For we must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately
I love Trump being the sovereign, and I loved the Musk being his tech adviser.
And I would love Musk being president, and Trump being his speechwriter, political adviser, and press officer.
But Trump is president, and if Musk was president he would desperately need such a political adviser. Musk is troubled because the one big beautiful bill will lead to the US becoming bankrupt in a decade or so. It just postpones imminent looming bankruptcy a little bit. I am more worried about civil war, international nuclear war, and/or hot genocide of whites in the next year or two.
Trump needs to get power into his hands and out of the hands of the permanent government before he can worry about imminent US bankruptcy.
Right now we have California government funded and organised rioters challenging the power of the federal government in LA. Also burning and looting random things, and assaulting random people. This is proxy civil war. If governor Newscum had his way, if the Judge had ruled that federalising the LA national guard was unconstitutional, then in the unlikely event that Trump did not jackson the judge, the federal offices in Los Angeles would have been burned to the ground.
Instead of US troops being sent to die on far away bloodstained sands that have seen thousands of years of war without anything that Americans are likely to care about changing, they are being sent to LA to fight against foreign invaders sponsored and brought in by American traitors.
Trouble is that because Trump is trying to revive a dead Republic, he is reluctant to use the kind of force that is actually required. Should have given the marines arrest power, (insurrection act) which is martial law, and authorised the use of live ammo.
Deal first with enemies, then later worry about solvency, then after that time to worry about the Republic. Musk, due to normalcy bias, is too worried about solvency, and Trump is a 1980s leftist. He believes in the Republic.
The most interesting thing about this whole furor is the “noticing.” Frankly, Trump declaring an end to hostilities now is probably the best outcome Netanyahu could hope because it allows Trump to look like he has his own foreign policy instead of being owned and operated out of the offices of our “greatest ally TM” which was starting to be the conclusion and which was royally pissing people off.
There is a lot of rancor on the part of people who were against this when it comes to Hebraic friends and neighbors who came out of the woodwork to assure everyone that if they didn’t want to die for Israel they “were never really MAGA.” Mark Levin’s grift took a major hit this week when he had an exchange on X that implied that a critic of this bombing run was antisemitic AND that this critic’s antisemitism was genetic because he was a white guy. The conclusion, correctly interpreted, was that if antisemitism is genetic and we have to get rid of antisemitism…well…you do the math.
It also appears to me that Vance being seen as part of this has damaged his brand tremendously. America First may still be on the agenda but there are a lot of people who now question that and question what is going to keep “Our Greatest Ally TM” from dragging us into yet another bombing run.
So who exactly is pushing this script and why? Soros? And his intention is to… get Israel destroyed?
The troofer script is being pushed by the FBI.
Their problem is that Mueller was in bed with the terrorists. The FBI was told to ignore probable Mohammedan terrorists and find white Christian terrorists, regardless of whether they existed or not, and proceeded to do so.
The FBI is also the source for the Dancing Israelis. When the photos were finally published, they were not dancing, and looked appropriate somber but according to FBI leaks they were sitting on photos of dancing Israelis for years.
One can detect this by the inability of the Troofers to mention the best evidence for their theory that the terrorists were actors — the strange obliviousness of the FBI — or any other of the sins of Mueller.
In the immediate aftermath of the attack, the FBI was working far too hard and far too publicly to pin it on the Israelis, leaking “evidence” that they did not in fact possess, but perhaps hoped to possess, or hoped to manufacture, Russia Russia Russia style.
The messaging from Vance and co before Trump’s announcement tended to be along the lines of asserting that this was a one-and-done, eg ‘okay mission accomplished you guys had your fun now back to business as usual everyone’.
They clearly weren’t happy with it and want to will the genie back into the bottle.
History has a way of befouling the plans of mice and men though. Both Iran and Israel have legitimate reasons for escalating. It would also be greatly destructive for them if they followed that game to its course, so maybe cooler heads will figure they need to short-circuit the logic.
I was probably wrong in expecting regime change – I bought into my own regime’s deluded propaganda. Iran turned out to not be nearly as fragile as we were promised. As such, the campaign was about to cross the point of diminishing returns, and so Trump’s announcement came just in time. Also, pretty sure much of it was coordinated behind the scenes between the leaders, and presumably the coordination still continues.
Hopefully this episode will prompt future Israeli decision makers — Bibi is a lost cause in this regard — to reconsider being in bed with Satan.
Get this one guys.
The US is the “greatest country on earth, next to israel”
At least according to the official mouthpieces of the Trump Regime. It must be painful to be a honest MAGA believer.
Why are you not giving the context for this quote?
The American lady who said that was interviewed by Israeli television, and said that America
has the biggest dickis the greatest country in the world, and then out of politeness toward the interviewer added “next to Israel.” I doubt she actually thinks so.Why are you attacking MAGA Patriots?
All this JooJooJoo stuff is get awfully close to telling us that the true enemy is Trump, Maga, and Musk, and the good guys are the Harvard students getting extra course credit for burning cars, forcing open shop doors in front of niggers, (who do the actual looting while their cell phones are in their pockets) and spraying graffiti on buildings because they care so deeply about long suffering Palestinians and illegal immigrants.
You, white bread, are in bed with the kind of people that anarchists have always found themselves in bed with throughout history.
What is your position on deporting illegals? What is your position on attacking Ice agents? How do you feel about those transexual effective altruism cult members who assassinated an Ice Agent.
How are you getting on with all those faggots you are in bed with? Please tell us about transexual effective altruists murdering ice agents and mobs besieging ice officers attempting to detain illegal immigrants who have committed additional crimes.
Anarchists who are theoretically opposed to initiating force always find themselves in bed with people who are, like the Mexican Cartels, Harvard, and the antifa mob, opposed to the state initiating force against them. And the state is initiating force against them because they want the power of the state.
Under Biden we were invaded by various groups who intend to kill us and take our stuff. And your proposal is we give them a free ride until they actually start doing so. The cartels have made an actual start on doing so, for example taking over various apartment complexes and housing projects. What do you propose to do about that?
The Democrats are arguing that you cannot deport an illegal merely because he is part of organisation that engages in organised violence against us. You have to prove that he engaged in individual violence against an individual. What is your position on that argument? Can’t shoot an enemy soldier until it has been proven that that particular soldier shot a particular individual?
>What is your position on deporting illegals?
My position on immigration is the libertarian position. There’s nothing wrong with “illegals” as long as they don’t get government subsidies. On the other hand, I’m not really too sympathetic to people who go to the US, which is a shithole after all. So if they get kicked out, well, too bad.
>What is your position on attacking Ice agents?
Cops? Fuck them.
>How are you getting on with all those faggots you are in be(d) with?
I have very little love(read none) for faggots, especially the ones who are “married” and “have children”, like, you know, that scott bessent faggot.
>How do you feel about those transexual(s)
I regard all trannies as lunatic assholes. And of course it’s not just the trannies, but all the silicon valley progressive trannyhumanists who fund them. How do you feel about those big tech businesses who are planing to “re-engineer” humanity, which of course includes “sex changes”.
>There’s nothing wrong with “illegals”
How do you square this with the fact that there is a whole lot wrong with them?
>I have very little love(read none) for faggots
What’s not to love about consenting adults consentually consenting? Sounds like no true liberal to me.
>I regard all trannies as lunatic assholes
Who are you to say what constitutes lunacy and or assholery? Bringing compulsive natural law based thinking into the discussion all of a sudden? Sounds like no true liberal to me.
Granted that effective altruists terrorists were lunatic assholes because transsexual, were they dangerous lunatics for adhering to effective altruism and was their murder of an ice officer righteous, given that he had been applying force against illegals, some but not all of whom came here in organised groups with the intent of killing us and taking our stuff by organised coercive violence.
You have not suggested any anarchist solution to this problem, so am I to take that you are just fine with white people being exterminated? On the balance of forces right now, the only way we can survive and keep our stuff is by organised coercive violence, for we are in a world right now where other groups are applying organised coercive force to take it. This is not a hypothetical. The violence is happening right now, and you oppose those who are taking effective action against it, and would proscribe any action likely to be effective.
Pretty sure Musk is planning to re-engineer humanity and it does not involve sex changes. Seems he has some good ideas.
Oh no, it is not the government that is doing all this stuff. It is our evil capitalist overlords, and the government is just their tool. They are making the girls in video games ugly, and the heroines in big movies hateful and despicable, because they somehow want to make a profit from doing that. 🙃
Property is an unprincipled exception to “all men are created equal”, and it would seem you want to make a start on ironing out that exception. Seems that you liked Locke when he was attacking Christianity and the Church of England in favor of blank slatism, but were not so keen on him when he was turning somersaults to rationalise property.
>were they dangerous lunatics for adhering to effective altruism
yes, that as well. Combination of tranny with so called effective altruism. Triple nuts.
>and was their murder of an ice officer righteous
no
>You have not suggested any anarchist solution to this problem
I don’t think you asked for a specific solution. But the solution to being attacked by criminals whether immigrants or local mafias is to defend yourself.
>am I to take that you are just fine with white people being exterminated
Not at all. On the other hand, are you saying that all people who go to the US to work in low paying jobs are actually there carrying out the final solution for whites?
I raised the problem and asked your solution, and I am raising it again in almost the same words. Not specific enough for you?
Is unlikely to be effective when the other side is using organised collective coercive violence. It leads to the conclusion that you cannot shoot an invading soldier just because he is an invading soldier.
Which is a hot issue right now, with Democrats saying you cannot deport cartel members to countries that have a policy of imprisoning cartel members, in fact you cannot deport them at all unless they themselves, not just the organisation of which they are part, can be shown in a court of law to have committed crimes.
So you are taking the Democrat stand, which obviously fails against organised collective coercive violence, fails against the organised collective coercive violence being inflicted on white people right now.
We are being invaded right now and you are arguing that the only morally permissible solutions are solutions that obviously are not working right now and are obviously unlikely to work.
When a cartel takes over an apartment block, very few of them individually commit acts of violence against the previous inhabitants, and very few of those evicted individually experience violence from individual cartel members. It just becomes obvious that if they stuck around, they would.
The only solution to organised collective violence based on group identity and directed at group identity is organised collective violence based on group identity and directed at group identity. The cartel members benefited from the fact that other members of the cartel might commit violence, so should be dumped in prisons overseas on their basis of their cartel membership.
Law of war applies, which means you can do anything necessary if authorised by legitimate authority.
>Democrats saying you cannot deport cartel members
As far as I’m concerned you can deport all the cartel members you want.
A good deal of the immigration mess in the US is mostly caused by the demrat faction of the US government. Although the republicans also want cheap “illegal” labor eh? Anyway, not sure why anarchists should provide a particular solution to a problem caused by the government, apart from the general anarchist solution : get rid of the government.
Now you never answered why you keep a collection of liberal/anarchist literature while being violently opposed to liberalism. It doesn’t make any sense does it.
Maybe you can replace Spooner and Molinari with Joseph de Maistre
“Il est l’un des pères de la philosophie contre-révolutionnaire et un des critiques les plus importants des idées des Lumières. Il considère que la Révolution française représente un crime contre l’ordre naturel. Il défend le retour à une monarchie absolue. “
The government caused this problem by failure to enforce the borders, and failure to deport illegals. And you oppose enforcing the borders and deporting illegals.
If the government was not generously handing out welfare to illegals, we would receive considerably fewer illegals — but at least as many, and probably more, cartel members.
You need collective solutions to collective crime, and anyone applying those collective solutions is going to do the stuff a government does, and look mighty like a government.
I am an illiberal anarchist.
When John Locke was challenged on “whether a state of nature” had ever existed, he correctly replied that all the princes of the world are in a state of nature with respect to each other.
Spooner’s liberalism is incompatible with his anarchism, and the conversation we are having demonstrates it. Which is probably why he is not, and you are not, willing to acknowledge anarchic polities that have actually existed. They all, to the extent that they functioned successfully at all, which most of them did not, were extremely illiberal. They tended to resemble what I have been commending to Humungus.
Liberalism, not throne and altar, is the opposite of anarchism, just as communism is the opposite of equality. Humungus is the real anarchist, you are not.
>I am an illiberal anarchist
Although that’s a witty comeback, it is a meaningless answer to my question.
>Spooner’s liberalism is incompatible with his anarchism, and the conversation we are having demonstrates it.
To your credit you have allowed me many times to say things that hardly help your case. On the other hand this is anything but a free speech forum. So by no means I counter everything you say and in the way I would like to. And there isn’t too much incentive for me to do so. Point being, this censored conversation doesn’t prove what you say it proves.
>Pretty sure Musk is planning to re-engineer humanity – Seems he has some good ideas
And that is something any conservative would regard as insane. So you clearly are not a conservative at all.
>Liberalism, not throne and altar, is the opposite of anarchism
So your lackeys and now you are asserting that “freedom is slavery”. You are either trolling, or unable to use basic logic. Either way you don’t have an argument or anything close to it. And so there isn’t much for me to add.
Liberal freedom is slavery, in the same way as communist equality is inequality.
Obviously “freeing” children to change their sex, and “freeing” people from the bonds of marriage, is slavery. And similarly, “land to the tiller” was slavery — it meant in practice “land to the party”.
The liberal conception of freedom is as flawed and evil as the communist conception of equality. Communism was that all property should be owned in common. But of course obviously property cannot be owned in common, so it was owned by the party.
And, similarly, religious freedom. The Puritans in the events leading up to the English civil war rejected a state religion — and proceeded to enforce a state religion far more vigorously than the Throne and Altar monarchy that they overthrew. John Locke advocated religious freedom, and his ideas have were implemented not long after, first with latitudinarianism, and then later with the first amendment, and now we experience a state religion enforced with enormously more repression than existed in Shakespeare’s time, with the enforcement and repression done in large part in the name of freedom of religion. This is inherent in liberalism, and has happened from the very beginning.
In the English Restoration, when Throne and Altar returned, people celebrated it as the return of freedom. The formal and official end of religious freedom, the return to throne and altar, was seen as the restoration of freedom — relief from the oppression of the Puritan theocracy.
Now you are going to tell me that true liberalism has never been tried. Yes it has. Seventeenth century classic liberalism prefigured everything that we are suffering now. Locke on property was cleverly rationalising an unprincipled exception, and this unprincipled exception started to be undermined immediately, and Locke on blank slatism and religious freedom is exactly what Woke is now delivering in full measure. Shakespeare’s company of actors and the Globe theater was purchased by the King, and the actors became “The King’s men”. And he was directed to promote Throne and Altar, and did so. And he obviously had freedom, and modern playwrights obviously do not.
Compare recent Disney movies with Soviet movies produced under Stalin. Stalin’s playwrights and actors obviously had vastly more freedom than Disney’s, and Shakespeare vastly more freedom than either.
