Color Revolution

This blog does not pay much attention to the events of the day, because if you pay too much attention the events of the day you lose track of the long term trend, which has been in a leftist holiness spiral for two centuries, ever holier, ever faster, which unless checked by military dictatorship, ends in infinite leftism in finite time. We had such holiness spirals in the past, many times, and they usually end in disaster, unless terminated early by military dictatorship. Since leftism is inherently destructive, going all the way means total self extermination of the group subject to the left singularity. Sometimes they end in the near total disappearance of the population subject to the holiness spiral as with Szechuan and the Seven Kill Stele, where everyone tortured each other to death for insufficient leftism until there was almost no one left.

But the events of today are a conspicuous new stage in the left singularity, color revolution, which is likely to result in Trump and his family being murdered, or a Trump self coup.

If a left singularity is not halted by strong and harsh dictatorship, with a single man exercising absolute power, it usually ends when the self extermination reaches a point that it profoundly weakens the polity, resulting in foreign conquest, as with Khmer Rouge Cambodia. But sometimes the foreigners sit back and let it go all the way.

Usually that single man ascended to power by being one of the holiest, as with Cromwell and Stalin, and then discovers that suddenly no end of his followers have become even holier than his very holy self, and are demanding greater holiness, which superior holiness might well be implemented by them taking power and him losing power, and them picking up the apples from the applecarts knocked over in the process. He is usually a military man, and therefore turns from those who were loyal to him because of shared faith in the holiness of the synthetic faith based tribe, and instead to those who are loyal to him because they were with him in committing organized violence, and who do not care much about the supposedly shared tenets of the holy faith, turns to those who identify primarily with their band of brothers, rather than the people of the very holy faith. When Cromwell set his troops around to make a problem go away, the person causing the problems found the troops had little interest in discussing the Trinity, the Resurrection and the Incarnation. Stalin relied heavily on the far from communist Beria and on Beria’s apolitical gang.

If Trump halts the left singularity that would be great, because, unlike Cromwell and Stalin, not very holy. Unfortunately, unlike Cromwell, not very military. But though a merchant, Trump has a warrior spirit, and great support among the rank and file at the tip of the spear. He is a man they would like to be able to follow.

The recent rioting was a state sponsored color revolution. Antifa funding and delivering piles of bricks, Antifa paying rioters, which is to say the US permanent government paying, either with Soros as a cutout, or directly. The riots were given cover by Democratic blue state governors and the legacy media (but I repeat myself). When the relatively peaceful mob of plains apes passed an Antifa selected target, white Antifa agents would break windows and start fires. The sound of breaking glass attracted the plains apes into the target, as blood in the water attracts sharks. The Antifa agents would move out as the plains apes moved in, to repeat the operation at another target, while police stood around like potted palms.

Trump tweeted about sending in the military to restore order. The Twitter blue checks laughed. “Empty bluster” they said. “He has not got the power”

What did they mean by that? Legally he has the power, by the constitution and by numerous acts of congress. Presidents have done it before, many times, starting with George Washington, and have done it within living memory, as for example the LA Rodney King riots.

What they meant, or what the handlers writing their scripts meant, is that the permanent government would not let him.

The blue checks, or the handlers writing their scripts, expected the permanent government to successfully ignore him, or that Trump would not try it because the permanent government would successfully ignore him and this would likely result in his death.

The color revolution narrative: The color revolution script is “he is weak, weak, weaker, weaker, he is falling, he is falling, falling, falling, falling, he has fallen”. And if enough people actually believe he has fallen, then belief creates reality, and the State Department gets a bloodless victory. But often “He has fallen” is announced prematurely, resulting in at best a bloodbath, at worst genocidal holy war. Color revolutions are apt to turn into genocidal holy war when the other side does not play along with the script.

When Trump cleared out Layfayette Park, he showed he was not weak. When the military obeyed him, not fallen.

The protesters had peacefully assembled in Layfayette park to peacefully assemble for the redress of grievance, and proceeded to peacefully vandalize the Church where Trump goes on Sundays, peacefully start a fire in it, and peacefully throw peaceful rocks at police.

Trump gave the order, and it was not ignored. Trump marched in triumph into Lafayette Park. And I assumed that would end the matter. I thought, and said, that was the end of that, that the color revolution was over. But they are still trying, not entirely unsuccessfully, to countermand Trump, and are shouting ten times that they are successful for every time that they impede his footsteps a little.

Color revolutions do not stop. It is dangerous to be the first man to stop cheering at a gay wedding, and it is dangerous to be the first man to call a halt to color revolution. Hillary was able to call an end to the color revolution in Libya, but she was probably able to get away with it because the Libyans had sodomized and decapitated a senior State Department official, which made a good stop signal. And today, no one is in charge to call a stop, even if Trump were to have a few senior State Department officials sodomized and decapitated.

The Mueller frame up went on and on, despite repeatedly blowing up in the Democrats faces, and it looks like color revolution in the US may well go on and on. Indeed, the Mueller frame up has still not stopped. They are still pressuring General Flynn to commit perjury against President Trump, though since he has not committed perjury under far more severe pressure, he is certainly not going to under present circumstances. But just as the frame up came unstuck at the beginning, when the Clinton dossier was exposed, the color revolution came unstuck at the beginning, when the troops were deployed and continued to deploy.

The usual color revolution is instigated by Soros and the State Department in a foreign country, and color revolution in the US itself may not necessarily follow the same course. In a foreign country, a color revolution stubbornly persists, and when it is not going too well, it becomes more violent and destructive, more and more unpopular, with the hand of the US government more and more visible, with greater and greater direct US military intervention. The US dropped thirty thousand tons of high explosive on Libya. In the US itself, direct military intervention is unlikely to be available, and were the hand of the US government to become unduly visible, as it inevitably will if color revolution continues, criminal and treason charges might well result.

The Republic has been dead for a long time, and its corpse starting to stink, but Trump needs to restore the American Republic the way Augustus restored the Roman Republic. Augustus probably believed he was restoring the Republic, and I expect that Trump will believe it also. Although helicopter trips to the Pacific would be far more satisfactory and effective, rolling up the deep state for perverting the course of justice, treason, and color revolution would likely suffice. And they are going to continue, until Trump loses or he wins. If he loses, he and his family will likely die. If he wins, he and his family will likely rule for generations. And he has not won, he is indeed weak, so long as those who perverted the course of justice against him and set American cities on fire are not in prison, and are still in his administration. They will continue with investigation, except that they lost interest and ran with Wu Flu to shut down normal America. And when the opportunity to have riots happened, they lost interest in Wu Flu. But they are going to keep on going with all of these, throwing one thing after another at the wall to see what sticks, until they are stopped. As long as they can commit criminal acts unpunished, and we cannot perform lawful acts unpunished, their unlawful acts are going to get bigger, and happen more and more frequently. They will continue on color revolution, as they are continuing on Wu Flu and the Mueller investigation, and if none of these pan out, and it looks like none of them are going to pan out, they will start another thing.

1,079 comments Color Revolution

Nikolai says:

Getting increasingly blackpilled for obvious reasons. Please change my mind.

jim says:

Not obvious.

They tried color revolution, and it collapsed when Trump took Lafayette Park.

To my surprise, and contrary to my prediction, they gave up on color revolution, and are now going with cultural revolution, to which Trump has no good reply.

Or maybe he does have a good reply: Reflect on his tweet

That color revolution collapsed should white pill you. Let us see how cultural revolution goes. It naturally manifests as race hatred, race based murder, and white erasure – with white democrats being the primary targets. OK, Trump is losing and we are losing, but this weapon is going to blow back in their faces, as #metoo did. (Believe all women except for the ones that Biden creeped out)

jim says:

That color revolution failed indicates that Trump has sufficient loyalists to arrest antifa.

If he has sufficient loyalists to arrest antifa, he has sufficient loyalists to arrest some interesting people.

In the late stages of leftism, any weapon they pick up is going to shoot insufficiently left wing leftists in the back.

BC says:

Trump’s making moves at the DOJ. Something interesting might be forth coming.

Karl says:

I do hope that your assessment that Trump has sufficient loyalists to arrest antifa is correct. But has he arrested any antifa? If he does not arrest a lot of antifa, he is losing. If arrested antifas aren’t convicted, he has not gained much.

If he actually arrests some interesting people, he has to make it stick. Courts could defy him outright and acquit the arrested immediately. Unlikeley in my opnion, but the could set them free on bail, draw out the proceedings and plan to acquit as soon as Trump is out of power.

Most people expect Trump to be out of power. Leftists living in their bubbles have been expecting Trump to be out of power within year ever since he took office.

jim says:

https://nypost.com/2020/06/11/doj-charges-more-than-50-protesters-in-nationwide-riots/

But the fix is in to get them instantly released, as has always happened in the past, while people connected to Trump continue to be charged by the DOJ with breaking incomprehensible laws that no one has heard of.

Trump has recently taken action to stop the barratry against people around him. We shall see what will happen on the efforts to get antifa charges mysteriously dropped.

If antifa can be charged and convicted when they commit crimes, so can Creepy Joe Biden.

Pooch says:

Could be related to this.
https://nypost.com/2020/06/19/nycs-us-attorney-refuses-to-resign-after-barr-reveals-hes-stepping-down/

Barr fighting the DOJ deep state it looks like.

jim says:

The New York attorney has found no end of charges to bring against people who might be in a position to commit perjury against Trump in exchange for “leniency”.

Allah says:

Well, at least they haven’t sodomized Trump with a bayonet yet. That’s what passes for a white pill for Americans these days. Heh. Trump’s tweet that Jim linked is not a good reply at all, what does supposedly nationalist Trump and the Western right gain by showing how much they support foreigners? Are they lying and marketing themselves as such or do they genuinely think serving foreigners is a good thing? Does not build support among his men and makes him look weak to his enemies.

jim says:

The point of Trump’s tweet is that hysteria about racism leads grossly wrongful persecution, that people are so eager to find witches that they find witches, whether witches exist or not.

How is this signaling support for foreigners?

Javier says:

The hilarious part is Jim Acosta’s brainless response. “Huh, what, I never said that! Boo! Manipulated video.”

Allah says:

He’s pleading to the left and trying to convince them that he’s not like those evil white nationalists. Instead of highlighting the white man’s receptivity to outgroups, he should have instead highlighted his courage and willingness to protect his family and neighborhood, especially given current events. If people see you chasing blacks out of your neighborhood, they should not be thinking “evil racist bigot hitler nazi”, they should be thinking “this guy has a spine and I can rely on him if I need to”. Therefore, saying “I wasn’t actually chasing blacks out of my neighborhood, that would of course be evil and immoral” just shits and pisses all over your status.

I just rewatched the video as I couldn’t tell the gender of the passenger in the back at first but it seems to be a woman. So we’ve got an unescorted single woman getting into a car with an unknown man at 1 AM and this is all portrayed as normal in a supposedly right wing propaganda video. Just how much did these guys actually concede to the left?

jim says:

> He’s pleading to the left and trying to convince them that he’s not like those evil white nationalists

You are nuts.

The point of Trump’s video was that none of the evil white racists were evil white racists – that the left sees witches riding broomsticks, that the left is terrifying, dangerous, and out of control, a message that is going to resonate in the cultural revolution, as the excesses of the cultural revolutionaries piles up and the search for witches escalates without end.

The video was pushback against the cultural revolution. Trump’s message was that the “anti racists” are wicked, dangerous, thoughtless, and cruel, that the “anti racist” mob is scary. Trump sees overreach, and is pushing back.

Allah says:

[*unresponsive*]

Andre says:

While I am technically a civic nationalist, the fact of the matter is that nearly all blacks have sided with the enemy, and as a group they are made almost exclusively of useless and dangerous individuals. In an ideal world we could save the 10% of blacks that are decent and incorporate them into the polis. I don’t think that is going to happen. Allah’s point is that blacks are foreigners, always have been and always will be, racism is necessary, and Trump is virtue signaling. Trump is basically saying “we are true believers, holier than the fake news media, and that is why we have a legitimate right to rule”.

The Cominator says:

Blacks are simple people prone to groupthink and following their lords but they are not ideological, the left bribes the black “leaders”. Ideologically not leftists.

Andre says:

Most black males are destined to be low status as they are more or less useless to a civilized society. Low status males are inclined to revolt as they have little to lose. On a primal level, blacks feel they could win, because they look at white men and they see males that are about the same size as them. There will always be low status males but when you have an obvious marker like skin color, it becomes an obvious political problem. The right offers blacks a chance to compete with other races, and lose. The left offers blacks a chance to be worshiped and provided for. It’s no surprise blacks support the left. The race problem wasn’t created by the left, it was exploited. It is rooted in biology, not ideology. Solutions to it would require thoughtcrime on a level that is probably only going to be possible once people are so filled with visceral hatred that they will not be interested in finding a peaceful solution. I don’t particularly want a race war but I’m not sure it can be avoided. All pandering is useless.

