And with the Ukrainian army disappearing on the battlefield, and the Russian army growing and becoming better equipped, if there is change in future, those terms will change for the better for Russia, the worse for Ukraine, and the worse for America.
Zero: No deal with Zelenksy.
One: Temporary truce leading to UN administration of the Ukraine to hold free and fair elections in the Ukraine, in which the Russian speaking plurality of Ukrainians will be free to participate and organise.
Two: Negotiations with the newly elected government leading to international recognition, including recognition by Ukraine, of the four now Russian oblasts of the Ukraine, and an independent and non aligned Ukrainian government in the Ukraine recognised by all, with boundaries recognised by all.
Or else.
Or else what?
The total annihilation of all of non Russian part of Ukraine, and its replacement by an empty wilderness. If Russia cannot have neutral states as a buffer zone, it will have a desolate wilderness as a buffer zone.
Georgia has wisely opted to be a neutral buffer state. I formerly recommended that to ensure continuation of that status, they should kill every ngo operative they find on their soil, but with USAID shut down, such drastic measures are less urgent.
On the other hand, Poland shows what happens if you do not take firm measures against ngos. After Ukraine, next up is Poland or Lithuania. Probably Lithuania.
Let me give you the terms…
The EuroWest is going to put a line of troopes in UA barely even 10km away, and if Putin fire on them, he’s going to get smashed back out of UA, and take all his “Russian Speakers” with him. [Similar bombast deleted*]
It appears that the Eurowest can put at most thirty thousand troops into Ukraine.
The Ukraine appears to be losing more than thirty thousand per month (dead, irrecoverably wounded, deserted, missing in combat, taken prisoner), because the Ukrainians are rounding up thirty thousand cannon fodder a month, yet their army is shrinking while the Russian army is growing.
So European intervention would postpone Ukranian collapse by at most a month.
However I believe that Europe’s spear has no tip, that this would be thirty thousand logistics workers, camp followers, and brass covered bureaucrats. Which would not postpone Ukraine’s collapse for a day.
I am curious what path a reduced Ukraine can take but as for the peace, I think option 2 is the only one that’s even actionable.
Currently, Russia is building rail lines through occupied Ukraine.
The front has been static for a while due to the lack of logistics capacity and, with that issue soon to be resolved, Russia will be able to seize by force the remaining Oblasts that are viewed as part of Novorossiya.
I think this is the last piece missing before Russia makes the final push to take Odesa and cut Ukraine off from the sea. Why would Russia de-escalate with victory so near to hand?
I maintain that this ends either when Zelensky picks sanity and surrenders, or gets done in by his own men for failing to.
“I maintain that this ends either when Zelensky picks sanity and surrenders, or gets done in by his own men for failing to.”
I bet he gets fragged by his own guys. Or they’ll force him to surrender by shoving an actual, physical gun into his face and explaining that a surrender will be issued, either by him or by his successor after he’s dead.
The West will concede, forcing Zelensky to concede.
Provided their Satellites and other Intel do not discover that Russia is preparing to take anything West of the four oblasts proper, or West of the Dnieper, or in particular the Black Sea seaports West of Crimea such as Odesa.
There is no way the West will give up access via Black Sea.
So much so that EU will likely send in non-Nato units to defend it.
This means Zelensky will be made to concede before then.
His early options are gone, no more options left before getting routed.
Unless RU is running dangerously low on weapons, which is extremly unlikely, and the West discovers that.
Zelensky isn’t an independent actor at all. Zelensky is doing exactly what the CIA is telling him to do. Which means, Trump and company are playing the “good cop”, pretending to want peace, while letting the war continue as always.
This also applies to the european lapdogs. The rothschild faggot macron and company aren’t acting on their own when they spout their warmongering crap. They are following the CIA script.
Undeniably that is what is happening right now. On the other hand, what is also happening right now is that Trump is securing power. Before rushing to judgment, let us see what happens once his power is more secure.
Thermidor is always fragile, unstable, and apt to collapse at any moment. Trump is riding the tiger.
>The front has been static for a while due to the lack of logistics capacity
Exchanges of bodies indicate over a 10 to 1 kill ratio in Russia’s favor. In a war of attrition, why ever would Russia decide to change up the front lines drastically when it has been working out so well for them. Remember, one of Russia’s war goals was demilitarizing Ukraine. If the Ukrainians wish to fight in unsustainable positions, why change them… I don’t wish to accuse you of map autism (because I largely don’t know your position), but much of the Western analysis of the front lines has been driven by map autism.
To be fair, the war has entered something of a holding pattern as of late, since Russian command is satisfied with the processes at work underlaying the current states of affairs, but are also not exactly doing the best things they could to pressure the colonial satrapy in its pain points as they develop, lacking ‘killer instinct’ as it were.
Our slavic brothers share some similarity in this regard in spirit with their sinic neighbors; often not feeling a need to go out of their way unless pressured to so do. And since we have such men making up both sides of the fight, the war could very well have petered out already, but for gentlemanly token shows of shots across the bow, if not for such prompting from afar. And indeed, although demented and degenerated, the creatures squatting over their more westerly neighbors still have something of a faustian spirit, and are always looking for ways to escalate their advantage over perceived enemies.
Men like Utkin and Prigozhin with Wagner transcended their type, and were they still at large we might well have seen much greater degrees of exploitation of pain points, much as the likes of Guderian, Patton, Lee, Sherman, or Hannibal had in days of yore. The tragedy of their fates could, in spiritual terms, be viewed as a ‘reversion to type’; such divergence in spirit cannot be tolerated by one or the other, and so one must inevitably destroy the other; in the event, the message was ‘return to indolence’, and all the varangian sons heard it.
That Mister Prigozhin’s Wild Ride to Moscow absolutely blew my mind. Cocaine is a hell of a drug!
I could spend the next 2-3 years writing a book about that event. It was so insane, and so horribly consequential, that it revealed something truly mad, dangerous, and therefore also vitally important, about people, politics and group survival.
>I could spend the next 2-3 years writing a book about that event. It was so insane, and so horribly consequential, that it revealed something truly mad, dangerous, and therefore also vitally important, about people, politics and group survival.
OK, let’s hear it. What’s your elevator pitch for the book? Why exactly was this event so consequential, and what did it reveal?
OK first of all, I should have said “2-3 years researching a book”, not writing, because I don’t have any special knowledge today.
It was consequential because it greatly extended the Russia-Ukraine war. Arguably, at least, because one can also argue, with hindsight, that maybe tactical super genius was just a dangerous shiny object at that point, when a systematic and plodding industrial attrition-grind would suffice instead with less risk for catastrophic failure.
But first and foremost, it was wildly crazy, yet it also happened. They really did believe they could conquer Moscow and get away with it. Imagine Blackwater, fighting back the narco gangs in Mexico, feeling disrespected and turning around to take over DC instead. Actually rolling up the highway from Texas to DC in real time on TikTok.
Prigozhin saw his success at the front lines and thought: Moscow needs me too much to get rid of me. Let’s assert dominance. High risk high reward.
Might have worked against a weaker ruler. But was a serious miscalculation against Putin.
Some French general once noted that the graveyards of the world are full of indispensable men.
++.
F.
It does not have any pain points. It became obvious during the Greatest Ukrainian Offensive that the Ukraine is micromanaged from outside. Since Nazis, probably through the Five Eyes outpost in Canada, since Presidency does not like to manage clients with potentially dangerous ideologies directly from Washington, where the presidency’s activities might be more noticeable to the president. Similarly, Nazis in the US are managed by Soros.
Which likely means the people managing Ukraine have defected to the Global American Empire in exile.
Trump can bring the war faction in the Global American Empire in Exile to heel by turning off Ukraine Starlink, but is, so far, reluctant to do so.
We speak here more particularly (though not exclusively) of battlefield conditions and the exploitation thereof. It’s hard to explain this sort of ‘killer instinct’ that some commanders have in words, though perhaps ‘inveterate instinct for advantage’ would be close.
Russian command is fine with the situation as it stands because the burn-rate of KOG forces is much higher than theirs. If that ratio changed then they would be not fine with it, and shop around for solutions to redress the discrepancies of results. The commander with ‘killer instinct’ though doesn’t just wait around for things to change to think about the best things that can be done to prosecute the enemy, if he is winning, he looks out for the ways to win even harder.
Wagner had a good system for the circumstances they were dealing with, the interplay of means great and small. They achieved results noone else was achieving because the leadership was always conscious of exploiting the enemy, things they can do best to so do, which is empirically not a broadly distributed quality in the general population.
Col. Macgregor talks about this almost directly in ‘Margin of Victory’.
I’m convinced (that Russia is convinced) demilitarizing Ukraine likely means to the last Ukrainian man. To that end Russia is doing a good enough job with continuous improvement in efficiency. Perhaps the attitude is that the last decent Ukrainians already fled, mostly to Russia. I speak hyperbolically of course, but such may be closer to reality than ‘exploitation of pain points’.
> If the Ukrainians wish to fight in unsustainable positions, why change them…
Alternatively, why not change them?
Ukraine doesn’t seem convinced by losses to surrender, and Russia is standing firm on demands. It is an impasse with few solutions, one of them being another big offensive.
I think the delay to another push was mostly a matter of strained supply lines and winter.
Drones also changed the calculus. Russia used artillery heavily at the start of the war, but took them off field when Ukrainians figured out to primary them in drone strikes.
Ukraine is making good defensive use of drones, but there’s no substitute for artillery if you need to soften up a fortified position.
My guess is simply that new rail lines is a sign that artillery will be deployed again, and that can only mean a new offensive to take land.
With winter ending, we should find out soon enough
They are cautiously trying slightly bigger pushes. Next target is to take Zaporozhye then slowly creep along the coast to Odessa. I don’t think we will see a big push until Ukrainian recruitment bottoms out.
But now that the ground is drying out, they will be moving faster than they have been. Which is still tiny.
>worse for America
Oh? I didn’t realize US was a belligerent in the war. US has no stake in peace negotiations.
Especially now that we are at war with Iran.
A war that ends in a quick victory and hopefully a full withdrawal from the middle east. After all it would not be appropriate to keep US bases downwind of nuclear fallout, or even have them there since the ‘Axis of Evil’ was removed. Btw Europe, have fun trying to trade with and through that region now that it’s “salted”.
For (real) real, the only bad outcome for America is an actual “peace” treaty in which we have any interests (boots on the ground) in the Ukraine. We can simply choose to not acknowledge interest in the same way Putin has hinted he can choose to not acknowledge US interest in Greenland. Peace between Moscow and DC will be unspoken, informal gentleman’s assumption, much to Europe’s chagrin. What’s more important for the US is an exit strategy from Europe itself. One that is as profitable as possible.
I have been listening to Iranians on Youtube.
Quick victory is not an option, even if we lead with nukes. Recall how Hungary defeated the Mongols. They just kept on fighting with more than half their population dead and most of their buildings levelled.
The enemy gets to decide whether a quick victory is on the table.
The mongols lost because of logistics. Their supply chain was too long and too exposed. How are American logistics?
The Iranian plan in the event of war is to prevent anyone from moving stuff in or near the middle east. It is reprise of the Hungarian plan against the Mongols. Could work. Will be ruinously painful for everyone.
I believe Pax is acknowledging that nuking Iran and leaving is not actually removing Iran or creating anything but chaos and enemies in the region. From what I can gather, the intent is not to permanently pacify them, but to destabilize them enough and destroy enough infrastructure that they cannot finish their nuclear weapons program.
Why this is necessary for the US, I’m not sure. He says that the decision makers are concerned of a “rout” and want to retreat instead. This makes little sense to me. The world has already seen the results of Afghanistan, and now Ukraine, Yemen, and even the skirmishes over African Uranium. Looks like the GAE has already been defeated abroad, and everyone knows it. So what’s the point of blowing up Iran on the way out? How does a destabilized and permanently enemy-oriented Middle East help US empire in retreat? Preventing the oil from running properly if Russia expanded there? This really seems like an actual ZOG maneuver with a thin veneer of justification. It’s consistent with the other actions of those involved with the province of Judea, bloodlust and handwaving away the consequences of attempting battery on the local 400lb gorilla.
The effectiveness of that depends on how finished their nuclear program already is.
They have the rockets, and allegedly have the fissionables. In which case it is very near finished and they are just thinking about what might ensue if the actually finished it.
Or maybe that is all bluff and cow manure. Probably it is. But war tends to result in unpleasant surprises. Who would have thought that Serbia could hold off Austria, that Finland could hold off Russia. Or that Hungary could defeat the Mongols? If you go to war, expect the unexpected, and expect that the unexpected is going to be very bad indeed.
>chaos and enemies in the region
Yes.
Burn and loot everything possible as US
retreatsstrategically redeploys. If nothing can sail through the Suez/Hormuz for the far foreseeable future, that’s a ‘victory’.>that’s a ‘victory’
That’s the demons shouting in their heads jumping into your head too.
Indeed, did you think I was not self aware? Nonetheless, here we are:
-Proxy war with Iran is escalating
-Major military buildup in the region with nuclear assets moved there
-Ultimatum for nuclear disarmament being issued by Trump
-His administration parroting the military option
-Iran refusing high level talks and capitulation
-Bombing drills being conducted
-A strange silence on the topic of Iran has fallen on the American media (but not overseas media)
As I said before, what is being felt at the top is being felt downhill. It’s hard to describe what I’m feeling. A sort of exited cynical depression.
At the risk of being facetious, ‘Victory’ in some cases is not Victory. The notion of what is and is not American interests, at this moment in time, is not entirely a known known. But what is a Known Unknown is continued escalation with Russia, an Unknown we don’t want to Know, and so we pivot to something else. Such is the sordid history of American geopolitics of the last century. Were we really so foolish to expect anything else, especially on the death bed of GAE? Trump notwithstanding?
I’m in the position to bleed and die when this shit show crash lands. What I do know is that I’d much rather prefer a relatively soft landing in Iran rather than Russia and/or China. Any such landing will still be mighty hard. The latter options would certainly be beyond terminal for both myself and my nation. With Iran there’s still a chance of ‘Victory’.
Once pandora’s nuclear box is open, won’t be closed. Sure you can delay other countries opening the box, and it is likely wise to do so, but there is a limit to how far you can push this. Pakistan has nukes, the world has not yet ended. Other countries besides Iran will develop nukes, can’t bomb them all into the stone age.
The era of ‘America, world police’ has come to an end. Afghanistan was the canary in the coalmine, Ukraine the confirmation. This talk of ‘just one last war bro, just a tiny war’ against Iran of all countries is madness. If a war is started under Trump’s watch it will tarnish his legacy forever. Yet another minefield for him to deal with.