Shakespeare tells us that some Kings are wicked and foolish, and nature frequently mocks hereditary Kingship by giving us an ass for a lion, but the alternative is that if anyone can be King, the ensuring struggle is going to be bad for everyone. Disney tells us that women, blacks, gays, gay marriage, transexualisation, and all that, are wonderful. You cannot be an actor, director, writer, or whatever at Disney unless you whole heartedly and enthusiastically believe every single one of ten thousand things, most of them absurd, while Shakespeare was realistically cynical about Kings, the State Religion, and official history. And this was prefigured when Locke wrote on religious freedom, for the shape of religious freedom in practice had already been prefigured by the Puritans, and same causes soon led to the same effects.
>Liberal freedom is slavery
As you might now, or may be not, the latin word for freedom is libertas, and is obviously the source for all the liber* english words. So “liberal freedom” means “free freedom” and of course you just keep repeating that freedom is slavery, that is, trolling.
>Now you are going to tell me that true liberalism has never been tried.
I already told you that your misrepresentation of liberalism is a joke. You are setting up a man of straw and knocking it down. Congratulations.
In much the same way as communism means that all goods, or all means of production, are owned in common and shared equally
You are making the argument that true liberalism has never been tried. Like true communism, it has been tried repeatedly, always with the same result.
In Catalonia, they tried anarcho communism, with the results one would expect — terror, mass murder, and slavery. Anarcho liberalism is just as self contradictory as anarcho communism. Look at anarchic polities that were somewhat peaceful and somewhat orderly, that were not entirely failures. Were they remotely liberal? Liberal anarchism is as self contradictory as anarcho communism. Thus, for example Spooner was an anarchist and an abolitionist. How can you abolish slavery or serfdom except by an alarmingly powerful and intrusive state? Look how abolitionism manifested in practice. Locke’s unprincipled exception in favor of slavery was, like is unprincipled exception in favor of property in the means of production, a reflection of the natural order.
You are again telling us that true liberalism has never been tried. Like true communism, has been tried over and over, always resulting in actually existent communism or actually existent liberalism, to the kind of liberalism that the deep state is right now stuffing down our throats. The inherent self contradictions of communism were apparent in Karl Marx, and in previous attempts at communist polities, which he ignored. The self contradictions of liberalism were apparent in Locke’s blank slate epistemology and in his theology of religious tolerance, and rapidly became apparent in actual practice within Locke’s lifetime.
And you are similarly ignoring actual anarchic societies, which have frequently existed. To the extent that they are or have been somewhat functional, they have been illiberal beyond your ability to imagine. Anarchy does not work unless the priesthood sincerely believes a distinctly illiberal faith and knocks off religious dissidents.
By the way, your claim that “freedom is slavery” is of course the official view of the Ingsoc Party, James O’Brien.
>Locke’s blank slate epistemology…
…is obvious nonsense. Locke was mostly a charlatan who got some parts of political philosophy right. And rest assured that whatever he got right, he copied from previous philosophers.
As a side note, “blank slate epistemology” was part of Aristotle’s philosophy though obviously not taken to the idiotic extreme that Locke took it.
The problem is, what is freedom? Liberalism is slavery.
If adultery is a human right, marriage is illegal.
‘Skilled immigration’ is a problem too, primarily with respect to the fact that almost all credentials are simply spoofed to begin with.
[*deleted for failure to comply with the moderation policy*]
Nothing to do with doughboy, but the state is violently supressing any would be retaliation against the coercive foreign violence. This continues to be far and away my biggest gripe with Donald the Disgraced, refusing to acknowledge and tear apart the system preventing the yeomen from organizing and retaliating. No, instead we get a police state, because everyone loves getting policed, especially when the policing is applied asymmetrically.
Because the cartels are large and organised, any private retaliation would have to be large and organised to be effective. And it would have to retaliate against people on the basis of identity — that someone is part of a gang that is doing bad things, not on the basis that that individual did some bad thing. Vigilantes are only effective against unorganised crime.
We have utterly intolerable levels of individual unorganised crime, and obviously the state should allow and encourage vigilantism. But a whole lot of what Ice is dealing with looks more organised. Notice the sudden dramatic drop in Fentanyl overdoses. That is big money going to big organisations, which have presumably been disrupted by some of their personnel being bagged. Sometimes on the basis of gang insignia, sometimes on the basis of individual crimes unrelated to their business operations, sometimes because Ice barges into a place of business that they know some target is at, and they find most people in there are undocumented (because everyone in there is a cartel employee). A vigilante could not barge into a cartel place of business and live.
Yes the cartels are organized, and yes taking on the cartel as an individual would be foolish and deadly.
My point is that there are lots of men that regularly sign up for various guards and militias, some more formal and some less formal. Deputize them. Estabilsh a pattern, reward the ones that accomplish anything, protect them from the glownigger feds, by whatever means available.
Establish a precedent of mass presidential pardons for vigilantism, make a deal with Desantis or something for a state they can go to when the inevitable conflict occurs.
There are millions of men willing to shoot, and the glownigger feds regularly conscript them into honeypots. Perhaps he cannot stop the glownigger feds from doing so, but I see no reason to believe he is unable to create his own organizations like this.
He thinks himself as a saviour of the republic. Well then, lets practice some civics. Stop treating your constituents like tax cattle, Donald. Deputize them.
> ‘…just as communism is the opposite of equality.’
Yet further up the thread you said: ‘Property is an unprincipled exception to “all men are created equal”’
Which, if you mean *private* property, implies that *capitalism* is the opposite of equality.
Please clarify.
Capitalism is inherently unequal, and requires acceptance that all people are not equal, and inferior people should follow the direction of superior people.
Freedom is power, and powers are teleologies.
A statement like ‘this man is free’ is a statement that cannot provide any meaning by itself – outside of whatever unexamined exosemantic subtexts a particular reader may be imputing into it – because it is an abstraction unmoored from its objects. ‘I have freedom’ is not a meaningful statement; ‘I have freedom to do X’ *is* a meaningful statement.
And what is it that men who have called themselves ‘liberal’ want the freedom to do?
The freedom to destroy their neighbor’s property, of course. The freedom to take wives from husbands, to take capital from owners, and to fuck the sons of fathers in the ass – assuming they even have any.
They want the wrong things, and in so doing the wrong things, they cause powerless societies. Lands that can be described as ‘unfree’ are lands where the potency of men is denuded. Tyranny and weakness are isomorphies. Likewise, the equivocation of freedom as a positive association with flourishing; men can flourish when they are free to do the things that lead to flourishing.
‘Freedom’ and ‘responsibility’ are another conceptual co-relation; but in this case, the tactic is so often to *deny* any equivocation between them. When the moderne calls for ‘freedom’, so often, what they are really calling for is subsidization for any (of their) consequences.
To have the freedom to do something is to have the power to do something; but some things don’t have the power to do some things; and more pertinently, cannot be given the power, even if such a notion were to occur. And thus, are something that is fundamentally unfree, ‘natural slavery’.
Before moving, I compiled a list of everything a white man is free to do in America that he can’t do in Russia:
Smoke weed
Have sex with men
Browse PornHub without a proxy
Put on a dress and force people to address him as “ma’am”
No freedom is as valuable as the freedom to own and maintain a family; and no freedom has been undermined more thoroughly by liberals of various stripes than this.
Feminism, a logical and inevitable outgrowth of liberalism (allowing natural families to form and perdure was an unprincipled exception, promptly discarded wherever liberalism was imposed), is fundamentally inimincal to the sexual, familial, and reproductive teloi, and to the freedom to pursue them; hence it must necessarily be the most oppressive form of tyranny.
Since liberals always somehow mysteriously end up “punching upwards,” that is, they seek to topple apple carts standing in the way so they can better implement their liberal tyranny (and grab some apples), they are essentially the servants — or heralders, or pioneers — of Cthulhu; the posts made by the Beige Fed here aptly demonstrate that. They are always motivated by sinful inclinations, whatever virtue-signalling words they utter.
Often congenital solipsists (to borrow a term from Saint P-C), they are wholly unconcerned about what mechanisms create value, or why it tends to be naturally distributed the way it does; they are rather concerned — or so goes the pretense — with redistributing value from its creators to “everyone” (i.e, no one), hence they are, at root, parasites.
Or to paraphrase Yarvin, “Freedom for the tick is no freedom for the dog.”
It is completely obvious that the vast majority of illegals are living on crime, welfare, and voting Democrat, not in low paying jobs.
You see a lot of Mexicans hanging out the Home Depot parking lot waiting for low paying day jobs. Do you see Ice raiding the parking lot? That is not where the illegals are. If someone has his life sufficiently together to hold down a low paying job, chances are he has it sufficiently together to get legal status.
But yes. Every single person who came to America for a low paying job, which is a tiny proportion of those who have been coming here, should also be deported. Thus eliminating low paying jobs by turning them into high paying jobs, with the result that they get obsoleted by technology and lifestyle changes. We should keep the people who came here for high paying jobs, except the Indians.
“Notice the sudden dramatic drop in Fentanyl overdoses“
I just search and it is unbelievable, it actually falling rabidly. Is this just the cartels or is there an actual intent behind having a supply of fentanyl available in the street.
We were being invaded, and at least some part of the deep state wanted the cartels around to provide muscle for the coming civil war and white genocide. And, of course, along with the cartels came lots of Fentanyl. The Ice target list (illegals with some additional crime) tends to pick up cartel members, and when Ice raid, they pick up all the illegals in the same place, and cartel members tend to hang out with members from the same cartel. This could reasonably expected to be organisationally disruptive and thus disrupt the Fentanyl supply chain, among other things.
Closing the borders, stopping fentanyl, kayfabing Iran… Maybe we’re not getting everything on our wishlist but man that’s some good stuff.
You forgot to mention the biggest one of all. He is doing something about Harvard. Albeit anything short of tanks in Harvard is insufficient, but we are clearly headed in the correct direction.
Honestly Fentanyl never made sense to me as coming from capitalistic criminals it sounded glowniggery. A good drug doesn’t kill your customers right away and discourage others. A good drug (from the perspective of those selling it) is even if illegal
1) At least initially enjoyable
2) Highly addictive
3) But hopefully not lethal, very long term health problems are fine but you don’t want it killing people right away. Bad for business.
I don’t know why Fentanyl ended up getting mixed with cocaine, but it ain’t good for business.
I’ll trust you in that we’re on the right track. But I remain skeptical whether Trump understands the need for a state religion. He seems a liberal at heart, who believes that Harvard must go because it is a religion and no religion has business interfering in the state. Which is of course contrary to our stance that religion will by necessity always interfere in the state, if not Harvard then something else, therefore we better pick the best one and make it official.
@Beige Fed
You are the Progressive that, because he calls himself Progressive, asserts that what he is is for progress.
But you know, people can just like, lie.
The beige fed brings to mind Psalm 58:3,
It’s a congenital condition.
(I’d just like to note for the record that some of the first posts by this handle in these fora were reasonable apologetics on the subject of the mid century national socialist polity in Germany. An interesting topic for a ‘liberal anarchist’. Perhaps a new supervisor came with a new script.)
>some of the first posts by this handle – were reasonable apologetics on the subject of the mid century national socialist polity in Germany
Feel free to link those posts. Oh wait, you just spouted a ridiculous and complete lie so you can’t link anything.
Here, all nazis are supposed to “hate the jews” – but no, it doesn’t logically follow that all “jew haters” are nazis. In case you don’t get it, I belong to the non-nazi, jew-hater category. But hey, yet another textbook fallacy for you. Shocking.
https://blog.reaction.la/culture/holocaustianity/#comment-2966010
But yes, kind of weak sauce.
Early on, you started being anti oligarch and anti corporation. Which makes complete sense for a “liberal anarchist” (communist), but not much sense for a right anarchist or propertarian anarchist. As was pointed out, Metcalfe’s law and the Pareto principle implies big businesses. You think you are going to produce steel or transistors with an egalitarian commune? And in an anarchic society, a big business is going to have a big security force and some good weapons.
Merchants are going to do what the state religion and the state tells them to do. When power changed, the Google logo changed, and the google search engine changed. There are a lot of corporations that have had radical leftists embedded in them by state power, and, in consequence, are self destructing, now that they have to compete with regular corporations that pursue profit and stick to the lines laid down by the state.
Imagine an anarchic society that manages to have large scale trade and large scale technology (lack of which is the characteristic failure mode of past anarchic societies — you cannot move goods without facing far too many shakedowns)
For it to be relatively peaceful, there has to be an elite, and broad consensus among the elite on the rightful use of violence — what is crime, and what is resistance to crime and misconduct. Which in practice looks like a state religion without a state, or with a rather less than minimal state, a state that cannot tax or conscript. Such a broad consensus is a state faith without a state, and members of the elite will find it difficult to peacefully coexist with people of different faiths, which means the faith gets coercively enforced.
This is going to look rather like throne and altar monarchy of the Holy Roman Empire type. In the Holy Roman Empire, the Emperor was elected by the great men of the empire for life or gross misconduct, though they tended to elect the eldest son of the previous monarch, and the subjects of the emperor had the right to make war upon each other, with emperor arbitrating when they got tired of it, rather than dictating an outcome.
Election for life or good conduct plus nepotism is a good model for corporations. If the CEO can be too easily removed, then his interests will be short term, while interests of owners of shares are long term. You don’t want the most competent CEO. You want the most competent CEO whose interests are aligned with the interests of shareholders.
A functional high tech anarchic society is going to look a lot like the Holy Roman Empire, only with CEOs instead of lords. A “liberal anarchist” society is going to look the way communism always looks.
So illiberal anarchism is workable, and it makes perfect sense to be a throne and altar reactionary and an illiberal anarchist, for the difference in institutions is quite small, and a workable throne an altar society being a whole lot easier to accomplish than a workable anarchic society. People have not had a whole lot of success in making anarchy workable. Illiberal anarchism should work in theory, and some anarchic societies have sort of worked some of the time — with an enforced cohesive reasonably sane religion, most power being in the hands of rather few men, and a significant portion of the population enserfed or enslaved, but we have far more and far better examples of throne and altar monarchism working.
I won’t bother replying myself, but let the “inventor” of the monarcho-nonsense himself do the talkin.
Hans Hermann Hoppe :
“The greatest danger to freedom and prosperity in my view is the steadily increasing political centralization. The possibility of decentralization, exit and secession are essential for the preservation of human liberty.”
“My ideal is a world made up of thousands upon thousands of Liechtensteins: small territories run by a monarch or member of the natural elite…..allowing subunits of his country to secede if they so desire
This is obviously something quite different from the idea of the Silicon valley crowd taking over the present government and running it like a business (which is something that some Trumpists seem to have in mind). ”
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2025/06/hans-hermann-hoppe/an-ego-maniacal-writers-failed-attempt-at-guilt-by-association/
By the way, the article of course trashes the yarvin clown.
The oligarch’s ideal of a state run like a corporation is exactly what we need, and will give us liberty. Observe what Musk did for liberty, when he couped USAID and similar lesser quasi state organisations. Musk is the primary spokesman, ideologue, and leader, for running the state like a corporation, and has been the primary force for liberty over the past twelve months, first by saving Twitter, then by destroying USAID. Anyone who opposes the Oligarchs and technocracy, opposes Musk, and anyone who opposes Musk opposes liberty.