Pooch says:

The solution is separate nations. As the reactionary right, that’s what we propose. You are right, will take the destruction of the Cathedral first before that solution can be discussed without committing thoughtcrime.

Pooch says:

When the Cathedral comes down, many blacks may indeed come down with it but when you’ve been dealing with the devil for so long it should be no surprise when he throws you under the bus.

Andre says:

“The solution is separate nations. As the reactionary right, that’s what we propose. You are right, will take the destruction of the Cathedral first before that solution can be discussed without committing thoughtcrime.”

Nationalism is a left wing idea that was used to destroy the conservative empires of europe.

Pooch says:
Andre says:

Even if we assume that the peace of westphalia was a good thing, do you realize that over the last few centuries we developed long distance communication, computers, airplanes, atomic bombs and genetic engineering?

jim says:

> do you realize that over the last few centuries we developed long distance communication, computers, airplanes, atomic bombs and genetic engineering?

Nuts

War, social decay, and ever escalating religious fanaticism is occurring in spite of technological progress, not because of it.

It is caused by the same things as caused previous mass murders, social collapses, and dark ages. Nothing has changed. Our social technology is collapsing back to primitive levels, as it has done many times before, for the same reasons as it did many times before.

We were drifting into holy war under Obama, and Biden has proposed holy war on China – use US naval and air superiority to “protect” Chinese in China from the Chinese government. Worked so well in Libya and Syria, and it was so humane and people were so well protected in the Congo, so lets try it on a nuclear power.

The Cominator says:

“Nationalism is a left wing idea”

19th century extreme romantic ethnonationalism is a left wing idea.

But normal Nationalism like capitalism is ancient.

Andre says:

“normal Nationalism is ancient.”

Please describe “normal nationalism”.

The Cominator says:

Did the Greeks unite against the Persians? Did the rest of the Italians resent the Romans but keep together with them against the Carthraginians? Did the French keep resisting the English after Agincourt?

Seems like nationalism is ancient to me.

Starman says:

@Andre

“do you realize that over the last few centuries we developed long distance communication, computers, airplanes, atomic bombs and genetic engineering?”

And what does that have to do with the Peace of Westphalia?

Starman says:

@Jim

“We were drifting into holy war under Obama, and Biden has proposed holy war on China – use US naval and air superiority to “protect” Chinese in China from the Chinese government. Worked so well in Libya and Syria, and it was so humane and people were so well protected in the Congo, so lets try it on a nuclear power.”

I noticed the shift. President Trump is now being depicted as a Chinese puppet in Mad Bomber Bolton’s book. I guess the Trump-as-Russian-Puppet story has gotten stale.

jim says:

Trump is a Chinese puppet because, though revising trade deals in our favor and to their very considerable economic disadvantage, though cutting off access to our chip technology, though collecting immense amounts of tariff money from them, which they paid and American consumers did not pay because they were forced to devalue in response, he is not using our connections with China to subvert and overthrow their government. Also, failed to bomb Hong Kong in support of their color revolution.

Also, Trump failed to make much fuss when the Chinese rolled up our agents in China who were instigating troubles for the Chinese government, which lack of fuss suggests that their operations for the American presidency were not authorized by the American president, or even known to him until they were rolled up.

Which is reminiscent of the conflict between Austria and Serbia that led to World War I. The Serbian government appears to have not known that the Serbian government was instigating the murder of Austrian heads of state, and when Archduke Ferdinand was murdered, and the Austrians got upset, the Serbian government was unable to stop the Serbian government from continuing to instigate the murder of Austrian heads of state.

Biden, on the other hand, is not a Chinese puppet, because although agreeing to grotesquely one sided trade deals in their favor and pocketing immense amounts of money from them through his family immediately after those negotiations, promises to bomb China to protect Chinese citizens from the Chinese government.

Cloudswrest says:

Interesting Twitter thread today about some new Leftwing corporate shakedown organization founded by fellow whites.

https://twitter.com/RealWriteWinger/status/1274484709347610624

Andre says:

“War, social decay, and ever escalating religious fanaticism is occurring in spite of technological progress, not because of it.”

Explain to me how you spread feminism to every corner of the earth with 17th century technology.

jim says:

Television does not spread culture. Power spreads culture.

It is not the television. It is who decides what is allowed on television.

Observe that the Floyd protests are where there is American dominion, not where there is American television. No one protected by the nuclear weapons of Russia, China, or India, is very interested.

King Alfred did not need television to make England Christian. He converted the elite, and everyone eventually followed, and the elite converted because they saw which bread their side was buttered on.

Feminism is not a television show. Feminism exists because men stop other men from cooperating to restrain female misconduct. Patriarchy requires men to acknowledge other men’s property rights in female sexual and domestic services. Patriarchy is cooperation between men – it is a military, political, and religious system. Primarily it is a military system – coordination and cooperation in the use of force, agreement between men about what is legitimate and proper use of force. The alpha makes sure his betas have women. The King makes sure the young men of the tribe have a reason to work and to fight for God, King and Tribe.

So God makes women swear to sleep with only one man as long as the first man that they sleep with lives, and King and Priest make sure that she does. So Miss Average is forcibly restrained from spending her youth, beauty, and fertility waiting for a booty call from Jeremy Meeks.

Late eighteenth century Australia had far too many men, and very few women. England exported some ships full of wicked women who had been causing problems. They turned out, to the astonishment of the Australian authorities, to be strong, empowered, and all that. Initially the Australian authorities were shocked, confused, helpless, and discommbobulated. Imagine the Taliban is in charge of security at Fort Lauderdale Beach, and then spring break happens.

After a bit, the Taliban would figure out what to do. Television would not have made the slightest difference to what happened in early eighteenth century Australia.

Atavistic Morality says:

That detail is mostly unclear to everyone who has tried to find out, we can observe the phenomena but we can’t fully explain it. The TL;DR that I’ve seen made these days is that strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create bad times.

The fact is there, and we are hardly special or first to this party. John Glubb wrote about it in The fate of empires, there’s a common process in every fall of every civilization even Assyrians and Sumerians, Rome, whatever.

At some point men become feminist faggots, and then they all die. How is feminist faggotry spread to every corner of those empires and their known world with even less technology than the 17th century possessed?

Dave says:

It’s like old age — the details vary from person to person but the general pattern does not. Over time, your cells gradually forget how to work together as a single coherent organism. An unhealthy lifestyle accelerates this process, but there is no way to stop or reverse it.

We desperately need and will get a new dark age ruled by local tribal warlords. Tribalism solves the woman problem, the faggot problem, the Jew problem, and the nigger problem in one fell swoop. Tribal societies do not succumb to entropy because they *are* entropy. As soon as one tribe weakens even slightly, its land and women are seized by stronger tribes.

Andre says:

“The fact is there, and we are hardly special or first to this party. John Glubb wrote about it in The fate of empires, there’s a common process in every fall of every civilization even Assyrians and Sumerians, Rome, whatever.

At some point men become feminist faggots, and then they all die. How is feminist faggotry spread to every corner of those empires and their known world with even less technology than the 17th century possessed?”

By horse, by boat, by foot. In other words, slowly. Did Rome’s feminist faggotry cause India and China to also adopt feminist faggotry? The peace of westphalia is an utopian pipe dream, like the league of nations.

Andre says:

“We desperately need and will get a new dark age ruled by local tribal warlords. Tribalism solves the woman problem, the faggot problem, the Jew problem, and the nigger problem in one fell swoop. Tribal societies do not succumb to entropy because they *are* entropy. As soon as one tribe weakens even slightly, its land and women are seized by stronger tribes.”

You know what happens when you are ruled by local tribal warlords? You get taken over by an empire.

Dave says:

By which empire? Russia and China have such low elite fertility that we’d end up colonizing them if they conquered us. Every other country is either an American vassal state or a third-world tribal shit-hole.

jim says:

We will be conquered by Somalia. It is already happening

The future belongs to those that show up.

Atavistic Morality says:

One thing has nothing to do with the other, considering that according to the data we know that feminist faggotry is eventually spread regardless of technology.

The Peace of Westphalia worked perfectly fine until it didn’t, like the Republic of Rome, the Persian Empire or the monarchies of Europe. The fact that they failed doesn’t mean they were intrinsically wrong, the important thing is why they failed, if it’s an intrinsic systematic failure or incentive like communism. However they failed because existence is entropic and imperfect, and humans more so.

If you build a good bridge it’ll last a good time, the precepts that built it were correct, it’s just, entropy eventually takes care of it unless a conscious actor works on it. All these civilizations lasted as long as they had conscious actors that knew what the bridge was and how it was built, the social technology Jim speaks of, and when they didn’t they died, like we have forgotten and we are dying as well.

Mike says:

Andre does have a point though, in that notions such as “world communism” or a “brotherhood of nations” and other leftist, internationalist bullshit didn’t exist until the modern era. Leftism has always existed within nations yes, but international leftism did not exist until very recently. Rome turning leftist, as Andre said, did not make Han China turn leftist. The Abbasids becoming decadent, did not make Europe become decadent. It is an entirely modern phenomenon that leftism on one side of the world affects another side of the world, as we see with George Floyd protests popping up in Japan.

However, as Jim noted, this is only because those nations are American controlled. So at the end of the day, it still mostly comes down to political power and patronage, not technology.

jim says:

Universalism has been around since shortly after the collapse of Bronze Age civilization. But they lacked the necessary communication technology to be as universal as they would have liked to be. The Papacy, however, made a good go of it, resulting in the incredibly bloody holy wars of Europe. It is a difference of degree, not kind. Vatican attempting to rule the world is not hugely different from Harvard attempting to rule the world. The Vatican wound up with a mighty good part of the world. The Hebrews had a big problem with Moloch universalism, and Moloch Universalism got hold of a big part of the Mediterranean basin.

Moloch dominating the Southern Mediterranean was only a difference in degree from Harvard dominating the Atlantic, and not a very large difference in degree.

Starman says:

@Andre

“Explain to me how you spread feminism to every corner of the earth with 17th century technology.”

Christianity was spread to every corner of the Earth with 17th century technology.

Starman says:

“We will be conquered by Somalia.”

This is why Prophet Elon Musk’s Starship is a conundrum for the nigger-worshiping Left. They can’t openly oppose space travel because PROGRESSivism isn’t just a religion, it’s a brand. But they know that low IQ Somalia cannot conquer Mars and that the 26 month gap makes it hard for them to enforce feminist power on a patriarchal wild-cat Mars settlement.

And thus the indirect attacks on the StarProphet.

Dave says:

“We will be conquered by Somalia. It is already happening”

That doesn’t make us a vassal state of the Somali Empire; it only accelerates our transition into a fourth-world failed state followed by a tribal warlord society without EBT cards. I have no food to send to our new skinny overlords, but I invite them to harvest all the bacon they want from our inner-city feedlots.

jim says:

When a lot of the world is Somalia, a Genghis or a Mohammed will appear and create an empire. If an empire has fertile elite, it will prosper. This happens at roughly four hundred year intervals.

Let us hope the next Genghis or Mohammed is white or east Asian, or else the process is going to produce a low IQ world.

Andre says:

“Christianity was spread to every corner of the Earth with 17th century technology.”

What you describe as Christianity was a functional, and very decentralized civilizational model/meme. That is not the same as feminism.

“But they lacked the necessary communication technology to be as universal as they would have liked to be.”

That is what I’m trying to explain. Fossil fuel powered airplanes and radio waves (among other things) fundamentally changed the dynamics of power in the world. There were massive empires in the past, but they were decentralized, and if they became too dysfunctional they would lose territory or completely collapse before exporting their dysfunction to the rest of the planet. Talk all you want about how there aren’t George Floyd riots in Russia, but Putin still parrots feminist talking points. China is openly racist… sort of… but who was researching novel coronaviruses there? Oh right, a woman.

jim says:

> What you describe as Christianity was a functional, and very decentralized civilizational model/meme. That is not the same as feminism.

Vatican version of Christianity was dysfunctional after Anno Domini 1100, and steadily became more and more centralized and dysfunctional until the counter reformation.

Moloch worship was notoriously dysfunctional.

Fossil fuel powered airplanes and radio waves (among other things) fundamentally changed the dynamics of power in the world

Nuts.

The Vatican struggle with Kings was mighty similar to the Harvard struggle with presidents and “dictators”, is conducted by similar means and methods, on a similar geographic scale. No fundamental change. The Universalist wars of the French revolution were similar in geographic scale to the universalist wars of World War I and II. The holy wars of the sixteenth and early seventeenth century were broader in geographic scale than the recent holy wars in Libya and Syria, though they will be dwarfed by the coming holy war against China.

