The color revolution playbook

I have been reading the color revolution playbook. It is phrased in politically correct lies, so this is a translation.

  • A powerful elite faction backing the color revolution
  • Lawfare to protect criminal acts by that elite faction and their mobs
  • Loud denunciation of the sovereign
  • Tight discipline and strong organization of the color revolutionaries
  • Much noise that the election result gave an outcome different from that which it appeared to give.
  • Massive astroturf on the streets
  • Providing cover for treasonous elements in the sovereign’s coercive forces to remove the sovereign.
  • If the traitors are defeated by the loyalists, the US air force bombs the &%@# out of the offending loyalist forces.

The reason that the treasonous elements of the coercive apparatus succeeded in past color revolutions was the threat or actuality of US air force bombing. This may not be available in this attempt at color revolution. Nonetheless, it would be advisable for Trump to ready anti air capability in the vicinity of the Whitehouse for the election outcome dispute, as he readied counter snipers for a Maidan massacre in Lafayette Park.

Under Obama, the US air force dropped thirty thousand tons of explosives on loyalist elements in Libya. It is likely that similar orders will be given after the November election, though whether they are likely to be obeyed is another question. They will be less likely to be obeyed if there are loyalist anti air capabilities in the vicinity of the Whitehouse.

You will notice that an election is a critical part of this playbook, so previous efforts at color revolution in the US were aborted when they ran into headwinds. They are planning to go at it for real come November, as disputing an election outcome is the best time for color revolution. The BLM riots are dress rehearsal, training and organizational drill. If the planned attempt following the November election fails, they are likely to give up. The rejection of the election outcome come November will be their make it or break it window.

Due to Trump’s arrests and internal incohesion in the left, the tight discipline and strong organization part does not seem to be working out too well. They are overrun with IQ 100 wiggers, who claim superior holiness on the basis of critical race theory.

Loud denunciations are having diminishing effect, and the mainstream media is discrediting itself, which will limit the effect of loud announcements that Dems won the election, and that Trump is criminally failing to acknowledge Democrat election victory.

in the event of competing delegations that claim to be electors of each state the house and senate have to authorize the electoral college presented by the states. The senate is unlikely to approve obviously fake delegations, and the house is unlikely to approve the real ones, leading to an electoral college with numerous states missing, and whose legitimacy no one accepts, or to two competing electoral colleges. The plan is to launch civil war at that point, with warm ups and trials of strength for the civil war well in advance.

474 Responses to “The color revolution playbook”

  1. skippy says:

    Is this playbook a lot older than often supposed?

  2. BC says:

    A bit off topic:

    Excellent article on the Russian revolution and how the terrorism brought it about.

  3. Brian says:

    Okay, and why. This wouldn’t be the first time, I suppose, an elite has betrayed their people. But why? What’s the motive? Status? Holiness? Why does throwing your people under the bus make one feel holy? Provide status?

    • jim says:

      It is often useful and accurate to conceptualize the Cathedral as a single being with a single will.

      And sometimes it is not useful and accurate.

      The Cathedral is acting self destructively because no friends to the right, no enemies to the left, which means that all one’s friends are one’s enemies and all one’s enemies are one’s friends.

      It is always safer to be too far left than too far right. So if you don’t want to be deplatformed, cancelled, and demonetized, better move leftwards. And if everyone else is moving leftwards, better move further leftwards. And if everyone else is moving further leftwards, better move leftwards faster than they are moving leftwards.

      But which direction is left? That is harder to predict than women’s fashions, and so leftists are always trying to figure out what the next big thing is going to be, and always quarreling with each other over what it should be.

      This has been accelerating faster and faster for two centuries, and can only be stopped by making it as dangerous to be too far left as to be too far right. We are at minimum going to have to demonetize and deplatform Harvard and Yale, and then, Like Charles the Second and Emperor Liu Bang, invite the priestly class for job interviews where they get to reapply for their old jobs, conditional on conformity to the new version of the state religion. More drastic measures may be needed. Whatever the level of violence and repression reaches, will have to be matched and exceeded.

      • Brian says:

        So mimetic desire, the fact that we want want we see others having, envy, pits individuals against each other; that leads chaos and social breakdown – men, women, children have their roles inverted; social order is restored when a scapegoat/s found and killed?

        • jim says:

          mimetic desire and wanting what we see others having is not envy. Wanting what they have is envy.

          What is envy is wanting what is thy neighbor’s,. Wanting to take something away from thy neighbor, wanting to hurt him, wanting him not to have that which he has, rather than wanting to find or create something of equal or superior value.

          If you equate mimetic desire with envy, you presuppose a zero sum world, where the only way to get ahead is to inflict suffering on other people, the only way to attain wealth is to destroy other people’s wealth.

          • Brian says:

            Interesting, thanks for these answers.

            Shill test so I know I can trust your advice:

            Do you renounce Satan, and all his works and empty promises?

            • jim says:

              Satan is a notoriously low paying employer, so yes, I renounce Satan and all his works and empty promises.

              • Not Tom says:

                Satan is a notoriously low paying employer

                Piss poor job security, too.

              • The Cominator says:

                Hes fun as a drinking buddy and at the whorehouse sometimes but you just can’t trust the motherfucker.

              • Brian says:

                Thank you for your excellent insights!

              • Rhovanost says:

                Admittedly, I’m feeling puckish tonight, but I kinda want to know, are you willing to declare that Satan is worse/more worthy of condemnation than William Wilberforce?

                • jim says:

                  Satan is the incarnation of evil, treachery, and lies, William Wilberforce was merely an evil and treacherous liar.

  4. stan says:

    Fox News failed the shill test. Could not name George Soros.

  5. Brian says:

    Also: isn’t it more likely that we’ll get a second, hard lockdown immediately after the election, in California? If their goal is to break people who work for a living, wouldn’t that be the time when they have maximum leverage, minimum accountability?

    • jim says:

      As I said, Lockdown, Global Warming, Spotted Owl, Transpacific Partnership, Paris accords, opposition to oil and gas – all the same program, just different rationales justifying it.

      If Biden does not lock us down for China Flu, he will lock us down for Climate Change Wildfires.

  6. BC says:

    Tim Pool is reading our stuff. He just dropped Jake Gardner was arrested because he dared to oppose the Cathedral in today’s video.

    • ten says:

      He had a guest the other day that started talking about the cathedral, in roughly our way, and Tim either didn’t know it or feigned ignorance.

      So it might just come from that guy.

  7. dedpmb says:

    Following these endless comments unrelated to the blogpost is tiresome. I request a better discussion forum than WordPress comments. If we were not being actively purged from everywhere else I’d even wager a dedicated subreddit. As it is, a login-less comment forum will do. Even phpBB would be better than this. I’ve thought about setting up a board on but that site’s uptime is lower than How about ?

    PS: I find I have to read every single comment here, because I can’t find such analysis anywhere else. And moderation keeps out shills (mostly), unlike halfchan, where one must wade through reams of garbage to reach quality posts.

    • Dave says:

      If you like the design of Reddit but not its censorship, try

      • jim says:

        Trouble is shills.

        We need censorship. Censorship in our favor, and to the disfavor of shills.

        At every site with moderation, the shills eventually inject themselves into the moderation apparatus. We need a site where they don’t.

        We are facing a large well paid and centrally organized effort to disrupt our forums (albeit with more than one center of organization, and sometimes you get shill offices in conflict)

        • Not Tom says:

          I’d guess that he means a moderated by Jim and only Jim.

          Trouble in that case is scale. The blog format itself is a subtle barrier to entry. On a forum, shills would come faster and harder. Besides, it’s harder to moderate comments in a dozen threads than it is in one blog post, even if the volume and breadth of subject matter are approximately the same.

          True discussion forums always outgrow their infrastructure for the purposes of scaling, and community moderation is too low trust. Voting is hilariously low trust and usually worse than nothing.

          Anyway, I think there’s also an advantage to having Jim frame the topic, even if commenters frequently stray off topic. It’s just hard for me to imagine a forum where everybody blurts out whatever they’re thinking as having a lot of valuable content that is easy to discover. Even with the best intentions, it starts to look more like the sewer of social media over time. Look at the decline of Stack Overflow despite its founders initially being quite militant about their narrow mission.

          • dedpmb says:


            Thanks for the shout out to Voat. I’ve known about that site since its inception, and decided not to use it. According to my reading, it has the same structural problems as Reddit, but is simply at a less advanced stage of cancer, more like early Reddit. The best part about the design of Reddit, for me, is actually its comprehensive support for Atom feeds. This is due to the prevalent philosophy in the Swartz/Ohanian early era, but it is a good thing, while it lasts.


            > Trouble is shills.

            Absolutely. This is the single biggest problem with, eg. halfchan.

            > We need censorship. Censorship in our favor, and to the disfavor of shills.

            Thank you! “Censorship” is another leftist anti-concept that we need to avoid. I wouldn’t even say it has to be in our favour. Speech must be allowed, howsoever repulsive, if it is *truthful.* The more repulsive the speech, the higher the objective standard of truth it must be judged by. Truth is its own defence against sophistry. Suppressing damaging degeneracy and objective lies is also “censorship,” and is A Good Thing(tm).

            @Not Tom

            > I’d guess that he means a moderated by Jim and only Jim.

            Very close. Of course, Jim isn’t immortal. When the time comes for him to discard his mortal coil, he must choose a new High Priest. Until then, In Jim We Trust. I cannot see comment volume increasing very significantly for a forum rather than a WordPress blog (which must surely be inundated by bots all the time). But I could be wrong. Vox Day also has a very high traffic blog with the same problem. Scott Alexander also does, but he tried doing a subreddit with hilarious results.

            > …decline of Stack Overflow despite its founders…

            The founders simply recognised the wider societal trends and decided to take their cash and leave the game. Their call for an affirmative-action CEO was pure cringe. Nothing wrong with getting out while still ahead. Same for Reddit, WhatsApp, and most notoriously, GitHub, where the rug was literally pulled out from under “meritocracy.” SO will probably be acquired by Microsoft at some point.

            Point is, “meritocracy” and “Free Speech” used to be really cool when GitHub, Twitter, Reddit, SO etc. were founded. That’s why every greengrocer had those signs in his window. Times change, signs change. I’ll freely admit that I, too, was giddy with excitement about the coming bright future in that era.

            I realised later that “meritocracy” and “Free Speech” were simply the wedges used to breach the castle walls of society. I also realised, once there were no walls, that the walls were actually keeping us *safe.*

            • Not Tom says:

              The founders simply recognised the wider societal trends and decided to take their cash and leave the game.

              I’m not talking about that. From the very beginning there was tension between what they called “inclusionists” and “deletionists”, with the latter being adamant that all low-quality, off-topic or borderline content should be mercilessly purged, and the former grieving endlessly over the “bad experiences” and “negative first impressions” and insisting that they’d get more traffic if the rules and moderators were a hundred times less restrictive. Sound familiar at all?

              The massive decline in quality coincides with the inclusion faction winning power. Now the site is a wasteland, with the same reputation for code that Wikipedia has for education – but at least it’s very welcoming!

              Eternal September is an eternal problem that requires eternal vigilance to prevent.

              • jim says:

                Inclusivity is always a step towards excluding the founders.

                Entryists cry “inclusion”, when included, eject the old guard. I am not aware of this happening at stack overflow, but it is what I see happening everywhere.

                • dedpmb says:

                  > Entryists cry “inclusion”, when included, eject the old guard. I am not aware of this happening at stack overflow,

                  Stack Overflow was 100% the founders saying “Fuck it, We’ll take
                  our cash and leave now kthxbye!”

        • dedpmb says:


          A concrete request/suggestion: Increase the “recent comments” list to as long as your server performance will allow. WP is old-school, but still 100 should be do-able, 1,000 would be excellent :D. You would also need to use a scrolled widget for the recent comments on the main page.

    • yewotm8 says:

      I think a better thing would be to have an option to show only comments you haven’t seen.

  8. Brian says:

    But this is what I find confusing, Martin Kulldorff does go there on the rest home issue:

    “The Swedish age-targeted approach is similar to the strategy used in South Dakota and the current strategy in Florida. It is the opposite of the strategies employed in New York and Massachusetts, where low-risk children are prevented from going to school and low-risk young professionals protect themselves by working from home, while older working-class people must go to work to feed their families, and where elderly infected patients were sent to nursing homes to infect other high-risk residents.

    This strategy has caused enormous harm to the working class, especially the urban working class, since infectious diseases tend to affect urban areas more harshly than rural areas.”

    He’s also running around this weekend picking fights all over academia on social media and in a letter published in the Stanford Daily.

    And Kulldorff, and Katherine Yik are at Harvard. So is Harvard in charge or not. If the blue empire doesn’t answer to criticism from a pair of very holy tenured academics at Harvard, can we say they really answer to Harvard?

    I was shocked to see Kulldorrf, who has been making rumbling noises for months now, go on the offensive as he has. Are the liberal elites getting a signal that this is the time to change tactics?

    • jim says:

      The left is incohesive. Lockdown is not what old type Marxists had in mind.

      They had in mind that they, the vanguard of the proletariat, would be in charge of the workplace. The bioleninist left wants to abolish the workplace,

      Spotted Owl, Paris Accords, anti fracking, Transpacific Partnership, Climate Change, and Covid 19, are all the same program – that the proletariat should not exist, that the proletarian workplace should not exist, that all wealth is produced by people hanging out in offices. Old type Marxists are a significant faction at Harvard, and are not happy with the program, generally being in favor of spotted owl McNuggets.

      The bioleninist left regards production of goods as oppression, and wants to shut it all down forever.

      • Brian says:

        But offices are closed in California. So are most public schools.

        Will they ever reopen?

        • BC says:

          They’ll reopen shortly after the election. It’s unfortunate we can’t keep them closed permanently.

          • Brian says:

            And what’s going on with Sweden? And what’s going on with China? Either government could be lying, but how can we tell?

            • jim says:

              Sweden is herd immunity. China may be herd immunity, may be lying. Hard to tell.

              • Brian says:

                So why isn’t Sweden going along with the lockdown agenda? They seem plenty holy?

                • jim says:

                  Not sufficiently familiar with Sweden.

                  In Europe there is significant dissent within the left on lockdown type programs, and indeed they only bought into the Paris Accord and the Trans Pacific Partnership on the basis of shutting down America’s flyover country, without shutting down their own equivalents, as Trump has frequently pointed out.

                  The periphery of empire seems more holy on race and such, less holy on crushing the proles. Old type Marxists are more entrenched there than here.

                  In America, lockdown is a straight up right versus left, Republican versus Democrat issue. In Europe it is more complicated, with the left faction that would like to make Spotted Owl McNuggets being more outspoken and more powerful.

          • The Cominator says:

            People’s offices should reopen, public schools yes should remain closed forever.

            • BC says:

              That’s what I meant. Though anyone still running a company’s office in CA is in for some bad times even after reopening. CA’s devouring it’s business base.

    • Not Tom says:

      I’m not familiar with these individuals, and they may simply be old-type Marxists as Jim’s reply suggests. However, the individual is not the institution. There are reactionaries and rightists of various stripes at Harvard, just as there are reactionaries and rightists of various stripes at Google and Facebook and Goldman-Sachs and CBS. The key distinction is that these people hide their true thoughts and sometimes even their true identities; they have no real power, and if they step out of line, the institution comes down on them like a ton of bricks.

      In a few rare cases the institutions will even allow a certain autonomy and not dole out punishments until someone strays very far off the reservation – U of Chicago being a good example with their free speech stuff. It’s clear that they are on Harvard’s side and don’t particularly care for the free speech of anyone on the right, but they are also a little bit competitive and think it may be useful to distinguish themselves in that way. Institutions, like people, can have conflicting goals – and as Jim says, institutions can also have conflicting factions.

      The more progressive an institution is, the more factional it is likely to be, because progressive institutions can’t help but implement committees and boards and peer reviews and other forms of democracy and cronyism in every corner of every department; it’s just who they are, and factionalism is the inevitable outcome.

  9. BC says:

    They murdered Jake Gardner tonight. Retaliatory attacks are real possibility.

  10. Brian says:

    Holy Harvard has spoken.

    Katherine Yih, a biologist and epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School and Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School have spoke out against our current COVID-19 hysterical in Jacobin, one of the left’s holiest publications.

    Does this mean we will soon see leftist elites across America adjust to take a saner stance on COVID-19? Will we see teacher’s unions let the schools open? States let bars and restaurants open? Corporations let workers return to their offices?

    “We will have a vaccine sometime between three months from now and never, and we must do our utmost to protect older high-risk individuals until then. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria for a successful vaccine is 95 percent confidence that it is effective in at least 30 percent of the recipients. Hence, if and when a safe vaccine is approved, it may not be able to protect us on its own, without the help of some immunity from natural infections.

    Children and young adults have minimal risk, and there is no scientific or public health rationale to close day care centers, schools, or colleges. In-person education is critically important for both the intellectual and social development for all kids, but school closures are especially harmful for working-class children whose parents cannot afford tutors, pod schools, or private schools.

    The vaccine and “herd immunity” are often presented in opposition to each other in strategic discussions, with the latter evoking viscerally negative reactions. . .

    Somehow, herd immunity has become a toxic phrase, which is strange, since it is a scientifically proven phenomenon just like gravity. Except for the occasional skier, people do not argue for or against gravity. Whatever strategy we use for COVID-19, we will eventually reach herd immunity, either with a vaccine, through natural infections, or a combination of the two.

    So, the question is not whether we get to herd immunity or not. The issue is how to get there with the minimum number of casualties. We do not know what percent immunity to the coronavirus is needed to achieve herd immunity, but we do know that if there are many older people in the group that is infected, there will be many deaths. On the other hand, if mostly young people are infected, there will be very few deaths.”

    Are we about to see the left elite flock to a saner strategy? Or does Harvard no longer have the ability to shape policy? Are they not in charge?

    • jim says:

      > Does this mean we will soon see leftist elites across America adjust to take a saner stance on COVID-19?


      Hydroxychloroquine still unmentionable and unthinkable.

      Not able to speak of the fact that carriers were forced into old people’s homes while Trump’s hospital ship remained empty.

      The left has internal debates about how far it can go. The fact that these leftists were just putting their toes rather carefully into the hot water tells me that they are the losing side in the debate – that the steamroller will roll right over them.

      They are old type Marxists, who have been being expunged from the left for some time, and will continue to be expunged.

      They think that proletariat creates value, and ending the creation of value by the proletariat will do some harm. The mainstream of the left thinks the proles are parasites, and value is created by HR and universities. Food magically appears on supermarket shelves, and electricity at the power point, and supermarket owners just make life hard for people because power. Fight the power man!

      Old type Marxists are a dying breed, and if they refuse to die sufficiently fast the new bioleninist left will murder them soon enough.

      • BC says:

        Most leftists I know won’t outright say it, but they expect covid to be over by Nov 4th and are making plans accordingly.

  11. The Cominator says:

    Random post on Sulla and the smoking crater…

    I’ve been thinking much on Sulla lately and Sulla did not leave a smoking crater he left a smoking crater in Rome’s elite class only and thought that would fix everything.

    Almost every execution ordered by Sulla were of people who were either Senators or Equites (Roman “Knights”, the richest and most powerful people in Rome who were not Senators)…

    Sulla’s failure to stablilize the Republic on a long term basis were essentially due to him thinking sort of like a Roman tradcon.

    As far as Sulla saw things Rome had two big problems

    1) That the office of Tribune of the Plebs was far far too powerful almost kingly in power but there were multiple of them

    2) That the elite class had too many people who were if not outright traitors interested only in themselves

    Sulla did not understand that the Republic which worked well enough as a city govenment did not scale to being a good government to rule over multiple countries and that massive corruption and dysfunction was inevitable. Now Sulla did not have much historical precedent to go off of and can be forgiven his error but Sulla’s purge was only among the elite.

    • jim says:

      I rather think he did stabilize it. Against leftism.

      Trouble is, he had no children, and Rome had a problem with elite fertility, with the elite being replaced by outsiders who were increasingly less aristocratic, less Roman, and less apt to identify with Rome.

      • The Cominator says:

        None of the players in the civil wars of Caesar and Augustus were non Roman outsiders to my knowledge the most prominent Roman statesmen who was considered kind of a foreigner until the 3rd century was Marius who supposedly was considered an Italian nobleman who bought citizenship early in life and rose to prominence through military success.

        • jim says:

          Reflect on what a difference it would have made if Caesar had had a son by good Roman nobility.

          Reflect on what a difference it would have made if Sulla had sons

          Reflect on the difference that the sons of Trump make.

          • The Cominator says:

            There are seperate issues and seperate people to address here.

            Sulla unlike Octavian sincerely believed he was restoring the Republic so he did not intend to have his son if he had a living one succeed him at all. Thats why things didn’t work Sulla was obviously a brilliant man but he was fundamentally the Roman equivalent of a tradcon… Sulla retired from politics after issuing his reforms and killing those he percieved to have been traitors. He really thought he had stablized the Republic long term.

            Octavian knew damn well he was establishing a monarchy and was just calling it the Republic. Octavian may have been shooting blanks, known womanizer (not as much as Julius Caesar was but if you read the primary sources they all say this) despite his later morality campaign but only one daughter.

            Sulla actually had five children but four were girls and his one son died young, he was no Genghis Khan obviously but was not exactly infertile but it wouldn’t have mattered because Sulla had no intention of establishing a monarchy.

            Julius Caesar may have been shooting blanks, he really had a reputation as a womanizer and Caesarian seemed to be his only issue if Caesarian was indeed his. He seemed to have chosen his adopted son very well… as its amazing he wasn’t just quickly and quietly murdered by either Antony or those who supported the assassins as (although Antony also hated the assasins) Octavian was immediately a big problem for both of them.

            Romans may have mostly stopped reproducing by the late Republic especially in the elite classes, but this doesn’t seem to have been the cause of the civil wars.

            • jim says:

              > Romans may have mostly stopped reproducing by the late Republic especially in the elite classes, but this doesn’t seem to have been the cause of the civil wars.

              If you have a fertile elite, there is a good chance that the people at the top are related by blood and marriage. And, if the ruler is not too terrible, and alternative is a long and inconclusive civil war, people will generally favor the ruler being followed by his children. Observe how everyone claimed that they were somehow a descendant of Julius Caesar. Observe that there are now mighty good odds on a Trump dynasty, even among those expecting democracy of a sort to continue. Don Junior is obviously likely to be Trump’s successor, and everyone is eyeing his younger brother Barron.

              If on the other hand, you have an infertile elite, there is going to be a lot of upward mobility, meaning people moving into the elite who lack connections with each other, were not raised in a common culture.

              • The Cominator says:

                Almost everyone in the Roman elite at the time of the civil war were somewhat related, Marius and Cicero (who were “Novus Homo” ie men without Senatorial Ancestors) were very rare exceptions along those lines and Marius I know married into the Julian house (haven’t studied Cicero much because he was just a pompous windbag lawyer as far as I’m concerned).

                Now Octavian deliberately elevated new people who were his own clients to replace people he had proscribed during the wars but until then the Senate was mostly made up of the families that had made up the Senate since they opened up their membership to Plebians.

                • Pooch says:

                  My understanding is the mass importation of slaves brought in during the 2nd century BC, when the plantation system became in vogue pushed native plebs out of the small farms and brought rise to the Populares/Optimate conflict which continually escalated until the Republic fell.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Yes I’ve mentioned that but it wasn’t the only structural problem the Imperial Republic had.

                  Everyone in the elite wanted a proconsular (provincial governor) job (because you could corruptly make a fortune) but you had to get elected Praetor at least to get one… which was ruinously expensive especially if you failed. This also destroyed elite cohesion.

                • Pooch says:

                  Right. Many Romans were drawn away from Rome to colonize newly acquired land which only accelerated race replacement on the Italian Peninsula. Caesar even passed a law prohibiting citizens between 20 and 40 from remaining abroad more than 3 years. I believe he tried to place more restrictions tons on the movements of the youths of the senatorial families.

                • Pooch says:

                  restrictions on*

                • jim says:

                  Had Marius had a son, his son would not have counted as Novus Homo.

                  You can see the shortage biting.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Marius did have a son he was even Consul three times but committed suicide after losing a battle to Sulla rather than be taken hostage or executed.

    • Karl says:

      Please explain why you think that Republic which worked well enough as a city govenment did not scale to being a good government to rule over multiple countries and that massive corruption and dysfunction was inevitable.

      I do not see at all why the Roman government would not scale. I see a failure of Romans to solve the woman question and as a result a lack of fertility. I see a republican system that after a few hundred years run into problems as any system will after such an extended time, the more so the more democratic it is.

      I also do not quite understand your argument that Sulla left a smoking crater in Rome’s elite class only. Sure, only members of the elite class were arrested and targeted with killing, but in his battles against the Populares he also killed the rank and file.

      • The Cominator says:

        Most people who joined the Roman army after the Marian reforms did it for money and land not because they had strong views on politics. Sulla was only sort of an optimate his financial reforms were wildly popular among populares Romans who loved Marius. The populares opposing Sulla weren’t actually all that popular, during the opening phase of the second civil war some hastily raised legions raised to intercept his march on Rome (generally from the lower classes the type of people you would expect to be all for the Marian faction) defected to him.

        Marius (then senile and kind of demented but who was genuinely popular) was used as a figurehead (sort of like Joe Biden if Joe Biden was a national hero when he was younger) by a group of venal traitors (the real leader of Sulla’s enemies was Cinna). But there were no zealous groups of fanatical communists among the soldiers of either side really.

        The Roman Republic didn’t scale because Republics require a united group of people with common interest to work AND elite cohesion. After the second Punic war too many slaves got brought in which destroyed cohesion among common Romans (and made them generally hate their elite and be willing to side with charismatic generals), and the rewards of office were too great which wrecked elite cohesion. Republics and Democracies only ever work well with small states of homogeneous people (but yes they can work for them).