Hoppe is of course correct, but holy War comes. Small, and preferably tiny, principalities, are ideal for liberty, even if they are internally absolutist monarchies, for if they are tiny enough, the absolute monarch is grandad. Unfortunately holy war approaches, and tiny principalities will be eaten one by one.
Hoppe correctly states that the Holy Roman Empire was a good approximation to his ideal, and it is also a good approximation to my ideal, many tiny principalities, but one Holy Emperor. Why do you think I refer to Trump as “Holy Emperor of the Ocean Lands”. Because I am an advocate of Hoppe.
The Medeans were a vast collection of tiny principalities, and the Assyrian empire was devouring them. So they united under one King and war leader, and gave him absolute and unlimited power, until Assyria should be destroyed. Assyria was destroyed, it is not clear whether by him and his son. And, once destroyed, the uniting absolute monarchy was dissolved.
We don’t know much about the Medeans. However, the Roman Republic was a very loose collection of gens, and each gen was internally powerful, and externally sovereign, and the Republic had the capability to appoint a dictator for the duration. However, the Republic was united by a state religion, which made this possible. as were anarchic societies that were reasonably functional. Since the Medeans destroyed the Assyrian Empire, we may reasonably suppose they were, like the Roman Republic, highly functional. They must have had some means of arbitrating clan disputes, which was probably a somewhat unitary priesthood, which by analogy with other Kingless societies of the time, supplied some of the functionality of a unitary state.
That the Assyrian cities vanished once the Medeans won indicates that the Medeans were not an urban people. We know they were herders, who raised sheep and horses on the steppes, therefore likely primarily nomads, like the Mongols, and they did a Mongol style number on the cities of Assyria. “You city dweller, you die”. And then, unlike the Mongols, went home. That Cyaxares presumably went back to herding his father’s sheep upon victory, as Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus went back to working on his farm, indicates a strong and widely shared faith. When Xenophon marched through what had been Assyria, centuries later, the cities remained largely empty.
Our information about the Medes is contradictory, with Greeks and Romans reporting wealthy and powerful Kings, and their nearer neighbours reporting a multiplicity of Kings except during military emergency. Archaeology, or rather the absence thereof, supports the account given by their nearer neighbors. Both accounts could be true, given that their neighbors did not understand the Medean political order. They could have had a multiplicity of Kings normally, and one immensely wealthy and powerful King when they thought they needed one immensely wealthy and powerful King. And right now we need one immensely wealthy and powerful King.
The Holy Roman Empire is my ideal end state, but it was built on uniting dysfunctional anarchic feudalism. Our problem is not dysfunctional anarchy, but undoing a left singularity — our problem is that which Charles the second dealt with, so needs a prescription resembling that of Charles the Second.
>Hoppe correctly states that the Holy Roman Empire was a good approximation to his ideal
Where does he state that? Oh, right, nowhere. Hoppe talks about thousands of very small independent units, the very opposite of any empire.
>many tiny principalities, but one Holy Emperor
That’s nonsense you just made up, not what Hoppe says.
>Why do you think I refer to Trump as “Holy Emperor of the Ocean Lands”
Because you are trolling and/or a nutcase.
You are lecturing us on anarchy, but you know nothing about anarchy nor past anarchist thinkers. Because you are a “liberal anarchist” aka communist.
There are a lot of anarchist thinkers, notably Spooner, who have a foot in both camps, and Proudhon, the great self contradicter, was about ninety percent commie, but to his credit was aware of the contradiction.
But Hoppe is among those who are one hundred percent in my camp.
Hoppe tells us much about some particular independent principalities that actually existed and praises them glowingly. And they all existed as part of the Holy Roman Empire.
When Trump’s Holy Empire of the Ocean Lands absorbs Greenland, it will be under a “pact of free association”, not as another post civil war state. Which has a certain resemblance to the independent principalities of the Holy Roman Empire.
>You are lecturing us on anarchy
Indeed. Now, where’s the quote from Hoppe where he says that the holy roman empire is a “good approximation to his ideal”
The excellence of the Holy Roman Empire is implicit in every line of Hoppe’s discussion of particular independent principalities of the Holy Roman Empire that actually existed.
Liberal anarchism, like communism, is a theoretical ideal that ignores reality, and thus ignores real life examples.
>Because you are a “liberal anarchist” aka communist.
Please stop lying. Liberal anarchism is based on individual rights to life, liberty and property. It’s the opposite of communist anarchism. And I am an advocate of the former, not the later.
>There are a lot of anarchist thinkers, notably Spooner, who have a foot in both camps
Wrong again about Spooner, as always. And lying. As always.
>But Hoppe is among those who are one hundred percent in my camp.
Hoppe is not an anarchist – he is a monarchist. Hoppe is indeed an entryst. Subverting libertarianism in the US is pretty easy since there are no real libertarians there. Yet even Hoppe is way more libertarian and closer to anarchism than the likes you. As the actual quotes I provided prove.
Well, if all men are created equal, should not they get equal property? — you regularly rant about our corporate overlords, which in practice means liberating the farmer from his mortgage, and also his farm, and the owner of a Dominoes pizzeria from the Dominoes franchise, and also his pizzeria.
Anyone who is an enemy of the tech lords is an enemy of Musk, and anyone who is an enemy of Musk is an enemy of liberty.
And by the way, the tears you wept for the poor Palestinians currently being genocided has a curious resemblance to the tears the probable new mayor of New York has been weeping.
And as for liberty, where do you stand on the liberty of women and gays: Should they get liberty? If not, why not? If women get liberty, what liberty do men lose?
Ok, to finish this off, and finish you off, let’s hear Hoppe again :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOsm4_NYZy8
46:48
“trump is a protectionist and Trump is a war maker”
“he already sends huge sums of money to Israel to conduct a war”
“he bombs now the Houthis”
“he was involved in bombing Syrians and of course he is still involved in the Ukraine war and still sending weapons and so forth to the Ukraine”
So just like Hoppe says, trump is a warmonger, puppet of the jews, started a new war against Yemem, AND a new war against Iran after Hoppe gave this speech.
47:34
“the other great friend that he had was zelensky” (Hoppe was talking about the milei clown)
“zelensky also Jewish promoted by the Jewish oligarchs in the Ukraine – they hugged each other” (zelensky and milei)
“then of course his greatest friend of all is Netanyahu”
“now Netanyahu whatever you say about Netanyahu I mean Netanyahu is of course a mass killer”
“he is involved in genocide – I cannot understand how any libertarian would ever defend a man like Netanyahu but he was dancing in the street with Netanyahu”
Wow, Hoppe is clearly an antisemitic communist who believes in lefty fairy tales about “genocide”
So keep lying Jim. That’s the only thing you can actually do.
That is a very slow, and very long you tube video. I don’t trust your interpretation of Hoppe. After all, there is plenty in this blog condemning the continuation of the Ukraine war and continued intervention in the Middle East, but unless we weep sufficient tears for the Palestinians and the Iranians, you don’t think it is enough. I doubt that his condemnation is as different from ours as you represent it to be.
So I watched the video starting at 45:00
You lie. He does not call Trump a warmonger. He calls him a warmaker — like pretty much any head of state. In context he states not that Trump is a warmonger, but that Trump is very far from being libertarian. Does anyone on this blog suggest that Trump is libertarian? In context he is not condemning Trump, but Milei, and not Milei, but Milei’s claim to be a libertarian.
White bread quotes Hoppe:
And how is this different from what you will find on this blog?
Your quotes don’t support your interpretation of Hoppe, and don’t support your claim that he is saying anything very different from what I and other people say on this blog.
Hearing him context, he sounds very different from you — no “liberal anarchism”, no condemnation of the tech oligarchs such as Musk, and no bitter salty tears for the poor poor Palestinians.
In context, his criticism of Trump is that Milei claimed to be a libertarian, but is not acting like a libertarian. Hoppe does not condemn Trump, in context, he just reminds us that Trump is no libertarian.
He then immediately goes on to praise Germany when it was divided into hundreds of tiny principalities. When Germany was divided into hundreds of tiny principalities it was part of the Holy Roman Empire. What he neglects to say is that the little independent principalities were able to have mostly peaceful and safe cooperate/cooperate relationships with each other because they were part of the Holy Roman Empire.
When the Holy Roman Empire ceased to be in 1806, relationships became less peaceful and less safe, resulting in unification sixty five years later.
When Greece was divided into a multitude of little states, Athens started to assert hegemonic dominance over them all, with the Delian league developing into the Athenian Empire, as Nato became the major arm of the Global American Empire. This led to the Peloponnesian War, to decide who would have hegemony over Greece: Athens or Sparta. Answer, Sparta, sort of, but because the war had been so long and terrible it was a rather inconclusive hegemony, so they wound up conquered by Macedonia, which did exert the kind of decisive unification that never happened in the Holy Roman Empire. But, because Alexander was a faggot, the Macedonian rule became a never ending series of civil wars between would be military dictators, so they wound up being conquered by Rome. Genghis Kahn’s empire lasted because he was straight, horny, virile, and manly, as were his numerous sons.
>there is plenty in this blog condemning the continuation of the Ukraine war
Yes. There’s also retarded support for Trump, who is responsible for the war. So your positions don’t add up. Shocking.
>and continued intervention in the Middle East
No, that’s untrue. You’ve been repeating continuously that you don’t care what happens in the middle east. And getting hysterical when the fact that the US is ruled by the jews is mentioned. Speaking of which :
Hoppe 1:04:05
“I should mention(?) one word about the Israel stuff too – and Israel is of course – yeah Israel is sort of ruling the United States”
sort of haha – Hoppe is really polite here.
“the traditional attitude of Americans – we are exceptional people and of course because of that we should invade the world uh and convert the world to our superior values”
“then the people who consider themselves the chosen people come together with those that already think that they are the exceptional nation, then a country really becomes a dangerous country and in my view America is so far the most dangerous country that exists”
>So I watched the video starting at 45:00
Then you didn’t even watch a third of it. You should watch the whole thing. Hoppe is talking about jews all the time. He tells how one jew capitalist invented the so called “frankfurt school” of which Hoppe was a member.
>He does not call Trump a warmonger. He calls him a warmaker
Yes, he uses the word “warmaker” (I gave the quote). That’s Hoppe’s idiosincratic english I daresay. He then lists all of trump’s wars and it’s obvious he means warmonger.
>he states not that Trump is a warmonger, but that Trump is very far from being libertarian
Duh. And the fact that trump is a “warmaker”(i.e. warmonger) is the biggest reason why trump is very far from being libertarian.
>In context he is not condemning Trump, but Milei
He is obviously condemning both. He says that all of milei’s “friends” are trash. That is not a compliment for trump, nuttyhoo, zelensky and the rest of neocons, milei included. In “context” his views on the neocons, from south america to north america to the middle east, are quite clear.
>And how is this different from what you will find on this blog?
See above. The only thing you sort of oppose is the war against Russia. And not because of any moral principle but simply because you like Russia’s (alleged) autocracy.
>He then immediately goes on to praise Germany when it was divided into hundreds of tiny principalities.
He talks about 19th century germany when it was 30 something provinces, not hundreds.
Hoppe:
“there is a united Germany as a result of wars that took place in the 19th century – germany consisted in the 19th century of some 39 or 38 different principalities. It was only as a result of war that we had a united Germany”
Hoppe neglects to mention that the unification was the result of a military alliance, designed mainly by the Prussians. Then they attacked France. Also, before that there was the Zollverein to counter high tariffs, etc, so there were various forces at play.
>Hoppe correctly states that the Holy Roman Empire was a good approximation to his ideal
So, again, he never does that. It is true that at some point central europe/germany was divided in a couple hundreds units, some small, some big, and you are calling that a “good approximation”, not Hoppe.
Now, that state of affairs was obviously better than what we have now, but that state of affairs didn’t last because monarchs are always trying to conquer or destroy their neighbors and create empires.
Also the holy roman empire covers almost a thousand years of history and it hardly had a single neatly defined and constant political structure.
If you don’t support Trump, you support the Democrats, who started the war with Russia and intend to escalate it. Who intend to end white reproduction, straight sex, replace us with brown mystery meat and implement communism. Not to mention escalate the war with Russia, though they would probably capitulate to Mohameddanism. And when you cry tears for the poor poor genocided Palestinians, you are backing their program of capitulating to Mohammedanism, and when you complain of the tech lords, you are endorsing communism and supporting censorship.
Trump did not start this war, and is trying to end it, but he depends on a part of the deep state that defected to Maga because they want an America strong enough to defeat Russia. Trump does not want to defeat Russia, which would likely result in nuclear war and both sides losing, but does not want to offend that part of the deep state either.
>If you don’t support Trump, you support the Democrats, who started the war with Russia
I don’t support trump (ex democrat) and I don’t support the democrats. So that lie is really stupid even by your standards. Funnily enough, kennedy and gabbard who just disgraced themselves, are also “ex” democrats.
>Trump did not start this war, and is trying to end it
The war started in 2014 and actually trump was then partially responsible for it during his first reign. And now it is obvious that trump isn’t trying to end it. And the fact that the war continues today can be directly traced to trump’s authority – and responsibility.
And, somebody who is a “warmaker” cannot be a “peace president”. Except of course in your parallel universe where war is peace.
Every radical leftist on Breadtube says he is not a Democrat and does not support the Democrats– but very few of them can stray one inch from Democrat line, except that they complain it is not left enough, and not one of them could notice Biden was senile, until the word came down from above that it was OK to notice he was senile. How can they attack the regime for insufficient leftism yet be strangely unable to notice that Biden was senile puppet?
you are with the Democrats on Trump and the Oligarchs.
During Trump 1.0s’s time the pressure was reduced, with a sort of truce sort of holding. As soon as Biden was appointed, the US government increased the pressure and increased the direct involvement, with a whole of shelling of Donbas coming from the not-a-Nato-base in Avdiivka, which just happened to be full of American military personnel, and American weapons. Obviously that would result in a Russian response sooner or later. As soon as Trump was re-elected elected, supply of arms and money diminished.
A large part of the Thermidor still thinks they have got Russia on the ropes. You still see the propaganda videos on breadtube Putin as about to be overthrown, Russia is about to collapse. The Putin regime is about to collapse. They are still celebrating on breadtube how powerful and effective their totally astroturfed color revolutionary movement is, though in truth color revolution is only effective in proportion to how close a US base is.
Trump cannot halt the Ukraine war except by giving Russia everything it has been demanding from the beginning, plus something additional for what the war has cost Russia.. Russia will not accept another frozen conflict, and Thermidor will not accept anything except a frozen conflict.
Last time around, Russia demanded actual peace, not a frozen conflict, plus four provinces. Next time around, actual peace plus seven provinces — what was demanded this time, plus the black sea coast. But it was actual peace that was unacceptable to Thermidor. Plus losing the Black sea is going to be unacceptable, since it diminishes their capability to put pressure on Russia.
I don’t see anything at all above. It is all stuff you will find in this blog, and all stuff you will find in Mossadnik, who is a Jewish nationalist, who thinks that Jews should go to Israel and focus on ruling Israel, not the world. The difference is that we (and Mossadnik) are more focused on other, more important and urgent issues.
The difference between us and you is not all this stuff, but that you think that in order to deal with all this stuff, we should unite with the Democrats on destroying Christianity, destroying capitalism, ending straight sex, and ending the white race.
I could with equal truth, or rather equal untruth, claim that Spooner is not an anarchist, he is a commie.
Of course Spooner is an anarchist. And of course Hoppe is an anarchist. Hoppe is a propertarian anarchist, who sees relationships between men as property rights. A serf has a property right in the land, in that he cannot evicted except for cause. And the lord has a property right in the serf, in that the serf, unlike a tenant, may not leave.
It’s uncanny, isn’t it? And there’s been a real, albeit almost imperceptible shift since his ranting in older threads like “The Logos is risen”. For example:
He’s clearly got a raging hate boner for “big corporations”, and yet a true-blue libertarian, ancap or other “anarchist” would not only not have a problem with corporate monopolies and oligopolies, he’d view it as inevitable in light of Metcalfe’s Law and the Pareto Principle. Indeed, anarchists tend to hold that large enough corporations will (not “should”, because moralizing is irrelevant, but necessarily must and will as a matter of incentives) build or hire their own private militias and security forces.
The only “anarchists” who are both anti-state and anti-corporate are “anarcho-syndicalists” or “anarcho-communists”, AKA plain old communists. Which I guess is what a “liberal anarchist” must be, since I’ve never heard the term before in any other context, and liberalism is just a synonym for communism anyway.
But a commie wouldn’t rise to the defense of Literally Hitler, who hated commies even more than he hated Jews. Yet Moldy Bread can’t possibly be a Fascist with a capital F (or “anarcho-fascist” for those trying to be cute) because he also hates collusion between the state and the corporations, to wit:
So I guess Moldy Bread wants to destroy the state and corporations, and essentially have everyone living in mud huts and scratching at the dirt with sticks.
The conclusion is either that, or a script that changes to suit whatever the current narrative is supposed to be.
A good rule-of-thumb is that authentic, reasonable antisemites (with whom I sympathize) are okay with “Jews should fuck off to Israel,” indeed, I consistently and passionately advocate it myself.
Meanwhile, the feds, the nutcases, and the muttoids will never be okay with that, each group for its own respective reasons.
My ideal is crushing my enemies, driving them before me, and dividing up their virgin daughters as loot among my loyal troops.
We’re going to implement a standing army, collect taxes to pay for the army and its logistics, and we’re going to roll up all your lichtensteins into the empire.
>oh no but my feelings about real anarchy and stuff
Lord Humongous says hello, and requests you store extra guzzoline for him to take later.
“Where does he state that? Oh, right, nowhere. Hoppe talks about thousands of very small independent units, the very opposite of any empire.”
You’re not tall enough for this ride.
“Where does he state that? Oh, right, nowhere. Hoppe talks about thousands of very small independent units, the very opposite of any empire.”
The closest approximation to ‘thousands of very small independent units’ is the Holy Roman Empire (which had something like 300 independent units at one time).
If you want wholly independent, you’ll have to look to classical greece, which got conquered by an outside empire. Collective defense means there can’t be long term total independence- the individual units must subordinate war against outside powers to a central authority.
So is this guy a Turk or what?
Even if Brown Toast was being entire faithful to the source material, I’d have to ask: “so what?” It’s such a sad, obnoxious, clumsy appeal to false authority.
As I’ve said before, it is exactly like when the apparat media trots out a podiatrist to support the vaxx, or a physicist to support climate alarmism, or a social psychologist to explain game design. There’s no awareness that experts are experts in a particular and usually narrow subject, only Experts as a social class whom you must respect and defer to in all matters. “Hoppe said this, and Hoppe is your God, therefore I win.”
Hoppe has some interesting ideas on some topics, like the importance of physically removing bad actors. He has some not so interesting ideas on other topics, like performative contradictions as a curiously ineffectual epistemological trump card. And he no doubt has formed opinions on matters about which he is no more knowledgeable about than any one of us, because it is impossible to avoid hearing about these things that are constantly shouted through the GAE’s megaphones.
Even if Hoppe had used the exact words that Moldy Bagel wished he had used, something like “Trump is a warmonger who is under the direct control of the BIG MEANIE terrorist state known as Israel”, which he obviously did not say, I’d have to ask: who fuckin’ cares? Because he wrote some interesting texts in one area, he’s the final authority in all others?
Yarvin is/was very wise on matters of power dynamics and revolutionary movements, but weak on the woman question. Heartiste was a luminary on Game, but had nothing to offer in terms of marriage or higher social technology. Vox Day has a keen understanding of left-wing hive mind tactics and a great contrarian on economic issues like free trade, but a proven kook on almost every legitimate scientific field and many historical ones. And Trump his own self is a charismatic leader and a brilliant negotiator but still a hapless boomer when it comes to grand strategy.
No one is an expert in every field of human endeavor and it’s not some brilliant “gotcha” moment to dredge up 30 seconds of video during which a generally well-regarded individual happens to disagree on a subject that’s way outside his wheelhouse. It just makes Stale Baguette look petty, spiteful and desperate.
It’s a very Eastern mentality. E.g., you can find it among some kikes, who would cite a rabbi (or a secular equivalent thereof) as Authority to “substantiate” an argument, regardless of whether the actual content of the citation has any [empirical, observable] bearing on the topic under discussion.
“The Guru said so!”
I’m just marveling at how the moment he noticed he was getting no traction on beating the communist allegations, he immediately pivoted to some random bullshit about something else.
If you agree and amplify while playing, you divert and tu quo que while shilling.
> Trump is responsible for the Ukraine war
Explain this one shill… this is a very very shill statement given how absurd it is.
Sorry to bust in, but this is something I am annoyed about with Donald.
Don could end the war tomorrow by ordering all starlink support ended. He could do it in a more sane way, that would get less killed in the collapse, by announcing he will end all starlink, and other, support if they do not agree to peace demands from Russia, within a given timeframe.
That he has not done this, shows me he’s not serious about ending the war, that he is just a puppet failing to make any meaningful deals, or a combination of both.
Did he start the war? No absolutely not. Is the continuation squarely on his shoulders? Yes absolutely so.
Yes, but …
A large part of the deep state came across to Trump because of the horrible realisation that the systematic destruction of the white working class had made the US horrifyingly weak.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/07/breaking-pentagon-halts-weapons-shipments-ukraine-after-its/
Making peace with Russia requires completely accepting Russia’s 2022 demands. Which that faction would see as a terrible defeat. They have simply not given up on destroying Russia, on returning to the 1990s status quo, have not given up on then breaking Russia into “Post Russian” states, in each of which the Russian identity and language will be forcefully suppressed in favor of made up language manufactured for that post Russian state in the same way the Ukrainian language has been being state manufactured and state enforced starting in 2014. They lost their 1990s control of Russia in large part because they were not satisfied with the continued existence of Russia or Russians at all in any form — having decisively won, they wanted to continue winning even more.
They have to be made to accept decisive defeat. And are not yet ready to do so. Forcing them to admit defeat would likely result in a large part of the deep state that defected to Trump defecting back to the left — the left that is now turning outright communist.
As you know, the left defeated, among other things, the proposal to cease giving medicaid to illegal immigrants, so we are still deep in the woods, and cannot handle a split within Thermidor at this time.
Exactly so.
I also believe that we should replace the current Abomination of Desolation, aka the Al-Aqsa Compound, with the Temple.
Jesus Christ in Luke 21:24 prophesies concerning the Jews (using here Young’s Literal Translation, recommended by Saint P-C):
That may not be just yet, but it’s in sight, and once the bulk of people with significant Jewish ancestry make aliyah, it will become much more feasible.
Al-Aqsa needs to go, and if we get a Regime Change and become a Jewish rather than Progressive State – it will go.
“White [anything]” in a username is a secret police tell.
“Orange [King/Emperor/etc]” in a comment is a street commie tell.
“Leo’s Dad — 1 day ago
Politics aside, the crisis is rooted in the Church. No evangelization. Mealy-mouthed teaching on life issues. Disastrous leadership. If Holy Mother Church had holy men running it and holy laity listening and doing their part, even as a current minority in this country, we would be exporting people to convert the world. The average young family in our Latin rite parish has 4 children, up to 12. New rite parishes have 1 or 2.”
Latin Rite. Germanic equivalents: Old English, Old Norse, Gothic. Even modern Icelandic could be a step in the right direction.
I’ll admit to being “extremely biased.”
But I really love the God-Emperor.
Maybe we should place his statue in the center when we build the Temple. I’ll convene the Elders of Khazaria to discuss the matter, to which I thank you for paying attention.
(I consider Trump to be my President, although I’ve never been to any part of the Anglosphere in my entire life, and don’t plan to either. This post made me think to myself, “Mossadnik, let’s rub one out.” It’s about time for me to open 666 new horrible, just horrible tabs; and no need to enhance the experience with weed, off which I’ve been successfully weaned – for now. I am already super horny.)
Seriously, God bless Donald ben Frederick!
Let us see which side the JooJooJoo brigade takes — they are very concerned that Bibi is Jewish, unconcerned that Blinken and Zelensky is Jewish, and unconcerned that the Israeli supremes are Jewish.
If Trump succeeds here, it could be a sign that the GAE-in-Exile has lost much its power. And if the GAE loses the periphery of the empire, next it might well lose the heart of the empire.
We may not have completed or even seriously intended a regime change in Iran – but what I’m actually excited about is the prospect of regime change in Israel; toppling the Regressive “Elite” ruled by the tyrannical and illegitimate Supreme Court and run by Epstein’s best friend, Ehud Barak.
We are all your soldiers, O Donald ben Frederick. Give us the signal and we shall obey! You have millions of WRATHFUL Eurasian Tribesmen (with military experience) at your command.
Those B-2s should target the tyrannical and illegitimate Supreme Court. Jim is 100% right about this issue – our biggest problem by far is the faith of Progressivism, and the endless attempts on the part of its sickening, despicable adherents to Color Revolution our Leader.
It’s time for REGIME CHANGE IN ISRAEL.
>>It’s time for REGIME CHANGE IN ISRAEL.
Mossadnik, would you say those “Progressive” Jews there in Israel have a goal they clearly see and are “progressing” towards, or are they just virtue-signalling and ignoring where it leads to?
Well, what characterizes them above all is doublethink. The real-world result of the implementation of their myriad and ever-shifting weltanschauungen is the annihilation of Israel and the extermination of all Jews in Israel, which they instinctively (but necessarily consciously) desire, both because leftist brains are wired for self-hatred, and because leftists always side with anti-civilization against civilization.
As with all leftists, there is no point trying to pinpoint what their “real beliefs” are – they change from moment to moment, as leftism, particularly of the demonic variety, is ultimately not a “consistent ideology,” but a deeply-wired temperament (or spiritual predisposition, if you will) which hijacks and/or cultivates worldviews in order to give its possessors a thrill — a dopamine hit — out of seeing their own people, country, and civilization destroyed. That’s what they are doing, but they are not necessary conscious of doing it. It’s their autopilot.
The ultimate end-goal is always “everyone dead and everything destroyed.” There never was anything else, and Israeli leftists are absolutely no different than any other leftists, except perhaps in having particularly high verbal IQs allowing them to be more successful at virtue-signalling. It’s always at bottom a Gnostic death-cult getting a thrill out of suffering and death, primarily the suffering and death of those most similar to themselves, i.e., fellow Israeli Jews.
It’s always a shriek from the darkest depths of Gehenna.
(Fixing typo – not necessarily consciously. The point is that many of them are not biologically capable of grasping what it is that they are doing. In their minds, they are really brave heroes fighting for this, that, or the other “lofty ideal.” In practice, they are motivated by absolutely sinful inclinations, which their bifurcated brains excel at rationalizing. Demoniacs gonna demoniac. Now, some of the more high functioning ones probably are aware of what they are doing, and they don’t care regardless, because they are evil people. But the True Believers generally don’t grasp — can not biologically grasp — that it’s Lucifer animating them.)
The typical leftist also tends to be an unhappy person (the more leftist, the less happy), whose deep seated desire — rationalized with whatever clever, oh so clever verbiage — is to bring everyone else down to xir’s own level of misery. They are epistemologically blind, in that they can’t tell what is beneficial and what is detrimental, at least when it comes to things far away and/or not immediate. This inevitably ties in with moral blindness, or moral inversion. They hate existence itself for existing, and above all else, they hate/envy happy people for being happy.
Perhaps leftism is also a byproduct of some originally adaptive process gone awry. In the same way that well-placed scars make men attractive to women because they signal resilience and hint at danger (hence, tattoos), the ability to rationalize evil, to confidently assert wicked bullshit obviously detached from reality and get away with it, must be rooted in some ancient selection processes that had been at least somewhat adaptive back in some historical or prehistorical context, whether in the ancestral environment of all apes (so, likely having a preverbal origin), or in the Jewish case, the highly verbal environment of Talmudic pilpul. Telling obvious lies and getting away with it signals the same thing, but perhaps in a more subtle or “sophisticated” way, as having a bunch of scars. Women don’t find dysfunctional spiteful mutants attractive, nor do they find invalids with broken bones and a skin disease attractive, but alas, they do find competent leftists (competent evil) very attractive, and this latter type tends to get much simping from women. Plus, of course, parasitic freeloaders gonna parasitically freeload.
So you have unhappy people who want everyone else to be at least as unhappy as they are (that’s often the temperament), plus some selection processes — likely active both in prehistorical/preverbal times and, at least among Jews, in historical/verbal periods — for traits that signal competent evil, such as, in the case of high functioning leftists, the ability to tell obvious sinister lies — rationalize evil and madness — and get away with it; which toxic combination might well explain the modern leftoid phenomenon.
The happiest people on the political spectrum who pay attention at all are boomer normiecons. Leftist tend to be especially unhappy now because they are so heavily wayed to gays and single young women who also tend to be mentally ill. Its an interesting question if their leftism made them miserable or their misery made them leftists but I suspect more the former because there are plenty of non leftists who are miserable people.
I believe leftist misery is mostly independent of external circumstances – it’s something deeply ingrained. Put another way, if you see a jubilant leftist, don’t be surprised if one day he will no longer be a leftist, since his brain possesses at least some healthy infrastructure. But the leftist who can’t be happy for longer than a few seconds, and particularly, the leftist who is all the more despondent the more the society he parasitizes thrives – that is the true leftist.
True leftists love fake smiles; they despise genuine ones. A radiant countenance makes them shudder, like you have committed a grave sin against the religion of doom-and-gloom. And again, it’s mostly independent of external circumstances; for instance, the leftist can be quite rich, and you can be a total poorfag, and yet by being authentically happy in their presence, you shall absolutely ruin that leftist’s day. They are dead inside, and want everyone else to die (“inside” or literally) too.
The leftist’s ideology is ad hoc rationalization for why your happiness must be reduced.