As our social technology regresses from its eighteenth century peek, we parallel past times more and more closely. Somalia has come to small parts of America, and is expanding.

When more advanced forms of social technology self destruct, the winning system is the patriarchal patrilineal clan, which is effective in securing property rights between the great grandchildren of the patriarch, but fails to secure property rights outside the clan. We are a long way from a society of small patriarchal patrilineal clans in a constant state of armed conflict with each other, but they are coming in sight.

Swedish whites are discovering that clan members get pussy, and Swedish whites get leftovers, if there are any leftovers.

Andre says:

“similar geographic scale”

I am not aware of any documents showing 10th century China, or India, or Mexico, parroting vatican doctrine.

jim says:

China is still not parroting Cathedral doctrine. Cathedral missionaries in China are parroting Cathedral doctrine, as Vatican missionaries over most of the world parroted Vatican doctrine. Russia parroted the doctrine of Constantinople for a long time, then declared itself the New Rome many centuries ago. It now returns to its rightful position as the new Rome after a brief flirtation with Harvard.

India is parroting Cathedral doctrine, despite nukes, but the relationship gets tense from time to time, like the relationship between the Vatican and theoretically Roman Catholic claimants to the throne of holy Roman emperor.

The activities are the same, and the scale not much different. The distance between Moscow and Constantinople was not that much smaller than the difference between Moscow and Harvard.

Andre says:

“China is still not parroting Cathedral doctrine.”

Maybe I have a blindspot. Can you name one or more doctrinal points of the Cathedral that are not parroted by China?

jim says:

https://blog.reaction.la/economics/analysis-of-a-chinese-video/

And even India is a considerably less faithful parrot than countries without nuclear weapons.

Andre says:

I’ll check that out.

Dave says:

“When a lot of the world is Somalia, a Genghis or a Mohammed will appear and create an empire.”

Don’t expect this to happen right away. After the Romans abandoned Britain, 500 years passed before any man ruled enough territory to call himself “King of England”. Great leaders are rare, and even the greatest fall if an enemy archer makes a lucky shot on the battlefield.

jim says:

I see no virtue signaling.

He is telling us the anti racists are wicked for finding imaginary witches. He does not say “I am not one of those horrible witches”.

He says “You guys went looking for horrible witches, and wound up destroying the lives of the Comington kids”.

Atavistic Morality says:

https://rmx.news/article/article/hungary-s-pm-orban-says-western-europe-pursues-liberal-imperialism

https://rmx.news/article/article/romania-joins-hungary-in-banning-gender-studies

Eastern Europe dispensing very necessary white pills, they need to drain the EU gibs dry and then ditch them to make their own thing, maybe include Russia.

Strannik says:

Unfortunately Poland is looking to be America’s new main base of military and political operations in Europe, focused on being an Anti-Russian fortress instead of looking to the dangers in the West.

Poland, not thinking unhistorically, sees a powerful Russia with a big boy pile of missiles led by a powerful man right on its doorstep, and judges it a greater threat than degenerate US cultural influence from far away. Russia is pretty scary when you’re staring the bear in the face, and fags are not very scary when they’re lisping at you from halfway around the world. Not a lot of people “get” that Poland would be even more eagerly bombed then Libya and Syria were.

My guess is that Hungary has a robust intelligence service consciously and actively working against color revolution, which is why they can take fag empire money while openly countersignalling the fags.

notglowing says:

https://i.imgur.com/BL0oLoN.png
Major corporations donating money to police foundations
Guess they don’t like having their stores destroyed?
Still they advocate for BLM

Atavistic Morality says:

They don’t have a choice, if they don’t signal they’ll be destroyed by the State Department. So they have this kind of stuff: https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2020/06/how-to-survive-corporate-idiocy-in-age.html

This is very good, the fact that the merchant is willingly paying for this at the expense of possible backlash… aah, now it’s really coming, there’s starting to be a demand for the extermination of progs.

Strannik says:

Pay off the barbarians, pay the troops to protect you from the barbarians. It’s a stance taken by civilized peoples as old as recorded history.

Dave says:

Jim, you have righteously condemned Gnosticism on several occasions, but Gnosticism wears so many disguises that I have trouble recognizing it. Is this article Gnostic?

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-only-way-to-win.html

jim says:

It is a bit suspicious. Hard to say. Sneaking in that direction.

If salvation is merely inward, you are then allowed to do bad things – and thereby avoid conflict with power.

polifugue says:

When in doubt, trust your gut. The writer of this article is a Gnostic, at the least a spiritual Gnostic.

Gnosticism is a simple system made complicated by layers of obfuscation by its believers. The essence of Gnosticism is that the world is under the demiurge, a lesser being than God, fallen and corrupt. Since human nature is intrinsically broken, man cannot achieve theosis in this world thus salvation is found through knowledge alone. The demiurge as fallen creator is the reason why there is almost no difference between Gnosticism and satanism, and Gnosticism and schizophrenia.

As Moldbug pointed out, Progressivism is a Christian heresy, and thus Progressivism and Gnosticism share certain elements. In Progressivism, the world as racist, sexist and intolerant is akin to the doctrine of the demiurge, and thus being “woke” is akin to being “the enlightened one.” Progressive salvation gives moral justification to destroy civilization as racist, whereas Gnostic salvation gives moral justification to self-destruct, to defect against family, kin, and society.

Secular Gnosticism is popular in fiction because the world as enemy makes for a better story. For example, “The Matrix” is a Gnostic work, evident through Agent Smith’s reflection on the failure of the first Matrix. “I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery” is Gnostic spirituality. The world as a cruel and evil place is the key sentiment of secular Gnosticism.

Spirituality in Christ is all about fleeing sin and “the passions,” and it is an primarily inward struggle, whereas Gnosticism is about fleeing the world with a sense of moral superiority. In Christianity, the world is a wonderful and beautiful place; suffering is caused by man’s rejection of God as death and suffering came into the world through sin and is inherited all the way back from Adam.

The last paragraph of the article quoted by Teddy Spaghetti is the antithesis of Christian thinking. You don’t win by being a “person who knows,” you win through repentance and prayer, “Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.” In the fallen world, you win by crushing enemies, by winning wars and debates. Christianity was spread by the sword as Christians before Constantine were a marginalized group less than ten percent of the population even after almost three-hundred years, and as Progressivism smothers churches in its filth, Christians are falling to that number.

I hope this will allow for a better detection of and vigilance against Gnosticism.

jim says:

> As Moldbug pointed out, Progressivism is a Christian heresy, and thus Progressivism and Gnosticism share certain elements. In Progressivism, the world as racist, sexist and intolerant is akin to the doctrine of the demiurge, and thus being “woke” is akin to being “the enlightened one.” Progressive salvation gives moral justification to destroy civilization as racist, whereas Gnostic salvation gives moral justification to self-destruct, to defect against family, kin, and society.

Exactly so.

Moral superiority without the inconvenient need to act justly. Similarly, antinomianism.

All three tend to merge into Satanism, since progressives, gnostics, and antinomians are apt to celebrate and officially valorize transgression, and are apt to engage in religious rituals that are transgressive and celebrate transgression.

The dominant group of people on the radical left have a very powerful desire to desecrate things, to destroy anything that is good for society, that is joyful, that is prosocial, that is beautiful. They have a spiteful drive to destroy all that is good. Soundcloud at 25 minutes

Progressivism, gnosticism, and antinomianism, all tend to be in practice heavily influenced by Satanism, and frequently dominated by it.

Anon 1 says:

this point is interesting
“As a final point, psychopaths and self-aware sociopaths are actively screened out”

Mike says:

An interesting (if disgusting) look into the mindset of the Antifa squads during the Minneapolis riots. Note the continuous use of the word “liberated”, and the total absence of them mentioning the fact that the state government was quite obviously on their side.
https://crimethinc.com/2020/06/10/the-siege-of-the-third-precinct-in-minneapolis-an-account-and-analysis

Dave says:

Also overlooking the fact that any army that obtains its supplies by theft has to keep moving or starve. When looters leave their dense urban environment, they become either a conspicuous slow-moving mass, or they scatter into small groups that can be easily ambushed and dirt-napped. Shoot, shovel, and shut up.

Mike says:

I guess antifa thinks they’ll be able to replicate Napoleon’s army living off the land or some shit haha.

jim says:

Leftism has no essence. Leftism just heads off in the direction of whatever apple cart can be knocked over.

The hatred of marriage and family is because the man with a house, a wife, and a garden has something. The left went all in on Wu Flu, because they figured they could knock over some apple carts, and all in on Global Warming, though these have no logical connection to any idea that the left is defined by some broad social goal or goals.

No matter what you have, the left has a reason to smash it up and grab something, anything, from the wreckage, as the Open Source movement is now discovering despite having very little.

Why is Global Warming leftist? Why is Wu Flu leftist? The only common thread connecting one left wing issue to another is that they are all rationals for messing people up.

Atavistic Morality says:

https://wmbriggs.com/post/31415/

Briggs wrote an excellent article on Curtis Yarvin that everyone who believes he is still Moldbug should read. Some of the quotes are damning, it’s even worse than I thought, wow.

The Cominator says:

Yarvin virtue signals but as other people have said what he said wasn’t actually this bad.

Yarvin points people to BAP which shows he is on the right side of things.

Atavistic Morality says:

In a sane world, anyone with a public record of minimizing the coronavirus would be cancelled — unfit for any further employment, let alone in this crisis. Old friends would edit their phonebooks and duck them in public, worried about being linked to a coronavirus minimizer.

Curtis Yarvin wants you cancelled, eternally unemployed and socially assassinated. I don’t understand why this doesn’t bother you. Well, to each their own…

The Cominator says:

Curtis Yarvin is a Silicon Valley namefag who must virtue signal, he backs my old buddy from another forum BAP so lets cut him some slack as its not hard to tell when he is virtue signalling.

Fred says:

Surely you cannot doubt your interlocutor’s claim to superior holiness than St. Curtis?

Fred says:

Briggs wrote an excellent article

Literally says “Guest Post” in the title

Not Tom says:

The fact that the author (this is apparently a guest post) continually refers to “N-COVID-19”, a designation that literally no one used at any point in time, does not speak well of his comprehension level.

I don’t see anything particularly damning from Curtis, just his usual bombastic style, decorated with the guest-post author’s third-grade analysis and hysterical emotionalism mirroring Briggs’s own track record of (quite uncharacteristic of him) hysterical emotionalism on this topic. Curtis never advocated mass lockdowns, he advocated mass contact tracing. Yes, he exaggerated in many places; he always does. So does Jim. So do most of us. It’s called rhetoric.

Actual quotes from Curtis:

And if you still believe in the wisdom of our public-health experts, read this expose of how FDA slow-rolled high-speed RT-PCR testing for two and a half months — ostensibly because ethics, clearly to protect the sanctity of its hallowed turf.

Anyone repeating lines like “the Trump administration has failed” is spreading an Orwellian lie. There is no “Trump administration.” There is an elected showman and his cronies, fronting for an unaccountable permanent government.

Absolutely nothing like the way this divisive idiot guest-poster is portraying it. Whether you agree with it or not, it’s the same Reaction 101 that we’ve always known.

I thought we were better than resorting to hastily-written anonymous “takedowns” of intellectuals on the right. Primary sources, people. Do not rely on secondary sources when primary sources are available.

Mike says:

His point still stands that it’s garbage writing compared to what we are used to from him. You aren’t going to get many, if any, real takes from Yarvin, simply because he has to maintain a livelihood. I don’t think the article reflects anything bad about Molbug’s character, like Briggs stupidly seems to think, but it does further prove that Yarvin’s writing is very meh to bad. I thought the article felt odd even when it first came out, in April, back when we all were confused about what we should think of the Corona Crisis. His writing now is all fluff, no substance. It has the same convoluted language and inside jokes as it always has had, the rhetorical style all of us enjoyed on UR, but now it never gets to the point, because he knows he’d be un-personned if he did get to the point.

Starman says:

COVID19, the magic virus, that experts say, can read your politics. BoonLivesMatter riots good! Going to church bad!

Pooch says:

Looks like 2nd battle for Lafayette Park happening now. Color revolution back on maybe.

BC says:

Colored Revolution with colored people this time.

John Q Public says:

You people need to get real an admit the horrible truth. As Frank Burton put it, Corona was a test, and the Right failed – hard. You might want to take a little time and do a little soul searching – rather, take a LOT of time and do a LOT of soul searching.

P.S. Calling WuFlu “N-COVID-19” is what we call satire. Your self-important mockery of Captain Trips was just the flu – or for kids, just a cold. You stayed at home because you were afraid of a cold. You destroyed civil society because you were afraid of a cold. You embraced the Progressive Singularity like a gay lover because you were afraid of a cold. You did it. OWN it.