        • Karl says:

          It is reasonable to assume that Republics require a united group of people with common interest to work AND elite cohesion, but that is no reason to conclude that the Roman government would not scale. At the beginning, the Roman republic was ruled by about 50 families. You gave no reason why these 50 families shoundn’t be able rule a whole continent instead of just a small part of Italy. Size of empire neither implies a destruction of common interest of those 50 families nor a destruction of cohesion of those 50 families.

          Of course, they brought in too many slaves and I agree that this contributed to the fall of Rome, but this was deliberate and not a backed-in reason why their mode of government would not scale.

          • The Cominator says:

            “Of course, they brought in too many slaves and I agree that this contributed to the fall of Rome, but this was deliberate and not a backed-in reason why their mode of government would not scale.”

            Well what Republic historically has ever scaled to work beyond a small country. Republic’s are more complicated structurally than monarchies and are thus more sensitive to any amount of social entropy.

      • Not Tom says:

        Please explain why you think that Republic which worked well enough as a city govenment did not scale to being a good government to rule over multiple countries and that massive corruption and dysfunction was inevitable.

        Been explained before. Division of power is an entropic force and operates in a feedback loop. Everyone is incentivized to expand the franchise as a way (often the only way) to gain more power for themselves.

        Republics will destabilize even on a small scale; it simply takes much longer, because it is not as easy to expand the franchise, because there are fewer people to expand it to.

        Limited forms of democracy are still democracy, and the limits will gradually erode. Even monarchies technically tend to destabilize without a lot of effort put into maintaining them – and what they degrade into is a republic.

        Empires are an alternative form that tend to scale a bit better because the top executive doesn’t really reign over all the provinces, he reigns over other executives and perhaps one province. Lincoln showed us the way to do this at scale: the President reigns over DC, and reigns over the federal government which reigns over state governments. The problem with Lincoln was that this system was always technically illegal (unconstitutional) and also that he was saddled with a toxic state religion. But his system was very clever, rather like a modern form of feudalism.

        Trump is going to bring back Lincoln’s federalism and he is going to do it under the pretext of restoring the republic. Or so it appears, and so we hope.

        • Karl says:

          Ok, the small Roman republic didn’t work, the large Roman republic worked even less because it was a republic. I agree to that.

  12. Sic Semper Tyrannis says:

    [*deleted for sheer irrelevance and obscurity*]

  13. Eli says:

    Actually, I think that a good portion of old-money is Progressive or, at least, have more sympathy with the international poor than American proles. I *don’t know* it for sure, but why wouldn’t they be — at least, the women? I still vividly remember how one of Bush’s daughters was dating some Spanish artist from Lower Manhattan, for a few years. (She’s now married to someone else.) Similar with a chick from Wellesley I once briefly knew.

    The main active(ist) corpus of progressives, the “prole level,” are those social worker urban women and future and current cat ladies and (dil)dog moms . And yes, a lot of them are also married (often not changing their last names), to men who long time ago gave their balls into their vise. Art, psychology, comparative religion and English majors, who are proud of their edumacation.

    Did you see who the crowd consisted of for RBG commemoration/demonstration, in NY? All these women, crying for their holy Abortion Rights.

    Honestly, 70%+ of the dirty looks I’ve gotten for wearing a MAGA hat in public were from women. No problems with Blacks, but sanely avoid parading it in their hoods.

    I don’t exactly know who is going to do the real war for Progress. So far, Antifa appears to be the degeneratti: spoiled white infantilized youth — wooed by presence of SJW queens — aligned with the trash, often colored trash who is ungrateful for the benefits being bestowed upon them by this society, including and because of their deep edumacation. Sure, they’ll burn, ruin, beat, and even kill — but it’s a big country. But at higher ranks, I’m not so sure… I’ve seen some examples with the FBI, but dropping bombs on White House is whole different level of escalation.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      Congenital solipsism; the ‘international poor’ – ie, the far – exist in their minds as merely idealized abstractions, a totem or fetich that just coincidentally happens to share nominal titles with a real object (such that it may be confused for a real object).

      American working class folk, on the other hand, are near; and hence, there exists possibility for reality to personally intrude upon their projections; in the lens of their perception, ‘bad people’ are whatever the people who are around them are – their neighbors.

      Lacking the world-formation capacity to hold broader ‘slices’ of Being in mind, that their experience may be placed into context, that they may ‘experience’ beyond their experience. The people around them are the people who they interact with; and hence, when they think of all the evils of the world, the sins and travails of life – ie, the conflicts, trouble, and annoyances they’re getting into with others – it is the faces of their neighbors that they imagine, that they only can imagine, as the sole proprietors of such.

      They do not really know the ‘Other’, they do not *require* to know the Other – were they ever to get to come into actual contact with the Other, it would threaten the idealization, becoming new ‘nears’, base deplorables who they wish they could cast down into a dark pit, if only they had the power…

      • Eli says:

        The ones I knew (though not sure how moneyed their parents were) could afford and did travel extensively. Some even went to dirty villages in Kazakhstan (a Unitarian chick) and Africa (another chick on a mission to help out the world). I’d call it “selective solipsism.” They like to understand and be good to the far, understand their travails and way of life. But selectively block out that the near have their struggles also. In the Maslow’s pyramid of needs, the drug addiction problem is a more complicated issue than lack of sanitary conditions and even edumacation. The people in the former places seem too much like one’s self, and the self is looked down upon as sinful and privileged undeservedly. Plus, you kinda need to board a plane and drive, to get to Eureka, CA, so you might as well go to a Kazakh village.

        So, in some sense, I can understand them. This country is rather big and way too diverse. It’s more akin to many countries at once. It’s too much of a salad. Other places afford a more “pure” perspective on need/misery, a perspective that is disentangled from the complicated narrative of this extremely non-homogeneous kinda-nation. For a young Unitarian-active person who desires to straightforwardly do and demonstrate (via a resume or CV) “GOOD,” going to other places is a much more attractive and politically simple proposition than going to Appalachia or Eureka, CA, and, actually, practically safer than working in a Black hood somewhere in Maryland (the urban Nigs can be that feral). So, I can’t blame them too much.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          Oh there is no doubt many of them do visits; the phenomena of visitation, of ‘travel’, is, itself, a form of hyper-reality.

          ’33 y/o catlady lawyercunt stays at hilton honors in 44 different countries; discovers people are the same everywhere.’

        • jim says:

          > The ones I knew (though not sure how moneyed their parents were) could afford and did travel extensively. Some even went to dirty villages in Kazakhstan (a Unitarian chick) and Africa (another chick on a mission to help out the world). I’d call it “selective solipsism.”

          When I am in a poor place, and see female do gooders, they are generally in their late twenties or early thirties, and are there to get raped.

          The conversation goes somewhat like this:

          Me: Why are you visiting this place?

          Her: I am here to do good. We are distributing vitally needed aid in the countryside.

          Me: Do you have guards, an escort of locals?

          Her: Oh no, we are here to do good.

          Me: I would not go outside the door of this hotel without an escort, and would not go into the countryside at all except under the protection of a local, certainly not with anything valuable. A short walking distance beyond this hotel, a stranger or an outsider is considered fair prey.

          She responds with meaningless words, but looks thrilled.

    • Not Tom says:

      We call them SWProles (portmanteau of SWPL), or alternatively, useful idiots.

      They don’t set the agenda, and don’t have any real agency, they just virtue signal for status. Elites compete for status by funding and controlling the NGOs and politicians and media; proles march and carry stupid signs.

      It’s an especially feminine trait and not unlike the propensity of women to seek out fashionable clothes, perfumes, accessories. Each one is convinced of the higher status this affords them, even though the very act of competing on such terms indelibly marks them as lower-middle class.

      Point being, not one whit of it is genuine. It’s all for show, and very little of it is done by the truly wealthy. There are certainly old-money brahmins (e.g. the Carnegies) but most old money is optimate. Trump is optimate, nouveau riches like Bill Gates and Eric Schmidt are brahmin/progressive.

  14. Dave says:

    It takes a special kind of fanatical idiocy to start a civil war when you control the cities and your enemy controls the countryside. Jerusalem had it in AD 70, Paris had it in 1871, and the Dems seem to have it now. Not many historical examples to work from.

    Even coastal cities are fucked because as soon as one supply ship gets sunk, the others turn away or demand vastly higher payment in gold coin.

    • The Cominator says:

      The cities do win sometimes, the Bolsheviks won their civil war controlling mainly the cities (though they did have some of the countryside).

      I don’t think they have any chance in America though because American country rednecks tend to be armed to the teeth. I moved to Florida and the non urban natives all have multiple guns, even most of the broads do.

      • Dave says:

        Recently emancipated Russian serfs didn’t lack guns so much as they lacked the worldliness of free men, so the Bolsheviks could bamboozle them with the promise of free stuff from the landlord’s stash. Today’s commies don’t even try to appeal to the peasants; we’re just a basket of racist deplorables to them. They assume that we’ll passively accept a blatantly fraudulent Biden victory, and if we don’t, they’ll sic the military on us.

        • jim says:

          The democrat plan is to drag out the election results indefinitely, and then call in their pet generals on the grounds that Trump is interfering with them dragging out the election indefinitely. Once Trump is removed from office, we get the election announced, much as wildfires are announced to be global warming rather than antifa and neglect of basic forestry.

          To counter this, Trump will need loyalist cops in the counting places so that Republican scrutineers can do their job, and he will need a supreme court order to put an end to the forever count. At some point he is likely to need to exercise his authority as commander in chief to arrest generals for treason and mutiny, under military law.

          • Pooch says:

            Yes getting Trump out and Pelosi in is as good as a Biden victory for them.

            • Not Tom says:

              I keep hearing this and may have even repeated it once or twice myself, but on reflection, I don’t know where it came from and don’t think it’s correct.

              Yes, the House majority leader becomes acting President if both the actual President and VP die in a plane crash – but that’s a contingency for already elected officials, not delayed or contested elections. As far as I know, in the case of irreconcilable irregularities or simple inability to count votes, the appointment of Electoral College delegates falls back to state legislatures. There would still be an Electoral College, and none of the delegates would select Nancy Pelosi.

              Am I wrong about this? Maybe someone can point to a definitive answer.

          • Karl says:

            Loyalist cops in the counting places aren’t worth much if there is voting by mail.

            Unless the loyalist cops are so very loyalist that they see to it that mailed votes aren’t counted at all.

            • Pooch says:

              Mail votes are still going to be counted somewhere, and if loyalist cops there, Republicans will be able to scrutinize the mail votes to hopefully eliminate enough of the fake votes to make a difference.

              • Karl says:

                How could fake mail votes be eliminated?

                I do not even see how fraud with in person voting could be prevented. How do you check that the person who wants to vote is actually a US citizen? How do you check that the person has not already voted in another town?

                • Not Tom says:

                  These aren’t even the real risks. It’s a much bigger problem if a postal truck carrying ballots from Republican-heavy counties gets into a mysterious accident and loses all of the mail. No one will know, and no one will check.

                  With absentee ballots this is a bit hard to do because no one knows precisely when, or from where, they will originate. But with mail-in voting, they’ll all be on the same truck at the same time, in the hands of people who have officially endorsed Biden.

                  Mail-in voting simply can’t be allowed to happen, and the Republican senators must refuse to certify Democrat electors in states that used mail-in voting.

                • Pooch says:

                  You can at least make sure the person exists and the signature lines up. Any vote outside of their authorized polling district gets thrown out so can easier see if someone voted twice. Not perfect by any sense but hopefully in theory could help prevent the huge massive “oh we found 10 thousand ballots over here” type of thing. At least that’s my hope.

        • dogsma says:

          @The Cominator

          The cities do win sometimes, the Bolsheviks won their civil war controlling mainly the cities (though they did have some of the countryside)


          Recently emancipated Russian serfs didn’t lack guns so much as they lacked the worldliness of free men, so the Bolsheviks could bamboozle them with the promise of free stuff from the landlord’s stash.

          These comments may be based on a mis-understanding of Russian history. Russian peasantry is/was not a traitorous lot, and used to have deep faith in God, the Church and the Tsar. And the rural folk were heavily armed as well. Russians still have deep faith in God and the Tsar, even though they’ve been conditioned to hide it. It manifests as Russians repeatedly voting for “strong” leaders, and generally being disinterested in “voting” otherwise.

          Bolshevik victory was contingent on very important historical events outside their control. One was Prussian support and backing, which transformed the Reds from a rag tag bunch into a proper fighting force. By the time Prussia lost and got out of WWI, Reds were firmly in control.

          Another was excellent timing. The tip of the Tsar’s spear was the Russian Army, whose officer corps (drawn from the aristocracy) and rank and file (drawn from peasantry) were both intensely loyal to the Tsar. The whole Army was dumped into a brutal war of attrition against Prussia, while domestically, the war machine was fed by factories increasingly staffed by urbanites and women. These latter groups were vulnerable to Red propaganda and managed to stall war production through Red action at critical junctures to indirectly help Russian defeat. The origin of “International Women’s Day” lies in this treason. Maintenance of internal order fell entirely upon the woefully inadequate secret police, Okhrana, which was widely hated, and was staffed by the kind of people who easily made the jump from Gestapo to Stasi, for example.

          Finally, and most importantly, none of this would’ve mattered if the Tsar had managed to hold on until the Army returned and put down the Reds. However, St Nicholas was psychologically manipulated by British-sponsored Menshevik traitors to declare for “democracy” and “freedom.” This demoralised Loyalist forces severely, gave the Army a feeling of having been stabbed in the back from below (by Reds) and above (Tsar’s betrayal), and transformed the mighty Russian Army into splintered fighting forces under various commanders, dubbed the “White” Army. The peasantry saw this as breakdown, of autocracy (which they like) into anarchy (which they hate), and decided to support Lenin as the new Tsar. All rhetoric aside, this was the right decision under the circumstances, and Lenin indeed clamped down hard on anarchy, while Stalin finished the job that St Nicholas should have done.

          Even today, Russian peasantry is apt to be armed (mostly illegally), and strongly supportive of the Church. Cathedral minions only exist in the cities.

          • Mike in Boston says:

            @dogsma, I am genuinely curious from what sources you synthesized this take on Russian history. While I wouldn’t call it inaccurate in broad strokes, the overgeneralizations pile up. For instance, when did the tsar ever say anything positive about “democracy”? It was the hapless younger brother in favor of whom he foolishly abdicated who prated about universal suffrage, never accepting the title of Tsar. This sort of lack of cohesion among elites, even within the royal family, was a key contributor to the calamity to follow. Blaming it on British propaganda is not really satisfying without examining how that propaganda would have gotten a foothold.

            But the most serious overgeneralization is the sweeping claim that the officer corps and the rank and file were both “intensely loyal to the Tsar”. Viktor Suvorov points out the key exception to that statement, without which the Revolution would never have happened:

            In the First World War the best Russian regiments stayed in Saint Petersburg. They protected the Emperor and they were trained only to be used in the most critical situations. The longer the war went on, the less inclined the guards regiments became to fight. The war dragged on, turned into a senseless carve-up, and finally the possibility arose of a quick end to it. To bring the end nearer the Emperor decided to make use of his guards….

            The Revolution of 1917 was no revolution. It was simply a revolt by the guards in just one city in a huge empire. [T]he regiments that were fighting at the front had suffered enormous losses and their morale was very low, but they had not thought of dispersing to their homes. The front collapsed only when the central authority in Saint Petersburg collapsed. Lenin’s party… seized power in that vast empire by means of the bayonets of terrified guards in the rear.

            It is with good reason that our host assigns a great deal of importance to questions regarding Mr. Trump’s praetorians.

        • Cis Scum says:

          @Dave “Today’s commies don’t even try to appeal to the peasants; we’re just a basket of racist deplorables to them.”

          Class marxists (yesterday’s commies): The poor the oppressed, the rich the oppressors. Utopia occurs when the rich are destroyed.

          Cultural marxists (today’s commies): The browns the oppressed, the whites the oppressors. Utopia occurs when the whites are destroyed.

          They don’t try to appeal to the deplorable peasants because destroying them is the whole point.

          • Dave says:

            Democrats should support the cops they hired and armed, and at least pretend to support the peasants they depend on for food, fuel, electricity, and clean water. By looting and burning stores, blocking highways, and scaring away truckers, Dem cities are effectively laying siege to themselves.

          • Not Tom says:

            If it were quite as simple as this, they would have lost a long time ago, because too many whites and not enough browns. Indeed, the more explicitly anti-white they become, the more unpopular they get.

            The prog war, like every war, is between elites, using civilians as proxies. White progressives believe that white progressives are wonderful and use “white” disparagingly to refer to white people who are not progressive, especially the old-money elite (“optimates”), most of the middle class, and a growing majority of the Trump-voting working class. But make no mistake, the war is being fought to benefit a small minority of whites (and yes, some Jews), not the majority of browns.

  15. Calvin says:

    Ginsburg bit the dust. Now Trump can quickly shuffle through a replacement to rule whatever coup measures are necessary to be perfectly legal. A coincidence, you think, or something more?

  16. Neurotoxin says:

    Bitch Ruth B. Ginsberg has died!

    • Not Tom says:

      Well, now we know why Trump has been floating around these lists of SCOTUS candidates.

      This adds a whole new dimension to the electoral chaos. I can only imagine a 4-4 split on some election dispute, not to even mention how this will ratchet up the level of desperation on the left.

      • Pooch says:

        Well, eliminates the Supreme Court variable from election chaos at least. That’s a win.

      • The Cominator says:

        A 4-4 decision means the lower court decision stands. Which is going to make the court of appeals in the upper Midwest rather important should Roberts side with the Dems on ballot harvesting.

    • jim says:

      Finally, Satan called her home.

      • The Cominator says:

        What is the composition of the lower appeals court in the upper midwest, if Roberts defects that makes the circuit court in the area critical.

        • Pooch says:

          Some are saying Trump could get a new justice through in time for the election. Could that be a way to make the election fraud-proof for Trump?

          • The Cominator says:

            Romney is 100% going to side with our enemies here and I’m not confident of the two bitches staying in formation, Collins might do the right thing given that she is probably going to lose reelection anyway and I don’t think she actually hates Trump…

            Murkowski otoh I do not trust.

            • Pooch says:

              Even if we lose all 3, Pence can break the tie.

              • dtcuct says:

                You seem to have lost 4: Collins, Murkowski, Graham and Grassley. We are not even at Romney yet.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Actually, we haven’t. While Collins and Murkowski have been running their mouths off, as women are wont to do, the supposed reports that Graham and Grassley have defected are actually based on comments made years ago, and the media has, as per usual, spun them in such a way as to put pressure on those senators today.

                  But McConnell is doing his job; he sent a letter to all of the senators telling them to STFU when the press shoves microphones in their faces. And while his “Biden rule” may or may not be complete BS (I don’t know), it’s no worse than any tactic that Chuck Schumer would use in his place.

                • The Cominator says:

                  No confirmation that Graham and Grassley will vote no, Graham is facing reelection in a right wing state. He is in fact almost certain to vote yes.

                  Grassley isn’t a total RINO scumbag and will probably vote yes.

                  Romney is probably going to screw us unless the Mormon leaders grow some balls and tell him he’ll be excommunicated if he defects or something very close.

                  Collins actually hasn’t commited to vote no (she voted yes at the last minute on Kavanaugh), she technically only said she doesn’t think there should be a vote. She probably wants some GOP donor to promise to pad her retirement package if she votes yes.

                  Murkowski is kind of another Romney a left wing Democrat who has to pretend to be Republican, she will definitely vote no.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Told ya:


                  Graham is Trump’s boy now, or at the very least has been emancipated since ol’ Songbird bought the farm.

            • Not Tom says:

              One thing that’s rather interesting about Trump’s list is how it included some sitting senators: Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley.

              A reliable Federalist Society judge would probably be a better choice – but I wonder if Trump was anticipating this kind of timing, and thinks perhaps that the Senate might be more willing to play ball given the opportunity to boost one of their own.

              I don’t know, though – just considering it as a logical possibility. He might also be serving it up as an opportunity for the senate to save face, i.e. by declining to draw from their own ranks, thus boosting the appearance of impartiality among normies. The media would create a scandal anyhow, but only true-blue leftists really listen to them now.

              • Pooch says:

                Problem is the Federalist Society hasn’t been 100% reliable. Gorsuch and Kavanough both defected on a tranny case earlier in the year I believe.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Sadly, there is not (yet) a Society of Jim. You play the hand you’re dealt.

                  All told, Trump’s Federalist picks have been pretty good, compared to the Bush and even most Reagan judges.

                • srsoxi says:

                  > Kavanaugh

                  [citation needed]

                  Gorsuch has been the Leftists’ butt-buddy, but Kavanaugh has stood strong. An indication of this was seen in the degree of Leftist opposition to Gorsuch (virtually none) vs Kavanaugh (pulled out all the stops, at Clarence Thomas levels).


                  PS: Trump made a mistake with Gorsuch. Judging men’s character has been his weakness. Thankfully it was not repeated with Kavanaugh (or Trump got better advisors).

                • Not Tom says:

                  You guys need to stop chimping out over the one and only case that Gorsuch dissented on and read the actual judgment, because as I pointed out at the time, it isn’t just “trannies good”, there was more to the case than that.

                  And they did try to stop Gorsuch; some of you have very short memories. The left went on for weeks, in some cases months, about how it was a “stolen seat” and should have been given to Merrick Garland. If they didn’t give him the full Clarence Thomas treatment it’s likely because they were already running with a different narrative, didn’t already have dirt on him, and weren’t organized enough at the time to manufacture the dirt. The #metoo astroturf helped prepare the territory.

                • Eli says:

                  Gorsuch should be the head justice. He is very good.
                  Kavanaugh is a beta cryboy, who promptly hired females, in order to show that he is with feminists. “Please Harvard, I’m no rapist!!”

                • Pooch says:

                  Yes my mistake, it was only Gorsuch who defected on trannies.

            • Pooch says:

              Romney is backing the vote, surprisingly.

          • Contaminated NEET says:

            The Republicans are professional losers; there’s no way they will go along with any pre-election appointment. The Washington Generals don’t want to beat the Globetrotters. Of course, there’s a chance they’ll be executed in the locker room after the game, but they’re too stupid and too set in their ways to see that. Go-along-to-get-along has been the deal for their whole professional lives; they will never accept or understand that the deal is off until they see their families kneeling in front of a ditch.

            • Not Tom says:

              Your doom and gloom would be more convincing if you did not predict the worst possible outcome at every possible opportunity, and usually incorrectly.

              It’s one thing to identify possible weaknesses, quite another to demoralize your “own” side (assuming you actually are on our side).

              • Contaminated NEET says:

                I’ll go on record right now with a concrete prediction: Trump will not successfully appoint a supreme court justice before the election. If I’m all doom and gloom and zero understanding, then why don’t you take the opposite side of that prediction? It’s simple, it’s clear, and we’ll see who’s right soon enough.

                • jim says:

                  I think Trump will successfully appoint a supreme court justice before the election, because civil war looms, if we lose the war the senate republicans face significant risk of dying, and a supreme court justice ruling against electoral fraud will give our side a stronger position to claim legitimacy and call the other side insurrectionists.

                  The cuckservatives would love to cut a deal that threw Trump to the wolves and restored the Obama status quo, but the Democrats are not agreement capable. The Obama status quo is Nazi Hitler Hitler Hitler now, so the cuckservatives are Nazi Hitler Hitler Hitler.

                • Karl says:

                  I think there is plenty of time for appointing a supreme court justice. Trump can present his candiate next week or so. The appointment need not be before the election, late November or even December would be soon enough. Regardless of the election result, the president is in office until January with all constitutional powers so he can appoint a judge in December or early January.

                  As the supreme court decides on any election issues only after lower courts, such a late appointment should be soon enough for the new judge to take part in any ruling on election fraud or any other issue connected to the election

                • Not Tom says:

                  McConnell has already publicly committed to a vote, so yeah, I’ll take that bet. Easy.

                  I’m less sure that it will end up being someone we’re all incredibly happy about, but your predictions are totally whack. And the issue isn’t whether or not you’re willing to make a concrete prediction, it’s whether or not you’re in any way humbled by repeatedly getting them wrong.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Lets hope its not that papist Haitian adopter Barrett.

                  Trump should ignore any pressure he is getting to pick a woman, there are a lot of jobs women should not do but being a judge probably is at the top of the list even above combat infantry.

                  Democrats are the real racists occasionally has its uses to be said…

                  Democrats are the real sexists otoh is something that should NEVER be said.

                  Trump nominate a man… female judges are almost always terrible.

                • Contaminated NEET says:

                  >And the issue isn’t whether or not you’re willing to make a concrete prediction, it’s whether or not you’re in any way humbled by repeatedly getting them wrong.

                  What predictions have I gotten wrong?

                • Pooch says:

                  As long as the new justice can be 100% reliable in stopping the indefinite election recounts, that’s all that matters.

                • Not Tom says:

                  What predictions have I gotten wrong?

                  Weren’t you one of the ones who was sure that Barr would be a disaster and that Trump would never recover from Russiagate, and later would never recover from Ukrainegate? Didn’t you tell us years ago that Kavanaugh would never be confirmed, and if he was, then he’d turn traitor?

                  And didn’t you recently say that Trump would not be able to quell any of the riots and assorted chimping out, or that if he tried he’d be successfully demonized as Literally Hitler to his normie base?

                  I believe there were many others, as well, including some Covid-related, but it’s hard to search comments on this blog. Perhaps others will recall.

            • jim says:

              RNC convention did not look like professional losers. They committed to being the party of Trump, the Party of America, and the Party of God.

              Maybe they are lying, and some of them were covering their asses by having a bet each way, but they came on strong enough to get them hanged should Kamala become president.

              • Contaminated NEET says:

                >Maybe they are lying, and some of them were covering their asses by having a bet each way, but they came on strong enough to get them hanged should Kamala become president.