There has been no significant movement on the Ukrainian battlefield since May 2022. So it is easy for them to delude themselves that it is a stalemate.
Much as they deluded themselves in Afghanistan, unaware that what Trump had negotiated was a surrender. He wanted to remove every last item of military equipment, and they wanted to leave it in place. And their delusion remained utterly and unshakably firm even as their Afghan allies clung to the wheels of planes going out. They expected Afghan action girls to crush the Taliban. They really did. They continued to expect that. They still do, though reality penetrated most Americans rather quickly. They still think America world police is still going great.
So a realistic settlement of the Ukraine war is unimaginable to them.
Because the “America World Police”, “rules based international order” people live in a state of obstinate delusion, they are likely to start a war with Russia, or Iran, or China, or all three simultaneously.
And at the same time, because the radical left gets daily more radical and more deluded, they are likely to attempt to start a revolution.
Their river of meat operation has been re-activated, but is running on the remaining capital of their billionaires, of whom they now have considerably fewer, and whose money is no longer being replenished from the taxpayer, but, when they look out at a sea of astroturf, are likely to imagine they have material for revolution.
“Tarnish his legacy?” If he’s idiot enough to do this, he’ll be lucky if he’s not executed for treason. You can’t just go nuclear out of the clear blue sky. Whether it’s true or not (and it might be true), everyone in the world has been propagandized for decades into equating any use of nuclear weapons with doomsday. You’d better have a really, really good reason for going there. The only thing I can imagine that would make the country, the world, and most of the US government go along would be hot-blooded revenge for a WMD attack on America. Therefore, if there’s going to be a nuclear strike on Iran, I expect it to be preceded by a false-flag nuclear attack somewhere in the US. Are the Jews, neocons, and Thermidoreans arrogant, reckless, and stupid enough to try this? Absolutely. But it would be the end of them, and the end of Trump if he is weak and befuddled enough to do it for them.
Afghanistan was confirmation, Ukraine was madness. There was no police action talk in regards to Ukraine/Russia. It was genocidal fervor because ‘Putin bad’, likely partly an outgrowth of ‘Orange man bad’. Remember the talk of breaking Russia up? Calling them Orcs? The general mass hysteria?
>This talk of ‘just one last war bro, just a tiny war’ against Iran of all countries is madness.
Yes, and Trump got in bed with madness (Thermidor) in order to get in power and govern effectively. So long as he is not King, compromises have to be made for domestic political purposes. Looks like Iran is one of them.
>If a war is started under Trump’s watch
Dude, it already started… right now it’s only a question of how much escalation, and the current trend points to a worrying spiral out of control.
>You can’t just go nuclear out of the clear blue sky.
Yes, there is an escalation chain, and we’re already in it. We’re already bombing their proxies. ‘Warning’ strikes with conventional bombs on Iranian coastal infrastructure is likely the next step, with calls for negotiations. Iran is likely to not to negotiate because American demands are too much. After that, attempts at SEAD operations. This likely will not go very well. After that, tactical nukes as a ‘last resort’. At this point Iran and the US will likely negotiate a ceasefire that the US will celebrate as a ‘victory’ while leaving the region.
Tactical nuclear bunker busters *should* result in minimal fallout and casualties. Use of those on Iranian nuclear sites will be justified by the administration as surgical strikes against hardened targets… not against civilian populations. Whether or not people will buy that we’ll have to see. Then again, people bought the clot shot as “safe and effective” so…
What if Russia or China backs Iran? Because this plan seems to be like all of Washington’s recent plans- assuming its enemies remain static and don’t bother acting in response.
As it is, leaving Iran to die makes them look weak, while backing Iran and helping them attrition American military capabilities is in their interest.
Emergency testing?
https://t.me/beholdisraelchannel/52754
Since the lunatics in the US administration are thinking about nuking Iran, if, as many Iranians believe, Iran has long been very close to building a nuke, but was holding back, it is now time to get to moving.
>this plan seems to be like all of Washington’s recent plans- assuming its enemies remain static and don’t bother acting in response
Yes. The obvious move if Washington attacks Tehran is to back Tehran. It’s not ‘war with Iran instead of war with Russia or China’, it’s ‘war with Iran and also Russia and also China all at the same time’. America’s neighbors finally learn that the only thing to do with a mad dog is to kill it.
China is naturally limited by geography and distance from Iran. Most support would have to come from Russia. While Russia has extended their defense pact with Iran, it remains to be seen what extent they will intervene. Chances are they’d be willing to make a deal with US over Iran should real peace in Europe happen just like how they’ve hinted they’d politely ignore US acquisition of Greenland should a deal happen.
This is total madness that assumes Russia is on the edge of defeat (and so desperate for a way out), that Russia and China lack object permanence and that America’s enemies will agree to act in a way most convinent to the US (the worst case scenario isn’t ‘China sends Iran weapons’- it is WW3).
Using nuclear weapons is at the end of an escalation ladder. As long as no one goes to the end, the situation is stable. If anyone demonstrates they will escalate all the way for trivial causes, the logic changes to skip the ladder- immediately launch or back down when threatened. Which changes to ‘launch or back down before they escalate’.
If one party uses nukes for trivial reasons, the other party should launch now. For the situation is likely to be worse later.
Thus, for example, if America nukes some Iranian facilities, and Russia or China then nuke equivalent US facilities in a manifestly tit for tat fashion, there is a fair chance we will not go all the way to world war three, that everyone pulls back from the brink. If America nukes some Iranian facilities and gets away with it, then it gets to throw its weight around, and everyone with nukes also decides they should get to throw their weight around, and also concludes that America might nuke them too. And, by the logic of escalation, you get a world war III even though none of the people making the decisions that led to World War III wanted that outcome, and they were all trying to avoid that outcome.
>China is naturally limited by geography and distance from Iran.
Much like how America is naturally limited by geography and distance from France.
Pax you need to get your dick wet at least once because you’re talking crazy… go fuck a stripper.
It [war with Iran] is total madness, but it doesn’t assume Russia is losing. Rather I’m positing a backroom agreement is possible based on what Putin has been hinting at. The domestic American political environment would demand a justification for the complete withdraw of American forces from Eastern Europe, heck trying to withdraw from the continental Europe itself without a “proper” reason would set the entire political establishment and DOD against Trump. There’s an understanding that once major American bases in Europe get closed down, very unlikely to be reopened (which is why there partly so much institutional resistance in the first place). Such a course of action becomes possible provided a major (enough) regional war happen that requires mass resource reallocation. The deal being, US leaves continental Europe and lasting actual peace, and US gets its last war.
>Using nuclear weapons is at the end of an escalation ladder.
>If one party uses nukes for trivial reasons, the other party should launch now.
I’ve been over this before, current Pentagon thinking (not saying it’s right) is that so long as nuclear weapons used are bunker busters and relatively small yields targeting solely underground targets with minimal civ casualties, the qualms against use get significantly lower. That’s not to say this isn’t high up on the escalation ladder, it sure is, but it’s no longer Hiroshima level war of annihilation. For now Iran does not have nukes, so use it or lose it is not an American concern. Likely a concern for future conflicts as proliferation might get common, but if this war happens, likely to be America’s last major war anyways so not a concern.
>Russia or China then nuke equivalent US facilities in a manifestly tit for tat fashion, there is a fair chance we will not go all the way to world war three, that everyone pulls back from the brink.
Don’t think Russia would do that based on a likely gentleman’s agreement being crafted via back channel, but China could… but is that really a “lose” scenario for the US? Better to lose a few facilities than get the entire Pacific USN sent to the ocean floor. I’d bet they don’t nuke a US facility, but a US proxy, and all of a sudden US become much less interested in defending Taiwan. An agreement will be found.
>Much like how America is naturally limited by geography and distance from France
No, it’s relatively easy to prevent Chinese naval access to Iran. They’d have to go over land, and based on geography there are severe bottlenecks. Not much they could do unless willing to provide nukes, but unless you’re arguing that is a likely course of action…
>you’re talking crazy
Yes, and it’s coming from realizing what higher command is seriously thinking. I’m self aware enough to realize this shit is crazy, but I’m also tracking why this might very well make political sense for Trump to do. Trump either:
1) Becomes King and squashes all resistance and none of this need happen.
2) Continues to rely on the war faction for domestic support and has to feed them a war. War with China or Russia is likely to have the worst outcomes. Iran is potentially survivable.
3) Gets a palace coup against him again.
Right now Trump looks like option 2 with a caveat. Israel will be ‘leading’ the attack which I’m reading as the one dropping the actual nukes… which one Pentagon Officer allegedly said one goal of a US preemptive attack on Iran would be to prevent Israeli nuclear use. That may no longer be a concern. Rather it would take the moral burden off the US and we get everything we want likely at the cost of Israel’s existence which is a price I’m willing to pay.
Then current Pentagon thinking is nuts. Once you use nukes against a purely military target with relatively low civilian casualties, someone else is going to do the same, and then it is on.
If America nukes some third world shithole that you would reasonably suppose that Russia, China, India, and Pakistan do not much like, then, if no nuclear response, America becomes vastly more powerful. Russia feels itself at existential risk from American power, so has to match America in terrifyingness.
“America Nukes Iran.”
That’s fucking it. That’s all it takes. Goddamn. After that, anything can happen, and everyone will need to do it quickly before the other guy does. Guns of August all over again.
If you want war you can start with invading africa for lebensraum or sending kill-teams to england and canada to destroy the evil demonworshippers squatting over the populace.
>No, it’s relatively easy to prevent Chinese naval access to Iran.
It’s also easy to prevent Washington naval access to Iran. Easier even at that given the balance of forces.
“It [war with Iran] is total madness, but it doesn’t assume Russia is losing. Rather I’m positing a backroom agreement is possible based on what Putin has been hinting at. The domestic American political environment would demand a justification for the complete withdraw of American forces from Eastern Europe, heck trying to withdraw from the continental Europe itself without a “proper” reason would set the entire political establishment and DOD against Trump. There’s an understanding that once major American bases in Europe get closed down, very unlikely to be reopened (which is why there partly so much institutional resistance in the first place). Such a course of action becomes possible provided a major (enough) regional war happen that requires mass resource reallocation. The deal being, US leaves continental Europe and lasting actual peace, and US gets its last war.”
That sounds like Putin is being asked to betray one of Russia’s strongest ally in exchange for a promise. Why would he do that? A weak US Putin just needs to wait; a strong US would not hold up its agreement, just like all the other deals it broke when it through it was strong.
“I’ve been over this before, current Pentagon thinking (not saying it’s right) is that so long as nuclear weapons used are bunker busters and relatively small yields targeting solely underground targets with minimal civ casualties, the qualms against use get significantly lower.”
Civilian casualties are irrelevant- the nuclear calculus is about the ability to retaliate! The game theory works exactly the same if all the nukes are targeted exclusively at nuclear launch sites and command centers because a successful nuclear decapitation strike removes your ability to fight back.
“No, it’s relatively easy to prevent Chinese naval access to Iran. They’d have to go over land, and based on geography there are severe bottlenecks. Not much they could do unless willing to provide nukes, but unless you’re arguing that is a likely course of action…”
They can just use Russia. Rail-> barges across the Caspian Sea.
>It’s also easy to prevent Washington naval access to Iran.
Not a deal breaker. What Iranian navy is there to sink? Sinking it would accomplish what exactly? Ground invasion is far too costly. US is planing an air war. Bombing drills have been conducted out of the Mediterranean. Nuclear option being considered because Pentagon knows it can’t ‘win’ any other way.
What would be a deal breaker is likely Chinese ability to completely shut down US naval access in the East Asian area of the Pacific. Maybe even the Philippines. Like how hundreds of thousands of Japanese troops got trapped on strategically worthless islands, US would find itself in a similar position.
In hindsight, why even bring up France?
If I were Iran, I’d have quietly acquired a couple of nukes from Pakistan or North Korea. Just to tide me over until the program starts producing. (Not sure if this is possible to do quietly, of course — Iran seems to be pretty leaky.)
Iran have a no nukes fatwa. They also have the capability to change their mind at any time.
They have a stockpile of sixty percent enriched uranium, which can be used to make a nuke, but not a very good nuke. If they can make sixty percent, they can make ninety percent, which can make a good nuke, but have not done so, and if they decide to do so, will take a while.
Come to think of it, setting off just one in the desert would probably be sufficient to cool down the other side.
One power using a nuke is not going to cool down other powers with nukes.
Well, they could keep disassembled nukes in storage and be fatwa compliant. The Japan approach, if memory serves. But all of this is of course pure speculation.
>In hindsight, why even bring up France?
irans relative isolation was brought up as if any conflict there must necessarily stay neatly contained there.
In reality, both Russia and China have many ways of reaching out and touching Washington in many places, if Washington gives them a reason too.
In reality, there’s no actual strategic thinking taking place here at all: it is eternal teenagers with arrested development, baby boomers, wanting to see the world burn in a fit of petulant spite before they lose the ability to do so. The fact that they are like this is of course also why they and theirs are collapsing into weakness and impotence and losing everything their fathers gave them to begin with. The world is abundantly fair.
>Oh? I didn’t realize US was a belligerent in the war. US has no stake in peace negotiations.
It seems mr. imperialis completely lost the plot and is pretty detached from reality. The US shithole isn’t a belligerant in the US invasion of Russia? Right.
As to nuking Persia, what the hell. I thought the “Trump Revolution” included Emperor Trump roleplaying as a “Peace President”? But wait. In reality Trump is just another puppet of the neocon joos who rule the US. Shocking news.
We don’t know yet if he’s going to nuke Iran.
Acting on Laura Loomer’s advice, Trump has just purged a bunch of national security advisers with excessive connections to the deep state and funny ngo money.
What impact this will have on the “nuke Iran” faction is unclear. But I suspect it takes the wind out of their sails.
“Nuke Iran” is to keep the war faction of Thermidor on side. If Trump suspects the war faction is not reliably on side, they are going to get it in the nuts.
>“Nuke Iran” is to keep the war faction of Thermidor on side. If Trump suspects the war faction is not reliably on side, they are going to get it in the nuts.
I mentioned multiple times that:
Trump is sitting on a very unstable power base with crisis at home and abroad with some very unusual and unreliable bedfellows. Many cannot easily be purged. As risk of losing control, has to keep their energy directed at something, preferably not Russia or China otherwise nuclear risks become even more dangerous. Iran is the least shit option. Trump has to sell “Nuke Iran” without actually nuking Iran to keep them in line until he can take total control… but with how things are progressing, might very well end up nuking Iran before taking total control.
>The US shithole isn’t a belligerant in the US invasion of Russia? Right.
US was never at war with Russia. US was always at war with Iran.
Seems like White Bread is completely detached from the narrative.
The catch is, you want people to read your comments about Russia as sarcasm while you unironically advocate the nuking of Persia.
And in that regard, nuking Persia is what the neocons – especially the joo faction – have been planning for the last 50 years. I will put my Conspiracy Theorist hat on and draw the conlcusion that a guy who wants to nuke Persia, like you, and tries to argue the position with a bunch of incoherent nonsense, like you do, is a crass neocon shill.
The war faction wants war with everyone forever and everywhere. They are unfortunately part of the Trump coalition. More dangerously, they remain a significant chunk of the GOP and DNC as well as our NATO “allies”, the one point of bipartisan “global leadership” that remains. Their reorientation to the Trump camp has put a pause on hot genocide of traditional America at the cost of having to throw them meat to chew on. Trump pushing for peace with Russia has burned a lot of political capital with them, and while it appears he would like to purge them, not easy task. What I communicated between the lines, and perhaps this is my failing, is that war with Iran is a political compromise for the least shit option should Trump fail to purge them in time. Based on what’s happening in the last month, time is running against Trump.
The Nuclear Option is being discussed because saner heads realize Iran can’t be dealt with militarily any other way without massive losses.
If this was just a neocon and joo problem, it could be dealt with easier, but this is also a “global leadership” bureaucracy problem. The European department of GAE, Macron, Starmer, Scholz remain an issue which is why Trump is pushing regime change in Europe. War with Iran is not just war with Iran, it would cause regime change in Europe. ‘Victory’ looks like Middle Eastern oil halting and Europe erupting in color revolution.
Ok, let’s call it the war faction. You don’t defeat the war faction by letting it nuke Persia, which is exactly what the war faction wants.
> and while it appears he would like to purge them, not easy task.
That’s certainly true, but that’s what has to be done. If Trump wants a somewhat less insane US foreign policy then he has to somehow restraint the war faction.
But Trump isn’t making any significant move to end the war against Russia so the war faction is winning on that front, and now the war faction is apparently proceeding with their plans to destroy Persia.
>The Nuclear Option is being discussed because saner heads realize Iran can’t be dealt with militarily any other way without massive losses
There is nothing sane about that line of thinking. The actually sane option is to not attack Persia at all. The “argument” that if you attacked Persia you would get killed like you rightly deserve, so you need to nuke them instead is completely evil and insane.
> War with Iran is not just war with Iran, it would cause regime change in Europe.
How on earth does that follow.
They are talking. That is progress. The removal of Zelensky, a key Russian demand, is on the table. To end the war, Zelensky has to go.
Obviously the CIA could simply fire him in an instant, but have not done so.
Trump could end the war overnight. The Russian offer is on the table, and has been on the table before the war started. So continuing the war is a political decision violating a promise and accommodating the war faction.
The war faction was promised that Trump could get a deal for a frozen war, and the war faction love frozen wars, because they can afford an unlimited number of frozen wars, any one of which can be re-activated at any time. The plan was to freeze the war till Nato can rebuild its stocks of weaponry, and then reactivate the war under more favorable circumstances at some indefinite time in the future. Which tactic has already been done once. Obviously a frozen war is not on the table. Trump’s team has been telling the war faction that it was — which was the war faction drinking their own koolaide and the Trump faction drinking, or pretending to drink, the war faction’s koolaide.
The war faction wants to use up every Ukrainian to extend Russia. Russia figures that if they have to kill every Ukrainian, it is a lot easier and safer to do so while US weapon stocks are exhausted, so they are insisting on a peace deal that does not require them to kill every Ukrainian at some later date when the US is better armed — they want a peace, not a frozen conflict, to be unfrozen once the US replenishes its weapons stocks.
So the question on the table is: Use up every Ukrainian now, while US shell are still out of stock, or lose the use of them forever?
The problem with using them all up now is that this leaves the US out of weapons to make war on Iran and China, which the war faction is chomping at the bit for.
If war with Iran is on the table, that incentivizes the war faction to give up on the goal of using up every last Ukranian.
So the ideal outcome is a real peace in Ukraine with internationally recognised, and considerably smaller, borders, and a denazified government, and a pretend war with Iran, and the worst outcome is real war with Iran, with simultaneous war to the last Ukranian with Russia, to be swiftly followed by war to the last Latvian and last Pole.
Real peace with Russia and real war with Iran is where we’re going. Military assets continue to be moved into the region. Enough that war with China faction is complaining. Likely because real war with Iran will force real peace with Russia via 500$ crude in the European markets leading to regime change of GAE in exile. Regime change in Europe would quickly lead to silencing of last GAE voices in America.
Zero is plausible. How about the following?
One: The military decides they had enough. Some general takes over, Zelensky is killed.
Two: The new junta is not interested in elections, but wants peace with Russia. They take any deal they can get and fulfill all Russian demands (except free elections, they like their new jobs too much).
The last Ukrainian government that won a free election was pretty much what Russia wanted. I figure they are hoping for the same again.
Did the novorussiyan oblasts vote in those elections? One big problem for pre-Maidan Ukraine seemed to be ethnic: 50% russians vs 50% others, with power flipping back and forth. Well, now rump-Ukraine no longer has so many russians.
I’m not convinced about the viability of rump-Ukraine. Much like Syria will become a Turkish province, it seems destined to become part of Poland, or possibly split among several adjacent nations. The sticky point (to some) is that these are backdoor ways to get the territory into Nato.
Strategically, Russia should take and annex Odessa before any peace deal and subsequently be the guarantor of rump-Ukraine’s independence.
Most people who voted for the last Ukrainian government that won a free election are no longer in Ukraine. They are either in parts of former Ukraine that are now parts of Russia, emigrated or died.
Greetings,
The way to stop any army is to cut off their supply of gasoline. Mobility is always key in any endeavor. Without mobility a people will quickly become demoralized.
I admire your commitment to the bit Humungus.
You nudge me to remember, a real game changer is the first time the US loses a carrier. That’s the dance we’re already doing in the red sea, trying to keep sea lanes open, and cover for the 51st state, without letting the Chinese know it’s go time in Taiwan. And if the houthis can threaten US naval vessels enough to constrain their freedom of movement, what can the Iranians bring to bear when the war goes total?
Thank you for your reply. About Iran. That is a big question Humungus would have to ponder, but without knowing Iran’s entire military arsenal, it would be a difficult outcome to predict. America was once a sleeping giant. Using like analogy, Iran is a sleeping cobra. You draw the cobra out, distract it, then move to kill while respecting its ability to harm you.
The standard tactic is, cut off the leadership command and control first, then command air superiority. Fuel is always key be it gasoline, diesel, nuclear. You take their ability to generate power, then they will fall.
>Temporary truce leading to UN administration of the Ukraine
That makes liittle sense. The Russians have to liberate all of the ukrainian province, currently invaded by the CIA.
As a side note Supreme Emperor Trump promised to end the war in one day. He was either blatantly lying, or he’s taking orders from his neocon owners.
Trump thought he had leverage. He may have been following the mainstream coverage of the war with ‘Biden has been holding back’ and ‘Ukraine can win’- under those assumptions threatening to go all in to get the Russians to agree to a deal is viable.
Since those are total nonsense, he has been left holding the bad and trying to find a solution that looks good. There isn’t one.
It should be obvious that the only way Trump could hypothetically end the war in “one day” is by a complete surrender of the US. That was the implicit promise. Now, Trump isn’t surrendering at all. So either he was lying during the campaign – quite possible – trump is just another politician, or maybe he sincerily wanted to do that, but like I said he’s just a neocon puppet and does what his owners tell him to do.
He is not a neocon puppet. Neocons are an important part of his coalition and he has to cater to them, but the worst neocons (Blinken and Nuland) have been purged, and the latest purge seems to have purged some more. Rather, the outrage coming from the left is that the remaining neocons are Trump puppets, and Laura Loomer is an agent of Russia.
Jim wrote:
> Neocons are an important part of his coalition and he has to cater to them
That seems problematic because if your objective is a less insane US foreign policy then entering into a coalition with the very cause of that insanity might be self-defeating.
So the explanation is that Trump thinks he’s going to outwit them, promising them to do things he won’t do, etc. But as far as I can tell that strategy isn’t working too well.
I do realize it may be too soon for me to draw any definitive conclusion though on the other hand Trump has now a rather long record of (absurd)cooperation with his enemies (starting in 2016)
As to this loomer woman she is a jew(…) and apparently doesn’t like muslims. Not very original and I wouldnt’t be surprised if she on the nuke Persia Camp. To her credit she correctly called Musk a technocrat/welfare queen.
“she correctly called Musk a technocrat/welfare queen.”
Welfare queen don’t build global constellation that cover the planet, don’t build the largest heavy lifting system that beats nations space programs , electric car company, neural implant etc etc.
it very important to be accurate when using statement
Oh but that’s exactly why Musk is a welfare queen. The satellite network is a space surveillance military network. Spacex is a military contractor. The electric toy car company only exists thanks to the insane “global warming” fraud and all the insane subsidies for fraudulent “green energy”. And Musk car company can’t even compete with China, so tariffs.
SpaceX primary source of revenue is starlink. Which would not be possible without the technology that Musk created. And starlink is one hundred percent private.
While most military contracts are just corporate welfare, the corporate welfare queens were unable to give the military access to space, so the military wound up being reluctantly forced to buy rides from Musk.
Which reluctance was on extreme display when they left two astronauts up on the space station rather than buy a ride from Musk.
Their welfare queen’s rocket was too terrifying for the astronauts.
During approach to the space station, one by one their thrusters went down, and they found themselves marooned in space. They still had some thrusters, but not enough for six parameter control, which meant that they could not steer. Nasa then power downed their systems and rebooted, and enough of the thrusters came up that they could make it to the space station. But not all the thrusters came up, which failed to inspire confidence.
>neural implant
And you’re pretending that’s a good thing. That’s beyond hilarious.
Welfare queen implies figurehead. If figurehead, can use any figurehead they like, preferably one far more consonant with their ideological conceits. In the event, washington cannot into space with any figurehead it likes. The fact that it is Musk and only Musk who can into space carries the implication that the cryptocommunist ‘the only thing leadership does is hand money to people who actually do the work’ idea of how large scale organized action takes place is untenable.
“If Elon’s a figurehead then why not use Shaniqua instead?”
I imagine if you’re a quadriplegic, blind, or “locked in”, well then certainly yes. To think that otherwise healthy normal people are going to undergo invasive brain surgery to allow some sort of direct neural – world wide web connectivity enhancement is nonsense.
BTW, speaking of technology, various “ethicists” are already bemoaning the claimed “de-extinction” of the dire wolf by Colossal Biosciences.
https://x.com/colossal/status/1909247817672957959
This claim is somewhat hyperbole. What they’ve done is modified the gray wolf genome with, what they think are, about two dozen of the most unique/distinctive/important of the dire wolf genes and successfully cloned two individuals. It’s a good start. But as I’ve said in the past, de-extinction will need to be an iterative process. Modify some genes, clone, and repeat. This process really needs to be automated with an IGMM (Iterative Genome Morphing Machine).
BTW, these are the same people that made the woolly mammoth mouse, i.e. replacing the mouse hair genes with woolly mammoth hair genes.
That was obvious to us. But if you do a search for Ukraine war you will encounter a mountain of entirely absurd propaganda that Russia is about to collapse, and neocon conquest of Russia is imminent.
Russia long standing peace conditions remain a thought crime, that can only be spoken on blogs like this.
Russia stated its demands in the ultimatum it gave before invading. One of which was removal of the totalitarian terror regime imposed on the Ukraine. Very recently it has fleshed out this with the proposal for a UN controlled election in the Ukraine, which represents an escalation of Russia’s original 2022 demand. As the Ukrainian army continues to disappear, further escalations are likely.
But the neocons have been drinking their own Koolaide. They believe that Russia has been taught a lesson, and it has no choice but to back down from its original ultimatum. And it is still today a thought crime to conceive of anything different.
When one side issues an ultimatum, and war ensues, they usually either win or lose, and if they win, the usually losers have to accept a status quo worse than the original ultimatum.
And here we are. We can accept the Russian (modified) ultimatum, or continue. All the way to the “or else” — a desert between Nato and Russia.
Trump says a lot of stuff. The overpromise rhetoric is a standard part of his style. Everything is yuuuuuuge, the best, everybody loves it. No one takes this seriously. You’re talking about a man who has like gold bathroom fixtures in his hotels. Subtlety is not a concept here. He’s more of a “Go big or go home” kinda guy.
What I’m saying is, Trump didn’t mean that literally and he didn’t intend that anyone would take it literally.
Trump always says what he wants, but doesn’t necessarily expect to get what he says he wants. His positioning is all about creating a ‘new normal’, and subsequent negotiation proceeds in relation to that norm. Excellent framing, if you will.
Russia thinks the Russian plurality can win, because the recently created synthetic Ukrainian language and identity has been imposed with such brutality and casual cruelty by rather small minorities.
Maybe the Russians are drinking their own Koolaide, but the level of violence that has gone into the freshly created language and identity makes it somewhat plausible.
Maidan had to immediately implement a shockingly brutal totalitarian terror state in the Ukraine, which would suggest a serious lack of support. Of course shockingly brutal totalitarian terror is regrettably highly effective in manufacturing support, but on the other hand, losing a war tends to negate that.
When Germany lost World War I, the allies imposed an extraordinarily bad government on Germany which was obviously bitterly hostile to Germany and Germans, and the allies proceeded to behave extremely badly towards the government they had imposed and the people they had defeated, and yet that government for a long time got reasonable votes, and German Patriots did not, creating a vacuum that Hitler stepped into.
For a long time, Germans voted for the enemy winners, rather than the German losers. Because losing was is very very bad experience. So, if a genuinely free and fair election is held after the Ukraine has lost a war with Russia, members of the Russian speaking plurality are going to have the wind at their backs.
There is a Youtube channel called ‘KLW World News’ and if you watch the latest 3 videos you will see some incredible satellite imagery. The Russians have been doing a massive military build up (manpower, anti aircraft sites, radar, aircraft, bunkers, supply trucks, fuel tankers, etc.) on the borders of Poland and Latvia (and Finland).
I’m not sure Russia want peace.
It’s hard to know which numbers to trust but the “disappearing” Ukrainian army by manpower is the largest army in Europe and 2nd largest in NATO.
It is extremely stupid to wonder whether Russians want peace when Nato has been shelling Russians, including Russian civilians, for ten years.
They do not have peace, so are going to fight.
Also recollect the continuing pressure on Latvia to take over Kalingrad with Nato backing, which Latvia did not agree to on the grounds that the residents of Kalingrad would fight.
The Ukranian army has conscripted over a million men, and is continuing to conscript about thirty thousand a month. It has about two hundred and eighty thousand men left, from which we may infer that the life expectancy of a Ukrainian soldier is about seven months, which is consistent with social media posts from vets — that it is all new guys and they do not know anyone.
If it is extremely stupid to wonder whether Russians want peace… is it not equally stupid to consider Russian peace terms?
If you look at the satellite imagery in Kaliningrad, the idea of Latvia taking it is a pipe dream and yet quite desirable for Latvian security. Without it they could easily be cut off from NATO supplies and would have no choice but to swiftly surrender. Why should they not fight preemptively?
What is wrong with conscription? In WW2 the British conscripted 1.5 million men. Sometimes such actions are necessary. Ukrainians do not have peace, so they must fight.
The objective of the Maidan project was always the death of every single Ukranian, and the objective of the Kalingrad project is the death of every single Latvian, in order to “extend Russia”.
They would have to level Kalingrad and kill off the Kalingraders, which would result in war with their vastly larger and more powerful neighbour. War is never desirable for security. Security is to avoid war. Starting wars is the opposite of security.
That was their assessment back when the Soviet Empire fell, and with Russia resurgent, the calculus now is far less favorable than the calculus then.
Your bright idea was discussed when the Soviet Union fell. If it was a bad idea then, it is a far worse idea now.
The Kalingrad project is not the Kalingrad project. It is the “We are running out of Ukrainians, let us start using up Latvians” project.
Conscription for a war you can’t win is just mass murder for no sane purpose. Ukraine’s path to victory is yet more evil ie starting WWIII and that ship sailed when Trump got in.
Ukraine should have surrendered immediately. They are not fighting a genocidal enemy. Anyone remotely connected to the Ukranian political class should be executed after the war.
[*deleted for not complying with the moderation policy*]
At that point it becomes conscripts WARZ.
[*deleted for not complying with the moderation policy*]
Wars of mass conscript cannon fodder are so very nineteenth century. People keep fighting yesterday’s wars.
One ace drone pilot is worth a hundred regular drone operators, one regular drone operator is worth a ten volunteer grunts, and one volunteer grunt is worth ten conscript cannon fodder.
One man and one drone took Avdeevka
Mass conscript cannon fodder were arguably already outdated by the 19th century, with the invention of the explosive fragmentation shell.
Dissemination was an other matter, however.
They have a peace offer sitting on the table. It has been sitting there since 2022.
According to Douglas Macgregor, which got the infromation from sources within the american intelligence agencies, the ukrainians lost more than 1,1 million soldiers, so far.
The end of the Ukraine war will come this year.
As for the rest, anyone who followed the Ukraine war knows it was the west that started it, by breaking the Minsk agreements, arming Ukraine and trying to integrate it in NATO, complete with putting nukes in Ukraine.
Indeed, Rusia entered in Ukraine in february 2022, because the ukrainian army was massed in order to crush Donetsk, and was conducting preparatory bombing there.
Now, despite Trump’s protestations to the contrary, he doesn’t want peace. He wants VICTORY for the USA; that’s what his terms mean. And he’s upset the russians will not give USA victory, after they de facto won the war.
What you see with Jack A is how many in the west are brainwashed by the ubiquitous propaganda from the media, they’re marinated in.
Latvia does not share a border with Kaliningrad.
Poland and Lithuania share borders with Kaliningrad.
What am I missing? Who’s the retard here?
I mixed up Lithuania with Latvia.
So, after they run out of the Ukrainians, Lithuanians and Poles up next.
If you do a search on bread tube (what the Youtube algorithm shows you if access it with cookies on your browser showing you to be a leftist or what youtube considers a centrist) and search for Kalingrad, some interesting videos come up. It would seem that the existence of Kalingrad is illegitimate and an outrageous act of Russian aggression. And democracy requires it be democratised.
Although the left says the neocons are rightists, and there is a disturbing amount of neocon influence in the Trump coalition, the algorithm seems to think that the neocon position is leftist.
The radical left strongly objects to the neocons wanting war for Israel in the middle east. War on China and War on Russia on the other hand … Democrats are going Russia Russia Russia.
OK got it. Just checking.
Also:
I need that. I’d pay good money for that.
There is an absurd comedy in seeing our later-day progroids chant ‘hands off’ when the same people were also primary agents in the creation of the managerial panopticon that can put its hands in to begin with.
Of course, obviously none of them are the least bit principled and the sudden larping of libertarian anarchism is simply another spandrel of momentary political expediency. They are in favor of ‘the government’ having the power to destroy your property and trans your kids, and if ‘government’ is not doing these things, then ‘government’ is a problem. This has been seen historically.
When I read 1984 when I was younger, I thought Orwell was exaggerating about the neck-snapping about-faces that leftists perform.
The most recent big one was
“Joe Biden is not senile”/”Joe Biden is too senile to be the Democrat candidate”
in the space of less than an hour after that one debate.
I added period to the name , it should be Anon and not Anon.
There’s a lot of talk on Trump tariffs, don’t think I’ve seen any of it discussed here. Any of the commenters care to weigh in?
Charging tolls for passage is a simple and easy method of shaking down protection money that has many benefits to recommend it.
The main problem of course is that this is not coinciding with the dismantlement of that mountain of tumorous growths that is the present tax regime, and the associated bureaucratic regulatory regime that has its tentacles stuck in everything. In order to have more prosperity you need less taxes, and trump isn’t talking about ending income taxes, and he should be talking about ending income taxes.
Security, energy, and logistical capacity are ‘foundational’ costs of doing business. On paper these things all look much better in places like America or Europe compared to Bangladesh or Mexico; so how is it possible for it to be so much less costly to do business in places like the later rather than places like the former?
Because the new costs are all ‘self’-imposed, of course. The cost is communism, and in order for industry to come back and prices to go back down and people to enjoy prosperous living where the things that are good for them to do are not illegal to do, need to give helicopter rides to communists.
Trump has in fact floated all of abolishing the IRS, ending income taxes entirely, or dropping them for people making less than $150,000 a year. (The last would be a welcome reprieve and guarantee a third term or his successor’s election, but no long term solution as the limit would just creep down again.)
Being that Trump says a lot, just floating the ideas are no guarantee at all. It has a feel of some of his first term campaign promises, things he might possibly be open to or even believe in, but the first to go under the bus when he pivots to something else.
not coinciding with the dismantlement of…
Fair enough so far, but DOGE was their plan for that. Which would mean we’re in trouble as that stalls, but it’s not like there was no intention of doing that.
My guess is it would be between hard and impossible for Trump to get anything he wants if he does one thing at a time and waits for a strict order of operations. They’d sink into the normal mode of doing business in Washington, even more on the GOP side than on Democrat obstruction. Need to throw everything at once.
in order for industry to come back and prices to go back down … need to give helicopter rides to communists
I endorse this, and helicopter rides for communists in general. In parallel with my guess above, I speculate you’re unlikely to get helicopter rides without making an attempt at the policy.
Pseudo it’s a rare occasion for me to disagree with you, so if you see where I’m wrong, or where I’m misunderstanding your point, please tell me.
>Trump has in fact floated all of abolishing the IRS, ending income taxes entirely, or dropping them for people making less than $150,000 a year.
I know, which is good. Problem is not happening (yet), which is bad. Simple as that.
To the point, you don’t hear news anchors on MSNBC and every lefter-than-thou self-appointed news anchor on youtube complaining about how insane it is that Trump wants to do all these things, which is a clear indication that he isn’t talking and or already doing enough about it. (They’re currently complaining about how insane it is that he wants to deport alien invaders and also about how insane it is that he wants to bring the rouge legal guild to heel).
>My guess is it would be between hard and impossible for Trump to get anything he wants if he does one thing at a time and waits for a strict order of operations. They’d sink into the normal mode of doing business in Washington, even more on the GOP side than on Democrat obstruction. Need to throw everything at once.
Yes, that is key. The difference between a reactive and a proactive man is that a reactive man is doing one thing at a time, while the proactive man can be doing a thousand and one things at a time.
To be fair, it looks like they are at least attempting to accomplish all that you mention here. Trump 2.0 cut faster and deeper into the swamp than Trump 1, still got caught in mud it looks like. We’ll see if they are just hyper-focused on getting us out of nuclear war with Russia, or the coalition failed before achieving its goals.
On the industrialization front, instead of home growing the industries, they’re taking grafts from around the empire and planting them here. Sweetheart deals on taxes and regulations for any large enterprise building physical things within the lower 48. We’ll start seeing the fruit, or lack thereof, around the agricultural harvest time this Fall.
Another problem seems to be the lack of faith among the plebeians. The everyday Amerikaaner seems to assume a repeat of 2017-2020, and their expectations then bleed into reality. They lack faith that the Trump admin is looking to bash judicial skulls fighting the mandate of wealth through meritocracy, and so keep their own heads down as they’ve been trained. Looks to me like if you get a federal case, you get a guardian angel reaching down to help you, but not so many have noticed this yet. They seem to have gone in to the very big very important companies themselves to spread the news of the death of DEI, and indeed there is a sensed difference coming from the previously most woke corpos, but they don’t have the manpower to tackle every organization out there. The Amerikaaner needs to deputize himself and trust that the admin will save his head from the chopping block, does not realize yet that this is a possible and propitious path.
It was a promising start, but still nowhere near enough, and now it’s petering out. Trump clearly has no clue what time it is.
The man is directly quoting Napoleon, and surrounding himself with people that explicitly have a faith contrary to our officially unofficial faith. Whatsoever may be causing the slowdown relative to the first few weeks, it’s not lack of clarity on what is at stake and his position in history. My best guess is a gross underestimation of the breadth of the problem. Controlling the glowniggers from Washington is not enough.
With Germany piously declaring war on the Evil Bad No Good Putin, perhaps another partition of Europe should be on the table. King Trump, I will not fight in the Middle East, but I will shed blood on the old continent to secure the future of the holy kingdom, should you merely declare it to be done.
I certainly feel pessimistic sometimes, but the trouble with your analysis is that you are pessimistic all the time.
Hypothetically, Trump’s government could eliminate the CIA, the FBI and all foreign aid, defund the CDC and the EPA, shut down CNN and the New York Times, park tanks in Harvard Yard, perform a mass public execution of troons and troon-surgeons, and come up with a budget surplus that pays off the entire national debt in seven years… and you’d still be here, pissing and moaning that the NSA still exists, the UN still exists, MSNBC is still around, Princeton and Yale are still a bit liberal, women haven’t all become perfectly submissive anime waifus, and some people are still having trouble paying their mortgages or credit card bills.
To you, unless he can solve every single problem you can imagine, right here and right now, then he’s failing and “doesn’t know what time it is”. Well, you know what? Maybe it’s time to quit whining and start solving your own problems – or at least learn how to pick your battles.
He very self-evidently knows what time it is. Whether or not he truly has the gumption to be our Caesar, or at least our Sulla, is definitely still open for debate, but you doomers can go suck a lemon. Always have to try to bring everyone else down so that you feel less miserable; time to get yourself some hobbies, whores or both.
If he fails, then he fails. What, you think you’re going to win some kind of award for predicting it, over and over again like a broken record?
Hey, Trump just pulled a Jackson and the Supremes blinked.
Two huge actions in since the weekend.
An illegal immigrant who was on the El Salvadorean persona non grata list was sent back to El Salvador, and swiftly thrown into a most unpleasant prison with great force. Some judge, not only mistaking himself for the president, but the American president for the president of the world, ordered the prisoner returned to America and set free. The Supremes granted stay one minute before the deadline. Obviously even if they had not granted stay, that illegal is not coming back.
Nine hundred thousand migrants were mass granted legal status by Biden and flown into America to swing states. Trump just mass retracted that grant. That is nine hundred thousand swing state Democratic party voters that are now subject to deportation.
I just watched Trump signing the most recent batch of executive orders. One huge white pill after another. I interrupted the video just after he signed an executive order criminalising DEI regs, then another order requiring all regs to be sunsetted unless a justification was provided for the reg, and then an executive order sanctioning a law firm for having engaged in lawfare.
Six hundred million dollars raised so far in extrajudicial fines against law firms. Trump, who tends to be optimistic, expects a billion.
“raised” meaning paid or “raised” meaning imposed, but subject to judical review by whatever court the law firm asks for a decision?
They paid up. Trump is bypassing a hostile judicial system. As I said, extrajudicial fines.
They could appeal to the courts, and some of them have, but most of them have bent the knee.
Musk recently discovered fourteen different entities inside the federal government with the power to issue money — supposedly only the federal reserve gets to issue fresh money.
It turns out that FDR’s swollen presidency absorbed all the powers of all the other branches, and this too vast power inevitably leaked from the hands of the president to the hands of faceless bureaucrats whom no one can identify. And suddenly Trump’s team, like kids in a candy store, are snatching this immense power from the entrenched and faceless bureaucrats.
But it is too vast, too uncontrollable. Doge’s policy is to cut it back to something controllable — as for example the Doge policy that the presidency could only spend money that had been allocated by congress, and congress could only spend money that had been raised by taxes or borrowing (including “borrowing” from the social security fund and the federal reserve printing press, which is not much of a restriction, but is nonetheless vastly more restrictive than what we have now.)
Threatening to eliminate 9 billion dollars of grant stream to Harvard was very whitepilling. Probably there will be some compromise that allows most of the stream to flow eventually — after losing their affirmative action case in the Supreme Court in 2023, the universitariat is not feeling so confident in its power to win in the courts.
Trump remembers well which institutions sent law professors to Congress to demand his impeachment, so there is a some chance he simply wants to burn down Harvard and is not actually interested in negotiation. Pulling the trigger on the 9 billion USD of grants would be almost as beautiful as deporting tens of millions of Central American peasants.
The charitable assessment is that they figure it easier to start with the tariffs as tribute system and dismantle the preexisting tribute system later; which is an understandable thought to have.
In reality of course, social inertia is a phenomena that exists in the mind; how much reality it has largely depends on how much you give it. If you don’t want it to have reality, then you can just do things.
In matters of policy, rather than deployment or apportionment, nothing stops you from doing everything at once. And indeed, there is great advantage in doing everything at once in social conflicts, in the bewilderment of your enemies as you strike at every branch they sit on.
Trump has been signal boosting the greatness of the gilded age in speeches and interviews, which is a good sign. He has also been counter-signaling the Beast from Jekyll Island, which is also a good sign. As you note though, many seem to have been missing their nerve or become complacent of late, and the draw-down on effectation of objectives on multiple levels at once has allowed the GAE-in-exile to reorganize from its initial disruptions.
The hesitance of many to live like they are in days of thunder is like the hesitance of someone new to striking thrown into the ring, who, upon throwing a punch or two, will try to immediately backpedal afterwards, and thus set themselves up perfectly – mid range and on the back foot – to be knocked out by the other guy, ‘crossing the line twice’, not grasping on instinct that the safest move after attacking is forwards furthermore, to continue through with the movement into the clinch. So many, in effect, that try to fight without touching on any of the fighting part.
In the realm of political action we might call this a form of learned helplessness; decisiveness isn’t reflexive, ‘the old normal’ is. The bureaucracy pretends to have auctoritas, and the villagers pretend to stand in awe of it. And via the magic of subjectification, the pretense is reified.
But the tigers are made of paper.
Need to bring steel, ship, and now drone production back home after shipping it abroad in the first place. Even the less insane left war faction would want that. Tariffs alone are too little too late, HR has to go as well, but Thermidor might think it’s worth a shot.
But my broader bias is thinking our current economy is so FIRE-ized I don’t take it as any kind of stable or rational status quo ante to begin with. To the normies saying “oh no tariffs” – yeah shouldn’t have outsourced steel and rare earths to our most likely long term military competitor in the first place, might have to eat some disruption bringing it home. Shouldn’t have outsourced chip production to a vassal state in striking distance of said competitor. And down the line for every product we outsourced and job we shipped overseas.
You can tell me tariffs alone won’t be enough and you’ll be right, but if everything else stalls and all they do is inconvenience the spreadsheet class that outsourced production in the first place I’ll find that disappointing but hilarious, rather than disappointing and saddening.
Trump has brought out a stick against foreign producers, he must equally bring out a carrot for domestic producers. Since Trump is a successful businessman himself, he will no doubt be aware of that. But a definite problem is that bringing back the industry the US outsourced throughout the decades will take more than what remains of Trump’s second term.
The British real economy is currently disappearing under regulatory burden. The US has the same problem in somewhat less extreme form. Recall how police in California were preventing owners from re-entering their properties after the fire.
The reason that housing is so expensive in California, and in the US generally, but especially California, is that there is an enormous bureaucratic obstacle course against building anything, and an enormous FIRE economy of fake GDP of entities with assorted special privileges to navigate this obstacle course.
Trump is aware of the obstacle course. Of course a large part of it is to enrich leftists — the immense pile of environmental regs which require payoffs to activist organisations.
>Trump tariffs, don’t think I’ve seen any of it discussed here
Tariffs are a tax that is mostly or completely paid by the poor. So Trump is rising taxes for the poor. Tariffs are also subsidies for cronny capitalists.
On the other hand is the so called Trump administration actually imposing all the tariffs they are talking about is it just more incoherent rambling.
That is the static analysis. It assumes the industry being protected exists and simply raises prices.
Our problem is that the industries being protected have largely disappeared. If they come home, it is a tax paid by the rich — reducing inequality.
Consider electric vehicles. Musk’s big problem is that the Chinese have copied his technology, and are doing it cheaper and better. If Musk’s business disappears, that is not good for ordinary Americans.
Consider robots. Musk is innovating robots, and again the Chinese are copying him. If robot technology is all chinese, that is very bad for ordinary Americans.
Transnational corporations have their set of problems and so do protected national corporations. Neither are particularly good for ordinary people in my opinion.
As to the chinese outcompeting the west because they copy stuff, I think that’s an excuse and I don’t think so called intelectual property is a legitimate concept anyway.
>If robot technology is all chinese, that is very bad for ordinary Americans.
From my point of view, if robot technology is all controlled by 2 or 3 (global) corporations that is very bad for we ordinary people.
(typo on my previous message “….actually imposing all the tariffs they are talking about OR is it just more incoherent rambling.” )
Observe how transnational corporations have been working out for ordinary Americans.
If you don’t like Trump’s solution, what do you suggest?
The solution is decentralized systems under control of the users/individual owners, like the cypherpunks advocate. Of course I know that’s easier said than done, but at least it’s not snake oil/ political campaigning
You’re confusing sovcorps with the dumb commie co-op concept.
Natural monopolies will form. Bitcoin is dominated by miners. Microprocessors are built in giant fabs. Torrents are dominated by a handful of exclusive private trackers.
Atomized individuals may come up with micro-innovations, sure, but to produce anything of major strategic value, at scale, they must coalesce into institutions, i.e. corporations. Elon Musk is not going to personally build rockets and space ships with his own two hands; it’s not that he’s too lazy or lacks the ambition, it’s simply impossible to do it that way.
Engineering requires scale, scale requires organization, organization requires investment, investment requires confidence, and confidence cannot form when foreign agents can effectively steal your tech and sell it back at locally unprofitable prices.
The idea of a “tax on the poor” is communist nonsense. All costs are passed on. A tax on anyone is a tax on everyone. The only questions are how, and how much, the tax will distort market signals. Tariffs cause very little distortion to intra-national markets, they only distort trade; and these reciprocal tariffs are arguably just reducing the distortion that already exists and favors our trading partners.
Of course it is also true that adding tariffs while failing to substantively reduce our sprawling supra-Lafferian domestic tax burden is only going to succeed in accelerating inflation, but that is a separate issues of which I think all taxpayers are well aware.
Daddy Scarebucks wrote:
>All costs are passed on. A tax on anyone is a tax on everyone. The only questions are how, and how much, the tax will distort market signals.
All costs are passed on…to whom? Yes, we can assume everybody pays taxes one way or another. And it also just so happens that some actors are net tax consumers while others are net tax payers so of course taxation results in a net, forced tranfer of property, also known as theft. And the actors who benefit from taxation are the government and the allegedly private interests that are in bed with government.
So it seems you are ignoring the key, moral aspect of taxation, ignoring who benefits from taxation and only using a typicallly utilitarian/amoral objection commonly used by fake libertarians. Market signals? Come on.
I think the rest of your assertions are also flawed and typically mercantilistic. Feel free to have the last word though.
Oops – should have said: “Elon Musk is not going to personally build rockets with his own two hands”. Forgot an important word there.
So get on with it yourself. Do you think Trump should sit on his hands until you get done?
>All costs are passed on…to whom?
Everyone, including and especially the party collecting the taxes themselves. More tax, less capital. All the money and nothing to buy with it. All signs and no signified. Higher relative status, lower absolute power. Civilizational weakness.
A tax on ‘the poor’ means capital drawdown on everything they patronize, and everything that patronizes everything they patronize; so, everyone eventually.
A tax on ‘the rich’ means capital drawdown on everyone that patronizes them, and everyone that patronizes the patrons; so, everyone eventually.
>>All costs are passed on…to whom?
>Everyone, including and especially the party collecting the taxes themselves.
My question was meant to highlight the fact that ultimately somebody pays up. Something I further explained and which you are ignoring. And your reply is absurd. I ask who is being robbed by taxation and you say, it’s the tax collector?
Once again you are failing to navigate abstraction layers.
The honorable PC is not saying the tax administrator is directly paying in currency to themselves. He is pointing out that situations exist in time and that a tax now reduces future revenues in the form of both direct currency incoms, and perhaps more importantly in the form of available finished goods that can be acquired.
For a proclaimed libertardian, you have very little understanding of economics, and argue in a very marxist and emotional manner. That evil class of tax collectors is hording all the wealth, we just need to crack open their fortress and distribute it back to the people! Nothing about the need for collective organization in defense seems to exist in your world, and there also exists no real consequences for the tax collector except in the form of moral bads.
>a tax now reduces future revenues in the form of both direct currency incoms
That may be true but is completely irrelevant for tax collectors and cronny capitalists who obviously are interested in having power today, not in the future. In other words your comment is just diversion.
>Once again you are failing to navigate abstraction layers.
You mean, I’m refuting your sophism, which indeed is composed of layers of abstract nonsense.
>For a proclaimed libertardian, you have very little understanding of economics, and argue in a very marxist and emotional manner
Yeah when everything else fails just call me a commie. The funny thing is, I am not the one who wants the state to have ultimate and absolute control over things like trade, “national defense” and a long list of other stuff. The one advocating for state monopoly, i.e. communism, is you.
You, white bread, are arguing in bad faith, and if you persist, will put you on moderation.
Your original claim was that changing the tax base from income towards imports hurt the poor.
To which Fidelis correctly replied that the tax burden goes around, it makes only a small and unknowable difference to income distribution.
To which you irrelevantly replied with an argument against taxes in general. You persist in changing the subject. To which Fidelis returns to the original subject, and you reply with the new subject. There is no end to this, so if you continue, putting you on moderation.
The immediate effect of a tax on imports is to distribute income to the tax collector, and to businessmen who produce goods in the united states, and from businessmen who produce goods outside the united states.
Which makes those wicked oppressive capitalists richer, and everyone else poorer. Right? Wrong. The businessmen who produce goods in the united states have to hire labor, so the price of labor is bidded up. Because they produce goods, the price of goods produced in United States is bidded down.
Whether this is a net benefit to people living in the United States depends on the externality of localisation of technology. If skills are available near you, this benefits everyone near those skills. The appearance of a network of firms providing technologies, facilitates other new firms that can now provide other technologies.
>Your original claim was that changing the tax base from income towards imports hurt the poor.
I can reword that to sound less “marxist”. Tariffs will be mostly paid by ordinary consumers and will be more onerous for people who have less money to spend.
>The immediate effect of a tax on imports is to distribute income to the tax collector, and to businessmen who produce goods in [the nation], and from businessmen who produce goods outside [the nation]
Well that’s the main point I’m making. Whether tariffs will result in a net benefit for the nation or not is a more complicated issue. At any rate, I think one of the main reasons US firms leave the US is insane regulations and supposedly Trump is doing something about that. So why bother with tariffs. I was also assuming that Trump is some kind of populist so he wouldn’t increase taxes for the populace. I can certainly be wrong about that last bit.
I’m discussing tariffs and taxation in general and so are other people. I don’t think your accusation of bad faith stands, but hey you are the Monarch here…
The normal reason for having less money to spend is not having a job, or not having a skilled job.
Tariffs have the effect of increasing the number of skilled jobs, because it forces businessmen to localise technologies.
You are incredibly abrasive but at least responsive.
Yes tptb are high time preference and that is a bad thing for all involved. We are interested in throne because this has the bandits stop trying to grab everything that isn’t nailed down, and at least gives them plausible incentive to be interested in the capital they are in control of.
I am calling you marxist because you are making moral arguments about abstract classes of humans.
It becomes semantic at this point, but I am going to refer to the state as the abstract entity that has the monopoly on violence and therefore physical control over the region in which it has a monopoly on violence. States will always exist at some scale, because humans are always going to organize to control violence, and the most organized tend to be the best at controlling and inflicting violence.
It’s not about what I want, what I want is to live a good life here on earth. I am describing the reality we exist in, like it or not. The reality we exist in, has abstract entities called states, that exert control over the things you mention. When they exert control in a wise manner, there is prosperity. When they exert control in an unwise manner, there is destruction. Prosperity is mostly shared, and destruction is mostly shared. So it’s good if we find alignment on what is prosperity, and work towards it collectively in the most effective manner, which takes into account both logistical constraints and the failures of human nature.
>We are interested in throne because this has the bandits stop trying to grab everything that isn’t nailed down, and at least gives them plausible incentive to be interested in the capital they are in control of
I think that’s a valid argument in the monarchy vs democracy discussion, but the general problem remains. Powerful people don’t necessarily have low time preference.
>The reality we exist in, has abstract entities called states, that exert control over the things you mention. When they exert control in a wise manner, there is prosperity. When they exert control in an unwise manner, there is destruction.
So given the potential for destruction, and the long history of destruction, it seems to me that having strong limits on state power would be desirable. But that’s probably not a popular view here, ha ha.
Powerful capitalists, Trump, the oligarchs, do have long time preference. None longer than the most powerful oligarch of them all, Musk.
Correction. Capitalists who have things have long time preference. Capitalists who have magic bits of paper, the FIRE Economy, do not, since their wealth is on the revolving door between regulators and regulated.
Suppose you give some businessman a monopoly on cars in South Korea, and protection from imports. OK, that is a magic bit of paper, but it is a rather useless bit of paper unless he creates a car industry in South Korea. And if you give that monopoly to someone who has already demonstrated ability to organise the production of something like cars, he is already going to be a long time preference person. Which is how South Korea industrialised.
Well, obviously. Everyone agrees in principle. Everyone always has agreed in principle. But who enforces these strong limits?
You are going to have a monopoly of violence. Even if you start with individuals, the individuals have an incentive to gang up, the gangs have an incentive to gang up.
And once you have a monopoly of violence, well, as Napoleon said, you can do anything with bayonets except sit on them.
“I am calling you marxist because you are making moral arguments about abstract classes of humans.”
To be fair reactionaries do not reject class analysis per se we just argue commies are wrong (or in some cases lying) about what the classes actually are. There is no ruling buergois there is the ruling priest/brahmin class. There is no revolutionary proleteriat there is potentially revolutionary counter elites with the opinion of other classes only mattering if things break down badly enough that the competing groups are appealing to mobs or more importantly non com soldiers (there are times when things get bad enough the opinion of combat arms sergeants determines who gets to rule).
“The idea of a “tax on the poor” is communist nonsense. All costs are passed on. A tax on anyone is a tax on everyone.“
No cost can fall perfectly evenly upon everyone, so the only real question is who is benefiting at whose expense. And because only the productive can be billed (on net), and because the productive are rarely rich, most bills must necessarily fall upon those who are not rich: the poor. A doctor is a specialist not at medicine but at becoming a doctor, a lawyer is a specialist not at law but at sucking court cock, and a rich man is a specialist not at making much of anything but at gathering ownership rights to himself.
Whatever ideological labels you want to put on it, it’s a rare system that rewards those who make good things.
Nuts. Counter example: the richest man in the world, and quite possibly the most powerful man in the world. Who has frequently wound up sleeping on the factory floor after pulling an all nighter on the factory floor. He did not gather ownership rights, like a chimp finding fruit in the forest. Everything he owns, he created, and it would not exist except for him.
Another counter example: Steve Jobs. The board of Apple was irritated because he thought he knew better than everyone else. So they fired him. Only to discover he did know better than everyone else.
If you look at the history of technology and industrialisation, it is all great men all the way, from Bessemer steel to Shockley semiconductor. Shockley wrote the book on semiconductors, but the book did not suffice. Every transistor everywhere is made by an engineer who trained under an engineer who trained … under Shockley.
Bessemer developed a method for making steel cheaply in huge amounts. He tried to license his technology to other people, but they failed, just as Shockley’s book failed. In the end, all steel made by the Bessemer process was made by engineers who trained under Bessemer, or trained under engineers who trained under Bessemer.
Could you make a pencil? You cannot make a pencil except a capitalist gives you the tools and materials and tells you what do do with them.
Without capitalists, you would by trying to grow corn by scratching at the dirt with a digging stick and a piece of flint.
Not that rare. How did every country that industrialised do it?
Every since the twelfth century, technology and logistics has been critical to military capability, which means a ruler who allows the productive to become rich and free is going to gain the upper hand over a ruler who does not.
The persistent problem is bureaucracy. The ruler has too much power, the power slips through his fingers into the hands of faceless bureaucrats — Musk found fourteen computers with the capability to issue new money, in addition to the federal reserve power to issue new money, and did not find who had control of that money issue, just as we will never know who had control of Biden’s autopen. The faceless bureaucrats do not have an incentive to maintain a society in which the productive can become rich and free, with the result that we now see catastrophically unfolding in Britain. It is a problem akin to China’s perennial court eunuch problem.
>My question was meant to highlight the fact that ultimately somebody pays up.
Sure. Tax ‘the poor’, spending reduces, and now ‘the rich’ are poorer too. All costs are passed on.
Tax ‘the rich’, prices go up, and now ‘the poor’ and poorer too. All costs are passed on.
Musk is and Jobs was sexy precisely because they’re the counterexample, the exception to the rule.
What has Buffet made? What do hedge fund managers make? Jim Simons was the sexiest hedge fund manager yet what did he make? What does Larry Fink of BlackRock make? Hell, who succeeded Jobs? Tim Cook. Under his stewardship Apple has blown all the other chip designers out of the water even as its phone, tablet, and computer software rots from the inside out. Take a survey of the nature of the wealth of the superyacht owners at Port Hecule. I don’t cheer for these people because they’re raisin-testicled bean counters whose specialty is mastery of magical bits of paper.
“Musk found fourteen computers with the capability to issue new money”
There are tens of thousands of computers with that capability.
How can Musk win if he doesn’t know what money is? How can you?
I say this in the nicest possible way.
If the most prominent oligarch of them all is an exception to the rule, your rule is in big trouble. All the oligarchs around Trump, and Trump himself, are “exceptions” to your rule. Thermidor was in part a coup by the productive oligarchs such as Musk and Andreesan against the FIRE economy oligarchs such as Fauci and Soros.
If you track all wealth of the modern world to its sources, it all comes from such “exceptions”. If you are not scratching at the dirt with a digging stick and piece of flint, it is thanks to such “exceptions”.
Warren Buffet is productive, in that he allocates capital to its highest and best use. Blackrock is destructive, an example of the FIRE economy burning wealth, because it gets control of other people’s wealth through corrupt agents who manage other people’s wealth, who get their power to control other people’s wealth through the regulatory revolving door, and Blackrock proceeds to piss other people’s wealth away, investing in things that lose huge amounts of money, but yield political power, such as ESG.
Any economy in which your “rule” is the actual rule, as for example Britain, is collapsing, and pretty soon the inhabitants of Britain are going to be eating each other to survive, as was the end state of rule by court eunuchs in China. To the extent that any economy is actually functional, your rule is not the rule, but the exception. If something does not happen soon in Britain, they will be cutting each other up with bits of broken glass and roasting each other over fires made from the timbers of old buildings, as in the end state of rule by court eunuchs in China. We have been around this merry go round before.
To the extent that your “rule” accurately describes an economic sector, as for example the American video games industry, that sector is collapsing. To the extent that your rule describes a country, as for example Starmer’s Britain, that country is collapsing.
You are an ignorant moron. You have to be astonishingly dumb to think you are smarter and more knowledgeable than Musk.
Musk is good at talking to normies, better than I am. But I am sufficiently good at it to recognise that he resembles a human talking to dogs.
There are not thousands of computers with the power to issue money. There is supposed to be only one computer with the power to issue American money. If there are fourteen, there are probably more, but with Doge hunting them down, not many more. Doge aims to restore the official situation that only one computer can issue money.
Port Hercules. Fucking autocorrect. My point exactly.
When capitalists create value, they create a financial market. Hedge fund managers invest in that market, sailing in the wake of capitalists. Nothing wrong with that.
Obviously not all big names stick to that formula. Larry Fink invests in capital but also has a side gig as GAE enforcer. And for George Soros being a GAE enforcer is his full-time employment.
Thanks for calling me an ignorant moron. I’m not smarter than Musk but I am more knowledgeable. I understand nearly everything Musk says and many things that he doesn’t say. Can I keep up with him on rockets? No. Could he keep up with me on money? Yes, but only after I explained it once to him. His disbelief at the magic money machines was written on his face. He hasn’t figured it out yet. There are tens of thousands of computers with the money to issue U.S. money. Even officially there are at least 12, one at each of the Federal Reserve banks. DOGE is unlikely to find them all. Sorry.
Alf: “When capitalists create value, they create a financial market.”
When capitalists create value who are they creating value for? Shareholders, right?
Are mortgages a legitimate method of value creation?
Are mortgage-backed securities a legitimate method of value creation?
In Europe they have something called a VAT: Value-Added Tax. Does a tax add value?
That you are asking questions in this form suggests that you will not understand, or will refuse to understand, the answers. The mortgage questions are addressed here.
The value added tax question is too stupid to be dignified with a response.
You are being stupid. Capitalists create value for customers, employees, and shareholders. They cannot create value for shareholders, except by creating value for everyone.
Observe, for example, China.
Your economic reasoning and economic understanding is on par with the Black Lives Matter protestor who thinks that being prevented from helping himself to what is on the supermarket shelves is white racism.
There are plenty of examples of state sponsored value subtracting capitalism, and you correctly point to the City of London as an egregious example, but if there was not value creating capitalism, there would not be anything for them to subtract from.
“Warren Buffet is productive, in that he allocates capital to its highest and best use.”
But our productive oligarchs have trash taste. Having some allocation to make sure Coca Cola rules the world is not the same as making good entertainment.
Maybe, if you try to launch an america anime studio (which doesn’t exist despite what NetFlix wants you to believe as this all gets outsourced to korea, japan, and whatever), it would be immediately DEI’d up, so its pointless for a guy to even put a measly 1 million into getting it up and running so the young lads don’t wander off to become weebs because everything else is a toxic sewage. But to me it seems like they have no taste. If you ask Buffet as a patron what he would most like to see in the world, it would be the most dull, boring answer you’d get.
You could have the strongest economy in the world with the richest workers, but you can still face spiritual death because the holy icons, statues, and arts all look like a guy showing his naked ass off to you to see his butthole, as is the literal case in UK’s museums.
Respect for Bezos for trying to setup his own entertainment biz, but you can see what the results are if you even try.
This the result of USAID funding, plus the cultural influence of Harvard. Notice the vigorous effort to push modern art and architecture onto the Afghans.
This stuff always reflects the state religion. Capitalists always have to conform to the state religion. If we had a non demonic state religion, they would be funding great art.
So I went clicking around on Russian art museums. Seemed like mostly good stuff
The funny thing is, Japan’s animation studio was a state creation made in WW2 to spew out anti-American propaganda. It just got retrofitted for modernity, otherwise we would really just be stuck with infiniggers movies featuring chocolate shaneeqa a thousand times over.
Microsoft just issued an infinigger game. All characters are unattractive black females. Good artwork, mindless story, poor quality combat and ridiculous game physics. As a game, OK, except, of course, all characters unattractive black females. Game fails catastrophically. Set in a magic world derived from voodoo, from black superstition and witchcraft, rather the medieval mythology.
I suppose the target demographic was unattractive black female gamers. But an unattractive black female gamer does not want to play an unattractive black female character. She wants to play a hot chick.
Corporations are a leaky abstraction. They are composed of real, breathing human beings. A corporation far away is composed of human beings far away. A corporation next door is composed of your neighbors. You have lost the trees in all the forest.
So get cracking on building your own robot technology. Buy some Jetson nanos and a Jetson AGX Orin Developer kit. Use the AGX to generate models which then get distilled into models the nanos can run.
Pretty sure that if you can make a drone that can autonomously fly through obstacles such as a ruin or a forest, spot humans and vehicles lurking in cover, and then fly home and report, you can very quickly become a billionaire.
There is also an urgent need for an ambush drone, that flies to a location, waits for a passing vehicle or human, and then takes autonomous action.
We are likely to transition to an aristocratic order, in which the knights are ace drone operators, and the Kings are good drone operators and also drone sysadmins.
Me, I am working on something I think matters more than robots.
>Pretty sure that if you can make a drone that can autonomously fly through obstacles such as a ruin or a forest
Which is exactly what is being done in occupied Russia/ukraine by the pentagon, the kremlin, and whatever the chinese counterpart is called. The hardware and the image processing software(laughably called artificial intelligence) have been around for a while. Putting those things together to make “smart” bombs isn’t too hard.
And speaking of computer hardware, its production is very very centralized. Which looks like a very serious problem. Because whereas the pentagon and the chinese government have free access to chip production facilities, ordinary mortals do not. So you can only get fully backdoored hardware from nvdia, and use it on their terms.
Observed behaviour of small drones relies on human intelligence. Autonomy is now feasible, but is not implemented.
All advanced economies in the world got that way with protectionist trade policies.
They got that way by protection and internal monopoly. One great man with political backing had a monopoly in some technology, in which he was the leading innovator, and, having monopoly, had financial incentive to enourage local suppliers to provide related technologies, since he was their sole supplier and sole customer, thus creating an ecosystem of tech businesses.
Of course this, political backing for certain businessmen, is the same system as is destroying western economies with the FIRE economy of fake GDP. The difference is that those rewarded in economic destruction are accountants and lawyers, who get monopolies and oligopolies in being able to issue pieces of magic paper, while those politically rewarded in the creation of an advanced real economy are engineers.
Right now, the real British economy is disappearing, because those who farm, those who build things, shopkeepers, and landlords are unable to afford the ever increasing burden of magic bits of paper. Shops have closed, farms have been abandoned to wilderness, factories closed, and landlords are no longer renting their properties out. Meanwhile official GDP goes sky high, due to ever increasing production of magic bits of paper.
Whether the rather close relationship between state and business leads to industrialisation or de-industrialisation all depends on whether those favored by the state are those producing real value, or those on the revolving door between regulators and regulated.
Indeed, at the end of the day it all comes back to the inescapability of object-level judgement, ‘fiat’, that Organization Men live in such fear of, which sentiment gnostic daemonhosts in turn take advantage of to disingenuously enact their own fiat, by opposing all forms of good by fiat, under the guise of opposition to fiat as such.
It never ceases to amuse me that the break up of Standard Oil made Rockefeller much richer
RFKjr trying to axe water fluoridation.
Dose fluoride protect teeth from cavities?
A topical application of fluoride can indeed produce a form of coating; but many things, like waterglass (sodium silicate) or pozzolanic compounds in general can produce a superior effect and without deleterious side effects. Of course fluoridating the water itself does nothing except make the cattle disabled, which the daemonhosts love. And ironically, systemic intake from long term use weakens bone and enamel from fluoridosis, amongst other things…
Fluorine is the most electronegative common element on the planet. It is reactive with practically everything, and to such a degree that reaction products of such are oft themselves still further reactive, resulting in scientifically Interesting chain reactions, especially in chemically complex environments (like the bodies of multicellular lifeforms). The history of discovery in fluorine chemistry is lined with more Darwin Awards than pretty much anything else a man can possibly get up too in a laboratory, including and especially attempts to harness the reactivity of such in explosives and propellants. It is used in no bodily processes and is toxic at any concentration. The correlation between water fluoridation and decreased cognitive performance and increased behavioral issues is universal. Many psychoactive compounds commonly utilized by the GAE psychiatric priesthood are based on fluorine chemistry; all examples of such are neurotoxic in general, and productive of new and innovative deleterious effects on subject’s basal architectures of sentiment in particular. In short, it is great for making your enemies die horribly, but has no business being in or around or anywhere near your body, unless your business is making a suicide attempt, and any degree of avoidable exposure that you can avoid is a favor to your future self and any one and any thing that relies on that man.
“all examples of such are neurotoxic”
Sweet! (Kidding, kidding.)
I’ll offer a pithier and less technical answer than Pseudo’s that’s easily packaged into a sound bite for your normie friends:
Have you been to the dentist recently?
They have all stopped using fluoride treatments in their regular checkups/cleanings, or demoted it to an optional service that’s no longer recommended. And always have a fluoride-free option for those silly loot bags they give out afterward.
If the dental industry is severely pulling back on fluoride products as a mouthwash or toothpaste, you can be damn sure it’s not something you need or want in your drinking water.
Sometimes with “the science” it also pays to step outside and look at the issue from farther off.
For example, the American habit of circumcising their boys. The warriors of The Science will treat you like a nazi luddite how it’s the most obvious thing in the world. However. Do Europeans cut off their foreskins? No. Do their dicks fall off as a result? No. Ergo, it’s optional, unless religion – mandated.
Likewise with the additives to US foods, which Europe and China refuse to import. Within the US you’re a crackpot loon who believes in conspiracies that the food is poisoned. However both Brussels and Beijing act as segments of it are indeed poisoned.
Which brings us to fluoride. Does Europe put fluoride in its water? No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_by_country#Europe
Except for Ireland, and little bits of Spain and England.
South Korea and the Japs also don’t do it. Singapore does. But they are “The Science” fanatics, during covid jabs too. A problem with benevolent firm hands is sometimes their benevolence is wrong but the firm hand still applies.
China has stopped since the 1980s. Russia doesn’t do it.
So. There are absolutely enormous control groups concerning fluoride in the water, concerning crap in the food, concerning foreskin removal, and other issues. People throw molecules and peptides and lab jargon at each other, but there is an actual world outside the bubble. It exists. Amusingly, many of the progressive one-world pro-diversity types, absolutely refuse to look at issues of this type from a diverse and global point of view, and instead throw around molecule chains and institutional reports inside their little tunnel-vision hell.
King Donald is declaring the names of traitors to the public
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/addressing-risks-associated-with-an-egregious-leaker-and-disseminator-of-falsehoods/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/addressing-risks-from-chris-krebs-and-government-censorship/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/modernizing-defense-acquisitions-and-spurring-innovation-in-the-defense-industrial-base-5c9/
(Link has misleading title, the actual title of the memorandum is ADDRESSING RISKS FROM SUSMAN GODFREY)
We have a long long list to go, but this is a start.
Trump’s storm of executive orders is the King as supreme lawgiver. His executive orders targeting individuals and lawfirms is the King as the supreme Judge.
He is also targeting the universities, and the Ivies in particular and Harvard in particular among the Ivies. Next up, the King as the fount of all honors mortal and divine.
Long live his majesty the King, Donald James Trump!
Merely whisper the name of your adversary and millions of men will line up for the honor of eliminating him!
Allow us humble servants to carry out your divinely inspired will! We are naught but the inferior limbs of your majesty stretching across your majesty’s vast Kingdom! Hail! Hail! Hail!
With all due respect, who cares?
Who cares? We ought to be focusing on destroying China.
I assume this is sarcasm.
If you look out the plane window from ten thousand feet as it comes in for a landing, it is obvious that Chinese real GDP is greater than American real GDP. In a war, America is going to lose.
Jesus Christ. China is mankind’s last, best hope. It’s got a lot of problems, and sucks in a lot of ways, but it’s not satanic faggots and it’s not infininiggers. If China goes down, that’s it. Lights out for centuries, maybe forever.
All this talk of taxing the rich and poor has made me think of another topic that is not frequently discussed here or anywhere much in the alt-right sphere and that is the topic of patrilineal succession. While the woman’s question is frequently discussed here, other aspects of patriarchy are not as frequently discussed.
Today, the inheritance of father’s property by son is more relevant than ever, since I think this is the foundation of a patriarchal society. Son inheriting the ancestral property is the most natural and dharmic thing in the universe and yet, socialism has all but been destroyed as a social technology. Of course, it is still legal to inherit, but the high “inheritance tax” and other paperwork imposed by governments make it is all too clear that inheritance is seen as evil, evil “upper caste”/”white man” privilege which must be destroyed. Along with feminism, I think the attack on patrilineal succession of property is the biggest attack by the socialists and later the modern progs on patriarchy. Of course, the progressive religion emphasizes on the female emancipation part more, but the old-type socialists got there first.
A healthy aristocracy is one that preserves the family wealth down the generations. Even among the proles, this should be the norm, rather than the exception. That ensures social stability and higher trust. The King should not tax the passing down of family wealth from one generation to the next.
But I don’t see much discussion on this topic much anywhere in the alt-sphere. Seems that the West generally thinks that inheritance is bad, but why is this not discussed in much detail.
The attack on (traditional) millionaires and patrilineal inheritance is generally a leftist one, to topple the applecart and pick the apples, but it is older than the current progressive religion and needs to be addressed as well.
You can make women property again, but you need the family property to be preserved down the generations for the children, otherwise having sons make no sense.
Extremely Aryan. Have you read The Ancient City by any chance?
I haven’t (thanks for the recommendation btw), but I am not surprised that this concept existed back in Greece and Rome at the time.
It’s a fascinating read. The author reconstructs the original Indo-European religion from remnants he finds in Greek, Roman, and Indian sources, and it’s very convincing. Inheritance is central.
I highly recommend sir Robert filmer , Patriarcha.
This book is the unnamed book that most enlightenment writers , wrote against starting with John Locke “two treatise of civil government “
I recommend this book:-
PATRIARCHA and
Other Political Works of
SIR ROBERT FILMER
by
PETER LASLETT
It provide a modern but fair commentary
His comments on patriarchal families and primogeniture inheritance is quite interesting
Surprisingly, I can find an online link to the book in different formats as well; I wonder whether it has been edited subsequently or left as it was originally published by the author.
Was not familiar with this name, quoting grok here
He seems like /ourguy/, arguing our case all the way back when the very roots of our modern ails first sprouted. Thank you for a very great reference.
Gnostic souled progroids are not merely ‘high time preference’, they positively hate stewardship. The idea of leaving lasting legacies on this plane of creation, they hate it. The idea of wise husbandry, thrift, and accumulation of things, they hate it. They can’t relate at all to the idea of getting things not merely for yourself but also – or even exclusively – for being left to the next generation. It doesn’t even exist in their mental universe, or to the extent it does exist, they see it as confirmation of the wickedness of this world in ‘unmerited’ privileging of others over themselves; but their own sins are naturally reflected in the sins of their fathers as well.
This. I remember mentioning some time back in another context that lefists hate the very concept of ownership.
I think it’s ironic that the surface level justification of Gaia worship is to “preserve our planet for future generations” but all in the abstract, it makes no sense. Gaia worship is the prime example of hatred of the material existence.
Should read ” yet, socialism has all but destroyed it as a social technology.”
Dear Jim, dear Gentlemen,
I think I realized an important thing today. Finally I have something I can take to normies and they can’t call me crazy for it!
Remember the core DE idea, Moldbug, 2007: elected politicians are not truly sovereign, they are undermined by the soft power of the Cathedral. Tell this to normies and they will call it tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory… I struggle with this for 15 years…
My epiphany: the Papacy did the same exact thing to Medieval kings! Jim, is this true? And the kings attempts to resist e.g. the Avignon captivity is well documented, suggesting this soft power was indeed powerful!
If you say this is true, I can take this to normies: I can tell them this happened, we know it, therefore it can happen again, and we must at least consider that this is (was?) happening.
For example I know someone who knows someone who knows Ann Applebaum. She has huge ideological blinders, but she is not entirely dishonest. She as a historian has to admit this can happen.
More parallels:
1) Both the Papacy and the Cathedral act/ed like moral compasses for people, because they were/are learned and had a smooth way with words
2) The only possible solution is an authoritarian move that violates some rights. The King of France cannot have the nobles vote on whether to kidnap the Pope to Avignon. Their interest is a King weakened by the Pope, because such instability offers them chances to grab this or that. So this is always authoritarian. King Henry VIII was also often called a tyrant.
Question: do we have a good example from the Middle Ages, when the Papacy was pushing kings towards too much holiness?
I think this has been a fundamental point of Jim’s for a long time, that the root of all evil is the Pope/Papacy coveting what is Caesar’s.
We did not have a medieval holiness spiral. We had a power struggle between the Papacy and Kings — which led to disaster in the crusades.
Which disaster illustrates that the soft power of the Church is quite powerful.
If you have that considerable power, then as now, and the Church is also now going insane, then that power will produce current year madness.
Back then it was merely going corrupt — introducing heresies ad hoc for the momentary needs of war and politics. But now, rapidly escalating heresies in the Church’s internal power struggle to be the holiest. So not the same thing. Then, struggle between Church and King which harmed the ability of Christendom to act cohesively. Now, power struggle within the Church, which harms the ability of the state to act sanely.
Back then state power was with the warriors and now it’s a competition between rival priestly factions. Naturally the internal power struggle between priests produce holiness spirals.
But priests coveting earthly power and using their superior holiness as a means is to that end a common factor.
Only if the struggle is within the same faith. Priestly struggle between competing faiths leads to physical violence, but no holiness competition.
When two different faiths clash, it is not usually a priestly struggle but a clash of civilisations leading to hot holy war led by warrior priests.
Good point
Still, Jim, do you agree that the soft power / Cathedral / incomplete sovereignty element, minus the holiness spiral, is similar – and that this I can take to normies?
Normies here also mean the circles of Viktor Orbán (who is a Calvinist and most of his circle are, interestingly, in a Catholic majority country. Calvinists are… efficient, in a way). I have the ear of a young man who has the ear of an older conservative historian woman who has the ear of Orbán.
What I want is, at least our most basic ideas, really lvl 1, should circulate around more. This is not the whole red pill, of course. Neither it is purple – it is just a step 1, lvl 1 red pill. Red Pill Course 101. One does not mix truth with lies, but one also does not have to tell everything in one go at the first step. Give normies time to digest truth.
Would you “bless” this?
@Neurotoxin
1) strangely the reply button works under all comments, except yours @Jim interesting software behaviour
2) I think the average Euro-Conservative is far more ignorant than the average American Conservative. They think the NATO is merely an alliance of sovereign democracies. They can be compared to the Tom Clancy subtype of American “conservative”. In one of his airport novels, he had Admiral Mancuso say now women are serving on attack submarines, and they really could have waited with this reform until he retires. He really does not present any argument whatsoever other than “um I am an old fart”. This is so disgraceful. Basically he accepts that they are right, and it is just his own personal problem that he is too old to be so flexible. This is literally worse than just staying silent on the issue. I despise this attitude so much… literally, literally worse than just staying silent. This kind of “conservatism” is on the net very harmful. It is literally better to have a sarcastic smile and a wink and say nothing… sorry for the rant, I was drinking. Anyhow, Euroconservatives are like that too… “I am too old for this shit”. Thanks for nothing, then…
(The inability to reply is caused by the blockquote tag. To get around it, mouse over the left side of the Reply button.)
As to European conservatives with their heads in the sand… we live in an era in which decades of historical time happen in months or weeks. Lots of eyes are being opened and more will be.
Seriously, people called you a conspiracist for saying this? Seems like plain vanilla conservatism to me. Any normie conservative here in the US will agree that (1) the bureaucracy has way too much power that is supposed to be in the hands of the people’s elected representatives, and (2) woke ideology has essentially taken over US society, including the government.
Moral parallax; people organizing for power is great and glorious when bluetribesmen are talking about it, and a scurrilous black myth when their targets talk about it. The phrase ‘conspiracy theory’ itself is one of the greatest fnords in modern history; imbuing a sense of *inherent* untruth in a phrase that literally applies to literally every form of organized effort.
Eg, there’s no way these people could be working together for mutual advantage, because that would be ‘conspiracy thinking’, which is false; and if they are working together, then they aren’t ‘conspiring’ anymore, because it’s true… and so on. The conflation of these senses is an honestly impressive act of psychological alchemy.
I have also noticed this over the last couple of years. As the left’s bad behavior got worse, they were forced to resort to “conspiracy theorist!” more and more as defensive rhetoric.
It’s also interesting that you used the word fnord, because Robert Anton Wilson also pointed out that “conspiracy theory” just means some people cooperating to achieve some goal, not exactly an unusual occurrence.
No plausibly “mainstream” media figure would say such things before the Ronavirus.
They did all the time; bashing bureaucracy and leftist ideology are basic parts of mainstream conservatism. The only way I can make sense of your statement is that by mainstream media figure you mean “reporters.” I’m talking about mainstream conservatives.
My favorite example of this dynamic between priests and kings is the Pharoah Akhenaten.
He switched the state faith from a corrupt polytheistic preisthood to a monotheist sun god, with he the Pharoah as the divine representative and high priest on earth. Finding it hard to govern in the swamp, moved the capital as well. The story has a sad ending, as unfortunately his new healthier priesthood failed to outlive him.
I’m not sure how to translate this series of events, which most people here would recognize instantly as the warrior king coup-ing the evil priesthood, into a form that people stuck in the linear progressive mindset could understand, but it has all the important concepts in one neat package, trapped in historical amber, far away from other historical figures that have been ‘reconstructed’ since the whigs.
Indeed. Recently finished Cline’s 1177 BC: The Year Civilization Collapsed and wished he spent more time on Akhenaten as his brief detail perked up my ears for the exact reasons you give.
In one of Freud’s more engaging non-psychoanalytical books, Moses and Monotheism, Freud hypothesizes that Moses was a trusted ally of Akhenaten, and the exodus was in fact Moses fleeing with his people after the Akhenaten regime failed, but bringing with him the monotheistic concept.
Then, when they crossed the desert, his tribe merged with the locals already inhabiting the place, who worshiped a volcano. Hence the the burning bushes up the mountain, and the dark clouds etc. Hence also, in the Old Testament, Jehovah sometimes having the attributes of the creator of everything, and at other times more of some mid-tier demon who protects a specific tribe while being paid by sacrifices.
By this logic, the Old Testament are already a description of the constant impulse of the relevant tribes to keep drifting toward demon-worship, and being on occasion forced by strong virtuous men to return to the One God. The commandments given to Moses by God, it matters not whether during specific states in the desert or close to bubbling lava, are thus the skeletal structure which was used from then onward, when strong men appeared who could use it, as an anchor to keep the flock from straying into demon worship.
Perhaps demon worship is the default state of humans, and it takes supreme willpower, strength of character, and vision, to keep oneself from straying into demonic mode, and keep one’s fellows from going there as well.
When the Son of God and God in One accused the local priests of worshiping Satan, no doubt this was yet another period of innumerable periods, when demon-worship had taken over, the tribes reverting to baseline satanism.
Freud counted himself as an atheist, so of course he saw his theoretical reconstruction as an illustration of something else entirely (albeit in later life he embraced Arthur Schopenhauer wholeheartedly, as a sort of spiritual substitute), and there has been little research that I know of, refuting or conforming his theoretical reconstruction, but it’s an interesting view.
If true, no more a “refutation of God”, than Khrushchev’s old jibe “we sent a man into space and there were no angels there”. If not true, then just a mind-stimulating addition to the subject.
It seems likely that the original Aryans, or a substantial fraction of them, worshipped “God the father” (“Dyēus Phter” in the theorized and reconstructed Aryan language), and this line of worship proceeds through Melchizedek and Abraham to the present day. So it is not unreasonable for God to take a particular interest in a tribe that mostly adhered to the true faith.
Modern progressives sneer at anyone who does not value all humans equally, or all life equally, or all life and non life equally. But that is because they are stupid.
Here’s a similar one. (I’m going to join the spirit of the times and get my history from pop culture; all the kids are doing it.) In Neal Stephenson’s Baroque Cycle, King Louis XIV deals with an aristocracy that is a threat to his power by issuing an edict requiring them to leave Paris and live at Versailles. This neatly uproots them from the money and social connections that are the source of much of their power. Or maybe Louis just moved there himself and anyone who wanted to curry favor had to move there too. Wouldn’t work with modern comm tech, though, thus the necessity of going after USAID.
Peter the Great the reformer builds St Petersburg from nothing way up in the northern swamps, in 1703, and makes it the new capital of Russia.
Then after 1917 the bolsheviks do a reverse switch and move the capital back to Moscow.
Kazakhstan also did this in the late 1990s, moving the capital from Almaty to Astana.
Comrade Xi has been gradually moving Beijing’s institutions out of Beijing over the last years.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202107/1230153.shtml
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3220215/chinese-president-xi-jinping-signals-fresh-drive-move-state-institutions-out-beijing
Once an institution becomes bureaucratic, it is very difficult to reform. You have to create a fresh institution.
Test.
This website ate my reply. I’ll write it again later.
Had been skimming over Carlton S. Coon’s politically incorrect (pro-HBD) classic, “The Origin of Races,” which is largely inspired by Franz Weidenreich’s theories and similar to another familiar classic, “Erectus Walks Among Us” by Richard D. Fuerle, when, whaddayaknow, I encountered this pearl which I just had to share with ya’ll niggas:
Excellent points, Professor Coon. Truly, you were a high primate. However, female sexual selection is not the sole factor; male-on-male competition irrespective of female mate choice also plays a role here. Regardless, both female sexual selection and male-on-male competition are solved, so to speak, by the establishment of monogamous marriage, a prerequisite for human evolution towards a civilization-producing species; which is why, for all our sexual dimorphism, and for all our savagery, we aren’t exactly chimps or gorillas. Listen to Professor Coon!
“Among primates it is easier to be a female than to acquire one.” Huh!
Well, anyway, when the Hard Lessons taught by the Gods of the Copybook Headings (Gods of Reality) are forgotten, you end up with a European TFR of 1.38 and a European median age of 44.7 years. Now, zombies addicted to movies and series, and who erroneously believe life itself to be just like a movie or a series, where you can just turn it off and everything’s fine, are bound to re-learn the Hard Lessons. You see, no one is becoming a computer program this millennium or the next, possibly ever; so if patriarchal marriage is not restored in Europe, the result will inexorably be the violent displacement of the aging, indigenous population with an infinity of Africans, an infinity of Indians, and an infinity of Mohammedans. Who will, as Dr. Professor Ice Cube might say, “Eat you like a cannibal.” (Gangsta rap made me do it!) It seems that Europe has about 20 years or so to fix the problem; likely even less than that. The situation is dire, and no beeping and booping AI dreck/demon will change that. Wake up!
On a related note: Consider just who is responsible for the endlessly repeated propaganda-brainwashing that asserts that “women do not really enjoy vaginal sex.” Hmmm. Who could be behind this? What a mystery. See, I may be something of an incel, but I have had sex using my Jewish penis (Schlomo the Penis), and can confirm that women actually do, in fact, very much enjoy vaginal sex. So who is responsible for this malicious lie? Could it be the same “people” who scared all of society about the fake and gay “AIDS epidemic”? Could it be the same “people” who told us that we’re all Homer Simpson? Think about it – what exactly is the purpose behind the malicious lie that “women do not really enjoy vaginal sex”? What’s the agenda?
I’ll end this post with an inspirational poem I read recently, by the American poet Joaquin Miller:
***
Behind him lay the gray Azores,
Behind the Gates of Hercules;
Before him not the ghost of shores,
Before him only shoreless seas.
The good mate said: “Now we must pray,
For lo! the very stars are gone.
Brave Admiral, speak, what shall I say?”
“Why, say, ‘Sail on! sail on! and on!’ ”
“My men grow mutinous day by day;
My men grow ghastly wan and weak.”
The stout mate thought of home; a spray
Of salt wave washed his swarthy cheek.
“What shall I say, brave Admiral, say,
If we sight naught but seas at dawn?”
“Why, you shall say at break of day,
‘Sail on! sail on! and on!’ ”
They sailed and sailed, as winds might blow,
Until at last the blanched mate said:
“Why, now not even God would know
Should I and all my men fall dead.
These very winds forget their way,
For God from these dead seas is gone.
Now speak, brave Admiral, speak and say” —
He said, “Sail on! sail on! and on!”
They sailed. They sailed. Then spake the mate:
“This mad sea shows his teeth tonight.
He curls his lip, he lies in wait,
With lifted teeth, as if to bite!
Brave Admiral, say but one good word:
What shall we do when hope is gone?”
The words leapt like a leaping sword:
“Sail on! sail on! sail on! and on!”
Then pale and worn, he kept his deck,
And peered through darkness. Ah, that night
Of all dark nights! And then a speck —
A light! a light! at last a light!
It grew, a starlit flag unfurled!
It grew to be Time’s burst of dawn.
He gained a world; he gave that world
Its grandest lesson: “On! sail on!”
***
(Please, please, don’t kill all Israelis.)
[Meant in reply.]
Beautiful poem.
Are you going to give me my foreskin back?
Yes, if we restore civilization, it should be possible to regenerate organs. I’d like to have my own foreskin back, at least the frenulum. But first – need to restore civilization.
If the Jews give me back my foreskin, complete with frenulum, and turn against usury, we’ll call it even.
Wasn’t it John Harvey Kellogg who snipped you out? Hey, I don’t absolve the Jews of responsibility completely, since they deliberately corrupted the science after the mutilation had already been introduced in order to justify it (surprise surprise); but your dick-blood is not on their hands, as they did not introduce it, and if white Christians decide to abolish it, no kike can stop them.
Once again Cominator is proven right about antisemites of your variety.
As a matter of fact, like so much obscene evil, American (U.S.) routine infant circumcision wasn’t popularized until after WWII. The culprit (we’re to believe) was one Benjamin Spock, a psychoanalyst [n.b. psychoanalysis is an especially malignant creation of secular Jews] hardcore left-wing socialist [n.b. left-wing socialism is an especially malignant creation of secular Jews] pediatrician [n.b. American pediatrics is an especially malignant creation of secular Jews], with his book Baby and Child Care (1946). Allegedly of Dutch descent, he was one ugly, Jewish-looking motherfucker, proving once and for all either that crypto-Jews were far more prominent that we know or that physiognomy is an eternal truth transcendent of race.
Well, I’m definitely in favor of gassing some of the kikes. Anyone involved in popularizing this demonic crap should be sent right down to the Eternal Abyss.
Recall the Guy Fieri memes from TRS – just pop ’em in the oven.
Bullshit Spock was a popular headshrinker not a regular doctor Kellogg popularized it. Circumsicion is something that cannot be blamed on jews or even Jesuits Kellogg unfortunately was 100% old stock American
Even if we lay everything at the feet of Kellogg, a man so insane he allegedly never even consummated his own marriage, he also “dedicated the last 30 years of his life to promoting eugenics and segregation” (Wikipedia). The Jews wiped out both of those as soon as possible. Clearly if they didn’t find mass infant foreskin theft to be agreeable they would’ve stamped it out like they stamped out both “eugenics” and “segregation” in the 60’s and 70’s. There’s no escape!
Also known as “moving the goalposts.”
I’ve acknowledged that Kellogg was a sexual (an asexual) weirdo freak. If Kellogg was single-handedly responsible for popularizing male genital mutilation in America why didn’t his popularization efforts of segregation and eugenics meet with success?
https://i.makeagif.com/media/12-01-2022/CMWhTO.gif
It did to some extent, eugenics and racialism got stronger after the civil war years and during the progressive era (it was literally the only good thing about the progressive era) it died when American troops liberated Dachau and Buchenwald which while not death camps were bad enough. The new left branded them as guilty by association.
Beautiful poem.
Are you going to give me my foreskin back?
https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/10/health/kennedy-autism-causes/index.html
Supposedly, they’re going to find out what causes autism by September. And if it isn’t the vaccines, it was the anti-vaccine activists who put the most pressure on the government to figure out just what it was.
It might actually be the birth control pill, that untouchable pillar of modernity. Women liberated from their normal hormones go into “refrigerator mom” mode and produce psychologically scarred children. Even the holy vaccines have to submit to the The Pill, like angels bowing down to God.
It is quite obviously the vaccines. You can tell from what official science is averting their eyes from.
I would be surprised if its the pill… I think the pill causes a lot of modern women’s sexual dysfunction and confusion (as a whoremonger the most surprising thing to non whoremongers is that whores don’t often use it) but women obviously generally are off birth control when they do get pregnant and have kids.
There is a great deal of propaganda to scare women into using the pill, but they never like it. Which makes sense as the pill works by tricking the body into thinking it is permanently pregnant, which must be a rather strange sensation.
So, keeping in mind that Trump 1 flopped a bit, and Politico is probably exaggerating the dangers of the terrible horrible Trump 2 administration…
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/11/state-report-anti-christian-bias-033535
> “The Trump administration has ordered State Department employees to report on any instances of coworkers displaying “anti-Christian bias” as part of its effort to implement a sweeping new executive order on supporting employees of Christian faith working in the federal government.”
…with that said, I think this is one of the most inspiring things to come out of Trump’s administration so far.
For decades, Democrats have been using “anti-black bias” and “anti-queer bias” and other kind of client groups as excuses to punish their enemies, with further weaponization of civil rights interpretations where showing bias doesn’t require showing malice or intent, merely disproportion. Your company doesn’t have enough blacks? Million dollar fine and you need to hire this Blackness Professor to educate your employees.
If, and this is a big if, Trump is grasping the same weapon, he could do incredible damage to Democrat organizations. Your company doesn’t have enough Christians? Million dollar fine and you need to hire this priest, etc.
They don’t generally ask if you’re christian they ask if you’re woke leftist etc (generally white males have trouble getting hired anyway) still anti Christian bias does have a narrow use case, against vile Jeets who purge every non jeet from other peoples companies and replace them with their subhuman cousins and fellow caste members. Very encouraging that the Trump admin is now apparently deporting Indians for minor traffic violations… other than D’Souza or Dr. Shiva (ill give Vance’s family a pass) none of them should be in this country.
Doesn’t matter whether they ask if you’re Christian. The civil rights precedent is that *disparate impact*, i.e. hiring too few of a protected group, can be a crime regardless of intent or overt discrimination or asking about protected status.
https://x.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1910755612662579632
This is very very strong confirmation that the 2nd Trump administration is indeed closely following the Yarvin plan. Miller (along with perhaps Peter Navarro who did time in prison because unwilling to flip) is probably Trump’s most trusted advisor outside his own family.
Miller quotes Yarvin, but Trump quotes Napoleon and Cromwell — which sounds more like the influence and plan of this blog, than the influence of Yarvin.
Yarvin correctly observes that FDR was a monarch, and proposes re-activating the monarchy — which plan is clearly being implemented.
I propose stopping the holiness spiral, waiting for superduper holiness to die for lack of apples rolling around from knocked over applecarts, and then rolling back the holiness spiral. Since it will take more than four years for super duper holiness to die, this means that Trump has to do what Cromwell and Napoleon did, and it is up to his successors to do what Monck and Deng did. Which plan is also being implemented.
Jim says:
The current Pentagon thinking has been around for half a decade. Joint Publication 3-72 Nuclear Operations 11 June 2019 says:
“Restoration of strategic stability” translates into, ‘in event of a regional rout, we’ll stabilize it with nukes’. Reading between the lines, Pentagon is aware it is no longer able to win conventionally against current threats.
Immediate Release Fact Sheet on B61 Variant Development October 27, 2023
Originally slated for 2030, it is currently being reported production has been accelerated and units are expected in the spring of 2026. It’s hard to see why production would be accelerated if the target were China and/or Russia. MAD precludes sensible use of tactical nukes unless the target nation doesn’t have sufficient deterrence. Only country that matches that is Iran, and as I’ve pointed out many times, a huge fraction of US nuclear assets and support has been moved into the region at the same time as conventional escalation has been taking place on top of thinly disguised nuclear ultimatums.
Jim says:
Nuclear attack on Iranian military targets is not a direct attack on Russia or China. The natural escalation chain would be for them to conduct nuclear attacks on military targets in what they view as American proxies too close for comfort. There is an understanding that direct nuclear exchange would be mutually unbeneficial, and that hopefully would lead it to the escalation stopping there, but new spheres of influence would get carved out. Just as China/Russia will find out they don’t want armageddon over Iran, the US will find out it does not want armageddon over Taiwan/Eastern Europe.
I want to be clear, the past slew of posts I’ve made on the topic were sarcastic and outright sardonic (though it may not have sounded as such), but they were made out of an analysis of the strategic thought process occurring in the war faction, both in the institutional part (Pentagon) and the civilian political part (Trump’s Thermidor advisors and remnant neocon influence in GOP/DNC). That combined with domestic pressures, and overseas GAE vassal states causing problems, create some very strong short term pressures (at least perceptually) for Trump to push the proverbial button.
I am not happy about where this is all going, but I can see, hear, and feel a buildup towards a confrontation with Iran that far exceeds the Ukraine situation. This is not an inevitability, but the undercurrent of war preparations make it feel so for those in my position who are aware of what is occurring.
This, of course is the fallacy of final escalation. “If I escalate to X, I win, because it is unimaginable that the other guy will escalate to Y.”
Which always works until it does not.
Once you set foot on the nuclear ladder, you are likely to find there is no getting off it.
Mythology of 45 lives strongly in older American minds. Iran takes the mantle of Japan in their minds. The geography effectively makes it an island. Their critical supply routes via ocean have been cut off. They have no way to respond to nuclear strikes other than unconditional surrender. Whether or not any of that is apt analogy…
Look, I’m not arguing that this is a proper course of action. I’m arguing that when considering the concerns and considerations senior policy/decision makers, not to say any of that is reasonable, war with Iran including tactical nuclear strikes start becoming a possibility somewhere in the range of 10-20 percent. I find that worrisome.
Maidan was not a direct attack on Russia either.
Iran is a Russian ally. They have defence pacts. So, tit for tat would be nuke an American ally.
Maidan was not a direct attack on Russia, but it was an extremely personal one for historical, cultural, and security reasons. It was spiritually a direct attack, and in spite of that, direct war and nuclear escalation was avoided, although much too narrowly. This may have taught US policy makers the wrong lesson, namely that because Iran is none of that to Russia/China, there is much more latitude. Their alliance with Iran is one of convenience to soak up US interest. Iran is akin to Finland/Baltic States/Taiwan. All of which are American “allies”. They have defense pacts to one degree or another with the US, but the US has no real emotional commitments to them.
So long as Russia and China issued very short timed (implied nuclear) ultimatums to those countries (similar to US ultimatum to Iran) to stop waging low level war on them (a legitimate case they can make), a distracted US could say that those defensive pacts do not cover defensive retaliation for independent* acts of aggression. i.e. Article 5 does not give Baltic States/Finland cover to blockade Russian territory, nor conduct soft genocide against their ethnic Russian populations… at least that will be the easy off ramp justification for the US to avoid intervening. i.e. US pact with Taiwan does not give it right to attempt regime change in China. It doesn’t even guarantee troop commitments.
Of course this would destroy NATO and the EU, but again, is that really outside US interests?
*Yes, I’m aware that unofficially the US has used these defensive pacts to provide cover to these countries to act unneighborly, and that it was all at the direction of State/CIA, but it’s because it’s unofficial the US can pretend it never sanctioned such actions and can clutch pearls in fake outrage to justify abandoning them.
More cynically, does the US have any “real” allies, or would Russian/Chinese military action that avoids US casualties really do anything other than remove expensive, annoying, and mildly rabid liabilities from the US without the US having to spend domestic political capital to achieve similar cost cutting?