Starman says:

Not Tom isn’t me or Cominator.

Cominator was the first to call out this hoax. I only called it a hoax when the predicted dead bodies in the streets from COVID19 failed to materialize.

The Cominator says:

If you are indeed the author I’m cutting Yarvin some slack but I was in the hard skeptics camp on the virus since at least early March and I agree this was something a lot of people should have read with their eyes closed (at least once the South Korean data came out and deaths were very very few worldwide outside of nursing homes and a few big cities, not at all like the 1918 flu) but for whatever reason did not.

Mike says:

@John Q Public And you’re acting like dipshits in Congress are the ones representing the New Right. We here have no power, zero, to have affected what policies were chosen. I noticed from the very beginning some odd things about Coronavirus messaging (such as how it was at first no masks, then masks, it spreads on surfaces, no its airborne, its racist to close borders, oh now its essential that all of society be closed) but you can’t have expected all of us to get everything right from the very beginning, BECAUSE IT WAS NEW. We aren’t omniscient dude, and so if some of us thought it had legitimate danger at first, than good riddance to you.

It’s obvious to all of us it’s a psy-op now, because the Floyd protests got official elite sanction in the face of this so-called “pandemic.”

The Cominator says:

“We aren’t omniscient dude, and so if some of us thought it had legitimate danger at first”

After the South Korean data (which was much more thorough than everyone else) came out everyone should have realized it was bullshit (also they were claiming it was both much more deadly AND more contangious than the flu but it was obvious from total deaths that both things could not be true) but for some reason people did not.

Fred says:

As Frank Burton put it

Who?

Not Tom says:

P.S. Calling WuFlu “N-COVID-19” is what we call satire.

Sure it was. That’s totally obvious from the context and totally consistent with the obviously satirical tone and content.

Lol. “It’s satire” is the dumbest defense mechanism ever. The alt-right tried this for years and failed.

I didn’t destroy anything. I’m not in the government or part of the ruling elite, I didn’t stay at home, and from the very beginning I was pointing out (like Moldbug/Curtis) that contact tracing a la SK/HK was the right solution but that the U.S. was too dysfunctional to implement it, was a militant supporter of HCQ and never believed the negative “studies”, and never hesitated to point out that the WHO and CDC were lying and flip-flopping constantly. Oh, and I was gaining infamy in progressive communities by constantly violating the “trust the experts” and “it’s bad orange man’s fault” narratives, changing real people’s minds on the subject.

I’m very far away from the positions of Cominator, R7 and Jim on this, but you’ve clearly put zero effort into actually learning the positions of the people you’re apparently trying to criticize. You’re just butthurt over being called out, as is clear from the laughable “it’s satire” defense. It’s OK, I have that effect on people, I forgive you as long as you don’t come to dispense blue pills.

Spend some time with us and you’ll realize that on the right it’s OK to disagree and cooperate. It’s the progressive religion that demands total consensus (aka submission) on everything. I think well-known people like Briggs really shit the bed on Covid, but that doesn’t mean I’ve “written them off” or am going to waste time rageposting on their blogs. That’s grade school tier defection. I’ve never forgotten who my friends and enemies are, and you’d be wise to do the same.

Cloudswrest says:

Police hosing down attempted statue topplers with pepper spray. Looks like they’re enjoying it. General cheering in the replies.

https://twitter.com/BasedPoland/status/1276601710149021696

Not Tom says:

I’d prefer automatic weapons fire, but progress is progress.

What a surprise that the loudest and most persistent shrieking in that video is coming from women. At least feral blacks know when it’s quitting time; feral women think they’re invulnerable.

pyrrhus says:

“He did not get started on his dad’s money. He got started working out of his bedroom.”

His father, lead partner in an important law firm, had enough money to send Gates to an exclusive private school and then Harvard…More important, when Bill Gates was stealing other companies’ stuff, the fact that he had access to essentially free legal services was a huge obstacle to lawsuits against him…

jim says:

Bill Gates skipped out of Harvard. Busy playing with computers.

His dad was not rich and his dad had no business connections with the businesses that made Bill Gates rich.

pyrrhus says:

Speaking as a business lawyer myself, his connection to the Gates law firm was of inestimable value, avoiding many lawsuits, valid or otherwise, by patent trolls…I know other small startups that have been sued out of existence by such…

Anonymous 2 says:

And if memory serves, Bill’s mum, working at IBM, was instrumental in getting IBM to use MSDOS.

It’s not uncommon that getting really rich is done by a ‘two stage rocket’ if you will. For instance, Warren Buffetts father was a businessman and congressman. Apparently not ‘rich’ but I’m sure it could open a few doors for young Warren. For instance, “Taking a train to Washington, D.C. on a Saturday, [Warren Buffett] knocked on the door of GEICO’s headquarters until a janitor admitted him. There he met Lorimer Davidson, GEICO’s Vice President, and the two discussed the insurance business for hours.”

Not Tom says:

“Microsoft stole all their products” is such an old shitlib meme.

There have been thousands of product flops, followed by later successes by other companies, for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes the initial flop was a marketing failure, or a larger business failure, or it was poorly managed, or in many cases it was actually a putrid product (see: betamax) whose supposed superiority/originality is only touted by those who were fool enough to be early adopters.

Microsoft acquired some of their later products, yes. But they didn’t steal MS-DOS or Windows; earlier implementations of those ideas by other companies were either god-awful or marketed to completely the wrong segment.

“I thought of it first” isn’t an argument in capitalism; it’s whoever executes first (and best) that tends to win. Apple didn’t invent smartphones either, are we going to stay that Steve Jobs “stole” the iPhone? Did Elon Musk “steal” from NASA?

ten says:

What’s been up with your domain these days, jim? Was worried they might have got to you, or that you were ducking and covering.

Starman says:

Had a technical server issue.

https://gab.com/jim7z/posts/104426995695720476

The Cominator says:

https://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2020/06/30/now-its-woodrow-wilsons-turn-n2571568

What do we all think of this, personally I’m kind of okay with cancelling Woodrow Wilson (in my mind the creator of the Cathedral and one of histories most evil men). If I were king he’d be posthumously declared a traitor and be subjected to Damnatio Memoriae anyway.

Pooch says:

The canceling of white history should bother you.

The Cominator says:

Woodrow Wilson was the greatest traitor in American history though. Worse even than LBJ. He should be subject to something of a Damnatio Memoriae.

I’m not okay with canceling the rest of history just specifically cathedral creator Woodrow Wilson.

Not Tom says:

They’re not cancelling Wilsonianism, just some white guy who they will later claim didn’t actually invent Wilsonianism.

Does Wilson deserve ignominy? Absolutely.

Does expunging him from history achieve that? Not really, we want the Cathedral’s architects and high priests to be exposed and condemned for what they are, not quietly forgotten.

Will this change anything about the modern state of progressivism? Unlikely.

Defecting from the left is always a tactical victory and a strategic defeat. Reasons do matter, and Wilson being cancelled for being insufficiently left or insufficiently brown does not strike me as a strategic victory. The statue-topplers don’t know or care who Wilson was, they’re just finding a few more applecarts to flip, and the normies who see or hear about it won’t learn anything about Wilson’s true crimes.

I’m sure someone is going to go “hurr durr we shouldn’t defend Wilson” just like the “hurr durr we shouldn’t defend the popos” before, entirely missing the point that the conflict itself will add to human misery no matter which side is victorious.

Miu says:

Not Tom is right; we can’t let THEM cancel Woodrow Wilson. He belongs to us. Not to Raj Streetshitter.

The Cominator says:

I just personally could NEVER bring myself to defend Woodrow Wilson or anything about him… the best I could do is say Woodrow Wilson should be canceled for other reasons. And if I could machine gun a leftist mob tearing down his statue I’d sure be willing to machine gun them, but I’d wait for them to tear his statue down 1st.

And yes Not Tom is right that we don’t want him written out of history truly we want him in history as a warning we want to say his crimes that he was a vile traitor and that he is why professor types (especially of subjects other than hard science) should never get to rule.

Not Tom says:

Of course, I won’t go out of my way to defend Wilson either.

These questions are often presented as a choice between this side or that side, but there’s no requirement to take sides. In a Left vs. Lefter battle, we’d all be well advised to sit on the sidelines and quietly weep for humanity while praying for either a Pinochet or a Stalin to put an end to it all.

If you enjoy watching the evil suffer at the hands of the more evil then that’s fine. Personally, I find it doesn’t really get me off, because I always know in the back of my mind that the new normal – whatever it ends up being – will make my life just a little bit worse. But perhaps that’s just a personal defect, not a clever philosophical position.

Frederick Algernon says:

@Cominator

Can you explain how this is not a holiness-spiral supporting post? I hate what Wilson stood for, supported, and did, but I’m not a primitive so I know that harming his statue won’t harm him because he is dead. I am also sophisticated enough to know that his cause would also not be harmed by this savage and low-status act. Indeed, Wilson, if reanimated and shown a Jimian Interpretation of what his 14 + 4 points had wrought, would very likely become a force for restoration (my subjective opinion, obviously).

The Cominator says:

Why would it be a holiness spiraling post, I’m saying if the left wants to cancel Wilson an evil vile traitor largely responsible for creating this leftist hellscape we have to live in today we should let them. If I were the Emperor Wilson would be declared posthumously a traitor and all statues of him would be smashed and nothing would be allowed to bear his name. All future history books would have to refer to him as the traitor Woodrow Wilson.

The most we should do is say that he should be canceled not for insufficient leftism but for treason, communism, and having created the cathedral.

Most leftists cannot be saved or redeemed, David Horowitz is an extreme minority and even with him it took a traumatic event.

Fred says:

Fantastic. Even if it’s for pozzed reasons I’ll take it.

At any rate, fighting for an old version of progressivism is the usual conservative failure mode, which is what fighting against cancelling Wilson would be.

So good riddance to the dickhead.

Pseudo-chrysostom says:

When money is accepted in exchange for something valuable, what is being demonstrated thereby is not so much relative status, as such, but ability to make things happen…

Moneys are abstract approximations of potency; potency facilitating processes are reflected with renumeration; such renumeration then parlayed by such parties for the furnishing of some other desired ends; the use of money by components of a system to do things (like buy food) is a reflection of the system having the power to make such things happen; the use of money to signal your desire for some good, in the stead of sending your men-at-arms to secure it, of course generally affording much more elegant conduction of social operations.

The ‘price’ of a thing is essentially a measure of how much potency is required to accomplish it (in the context of who is buying, what they are buying for, and where they are buying it). This is useful information, gives decisions makers extra sense of the ‘landscape’ of that slice of Being that they need to make decisions in. It affords means by which the coordination of things can be accomplished; even a system ‘without money’, would still have money – if in degenerate forms.

More broadly, moneys become tools of divination. How are calculation problems handled in markets? Well, because most of the heavy lifting is done by divine entities, instantiated through the ‘price mechanism’. Or to put it in other words, artificial intelligence was invented 5,000 years ago, if not earlier.

Money, in the basal state of affairs, is a representation of potency; and so naturally, this also opens the possibility of manipulation of the representation itself, to give the appearance of the represented; the appearance of potency precipitating the extraction of capital, divestment of rival’s power producing structures; thus illusions of power transfigured into realities of force.

This, incidentally, becomes why ‘redistribution’ of money necessarily becomes calumnious; it does not reflect the underlying realities of the different structures of potency represented by the various parties involved; ‘taking money’ from that which has more potency and ‘giving it’ to that which has less potency does does little to essentially change the structure of their potestas; much like, in more specific senses, how taking away James Watson’s nobel prize and giving it to a black lesbian feminist would not make them less and more genii respectively (but it does render the ‘nobel prize’ system worse than useless).

A man with a ‘net worth’ of ‘100 million dollars’, does not have 100 million dollars. The more ‘worth’ something has, the more potency the structures it inheres in have. There may be certain amounts of more liquid forms of capital on hand already, but appropriation of any significant fraction of that ‘net worth’ in that moment, often precipitates mounting liquidations of potency facilitating structures themselves. But the value of an organism is in what it does, and when those organisms start getting broken up, all of a sudden, that ‘net worth’ starts evaporating like the morning dew; and in the end, you somehow find yourself far short of that ‘100 million’ in plunder.

Far better for the parasite it would be to not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, to keep the systems intact so that they can continue skimming off the top. This is something certain numbers of the mid twentieth-century underlords had a sense of, even if dimly, or subconsciously, or schizo-affectively. But it begs the question: why would the other party agree to this arrangement? Or perhaps more pragmatically, how would you get other people to agree with you that they should agree with you?

If one is rationalizing that it is good for them to take some blood and treasure from a superior party on account of defining that party as an infidel… then it would be even gooder to take even *more* blood and treasure, wouldn’t it?