It’s the mirror image of point deer/make horse. “I can annoy the crap out of everyone by calling that deer a horse, and no one can stop me.” This demonstrates a certain amount of social power.
Yes.
Also, women would like to think that they’re pretty good at manipulation, and no doubt some of them are, but that they keep falling for glib gaslighters time and again (due to ancient sexual selection processes that had been active before patriarchy curbed female mate choice, that is, back when we looked rather like apes) suggests that, at the very least, when their hindbrain is activated and their ‘gina tingles, their intersexual behavior becomes no more rational than male behavior when we have raging boners, likely indeed far less rational. And around glib gaslighters, alas, their ‘gina doth tingle very much, making them highly prone to be manipulated by bad faith actors.
The liberation of female sexuality invariably brings back ancient sexual selection processes for low-trust, antisocial traits.
Put another way, they are sexually attracted to men who would defect on them in a heartbeat and steal their money, while their pussies dry up like the Sahara desert around non-manipulative, decent men. So, expectedly, under modern sexual liberalism (the most oppressive tyranny of all), they get repeatedly defected on and have their money stolen, and disproportionately give birth to demonspawn bastards – breeding dysgenically. The results are seen all around us in the rapidly declining, deteriorating, degenerating quality of humanity.
Everyone around has become a demon (I’m only slightly exaggerating), because for far too long women have been allowed and encouraged — not that they needed much encouragement — to wet their panties for demon dicks. For humanity to not descend into the bottomless pit, women need to be prevented from exercising their sexual strategies and impulses, which are rooted in a very distant past and unsuitable in / incompatible with civilization. When women make their own sexual choices, no one is happy, antisocial phenotypes proliferate far and wide, and eventually reproduction all but ceases.
I thought Netanyahu after October 7th became more universally disliked and was dependent on the war to stay in power. Basic story is that its widely believed in Israel that Netanyahu knew about the October 7th attack in advance and purposely held back security forces from stopping the attack so he would have a pretext to launch his war. While the latter part worked he lost tons of supporters over it…
The people telling you that engage in demonic inversion, because they want me dead, and more crucially perhaps, want you dead.
I’ve already explained at length what we Real Israelis know that happened on October 7, and I see no reason to belabor the point – 99% of what you read on my country is bullshit, with much bullshit posted in this comment section too, and if I were to go lie after lie after lie after lie refuting the endless bullshit, I would be doing nothing else besides, and Jim would ban me for zio shilling.
Here is what I wrote about it in this thread:
And all honest Israelis understand that.
Netanyahu’s approval rating has never been higher, and anyone telling you otherwise wants me dead, wants Donald Trump dead, and wants you dead.
Obviously I don’t want this blog to become all Israel all the time. And if you go around defending Israel, a lot of people are going to be triggered into criticising Israel. I don’t care about these issues, which get far too much space on the internet, because Jews tend to be obsessed with Jews, and nutcases tend to be obsessed with Jews.
However a lot of the criticism is leftist lies, which I don’t want regurgitated on this blog with no pushback — so a bit more pushback is welcome.
If as is likely, it leads to never ending threads, well the offender is the one who posts repetitiously and unresponsively. (Who is usually the one who brought up the topic)
In America, 911 happened in large part because the FBI did not want to know anything bad about Mohammedans, and did not want anyone else to know anything bad about Mohammedans. So I figured the Hamas October seven attack on Israel was probably more of the same old same old, without examining, or caring about, the evidence.
And, of course, whenever this see no evil policy blows up in their faces, they are going to point their fingers at the insufficiently left. And I don’t want finger pointing at the insufficiently left regurgitated on this blog without pushback.
I get a whole lot of shill posts pointing out that Mohammedans do bad things. Which unquestionably they do. It is a huge problem. If you look at the borders of Islam on a map of the world, it is all low level war all the time, which occasionally breaks out into high level war, which would be a good argument for another crusade, if Christendom still existed. But restoring Christendom is a rather more urgent project.
If Israel became Jewish, the west became Christian, and India became Hindu, then would be a good time for a crusade. But right now that is a distraction, and strangely, none of the people pushing this distraction can pass the shill test.
So we have a government program of ignoring bad things done by Mohammedans, and also at the same time a government program of informing the Christian right of those bad things. Just as we have a government program of suppressing “Nazism”, and Nazis on the government payroll promoting actual Nazism. Which government promoted Nazism became war in the Ukraine.
The left wants its enemies to fight its enemies. I think the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and if he is not my friend, it is a really bad time to bring the matter up.
Here is a recent poll question measuring fitness for the premiership between some likely candidates – that was from a day or two ago.
https://www.c14.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/WhatsApp-Image-2025-06-26-at-20.09.56-1200×675.jpeg
You may not read Hebrew, but if you can recognize faces, you should get the point. And the real approval is in fact much higher than that.
Anyone telling you that Netanyahu is “unpopular” is a shill. He has never been more popular.
[*deleted for failure to follow the moderation policy*]
New commenters must commit a thought crime, or reject a thought crime in a way that reveals the actual content of the thought crime that they are rejecting.
Whiteness and white identity is not a thought crime. Noticing racial and sexual differences is a thought crime. How was Detroit destroyed? In white flight, what are whites fleeing?
You are allowed to argue that the differences are only cultural, environmental or ideological, but you are not allowed to presuppose that — your argument has to reflect the context that your interlocutor regularly refers to blacks as plains apes.
So I recall some time in the past, Jim mentioned that the easiest way to seduce women (in a group) being done by a group of men. The gist of it goes something like this: The group of men need a clear leader, that they all respect. The group of men hang close enough to the group of women, so that the women’s alpha radar picks up on who the leader is (this can take up to 60 or so minutes). Leader of the men breaks into the group of women, and warms them up for a few minutes. After a few minutes, the leader should give a signal of some kind, and the rest of the group of men joins in. The leader divides the women among the group of men, and everyone gets a happy end.
Now for my question about this. The men should probably already roughly figured out how the women will be divided before hand, but that still leaves the matter of actually dividing up the women. Should the Leader be more direct in the dividing, something akin to “you with him” or should it appear to be more ‘naturally spontaneous’ and that people ‘just so happened to match up.’
I’m asking for guidance, since I think I can arrange a group of friends to be able to pull this off.
Women are remarkably compliant with authority in this situation, so the group having agreed in advance to a division without the women observing, ideally the leader dispatches the women as planned and all males in the group implicitly accede to a decision seemingly made on the spot by the leader.
I wrote:
Presupposing all shit tests passed, but under the circumstances, you probably will not get anything that cannot be passed by gentle condescension, agree and amplify, and all the usual pickup artist armory. The tougher shit tests are likely to be incoming after each chick has been split from the group.
Holy f*ck!!
https://x.com/ramzpaul/status/1938368469432455654
Please do not post bare links to xitter. If its a text only post, copy the text. If its a video, tell us what’s in the video.
As is, this is just a sort of spam. We all could easily get a large stream of such links by logging into Musk’s platform ourselves, without the hassle of clicking on each item.
Assume links are temporary and easily broken, while these comments will be archived and read many years later; a very common case with forums such as this. Be nice to the future reader, and don’t spam him with links he cannot click that have no other context.
Summary, The Zman was found dead of suddenly.
Here’s further information (without hot links).
Is there any confirmation? Alot of people in the thread were pointing out he’d posted 9 hours before
Ramzpaul said on his podcast this evening that he received a call from Lydia Brimelow (who is local) Thursday afternoon informing him. He said she said she was informed by the sheriff dept. She said they told her they “did not suspect any foul play”. “Natural causes” was Ramzpaul’s “at the momemt” mental interpretation/translation.
Oops f-ed that formatting up. I had it all in paragraphs, and even failed to type out the name properly.
Whatever.
I miss B posting here, he was at least open about his Jewish bias and unlike the present shills, not retarded on the topic.
Sad how the slightest criticism of Jews gets devolved by any Jews into an argument about them. Almost as if it were a defensive mechanism/script.
Let me try again, I carefully wrote it out in a text editor first to hit every point I thought needed hitting:
———-
>Trouble with you, Bouncer, is that you think Israel is the real enemy and the real power.
*ahem*:
Nuts.
Now you’re the one trying to stick words I didn’t say in my mouth.
As orthodox_uber_chad correctly pointed out, Israel is a massive blind spot for you. If anything, it is the USA that is Israel’s client-state, usually indulged but frequently milked. When one looks carefully at Trump’s “decisive action” (against Harvard anti-Zionism) one sees that it is not all that intensive, and leaves all the rest of the Ivy league colleges untouched, much like the rollback of federal DIE programs leaves all the state-level DIE orgs untouched. Trump is barely scratching the surface, when he should have gone scorched-earth on the Ivy leagues from day one.
Jews are not the only problem (a view you and the local jews keep trying to pin on me as per the usual scripts they follow and which you tolerate), but they still are a massive problem, one you choose to ignore.
Let me quote you yourself Jim, when you were mid-rant about Venezuela and “nazis”, and the link here was still at jim.com:
” War with Iran, yes that would indeed be war for Israel.”
https://blog.reaction.la/war/the-reactionary-program/#comment-2020105
Jim, it’s rather clear from many of your past comments that you’re part of the Boomer generation or the one just after them – this colors your worldview rather differently to those of us who hit adulthood from the mid-90’s onward. Be careful of your pride blinding you – your post titled “preen” when you felt Musk was reading your blog shows you’re still vulnerable to entryists using flattery as the philo-semites here do.
There are plenty of valid criticisms of Jews (both religious and not), and a lot of direct quotes, video footage etc. etc. to be found online in multiple places – dismissing them all under some nonsensical propaganda label, is strange for an otherwise logical person, and it is foolish to be unquestioningly pro-Jewish when you’re not one of them yourself.
The average “philo-semite” tends to start with the assumption that people who despise Jews are sick/mentally-ill/evil and that they formed their beliefs/views with no logical basis at all then they work backwards trying to prove it, choosing to silence dissent with cries of cries of “shill! shill!” and often resorting to “Not All Jews Are Like That” arguments, as if one non-pozzed person somehow counterbalances the thousands in the same group who are more than happy to shit in the bed as long as they don’t have to lie down it themselves – such behavior among philo-semites is not the exception, it is the rule.
People have despised Jews for as long as Jews have lived in other people’s societies, and it’s never been because people wanted to “steal what Jews have” as I’ve seen Jim claim without any evidence… it has always simply been because Jews’ relationship to their host countries resembles that of a tapeworm – a particularly harmful and damaging one at that.
I don’t give a shit why “tHe NaZiS” supposedly hate Jews (though Emil Maurice might have something interesting to say about it, were he still alive) – I hate what they do in our society, and I condemn them the same way and for the same reasons everyone from Christ and St. Paul onwards (at least) condemned them all the way back to their (genetic and/or theological) ancestors the Philistines: they hypocritically act in ways that makes social problems worse among the host society, and are the most vigorous and prominent attackers of our asabiyyah, our gemeinschaft – even when they aren’t progressives themselves, they overwhelmingly support progressive causes in any of the societies they live within, including but not only: secular rule, feminism, anti-racism, multiculturalism, abortion, pornography, anti-natalism, gay “marriage”, interracial race-mixing, transgenderism, mass immigration and communism/socialism itself.
No amount of NAJALT will counter-balance this: even Jewish individuals who don’t themselves cause direct harm to the societies they live in, consistently fail to stop Jews who do cause harm, and some/many actively defend such from any non-Jews who try to stop what they do. No “conspiracies” are needed – just an excess of in-group sympathy and mutual assistance. And let’s not get into the TRILLIONS of dollars we’ve squandered over the decades since WW2 supporting our treacherous frenemy Israel, when that money should have been spent right here in America solving our own issues.
Instead America is like a blond, blue-haired girl from a good family who grows up in a 99% White town and goes off to college believing everything we’re told by TV that a goodperson ought to believe, and ends up dating Israel Niggerious Washington attending on an “athletic scholarship”, and so little America ignores all her parents’ warnings because she’s told they’re just being racist, puts up with his lazing around all day not going to class or working, makes excuses for him when he maxes out ALL her credit cards, “borrows” her car when she needs it to go to work or whatever, leaves her home strewn with trash, and shares naked photos of her with his friends. Imagine, finally that America gets fed up with the asshole basket-american she’s been dating, and finally does something sensible and tells him she’s sick of his shit, only to be slapped around and told she’s a “racist” ho and needs to shut up or get shanked – THAT is the relationship the USA has with Israel.
Readers should find and read a copy of Rahf Jürgen’s book “Paranoid Judaism, or why most of the jews are paranoid“, and any Christians should watch the documentary titled “Christians of the Holy Land” which has been deleted off YouTube. As Albert Einstein (himself Jewish) said: “There is no such thing as a French Jew, a German jew, or an American Jew, they are all just simply, Jews.” – and that is how they see themselves. This is also why the resident Jewish infiltrator flies into a rage whenever he or any of his kind is criticized even slightly or obliquely, why he simply CANNOT ignore it and let it go past, and instead tries whipping up support among the crowd to do his dirty work for him.
Jim, if you unconditionally support Jews regardless – whether you’re currying favor to use them as a ladder to access power or perhaps you believe their presence in the Middle East is a sign of the Second Coming – what can I say but: “you go gurrrl!” ….but don’t then go and demand that I do the same.
———-
…now I await the effeminate cries of “Shill! Script! Shill!” from the OT skinsuit infiltrators again.
Hey rabbi… whatcha doin’?
See you at the Shalom Temple later, rabbi.
The proposition that I am a “philosemite” because I don’t have Jews on the brain and see them everywhere is just moronic. Have you read any of the stuff I have written about Jews?
What the people you are calling “philosemites” have been debating is what proportion of Jews need to expelled. Mossadnik, who actually is a philosemite, says all of them.
And the proposition that America is Israel’s client state is a white wash of Soros, Blinken, and Nuland, all of whom hate Israel more than you do and a white wash of the people who exercise real power in America.
Anything that drives Soros nuts cannot be all bad.
The trouble with you Joojoojoo obsessives is that you are actually arguing that American leftism is just fine. No it is not. You think leftism is so fine so good that you cannot see American Jews exercising power in ways grossly harmful to Americans, so long as they are exercising power in ways that also harmful to Israel. The reason why Mossadnik is so keen on the expulsion of American Jewry, is that he, being an Israeli Jew, is on the receiving end of the evil that you are unable to see.
Wow Jim, a lot to unpack in that short paragraph, so let me at it:
>The proposition that I am a “philosemite” because I don’t have Jews on the brain and see them everywhere is just moronic. Have you read any of the stuff I have written about Jews?
Over the last ~9 years I’ve at the very least briefly read every single post you have on your website.
Why are you feeling targeted by that phrasing? It’s no different to saying “my ex was a slut” and having some random woman in the crowd angrily come up ranting that “NOT ALL GIRLS ARE SLUTS HOW DARE YOU SLUT SHAME ME”. Just look at Daddy Scarebucks’ dismissing the very mildest criticism of your blind spot by orthodox_uber_chad, though I feel he was wrong in his observation of the Nixon era. In any case,
As I stated just before: “the slightest criticism of Jews gets devolved by any Jews into an argument about them.
Almost as if it werea defensive mechanism/script.”, because here we are arguing about the world’s most whiny people instead of any of the points raised.>What the people you are calling “philosemites” have been debating is what proportion of Jews need to expelled. Mossadnik, who actually is a philosemite, says all of them.
Then why does he feel the need to attack me personally? Why the need to put false words in my mouth? Why the need to insult me by calling me a rabbi? Oh wait- perhaps he’s doing the thing Fox news does, that of discrediting things by pretending to agree with them.
I would gladly agree for the US to fund the (mildly coerced) repatriation of any jews here to Israel, if they could only accept that no further assistance would be forthcoming afterwards.
So why does Mossadnik attack me? Is he that badly starved for love?
>And the proposition that America is Israel’s client state is a white wash of Soros, Blinken, and Nuland, all of whom hate Israel more than you do and a white wash of the people who exercise real power in America. Anything that drives Soros nuts cannot be all bad.
Soros hates Israel so much that he defunded FEMEN when they protested in Israel against his wishes. Meanwhile he continues to bow and scrape to the State Dept for his own gain, then uses a portion of it to fund his pet prog projects worldwide, none of which are in Israel, and some of which help destabilize its neighbors. Blinken is a typical progressive lawyer/politician and I do know Nuland sees Ukraine/Russia as some sort of oversized personal playground and is upset things there aren’t going her way.
You’re weirdly monochromatic in your thinking on this because Jews aren’t some sort of cartoon villain, nor did I ever claim they are. While they all pull in separate directions, they all prefer their own people – which we are not part of. I want us to seek complete disengagement and to lock them out of our political system.
You seem to think that entangling ourselves in the Middle East yet again is a good idea, why? We already wasted too much blood and money there for nothing we could not have gotten easily by making some real agreements with Saddam back in the day – don’t go telling me now that you’re against that because he was a “dictator”? Instead Trump smashed any hope of the US being taken seriously in negotiations for good, with his claim that while negotiations with Iran were ongoing he’d discussed and approved of Bibi’s military attack. Clearly the Russians are right to consider us “not agreement-capable”.
>The trouble with you Joojoojoo obsessives is that you are actually arguing that American leftism is just fine.
Once again, Jim:
Nuts
The topic of jews is raised tangentially, the screeching starts, the screeching gets a response, suddenly responding is “problematic” and leftist now? Really Jim?
>No it is not.
Oh good, you got that one correct.
>You think leftism is so fine so good
Third time lucky:
Nuts
>that you cannot see American Jews exercising power in ways grossly harmful to Americans, so long as they are exercising power in ways that also harmful to Israel. The reason why Mossadnik is so keen on the expulsion of American Jewry, is that he, being an Israeli Jew, is on the receiving end of the evil that you are unable to see.
This may seem amazing to you, but I most definitely can see American Jews exercising power in ways grossly harmful to Americans, as well as seeing all the… …wait for it… non-jewish leftists/progressives AND constervatards exercising power in ways grossly harmful to heritage-Americans.
The difference here is, Israel is not my circus, not my monkeys. If throwing it on the fire benefitted Americans, I’d do it in a heartbeat if I had the means. If instead helping them benefitted Americans, Id help them in an instant.
The issue here is that you can’t seem to see that helping Israel provides no actual benefits to Americans, unless soothing the feelings of an aging demographic is all that’s being counted. Trillions of dollars spent on them (partly at the urging of AIPAC) since 1951, thanks to “fEeLiNgS”: a very right-wing move I’m sure.
The good news is that apparently boomers are expected to cease their stranglehold on Congress sometime around 2035 as the bulk of them dies off – I worry that this will leave wannabe socialists in the ascendant, but that is a separate, and far more important conversation, which we’re not having because somebody has got us arguing why I don’t love sucking off the group that must never be criticized as much as Ted Cruz does.
I note nobody at all commented on what I said about road accident statistics, weird how that just got ignored when somebody got triggered over the second portion which was not even directed at them personally.
The only screeching I hear is from you.
And you are injecting Joojoojoo into everything.
I don’t think he did. He called you a fed, because you sound like a fed. Only feds scream JOOJOOJOO day and night.
Because you are being an asshole and you are filling up the comments section with boring irrelevant demented joojoojoo garbage. Because you keep injecting Joojoojoo into every conversation.
You are disrupting attempts to talk about matters of interest by randomly interjecting joojoojoo JOOJOOJOOO JOOOJOOOOJOOOOO no matter what people are talking about.
I can have a civil conversation about gas chambers with Mossadnik, but no one can have a civilised conversation with you while you have Jews on the brain.
Jews tend to be excessively focused on Jews, which is irritating but understandable. For non Jews to be excessively focused on Jews is is irritating and demented.
> you sound like a fed. Only feds scream JOOJOOJOO day and night.
Ok, if you say so.
>you are being an asshole
Ok, fine. Born and raised.
>you are filling up the comments section with boring irrelevant demented joojoojoo garbage. Because you keep injecting Joojoojoo into every conversation. You are disrupting attempts to talk about matters of interest by randomly interjecting joojoojoo JOOJOOJOOO JOOOJOOOOJOOOOO no matter what people are talking about.
I am responding to what people are responding to me about, which had a distinct lack of any responses about everything mentioned other than the JOOJOOJOOJOOJOOOOOOO bullshit you and Mossadnik keep insisting on talking about….. but I’m the problem for defending myself against those bullshit accusations?
>no one can have a civilised conversation with you while you have Jews on the brain
Personal attacks aren’t like you either. For someone who hilariously keeps proclaiming I’m obsessed with that topic, you sure don’t want to let me move on to conversation about anything else – now you utterly ignored everything else I mentioned in my comment (again).
This is more and more like the sort of conversations my eldest daughter has when she’s upset over something.
I’m against the stupid little adventure we’ve been having in Ukraine since Omaba’s time as well. Russia isn’t a third-world nation nor is it “a gas station with nukes” like Nuland said (I think that was her). They won’t let us pillage their natural resources without a fight we’re no longer truly able to win, and why fight when we can just trade for what we need anyhow.
The money laundered into our kleptarchy’s pockets over there could be better used building up capacity in what’s left of our long-neglected industry or being used for some kind of high-tech research, and possibly garner more profit too, but the scum on top here only think in the short-term and doing those would take much longer. As you’ve said in the past, they are not stationary bandits anymore, which begs the question of how do mobile bandits turn into stationary ones in such circumstances?
A thought – I wonder if this has some psychological link to how alien the British ruling class is to their populace? I recall reading something on how few actually “British” genes are present in the British aristocracy, which came over from Normandy starting in 1066. We inherited much of their social structure and motifs after all.
(side note: I wish someone would come up with a better term than “deep state” because it makes us sound like Q-tards when we use it).
Glad we’re moving on from the unpleasant misunderstanding.
Helping the Ukraine provides no benefits either. The Ukraine is a client state the Deep state hopes to use to conquer Russia with, and Israel is a client state the Deep State hopes to use to conquer Syria, Iran, and Turkey in order to get at Russia.
This is the latest cliche going around the middle-tier DR sphere, and for once I completely and whole-heartedly agree. If only the people saying it actually meant it themselves.
The constant game of bomb and missile tennis in the middle east is utterly meaningless to me as an American. I truly do not care. The issue of Iran might be important to the actual Israelis here, just as the issue of Pakistan might be important to the Dharma Bros, and I wish those nations the best in terms of solving their own territorial problems. But the actual extent of American involvement in the region today does not rate above political theater.
It certainly was more than theater, at one point, particularly when our troops were in Iraq, but now that the troops have even left Afghanistan (which is called “the graveyard of empires” for a reason, and that reason has nothing to do with Israel), it is all just theatrics, just kayfabe. If the Discount Emperors want to play sugar daddy and send some monopoly money or hand-me-down weapons to Israel, like they do for Saudi Arabia and almost every country in Europe, it’s really not my problem.
I didn’t much care about the Albanians and Serbs going at it in Kosovo in the 1980s. Or the Croats and Serbs going at it in Bosnia in the 1990s. Didn’t really care about the Israelis and Palestinians going at it in the 2000s. And don’t really care about the Israelis and Iranians going at it in the 2020s. The names and locations change, but it’s always the same shit. Not my circus, not my monkeys. None of it has any impact whatsoever on my daily life or the lives of my friends and neighbors.
The only time it does start to have an effect on my life, and the lives of my friends and neighbors, is when people who aren’t friends or neighbors come into our neighborhood and crash our parties and demand that we take sides; demand that we hold strong opinions on the subject and are about to tell us what those opinions shall be. Of course, the Jews at AIPAC and the neocon think tanks do their fair share of that – and I don’t listen to them either. But what the ZOGists are doing is no different, they’re just the other slice of bread in this shit sandwich.
Soros, Blinken, Nuland, Kagan, Sulzberger, Fink, etc. – these are not my monkeys, but they are in my circus, and are flinging a lot of turds, and something should be done about them. Just don’t ask me to care about the trials and tribulations of their coethnics a million miles away.
I’ve used the phrase “permanent bureaucracy” on occasion. It has a lot more syllables but I think it sounds pretty sober.
The term “deep state” is closely linked to Qtards. On the other hand, is widely used, though not so widely understood.
I often contrast the “permanent government” with the “merely temporary government”. This makes the concept clear, while the “Deep state” could be lizard men or the Zionist occupation government. It is a short explanation of the term. Also, “the swamp” But the term the swamp focuses on the permanent government bogging down and slowing the merely temporary government, preparatory to undoing any accomplishments of the merely temporary government.
But really, we need all three concepts to be linked together, that when the permanent government is displeased by the merely temporary government, any actions by the merely temporary government that the permanent government disapprove of slowly sink into the swamp leaving no trace.
This is why they love their frozen conflicts, which can always be unfrozen at some opportune time. Which is why Russia cannot accept any deal that merely freezes the conflict, for this poses an existential threat. Israel does not Iran to have nuclear weapons, and Russia does not want the permanent government of the Global American Empire to have a frozen conflict with Russia.
Why’s that?
I meant to say, Israel does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons.
He obviously meant Iran but of course no sane Israeli or sane person anywhere wants Ukraine to have nuclear weapons.
The Trump administration has not in fact been leaving all the other Ivy League schools alone. I guess I haven’t heard anything about them going after Dartmouth yet but I’ve read stuff about them going after all the rest of them I can think of. I would like to see a totally ruthless attack on Georgetown. Georgetown is a Jesuit school and its in DC so I think it should be literally burned to the ground with the employees inside.
Granting all that, what do you want to talk about?
The obvious delta is that cointelpro interns have lots of words to say about subjects involving Real Israelis killing brown people halfway across the world, but don’t have much if any interest in the many crimes of slimy kikes like Nuland, Kagan, or Soros right here in the occident.
Phraseology like “[…]hypocritically act in ways that makes social problems worse among the host society[…]vigorous and prominent attackers of our asabiyyah, our gemeinschaft – even when they aren’t progressives themselves, they overwhelmingly support progressive causes in any of the societies they live within[…]” are true, but don’t name names. And because left as empty abstraction, becomes a ‘space of play’ for tactically disrupting reasonable social policy in practice – be it the disposal of alien kinds in particular, or noise jamming the signal of any other discussion in general – by obscuring what is better or worse, by calling what is better worse and what is worse better, even.
The problem is agents starting with an easily defensible mott as an introduction, then filling out the ‘body of work’ with far less defensible bailey of questionable relevance and even more questionable provenance.
You are projecting. You have joojoojoos on the brain. I criticise Jews all the time, and it simply never devolves into an argument about them. Because I am not maniacally obsessed by Jews.
Who is it who is filling this blog up with endless piles of stuff about Joos that even Jews are getting bored with? I only read a few lines of your latest comment, and I am not going to read any more because everyone has heard it all before far too many times.
>You are projecting.
>You have joojoojoos on the brain.
Nuts.
>Who is it who is filling this blog up with endless piles of stuff about Joos that even Jews are getting bored with?
Ah yes, I mustn’t respond at all when they get triggered.
>I only read a few lines of your latest comment, and I am not going to read any more because everyone has heard it all before far too many times.
Lazy? Not like you.
You issued a rant about Jews that seemingly came out of nowhere — which I suppose was a response to something long ago that everyone else had forgotten.
Mossadnik (a Jew) snarked that he was looking forward to a billion more rants about Jews. Whereupon you gave him a billion more rants about Jews. Who was triggered?
The kayfabe that Iran’s nuclear weapon capability was ‘totally destroyed’ is an easy story sell considering they really don’t have any nuclear weapon capability.
Because they didn’t have it before either, but such is the magic trick.
[*deleted for failure to follow the moderation policy*]
please respond to my query.
All the dissident types I know personally are Jew obsessed autistic retards. All the normies are unthinking. Churches have Daily Wire tier conservatives. Do any of you have based friends or are we resigned to only having real dialogue with anonymous strangers?
Normies who aren’t obsessive spergs tend to follow the zeitgeist, and most people count as normies, so there ya have it. Aristocrats of the soul are rare, but ultimately it’s they who set the tone, so sooner or later the Antiversity will be upon us (unless, of course, civilization collapses before it materializes), and then normies will become considerably more based than they currently are. The path of the clearpilled is a lonely one right now, but online communities do help to mitigate it.
https://x.com/FromKulak/status/1938641440101286164
Lot of random discussion of this video on twatter today would like Jim and the other chads take on it.
My take (and yes its probably all scripted anyway)
1) Yes obviously she is batshit crazy but she still seems weapon grades charming compared to zoomer chicks who often display no warmth or personality at all
2) Some guys (me) typically get on much better (and avoid them doing anything all that bad even at their worst) with batshit crazy chicks than normie chicks
The discussion seems to be mostly
1) Men should stay away she is batshit
2) She should be encouraged because at least shes trying to be charming and feminine (though yeah we can tell shes batshit)
I’m firmly in category 2 myself.
Context seems to be missing from this clip, and Kulak’s commentary doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, and I mean that literally, “Girl’s nice to a guy so he won’t Canadian Healthcare” doesn’t compute as an English sentence.
Who are these girls, and who are these guys? They seem to be interviewing for something or other, and the guy seems to be some sort of lead candidate or prize or whatever, certainly being presented by the producers as the alpha of the group. So this is an environment designed to exploit preselection, and in such an environment, it is not at all unusual for girls to “audition” themselves this way.
I’m not seeing obvious indicators of craziness or even unusual levels of sluttiness considering the apparent circumstances, and even that is putting aside the fact that, as you say, it’s probably all scripted to begin with.
I just see an average example of (youthful) femininity, nothing particularly worthy of criticism or praise. But maybe I’m just getting too old for this shit.
I wish I could find the whole clip and i looked for it but couldnt find it.
I had to think about this one. My best guess, given the Canadian government’s approval of “assisted suicide,” is that this is a clever way of saying, “Girl’s nice to a guy so he won’t kill himself.”
