and buy into the contraception and abortion racket that other people do. At least that’s been my experience observing them for years now.

        • neofugue says:

          Old Believers are able to have large families and marry young because they detach themselves from the wider society, like the Hasidim or the Amish. Non-old believers are less able to do so because of assimilation.

          It is difficult for a prole to integrate into polite society while rejecting its decadence.

  3. Someone says:

    Recently a source familiar with the Presidents thinking has revealed that he plans to inaugarate a new thought policing system. Technology has progressed significantly in the last number of years and now it may be possible to use robotics to control the populace. Our source recently revealed that the Trump white house plans to create a corps of robots which they have dubbed “retard detection robots – RDR’s”. These robots will wander about and listen to what people say and if they say certain phrases like “cultural appropriation” or “systematic racism” or “Black Lives Matter”, that these robots will proceed to inflict harm on these people.

    The source has been quoted as saying “Helicopter Rides take too many man hours, we need to be more efficient with our time.” When the source was asked if Kamala Harris or Joseph Biden would be targeted by these robots, the source revealed that this would depend on how retarded they were in public.

  4. onyomi says:

    Almost too on the nose for our purposes to be what it looks, like, but among the “midnight regulations” the “outgoing” Trump administration has recently crammed through:

    https://projects.propublica.org/trump-midnight-regulations/

    …bringing back the firing squad.

    • BC says:

      The firing squad is too dignified for our foes.

      • Theshadowedknight says:

        Not if you shoot them in the back, or while they are on their knees. Or both!

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        I’ve always been a fan of trucks and semi’s with sealed compartments, and the exhaust piped through it.

        That way you can just pick up malefic elements right off the street, and transport directly to dump sites, already processed.

        Teutonic efficiency!

        • The Cominator says:

          Politically important leftists who are a threat should go on to their infernal reward in some way quick and humiliating… but for the mass of leftists… most efficient way is to confine them somewhere and not feed them.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            You’d be loading them up on transportion to put them on the reservation anyways (not to mention personnel to keep watch over the place), and if you’re gonna do then then you may as well…

            I agree that the most important angle in *punishments* is the social signal they send; there are men that can be willing to accept deprivation, be willing to accept hardship; but the threat of losing *status*, that touches the amygdala, provokes a visceral reaction, more than fear of death itself even.

    • hopinforabetterfuture says:

      really never understood why it went away. very humane. 6+ full caliber rifle shots to the chest from ~10 yards is instant death. probably painless.

      very cheap too.

      • eternal anglo says:

        I don’t know but I imagine it was something like this
        >Leftists push ‘humane’ methods of execution
        >’humane’ methods are expensive and unreliable with occasional gruesome failures
        >Leftists use this as ammunition to demonize and phase out capital punishment.

        • My take would be that there is a difference between morality and squeamishness. Squeamishness means being against the stuff that looks and feels immoral / violent / bad, basically against stuff that feels shocking, as opposed to deciding your morality in a rational way. Squeamishness is revulsed by blood, by obvious suffering etc. be that a firing squad or public whipping, while easily accepts condemning people to years or decades of boredom in prison because it is not a visible kind of suffering, it just happens inside the soul. The very same “nice” people who would object to 25 with a cane accept condemning a mans soul to the boredom of prison because it is invisible suffering. That is squeamishness. Morality would be thinking about it rationally, instead of being mislead by a spectacle, thinking rationally about the actual suffering involved. Squeamishness is the morality of women, of feminine men, who feel, do not think.

          (And yes, I think there is an existential horror in condemning men to years or decades of soul-crushing boredom in prisons. Whip them if they are bad, and shoot them if they are really bad, but rationally thinking, that sort of boring undead existence is the cruelest punishment.)

          • Besides, the idea of deterrence would be pretty much about making a gruesome spectacle that makes potential criminals sick at the stomach, while the invisible pain of boredom in prison of course absolutely sucks at working as deterrence. And yet, if that gruesome spectacle in case of the less bad criminals is a public whipping, it is rationally more humane to do to them than 5-10 years of soul-crushing boredom.

            • European Mutt says:

              Prison deters exactly the sort of people who don’t need to be deterred–people with good jobs and a family.

        • Not Tom says:

          “Humane” on the left meaning, for those unfamiliar, how said means of punishment makes them (and not the victim) personally feel.

          Since the left hates guns, or at least guns in the hands of an authority they don’t control, firing squads are inhumane. Of course, when the perpetrator is on the left or acting in the interests of the left, any means of punishment whatsoever is inhumane.

  5. BC says:

    The left just control themselves. They got it under control enough for a few days of talking the GOP-CUCKS into helping them and now they’re back to screaming about how they going to lock them all up.

    • Publius says:

      Context?

    • Psywar Man says:

      A large part of this is the online psywar, because we don’t have the MSM. We want the left to lose it and to stay stoic ourselves.

      We had a rough day after the GSA announcement. Today was a good day with the PA showtrial. It’s a war of attrition. Each day is a new battle. That’s why blackpillers are banned. Meanwhile we MUST blackpill them. We’ll know we’ve won when they resort to IRL chimping.

      • Pooch says:

        Excellent. Each day we must not get too high or too low. This is going to be a marathon until the end to bring down the greatest psyop in the history of humankind.

    • jim says:

      Delightful.

      No discipline, and not agreement capable.

      Well, delightful because it makes it likely we will win.

      Would be considerably less delightful if the deep state manages to install Biden in power despite this. They would rapidly drift into war with each other, with the leaderless population of America, with Russia, and with China.

      • pyrrhus says:

        Not likely based on the allegations in Sidney’s GA Complaint, and specifically the explosive footnote 14, which alleges, with an affidavit, manipulation of the election, high treason, in league with China and Iran….http://voxday.blogspot.com/2020/11/mailvox-second-opinion.html#comment-form

        • Not Tom says:

          Yes, alleges. Lots of things being alleged. Not interesting until we see the affidavits. Hyperbolic language like “explosive” is also gay, this isn’t a clickbait factory.

          I really, really hate being put in the position of an “evidence cynic”, but the Qtards are leaving me no choice. Giuliani’s cases are real legal bread and butter that will either force discovery of the chain of custody (or lack thereof) or give Trump grounds to escalate to Supremes and/or invoke the Insurrection Act. Those are the ones that matter right now.

    • peter y connor says:

      Meanwhile, Sidney has filed lengthy and detailed complaints in MI and GA….Interestingly, in GA Democrats had filed suit to remove these voting machines two years earlier, and Sidney might get the same judge….

  6. Theshadowedknight says:

    this is a call to arms. That was a moving speech, and I thought he was going to call people up. He cut himself off, but it sounded like he was about to declare war all on his own. Massive, and it sounds like he is going to try to send Trump electors to the Electoral College. Another great sign. A few more rounds like that, and Trump will have all the legitimacy he could ever need.

    • jim says:

      You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

    • Pooch says:

      Retired Army Colonel. Trump is finding loyalists.

      • jim says:

        There is a good chance he may not find himself retired for much longer.

      • hopinforabetterfuture says:

        The colonel was on Steve Bannon’s show after the hearing and he said he was summoned to the white house the president for dinner after his speech. Me thinks he is being prepped for the necessary contingencies.

    • hopinforabetterfuture says:

      Primer on the colonel:

      Mastriano was commissioned in 1986 and served in Europe on the soviet border and witnessed the collapse of the USSR first hand. His regiment led the attack against the Iraqi republican guard in the gulf war.

      He was the Lead planner for the Invasion of Iraqi in 2003 via Turkey but his plan was denied and Iraq was invaded by other means. 3 tours in Afghanistan and served as director of NATO military intelligence in Afghanistan.

      Taught war strategy and strategic studies at the masters level at the U.S. Army War College and retired in 2017 after 31 years of active duty in the US army. author of several books. wrote a biography on Alvin York.

      The man could be the next Patton if called on.

      • jim says:

        Warrior priest.

        Right man for the job.

      • Yankee Dissenter says:

        If not, he’ll at least be the Duke of Pennsylvania after the dust settles.

      • I find this 2018 article of his highly interesting: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a407262.pdf (PDF)

        • Karl says:

          Interesting indeed, but also strange. It starts like an academic paper and then turns into a novel.

          Surprised me that US officers are writing novels for graduation. Anyway, it shows that Mastriano has been thinking 20 years ago about the problems Trump is facing today. This is a good sign.

          Trump’s recruitment improved a lot in November 2020.

      • arqiduka says:

        For the weirdest reason I’m getting Nutnfancy vibes from the bloke

      • Korth says:

        Giuliani, Pompeo and now this guy Mastriano… why are the strongest Trump allies always Italians? Is it their Roman blood instinctively recognizing a Caesar when they see one?

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          Anglin wrote about this years ago, actually, that Trump should fire his Jews and replace them all with Italians. Similar cagey conspiratorial low trust mafia wars team spirit, but no running side bets against him. And, you know, )))Catholics(((.

        • Not Tom says:

          Italians in America know organized crime when they see it, they know how it works and they know how it can be rolled up. And the fact that they bothered to build up that private empire in the first place means they don’t really trust the permanent government.

          Or maybe it’s just the New York connection. Trump does kind of talk like the NY Italians, just without the actual accent. Connections to contractors and construction companies, and so on.

          I’m surprised to see Pompeo on the list, though, as my understanding of him is at best a fairweather friend of Trump. He seems to have kept a low profile lately but he’s been blamed by the right for all sorts of problems.

  7. jim says:

    > Trump is sending the pardon Flynn’s way. Signaling that he will support those attacked by his enemies?

    If Trump thought he would lose, would pardon him in the last days of the administration. It indicates he thinks he needs his allies to have a free hand right now.

    • hcm says:

      I don’t know how someone quoted and replied within my own post, but this is along the lines of what I was thinking. If it were just cashing out knowing he would lose or concede it wouldn’t be now. Doing it now is a signal.

      • jim says:

        Sorry, as I so often do, I clicked on the edit button when intending to click on the reply button.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        Speaking of which, I’d appreciate comments on why Snowden and Assange aren’t pardoned by now. Why the hell not? Would it piss off people he actually needs?

        • The Cominator says:

          Pompeo who represents certain forces I don’t particularly like said in no uncertain terms Trump would have a 2nd term… they probably aren’t big fans of Assange or Snowden.

          • Pooch says:

            Only people I see bitch about Snowden are libertarians who basically just crypto-shitlibs at this point.

            • jim says:

              Pretty sure that none of the libertarians bitching about Snowden are actual libertarians, just shills.

              But by now there are few or no actual libertarians left.

            • Theshadowedknight says:

              No, there are plenty of people who think Snowden should get a pardon. Lolberterians are a joke, but on this point they are correct. Snowden did nothing wrong. He showed how the American Empire was acting as the Anti-American Empire and seriously damaged the credibility of the intel community. He did us a favor, and hurt our enemies. We should return the favor, especially when it will hurt our enemies a second time.

              • BC says:

                Honestly, Snowden is safer in Russia.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Agreed, but I would like the pardon anyway, to show that what he did may have been illegal, but it was the right thing. Integrity and loyalty to the American people should not mean exile to the wilderness. I want to see Snowden come home to a parade in his honor, to return home a Hero of the Republic for his courage.

                • BC says:

                  Anyone Trump Pardons is unlikely to stay Pardoned. I’m already seeing rumblings about receding them or ignoring them. It’s like Biden will pack the courts and they’ll “make” it legal.

                  Giving Snowden his deserved hero’s welcome is a coup complete problem.

              • pyrrhus says:

                Absolutely agree…Snowden is a brave patriot.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            I see. So he’ll save those pardons for the big final Fuck You blaze of glory.

            Too bad. I mean sure Snowden is kicking it in his dacha, but Assange is eating some serious shit about now, isn’t he?

  8. Theshadowedknight says:

    Trump announces an insurrection. He commands the unorganized militia to seize the election centers and prepare for a proper audit. Protect the evidence, and prepare for the inspection by Trump’s people. The left goes ballistic because they know what an honest count finds. Then the Rubicon is well and truly crossed. That looks like the play.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      I see I see. So Ins-Act specifically for a vote audit, whereupon they burn the bitch down and then “Oh, so it’s like that, is it? Told you!”

      So only a dictator can make a free and fair election possible now. And when the MAGA’s get their heads around that…

      • Theshadowedknight says:

        “Well, regretfully I have to activate the military to audit these ballots and prevent evidence from being destroyed.” The left has a fucking conniption, because they know what an honest audit will uncover. They do something stupid and probably violent, but a desperate attempt to block an honest accounting by the military does enough damage to their image on its own. Honest people don’t try to hide and destroy evidence. “Oh, no! Who could believe the left is so far gone, and these complicit Republicans, too… Oh, for shame! Count all legal votes!”

      • Not Tom says:

        Gateway Pundit is notorious for publishing gay ops bullshit and we need to treat everything coming out of Sidney Powell as inherently suspect until we see her evidence. I know that any competent lawyer wouldn’t publish their evidence before any court proceedings, that would be stupid, but she has repeatedly played this game of “we have all this evidence” and then the evidence has failed to materialize. Saying you have evidence is not the same as having evidence.

        Please, stop posting links to Gateway Pundit, stop parroting Sidney Powell’s statements as though they’re totally trustworthy, and stick to the actual real documented provable cases of fraud so that we don’t look like gullible morons chasing after every attention whore and grifter dangling shiny things in front of us.

        • Pooch says:

          Dude, shut the fuck up. You sound like a faggot. She’s entering her first case today in GA, so we’ll see what happens with it.

          • Not Tom says:

            Not happening. I’ll retract if she produces something of value, but I’m not going to sit here and allow rampant qtard shill narratives to circulate here. And you need to stop immediately launching personal attacks every time someone criticizes qtard shilling. There’s a difference between black-pilling and evidentiary standards.

          • Bilge_Pump says:

            “stfu, u sound like a faggot”

            lol. My own opinion on Sidney is that her campaign to date seems more like an ad for a movie than a serious legal campaign. #KrakenonSteroids, the court cases “will be epic”, etc. I could be wrong, as I thought the same thing about trump in 2016.

  9. European Mutt says:

    About Trump’s state religion. He desperately needs one. I am not worried about Trump’s willingness to do what it takes to get a second term. He may fail, but not because he was timid or cowardly. But I am worried about how he will secure his power after that is done.

    Jim and many others here think the state religion should be Christianity. I agree. The trouble however is, while I can dream about an effectively orthodox nationalized version of Roman Catholicism, this is not at Trump’s disposal right now.

    He showed a lot of balls at Lafayette Park and after at the church where he held up the bible triumphantly:

    https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fs.yimg.com%2Fny%2Fapi%2Fres%2F1.2%2F2lcWfNYx3YZKaicrVizZLA–~A%2FYXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NjA4O2g9MzQyO2lsPXBsYW5l%2Fhttps%3A%2F%2Fs.abcnews.com%2Fimages%2FUS%2Fpresident-trump-bible-ap-jef-200602_hpMain_16x9_608.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

    Trump has enough balls, but do the people who run this very same church have the balls? And do the people who run American churches generally have the balls? Trump is not a catholic, and all the major protestant sects in the US are either descended from or heavily influenced by either puritanism or its descendants. And Trump recently retweeted Franklin Graham, the son of Billy Graham who he was endorsed by but who also had a close relationship with the Clintons, W. and Obama apparently.

    I have a bit of a beef with Billy Graham because he is one of the vehicles by which a beta relative of mine has been shit-tested for nearly 40 years by his wife. This relative emulates his sanctimonious style, believes we live in the end times (coincidentally I will be judged soon for suggesting Russians are laughing at our leftist antics) and that it is holy to vote for more immigration because either love thy neighbor or good samaritan, I can’t remember. This might not be Graham’s fault alone, there are a lot of other influences there, but him being among them does not look good. By their fruits you shall know them.

    I looked a bit at Billy Graham’s materials and what stands out most to me about them is he formulates everything in a gender-neutral way. So anything on male-female relations becomes automatically useless. And this ‘receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior’ also somehow strikes a wrong chord with me, though I am hardly knowledgeable enough in Christian matters to say exactly why. He is probably technically right about many things, but reading his stuff does not give me at all the same feeling of a-ha moments at all as when I just read the bible directly. Another case for “Nullius in verba”, though not “sola scriptura”.

    What, then, is Trump’s avenue to building an American Christianity? This is still quite unclear to me, it is only more or less clear what he should not do. Any Christian experts here can clarify, hopefully even whitepill me on this?

    • Pooch says:

      Trump is not a catholic

      Melania is. Although it’s not ideal, Catholicism may be the closest thing he’s got. Percentage-wise it’s the largest share of church goers now in the US. Everyone likes Orthodox around here but it’s a rounding error in America. I just don’t think it’s realistic. If Trump wins, it likely means men like based Archbishop Vigano, who is fighting against the satanist elements of the Vatican, are able to win as well and gain control of the papacy. All the other right-wing leaders in the world seem to be Catholic too (Brazil, Poland, Hungary, etc).

      • The Cominator says:

        Catholics are overwhelmingly pozzed shitlibs papism should never be our state religion.

        • jim says:

          I know some Catholics. Not overwhelmingly pozzed shitlibs.

          The Church hierarchy is overwhelmingly pozzed shitlibs.

          • Pooch says:

            The laypeople of the Catholic Church await for Satan to release his grip on the Vatican as the American people await for Satan to release his grip on the US Government.

          • chris says:

            For a long time the Church acted as a refuge for gay men to become priests so they could lead a socially legitimate life. Probably why a lot of them in the hierarchy are shitlibs today.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              Things like this are why i often have the idea that holding any office in official power-structures should be contingent on being married with something like at least five children first. And perhaps higher office dependent on something like at least 12 grandchildren from at least three children with wedlock.

              There can always be exceptions within a generation, but cross-generational fitness is a much stronger signal.

      • I thought America’s moral backbone is Southern Baptists. Then I’ve just read an post by Vox Day that Soros bought one of their most prominent preachers.

        Nevertheless, understanding two things 1) most organizations are subverted by entryists 2) the specific strength of Anglo-Americans is doing things on an individual initiative outside established organizations – I would expect that for the sake of this fight those versions of Christianity would work in America that are very decentralized, not very centrally organized. A bit of “guerilla backwoods redpilled Christanity” if you get my point. I don’t think Catholics can fit that bill. Can Southern Baptists? (It is a different question that if and after winning, a more organized state religion is necessary.)

        • The Cominator says:

          The enemy has tried hard to poz the Southern Baptists for years but because its decentralized its had little success.

        • Yankee Dissenter says:

          I’d say broadly that American religiosity has a Calvinistic flavor to it, FWIW. As many here would know, Moldbug talks about this at length.

          But yeah, I’d agree that the American approach to religion is diametrically opposed to centralized religious bureaucracy, and especially religion based around allegiance to a foreign state. Having said that, one of the pitfalls of Protestantism, especially the ‘low church’ flavors of it has been the wholesale jettisoning of the sacraments and other forms of numinous ritualism and practices that’s a key part of any timeless tradition. Sans the real presence of what Christians term the holy spirit, all that’s left over is dead letter legalism and virtue-signaling. Thankfully the practicing of sacraments doesn’t require that aforementioned centralized bureaucracy. The trend of some traditionally-minded protestants converting to Eastern Orthodoxy might signal the move in a more productive and spiritually-affirming direction.

          Disclaimer: I’m not a Christian, nor would I ever try and pass myself off as one. I’m merely offering an outsider observer’s perspective above.

          • Niiiidriveevof says:

            Catholicism is a religion for an empire of many peoples – in fact, a universal empire. It’s not accidental we’re called Roman. Describing it in terms of ceding memetic sovereignty to a foreign power is understandable but politically and historically unaware. Jim wants a world where ‘sovereign states’ are independent except for common submission to the natural law only. Understandably so: this was, more or less, the operating procedure of the most naturally successful peoples in the period characterized by arguably the most conspicuous natural success in history (although the Spanish empire, which followed radically different pre-Westphalian parameters, makes a very strong case for itself).

            Moreover, men today, including Him, share explicitly the belief men of that time lived implicitly: the Satanic inversion subordinating the supernatural order to the natural order. The opening sentence of this post is compatible with that frame, so that I may be better understood in some respects.

            Thirdly, the order of Christendom and universal empire is apparently utopian, and seeking it can look like either a case of immanentizing the eschaton, or a dishonest attempt at domination by a foreign power (though this is begging the question), or really both.

            By the standards of 2020, even the Westphalian order is a distant memory and you’d be forgiven for calling it an impossible utopia too. Liberalism has conquered the whole world, and made a remarkably good start at erasing the memory of its predecessors, like Qin Shi Huang. Fortunately, we have historical evidence to understand that it was both possible and actual, and to understand what made it possible and actual.

            So Jim and men like him set their sights on that target. And indeed, it would be a tremendous success and a blessing to acheive this order again, short-lived though it would be. But there are four flaws here.

            First, when God literally, historically walked on earth as man, He established Catholicism, and all our dogmas were believed from the beginning according to His teaching. There are serious perversions to root out that look to others as inherent to us today (like homosex – a topic for another comment), but this is also true of civil government, and none of you would say civil government should be abandoned, since nature requires it. Since God established episcopal authority, under Rome, it is just as permanent as human nature and civil authority. And that authority demands, with divine warrant, more than Westphalian morality.

            Secondly, the nature of man, natural law, Gnon, requires universal imperium in the same way that it requires imperium over a tribe or a city or a state. Every line of reasoning you believe, that defeats anarchy and proves the need for coercive, authoritative government, applies also to the whole world (only, with far less centralization than we are used to today). That’s been proven by many writers, notably St. Thomas Aquinas, but it used to be common sense, either inherited from the days of the Roman empire in its height, or even more deeply rooted. Catholicism comes not as a foreigner, but as an almost-forgotten memory of a Christian-Roman ‘nation,’ the most naturally successful to have ever walked the earth, the ancestor of almost everyone who can speak a European language, and the reason why our fathers and ourselves have any chance at pleasing heaven and at life after death.

            Third, the supernatural order is superior to the natural order. This is just obvious, both in itself philosophically, and by the universal testimony of all civilized people, Christian and pagan, from all times. It has an even greater claim to be the essence of civilization than the right subjection of women to men has. Jim and men like him choose to deny this, because history has shown that denying the supernatural entirely is too destructive at the natural level. As though natural law were self -contradictory and embedded contradictions in men, like a need for lies to believe in. You should consider that this is the equivalent of conservatism. You see the disease, but you can’t begin to imagine life without the disease, so you plant your flag with older and slightly less malignant forms of the disease. You blame the overall lack of health on not having enough of your kind of disease. What if the natural order always disintegrates when you abandon the supernatural, precisely because the supernatural order is real, demands the subordination of natural ends, and actually addresses original sin? That should be the obvious conclusion, by yourselves, and by the witness of all civilized peoples. It’s even more universal than proper marriage. Even the negroes and aboriginals understand this much.

            Lastly the order of Christendom is not utopian. It existed for far longer than the broken Westphalian order; it was both possible and actual, and we have the records to understand how and why – if we have ears to hear, which is very difficult. The Anglo cultural memory is much more blind than most, here. It is good to return our peoples to a limited, shallow natural law, but it is better to return them to the whole natural law (empire), and best to restore them to supernatural law also. It is all possible.

            • The Cominator says:

              Your 1st point is historical bunk. The ultramonatist papacy did not exist at the time of St Paul, not at the time of Constantine nor even the time of Theodosius but in fact did not exist until the mid 1000s a little before the time of the Norman conquest.

              Your second point is leftist universalism in purple and scarlet.

              Your 3rd point is true but it doesn’t support international churches of any kind.

              Your fourth point is true but irrelevant.

            • jim says:

              Nuts.

              Roman Catholicism is leftist heresy from Orthodox Christianity. The Holy Roman Emperor being weak, they wanted to knock over his applecart. They wanted that which is Caesar’s. That is where your left winger universalism comes from. They succeeded. Then they wanted to knock over the applecarts of assorted Kings. Things eventually got nasty, and Rome was sacked by the Calvinist mercenaries of a Catholic King, after which they calmed down a bit and did the counter reformation.

              They are going to need another counter reformation before they return to genuine Christianity.

              And, speaking genuine Christianity, I am putting you on moderation unless you affirm that Jesus Christ is Lord, born in Bethlehem, died in Jerusalem, that he is from before the beginning of the world, fully man and fully God, God is three and God is one, because I don’t allow people to post leftism from within the frame that they are Christian unless they can affirm Christianity.

              If you cannot say those words I will allow you to comment from within the frame that you are an atheist leftist or demon worshipping leftist who regards Roman Catholicism as a useful tool, but not allow you to comment from within the frame that you are a Christian.

              • The Cominator says:

                God reigns in such a way that the emperor who has tried to destroy Luther for the pope is now forced to destroy the pope for Luther.

                • jim says:

                  Or as the dark enlightenment says, God works through what old type Christians call material and effective causation, which is what moderns call cause and effect, chance, and necessity.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The Luther sack of Rome wasn’t even the 1st time the Pope came under military threat for causing trouble either… in practical terms nobody could ever really accept the papal supremacy in practice, it just didn’t work but it caused a lot of trouble and formented several civil wars within the Holy Roman Empire.

                  The Avignon papacy came about as a result of the Pope trying to tell the king of France what to do and claiming he was his superior.

                  The Pope also tried to at various times stir up civil wars in the Norman kingdoms in Southern Italy but with little success.

                • jim says:

                  Papal supremacy knocked over the holy Roman Emperor’s apple cart and grabbed some of the apples that were rolling around, but it never succeeded in its ostensible aim of improving the apple cart and making it more thoroughly Christian.

                  It destroyed the Christian world order that it was ostensibly reforming.

            • jim says:

              > Lastly the order of Christendom is not utopian. It existed for far longer than the broken Westphalian order;

              The order to which you refer died when Roman Catholicism knocked over the Holy Roman Emperor’s applecart in order to grab some of Caesar’s apples. The Reformation was not chaos, but an unsuccessful response to chaos, and the peace of Westphalia was a mostly successful response to chaos.

              The reformation happened because Kings who found Rome coming after their applecarts backed priests critical of the Roman Catholic Church. This, however merely raised the stakes on the table.

        • hopinforabetterfuture says:

          Most church going protestants go to decentralized churches that cant be bought because they are not part of a organization.

          Centralized protestant church organization is mostly a new england thing as far as i can tell.

          And the TV preachers are known grifters by everyone. thats been known in pop culture for decades and decades.

          • European Mutt says:

            Of course they are grifters, what worries me is that Trump associates with them. He doesn’t even have to denounce them, Trump seems to work on a principle of not making himself more enemies than he has to, which is a good principle.

        • European Mutt says:

          Guerilla backwoods redpilled Christanity does very probably exist in swathes in the US, but Southern baptists don’t look like that to me. They don’t look super pozzed but also not super redpilled, and have a lot of fat and old women fulfilling essentially priestly roles, although at least it’s still somewhat clear the man is the boss:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTbrjhilZNA

          Feels a bit like a Lutheran church service when I was a kid, only they take the priesthood of all believers a lot more seriously. Not good enough for a state religion.

          The men all look average to low T. Nothing about the service is cool or manly. Maybe I did pick a particularly bad example, but the Catholic priests I know are generally manlier for example.

          And then compare this:

          https://ok.ru/video/481158040281

          Trump signalled THIS type of state religion in March.

          • Pooch says:

            His choices as of now are the Catholics of the flyover north and the Baptist types of the south. Those two blocks of whites are showing up to the Trump rallies. Trump has signaled support for both. I’m not sure how you reconcile that in America if you are going to choose one state religion for the entire country.

      • European Mutt says:

        I indeed forgot about Melania.I like Catholicism too and I am very whitepilled about their priests but how can he get the various protestant factions to accept its privileged position? He essentially needs to get to the point where Presbyterianism, Methodism, Baptism and Lutheranism proclaim that their faith, rightly understood, is Trumpist Catholicism. In effect a reversal of the Reformation. I lack the imagination for that.

        Brazil, Poland, Hungary etc. are nearly pure Catholic countries. This is a different situation.

        • The Cominator says:

          “I indeed forgot about Melania.I like Catholicism too and I am very whitepilled about their priests but how can he get the various protestant factions to accept its privileged position?”

          They won’t and putting an international church as your state religion is a very horrible idea. The only way Catholicism might ever be acceptable as a state religion is if the Pope moves to the United States and accepts Imperial supremacy over the Church.

          • Pooch says:

            Would not be the first time the pope moved out of Rome, but yeah not sure how you reconcile it with the Southern Protestants.

            • The Cominator says:

              “Would not be the first time the pope moved out of Rome”

              They didn’t move out voluntarily and they will NEVER move to the United States.

              • Pooch says:

                Archbishop Vigano would if he was made Pope.

                • European Mutt says:

                  Vigano as quasi-Orthodox Patriarch would be by far the best outcome. But how can we get there?

                • European Mutt says:

                  Look like I misread your comment actually, Vigano as Pope of the RCC in America is a remote possibility, but would of course work.

                • jim says:

                  We have Chinese Roman Catholic Pope chosen by the communist party who is a major improvement on the man in the Vatican who bows down before a naked female idol representing the Climate Change demon.

                  Why not an American Roman Catholic Pope chosen by Trump in 2026?

            • clovis says:

              The pope is the antichrist, according to the magisterial reformation, so no. Plus your average American Catholic is basically a conservative mainline protestant with Mary and a liturgical calendar.

              • jim says:

                Francis is not antichrist, just a minion of antichrist. If Trump installs a minion of Trump, will go down like a chocolate milkshake.

                From the great schism to the sack of Rome, Rome was the big player in the game of thrones. Has not been a player for some time, just a servant of the actual players.

                Right now it is a servant of the globalists, which means its behavior resembles its behavior back when it was a player. If securely under the thumb of a power that accepts the Peace of Westphalia, will cease to be a problem.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The Catholic church is the whore of revealation and the end time’s pope is likely the false prophet.

                  Also national churches only. Also papal supremacy is a problem.

    • neofugue says:

      The future American state religion is revived mainline High Protestantism because the Cathedral has a High Protestant background.

      Any functioning [state] religion creates asabiyyah among the elite, which is often referred to as consensus. Unlike the prole, who is inculcated into Progressive memetic frameworks by education, media and entertainment, the elite has only itself to look at.

      We are an elite because we formulate our own consensus, one example being our “anticoncept.” The importance of the rectification of names is the demonstration that we are mimetically independent.

      Trump cannot form an American state religion based on Evangelicalism, Catholicism, or Southern Baptism because these groups do not have consolidated elites who form their own consensus. “Catholic,” “Evangelical,” “Baptist,” and “Mormon” elites are all but Cathedralites. As OP states, Billy Graham uses gender-neutral language regarding gender-specific subjects.

      Implementing a religion alien to the Cathedral would require liquidating most of the American elite, while reinstating mainline Protestantism would only require sending a modest amount to Alaska. Even if the former were implemented, there would be no elite to replace that of the Cathedral.

      Trump becoming Constantine depends on his ability to revive mainline Protestantism. If Trump cannot, then we will have to wait for Rome, 312.

      • Pooch says:

        A King creates a virtuous elite, as King Alfred the Great and Charles the Second did.

        Our elite are evil and unvirtuous and cannot be revived. The arc of history seems to indicate it is time for a King to create a new elite. Hopefully Trump is that King.

        • neofugue says:

          Problem is we do not have the human capital to replace our current elite, so any new elite must be taken from the Cathedral. A king cannot make a group of peasants a nobility any more than a college professor can make a woman a man.

          One reason why American Christianity has capitulated to Leftism is the absence of coordinated elites in the churches. Intelligent people born in the churches get sent to the Cathedral, become Cathedralites, and return as entryists. The only Christians remaining are high-functioning proles, such as Jerry Falwell Jr. and Billy Graham.

          If Christians had an elite, they would not fixate on abortion and instead work on building alternative schools and forming early marriages.

          • The Cominator says:

            “Problem is we do not have the human capital to replace our current elite, so any new elite must be taken from the Cathedral”

            What a load of crap, nearly all cathedral functionaries are midwits or dumber nowadays. If everyone connected to the Cathedral were killed nothing of value would be lost.

            • neofugue says:

              If that were true, the elite would not send their girls to the Cathedral to be whores. Cathedral priests are mostly midwits or dumber, but the overall elite is Progressive. They may be hesitant about some of the more extreme aspects of the Cathedral, but when push comes to shove they will side with them, just as the Russian elite capitulated to the Bolsheviks.

              • European Mutt says:

                What is the ‘overall elite’? Even if we only take the old generation, which seems to be the smartest of the bunch, but rapidly dying off, they don’t seem too smart.

                Biden (in his best years), Pelosi, Romney, Merkel etc. are at best midwits.

                Trudeau and Macron look to me like IQ 100 max. Omar is IQ 85 or something.

                If you mean the spooks and civil service, they rather tend to more extreme Cathedral than not. Civil service looks midwit based on the leaked video conferences of DC antifa moonlighters. Of course spooks probably have some smart people left, but that is not the visible elite, so doesn’t count.

                If you mean Soros or Schwab, I think they are midwits too. They blather a lot and do not even understand the ideas they are supposedly talking about. Soros made a lot of money but that’s because he can just bail himself out whenever he wants to. Does not imply intelligence.

                If you mean businessmen, they tend to be stupid and naive about their daughters’ sexual behavior, but they only support the Cathedral out of fear.

                If that were true, the elite would not send their girls to the Cathedral to be whores.

                How does that follow? Religion and fear work on smart people too.

                • neofugue says:

                  Our overall elite are the people who form what is referred to as the “upper middle class,” and work in “upper middle class” professions. These consist of doctors, lawyers, bankers, high-level accountants, engineers, and so forth. They go to the good schools, enter the good colleges, and get the good career tracks. They have roughly 2.5 children per family, live in $1.5-6 million homes, and drive around in fancy cars. Being a college professor is not as desirable as working on Wall Street in these circles.

                  They are also for the most part devout progressives, although some are less devout than others. Namefag Moldbug caters to the less devout, which is why he supported Biden and softens his message. His recent interviews make more sense if you view them as Moldbug trying to connect emotionally with young upper middle class people, not as him pontificating to them.

                  These people will never go for Southern Baptism or Evangelicalism. Catholicism is a better option, but these people are more closely aligned with mainline Protestantism than anything else.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The technical ones live and the priestly ones die.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “They are also for the most part devout progressives”

                  All devout progressives must die or at least be exiled to some remote wilderness. There is no other way.

                  Accountants and bankers are almost never progressives btw. Doctors and engineers are a mixed bag. Most lawyers are as they benefit from progressive insanity and are sort of the ruling part of the priesthood. If we win this the vast majority of lawyers are for the helicopters, Shakespeare was right. We will not miss them.

                  If we lose this the vast majority of lawyers will end up there too…

                • European Mutt says:

                  So by elite you mean what Moldbug calls Brahmins, more or less. OK that makes more sense.

                  Moldbug’s/Yarvin’s strategy of converting Brahmins might have worked, but it is now too late.

                  Business types and doctors in America that I’ve talked to don’t seem too much like progressive fanatics to me. Jim once commented (I don’t know where) that when they’re drunk businessmen reveal they are afraid of the left. They sure are here too. Therefore they will probably have no problem with Catholicism, but yes Southern Baptism is not very culturally compatible. Lawyers, or 95% of them, are cancer anyway.

                • neofugue says:

                  It is not that being bloodthirsty is not something unconscionable, it is that any replacement elite must take people who are genetically elite in the first place.

                  I can make these claims about the elite because I have lived with them my entire life.

                  There is wide variance in each upper middle class profession; for example, an investment banker can be making anywhere from $50 thousand to $10 million a year. Accountants in general are lower middle class, but not those who go through the big four and end up as CFOs. There is a difference between the midwit who works as a judge and the elite who works at a big law firm.

                  The problem is that the technical elites are Progressives.

                • jim says:

                  > The problem is that the technical elites are Progressives.

                  No they are not. When progs take over a tech business, it stops being able to do tech. Intel’s fabs died of progressivism.

                • neofugue says:

                  In general elites are amoral, and only believe in Progressivism as it is respectable. However, history shows that when upper society goes Leftist, the elite follow suit, as was the case in the Russian Revolution.

                  In order to give our elite a new religion, it has to be culturally compatible, and the only religion in that regard would be mainline Protestantism. Any other option would require a complete paradigm shift after Leftism is destroyed.

                • European Mutt says:

                  Cominator how do you decide which lawyers get the helicopter?

                  Helicoptering high-ranking Democratic party members immediately looks like fair game to me. The rest should probably get a trial, because e.g. Tulsi is certainly a leftist, but stood up to the permanent government to a certain extent etc.

                  Somehow I get more pleasure from thinking AOC or a still hot lawyer slut would be sold off as a concubine than just throwing them in the Pacific.

                  Or an ambulance chaser, as another commenter once put it, paying off the national debt in a Chinese thorium mine.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Tulsi is a new agey type lefitst not a progressive. New agey type leftists are genuinely harmless, they actually tend to hate progressives and tend to become redpilled as time goes on, I’d spare her. Only Democrat who holds office at the Federal level I’d spare.

                  Lawyers would basically have to prove that they were Trump supporters or totally anti political. Donated to democrats ever (unless it was years ago and then you donated to Trump) or posted anti Trump shit… well then you’ve won a ride.

                  Yes leftists who were hot women would be sold off as concubines just because there are too many prog women compared to men. There would literally have to be locked up when not in “use”… they would not be allowed to spread their bad ideas.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Women don’t have “ideas,” they get them. If you sell her, literally sell her in chains, the only ideas she will receive will be her owner’s and his superiors’ ideas. As long as she gets a regular dicking from her owner and the occasional reminder that she is property, not a wife, she is unlikely to be a problem.

                  The woman question answers all. What woman is a threat to society? Unowned women. What women should we eliminate? Unopened women. Have an auction of all the questionably objectionable women. Those who are purchased are saved, those who are not purchased are loaded on the helicopters. Then any further misbehavior is her owner’s responsibility.

                • European Mutt says:

                  ‘New agey type leftists’ I like that word. Makes sense.

                  With lawyers I did not even consider donations/social media. But yes in America that is a huge factor.

                  I was honestly thinking more about what the lawyer is doing day-to-day. Like ambulance chasing, drive-by lawsuits, cease and desist, discrimination lawsuits, legalized extortion, all sorts of lawfare.

                  All that prole moms (at least here in Europe) teach their kids not to do, because it’s dishonest, and upper-middle class has no problem with. They deserve to be slaves, because that’s just a taste of their own medicine as they ruined countless other lives.

                • Pooch says:

                  They have roughly 2.5 children per family

                  Bullshit.

                  America’s elite are failing to reproduce. Did you not read Jim’s piece on this page? It will take a century to create a virtuous elite again if we start now.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  The thing needed to rebuild the elite is a vigorous policy promoting eugenics. Not top-down eugenics, but encouragement among the intellectual elite to breed and reproduce. Are you a capable engineer, doctor, lawyer, priest, or other useful profession? Have lots of kids, we’ll turn a blind eye to a mistress or two so long as you take care of the kids, big family gets social approval, etc. Take a lesson from the French and get used to elite men having plenty of kids, and don’t get too bent out of shape over a mistress.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “The thing needed to rebuild the elite is a vigorous policy promoting eugenics. Not top-down eugenics, but encouragement among the intellectual elite to breed and reproduce.”

                  If there is one idea the early progs favored I agree with I favor explicit top down eugenics for your real top geniuses. I know the children don’t always inherit high intelligence but they often do.

                • neofugue says:

                  I am referring to the portion of the elite that has 2 or 3 kids per family and lives in wealthy suburbs. It’s not 2.5 kids per family, more like 2.2 kids per family, I miswrote.

                  There is a significant portion of the elite that do not have any children, which causes the birth rate to fall. Especially among elite women who become childless career woman cat ladies.

                  Overall, the birth rate for elites is about 1.5 births per woman, less for elite women, higher for elite men. Elite men often marry lower caste women and have less intelligent children as a result, so adjusted is 1.2-1.3 births per woman.

                • jim says:

                  Problem is that elite males have 2.2 kids, and their elite daughters seldom have any kids.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            >If Christians had an elite, they would not fixate on abortion and instead work on building alternative schools and forming early marriages.

            Presupposes a Christian elite already possessing organs of power dominant over society, rather than their enemies seeking to destroy any such upgrowths of civilization whenever they become successful enough to notice.

  10. Edit_XYZ says:

    https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/1331263779418550272

    “The Trump admin is extending background vetting of Pentagon appointees to nonpolitical expert roles, current & former officials said, a move that is said to be hampering think tank experts & outside advisors from consulting w/ DoD”

    The trump administration keeps making changes in Pentagon personnel policy.
    I think they think there’s a pretty good chance these changes will stick; else, why bother for a few weeks?

    • The Cominator says:

      This is indeed a whitepill thank you for this.

      • BC says:

        Trump’s leaving his options for crossing the Rubicon open. I pray he pulls the trigger.

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          The idea of course is that if it’s evident he can do the Ins-Act and have it work out, then he won’t have to, because the D’s will back down to stay out of jail. Or at least the smart ones would sell out the dumb and dangerous if it looked like it was about to happen, and thus another reason he wouldn’t need to do it, etc.

          But if the opposition is just too leaderless, agreement incapable and high on their own supply, then…

          Obviously this DoJ business just now about bringing back firing squads — I mean fucking firing squads, people — is part of this signaling. Like Scott Adams says, like with “The Wall”, you need to give people a meme that they can’t help but see in their heads. Because really now, what a dang coincidence.

  11. Kevin C. says:

    How do you all stay so upbeat? I mean, everywhere I look, I see reasons for despair. Outside of this space, pretty much everybody seems to be caving to the inevitability of Biden. The pro-Trump normies I encounter all reject the idea of him crossing the Rubicon, often holding only a leftie in the depths of TDS could write the sort of libelous doom-porn that he would ever do something so transgressive of our Sacred Values as to try to become dictator like the left has long falsely accused him of, or that he might be willing, but if he tried, they and most of the rest of the right would rightly abandon this violation of our Sacred Values, and surely all our military men would obey their Sacred Oath and then remove the Usurper Trump, along with deservedly gunning down any “fascist” who would continue to support him in such an Unconstitutional act. That “even 1% chance of civil war” is too dangerous to contemplate given how much the world depends on Pax Americana.

    The further right, less normie sorts are, where possible, applying for passports and preparing international bug-out bags. The religious ones are mostly just seeing to the states of their individual souls, so that being murdered by the left under Biden/Harris just means getting into heaven sooner.

    I see no evidence that SCOTUS will hear a vote-theft case before the deadline, and at least some indicators that they *won’t*.

    So, again, how do you do it? How do you maintain “patience” and faith when everywhere I look, all I see is that we’re all going to die? Why are none of you concerned that it’s almost guaranteed that every single one of us will be murdered by leftist foot-soldiers (official or unofficial) during the Biden/Harris mass purge of the right? I ask here, because this is the most secular “optimistic right” space; in most any other right-wing space, the reason for optimism is always “God will see us through.” Is it just that all of you have the money and resources to quickly flee to a foreign country before things get too bad? Because, unfortunately, I’m dirt-poor and entirely stuck where I am.

    • The Cominator says:

      “he pro-Trump normies I encounter all reject the idea of him crossing the Rubicon, often holding only a leftie in the depths of TDS could write the sort of libelous doom-porn that he would ever do something so transgressive of our Sacred Values”

      I’m not entirely upbeat but where do you get this shit… the Trump supporters I talk to are aware they want permanent lockdowns a great reset and that they plan to kill their dogs (not all have seen the Covid dog article but every Trump supporter I shows it to reads it the same way I do) and then progress to killing most white males and republicans in general.

      “The religious ones are mostly just seeing to the states of their individual souls, so that being murdered by the left under Biden/Harris just means getting into heaven sooner.”

      These types also favor a coup. Of course a Christian should not fear death, but he is bound to fight demonic forces taking over his own country.

      • Kevin C. says:

        “I’m not entirely upbeat but where do you get this shit…”

        My social circles here in Alaska, my family, right-wing Tumblr, the web in general…

        “These types also favor a coup.”

        Not in my experience. They’re all “turn the other cheek” and “what does it profit to gain the world and lose your soul” and “God calls us to be saints and martyrs” and all that — firmly convinced that only “passive resistance” is acceptable (read the folks over in Rod Dreher’s circles), and that taking up arms will see them assuredly damned to hell for all eternity, thus better to engage in unarmed disobedience, so as to die an innocent martyr and attain heaven.

        • Mike in Boston says:

          firmly convinced that only “passive resistance” is acceptable… and that taking up arms will see them assuredly damned to hell

          This attitude was to be found even among Russian Christians who lived through the Bolshevik takeover of their country and its attendant slaughter. Ivan Ilyin addressed it in his book “On Resistance to Evil By Force”. But that book is about as dense as you would expect a Russian work of philosophy to be, so possibly not the best thing to send all your friends.

          More accessible is a favorable review of Ilyin’s book by his contemporary, the Russian Orthodox bishop Antony Khrapovitsky, who points out that

          the non-resisters… are able to continue their existence only thanks to the presence of an army and police in any cultured nation and which are consequently responsible for those punitive laws which are in force in their country. Not all citizens are executioners and not all of them are in military combat, but without an army and executioners they could not live in safety and, consequently, if war and execution are sins, they are everyone’s sins.

          My reading of Ilyin and of Metropolitan Khrapovitsky is that they are saying that killing is a sin when it is done out of anger or hatred, but not when it is done with the motive of protecting the innocent from evildoers.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/misc/ch-war-pac.htm

          ” Practice husbandry, we say, if you are a husbandman; but while you till the fields, know God. Sail the sea, you who are devoted to navigation, yet call the while on the heavenly pilot. Has (saving) knowledge taken hold of you while engaged in military service? Listen to the commander who orders what is right. ”
          – Clement of Alexandria

    • Not Tom says:

      How do you all stay so upbeat?

      1. We ignore the gaystream media.
      2. We look to history, rather than last Tuesday, as a guide.
      3. We make arrangements to survive no matter how bad it might get.

      • Kevin C. says:

        “We look to history, rather than last Tuesday, as a guide.”

        Yeah, and I see history of the left taking power, like in Soviet Russia or Szechuan, and people like me and my family all being dead.

        “We make arrangements to survive no matter how bad it might get.”

        Unfortunately, I lack the means to make any such arrangements. If — when — things go bad, I’m screwed.

        • Not Tom says:

          You said you’re in Alaska, seems pretty safe to me.

          Yes, there is a history of successful leftist coups. And there is a history of failed leftist coups. Right now this still looks more like the failed coups, although the evidence does not swing entirely one way.

          What history definitely does predict is that the left cannot continue for much longer. It will be stopped, if not by an Augustus or Sulla than by a Cromwell or Stalin. The latter means a great deal of casualties, the former means an order of magnitude fewer casualties which is still a lot.

          That’s all we know. There’s very little you or I can do at this point to change the outcome, so why wring our hands over it?

          • The Cominator says:

            Leftists singularities do not always get stopped internally, Cambodia and Szechuan were only stopped by foreign invasion.

          • Kevin C. says:

            > “That’s all we know. There’s very little you or I can do at this point to change the outcome, so why wring our hands over it?”

            First, because what sort of plans one makes changes greatly depending on whether or not you expect to be alive 1-2 years from now.

            Secondly, because I was raised in a household where every time we left the house, we had to first double, and even triple check that every window was absolutely shut tight and firmly barred, that every burner on the stove was totally off and pushing the knobs against their stops again and again, that the door was indeed locked, both knob and deadbolt.

            Because if a single window was anything less than firmly secure, 100% guaranteed a burgler would break-in via it, and steal everything we own. And it would be my fault for being too lazy to triple-check. And if every stove knob wasn’t firmly to the stops, the house 100% guaranteed would burn down, and then we’d be homeless and freeze to death in the winter, and we’d deserve it for being so lax as to not do everything to prevent it.

            We may not believe in God in our house, but we were raised to believe in Murphy. The universe is out to get us. The merest instant you stop considering every single thing that could possibly go wrong and putting every effort into preventing all of them, is the moment disaster falls in on you, and the resulting suffering and doom will thus be entirely your fault for failing to prevent it.

            It’s a product of how my mom was raised by her own mother (Grandpa being schizophrenic), an alcoholic German Catholic who combined Catholic guilt and Teutonic gloom with an ability to spin out scenarios in which the smallest lapse can lead inevitably to death or destitution.

            Again, it was ingrained by my upbringing that it is my absolute duty to spend your waking moment to worry over every possible problem, and if I ever shirk this duty for a moment, not only will terrible things happen to me, I’ll deserve all of them.

            Sure, other people don’t have that problem, and can sometimes get by without spending every moment worrying. But that’s only for *other people* in *other families*; the universe might let *them* go unpunished, but *never* our family; the universe has it out for our family in particular. So goes the narrative I was raised with.

            • Not Tom says:

              Sounds gay.

              Worrying is adaptive to the extent that it causes you to prepare for real eventualities, and solve minor problems before they escalate. It’s maladaptive when you neurotically tear your hair out over shit that you could not possibly prevent or change.

              It doesn’t really matter if it’s your choice, your upbringing, or your literal DNA. You’re aware of it, which means you can stop it.

    • Nicodemus Rex says:

      There are plenty of reasons to be afraid, but it’s crazy to believe that there are any pro-Trump normies who still respect the constitution. Who are you talking to? The people who call Trump the “God-Emperor” or crack jokes about Trump 2024 and Trump 2028 (and there are many of them) genuinely *want* a dynasty where Trump is succeeded by his sons — although they would still call it “democracy” long after democracy has been dissolved.

      • Kevin C. says:

        > Who are you talking to?

        My parents, my brothers, my IRL friends, people out in meatspace.

        > The people who call Trump the “God-Emperor” or crack jokes about Trump 2024 and Trump 2028 (and there are many of them)

        I’ve only ever seen them online, never met one in person, so my estimation is that we’re a tiny minority, whose appearance seems larger when you look at internet “bubbles.”

        I’m the only person in my IRL social circles who finds a Trump dynasty anything but horrifying.

        • The Cominator says:

          I believe you said you were in Alaska correct. Is your family there as well. Alaska is cold remote and on the periphery and is more likely a place where enemies are sent to but probably leftism falls less hard on the natives.

          In Florida the local rednecks and Christian’s are pissed off and redpilled about the left’s intentions and want Trump to cross the rubicon.

          • Kevin C. says:

            Yes, my family is all here in Alaska, too. And no, despite having the climate to be America’s Siberia, it is not yet “a place where enemies are sent to” so much as a forgotten appendage where the crappiest of goods are shipped off to (at a great markup).

            > but probably leftism falls less hard on the natives.

            Well, it falls “less hard” on the capital-n Natives, but given that our primary industries are, in order, petroleum, mining, and tourism (with gov’t funds pretty much making up the rest), and we’ve been hemorrhaging people and jobs since something like 2004 because there’s so few jobs and the cost of living is so high (because everything has to be shipped here), and 90% of the land is locked up in either State or National Parks, and we have some of the highest per-capita gun stats, because we’ve got grizzlies and wolves and moose…

            Perhaps we’re just too used to being screwed over by a Fed government that seems to frequently forget we’re even a state. And because so much of our “local” politics comes down to the feds — what the EPA will or won’t allow, what of our federal taxed we can manage to claw back, what foreign policy does to our oil prices, what latest nonsense the Natives are demanding that the Feds force us to cave to despite the Native Claims Settlement Act, etc.

            • R7 Rocket says:

              Keep in mind that Kevin C. didn’t think that Elon Musk’s reusable boosters could land and be reused.

              • Kevin C. says:

                As I corrected you when you previously attributed this position to me:

                No, I was the one arguing on Outside In that manned moon colonies do not look to be anywhere near economically viable anytime soon. Sure, space is getting cheaper, especially non-manned and LEO stuff, but there’s not yet anything out there worth enough money to defray the costs of maintaining a large, long-term human-habitable environment. (I also maintain that the same thing is true, to a lesser degree, of “seasteading” — there’s no business one can engage in upon a seastead that can’t be done more cheaply, with better living conditions, elsewhere on land, save those that will have a US Navy destroyer parked along side your “seastead” in short order.)

                And we’ve since seen that with regards to my parenthetical, you don’t even need a US Navy destroyer, just threats from the Thai navy.

                Sure, Musk’s boosters make space cheaper, but not enough to make off-world human habitation net-economically-productive. Whatever a space colony produces won’t be enough to offset the costs of the needed materials brought in from Earth, and thus will require continuous investment from deep pockets, which, given politics, are unlikely to remain deep enough and available enough for long enough.

                • jim says:

                  > Musk’s boosters make space cheaper, but not enough to make off-world human habitation net-economically-productive.

                  No one is going to care whether they are net economically productive, only that they can survive without subsidy. Elites are always fleeing other elites, which was the original motive for settling the Americas, and we have run out of places to flee to.

                • Kevin C. says:

                  “No one is going to care whether they are net economically productive, only that they can survive without subsidy.”

                  And I’m saying they won’t be able to survive without subsidy, because they won’t be capable of being totally self-sustaining; they’ll continue to need imports of various resources from Earth, which resources they will be unable to afford to buy without subsidy, because they won’t sell enough to afford to meet costs.

                • jim says:

                  Resources are the smallest part of an advanced economy, and the more advanced the economy the smaller the part.

                  All the resources that anyone would need are available on Mars, though some, in particular water and air, will be more difficult, inconvenient, and expensive to obtain.

                  The hard bit is not resources, but a chip fab.

                  We are going to need heavy reliance on batteries and electric motors, and rare earths will be rarer. Lithium will probably be OK. We can do electric motors without rare earths, though it is slightly inconvenient. Should be plenty of platinum, more than on Earth and more accessible than on Earth, so we can do fuel cells instead of batteries.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Kevin C.

                  You corrected nothing. In fact, you failed to answer my question on the difference between SLS and SpaceX Starship. You’re not tall enough for any discussion on Elon Musk’s boosters.

        • Not Tom says:

          These people may be filtering their public thoughts. You might not be that good at getting people to loosen up, in meatspace, as you say. Try having the conversation after everyone’s downed plenty of whiskey.

          • Kevin C. says:

            Again, this includes immediate family, in the privacy of home. Not exactly “filtering their public thoughts” there, whiskey or no.

            • Not Tom says:

              Boomers gonna boomer, but don’t underestimate the level of fear, even where you might think it’s “private”, where it is often not very private.

        • Nicodemus Rex says:

          Hmm, I don’t know any open conservatives, and I live and study in a place where being openly conservative would be social suicide. When I get (productive) people drunk there are at least 10% that basically want to helicopter leftists — “ironically” of course, that irony being a shield against potential blackmailing and betrayal. I’ve always assumed in places with less censorship and repression there would be a lot more reactionary beliefs, but maybe that’s not the case (perhaps you need to see the left up close to be truly red-pilled.)

          In any case, I do think the right has a problem in that they are too passivist — most conservatives I know think they can *survive* even if vote fraud makes the U.S a one-party state. They’re essentially smart, competent people, and they think that if they keep a tight lid on their beliefs, work diligently, and evade SJWs and anyone even tangentially associated with social justice, they can avoid being killed for insufficient leftism while this thing “blows over.” Massive normalcy bias, which will make it tough to go to war.

        • S.J., Esquire says:

          > I’ve only ever seen them online

          You’ve “only ever seen this online” – but yet you know people “in real life” preparing “international bugout bags” and expecting to get murdered in the next year or two. Cripes, you’re fake and gay.

          • bjorn says:

            To be fair, there’s a not-insignificant difference between taking defensive preparations for the event of a leftist takeover and being willing to actually go on the offensive. Certainly at least some people are characterized by the former but not the latter.

            • Kevin C. says:

              Exactly. They’re very much “can’t beat it, but can escape it” — they’re not “willing to actually go on the offensive” because they see it as suicidal — cue pointing to Waco & Ruby Ridge — but see fleeing as an option — packing up and leaving for “the frontier” being the American Way (see also “white flight”).

              • jim says:

                Kenosha shows we are flat out of places to flee to within the United States.

                If you are planning to flee, prepare an identity on the borders of the American empire, and wait for the empire to recede. The borderlands of the Roman Empire remained reasonably pleasant places for centuries after the Roman empire became hellish and dangerous, though they eventually collapsed back to utter darkness.

                Mars is the long term solution, civil war (which will officially not be civil war if we win) a solution that will work for several generations, time enough to get to Mars.

                • Kevin C. says:

                  “Kenosha shows we are flat out of places to flee to within the United States.”

                  Indeed, hence “international.”

                  “If you are planning to flee, prepare an identity on the borders of the American empire”

                  Which places might that be? And what about those of us who such places will not let in (because nobody wants to let in disabled burdens)?

    • onyomi says:

      I’m not saying I expect it to be extremely likely that Trump will declare the Insurrection Act, not because he’d fail, but because I worry he may himself suffer a degree of normalcy bias and feeling constrained to operate “within the system.”

      That said, in the case he does decide to take an extraordinary measure like declaring the Insurrection Act I’m not particularly worried that a lot of normies will see this as an unacceptable violation of our “sacred norms and institutions.”

      As an example, my Dad, a moderate conservative boomer, calls me up the other day and says, “Well, it looks like Biden’s gonna win…” and I say, “yeah, but this election was totally rigged.” His reaction was not, “oh, that’s crazy talk. Sure there might have been a little fraud but elections are mostly secure enough as to not matter outside of razor thin margins.” No, his reactions was, “yeah, with all this mail-in stuff I’m sure it was a lot easier to cheat,” etc. That the election was rigged is not a fringe position, it’s a mainstream position. Therefore, all Trump needs to maintain the veneer of legitimacy is to couch anything he does in terms of ensuring the integrity of our sacred institutions, not discarding them because they’re already meaningless.

      Will CNN accept this? No. But CNN doesn’t fight. Would my Dad accept it? Maybe. But he won’t be out in the streets either, or, if he were, it wouldn’t be to protect the legitimacy of the Biden administration from evil usurper Trump.

      A Civil War isn’t an opinion poll. What matters is whom you can rally to your side. Clearly Trump supporters are more numerous, better armed, and better trained than Biden supporters. Of course it also matters how much support he has within armed forces, etc. but I get the sense that the rank-and-file of police departments, whatever their mayors may say, also are pretty pro-Trump.

      As we’ve seen with Leftist behavior all summer people in general only need the flimsiest of excuses to fight for their side when they have a cause or a leader they believe is just. The case that Trump’s presidency and the election system have been and are under attack is easy for Trump to make. He may not have support in three-letter agencies etc. but he has massive support for almost anything he could do in the general public, I’d wager, especially among those who’d actually be out in the streets. A large percentage might object in the abstract to any particular extraordinary measure you might name, but if Trump actually seized the reins would they really go to bat for Biden? Doubtful.

      Again, I’m not mega-confident Trump will do it, but if he choses to wield power I believe it’s there for him to wield.

      As for what to do on a more personal level–not gonna lie, I’m super depressed about the state of the world right now, especially wrt lockdown insanity and how it seems to be going on almost everywhere. Even nice, traditional societies like Thailand are under assault. But I suspect an anti-globalist reaction must be brewing, maybe one that will make Brexit look like patty-cake in comparison. Being in America, I suspect the key will be to be in a rural place, ideally in a place where the local government doesn’t suck, e.g. Florida. If Trump won’t wield power I suspect people like DeSantis will before it gets to “roving bands of Kamalabots murdering random Trump supporters” level.

      So that could be reason for optimism from a more libertarian perspective, though not so much if you currently live in Michigan or Pennsylvania. 2020: the year global anti-government sentiment went through the roof and the states of the United States became “states” in a sense that mattered again.

      • Kevin C. says:

        > As an example, my Dad, a moderate conservative boomer

        Yeah, my parents are similar on the election fraud. But then, they’ve said that about a lot of past elections too. Their position is that, yes, Biden stole the election… so now we’re stuck with him as president. And that Trump needs to knock it off and concede already, because he’s only just antagonizing the left, and that just makes them crack down on us harder — we on the right need to shut up, keep our heads down, and not do anything that might attract the attention of leftist overseers lest we taste their lash. The idea that we might truly *fight* this is anathema, evoking horror — do you realize what the Left would do to us after such an attempt fails!? The idea that we might possibly win is *inconceivable*; as far as their concerned.

        > Clearly Trump supporters are more numerous, better armed, and better trained than Biden supporters.

        But, as we’ve seen, much less willing to actually *use* violence. And when we do, well… Kyle Rittenhouse is going to die behind bars. Plus, we’re much less coordinated than the Left, as David Hines has repeatedly pointed out. And we’re well past the Age of the Gun; the armed forces that matter far more than civilians with civilian-legal weaponry.

        > I get the sense that the rank-and-file of police departments, whatever their mayors may say, also are pretty pro-Trump.

        Sure, but I get the sense, based on plenty of experience, that the rank-and-file will put obedience to orders from above (those mayors and police chiefs) over their own personal opinions. And the military veterans I’ve talked to say this even more for the rank-and-file troops: coups are only something that happens in *other countries*, that since the Civil War the armed forces have worked to instill a spirit of being “apolitical” and obedience to orders over personal affinities to ensure a split of the troops as happened then can never happen again, and that it doesn’t matter how “Red Tribe” the rank-and-file soldier is and how much he disagrees politically with left-wing generals and the orders they issue, he’ll always, always, always obey anyway, and that it doesn’t matter if the rank-and-file personally favor Trump, when the generals decide otherwise, 95% of them will fall in line, if only motivated by the example set by the remaining 5% who disobey ending up spending the rest of their lives in Leavenworth for mutiny pour encourager les autres.

        > As we’ve seen with Leftist behavior all summer people in general only need the flimsiest of excuses to fight for their side when they have a cause or a leader they believe is just.

        No, we’ve seen that that’s true for *leftists*. People like my kin, my friends, with jobs and bills to pay and kids to feed… it seems like *nothing* will ever motivate them to fight.

        > but he has massive support for almost anything he could do in the general public,

        Again, that’s not what I’m seeing, particularly with regards to “crossing the Rubicon.”

        > But I suspect an anti-globalist reaction must be brewing, maybe one that will make Brexit look like patty-cake in comparison.

        And it will be crushed, or at least hollowed-out into meaninglessness like Brexit was hollowed out.

        > Being in America, I suspect the key will be to be in a rural place, ideally in a place where the local government doesn’t suck, e.g. Florida.

        Well, Alaska is quite rural, and it’s mostly the town rather than state government that sucks, but we’re far too often constrained in what we can do, locally, by what the Feds do. Particularly given how we’ve just had a big chunk of our economy killed (tourism), and Biden is almost certain to kill the rest (petroleum & mining).

        > If Trump won’t wield power I suspect people like DeSantis will before it gets to “roving bands of Kamalabots murdering random Trump supporters” level.

        If Trunp can’t pull it off, then someone like DeSantis, with even less power, almost certainly won’t be able to. More likely, he’s one of the first to be murdered by “roving bands of Kamalabots.” If Biden takes the White House, there will be no force left in America capable of stopping the Left from murdering us all. When that happens We. Are. All. Going. To. Die.

        • The Cominator says:

          “Yeah, my parents are similar on the election fraud. But then, they’ve said that about a lot of past elections too. Their position is that, yes, Biden stole the election… so now we’re stuck with him as president. And that Trump needs to knock it off and concede already, because he’s only just antagonizing the left, and that just makes them crack down on us harder — we on the right need to shut up, keep our heads down, and not do anything that might attract the attention of leftist overseers lest we taste their lash. The idea that we might truly *fight* this is anathema, evoking horror — do you realize what the Left would do to us after such an attempt fails!? The idea that we might possibly win is *inconceivable*; as far as their concerned.”

          I ask again what part of the country is your father in. I live in Trump country in Florida where people support him and wear shirts signaling that they like being able to own automatic weapons very openly here. Its not the attitude I see.

          Everyone knows if they stole this one by such an implausible magnitude every future election will be stolen this way. The Soviet Union, Hussein’s Iraq and North Korea had elections too. People know the stakes, some people think maybe the most extreme shit won’t happen but everyone knows that they will try.

          I suppose its possible that Florida’s right wing has become more radical than most of the country because the local rednecks talk to cuban escapees and right wing refugees from Northern states (who tend to be fanatics who really hate the left) but I doubt it.

          • Kevin C. says:

            > I ask again what part of the country is your father in.

            Alaska. And both he and my brother (who sells guns for a living) own quite the panoply of firearms (and reload ammunition themselves). And would indeed love to own automatic weapons. And my brother wears plenty of pro-gun clothing (again, he sells them).

            And for all that, the idea of actually *using* those against a Biden takeover… nonsense, that’s outright suicide! And besides, it’s still “too soon”… Democrats have been stealing elections for years, already; if that was worth risking a almost-certainly-losing civil war, then that war would have been launched back in ’96-97 after Clinton’s second “win.”

            > I suppose its possible that Florida’s right wing has become more radical than most of the country

            And I suspect your particular corner of Florida’s right wing is more radical than the rest of Florida as well. Because you’re pretty much the only person I encounter online who describes their IRL social circles being like this, rather than like mine.

        • BC says:

          If Trunp can’t pull it off, then someone like DeSantis, with even less power, almost certainly won’t be able to. More likely, he’s one of the first to be murdered by “roving bands of Kamalabots.” If Biden takes the White House, there will be no force left in America capable of stopping the Left from murdering us all. When that happens We. Are. All. Going. To. Die.

          Unlikely. The left’s military power is highly limited. We’re far more likly to see a military coup than the scenario you describe. The very first thing a Harris administration will start doing is persecuting warriors again. Further degrading their combat ability and increasing the likelihood of a coup. A leader like DeSantis is the sort who will be invited to take charge.

          Of course if things go pear shaped there’s 2 realistic plans: Leave the country or form a criminal gang. Leftists tolerate and even encourage such gangs. If you can’t leave, you might want to think about forming a bandit group.

          • The Cominator says:

            If the worst happens…

            The left initially is going to need some degree of state cooperation for their more radical and unpopular stuff (permanent lockdowns, killing dogs, putting Trump supporters in reeducation camps). Florida will be safe for a time (not forever) because DeSantis is just not going to cooperate. The woman governor in South Dakota also is just not going to cooperate either.

            They could try to directly takeover those states with the military but they will very very much want to avoid using the military (unless foreign troops) as every time they use the military against citizens (when they have zero legitimacy and are unpopular) they run a coup risk.

          • Pooch says:

            The problem for DeSantis is he would only have loyalty of Florida guardsmen and be heavily outmanned vs President Kamula. There would likely need to be a group of states seceeding like the 1st Civil War.

            • The Cominator says:

              I’m saying the left is going to depend on voluntary governor cooperation to some degree at least for the 1st couple of years and they are going to be nervous about using the military directly because the military below the general level is not politically reliable and unlike angry citizens the military can actually overthrow them…

              I do not see Kristi Noem or Desantis cooperating (DeSantis yielded to initial lockdown panic to some degree so maybe I’m wrong) even if they threaten to pull highway funding or something. The great reset is going to move faster in some states than others.

              • Pooch says:

                If they were smart they would just wait until they get voted out and/or steal the uncooperative state elections to install communists. They could even just arrest Noem, DeSantis, etc directly with the FBI. They may be a temporary respite from the communism, but It’s really an uphill fight long-term if Trump loses. They left will just have too much institutional power once they get the presidency.

                • The Cominator says:

                  No dem shithole cities in South Dakota that I know of.

                  The current voting system in Florida makes fraud very difficult because of continual Broward county shennanigans it was cleaned up recently.

                  They’ll eventually try to get rid of Noem and Desantis (I also think the governor of Tennessee has pledged not to cooperate) but will probably have to use extralegal violence because they aren’t that vunerable to vote fraud and even despirited Republicans will show up to vote for them to keep the forces of darkness temporarily at bay.

                  I’m not saying Florida or South Dakota will be a permanent refuge (rural South Dakota might, Florida is too big a state for them to ignore though) but you probably have a couple years of normal life before either real civil war breaks out or leftist oppression of the worst kind truly arrives.

                • Pooch says:

                  Yes I think a few years or even a decade of normal life is possible before the inevitable finally comes and then your better off finding a hideout somewhere in the wilderness until the leftist singularity implodes on itself.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Not a decade, 4 years of industrialized fraud and they will have enough hard left Senators a fully packed court and a military with an extensive commisarate enough to truly go radical.

                  Now Florida and certain flyover states may declare themselves in open rebellion and civil war may start for real (and the left may still lose quickly) but you won’t have a decade.

          • Jehu says:

            There’s another likelihood should things go pear shaped with the Left in majority control over the military. That is that a small group decides to burn it all down and destroys the critical infrastructure in the US, because they perceive that they’re in a battle they can’t win, therefore resolve to insure that their enemies lose. Probably results in casualties in the hundreds of millions and I think its the most likely outcome because the squishy Right will greatly underestimate the power of the military in set pieces and the Left will overreach. Probably requires maybe 100 or so to go Samson in the temple, maybe less. That IMO is the bloodiest possible outcome. Trump crossing the Rubicon, or even failing while trying to do so is far less bloody.

          • Kevin C. says:

            > “The left’s military power is highly limited. We’re far more likly to see a military coup than the scenario you describe.”

            Again, every veteran I’ve spoken to has insisted that a military coup *can never, ever, possibly happen in America*, that the *very spirit* of American military service holds it as utter anathema, and that down to the depths of their souls each and every serviceman will always, always, always set aside his personal political views and obey his superiors no matter how much he disagrees politically. And that they will *never* “play kingmaker” or “invite someone to take charge” like you’re describing.

            > “Leftists tolerate and even encourage such gangs.”

            Minority ones, perhaps; and left-aligned ones, perhaps. But I remember the Clinton years and “right-wing militia” scares. A bandit group of Deplorables will be labeled a “domestic terrorist cell” and given the Waco/Ruby Ridge treatment.

            • The Cominator says:

              “Again, every veteran I’ve spoken to has insisted that a military coup *can never, ever, possibly happen in America*, that the *very spirit* of American military service holds it as utter anathema, and that down to the depths of their souls each and every serviceman will always, always, always set aside his personal political views and obey his superiors no matter how much he disagrees politically. And that they will *never* “play kingmaker” or “invite someone to take charge” like you’re describing.”

              LOL what planet do you live on. It sounds like the only vest, christians or republican you’ve ever talked to were David French and Evan McMullin.

              The vets I talk to like talking about their oath about enemies “foreign and domestic” and that they think the government has a lot of domestic enemies in it. Its not that they love the idea of a coup but under the right circumstances they’d consider it.

            • European Mutt says:

              I don’t even live in America and even I know an active US serviceman who said he stands 100% behind Trump. He did not say the US, or the US generals, and that’s all I need to know. And military people don’t talk like that, “play kingmaker”. This is what gay sports or politics commentators talk like.

            • R7 Rocket says:

              Kevin C. needs a testosterone injection!

            • INDY says:

              You have an answer for everything and they’re all gay

        • onyomi says:

          The point you seem to be missing is that Trump will not be saying, “I am attempting a coup because I don’t care about our electoral system.” He will be saying, “I am invoking [extraordinary measures] to put down the leftist coup that threatens the integrity of our electoral system.” He has already successfully made the case to a large percentage of the country that the electoral system is under attack. It will help a lot if he can further get a SCOTUS decision or something to undergird his legitimacy, but I don’t think he needs it.

          Re. Trump supporters’ willingness to use violence and police departments’ willingness to defy orders from their immediate superiors: they’ve also never had any explicit orders from their POTUS that might legitimate them doing so. Antifa are emboldened because they know local DAs and the like have their backs. Thus far, Trump supporters have not been told anyone in power has their backs, much less the POTUS himself. This is why I do think it is absolutely crucial Trump act while still in office.

          Re. surviving leftist purges while in Alaska or Florida, I’m not sure what you’re saying DeSantis wouldn’t do: no, he wouldn’t lead a revolt against the Kamala government, but equally do I not think he will allow anarcho-tyranny to reign supreme in his state. Of course there are no guarantees in life, but I’d guess Alaska is pretty darn safe, especially if you’re reasonably well-armed. Geographically it’s too far from large concentrations of leftoid antifa types for them to come for you there, or, if they do, you’ll have plenty of warning to get further prepared compared to the rest of the country.

          • Kevin C. says:

            > “He will be saying, “I am invoking [extraordinary measures] to put down the leftist coup that threatens the integrity of our electoral system.””

            I get that, but what I’m saying is that normie conservatives like my parents will see that and go “Oh God, Trump’s trying to carry out a coup! Fascist! Disavow! Disavow! We’ve got to disassociate now, lest we be grouped in with the Fascists supporting this Unconstitutional act when they all get the bullet they deserve.”

            > ” He has already successfully made the case to a large percentage of the country that the electoral system is under attack.”

            Yes, but most of them, in my experience, believe that this attack on the electoral system does not justify a (likely-futile) attempt to remedy the fraud, or to do anything more than grumble about how it was stolen, but otherwise keep one’s head down lest one suffer additional punishment from the left for resisting too strongly.

            > they’ve also never had any explicit orders from their POTUS that might legitimate them doing so

            Again, assuming they’ll consider Trump “their POTUS” rather than “sore loser refusing to admit that when the left steal an election, the election is *theirs* — possession is nine-tenths and all that.”

            > “but equally do I not think he will allow anarcho-tyranny to reign supreme in his state”

            I’m saying there’s *nothing he could do* to prevent “anarcho-tyranny reigning supreme in his state.” The Feds can and will enforce whatever they want upon Florida, and Florida has no means to meaningfully resist.

            > you’ll have plenty of warning to get further prepared compared to the rest of the country.

            Prepared how? To do what? To shoot the “leftoid antifa types” when they come for me… and then end up prosecuted for doing so, and dying in prison like Kyle is absolutely going to (if not just “shot resisting arrest”)?

            • onyomi says:

              “Oh God, Trump’s trying to carry out a coup! Fascist! Disavow! Disavow! We’ve got to disassociate now, lest we be grouped in with the Fascists supporting this Unconstitutional act when they all get the bullet they deserve.”

              That’s not something I can imagine my dad or any of his friends saying, and they’re not even hardcore Trump supporters, just normie, Boomercon, upper-middle class Republicans.

              • Kevin C. says:

                Well, my mom was a big Ben Carson supporter — my parents are the sort who are looking for the Black Conservative to be elected so as to ‘prove once and for all that Dems are the real racists.’ That America is about Democracy and Freedom and big business and low taxes, and that we fought World War II for “Freedom” and to save the world from people who want to tell people what to do and use violence and troops rather than voting and courts. Authoritarianism is “Nazi,” street fighting is “fascist,” using troops domestically is “evil and Unamerican.” My Dad focuses on whether or not the republican candidate is a “physical conservative” as he puts it, meaning “fiscal conservative” — cutting taxes and regulations as Job One for the GOP. Small government because government is ‘damn revenuers’ who pick workers’ pockets to pay for welfare bums.

                Reagan conservatives. “Immigrants just need to come legally” conservatives.

                “upper-middle class”

                That may also be the difference. My family’s very much lower blue-collar “working poor” rednecks — we spent time growing up in a rural area without electricity or running water. Dad’s a high-school dropout who works building maintenance: carpentry/plumbing/indoor wiring/etc.

              • Kevin C. says:

                Let me not forget recently, when my mom went on about how the problem with woke journalism is that “it’s the same thing Der Sturmer and the other Nazi propagandists did, only with whites instead of Jews” — again, a “Dems are the real Nazis” view.

            • The Cominator says:

              Normie trump supporters do not say fascist hardly ever. Its leftists who see nazis and fascists under their beds.

              • Kevin C. says:

                “do not say fascist hardly ever”

                Well, usually it’s of the Jonah Goldberg/NRO “liberals are the real fascists” usage. Lockdowns are fascist, Antifa are the ones really using brownshirt tactics, that sort of thing.

                • European Mutt says:

                  “liberals are the real fascists”

                  is is very different from:

                  “Fascist! Disavow! Disavow!”

                  The first example is just ineffective rhetoric against the left, sometimes also used by shills and spooks. It hurts its own users, and the whole right, by making us seem hysterical and unhinged, and the intended criticism is rolling off the left’s back.

                  The second is something I have only ever heard from leftists and RINO types, both here and in America. It’s not even something cucks say. It’s what you can read more or less verbatim in the media.

                  I see so many implausibilities in what you are describing that at this point it is very unlikely we just know different people who say very different things. Especially since I am not the only one making these observations (otherwise I’d shut up because not American). Either you are reading too much into what people ARE saying or you are making stuff up.

                  Or you are a genuine leftist who larps as pro-Trump and can pass shill tests. I have seen the rare leftist making comments online that accurately described Trump’s policies*, just from a point of view of derision, so why wouldn’t there, even more rarely, be leftists that can reproduce the reactionary position while simultaneously holding contempt for it?

                  * Unfortunately I did not save it but it went something like (to be clear, I AM paraphrasing here, as I assume you to have been doing as well) “Trump is convinced climate change is a hoax, that the whole focus on minority groups is just a big pain in the ass, that transgenderism is a luxury problem, that environmental regulation is just bureaucratic red tape and that Putin trampling on human rights is a-ok.” Well this is pretty accurate.

                • jim says:

                  Could be a free lance, unsupervised, leftist larping as a Trumpist.

                  In which case we can, and should, debate him.

                  The problem with attempting to debate supervised shills is that it is like talking back to the television. They are just loudspeakers, and the man holding the microphone is not listening. If Kevin is larping as a Trumpist, he is doing so on his own initiative on his own computer.

                • Kevin C. says:

                  “Could be a free lance, unsupervised, leftist larping as a Trumpist.”

                  How do I establish, once and for all, that I’m not a leftist?

                  I very much would like a Trump dynasty, but it’s just too good to be true, too good a scenario to be at all likely. Doom and disaster is *always* the most likely outcome of anything.

                  As they say in Warhammer 40k, “Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.” Or as Nietzsche said:

                  Hope. Pandora brought the jar with the evils and opened it. It was the gods’ gift to man, on the outside a beautiful, enticing gift, called the “lucky jar.” Then all the evils, those lively, winged beings, flew out of it. Since that time, they roam around and do harm to men by day and night. One single evil had not yet slipped out of the jar. As Zeus had wished, Pandora slammed the top down and it remained inside. So now man has the lucky jar in his house forever and thinks the world of the treasure. It is at his service; he reaches for it when he fancies it. For he does not know that that jar which Pandora brought was the jar of evils, and he takes the remaining evil for the greatest worldly good–it is hope, for Zeus did not want man to throw his life away, no matter how much the other evils might torment him, but rather to go on letting himself be tormented anew. To that end, he gives man hope. In truth, it is the most evil of evils because it prolongs man’s torment.

                  I don’t know *how* to be optimistic. How to shrug off all the evidence of doom and disaster. How to have faith in something. How to stop worrying. How to distract myself from the intrusive visions of me and the people I love being gunned down by agents of Harris.

                • lambda x says:

                  @Kevin C.:

                  Let me take a stab at it. We’re probably pretty similar. Trump might not be the medicine we would have prescribed for the ailing republic in 2016, but Hillary was an obvious increase in the metastatic load and to be avoided if at all possible.

                  And it was. Now, how many times during the last four years have you been brought to the belief that it was OVER?

                  Access Hollywood? Suleimani? Trade War? Handling of Covid? Tax returns? The Brothers Vindman? Mueller? Not much Wall? Kids in cages?

                  Want to bet against him now?

                  Looks to me like a fresh approach has been getting results. Maybe the normies aren’t ready for the Rubicon. But it sure seems to me like “they stole it” is now the operational narrative, and the only real defense against it is the “forget it Jake, it’s Chinatown” gambit.

                  Rolling this boulder over the summit would be the greatest political glory I could ever dare to witness in my lifetime. For the chance, the off-chance, I, for one, am ready to go down with the ship, for the sake of my offspring, for the sake of standing up the motherfucking bully just once.

                  C’mon Kevin! Let’s GOOOOOOOOOO! No brakes on this train!

                • European Mutt says:

                  @Kevin C.

                  I will for the moment assume you are not a leftist, and not a shill, but that you are a Trumpist as you claim to be, and that you are not lying about what the people around you are saying. I would like to ask you to answer at least some of the questions at the bottom of this comment. Because if you are a reactionary, I want to understand your opinion. Right now I do not. If you do not want to reply to this comment or answer my questions, I will just stop engaging with you from now on, because I think then it will not benefit either of us.

                  First something about me: I have been very, very blackpilled about the future of the West and about political solutions to the crisis since 2010. I am an optimistic person by nature, but I’ve always joked that I see a very bright future ahead for me, but not for my country. I was enjoying the decline before it became a thing in the rightosphere. The foolish hope that Nietzsche is referring to would indeed have been foolish back then.

                  Similarly to lambda x, when Trump came along I did not think he was the right man for the job. But he proved his mettle and his 4D chess ability with his Syria campaign, he has started to deplatform the left by abolishing the campus kangaroo ‘rape’ courts and critical race theory. And then he introduced schedule F and now introduced firing squads. This is a man who means business. He is the first conservative to dare implement actual conservative policy. Because he is not shy about ‘breaking with government traditions’, which here in Europe is a frequent leftist complaint about him, and firing the necessary people to get the job done. I allow myself to extrapolate from that that he may take any measure necessary to get the job done. At least he is the only one who went this far, so far.

                  Why would he stop now with everything on the line about his project being destroyed, him and his family headed for exile or death and no Republican ever winning and election again? Trump retweeted this: https://twitter.com/replouiegohmert/status/1330606002299920387 He knows what’s at stake and is telling people.

                  All this to me looks like a major cause for hope, looks like a leader even cynics like me can believe in. And he does have loyalists. The Trump caravans and Trump rallies are proof of that. And even if he does not have the military, or all of it, he has the cops. ‘Defund the police’ is the best pro-Trump argument for cops there is, and they were never big believers in democracy. If you are you don’t become a cop.

                  “liberals are the real fascists” has been somewhat overplayed as a problem in my opinion, especially if you only use this meme with family members. The main damage occurs if this is used in public, not with family who all get what you mean by it (i.e. liberals are draconian, covetous of demographics wealthier than them, anarcho-tyrannical and terrorize their political opponents). Why not flip the meme on its head? (Serious question!) Why not ask your parents if they would not approve of someone fighting this fascism and denazifying the country? They can hardly say no without looking like hypocrites or without admitting it’s ultimately rhetoric. Frame control is not always the right approach!

                  But I get the feeling of frustration with parents, I have the same issue with my father. Ironically my mom is much more red-pilled. She just says, what are you gonna do, which is a very good question indeed when you live in a country where leftists control everything. My greatest accomplishment I guess is that I can bring many discussions with leftist friends to a point of them saying: ‘You are right, but what are we gonna do?’ Which I can’t honestly answer in most cases but which tells me their hardware is compatible with a new operating system. It just needs to be installed.

                  This was a long comment again, but hopefully it set a base for discussion. So here are my questions to you:

                  – Have you tried playing the liberal-fascist meme straight with your parents or anyone as described above? What were the results or what do you expect them to be? Will you try it if you haven’t already?
                  – Has Trump been a successful president by the metric of actually achieving nominally conservative goals? Has any president achieved indeed more of these goals? Has Trump not consistently shown balls at least since 2017?
                  – The enemy of the enemy is not always a friend, but if they regard the left as evil do people not want to ally with anybody fighting it? Perhaps even Islam if the alternative is eternal poz or killing fields?
                  – Are any leftists or even conservatives you know on the ‘what are you gonna do’ train? Do you think they would be open to a little change in the regime, when suddenly it would become clear what to do?
                  – Do you know of a cop who would let the criminal underclass vote if he had his way?
                  – A succinct description of a reactionary to me would be someone who loves life, wants to see it thrive, and therefore submits to the rules that life sets to make it survive and thrive. Are you really on the side of thriving life if you do not hope it will prevail?

                • Kevin C. says:

                  @European Mutt

                  > “Have you tried playing the liberal-fascist meme straight with your parents or anyone as described above?”

                  Yes, and it’s always that use of force would be a gross over-reaction, and no way would our troops go for it; and if ordinary people tried, well, remember Waco and Ruby Ridge.

                  My mom’s workplace — a library in the poorest, highest-minority part of town, full of female leftists and one do-no-work-but-unfireable “they/them” — has been going all Critical Race Theory. Her response has been printing off Rod Dreher columns, and planning out how she will ask a series of carefully-crafted questions — with a tone of genuine curiousity and acting as if she very much wants them to educate her and not at all like she’s setting up a ‘gotcha’ — that will lead them into either contradiction or to making implicit anti-white elements explicit, and then pounce with “but isn’t that racist? Treating people by race? Didn’t Martin Luthor King say ‘not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character’?” (She’s been repeating that MLK bit most every time she complains about their character) And thus having proved that *they* are the real racists, they’ll of course slink away in defeat. That all we on the Right have to do to defeat the Woke is just communicate to people better to demonstrate that the Democrats, the party of slavery and the KKK, are the real racists, and that the Republicans, the party of Lincoln, are the true heirs of MLK’s vision, and keep voting straight GOP.

                  > Has Trump been a successful president by the metric of actually achieving nominally conservative goals? Has any president achieved indeed more of these goals? Has Trump not consistently shown balls at least since 2017?

                  Yes, indeed. But crossing the Rubicon is a whole differet level of balls.

                  > “The enemy of the enemy is not always a friend, but if they regard the left as evil do people not want to ally with anybody fighting it? Perhaps even Islam if the alternative is eternal poz or killing fields?”

                  Well, I’m reminded of a Native Alaskan friend who is deeply worried about China, because even if they’re anti-poz, they’re “soulless ant people” more insect than human, and that if the American empire weakens even a bit, the Chinese will invade Alaska, kill him and his sons and haul his wives and daughters off to be concubines.

                  Then there’s Jim’s comments about how “Islam is the solution we do not want.” Or my Dad’s comments about “towel-heads” and how we should just shoot them all.

                  > “Are any leftists or even conservatives you know on the ‘what are you gonna do’ train?”

                  Most of them. The conservatives are all “yes, Biden/Harris sucks, but can you do about it?” The tech-savvy lefties are all “yes, trends XYZ suck, but in the long run, the Singularity will solve all of them”; and the HBD aware ones are all “we’ve just got to muddle through and keep the lights on until we work out CRISPR or cheap embryo-screening and exo-wombs or whatever so we can engineer the bad genes out of the underperforming minorities and then we can have Fully Automated Gay Luxury Space Communism like Star Trek TNG”; and the Lefties who are neither (and who will talk to me at all) are rich and connected — the closest you get to “old money” here in Alaska — and are all just about how you just insulate yourself from the worst problems, ignore any media messages that might upset you, build a Bryan Caplan “beatiful bubble,” easy peasy, and just don’t worry about the negative trends, those are for other people and future generations to fix, and the experts are smart, they have everything in hand, and politics doesn’t matter, who cares about it?

                  > “Do you know of a cop who would let the criminal underclass vote if he had his way?”

                  I don’t know any current police, but I knew an ex-cop (also ex-military), who was one of my high school social studies teachers and whose wife was a friend and former co-worker of my grandmother, and whose rural cabin he paid me and my brothers to come work on a couple of times a couple of summers. (I took a criminal justice class from him, where his advice on interacting with police was “never talk to cops; always ask for a lawyer.”) His position on LGBT was “differet strokes for different folks” and pro-gay marriage, and that same “colorblind” attitude that black dysfunction and crime was due to culture and poverty and especially “low expectations” — he spoke against the teen curfew being enacted by the city at the time on the grounds that would make teens *more* likely to be criminal because it *treated* them like criminals and people “act down to people’s expectations.” So yeah, he probably would let them vote as part of “raising expectations.”

                  > Are you really on the side of thriving life if you do not hope it will prevail?

                  It’s not so much *life* I want to prevail as *my people*. And while I *want* them to survive, and prevail, and conquer the stars, I don’t *expect* it, and I don’t believe the odds *favor* it. Expect the worse. There are few ways to succeed, and countless ways to fail.

                  > “I have been very, very blackpilled about the future of the West and about political solutions to the crisis since 2010”

                  That late? I was blackpilled by my time at Caltech (and my internship at JPL) in the first half of the 2000-10 decade. (Heck, I was reading Vox Day, back on WND, back then, and thinking he was over-optimistic.)

                  > “I am an optimistic person by nature, but I’ve always joked that I see a very bright future ahead for me, but not for my country. I was enjoying the decline…”

                  As you can see I’m a pessimistic person by nature, and I see a dark future ahead for me personally. My life is not great, and the root problems are unfixable (incurable conditions, which are also why I can’t escape to a different country). I’m on disability, and multiple agencies have ruled me unemployable. I’m in no position whatsoever to enjoy the decline.

                  And you say you see a bright future ahead for yourself? Does that include children?

                  Because, as a reactionary who accepts the wisdom of countless traditions from the Book of Genesis — “be fruitful and multiply” — to the Zoroastrian Čīdag Andarz ī Pōryōtkēšān — “My second (duty) is to take a wife and to procreate earthly offspring, and to be strenuous and steadfast in this.” — to Buddha, in the Sigalovada Sutta — “In five ways should a mother and father as the eastern direction be respected by a child: ‘I will support them who supported me; I will do my duty to them; I will maintain the family lineage and tradition; I will be worthy of my inheritance; and I will make donations on behalf of dead ancestors.” — to Hindus who

                  believe that all men come into this world burdened by a debt – the pitr-runa (pitr = ancestor; runa = debt). The only way to repay this debt is to father a male offspring. During funerary rites, known as shraadha, Hindu males are reminded of this debt. In the Dharmashastras, Hindu law books written between 500-1000 A.D., it is said that those who fail to repay this debt end up in the Hell known as Put where they suffer for all eternity. Since the birth of a child, preferably male child, liberates a man from his debt, the Sanskrit word for son is putra (deliverer from Put). The daughter or putri is also a deliverer from Put, but to a lesser extent

                  to Mencius who said in Book 4, Part 1, Chaper 26 “There are three things which are unfilial, and to have no posterity is the greatest of them,” or the 4chan anon who said

                  None, not one of your ancestors chose to succumb in difficult circumstances. All of them went the extra mile when they had to and then another and then another. They killed sabretooth tigers with sharpened sticks, they made the desert habitable and they fought tooth and nail for thousands of years so that you and your kin can live on a little piece of this earth that you can call your own.

                  Living the bachelor style voluntarily while not being a great warrior, explorer, scientist or somebody else who improves life for his people basically means a big „Fuck you“ to your ancestors.

                  Raising a family means honoring them.

                  Or even the commenter here who said:

                  The solution to this is not to bare your throat. And it’s not even to wantonly destroy other men. It is to choose Life.

                  The Creator of this world wants people to be fruitful and multiply. He wants me to do it, hence why I am torturing myself trying to learn game; and he wants you to do it as well.

                  Your woman doesn’t have an ethical obligation to have children, she may have a desire, but female desires are like the breeze. Great if it’s there, irrelevant if it isn’t

                  You on the other hand will be called to give account if you do not have at least one boy and one girl. And frankly you should have a lot more than that.

                  When king Chizkiyahu saw with prophecy that his sons would be evil he intentionally separated from his wife. He the severly I’ll. I don’t remember offhand but I think it was the prophet Yeshayahu that was commanded by God to tell Chizkiyahu that he was going to die for not having children. Chizkiyahu said “but I saw with divine sight that they would be evil” the prophet replied “what is it to you what they will be or not? That is the business of God”. So Chizkiyahu repented and had children. Who not incidentally did turn out evil. That was king Menashe. But in the end Menashe actually repented.

                  Similarly, when the ancient Jews were in Egypt, their leader was Amram, Moses’ father. When the Egyptians decreed that all male children were to be killed, Amram decreed that all Jewish men had to separate from their wives and cease procreation. Yocheved, his wife, came to him and said “what you are doing is even worse than what Pharoah is doing. He only is killing the Jewish boys, you are destroying even the girls”. Amram listened and rescinded his judgement. Immediately afterwards Yocheced conceived Moshe, the man who did more for humanity than any man before or since. Without Moshe, the divine instruction of God would have been out of all our hands. All of Western civilization, all the good we have done, restaining human impulses in fealty to Gods will, all from him. Without the Bible, even for non believers, we would have been as blind men in a noisy room.

                  As the eldest son, I have an absolute duty to propagate the family line and name. Isn’t the most important thing I could do personally, with my limited skills, to contribute to the survival of our people, to combat the demographic trends and the sub-replacement birth rates, is marry and have and raise white reactionary children? And isn’t the primary problem with “MGTOW” that the future belongs to those who show up?

                  And yet, I’m less than a year from my 40th birthday, and I’m still single, still a virgin. And too old, too late, to do anything at this point, given how irreperably defective I am. I’m failing utterly in my duty, living in wickedness, and it eats at my thoughts regularly.

                  (Yes, I’ve studied Game and the advice here. The problem is lack of opportunities to put it to use.)

                • jim says:

                  The black pill is bad for game.

                  Genuine disability is also bad for game.

                • jim says:

                  > Yes, indeed. But crossing the Rubicon is a whole different level of balls.

                  When I was at risk of death or injury, I always had the mighty big balls, and I see a big man in Trump.

                  We shall see.

                • The Cominator says:

                  How are you unemployable if you were smart enough to get into Caltech? I’m a sperg and back when I had to work i had terrible trouble finding work… but I was only in relative terms a midwit compared to people in the MIT and Caltech tier. I’m above midwit tier in terms of iq compared but not as smart as MIT and Caltech people.

                • European Mutt says:

                  Thanks for answering. This did clear up some things for me. I no longer think you are a leftist.

                  Then there’s Jim’s comments about how “Islam is the solution we do not want.” Or my Dad’s comments about “towel-heads” and how we should just shoot them all.

                  So your father is capable of taking a potentially reactionary viewpoint against the “towel-heads” (lol) but not against his domestic enemies? That’s interesting, and I can see how that is possible. I have a very outwardly leftist friend who is extremely prejudiced against Chinese. Talks about them like we would talk about blacks, says they are dirty and loud and shit on the toilet rims. Well sometimes that is indeed true, as it is with niggers. But when he is confronted with a much more innocuous statement about niggers, like “Merkel was so stupid to let them in”, he cries “Racist, Racist!”. I strongly suspect him to be playing up his leftism Havel’s greengrocer style, although to this day I am not sure. I will know for sure when leftism is no longer a viable career path.

                  This guy gets girls into bed no problem, gropes them and they love it, and then turns around and lectures about the gender wage gap. He is a Jew btw. Ancestors are Ashkenazi who managed to larp as Nazi. Probably knows a trick or two about Havel’s greengrocering 😉

                  The point is, maybe the conservatives you know are not so conservative after all. I’ve never been to Alaska (I should go) but as is usual in cold and remote areas, conservatism is likely a social norm. Am I correct about this? Is it possible your father is merely larping conservatism to an extent?

                  Islam is plan C for me. Plan A is staying, either rebuilding my homeland or trying to defeat leftism locally if Biden’s America loses control of its dependencies (which is likely). Plan B has for 10 years been going to Russia, and assimilating there. Jim wants to build a Hajnal society in exile there if SHTF. I would support him in this case, but not join. I’m clearly non-Hajnal, I feel much more at home in Russia culturally and socially than I’ve ever felt at my place of birth.

                  Yes, and it’s always that use of force would be a gross over-reaction […] Waco or Ruby Ridge

                  OK I now understand, they are just black pilled essentially. The “gross overreaction” comment could mean that the “fascist left” is just rhetoric, but it could also mean a way of rationalization, what the chans call cope. In that case, if Trump goes through with it, the cope will mysteriously vanish.

                  And you say you see a bright future ahead for yourself? Does that include children?

                  It does, and always has. Except I used to want two, now I want at least four, and at least one son. I would be surprised if next year I don’t have my first.

                  I am not going to pretend that being disabled does not suck in this world, especially with the left parading the disabled as its bioleninist mascots and some playing along for a pathetic amount of gibs. And inventing fake ‘disabilities’. I don’t know your private situation nor do I want you to doxx yourself, but the first thing you need is a place of your own it sounds like. Then you can maybe do the degenerate dance (disability permitting) and practice your game. And then go find a wife. It’s not too late, your sperm still works.

                  That late?

                  I am younger than you, and grew up in a culture where all young people were leftist. In 2010 the left openly defected on me, and I noticed. Many did not. Antifa and white privilege theory, the two things that made me realize they want to kill me and my family.

                  I don’t know what happened then, very quickly I was noticing technological decline, young girls sexually baiting older males, etc. which I previously had failed to notice. The blackpill came because nobody else was seeing what I saw, or pretending not to see. I knew it would end badly if nothing changed.

                  Yes, indeed. But crossing the Rubicon is a whole differet level of balls.

                  True, but I agree very much with Jim here. When your life is stake, your true character comes through. Cowards will cower. Courageous people will fight even harder. Trump has shown himself to be the latter.

        • Nicodemus Rex says:

          Yeah, I mean your observations are essentially correct. Normies don’t care about the constitution or our “sacred norms and institutions” at all, they think the election was rigged, but they believe they can survive leftist hegemony better than they can survive a coup. They think they’re going to be mocked and persecuted, but they don’t think they’re going to *die*. Normalcy bias all around.

          Luckily, Trump has one talent above all else — goading the left into overreach. He will shitpost on Twitter about his Supreme Court cases (assuming they make it to the Supreme Court), some leftist foot soldier with a room-temperature IQ might take a swing at his lawyers or witnesses — or even one of the judges — and *then* (I hope) he will read the Insurrection Act on the White House lawn. Then normies will rally behind him, because they know it is life or death.

    • hcm says:

      After reading his replies, this guy smells off to me. He is insisting that most normies are content with this situation when it is clearly evident that they are not. Blackpiller.

      • jim says:

        OK, time for a shill test.

        Kevin C:

        What is the our position on women, the Woman Question, the Woman Problem.

        The reaction, the Dark Enlightenment, the manosphere, and most of the alt-right all have the same position. What is that position? This blog, most of its commenters, and most notable voices in the manosphere, such are Roissy, position game within Evolutionary Game Theory..

        • Kevin C. says:

          Well, we’ve done this before, and repeating R7’s questions and my answers:

          1. “Do all women desire to be raped, beaten, and punished by powerful, charismatic alpha males?”

          Yes, save maybe the most butch high-androgen lesbians (PCOS, anyone?) and possibly post-menopausal mothers.

          2. “If a wife disobeys her husband, should the husband physically discipline her?”

          Yes, though for most smaller things, ideally the mere implied possibility — “Lucy, you got some ‘splainin’ to do…” — should suffice; if it has to be used too often, that’s a sign of serious trouble — such as having a more “alpha” male (as women judge these things, of course) on her radar, prompting her to increasingly shit-test her husband with escalating disobedience requiring escalating punishment, as part of unconsciously prepping to dump him for the more alpha dude.

          3. “Should the wife be required to provide sex upon her husband’s command?”

          Yes; though, again, if you have to resort to outright verbal commands — and more than token LMR on her part — with any real frequency, there is likely a problem needing dealt with somewhere.

          Again, not an inflitrator, just a deeply pessimistic sort by nature; when I look around, I don’t see enough evidence to support the enduring optimism I find here.

          And I still don’t understand what definition you have for the English Restoration that *doesn’t* have it ending with the “Glorious Revolution” imposing massive leftism with “Parliamentary Supremacy.”

          In his economic history Farewell to Alms, Gregory Clark noted that the point when government taxes went from a tiny portion of GDP to rising toward modern levels is at the Glorious Revolution (pp. 148-149):

          Preindustrial societies were generally low-tax societies. England, in particular, was an extremely lightly taxed nation. Figure 8.2 shows all government ex- penditures, both central and local, by year as a function of GNP from 1285 to 2000.3 Before the Glorious Revolution of 1688–89, which established the modern constitutional democracy of Britain, government expenditures of all types were extremely modest. In the years 1600–88 these averaged just 2.2 per- cent of national income. Before the sixteenth century these expenditures were typically less than 1.5 percent of national income.

          Before 1689 attempts by the king to increase his take were vigorously resisted. Thus the Poll Tax of 1380—which triggered a brief but widespread rebellion in which the rebels captured London and killed the archbishop of Canterbury and the king’s chancellor—was a temporary war tax on all adult males in England, equivalent to 1 percent of a laborer’s annual earnings.4 Af- ter this reaction no English government attempted a poll tax again, until the similarly ill-fated venture of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1990.

          The Glorious Revolution had an immediate negative effect in raising government taxes and expenditures. Expenditures quickly rose to more than 10 percent of output, a level they have exceeded ever since. This spending was almost all for warfare. The share of government expenditures in national in- come has continued, with fluctuations, to rise to the present day. By the 1990s government expenditures constituted 36 percent of U.K. national income.

          And the graph on that page is illustrative.

          So I don’t see how you can claim Restoration England lasted “one hundred and forty years” when it clearly ended when Parliament “replaced” James II with the Dutchman William in 1688, and thus lasted a mere 28 years.

          • R7 Rocket says:

            @Kevin C.
            You haven’t answered a multiple choice RedPill on women question, let’s see if you can.

            Should we make pornography illegal?
            [A] No, because male desire for sexual gratification is not causing society any problems. Now, we should ban gay, tranny, and cuck porn. And we should ban romance novels, i.e. porn for women. But heterosexual porn, especially if it depicts violent rape, will be allowed, not because it is nice to watch, but because it is incredibly red pilling.
            [B] No, because pornography allows us to learn about various fetishes and alternative sexual practices, and that is valuable knowledge.
            [C] Yes, because pornography is how the (((Synagogue of Satan))) destroyed our TFR. Before the advent of pornography, there were fecund marriages and stable families, but then we let in these Semitic parasites, and they singlehandedly turned all our women to porn sluts and all our men to incels. Were it not for Jewish pornographers, we would all have big families, just like we had in Hitler’s Germany. Similarly to Brave New World, the Jews are using our own desires to control us – so it’s more like a Brave JEW World, am I right?
            [D] No, but Child Porn should still be illegal, because whenever you look at an image of a child being abused, you are both encouraging the production of more CP, and repeating the original abuse.
            [E] No, but we should require all porn actors to wear condoms, in order to protect the actors and actresses from venereal diseases, and to teach the viewers — who are often our own sons — to use contraceptives. Porn is spiritual poison, but it’s not realistic to ban all of it, so we should focus instead on protecting the sex workers — who are often our own daughters in college — from exploitation and bad working conditions.

            • Kevin C. says:

              C’mon, that’s not hard, the answer is clearly [A]. [B] and [D] are both lefty nonsense, [E] is cuckservative cope from the “Dems are the real racists” mold, and [C] is wignat falling for the matador’s cape and ascribing magic mind-control powers to Da Joos rather than recognizing the nature of unrestrained female sexuality.

            • The Cominator says:

              R7 hes right you left the correct answer out of this one.

            • Bilge_Pump says:

              Again with the violent rape porn stuff. I was never red pilled by watching porn, in fact part of the red pill to me is to stop watching porn altogether. If you want redpills, teach about how fear and sexual arousal are linked in the brain, how women say (sometimes openly, there are many examples of this on Twitter for example) they want to be dominated, 50 shades of grey, etc. No need to make someone watch a dumb whore get paid to get gangbanged by dudes slapping the shit out of her and making her bleed. That should be extremely fringe.

              • jim says:

                There is no violent rape porn stuff of the sort that you imagine, or at least none that I have ever seen.

                That is a prog fantasy and a sodomite larp, not what straights of both sexes want to see in their porn.

                You want to see rape depicted in straight porn, it is depicted, depicted a lot, but nothing like what you imagine.

                • yewotm8 says:

                  When you say it is depicted, do you mean according to the reactionary definition of rape, meaning sex without consent of the woman’s owner? Or do you mean “non-consensual sex” is accurately depicted in professionally produced “rape porn” with dedicated camera, lighting, and makeup people?

                • jim says:

                  Non consensual straight sex is depicted with reasonably realistic, well realistic by porn standards, behavior of the parties. It is rape both by reactionary and progressive standards, but neither party acts as progressives expect.

          • jim says:

            Clearly you are no shill.

            Sorry, that slipped my memory.

            > And I still don’t understand what definition you have for the English Restoration that *doesn’t* have it ending with the “Glorious Revolution” imposing massive leftism with “Parliamentary Supremacy”

            Whig history.

            For a remedy to that history, I recommend “English Society 1688-1832”

            Whig history is that the King was powerless, and parliament ruled the roost. Whig history is also that parliament represented a handful of very rich men. Neither was true.

            Parliament represented the better class of people, but the better class of people was about a third of the male population, and when the King decided to get his way, he got his way. Albeit some Kings, quite a lot of Kings, tended to let things run themselves.

            England was a divine right monarchy, thought itself a divine right monarchy, and when push came to shove, it was a divine right monarchy. It is just that push did not come to shove all that often.

            See page, for example, page 203. “the houses are called together by royal authority, not to be dictators but counselors, not to be partners in legislation, but petitioners”

            And that was, in fact, the way that it was, and the way that it played out in practice.

            • The Cominator says:

              The parliament COULD and sometimes did stop the king from raising taxes.

              The English idea was that the law should not much keep the king from ruling, but that the king should rule in accordance with the customary rights of Englishmen and according to tradition in general. The king was not supposed to act like an “oriental potentate” and rule capriciously, establish informers, take people’s property away, raise taxes high in peacetime etc.

              Henry VIII massively violated this but got away with it because the Catholic Church was not much liked in much of England (though more popular in the North of England where there was a rebellion), Charles I and James II massively violated this and did not get away with it.

            • Kevin C. says:

              Clearly you are no shill.

              Sorry, that slipped my memory.

              Thank you. So you agree I’m on side, just naturally depressive? I very much *want* Trump to “cross the Rubicon” and establish a dynasty. I just think the idea of it being likely is *too good to be true*. Things that good for us *just don’t happen*. Murphy’s law and the second law of thermodynamics. Getting your hopes up is just a recipe for disappointment when the inevitable disaster comes. Better to always expect the worst.

              > “and when the King decided to get his way, he got his way.”

              Not James II, no. Not when they deposed him and brought in a Dutchman to replace him. How “divine right” is *that*, exactly? And how far could that Dutchman and his successors have gone against them, lest they do it again?

              • jim says:

                > Not James II, no. Not when they deposed him and brought in a Dutchman to replace him. How “divine right” is *that*, exactly?

                That event was explained away, denied, and everyone accepted, or pretended to accept the denial. It did not become the new normal. Did not become a precedent, but rather was disappeared.

                The Lockean narrative, your narrative, that the King was removed for violating the rights of his subjects, and that parliament could remove Kings, would result in you losing your job and falling out of respectable society.

                Everyone respectable demonstrated a strange inability to follow your reasoning.

                And the way it was disappeared was that the State Church decided it was a victory of the State Church ruled by the legitimate King. Supposedly the King defected from the monarchy, rather than the Church defecting from the King. The State Church supposedly remained steadfastly loyal to the Monarchy, but did not have a King to be loyal to, rather like Roman Catholics explaining that they are obedient to the Papacy, but the papacy is, unfortunately, vacant.

                It was shoehorned into a narrative where Englishmen have rights (provided of course that they adhere to the official religion) but the King rules by divine right. The necessary intellectual somersaults and acceptance of contradictions was performed. Supposedly the Monarchy mysteriously developed a vacancy, rather than that the King was removed because he violated the rights of his subjects.

                And everyone believed that narrative, or if they did not believe, kept their mouths shut.

                From 1688 to 1715, there were plenty of people who followed your reasoning – to conclude not that parliament had the right to remove Kings, but the that the current monarchy was illegitimate. Those who held that the monarchy was legitimate, somehow were unable to follow your reasoning. From 1715 to 1820 or so, no one was able to follow your reasoning.

                • Kevin C. says:

                  “That event was explained away, denied, and everyone accepted, or pretended to accept the denial. It did not become the new normal.”

                  It didn’t become the new normal right away, no. But the fact it was explained away and shoehorned by “intellectual somersaults and acceptance of contradictions” opens a space for future leftist wedge-drivers to point to those contradictions and ask for their revolution. Better to never have the sort of thing that requires somersaults and contradictions and denials, because come enough time, someone will come along who doesn’t and can point to it, if only as a threat that what happened once can happen again.

                • jim says:

                  > > “That event was explained away, denied, and everyone accepted, or pretended to accept the denial. It did not become the new normal.”

                  > It didn’t become the new normal right away, no.

                  1688 did not become the new normal until 1820-1832

                  Until then, everyone who noticed what you noticed was arguing for the descendants of James II to return to the throne.

                • The Cominator says:

                  To put it simply the deposition of James II was generally explained very simply that the king abdicated. That king only “abdicated” under military pressure wasn’t brought up.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  The divine right of Kings is the expression of God’s favor through force of arms and victory. If God withdraws his favor from a monarch, it is a sign that the mandate of heaven has passed from him. Victory is proof of divine right. No victory; no favor of God, no mandate of heaven; king no more.

                • Remember when I wrote that William of Orange’s 1688 coronation oath meant the king governs but no longer rules, that is, does not make law, only runs the executive according to the laws of Parliament? Well it turned out to be another misinterpretation by mainstream historians.

                  I went to the original source, Coronation Oath Act of 1688 and found that it only says: do not resurrect old and forgotten laws not in customary usage like Charles I supposedly did:

                  “BUT forasmuch as the Oath itselfe on such Occasion Administred hath heretofore beene framed in doubtfull Words and Expressions with relation to ancient Laws and Constitutions at this time unknowne To the end therefore that One Uniforme Oath may be in all Times to come taken by the Kings”

                  but rather just govern accordingly to currently known law:

                  “Sweare to Governe the People of this Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging according to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same?”

                  What it does NOT say is that the king will have no hand in making those laws, only Parliament. There was no requirement of separation of powers. There was only the requirement that the law is what is currently known to be the law and not something that was on the books centuries ago but then forgotten.

                  (For some reason the old books of laws do not get cleaned up, there are articles in the popular media that the law that it is okay to shoot Scotsmen with an arrow on Thursdays and similar ancient stuff is technically still on the books.)

                  So I got played by mainstream history. But to be fair, apparently there had to be some kind trickery around this back then, because apparently even contemporaries thought the English kings do not involve themselves in legislation. Montesquieau came up with the separation of powers via observing the English monarchy and thinking it has a separation of powers, so he created a theory of what he thought is already happening in practice in England. So even contemporaries seemed to have been deceived by appearances.

                  So it seems, there was no formal separation of powers, but apparently there was some attempt to make everybody believe the kings generally do not involve themselves much in lawmaking, there was that sort of an appearance deceiving even contemporaries.

            • Kevin C. says:

              When clergy of the Church of England in the American colonies, who like all Anglican clergy swore oaths of loyalty to the King as Supreme Governor of the Church and to pray daily for the King and Parliament, decided to “transfer their allegiance” to the new republic in the American Revolution, they cited the Glorious Revolution as the precedent for doing so.

              And it was the Glorious Revolution that brought the Non-juring schism that let the Presbyterians retake the Church of Scotland from the episcopacy put in place in the English Restoration, Charles II restoring what his grandfather had, as James VI of Scotland, put in place after famously declaring “no bishop, no king.”

              Look, when a wall starts rotting, you can paper it over for a while with new coats of paint or new wallpaper, but it’s there the whole time, and inevitably it ends up rotting through. The “necessary intellectual somersaults and acceptance of contradictions” you spoke of were just that sort of “wallpapering over creeping rot.” The rot may have taken until 1800 to fully “break out,” but it became inevitable in 1688.

              • jim says:

                I would not mind over a century of keeping the rot under control.

              • The Cominator says:

                Most Anglican clergy were Vicar of Bray careerists that has never changed. they would have come up with something else if not that.

                It would have certainly been better if Charles II just sort of allowed Monmouth to become his heir though rather than his insane papist brother (especially since he probably knew his brother was going to end up sort of like he did anyway).

                • Kevin C. says:

                  “Most Anglican clergy were Vicar of Bray careerists that has never changed. they would have come up with something else if not that.”

                  It’s my understanding that there was a definite regional difference on this — that in the Southern four states, particularly Georgia, the Anglican clergy were indeed eager to jump ship, but that in the north (possibly due to having to keep sharp to stay competitive with the Puritans, Quakers, etc.), a bunch were avidly Loyalist, leaned into Loyalist signalling during the lead-up to the Revolution, and were ultimately forced to flee to Canada. (IIRC, the figure I read was that between 1776 and 178, something like over 80% of the Church of England clergy in New York and New Jersey were loyalists.)

                • The Cominator says:

                  Of course because most clergy in the north were dissenters of various kinds and people who went to CoE churches tended to be bigtime loyalists. In the south less religious dissenter so Anglicanism didn’t select for fanatical loyalism as much.

          • Robert Nares says:

            The salient event of 1660 was the reestablishment of a state religion, one that preached a creed that allowed for a healthy social order, and a non-democratic form of government. As James I said, “No bishop, no king”.

            James II’s long term plan was for the British Isles to return to the Catholic church, and to do so he was prepared to cut a deal with the Dissenters (the one’s you really needed to watch out for) to dissolve the monopoly of the state religion. This would’ve destroyed the foundation on which a patriarchal, non-democratic social order sat – and indeed this is exactly what happened after 1829-32.

            The Glorious Revolution saved the state religion, and in doing so preserved the social order for another century and a half. And this didn’t require abandoning the idea of divine right monarchy. Even in the 1810’s Bentham was writing that most Englishmen’s understanding of their constitution owed owed far more to Filmer than to Locke. The Middle Ages saw countless instances where the nobles deposed the King, with no long term damage to the institution of monarchy.

            • Robert Nares says:

              * excuse me, owed far more to Filmer than to Locke

            • jim says:

              Exactly so.

              A Lockean understanding of the events of 1688 was apt to be a bad career move.

              > That king only “abdicated” under military pressure wasn’t brought up.

              If one knew what was good for one.

      • BC says:

        He does talk like a shill. My boomer father wants to see the Democrats hanged for what they did.

        • The Cominator says:

          Just talked to a couple of proles at a bar (one of whom wasn’t white) and the subject came up, and I suggested that if the courts and the legislatures don’t save us Trump should just call his people onto the street in DC and other major cities and just announce he was taking over. One of them responded that he should just announce “stand down rescinded”.

          Normie Trump supporters are definitely okay with him just taking over.

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            I’m getting ready. He says the word and I’m in the street as soon as I get dressed and loaded up. I know a couple other guys to join up with, and then its just a matter of all the little groups congealing into larger forces. Once we show up in the street armed, the cops will turn tail and flee and any Antifa forces will evaporate once a few of them get shot.

            • BC says:

              Be aware that antifa’s greatest strength is their coordination and comms. Expect an ambush/feigned retreats if there’s going to be gunfire. They’re individual foot soldiers are garbage, but often well disciplined, but good planning and coordination can make up for that in a firefight. Make sure you’re ready with your own comms systems and don’t expect your phones to necessarily work.

              • Theshadowedknight says:

                The problem is that they are too centralized and undisciplined. As our esteemed host has pointed out, deprive them of key individuals and they fall into disarray. Sharpshooters can identify and remove those individuals. However, you make an excellent point about having EW and reconnaissance capabilities on our side. Its probably too late to learn more than the basics, but if we can find those types, then we should take advantage of them.

              • Karl says:

                I don’t think that Antifa can fight, but they are capable of murder.

                • Contaminated NEET says:

                  Antifa has demonstrated their skill at street violence again and again. It doesn’t matter if individually they are noodle-armed pink-haired pansies. Their doctrine is good, their tactics are good, and their leadership is good. their propaganda is good, and they have a ton of experience at it. The Right can’t match them in the streets.

                  They understand the battlefield and the constraints they and we operate under far better than we do. They know exactly how violent they can get and how far they can push things without provoking a response from the authorities, and they go right up to the line every time without crossing it. That takes skill, planning, discipline, and coordination. Yes, they literally cry out in pain as they strike you, and they flop around like pro soccer players at the slightest retaliation – this looks silly and pathetic to us, but they are proven, winning tactics.

                • jim says:

                  > Antifa has demonstrated their skill at street violence again and again.

                  Nuts.

                  Their “skill in street violence” is 100% dependent on being protected by the cops they are attacking. If the cops pulled back, they would die.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Bullshit. One 17 year old young man managed to kill two of them and cripple another despite being massively outnumbered and having to run away. In order to kill a Trump supporter in “self-defense,” Antifa had to stalk one and shoot him in the back because they were too afraid of the risk of getting shot, thereby missing the entire point of the exercise. The Proud Boys rolled into DC and beat the shit out of Antifa, driving them underground until the MAGA presence was small enough that they could come out again.

                  They can only win when they have the press, the police, the judge, the prosecutor, and the politicians on there side. Any time they face any meaningful resistance, they get crushed. If the news is rolling cameras talking about the terrible right-wing vigilantes, then what happens? They get blasted alongside Antifa. The legal observers? They get blasted, too. Medics? Blasted. All their support staff? Blasted.

                  Hard to run a riot when a dozen armed men cqn kill everyone in the riot, and the “neutral observers,” too. If Trump calls up the militia using the Insurrection Act and Antifa helpfully provides an insurrection to put down, more the better for us. It means we get to arrest the people supporting them, or just shoot them. We look like people putting down an insurrection, and if a bunch of rough men with guns say the way things are, people will listen to them.

                • jim says:

                  If they zip up on a skateboard they are capable of murder by surprise. But in face to face confrontation, not very good at it.

                • Contaminated NEET says:

                  >Their “skill in street violence” is 100% dependent on being protected by the cops they are attacking. If the cops pulled back, they would die.

                  That doesn’t matter, because the cops ARE there. They are a feature of the battlefield, and Antifa are experts at using them to maximum advantage. Antifa know how to put themselves in positions where the cops defend them and attack their enemies, and then they win. This is their greatest skill, and it’s not trivial. If it were, we would be able to do it.

                  >Hard to run a riot when a dozen armed men cqn kill everyone in the riot, and the “neutral observers,” too. If Trump calls up the militia using the Insurrection Act and Antifa helpfully provides an insurrection to put down, more the better for us.

                  Sure. But this hasn’t happened. There are no “dozen armed men” gunning down rioters, and if there were, the cops would annihilate them. Failing that, the National Guard would annihilate them. Then the press would have a conniption and our name would be mud to every normalfag in the country. Oh, the cops are going to be on our side, are they? That would be nice, but they haven’t been so far.

                • jim says:

                  > That doesn’t matter, because the cops ARE there. They are a feature of the battlefield, and Antifa are experts at using them to maximum advantage

                  Where the cops answer to Republicans, antifa fails.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “and if there were, the cops would annihilate them.”

                  If the cops think they are going to be facing real danger they are more inclined to cower in the donut shop.

                  “Failing that, the National Guard would annihilate them.”

                  Soldiers aren’t like cops… historically if ordered to fire on rebels they are sympathetic to by political superiors they despise they change sides often in history.

                • Contaminated NEET says:

                  Maybe, maybe not, Cominator. But the fact is that this elite squad of ruthless right-wing killers that intimidates the cops and has the sympathy of the Guard is entirely imaginary. Antifa is real, and they actually show up to battles, and they fight, and they win.

                  It’s so easy to pooh-pooh them, because they don’t look strong, or manly, or valorous to right-wing eyes, but they’re well-organized, they have strong institutional backing, and they understand the kind of war they are fighting and their tactics and strategies are perfectly suited to it. They are a serious force, and we have nothing comparable. We need to understand how they keep beating us, and we need to start learning from them. Don’t stop insulting and denigrating them, but understand that that is morale-building propaganda; when planning, respect them as the resourceful, adaptable, and dangerous adversary they are.

                • jim says:

                  “they have strong institutional backing”

                  On which they are utterly dependent, and when that backing stops, they fail utterly.

                • Not Tom says:

                  No cops interfered with Trump in Lafayette Park or more recently with the Proud Boys in DC metro.

                  There may be some cops who follow their nominal leftist orders to defend Antifa, but it looks a lot like most cops will take any legitimate excuse not to do so, such as federal deputization (Portland cops) or direct presidential orders (DC cops).

                  If Portland and DC, essentially the two most leftist-controlled areas of the country, could be brought into line, what places do you think can’t be, and why?

                • ten says:

                  If there were no cops, antifa would be more violent. They have some smart people, and some tech savvy people, and they test out swarm tactics and command and control systems “in the field”. I think jim underestimates what they could do in the absence of police, they won’t fold like paper and won’t crash like a rock.

                  Not to say they are an actual fighting force to be reckoned with, but if you would be facing them as a small group of amateur RWDS, don’t underestimate them.

                  The fact that things escalated to killing in the Kyle case was not something they expected, because that sort of thing almost never happens. In a hotter scenario they would be expecting it, wouldn’t be swarming in the open, and would shoot on sight.

                • jim says:

                  > If there were no cops, antifa would be more violent.

                  Nuts, if there were no cops, the militia, Kyle among them, would have put down antifa in ten minutes.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Ten

                  Antifa is nothing more than a paper tiger without the protection of Democrat controlled police departments.

                  As noted by their total absence in West Virginia and upstate South Carolina.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “If there were no cops, antifa would be more violent. They have some smart people, and some tech savvy people, and they test out swarm tactics and command and control systems “in the field”. I think jim underestimates what they could do in the absence of police, they won’t fold like paper and won’t crash like a rock.”

                  Antifa very very rarely goes into areas where the cops aren’t protecting them and when they do they always lose.

                  In Berkeley when they went to attack Milo Yiannopoulous a couple years ago the Berkeley cops were under orders just to not interfere (rather than the 2020 orders where they are ordered to protect antifa and arrest their opposition) and Milo was prepared with Bikers 4 Trump and proud boys standing by outside the area. Antifa got their ass kicked.

                  They will not try anything in the Southern US outside Atlanta notice, they know they are DEAD if they do.

              • Anonymous 2 says:

                The antifa were certainly underestimated this summer. They had prepared and trained, and had developed some innovative tactics. They fight dirty and are ready to kill.

                However, they also ultimately are street rabble who rely on being protected by the authorities. At the end of the day, the Wall of Moms won’t absorb more than one fusillade from the mythical line of boomers with guns.

                Finally, if in the course of events at a riot you meet someone on a bicycle, clothesline him.

                • S.J., Esquire says:

                  **you meet someone on a bicycle, clothesline him.**

                  Hehe, the clothesline was always my fave

                • Contaminated NEET says:

                  >However, they also ultimately are street rabble who rely on being protected by the authorities. At the end of the day, the Wall of Moms won’t absorb more than one fusillade from the mythical line of boomers with guns.

                  So our hypothetical army can beat their actual army? That’s great, but what they actually put in the field beats what we put in the field over and over again.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  As long as the police have their back, we won’t win a street fight. Yet if we are looking at more of a Fallujah scenario, then antifa as we have seen them will be insufficient. Do forgive my attempt at levity re: boomers.

      • bjorn says:

        I’m a noob here myself so I don’t have the most credibility on the planet, but if Kevin C is a shill he’s /very/ deep cover. I recognize his name and writing style from years ago when he was in the community that sprang up around Scott Alexander – nah, Kevin’s always been a blackpiller by constitution, but he earnestly means exactly what he says.

        • Theshadowedknight says:

          If he is part of the Scott Alexander crowd, then he’s a lefty, hence shill. Might not be an official shill, but a shill nonetheless.

          • bjorn says:

            “Was” does not imply “is”. I wasn’t a poster but I was an avid lurker in Alexander’s circles. I used to be (at different times) a constitutionalist and an anarcho-capitalist, because those were the only non-Boomercon ideologies within the public consciousness. By comparison, I now advocate (lovingly) binding women to bedposts with chains just long enough to reach the kitchen. I don’t doubt for a second that Kevin may have embarked on a similar path.

            I mean, have you always believed everything you believe now? Let he who has never once said anything libtarded cast the first stone.

            • Kevin C. says:

              > “Was” does not imply “is”.

              Indeed, because if everyone who ever posted at SSC “is a lefty, hence shill” then Jim himself is a lefty shill, because he commented there until banned for speaking forbidden truths; indeed, his time commenting there until banned overlapped with my time commenting there until banned.

          • Mike says:

            I can agree with a degree of his cynicism, I’d argue my that my parents have for the most part accepted the defeat narrative. Countersignaled it to an extent (For example, I reminded them how absolutely pathetic and ludicrous it is for them to take comfort in the fact that “at least there weren’t riots!” due to a Biden winning timeline, when the fact that you’re admitting riots would have happened if Trump had been announced winner on election night means that political violence is implicitly being threatened toward voters such as yourselves), but I’m not going to out of my way to make politics the only topic of discussion with my close relatives.

            The issue with Kevin is that he sounds completely hysterical and unthinking. It is true that a sizeable number of Republicans still cling to the Constitution and notions of “peace in our time,” we’ve seen it before with men such as Cato the Younger, vainly clinging to a Golden Age that has long since passed, unwilling to give up on it even as everything passes away before their very eyes. What is not true is painting people that merely are nostalgic for the past era of good feelings to be completely incapable of facing a new reality when it becomes impossible to ignore. If the Trumps have openly tweeted about themselves being arrested if they fall out of office, its hard to believe that never trickles down to the masses at all.

          • jim says:

            If he is unsupervised, then regardless of his psychology and political beliefs, nothing stops him from acknowledging and stating what we, and any male who has been paying attention, believes about women.

            I do not ask him what he believes. I ask him what we believe. Does anyone anywhere not know what we believe?

            • Not Tom says:

              People act like the shill test is such a big deal, but it’s not much different from when Google decides you’ve been sending some unusual traffic and throws you a CAPTCHA. Prove that you are what we are supposed to think you are.

              I could even pass the Christian shill test, despite knowing very little about Christianity, by simply copy-pasting Jim’s standard paragraph. It’s not meant to detect personal beliefs or feelings, only supervision and scripts.

            • Kevin C. says:

              Way back when I and my brothers were in school — back before male teachers were pretty much entirely driven out of elementary schools — our school district had an unofficial — yet quite clearly visible — policy of never asigning male teachers to teach 5th or 6th grade. Younger grades, yes; junior high and high school, yes. But not those years.

              And while none would admit it, the reason why was clearly due to how the 5th and 6th grade girls hitting puberty, while the boys weren’t quite there yet, reacted to an adult male in a position of authority over them.

              Which behavior has been quite well explained, again and again, on this very blog, unlike the narratives found most anywhere else. Even if they accept the “crawling over broken glass for a chance at Jeremy Meeks” behavior, they still recoil at acknowledging how young it starts.

              (At least, among whites. The Natives up here, on the other hand, still tend to stick to their traditional ideas of when adulthood begins, which then leads to clashes with the Nice White Liberal Ladies brought in to run the village schoolhouse and local welfare office, which then is a large part of why Alaska winds up having “highest per capita sexual assault rate” on the “official” statistics, which use Nice White Liberal Lady definitions of “assault.”)

              • jim says:

                > they still recoil at acknowledging how young it starts.

                At a very early age, little girls react strongly to nonkin alpha males in a way that little boys do not, but their response is cute, childlike, harmless and innocent. It is not sexual behavior but pre sexual behavior in the way that playing with dolls is pre maternal behavior. They are playing at seduction the way the little boys are playing at hunting and fighting.

                At age nine or so, starts to be disturbing, inconvenient and not so innocent.

                At age ten or so, it is a full on major problem not much different from age eighteen and is not at all innocent. That is when if you fall asleep drunk, you are likely to get a happy awakening followed by a big surprise.

                Most of them are not displaying full on the behavior that they will display later, but most of them engage in behavior that causes problems and exposes them to danger, and a substantial minority are displaying much the same behavior that they will display all their fertile years. The play seductive behavior of age six or so is getting real among all of them.

                It is crawl nine miles over broken glass to get at Jeremy Meeks time.

            • FrankNorman says:

              Might not be supervised, but might still be unable to process the reactionary view on women due to it being too contrary to his own thought-habits.

              Like a slave so conditioned, that the overseer can chill out and go for a drink, knowing that none of his charges will slack in his absence.

        • onyomi says:

          I also remember Kevin C, his avatar and writing style, from SSC, and his expressed position was always that of a conservative with the sort of depressive personality that looks for a thorn on every rose. I expect he can pass the shill test, but if he can’t that would be quite interesting because it would imply he’s had the gig, at least off and on, for years.

    • Anonymous 2 says:

      Jesus, preserve me from time wasters.

  12. Justin Shlongberg says:

    [*deleted*]

  13. Pooch says:

    This seems like excellent news. Rudy is bypassing the stalling PA court and presenting evidence of fraud directly to the state legislature in a hearing. The same likely happening in Michigan and Arizona with other Trump lawyers.

    https://twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq/status/1331359074114482176?s=20

    • Kevin C. says:

      It doesn’t read as “excellent news” to me. It reads like continuing to lose in the courts, increasing desperation, and appealing to bodies who can’t do anything. Because while the Constitution does leave it to the states to appoint electors, said states have enshrined in state law procedures whereby the legislature is legally bound to appoint electors in accord with whatever the respective departments of elections say the vote results were, and that while state legislatures could repeal those laws, the ban on ex-post-facto mean such repeal would only restore the state legislatures’ power to choose electors for *future* elections, and they’re still bound by law in *this election* to obey whatever the (Dem) vote-counters say the result is, with any attempts to do otherwise being illegal, to be both ignored and as potential grounds for state criminal prosecution of the legislators in question.

      • The Cominator says:

        “said states have enshrined in state law procedures whereby the legislature is legally bound to appoint electors”

        They are NOT bound by their own laws to do so. Numerous precedents have said that.

        • Kevin C. says:

          > They are NOT bound by their own laws to do so. Numerous precedents have said that.

          Do you have any links to those precedents? Because all the lawyer-talk I’ve heard is that Michigan’s legislature, at least, *is* required to obey and that refusing to do so *is* grounds for their arrest. It would be quite useful to have some citations on hand to counter that narrative, if it is indeed false.

          • Pooch says:

            Gore v Bush 2000

            • Kevin C. says:

              Could you be more specific? Because I don’t recall anywhere in the text that would be directly relevant as to the power (or lack thereof) of a state legislature to ignore state law directing the assignment of electors.

              • restitutor_orbis says:

                The answers you seek can be found here:
                https://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/law/students/publications/llj/pdfs/vol-51/issue-2/7_Foley%20(309-362).pdf

                This 54-page law review article was written in 2018 by liberals to assess all of the legal strategies Trump was likely to use. It explores in-depth exactly the process by which the legislatures can bypass even a signed certificate by the governor.

                I strongly recommend EVERYONE on this forum read this white paper as it explains a lot that you won’t find summarized any place else. I was going to try to summarize it on my substack but it’s too complex to do it justice in a blog post.

                Suffice to say that the situation is exceedingly complex and legally very grey, and anyone who tells you that Michigan’s legislature is “required to obey” and not doing so is “grounds for their arrest” is lying or engaging in wishful thinking. It’s not nearly so open and shut as that.

                • Kevin C. says:

                  Except, from the very paper you linked, on p. 319:

                  There is good reason to think that this purported legislative appointment of electors would be invalid as a matter of state or federal law, or both. To be sure, the federal Constitution unquestionably gives state legislatures the authority to engage in direct appointment of presidential electors. Moreover, it is also true that when exercising this federal constitutional authority there is no need for the state legislature to provide for gubernatorial involvement.24 Thus, one might think that the two houses of the Pennsylvania legislature, without any legal obstacle, could supersede a popular vote with direct appointment of electors. While it might be undemocratic, it would not seem unlawful.

                  But that conclusion would be too quick. While it is undoubtedly true that for future elections a state legislature could change the method of appointing presidential electors from a popular vote to direct appointment, there are at least two significant legal obstacles to consider with respect to an attempt by a state legislature to assert direct appointment authority after a popular vote to appoint electors has already taken place.

                  First, insofar as this popular vote occurred pursuant to state legislation enacted using ordinary state legislative procedures, including presentment to the governor for possible veto, a strong argument can be made that this method of appointing electors cannot be undone except by a new state statute enacted using the same ordinary methods of legislation. In other words, even if the state legislature wants to return to a method of appointment with no gubernatorial involvement, the legislature first would need to repeal—by ordinary legislative methods—the statute that authorized appointment by means of a popular vote. Second, the legislature would need to change in this appointment method before, not after, electors had already been appointed by means of a popular vote. The legislature is always free to make this move for next time, but it cannot—at least not without violating the due process clause of the Constitution—undo an appointment of electors already made.

                  (Emphasis added.)

                  So, again, they can change the rules in state law for *next time*, but are bound by the laws in place now for *this time*.

                • The Cominator says:

                  That is your reading of the law, not the SCOTUS precedent which reads that legislatures have PLENARY authority to name electors if they want to.

                • Kevin C. says:

                  @Cominator

                  “That is your reading of the law”

                  No, that’s Edward B. Foley’s reading of the law.

                  “not the SCOTUS precedent which reads that legislatures have PLENARY authority to name electors if they want to”

                  Quote *the specific words* from the SCOTUS ruling where that “PLENARY” authority is granted. Because all I see is you vaguely asserting that it’s in there somewhere, and lawyers and legal scholars (and my reading of Bush v. Gore) all saying otherwise.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Excuse me its not Bush v Gore its Mcpherson v Blacker (1892)

                  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/146/1/

                  “the legislature possesses plenary authority to direct the manner of appointment, and might itself exercise the appointing power by joint ballot or concurrence of the two houses, or according to such mode as it designated.”

                • Pooch says:

                  If a state legislature overruled the fraudulent popular vote in PA, for example, what would likely happen is a legal battle between state and federal court eventually ruling the state legislature could send Trump electors and Wolf would still send Biden electors and you’d have competing electors. The House would include the Biden electors and the Senate would not, assuming everyone who is not supposed to cuck doesn’t cuck, which of course is not a given.

                • Kevin C. says:

                  @Cominator

                  Yes, that’s a much better citation. But then, it is over 120 years old, so how much respect current institutions will give it

                  @Pooch

                  Your LA Times link only mentions a legal brief making the argument, not that any court recognized the argument as correct.

                  > “eventually ruling the state legislature could send Trump electors”

                  On what basis do you think that *this* is what the courts are likely to conclude, rather than instead going with Foley’s argument that the legislature is bound by present rules, can only change the rules for future elections, and thus only the Biden electors are legitimate.

                  > and the Senate would not, assuming everyone who is not supposed to cuck doesn’t cuck, which of course is not a given.

                  And assuming we don’t have a Dem-majority Senate due to Georgia by then (aren’t we talking Jan. 6, and isn’t the Georgia run-off before then?).

                • jim says:

                  Manifestly, the states have not been following current rules.

                  Which is well established grounds with much precedent for a supreme court appeal, and, when the supreme court is ignored, well established grounds with much precedent for the insurrection act, which was previously used for similar purpose in the civil rights conflict.

                • restitutor_orbis says:

                  Kevin C – There is no ‘except’. I said the situation is complex and grey, not open and shut. So does Foley.

                  In the section you cited, Foley says “a strong argument can be made”. That doesn’t mean it’s the law. That means it’s a litigation strategy you’d use, if before a court.

                  If you had read on even one more paragraph, on the very next page, he then says “While these legal arguments are powerful, they ultimately may not matter.”

                  Then he adds “Also, it is worth noting that the strength of any argument against direct legislative appointment of presidential electors may depend heavily on the specific factual context in which such direct legislative appointment is attempted.”

                  Then he says “as a matter of how persuasive a Trump effort at direct legislative appointment of electors would be, it might well depend on how successfully he could draw an analogy to a genuine emergency situation,
                  like a cyberattack. If he were unable to convince anyone that the blue shift in the overtime count was anything other than the normal process of canvassing election returns, his argument for direct legislative
                  appointment of electors would be correspondingly weak. Conversely, if he was able to convince at least his own Republican supporters that the blue shift was an electoral calamity comparable to a cyberattack, thereby nullifying the validity of the canvass and the overtime count, his
                  argument that direct legislative appointment was necessary to fill the void left by the invalid blue shift would strengthen correspondingly at least in the eyes of his own supporters.”

                  Then he goes on and on from there for another 40 pages, ultimately concluding:

                  “It is truly irresponsible that Congress has not
                  attempted to eliminate—in advance of the 2020 election—the ambiguities that plague the Electoral Count Act. The purpose of the statute is to handle the circumstance in which Congress is divided over the outcome of a presidential election. But the statute is woefully inadequate for its intended purpose.”

                  If Foley was confident this was open-and-shut victory he would not end his paper urgently calling for legal reform. It’s complex and messy and hard to parse and will be a huge mess.

                  You may not like it, but this is what peak legal analysis looks like.

                • Kevin C. says:

                  @Jim

                  “when the supreme court is ignored”

                  They won’t have to ignore the Supreme Court if the Supreme Court doesn’t take any of the cases to begin with — as is most likely by far — nor if SCOTUS takes the case… and cucks out and rules for Biden.

                  And where’s your “precedent for the insurrection act” then?

                • jim says:

                  Trump is not one to worry over much about precedents, though victory would be quicker and spill less blood if he has precedents in his pocket.

                • Pooch says:

                  Shut the fuck up, faggot shill.

              • Pooch says:

                It’s literally in Article II of the Constitution:

                “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

                SCOTUS ruled that State Legislature has ultimate determination in Bush v Gore. Google around for the court’s opinion.

                • Kevin C. says:

                  > SCOTUS ruled that State Legislature has ultimate determination in Bush v Gore. Google around for the court’s opinion.

                  I’ve read it. I don’t see where in there it is — though restitutor_orbis’s link might point me to where in there it is.

                  > Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct

                  And the State Legislature *has* directed the Manner, laying it down in State law, said manner being that electors be appointed to vote for whichever candidate received the plurality of votes as determined by the Division of Elections and certified etc., etc.

                  The argument is that the “binding” state law *is* the Legislature-directed Manner spoken of in the Constitution, having been passed into law by the (past) State Legislature.

                • Pooch says:

                  You’re torturing the text.

                • Pooch says:

                  Bush v. Gore::

                  …the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself. … The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”)

                  https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

              • The Cominator says:

                Bush v Gore is the most recent but there are others.

                The reason the SCOTUS precedent say this is the clear text of the US constitution vest the power of naming electors with state legislatures (without any qualification). Any laws to the contrary are unconstitutional and unenforcable because the constitution overrides any such laws.

  14. Octavian says:

    “Constantine also built a new capital far from the swamp.”

    This is something that would be very helpful to emulate.

    A new Augustan age will probably need a new capital. In flyover country, I’d prefer to build a new city (Columbia?). Perhaps in Nebraska, Kansas, or Missouri. Or take an existing medium sized city and renovate it aggressively. An opportunity for new imperial glory and cultural rebirth. Civic monoliths, triumphal arches, grand avenues with military parade grounds, great cathedrals, etc.

    Peter the Great recognized this when instituting his revolution from above – without the new city it is very probably that the entrenched interests would have succeeded in repudiating the Petrine reformation. But physically detaching the power center from the entrenched system made it much harder for the older interests to reassert themselves. C.f. my series on PtG.

    • John C. Calhoun says:

      Better to drain the swamp or raze the buildings in DC and #buildbackbetter than to build another capital. VA and MD were southern states, the former turning blue quite recently due to the ever-expansding e.g. Pentagon in Arlington, CIA HQ in Langley.

      No need to build another capital when you can just remake the existing one.

      • jim says:

        Augustus tried remaking the capital.

        It failed to stick.

        If reforming Harvard fails to stick, raze it to ground and redevelop as offices and housing, and build a new Harvard and a new West Point near the new Great Cathedral.

      • Pooch says:

        The DC Metro area is the most leftist area of the country and possibly the world. Everyone is either an afeminine white shitlib or a low IQ brown immigrant which bears out in the employees in all of the federal agencies. It is the literal leftist utopia already made manifest on earth. Moving everything to Texas immediately solves that problem.

        • Anonymous 2 says:

          I would recommend you to consider splitting the various functions to different time zones, and also placing them in minor towns.

          Perhaps something like put Congress in Hawaii, the Senate in Colorado and SCOTUS in Oklahoma? CIA in Philadelphia, FBI in Tucson, NSA in Newark. Well, you get the point.

      • Octavian says:

        Draining the swamp requires the consent of the swamp or the wholesale replacement of the swamp with one’s own.

        Relocating a capital is also an opportunity to physically replace a great deal of swamp with new men (let’s not kid ourselves, they will be men) that if properly incentivized will have a vested interest in the new order. This means that there will be chance to make local capitoline government and law enforcement rather more grounded in the American tradition – folkish if you like. Placing the capital in heartland America also makes it less accessible.

        It’s not foolproof and nothing last forever, but ‘draining the swamp’ and razing DC are both potentially more complex options. Besides, there are a great many genuine national treasures in DC that are part of the repressed American national consciousness – perhaps some of them could or should be taken to ‘Columbia’.

    • jim says:

      Putin’s great Cathedral is an absolutely brilliant move.

      When we get power, which I hope will be after Trump becomes Caesar Augustus and has to deal with a hostile state religion, but may be after leftism slowly dies under a Stalin or a Cromwell, build a great Cathedral in flyover country, and create freshly minted institutions of governance, starting with new spy agencies, in that town.

      • Octavian says:

        It can and will be glorious.

        The Cathedral of the Resurrection of Christ, to give Putin’s Cathedral its proper name, is a vision of what is still possible in this age. I really like that it is named for the Holy Resurrection. Sublimely appropriate.

        Resurrection, rebirth, restoration, renovation, reanimation, revitalization. All excellent words.

        My vision for the new city would include the construction of the largest Cathedrals in the world. C.f. what they are doing in Romania with the People’s Salvation Cathedral (although I’m not too sure about the name) there.

        • The Cominator says:

          Place for a Cathedral is a new capital IMHO.

          Flyover country is not the best place for this as the vast majority of American right wing christians are low church Protestants who while they may find a Cathedral beautiful would regard it as borderline idolatrous if used as a place of worship.

          And no don’t try to correct them, these people are on the whole enemies of the left and loyal supporters of Trump. Lets not in victory then repeat the mistake of William Laud and Charles I.

          • Pooch says:

            That’s not true. The upper Midwest around the Great Lakes has large Catholic populations. Catholics in general are the largest share of church goers now in the US now I believe. Mainline Protestantism is essentially cucked and dead at this point.

    • onyomi says:

      I’m not a Mormon and I assume the actual Mormons wouldn’t be entirely happy about this, but Salt Lake City might actually make a good new capital: as far as I can tell, one of the most family-friendly, culturally conservative urban areas, closer to the West Coast so convenient for facing Asia/keeping Silicon Valley under control, and already down with the whole “giant cathedral and religious pageantry” aspect of what I presume we hope is the new state religion.

      • onyomi says:

        And of course there’s already a big culture of e.g. study abroad and serve in the CIA.

        • John C. Calhoun says:

          If you think about it there are 4 capitals in the USA – they decentralized power and all of these places still managed to become areas of high crime and infertility.

          DC is the political capital
          Boston is the educational capital
          NY is the finance/SOE capital
          SF is the big tech capital.

          Building a new capital would not do much because it would take productive land and eventually it would befall to leftism. Although this time it will be much quicker since you have centralized even more power into one capital.

          The better solution as Jim has suggested is to raze these buildings into the ground, provide each bureaucrat a personalized helicopter ride and then install loyalists to shift the culture.

          All 4 capitals need to be conquered and redeveloped otherwise if you give one a free pass, that wil quickly become the left’s new command center of operations.

          • jim says:

            > Building a new capital would not do much because it would take productive land and eventually it would befall to leftism.

            Movement ever lefter is a holiness spiral, a purity spiral, in the state church, caused by too many elites struggling for elite state church positions

            Shut down open entry into the state Church, appoint an archbishop and a grand inquisitor, then no more purity spiral.

            For leftism to survive, it has to move ever lefter, ever faster, knocking over ever more applecarts, and snatching up ever more shiny apples. When the apple carts stop falling, leftism dies, as it died in the Soviet Union and in Cromwell’s England.

            Moving the capital is a measure to escape entrenched corruption and bloated bureaucracy, not a measure to avoid leftism. Stop the movement ever leftwards, and leftism will die soon enough, but corruption will remain entrenched.

            • John C. Calhoun says:

              If you move the capital, the existing bureaucrats will still remain in these capitals and they will remain angry and bitter that their power got taken away. The conquistadors destroyed the native temples and built catherdrals out of the rubble to show off the king in town.

              Might be a better idea to destroy all the temples and “holy buildings” and provide helicopter rides to all of the bureaucrats.

            • The Cominator says:

              The corruption and leftism feed each other and corruption in DC in entrenched… if Trump becomes Augustus he should move the capital.

    • Korth says:

      America already has a major city very close to the geographical population-weighted median center of the contiguous 48 states, on the banks of the most important river in the North American continent, and appropriately named after a holy Christian saint-king: Saint Louis.

      That much of it is currently a dump makes it even better, in that it can be unapologetically bulldozed to make room for the monumental archeofuturist-neogothic-deco public buildings that the American Monarchy will commission to signal its permanent overcoming of liberalism and its neoclassical public art.

      • Octavian says:

        King Louis IX was a great monarch. He banned usury, attacked Talmudry, and introduced stricter penalties for blasphemy. Maybe I should write about him.

        In any case, a city named for St. Louis would not be inappropriate as capital. And as you correctly point out, it is in need of some rebirth.

        • The Cominator says:

          St. Louis was a good king but banning usury doesn’t work, nobody will lend money. The reason when Medieval kings issued nonsensical laws like this it didn’t lead to disaster was because they were pretty unenforceable (like bans on casual gambling).

          You just don’t want your currency to be based off of debt.

          Now I guess one question is if you want some separation between the bureaucrats and the official residence of the monarch, I think yes you don’t want the monarch constantly surrounded by bureaucrats they should only be around the palace when called to report. I would propose making the Imperial palace Trump’s Mar a Lago and putting the administrative capital in the oldest city in the continental US and named for another St… St. Augustine. We’ll further seperate the higher level bureaucrats from the lower level bureaucrats by stuffing the low level petty bureaucrats (to the extent we need them) in cheaper low prestige office space in Jacksonville.

  15. [black pilling deleted, shill suspected]

    • jim says:

      Take the woman question shill test.

      What is our account, and the manophere account, of the Woman Question and the Woman Problem?

      Can you tell us the position that you furtively argue against?

  16. Truther7 says:

    [*deleted for implausibly commenting from within the frame that you are Christian*]

    • jim says:

      I will allow comments from within that frame if you declare that Jesus Christ is lord, born in Bethlehem, died in Jerusalem, and is from before the beginning of the world, mortal and eternal, fully man and fully God. God is Three and God is One.

      • Truther7 says:

        [*deleted for failing demon worshiper test*]

        • jim says:

          Jesus Christ is Lord, born in Bethlehem, died in Jerusalem, and is, is from before the beginning of the world. Wholly God and wholly man. God is three and God is one.

          It is interesting that these shills can lie that they are Christian, but cannot say the words of Christian faith.

          Are there literal demons inside them or their organization who would burn were they to say those words?

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            Whether demons are real–which I believe to be the case–or metaphorical, the people on the left believe they are real. When they are afraid to speak the name of the Lord, it is action against self-interest. As an honest man, I would have a hard time lying or denying Jesus Christ to gain an advantage. They clearly have no such scruples. Thus, their behavior is strong evidence in favor of the real, supernatural demon interpretation.

            Someone who thought that belief in a sky-zombie and invisible monsters with magic powers was truly ridiculous would not hesitate to lie for an advantage. They clearly believe in their invisible friends, and cannot speak the name of the Son for fear of what might happen. They fear the consequences of His name and attention. Question: what would happen were we to anoint a shill with holy water or oils?

          • Jehu says:

            Occam’s razor is that there has to be something supernatural going on, what with shills refusing to affirm a very simple Christian creed. Most terrestrial HR departments won’t even take notice of that. So yeah, you’re probably dealing with at least demon worship if not actual demonic possession, or demons in their HR department.

          • Joe says:

            Jesus Christ lights the way when all the world has turned to darkness.

  17. Bilge_Pump says:

    Off topic, but there was a small discussion about China and progressivism in the last post. I saw this video from SCMP (South China Morning Post) today on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rwhyAEUQ30

    the title is “Model from Congo takes on Asian beauty standards”. Someone here was speculating that there are Cathedral agents at work in China spreading prog filth. If true, Hong Kong seems to be their central hub. SCMP is a Hong Kong publication, after all.

    • Contaminated NEET says:

      >speculating
      >If true

      Of course Cathedral agents are busy spreading prog filth in China! Of course! They brag about it. There’s nothing uncertain here.

      • The Cominator says:

        I’ve heard the chinks hate them and call them baizuos. The only Asian country where they’ve really gotten somewhat strong is Taiwan.

      • Bilge_Pump says:

        I don’t remember who it was that asked about it, maybe it was a rhetorical question, but I’ve suspected for a while now that the whole free Hong Kong thing in Western media is the Cathedral trying to subvert Chinese institutions just as they are subverting American institutions in the US. This is just an example I’ve seen recently.

        What’s funny is the switch-up to “Asian beauty standards”. In China they can’t blame slavery for all of the problems of low-IQ blacks, it’s irrelevant there, so I wonder what justifications they’ll use / make up?

  18. Mister Grumpus says:

    It’s “Rand Paul” not “Paul Rand”. I mean the Senator who got spear-tackled in his own lawn by that one dude and got his ribs broken.

    Feel free to edit the OP accordingly, and then delete this.

  19. slumlord says:

    I agree with your analysis, though I hadn’t factored in the Insurrection Act and I guess that’s where Trump is going to go with this. I think the Supreme Court appeal is all smoke and mirrors, though he would gain a hell of a lot of legitimacy if the Dems lost at the Supreme Court and refused to accept the ruling.

    Barr’s been veeeery quiet and I don’t imagine he’s sitting in his office sucking his thumb.

    I reckon we’re going to see some biblical level stuff happening.

    • jim says:

      I confidently predict biblical stuff, and I hope that it is successfully proclaiming the insurrection act.

      But what I predict is to expect the unexpected.

      • slumlord says:

        Yep. I’ve also got his funny feeling that the UK/US relationship won’t be the same after what comes to pass.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      If any of us had any idea what’s going on behind the curtain right now our heads would explode. Some kind of God-tier Sun Tzu shit.

      Remember the day-after last-minute reorganizing of the Special Forces? I mean what the hell is that.

      If you don’t know who the Romanovs were then you can be blackpilled. For everyone else there’s new color pills on the way that only bees can see.

      • Strannik says:

        Tsar Nicholas, righteous and just, was absolutely on the verge of winning WWI for Russia when his own government and the generals betrayed him (except the lone Muslim Tatar general), forged his obviously fake abdication decree, and held him under de facto house arrest. His loyal guard of Old Believer Orthodox Cossacks were replaced with revolutionaries and disbanded on higher orders.

        The official state ”orthodox” church of the ”holy synod” declared immediately for the Provisional Government instead of calling the people for counter-revolution, nor did many of the common people immediately react against what had happened. Then the revolutionaries of the Provisional Government were overthrown by the Bolsheviks. Then the counter-revolutionaries acted and the Russian Civil War began. But none of the White counter-revolutionaries ever stood for the Tsar, they all had personally betrayed him earlier, every last single one of them.

        You see, all this had been preceded by years and years of lies and Anti-Tsarist propaganda, lies about Tsar Nicholas and his family, lies about the economic miacles of Russia before 1914 (a weak, bloody, ineffective and unpopular ruler as they claim Tsar Nicholas to be doesn’t preside over the greatest leap of prosperity in recorded history!), lies about Gregori Rasputin,lies about the Japanese-Russian War and lies about the first ”Color Revolution” in 1905, and lies about Russian victories and defeats alike in WWI. If any country was ”stabbed in the back” during WWI, it was Russia, not Germany.

        I’m sure there are lessons to be learned with all this.

        • The Cominator says:

          Nicholas fucked himself when he betrayed Stolypin and then entered the war.

          If there is a devil Nicholas sided with the cause of the devil by taking the side of the Vatican and social Democracy against his fellow monarchs.

          • Strannik says:

            Tsar Nicholas didn’t ”betray” Petr Stolypin, I don’t know where you come up with that. Stolypin had long before been assassinated by a snitch for the Ohkrana under murky circumstances.

            And it was Germany that betrayed the traditional order, the Vatican was firmly on the Hohenzollern and Habsburg side, right with the Ottoman Turks too. Germany sought European and world hegemony, to be a superpower as the United States has been, and Russia was in the way, being Russia. Now, Rasputin did warn the Tsar about getting into war, but once the decision was made Tsar Nicholas was resolute and after much blood and sacrifice, was on the verge of victory with a winning strategy.

            My point being what happened to Tsar Nicholas after that, the betrayals.

            • The Cominator says:

              The Vatican was playing both sides but it wanted Austria destroyed because they controlled Papal elections.

              • Strannik says:

                The Vatican wasn’t ”playing both sides” and did not want Austria destroyed, because the Austrian Cardinal who was ethnic Polish who delivered the veto from Austria to the conclave when they elected Cardinal Rompalla del Tindaro was adamant not to see del Tindaro Pope. Why? Because del Tindaro was in favor of better relations with Russia and making Poles and Roman Catholics in general good citizens of the Russian Empire. After that Conclave they abolished the Imperial Habsburg veto. Kaiser Wilhelm literally promised Pope Leo XIII earlier that the Vatican would rule Italy and have the Papal states restored to direct rule if Germany won any coming European war. What the Vatican wanted was Serbia and Russia destroyed, as Pope Pius X said in 1914, because of Orthodoxy as a threat to the Papacy.

            • The Cominator says:

              Also I don’t think this is entirely true of Germany in WWI, now Hitler yes he wanted to become a world power and the premier world power.

              Hitler in fact complains about how limited the German war aims in WWI were.

              I know you will bring up Brest-Litosk but under the circumstances the Germans (who maybe anticipated a long war with the United States, of course their morale cracked 1st) wanted a lot of farmland and the Bolsheviks were willing to give it at least temporarily away.

              • Strannik says:

                Hitler was full of it. Germany’s aims for WWI were every bit as expansionist as Hitler’s in WWII, Hindenburg and especially Ludendorff made that quite clear.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Things of course changed after two years of a very awful two front war. Originally it was supposed to be like the previous wars of the Post Napoleonic eras, over in Season (home by Christmas).

                  It really should have ended with the Christmas Truce (I don’t know whether that happened on the Eastern Front but I think there was limited fighting in the winter in the East during the 1st world war anyway), it was clear it would not have a decisive victory quickly… the Christmas truce was a great opportunity to negotiate a status quo antebellum peace and save face.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          What’s incredible about 1914-1918 is how nobody’s elite believed in their own country. I can only imagine the soldiers did given how they behaved and from watching interviews of some of the participants.

          Russia – palace coup that sold 1/3 of the country for the chance to run riot purging everyone internally

          Germany – basically the same thing but with more limited opportunity to go nuts with enemy troops at the gates and the army disbanded

          Allies – supposedly liberal-conservatives with several monarchies, but broke up Austria and Ottomans and turned them into national republics, let the Russians go communist, turned a blind eye to the Germans possibly going communist – I mean seriously what was the plan here, just fight them all over again with Russia and Germany on the same side in 1921? it almost happened

          I guess the only country really pursuing its stated interest was the USA, that stated interest being to ensure its allies didn’t win the war(!) (“peace without victory”)

          No wonder everyone went home feeling jaded. My experience is people are actually pretty happy to fight and maybe die for their empire.Like their sports team. Even defeat doesn’t destroy engagement with the system, just makes them sad about losing. But what do you do when your leaders are fundamentally playing a different game to you?

    • Cole says:

      The Insurrection Act is probably not necessary and perhaps too drastic. Take a read of the 2018 Executive Order by Trump. It seems to fit perfectly with what is going on with this election.

      https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-imposing-certain-sanctions-event-foreign-interference-united-states-election/

      • Not Tom says:

        How would this help him with domestic election fraud? Not only does it not technically apply, but if Democrats were willing to steal the election and are likely willing to ignore a Supreme Court decision, they certainly aren’t going to care about some little-known and so-far unenforced executive order from 2 years ago.

  20. Eli says:

    This whole 26D chess narrative is whitepilling indeed. But as we are fast approaching mid-December, the room for this narrative is narrowing noticeably.

    • onyomi says:

      It becomes a little more credible (not saying I entirely buy it, but a little more credible) when you see, as I have seen clearly this year and especially this month, just how much well… resistance he’s been up against every step of the way and at every level. It’s kind of a wonder he got anything done and made it 4 years already…

      • Eli says:

        Yes. He’s managed to pull off quite a few feats. But he also had more time to make it happen. I don’t see how he has more than 2 weeks here. But I am not the president, I am not him — so I remain open to being wrong.

  21. I very much agree, I have the same model of history, but in a bit different words, so I will share it because it might resonate with some better.

    I’ll start with the observation that Alexander treated his elite men as his friends, while Persian or Egyptian monarchs treated everyone as his slaves and worshippers as living gods. Hence “oriental despotism”. This points to a unique feature of Western civilization, that while the whole society was not egalitarian, there was a certain level of egalitarianism between aristocratic elites, the kings just being first of equals with a bunch aristocrats.

    This unique feature of the West made it far easier to do this delegation job for kings, to build a virtuous elite that does the ruling mostly on their own. On the minus side, this also led to ideas like a republic. This is a very Western thing, it would never occur in the Orient. Basically when you take this limited egalitarianism on the top and interpret it as egalitarianism all over society, bad shit gonna happen. If one would conjure the spirit of an oriental despot, he would say “Yeah, that’s why I nipped in the bud”, and I think the West would have to answer that as long as it was limited to the top, and controlled by kings, it led to good things.

    From about the 14th century, everybody who mattered had read the Ancient Greek – Roman classics. People were fascinated by that era. And of course noticed all those republics and democracies. And the general consensus was that this only works if the elites are virtuous. More importantly, the term for elites being virtuous was patriotism. (Or later nationalism, I find them mostly interchangeable.) For centuries people have read the Roman stories of self-sacrificing patriotism, considering it the ideal to follow. Dulce et decorum. From this angle, one way to talk about kings building virtuous elites is to say kings build nations and patriotic elites.

    So even a liberal like Montesqiueu wrote that if your elites cannot put the good of their country about their own good, you are better off with a monarchy. Because it was just the general consensus. Everybody including the American Founding Fathers understood that the great problem of republics is faction, and thus they require patriotism, they require putting the common good above your own good. This is hard. He wrote monarchy is a whole lot easier, the elites want honors (status), handed out by the king so they server the king and through the king, the country.

    Consensus is not a much liked word here, I am using it consciously. There was such a thing as a Western Canon, coming from everybody reading the classics because the Greco-Roman era was a great testing ground for all kinds of political ideas, and coming to this conclusion. Jim is mostly channelling the old and forgotten Western Canon, not inventing something new. Virtue, understood as patriotism or nationalism was widely understood as a precondition of republics.

    (Except the unfortunate part where it tended towards the direction of “Don’t worry, guys, we are patriotic and virtuous, we’ll be able to pull this republic thing off.”)

    The part where I disagree a bit with the Western Canon is that I think the big problem is not when elites pursue their individual interests. The big problem is when they combine them into a faction. Perhaps due to Enlightenment individualism, it was less noticed. Especially the part that it is easy to form factions, because human nature is tribal. Us vs. them, the way of men is the way of the gang etc. And how easy it is to see your own gang as the true patriots!

    Like, in the very first stage of the French revolution all the radicals were from Bretagne. Later the ideology attracted everyone who wanted power, but the first core was this more personal gang, a bunch of bros who knew and trusted each other.

    I like to put focus on this, because the patriotic virtues are based on turning our tribal instincts into seeing the whole of the elites or the whole of the country as your one ingroup. When they break down then what usually happens is that there will be lower level groups. Those ones can very easily interpret themselves as something like nations or ethnicities too, think American Civil War, it points to two two groups of elites seeing they are two nations, not one.

    The aspect that republics turns into democracies by elites recruiting the plebs to fight for them in their internal struggles is excellent. I would like to word it also a bit differently. Today, the various ideas on the left are obviously incompatible with any sense of patriotism. But back then if you think about socialism especially about its milder, “conservative” forms like that of Disraeli. It was put into a form of a nationalist language: we are all, the whole nation are one ingroup, so why not help each other out, the rich helping the poor? Sounds very patriotic and very virtuous?

    The issue with that is of course that it is not how socialism works. It is one group of elites paying off a group of plebs both with their opponents money and if they cannot avoid it then with their own in order to support them against another group of elites. So if elites see the whole nation as one ingroup, there is this failure mode. Meaning elites should only see elites as an ingroup? Would not be a popular idea these days.

    On Caesars. Long ago, Vico wrote that Caesars happen when elites completely lose the ability to even see something like the public good, to see something like a republic, only their own factional interests. So Caesar comes and says “I am the republic.” Which is the same idea as serving the country through the king. Which is something similar to Napoleon saying “I am the revolution.”

    This is a… difficult pill. If you tell me 15 years ago that you can serve your country through serving a king I would have replied that how do you know if the kings private interest is the public interest of the country? If some dude says I am the republic, I would have thought he wants to steal it, impose his private interest on the public good.

    It was only Moldbugs secure vs. insecure power and nerdy examples like Fnargl’s Ring that made me understand that the idea is that where is only one truly dominant private interest, it becomes in practice something like the public good or public interest. Because if you own something, and your son(s) will inherit it, you want it to work well.

    Well this is not that intuitive. 18th century men thought government has to be limited else it becomes a tyranny. Even Aristotle waay back then saw a difference between a monarchy and a tyranny. This was also a big part of a canon. And a private interest dominating the public can be tyrannical, of course, why could it not be. And all 18th century stuff about limited government. It was an Enlightenment thing. But in 1767 François Quesnay published Le Despotisme de la Chine arguing that this really not Western “oriental despotism” is good when it is sufficiently “enlightened”, relying more on scholars than nobles. So I don’t even know. In this aspect the canon is not very unified, it seems to me. It is unified in claiming republics requiring patriotism but not about this. There have been multiple version of the cycles of various forms of government proposed, not just Plato’s. Perhaps when democracy breaks down you have to have tyranny first, then it mellows out into a proper monarchy.

    Thing is, I think like a nerd and I very much agree with Aidan Maclear “The nerd needs his five dollar words as a balm for the fact that he should agree with the jock.” That all this history and philosophy done right just leads to rediscovering much of what jocks knew intuitively anyway. Do they have some kind of an intuitive knowledge why and when does one dominant private interest really becomes equivalent to the public good or public interest and when not?

    • jim says:

      > in coming to this conclusion. Jim is mostly channeling the old and forgotten Western Canon, not inventing something new

      Was not forgotten when I was a kid. Maybe it was forgotten in most places, but was not forgotten everywhere.

      • Well, the fact that you are one of the very few bloggers, writters etc. today who writes what your write suggests it is not particularly well known.

    • Karl says:

      When you say that the big problem (of individuals pursuing individual interests) is when they combine into a faction, you leave out religion and human nature.

      Men always have individual interests and they will alway persue those interests. Forming factions is an effective way of persuing individual interests and it therefore always happens. That is human nature.

      The solution is religion! Religion says what means are OK to persue individual interests and which are not.

      “Virtuous elite” is just another way to say that the elite has a common religion and agrees to follow the demands of that religion. Of course, the religion has to set rules that enable cooperate-cooperate equilibrium, like Christianity.

      Christianty forbids a member of the elite to steal, lie and murder, but does no keep him form forming factions to persue his personal interests.

      Nothing wrong with personal interests and factions. Every business owned by more than one person is a faction persuing the interests of the business owners!

      • My point is very basic tribal human instinct, to think as us vs. them, ingroup and outgroup. Factions form on individual interests, but eventually become a bit more than that, they think of themselves as a “we”, “us”. Virtue understood as the public good or public interest harnesses this instinct to see the whole of the elites and/or the whole of the country as the primary ingroup, “we”. Hence virtue understood as patriotism.

        Now religion also forms ingroups and outgroups. If the religious ingroup overlaps with the ingroup of patriotism, whole elites or whole country and basically that is why the king has to rule the priests in order to ensure it so, all is well.

        But if the religion is a faction, then it is worse than a faction just based on interests, because it gives the faction ingroup cohesion and a moral excuse to attack competing elites.

        So your point, that religion gives a moral code, IMHO does not apply there much, because every religion also delivers these exceptions to the moral code, that if the other guys are heretics, pagans, infidels, racists, then the glove is off and you can attack them – and in fact you should, it is a holy duty to so. So a factional religion is the worst thing.

        A national religion is the best thing – of course it also has that failure mode that if people see all the neighboring countries as heretics who deserve the fire and the sword, that is an 1914 scenario. So this is another job of the king to put a dampener on that… still, it is safer. Like, St. Bartholomew’s Day. Catholics killed their Huguenot neighbors inside Paris and France. They did not walk through the border to kill the Protestants in Prussia too. Because without the kings army behind them, they would never win that one. They may hate the heretics across the border as much as they want to but without the kings consent they cannot do much.

        • Karl says:

          Of course, all the king’s subjects of any importance (i.e. the elite) need to subscribe to the king’s religion. Otherwise the situation is highly unstable.

          I meant a national religion in my comment above.

          Your point about 1914 is valid, but by that time Christianity was already declining in Europe. The 30 year war might be better example about the danger of religious wars.

          1914 seems like an accident. In my opinion no one imagined (and intended) that the war would be so bloody. I charge that to incompetence of the elites at that time.

          The 30 year war is different. The elites who got involved in it knew what they were doing and intended it. I’d argue that it happened because there was no national religion. Hence, there was a huge incentive to create a national religion, which was then heresy for the establised religion.

          • Yes of course, Westphalia was an important achievement, precisely because of the 30 years war.

            When I was looking for the historic origins of liberalism, or at least the aspect of liberalism where it is all about “tolerance” (and not all about equality!), I found precisely a reaction against the era of Cath vs. Prot violence. There were two ways to deal with that propblem.

            One is Westphalia, national religions, solving it by property lines, he who owns the place decides on the religion (cuius regio, eius religio) and it did not mean massacring the heretics, the Westphalian settlement included giving a period for religious minorities to migrate into countries where their religion is established, it wanted to solve the problem in a civilized, decent way, giving people time to sell their property and arrange their new homes abroad.

            The other idea was proto-liberalism, that is, “just be tolerant”, just accept your neighbor goes to a different church. The problem of that is clear now. All religions imply an ingroup and outgroup, ideas that the ingroup should be treated morally, meaning, roughly according to natural law or like brothers, like a tribal ingroup, and the opposite for outgroups.

            So if the the idea behind proto-liberalism was that while your neighbor goes to a different church than you do, he is still not an outgroup and you are still going to treat him decently, it just had to mean that both churches had to die in their essences. I mean, really, how could at the same time believe doing X and Y is a holy duty and therefore people not doing X and Y are immoral evil people, and yet have your neighbor belong to the later group and still have a very neat civilized relationship with him? Only way it happens if you no longer believe X and Y are holy duties. Meaning your religion is dead.

            Meaning some other religion takes its place. That is, some other idea that tells you what is holy and what is evil. Because it was liberalism telling you that it is okay that your neighbor was a very different idea about what is holy and what is evil but you must still tolerate him, liberalism is the new religion.

            The Westphalian solution was basically to just give your neighbor some reasonable amount of time to migrate to another land where his religion and his ideas of what is holy and what is evil dominate. Buy his property at a fair price etc.

            • Mike in Boston says:

              it was liberalism telling you that it is okay that your neighbor was a very different idea about what is holy and what is evil but you must still tolerate him, liberalism is the new religion.

              Couldn’t you have tolerance without liberalism under a millet system?

              • European Mutt says:

                Something like that may become necessary in Europe if the Muslims stay (it is already being implemented, one-sidedly, by Muslims). But there are no modern examples of this actually working (except for family law etc.), and the Ottoman empire eventually failed as we know.

                The Russian solution with Chechnya, Kadyrov as Grand Duke and Grand Inquisitor looks more workable to me.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      Patriotism was an aristocratic movement for creating an intentional community of mutually loyal elites.

      Nationalism was a demotic movement for one groups of elites to stampede a herd of peasants at another group of elites.

      • jim says:

        Nationalism was left wing when the applecart that they wanted to knock over was empire, when they were after the applecarts operated by men in splendid colorful uniforms.

        When all those men in their colorful uniforms had their applecarts knocked over in World War II, nationalism ceased to be leftist.

        Leftism’s ideology depends on whose applecart looks like it might be up for grabs.

        • The Cominator says:

          There is natural ancient nationalism in terms of ingroup preference and late 19th century “nationalism” which is toxic leftist and caused the world wars.

      • The reason why I use those words interchangebly is that back then it was indeed so. But the words changed their meanings. Today patriotism means something entirely cucked, flags, anthems and constitutions but turning a blind eye to ethnic replacement, it is normiecon / Boomercon terminology today, entirely devoid of any ethnic meaning, so I guess calling it patriotism/nationalism catches the original meaning better.

  22. onyomi says:

    For those looking for a more white-pilling interpretation of recent events, one that occurs to me:

    As I mentioned below, this GSA thing comes on the heels of news about 150 CEOs calling on Trump to concede to reduce economic uncertainty: https://www.npr.org/2020/11/23/938009930/ceos-urge-trump-to-concede-not-a-moment-to-waste-in-fighting-covid-19

    My initial thought was maybe they offered him some sort of carrot to concede without “making the rubble bounce,” but I didn’t initially think about the stick:

    Imagine they say to Trump, “You’re creating uncertainty and we don’t like uncertainty; you say you’re going to stay in, but we’re not convinced. Let Biden start laying the logistical groundwork for the scenario in which he takes office so that it can happen without a lot of hiccups or we’ll coordinate to liquidate a bunch of our positions and there go your precious stock market numbers” (couched in suitably coded language).

    There is a sense in which the presidential campaign is ongoing, especially for Trump. Trump worked hard throughout the campaign season to cultivate an association in his audience that Trump=booming economy (pandemic allowing), Biden=stock market crash, depression.

    He doesn’t want to give his supporters the impression he’s giving up, nor lend Biden any of the air of inevitability his team craves, but he also doesn’t want a big selloff on his watch, while the “campaign” is still ongoing, one that might change the equation from “Trump=good economy, Biden=bad economy” to “Trump=economic uncertainty and selloffs, Biden=return to normal.”

    So he says to the CEOs, “Okay, I won’t concede, but I’ll think about releasing transition funds to Team Biden so that on the off chance I fail, you guys can be reassured of a smooth transition process.” After an uncharacteristically long 16 hours without a Tweet, he pulls the trigger.

    Of course, this still isn’t great for Trump, as he’s been pressured into allowing Biden to cultivate more inevitably and has demoralized his supporters to a degree, but it doesn’t necessarily mean anything has changed in terms of his own willingness to take drastic measures to stay in power.

    Whether demoralizing his supporters in this way was worth preserving the health of his precious stock market, or whether the stock market, as opposed to lockdowns and woke excesses, is what his supporters really care about is certainly debatable, but it also isn’t obviously be the wrong choice if the goal is to keep things looking like they’re on an upswing so long as he’s in office.

  23. Eli says:

    If it is indeed true that Trump needs to invoke the Insurrection Act, he has to come up with a public declaration days, if not weeks, before the electors are to meet, to at least have a fireproof device to throw the extra electors who voted for Biden, forcing a House electoral vote.

    The insurrection declaration would give ability to do an audit of votes, because the process of discovery is being prevented. I don’t know what he would do regarding arrests of people responsible, but he at least needs to be able to do a true audit of the election.

    Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t see how he can win unless he declares it at by at least early December.

  24. hopinforabetterfuture says:

    ” Will never concede to fake ballots & “Dominion”.”

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1331086969183621120

    • jim says:

      I don’t think we are likely to get a good look at the fake ballots without proclamation of the insurrection act.

      We shall see.

      • hopinforabetterfuture says:

        They are long since destroyed i expect.

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          I can’t think of why they wouldn’t be destroyed by now either.

          If they’re still around and get signature checked then they lose and people are in legal trouble. If they’re gone then they lose and “oops sorry”.

          • Jehu says:

            Believe they’re required to be kept for 22 months after the election.

            • jim says:

              Lots of things are required, yet there is a strange and selective lack of enforcement.

              • Mister Grumpus says:

                The written law is obviously not the law anymore.

              • Jehu says:

                It’s a plausible reason for a Judge to throw out any and all votes that the originals can’t be provided for, and one for military tribunals to execute anyone they find guilty of it. What reason is there to destroy the originals when they’re required to be retained OTHER than covering up a steal? Military tribunals are likely to see it that way.

        • Not Tom says:

          Or perhaps never existed, in some cases, but that’s clearly illegal and a very good justification for proclaiming insurrection no matter what any court says.

  25. Stanon says:

    Let’s say it’s June 2021 and Biden is President and neither Trump, nor any member of Trumps family is dead or in jail. What is your explanation in this situation for what happened?

    • The Cominator says:

      Trump and his family are in Kazakhstan.

    • jim says:

      We shall see.

      I rightly observed what was in the cards in 2018 before the election.

      I read the cards rightly shortly before the 2020 election.

      Normalcy bias has been wrong every year since 1820, and has been getting more and more wrong. Lately it has been getting more and more wrong faster and faster. If you bet on normality, will lose money.

      • Cementmixer says:

        Regarding money, would you have any advice for safely managing our assets through the crisis?

        Would it be a good idea to buy physical gold? And how would the global economy be affected by a civil war?

        • The Cominator says:

          A true and severe civil war (likely if Biden gets in eventually) will end the dollar as the reserve currency (does not mean it will become Chinese money at least not right away). Gold and silver will go up and ammo will really go up.

          A fake and gay civil war if the election steal is reversed with massive antifa urban chimpouts will have almost no effect on the economy except the trend towards business moving out of cities more to the countryside will further accelerate.

    • Twitter is full of libs gloating that he is going to jail. The wind is clearly blowing that way. If your scenario happens, I will assume the great dealmaker has made another deal. Such a deal would be most likely, well, Dems are guilty as sin about a lot of things and he might have filed away plenty of evidence to be used as a bargaining chip.

      • BC says:

        The left isn’t agreement capable. If Trump leaves power he, his family, and prominent supporter, ally, or ranking republican will be arrested and then executed at a later date.

  26. Not Tom says:

    I hadn’t seen anything from Barnes in a while, just caught this which seems to align almost 100% with what I’ve been saying: https://youtu.be/VetHpqj5OXQ

    Some here won’t like it, and he can be credibly accused of normalcy bias, but I think most folks here who’ve followed him know that he’s a good guy, and he’s making many of the same points I have – to wit:
    – Don’t put Sidney Powell on a pedestal; she’s telling a good story but hasn’t delivered anything tangible
    – The voting machine hysterics is enemy disinfo
    – Q is enemy disinfo
    – Throwing in a lot of weak and stupid arguments with good ones might play well with a certain crowd, but looks awful where it might actually matter (i.e. in court)
    – We need to focus on the real quality hard evidence of traditional forms of fraud, which there is plenty of, and which is what Giuliani has been trying to do.

    This isn’t all bad news. Just think about it. Tucker called out Sidney, who a few days later we can see has almost certainly fallen under the Q spell, and the Trump campaign has politely shown her out. This isn’t a bad thing, it means he’s clearing the field. If she was the reason they were losing so many court cases and even the support of Republican governors, then this means they’re ready for a reset, Giuliani is probably taking the lead and he might actually make real progress. There are still 3 weeks left before doomsday.

    Was/is she really the problem? I don’t know, it’s just Barnes’s personal opinion and my longtime suspicion; but it wouldn’t be the first time this has happened to Trump, and when it’s happened in the past, he usually solved it pretty effectively with a personnel shuffle or two.

    I think Trump was ready for the fraud and was ready to challenge the result, but he wasn’t ready for the disinfo campaign. There was no way for him to predict ahead of time exactly what kind of disinfo they’d put out, and it looks to have been quite effective, thoroughly trapping Vox and even a few of the regulars here.

    If Team Trump has figured it out, then it means he does have a chance, although a lot of time and political capital has sadly been wasted in the process. Still, this doesn’t invalidate anything Jim is saying; everyone needs to prepare for any eventuality right now. At the very minimum, Trump is going to give us a month or so to prepare; personally I’d advise people to use that time to stock up on essentials and learn how to use them (no I’m not talking about Breivik), because if Trump does not conquer, then a Biden administration would immediately try to impose a national lockdown, and the fact that Republicans will never win another election may be the least of your worries.

    • Pooch says:

      Are we supposed to give a fuck who Barnes is?

      • Not Tom says:

        You shouldn’t give a fuck about who any pundit is, only whether or not what they have to say makes sense and accurately explains real-world observations. That’s what I keep telling you people. We are the side of truth and virtue, who recognizes men and women as flawed individuals susceptible to error and corruption; leave the heroes and villains shit to the communists.

        It is possible that dozens of formerly reliable Republicans and some of the judges Trump appointed have all turned against him, I absolutely would not rule that out, but it fits the facts much better that Powell didn’t have any experience with this kind of case, got taken in by disinfo, started fucking up the court cases and Trump and Giuliani decided they’d had enough. They obviously think she’s still a good person, as do I, which is why the announcement was worded politely and somewhat ambiguously.

        But hey, keep lashing out at us and pedestalizing her if it makes you feel better, because that’s totally helping.

        • Pooch says:

          started fucking up the court cases

          I’m quite sure she hasn’t brought anything to court yet.

          Trump and Giuliani decided they’d had enough. They obviously think she’s still a good person, as do I, which is why the announcement was worded politely and somewhat ambiguously.

          She was never funded part by the Trump campaign or the RNC. She has her own legal organization. The announcement is just reiterating that for when she inevitably goes after Republicans, as well as Democrats.

          I find all this Sidney Powell hate from the “right” ridiculous and absurd especially since she hasn’t even brought anything to court yet. Why would she leak her evidence to enemy media before that?

          She clearly is working on the Dominion vertical for Trump, no one else is, so going after her from our side seems very cuckish to me.

          • The Cominator says:

            Trump tweeted she was at least UNofficially involved in the past.

            I don’t hate her I don’t think she works for the enemy she did a good job with Flynn and could well be right about Dominion, but she seems to have silly Q type ideas and if we go to court with that its going to get us killed.

            Giuliani’s case about the urban sheboons doing what Mayor Daley used to do, but on an industrial scale… with illegal mail in fake ballots and overvotes is easier to prove and on more solid ground.

            • Pooch says:

              Yes, Dominion is just a bonus. Bannon calls her case a free option. Dominion may or may be needed for Trump to win in SCOTUS, but she hurts nothing and only helps Trump in the long run even if she is just running distraction for media attacks. We need a united front here. The infighting is not helping.

            • Karl says:

              I do not understand why you think that this one particular court case is so important that it could get us killed if someone has silly ideas?

              There are lots of cases contesting the published election result from many different angles. Winning some cases should be enough to provide Trump with a legitmate reason to read the riot act, start mass arrests of lefties or what ever violenece is necessary to make sure he stays president.

              Moreover, an attorney might have some silly ideas, but that doesn’t mean they’ll ever be spelled out in a submission to a court. Is there anything specifically that indicates that we are to expect poor, unprofessional attorney work?

            • Jehu says:

              So far, in terms of ordinary sorts of voter fraud, I suspect we have absolute tons of cases where some real person who didn’t vote had a no excuse absentee filed for them. Most of those were probably filed after the close of polls to avoid accidental collisions with real votes. I wouldn’t be surprised if some election day ballots were jimmied up this way too.
              As voting records are public record, I bet that a lot of absentees for people who hadn’t voted in a while were made in advance.
              The ballots with ONLY Biden votes are almost certainly bogus. Voting for ONLY president is really uncommon. I bet forensic analysis of those ballots would show stuff like only a few pens used to mark them for all of the tens of thousands of them. Those votes are so egregious I think they were a panic response.
              The Dominion stuff is probably true too. Trump might consider nuking the CIA by declassifying all of the stuff where it has rigged foreign elections, but he knows his business better than I do and leans less to Samson in the temple.

            • The Cominator says:

              “I do not understand why you think that this one particular court case is so important that it could get us killed if someone has silly ideas?”

              Q is enemy disinfo and never has helped us not once but has often hurt us.

              We do not want insane unsubstaniated Qtard narratives diluting what should be a rock solid case that Giuliani has. Dominion if they were another part of the fraud… Trump should go after them AFTER the fraudulent election is overturned but as Giuliani said we can prove vote fraud the old fashioned way.

          • Not Tom says:

            I find all this Sidney Powell hate from the “right” ridiculous and absurd especially since she hasn’t even brought anything to court yet. Why would she leak her evidence to enemy media before that?

            Literally every part of this is wrong.

            1. There’s no hate, just healthy skepticism. What does leave a bad taste in my mouth is the hero-worship that started way too early.

            2. She’s been involved in several of the cases already and the “kitchen sink” approach to evidence is exactly why the PA judge tossed the case.

            3. No one expected her to leak evidence to enemy media, but she called a big press conference, made a big announcement, and had nothing to show for it, not even to friendly media like Tucker.

            I don’t think we need to keep harping on her, but I do think the counterpoint to the premature ejaculation is needed, because she’s almost singularly responsible for linking what should have been an open-and-shut legal case to insane Qtardery which weakens the credibility of Trump and Giuliani. Maybe the courts would have found some excuse anyway, probably they would have, but that’s not a reason to give them an excuse.

            If she’s able to distance herself from the Qanon shit then she could be useful. As it is, I think the only reason Trump even mentions Dominion is to try to keep up enthusiasm among that crowd. There’s no way he expects anything to come out of that hail-mary, the accusations don’t even make any sense.

            • The Cominator says:

              Its not that Dominion wasn’t skimming off votes they probably were… the best case for that is the Coomer social media account…

              But it makes a much more boring technical harder to prove case.

              Giuliani has what in any sane society (which unfortunately we are not) would be an open and shut case.

            • Pooch says:

              friendly media like Tucker

              Tucker works for Fox News.

            • jim says:

              > There’s no way he expects anything to come out of that hail-mary, the accusations don’t even make any sense.

              That depends on who has Dominion’s servers. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

              But if Giuliani is not running with Dominion’s servers, at least not yet, she should not have started running on them when it is absolutely clear that she does not have them.

              • Not Tom says:

                Exactly. Last thing she said was “oh I’m hearing that our guys have the servers”. Which means she literally had no inside information at all, was just going off the same questionable sources as the internet randos. She didn’t even know who “our guys” technically were, didn’t know what was supposed to be on the servers or what they were going to prove, etc.

                Hey, it’s cool that she follows the dissident right. Great to see that. However, the situation we are in and the current structure of the dissident right is an ultra-powerful magnet for disinfo and shills. One should not attach one’s professional reputation and responsibilities to it unless one knows how to navigate the very treacherous waters.

                I don’t hate her, I want her to learn from this, improve her shill detection, and become a genuinely useful asset to Trump’s legal team.

    • Obake158 says:

      They won’t stop until we make them stop.
      We can’t make them stop as long as people are complying with tyranny and going along with the media narrative.
      Because people are still complying they just move the goalposts and will continue to double down.

  27. Asuntoashes says:

    My conscience after this farcical election remains clear. It was never really an election was it? Can you have an election with a debased populace educated in the enemies accredited centers? Still whatever atrocity, whatever insane, unreasoned, psychotic, degenerate or pathological anti-White measure the DNC enacts from here on forward, can wholly be owned by Liberals, the functionaries of Liberalism, foreign helots, golems and treacherous cowardly “norm defenders” i.e. GOPe vermin.

    However the year is now 2020 of our Lord. We may have to come to the realisation that the chapter of European people on this continent has come to a close. Unless Trump, through no knowledge of his own, forgot the memo that history ended, and thrusts European man and woman on the stage of destiny, through a radical act. Does he have the courage to do such a thing? I am uncertain, dark times are ahead, but others far more educated than I say the dark times never ended.

    Liberalism has finally won.

  28. Mister Grumpus says:

    Thank you Jim.

    I just realized what you’re doing on this blog. You’re seeding a grand counter-narrative that’s based on the actual truth.

  29. Cthulhu says:

    “they are permanently and irreversibly out of power, and many of them will wind up in prison or worse”

    Nothing can stop what is coming. Nothing. It’d do you well to accept the madness.

  30. BC says:

    This could be a feigned retreat to get the left to overplay it’s hand. The left overplaying their hand is what triggered the Spanish Civil war. But at this point I just don’t know. I just feel awful.

    • Sam says:

      It’s just chaff. The important issue at the end of the day is ‘how many trained people with guns can I get to kill for me’. Trump spent the last 4 years making sure it was a bigger number then what the left can call up.

      • The Cominator says:

        The reason I’m worried is that Trump’s frame here is not “if the courts and legislatures cuck me then I have a bigger army”.

        Trump’s frame is well I’ll let the courts decide but time to start giving Biden info because its in our countries best interest.

        Its incredibly demoralizing to a base that just wants him to give the word to storm Washington and every other state capital.

        • Sam says:

          Because that would be attempting a coup. Both sides are attempting to launch a coup using the justification their enemies are launching a coup.

          It is nerve wracking and stupid, but a lot of rituals are. We aren’t the intended audience. And while it is demoralizing to the base at the end of the day, we will stick with him since we have no one else and both sides know it. It is like trust but better.

          • The Cominator says:

            “Because that would be attempting a coup”

            And?

            • Sam says:

              I’m assuming there are people who are on board with “Trump saving the Republic by crushing a leftist coup” who are not on board with “Trump launching a coup”.

              • The Cominator says:

                The ones I talk to want the leftist takeover stopped period.

                • Pooch says:

                  I think the normie Trump supporter thinks he still can win in the courts ala Gore vs Bush. We should exhaust that path first. Crossing the Rubicon, although becoming obvious as the only way to win to us reactionaries, needs to be the last resort for the normies to fully grasp why it’s necessary.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Yes they want him to go that path 1st of course but the transition tweet signals weakness not a willingness to cross the Rubicon if necessary and that worries me.

                • INDY says:

                  I know some normie constitution types. “I don’t want a junta”

                  They would rather allow Biden to steal the election and take the office than Trump do something extraordinary.

                • Kevin C. says:

                  > They would rather allow Biden to steal the election and take the office than Trump do something extraordinary.

                  Yeah, I’m meeting a lot of those. I find things like this:

                  I’m a huge Trump fan, and I reject the charges of virtually every label thrown at him. I’d go as far as considering him to be the most publically heroic figure of our age, and that doesn’t come with as many reservations as you’d think. I hope he fights this thing to the death through the legal channels because it is in the spirit of Trumpism to always stand where they say you must not, because the power of narrative is all that holds their rotten, stinking world together. I’m yet to meet someone who I seriously think likes Donald Trump more than me.
                  I would be utterly horrified if he did this. It would finish me as a person, one way or the other. He would not only be textbook insane, he would be istantly crushed, and every single one of us who supported this guy who tried a military takeover for five years through blaring (legitimate!) warnings that we were supporting a facist would honestly I think actually be rounded up in some style.
                  Of course the left cheated as much as they thought they needed to in terms of how much they felt they could. If that was enough to steal the election then, well that’s shit, all we can do is fight them to the bitter end and paint the picture of what has happened as clearly as possible. I don’t even consider it to be a new low. I feel you, I really do, but a Trumpian military coup is not justified by the current situation.

                  and:

                  Discussing a coup as a rhetorical device (a la Montaigne and cannibals) to point out how bad the near-group is, is one thing. But there are people in this thread disappointed that Trump is not staging a literal coup. Do you have anything to say to them?
                  Sorry for being serious. I consider the USA’s foundational institutions as literally sacred. Like, it’s actually part of my religion.

                  and:

                  Could he? No. There is no institutional support. Will the military that tricked him out of getting out of Syria help him?
                  Might he? No. He will tweet a lot of caps on Twitter. If he loses in court he will pretend to throw a fit as he leaves peacefully.

                  and:

                  Looks like he’s trotting out the same, “We must destroy the Republic to save the Republic” lines Alex Jones hysterically screams from Austin highway overpasses, and which others attempt to put a respectable face on. And I especially am skeptical at the institutional support Trump even has for such an action, legal, moral or popular justifications be damned.
                  If at this point you haven’t learned that Trump, for all his proficiencies, is proving utterly inept at manipulating the levers of power, which is exactly the skill set such a coup would require, I think you are suffering from the other side of the TDS coin. The unfounded belief that your God Emperor is actually playing 4D Underwater Polo Chess.
                  Trump has proven himself uncannily good at assorted skill sets the media absolutely refuses to give him credit for. And has shown his instincts, abhorrent to the ruling class, can be correct. But I’m sorry, he has not shown the sort of administrative competence, or bureaucratic defense in depth required to mount and sustain a coup. And if this is pretensed on election fraud, it largely seems like allies are abandoning him as his court defeats mount up, and a lack of clear bombshell evidence remains ever out of reach.

                  and:

                  Trump knows it’s over, it’s just shameless grifting at this point. As soon as they started talking about communist influence from Cuba and Venezuela at that Giuliani press conference it should have been clear to the last people still holding out that this is just cheap theater and nothing will come from the legal challenge.

                  Reminder: 50% of donations to Trump’s official efforts will be used to settle campaign debts and donations to the unofficial “stop the steal” campaign go to the convicted felon Ali Alexander

                  Time to cut your losses and move on.

                  This, and that one Alexander Macris post, are pretty much the only place I’m seeing any support for Trump crossing the Rubicon as something that both can and should happen.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Please provide the link to these weak sister cuckservative comments. I suspect they are shills going “hail fellow Trump supporters”.

                  All the Trump supporters I know want him to do whatever is necessary.

                • INDY says:

                  I was talking about people I know in real life, not some shill BS you read online

                • INDY says:

                  Regurgitating propaganda does not equal “meeting a lot of those”

        • ten says:

          You would be happy for Trump to just launch a coup anyway, process be damned. I would too. I don’t think this is an average attitude.

          If Trump would follow your frame advice, i’m pretty sure large and important fractions of america would consider him the aggressor, and he is still playing for the aura of legitimacy. Maybe he should be the aggressor, his opponent has already aggressed and will aggress more, and maybe he needs the onlookers to take his side before he punches.

          I think your intuition in these things is wrong. “Not doing enough” is the average opinion on his kung flu response, yet you think he should have called it bullshit and ignored it. I’m pretty sure that would have been disastrous for the public opinion.

          (By the way, i actually have covid19 right now! 100% asymptomatic but tested positive after my girl got it. She had an average cold + no smell or taste.)

          • The Cominator says:

            “You would be happy for Trump to just launch a coup anyway, process be damned. I would too. I don’t think this is an average attitude.”

            Its the average Trump supporters attitude right now.

            “I think your intuition in these things is wrong. “Not doing enough” is the average opinion on his kung flu response”

            You must live in California or something, in Florida people thought it was fake and gay within a month.

          • European Mutt says:

            In the other thread with Cominator I was very concerned about optics for normies, because pre-coup. But when it comes to a coup optics don’t matter any more. They never do. At that point it’s about power and who has the bigger army, better morale and better leaders. Do you think people liked Castro or Lenin particularly? They did not, but they damn well submitted.

            Trump is much more popular than Castro or Lenin at any rate especially if you factor out the politically correct noises people make as what they are.

            I strongly suspect I had wu flu too, very early and realized it only in hindsight. Was a proper flu back then, now it’s just a cold even for most old people.

          • European Mutt says:

            Of course after a hard coup people may actually return to bitching and complaining, and are vulnerable to counter-propaganda (‘Drumpf is not really on your side, fellow white people come join us for more gibs’). Only thing that helps here is a state religion, but Trump doesn’t seem to have a fully formed one in his pocket.

            THAT is why a hard coup might be a worse option, but certainly not because optics.

            • BC says:

              Without the Supreme Court, we’re much more likly to end up in a Spanish Civil war style fight which will be very, very nasty on both sides.

      • Gestahlt says:

        Trump is not Caesar. Hell, he’s not even Marius. This was a confirmation that he will not attempt to use force to stay in power. If he was serious, he would not allow the transition to begin.

        • jim says:

          Does not follow. Caesar (threatened by state violence under the guise of lawfare) bent over backwards to show his compliance with legalism, until he did not.

          • The Cominator says:

            I suppose this is a big whitepill about the current situation that Caesar made a lot of humiliating concessions before he stopped making them…

            I had initially interpreted the transition as showing unwillingness to cross the Rubicon but you are quite right about Julius Caesar.

            • Pooch says:

              What did he do?

              • The Cominator says:

                The worst was he sent an offer saying he would accept governorship of a minor province with no troops (as he would still have Imperium to avoid prosecution). This sounded like a concession to the Roman political class.

                • jim says:

                  Caesar said in effect “I will capitulate if I don’t go to prison, at least not for a while”, but his enemies, who were still following the law while stretching it beyond recognition, declined to play ball.

  31. Cloudswrest says:

    Going off on a tangent here. What’s the chance that if and when the Democrats get in complete control they do something really stupid (or perhaps not from their point of view) internationally and get our asses kicked, e.g. aircraft carriers get sunk or even nuked, or even worse, a domestic nuking? Perhaps without an obvious return address. I’ve read speculations that many of our domestic elites really would be happy with “red state” populations getting nuked by the “enemy” since the US is not really a nation in the biological sense.

    • jim says:

      If Trump fails to proclaim the Insurrection Act, the left is in power, and immediately faces the problem of internal incohesion and lack of agreement capability, as happened in the French and Russian Revolutions, the lead up to the Spanish civil war, and the lead up to Mussolini taking power in Italy. The $#!% hits the fan. Takes a little longer to hit if Trump fails to proclaim the insurrection act.

  32. Edit_XYZ says:

    Yet more overwhelming evidence of vote switching – on top of overwhelming evidence of vote fraud:
    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2020/11/ok-boomer.html
    Does it matter?

    The outcome of this battle will depend on one variable:
    How many on Trump’s side realize that the USA is not the country is was a little while ago.
    That truth no longer matters, only power one is willing, even eager to use. That the left is hungry not only for power, but for blood. Their blood, for starters.

    I saw on the internet various commenters on the right praising the recent Washinton MAGA rally – the participants committed no violence, were civilized, etc.
    Wrong. Wrong state of mind.
    Those participants merely signalled they’re inoffensive.
    That’s why threats from Antifa are so effective, while the right doesn’t seem to have any muscle worth mentioning.
    No threats from the right, of course. Signaling they’re polite lemmings, who will accept whatever with some grumbling.

    • The Cominator says:

      The right doesn’t need to wantonly and randomly destroy property.

      The right needs more Breviks and perhaps a group that is like the Mexican Cartels…

    • Not Tom says:

      Vox Day is relying on really bad sources re: algorithmic stuff.

      Most of it rests on some Serbian programmer who worked on an ML Fairness algorithm, and while ML Fairness is pure evil, it has absolutely nothing to do with vote switching and cannot conceivably have anything to do with vote switching.

      It’s ironic to see Vox lambasting Rush for being a technology imbecile, when the *cough* dissident right has done exactly the same thing and always does exactly the same thing when it reads anything about machine learning. I don’t know what it is that sends these guys into a tizzy whenever they read some insecure technical jargon relating to machine learning, but every single time they manage to interpret it as something that it is totally different from what it is that just happens to “prove” whatever long-shot accusation they wanted evidence for.

      It really doesn’t help our case. I hate it when we have so much quality evidence but our guys just can’t stop making beelines for the boob bait. Focus on the real evidence, for which there is a fuckton, instead of the dumbass Qtard shit. I have to wonder how many of these people are actually shills trying to discredit our side.

    • Pooch says:

      Remember the Proud Boys owned the streets at the end of night, cracking a few Antifa and BLM skulls in the process and Trump cheered them on.

  33. Not Tom says:

    By the way, your final paragraph is duplicated.

  34. BC says:

    I wonder if the Supreme Court cut a deal with Biden? Cucks are going to cuck.

    • The Cominator says:

      Cucks aren’t cucks because they cut deals to sellout, there may be some of that in Georgia right now but that is treason for money not cuckery.

      Cucks cut deals because muh principles says letting the commies have this one in the interest of being a morally superior loser is the right thing to do.

      I wasn’t worried about SCOTUS until tonight but the transition tweet makes me think Trump just will cuck and not cross the Rubicon if he has to…

      • BC says:

        Cucks cuck because they’re scared and weak but there’s also an element of bribery. The GOP has gotten rich playing the fake opposition party, just as Fox News did. An extra 30 pieces of silver is something they’d never pass up while cucking.

        • The Cominator says:

          The money motivated ones (like McConnell) don’t cuck if they know it’ll lead to them losing in the future. They are selectively corrupt.

          McCain was never particularly motivated by money, he was just truly evil (not a believer in the Cathedral’s theoretical equality religion he just wanted to use it to bring hell on earth). The Mormon Nevertrump crowd not especially motivated by money (Romney might be but he already has lots of money), they just want to virtue signal.

    • arqiduka says:

      Likely, in exchange for a promise not to resort to packing (or not to resort to it too much if certain someones resign of their own). Obviously foolish to strike a deal with a party that isn’t agreement-capable, but hard to say they won’t be deserving of everything that will befall them.

      • BC says:

        I will laugh and cheer as they string up people like Barr and John Roberts. Fuck those traitors.

        • Not Tom says:

          Still shitting on Barr for no reason, I see, just because he hasn’t yet succeeded in achieving what you hoped he would achieve.

          Roberts, yes, he’s definitely playing for the other team. Only votes with the right when either he isn’t the deciding vote or the case is unimportant.

          • The Cominator says:

            Barr is not Trump’s worst enemy but he hasn’t been Trump’s best and most loyal friend either…

            • Not Tom says:

              There are too many enemies, cucks and traitors out there to be wasting time and energy getting angry about imperfect moderates. Compared to Sessions, Barr has been great in every sense.

              • Cole says:

                Comparing Barr to Sessions is a pretty low standard. Both failed to deliver for PDJT.

  35. Not Tom says:

    I maintain that the RT article says nothing of consequence. The headline makes a lot of noise but the content is just “we didn’t see this in the list of rulings and PA is about to certify.”

    Well, fine. They can un-certify after the decision, just like Michigan did. Nothing is fixed until the electoral college meets.

    If SCOTUS is cucking then so be it, but there’s not even a hint of real information here to point in that direction.

    • Pooch says:

      Yes, even Alan Dershowitz is saying Trump has potentially winning cases in SCOTUS if he can prove enough votes were affected.

      • Not Tom says:

        Dershowitz may be suffering from normalcy bias, as he thought Trump would also win the PA lawsuit. We here, of course, had no such illusions.

        But RT just isn’t saying anything of consequence. All that has happened with the Supreme Court is that nothing has happened. If nothing has continued to happen by December 14, then we have a much bigger problem. Right now we’re in the same position as last week.

        • Cole says:

          Right now we’re in the same position as last week.

          Not at all–court cases have advanced to appellate courts and the MI legislature is considering a special session to hear David Kallman’s affidavits.

  36. Desert Rat says:

    Or Trump could do what so many other deposed leaders have done and flee to sanctuary in another country. There are any number of these that would be glad to take him in if the price is right. If he does not seize power I see no other alternative if he wishes that he and his family will survive.

    • arqiduka says:

      Only Japan would do, nowhere else would be safe.

      • The Cominator says:

        Japan is a US controlled country for the most part at least as far as their foreign policy goes.

        The only place Trump could go would be deep in the Russian sphere (which means not a border state that could align with China or the US at any time), somewhere like Kazakhstan (he cannot go to Russia itself because of optics).

        • arqiduka says:

          If they want to they can resist on this one point with little fear of any repercussions. Its not Geemany by a long stretch.

    • Edit_XYZ says:

      Trump has legitimacy to rule the USA. He won the election, and then came vote fraud so obvious anyone in the world who paid even mild attention knows about it.

      That’s why Biden’s handlers will see him as a threat. They’ll want him very badly – and they’ll have the power of the USA to use in order to get him.

      Trump staying in the USA sphere of influence is suicide. China hates him. Russia would be the only option, and an unsafe one – Putin owes him nothing, and going to war with the USA is a lot to ask for.

      Trump’s best bet would be to hide as if the earth swallowed him, until serious violence begins in the USA. Then a leader that can unite the red states will be very appealing.

      • hcm says:

        Much better that he starts the violence himself now while his followers are many and strong rather than wait until his followers are fewer and weaker.

    • Strannik says:

      If that scenario is correct, he’d go to Israel.

  37. onyomi says:

    This is blackpilling me re. the probability of Trump taking any extraordinary measures, which, indeed, increasingly seem like his only path forward:

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1331013908971261953?s=20

    • Bilge_Pump says:

      I am mentally preparing for the possibility that Trump concedes the election and toxic progressivism continues to grow unimpeded.

      I really hope he doesn’t but it’s not looking good. Drastic measures are going to be required, and idk if he has it in him.

      • simplyconnected says:

        Going back to 2017, Moldbug’s guess was that Trump didn’t have it in him:

        If Trump or any President can essentially change the quasi-legal form of government, perhaps acting in a
        Jacksonian way, that would be a true auto-coup in the Alberto Fujimori tradition. He would have no choice but to
        continue across the Rubicon, and simply govern by EO indefinitely.
        Perhaps this would come after some kind of enabling legislation. Perhaps it would just mean ignoring Congress,
        which after all has a popularity of 10% and consists of a collection of crooks, flacks and hacks with the collective
        charisma of a senile banana slug. It might even mean defying the much more attractively-dressed judicial branch.
        Whose popularity is much higher, surpassing that of investment bankers and approaching the common raccoon.
        I just don’t think Trump would do it, though. Also — I forget the source of the quote, but it is an actual quote from
        someone who was somehow connected to DC — “Trump has no people.”
        You can’t have regime change without some kind of alternate government, and there is no such thing. There’s
        nothing within three orders of magnitude of being ready to become the next regime. I mean, is there? If there is, I
        don’t know about it. Not that I would, obviously.
        And again you’re just not looking at this kind of operator here, I think. If it was Elon Musk… he’s not eligible, of
        course. But perhaps, in the 21st century, that’s just a technicality.
        Even Trump 20 years younger might be something different. But really he’s this strange, amazing, wonderful
        creature from the ’50s. Honestly, I think you should just relax and enjoy the show.

        Here’s hoping that Moldbug was wrong on this one.

        • Mike in Boston says:

          Moldbug is right about at least this:

          You can’t have regime change without some kind of alternate government

          As Adolf Hitler, who knew something about regime change, put it:

          it is not enough to overthrow the old State, but that the new State must previously have been built up and be practically ready to one’s hand. … In 1933… the new State had been built up and all that there remained to do was to destroy the last remnants of the old State — and that took but a few hours.

          I’m sure that Jared Kushner has built up some sort of organization outside the old state over the last few years, but I am doubtful that it’s either appropriate or sufficient to serve as the nexus of the sort of new state we need.

    • Edit_XYZ says:

      Does Trump realize that him losing will end with him and his family in prison and, in he end, executed?
      I think so – Donald Trump jr. tweeted a few times that his family will be locked up if they lose.

      But does the GOP realize that they will never win another election if Trump loses? Does the presidential administration realize that they will be blacklisted, or worse?
      Do the soldiers in the army realize what’s coming for them and their families if the left gains power and turbocharges its purity spiral?

      Does the Supreme Court understand that, if Biden becomes president, all future elections will be fraudulent regardless of what decisions the court makes in december/january, that the court will soon be packed and as powerless as the constitution of the United States they are supposed to protect?
      Chances are – no. See today’s blackpill in Jim’s text above.

      I think Trump is searching for legitimacy, counting heads. And he hesitates because he’s not certain he has enough. Too many GOP cucks?
      Nevertheless, this is his only chance. He has nothing to lose by invoking the insurrection act before december 14th.

      • The Cominator says:

        https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/MAGA_MARCH_WASHINGTON_0044.jpg

        Trump should realize he has enough heads, just take power. He can put 10s of thousands of guys with automatic weapons in every capital in the country.

        The military is not going to fight them.

      • onyomi says:

        Having been on the receiving end of so much abuse, I’d be surprised if Trump didn’t have an inkling of the stakes for himself and his family, though I worry the CEOs etc. who supposedly met with him recently may have promised him a soft landing they can’t provide.

        On the one hand it seemed like he was taking some good steps to prepare for the leftist reaction in case he won through the courts and other legislative processes.

        On the other he may just now be realizing they aren’t going to let him win through courts and legislative processes, no matter how many affidavits, etc. he amasses.

        As Jim suggests, he has to crack skulls to achieve an honest outcome and legitimacy. They’re not going to give him legitimacy first and let him crack skulls later. Trump is obviously very bold as a businessman, negotiator, etc. but I do worry he doesn’t have it in him to be bold in that sort of way. Hope I’m wrong.

        The white pill could be that if he understands the situation differently today than he did a few days ago he might also be willing to take actions in the coming weeks he might not previously have seriously considered.

        • Bilge_Pump says:

          My main desire is to destroy progressivism / communism / the Cathedral / whatever you want to call it. And Trump has done significant things in that direction, the most recent I can think of being the executive order about CRT. I hope he wins.

          Honestly I don’t care about the election, I think voting is pointless and stupid. If Trump decides to take the Caesar approach and read the insurrection act, I will support him. I don’t care about the legitimacy of the election. I simply hate leftists so much that I don’t care what it takes to get rid of them.

          • Bilge_Pump says:

            And by “main desire” I mean main political desire, however much that means

        • jim says:

          > Having been on the receiving end of so much abuse, I’d be surprised if Trump didn’t have an inkling of the stakes for himself and his family

          Don Junior knows what is coming, and there is another in the Trump circle.

          Trump is in the same position as Caesar was after he conquered Gaul. Does he know it?

          Probably.

          Will he do what Caesar did?

          Not if he can find another way. He believes in the Republic more than anyone. I don’t see another way, but maybe Trump can. Worst outcome is that he thinks he can, but is mistaken.

          • D says:

            Does this imply he waits until the last opportunity?

          • onyomi says:

            An arguable bright spot:

            https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1330886737594363904?s=20

            Don Jr., who knows what’s up, comes out strongly against BAP’s idea to promise to stay home or vote for Dems in the Georgia runoff if the GOP doesn’t support Trump (most incomprehensible of all: it seems to me they could win without the run-off if they actually audited Atlanta properly…). Now, Don Jr would not be in a position to say what BAP says even if he really felt it, but he probably doesn’t have to come out against it explicitly either.

            Of course, this could just be his personal opinion about what’s best for the country, but it could also suggest he’s still fairly confident in his father getting another term, at which point also having the Senate makes a big difference to how effective he’ll be/how much more headwind in the form of bogus impeachments, etc. he’d face.

            Of course, if Trump goes full Ceasar Augustus presumably the composition of the Senate doesn’t matter that much either, but clearly they going to prefer the appearance of working with the inherited system as is, to the extent possible.

            Doesn’t sound like the words of someone convinced his family’s just been sold out into exile/prison.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      GOP is lazy and afraid. Screw re-election, these guys are trying to keep negroes and Antifas from burning their houses down while the cops watch. “Just making sure no one gets hurt.”

      GOPe in hindsight is starting to look like a grift from ages ago, a clear milestone being that homosexual William F Buckley (smart and likeable as he was). No one willing to just tell the truth and get murdered.

      There’s that “virtuous elite” again. What worldly structures can generate and put out men who are ready to tell the truth and get murdered? Because game rekkanize game and one thing leads to another.

      These GOPe people need to come out and confess their failure and fear. It’s the denial of fear that got us into this mess.

      I’m just waiting for some GOPe characters to start publicly confessing that “Holy shit, look at this, we’ve fucked up royally and now I’m personally scared to death.” A different kind of struggle session. It would really free up some energy.

      • The Cominator says:

        “GOPe in hindsight is starting to look like a grift from ages ago, a clear milestone being that homosexual William F Buckley (smart and likeable as he was). No one willing to just tell the truth and get murdered.”

        Buckley was obviously a communist and a CIA agent just like the John Birch Society said he was.

        The early John Birch Society was probably right about almost everything except Eisenhower being a communist (Ike was kind of a milquetoast moderate but most of it was he rightly just didn’t want to fight a big conventional war in Eurasia and rightly so).

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          No contest by good dude.

          And to think that the Birchers were made the laughing stock outsiders, but the swishy homo with fishy posture got on TV all the time.

          It’s just embarrassing. These motherfuckers have been playing us forever.

    • Humble Acolyte says:

      Today Trump says to himself, in the spirit one might take a Xanax:

      “Hey, I’m a reasonable man. Even if I lose in the courts–which I am sure I won’t!–I’m never going to be the villain they say I am. They might have cheated a little, but… as if I would destroy our cherished democracy! Ridiculous. Anyway, there is still plenty of time. I have many legal avenues to victory. This will be good for our PR.”

      But maybe on January 17th or 18th he will look out the oval office’s tragically grand windows to see a crowd of spooks and lawyers and mouth-foaming savages erecting a guillotine, and will feel differently. Don Jr. comes in and stands next to him. A moment of grave understanding passes between them.

      If Trump is gonna make the great leap, he’ll probably put it off until the last moment, how could it be otherwise? He only needs to cross the meme river once.

      • okay says:

        you possess such amazing foresight:
        “mouth-foaming savages erecting a guillotine”

    • neofugue says:

      Calm down. This tweet does not mean anything. We should not leap to the worst of conclusions until January.

      Trump is not conceding the election, he is not sending a message that he might concede, he is holding back until the right time to strike. The Right does not have the ability to fight every battle like the Left because the Right cannot get away with violence, unlike the attackers of Rand Paul, Kyle Rittenhouse, and in this case, those who would have attacked Emily Murphy. Save your energy for the upcoming court case or court case obstruction, and then the proclamation of the Insurrection Act.

      If Trump’s administration faces violence, he will look weak. If Trump fights desparate small skirmishes, the Praetorians may think his strategy of countering voter fraud is empty. Without a Supreme Court ruling, it will be difficult for army loyalists to justify disobeying generals in January. Giving money to Biden’s team will not affect the outcome of these next two months.

      We must be patient as Trump has few friends in the swamp. The three-letter agencies are most likely planning on storming the White House in January. The rank and file may like Trump, but fighting the FBI requires proper legitimacy. It is in the interest of his team to remain cooperative with that of Biden until the right time.

    • Niiiidriveevof says:

      It’s either blackpill, or posturing legality and good faith until the key moment, for PR reasons and possibly for some sense of honor. Latter remains more likely in overall context. The same dichotomy applies to several Trump actions since the election and isn’t new in that respect.

Leave a Reply