All power has a flavor, different forms of power more or less given to given ends. Their though of ‘freedom’ was as ‘the ability to do whatever you want’, but the power used by a synagogite to get into a position to make those decisions in the first place, could not be used to make any other kinds of decisions happen. They become enslaved, in such a more comprehensive way they could scarcely have dreamed of before. It would be in their *interest* to not destroy civilization, in their interest to not *kill each other* in the process of destroying civilization; but they can’t help themselves.

Or in other words, they are literally possessed by daemons.

Andre says:

[*unresponsive*]

jim says:

We already had that argument. Been there, done that, worked to some extent, but it was far from being a reliable source of status.

A woman will always perceive the DJ at the wedding as higher status than her husband (in the old days there were a lot of jokes about the bride running off with the wedding singer, but today red pill jokes are unspeakable) and she and the wedding organizer will promptly create a shit test, which you have to pass, because they see the status leaking out of the husband, even though his money made the whole thing happen.

Turning money into making things happen is easy. Turning the power to make things happen into status is a fine art and difficult to accomplish, as Bill Gates is finding out.

Oliver Cromwell says:

Status makes money buy different things depending on who holds it, which is to say status is something else than money.

If you get for free what other men have to pay for, you are high status.

If all social life were monetary trades at flat and equal market prices then status would be a null concept.

Dave says:

I suppose that in poor, corrupt countries with weak enforcement of property rights, like Brazil, it’s easier and more necessary to convert money into status (and why not convert status into money; everyone else does), so there’s a much higher correlation between wealth and status, leading Andre to conflate these concepts.

Andre says:

Explain to me what you mean by status.

jim says:

He “explained” and I censored it, as an attack on language, meaning, and our ability to communicate with each other. I asked him to coin a new word or phrase.

I suggest that instead of using phrase “status” he uses the phrase “evil witchcraft”, or “work of demons”, but I suspect that phrase is unlikely to be to his liking.

The proposed definition was part of a theory about how the world works, and a redefinition of numerous words that describes existent society so that the new meanings presuppose his theory, taking away all the words necessary to describe how most people believe society works, taking away all the words that you need to disagree with his theory.

He is allowed to argue his theory, but has to coin numerous new words describing social relationships to describe his theory, so that it is possible for people to disagree and argue in favor of the conventional understanding of the social order using words that refer to social relationships as most people understand them.

It is analogous to Marxists redefining the word “value’ so that capital has negative impact on the creation of value, so that private investment causes poverty and under development instead of development, and entrepreneurs are merely thieves. Hence Mao’s Great Leap Forward, which destroyed most of what little capital China possessed, including, indeed especially, the ability to make iron, steel, and copper, in order to create an abundance of steel, and Pol Pot’s “Year Zero” when they cut down the orchards, slaughtered the cattle, and destroyed those little dikes that run between fields of flood rice, in order to create an abundance of food. Pol Pot proceeded to export rice, on the theory that now there was now a theoretical abundance of rice, that destroying the capital used to produce food automatically increased the supply of food.

I am not going to tolerate that form of argument. Loaded definitions are an illegitimate form of argument, but I will tolerate that approach if someone coins a new word with a loaded definition, not if he takes away an existing word to deny people the capacity to disagree. That path led to the confusion that led to Mao attempting to industrialize and develop China by deindustrializing and de-developing it..

Andre says:

If you get money for free, when other men have to work for it, does that not indicate high status? I never claimed all social life is monetary trades.

jim says:

In which case the money most people receive, including Musk and Bill Gates, is not an indicator of status, and certainly not a substantial source of status.

What is a substantial source of status is state favor – money, unlike state favor, is generally earned and saved. The problem is that the state is rapidly accumulating a growing number of parasites, who are looking for high status jobs in social justice.

Black people have higher status than white people, not because they get free money from the state, but because in a fight, the state will back the black man against the white man.

And, to the extent that we are dominated by a state overwhelmed with excessive entry into the quasi state elite, money is almost the opposite of status, as Bill Gates is painfully discovering.

Not Tom says:

Kind of a random aside, but Flynn apparently wrote an op-ed:

https://www.westernjournal.com/exclusive-gen-flynn-dont-act-2-people-control-98/

I have to say, it doesn’t make him sound like he knows where the bodies are buried. Could be that I’m failing to read between the lines, but, writing on a very friendly platform and yet still going on about muh elections, muh police, muh constitution, muh Judeo-Christianity… well, it’s disappointing. He implies that he thinks that he thinks that politicians and elected officials are in charge, not the permanent government.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure he’s still about a thousand times more competent than 99% of the individuals Trump is able to draw from on staff, but after reading that, I’m a lot less confident that Trump rehiring him would be anything other than a symbolic gesture.

Pooch says:

Everything he said is 100% spot on considering his messaging must still be contained in the Overton Window on that platform.

Not Tom says:

It’s hardly outside the Overton window to talk about the permanent government/deep state. Progressives have been talking about it openly in the New York Times for a few years now. And he’s not even writing on a mainstream platform.

I’m looking at the subtext, which to me reads a lot like “I’m sorry, I won’t push the envelope any more, I’ll just mouth the standard cucky Republican platitudes from now on if you leave me alone”.

Not expecting Flynn to be an edgelord. Obviously. But Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, Trump Jr, and even Bill Barr regularly demonstrate levels of awareness well beyond what’s in that op-ed. It doesn’t sound like dissident rightism dumbed down for normies, it sounds like 90s-era uniparty speechwriting.

The main question I keep asking myself is: do these sound like the words of someone who would back Trump and the praetorians in a military coup? I’m left with some serious nagging doubts.

jim says:

Trump is going to face an uphill struggle re-appointing General Flynn. If he gets his job, DIA or FBI, let us see how Flynn sounds then.

Starman says:

General Flynn says “the elected government is the real government of the American Republic” the same way Augustus said, “the elected government is the real government of the Roman Republic.”

Anonymous Fake says:

High salary earning is high status. Entrepreneurs are seen as losers who failed to perform well in school and secure an elite professional position based on merit. There’s always a suspicion that a successful entrepreneur is either lucky (essentially a gambler) or cheating. In any case, they don’t create much value in any developed economy.

Entrepreneurs could be made higher status by being given access to capital based on school performance of themselves and something like the average college ranking of their employees. It would be an alternative to the ladder climbing culture of the current elites. But it doesn’t exist yet and it has to be granted by political elites first, who are always going to be above the business class.

What is most important is that social conservatives prize salaries because they can support a family. Entrepreneurship is not a family friendly culture. It’s not truly conservative at all. It’s another tool in the tool box, but the idea of the salary is best seen as being a part of the box itself. It’s a more sophisticated economic concept.

jim says:

High salary earning is high status. Entrepreneurs are seen as losers who failed to perform well in school and secure an elite professional position based on merit. There’s always a suspicion that a successful entrepreneur is either lucky (essentially a gambler) or cheating. In any case, they don’t create much value in any developed economy.

Nuts.

All the wealth of the world comes from entrepreneurs, for example the computer on which you are typing this.

High salary is not high status either. The man in the corner office of the top floor of the skyscraper does not get hot letters from hot chicks. The White House press corps is immensely high status, and generally paid with the smell of an oil rag.

Entrepreneurs could be made higher status by being given access to capital based on school performance of themselves and something like the average college ranking of their employees.

You are proposing to give bureaucrats all the wealth of the world and call bureaucrats entrepreneurs.

The bureaucrats would wind up destroying the capital. Where would the capital come from, if it was assigned by the state rather than invested by those who save? You would wind up squeezing the kulaks.

You propose socialism, in which the commissar has charge of the capital. But the commissar already has high status (and neither the ability to manage capital profitably, nor interest and incentive to do so).

If people were assigned capital by the state, rather than by investors, they would not be entrepreneurs. What you propose is the staff of the New York Times taking over SpaceX. The staff of the New York Times is already high status, and the rockets would not fly.

Karl says:

The White House press corps is immensly high status, the staff of the New York Times is high status? Really? Please explain.

The way I (so far) understood “status” is that whoever gets away with using violence or is backed by a group in a violent conflict is high status.

Arguably, the police will routinely back the White House press corps in any violent confrontation. This indicates status, but if that suffices then Bill Gates would be high status. He can afford to have body guards who will be violent on his behalf as long as a plausible legal argument can be made that use of force was legitimate (plausible legal arguments is one of the things money can buy pretty well.

The White House press corps cannot even order the police to beat someone up. Maybe the White House press coprs can direct an Antfa mob to a target by writing a hit piece. Is that what you mean?

jim says:

> > The White House press corps is immensely high status, the staff of the New York Times is high status?

> Really? Please explain.

Under Obama, billionaires and starlets would kiss ass for an invite to White House Press Corps parties. I suspect the billionaires took suitcases full of small bills, and the starlets delivered sexual services. Whether they did nor did not, the White House Press Corps status seems to have diminished markedly under Trump, but it is still fairly godlike.

And, as you point out, the White House Press Corps can have some people beaten up and their property destroyed, while protecting other people engaged in criminal acts, but I was not thinking of that. I was thinking of moderately high status people such as starlets acting as if the White House Press Corps had immense status.

Karl says:

The behaviour of the billionaires is an indicator of high status as being bribed or receiving protection money shows high status.

Females perceive status differently. So the behaviour of the starlets is a much weaker indicator – they might even haven viewed the press corps as disgustingly low status and were simple doing what they were paid for.

I am pretty sure that females by and large do not think that the members of the press corps are hot.

Not Tom says:

I am pretty sure that females by and large do not think that the members of the press corps are hot.

Great. So having one quality – high status – does not mean women will perceive you with a subordinate quality – good looks. This demonstrates what exactly?

Karl says:

I’m still doubting that the White house press corps is high status. Maybe it is, but the presence of startlets (who might have to be paid to show up) at a press corp party is no evidence of high status of the press corps.

jim says:

Maybe you are right, but I remember and treasure the look on a pressman’s face when Trump security laid hands on him at a Trump rally. He absolutely could not believe, was utterly shocked and outraged, that a mere warrior could lay hands on a priest. He thought he was high status.

Dave says:

Male and female instincts agree that a badge that authorizes you to throw insulting questions at the President of the United States without getting your head chopped off is extremely high-status.

BC says:

Probably one of the reasons Trump has a hot chick insulting the press all day long as these briefings now.

Theshadowedknight says:

Which is amazingly good. It’s so fun to watch her tear on them with such disdain in her every expression and tone. She is tearing them down, and they can’t do a thing about it. I love that woman, in a strictly platonic sense.

The Cominator says:

Is she good, I haven’t watched a single second of muh press corps since I could go out again and when I last was watching there was no secretary it was Trump, Pence Fauci (I do not understand why that man was ever allowed in front of the cameras) and Birx who did 95% of the talking.

Theshadowedknight says:

Watching her shit on the media and talk over them is amazingly cathartic. Its great to see a pretty woman dump on nasty, ugly people and they have to take it. Its glorious.

Pooch says:

She’s amazing. It’s a great contrast of the beautiful, true, and righteous vs the ugly, false, and wicked.

Miu says:

One’s status is predicated by the degree of his freedom to do or abstain from whatever he wants, whenever he wants. The broader the scope of the ‘what,’ the higher the status. Does that make sense?

The Cominator says:

Communist revolutionary is that you again?

Not Tom says:

High salary is high status only in the Indigo-pilled beta narrative of the 1980s. Even back then, they referred to it as the “rat race”, strongly implying that it wasn’t really high status, that Keeping Up with the Joneses was really a trap and a false narrative used to keep salaried employees (especially managers and other high earners) on the reservation.

People in the 80s were pretty smart by today’s standards. They were cowardly, they went along with political correctness and beta framing, but deep down they knew it was all bullshit. Today, we have people like Anonymous Fake who are true believers in that fake narrative.

At some point in time, I think sometime between the 70s and the 80s, there emerged a meme that women could and would sniff out high salary earners. This mutated into several sub-memes; Bill Burr’s black-pilled “gold-digging whores”, Vox Day’s purple-pilled “betas vs. deltas”, and the pure blue-pilled version espoused in the comment above and in Dilbert comics where status and wages really do go hand-in-hand. But all of these were based on a misreading of the original meme, which was 100% shit test.

Every PUA knows the pimp’s motto: never let her see the money. Conspicuous consumption can be part of a game strategy, but only when the player retains some mystery about his true wealth. It’s the consumption, not the wealth, that triggers the female hindbrain. Like boobs to men, at some point in the evolutionary process the secondary signal became more important than the primary trait it represented.

Atavistic Morality says:

In this case maybe it’s not that the secondary signal became more important, maybe it was never secondary: it doesn’t matter how much money you have if you are not willing to use it. The man who looks strong is the man who has enough to spare, the logic of the weak would tell him to be careful and afraid, but the strong go around running stuff over like a truck.