                That’s exactly what I think. They’re controlled-opposition weasels, but they’re too incompetent and complacent to understand the old rules of their crooked game don’t apply anymore. If the Republicans really do see things clearly and no longer wish to be controlled opposition, then the Senate will approve a Trump SCOTUS pick before the election. I’ll be astounded, but happy, if that happens.

    • BC says:

      May her lasting legacy be that she refused to step down under Obama and her replacement help usher in the Holy American Empire.

    • Not Tom says:

      The cuck media is already trying to rally around the cuck candidate Barrett, because vagina.

      Don’t blink, Emperor.

    • Nicodemus Rex says:

      The left has always quietly been planning to pack the courts if Biden wins, but it sounds like they are beginning to say it out loud. I suspect within a few days we’ll see Biden/Harris come out in favor of court packing. This can only be a good thing for Trump, honestly — it makes the stakes on Election Day much clearer for normies.

  17. The Cominator says:

    Michigan is going to allow “ballot harvesting”… not good.

  18. Tonboy says:

    Why do people say the US was founded on Judeo Christian values? Did Steve Bannon invent that term? I never heard anyone say it before him.

    • jim says:

      The term “Judeo Christian” was first used at the beginning of World War II. The use of the phrase increased steadily until the 2012 election, whereupon use of the term collapsed and is still collapsing. Peak Usage in all of history was the lead up to Obama’s campaign for re-election. The term seems to have been used primarily by people violently opposed to Christianity and in favor of murdering all Christians, people who believe that the founding of the US was a crime.

      It does not sound much like anything Steve Bannon would say.

      • Tonboy says:

        Well, that shows what I know. Could’ve sworn I heard it from Bannon around 2015-2016.

        Most recently I heard it from an intelligent Christian who celebrates the founding of the US. I didn’t understand why he used the phrase; I thought Judeo and Christian values were not too similar.

      • Tonboy says:

        In his talk delivered to a small conference in the Vatican during 2014, Bannon said: “If you look back at the long history of the Judeo-Christian West struggle against Islam, I believe that our forefathers kept their stance, and I think they did the right thing. I think they kept it out of the world, whether it was at Vienna, or Tours, or other places … it bequeathed to us the great institution that is the church of the West”.

        And a gave a speech in Feb 2020
        “Steve Bannon speaks to crowd of over 500 at the Judeo-Christian Republican Club of Palm Beach about China, the Judeo-Christian West, and the upcoming 2020 elections.”

      • Not Tom says:

        I was curious, so I checked ngrams which, assuming you trust the data, shows a hard peak in the early 1990s.

        This makes a lot of sense to me, as it’s right after the Reagan years when Buchanan-era paleoconservativism (as we call it now) was really starting to wane and the Trotskyites (aka neocons) were taking over both the Republican party, starting with Bush, and the highbrow conservative media like the National Review.

        It definitely did originate in the 40s, and really exploded in the 90s, but had started to wane and almost disappear by 2000 – then saw a resurgence with (surprise!) the other Bush in the White House.

        It’s totally the neocons wanting to cram this crappy meme down our throats, not the Democrats. Every time they gain any prominence, there’s a resurgence of that phrase. So we should all be glad that their lousy books and journals are heading straight into the dustbin of history.

      • Pooch says:

        Bannon and Trump both say it because saying “Christian values” is not yet in the Overton Window.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      Judeo-Christianity is the name for the alliance of American Jews who really like Israel and American Christians who really like cool explosions.

  19. Nicodemus Rex says:

    The Department of Education is suing Princeton for violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act because the university president sent out a letter calling the university “structurally racist.”

    > What the Department seeks to obtain from its investigation is what evidence Princeton used in its determination that the university is racist, including all the records regarding Eisgruber’s letter and a “spreadsheet identifying each person who has, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, been excluded from participation in, been denied the benefits of, or been subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance as a result of the Princeton racism or ‘damage’ referenced in the President’s Letter.”

    What are your thoughts?

    On the one hand, I couldn’t have imagined this coming out of the DOE two years ago. Combine this with the “critical race theory” memo and you have solid proof that Trump loyalists are control of the DOE and realize that the universities are the enemy.

    On the other hand, it does sound awfully like “Democrats are the real racists rhetoric”, and when has accusing leftists of hypocrisy ever worked?

    • yewotm8 says:

      It legitimizes later violence against them in the eyes of reasonable people.

    • The Cominator says:

      Democrats are the real racist should not be overused but occasionally pointing it out in cases where its true doesn’t always hurt, it can sway normies and some minority men fairly effectively. It will not win over commited leftists but you all know my view on how to cure them…

      • Pooch says:

        Democrats are the real racists is perfectly fine to highlight when they are being anti-white because it is true. It’s when dumb cucks try to get in a holiness signaling match that the Democrats are the real racists against blacks and non-whites which should be avoided at all costs.

        • Pooch says:

          Because it’s based on the false premise all races can contribute to white civilization equally.

        • The Cominator says:

          It should not be used as a holy spiral but it can be used sparingly to highlight the way Democrats fucked over the blacks.

          Government support of single motherhood fucked over blacks massively even more than whites, thus its good to point out that Democratic leftist under LBJ destroyed the black family and deliberately did so in order to make them a totally dependent constinuency of single mothers and fatherless boys.

          It took longer to do it to whites they’ve somewhat succeeded on single mothers and fatherless boys, but the fatherless white boys increasingly hate the Democrats and all leftists because they sort of know what they did (this is another reason you don’t kill all the bastards or even turn a blind eye to mistreatment, they have problems but plenty are ZEALOUSLY on our side).

          • Pooch says:

            Losing battle man. Still assumes the false leftist premise they could all
            be good Americans if only blah blah blah. Best case scenario for American blacks is the vast majority (98-99%) leave and form their own separate nation.

            • The Cominator says:

              Not saying they are the same as whites but before the civil rights era blacks were probably more like 13/25 instead of 13/52 and mostly they worked and were functional people. My proposal is a millet system with semi (but not strict) segregation.

    • jim says:

      We know we are going to find that they are systematically excluding non Jewish whites, flyover country whites, East Asians, and Orthodox Jews.

      The question is, will anyone say so?

      • Nicodemus Rex says:

        Yup, I guess that cuts right to the core of it. If this is just red meat for the campaign trail, then that’s completely fine, but I’ve been hoping these suits actually have *teeth*. If Trumps DoE can force the Ivy League to hand over documents showcasing their blatant discrimination against whites and Asians, and if the DoE can actually *do* something about it (i,e either force them to stop or defund them completely, not sure which one is better), then that would be a tremendous win. I guess we’ll see if it happens …

    • Not Tom says:

      I see this less as DR3 and more as forcing progs to live by their own rules, which is only possible from a position of power; Trump’s DoE can take this tack, we can’t.

      “Oh, you say your own university/business is racist? Do tell us all about it, so we can apply the appropriate penalties.”

      It’s inoculation against virtue signaling in the wider society. I have no sympathy for Princeton in particular, but this may make a few Havel’s Greengrocers think twice before putting up their stupid signs.

      • Contaminated NEET says:

        >“Oh, you say your own university/business is racist? Do tell us all about it, so we can apply the appropriate penalties.”

        This is really good. Naturally, I don’t expect the Right to have either the power or the balls to apply any actual legal penalties to Princeton, but rhetorically it is a promising and satisfying line of attack.

    • Jehu says:

      I’m terribly amused by this. It puts the 1619 folks into a terrible bind.
      Either they claim they aren’t systemically racist (an option not available to Princeton, because their leader has already admitted it against interest), or they get Bob Jones’d–as in lose all federal funding and probably their non-profit status, and hopefully get destroyed as an institution. What’s required to do this? A judge saying, yeah, you’re racist and in violation of the Civil Rights acts?
      Or they have to massively backpedal on the whole 1619 thing. I like the idea of making all of the Cathedral organs commit to in writing, are you or are you not systemically racist.
      And there’s plenty of opportunity to ‘equivocate’ by saying discrimination against white people or Asians is racist even if they say they aren’t. And I bet discovery would be jiucy.
      But ultimately, its a decision of a judge somewhere. If you can get the judges to vote, you can systematically destroy organs of the Cathedral, and I love that idea.

  20. Leo Littlebook says:

    Add it all up.
    1. Virus
    2. Riots [organized _ANTIFA]
    3. Fires
    The ‘Why’:📁
    Make no mistake, they will not concede on Election Night.
    Make no mistake, they will contest this legally in battleground states.
    Make no mistake, they will project doubt in the election results
    Make no mistake, they will organize massive riots and attempt Anarchy-99 design
    Playbook known.

    • Not Tom says:

      For the upteenth time, Q is enemy propaganda.

      • Cis Scum says:

        @Not Tom

        Propaganda for sure. But why enemy?

        On one side we have a massive pile of dry kindling: Uranium One, Burisma, Spygate, Seth Rich, Cheese Pizza, Antifa, etc.

        On the other side we have a set of lit torches: RICO, Patriot Act (anti-terrorism), Insurrection Act, etc.

        The Q proposition is that work is being done behind the scenes to bring the two into contact.

        I find the proposition credible, as well as the likely consequences. Since the malfeasance is highly connected, all you need is one torch to touch one kindling to ignite a raging bonfire that will consume the entire pile.

        I am not convinced that the deep state is strong enough to prevent that one contact, nor that the media tech complex is able to bottle up the resultant fumes.

        • jim says:

          > The Q proposition is that work is being done behind the scenes to bring the two into contact.

          Rather, work is being done to prevent the two from coming into contact.

          In order to bring the two into contact, the operation is going to resemble a coup, for example Trump reading the Insurrection Act Proclamation from the White House steps.

        • Not Tom says:

          Been discussed already a thousand times here. “Trust Sessions”.

          Q is distraction, misdirection, demoralization, debasement, and no small amount of grift; and at its core is a fundamentally cuckservative message: don’t worry, just be patient and everything will be fine, it’s just a few bad actors (or maybe a lot of bad actors) and all will be back to normal once they’re brought to justice.

          It’s arguably worse than cuckservative. Cuckservatives want to go back to the Reagan years but Qtards, for the most part, want to go back to the Clinton years. There’s no philosophy whatsoever, just a bag of shitty memes like 9/11 trooferism, pizzagate and heterosexual “pedos”.

          • duccsu says:

            Q is distraction, misdirection, demoralization, debasement, and no small amount of grift; and at its core is a fundamentally cuckservative message: don’t worry, just be patient and everything will be fine, it’s just a few bad actors (or maybe a lot of bad actors) and all will be back to normal once they’re brought to justice.

            You skipped a vital part of Q’s message: “just be patient, VOTE MAGA and everything will be fine.” Q serves to attract a lot of people to MAGA, and encourages the smart fraction to dig under the top stories of the day. Quite a lot of the latter probably end up achieving Dark Enlightenment.

            Their memes are having a desirable effect, in mobilising good citizens, as well as rhetorically attacking the Left at every turn. And going by the Leftist reaction to QAnon, the rhetoric is effective.

            • Pooch says:

              It also has a built in defense mechanism, like Bronze Age Pervert and Pepe the frog, that any leftist publicly criticizing Q sounds utterly insane to normies.

            • Not Tom says:

              Nah. I call bullshit.

              Q memes are driving normie tradcucks insane and getting them to believe insane shill-approved theories. Calling any of it “effective” is laughable; please do point us to even one actual tangible positive outcome. Go ahead, we’ll wait.

              Telling people to vote and everything will be OK isn’t a good message. It wasn’t even good 80 years ago.

              • The Cominator says:

                The original Q was probably enemy propaganda and at best a larp. Trust Sessions was a particularly damaging piece of false information.

                The new Q doesn’t seem to be pure enemy propaganda but its still full of shit. There is some merit to getting normie tradcons to abandon stupid ideas like the rule of law and accepting the election if its stolen though.

          • Littlebook says:

            Ya’ll are still impressed by that ridiculous “Trust Sessions” argument. I knew I could just ctrl-f for it to find where to insert the answer I finally got around to writing about how to evaluate Qanon’s credibility.

            Not in response to ya’lls long ago request. No point in that. You couldn’t figure out that if Qanon works for Trump, then of course he will trust who Trump trusts, especially in his public statements. It was obvious when Trump stopped trusting Sessions and started trashing him. Trump always 180s on his betrayers and starts calling them negative superlatives. All your obsessive pet theories proved is that Trump is the enemy. “Blame the minister, not the king” is a fine strategy for loyalists, but you’re supposed to be aware that the tactic is disingenuous.


            • Shaman come back says:

              “It’s all together. Had he stuck to 2 or 3 well-formulated non-random crackpot theories, ones that he had come up with independently (as can be expected from someone whose IQ is 145+) rather than picked off 4chan or Tex/Vox, then it would have been possible to find merit in his activism.

              A big part of the problem is that he’s a cognitive sloth, so he bothers neither to research whether or not his auditory and visual hallucinations make sense, nor to provide a coherent explanation of what he even believes in – I don’t expect him to spoonfeed the crowd, but at least to produce a succinct “Kookanic 101.”

              Is it wrong to expect someone who claims to be IQ 145+ not to be “all over the place” regarding his beliefs? If he said, “My brain is made of soft pudding – I am not a serious intellectual,” then it would be possible to treat him as a jolly ol’ fool. But no, he acts very earnest about his supposedly superior mental faculties, despite literally proposing that women have inherited their boobs from boars.

              I’m not even mocking him for being a dipshit; what bothers me is that he has the audacity to insult the smarts of his intellectual superiors with no sense of self-awareness, as if it’s obvious to everyone that “Anyone who disagrees with me is a midwit, a gamma, and must be envious of my wisdom.” Like his mentors, his Dunning-Kruger is completely off the charts, and also like his mentors, he actually projects his Dunning-Kruger onto all his detractors.

              And as if that wasn’t abhorrent enough, he also exhibits a callous and calculating ability to manipulate his fans into seeing in him qualities that he doesn’t possess whatsoever and consequently to get sucked and suckered into his psychologically-paralyzing orbit of stark kookery. No less of a con-artist than Larry and Morrey Haber, he spins tall tales about being X and doing Y, without recourse to any sort of facticity; he’s a serial purveyor of “just so” stories. However, unlike the fantastic Baron Munchausen, his materials aren’t even purported to be original!

              Worse yet, he’s not even particularly funny. I mean, yes, he has his humorous moments, but — if we’re still seeking some redeeming values in him — he is overall only 1/8 of a comedian, which may or may not correspond to him being 1/8 Ashkenazi Jewish. In fact, at 14%, he’s probably slightly more Jewish than John Bolton (but less Jewish than weev, admittedly). But did that stop him from conducting LARPfest after LARPfest on Gab about how Jews are snake-like death-deserving nefarious villains who should have their babies slaughtered by the millions? No, it didn’t – his special cocktail of 1488 is very fedposty even by wignat standards. Kookanic would sneak bombs into daycares for Jewish toddlers if he could – or manipulate his followers to do so.

              It seems that his crackpot ideas are all designed to give atomized, deracinated individuals like himself a sense of identity. He calls himself an “ingenopath” because he desperately needs to play the special snowflake about everything – in this case, it’s his neuro-atypicality; in the case of the Neanderthal spergery, it’s about explaining to himself that he isn’t just a regular Amerimutt; in the case of his 100% heretical and demonic brand of Christianity, well, spirituality-wise he needs to latch on to at least one stable thing, never mind that it’s a figment of his fervent schizophrenic imagination. (He can’t join an existing religion because fundamentally he’s a low-trust misanthrope, so he founded a cult loosely based on the Bible, with himself as its “Moses”)

              So disdainful he is of everyone else here, that approximately 80% of his conversations are with Jim alone – he is “too good” to spend his precious time debating the commenters, whom he considers to be way beneath him; he directs his well-calibrated (but still obtuse) messaging at Jim, trying to influence or win him over to the Moon-Bark Side. He then pretends not to notice how deeply he is disrespected here, even though it’s stupendously obvious that he reads every single comment, and that all we’re saying about him is so innately logical as to count as pure mathematics.

              And so, with all that being true, he goes out and huffs, puffs, and chaffs about biological concepts he can’t make heads or tails of, twisting himself into knots about various incoherent fantasies that haunt his diminutive mind, and with the airs and aura of a self-assured mongoloid, retches and excretes his grandiose delirium for the whole world to witness and laugh at. In the long chain of nutty notion he’s been marketing, bigfoot is perhaps indeed not the most acute example of his Mediocre Madness; it’s just a poignant reminder that he is intellectually bankrupt, as detached from reality as any a convulsing psychotic, no less eerie, and no more trustworthy.

              Always half-baked, forever discredited, and never insightful – that’s the “Kookanic Soul.””

              You’re not going to be allowed back on this blog without everyone knowing who you are and what you do, Kookanic.

              • Littlebook says:

                Again, I don’t care what you fools think.

                Just dropped by to say:

                Calling it now: Q is Giuliani.

                Of course it’s not certain, but a glance over his Twitter and Wikipedia shows some striking correlations.

                Anyone who wants to start eating crow can read AC’s Qanon book, out for free right now, which is sound except a Cabal intelligence op deliberately harassed him into extreme paranoia of seeing gangstalking everywhere and thinking the surveillance ground game is orders of magnitude larger than it is.

                They used infrasonic sound beam on him for publishing his r/K theory book. It’s outrageous. Executions needed.

                I’ll be switching the Cyborganize Bibliodemos focus to Qanon, since AC made it easy and COVID19 has delayed the indictments etc.

      • miu says:

        so is anonymous conservative then completely full of shit far as you’re concerned?

        if the Q game plan is nonsense because it thus far encourages wait and see… then how are y’all any different?

        i suspect you dismiss Qanon too easily. unless you’re suggesting that i be just as suspicious of this blog of being any less a show than that enemy propaganda.

        sure, y’all commit thought crime or whatever and can speak your shibboleths and woman question but… you’re not doing anything more than talking. i fail to see the difference.

        • Karl says:

          You don not know what anyone here is doing.

        • jim says:

          Actually, yes.

          He is full of shit.

          And if he was not full of shit, you, and he, would have an argument that you could present.

          > i fail to see the difference.

          The difference is that we are connected to reality. Q is not. And you are not. You don’t use methods of argument and discussion appropriate for keeping your perception of reality true.

          • miu says:

            @karl, right. i don’t. no shit. i can only point to what i see here. obviously what contributions are made here do not constitute even the majority of whatever y’all are up to…. i should hope.

            @jim, i am not defending AC.

            i would have an argument to present for what?

            how does one keep their perception of reality true? how do you know i am not connected to reality? what methods of argument and discussion do you allude to that keep you anchored in reality such that you are capable of discerning the falsity of Qanon and AC?

            you lot here have successfully woke me to the limitations of Teddy Spaghetti already. i’d like to keep learning

          • miu says:

            how would one go about “keeping your perception of reality true”?

            further, how would this be accomplished if we accept, as you suggested, that i am not connected to reality at present?

            • jim says:

              When one is dealing with stuff distant from your senses, bring it closer to your senses.

              The biggest cause of error and madness is argument from consensus, which is why I censor those who argue from consensus.

              I have personally verified all of classical physics and a good chunk of basic chemistry myself. I myself verified that the earth was immensely ancient. I personally measured the sphericity of the earth, and got a number in the right ballpark. Having demonstrated that Maxwell’s equations were true, I worked through Einstein’s argument that in order to reconcile Maxwell’s equations with Galilean kinematics, special relativity follows.

              I routinely check alleged statistics to see if they make sense when compared to personal observation and anecdote.

              You often see opponents of the holy faith of Climate change using this kind of reasoning – for example photographs of centuries old docks reveal that sea levels have not risen significantly, and have been rising at the same insignificant rate for centuries. When I walk around lands that I walked as a lad, it is apparent that the climate is indeed changing: In that it is becoming milder, more clement, and more favorable to life. The world is getting greener, dangerous weather events less frequent. Coral is growing in places it has not grown for centuries.

              Which brings us back to Q.

              It is immediately obvious that leftists have immunity to commit crimes against real or suspected rightists, while the state comes down like a ton of bricks on anything that can be vaguely argued to be criminal done by rightists, and tends to punish behaviors associated with the right wing position, such as masculinity. The right walks on eggshells. Blacks have impunity to commit acts that would get white people in trouble. Q is reporting from a world in which law enforcement merely has a problem of a few bad apples – or rather one hell of a lot of bad apples. That is not the world we experience.

              • miu says:

                let’s begin by assuming i don’t know what i’m talking about. seems to be reasonably the case and we both know we’re on the same page

                my impression was that this leftist immunity was enjoyed primarily in what i call the blue bastions (Portland, Minneapolis, Chicago, all of Cali etc). i haven’t seen any of this riot nonsense where i live (not that i’m suggesting it would be punished like right wingers would be).

                what do you mean, punishes right wing behaviors… such as masculinity? how do we then explain Bronze Age Pervert’s following on Twitter + his Physique Fridays? does Heartiste count?

                blacks do feature special immunity at present. do muslims count as black right now?

                i’ve been following Q, more accurately i’ve been following AC’s and Vox Day’s interpretations of Qanon posts. AC’s new book seemed rather compelling. and my impression was that Cabal, while a relative minority among the general population, has captured many key positions within not just law enforcement but the federal government and…. well… allegedly they’re everywhere but for some reason they don’t just crush Qanon. if they’re such a dominant operation… wouldn’t they know who comprises Q? and just eliminate them?

                for that matter, i fail to grasp why they haven’t rid themselves of Trump. that the GEOTUS is still around makes me wonder that Q might be real and that they are somehow tag-teaming Cabal, if Cabal is indeed the proper way to conceptualize our Enemy.

                • jim says:

                  > but for some reason they don’t just crush Qanon. if they’re such a dominant operation… wouldn’t they know who comprises Q? and just eliminate them?

                  Because Q is their agent, or at least useful to them.

                • Not Tom says:

                  what do you mean, punishes right wing behaviors… such as masculinity? how do we then explain Bronze Age Pervert’s following on Twitter + his Physique Fridays? does Heartiste count?

                  What do you suppose would happen if anyone found out who these individuals really were? What did happen to Roissy when he got doxxed?

                  P.S. “Cabal” is the gayest name ever conceived for the Cathedral. Completely misrepresents its structure, its motivation and its beliefs. I’m not going to comment on Vox’s “interpretation”, as I long ago made it a point to ignore all of his posts on that (he’s too useful to ignore completely, but that doesn’t mean we have to take all of his ridiculous grandstanding claims seriously), and as for Anonymous Conservative, he made the mistake of trying to use one simplified academic model (r/K selection) to explain absolutely everything about politics, and as a result it broke his mind. Monomania does that to people.

                • miu says:

                  @jim, it makes no sense to me that Q is not dead if Q is not theirs. whomever this monolithic ‘they’ is to whom we keep referring.

                  but it also makes no sense to me that Trump is not dead. there’re simply too many ways to off somebody. if they really wanted him gone…. so i suspect that they don’t

                  @Not Tom, the gayest name… i guess so.

                  the Cathedral seems a more coherent idea. + i’m inclined to agree regarding AC’s monomania

                • jim says:

                  Q is distracting misinformation. Sometimes he is vaguely on target, usually he is just vague.

                  Further discussion of Q will be silenced. Whoever he is, not useful. Q predictions have consistently failed to pan out. He is not in contact with reality, and writes from a worldview that, though closer to reality than the officially imposed view, is nonetheless detached from the reality – for starters, “pedophile” is an enemy meme. The word and the concept did not exist until after World War II, and was imposed on us by hostile people to serve hostile objectives.

                  Obviously not everyone who uses the word is an enemy, but the enemy occupies a large part of his brain rent free. Which enemy occupation is visible in Q’s pronouncements.

                  If you use gender neutral language to talk about sex, enemy occupied.

                • Sic Semper Tyrannis says:

                  “Cabal” is an allusion to “Kabbalah”.

                  It’s pretty hard to miss.

                • info says:

                  The ball was already rolling before the word:

        • Not Tom says:

          You’re representing all forms of “talking” as equal. That’s self-evidently false.

          It may be rational or rhetorically effective to criticize one party for “just talking” when other parties are taking action and succeeding on that action, especially when the talkers are complaining that action is impossible. For example, the fools on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube who complain bitterly about censorship while completely ignoring alternative platforms and the often very competent individuals who are trying to build them; or people who ramble on and on about a debt crunch yet have never owned a single satoshi or gram of gold.

          This is not that. You are comparing speech to speech, not speech to action; and when comparing speech to speech, the actual speech matters. Qanon speaks lies, half-truths, irrelevancies, and the occasional bland statement that might appear to have been accurate if interpreted in the most charitable way possible and in just the right context. In other words, Qanon’s track record is on par with Nostradamus, maybe marginally worse.

          You shouldn’t “be suspicious of this blog” because the contents of “this blog” don’t rely on representations we make about ourselves in order to have any appearance of legitimacy – representations that are designed to be impossible to authenticate. We don’t represent ourselves to be anything other than students of history and seekers of truth and beauty. Qanon floats vague and often unbelievable theories that you are supposed to believe because Q is supposedly a powerful insider or has direct access to powerful insiders and isn’t just a dumb kid in his mom’s basement or maybe a boiler-room operation – and the authenticity of Qanon’s theories and predictions depends entirely on the authenticity of Q. We could all be trained Orangutans, and it wouldn’t matter because everything we say is either presented as speculation or can be independently verified (i.e. without retroactive reinterpretation of ambiguous statements).

          Give us a reason not to dismiss Qanon. And being nominally on Trump’s side doesn’t count; being well-intentioned does not preclude one from being completely insane and full of shit, and every grift-winger knows how to pretend to be on Trump’s side.

          • Sic Semper Tyrannis says:

            [*deleted for using our shibboleths incorrectly*]

            • jim says:

              Incorrect use of shibboleths attacks our ability to communicate.

              It is also a strong tell that the person misusing the shibboleth is trying to pass as something he is not.

          • miu says:

            so since we been talkin’ i keep turning this one over in my mind.

            is Trump truly /ourguy/?

            because if he authentically opposes tha Cathedral… why wouldn’t he have won #1 Free convertible ride in Dallas, knowmsayin’?

            i mean, Trump must at least be useful to some wings of the Cathedral, i.e. he is a protected asset…. an asset to whom?

            if we accept that the Cathedral, as Moldbug previously explicated, is not a monolith then it must be possible that… some member-institutions(?) of the Cathedral would see their advantage represented in Trump’s doings. then the question becomes, are the constituent institutions of the Cathedral at all cognizant *of* the Cathedral as such? (probly not, i imagine)

            jim has mentioned many times that our present day elite is traitorous and therefore, i assume, self serving at the expense of other members of its own… societal class(?).

            so Trump is at war with the Cathedral, as far as i can tell. but i do not see how he has at all made a fight of it without also being protected by other parts of that same Cathedral.
            unless there is an outside force he has made use of that has been able to endure the Cathedral and thereby compete with it at least thus far. or this outside force has made use of Trump and protected him for the sake of its own ends

            so i’m confused, clearly. i doubt these are completely original questions. if there is any place the more learned among us could point me to for further useful reading, i would appreciate that. on that subject, i appreciate the previously linked stultum article you wrote, jim, that was helpful

            • jim says:

              Trump, in his speeches, presents himself as both an insider and an outsider. In his first election run, he made his familiarity with the the paths of corruption a positive. Sounds like the truth.

              Trump is an optimate. The optimates were part of the ruling establishment. Have been, like old type Marxists, being purged for quite some time. They have been the losing faction, having had to make ever greater and ever less tolerable concessions, for some considerable time.

              Trump, with the rest of the optimates, favors far too close connections between big business and the state. Which used to be a point of contention between the optimates and other businessmen, but we have bigger issues to worry about now.

              The left liberals are starting to be purged. The Old Type Marxists are starting to be purged. The purge of the optimates started long ago, and Trump was one of the few remaining.

              Trump belongs to a heretical faith and faction within the Cathedral – same faith and faction as Nixon. This is a continuation of the Nixon ruckus.

              Every civil war starts with a breakdown of comity within the establishment. It was never Trump’s intention or desire to be a revolutionary figure, but the tide of history has him in its grasp.

              Yes, he is a Cathedralite, and ran as a Cathedralite. He is running again as a Cathedralite. But he will be Caesar Augustus, or die.

              Trump’s plan is that after the election, the Democrats will make a deal, a better deal for their optimate faction. But he recognizes them as not agreement capable, and his backup plan is to rule as leader of the warriors, rather than the priests. The tide of history is forcing him into his backup plan.

              • The Cominator says:

                “Trump, with the rest of the optimates, favors far too close connections between big business and the state.”

                In defense and in banking this is inevitable but Trump has not favored big over small business (not until the covid lockdown bullshit at least). Regulations are one way the government favors big business at the expense of small, and Trump has been the most enthusiastic deregulator as President in history rivaled probably only by Coolidge.

              • miu says:

                this makes a lot more sense than the conclusions i’d previously come to re: Trump and the position he’s in/ the battle he’s fighting and has been fighting/ his tribal allegiance as an optimate…

                i’ve never heard of optimates before. so this heretical faith & faction you referenced above Trump belonging to are the optimates then?

                accepting that, i evidently remain exceedingly ignorant, i do not follow the ruckus this is a continuation of which originated with Nixon. what ruckus was that? certainly connected to Watergate, i imagine. so Nixon then was another optimate? probably not the first or original optimate was Nixon huh. whither did this faction come from?

                i do not insinuate doubt here when i ask, how do you know all this? it’s amazing and i appreciate your chatting with me like this.

                who is purging the left liberals and the Old Type Marxists? would it be these, for lack of a better term, New Type Marxists? exactly who is behind these BLM and Antifas? i suppose it’s whomever or whatever faction rests on the throne of Harvard then

                which brings me to my final question here. why is Harvard so damned important?

            • Not Tom says:

              I think you’re imagining the Cathedral as running absolutely everything, which isn’t quite correct.

              There are two “systems” in America, more or less, to which different pundits have given different names. Moldbug referred to them as Foggy Bottom and Arlington; more conventionally some of us refer to them as bluegov and redgov; the most precise phrasing is probably the Cathedral and the Military-Industrial Complex, and in terms of factions (not ideologies), Progressives vs. Federalists.

              The latter may sound very strange, since the Progressives were once allied with the Federalists, back in the time of the civil war, against the Confederates. Both used each other as a means to an end, and for a long time you could say their relationship was symbiotic, but for a very long time the Cathedral has not been symbiotic with the MIC, it has been parasitic bordering on fatal with the forced introduction of women and gays in the military, forced insourcing of military logistics, forced imposition of HR on industry, etc. The Cathedral has been openly hostile to the MIC for a long time, probably since the Clinton years, and the MIC has been getting more openly hostile to the Cathedral, but it is afraid, due to the degree to which it has been successfully parasitized.

              The thing is, Democrat politics are perfectly aligned with the Cathedral, but “traditional” Republican politics have not been openly or properly aligned with the MIC. They accept payoffs from the MIC, and funnel money back to them, but they also fervently support free trade and immigration and other policies that severely compromise the MIC as a governing system. Traditionally, Republicans have functioned more as a foil for Democrats than as an alternative governing system.

              Trump supports tariffs and trade protection. He opposes immigration – mildly, anyway. He supports the idea of using America’s military to build America’s economy directly, such as building big-ass walls and space lasers. He doesn’t just mouth platitudes about the military like every Republican does, he wants to assert American economic dominance (but not political dominance, as the Cathedral does) through American military dominance. If you wonder why he wants to pull troops out of Iraq, well, do troops in Iraq support economic dominance or political dominance?

              You ask who in the Cathedral supports Trump? No one, they are all his bitter enemy, all united against him. His elite support is coming from the other system, which is severely weakened and which nobody talks about anymore (not even the left), but still exists and still has some pretty impressive resources. And the folks with interests in this system almost certainly see Trump as their path back to dominance.

              You may choke on the idea of boosting the MIC, for all it’s been vilified and caricaturized over the years, and it’s not without its problems, but it can largely coexist with a reactionary governing hierarchy and reactionary religion, while the Cathedral cannot.

              • miu says:

                thank you, Not Tom, that was concise

                i do not choke on the idea of the MIC or its ascendancy. i only wish to see reality, the Truth, no illusions. it is not mine to judge the condition of His world/ reality/ creation. and if the MIC is what’s required to bring low the Cathedral, so be it.

                i did not before understand that the MIC was opposed to the Cathedral and indeed believed them to be somehow united rather than parasitized. i saw the gays/trannys/muslims being inducted and concluded the MIC must be in on it.

                what predicated this hostility from the Cathedral toward the MIC, particularly since the Clinton years, as you mentioned?

                but you totally guessed me right. i did figure the Cathedral ran everything

                • jim says:

                  > i did not before understand that the MIC was opposed to the Cathedral

                  Not exactly opposed, though as the leftist spiral goes ever lefter, all the other factions are facing increasing grief. None more than Trump’s faction.

                  Like the Republicans, the optimate faction of the Republican party is both inside the Cathedral and outside it. But they are rather more outside it than the rest.

                  The left devours its own, and the optimates were getting the salami slicer.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I’d describe them as “rivals” and leave that intentionally open to interpretation.

                  We know that once upon a time, between the age of Lincoln and the age of Wilson, the MIC and Cathedral not only coexisted but supported each other to some extent. But starting around the time of Wilson (and maybe or maybe not because of him), they started to become mutually antagonistic, which I believe was driven primarily by the Cathedral, but regardless of who started it or precisely when or why, all antagonism eventually becomes mutual.

                  And today, the Cathedral is violently opposed to the MIC, and would like to use its resources both to weaken the Complex itself (i.e. by racking up enormous American body counts) and to establish its own global political and ideological dominance through “international law”. Parasitism, again.

                  All parasites eventually kill their host, and thus all hosts have a powerful incentive to try to kill their parasites. The MIC sure ain’t the Restoration, but could become a powerful arm of the Restoration if the Restoration embraces the idea of a Holy American Empire. The MIC can continue to enrich itself without fundamentally interfering with the “reform” of the priesthood, indeed benefiting substantially from those reforms.

                  For a time I had an isolationist streak, left over from my time as a libertarian. But since then I’ve come to the inescapable conclusion that there are only two governing systems in America that have actually been proven to work: Lincoln’s and Wilson’s, and Wilson’s is suicide. The Complex has its own agenda that is not precisely aligned with ours and not precisely opposed to the Cathedral, but it’ll have to do, because we have nothing else that actually exists and don’t have time to build a warrior-rule infrastructure from scratch. What we can do is help de-parasitize the military as it is, and they can help us de-parasitize the government and abolish the monasteries.

              • Mike in Boston says:

                The Cathedral has been openly hostile to the MIC for a long time, probably since the Clinton years, and the MIC has been getting more openly hostile to the Cathedral, but it is afraid, due to the degree to which it has been successfully parasitized.

                I would like to think that you are right about the MIC’s increasing hostility to the Cathedral, but on a daily basis I get emails full of the usual blah blah transgender blah blah diversity stuff from people at pretty high echelons in the MIC. Maybe they are just mouthing Cathedral shibboleths in order to further their careers; but some of these guys are close enough to retirement that if that were the case you would expect them to mouth them a bit less energetically, or to delegate the mouthing of them to the woke underlings they seem to keep hiring.

                My daily interactions within the MIC are among younger folks of lower rank. It wasn’t the case ten years ago, but today plenty of those, possibly a majority, seem to be genuine true believers in wokeness even in private conversation, and typically assume I must be too.

                When I meet a white guy running a Navy procurement program and he’s got George Floyd and Equality is Not Equity stuff in his personal space. I suspect you may be underestimating the extent that the Cathedral has parasitized even the mind of the MIC.

                Maybe the ratio of non-woke to woke is different when you get away from the coasts. I’m sure there are more non-woke in the MIC than I realize, drawing their paychecks and keeping their heads down.

                The question is, should the Cathedral be displaced, are they numerous enough that they could keep the wokesters in line with the new program?

                • The Cominator says:

                  If you are still in Mass the place has been gradually turning into a madhouse since I would say 2010.

                • Not Tom says:

                  The MIC as an “organ” simply has opposite interests; if it fails to resist the Cathedral, it dies.

                  But like I said, the Cathedral has successfully parasitized the MIC, so the MIC frequently acts against its own interests and in the Cathedral’s interests.

                  We must distinguish between interests and behavior. It’s in the interest of every corporation to make money, and they would very much like to do so, but parasites steer them toward antagonistic goals instead. If we gave them the means to resist the parasites, they would resist.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The Cathedral is considerably more monolithic than the military, the military and the MIC has many different factions which don’t always agree.

                  Some of the military intelligence faction (Flynn, Thiel Erik Prince) seems very amenable to our interest and backed Trump. The rank and file combat arms are at least reactionary for the Reagan era… the generals and a lot of the contractor organizations otoh tend to be pozzed.

                • Not Tom says:

                  The Cathedral is considerably more monolithic than the military, the military and the MIC has many different factions which don’t always agree.

                  Both the Cathedral and the Military-Industrial Complex are collections of large and mutually-reinforcing systems. Cathedral includes the Academy, the Media, the State Department, the UN, and about half of the Intelligence Community. MIC includes the various military branches (obviously), Department of Defense, U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve, NATO, Defense Contractors, arms dealers, the “gun lobby” and the other half of the IC.

                  Cathedral has superior asabiyyah, but that is to be expected since they are priests. MIC is actually far larger, and far stronger, and has far more direct and legitimate hooks into the nominal government. Its relative lack of cohesion is why it is so diminished and pozzed. Military organization requires strong executive leadership at all levels, whereas priestly organization only requires ideology.

    • Terraformer says:

      Leo Littlebook is kookanic, once again attempting to cultivate a following on Jim’s blog.

      • Littlebook says:

        I couldn’t care less what you fools think. I noticed the correlation and was nice enough to post it.

        And by the way, I think Q is a fool too, and Trump. Hence why they both trusted Comey and apparently Mueller too long. Not sure what all happened with the latter, but I heard Mueller was involved in a previous big case Trump did against the mob, so maybe Trump trusted him from that.

        Clearly Trump and Q don’t understand Jim’s thesis that they’re facing a Left singularity. Anonymous Conservative is another fool, he’s gone full paranoid gangstalking conspiratarded to replace the causal factor of Left singularity. Vox Day is infected to a lesser degree.

        The problem is systemic in the Alt Right, whose rank and file are currently trying to rebel against mask use when they should be establishing masks as a right as common as eyeglasses to foil panopticon totalitarianism, China style.

        Your intelligence is too limited to meet postmodern information processing demands necessary to preserve liberty, which is why I’ve focused on intelligence augmentation instead of wasting time talking to you.

        • Not Tom says:

          Your intelligence is too limited to meet postmodern information processing demands

          You know you’ve won the argument when your adversary insists he can read your mind.

          Intelligence augmentation, eh? That’s quite the pipe dream; too bad nobody’s found a way to do that after millennia of research, except in the generational sense. If I had to guess at your meaning, I’d imagine some bullshit nootropic cocktail and Bulletproof coffee, but feel free to clarify if you’re actually working at a top-secret CRISPR lab rewriting living human DNA.

        • Snowden says:

          Gee I’m just over here creating patriarchy, building a world for my kids, and ignoring all this gay shit.

          But hey I am pretty focused on intelligence augmentation. Here I am pumping out babies from a third woman. And all it took was ten years of learning game. Good thing my swimmers work in my old age, and good thing young women are desperate whores screaming from the roof tops for a man with a pimp hand to come take over their lives. And not turn them out.

          Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s, render unto God what is God’s.

          We do not need the state to live the way we want to live. We can truly and quite simply, just make it. With one thought

      • ten says:

        Is it? Koanic posted under a different name recently, but signed it as being him.

        I for one always appreciated his presence – schizotypal ramblings is my heroin.

        But i never got interested in Q. There is no meat on the bone.

        Seems to do the trick for a lot of mostly dumb or schizoid people though. They just love the idea of some insider dropping bread crumbs for them in the dark forest. And the main point of those bread crumbs seems to be “the left is evil”, which is a good point.

        Idiots and crazies need scandalous outrage or their attention fades. The way i see it, what Q says is basically improv, “trust sessions” is just what some poster thought at the time rather than an error or a malicious lie, but the effect is that “the left is evil” is propagated among grassroots crazies, as well as “trust the plan”, ie stay loyalist, dont screw the optics.

        Then again some people who are neither crazy nor dumb seem to take Q seriously, why i don’t know.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      >The cash infusion in the nonpartisan elections turns underdog challengers into contenders for one of the most powerful positions in local justice systems, roiling conventional law-and-order politics.

      ‘Underdog challengers’, characteristic inversion of power relations. There always needs to be yet more dominant nazi overlords oppressing la peuple by hiding futively under beds somewhere, to keep the eternal revolution going – to rationalize the eternal revolution. ‘Witches are being silenced by The Man’, says witch weekly, officially unofficial ex-cathedra.

      Of course it is a given that persons possessed by insecurities are predominantly predisposed to perpetrations of leftist behavior; that parts of them that want to be dominant, to have high status, are in psychic conflict with other parts of them, that really *do* see themselves as losers, as incapable of having such stature. Such dissonance being sublimated into such sentiments, if they can’t be great, then *noone else* can be great either; certainly not any greater than themselves. ‘Noone should have power’ is the archetypical expression of a sublimated power-drive.

      There can be many aspects to this dynamic, of particular relevance here. It is, also, why such persons so inevitably work towards calamity, ere they ever do find themselves possessed of any measure of power, with which they could give expression to their impulses; they feel like a powerless loser, *even and especially when they are in positions of dominance over others*. Hence how easily and effortlessly it becomes possible for them to lie and lie and lie about what it is that they do; how invariably they do spiral to ever more debased totalizations in search of ‘finally’ gaining the power that they do not feel they have; of constant reassurances for paper-mache self-conceptions; patches for the emptiness in their soul.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      >Alameda County Dist. Atty. Nancy O’Malley has expressed surprise that she’s a Soros target. The registered Democrat showcases endorsements not only from police leaders but also Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), organized labor and Democratic clubs.

      >Her opponent, civil rights lawyer Pamela Price, criticizes O’Malley’s ties with law enforcement, including political donations from police unions. Mailers sent by Soros’ PAC condemn “racist” stop-and-frisk policies and promise Price would end them. …

      Moles digging their holes look up one day and find themselves surprised the march of regress has long since lapped them.

      Few will learn their lesson in time.

    • Dave says:

      Democrats love to brag that the coming non-white majority will give them utter dominance of 21st-century America. Why then are they so desperate to beat Trump now? Probably because George Soros is 90 years old and not likely to see 2024.

      Twitching Hillary, Death Mask Pelosi, Dementia Joe, and Supervillian Soros are irreplaceable because the Dems have utterly failed to cultivate younger talent. Like the CPSU in the 1980s, their party is dying of old age.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        It is, as they say, ‘inherent in the system’.

        The dessert of doing leftism is dying with no legacy; including your own leftisms.

      • cpkpog says:

        Democrats love to brag that the coming non-white majority will give them utter dominance of 21st-century America. Why then are they so desperate to beat Trump now?

        Irrational exuberance is a standard Leftist trope. Their actual position may be dire, and their fight desperate, but their propaganda always shows strength. “History” is always on the side of Leftist priests.

        In Russia, the Reds at first were the underdogs, making hay while the Army was off to fight WWI, but developed into a surprising fighting force once they started receiving Prussian support. More importantly, White Russians (that is the Loyal returning Russian Army) were severely demoralised by the Tsar himself abdicating in favour of British-sponsored Fabian Mensheviks, It was this psychological victory over the weak St Nicholas II that enabled the Red conquest of Russia.

        Demoralisation of enemy leadership is the goal of Leftist “inevitable victory” rhetoric. When I saw through this, I was surprised at how effective this simple technique has been through so many revolutions.

        It is a common psychological result that irrational exuberance leads to better outcomes, statistically, than rational pessimism. We would be wise to remember this. Blackpillers are no different from enemy psyops. This is why having a proper religion (one that preaches strength in the face of adversity, because ultimately God will triumph) is important. The average sheeple can’t all be Nietzschean ubermenschen and need God to protect their courage.

  21. hopinforthefuture says:

    A guest on Tucker carlson’s show named Norm Eisen (who was with Obama at harvard and was part of the impeachment) as the one spearheading the color revolution. called him a “nexus point”. info on him:

    He is the author of “the playbook”. The manual on color revolutions.

    “Washington’s top lawyer”

    filed over 180 lawsuits against the administration.

    Drafted 10 different articles of impeachment

    general counsel to the DNC on impeachment.

    Former US ambassador to the Czech republic, from where his family fled during the holocaust.

    • Pooch says:

      I believe he is the author of the playbook Jim is referring to in this post.

      • Cloudswrest says:

        No, it’s another swamp creature. From Vox Day’s blog.
        You probably already know this, but if not, Michael McFaul has surfaced again. He’s the Stanford professor who was Obama’s ambassador to Russia and the creator of that idiotic “reset” policy, but before that, he was considered an expert on revolution, especially the Color Revolutions. According to McFaul, the seven factors necessary for a successful revolution are: …

  22. Alice says:

    Hi Jim, I am a long time fan of your blog but this is my first comment. I hope this is not rude, but if you could allow me a private communication channel, I would like your thoughts on a question that’s been on my mind in an area in which you have written somewhat extensively on and I feel I would greatly benefit from your insight on it. Hope to be able to communicate soon. Thank you in advance.

    • jim says:

      Too many people seeking to kill me and kill my children.

      If you actually wanted a private communication channel, you would have an email address that is not, the least private of all email providers.

      • Alice says:

        Hi Jim,

        If you could please remove my email, which your comment form clearly indicated would not be published from public view, it would greatly appreciated. If you had done a simple search you would have noticed it is my personal email address and you have inadvertently violated my privacy by posting it. Please remove it right away. I’m sorry you feel this was an attempt at scamming you but if you’d like to make an example of me for your readers at least censor the first part of my email.

        • jim says:

          Whose view? Whose security?

          I will remove the link if you explain your security concerns.

          Everything you write through that email address and everything sent to that email address gets scanned through what used to be, and may well still be, the world’s most powerful AI, and anything it flags as interesting gets passed to humans – including anything security related, and anything significantly political, gets passed to some group of people, who are apt to click on interesting looking links referenced in that email, which behavior can be detected by setting up a honeypot url, to which no links exist other than the link in a honeypot email sent to an address, so that the only way the server could get a hit on that honeypot url is through a human reading the honeypot email – which being a honeyput email should not be legitimately read by any human.

          So you don’t seem terribly worried about this email address being public to people who are hostile to us and spying on us, just worried about this email address being public to us.

          I have security concerns. There are people who want to kill me. I am unsympathetic to the security concerns of people who want to kill me. Please explain your security concerns. Provide some evidence of alignment, such as a thoughtcrime or acknowledgment of other people’s thoughtcrimes. Use one of our shibboleths in a context that acknowledges what it means. War began when our side started shooting back. Whose side are you on?

          I have no obligation to speak the truth to people who believe there is no truth, and any promises that I make are only for people who themselves honor promises. Who are you? Whose side are you on?

          • someDude says:

            Woah, that escalated real quick. I’m gonna get me some popcorn and soda pop. This is gonna be fun.

            But honestly, what possible security concern could he have? Getting spammed by all of us? All of us giving that email to Spammers? To Nigerian scammers? Registering at hard core porn websites? Dude can easily get himself a new email address and junk this one after backing up all the emails. Not clear why this Alice dude is so flustered.

          • Cloudswrest says:

            Hey Jim,

            Perhaps you could write an article on good Internet hygiene. What services to avoid? What are best practices? You’re more experienced on this than most people. And it would be a welcome relief from politics and arguing with Internet shills.

            • Dave says:

              Have multiple on-line identities. One with your real name for everyone you know in real life, another for right-wing blogs, a third for any hobbies that neither your family nor right-wingers need to know about, and possibly more.

              For this to work, you must keep all your identities completely separate. They must never mention or link to each other, share any common interests, or repeat any clever turns of phrase that you thought up. This requires constant vigilance against e.g. web browsers that helpfully fill out the Name and Mail fields for you on comment forms. Read up on Ross Ulbricht and avoid his mistakes.

              I suggest using the clear web for all your normie activities and Tor Browser for everything else. Keep usernames and passwords in your head, on paper, or in a text file on a computer that’s totally under your control.

              Google services share information promiscuously, so assume that everything you do with them is linked to your real name. I wonder if Vox Day is a honeypot, seeing as he requires all commenters to have Google accounts.

              • Cloudswrest says:

                Ross Ulbricht was involved in rather ostentatious criminal activity. One expedient for avoiding trouble, though certainly not a guarantee, is to abstain from ostentatious criminal activity if you can at all help it.

                • Dave says:

                  We too are involved in ostentatious criminal activity, or rather, ostentatious activity that might be retroactively declared criminal in the not-too-distant future.

              • Cloudswrest says:

                By the way, DON’T EVER use Google’s password safe (you know, when you log into a site and Chrome helpfully asks if you want to store your login credentials) for anything important. I found this out the hard way. If someone gets into your Google account they have clear text access to all your stored logins and passwords!!!!! And since it’s in the cloud it is accessible from anywhere.

              • Cloudswrest says:

                Having been raided/looted I’ve made the following quick/obvious changes.

                1. Use “machine generated” passwords (i.e. long random strings one can’t remember or guess). This requires a password safe (I use Keepass).

                2. Use two factor authentication.

                3. Lock your sim card. If someone steals your phone they can just plop your sim card into a new phone and have your phone number. There goes your security and two factor authentication.

              • someDude says:

                Yikes, I just deleted the google account I used for right wing commenting. Then Deleted Google chrome. And now using two separate browsers, one for right wing blogs and the other for my usual stuff. Still have a google account using my actual name, but use it for personal stuff that is public, i.e. no right wing browsing, and no financial data. None of the financial institutions I work with have my gmail address.

                Thanks for this public service comment.

            • jim says:

              I do the things that I assume everyone does and everyone knows. Maybe I assume wrongly. Plus I maintain multiple real world identities with passports or residence permits. As Dave said:

              Have multiple on-line identities. One with your real name for everyone you know in real life, another for right-wing blogs, a third for any hobbies that neither your family nor right-wingers need to know about, and possibly more.

              For this to work, you must keep all your identities completely separate. They must never mention or link to each other, share any common interests, or repeat any clever turns of phrase that you thought up. This requires constant vigilance against e.g. web browsers that helpfully fill out the Name and Mail fields for you on comment forms. Read up on Ross Ulbricht and avoid his mistakes.

              I don’t keep my passwords and stuff on paper, I keep them in an obscure encrypted note form, security by obscurity plus a very long master password and encryption. I also maintain multiple computers, physically and in oracle vm, and use them for different activities.

              Google is evil.

              Does your business use Google Analytics on its website?

              Then Google will use the information that it so generously generates and analyzes for you to show ads for competing businesses to your customers. While you are analyzing the information to see how you can improve your business, they are analyzing the information to see how they can destroy your business.

              And a general reminder to everyone: Add the following to your hosts file:


              This will cause a whole lot of ads, and a whole lot of ad targeting, to disappear.

              Turn off Thunderbird and Firefox’s routine tattling.

              Mozilla Firefox
              Type ‘about:config’ in the address bar
              Click through the warning
              Type ‘geo.’ in the search box. A list of items appears
              Doubleclick on the geo.enabled item till it reads ‘False’
              Change the two strings to ‘http://localhost’
              Change the timeout to 1
              Mozilla Thunderbird
              Select Tools/Options/Avanced/General/Config Editor
              click through the warning
              type ‘geo.’ in the search box. A list of items appears
              set the timeout to one, and the url to ‘http://localhost’
              Don’t use Google accounts. Remember that you can create a new google account without giving them any ID information on a fresh android phone which is connected to the internet by the mall wifi, but does not have a sim card in it.

              Don’t use Google search for anything related to politics or money, since this is sending your searches character by character to Google. Definitely don’t use Google search while logged in to your Google account. Use DuckDuckGo. I have never received a targeted ad from DuckDuckGo except in reply to my search.

              Don’t use Chrome, because this reports all browser activity to Google.

              Disable all durable cookies for Google Servers.

              • The Cominator says:

                If they really want to put you under a microscope they can always get you. People all have writing styles and other tells which apparently if they really want to look at you is like digital fingerprints.

                The reason the enemy is unlikely to find or put any effort into any one dissident is that the Cathedral is now widely despised outside of their urbanite faggot and single women demographics. Its like the Communist bloc in the 1980s where almost everyone now hates the current regime, even including their security services (they pissed off the cops recently). Also their minions such as they do have are increasingly incompetent.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Textual analysis is only good for generating leads. I’ve never heard of it being used as conclusive evidence or even prima facie evidence, and don’t think it ever could be, because evidence needs to be non-repudiating, and text that looks like yours could just as easily be someone imitating you.

                  It may be hard for you to disguise your writing over a long period of time, but it is very easy for someone else to produce a convincing facsimile. Therefore, if you don’t have other leaks (such as a shared email or phone number), I think it would be very hard for anyone to actually use the result of a textual analysis against you. You just say, “yes, I write like that but that isn’t me”.

                  Of course this won’t stop a journalist from attempting to defame you, but they’ll do that with or without evidence, it makes no difference to them, if you’re important enough.

                • jim says:

                  They used textual analysis to try to identify Satoshi. It is clear that they have not got a clue. They have a small corpus of text, and a huge corpus of C++ code. Did not work.

                • someDude says:

                  @Not Tom, car accidents

              • someDude says:

                Fantastic, I deleted my fake google account as well as google chrome. No more searches on google. I need to work out a way to now get out of the email address I have been using on google with my real name though I do not use it for anything important, career related or financial. Just to keep in touch with friends.

              • Anonymous 2 says:

                Also, if possible use multiple separate browsers for your identities. Browser fingerprinting seems to be getting routine by now and is surprisingly precise. These days I’m getting the same hopeful ads while browsing in fresh incognito windows, without having logged in or anything like that. Suspicious.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, I use different browsers, and different computers, for different identities, some of them VirtualBox computers.

              • Alice says:

                Ok, by now I think it’s pretty clear to me Jim that you’re way too far gone on this path of “killing an enemy/commie” to actually respond to a simple request to not share my email. If you are doing this to keep your fanboys happy, as I’m sure this kind of “discussion” is quite entertaining to them, I guess I misjudged you. By being paranoid to the point that you’re willing to purposefully endanger someone that you don’t even know, who has basically not threatened you in anyway, you have already lost the battle. They have made you hide in a bunker of your own making, wearing three layers of tin foil hats for good measure. Not that you’d care for the opinion of a “shill”, but I think this isn’t the path to winning hearts and minds. While I’ll probably still read your posts and comments because I enjoy your perspective, I certainly will not ever count myself as a fan of yours. Readers like myself who are reasonable will likely follow suit. Sure you have probably given the loyalists a good sadistic temporary high, but you will have turned away just as many semi – normies in the process.

                • The Cominator says:

                  How did you think it was going to be received when your very 1st post was a request for personal information…

                • Starman says:

                  @A l i c e
                  You owe me an explanation on why you refused to answer my multiple choice RedPill on women question.

                  Aren’t you going to answer my question? It’s multiple choice, answer it.

                • jim says:

                  Your inability to pass any of the simple tests we have offered you to identify as friend, indicates that your email address is not a private address, that any emails sent to your email address are likely to seen by your supervisor etc – that you are on someone’s payroll, paid to engage in hostile and hurtful actions against us.

                  If a private address, if acting in a private, rather than paid and supervised role, you could say things that you obviously are unable to say.

                  People often ask “Why cannot shills just lie their way through the shill test?”

                  Easy: the shill test consists of speaking unspeakable truths, crimethoughts, or at least acknowledging that other people think and say crimethoughts.

                  And crimethoughts are not allowed in shill workplaces, nor indeed in any workplace. The shill test exposes shills working under supervision from a shilling office.

                  If someone was just spontaneously shilling on his own initiative in his own time, perhaps out of zeal for communism or some such ideology, he would have no problems passing with flying colors.

                • ten says:

                  It is not paranoid getting suspicious towards a stranger asking for a private channel. If that stranger uses a shitty mail service, doubly not so.

                  Maybe you are too ignorant to understand this, or maybe you lie.

                  The threat has been explained to you repeatedly, but you argue that you had no ill intent and demand your e-mail be removed. So prove it. Multiple people have been throwing you ropes that you refuse to grab onto, preferring to repeatedly shriek about how reasonable and well intended you are, and that others likewise well intended and reasonable will agree with you.

                  Noone agrees with you. We throw you ropes, you throw them away. You are not reasonable, and you do not seem well intended nor wish to be seen as well intended. You seem like you are a fool who tries to wriggle out of a foolish mistake – which all reasonable normies will agree with.

                  It is deceitful to argue about entertaining the fanboys, indignantly shouting that you will never be a fan, and that reasonable normies will retract support, when the particulars of the offense are in the open, which you refuse to respond to, instead opting to reassert your good intent.

                  If you responded in ways that made you seem less suspicious, that acknowledged why you seemed suspicious in the first place, and passed shill tests, maybe you would be met with cooperation.

                  Instead, you claim jim has “lost the battle” by correctly suspecting your suspicious behaviour, you ignore every accusation and request, and you dig your hole deeper with every word, seeming more and more obviously suspicious.

                  I am fully prepared to assume your innocent foolishness, but you make it very, very difficult, and you should try to make it easier, if you are able.

          • Alice says:

            Hi Jim,

            I actually am not that versed in the intricacies of gmail. I had something that I thought I would like to have a small discussion on that is private not because this is some kind of way of exposing you, which if you were worried about, you could have simply ignored my comment or not posted it at all. Instead you seem to have had some vendetta against a complete stranger on the internet. I’m as worried about my privacy as you are. You fully know that your blog is controversial, to say the least. I had admired you for the bravery in posting your views. However I never in a million years thought I would be receiving from you the same hate that I’m sure now you must receive from anonymous parties constantly. It has clearly caused you to build up a defense mechanism, which I completely respect. Please, I have my family to protect just as anyone else here has. Don’t punish me for my lack of knowledge around the security issues around gmail. I’ve already apologized, and since you’ve exposed my email I have had several attempts to login to various accounts associated with my email. I have had to scramble to change logins on several sites. If this is how you treat someone who was a mere reader of your work, I’m sorry to say you have gone a step too far. There’s no reason to subject me to the same thing you did not want to happen to yourself. I will never submit another comment from now on.

            • jim says:

              > There’s no reason to subject me to the same thing you did not want to happen to yourself.

              I asked you to tell me whose side you are on.

              If on the other side, every reason to subject you to that which I do not want to happen to myself.

              The level of political violence and political repression has been escalating for two centuries. It will continue to escalate faster and faster until the other side also feels the heat.

              The cities have started burning. The suburbs are under attack. People are being killed. War is upon us, even though as yet unacknowledged.

              The cities cannot be rebuilt until there is law and order. Law cannot exist, except first there is order. Order cannot exist, except first there is peace. Peace requires victory. Victory requires war.

              I want to have open and honest debate and discussion with our enemies. They will not engage in discussion, only intimidation. Therefore, there will be war.

              Even if an enemy, especially if an enemy, I would love to have discussion with you. Please comment, using a consistent fake email address. But the trouble is, the enemy will not hold a conversation, only post repetitious scripts that have been approved by their central authority, a central authority that has no idea what we are saying because it will not listen. Because the enemy will not speak with us, people are dying, and there is a considerable likelihood that enormous numbers of people will die, that the gigantic and unprecedented democides of the twentieth century will be dwarfed by the democides of the twenty first.

              • Alice says:

                Hi Jim,

                I’m not sure if you simply are looking for an explicit declaration that I’m ” on the same side”, it would strike me as strange that you would not realize by now which side I am on given the fact I mentioned I was a long time fan and reader, and that I respected and trusted you enough to use my personal email. That doing so was construed in the exact opposite manner was a shock to me. If you indeed want to have a discussion, please delete my email from your first reply as soon as possible and I will reach out to the email one other commenter pointed out with a protonmail account or whatever one you prefer I use. In the meantime could you please finally respect my wishes of scrubbing my email from this site? As you are aware it attracts hostile actors.

                • Not Tom says:

                  given the fact I mentioned I was a long time fan and reader

                  That’s the same thing that every shill says. Literally every one of them, every time.

                  If you really just made an honest mistake, then I pity you, because you’re doing a very poor job of distinguishing yourself from any garden-variety shill (or worse, a journalist or other malicious actor). Because anyone who really has been a long-time reader and/or fan ought to have known that Jim would respond negatively to such a request, and would definitely know that our enemies are constantly claiming to be our best friends.

                  Jim wants you to declare your allegiance in unambiguous terms, i.e. using language that identifies one of two or more factions and does so in a way that the faction that we all recognize as the enemy would disapprove of. There have been people who passed the shill test, few though they may be.

                • jim says:

                  > I’m not sure if you simply are looking for an explicit declaration that I’m ” on the same side”, it would strike me as strange that you would not realize by now which side I am on given the fact I mentioned I was a long time fan and reader, and that I respected and trusted you enough to use my personal email.

                  When a commie tells one he is one’s side, he intends to murder one, as tens of millions have discovered at the cost of their lives. Nazis kill their enemies from in front, commies from behind.

                  What you could do to establish your bonafides is use one of our shibboleths in a manner that shows you understand its meaning and are using it appropriately – since this is exactly the kind of communication that our enemies are forbidden to engage in.

                  I am surprised that anyone worried about security is in fact using their gmail address as their personal address to hold political discussions which would be of interest to our enemies. I don’t know whether it is your personal email, or an email address shared with the FBI or a Soros ngo, wherein incoming messages are automatically copied to your employer, your supervisor, and your human resources department.

                  And if it really is your personal address, and you are not posting from the office of a Soros ngo, nonetheless it is being shared with` someone in a Soros organization. We have done experiments with honeypot emails that should not be being read by anyone, containing booby trapped links to detect where they are being shared to.

                  If one has enemies in front of one, and a commie tells one he is with one and standing right behind one, the wisest course of action is to turn around and kill the commie behind one before trying to deal with the enemy in front of one. The enormous death toll of the twentieth century was for the most part people who made the error of accepting the commie’s support. Communist friendship and support was the number one cause of wrongful death in the twentieth century, substantially exceeding all others.

                • Starman says:

                  @A l i c e
                  Let’s break the suspense here. If you want to prove to us that you’re not a shill, then answer this multiple choice RedPill on women question:

                  Should we make pornography illegal?
                  [A] Yes, because pornography is the tool of those dirty Jews who plot against the White family.
                  [B] No, because pornography allows us to learn about various fetishes and alternative sexual practices, and that is valuable knowledge.
                  [C] No, because male desire for sexual gratification is not causing society any problems. Now, we should ban gay, tranny, and cuck porn. And we should ban romance novels.
                  [D] No, but Child Porn with those 14 year old children should still be illegal.
                  [E] No, but we should require all porn actors to wear proper PPE, in order to protect the actors and actresses from venereal diseases (such as the super deadly COVID19), and to teach the viewers — who are often our own sons — to use contraceptives. Porn is spiritual poison, but it’s not realistic to ban all of it, so we should focus instead on protecting the sex workers — who are often our own daughters in college — from exploitation and bad working conditions.

                • pyrrhus says:

                  The Spanish Civil War is a good example of how dangerous it is to be on the same side as the communists, who promptly started executing their allies…Orwell escaped one step ahead of the firing squad…

    • Pooch says:

      Fuck off shill.

    • someDude says:

      The comment sounds like it comes from a Journalist in the Lamestream media. It’s too similar to so many requests received by PUAs, MRAs, Alt-right figures, etc.

      Still, why does he need private communication? What is the question that he can only ask privately that he cannot ask publicly? Is he sexually impotent and asking for advice on how to cure it? Does he have a cuckold fetish that he cannot seem to cure? But if so, he is anonymous anyway. It’s not like we would turn up at his house and laugh at him. Why not ask it right here? Why not discuss it right here and let other readers benefit from Jim’s advice as well.

      • The Cominator says:

        Some kind of scam.

      • jim says:

        My assumption is that it is an attempt to identify the channels I use for less public communication, in order that I can be found. If he is using gmail, not actually interested in private communication.

        • Karl says:

          True, but if you (correctly in my opinion) conclude that Alice wants to identify the channels you use for less public communication in order that you can be found, I don’t undertstand why you pointed out that her gmail address is not private at all. Now she has learned something and is able to make a better attempt at you or someone on our side.

          Why teach the enemy? She would not have learned anything from a response saying that you are not interessted in private communication with her.

          • jim says:

            I assume that she is using gmail because she knows gmail does an attack to discover all it can about the server sending it mail, that gmail not only scans the content of all messages, but attempts to discover and record maximum metadata about messages sent through it, that “Alice” has privileged and special access to the information obtained by gmail.

            • Karl says:

              Of course, but why tell her? For the benefit of other readers of your blog?

              The attempt of Alice was not all that smart. She might now make a better attempt.

            • Dave says:

              Why doesn’t she just send an e-mail to Why announce to all and sundry that she wants a private chat with you?

            • stcacc says:

              > her

              There are no women on the Internet.

        • Sounds too much like generic copypasta with no specifics to your blog -> probably garden-variety spammer/scammer.

          • Not Tom says:

            That was my impression too. It’s not even that difficult to find an email address for Jim, which means this person didn’t do even the bare minimum amount of research, which implies a spam/scam mentality of large numbers, especially when considering how generic the post was. The gmail address is probably throwaway.

            Still, you can’t be too careful.

            • efsclt says:

              > gmail address is probably throwaway.

              There is no such thing as a throwaway GMail address. Each one has to be verified. You should not use GMail for any Cathedral-unapproved activities. The era of unverified GMail (and Yahoo/Outlook/whatever) has long passed. Old accounts may be grandfathered-in, but expect them to ask for your phone number at any time.

              The very fact that “Alice” is using GMail for thoughtcrime is a huge red flag.

              I also found it funny that he chose the name “Alice.” Who will the next one be? “Bob?”

              • Not Tom says:

                You can verify with a burner.

                That doesn’t make it “private”, but I doubt “Alice” has to worry about that, he just doesn’t want to use his real email.

  23. someDude says:

    What happens to the banking system in such a case as a civil war or Coup? Looks like the dollar is holding it’s value and no one seems to be pulling their money out the US. So foreign investors seem to be confident that either there will be no civil war, or even if there is a coup, it will be short and sweet.

    Jim, do you keep any money in US banks anymore at all? A financial post would be terrific. Thanks

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      This is a new style of communism, which is unlikely to lead to rapid wealth seizures or huge wealth destruction.

      However, the markets also do not price coup risk very well, because most money is managed by professional managers, and anyone employed in a profession outside of a few countries is not allowed to see a communist coup. They are allowed to see a Donald Drumpf coup, but they’re not allowed to see it succeeding, and it’s hard to argue that a Donald Drumpf coup would rapidly destroy wealth.

      • James says:

        I could easily see this leading to huge wealth destruction. Imagine if Obama’s shale restrictions were reinstated. That would be a huge chunk of economic activity wiped out overnight. Ditto if section 8 were brought to the nicer suburbs. Wealth destruction is -easy- and kosher.

        Rapid seizures of wealth do seem unlikely; seizures are likely to happen indirectly over time. We could see vast amounts of wealth be -effectively- confiscated in a 4 year period via reparation, inflation, and tribute.

        However, your core point that wealth managers are professional class and thus can’t notice coup risk does stand.

  24. Not Tom says:

    More from the “not even trying to hide it” column:

    And “Shadi Hamid” is absolutely right, the Democrats won’t be able to concede and have no intention of conceding. Partly because their own supporters would flay them alive, and partly because nothing burns more than cheating your ass off and still losing.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      Are you sensing a “cry for help” vibe from lefty leaders who can’t control their own crocodiles anymore, imagine themselves on the potential future menu, and hadn’t considered that possibility before?

      • Not Tom says:

        No. To date, I have not heard one single Democrat, Harvard professor, or other notable progressive condemn the tiger that they still believe they are riding. They are unrepentant, and even if they did repent, it would be too little, too late.

        I don’t hold any fantastical notions that any leftist leaders feel remorse, even of the kind driven exclusively by self-interest. They are happy, even exuberant, to watch their own cities burn from the peace of their limos and gated communities, just as they are happy to prosecute every business owner who dares to try to earn an income while they see their hairdressers for private appointments and go to the open gyms in government buildings. What you and I see as the basest hypocrisy, they see as a demonstration of their status and success and superior virtue.

        Holiness spirals, by their nature, blind the priests caught up in them; they cannot see reality and cannot acknowledge that reality even exists.

        And if they were crying for help, well then so what? Who cares? “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.”

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          I don’t mean “remorse” nearly as much as I mean “smell their own fear,” but OK.

          It makes me wonder if Pol Pot started the Khmer Rouge himself, or long-knifed some fancy-pants Mensheviks back in the stealth mode days.

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          Also, can you guys think of any historical big time lefty figures who jumped ship at the last minute and got away with it?

          Trotsky, he ran off to Mexico, but then they came and ice-picked him. I’ve always understood it was because he couldn’t stop rabble-rousing his Fellow Russians by mail, even from Mexico, so he had to be made an example. But is that wrong? Was he just up and Romanov’ed from orbit, just to be sure?

          I guess that’s what Massachusetts, Brooklyn and Israel have been: Safe houses for revolutionaries who jumped out before impact?

          • Not Tom says:

            Depends on what you mean by big time. Quite a lot of Mensheviks escaped to America and collectively became the Neocons, and no small number of Bolsheviks made it into our universities and media/entertainment and basically took over all or part of those. Were they well-known in the Soviet Union? Probably not, just generic revolutionaries and functionaries, but they became big time here.

            Mostly, the ones who are already big and important in their own country don’t bother to jump ship because they think they’re steering the ship. The Eschaton is just over the horizon, so why turn around?

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Quite a lot of people survived the fall of the Warsaw Pact with their careers intact.

            CCP jumped ship while still captaining it.


            It’s actually hard to think of big guys who went down with the ship. Maybe Trotsky, but I’d rather see him as still fighting for control of it when he was taken out. Even if he had given up on returning to the Soviet government someday, he still led a movement and this movement had influence in the USA.

            Ceaușescu springs to mind. But his treatment was very unusual, and may have had more to do with how his wife abused her position for the typical female personal reasons than what the communist party did.

            Leftists typically don’t die when the system collapses. They walk into the meat-thresher while the system is at its most vigorous, because ideology commands it.

  25. Ash says:

    “BLM riots as a dress rehearsal” can’t be overstated. That Wheeler, Durkan, and Lightfoot were able to decide upon the exception and Trump was impotent to stop them is a harbinger of things to come.

    Unfortunately the politically disinterested still cling to the artifice of rule of law, and it hasn’t sunk in that all interpretative, interstitial authority is going to selectively apply law according to a psychotic and homosexual normativity. It’s why they refuse to believe the people ostensibly responsible for protecting them and enforcing the laws that safeguard their property and lives are the same people astroturfing a “””””civil rights””””” movement. And why they’re so willing to accept the destruction of their property.

    I suspect it will be the same with the election. A delusional faith in the Constitution, or at least what it represents, a belief that America is “normal” and above coups…they’ll roll over.

    • Contaminated NEET says:

      The American right has been losing for the last 100 years; they’re not going to stop now.

      • Grunt says:

        Trump can’t lose, or they’ll kill him and his family. so he won’t.
        he could crook his finger, and a million armed men would converge on the capital. don’t forget, four years ago a million bikers for Trump converged on the capital.
        Mattis and a lot of the generals don’t like him, but don’t forget what happened when the senate of Rome sent legions under Lepidus to attack Mark Anthony. they walked across the battlefield and joined Anthony because they liked him better.

    • Dave says:

      And Q feeds this delusion by telling his believers that the deep-state Satan-worshiping evil-doers who run this country will all be exposed and brought to justice any day now. By who?

    • Not Tom says:

      “oh noes it’s all over we’re doomed drumpf i mean trump is doomed nothing ever changes the sheeple will roll over just give up now it’s hopeless”

      Demoralization porn all sounds the same.

      • Ash says:

        Not at all what I’m saying. I’m referring to those most affected by BLM riots: urban normies, unreflective, politically apathetic, and thus Dem by default. These are the people who watch their Dem mayors allow their cities to burn, yet still vote blue. The kind of people who still fetishize “rule of law” and the Constitution.

        Establishment obviously realizes this, and that’s why the mechanism by which they’ve been trying to oust Trump is an appeal to rule and procedure and so on. They need to paper over their coup with a veneer of legal legitimacy, and that’s increasingly difficult as they overplay their hand.

        I’m optimistic. This is the establishment lashing out like a cornered animal; it reeks of desperation.

        • Not Tom says:

          Alright, fair enough, but these two sentences:

          These are the people who watch their Dem mayors allow their cities to burn, yet still vote blue. The kind of people who still fetishize “rule of law” and the Constitution.

          They describe two totally different groups. The former are younger Democrats and the latter are Boomer Republicans. People who fetishize the law don’t vote Democrat, they vote Republican but implicitly trust the establishment’s party line.

          And, from what I can tell, that group is getting smaller by the day. Even self-identified moderates are breaking heavily for Trump, expressing cynicism about DAs and courts, and speaking in terms of a civil war, at least obliquely. Why do you think the RNC brought in the McCloskeys and Nick Sandman to speak? They are poster boys for a weaponized press and legal system; they know it, and their voters know it.

          I’d still accuse many Republican voters of passivity and cowardice, but not ignorance; not any more. Everyone sees this, and if the McCloskeys were a bit obscure then St. Kyle blew the whole thing wide open. It’s no longer a question of awareness, merely the will to win.

          • The Cominator says:

            Muh rule of law is specifically a CUCKSERVATIVE meme that only cuckservatives (note not the Bush’s Romney’s etc they were in on the Cathedral scam) believe in or ever believed in, much like democracy itself…

            It was probably disproportionately popular among boomers but not all boomer republicans believed in it nor did all the younger ones disbelieve (I mean there are people who actually listen to Ben Shapiro for some reason, I think), it was MORE popular until recently among certain religious groups like Mormons and Midwestern Evangelicals. Recent events have been a hard redpill for most of them and my kind of thinking that combines extreme cynicism and extreme hatred for leftist is becoming more prevalent.

            People who are happy when antifa burns their business down (and no they don’t have insurance coverage for all the damage, insurance companies are the one thing on the planet that makes me sympathetic to communists) are just cathedral true believers.

          • Ash says:

            There’s a difference between “law and order” and “rule of law”. Rule of law just means power restrained by codified rational principles like the Constitution; of course now its become this Weberian, feminized, rational-legal authority that is easily coopted. But Boomer and Gen X Democrats most certainly DO fetishize rule of law; it’s why mainstream left outlets HAMMER home the unconstitutional angle every time Trump does something they don’t like. It’s dictator this, and illegal that. If they didn’t care about rule of law, they’d pick a different, more resonant tactic.

            These people like rule of law as an abstraction, as some ideal to which they can pay lip service as evidence they live in a “normal” country so they don’t have to actually confront the quotidian nightmare. Rule of law is their pacifier.

            Hell, even the more politically inclined like the”#resist” crowd aren’t radical leftists, they’re politically illiterate wine aunts stuck in 90s Fukuyama liberal constitutionalism mode. Facing the inherent contradictions of rational law and liberal democracy would be to upset their place in history, their entire telos as progressives, and so even THEY cling to rule of law.

            Conservatives obviously value the Constitution more, and I agree with your point that they’re waking up. Which is why I’m so optimistic. The line from Daily Caller normies is no longer “lol Democrat Mayors are incompetent”, it’s that these mayors are willfully malicious; they don’t care about your rights, they don’t care about your precious constitution, the law to them is a bludgeon. People are recognizing that this isn’t just a few bad actors either; this is the entire establishment, and it all has to go.

            • Not Tom says:

              But Boomer and Gen X Democrats most certainly DO fetishize rule of law; it’s why mainstream left outlets HAMMER home the unconstitutional angle every time Trump does something they don’t like.

              No, that isn’t why they do it. It’s nearly the opposite of why they do it. Have you read anything that’s been said about Leftism on this blog, either by commenters or by Jim himself?

              We can start with “leftism has no essence”. Do you understand what that phrase means, and how it can apply to the situation you’re describing?

              • Ash says:

                I think you’re misunderstanding me. As I said in my previous posts, I’m not arguing that the Left itself is committed to rule of law, obviously the opposite, but many who vote Dem, and thus Left, still are. This is taken advantage of by cathedral mouthpieces. There are other long-game reasons why, but that doesn’t invalidate my argument, as the context of the entire discussion was the impending color revolution.

                That’s the extent of my claim. Is that what you’re disputing? If so, enlighten me.

                • Not Tom says:

                  You’re currently attempting to make some sort of distinction between Democrats/”the left” and people who vote for Democrats/”the left”. This is a questionable, if not downright silly claim.

                  Every leftist, whether politician or voter, is animated by the same basic desire for status and power and the determination to break and eventually overturn existing laws and social norms (i.e. defect) in order to attain them. Everything that sounds like a moral principle uttered by a leftist is conditional in service to that goal, hence only worrying about “constitutional” issues when Trump uses his legitimate executive power to reduce immigration but not when state and city officials issue illegitimate edicts prohibiting local businesses from opening their doors to customers.

                  We model and judge leftists by their actions, not their words. Low-caste leftists will riot, loot and burn, while middle-caste leftists will merely cheer on the rioting, looting and burning while voting for and funding upper-caste leftists who will ensure that the rioting, looting and burning is allowed to continue. 2020 may be especially violent, and the motivations of left-wing elites become especially transparent, but ’twas ever thus, tracing roots back to the LA riots, the Civil Rights riots, the Suffragettes, the War of Northern Aggression, and the American rebellion.

                  It’s one unbroken line extending back to the founding, and while the voting blocs may end up betrayed (blue-collar labor unions being a modern-day example), they still knew exactly the sorts of people they were voting for and why, and it was never to preserve the rule of law, always to overturn it.

                • Ash says:

                  Maybe I’m naive, but I wouldn’t characterize every Dem voter as a leftist. It’s way too charitable to say they knew/know exactly who they were voting for. I think that’s the point of divergence here.

                • yewotm8 says:

                  A lot of liberal voters just believe the media about how bad the “conservative” guy is. They don’t really care about politics, they’re just gonna vote against the guy that “everybody knows” is evil.

                • jim says:

                  Votes don’t matter any more.

                • Pooch says:

                  It’s still imperative Trump wins the legitimate vote decisively. He’s going to need the backing of the Senate and quite possibly the Supreme Court to have a strong claim as the true winner.


                • ubprct says:

                  @Not Tom

                  the motivations of left-wing elites become especially transparent, but ’twas ever thus, tracing roots back to the LA riots, the Civil Rights riots, the Suffragettes, the War of Northern Aggression, and the American rebellion.

                  Thank you for correctly identifying the American War of Treason Revolution as Leftist. A refreshing change from myopic/delusional Americans whose sense of history ends at George Washington.

                • Mike says:

                  In the eyes of many normies, he didn’t even win decisively the first time (the continuous calls to respect the popular vote win of Hillary and throw-out the electoral college win of Trump). What do you think all the importation of foreigners has done to the country? Even if 75% of whites go to Trump, if every minority goes the opposite way you’re virtually neck-and-neck. Caring if you win decisively at this point is becoming increasingly irrelevant, because the Dems have imported non-Americans wholesale to make their side always win. Its reaching the point of, “Do you want the shitlib cities that slightly outnumber you to rule over you as a 55-45 majority? Or do you want to say fuck that, they don’t represent my kind anymore?”

                  This isn’t to say that Trump can’t pull a legitimate win out of his hat, there’s still enough whites (and enough scary chaos this year) to convince many normies to vote for him. But I mean come on. If Biden legitimately won a narrow election (entirely due to Dems shipping in a hostile vote-bank) there’s no reason to care about whether you “truly” won the election. If your enemy is actively erasing you, and the country is already split into irreconcilable camps (urban and coastal vs rural and heartland), why should I give a shit if Biden legitimately won purely due to him shipping in Somalis that live 1,500 miles away from my Missouri farm?

                • Pooch says:

                  Trump needs to have a legitimate claim to winning the election for loyalist portions of the military to obey him as the rightful commander in chief. The more decisive he wins the legitimate vote, the stronger his claim will appear to be to the rank and file when the real shooting starts.

                • Not Tom says:

                  because the Dems have imported non-Americans wholesale to make their side always win

                  Nah. This is alt-right doom porn and while it is more broadly true than outright stupidity such as “Hispanics are natural conservatives”, it is not very accurate.

                  The strategy attributed to Democrats requires continuous immigration as well as aggressive anti-assimilation measures (“multiculturalism”). The truth is that, while new immigrants from dirt-world countries do overwhelmingly vote for the left and far too frequently go on the dole, no ethnic group other than blacks has ever been a reliable Democrat voting bloc over multiple generations.

                  The Irish used to be a huge Democrat bloc, now they mostly break Republican. Cubans and Filipinos vote overwhelmingly Republican. Liberal Jews vote Democrat but they are being outbred by Orthodox Jews who vote Republican. Mexicans are definitely majority Democrat, but the ratio is nowhere near that of blacks and tends to decline unless reinforced by new immigrants – and even the ones who do prefer Democrats, often just can’t be bothered to vote at all. They like socialism but don’t care for democracy. Indians and Chinese are totally unreliable blocs, they’ll support Democrats opportunistically but stab them in the back as soon as they smell a power vacuum.

                  The left-singularity isn’t just a catalyst, it’s a feedback loop. Immigrants actually do assimilate given a long enough time, small enough numbers and a strong native culture/religion, but American progressivism works by keeping the system constantly overwhelmed. If we held immigration at maybe 3-5% of current levels, removed rules favoring third-world countries, and enforced a state religion, we wouldn’t have a serious problem.

                  The point is, it’s not just demographics, it’s demographics plus social engineering. If you remove the social engineering and freeze the demographics, the current composition still somewhat helps the left but not enough to keep winning elections.

                  Of course, as Jim and several of us have been pointing out, votes don’t matter anymore anyway; it’s now a contest to see who is actually allowed to count their votes, and whether or not the votes are authentic is beside the point.

                • Mike says:

                  >If we held immigration at maybe 3-5% of current levels, removed rules favoring third-world countries, and enforced a state religion, we wouldn’t have a serious problem.

                  And if Rome hadn’t settled Germans at Adrianople, the Germans would have assimilated fine. If we have a system where (as you admitted) immigration is 1. Not at 3-5% of its current level.2. Very much so favors 3rd-world countries.3. Doesn’t have a (healthy) state religion to help assimilate then into the broader culture, then what about my point is wrong? Sure, an immigration policy that favors, small amounts of similar peoples, while also allowing them to self-segregate in their own enclaves (unlike our system which forces integration in cases where it is unneeded or even disastrous) is undoubtedly harmless. But that’s not what we have now is it? Why is Trump’s base largely white natives if the immigration problem is largely peripheral?

                • Not Tom says:

                  You actually don’t want to allow immigrants to self-segregate, that’s how you end up with factions and voting blocs. Look at any Muslim no-go zone for a visceral example. Converting to the state religion and being useful to the native population should be an essential requirement for every new immigrant, but in order to have a rule like that, we need to (a) stop sacralizing immigrants and (b) admit that we actually have a state religion.

                  Anyway, what I’m criticizing is the common alt-right frame that demographic changes have made elections permanently unwinnable. While the best frame is that we shouldn’t have elections at all, if we absolutely must argue about democracy then it should be understood that the demographic changes alone don’t guarantee Democrat electoral victories. They need to keep moving further left, importing even more immigrants, creating even more identity groups; in virtually every sense, they not only need to keep the current status quo, they need to keep the momentum going.

                  I’m not here to shill for more immigration – we should have much less and zero would be fine. My problem is with the narrative that the situation is unfixable because of demographic shifts that have already happened. It is fixable and many societies have fixed similar problems in the past.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “You actually don’t want to allow immigrants to self-segregate, that’s how you end up with factions and voting blocs.”

                  With muslims you just don’t want them period. Muslims are bad news.

                  Given that the US population is not homogeneous here is what you I think you want to do…

                  You need to allow and encourage SOME segregation but with proper outlets for mixing trade and integration too. There should be millet neighborhoods and free areas (and of course red light districts). Millet areas can restrict the entry of people not of the millet (exceptions for the king’s high officials and such) and their leaders could prevent women of the millet from leaving unchaperoned as well. Free areas would be unrestricted.

                • Not Tom says:

                  With muslims you just don’t want them period. Muslims are bad news.

                  This is kind of a spergy answer. The same principle applies to the Mexican barrios and Chinese-dominated bedroom communities. The only reason to even be discussing segregation is when you’ve far exceeded any sane number of immigrants, such that they aren’t even really “immigrants” anymore, they’re occupying forces. Blacks aren’t immigrants, no one thinks of them that way, if the entirety of blackness in America was a few thousand Igbo spread across the country then we wouldn’t need to segregate them.

                  Segregation is a legitimate resolution to the problems we currently have, of course, but to consider segregation implicitly means “oops, we fucked up”. A normal immigration policy that’s designed to preserve demographics not only doesn’t segregate, it doesn’t allow segregation; you either expect them to intermarry and blend in, or you don’t let them in at all. Why would we let inferior men come here to miscegenate our women, and why would we let ugly women come here when the local men have no interest? Responsible immigration policy implies an actual desire for intermarriage; everything else is just war fuel.

                  What we do with current demographic blocs and how we handle new immigrants are two very different questions, and the former depends a great deal on the group in question: blacks tend to victimize whites when “integrated”, Koreans not so much.

                • jim says:

                  > > With muslims you just don’t want them period. Muslims are bad news.

                  > This is kind of a spergy answer. The same principle applies to the Mexican barrios and Chinese-dominated bedroom communities

                  There is an important difference between Muslims and the rest.

                  Muslims intend to make war on us, conquer us, and enslave us. The Mexicans, lacking ability to operate a civilization, just blunder into conflict with us. The Chinese just would like to live quietly in their community.

                • Mike says:

                  I think the question of segregation vs integration comes down to how you came to have the foreigners, as you seemed to be pointing out. Imperial conquerors=Millets, segregation, Pale of Settlement, “X quarter of city.” If you invited them in yourself, assimilation is the priority. That being said, even in conquering empires with heavily segregated populations, foreigners still would assimilate, albeit usually slowly. Plenty of Greek Muslims by the end of the Ottoman Empire. No visible Celts by the end of the Roman Empire. The originally Mongol/Persian Hui people of China today look 100% Han Chinese (though they remain Muslim).

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              “Rule of law” used to mean that the law was of known and fixed content and that rulings by courts were consistent with the law.

              Now it means a thousand judges jointly and severally exercise arbitrary powers to make and unmake laws according to their own political preferences.

              “Law and order” is a more visceral version of the original meaning of “rule of law”, basically meaning that there is a known and fixed expectation that private citizens should be secure in their persons and property from other private citizens.

              In the discourse, it would be advantageous for the right to say “rule of law” instead of “law and order”, because it would dispute leftist control of the term, and avoid associating themselves with words the media has given negative connotations. But equally, “law and order” is sufficiently viscerally good that many people do not care about those connotations.

              • jim says:

                After victory, the first task is peace. Then order. The restoration of law necessarily comes last.

        • Gedeon says:

          I have no less than eleven nieces and nephews who live within a mile of where Floyd died. Their parents are all evangelical Christians who those familiar with the church would describe as far-right legalistic in religious terms. The NRx would categorize them as far left because of the purity spiral framework. It would be fair to compare them with the anabaptists.

          They moved into the shitty neighborhood to minister. They have not left the neighborhood, but they are voting MAGA in November. They voted Libertarian in 2016 because the orange man is an admitted pussy grabber and divorcee.

          One of the parents is a professional killer with a Ranger tab and learned Arabic at the DLI. All of the parents are highly intelligent and athletic, so I am paying close attention to what they all decide to do because they will do it together.

          When the Floyd rioting was recognized for what it was, the Ranger sent the wife and kids away and was ready to do work, but the insurrection didn’t get the authorization to move into the neighborhoods and escalate. It took five days, but the people of Minneapolis were ready to go and that’s when the national guard was called in. If Walz had not called in the national guard to protect the rioters, the insurrection would have been crushed organically due to the demoralization the Open Society would have suffered.

          Now, the situation is an ongoing festival of crime. Stay tuned.

          • jim says:

            And yet you are unable directly mention the violence and destruction, nor to notice that the reason for the violence and destruction, is that that rioters can cause hundreds of millions of dollars of damage and not get charged, and can engage in attempted murder and not get charged, while peaceful law abiding people get charged with murder or attempted murder should they attempt to defend themselves or their property.

            • Gedeon says:


              • jim says:

                I cannot provide links to the absence of you committing thought crimes.

                You have to provide quotes and relevant links to the presence of you committing thought crimes.

              • Starman says:

                Since G e d e o n refused to answer my spaceflight questions after he claimed he can answer anything on space:
                “What are the differences between SLS and SpaceX Starship?”
                “Do spaceplane boosters work? Explain your ‘yes’ or ‘no.’”

                It’s time to see if Gedion can commit a thoughtcrime, answer this multiple choice RedPill on women question. Since it’s multiple choice, you cannot obfuscate. Be sure to copy paste the whole answer phone, not just the letter:

                Complete the following the sentence: Women misbehave because –
                [A] Capitalism makes them misbehave, by economically incentivizing reckless high time-reference behavior over long-term planning. The capitalist class benefits from one night stands and sterility, as it benefits from third world immigration of spendthrift cheap labor to replace frugal whites.
                [B] The Jews make them misbehave, since the Jews own the media and the entire entertainment industry from Hollywood down to the tiniest pornography studio, and use them to direct propaganda at women, telling them to fuck blacks and lowlifes. The Jews deliberately intend for dysgenesis to occur, as part of their long-term White Genocide plan.
                [C] Sorry, but this is a misleading question. Women don’t misbehave at all. All misbehavior is done by men, who are vile pigs.
                [D] Lecherous men make them misbehave, since men are ultimately responsible for all female behavior (including misbehavior), and unlike women, men have self-control and moral agency. Thus it logically follows that any female misbehavior would merely reflect bad decisions taken by irresponsible and lustful men.
                [E] They are feral, blindly following ancient instincts from the time we were apes in the jungle, which instincts tell them to cruise for rape by alpha male Chads, and to resist kicking-and-screaming all attempts to restrain them from pursuing alpha male Chads. Stable monogamy has always been a conspiracy by men against women.

    • jim says:

      > I suspect it will be the same with the election. A delusional faith in the Constitution, or at least what it represents, a belief that America is “normal” and above coups…they’ll roll over

      Not with Trump campaigning that the Democrats are going to steal the election and accusing (by name) Democratic governors of mailing sack loads of ballots made out to bogus voters to Democratic party organizers.

      Suddenly, Dissident Right talking points are appearing in Republican speeches.

      • Grunt says:

        Trump’s speech last night was much more aggressive than he has been. he talked about if they were ramping up their lies, he was going to more plainly speak the truth. He was so confident last night, he talked again about another four years after 2024.

        • Strannik says:

          So confident, that it has occurred to me that he’s already won against the coup plotters behind the scenes, and the election is proceeding fairly-in which case he wins unobstructedly to a landslide victory. Is this possible at this point or am I jumping the gun?

          • jim says:

            You are jumping the gun. If Durham opens with a storm of dawn arrests, then after that Trump may have won behind the scenes.

            • The Cominator says:

              Cautiously optimistic on Durham since the shitlib resigned.

              • Strannik says:

                It seems that she was a procedural lawyer with specific tasks involved in the case, and that now she is done she can move on. It’s not unusual for a lawyer to resign after this specific kind of work. What it does indicate in fact is that a fair amount of the work is done that will allow the indictments to proceed without being thrown out by judges on technicalities. In other words, the case is pretty airtight and open-and-shut

            • Strannik says:

              Possibly. I do believe that there is a tremendous amount of things going on behind the scenes we can’t really discern. I figure that President Trump and his backers had to have known in 2015 if not earlier that something much like what we suspect will happen was going to happen, and so must have planned accordingly. Otherwise Trump would not have risked his life and that of his family and friends by running in the 2016 election. He ran for 2016 so that by 2020 he could triumph.

              • Cis Scum says:

                @Strannik “Trump and his backers had to have known in 2015 if not earlier that something much like what we suspect will happen was going to happen, and so must have planned accordingly.”

                It certainly seems like it. A checkmate counter move that rolls up all the bad actors necessarily involves the Insurrection Act. This in turn necessarily calls for large scale pre-positioning of the required military assets, preferably under cover of some pretext or other.

                Please take note that back in march an EO was issued to deploy one million reservists to administer a vaccine, one that curiously enough will not be available until just before november.


                • Strannik says:

                  A safe and effective vaccine against COVID-19 that is administered by Trump’s troops would effectively end resistance right then and there.

  26. Yetanotherpoorlythoughtouthanndle says:

    Lol he can text everyone directly if he really wants the shitlibs to scream. “I your President, Donald J. Trump, am texting you to let you know that I have won the presidential election bigly and will remain your President for the next four wonderful years.”

    • Dave says:

      No, the cell phone networks can shut that down quick. All Trump can do is tell his supporters, “If I go silent on election day, it’s because the media has imposed a blackout and the war has begun.” If that happens, kidnap the media executives’ gay lovers (none of them have normal families) and tell them that amputations start in five minutes if they don’t put Trump on the air.

      Vester Flanagan showed how vulnerable media organizations are. For ten bucks you can dress up like Antifa and carry out false-flag attacks. That would at least force President Biden to say, “The Revolution’s over folks, we won!”, and shut down Antifa.

      • Not Tom says:

        That would at least force President Biden to say, “The Revolution’s over folks, we won!”, and shut down Antifa.

        It’s funny that you think Biden is capable of that, or that it would represent any kind of silver lining.

        I’m actually not so sure that cell phone networks could shut it down. No matter what technically happens on election day, Trump is still formally the President until January and that means he can issue one of the Presidential Alerts. Are the cell phone networks going to preemptively shut down emergency services because they’re worried that Trump might use one to say that he won? Because once the alert goes out, it only takes a few seconds to get delivered, that’s the whole point.

        So they’d have to preemptively block the alerts and keep them blocked for two months,, but in order to explain why they’re blocking an emergency service, they’d have to tell people exactly what Trump wants to tell them anyway. A total emergency blackout from all the mobile networks isn’t impossible, but it seems outlandish, and likely would be cause to send in police or troops because, unlike social media, telecommunication networks are regulated and such a move would be highly illegal.

        The more I think about this, the less convinced I am that a blackout strategy can really work the way the establishment intends. All Trump has to do is send in federal agents. If the media then tries to run with a “Trump Hitler” narrative, they’ll be forced to disseminate exactly the information they’re trying to hide, i.e. Trump is declaring victory.

        • Dave says:

          They don’t have to block all emergency alerts, just any that sound like Trump trying to rally the troops.

          Biden couldn’t pull off a Night of Long Knives all by himself, but then again, neither could Hitler. In any case, it wouldn’t be Biden doing it but shadowy persons operating under his name and feeding lines to his teleprompter. In fact, don’t even tell Biden that the National Antifa Award Ceremony is a trap, he’d accidentally gaffe it out.

          • Not Tom says:

            You seem to be implying a mechanism that doesn’t exist. Presidential alerts aren’t subject to a moderation queue by the mobile networks. Building one would literally be against the FCC rules:

            §10.410 Prioritization.
            A Participating CMS Provider is required to transmit Presidential Alerts upon receipt. Presidential Alerts preempt all other Alert Messages.


            Now, technically the rules also dictate what situations Presidential alerts are allowed to be used for, and declaring election victory isn’t among them, but that’s for the lawyers and courts to whine about after the fact.

            If any of the wireless networks went and built a moderation system for WEA in secret, or even gave themselves the ability to turn the alerts off without explicitly opting out (which requires notification to customers), then they’ve already broken the law and Trump could send in the feds right now.

          • jim says:

            It is flat out revolutionary act to interfere with emergency alerts, which would legally and morally justify Trump invoking the insurrection act and sending in the troops to seize control of the means of communication – which is a standard coup and countercoup measure.

            Interfering with the emergency alert system would be the democrats unambiguously launching a coup, providing an overwhelming and unambiguous legal basis for a full on counter coup.

  27. nil says:

    Jim, have you seen the film Cuties yet? I’d be very interested in your thoughts on it

    • jim says:

      Nah – just read the plot summary. Seen it all before with actresses with nicer boobs. Usual progressive script, decorated with chicks doing hot stuff. If I am going to watch something I have seen before, would rather the chicks were hotter.

      Basic message: Resist the patriarchy by having sex without a relationship. Unfortunately, this strategy works, but women who successfully resist the patriarchy fail to reproduce.

      We need to suppress this message regardless of the age of the actresses. It is just as damaging, indeed more damaging, when the script is performed by fertile age women.

      But people are allowed to get indignant about “cuties” because it is illegal for a twenty one year old man to receive a sexy selfy from a seventeen year old girl, let alone an eleven year old girl, so they think they are allowed to object. But somehow do not dare to object to the eleven year old protagonist of “cuties” sending a sexy selfy.

  28. info says:

    Netflix is under investigation:

    A good sign?

    • jim says:

      No one who is inclined to speak the truth has channel on you tube, unless he also has a channel on a less censored platform. This investigation is a trap. A trap for us, not Netflix.

      • info says:


        • jim says:

          The investigation will find that Netflix is innocent of any wrongdoing, because the girls portrayed were in fact eager to explore their sexuality.

          In order to work for us, the deal has to be that girls exploring their sexuality is wrong, therefore what Netflix did was wrong, irrespective of what the girls felt about it.

          So long as no one dares express that thought, that girls should not explore their sexuality, they are working for the enemy, intentionally or unintentionally.

          The investigation will go looking for evidence that the child actresses depicting the characters were not in fact eager to explore their sexuality, but were forced to reluctantly do so for the titillation of the producers, directors, and audience, and, surprise surprise, will not find it. Oh what a big surprise. In other surprising news, kids prefer chocolate icecream to stewed cabbage as a birthday party treat. Stop the presses!

          To work for us the issue has to be that the show promotes bad behavior by girls, not “sexualizing minors”, not that viewers get off on it.

          The problem is not that the show “sexualizes minors”, but that it promotes female sexuality. The plotline is that it is terribly oppressive that the protagonist gets into social trouble for posting her pussy on social media, and that emancipation from patriarchal oppression is achieved by waggling one’s ass for the public.

          It is possible, and quite probable, that Netflix will face consequences for “sexualizing minors”. If it does so, we still lose.

          It needs to get in trouble for telling us that it is totally oppressive that girls get in trouble for posting their pussies on social media. If it gets in trouble for that, then we win.

          • Oscar_Cc says:

            I came across this discussion on Twitter regarding the mentioned Netflix show that also talks about creeping pedophilia in other social media.

            Upon seeing the pictures I have to say that you might have a point when you comment about sexual misbehavior in very young girls:



            • Dave says:

              What does a big-boobed hottie in skimpy swimwear have to do with “very young girls”? “Her nom forces her to do this for money.” If “nom” means “instincts” or “hormones” then yeah.

              • Oscar C. says:

                According to the person tweeting she is 12-13 there. Pretty young. I don’t think you guys would like to see one of your daughters having sex at that age. Just saying.

                However I don’t deny that she looks quite developed for her age in those pics, and she might have a high libido already as well, hence my better understanding of what Jim says sometimes.

            • Encelad says:

              Those are young fertile women with developed bodies, they are not “very young girls”.

            • Not Tom says:

              I wonder how much of the “very young girls” language, or even “children” when referring to e.g. Epstein, is merely the lamentations of older guys who perceive that she is too young for them despite being clearly fertile and sexually aware.

              The left is, after all, weaponized envy, and it is apparently very easy to convince people to hate others for their successes, and what is more successful than marriage or booty calls to a young hottie who is plausibly virginal and certainly low notch count?

              That is the only reason I can imagine why ordinary guys could even conceivably have such a knee-jerk reaction to a 20-year-old boning a 15-year-old, or a 15-year-old boning a 13-year-old. The thought-leaders created the lie that this is abusive, but you’d have to be either an incel or stuck in an awful passionless marriage in order to believe it.

              • Dave says:

                If your personal rule is no sex with girls under Y years of age, you get the rejects and leftovers of the guys with a lower Y value. In a third-world country like Laos or the future USA, you can marry a girl of any age, but most of us like to see the finished product before buying it, and we don’t like paying full MSRP for a used car.

              • Anonymous 2 says:

                Surely the main problem is introducing these teens to thottery, in this case boning outside of committed marriage. I believe shotgun marriage is the preferred solution around here.

                (As a side note, I would expect the girl above lives in a dad-less household.)

          • info says:

            Indications point to them being indicted for “sexualizing children” in my opinion.

            At least in regards to almost universally among every account I follow across, Twitter,gab,YouTube and bitchute.

            Most of them anonymous. Who would support such a ruling.

            And contributing to sex trafficking. As Tulsi Gabbard condemned Netflix for.

            • jim says:

              Yes, but trouble is that is a deflection from the real issue.

              • info says:

                Its the cultural waters they swim in. So the real issue won’t be addressed.

                Indications indicate doubling down imho.

            • jim says:

              > Indications point to them being indicted for “sexualizing children” in my opinion.

              Which indictment denies the glaringly obvious – that female children start being sexual at an alarmingly early age, and the problem is not that evil thought rays emitted by males are causing them to become sexual, but that the heavy hand of their father is not restraining them.

              The problem with “cuties” not that the protagonist of “cuties” flaunts her under developed sexual characteristics. The problem is that the story line is that she is stunning and brave to resist the patriarchy by flaunting her under developed sexual characteristics.

              And it would still be a problem, indeed a bigger problem, if she was resisting the patriarchy by flaunting her full developed sexual characteristics.

              We need movies that inform women that preselection fails to have the effect on men that it does on women, but rather has the reverse effect. Indeed, that preselection is a powerful turn off for men and causes them to view women as dirty, used up, and worthless, is one of the many thought crimes that you are forbidden to speak, and also forbidden to know is forbidden.

              • info says:

                Good luck with that. Because that’s unlikely to be what people would think as true.

                At least even those who are not namefags. Among which the potential censure is minimised.

                Even 4chan thinks that this show is filth. Although more likely to line up with your thoughts on this subject. But in recent times more likely to line with the ideas that you criticise.


                Anglo Puritanism is quite strong.

                • jim says:

                  4chan is full of shills.

                • info says:

                  Nonetheless. Unless there are developments that would make the evidence undeniable and a cultural shift to make such conclusion acceptable. I doubt things on this front is going to change.

                • jim says:

                  The only reason that people are not shouting the true narrative from the rooftops is fear, and despite the fake outrage of the 4chan shills, I see mainstream Republicans, emboldened by Trump calling out the enemy and confronting the enemy, speaking the truth:

                  The shill narrative cannot survive the existence of dissenters:

                  Repeating what I said before: I am startled to hear mainstream Republicans speaking truth to power:

                  The official and socially acceptable reason for objecting to “Cuties”, pushed by all the usual enemy shills, is “sexualization of children”, as if young girls were not sexual except evil men caused them to be so.

         Representative Jim Banks:“Not only is this movie fodder for pedophiles, it encourages very young girls to defy their parents’ wishes and share pornographic images of themselves with strangers, ”

                  Jim Banks is speaking a narrative that has been silenced for a very long time. Jim Banks narrative, instead of the shill narrative, is: “defy their parents wishes”, which acknowledges that very young girls want to defy their parents wishes on sexual matters and need to be restrained from doing so, which counter narrative results in the shills calling you a “pedophile”.

                  If you notice the strange propensity of women and girls, including very young girls, as in every Disney princess movie, to head off into situations where they might be “raped”, you must want to rape young girls, say the shills.

                  Female consent is opaque, and most opaque to the woman herself. We need to return to the old definition of rape, that rape is taking a woman some place away from the authority of her husband or husband, not having sex with her after she has mysteriously and inexplicably wandered off from the authority of her father or husband, because everyone should presuppose that sex is going to happen if she mysteriously and inexplicably wanders off. Defining rape with respect to female consent to sex, is like defining it with respect to invisible spirts.

                • info says:

                  I will wait and see.

                • jim says:

                  People have an alarming tendency to agree with those who are in a position to beat them up with impunity, and destroy their lives.

                  But the left has now too many people with impunity, who are beating up too many people, and destroying lives too frivolously. If the left lose the civil war, no end of people are going to radically change their opinions, and never recollect that they used to have different opinions.

                  Lafayette led to a sea change in what was speakable and thinkable. And thus we see a mainstream Republican, Representative Jim Banks, saying what was formerly unsayable. If we win the boogaloo, there will be a vastly bigger change.

              • Tom Hart says:

                The ideological thrust of Cuties is to attack traditional forms of religion and natural sexuality. The main protagonist is a black African girl from a Muslim family, so this film is telling us what the Cathedral intends for the new African immigrants in France—hardly any will actually watch it; Cuties was made for the Cathedral intelligentsia to applaud, and the masses will get a cruder version.

                At first, the main protagonist rejects her family’s Islamic faith and African traditions in exchange for twerking on social media with a multiracial crew of French girls—ultimately she gives that up as well.

                At the end of the film, she rejects her traditional Muslim family, refusing to attend her father’s second wedding (with her mother’s blessing, an attack on the patriarchy); but she also rejects the hypersexualised world of social media twerking. Instead, she goes out with her hair down wearing jeans and t-shirt to play skipping rope—i.e. she has become a paradigmatic liberated feminist woman, neither bound to the traditions of Islam nor a sex object in the secular market place.

                Generously, you could say that the message is that children should just be allowed to play skipping rope and not become sex objects on social media or forced to take part in traditional religions. Doubtless the director will insist that this is the innocent message of the film; true, but only partly true. The film is also a slap in the face for God and nature: the uniting theme here is a rejection of traditional religion (Islam) and beauty (pagan-Darwinian social media twerking).

                Cuties is the Cathedral telling young African girls to reject both God and nature in exchange for a barren, desireless life—neither the joy of marriage nor the joy of sexual competition will be theirs. They should be androgynous, in jeans and t-shirt playing skipping rope, dead to God and nature.

                • Strannik says:

                  I generally agree with your post, although Islam is a false religion but still retains traditional values for the most part. This movie is a sick two-pronged attack on the family/the human person and on God (as for these evil God-Fighters ”Allah” is the same as the Christian or Jewish God), and a definite indicator of what they have in store for migrants to the West; their spiritual and cultural destruction and physical deracination into an amorphous cosmopolitan mass much like themselves.

            • Not Tom says:

              And contributing to sex trafficking.

              “Sex trafficking” is an enemy meme, whose payload is that prostitution is the fault of men, not women. Do not use that meme.

              • jim says:

                I am startled to hear mainstream Republicans speaking truth to power:

                Representative Jim Banks:

                “As a father of young daughters, I find it sickening. Not only is this movie fodder for pedophiles, it encourages very young girls to defy their parents’ wishes and share pornographic images of themselves with strangers, ” Banks said. “Our culture has come a long way in recent years, recognizing the power of television, movies and magazines to affect young girls.”

                Jim Banks is speaking a narrative that has been silenced for a very long time. The official and socially acceptable reason for objecting to “Cuties”, pushed by all the usual enemy shills, is “sexualization of children”, as if young girls were not sexual except evil men caused them to be so. Jim Banks narrative is instead “defy their parents wishes”, which acknowledges that very young girls want to defy their parents wishes on sexual matters and need to be restrained from doing so.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I think the St. Kyle incident was really something magical for the right optically, he should be a saint because it was a miracle. Seeing the crazed communist mob led by the boy rapist Rosenbaum trying to murder a good kid trying to put out fires and then being BTFO’d…

                  The effect of the incident was to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.

                • Contaminated NEET says:

                  >The effect of the incident was to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.

                  If only. You’re not just counting our chickens before they’re hatched, but before they’re even laid.

                • jim says:

                  > > The effect of the incident was to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.

                  > If only. You’re not just counting our chickens before they’re hatched, but before they’re even laid.

                  Our chickens have definitely been laid. Watch Trump’s speech in Nevada.

                  Now will see if they hatch.

                  The coup is Go. It has been Go for some time. The countercoup is now also Go.

                  Numerous major police associations have declared for Trump. We are now in the openly and publicly counting heads stage of coup and countercoup, and things are looking good. Still waiting to see if Durham keeps his head down waiting to see who win, or proceeds with a storm of arrests. If a storm of top level arrests, it is on. If no top level arrests, we have a problem.

                • BC says:

                  Numerous major police associations have declared for Trump. We are now in the openly and publicly counting heads stage of coup and countercoup, and things are looking good. Still waiting to see if Durham keeps his head down waiting to see who win, or proceeds with a storm of arrests. If a storm of top level arrests, it is on. If no top level arrests, we have a problem.

                  I think Barr’s might be restraining Durham in order to use the arrests as a decapitation strike once’s clear the coup is underway. There’s obviously no point in arresting people when the DC courts will put them back in the streets in 30 minutes unless there’s also a national emergency going on that allows for them to be locked away in a cell in a undisclosed location where they can’t contact their lawyer.

                • Eli says:

                  A closer reading does not support this. He is providing both narratives simultaneously. At best, he’s testing the waters.

                • jim says:

                  No one respectable was testing the waters before Trump took back Lafayette Park to prevent his Church from being burned down like other buildings in or near Lafayette Park, and to restore it so that law abiding peaceful people could use it without being beaten up.

              • Tom Hart says:

                @Strannik It’s not my intention to bat for Islam particularly; it doesn’t belong in the West, and it will be predominantly white and culturally Christian Western police and militaries that will be expected to impose progressive values on Muslims in the West who resist propaganda like Cuties—even as progressive ideology condemns those policemen and soldiers as white supremacists. Different races require different religions and traditions, but the sacred is the sacred—even if it’s not your religion, it’s the same agenda for white Christian girls too.

                I don’t entertain a sentimental belief that Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists can team up against the “true enemy”, but insofar as progressivism rejects all sacred values and biological reality there can be limited cooperation, as in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

                Cuties sets up a false dichotomy: traditional religion versus the sexual market place—both are presented as facets of the patriarchy. The film’s creators knew conservatives would be up in arms about child sexualisation. They counted on that. They can then point to the plot’s conclusion—the innocent, non-sexualised child at play—and laugh at the knee-jerk reactionaries who didn’t get it: “Look! We were really condemning twerking—it’s for the male gaze, and we hate that! Stupid bigots didn’t even watch the film!”. This formula has been used before with other social issues.

                It comes down to the sentimentalisation of childhood. Progressives sentimentalise women, blacks (Uncle Tom’s Cabin), and children. For progressives, childhood now runs from 0 to about 21. In reality, a 12 y.o. is a young lady, not a child—as you can tell when you consider that the age of consent for marriage in Britain was 12 until 1875.

                The progressives want to tell you that the protagonist in Cuties is “just a child” who should be left alone to play skipping rope dressed like a boy; but that’s not reality, and progressives do this, in part, because they can’t face reality: the need for sexuality to be regulated.

                Progressives don’t want to sexualise “children”; they want to destroy any manifestation of traditional sex roles and of nature—under the guise of protecting the innocence of “childhood”. They’d be delighted for Tinder and Tik Tok to be banned for sexualising women; it’s part of the same dialectic that stigmatises traditional religion. The goal is a sterile androgynous thing eating grey slop; twerking and Islam stand in the way of that, in different ways.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Disagree on cooperating with Islam (at least if you mean Orthodox Islam, I’ve mentioned my carve out of certain Sufi sects which can be dealt with), Islam is a viscious crazed rabid predatory animal.

                  Maybe it’ll attack the guy trying to kill you 1st if it gets closer to it 1st… but never pretend you are cooperating with it.

                  Agree completely on the rest of your post especially the last part, the Cathredal wants to make androgynous harpies of women with no sex appeal as either Madonna (the tradwife) OR whore.

                • Strannik says:

                  Well, along with the Muslims and others, I happen to believe in fact that true religion is universally valid and absolutely true, or it’s not at all and is false. This plays into and is a companion of the progressive ”true for me but not true for you, and that’s okay” BS.

                  But aside from that; I’m for modesty for all in any case, especially females, as any father for example worthy of the name should be also in favor of regardless of sexualizing or not.

                  From what i’ve seen of this whole ”Cuties” debacle, the people who made this should be made to pay some sort of legal penalty.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Well, along with the Muslims and others, I happen to believe in fact that true religion is universally valid and absolutely true, or it’s not at all and is false. This plays into and is a companion of the progressive ”true for me but not true for you, and that’s okay” BS.”

                  You’re Orthodox we all like the Orthodox church here because even if universal Church discipline in the Orthodox church is national, the priesthood is not left to govern itself or to be used to cause trouble in other countries.

                  Also history is not based on lies the way the papacy is based on lies.

                  Female deference is more important than their modesty, if modesty is a form of deference to patriarchal authority thats fine but if her husband wants her to wear short skirts and tank tops she should wear that. The point is her modesty level should not be her own decision though full face covering should not be permitted in public in the West.

              • Oscar C. says:

                Er… men do pay for it, so they are somehow complicit. I say this as somebody who lost its virginity to a hooker, I don’t think prostitution should be banned (very difficult to enforce) but let’s not pretend all women are doing it by their own will (just as not all are doing it forcibly like feminists claim).

                Similarly, there would be no drug dealing if nobody bought drugs.

                • jim says:

                  You have heard by the saying “you can take the girl out of the bar, but you cannot take the bar out of the girl”.

                  You have also heard the saying “all pimps are cucks”.

                  They are doing it by their will.

                • Not Tom says:

                  So, if the town mayor shuts off the local water supply, and the groundwater is contaminated, all of the townspeople are complicit as long as they buy bottled water at the store?

                  Or do you think men would still pay for prostitutes if they didn’t have a problem with supply? Do you know any such men?

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’ve had a few respectable (well not really but they were non single functional women, all of them were extroverted and like to drink) that they think becoming a whore would be fun and if they suddenly had no family or close friends they would do it.

                  No doubt they were thinking of being some high class Courtesan type or at least a call girl though.

                  If a girl is extroverted and likes men in a prog feminist country (where she is supposed to hate men larp as a lesbian until she hits the wall and become a cat lady) she has contemplated becoming a whore and does not regard the idea in principle with horror (she might regard ending up a street crackwhore with horror though). Selling sex is natural female behaviour. They don’t need to be forced to do it, they are only horrified that they might be shunned for it.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Ie, they are horrified by the thought of *not* being able to prostitute themselves.

                • Oscar C. says:

                  Some men who can get laid “for free” also pay for prostitutes sometimes. A friend of mine is one of them.

                  And yes, of course many girls become high class escorts because of the easy money they can make, even more so in a high unemployment country like Spain. However that does not mean many others are trafficked. I always tried to choose a native Spanish girl to lower the risk of her being trafficked.

                • jim says:

                  Your conception of “trafficking”is disconnected from reality, as every man who tells a “model” “i will take you from your third wold country where whores are a dime a dozen to my first world country, i will marry you baby, you’ll be an actress or a rock star and we will have a happy family” discovers, frequently at enormous cost.

                • ten says:

                  What does “trafficked” mean?

                  “Hoe, i can get your ass to spain where you can sell it waay more expensive than here, and the men smell less of weird spices and goat shit too! Your local pimp will take the normal cut and hook you up with customers, and get you a place to stay and shit.”


                  “I love you baby, i will take you to spain, i will marry you baby, you’ll be an actress or a rock star and we will have a happy family”, followed by apartment slave prostitution?

                  Because the latter, if it exists at all, is rare, and is a cover story that whores, both in the streets and in media, use to cover up the former.

                  “You wanna sell ass in spain or marrakech?” is not created by “trafficking”.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Some men who can get laid “for free” also pay for prostitutes sometimes. A friend of mine is one of them. […] I always tried to choose a native Spanish girl to lower the risk of her being trafficked.

                  Brah, you’ve gotta start taking steps to improve your life. I’m serious. Some guys seem to be more or less okay with quiet solitude, but you’re obviously not one of them. Your attitude toward women is creepy omega tier, and that’s usually a combination of rejection/invisibility and a heap of denial.

                  I’m guessing that offline you’re somewhat extroverted, but you keep putting women on pedestals and it turns them off. You’d probably do fine if you just adopted a better outlook.

                • Oscar C. says:

                  Thanks for the advice, Not Tom.

                  I paid for hookers years ago, it has been a while now. I don’t care much about it at the moment, due to the meds. I live with my family so solitude is not a problem really.

                  I don’t think I am an omega, at least physically, since I am tall and relatively good looking. Just fat at the moment because I got tired of controlling what I eat. I am skinny-fat and have gynecomastia so yeah, I have always felt somehow inadequate, although upon finding the manosphere I stop caring so much since character seems more important. On looks alone I should be getting laid, but for us men it is not that simple as you well know.

                  I am not socially awkard, the problem now would be where to find a girl, since I live in a relatively small town and there are not many venues for that.

                  Sorry if I give the impression of pleading for attention or something. Not my intention.

              • info says:

                Lot’s of arrests related to this subject. So it may not be just an enemy meme.

                Lots of Pimps and John’s arrested. Not widely reported in the Media. But its has been massively accelerating under Trump admin.

                • jim says:

                  I suspect that this is driven by the holiness spiral

                • info says:


                • jim says:

                  What you said is unlikely to be believed. If you believe it, please offer some examples or evidence for believing it.

                • info says:

                  [*deleted for argument from consensus*]

                • jim says:

                  Argument from consensus is a wrong and wicked argument even if the supposed consensus actually exists.

                  If person X thinks Y, why does he think Y? What are his reasons? How does he know?

                • info says:

                  [*deleted for argument from consensus*]

                • info says:

                  Correlation may not equal causation.

                  But when there is a link causation does comport with correlation.

                  If Q is enemy disinformation. Whence the negative reaction from all the usual suspects?

                  Like the Clinton Crime Family and other Criminals?

                  Perhaps it did strike a true chord.

                • jim says:

                  What negative reaction?

                • Not Tom says:

                  If Q is enemy disinformation. Whence the negative reaction from all the usual suspects?

                  The reaction has many enemies, many of whom hate each other.

                  What you observe is a combination of:
                  – Members of the technocrat faction legitimately disagreeing with members of the shill faction on the correct strategy
                  – Tech moderators and journalists being too stupid and uninformed to realize who they are cracking down on (Trump Derangement syndrome, they appear to like Trump and Orange Man Bad therefore Q bad)
                  – Crackdowns that are largely fake, i.e. target the rubes who fall for Q propaganda but not the propagandists themselves.

                  But even if all of the above were factually incorrect, it doesn’t matter that much. We say that Qanon serves the enemy, that doesn’t mean Q is a literal invention of the enemy or that Qanon serves them on purpose, only that the anons, if they succeed in their aims at all, will succeed in a way that tends to benefit our enemies more than us.

                  Anyone who pushes the “pedo” meme as applied to post-pubescent girls is a prime example. Even if they succeed in getting a few bad eggs cracked, the net effect is simply to persuade followers that women are angelic and men are demonic.

            • jim says:

              Westermarck effect

              • info says:


                • jim says:

                  Moldbug was great. Yarvin is just another namefag.

                • info says:

                  Sorry the references are flying over my head. I mean concerning Moira the Author of the “Last Closet”.

                • jim says:

                  Recollect Moira’s life story, and consider how the Westermarck effect will impact her reading and interpretation of the film

                • info says:

                  Okay I see. Although it seems that Westernmarck effect failed in regards to her pervert parents and their attitude towards her.

            • RedBible says:

              Author says she was abused as a young girl. I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt that it was genuine abuse, and not the “I got caught with my adult lover” kind. The author seems to think/feel that little girls will always hate sex. (and even indirectly suggesting that woman hate sex.) Though to be fair, The few women I’ve meet that I give the “genuinely abused” credit to, they all do seem to hate sex, so it’s easy to see how they would project that onto all other women and girls.

              I only read a bit, but it seems to me the author is more interested in saying “Child Abuse Bad” than really showing how said movie is in fact child abuse.

              • ten says:

                It’s an interesting case. Free sex hippies breeding and collecting children to serve as testbeds for psychedelic drugs, cultic madness and being served to every new boyfriend and all his friends as fucktoys.

                Illustrating the convergence on absolute evil from the triple angles of breach of social, sexual and economic borders.

              • info says:

                As a result of genuine abuse of course they would attribute to the act shame,revulsion and hatred. It becomes associated with act as a result of said abuse.

  29. The Cominator says:

    My theory of the countercoup is that maybe a certain Seal Chief Trump pardoned who has every reason to love Trump and hate the flag officers is sent to secure the Pentagon immediately after the election by any means necessary.

    • Frederick Algernon says:

      They’d be annihilated. A typical hit performed by JSOC operators is rehearsed for weeks in 1:1 scale mock ups with walkthroughs, run-throughs, contingencies, and back up teams. They rely on multilevel ISR support, ranger blocking elements, and a whole host of logistical support solutions. SOF aren’t super soldiers; that is Hollywood bullshit.

      • jim says:

        Recent hits by leftists were an incompetent careless shambles.

        When the time comes, we will do better.

        I was hugely impressed by Duterte’s death squads when he was mayor of Davao. They were good people.

      • Not Tom says:

        A typical hit performed by JSOC operators is rehearsed for weeks in 1:1 scale mock ups with walkthroughs, run-throughs, contingencies, and back up teams.

        And what makes you think they will be lacking any of this?

        The Cathedral faction has not been hiding its wargames, or has been hiding them poorly. Perhaps the Trump faction (which I am about ready to start calling the Federalist faction) is merely being less stupid and obvious about its preparations. In at least some interviews, Trump has sounded quite a lot like he’s prepared for what’s to come.

        Of course, the Cathedral loves disinfo, so we may assume that their real plans are not identical to or even similar to the plans that leaked, but nevertheless, the basic elements of preparation for the countercoup are the same: assemble loyal troops, stockpile supplies, plan out logistics, etc.

        Trump has a signaling advantage here in that all he really has to do is hold the White House, the universally-accepted symbol of America’s legitimate government. The left may riot and attack other places, but if they do that while Trump holds the White House then it strengthens his legitimacy and weakens theirs. He can counterattack them in any major metropolis, but they can only truly attack him in one place.

        Events like Lafayette could easily be seen as a dry run.

        • jim says:

          As long as Trump holds the Whitehouse, normies will go right on seeing him as the president.

          Therefore there is a significant risk that at some point, orders are going to be given to bomb the Whitehouse or launch artillery bombardment on it, similar to what has happened in many previous color revolutions.

          Whether those orders will be obeyed is another question, but as I said above, they will be less likely to be obeyed if Trump has anti air and counter artillery deployed near the Whitehouse.

          • nils says:

            Thankfully Trump has what might be the most secure residence in the world, artillery bombardment might leave some scratches and heavy metal dust on the ground, pretty unlikely anything conventional is going to reach target unless the praetorians do not employ their toys, I would be floored to see artillery or air scratch that pretty white non EPA approved paint job within the first 24 hours. The entire city is a tactical archipelago of fortifications and arms, all under the control of the executive defense boys, and they looked ready to go last time I was in town, I dont know if penn street is still open but I would not recommend a stroll there, tho you might see some interesting roofing seems in that city if you pay attention, less curbside firework more hilton flaktower jim.

            • Gedeon says:

              [*This comment moderated pending the answers to some questions*]

              • jim says:

                Gedeon, you said you would answer any question on spaceflight – and you did not.

                You gave an evasive and ambiguous answer to the what Mueller did wrong. We asked you for clarification, a clarification that the would probably result in you being fired if you are working for the FBI.

                You did not clarify.

                I have repeatedly asked you to write about the woman question. A question on which truth will lose you your job no matter who you are working for.

                You made a long comment, which I have suppressed, which took positions permitted by the mainstream, and supported by the dissident right, on wide variety of issues, carefully threading the needle between points with which we would disagree, and points with which the Human Resources of an astroturf organization shilling the right would disagree, which comment makes points that are worth discussing. But I would like to know who is it coming from.

                A lot of your comment amounts to “Hail fellow Maga supporter, hail fellow dissident rightist, hail fellow Republican”. Are you a maga supporter, a member of the dissident right, or a Republican?

                • Gedeon says:

                  Mueller came in after 9/11/2001 and covered up the demolition of World Trade Center 7 and, at minimum, an attack that ended with the demolition of World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 that could have been prevented.

                  These are the only facts we have because there was no honest investigation. I am a staunch advocate for a new investigation launched by MAGA on the grounds that World Trade Center 7 was demolished, but was not “struck by a plane.”

                  Mueller and the FBI’s criminal involvement was, at a minimum, an investigation that covered up the true crime and act of war and was treasonous. Kapiche?

                  I am a bonafide MAGA supporter, not a Republican in the pre-MAGA formulation or by membership.

                • jim says:

                  No one who tells this story believes it, and no one who tells this story will list Mueller’s real, egregious, and shocking rimes against law and justice, which deserve lengthy jail sentence for perverting course of justice and violating the Hatch act, and deserve death for treason and attempted overthrow of lawful and established sovereign.

                  Proof that no one who tells this story believes it is that if it is challenged, they will invent a hundred points of evidence of supposedly supporting it, for example “World Trade Tower seven inexplicably and suddenly fell straight down on its foundation like a demolition“, and if anyone points out that one of their points of evidence is flagrantly untrue, they will move right along with a hundred new claims without retracting nor defending the claim that was refuted, revealing that they knew the refuted claim was false, or did not care whether it was true or false and had no reason to believe it to be true.

                  There are some people, quite a lot of people, who believe trooferism without being shills but they are reluctant to argue for it because they are aware that don’t have any evidence to support their arguments. Everyone who actually argues for it argues in a manner that reveals them to be a shill.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Oh Jim there are DEFINITELY people who believe WTC 7 was demolished but they generally aren’t aware of the details only the troofer lies about the details (ie it fell into its footprint etc).

                • Not Tom says:

                  Wow, we were totally right to administer the shill test.

                  This is what, the third newfag who has talked about the shill test before we ever accused them of shilling, and then catastrophically failed the shill test? Unprompted discussion about the shill test from newfags is becoming a red flag all on its own.

                • jim says:

                  The woman question remains the best shill test. They will not even go near it. We wind up engaging them on easier shill tests because that one is close to the ten thousand volt rail.

                  And, as I have said before, it is an issue on which every male is bound to have strong opinions, whether he admits them or not, whether he admits them to himself or not. Silence on the women question reveals the presence someone looking over the shill’s shoulder.

                • Kevin Churchel says:

                  > And, as I have said before, it is an issue on which every male is bound to have strong opinions,

                  Does that include the gays, Jim? Or did you mean that every *straight* male is bound to have strong opinion on the WQ?

                • jim says:

                  Of course.

                  Gays tend to be like women in that they don’t have real opinions on anything outside their relatively small sphere.

              • The Cominator says:


                Disparaging the boot is a bootable offense.

                • The Cominator says:

                  But regardless I think we should let Gedeon post here as long as he doesn’t become too boring. Especially if he is on a higher level and has contacts with glowjoggers and other cathedral grandees.

                  They should understand that switching sides now is their only hope of survival, that they have started a cold civil war that is going to go hot that at this point they have no hope of winning…

                • Starman says:


                  “But regardless I think we should let Gedion post here as long as he doesn’t become too boring. Especially if he is on a higher level and has contacts with glowjoggers and other cathedral grandees.”

                  Although G e d e o n is an obvious and confirmed shill, I was really curious whether he knew anything about spaceflight.

      • Starman says:

        @Frederick Algernon

        “They’d be annihilated. A typical hit performed by JSOC operators is rehearsed for weeks in 1:1 scale mock ups with walkthroughs, run-throughs, contingencies, and back up teams. They rely on multilevel ISR support, ranger blocking elements, and a whole host of logistical support solutions”

        It’s important to note that such centrally planned rehearsals for an operation from Earth to Mars will be useless against a rogue leader on Mars. Due to the 26 month gap between launch windows, six month trip when a launch window opens and Murphy’s Law.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      First heard some talking heads kibitzing about that on a tv in the background while out and about; it is always a remarkable sight how, the mere mention of their true names being spoken aloud never fails to send devils into cringing fits.

      • The Cominator says:

        It’s the right way to frame it. A lot of normie right wingers need to believe they are fighting for the legitimate government…

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          A lot of normie leftwingers need to realize the devil they are in bed with.

          • The Cominator says:

            The ones who have not stepped back from insanity yet… probably not going to do so in the future barring a David Horowitz and the Black Panthers incident and most of those will only be exposed to that if the left gets into power.

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              As usual, your infantile delusion clouds your reason. A Restoration requires a mass of humanity falling in line behind a high status cadre of thought leaders.

              • jim says:

                Coutesy please.

                Heat fails to provide light.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Fair enough.

                  The Left is the side that seeks to annihilate that which does not serve their purpose. Red wine will be served, and to many, but the side/force/faction that can solve problems, create productivity, and deliver stability will become worthy, thereby accepting power and ruling.

              • Not Tom says:

                I agree with Cominator here. While I oppose the more extreme genocidal rhetoric, he is right that very few “normie leftwingers” are going to come to any revelations whatsoever about those they serve.

                Jim is also right that many of these people will simply end up serving new masters, and be unable to admit even to themselves that anything has really changed. “I guess we went a little overboard with #MeToo. Ha ha! Glad that’s over!” That is fine, so long as they serve the new masters faithfully.

                It’s not a crime to be insipid, dull, and blindly obedient to whatever regime you perceive to be in power. Having a dense mass of such normies is rather essential to social cooperation, and part of the recipe is complete ignorance of the true aims or ideology of that regime, which allows them to easily adapt when the regime changes. Adapt, but not understand, as understanding is an impediment to the process of restoration.

                There will be no great awakening on the left, come the restoration. There will merely be a lot of converts and a smaller number of bodies.

  30. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    When we say ‘A powerful elite faction backing the color revolution’, what kinds of people are we speaking of here specifically.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      Or rather, when the gofers are saying this to each other, who is it that they have in mind?

      • Gedeon says:


        • jim says:

          Still waiting for you to pass the shill test.

          You also misused our shibboleths. Incorrect use of shibboleths is suggestive of pretending to a world view you do not comprehend, and therefore do not in fact share.

          • Gedeon says:


            • jim says:

              Deleted because you are a shill, and also because that is not an argument but a repetitious waste of space.. If you want it to be allowed through, followed by a rebuttal explaining why it is a non argument, take the shill test.

              • Gedeon says:


                • jim says:

                  Say something that a shill whose output is not monitored by his organizations human resources department could not say.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Jim, gedion has been posting huge comments for days. Why is he suddenly being censored? Was there some trigger or pattern you noticed? Genuinely curious.

                • jim says:

                  Marxism disguised as right wing views, repetition suggestive of following a limited robotic script, plus incorrect use of red pill and dissident right shibboleths.

                  When someone claims to adhere to a system of ideas, and uses the shibboleths of those ideas incorrectly, he does not comprehend the idea system to which he claims adherence, therefore lying about his position. Or rather the man who wrote his script does not understand the position that he is giving the character he is creating.

                  If lying about his position, probably doing so because employed as a shill.

                  To detect if someone is posting from the bowels of a quasi government organization, see if he can commit a thought crime, or even acknowledge other people’s thought crimes.

                  Gedeon, it appears, cannot do either, therefore shilling from an office of some ngo. He does not appear to be Soros, and Marxism is uncharacteristic of FBI shills, therefore likely some Harvard ngo or CIA.

                  I would love to talk to leftists, if only they could come here and say “Hi, I am a leftist, and I disagree with your position for the following reasons”, and if only they would deviate from the mindless, mechanical, and repetitive NPC script.

                  The reason I ban shills is that you cannot talk to with someone who is lying. Also their comments are repetitious, unresponsive, and uninformative – after a little while it is revealed that they are on a script, and are only allowed to respond to whatever you say by issuing or reissuing the relevant fragment of their script. They cannot themselves speak in their own words.

                  Conversing with a shill is like conversing with a video game NPC. He has a certain number of lines, and certain number of trigger words which which will trigger one set of lines or another set of lines.

                  His responses are apt to be unresponsive and irrelevant, because his responses are scripted, and they never wrote scripts particularly relevant to thought crimes, so his response to a thought crime is always off topic, as if no thought crime was uttered.

                • Gedeon says:

                  Former FBI Director Robert Mueller co-signed a false narrative surrounding the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001.

                  George Soros is an asset of the US State Department and funds and conducts terrorism around the world in an effort to collapse legitimate governments with the intended aim to consolidate control over mankind in a non-Republican form authoritarian aristocracy.

                  Harvard is full of special needs admits who are entirely incapable of governing.

                  I am happy to be more specific or broad if you have a particular patron of which you believe me to shill for.

                • jim says:

                  A tad ambiguous on the “false narrative”

                  Was the false narrative the “Dancing Israelis”, or was it the “the terrorists did it”?

                  And what did Mueller do regarding General Flynn and Roger Stone.

                  Why did the twin towers fall, and what is Mueller’s personal guilt and responsibility in allowing them to be destroyed?

                • Gedeon says:

                  John Brennan should be executed for Treason.

                  Is that adequate for CIA?

                  Side note – My now deceased uncle was CIA from, IIRC, 1955. When he retired from the CIA he was head of corporate security at General Dynamics. It is important to understand that the CIA, like every relationship, family, organization and society is NOT monolithic. He was under the Angleton faction that was displaced. He was a mensa member and not a harvard alum.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jim even if he is not quite on the up and up about who he is he is interesting…

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Almost-but-not-quite answers.

                  Deep knowledge of the CIA.


                • The Cominator says:

                  Interesting fellow though not your typical NPC, even if not quite who he says he is far more interesting than the usual shills.

                  I say Jim should let him post at least for now unless he becomes completely tiresome like a normal shill.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, not as heavily scripted as the usual robotic shill – though his post claiming that the wealthy and powerful know that Marxism is true was boringly formulaic. No one believes Marxism any more, not even Marxists. It was always obviously silly, and lost traction when people stopped being hungry. Some Marxists used to believe it. Mao believed it, but not Lenin. The Trots were the last holdouts, and there are very few Trots anymore – they switched to neoconservatism – international socialism through the American empire introduced by Fabian means – the Trans Pacific Partnership.

                  His comments suddenly went to being very scripted, unresponsive, and formulaic, which is why I started suppressing them – but his two most recent comments not so bad, which is why I allowed them.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Interesting that the responses don’t appear scripted but also carefully tiptoe around any true thought crime:

                  Former FBI Director Robert Mueller co-signed a false narrative surrounding the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001.

                  Per Jim: what was the false narrative, and what is the true narrative?

                  George Soros is an asset of the US State Department and funds and conducts terrorism around the world in an effort to collapse legitimate governments with the intended aim to consolidate control over mankind in a non-Republican form authoritarian aristocracy.

                  What is a “non-Republican form authoritarian aristocracy”? Can you name it and tell us what’s wrong with it, as compared with e.g. divine-right monarchy, which is also non-Republican form authoritarian aristocracy?

                  Harvard is full of special needs admits who are entirely incapable of governing.

                  Sure, but any Harvard student could tell us that; is that really the most important problem with Harvard? Are you suggesting that the non-special-needs admits are capable of governing, or have any right to govern? What specifically is Harvard’s relationship to the US governing structure and why does it exist today?

                • jim says:

                  > > Former FBI Director Robert Mueller co-signed a false narrative surrounding the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001.

                  > Per Jim: what was the false narrative, and what is the true narrative?

                  And, more interestingly, why the false narrative? What was the crime that Mueller needed to cover up?

                • Starman says:

                  You claimed you know stuff about spaceflight, then these simple questions are easy to answer (you refused to answer them last time):

                  What is the differences between SLS and SpaceX Starship?

                  Do spaceplane boosters work? If yes, or no… explain why.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  His diction has characteristic of someone who went through the same clearinghouses the people we’ve been talking about have; that is to say, the credential mill system. When he mentions having contact with the sort of folks who fill out the permanent bureaucracy – ie, descending from the same social circles – i believe him.

                  One aspect of this is the fact that the on-the-books standard doctrine taught for economics in most branches of the present academy is ‘neoclassical’ economics, and one of the key features of neoclassical theory is it’s inheritance of key assumptions of marxian theory (such as the idea that a society requires perpetual ‘growth’ to sustain itself/avoid economic calamity). Basically the old ‘sure marxes conclusions were wrong but his analysis was valuable’.

                  That was the first thing that came to mind when i saw folks needling him over busting out an ‘inequality causes unwashed masses to spontaneously organize themselves and guillotine elites who happen to be rivals to these other not!elites who are definitely a part of the unwashed masses’ canard. Certainly, it can be a possibility for one to mean better, but never-the-less struggle with the matter of their formative experiences; unexamined priors lurking in the background of the ID, nudging towards some things and away from others, which one may not even realize till circumstance trips over them.

                • jim says:

                  One lie, all lies.

                  He shows all the signs of being a shill, and is unable to commit thought crimes.

                  > When he mentions having contact with the sort of folks who fill out the permanent bureaucracy – ie, descending from the same social circles – i believe him.

                  He claimed that the great and powerful agree that Marxism is true, claimed to be rubbing shoulders with the great and powerful, and then, as evidence that he rubs shoulders with the great and powerful, offered all manner of stuff that shows he has never been anywhere near the great and powerful, because if he had ever been within shouting distance of the moderately influential, he would have known what would work as evidence and what would not.

                  Yes, he is from the group that the powerful come from, but he fell out of the bottom of that group.

                  He says he is a friend, but if a friend, what stops him from naming the crimes of Mueller that made 9/11 possible?

                  And he has not gone anywhere near the woman question, which is for every male the most interesting and important question of them all, a question that no male can avoid having strong opinions on, whether he admits to them or not, whether he admits them even to himself or not.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  >When he mentions having contact with the sort of folks who fill out the permanent bureaucracy – ie, descending from the same social circles – i believe him.

                  Of course, to him this would be a form of low-key posturing, but to folks around here, would be seen as a vector for compromization.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  I don’t like Cromwell, but I think he nailed it. The question is, why is the spook here.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Mayhaps someone noticed the usual roster of disinfo weren’t cutting the mustard and kicked the issue higher up the chain.

                • Starman says:

                  G e d e o n refused to answer my spaceflight question. I’m curious as to why? It doesn’t require committing a thoughtcrime and he claimed he can answer any question on space.

                • Gedeon says:

                  [*deleted for evasion and ambiguity*]

                • jim says:

                  You are hinting at the two towers narrative issued by FBI shills, without committing yourself to it.

                  Tell us why and how the two towers fell, and Mueller’s culpability in this. Commit yourself to one story.

                  You want to talk about World Trade Tower seven?

                  I would love to talk about World Trade Tower Seven, and have made several posts and innumerable comments on the topic, and every time I do so the FBI shills move right along and talk about something else, making twenty new claims for every claim that has been rebutted, without attempting to defend their original claims, nor unambiguously committing themselves to any one claim.

                  If you are saying something, say it outright. Say one thing and not one hundred things, and say it in a way that you cannot move right along and imply you were saying something different. What are you saying?

                  (Replies that say you are saying one hundred things, without actually committing yourself to any one of them, will be silently deleted as formulaic FBI script that we have seen far too many times, and which I have allowed on this blog far too many times.)

                  You don’t sound like an FBI shill or a Soros shill, you sound more like a Harvard ngo shill, or a CIA shill, so I have hopes of not getting the FBI script. It would be interesting to see the ngo script addressing the FBI script.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Yes, he is from the group that the powerful come from, but he fell out of the bottom of that group.

                  I suspect he went to an elite university and still maintains some personal connections, but doesn’t actually get invited to the parties, otherwise he wouldn’t waste his time here.

                  Which is too bad, because if the people who did get invited to the parties would actually come here (or any right wing forum) to debate, we might be able to avoid war, but all they do is send shills.

                  Priestly rulers are never willing to get their own hands dirty, which is why priestly rule always leads to civil war.

                • jim says:

                  And the shills are not allowed to discuss the issues that are leading us to civil war, or even acknowledge us discussing them.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “His comments suddenly went to being very scripted, unresponsive, and formulaic, which is why I started suppressing them – but his two most recent comments not so bad, which is why I allowed them.”

                  Reads like an incident I once experienced in a non-political context. Turned out that the suddenly higher agency answers had been written by a senior manager and only signed by the bot.

                  Manager has limited time though.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “Harvard is full of special needs admits who are entirely incapable of governing.”

                  This is the fakest of the statements.

                  It may be funny to exaggerate and call Harvard students special needs students, but that isn’t what we believe.

                  We believe Harvard admits the smartest people who meet its requirements, its requirements including a rigorously documented commitment to a fixed, totalising, and self-destructive doctrine. This is something truly intelligent people do not want to do, but it is also an IQ-loaded task in itself and something that offers material rewards. Harvard selects for compliance and somewhat truncates its IQ distribution. It does not dredge the bottom.

                  We don’t believe Harvard students are special needs students. We believe they are smart enough to be very dangerous when armed with a powerful influence network and entrenched power.

                  All the statements are fake, but mostly they are evasive. This one is wrong, but wrong in a way that an outsider might perceive as correct.

    • Not Tom says:

      State Department and allies in the press.

      • Karl says:

        And also professors, most flag officers, many judges and anyone who faithfully believes in in the unholy trinity of equality, feminism and the need for trannies in your local school.

  31. Yul Bornhold says:

    Trump would be wise to have a few stormtroopers ready to move on Silicon Valley. The loss of facebook and particularly twitter, could be lethal.

    • jim says:

      The time is not yet

      • Not Tom says:

        Not quite yet, but if he waits until the election, it may be too late, unless he has some other trick up his sleeve.

        Trump relies heavily on social media to communicate with his supporters, and all of the social media companies are flat-out saying they won’t allow Trump to declare victory. Trump specifically, not Biden and not “either candidate”. They are making no attempt to appear fair or impartial. The official press was always going to fall in line, but with the social media companies also colluding, he will not have a reliable way to actually announce that he won the election after winning it.

        That’s point #5 on the list. But it’s even worse than that because the election result will appear to many people not to be in dispute, will appear to favor the cheaters relying on mail-in “votes”.

        The actual votes don’t matter anymore, we all know, but the appearance of legitimacy matters, and SV is going all in on the color revolution script to delegitimize the election (if Trump appears to be winning it). The way I see it, he’s got roughly 2 months to fix this problem. He has no hope of bringing CNN to heel, but big social is still weak enough to be made to back down.

        • The Cominator says:

          Trump can in the worst case put out a victory declaration on Parler and bitchute and normie Trump supporters will take care of the rest.

          You just can’t totally muzzle a President if that is really their plan than they are just completely stupid.

          • Not Tom says:

            That’s better than nothing, yes, but it is a far weaker position than declaring victory on Twitter and Facebook.

            Independents and even Democrats need to know that he has declared victory – that even if they intend to escalate, the gauntlet has been thrown down. An announcement on Parler will simply not have that degree of legitimacy, because most people (including Trump supporters) have never even heard of it.

          • Gedeon says:

            Parscale has personal cell phone numbers for >50mm voters, so promulgation of a victory declaration is not going to be the defining issue.

            • jim says:

              Fifty million is not going to cut it if every word that Trump is winning is shut down off social media and the legacy media.

              • Gedeon says:

                [*Hail fellow right winger deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  If you are doing all this wonderful grass roots right wing action, you should have no problem taking the shill test and passing it with flying colors.

      • Publius says:

        YB is right though. It’s essential to control the communication channels. Trump understands narrative engineering, but I don’t think he fully appreciates on an emotional level the damage tech censorship of electoral claims can do to the public’s understanding of his legitimacy. That’s why he took so long to issue the section 230 executive order — he understands communication media as the terrain, not as combatants.

        Trump doesn’t have to go storm 1 Hacker Way this weekend (not that I’d mind though), but he does need assets in place to ensure that in November he can get his message out.

    • Encelad says:

      Twitter is setting the field, planning to censor claims of (Trump’s) victory

      “Misleading claims about the results or outcome of a civic process which calls for or could lead to interference with the implementation of the results of the process, e.g. claiming victory before election results have been certified, inciting unlawful conduct to prevent a peaceful transfer of power or orderly succession.”

  32. Tom Hart says:

    Trump must not end up like Allende in ‘73, trapped in the presidential palace under air force bombardment. Allende appointed Gustav Leigh to head up the air force; he turned out to be the staunchest anti-leftist of the coup—an interesting case of a leader making a catastrophically bad appointment. It can be very hard for a leader to tell who is on their side; perhaps there will be surprises for Trump, if the situation deteriorates.

    • The Cominator says:

      Unfortunately assessing appointments seems to be a major weakness for Trump.

  33. Pooch says:

    Does the Durham investigation still have any significance to anything?

  34. The Cominator says:

    “in the event of competing delegations that claim to be electors of each state the house and senate have to authorize the electoral college presented by the states. The senate is unlikely to approve obviously fake delegations, and the house is unlikely to approve the real ones, leading to an electoral college with numerous states missing, and whose legitimacy no one accepts, or to two competing electoral colleges. The plan is to launch civil war at that point, with warm ups and trials of strength for the civil war well in advance.”

    Yeah this is how I think they do it…

  35. Mister Grumpus says:

    (Jim just delete this if you find it derailing:)

    Analogy time:

    Someone smart give me an alternate history of the first 30 days of the Civil War — and be creative with your take on when those “first 30 days” started — that averted the mass death and destruction.

    • jim says:

      Color revolution will not stop till it is stopped.

      Which means that at some point you have to imprison or kill a sufficient number of people.

      The earlier it is stopped, the fewer you have to kill, but the harder it is to politically justify, to fit with the story that Trump is man who restored the Republic that was stolen from us by our enemies.

      The powerbase that keeps color revolution going and going and going is within the government itself. That powerbase has to be removed, and it will be difficult for the removal to take place under color of law with a hostile judiciary.

      If you have some good old fashioned flat out treason that kills people, then you can justify no end of measures. All that is required is one botched murder (and they have been botching murders worse and worse, for example Epstein) and you can roll up one small part, which gives you the leverage to roll up a larger part, until you have finally sliced away the whole salami.

      We have massive judicial corruption. Really need to roll up a few judges for old fashioned money crimes, and the rest of them would be less arrogant about freeing criminals and imprisoning good men.

      • Gedeon says:

        The problem with the judiciary and federal prosecutors is they don’t fear the codified/fiat law and they have forgotten to fear natural law.

        In my estimation, law and order can only be restored to the codified/fiat law through natural law means. The judges and prosecutors need to fear the governed once again, but it is my belief that this is best effected through a highly experienced merc operation under the direct authority of POTUS. Despite what we heard in June and all of the media fog, I don’t believe General Kelly to be a traitor. It is inconceivable to me that Trump would still be POTUS if his strong arm was not at the right hand of Trump when he was posted at DHS and then as Chief of Staff.

        Flushing out the worst players, their primary agents and the tier 1 operators of a conspiracy of this magnitude requires substantial deception and the appearance of major defections to attract the flies.

      • Tom Hart says:

        It’s worth noting, though it is a very minor change, that the Oregon fires have been used as a pretext to shift Oregon’s Fire Marshal, a white man, out of his position and replace him with a woman who is probably Hispanic—or can plausibly claim to be Hispanic, given her surname. Hardly the most vital change in the world, but it’s interesting to see the shuffling of positions going on in real time, even in peripheral posts. I presume that, where possible and where it has the power, the left will use any natural disaster or accident as a pretext to fire a straight white men.

  36. Octavian says:

    Is the playbook the McFaul Post-Communist Transitions essay from some years ago?

    On the subjust of American air power: It would be interesting to see what sort of aviation assets are located in and around the capital region – and what sort of personnel and equipment transfers have taken place this year.

    One wonders what sort of fault lines exist in the relevant air force and navy units, and how loyal are the relevant generals and commanders. Does the President have access to reliable air power that will answer to him? It’s all very interesting and theoretical: we’ve not seen overt, militant use of airpower on U.S. soil before. There are a lot of unfortunate precedents that will be set if matters escalate to the extreme.

    Using airstrikes seems to be an exceptionally major escalation, there will have to be one hell of a public astroturf to sell a self-intervention if the traitors are defeated by the loyalists.

    In 52 days, the adventure ascends.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      This is why drones freak me out. With no “real man in the loop”, it’s just retirement-chasing career guys from top to bottom, and as time goes on, the more I see that as the design intent from day one.

      Or am I being unfair or inaccurate?

      • jim says:

        We will always need to avail ourselves of the best available technology for hurting people and breaking things.

        Sometimes the best available technology has unfortunate social and political implications.

        Confronting the enemy in person inevitably filtered for good men. It will be harder to maintain virtue in a military less reliant on this.

        • Strannik says:

          Hence, the story of a King of Sparta who was angered by observing a giant crossbow at work, said that such weapons were the death of honor. War today has been reduced to butchery at a distance, with no heroes only survivors for the most part.

    • jim says:

      > Is the playbook the McFaul Post-Communist Transitions essay from some years ago?


      Which playbook is excessively delicate when speaking of the fact that the massive application of American air power with indiscriminate mass bombing, or the imminent threat thereof, has been central to every successful color revolution. Hard power leveraging soft power, or soft power leveraging hard power. In practice, the soft power of color revolution takes place within the space created by hard power. Protesters are the conspicuously displayed velvet glove, conspicuously covered by the legacy media, vast amounts of high explosive that might descend on the heads of loyalist forces the more selectively displayed steel fist.

      But the hard power rested on overwhelmingly superior wealth and technology, on logistic superiority. In a civil war, we shall see who has logistic superiority.

      The democrats have the generals, but Trump has the troops.

      Disloyal elements of the coercive apparatus are the central element of color revolution, and everything else is just to give them political cover or to intimidate and demoralize loyalists. The point of all the theater is to provide a space for disloyal elements to commit treason.

      Things remain in a delicate state of ambiguity for a very long time, but at some point an officer has to give an openly treasonous and illegal order, and the delicate ambiguity goes away.

      • Karl says:

        Color revolution is the attempt of removing the president without the need for an officer to give an openly treasonous order.

        The traitors will scream that Trump hasn’t won and commited election fraud. Then some lowly court(s) will rule that this was indeed so. Many appeal courts are against Trump. So it is not unlikely that some appeal court will agree. Pressure on SCOTUS will be immense. If arresting or killing Trump is not feasible, the traitors might go after SCOTUS judges. Then there is no clear and quick way to correct the traiterous appeal court decison.

        They might also go after senators for the same reason. A few blackmailed or murdered senators and suddenly congress and senate agree that Trump is no longer president.

        They will try to create a situation where it is not openly treasonous to arrest Trump. This is difficult, but not impossible because things will move quickly into an area of constituational law for which there is no precendent (or no precendent any praetorian will know).

        If the left successfully commits election fraud on such a scale that they have more votes than Trump. Things will be even more difficult. Then he has to proof that there was fraud and lowly courts will decide that there was none.

        If Trump wants to surrive, he will have to give clear orders to the troops, even if (especially if) the legal situation is not quite clear.

        Of course, the legal situation can only be unclear because the fact of whether there was election fraud is “unclear”. Every man might be convinced about this factual question one way or another, but this conviction necessarily relies on what other men tell him. At most, he might have monitored one single polling place.

        • Anonymous 2 says:

          They might also go after senators for the same reason. A few blackmailed or murdered senators and suddenly congress and senate agree that Trump is no longer president.

          I would say they have already tried that but failed and withdrew. The totally organic and genuine angry leftist boomer assassin, James Hodgkinson, of course died in the hospital soon thereafter. I wonder if they will go for something similar again.

          Rand Paul has been getting the evil eye from the left for a while with assault and death threats.

        • Not Tom says:

          If the left successfully commits election fraud on such a scale that they have more votes than Trump.

          This will be very easy to do if non-absentee mail-in votes are counted, and virtually impossible if they aren’t. Nearly everything we see playing out in the media and courts right now is preparing that battlefield.

          If you know any goodwhites who insist that mail-in voting is necessary because Covid, remind them that the great Dr. Fauci said in-person voting was OK. If they tell you that voting by mail is perfectly secure, tell them to mail themselves $1000 in cash. If they babble about voter suppression, ask what happens if you never receive your mail-in ballot and all of the polling stations are closed. Get them to agree that this is a highly polarized election and demand to know why we anyone would want a less secure system unless they’re planning to break it.

          You won’t convince them of anything, of course, but you can make the contradictions burn, enough to create that brief moment of doubt when the “miraculous” fake Democrat victories in deep-red areas start to come in.

          The left wants to create a situation in which deplorables are skeptical of the result but progressives are certain in their victory, because skepticism is the weaker position. What we need is either for both sides to be skeptical (stalemate) or preferably for our side to be certain Trump won and the left be the skeptical party. This will not be easy to do with the current collusion between legacy and social media.

          • Karl says:

            Probably the best we can hope for, but Trump’s side should understand that this is a win or die situation.

            • Strannik says:

              I believe that at heart the Left will fail and choke on would-be coup attempt, because they have no leader. They have influencers and people who pay them money, but they have no clearly laid out hierarchy and are in fact ambivalent to the very idea of having one. Getting Biden and Harris into office is not appealing to this coalition of basically nihilists. Biden is rapidly declining before our very eyes, while President Trump is seen as meeting people and doing his job. It will be important to him though to get out his voters to establish his mandate. I think he will win by a substantial margin which will be fraud proof.

              • jim says:

                Nothing is fraud proof if you do fraud on a large enough scale, and, the scale of fraud has risen in each election.

                • Strannik says:

                  This is true, and perhaps I should not have been so absolute in saying that it would be ”fraud proof”. So, let’s just call it fraud proof enough for the people-or the people important enough to know as ”the people” to know that this certain ruler is ordained by God. I’m a Monarchist, so I’ve got no particular problem with another Napoleon III, say, solving this issue of American democracy.

Leave a Reply