She is doing her best to be charming and feminine, and succeeding. Why is this supposedly batshit crazy? Yes, probably all scripted, but if so, the point of the script is that men like to look at women being charming and feminine, so she will get a big audience. Why is this batshit crazy?
I LIKE crazy chicks I get on well with crazy chicks (almost exclusively) but generally being extremely outgoing expressive and performative tends to be a sign of craziness.
Not really. Not in general, and especially not in the presence of a (perceived) alpha. Some girls are just outgoing like that, and many more get that way when they’re trying to diffuse sexual tension, sort of like the way many guys will start talking too much, bragging about stupid things and amogging other males in the group when a pretty girl is around.
That’s not crazy, it’s just… female. Sullenness, haughtiness, resting bitch face and so on, those are the abnormal failure modes that only occur when healthy sexual dynamics start to collapse. She is just “putting on the charm”, as it were, tailored for Gen Z audiences. The exact presentation varies, but all women are like that. This is their latest spin on “innocent and coquettish”, inviting chase (which every game-aware man should resist) without much real innuendo.
I think your diagnosis, or the diagnosis you’re relaying to us, is the black pill poking through, and we know the black pill runs deep in the xitter universe and pre-reactionary dissident right sphere. Remember, we red-pilled aren’t ack-shully misogynists, we like women, and it’s okay for women to be women. Not OK that we let them roam around like feral cats in heat jumping from one cock to the next and ruining themselves in the process, and not OK that we allow them to have any say in matters requiring logic, reason, judgment and virtue, but none of those things are apparent from the clip.
The only “wrong” thing I see would be the obvious fact that she’s old enough and attractive enough to be married, yet clearly isn’t–but if I were to remark on every instance of that coming out of xitter or youtube, I wouldn’t have time to eat or sleep.
No, it means you have successfully performed a DHV.
Men are competing really hard for chicks, and chicks are competing really hard for the top three percent of men. This is how a woman acts when she is trying, and is competent at doing so.
I recognize that guy, he is famous.
So, celebrity preselection, amplified by the game show in which multiple girls are competing for the guy. She’s into him and trying her best. Honestly, succeeding.
Also the poster on X makes some point on girls tearing each other down, presumably on basis of the sub text at the end of some other girl saying ‘Disney fire her’ but the audio actually seems to be ‘Disney hire her’.
Generally when I get girls who are anything close to this performative (and I realize this was probably scripted and this was a show but I’m talking normal life you talk to a girl at a social event, a party, a bar, date social event) they are prettymuch always what the headshrinkers would classify as fitting the description of a BPD case and BPD cases at their best are wonderful but there are drawbacks.
I don’t know how women act around celebrities or ultra high status men except probably slutty but I’ve seen women act slutty around fairly high status guys and they normally can’t be this theatrical about it but BPDs the entertaining theatrics only really stop if they are shutting you out or bitching you out (and even then they’ll sometimes throw in bits of comedy). If they like to impress guys at social events by flashing their tits occasionally its almost 100% BPD (I know one now like that NOT a stripper).
I don’t think girls who fit the imprecise quasi science of headshrinkeries definition of BPD deserve their evil reputation but behind the wonderfully entertaining positive energy is extreme depression self destructive behavior and extreme mood swings with generally really terrible impulse control. Mere spanking and fucking by an alpha (which is something they get a lot) doesn’t seem to cure it permanently by the way even if the alpha sticks around (know one who was married to one she unfortunately did not get better, she refused to rape him in the divorce though despite ending up broke for it and shortly thereafter meeting a bad end). They unlike most women can actually get good results from headshrinkers I’ve seen it personally. So they aren’t for everyone… I like them though and they’ve generally liked me.
If that is what shrinks think, that is because they are evil, hate what is good, and love what is evil.
This is the female telos functioning rightly.
Try the pivot girl trick. You will see more of it.
The guy is famous, several girls are after one guy. Naturally any socially competent horney female is going to act like this.
I like BPDs overall myself Jim. But in the age of feminism I only ever see this behavior really from girls who fit the positives AND negatives of the description. I’m not a chad though… except compared to the average autist.
My dude, you asked if there’s anything wrong with this girl, and we all answered you the same: absolutely not, at least nothing that’s discernible from the clip. It’s as simple as that.
We know you’ve got a weird obsession with “BPD” girls, you’ve only told us about thirty times now, and fine, you do what works for you, but it’s not really interesting or relevant to other guys, nor relevant as analysis to the clip. Yet you keep bringing up how “I actually like/don’t mind BPD” as if you’re seeking validation or something. Don’t care.
Maybe BPD or other destructively crazy girls are the only ones who act this way around you because they are the only ones who don’t notice the beta tells, or they are just your “type” and perceive you as higher value than other girls do. We have all seen perfectly ordinary girls act this way around preselected alphas and around ourselves in the right situations.
Obviously they will not act like this for any guy, which is why a lot of guys, most guys even, may never have experienced it firsthand. There are a great many things that most guys will never experience firsthand, like benching 300 lbs, or making a major scientific breakthrough, or, you know, being a famous celebrity. And just like those other things, having women come up and nearly beg like that is a reflection of the man’s status, not the woman’s mental stability.
Truth hurts, but that’s why red-pilled men have to learn the monkey dance, and even non-red-pilled men have to learn some of the moves implicitly, because 29 out of 30 men don’t have preselection, aren’t perceived as high value, and have to “persuade” women otherwise through various forms of signaling.
What’s interesting, as far as the common man is concerned, is not that women act like this around alphas, but that they are in fact receptive to other, much subtler forms of signaling when they aren’t securely attached to an alpha. What’s interesting is that almost any guy can eventually get a girl to act like this if he has at least some value and takes the right steps to amplify the signal. You can do it too, if you really want to. IIRC, Jim has even advised you how, by taking lots of pictures and video clips with the whores, using them as preselection, and conveniently omitting the fact that they are whores, and very casually letting other women find out about it.
I had lots of pics with pretty girls on my Facebook back in the day (one guy even said looking at it initially I figured you must bring a coke dealer) the one I’ve called the enginerette (beautiful) was particularly accommodating in this especially since we saw each other all the time (and she was probably the least crazy chick who sort of liked me). Tons and tons with her. Didn’t work.
Well what did you expect, that you could just upload some photos and immediately have a harem of women propositioning you online? It doesn’t work that way. Nobody is searching for you. You still have to put in the effort, have to strut it around, the whore photos only work as “proof” of something you are already trying to imply.
The point of the whore photos is, when you’re chatting up a girl at a bar (or wherever), you make some excuse to find some old photo on your phone, something that relates to a fun anecdote you’re telling or maybe to settle a bet, and as you’re scrolling through the list, all those photos of you being pawed at by hot women just happen to be there. Oops, you weren’t meant to see those!
If you fail to actually leverage any of that material in a social context, or you aren’t careful enough to disguise the social arrangement, then yeah, not going to work.
Honestly I didn’t expect much pushback on the view that she is probably nuts, or that if she had acted like that in something other than a media setting she was probably nuts. Twitter (not full of shills now) guys generally conceded she was probably BPD and I agreed based on my experience.
Also her song selection (and yes shes a damn good singer and Disney probably should hire her but Disney sucks now) is from Beauty and the Beast the Disney movie which is a rape fantasy about a violent not human (but still essentially a billionaire) who kidnaps and rapes the main girl after she keeps rejecting her local alpha (who was manly and not without capability for violence himself).
Your experience, and the experience of most males on twitter, is of a desperately dysfunctional society and of the behaviour of women who see all the males around them as betas. And women just don’t want betas around, any more than they want rats or cockroaches around.
She is not acting crazy. Rather, most males are accustomed to women acting crazy and find it odd when they act sane. You live in a world overrun with zombies and the demon possessed.
When women accept male authority, they behave better. Albeit exercising proper male authority over women in this society is hard. When marriage and family is outlawed, only outlaws will have wives and family.
Most men are so disconnected from the realities of how the sexes work that they forget that women are much more obsessed with men than the other way around. Unfortunately, women are obsessed with the top 3% men, so most men, belonging to the 97%, have no clue how women act around the top 3%.
Thing is, the way women calculate status is relative to the situation. In most situations I am not in the top 3%. In some situations, I am. I’ve had women flirt with me in outrageous and/or very charming ways, much like the girl in the video. I’ve at one point, when visiting the playground with my kids, had a young girl, couldn’t be older than 6 or 7, look for excuses for me to carry her around and wanting to come home with me. Does not surprise me, totally fits the world model Jim has been describing here for years.
When put in their right places, women are wonderful, sweet and man’s natural helper.
Normie women in normal circumstances are often nervous and shy around guys they want mot wanting to make any kind of 1st move to the point that the dating app (yes and we all hate dating appa) bumble which originally required women to initiate all conversations had to change it because women hated it so much.
Now to take an extreme example I understand women especially when competing with a group of other women and in the presence of some rockstar they all want will be extremely sexually aggressive hence security has to hold back hordes of horny would be groupies from trampling certain music stars but it’s not the normal circumstances it’s not just that their 1st choice is in sight.
1) hordes of other competing women around they know want the same thing can’t afford to do their normal shy crap
2) the only social group generally present is one or two other women who also want the guy nobody is going to tell dad or their much lower status boyfriend they threw their panties at him and other outrageously slutty behavior. Jim has said women get much sluttier when they know nobody in their normal social group (or only girls who are with them for the specific purpose of being slutty) are around.
3) Now to my main point most of those women if they wanted to try to impress with a charming personality to that degree I don’t think they could no matter how much they wanted to. Most women especially zoomer girls terrified to sing in front of anyone else. Some girls can do karaoke without getting very very drunk most can’t.
Now Jim has rightly said we live in a very evil and dysfunctional society and naturally women are more extroverted and outgoing but here we are and in clownworld they are not.
Now crazier chicks generally have far more experience of being aggressively flirty charming and outgoing and actually being good at it partially because they do it much much more often than more baseline chicks. Also because they often act on impulse and at least in the moment don’t care about how they’ll be judged socially for it. Hence the general assumption girl in question is if it’s not purely an act (and girls in any aspect of showbiz tend to be on the crazier side anyway) is high on the crazy scale.
Yes, the man always has to make the first move, but under highly favourable circumstances, just looking at them is a first move.
I don’t mean for this conversation to derail into a yes/no discussion, but once more: there’s plenty of otherwise perfectly healthy chicks who are just naturally bubbly and outgoing. I should know, I’ve met them.
Let’s talk a bit about BPD.
BPD is an attack on femininity, in that it seeks both to villainize and obscure normal female behavior.
BPD villainizes, in that much what BPD describes is totally normal female behavior. What, women are dramatic, overly emotional, manipulative of weak men? Who’d a thunk! But hey just keep telling yourself that your ex must be BPD and that’s the reason why it didn’t work out between you.
BPD obscures, in that every aspect of BPD that maps to reality is much better described by analysis given by game theory, the manosphere and the dark enlightenment. Take the girl I dated long time ago. Fairly textbook BPD case, would cause and seek dumb drama 24/7. But also, mixed race and bad relation with her father. So instead of saying ‘BPD’, much much closer to reality to say she had identity issues and daddy issues. Eg: she was damaged goods and it would take a firm male hand to cure her.
Also, to further disagree with the assertion that BPD goes together with charisma, my experience was the opposite. Perhaps a certain type of man enjoys the excessive antics of damaged women. I found them to be grating and depressing. No doubt some damaged women can be charismatic, but as I and many others here have asserted, so can normal women.
I think your picture of them (and I’ve known a few because they are sort of my type not only do I get on well with them but they tend to like me and only with the 1st one I knew did I ever run into the really bad behavior)…
My observation of those women who would fit the headshrinkers category of BPD is that they are not manipulative at all or at least far less so than normal women manipulation requires not only the ability to read and charm people (which they are good at) but disciplined planning (which they are utterly incapable of) its not only that extreme impulsivity makes sticking to any plans difficult its that what they want changes so often and more than normal women is probably opaque to themselves and they are not looking to scam you when they turn the charm on its with the best of intentions, so how can they manipulate? They do cause drama sometimes but its not their primary objective its a byproduct of impulsivity + mood swings.
BPDs tend to die by suicide after they hit the wall too if they haven’t stablized themselves to some degree. I’ve known four very definite cases (and yes all quite charismatic) two are dead by suicide (one was technically very very wreckless drug use which caused everyone she hadn’t pushed away yet to flee in horror but I think that was a method of suicide when she didn’t quite have the guts to use a knife gun or poison on herself). One has been Baker acted here in Florida for attempting to do so before (she seems happier now but knowing the type they don’t do it just attention the way a lot of women do… or maybe they do it for attention until one day they do it for real) one remaining out hasn’t done that but she is the only cutter I’ve known IRL.
I agree its very very unfairly villainized because my experience with them is they aren’t that bad other than towards themselves… they aren’t out with evil intentions (I can’t speak for whether they are terrible mothers though), they genuinely like making you feel happy and entertained and even if you fallout with them the memories are good rather than bitter…
Now not every super outgoing friendly girl is a BPD case but when theatrical with strangers its near 100% thats the tell for me based on my experience. Now btw I don’t know if any strippers (even the one I fooled around with probably 80 times) had it or not since that is a controlled specific enviroment to some degree any good stripper is going to be flirty and performative regardless of what her more authentic personality is like.
I was walking around with someone who gets paid money for putting his face on a product. Chicks would walk up to him and start talking to him without him making a first move, and with him clearly being mildly irritated by being approached. I saw a two occasions where a chick approached him cold.
This is unusual female behavior — but obviously not unusual in his experience.
‘If hot then evil’ is a normie defense mechanism vis-a-vis the experience of contemporary women.
The norm is that 21st women are deeply dysfunctional and act in ways that are repulsive. If there is a woman who is *not* like that, who actually acts in ways that are comely to men and tries to appeal to or be of service to them, then that calls the norm into question.
Whatever state of affairs a normalfag may find themselves in, they will fix to come up with rationalizations for why those states of affairs are fine; good even; the best of all possible worlds even.
The rationalizations for a state of affairs that a normalfag may give will not necessarily be the same as the justifications the ruling clades responsible for them may be giving. Indeed they often aren’t. One is for the purposes of tactical preparation, and the other is post-hoc curve fitting.
The characterization of comely women as ‘secretly crazy’ or ‘raising red flags’ or ‘too good to be true’ satisfies the normalfag’s desire for nothing to change and nothing to do. The existence of a better way does not imply that a better world is possible because the better way does not exist. Such is the sublimation.
97% of women, under the right circumstances, will act much like that with three percent of men.
And these were clearly the right circumstances — he is famous, and she had competition breathing down her neck.
You ask the question, we answer it, you don’t like the answer, you go on to tell us what the answer should have been (along with a bunch of psychobabble about BPD, which I have to agree with Alf probably doesn’t exist, or exists as part of an ordinary personality spectrum like ADD/ADHD). It seems you really were just looking for validation of your reaction–of what you think your experience tells you.
Well, your sexual experience is with whores. Your experience with non-whores is as a low-status male. Women act differently toward low-status males, especially when those women are unattached or insecurely attached. They don’t want to be touched by a beta, talked to by a beta, or even in the same room as a beta. They want betas to stop existing. All their instincts from the ancestral environment tell them that having any contact with one will lower their chances of reproductive success, and in the ancestral environment they would be largely correct.
So when you say this:
Duh. Obviously. The mere act of being on a dating app is a beta tell for men, and Bumble went out of its way to play up the status differential. Requiring women to initiate conversations didn’t fail because women in general can’t/won’t initiate conversations, it failed because of equalist assumptions about sex, assumptions that women will initiate conversations in the same way and under the same circumstances as men would. Which is absurd. Women initiate in ways that are frequently non-verbal, and only with men showing signs of preselection. Bumble was idiotic, it took feminist claims about dating seriously. We are not making the feminist claim, we are stating the red-pilled fact.
You are autistically obsessed with your own social awkwardness and the fact that only a particular type of girl seems to tolerate you. I really don’t blame you for that, as it hits a lot of guys to varying degrees and makes them unhappy. But you also keep asserting your own narrow, jaded experience as some human universal, when it is actually nothing of the kind. This isn’t a “BPD” case, and a woman acting highly outgoing and friendly is not a “BPD tell”, it is a tell of being in the 3% of men she is attracted to, and if that to you is always “BPD” then it means “BPD” is what’s attracted to you. Which you apparently already know. So why keep conflating cause and effect?
The behavior is because of the attraction, not “BPD”, and can be seen in any girl experiencing that level of attraction.
Well said. It is pure cope. Men resort to these coping mechanisms when they can’t accept the status quo but feel powerless to change it.
Personally, I think acceptance of the status quo is essential for those who want to change it. Not resignation to the status quo, mind, but recognition that things actually are the way they are. Red pill elevates men who are willing to act on it, black pill simply lowers everyone indiscriminately.
Man, I’m a zoomer, as far as I know not in this 3%, I’m reminded by people here from time to time my game is off, and yet I’ve had experiences with women like this. Less theatrical, similar mood. I was expecting too see pupil-dialated cat-in-heat behavior, not a pick me display.
Normies don’t consider this abnormal behavior. Anyone arguing about how this is some weird personality type is terminally online and looking for a mutual masturbation session about their opinions and feelings. Canuck Kulak is a monetization whore and optimizes his account to appeal to these types, as they’re far more of a consistent audience.
This is slop edrama and I’m amazed Com didn’t see through it, or maybe he does and still wanted an excuse to ramble about one of his fixations.
“A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying ‘You are mad; you are not like us.'”
Hate to tell you Com but this is just how chicks are around preselected high-value 1% badboy men. Sure she’s on the extraverted try-hard end, but really nothing out of the ordinary. Bet she already had names for their imaginary children days in advance of the show.
I’ve seen women turn kinda slutty around men they perceive as high status but can they be charming and entertaining like this… don’t see it. Most in modern feminist America don’t know how if they wanted to. They can make kissy faces, smile and giggle and maybe make sexual innuendos if they are feeling bold but that’s about it.
She is slutty. Notice the revealing outfit, the tattoo on her thigh, the deliberate tit bounces.
Just because she is slutty doesn’t mean she can’t also be charming. Those girls exist, really. Your stripper/whore life is, unsurprisingly, making you jaded.
I’m well aware slutty types can be very charming (BPDs are typically both) but I’m saying the women who merely try to turn on the charm when they think gigachad is around normally can’t do it at anything close to this level. BPDs otoh can charm and sing a song to lure you to your doom (except in my experience they arent really that evil) like the sirens if you’re not careful.
If a woman cannot, there is something wrong with her.
If the chick is solo and a gigachad is around, she will choose not to turn it on at this level, but if there is competition, she will turn up the charm to max.
BPD is as fake as autism.
Autism is just a catchphrase for ‘male behavior that is different and which I don’t like.’ I have been ‘accused’ of being autist on a very select occassions, and every single time the accuser was in fact responding to me calling out their bs, as opposed to offering any valuable information into my psyche.
Autism is like astrology — anyone can see anything in male behavior (or hell, even female behavior) that is different and stamp it autism. It’s a weapon used by leftists and using the term as anything except a silly meme is playing into the hands of our enemies.
BPD is just a catchphrase for ‘female behavior that is different and which I don’t like’. Your girl cheated on you? Must be BPD. Threw theatrics? BPD. Bs. Any girl you slap into submission will be sweet and obedient. Sure, personalities differ, but this whole concept of her personality being a mental disorder is just straight bs. This girl no doubt slept with a few if not more men than I’d like to know, perhaps she has daddy issues or hell even an Only Fans, but her being charming in this clip is not a sign of anything wrong with her. Anyone arguing that either hates charming women, or, like you, spends way too much time on the internet and with women of horrible quality.
Antisocial behavior is driven by fear and a certain self centeredness. As in wanting attention without having to pay attention. She looks to be paying attention and eager to perform. Kind of how little girls act around adults they are trying to impress.
Also does not appear to be alpha widowed. Much of female antisocial behavior can be traced to alpha widowhood.
Maybe, maybe not. Remember that this clip is showing an alpha’s perspective, so does not necessarily mean that she has never fucked a chad before, only that she believes this one to be of equal or greater value.
>does not necessarily mean that she has never fucked a chad
She probably has, but does not appear to have a chip on her shoulder about it.
Dan Bilzerian reports fame is the number one most attractive quality a man can have to endlessly bang hot young chicks. Without fame, preselection, power etc. I am not sure there is a huge difference in how females view most men. Even if there can be massive differences in manliness among us.
If she was discarded by Dan Bilzerian or even Jeremy Meeks, I would expect her to be much more shit testy. But I could be wrong.
BPD and autism incorrectly get used that way. Real autists can’t read or mirror people worth shit… I’ve taken test despite effort trying to learn this im fucking terrible.
Real BPDism in women is not a woman did something bad (in fact I rather like them) it’s closer to bipolar than anything but it’s beyond mere moodiness and impulsivity and one weird quirk of it is they are not so putoff by autism as normie women. If you sincerely like their performance and charm they will like you.
I’ve dated a ‘BPD’ woman a long time ago, enough to know it’s an idiot-likes-idiot kind of situation, no disprespect intended.
I like that I can read them and that they aren’t putoff by any signs of autism. I think they like that we tend to have an insanely positive reaction to their schtick and they generally also have such a low opinion of themselves and perception of their status that you can just flatter them and they like it without starting to see themselves as being way above you. Its all rather simple at least initially whereas normal women no matter how much you read about them or practice or get tips from people who are good… there is an instinctual part they judge us on and we just inevitably fail.
Alf, I watched like the first 10 seconds of that video. What. The. Fuck. Was. That.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
No one has yet mentioned this pertinent fact about the flirty chick: There are cameras on her, and she knows it. So here’s my read: She’s bouncing her tits all over the place not so much to seduce him, as to get tons of simps subscribing to her totally-not-a-cam-whore channel. (I’m just assuming she has one. If not, she will by the time you finish reading this sentence.)
Or to put it another way: Why is she acting so outrageously flirty? By the very act of asking the question, you have answered it. I.e. if she knew that a bunch of men in this thread are talking about her, she’d think “Mission accomplished!”
(Our President just dropped a bunch of bombs on a foreign country that we’re “not at war” with, yet here we are talking about a chick’s tits. Looking down from their Olympian heights, the gods are amused.)
Well, actually, you are the one talking about her tits, we were talking about her behavior. I honestly didn’t even really notice. Not because they aren’t nice to look at, but because they are a dime a dozen.
In any case, I rather think the gods would be smiling sincerely on the tone shift, because there is not a damn thing we can do about the president having “just dropped bombs on” blah blah blah, and we don’t even know how much of that is real, but just about every man benefits from learning more about female behavior/psychology and upping his game. And it seems that a lot of boys really are terribly confused by what amounts to quite ordinary female flirting/teasing around HVMs.
That doesn’t mean that loftier subjects aren’t worth discussing by the relatively powerless, particularly if anticipating power or conversely if power might be listening in; but it degrades easily into “news cycle shit”, tedious discussion of boring and insignificant events, and insistence on assigning meaning to the meaningless, or in other words, unadulterated rage porn.
News cycle debate tends to be superficially profound, but lacking real substance; whereas the “chick’s tits” (to use your crude synecdoche) are superficially frivolous but actually far more important.
Yeah, the ideas discussed on this blog will continue to be relevant throughout this millennium and likely far beyond it, whereas discussion of the “news of the day” tends not to be all that timeless.
Trees are interesting, but the forest is even more interesting.
Well, actually, Alf at 2025-06-28 at 10:10 mentioned her “deliberate tit bounces” and Cominator at 2025-06-28 at 09:27 referenced tit flashing in general, as part of this discussion.
Mohammed complained of deliberate tit bounces, so this phenomenon massively predates television. And it seems to me that when women bounce their tits, they are not consciously aware of doing so. In our society, people act out the mating dance by instinct, never having seen it performed around them or in media.
Agreed. She is acting flirty on TV for attention. Don’t read too far into it.
She looks to me to be behaving as women naturally act under these circumstance. She cannot possibly be following a script, for no one would dare write a script in which women behaved naturally, and very few people have seen, or would allow themselves to see, women behaving as women naturally behave under these circumstances. The women themselves are incapable of being aware of their own behavior, and are even less capable scripting it than scriptwriters.
Accurate depiction of the mating dance has been forbidden for more than four decades, so no one remains who can write a script for it.
>no one remains who can write a script for it
Take just about any random teacher off the street and they can write a better script than any current writer today. They are extremely aware of female behavior but are politely (fearfully) obtuse about it.
The scripts are so detached from reality that they read like reddit ‘and everyone clapped’ posts. I have to wonder about what sort of trauma and brain damage they suffered growing up.
Word.
Romance novelists? 50 Shades? And what about Twilight? Genuinely asking.
Nope, none of them.
If you check out your library, you will find that all Romance hooks are recent, because they regularly have book burnings. We have a lot more book burnings than Nazi Germany. The chinese are allowed rather more latitude, but their fertility is collapsing anyway, with marriage being interpreted in a way ever more unfavorable to males, and the basic problem of women being free to fuck mister one in thirty, means that even if you depict romance somewhat accurately, nothing is going to make much difference.
When I was 11 or 12, there was a girl in my school that would hug my arm and press her nonexistent chest against my arm and ask me suggestive questions. At the time, I didn’t really know what was going on. Puberty hadn’t really kicked in fully.
I worked briefly as a teacher in a middle school. Noticed the girls did that a lot and the majority of boys, like me at that age, didn’t pick it up. Most uncomfortable, I overheard the girls on more than one occasion gossiping about the hot new teacher. Mentioned it to my mother and she looked at me like I’m an idiot and said ‘oh course, they’re girls’. This type of behavior is pretty instinctive and starts young.
I also had a random epiphany on this… you’ll never see any shill weigh in on these random women discussions they only ever want to discuss jews… shills are jewosexuals.
It’s true. If they can avoid the WQ, they will absolutely avoid it (except perhaps when trying to prove that they aren’t shills), and they generally do not reveal any genuine interest in the topic.
The thing about controlled opposition is that it works best when it’s composed of different factions, which are ostensibly in competition or conflict with each other, while in fact all being tentacles of the regime and serving its state religion. Since Harvard hates heterosexuality, its shills always come up with this, that, or another rationalization to criminalize the healthy (heterosexual) teleology and to pathologize all expressions of masculinity on men and femininity on women.
That’s who they are – tyrants.
Joojoojoo is hysterical in the etymological sense. Not a manly manner and it gets tiresome quick, alas.
@jim
can a small number of elite take power from a large elite , without an inside faction help nor a foreign elite help.
if the large elite is fragmented.
is there any historical example if there is ?
Are they military officers and do the noncoms hate the current government.
The answer to the second question is of course yes.
“Are they military officers“
do you mean “do they have military ranks” or military training. I am assuming in the question the elite is a group of “civilian” with no tie to domestic or foreign elite, if they are military officers, then they have access to power structures to help them.
This is mental exercise on how to take power with no connections to power both inside or outside.
@jim
My assumptions are you always need elite faction inside the state apparatus to help you, or foreign elite to support you.
Happens all the time. The most cohesive faction always wins, not the largest faction.
This is what drives events like to Russian Revolution and the French Revolution.
Thermidor is inherently incohesive. So, you eventually get a Napoleon. Unfortunately it might be necessary to stuff Trump in sack and throw him across the Rubicon — for which there is much prior precedent. Pinochet was made dictator by men who had to very politely and respectfully threaten him with death if failed to sign the order launching the coup, and Claudius was famously hauled out from under a bed.
The left is at present incohesive, but they always cohere behind the leftmost. Woke having been exhausted, the leftmost is now in favor of socialism plus no punishment for criminals…
To this, I borrow from the honorable PC:
Every day that Don refuses to acknowledge the crown on his head, the death toll rises. Not just in the farce of a proxy war, but in the blood required to be spilled to settle the question of who rules the once republic. This bickering about what the circus supposedly did or did not do, is meaningless to me. Donald has the physical computers issuing the treasury money under his chain of command now. He can pretend all he wants that he does not, that of course this is against the rules you know!, but every day he does this, the toll we all must pay rises. Every day of deliberation is a day closer to the end of our civilization.
Trump is a 1980s boomer leftist. Everything slightly prior to 2020s leftism, for example the XLibre project, is “openly nazi” in the eyes of the left. He wants to preserve the Republic, and fails to notice it is a maggot ridden corpse. He thinks the smell will go away with a little deodorant, and it will rise up and start walking around with a firm nudge.
But a boomer leftist is pretty good compared to the alternative. I hope for a Stalin, the alternative being a Trotsky. The problem is that the urgent problem is avoiding nuclear war and the Seven Kill Stele.
Leftism must get ever lefter, as a shark must swim or drown. And you can hear the struggles of leftism right now as it finds itself drowning. Once it has drowned, we will then be able to head towards solid ground. In New York, we see it attempting to continue its ever leftwards march.
You are worried about the existing intolerably high death toll. I am worried about nuclear war, white genocide, and the Seven Kill Stele. If that is stopped, then leftism goes away in due course, and existing intolerably high death toll ends in due course.
Trump’s a curious man isn’t he. Intent on fixing the republic. A bloodless Sulla, a man in charge not because he committed violence, but because violence was committed against him.
https://x.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/status/1940432374443221444
If you could bring anyone back from History who would it be?
https://x.com/truthtroll_X/status/1936372639725244908
All that is needed is one Man, one King, one Leader, that can captivate
cultivate and inspire the building of a great nation again, simply of their
own kin kind and cultur. The particular idealogies upon which they are built upon don’t matter (many new ones to be sure), what matters is that great Nations are built. For you see, “Magna Carta” “Marx” “Democracy” and “Progressive”
have destroyed all such great things… such that now your heart aches
and cries out for them, for such nations, again.
“All must kiss the ring of Trump, Holy Emperor of the Ocean Lands”
Shame nobody told Musk, who has just started his own political party. Pride is a bitch.