Jeff Bezos is seen as low status because even if had the mind and attitude for good business he’ll never do anything remarkable with it, you can look at Elon Musk for the difference. Almost no one in the general populace knows who Crassus was, but they all know Caesar.

“Peaceful”, “moderate”, “conservative”, the only thing it means is that you are too much of a faggot to make a difference, no one cares for it. You are going nowhere and you are building nothing. I remember when I was a little kid Bill Gates was someone for a bit when he had the courage to change the world, like Elon Musk, but now he is too busy buying social credit from the Cathedral like a dog so no one cares anymore.

It was and is called a rat race because it is a **rat** race. A big earner, oooh, big deaaaal! Whoof Whoof, go back to your boss, he’s calling you. And everyone knows it… isn’t the military and law enforcement the same? High status soldiers are always mavericks who are borderline mutinous, winning medals by wiping their asses with orders and “by the book”, IRL and in movies both. No one, absolutely no one, cares for rats and dogs.

Not Tom says:

Those are good points. As Jim says, the purpose of a strong patriarchy is to take those people who are highly skilled but not particularly rebellious (i.e. tend toward cooperate-cooperate) and make them higher status. And we’ve seen that it can work if the system is properly maintained.

Indeed, “material wealth” has no real analogue in nature. All that the gatherer woman can see is material possessions (especially land), and skulls decorating the cave.

But I’m thinking of terms of why evolution would make us a certain way. Overconsumption decreases survival odds, especially in colder climates. We aren’t hunter-gatherers anymore and from the point that humans started living in those colder climates, productive capacity and long-term planning became far more important than merely having stuff, and having stuff was important mainly as a signal for how much you could produce in trade.

But it’s as Jim says: men evolved this new layer of abstraction, women didn’t, because by the time men were developing these new abstractions, women were already considered property, and actually counted among those strategic possessions in the male hierarchy. The modern woman’s idea of status hasn’t changed much from when we lived in forests and caves.

jim says:

As I have said many times, the fact that women find male apes sexually attractive, while men have difficulty telling the difference between a male ape and a female ape, but can accurately assess a woman’s potential fertility in three seconds at thirty paces tells me that that among those of our ancestors that left descendants, female choice has been under control since we looked very like apes.

Atavistic Morality says:

If the modern woman’s idea of status hasn’t changed much they never cared about how much you have, since possessions and private property as we understand it are part of that new layer of abstraction.

So for women status would be proven with the biggest stick and consumption shows off the stick. The silverback earns his status by beating the shit out of everyone else, being in control of the food and giving it away, etc., those all forms of “consumption” in a sense of “exothermic”. Then going by that logic you’d get indeed laid more by having a great car and a lavishly decorated fuckpad then 7 digits in a bank account.

Perhaps having stock only signals to other men, it doesn’t register with women. Perhaps that’s where the confusion is created. You have stock, it registers with other men, other men perceive your potential and engage in cooperation, women perceive this phenomena which hints at leadership and higher social standing among other males, then you also consume which shows “strength” and “alphaness”, you are seen as alpha.

If a woman can’t understand that layer of abstraction, what difference is there for her between you bossing around others because you are a huge silverback with 50 pounds on everyone else and very bad temper or you bossing around others because you are the one paying.

jim says:

> what difference is there for her between you bossing around others because you are a huge silverback with 50 pounds on everyone else and very bad temper or you bossing around others because you are the one paying.

Observed behavior is that it is hard to make the fact that you are the one bossing around others register with women. Bodyguard game turns out to be subtle and tricky even if the body guard is enthusiastically kissing your ass in front of target female.

On the other hand, just sitting at the table with a really alpha bodyguard, who emits quite subtle beta tells when he is interacting with you, and massive alpha tells when he is interacting with everyone else – suddenly every female in the vicinity gets turned on. If you have entourage and you are alpha male of the group, that works. But there has to be a group, one on one interactions do not seem to cut the mustard with women, and it helps a lot if there are some fertile age females in the entourage.

Women seem utterly oblivious to tells that seem glaringly obvious and overwhelmingly important to men, and at the same time can pick up on stuff, like hover handing, that are not very obvious to men. So your bodyguard cheerfully slaps everyone on the back from behind, which is massively alpha body language, but you he taps and hover hands, they pick up on that and suddenly every female in the vicinity has the uncontrollable hots. They will detect the alpha male of the group with same super effective super subtle radar that men pick up on indications of female fertility – but the CEO generally fails to register on that otherwise amazingly subtle and sensitive radar.

The CEO needs to do what Trump does, and theatrically set up situations that do register on female radar, and it is not altogether obvious to men how to do this.

Classic comedy scenario, back in the days when the red pill was well known and taken for granted: The groom hires a wedding singer, the bride runs off with the wedding singer, because everyone is looking at the singer, not the groom, even though the groom calls the tune. Silencing the DJ for a time works, but calling the tune does not. I am not actually all that good at this – it is hard to explain why women zoom in on subtle tells and totally go into heat, and are at the same time utterly impervious to what seems to men to be arrogant and obvious displays of authority.

Women’s Alpha Male of the Group detector is exquisitely super sensitive and super powered, but it regularly produces silly results that are discrepant with the perfectly obvious and straightforward male understanding of the perfectly obvious and straightforward hierarchy.

On the one hand women’s Alpha Male of the Group detector is amazingly subtle and sensitive, but it is tuned to the ancestral environment, and its very subtlety and super sensitivity is apt to cause it to go horribly off the rails in the modern environment.

Because their alpha male detector is so subtle and supersensitive, they detect that the CEO is frightened of the accounting department, frightened of the legal department, and terrified by the morbidly obese cat lady of human resources, and nothing he does will ever register with them again.

With the CEO, and with the man who hires the DJ or the singer and calls the tune, a woman’s Alpha Male Of the Group detector goes off the rails because the gain is set too high, and the same thing can easily happen with bodyguard game and entourage game. At some point you have to obnoxiously silence the DJ and command center stage, and then graciously permit the DJ to resume, after you have taken center stage and finished with center stage.

Sometimes you have to hit the females in the audience over the head with a grossly obvious display of alphatude that men are likely to be gratuitously offended by, and it can all be negated by an incredibly subtle display of betahood that is very difficult for a man to detect, and that were a man to detect it, he would rightly dismiss it as the ordinary courtesy of one male to another. When the bride runs off with the wedding singer, her Alpha Male of the Group detector is being so sensitive that it misfires.

Atavistic Morality says:

The things you say always interest me, it’s a crime that older men like you can’t be out there providing very necessary guidance from a rightful place, it turns up my misanthropy to a million. I really really fucking hate this society and progressivism, I hope I live to see our societies restored to the good and proper order.

The bodyguard, entourage and CEO situation seem pretty straight forward. If there are people doing whatever they want with you, it’s like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C_BubeBU8E

But I’m a bit confused about the frame you’re giving to the DJ situation. I acknowledge the cliche, I’m young but I’ve heard of it and it makes sense to a degree, but isn’t it more about the groom being beta than the DJ specifically signaling alpha to the bride? Well, my experience is null for marriage but I’ve never been “out-alphaed” by a faggot singer if I already had had contact with the woman.

In the cliche you’re talking about it also happens to be an indigo blue John that gets abducted into a gay marriage and concedes every single demand and bankrupts himself at his wife’s whim and to boot puts as the star of the show another man, it definitely makes sense that the DJ gets the better of him. But, if he didn’t do anything like that, does it really happen? If the man has proper control it seems unlikely.

jim says:

> In the cliche you’re talking about it also happens to be an indigo blue John that gets abducted into a gay marriage and concedes every single demand and bankrupts himself at his wife’s whim and to boot puts as the star of the show another man, it definitely makes sense that the DJ gets the better of him. But, if he didn’t do anything like that, does it really happen? If the man has proper control it seems unlikely.

It is trickier to get right than you think. Even if you are good at playing alpha, the DJ is going to trigger the females into shit testing you, and you are going to have to pass.

Obviously you have the upper hand, and passing is not that hard. But you don’t get an automatic pass. It is never automatic.

If a chick is convinced the man she is with is alpha, she is not going to switch horses on one brief interaction where there is someone briefly around who appears as more alpha than he is. Women are not fickle. Whereas a man can assess a woman’s fertility in five seconds and is ready for action in thirty seconds, in the time it takes for his blood to flow from his brain to his dick, a woman is not going to be ready for action for quite a while. But she is going to be checking out relative alphatude in thirty seconds. She will be drawn to obtain further interactions with the man who appeared to be more alpha than the man she is with, and will continue to research his alphatude, her boyfriend’s alphatude, and their relative alphatude, and if he were to continue over time to be more alpha, you are in trouble.

In the cliche, the woman is fickle, probably because she is already convinced her fiancee is beta. But if the very alpha fiancee fails to manage his interaction with the DJ correctly, she will start checking out just how alpha her fiancee is.

Now if you are already reasonably alpha, the woman’s exquisitely sensitive alpha detector will eventually discover that the faggot singers apparent alpha is merely situational. But every man in the audience already knew it was obviously situational, because they noticed what the woman’s otherwise sensitive alpha detector failed to register: Who was paying the singer and organizing the venue.

> The bodyguard, entourage and CEO situation seem pretty straight forward. If there are people doing whatever they want with you, it’s like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C_BubeBU8E

The problem is that female alpha detector is so supersensitive that it does not take an interaction with General Buttnaked to unman you, as in the video you link to. An interaction with obese catlady of human resources can unman you. This makes it considerably less than straightforward. Indeed, your chick will probably figure General Buttnaked is out of her league, so if you flee General Buttnaked, no problem, but if you flinch from the morbidly obese cat lady of Human Resources, big problem.

Atavistic Morality says:

>but if you flinch from the morbidly obese cat lady of Human Resources, big problem.

I don’t think that makes it less straight forward, the issue is simple. The solution… now that can get emotionally tough to deal with, as in, the CEO in his 50s feels he could lose everything so he is afraid, finding himself between a rock and a hard place, I get it.

What can I say, if I make it sound easy I definitely don’t mean to sound callous to anyone’s personal situation. But I’m a young man who has had a painful and violent life, in my own life I’m more than willing to bite almost any bullet and play like I’ve got nothing to lose, like I imagine General Buttnaked was. And I imagine when Trump went down that escalator he also wasn’t thinking much about what he could lose, and that’s one CEO denying the pussy pass to an entire nation, pretty goddamn impressive. If CEOs were courageous enough to be a bit more like Trump and a bit less like Bill Gates, it’d really change everything.

Mister Grumpus says:

@Jim:
“Observed behavior is that it is hard to make the fact that you are the one bossing around others register with women.

(His whole post above, really)

When the bride runs off with the wedding singer, her Alpha Male of the Group detector is being so sensitive that it misfires.”

Has there ever been a woman who teaches this material? To women or to men or to anybody?

Could there ever be a woman who perceives this material?

I guess that’s what romance novelists do, but it’s always a fleshed-out “for example”, and never the actual blueprints.

Coverage Wave says:

I just stumbled across the following video clip and it reminded me of the discussion here about women going for the wedding singer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsL9gpvbWn0&t=117

Comedian Nikki Glaser is telling Joe Rogan (2 minutes in) how seeing a good male stand-up comedian affects her “cavewoman brain”. Seeing him command the audience’s attention and controlling their emotions makes her feel like he is the head of the tribe. She feels it even though she knows it is obviously not true.

It’s only 30 seconds of the clip but it’s interesting to hear a woman put it in her own words.

Anonymous 2 says:

“If the modern woman’s idea of status hasn’t changed much they never cared about how much you have, since possessions and private property as we understand it are part of that new layer of abstraction.”

In the very ancestral environment, or in the ghetto, the bigger guy just takes your painstakingly collected possessions. Thanks for looking after all this nice stuff for me, buddy!

Pooch says:

Right. Unless you are the leader of several men that will follow your order on command to collect his skull to you for trying.

Andre says:

“In any case, they don’t create much value in any developed economy.”

Directive 10-289?

simplyconnected says:

‘Entrepreneur’ was one of the two occupations getting laid the most on tinder (I forgot the other).
Chicks seem to perceive as high status people with high degree of autonomy: professors, entrepreneurs, CEOs… but not people with low degree of autonomy: programmers, middle managers, etc. who get told what to do by other, higher status men.

I don’t think it matters if the programmer in question is making tons of money, programmer is a low status occupation, which programmers themselves avoid (calling themselves software engineers to get some of the limited engineer status rub off on them). A CEO entrepreneur may be broke but is seen as some sort of cool maverick.

Not Tom says:

‘Entrepreneur’ was one of the two occupations getting laid the most on tinder

I believe it, but is that because chicks dig founders of internet startups, or is it because drug dealers, pimps, broke musicians and chad gym owners tend to put their occupation down as “entrepreneur”?

The Cominator says:

The latter.

Theshadowedknight says:

Is there any significance to Trump bringing down the hammer in response to the attack on Andrew Jackson’s statue? Or is it merely that they were close to the White House?

jim says:

I conjecture that he is simply reaching hammer time.

If he has the balls to end chaos, if he has the power to end chaos, then letting the Democrats riot may merely be giving them enough rope to hang themselves.

BC says:

The CHAZ murdering a couple of black carjackering kids in cold blood is making the left look ridiculous.

jim says:

The left holiness spiral is reaching the point where leftists grab for totalitarian power. If this happens with Trump president, they will grab within blue states.

Pooch says:

Which leftists?

jim says:

When Kerensky was in power, there were a hundred Lenins each of them about to replace him. There are half a dozen Lenins around Biden, and many more waiting in the wings.

Since Kerensky is not in power, they are now busy beating up their fellow Democrats to make their move should Kerensky come to power.

The left piously claims to be decentralized. Supposedly it is just ordinary people reacting to injustice. As we approach the singularity, it really is becoming decentralized, albeit not in the way claimed.

Tom Hart says:

Trump is doubtless aware that Andrew Jackson has become known as a populist icon, perhaps the first American populist, and he’s often likened to Trump. To attack a statue of Jackson has about the same symbolic weight as attacking Trump (or a Trump building), hence it generates a strong reaction from Trump.

jim says:

DOJ has arrested Jason Charter, the antifa that organized the attempted destruction of the Andrew Jackson statue. Normally when a significant leftist is arrested, the judiciary releases him promptly. It will be a big tell what happens to Jason Charter. If he can arrest Jason Charter for vandalism, he can arrest Biden for taking bribes.

Tom Hart says:

Yes, it is not enough that people are arrested, they have to be prosecuted and given appropriate sentences as well—whether that happens is an indication of Trump’s success. Even better, though not likely for the foreseeable future, would be for the police to actually prevent statues from being destroyed. In Britain and America (state-level differentiation probably), someone has told the police to stand back and watch. Arrests seem to be a slap on the wrist and once the statue is down, it stays down. The people who have the will to put it back up don’t exist or are powerless, and, anyway, it’s hard to fight entropy—what’s broken often stays broken.

In France, Macron has come out against statue destruction, but this is probably because he subscribes to an older version of leftism, the French republican tradition, that swept away the Ancien Regime and heralded two centuries of French decline. It just so happens that French republican leftism looks well to the right in today’s world. As with Putin, Macron also has an independent nuclear force to back up his civic religion, so he can deviate from the Cathedral a little more than most.

Karl says:

Can a crimal sentence be had within a time frame of only a year or so? At best, the state attorney charges Charter in court. How soon can the court be expected to decide on the case? How soon will an appeal court decide on the case?

Criminal charges can be quick if there is no defence. I assume that Charter has enough leftist support that he can afford a defence.

I have no idea how quick such things go in the USA, but if things are as slow as they are in Germany, the best Trump can hope for is a conviction in about 2 years.

Even if the judiciary is willing to give Charter a hard sentence, I do not see how they can prevent Charter’s allies to pay whatever bail is necessary.

How could this arrest stick in a time frame of a few months?

Not Tom says:

They could post a ludicrously high bail, but that is unlikely to happen.

The system was designed, in theory, to protect the innocent, and was actually pretty good at it. Once co-opted, it’s become equally good at protecting political allies/devout worshippers. I would be genuinely surprised if anyone, at any level of government, is able to make one of these Antifa charges stick.

I believe the only way is to work outside the conventional legal system: charge them as terrorists and hold military tribunals. My guess is that would also come with a gag order, so if it does happen, we’ll suddenly stop hearing about that individual in the prestige press. At least for now while the executive branch is still extremely weak.

Pooch says:

I believe Trump’s EO instructs the DOJ to prioritize these vandalism charges for prosecution. I don’t know the exact details but I’d imagine he will prosecuted before 2 months. Maybe it could done in a few months.

Pooch says:

Typo:

Before 2 years*

Mister Grumpus says:

Well for now, just charging the guy and managing to hold onto him through Election Day, like awaiting trial or starting a trial, or something, would be a heck of an accomplishment, a victory unto itself.

Mister Grumpus says:

“When you’re strong appear weak, and when you’re weak appear strong.”

Pooch says:

It’s definitely a step in the right direction. The DC district attorney was on Tucker and he was refusing to name Antifa as a cohesive group causing the chaos (Lone actors, bullshit about far left and far right, etc) however he was saying anyone caught in the act destroying federal property will be prosecuted hard.

simplyconnected says:

They’re coming for Steven Pinker for “speaking over genuine grievances and downplaying injustices” (insufficient enthusiasm?):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17ZqWl5grm_F5Kn_0OarY9Q2jlOnk200PvhM5e3isPvY/edit

Pinker of course tried to distance himself from what he described in one of his talks as awful sexists and racist opinions which, to his surprise, he saw a few otherwise intelligent students express.

Pseudo-chrysostom says:

Piker wrote a book critical of blank-slatism (however purplepilled a fashion it was); he’s pretty much doomed no matter what if a troop of self-appointed thought-policepersyns come for him.

Mister Grumpus says:

@Jim (from a different comment thread above):

“…and the fact that some whites are using those blacks as a weapon to destroy the lives of other whites does not make those whites pulling the strings high status.”

Now that is one intriguing observation. It “makes no sense” at first glance, but it’s also actually true, and that grabs me.

That Judge who let off the Mexican illegal who had shot Kate Steinle? If he himself was the one who had been shot then the result would probably have been the same.

Perhaps I, Congressman Evil, can mess around with HUD rules to mud-bomb Bobby and Janine and their kids’ lives, with Rayshawn and Shaniqua and their kids, with brutal ultimate effects in the aggregate. But if I, Congressman Evil myself, should ever have an in-person run-in with Rayshawn or Shaniqua, and they video me saying “no” to them or whatever, then I catch those very same “brutal ultimate effects” for myself.

So from far away I’m the master, but up close I’m just another slave.

Does anyone else smell the profundity here?

Is there a game theory term for this “paradox”?

Whatever this is that I’m talking about, it’s a sort of “cheat code” to… something important. I’m just too dim to perceive the “this” and the “something important” clearly, so I’m requesting your help with this.

Not Tom says:

There’s no paradox. Elites always seek to insulate themselves from those they rule, that is completely normal and natural. The problem is that our elites are all virtue-signaling, holiness-spiraling priests. Solution is to put warriors in charge of the priests and give those priests beatdowns when they get out of control.

Aristocracies with ingroup loyalty are a good thing, if they are fertile and promote virtue. America’s current aristocracy is gutter trash. The “cheat code” is “take out the trash and start over”, with the usual caveats about allowing existing members with a record of mostly-good behavior to convert.

Mister Grumpus says:

@Not Tom:
“Elites always seek to insulate themselves from those they rule, that is completely normal and natural.”

Hold up. That’s not the same thing. A Lord or Lady, if by chance finding himself amongst a pack of unwashed low class commoners, is NOT suddenly fair game for an ass kicking.

Atavistic Morality says:

You’re just describing the holiness spiral of the priests in charge, there’s your cheat code. Really, these people are not doing this for personal gain so there’s no paradox there, they’re as insane as the priests that went around self flagellating themselves during the Black Death.

To this people, being enslaved by niggers would probably be the most holy and sanctifying of things, straight out ticket to their own delusion of utopia. You think they put Shaniqua because they hate only you? No, they put Shaniqua in charge because they hate themselves and Shaniqua in charge is somehow going to bring utopia to Earth. Like every stupid Venezuelan that voted for Chavez for magic socialism to save him and starved to death, like Trotsky catching a bullet to the back of his head for magic socialism.

I don’t know if people have forgotten what evil is because they’ve forsaken Christianity or because their minds have been overwritten with literary memes. Evil is not like the magic figure of Sauron, a great mastermind with obscure evil plans. Evil in the real world is like the lunatics at the Khmer Rouge: erratic, twisted, ugly, irrational, entropic. Order, planification, reason… are qualities of God, not qualities of Satan.

jim says:

> I don’t know if people have forgotten what evil is because they’ve forsaken Christianity or because their minds have been overwritten with literary memes. Evil is not like the magic figure of Sauron, a great mastermind with obscure evil plans. Evil in the real world is like the lunatics at the Khmer Rouge: erratic, twisted, ugly, irrational, entropic. Order, planification, reason… are qualities of God, not qualities of Satan.

Jesus Christ is, among other things, the incarnation of the logos, and the logos is manifest the telos of living creatures, and moral consequences of cause and effect, chance and necessity, what the Greek philosophers and early Christians called material causation and effective causation.

It is interesting that heresies from Christianity that quietly or overtly reject the trinity, always wind up also rejecting the telos of living creatures, and the moral consequences of cause and effect, and soon thereafter start denouncing reality as thought crimes and hate facts.

Albeit after pope embraced the donatist heresy, the Catholic Church started torturing natural law to say whatever the latest silly doctrine of the Church said. But the non trinitarian heresies from Christianity have the same problem with spades.

Random1234 says:

Are there any good books on the history of Christian heresies and how they compare across time? Knowing what traps priests are apt to fall into seems like valuable knowledge.

jim says:

I found the first edition of “English Society, 1660-1832: Religion, Ideology and Politics During the Ancien Régime” highly informative, but what is even more informative is that it has been purged and censored – what is even more interesting is what is missing from the second edition, and how hard it is to obtain the first edition from used book stores – also that the first edition appears to have been removed from every library everywhere and burned. The Cathedral does not want there to be any good books on Christian heresies, revealing the guilty knowledge that it itself is yet another Christian heresy.

Religion and ideology was mostly deleted and censored from the second edition, with only enough remaining to hint that it mattered.

The Cominator says:

Unitarianism and puritanism I think are mere manifestations of the left but I agree with BAP rather than Moldbug that the true spiritual heart of leftism is Rosseauianism (and therefore if you want to trace it to a christian heresy PELAGIANISM) rather than the puritans.

jim says:

We are ruled by Harvard.

Harvard was created by Puritan refugees from Charles the Second’s purge of Puritans, to reconquer. It did so.

The rousseauian heresy is descended from the false Popes of Avignon. That heresy died with Napoleon, though the ideological descendants of the Puritans adopted some of its clothes and language in the course of conquering France.

There is a large element of rousseauian heresy in today’s progressivism, and a large element of Marxism, which is a Jewish heresy descended from Jewish Satanism, but in terms of organizational continuity and personnel, we have a continuous line of state priests going all the way back to the Church of England.

The State Church of England was established by Alfred the great, and was Orthodox. When the Vatican adopted Donatism, this led to unending conflict between the Kings of England, the martial aristocracy of England, and the Roman Catholic Church, which the King eventually won in the dissolution of the monasteries, but the ideological descendants of the Donatists adopted an entryist position “We hate Rome even more than you do”, and eventually the Church became more and more hostile to the monarchy, resulting in execution of Charles the First. Charles the second re-established the State Church under the King, which held from 1660 to 1832. In 1832 Puritan descended theocrats (who had by then become holier than Christ, and so had ceased to be Trinitarian) gained the upper hand in England, and here we are.

In America, puritan descended theocrats always had the upper hand in New England, were never out of power, but in Virginia, Anglican (Which became Episcopalian) In the war of Northern Aggression, Harvard conquered Virginia. In World War II, Europe and most of the world.

In terms of organizational continuity, personnel, and state power, it is Puritan descended all the way, but they keep killing off other groups, gutting their corpses, and wear them as skin suits. Descended from entryists, continue to practice entryism. Among their large supply of skin suits from the groups they have successfully conquered, is the skin suit of Rosseaunism.

The Cominator says:

I agree we are ruled by Harvard and Harvard was once a puritan seminary (but not of Cromwell’s type of Puritan) but allow me to argue that maybe modern leftism is not so puritan derived anyway…

Woodrow Wilson one of my most hated figures was a puritan leftist (though a Southerner), he believed the mass of damned normies should be ruled by the bureaucrat and academic elect who could manage their damned and sinful lives much better than they could. And also like a puritan did not believe in infinite malleability of human nature and hence hated niggers.

The modern progressive left is far more Rosseauian and less puritan, they believe that human nature is infinitely malleable and enviroment is everything, that men can be women that Shaniquas can be rocket scientists and all that crap that Wilson for all the evil he did would have thought (rightly) was ludicrous.

I think Puritan leftism never recovered from how unpopular Wilson became towards the end of his term, the type of leftism that was popular in the 1930s was more Orthodox Marxism but the kind of progressivism we’ve seen since the 1960s… it derives far more from Rosseau.

jim says:

> the kind of progressivism we’ve seen since the 1960s… it derives far more from Rosseau.

Leftism has no essence and no ideology, only targets. If you pay attention to the ideology, you are watching the hand that the magician is using to distract you. Watch the hand he does not want you to pay attention to. Notice that Wu Flu lockdown was the same program with the same targets as Green New Deal, and neither rationalization derived from Rousseau. Black Lives Matter (while white lives do not) is a different program with the same targets, and it does not derive from Rousseau either. Rousseau is just one more flim flam to cover attacks on the same targets in a great big pile of flim flams, which have little in common with each other except for the people targeted for destruction.

Mountain Dude says:

I’m seeing my local public school flail trying to reopen.

Are there so many minor bureaucrats with a bit of power in public education that, at this point, that the public school system will collapse? Will they be unable to reopen, physically, for anything resembling normal school?

What will that mean for efforts to spread Harvard’s ideas through public schools? Is this a good thing?

Or is enough value still delivered through public schools in suburbs and rural areas that this is yet another way to deposition the middle class to further the interests of the elite?

And, practically speaking, is it time to jump into parachial school with both feet?

jim says:

Not if your priest worships Satan, which most of them do. It is time to jump into homeschooling.

Mountain Dude’s Friend says:

In broad terms, how does one homeschool successfully?

My limited experience with homeschoolers in the shadow of a coastal megalopolis is that they are children of progressive parents (namely mothers) who feel the local public & private schools aren’t holy enough, and they can be holier on their own. The results are predictable. Every homeschooled kid I know is a basket case and semi-functional at best.

What might a blue print for red-pilled homeschooling look like?

jim says:

https://blog.reaction.la/culture/time-for-a-second-dissolution-of-the-monasteries/

Empirically, it has been demonstrated that everyone knows how to educate kids, and if you give them half a chance, they will make you do it.

Bob says:

>In broad terms, how does one homeschool successfully?

I have known many homeschoolers growing up, some retarded but most ending up successful. The gist of homeschooling is that the influence of parents on their kids is magnified. The homeschoolers I knew acted like their parents, sometimes coming across as kids with adult mannerisms and speech patterns. You can homeschool successfully because you and your wife will rub off on them.

You may want to find a curriculum, like the Robinson Curriculum. It’s more helpful to provide structure instead of a daily schedule. Something more like deadlines and goals/expected skills. But Jim’s linked post is gold.

There are lots of homeschool groups if your kids need friends that aren’t pozzed. Just find the evangelical or fundamentalist Christian groups. LDS groups in or out of Utah probably suck. The non-Christian groups I saw were terrible. Look for huge vans in the parking lot and families with 5+ kids.

This guy successfully homeschooled his sons, who almost all have wives and kids and homes with gardens. He did what Jim says.

Mountain Dude’s Friend says:

Thank you both, very helpful. I’ve lurked for a while but had forgotten the dissolution of the monasteries post. Even more meaningful now that public education has seemingly collapsed (sure didn’t take much to tip it over). We’re in a rural school district and were supplementing public education with private tutoring/training. We had a fairly decent balance…or so we thought…but now that the public component has imploded we need to get more creative. Great guidelines, and very interesting times indeed. I enjoy the topics and commentary on this site very much.

Random1234 says:

Thank you. Both 1st and 2nd Ed. are available on AMZ, though they have different titles. I purchased the 1st.

(1st) English Society, 1688–1832: Ideology, Social Structure, and Political Practice During the Ancien Regime (Cambridge University Press, 1985). ISBN 0-521-30922-0

2nd (revised) ed. English Society 1660–1832: Religion, Ideology and Politics During the Ancien Regime (Cambridge University Press, 2000). ISBN 0-521-66180-3

jim says:

They do?

I gave up very quickly and went for used books. Perhaps I assumed the worst too quickly. Give me the link.

Pseudo-chrysostom says:

Parts of them know it; and at the same time, parts of them don’t know it; and at the same time, parts of them know not to know it.

These distinctions have long been noticed at least in embryo forms, eg, ‘diversity for thee, but not for me’.

The double-thinking founders created a system where entry to the halls of power is selected on the basis of cleavage to their officially unofficial ideology; given that the official story of their officially unofficial ideology is essentially gnostic in character – a particular being’s particular belief in it’s own particular standard of creation, whereby if (when) the nature of creation is found to differ from it’s own preconcepted standard, it holds that creation itself must be in error, rather than update it’s conceits in light of truth – it, over time, increasingly selects for an elite membership consisting of persons who don’t get the joke; persons who *are not capable* of ‘getting the joke’.

That which is made explicit, can be made godly; that one might know what something is for, and hence might know how it might be made better to accomplish such. Likewise, that which is occulted, can become occupied by the scurrilous; that one may not truly know what something is for, and hence, cannot tell how it may be going wrong.

It is not unusual for entrance to halls of power to be gated behind allegiance to the official religion – rather, this is the natural state of things. What is unnatural is the pretension that entrance into the halls of power is *not* gated behind allegiance to the official religion. Nature abhors a vacuum. Our cosmic wreckers, and their far more numerous useful idiots (to various degrees), tore down their institutions, their social superstructures, their Traditions, that which they exoterically recognized as ‘religion’. And the replacement of course was not ‘no-religion’, but such religion that they, in particular, did not recognize *as* ‘religion’. That is to say, occupation by such sorts of occulted profanities that, like a chameleon, would be successful in slipping past their own particular conceits of what ‘religion’ counted as (so often, in practice, superficial trappings of symbology in general, but *Christian* symbology, in particular).

No throne goes unoccupied.

Icon says:

[*deleted*]

jim says:

You want me to “name the Jew”?

You first.

Let us see if you can talk about your employer. Let us see if you can name that Jew. What has Soros been up to?

Soros is Jewish and has been the state department’s instrument in doing all sorts of evil things. Tell us about some of the evil things that Jew did, and I will let it through.

Somehow people who “name the Jew” tend to tell us the Jews killed Epstein – because everyone knows the Clinton crime family killed Epstein and Clinton crime family shills are telling us “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain”. Tell us about some stuff that Jews are plausibly guilty of. Soros, for example.

And, by the way, who is the most obvious suspect in Epstein’s murder? Can you name him? (For a change, not Soros, though he has his finger in most of the rest.) And can you tell us about the misconduct of Mueller and the FBI in 9/11? Let us see whom you can name.

Icon says:

deleted for inability to name George Soros.

jim says:

If you cannot name the Jew, you probably are a Jewish employee. You ranted on Jews. I suspected you were an entryist employed by George Soros, so I asked you to tell us what that one particular evil and powerful Jew has been up to.

And now you rant some more on Jews, but are still unable to name that particular Jew.

We are not obsessed by Jews. FBI entryists don’t care much about Jews except they blame Israel for the two towers, and Mossad for all the crimes committed by the FBI. Soros entryists are obsessed by Jews, that is why I guessed you to be a Soros entryist.

If Jews rule, name the one that matters the most and tell us what he is doing.

I know what he is doing. He is paying antifa to tear down white history, and paying shills to subvert the alt right, reaction among those being subverted.

Icon says:

[Deleted because still strangely unable to name Soros]

jim says:

If you hate Jews so much, how come you are unable to mention the most persuasive reason for hating them?

Theshadowedknight says:

The traitor Vindman is retiring instead of being promoted. One more enemy of Trump getting sacked, and that much more control over the military. It also makes career military men less likely to fuck with Trump in the future.

The Cominator says:

Its more likely he was more loyal to (his stupid idea of, most of the Ukranians in the Ukraine would rather just join Russia at this point) his native Ukraine than the United States. In his case hes hates Russia for nationalistic reason rather than being a cathedral believer…

So even if the cathedral is purged, why are foreigners (without very good reason) getting promoted above captain anyway… especially if their job concerns their native country? Vindman is the biggest dual loyalist traitor since Pollard.

Pooch says:

Jew

The Cominator says:

I didn’t know that but its not surprising to me.

Pooch says:

That impeachment trial was a full display of the left using Jews to do their bidding for attack. Vindman, Schiff, Nadler, Goldman

jim says:

A very good sign

Theshadowedknight says:

Tucker Carlson attacking Duckworth for being unpatriotic is also a good sign. The left can’t hide behind the military and attack America anymore without mainstream voices coming after them. Tucker Carlson is doing work dragging the Overton Window rightward.

Pooch says:

If Trump loses, I wonder if they would kill Tucker along with Trump. They already came to his house once.

The Cominator says:

If Trump loses they’ll intend to kill Tucker Trump and anyone who profiles as a Republican voter but the leftist singularity is so far along that they’ll probably end up killing each other in the shitlib cities far more effectively than Republicans in the styx.

Pooch says:

Tucker doesn’t live in the sticks unless he’s already made/making preparations to get out.

The Cominator says:

Tucker will be able to secure himself quickly out in the boonies or perhaps somewhere in Asia or the Russian sphere of influence if the need arises Tucker knows what these people are hes rich and hes smart enough and he knows they’ll consider him a high value target.

Pooch says:

It’s good to know that he knows what’s at stake for him personally.

Strannik says:

President Trump himself moved the ‘Overton Window’ in regards to going after leftist military vets when he went after John McCain, and the Muslim ‘Gold Star’ family.

jim says:

Vindeman “retiring” means that henceforth, when the Commander in chief issues a command to the military, he will be obeyed, rather than having to find a workaround.

It is a huge step towards an autocoup. As was Lafayette Park.

If all goes well, if we are lucky and brave, and if Trump plays his cards correctly, we will have a small group of “bad apple” arrests of key elements in the FBI chain of command and their co conspirator before the election, a disputed election in which the Dems engage in blatant and colossal ballot box stuffing, which stuffing goes nowhere because the people who are supposed to detect it, expose it, and prevent it, obey Trump and actually do detect it, expose it, and prevent it, resulting in a storm of arrests that disable the left’s command and control.

A few bad apple arrests in the FBI command and control will make it possible to make a whole lot more arrests when massive ballot box stuffing occurs in the November election.

Trump recently arrested hundreds of antifa. I feared that they were just line troops of no significance, but after the arrests, antifa acted like a headless chicken. He took out their command and control. Maybe the revolving door judiciary will let them out again, but it does not seem to have happened yet.

It looks to me that DOJ have a little list and are going into blue states, letting the rioters riot, not trying to stop them, but are arresting people on their little list for riot related offenses, while ignoring the rest. The collapse of antifa’s command and control indicates that even though these people are being arrested for minor line troop like offenses, they are not minor line troops.

Karl says:

The revolving door of the judiciary is only quick if the executive complies. It is an improtatnt step that Trump can have Antifa arrested, another important step if the arrest results in Antifa being charged in court.

If a judge then dismisses the charges, the executive can comply or appeal. Even before an appeal the prosecution has lots of options to make a dismissal of charges easy for the judge or hard (i.e. slow and involving a lot of work).

If the DOJ really wants Antifa prosecuted, they can do a lot, even if the courts side with Antifa. Legal defense is expensive. The Cathedral has often used legal prosecution simply to burden the victims with huge legal bills.

jim says:

The antifa collapse of command and control, and videos I have been seeing of of what look highly selective and targeted arrests, suggest that DOJ is currently taking antifa leadership off the streets. In which case, they are probably doing their best to keep them off the streets, and worry about sentencing them after the election. Even if they get sentenced to thirty years, they are still all going to be let out if Trump loses power. If Trump wins election, then judges will be a lot more cooperative, so might as well stall till after the election, so long as they can keep them off the streets till then.

Miu says:

Strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter.

Pooch says:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/durham-under-pressure-to-wrap-up-investigation-could-punt-to-after-election-day-source

Not what I want to hear if we are going to have arrests from the Durham report before the election.

Strannik says:

I agree. Things might be better in reality than the Media enemy might suggest. This retirement is concrete ‘giving up’ by an Deep State operative, while the rest of what I’ve seen from the Left lately is just magic hocus pocus to convince the few who haven’t already made a decision for November 2020 one way or another, to just give up and vote for Biden.

The Cominator says:

LOL Kanye West is working with Elon Musk to screw the democrats out of the black vote in swing states.

Pooch says:

Haha it’s great. I don’t see how that can only help Trump although I’m not sure how popular Kanye really is with Blacks at this point.

Encelad says:

So… Local priests here are all of a sudden freaking out about Belarus 24h/24, denouncing its president as a dangerous dictator. In particular, one writer who is the most vocal Cathedral’s megaphone is following the same identical, comically identical, script used for Assad, Rohani and Maduro on social media. What’s the issue with that?
There is a story going around about the WHO trying to bribe Lukashenko into enforcing a lockdown, but he refused. That’s all I know there.

Pooch says:

Dress rehearsal for America.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *