The fall of the Republic

Today in America it is the year in Rome fifty eight years before Christ. We are here. The mob is on the streets, which the courts decline to put down, courts and legal processes of the Republic politicized and defunct, carrying out political vengeance and refusing to enforce law, elections blatantly fraudulent and discredited.

Caesar crossing the Rubicon was the culmination of more Rubicons than you can shake a stick at. Before Caesar crossed the Rubicon, Clodius and Pompey crossed the Pomerium.

And before they crossed the Pomerium, Rome had the grossly dysfunctional courts, the undue process, and the rigged elections, that we have right now.

Soros and Hunter Biden are Clodius. Trump is Pompey, Cato, and Cicero. The Insurrection Act is the Senatus Consultum Ultimum.

When Pompey crossed the Pomerium fifty two years before Christ, he rolled up the useless, cowardly, weak, and undisciplined mob, and enforced order without mucking around with the useless and discredited courts.

But, since Pompey was an idiot, he then stepped down from the job of dictator, expecting normalcy to return. It did not. And everyone else acted like idiots also. Seeing order return, they thought that democracy, legality, and due process had returned, though obviously it had not.

Order seemingly restored by Pompey’s dictatorship and the Senatus Consultum Ultimum, Rome went on a conquest binge, dropping the pretext of self defense, and pissing off all its neighbors. One of its neighbors, the Parthians, revealed that they had been advancing the art and technology of war, while Rome had been quietly regressing. But the Parthians were content to grossly humiliate Rome, and merely returned their borders to where they were legally supposed to be, though there was absolutely nothing to stop them from rolling up the the entire eastern empire, and perhaps Rome itself. They still had and observed the legality that Rome had abandoned.

Eight years later, forty nine years before Christ, massive abuse of the courts and lack of legality forced Caesar to, with extraordinary reluctance, cross the Rubicon, after several years where legality was not in effect, but people still deluded acted as if it was. And finally, belatedly, remarkably belatedly, people after the assassination of Caesar recognized that legality, due process, courts, laws, fair trials, and free elections are finally gone and are not coming back any time soon.

Political violence continues to grow, eventually resulting in total war, immensely destructive civil war carried out by extraordinary and unprecedented measures.

After eighteen years of ever escalating chaos and ever more massive and extraordinary bloodshed, after a civil war that turned total, Caesar’s adopted son, Augustus, made himself dictator, but having learned from Pompey’s error, did not step down from the job expecting normalcy to return.

Legality, due process, free elections, and peaceful transfer of power, once lost, are hard to restore.

But despite the imperium, the swamp went on being swampy, the state religion went on being hostile, legality did not return. And things stayed like that for two and half centuries, till Constantine built a new capital, and made a new religion the state religion.

My hope is that our Pompey will be our Constantine, that we do a fast forward over Rome’s centuries of war and ruin.

1,152 Responses to “The fall of the Republic”

  1. Mister Grumpus says:

    Here’s a debate topic for you. In 1994 Anglo-Dutch South Africa came out and agreed to sign themselves over as negro property, in exchange for some Status Relief promised by the Cathedral. (If you’ll allow my amateur demagoguery.)

    Rhodesia was right next doo so they knew what they were getting into.

    How is today different? How can it be made different?

    • jim says:

      > How is today different? How can it be made different?

      Learn from history, to avoid repeating it.

  2. The Cominator says:

    If they had hanged Taney and the other Dred Scott judges of the majority opinion after the civil war we wouldn’t be in this position.

  3. Leon says:

    @Mike in Boston: On your comment about the forcing of gay marriage and tranny crap, the reason that sort of shit is forced is sexual humiliation. Sexual humiliation and degeneracy is a classic trickster tactic of breaking men, thus destroying societal trust and preventing men from grouping together to fight back. When Babylon was near its end all women were required to go and whore themselves out at least once to rich men at the temples of Ishtar. When Rome was near its end all manner of degeneracy prevailed. And of course, Jim has talked about the Ottoman empire and the sexual degeneracy near its end.

  4. The Cominator says:

    Apparently its being reported that the Federalist cowards have cucked for “lack of standing” on the Texas case.

    Trump must now call his people to the street, order the specops to um do what it does to the false presidents elect and takeover the state by force.

    • BC says:

      Not surprising given their failure to fast track Trump’s lawsuits. The civil war is likly to be very nasty because of it. I’m sure Joe’s handles promised not to pack the courts if they sided with him.

      Trump is Caesar in that he stands alone with no organ of the sate willing to backup his lawful claims.

      • The Cominator says:

        The ones who voted no (I’m pretty sure Thomas will be safe) need to be treated as traitors after this…

        • BC says:

          The Donald win is saying only Alto and Thomas voted for it. I still haven’t seen an official source on it.

    • Not Tom says:


      • The Cominator says:

        Freerepublic has a thread that says Fox News and Fox Business are reporting it.

        Its not unexpected to me…

      • Caratācos says:

        Oddly brief given the case’s importance. Will wait a little longer before giving up on The Robes.

        • Not Tom says:

          So it is. You would think these Federalist “originalist” judges would take stock of the fact that “standing” is in no sense part of the original constitution, but I can’t say I’m particularly surprised. As I said earlier, if SCOTUS prioritized this case over other cases, it likely meant they considered it an easily-dismissible non-threat. Far more important to work on Goldman Sachs et al v. AR Teacher Retirement et al.

          One way or the other, it was always going to come down to Insurrection Act or No Insurrection Act. Does Trump have what it takes? Was this all just a pretext to prove that he tried every possible legal avenue, or did he really think the same establishment he campaigned against in 2016 was going to save him in 2020?

          • Pooch says:

            I think it’s been a shock to even people on this blog that the judiciary has been completely corrupted. I think that was beneficial to point out to normies through all these absurd dismissals.

        • jim says:

          I don’t see any prospect of judicial examination of the overwhelming evidence that the election was massively stolen. How do you see a prospect?

          • Caratācos says:

            From what I have read, the other way is USGov vs States, which is unlikely to happen. DOJ would have to spearhead and this particular spear has been pointing other directions recently.

            On a lower level there are still state SC cases not yet finished, which will also probably go nowhere.

            Evidence does not seem to matter at this point as it will never be presented. State representatives have not been making any obvious moves towards assigning electors on their own. What I do not know much about is when the state delegations would get a chance to vote, so that could still be an option. Ultimately, the swamp is too deep and it will take fire and brimstone, not a drain, to get rid of it.

      • Pooch says:


        • Robert Nares says:

          It’s possible that it was a procedural quibble, i.e. Texas has no standing to dispute the election laws of a fellow state, and only the Trump admin does.

          • Robert Nares says:

            Which, even if this is the case, is absurd reasoning. As if a state has no interest in laws that affect a national election.

          • Caratācos says:

            It then relies on either the Trump campaign (doubt they have standing) or DOJ filing against those states. Given its recent behavior, why should we expect any action from DOJ? Also mentioned in that thread is the possibility that the “big beautiful lawsuit” will be backed by data from NSA et al. which I also find improbable. It would be fun though and it is really not over yet.

            • The Cominator says:

              The legal battle is over Trump must use force now.

              • Caratācos says:

                Legal battle is still ongoing, this effort was completely unrelated to all the state cases.

                Trump must use force eventually, but not quite yet.

                • Pooch says:

                  Yeah the TX case kind of popped up out of nowhere. There were cases ongoing before it team Trump was pursueing. They are rapidly diminishing though.

                • The Cominator says:

                  To think we will win the legal battle at this point is to be Hitler in the bunker believing in the Endsieg in 1945.

                  We can win but not ah through the legal system, we must appeal to a higher authority…

                • Pooch says:

                  Yes of course but just for the sake of exhausting all paths completely, there are still few left.

    • Pooch says:

      Interesting statement by Texas GOP

      “Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.”

    • onyomi says:

      Jim had suggested that Supremes’ behavior might depend, to a degree, on Trump’s perceived ability to guarantee safety within the boundaries of DC. I wonder if this had any bearing on the decision or if it’s just cucks being cucky.

      • BC says:

        They’re just being cucky. Joe promised them that he won’t pack courts(he will) and that everything would continue as normal. DC is like the Senate was in Rome before Caesar ended their power. They are only only interested in their own gift and unable to see that the writing is on the wall.

  5. Anonymous Fake says:

    Why do burger flippers and welders make almost entirely different orders of magnitude different salaries, despite being basically the same kind of mindless blue collar work? An illegal alien in a kitchen might make $5 an hour, a welder $40 an hour, and yet they are doing fundamentally the same work. I can understand if merchants refuse to fairly distribute information in schools about careers, but why don’t they do this, well, in careers?

    Why won’t welding firms poach talent from burger joints? Why doesn’t the free market work in this case? And what does socialism do wrong when it is limited to simply information distribution?

    • jim says:

      > Why do burger flippers and welders make almost entirely different orders of magnitude different salaries, despite being basically the same kind of mindless blue collar work?

      I have done a little bit of welding in my home workshop, and a lot of programming for a salary. My programs are good, my welds are crap. If I had done a lot of welding my welds would be better, but I doubt that they would be very good. No one should ever hire me to do welding.

      Allowing this post through because you are making an argument instead of giving us mindless robotic npc shill crap.

      You obviously can flip burgers. Equally obviously, you are far too stupid to do a decent job of welding.

      Welding is a skilled job. Not everyone can do it. Takes a lot of practice and a fair bit of talent to do it well, and while anyone can with a little bit of practice make some sort of weld, not everyone can do a good weld no matter how much they practice. Pretty sure that someone who writes the way you write cannot do it. I doubt that I could make a good weld even with a great deal of practice, though I think I could eventually do one that is a good as second rate welder who can earn money doing it. There are good welders and not-so-good welders, and sometimes you just have to hire a good welder. They are in short supply and high demand. Sometimes I just had to hire a good welder.

      When a good welder is done, it looks like the metal pieces just grew together like the branch of a tree. I cannot do that. Most welders who work for a salary and have done it for years cannot do that either. And when I needed that done, I was happy to pay for it to be done. I would not weld anything where it mattered that the job be done well.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        You’re overthinking. I don’t mind that welders would make $15 an hour, for example, because I know they’re like elite burger flippers, but at the end of the day they’re working with their hands, not their head, and the number difference just doesn’t add up.

        And when I go to work, I go in a suit and tie. I don’t work in a shop, either. I’m of very comfortably high-normal intelligence. What I’m saying is that capitalism doesn’t seem to exist at the middle class level (culturally, even if overpaid working class people make more money these days), while it isn’t relevant for the lower class because their political opinions do not matter. They just exist in their own little world. But there’s something going on when white collar employees can’t figure out what their own coworkers on their own floor make.

        The political ideal we’re looking for is for the government to shine its light on all the apple carts so we know where they are, but also to not let this information be used to topple them. The conservative can only think in terms of owning or seizing a cart, but he perversely joins with the liberals (even selling them the rope eventually used to hang himself) if it means suppressing the kind of person who just wants to manage a cart, and probably just because that’s what he was taught in school.

        • jim says:

          > but at the end of the day they’re working with their hands, not their head, and the number difference just doesn’t add up.

          I, unlike you, have had to pay for good welding, and I, unlike you, have attempted, not very successfully, to weld. It does not seem to be any easier to get a good welder than to get a good engineer. What I paid did add up.

          You think that only priests deserve pay, and the only thing that deserves value is priesting.

          No, creating value deserves the value created, and a good welder on a job that needs a good weld creates more value than any priest.

          Your fallacy is that you think virtue deserves a salary, and you think holiness is virtue.

          No, holiness frequently is not virtue. In today’s religion, no one is holier than the demon worshippers. And the reward of real virtue should be cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, which equilibrium frequently creates a great deal of value.

          But value should be the reward for creating value, of which welders create a considerable amount.

        • The fact that you are talking about “overpaid working class people” is all the proof we need that you begrudge normal decent people their normal and decent lives.

          The price of the burger flipper’s labor is depressed by the fact that everyone can flip a burger. If the price of a burger gets too high, like, say, if the state mandated that burger flippers make $40 an hour, the McDonald’s customer will not pay for a burger, but go home and make it himself. That’s why it’s called unskilled labor; because anyone can do it, it has theoretically zero demand, theoretically infinite supply, and therefore a theoretically zero price, except that the convenience of having someone else do it for you has a price, which is why burger flippers are paid anything at all.

          I used to climb and cut down trees for a living. I made substantially more than a burger flipper, because the skill and nerve it takes to operate a chainsaw when tied to a branch fifty feet in the air, and avoid damaging life and property, is in very low supply, to the point where companies were outbidding each other in order to obtain my skills.

          We do not even need to talk about value added, since people are incentivized to get maximum value for minimum price; a customer who needs a weld done would be happy to pay his welder burger flipper wages, except that his need for a good weld- high demand for a good weld- means that he will pay a good welder what the welder asks for, because the customer is unlikely to find another good welder who will do the job for less. Because the welder’s skills are in high demand and low supply, the price of his labor is high.

          To put the master artisan in the same category as the burger flipper is a massive distortion of reality, characteristic of all marxist distortions of reality, and you will have to enforce this unreality at gunpoint, which will result in millions of people dying and civilization being destroyed. In short, you are evil.

        • The Cominator says:

          “I’m of very comfortably high-normal intelligence. What I’m saying is that capitalism doesn’t seem to exist at the middle class level”

          Skilled office jobs are underpaid because we’ve been pretending women can do them (sometimes they can but its rare) for a long time and in the case of engineering letting in too many immigrants who company’s prefer to hire because they are bound to their job, even though they generally can’t do the work either.

          You are not getting screwed because skilled laborers (or laborers who are not super skilled but do jobs that are genuinely dangerous such as say work high steel) are “overpaid”. Skilled laborers do have the advantage over skilled office types in that you can’t pretend even for a moment that women and unqualified minorities can do their jobs well… whereas in office jobs the incompetence can be concealed and excused for long periods of time and then fixed by people who are actually competent at a late stage.

          • Yes, pay has been getting lower for office jobs because companies are no longer permitted to inquire too deeply into whether or not employees are actually doing the job or not, because they will find that women and minorities are contributing no value to the company. Moreover, they are prohibited from testing applicants for the ability to actually do the job.

            So, underpaid because the majority of them are doing nothing. Instead of hiring one competent white man for 150k, they need to hire a sheboon, two white girls, a pajeet, and a white man, and pay them each 30k, and the white man acquiesces, lives in a 6×10 box with three roommates sharing a bathroom, because no family and no hope of starting one, though he hopes that living in the city will let him crush pussy, but it is rare that he ends up crushing much pussy.

            • The Cominator says:

              Sometimes HIRING qualified people is impossible. Oftentimes nobody can do the job until they’ve had the job for a while they just must learn through experience, and sometimes some women and minorities do do okay especially at the more drudgery/entry level work (before I left my job that was a halfway between cad and engineering management I gave my boss an honest very good report on our voc highschool interns, one guy who wasn’t white and three women but I was very pleasantly surprised by their performance and had to give them all a good report when I left because I honestly had no complaints with their work and I had a lot of really terrible coworkers over the years at that job) but parachuting women and minorities into high level work they are not experience for or suited for is a disaster and it cuts into the wages of qualified people.

              It was a lot easier to crush pussy in the city 15 years ago (women did not quite yet all have the idea that they would neccessarily end up with a vampire pirate demon billionaire king celebrity with a 16 inch dick), Roosh before he went tradcon talked about this he posted a thread about how “dating” had changed. The only positive change in the 15 years was that if you did get a woman in bed she was likely to be open to doing almost anything you wanted.

          • Not Tom says:

            The thing is, skilled office jobs aren’t underpaid, even with all the affirmative action. They’re overpaid, because of the financialization of the US economy. Obviously they’d be even higher paid if the companies were allowed to run efficiently, but it’s the blue collar trades that are being underpaid relative to office workers.

            If you’re an office worker and feel underpaid, in the sense of being genuinely unable to afford any comforts as opposed to being jealous of the CEO, then you probably aren’t very skilled. Granted, housing is far too expensive, largely thanks to the same affirmative action policies contributing to lower pay, but it’s expensive for the burger flipper and the welder alike. Ignore the artificially-inflated housing prices and the pay scale is not low.

            Unskilled office jobs don’t pay great, for the same reason unskilled manual labor doesn’t pay great.

        • Not Tom says:

          I don’t mind that welders would make $15 an hour

          Hahaha, the eternal cry of the useless fucking parasite, “I don’t mind that [skilled profession] makes a bit more than me, but how can they make so much?”

          I had those kinds of thoughts when I was eight years old, before I understood anything about the world and had never had to even buy anything myself, never mind sell. Literally, the economic mentality of a Marxist is the same as the mentality of a toddler.

          The irony is that this mentality can only develop in people who have incredibly easy lives. Try being somewhere there is scarcity, where you need something done and just finding anyone who can do it seems like a miracle, never mind their price. But to the Marxist, food comes from a supermarket, electricity comes from a plug, water comes from a tap, internet comes from the little doohickey with lights. Nothing can possibly be hard to do, therefore nobody deserves to be paid more than anyone else. “But I wear a suit and tie!* All form, no function.

          Go find some other applecarts you sad, lying little faggot, these apples aren’t for you.

          • Anonymous Fake says:

            $15 an hour is perfectly fine for a welder when/where accountants make $25 an hour. Marxist union thug wages don’t exist everywhere.

            • jim says:

              Most accountants create no value – their job is realistically tracking the movement of value, and they regularly fail to do so – they are agents of the state, rather than agents of the firm, and they cheat both state and firm. A chronic problem with the interface between state and firm is that it is full of parasites stealing value.

              Welders create value. Bookkeeping is important, and we truly need bookkeepers, bookkeepers create value – but a good welder should have a substantially higher wage than a good bookkeeper for the skill and ability required to be a good boo keeper is far less than the skill and ability needed to be a good welder.

              It is a lot easier to get a good bookkeeper than a good welder, and a good welder creates more value.

              I deleted your other spam which presupposes, rather than arguing for, the progressive account of how progressivism crushed the proles. Supposedly the proles demanded it. Much as the peasants supposedly demanded collectivization and the liquidation of the kulaks.

              • Anonymous Fake says:


                • jim says:

                  I have repeatedly addressed the school question at considerable length. Instead of addressing it, you pretend that no one ever could think such terrible crime thoughts.

                  If you want to address the school question, address it in the context that there is a reactionary orthodoxy on the question, and you are challenging the reactionary orthodoxy, rather than in the frame that everyone loves the progressive solution and that it came about spontaneously and voluntarily.

                  If you think that even more progressivism can fix the problem, you need to explain why vastly less progressivism will not fix the problem.

            • Not Tom says:

              Again, the battle cry of the human garbage known as central planners. “I just know what this work is really worth, even though I’ve never done it or hired anyone to do it or watched it or googled it”.

              You know nothing, you contribute nothing, you’re worth nothing, and whatever you claim to get paid is far more than you’ve rightly earned. I’d take your salary and give it to welders in a heartbeat.

        • Anon says:

          “[welders] work with their hands, not their head”

          “And when I go to work, I go in a suit and tie. I don’t work in a shop, either. I’m of very comfortably high-normal intelligence”

          As someone closer to suit-and-tie / office world than the welding world, this is likely BS. You’re not really doing anything of much value: you’re just mad your degree didn’t do what you thought it would, and judging by the way you write you are not of “comfortably high-normal intelligence”.

          I’ve seen this same whining elsewhere:

          Like this mentally disturbed baby academic, the fact is that you’re actually just an idiot with an inflated sense of your own abilities and station in life. I work with people like this. You’re not an engineer of some kind, or a physicist, or a quant, or a mathematician, or probably even an accountant. You most likely have some meme degree that you took a government loan for because you thought it was your ticket to a comfortable lifestyle that would allow you to look down on the type of people who weld. Now you complain because you have to pay back your loan on a middling salary. Too bad.

          The majority of people who think they get paid to “use their head” are in fact stupid, and almost certainly doing makework that the world wouldn’t miss if it disappeared entirely tomorrow. You’re the reason meetings last an hour instead of ten minutes.

          • Bilge_Pump says:

            “You’re too dumb to get paid to use your brain”

            Oh here we go, the lefty faggot reveals himself to be secretly an elitist, but only when he’s dealing with “stupid Trump supporters”. When it comes to minorities who probably are dumber than him, he will allow any number of them to fuck his wife whenever they want.

        • Bilge_Pump says:

          I can’t even read this shit. You go make a burger. Done? Ok now you go weld something. Never done it in your goddamn life and would be a total failure at it? Then stfu. There’s a reason trade schools exist to train welders (and other tradesmen), whereas a burger cook at McDonald’s can be trained in a couple of weeks.

          This guy is a troll, idk how he thinks people who read your blog would take him seriously. Usually when I read his crap I can’t even get to the part where he tries to make a point because everything leading up to that is so retarded.

        • Publius says:

          Been here 10 minutes. Spotted the NPC shill.

    • Gestahlt says:

      In what universe is welding “mindless?” To address your actual question, improperly done welding has the capability of permanently disfiguring the welder. Getting your hand seared by fry oil isn’t comparable.

    • The Cominator says:

      Welding is more dangerous than burger flipping (though I suppose you could injure yourself on a fryer) and its not mindless nor something anyone can do.

      I being the uncoordinated sperg I am couldn’t do it. I can’t solder well either.

      • jim says:

        I have done a lot of soldering and a little bit of welding. My welding is crap, my soldering not much better.

    • Todd says:

      You haven’t a clue as to what you speak. In two years of training you probably couldn’t cut it as a rig or pipeline welder. It’s talent and training and often inhospitable weather. I’ll assume all your comments are equally ignorant.

  6. ~loclun-midwyt says:

    The media trying to tell us that the nig nog who just got executed was a good boy and dindu nuffin. Not surprising. But the interesting part is the emphasis being put on the supreme court’s role. This is a good sign as it points to them being worried that they will lose the court decision, and so wanting to discredit the court in advance.

    • Pooch says:

      My sense is they are scared. I’m still not all that confident though. It’s hard to be white pilled right now.

      • The Cominator says:

        I’m confident Trump will cross the Rubicon if he has to because he has no choice unless he wants to flee to Kazakhstan the night of January 19th.

        • BC says:

          I hope, no I pray that you’re right. I’ve been watching our leader cuck out my entire life and this is the moment where they absolutely cannot cuck out.

          • The Cominator says:

            Even if Trump is a coward as unfortunately it seems most right wing American politicians are…

            Even a rat finds its courage when cornered, the Democrats who can’t shut up about wanting to prosecute Trump are our greatest asset here.

            I’m not confident about SCOTUS doing the right thing, the state legislatures had far greater motivation to do so and did not. Trump will have to use force and use force with absolutely no legal basis as Caesar did.

            • jim says:

              I am not confident that Scotus will do the right thing either. But Trump does have a legal basis.

              The insurrection act and article four – preserving the Republican form of government.

            • Karl says:

              Why do you keep repeating that Trump has no legal basis for the violence necessary? There is the riot act and there the 14th amendment. Violence on the scale of the civil war has legal basis. No US court ever said that the North had no legal basis for waging war on the South.

              And if I rember correctly previous admistrations have created the right of the President to assasinate suspected terrorists.

              • The Cominator says:

                Victory can post legalize Trump’s coup (rebellion against the government is always legal IF YOU WIN) and the insurrection act can be used to call the militia, but its hard to say that then using the militia to force state legislatures to pass an amendment at gunpoint and then murdering most of Trump’s enemies within the government was legal within existing law.

                • Karl says:

                  What amendment is needed from the state legislatures?

                  Anyway, there is no need to murder his opponents. There is legal basis for arresting them with as much force as necessary. Do you think his enemies would comply with a few thousand arrestes and rely on the courts to be set free right away? I think not.

                • The Cominator says:

                  No a coup where your enemies within the government live is a coup that fails, the only intermediate stage where you win is if your enemies flee the country.

                  Trump has 3 people who others could consider legally to be President on January 20th, without the SCOTUS ruling in his favor they have to go… by January 20th.

                  Trump will need to force an amendment to the constitution legalizing his takeover of the government by force and confirming at least a temporary grant of emergency powers if he goes the route of using force.

                • jim says:

                  > its hard to say that then using the militia to force state legislatures to pass an amendment at gunpoint and then murdering most of Trump’s enemies within the government was legal within existing law

                  The guns will be decorously kept off stage, as Monck did. And we do not need to kill the enemies if they are indefinitely detained in Alaska. Abbot got away with indefinitely detainment of visa jumpers and border crossers, with every court quietly stopping lawfare against it, realizing that judiciary had overreached by legalizing illegal immigration.

              • The Cominator says:

                At the very least the three people have to go…

                But if he removes those three probably will have to remove others to settle things…

  7. BC says:

    Called it, Barr’s a traitor. I can’t believe the amount of push back I got from people who should have known better:

    • jim says:

      Yes, Nazi style socialism, which is marginally less dysfunctional than Soviet style socialism.

      This is extremely bad, because I had hoped we could relocate to the Chinese hegemony if the US hegemony became intolerable.

      The problem that will become apparent is that party apparats in the private sector will steal everything and destroy anything they do not steal, because they have no economic interest in the continued function or success of the firm.

      When you have people in the firm that are answerable to both the state and firm (in the west accounting and human resources) they are theoretically required to pursue state interests at the expense of the interests of the firm, and apt to take advantage of the ambiguity of the source of their authority and job security to rob both state and firm.

      • Mike says:

        The lines about forcing companies to follow state plans or quotas is indeed alarming, but I wouldn’t read too much into them putting more CCP commissars on company boards. It would be the equivalent of Western nations forcing women/minorities onto company boards…..except for the CCP isn’t the US Democratic Party and so those commissars are apt to enforce “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” which is mostly in-line with Gnon. The planned economy signals could forebode those commissars becoming toxic though.

      • Overture says:

        Given this development, what do you suggest is the best short term and long term resiliency strategy for individuals? Is it to join the party and learn to camouflage? Is it to genuinely join? Is it to isolate? What opportunities or options / skill development would you suggest / locales to focus on?

        • jim says:

          I hope for and expect the emperor’s command, for a crusade to restore the “Republic”.

          But if this does not come, the shit will hit the fan, and sometimes the shit is really bad.

          When the shit really hit the fan, the people who did best were those who fled to someone else’s hegemony. Havel’s Greengrocer is the least bad option for those who remain.

          Get more passports, more residence permits.

          But the shit may not go all the way to that. It frequently does not. Best outcome is it is terminated by a Sulla. Second best outcome is that the shit is stalled for a few years by a Pompey, or the shit gets somewhat bad but is stopped by a Cromwell before it gets really intolerable.

          • Overture says:

            Thank you for this. I had not heard of Havel’s Greengrocer. What a marvelous story.

    • European Mutt says:

      This makes it clear what China’s plan is (unlike progs they are still smart enough to be capable of long-term planning). I had that thought for a few weeks now but there wasn’t any real evidence for it, now there is. Their market reforms were always intended to be temporary, to allow them to overtake the West economically and then destroy it. Wu flu just made it much easier for them.

      CCP is the enemy and needs to be eradicated. Falung Gong are right about this.

  8. Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

    Giuliani thanked Dr Zelenko as one of the doctors advising him in his rapid recovery from WuFlu.

  9. The Cominator says:

    “Soros and Hunter Biden are Clodius”

    BTW just noticed this. If you are referring to Clodius Pulcher nobody in our ruling class is as interesting a corrupt degenerate as Clodius Pulcher was.

    Bill Clinton would be the only one who remotely would have come close in our lifetime… but even Bill Clinton wouldn’t say sneak into some democrat progressive woman’s organization that men were banned from in order to rape his colleague’s wife in blatant offense of progressive pieties… manage to make a spectacle of the resulting trial and get off with a slap on the wrist and make a political ally of the colleague whos wife he planned to rape there.

  10. Pooch says:

    It’s mildly amusing Biden’s diversity pick for Sec of Defense is being attacked from the left for basically being too much of a military man. They won’t be satisfied until there’s she boons holding office in every single position of significance.

    • Not Tom says:

      They won’t be satisfied after that, either. It’s more about the journey than the destination.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      Who would attack them for advocating sheboons in any and all positions of impact?

      They see people making some feelgood argument, see people agreeing with the premises of that feelgood argument, in order to agree with that feelgood argument, and simply take the implications further to their logical conclusions. On what grounds would any of their fellows speak otherwise?

      Like a kid seeing a festooned box light up with blinking applause lights whether they push them in the right combination; they don’t need to actually understand anything about what is happening – and frequently don’t – they just impulsively converge towards whatever it is that causes more lights to blink back up, in the milieu they’re embedded in.

      It’s not positioning relative to greater Being, but relative that lesser subset of which, which is other beings. Less of a destination, more of a vector; always being a vanguard of a new wave; and so there must always be a new wave; eternal revolution.

      Pity the poor undertakers of the 20th century liberal order, who would fain to stand athwart history and yell, ‘stop!’.

  11. BC says:

    So it looks like the right is coalesce around the idea the China’s calling the shots for the Democrats and the Democrats are traitors. This is a pretty decent idea when it comes to motivating people and has the beauty that the Democrats are absolutely selling the country out to China, even if China’s isn’t calling all the shots.

    • onyomi says:

      I think it’s both accurate and rhetorically effective. Foreign influence and political opponents selling out to foreigners are easier targets than power-hungry local officials if needing to justify something like Insurrection Act.

    • Pooch says:

      As long as it doesn’t border on “Russia, Russia, Russia” hysteria used against Trump. The Democrats are plenty evil without any Chinese influence. Having said that, there is a startling amount of Chinese money going into their coffers.

      • onyomi says:

        On the one hand, yes, “Russia, Russia, Russia!” was ridiculous, but, on the other, it seems like the lessons of 2020 (if not much earlier) are: a. SJWs always project and b. hysteria works.

        The fact that your opponent gets hysterical about the very thing they’re doing to you as a conscious or unconscious form of deflection doesn’t mean you shouldn’t attack them back just as hard or harder for what they are actually doing (though I’m open to better suggestions about rhetorical strategies to combat hysterical projection-deflection).

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          Lying fucking works, doesn’t it? We went from “Russia-Russia-Russia” (2016) to “Defend the Election” (2020). I began to hate them.

          • onyomi says:

            Well, the more total your control of the flow of information the less you have to bother with making persuasive arguments based in reality and the more you can just straight-up gaslight most people, it seems. I’ve stopped bothering to “debate” on non-“right wing echo chamber” platforms because the mainstream left opinion has become so braindead and indefensible.

            • BC says:

              I stopped reading or trying to reason with the left after they rigged the election on such a massive scale and demand that I accept it. I’d rather see them dead at this point.

              • onyomi says:

                For me the lockdowns were a clarifying moment. I can debate with a person over the minimum wage or socialized medicine or even immigration and multiculturalism and still be friends at the end of the day. I don’t know how to deal with people who think shutting down the world, putting people under house arrest, stunting children’s psychological development, destroying small business to enrich Amazon and weaken peoples’ ability to support themselves without joining a major organization plugged into woke orthodoxy, etc. all for the sake of slowing down a particular respiratory virus (and pwning Drumpf) is reasonable.

                The advantage is, it’s clarifying, as I feel comfortable dismissing without further consideration anyone who still supports lockdowns at this point. The disadvantage is tons of people in my social circle belong to this category of people about whom I now “can’t even,” so to speak. Not sure how to interact with them anymore, other than by never bringing up current events, which is increasingly difficult.

                • Mister Grumpus says:

                  I fell for the lockdown myself. Just staying honest.

                  What got me was the HCQ thing. Here’s a cheap medicine that’s helping people, and then… nothing. No one cares. Not only that but they’re doing fake studies obviously constructed to make sure they don’t help anybody. And persecuting pharmacists who fulfill prescriptions for it. And Neil Cavuto is on Fox News shouting “you can lose your life from taking it!”

                  That was it for me. That’s when I was too disgusted and horrified to stay on the bus any farther. Fuck it I’m walking.

                  I’d thought I was cynical, I’d thought I was with it, but I’d never “seen the elephant” up close like that and I bailed right out of the nest forever.

                • A Honest Indian says:

                  After the initial lockdowns in India from March to around the end of July, there has been a lot of lip-service paid to lockdowns, mask wearing and social distancing, but very little compliance in reality.

                  In cities, people are going about with masks reluctantly. In rural areas, I see zero masks and almost no social distancing norms.

                  It seems that this urban/rural trend is almost worldwide.

                  After a lot of hue and cry over travel restrictions post-lockdown, governments have backed down quietly.

                  Even the media have become bored of this COVID talk and in fact, India seems to have reduced the number of active cases recently.

                  There is still talk about fresh lockdowns in India, but so far thankfully nothing in action.

                • European Mutt says:

                  stunting children’s psychological development

                  Closing the schools was the only good thing about this.

              • The Cominator says:

                I came to the conclusion I think in early 2018 that nearly all people who were still Democrats or leftists at this point with the exception of your very rare Jim Webb types or your mostly apolitical new ager/hippie types (and since the lockdowns they increasingly really hate the Democratic party even if they don’t quite like nationalism or industrial society) would have to go.

      • BC says:

        >As long as it doesn’t border on “Russia, Russia, Russia” hysteria used against Trump.

        I don’t see why not. Religious fervor is useful. In this case it has the utility of both being true with China and that it’s easier to rally around an outside source instead of something created by our own people. The Military’s going to be reluctant to kill Americans, but killing traitors working for China is probably quite compelling.

        The major downside is possible war with China, but China brought that on themselves with their COVID hoax. This also neutralizes or limits China’s ability to assist the left if it turns into a long civil war.

        • Not Tom says:

          Same trap as “guerilla warfare”, “hold them to their own principles”, etc. Bad idea.

          They were able to keep up Russiagate because they’re in power. Not because it was a good narrative.

          I don’t care about the morality of it. But trying to form a cult (and you literally refer to it as “religious fervor”) around claims that are empirically disprovable will lead to internal fracturing and holiness spiraling, same as them. And without power to hold it together, we lose.

          China is a problem, but Chinese election influence/interference is a shiny distraction designed to make you look silly and forget the real evidence (as outlined in the Texas suit, now the most convenient reference for all this).

    • BaboonTycoon says:

      While the recent events involving Swalwell have made it topical, I still see the China nonsense as misdirection. It’s good for them that a story like that comes out because it’s not tied directly to the election and because it allows them to reframe this as a partisan issue when we just had Mike Lee passing out a bunch of green cards to Hong Kong and India last week. Already that video where David Perdue practically begs the Chinese to come to Georgia seems to have been memory holed.

      The best messages are simple and bringing foreign governments into things is a good way to throw a wrench into the proceedings. Always kill traitors before you kill your enemies and all. Unless they plan a direct strike on us in the immediate future (which is within the realm of possibility), Trump should cross the Rubicon well before even beginning to think of dealing with China.

    • jim says:

      Our elite is just generally corrupt and incohesive.

      Everyone except the American public is calling the shots.

    • The Cominator says:

      As far as covid planning AND probably planning the election fraud almost certainly it was China… that honeytrap spy who the FBI tipped off to flee the country so they wouldn’t have to arrest her… wonder if the plans were given to Pelosi through Swalwell via her.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      Making this about China is a “permission to say ‘no'”.

      The Chinese aren’t lefties, muslims, negroes or Jews, so they can still be the Bad Guy in the current year.

      Plenty of people just can’t handle seeing the Ds (and most Rs) as we do. It’s just too frustrating, humiliating and scary. What they can handle, though, is seeing this blatant Chinese bribery and infiltration going on. The Chinese are a “safer target” for the normie’s ire.

      By pointing his Insurrection Act outward, at China, rather than inward, at the D’s and RINO’s, Trump gets more buy in, or at least acquiescence. It’s more “national defense” than “civil war”, more “gang busters” than “helicopters”, even if the results will be the same.

      Because really, who’s going to “Resist” Rubicon Don because they love China so much? How does CNN sell that?

      • The Cominator says:

        Its easier to see the Democrats and many corrupt and otherwise worthless Republicans as we do (in non urban Florida from what I gather anecdotally the Democrats are widely hated the way we hate them) if we can say they are agents of a foreign power.

        In this case it has the virtue (unlike muh Russia) of being largely true.

        • jim says:

          > In this case it has the virtue (unlike muh Russia) of being largely true.

          It is true, but less important than is convenient to make it out to be.

          The concentrated interest can get its way over the dispersed interest. China is the concentrated interest, the deep state is the dispersed interest.

          If power is dispersed within an organization, no one individual power holder has much interest in the organization being successful.

          The grotesque corruption and dysfunction of the American elite was displayed most spectacularly in the earthquake relief of Haiti, where the relief was vastly worse than the earthquake, because the ngos brushed aside the government that was already in the pocket of the US, and ruled directly.

          The unspoken theory was that since the US puppets were a bunch of dumb thugs, they should step aside for a bunch of nice Harvard PhDs with billions of aid money in their pockets.

          But the dumb thugs lived there, had family there, so had some interest in the place being nice, while the Harvard PhDs were carryon baggers, and just stole everything and destroyed everything, because they intended to leave in a month or so. Their behavior reflected each one’s individual interest.

          For an organization to act as one, it has to have a CEO with absolute power. The successful forms of organization allow the CEO to be removed, but very seldom, and he is all powerful until he is removed.

          A religion and a priesthood is a way of manufacturing cohesion. So what we see when power is gravely dispersed in a state – the King has fallen – is both vulnerability to outsiders who have better cohesion (Chinese), and vulnerability to ever purer versions of the faith (the puppet masters whose front women are AOC and Greta Thunberg)

          Chinese influence is disproportionately transmitted through Jews, which I attribute to Judaism being in large part a religion of exile, instead of being what it is supposed to be, a religion of Israel. Exiles perceive themselves as permanent carryon baggers. It is truer to attack Chinese influence than Jewish influence, and attacks on Jewish influence keep being redirected to the mythical Rothschilds, who have been out of power since before World War II, and are rapidly running out of money, and against Jewish pawnbrokers and such, who never had power in the first place.

          Vulnerability to Chinese influence has the same root as vulnerability to ever purer versions of the holy faith.

          The deep state think that if they remove Trump, they will have power, as the nobility of the robe thought when they used the mob to remove King Louis XVI. But to remove Trump, they rely on the cohesion of a group of people to steal the election, and that group is far more cohesive than they are.

          The Chinese are rightly confident than they can exercise power through the swamp. But Soros is also rightly confident.

      • The Cominator says:

        Didn’t Feinstein have some longtime staffer who also turned out to be a Chinese spy.

        It seems like at least among the West Coast Democrats having a Chinese spy close to them is pretty common.

  12. European Mutt says:

    They are preparing for a repeat of the ballot fraud, this time in German state elections.

    The national TV web site gave it away by admitting they printed more mail-in ballots (3.2 million) than there are legal voters in the state of Rhineland-Palatinate where there will be elections on March 14:

    The article also says mail-in voting might become mandatory. In-person voting in Germany is positively fascist by American prog standards, you even need a valid id. So makes sense they will get rid of it. Federal election will be in late September and you can bet they will use the same tricks.

    If the American fraud is allowed to stand, not just every American election, but every election worldwide will be fake and gay. The era of democracy is over, regardless who wins.

    • Pooch says:

      Yes I was thinking that as well. If they can steal elections in Rome openly, there’s no reason they can’t steal elections in the provinces throughout the empire now. RW people in America have more in common with RW people in Europe than they do progs right down the street.

    • The Cominator says:

      Germany is a puppet government of the US permanent government to some extent and has been since WWII. I would advise if you are in Europe to get East. Its not that far to visit home if you really want to…

      For us Americans if we go into exile we will have to go into lands much farther away and much less familiar.

      • Pooch says:

        I’m making a stand at the Alamo, wherever that will be.

      • stan says:

        I would advise if you are in Europe to get East. Its not that far to visit home if you really want to…

        It’s not worth it probably. You wouldn’t like living in Russia. And here in post-communist central Europe we are just a decade or two behind Western Europe. Things are getting worse and we are closing the gap. We won’t be able to make a turnaround unless America makes a turnaround.

      • European Mutt says:

        I have made some preparations to flee if necessary. Have been making them to a degree for 10 years. I’m also very whitepilled on Russia.

        But if Trump prevails or if the American empire shows signs of crumbling, I’ll stay and fight.

        Germany is a puppet government of the US permanent government to some extent and has been since WWII.

        Germany is an interesting case imo. It was mostly under Red empire control in the 50s because on the Soviet border, and was allowed to have a rather sane economic and social policy, unlike e.g. France or Italy. Then the Blue Empire increased its influence and turned up the poz and Nazi guilt in the 60s and 70s. The entire permanent government had been appointed by conservatives in the 50s because the Nazis had removed all of the old one and was therefore not a good target back then, so they rather turned to astroturfing and propaganda for the masses.

        In 1990 then, as is a meme behind closed doors in many German households, the West joined the East, which meant the overgrown intelligence apparatus of East Germany (that even the Russians were kind of uncomfortable with) spread into the West and caused all sorts of problems. They continued their Nazi false flag strategy they had in East Germany (this is well-proven) and engineered astroturf neo-Nazi movements to make right-wing opinions unpalatable.

        When supreme alpha Schröder in the 2000s attempted to forge a closer relationship with Russia and in general reintroduce some mild sanity, USG truly made Germany a puppet state. They ousted Schröder* who now lives in Korea with a young hot wife ( and doesn’t give a fuck any more about his country. I do not blame him.

        Merkel has been under close supervision of USG her entire 15-year term and I think they are threatening her life now if she goes an inch against what they want. Her most recent speech where she announced a ‘hard’ lockdown sounded like a hostage recording.

        Pretty much every normie ethnic German in West Germany, even those who did not even live during the 50s, is nostalgic for that time, no matter which political opinions he pretends to have. Those people are ready for a restoration, for something that is even greater than the 50s ever were. And in the East normies hate socialism and secret police.

        *I have no hard proof for this, but the 180 degree turn in the my social circle against Schröder was spectacular. Everyone was saying his welfare reforms were a good thing, lazy people should work, and then suddenly they started mouthing the opposite. Made me first suspect something wasn’t right.

  13. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    >The right needs to psychologically reorient itself to a more machiavellian and will to power mentality… The morality mindset (I blame Burke for this) has hurt us badly…

    The more moral ways of doing things are in fact the ways of more powerful civilizations; as it happens, the chronically insecure have a compulsive attraction to promulgating false morals that lead to the weakening of others, for if there is one thing that is endemic in the weltanschauung of modernity, it is phobia of power.

    As with many such things, it is a strain of thought that bears out it’s influence in all sundry of circumstances.

    Consider the classic example of superhero media. By and large, the only people you see building up organizations for themselves – ie, civilization – are depicted as villains; while, those depicted as heroes are often loners, atomized and unconnected with any larger social superstructures; likewise, they so often act in ways that sub-ordinate what is needed for greater powers, in lieu of that which is lesser.

    Because that fear is inside, you see? *They see themselves as losers*, even when, and most significantly when, *they themselves might have power of others*. In the back of their minds, a semi-conscious part of themselves constantly torments them with the feeling, that if or when people ever start having standards, *they would be among those left out on the ice floes*. So they dream of power that renders good to the bad, and bad to the good.

    Ironically, it is exactly that mode of thinking that makes them exactly the right targets for turning such projections into reality.

    Consider also the ‘hearts and minds’ mythology, which starts to make a lot more sense when you look at it in terms of people who advocate it, themselves, looking at it in terms of what would make them happy if they were an enemy insurgent. Ie, as such a person, it would be very pleasing if the enemy you were seeking to defeat were fools who purposefully avoided actually trying to fight and win against you; were gormless cuckolds who refrain from every actually doing anything that could be construed as imposing power over you; how nice it would be if they were to even deliver their own blood and treasure to you, instead. All the better for cutting their throats in the end. One would raise a glass in toast to such men, as you danced over their graves. With enemies like those, who would need friends?

    Most such beings are not really self-conscious of the way they are thinking; it is reflexive, instinctive, rather; the mindset of an insurgent backbiter seeking to hobnail power – which is to say, civilization – *is* their default mindset; including and especially when they are your neighbors.

    • The Cominator says:

      I just don’t see superhero stuff the same way.

      Comics and superheroes have only been recently pozzed as Vox Day (for all his shortcomings) has often pointed out. Organizations for evil and to overthrow civilization are a very real thing… what do you think communism was originally, the leftists may be in power now but they started off as subversives.

      The superhero motif is not wrong to point out that good people in big corrupt cities and such often are loners… I’m a loner to a large extent. Rightists in the modern age tend to be cynical if somewhat noble loners.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        The broader point is that people with superhuman abilities in reality *wouldn’t* be loners; the utility of abilities would not go unexploited – whether it’s throwing fireballs or superintelligence (another trait one may significantly note is commonly placed in them in designated badguys). Whether it’s akin to knights on one end, and or lords and ladies on another, the reality of power comes into alignment with the formality of power, whether it’s synthesis with an existing structure, or creation of a new one.

        The background ‘set up’ of many superhero stories only makes sense in the sense of folk purposefully avoiding doing those things; avoiding ever actually cooperating to build up greater social superstructures of civilization. That’s the projected desire, see? Of power that acts powerlessly.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          The increasingly schizophrenic double-think that arises from increasing dearth of world-formation capacity is not the only sufficient cause of leftist modes of behavior, but it is a frequently necessary potentiator; they see themselves as oppressed even while wielding power; they see themselves a loners even while organizing in parties; they see themselves as doing X even as they do Y; all the easier for them to loudly and repeatedly claim, without niggling reservations, that they are doing X.

          • jim says:

            Note that Vox’s superheroes do engage in collective action, and frequently explicitly think and talk about the moral rules that facilitate collective action.

            The original superman, when in moral doubt, just thought about what his adoptive father said and did. (Current PC heroes are the typical products of single motherhood). Vox Day’s superheroes talk to each other about what is right, which is the mechanism of priestly cooperation in a priesthood that is actually functional, rather than dysfunctional.

            We are merely a commentariat, for the time for action is not yet, but the values of the Royal Society and the Sceptical Chymist are essential to keep us in contact with reality. Reliance on highly derived sources, as Wikipedia does, is not merely unwise, but evil.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              Yes, the implication is definitely not against the premise of stories involving folk with fantastic abilities altogether, rather, that there exist today too many of such stories which present worlds that can only exist in a pozzed frame of mind.

              The presentation of worlds where, if someone has power, they either, don’t take advantage of it, or, if they do, it is for nefarious purposes; those who would fain to place a mantle of superior holiness on that which is weakest, or that which acts in ways that render them functionally equivalent to the weakest – except for when it comes to cutting down anyone who starts appearing too potent.

        • Gestahlt says:

          >The broader point is that people with superhuman abilities in reality *wouldn’t* be loners
          That doesn’t hold up against the anthropological data, except in one very special and important case. Shamans and smiths, along with their primitive counterpart the witch-doctor, are always isolated members of a community, even when socially integrated. Witches, in the most extended sense of the term (heterodox female mystic aka vaginalist) tend toward social margins as well. The exception is of course the Divine Emperor or King, or in classic Roman terms, he who is Felix, favored. This supernature is not transient and participatory, like that of the Shaman or Witch, the former who moves through territories outside and the latter who allows external things to move through her, but a “passive” radiant process from him (and it is always he. The female equivalent is the sibyl) that signals his Participation.
          So in capes terms: Superman is solar, he is himself Revelatory of a reality. Batman is lunar, he himself has to BECOME to partake in revelation.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            I wasn’t banking on getting lost in the weeds when giving illustrations of the mindset im talking about there, but perhaps it was inevitable.

            How isolated is the brave stronger in arm than the other warriors of the tribe? The merchant keener of wit? The preacher smoother of tongue? The captain greater in vision?

            Idealized forms one may arrive at by way of analogy from this or that figure are not the same thing as the actual examples as instantiated that i am talking about, the ways that they are used, the ways the writer implies one ought to follow, that i am talking about.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        Just to refrain, a hardbroiled loner working against a corrupt city machine makes sense in the context of things like detective stories; well, they killed the noir genera pretty quickly after the second war of internationalist aggression; stories like that threatened to too accurately depict the way of things.

  14. The Cominator says:

    The Cathedral is STILL clearly quite angry at Zuckerberg, they obviously don’t like the fact that he won’t ban people who say the election was fake (even if they won’t allow full promotion of it) or that covid is fake.

    The Sheboon NY AG is now suing facebook.

    • Pooch says:

      Why is Zuckerface even pretending to be neutral? He paid off tons of Dem operatives to fraud the election for Biden. He clearly is a raging leftist, so why doesn’t he just cave to everything they ask for? Never understood that.

      • The Cominator says:

        I don’t think hes a lefitst, hes greedy but otherwise naturally apolitical. Being apolitical at this point means he actively hates our enemies.

        Zuck is IMHO operating entirely under coercion. Including the payoffs… he was probably told the payoffs would make this and whatever else they have planned for him would go away… but our enemies have no honor and even if an individual member of them does the hydra of many heads is not agreement capable.

      • BC says:

        Zuckbot is a capitalist. Like most capitalists he gives in to state power, but he’s hedging his bets both ways since the center of state power may quickly shift.

      • Javier says:

        Globalist Inc well aware that Google, Twitter, FB can manipulate elections via algorithms and censorship alone, well before votes are even cast. They aren’t foolish enough to think such power will never be deployed against them should Zuck and crew else decide better fortunes lie elsewhere.

        This may be the 2020 version of “sending the revolutionaries to Siberia.”

  15. Pooch says:

    Interesting opinion article calling for Insurrection Act on the Epoch Times…

    His idea is for Trump to call it and use the military to seize and audit all ballots in the disputed cities which likely shows a Trump win. Not sure if that would work instead of just shooting people, but it’s a good sign we are seeing articles like this calling for Insurrection Act now.

    • BC says:

      Normie Conservative comment sections that are not currently overrun by paid shills shows almost universal support for a “GO” order from Trump. People are just waiting for the command.

      Everyone knows this election was rigged and that the way forward isn’t going to be peaceful.

      • Pooch says:

        Yes this is the unanimous consensus in the comments for this article. A few are saying let’s wait and see what happens with the Texas SCOTUS case first, but if that fails then it’s go time.

    • European Mutt says:

      What is the deal with Epoch Times? They are pretty solidly rightist (or have been since 2015 when I first became aware of them) but can still display Google ads and nobody really criticizes them. A case of it being too rightist so it goes over leftists’ heads?

      Even if Falun Gong is a religion that makes for great cohesion (I have no idea) their English-language writers are probably Christians or atheists.

      • jim says:

        Falun Gong is a Chinese religion with many western followers. It has great internal cohesion.

        Epoch Times is the voice of that religion, as the New York times is the voice of prog. If there are are Christians or atheists on the staff, their bosses are Falun Gong.

        Falun Gong have sufficient internal discipline to not suffer from the holiness spiral of prog. There is a significant chance that when the $#!% falls down, they will come out on top, though it would be better if a Christian sect with similar internal cohesion and discipline came out on top.

        Someone is going to come out on top. Leftism is going to be stopped eventually, if only by driving the bus at one hundred miles an hour over a ravine, and hitting the bottom of the ravine. The trouble is that it may take a very long time for someone to come out on top. Christianity never got deep roots in Roman Britain, and they suffered centuries of chaos before Alfred the Great put things together.

        • The Cominator says:

          “Christianity never got deep roots in Roman Britain”

          Kind of ironic since Constantine conquered the empire by raising the legions of Britain in revolt.

          • jim says:

            Possibly Christian troops kept getting pulled out to reconquer the empire. Our last fragmentary records as the dark age descends tell of, then hint of, would be emperor after would be emperor coming out of Britain, and then not coming back. Our knowledge of the last days of Roman Britain are legend rather than history.

            • The Cominator says:

              Britain also had a more turbulent dark age than most places militarily. The Saxons decided that Britain was a good permanent refuge away from both their fellow Germanic tribes in the far north (with better land) and any Eastern Horse Nomads who might attack them if they moved further South.

              But when they took over Britain they unusually decided not to rule over the natives as a herrenvolk and take the women (or a certain %) as slaves so much as that they wanted to keep their own superior warrior bloodlines pure and not mix with them. So the natives were told to go to Wales or Scotland or die.

        • European Mutt says:

          Looks like you’re right. When I look at photos of Falun Gong practitioners what strikes me most is how normie they look, especially the whites. That is a sign of a religion that is alive and well.

  16. Someone says:

    So youtube is upping the ante, Leftie wankstains are not giving up yet.

    I wonder if any legal channels that support trump who merely present the cases of texas et al, will get removed. I mean presenting a case might be a violation of this.

  17. Ogopogo says:

    I feel horrible and nervous about this situation. I’ve found my christian faith again and I’m praying every day that Trump’s team wins this. I don’t know what I’ll do if the election theft goes unpunished and the corpse is inaugurated. Maybe I’ll leave the country, but doing that would severely impact my career. This business is making it tough for me to focus on my final exams.

    A ton of people I know on Twitter got banned today for electionposting. I’m excited for the Texas lawsuit. Maybe these are good signs. Maybe in anticipation of needing to cope with the fraud going unpunished, I’ve been glued to old moldbug. Does anybody remember what year it was when Yarvin got doxxed? I’d like to see how his writing changes that year.

    • ~loclun-midwyt says:

      Im not 100%, but I think he kind of selfdoxxed. He linked another post from his “friend” discussing his new computer language (something Urbit related, Nock maybe). It then became more and more obvious that they were the same person.

    • Publius says:

      I would not despair. What has been set in motion cannot be stopped. The day to day minutae of the news affects only the timing of what is to come, and even then not by all that much. We would of course prefer Trump to prevail. But regardless, we will see open war against the cathedral within our lifetimes. You will wake up to the sound of distant artillery fire and the scent of downtown burning. Heads will be put on spikes in public just like in the old days. There will be screaming, and seiges, and blood. God will call on you to help restore your nation, and you will accept God’s call. It will be righteous and glorious. A cathedral victory in 2020 will not and cannot stop these events. The elite become more corrupt, more holy, more numerous, and more deranged every year. The rate at which they do so increases geometrically. This process cannot continue much longer. Something will break soon with or without Trump in power, and when that break comes, we will restore the order of God and nature, serenaded by the sounds of cruise missile launches and helicopter turbine engines spinning up. It will be very physical and will happen in our lifetimes.

    • Pooch says:

      Faith in god. Trust his plan.

  18. I think there is a huge gulf between Western politics (and US politics in particular) and politics at home.

    In India, a Trump-like figure being backstabbed by his party would have led to Trump splitting the party and taking a whole bunch of loyalists to form a separate party based on his own unquestioned leadership and leaving the traitors leaderless and discredited. This happens so often that almost every state in India has a party that was formed by dissenting leaders in the Congress party which was the uniparty of India after independence.

    I think this is where Western countries differ. Your politics seem oriented around Priestly ruled political parties where individual leaders are severely restricted in power by the priests whereas in our parts, political parties are headed by dictatorial leaders who impose their unconditional leadership on the party and will not tolerate internal dissent.

    I think this is why our politics has not fallen prey to holiness spirals, because any time an Indian political leader is threatened by a holiness spiral, he either throws out the dissenters from the party or if they are too strong, takes away his loyalists and forms a new party which owes allegiance to his own leadership.

    Note how many times the Congress party in India has been split by dissenting leaders and even the Dynasty itself (Indira Gandhi).

    The question is, is it possible for Trump to form a “Trumpist” party based on his own image and win an election? Or is the priestly elite of the US too powerful to allow this?

    • BC says:

      With massively rigged elections and the FBI ready to jump on any non Democrat who tries to rig them, there’s no point of forming a Trumpist party.

    • onyomi says:

      Though America has had many charismatic presidents (and many more uncharismatic presidents), cult of personality seems comparatively inimical to our cultural DNA. Even charismatic leader figures like Reagan and FDR end up sublimating themselves, to a degree, to a political party, even if they end up transcending or remaking that party to a degree.

      Trump is definitely a leader with a degree of cult of personality and also an awkward fit for the Republican party as it exists today. One can blame first-past-the-post, no ranked order voting, Duverger’s law, lack of a coalition system, etc. but whatever the reason, systemic, cultural, or historical, it seems historically much harder (at least since the Civil War) to break off and form a whole new entity in US politics as compared to remaking an existing entity from the inside. Maybe this is symptomatic of a bigger civilizational decay/malaise, whereby dominant entities/industry players, etc. keep gobbling up enough of whatever vitality new competitors offer without ever thoroughly reforming themselves, top to bottom (Silicon Valley giants that stop innovating but manage to remain profitable by acquiring innovative startups, for example).

      Though America is a relatively “new” country, the Democratic Party of the United States, I’ve heard it claimed, is the oldest existing political organization in the world. Of course, the Democratic Party of today bears little resemblance to that of Andrew Jackson, but the fact that it’s even nominally the same entity may say something about antifragility of US political institutions, for better or worse.

      As a (somewhat reformed) libertarian, my instinct is to distrust “strong man”-type figures (Putin, Bolsonaro), but honestly it seems today like they are the only ones posing any real threat to a much more sinister cabal of global elites working more in the shadows. This is probably related to the shift Jim describes whereby nationalism (and with it, presumably, “national greatness” charismatic leaders like Lincoln?) ceased to be leftist sometime around WWI.

      Lincoln’s charismatic leadership was bad because it ruined the regional character and self-determination of US states in favor of a unified US identity. Trump (and Putin and Bolsonaro and Duterte’s) charismatic populist nationalism is good because it fights against the forces trying to force the US and all developed countries to give up all their regional character, exclusivity, and distinctive wealth and culture in favor of the globohomo utopia.

      • A Honest Indian says:

        I think “cultural DNA” is right. In the “Orient”, strong leaders have always been worshipped and idolized while ideologies have traditionally subordinated to leadership, though it’s always been a struggle. While one-man rule leads to other problems, the problem of priestly rule and holiness spirals is relatively absent in our political setup.

        Reading Indian history from this angle I find it fascinating how strong leaders have always nipped holiness spirals in the bud. Indira Gandhi is a prime example. Ironically the Nehru Dynastic leadership of the Congress party has probably kept the Congress from spiralling leftwards at ever increasing speed.

        • suones says:

          Ironically the Nehru Dynastic leadership of the Congress party has probably kept the Congress from spiralling leftwards at ever increasing speed.

          Dynastic politics is the only thing where I unironically support the Congress way of doing things, and vehemently oppose the RSS/BJP way, where to reach the top one has to be childless/family-less, to “prevent” dynastic politics from arising.

          The majority of Congress party’s problems arise from the current dynast’s ineptitude, rather than some inherent problem. Indira Gandhi’s Congress remains widely respected even among nominally opposition figures.

          • A Honest Indian says:

            I was thinking the same thing. The BJP’s criticism of Dynasty politics is an imitation of the Progressivist media’s criticism of Congress from the left but more from a wrong sense of “duty” to the nation which is a leftover from the older Jana Sangh politics wherein the sacrifice of independence fighters was still fresh in memory. Which I don’t think will serve BJP well in the long run, because Dynastic politics is not the enemy. They’re just beating a dead horse at this point.

            Though we may oppose *this* particular Nehru Dynasty as they are on the wrong side of history, we definitely want a restoration of a Dynasty of the Right.

        • Bilge_Pump says:

          “Ironically the Nehru Dynastic leadership of the Congress party has probably kept the Congress from spiralling leftwards at ever increasing speed.”

          This is kind of surprising to me. I’ve heard a lot of talk about how feminist laws and female empowerment memes are worse in India than they are in the US.

          • The Cominator says:

            I’ve heard India is sort of like a pefectly corrupt anarcho tyranny with no real law (I mean the US increasingly doesn’t have real law either). The laws such as they are are byzantine incomprehensible and insane and everyone in the government can and expects to be bribed.

            • Bilge_Pump says:

              I remember seeing a YouTube vid a while ago about how difficult it is to start a business in India compared to the US (can’t find it on YouTube because it has changed so much in the last 10 years). They were trying to start a business selling toys and kick-knacks, took them several years in India and they had to deal with tons of red tape and bs.

          • Bilge_Pump says:

   Channel called MGTOW Indian. Full disclosure I’m not MGTOW, used to be, but have decided that getting laid is more fun than choosing not to get laid. MGTOW are great at finding problems with women, but their ideology is individualism, which I disagree with on a fundamental level.

      • suones says:

        Though America has had many charismatic presidents (and many more uncharismatic presidents), cult of personality seems comparatively inimical to our cultural DNA.

        200 years do not a people make.

        There is no such thing as “cultural DNA.” Just that USA was created by people who were traitors to their King, and the sort of people who would attack an enemy Christian Army in the middle of the night on Christmas Eve, and the sort of people who would celebrate this act of brazen cowardice as bravery. This backstabbing continued throughout history, with their Libyan ally (“shores of Tripoli” fame), and the latest being Mujahideen, where America can’t seem to decide whether they are friends or enemies (former Caliph al Baghdadi was an “austere scholar” per NYT).

        The fruits of treason are many, but they are all evil. Since they metaphorically kiled their King, they’re haunted by the spectre of a King arising naturally, and expend continuous, and more and more ridiculous, effort into preventing that from happening. In this way, they’re very like Republican Rome, where the elites feared and hated The Return of The King, and in fact Julius Caesar got murdered for fear of becoming a “King.”

        A similar conundrum faced Russian Whites. Who could claim to stand for what was right, when they all had been complicit in betraying the Czar?

        Every single nation the “Americans” come from has a bona-fide monarchy of long standing, and it is only in “America” that this King-less experiment has been tried for two centuries, with the resulting global plague of progressivism. You might say that the actual DNA, so far as it influences politics, is monarchical but their cultural milieu forces them to deny it.

        Sanity can return only when Americans get over their betrayal of their King, and install a new King of their own.

        • someDude says:

          In war, winning is everything, closely followed by grabbing all the land and the women, not necessarily in that order. If attacking an enemy christian army on Christmas Eve gives us victory, so be it. What has bravery and cowardice got to do with it? It is this confusion of ideas that causes idolators to lose every single time.

          Jo jeeta wahi Sikandar, (He who wins, that’s the one and only Alexander)
          Jo haara woh bandar (He who loses, that’s the monkey. It rhymes in Hindi)

          Which army would you join If you want to win? George Washington’s or PrithviRaj Chauhan’s? Don’t know about you, but I’d pick Jorge over Prithvi every single time. I like winning, see?

          Come of out this sentimental mush, idolator! As if polytheism wasn’t enough of a handicap, you want to add sentimentality to it as well.

          • suones says:

            In war, winning is everything, closely followed by grabbing all the land and the women, not necessarily in that order. If attacking an enemy christian army on Christmas Eve gives us victory, so be it. What has bravery and cowardice got to do with it? It is this confusion of ideas that causes idolators to lose every single time.

            Well said! This is literally Islamic fighting doctrine. A Muslim army knows no “Peace,” only “sulh,” a cessation of hostility until better circumstances prevail. Europeans misinterpret this as them being “agreement incapable” or some such. They only know total victory, and have not yet faced total defeat in 1500 years.

            The irony in attacking a Christian army on Christmas eve was only that the attackers themselves claimed to be Chrestians, and their successors continue that tradition.

            That said, we will try to not repeat the mistakes of Nero and Prithviraj Chauhan. The final only solution is in fact to Cominate them all. If we don’t get gulaged first, that is 🙂

            • someDude says:

              I see that you are also an admirer of the Cominator. Even though that man makes me nervous, I can’t help admiring the clarity and decisiveness he brings to his thinking. Cominate is hereby declared added to the reactionary dictionary like Jim-ism.

              What PrithviRaj did is not a mistake. Reminds me of this Englishman

              The difference between the Indian and English is this. While Indians in their maudlin sentimentality still see PrithVi as an honourable man, the English correctly accuse Byrhtnoth of the sin of pride and hubris. Contrast the clarity of the Anglo-Saxon with the confusion exhibited by the Sons of Bharata? If Prithvi wanted to exhibit compassion, he could have freed all the outcastes or elevated their condition however slightly.

              Between the Anglos saxons and the Bharatas, who ended up conquering whom?

              If it guarantees victory, you should attack the enemy when he leasts expects it. If that means attacking on Ramadan, so be it. If it means attacking on Diwali, so be it. If it means temporarily or deceptively claiming to be a monotheist/atheist/polytheist/deist/trinitarian/whatever, so be it. You can always revert after victory. After victory, who dares contradict you? Their is no honour in defeat. None! Who will survive to tell your tale of courage if you lose?

              The Polytheists need a cult of victory at any cost.

    • Karl says:

      A holiness spiral is a society wide problem rather than a party problem. A holiness spiral is something like a carrot and stick thing. In the US, the leading edge of the holiness is democrats chasing the carrot, the trailing edge is republicans fearing the stick.

      If you say that India is at present less affected by a holiness spiral, I’ll take your word for it, but I assume that the reason has more to do with lack of a common religion. A Muslim who tries to more be holy than other Muslims won’t impress a Hindu – and vice versa.

      Once a holiness spiral gets going within any of the religions in India, you’ll get get civil war very quickly because going after the insufficiently holy is a sure way to score holiness points.

      • A Honest Indian says:

        I think it’s a bit more fundamental than that. For instance, among friends or family it’s common to discuss unironically about politics by saying that we need a dictator to get rid of all our problems. Indeed, the idea of a strong leader taking control of our country pervades our social consciousness that the idea is casually discussed. I don’t know if political conversations in the US among normies tend to that level of cynicism or not.

        Apart from that, the reason why I think holiness spirals don’t work here is that, the bureaucracy or “permanent Government” in India is too corrupt and too submissive of the in-power political masters (Indira Gandhi’s “committed bureaucracy” really did submit the bureaucracy strongly to the political dispensation and she almost managed to submit the judiciary also) so the official state religion seems to change with every change in Government and even the official state religion tends towards the personality of the leader rather than the pure ideology.

        In India, bureaucrats who don’t listen to political diktats tend to get “transferred” out of their posts to less important or trivial posts. “Punishment transfers” as so common in India, that it’s almost become a joke. The uncompliant diplomats keep getting shunted out of sensitive posts, and the ones who get to the top are usually political appointees, of the party who is in power at that moment.

        Leaders who tend to be loony either leave mainstream parties and form some other party which quickly becomes irrelevant.

        For example, what we have today in India is Moditva, not Hindutva, though Modi officially is a BJP leader. But no BJP leader can even think of criticizing Modi at least in public, unless he himself has plans of leaving the party or getting expelled.

        • someDude says:

          Heh! Looks like Trump could use some of that Moditva thing. But I guess with Modi prematurely congratulating Biden before the legal question got settled puts paid to friendly collaboration leading to a free and fair exchange of ideas in the future, eh what?

    • Not Tom says:

      You’re imagining that this is culural or emotional in nature when it is actually structural.

      America is the political, economic and formerly industrial center of a large empire. In the provinces, including anywhere in Europe and yes, also India to a large extent, political parties are just political parties. There isn’t that much power to fight over, just taxes and law enforcement and maybe some industry. That’s not the case in America; political parties here are proxies, not for blocs of voters but for national and international interests.

      Surely you’ve read up on the “bluegov” and “redgov” metaphors by now. Democrats are the party of government, they represent the State department, the Intelligence Community, the academy, the media (both “news” and entertainment), the banks, and everything else normally referred to as “soft power”, though there is nothing particularly soft about its administration. In other words, the party is the public face of the Cathedral. Republicans, in turn, and notwithstanding increasingly frequent and successful entryism by the Cathedral, are the party of the military-industrial complex, including the treasury, the military itself, private contractors, corporations and multinationals, industrialized agriculture, resource exploitation, and everything else normally referred to as “hard power”, which does not just mean fighting wars but also economic supremacy, US dollar as reserve currency, etc.

      This should tell you two things. First, why the party can’t simply be split, because the party is just a façade, and it would be like cutting the top slice of bread in half and claiming you have a second loaf. And second, why the Republican party is so obviously out of power, because half of what it is supposed to control has been partially or entirely co-opted by the Cathedral.

      And if something formerly controlled by “redgov” now belongs to “bluegov”, splitting from “redgov” to create a new “Trumpgov” isn’t going to get it back. It either has to be taken back by force, or eliminated and rebuilt, and both of those are going to be much easier to do under the umbrella of the entire faction, not some silly new political party.

      • A Honest Indian says:

        Does the POTUS have legal powers to shift personnel in sensitive positions in the bureaucracy to carry out his bidding? Because if he does not, it seems that it’s a mighty weak post. Before reading NRx and being familiarized with this concept of Cathedral, I actually used to think that the US President was the most powerful head of Government in the world.

        • BaboonTycoon says:

          The office of the President is referred to as the “Executive” branch, and its role has traditionally coincided with that appellation. Presidents are normally concerned with enforcement of policy passed by the legislature and have quite limited ability to enact policy of their own.

          The president is the one who gets to appoint most unelected members of the government apparatus and has various departments that answer to him, referred to as his “cabinet.” His appointees, however, have to be confirmed by the legislature before they can take office. The process of seating Trump’s appointees to like half a year after he took office to complete because of how much resistance and stalling there was from Congress, and when they were seated, many of them ended up stabbing Trump and America in the back anyway. Three of the nine justices currently on the United States Supreme Court were appointed by Trump, and whether or not Trump remains in office under the present system rests on whether two of them will take his side (the third, Brett Kavanaugh, has been dogmatic in making rulings based advancing the nationalist agenda and is unlikely to defect; I’ve never heard of a bad ruling from him).

          The president has almost total legal authority over certain other matters, such as immigration and the deployment of military forces, however even with these the legislature has the ability to challenge him, such as a bill that passed just yesterday which prevented Trump from appropriating funds to withdraw US forces from Syria

          • Not Tom says:

            This is roughly accurate from a constitutional point of view, but even the constitution doesn’t matter anymore.

            Since the late 19th century, the President has been extremely limited in his ability to hire and fire personnel. And since FDR, the entire political pipeline is largely owned and operated by the left. The power that the President has in reality is even less than the power he has on paper, which isn’t much.

            And yet, the President is the commander in chief of the military, so can essentially enforce any arbitrary command he wants, even through entirely legal means like the Insurrection Act. The question is whether or not his personnel will obey his orders. All of the paper in the world doesn’t change the fundamental law of power: “You and what army?”

            The Military-Industrial Complex still has power, but is considerably weaker than the Cathedral. Still, it’s a lot more powerful than a bunch of newfag politicians with no army.

    • Javier says:

      In America we don’t often splinter, instead we re-align.

      It was very likely that Trump was going to realign the Republicans into an explicitly nationalist party, as is already under way. This would solidify the working-class base as well as numerous disaffected democrats who are getting red pilled and angry. The Democrats would fracture and bleed off into multiple sub-parties like the greens, libertarians, and socialists, with eventually the socialists gaining full control.

      However the uniparty clearly had more ammo left in the magazine. With the Biden fix they have plugged the socialist leak temporarily and stopped the hemorrhaging of normie votes, at least in the public eye if not reality. Notice Biden has also co-opted several Trump talking points such as America First, even though no one actually believes he will go through with them. Meanwhile the republicans are playing their old shell game of backstabbing voters on one hand and saying “vote for us or you’ll get socialism!” on the other.

      The next step will be to start a war, big enough to draw public attention away from worsening chaos and unrest, but hopefully not big enough to matter too much geopolitically. It’s the most reliable way to get Republicans behind a left agenda. “Support our troops!” becomes the mind-fogging rallying cry that prevents any real disagreement from occurring.

      Trump could form a loyalist sub-party and go to local city and state elections to start winning seats, just like the Tea Party did, but the Republicans are good at co-opting such uprisings. They will all change their spots to insist they agree with Trump just long enough to fend off the challengers then go back to sucking the globalist dick. Trump also lacks the discipline for that kind of slow 10-20+ year plan, though he could pass on something like that to his sons.

      None of that is going to matter though if the left imprisons and executes Trump. Plus the left has no way to stop Antifa/BLM or the worsening crime situation in every single city (disbanding police means ceding control of urban areas to local warlords and red guards), the covid scam bankrupting everyone and leading to a guaranteed recession in two years.

      Revolution is coming, one way or another.

      • I get that at present it may be too late for any new political party solution. But was wondering what was it about the US that you could not have more than two major national parties vying for power and also why there are no strong regional/state parties (if at all) representing regional interests.

        • BaboonTycoon says:

          There’s no real legal reason why the United States runs on a two-party system and indeed there are many minor parties that have attempted to break into the mainstream and failed (though a few have had minor success in taking state level positions at times; there’s even been third party governors here and there). A lot of it simply comes down to the mass media refusing to give them any coverage, but nonetheless, that doesn’t mean third parties have no influence. It has often been said, for example, that Al Gore lost the 2000 presidential election because of a few thousand leftists in Florida that decided to vote for the Green party instead of the Democrats. This year, Democrats mounted fierce legal challenges to the Green Party and forced them off the ballot in several states to prevent a repeat of this situation (and a similar thing happened with the Kanye West bid, which would also have been bad for them). Previously, they’ve used softer methods to prevent this from happening, such as adopting some of the Green Party platform to dissuade the radicals from needing to feel like they should vote against the Democrats. The Republican Party has faced similar challenges from the Libertarian Party and to a smaller extent the Constitution Party and has often adopted positions of the former.

        • The Cominator says:

          You can only have two real parties in a winner take all election system. The problem with the GOP is that since William F Buckley its been mostly a fake and gay opposition to the Democrats.

          Trump and Newt Gingrich have been the only exceptions.

        • European Mutt says:

          This is a feature of Harvard style democracy in general. Parties are pure grift there, not much relation to actual policy. India seems to have a somewhat different system though I don’t know how it came about exactly.

          In most American empire countries parties are eligible for government funding, but only if they are over a certain threshold in a federal election. This discourages small and regional parties. It’s not uncommon for mayors etc. to be unaffiliated, but regional politicians and above are almost always in a party.

          This leads to all of them being rather big tent organizations focused most on winning elections, and as a result the leadership generally lacks control. For example the greens in Germany are generally the party of extreme zealous progressivism but they have Boris Palmer who runs a sort of anti-sanctuary city (no rapefugees policy) in the more conservative south and is at least against some covid restrictions, so well to the right of Merkel who is technically in a conservative party.

          In the US additionally parties are funded by campaign finance and Democrats stay big because donations to them amount to a protection racket. Jim has talked about this. Trump donated to the Democrats for years so they would leave him alone. To fight Democrats in a winner take all system, Republicans can’t risk splitting their own party.

          • A Honest Indian says:

            Historically India was never part of the American empire, which may explain a lot of things. India, though technically non-aligned in the cold war era, was more or less in the Soviet sphere of influence.

            Though Indian democracy wears the skinsuit of western democracy, the roots are not Harvard.

            If you are interested, the Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi is a great way to understand how India’s “democracy” evolved post independence.


            Of course, the wikipedia article contains the usual Prog narrative, but substantially you can read between the lines and understand that Indian politics has revolved around cult of personality and how the bureaucracy is completely subservient to the political masters in power at any given time.

            In India, political parties/alignments are formed around the personalities of leaders, caste, regional/ethnic identities and religion. But mostly the cult of personality remains the biggest difference between Western democracy and India.

            In India, after the decline of the Congress party, even though we have a winner takes all system, this has kind of leaned more towards small regional outfits with powerful leaders who want to control National politics through alliances, either with the major national parties, or by forming a “Third Front” with the Communists and other regional parties. From the Congress’ decline until the big BJP win in 2014, this has led to governments formed by coalition of parties, rather than a single largest party.

            • BC says:

              If India’s isn’t an American Client state, why did the not to long ago abolish Patriarchy? That smacks of Harvard.

              • I was talking history. After the fall of the Soviet and the end of the Cold War, the Harvard influence has substantially increased in Indian politics, though not to the extent of Western democracies.

                Prog ideology is in infancy at present in India. At present, India still runs strongly on the unprincipled exceptions. And among the common folk (not the English speaking city elites) prog ideology has not penetrated.

              • A Honest Indian says:

                The English media in India is substantially ahead of the curve in terms of imposing prog ideology. But English is still the language of elites in India. Large sections of Indian people are not English speaking. The regional language media of the masses still does not speak much prog language as the English media.

                Over the years, the Cathedral has been buying up media houses in India. But it is clear that with the Democrats in power in US, the Harvard machinery will be increasing their influence unchecked with renewed vigour.

                • BC says:

                  The Indian elites becoming POZed is bad news for India far more so than the average person becoming POZed. Once your elite goes bad it’s nothing but civilizational destruction on a massive scale.

                • A Honest Indian says:

                  Hmm.. if your analysis true, Modi would not have won two elections by appealing to the proles. And the Congress, which has the most “pozzed” elites, has been destroyed in numerous elections in recent times barring one or two exceptions.

                  In India, there is still a substantial gap between the political “elite” and the “educated” elites.

                  And the political elites mostly win elections without any support from the educated elites. It seems that there is a different dynamic working here than in the West.

                  In the longer term, you may be right. Maybe if the US empire shrinks considerably after this 2020 election and if the predicted civil war comes to pass, this problem of Harvard dominance world over may solve itself.

                • BC says:

                  I think you’re already in trouble if Modi has no family and children. That’s a bad example to set. It’s generally the failure of elite reproduction that dooms a civilization or a failure of having a virtuous elite. One of the strongest signs of virtue in a man is a having family with many obedient children.

                  The first law of Gnon is:”And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.” and Modi appears to be failing that law.

                  Disclaimer: I don’t know anything about Indian politics.

                • A Honest Indian says:

                  This is true. Modi needs some succession plan. He cannot stay forever.

                  The problem with the old Hindutva was they believed that to “serve the nation” they needed to be free of family worries. This was mostly derived from the Indian Independence movement, where sacrifice of personal life for the freedom of the nation was seen as the highest virtue.

                  Modi comes from that old Jana Sangh/RSS tradition. They are staunch old-school Nationalists, but sadly unequipped for handling the onslaught of the “New Left”.

                  The Old Left was cleaned up by Moditva politics, but the New Left which is still in infancy needs a stronger challenge which cannot be dealt with by the old-style.

                  The elite fertility problem is the biggest issue in India today.

                • BaboonTycoon says:

                  We have our Trump just as you have your Modi. And though the federal government is full of rats, it still has many people who support Trump and his agenda (though sadly not anywhere near as many as it needs). Elections are not the issue unless one happens to live in a country like Canada or the UK (even Sweden’s parties are better, despite the memes). Of course, it’s bad if they win elections, but do not expect the progressive agenda to pursue only one avenue of attack. They will infect every part of your society. Literally everything.

                  As an example, we have, in the United States, a large population of Mennonites and Amish. These people are basically what you get when you combine anarcho-primitivists with fundamentalist Protestantism. They are against the use of modern technology and believe it leads to sin. I went to a web page once searching for more info on these people and lo and behold, there is an organization with a mission statement to “fight racism” and “make amends for the sins of race.” Mennonites and Amish are, of course, almost entirely white.

                  It’s not going to stay confined to those English speaking channels for long.

                • someDude says:

                  @BC @A Honest Indian

                  India has been Cathedral client ever since a certain frail, bald, bespectacled half naked fakir with a penchant for fasting appeared on the scene and managed to masterfully convince Hindus that “Hinduism, correctly interpreted, is really western Progressivism.” Of course, at the time that The Great Bald Faster appeared on the scene, Cathedral HQ was Oxbridge rather than Harvard.

                  Fast forward to 2020, where women are joining the Indian Army on droves and Netflix is churning documentary after documentary about these Brave Amazons and the travails they face and overcome in the sexist, misogynistic, patriarchal culture of the Armed forces. For the first time in memory the Armed forces are being portrayed in a negative light in any Indian media. Earlier they used to be untouchable and off limits to media criticism the way their Judiciary is even now.

                  How is this not Classic western progressivism? How is India not a Prog Client state? A Honest Indian is just deluded like the rest of his countrymen. He just happens to be more articulate than the rest of them.

                  At the moment, their entry into infantry positions is blocked by the fact the Rural Hindus who make up the bulk of the enlisted men will NOT take orders from a woman whatever Her rank. But I expect this to change within a generation. Soon Pakistan’s ISI will be flooded with mujaheddin recruits salivating at the prospect of snatching Hindu Pussy right from the frontline.

                • A Honest Indian says:


                  I dispute your claim about Gandhi’s influence on Hindus culturally. His stock fell low when his appeals for peace during the Partition fell on deaf ears. Indian Hindus may have idolized Gandhi as a freedom fighter but I doubt whether his cultural ideology actually perpetrated to the extent you claim. The assault on Hinduism was more Marxism than progressivism at that time.

                  The actual Western progressive influence is more recent though.

              • @someDude,

                The myth that Gandhi was universally loved by Indians especially Hindus is as much a myth created by the British as his supposed influence on Hindu culture to the extent that Hindus accepted “Western progressivism” as the same as Hinduism.

                To be sure, the fakir had some influence on the political sphere at the time, but his constant assault on Hindu orthodoxy earned him enough disgust and distrust among traditional Hindus at the time of independence (and there were still a lot of traditional Hindus those days). I have no doubt that the few Hindus who actually believed in “Gandhianism” was a very small, uninfluential minority.

                All of those people got absorbed into the Socialist-Marxist axis of “intellectual thinkers”, who attacked Hinduism from a different perspective. To be sure, I’m not claiming that Hindus were not assaulted on all directions even in those days – they were. The Jana Sangh/RSS politics was clearly a reaction against the old Left. But to state that the main influence on that was Harvard/Western Progressivism from the 1950s to around the 1980s-90s is incorrect.

                There is a clear distinction between the intellectual framework from which the old Socialist-Marxists worked and the framework of the modern Progressives.

                • A Honest Indian says:


                  In any case, I find your interpretation of Indian history very weird and quite blackpilling. You attribute some kind of universal “mind rays” to Harvard/Oxbridge at an era without the advantages of mass communication to an extent that exists in the world today, and without looking at the causes nearer and more immediate that existed at the time.

                  There is no straight or direct causal line between the Gandhianism that supposedly “progressivised” Hindus as you (falsely) claim and the fact that Indian women are being recruited in the army in 2020. That Indian women are being recruited in 2020 in the army is 100% Harvard but that particular influence is more recent than you suggest.

                  This is probably going too off-topic for this blog so this will be my final post on this particular subject. Out of deference to our host, I will stop this discussion on Indian politics here.

                • jim says:

                  > I find your interpretation of Indian history very weird and quite blackpilling. You attribute some kind of universal “mind rays” to Harvard/Oxbridge

                  Ghandi was Harvard mind rays. Indian Marxist economics was not Soviet, it was Oxbridge transmitted through the London School of Economics. Ho Chi Minh spent his formative years in Moscow as part of the Soviet mind control apparatus, but the people who screwed up the Indian economy came from Oxbridge and the London School of Economics.

                  Ho Chi Minh was Moscow mind rays – he came out of Moscow. But Indian socialism was Oxbridge mind rays. The Indian socialists came out of Oxbridge and the London School of Economics, which is part of Oxbridge, not Moscow. Mind rays are transmitted primarily through universities.

                  Oxbridge was an independent power within the left before world war II, independently descended from Cromwell’s puritants, descended from the priests that failed to leave England after Charles the Second’s purge, a puppet of Harvard after World War II, a puppet of the faction expelled from England by Charles the Second.

                  The London School of Economics regarded the Soviets as their proxy. And so did their agents of influence in India.

                  Indian socialism was not Moscow socialism. It was London School of Economics socialism. India was not Soviet aligned. It was London School of Economics aligned.

                • someDude says:

                  @Honest Indian

                  In India, Power has to bend to Gandhi, or at least pretend to, at least verbally. Every nominally Hindu politician from across the spectrum has to pay homage to his, even if it is lip service. Even Modi. What is the nature of this sort of power? It’s the same as even skeptical Christians being forced to proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord publicly in a Jim-ian Theocracy.

                  What matters is what Powerful people say and do, not the the hicks in the Cow Belt or the meek overtaxed middle class in cramped apartments in smoke filled cities. They never mattered, don’t matter and never will. Morally, As the King is, so his subjects will be. ‘Nuff said

                  It’s a straight line from Gandhi to Harvard, maybe with some intermediate steps. I’ve looked up Hindu history since the seventh century AD or so. It does not encourage optimism. If that does not cause black-pilling, I’m not sure what does. Your friend @Suones seems to have made it halfway to the Black pill.

                  I’m not saying you can’t win. Only that you most probably won’t. God knows how much I want you to win. You have to figure out something that works and figure it out fast. You haven’t figured it out in 1300 years and you’re showing no signs of being able to do so in the near future. And the near future is all you have left. Demographic decline and civilizational collapse is accelerating.

                • jim says:

                  > There is a clear distinction between the intellectual framework from which the old Socialist-Marxists worked and the framework of the modern Progressives.

                  There is a difference, but it does not matter.

                  The left has a hundred factions, and they continually conflict, which conflict frequently becomes lethal, but every leftist is the ally of every other leftist, because they all support each other in knocking over apple carts even as they fight over the apples rolling around.

                  It is the fighting over the apples lying around that drives the left ever leftwards. Once new applecarts are no longer being knocked over, leftism dies, as it died under Stalin and Cromwell.

                  The Soviets were a Harvard proxy to attack Harvard’s near enemies, or at least Harvard thought so. Vietnam was a proxy war between Red State and Blue State. The last people in the world to know that Soviet economics was a disaster were Academia and the mainstream media.

                  Indian Socialism-Marxism was primarily a tool of the London School of Economics, and the London School of Economics a tool of Harvard, not the Soviets. The Soviets may have thought the London School of Economics was their tool, but the London School of Economics thought the Soviets were their tool.

                  Communism derives from Judaism, and progressivism derives from Christianity, but Marxism did to Judaism what the leftmost faction of the Puritans, whom Cromwell suppressed, did to Christianity. They have much in common, and each engaged in massive entryism against the other. Mao and Ho Chi Minh won in Washington, not in Moscow. They were thoroughly defeated in China and IndoChina.

                  If you pay attention to the infighting, you are looking at the apples rolling around, and failing to look at the apple carts.

                • @jim, @someDude,

                  Even suppose it is true that India was a client by proxy of Harvard post independence, it does not explain the massive influence of the anti-Hindu but equally anti-Western Socialist-Marxists on Indian politics up until the 1990s.

                  Even today, there is a prominent South Indian political leader quite unironically named “Stalin”.

                  There are plenty of Indians who named their children “Lenin” and “Marx” in that era and some who do so even today.

                  The literal Communists were in power in a few states in India up until recently their power declined considerably.

                  Is it a coincidence that the “old Left’s” powers declined considerably post the Soviet collapse?

                  The theory that India was a proxy of Harvard doesn’t quite explain how is it that they allowed a literal Dynasty (which is the opposite of the Western ideal of “liberal democracy”) to rule India for nearly 50 years past independence.

                • jim says:

                  > The theory that India was a proxy of Harvard doesn’t quite explain how is it that they allowed a literal Dynasty (which is the opposite of the Western ideal of “liberal democracy”) to rule India for nearly 50 years past independence.

                  They liked the policies of that dynasty, which policies bear a clear and distinct “Made in Oxbridge” stamp. If the dynasty had pursued more authentically Indian policies, the outrage at the existence of a literal dynasty would have been unimaginably shrill.

            • European Mutt says:

              Thanks for the pointers. My impression is that Oxbridge, Harvard and the Soviets were always struggling over supremacy in India. This infighting resulted in a comparatively ‘unmanaged’ democracy. To an extent I think this mirrors what happened in the Weimar republic. If you impose democracy over a former non-democratic country and don’t control it from outside you should expect people to take it to its logical conclusion fast and turn it into what it is on paper–elected dictatorship in the name of the people or your own ethnic group.

              This does not happen in ‘mature’ democracies simply because in reality either the civil service rules there or they are ruled from outside, or both.

              • jim says:

                > Oxbridge, Harvard and the Soviets were always struggling over supremacy in India. This infighting resulted in a comparatively ‘unmanaged’ democracy.

                The left is always at war with the left.

                The result is not ‘unmanaged’ democracy.

                Before World War II, Oxbridge and Harvard were fighting over India. Oxbridge had the upper hand.

                After World War II, Oxbridge shut up and did as it was told, and ran India as a client of Harvard.

                Take a look at Indian socialism. It is not the socialism implemented by Moscow’s agent, Ho Chi Minh. It was the socialism of the London School of Economics. But socialism is always socialism, the differences do not matter. The economic outcome was similar, but there was a velvet glove around the iron fist.

                • European Mutt says:

                  I can see that in economic policy certainly. Permit Raj, British price controls and regulatory madness after WW2 and the current EU agrosocialism and regulatory thicket share the same LSE DNA and they are not exactly incompatible with Harvard but have a different focus.

                  I just realized when writing this reply that I have to agree with you. It’s pointless to discuss leftist infighting. It doesn’t matter to history or to the future.

                  Nevertheless, if you have an explanation for why Indian democracy tends to be rather more ‘raw’ than in the west I would be interested in hearing it. My theory obviously sucks.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The only authentically leftist faction that is truly truly different from the others enough to be worth discussing are the post 1937 Stalinists if only because they were sane and realistic in SOME areas and knew the informal purity spiraling hierarchy had to be replaced by an actual hierarchy.

                  Of course the modern left absolutely hates them and uses them as a scapegoat for the crimes of communism, even though the crimes of communism went DOWN after Stalin got into real absolute power.

                • A Honest Indian says:


                  Even suppose you are right that India was a client of Harvard by proxy and that there is no material difference in outcome between Soviet socialism and Harvard socialism, my point is that India hardly resembles a western liberal democracy as I explained earlier. As European Mutt says I would be interested in how that can be explained.

                  Certainly Nehru and Indira Dynasty was autocratic and Indira’s Emergency was more in the style of a Stalinist purge and takeover though it proved abortive. Surely Harvard wouldn’t have approved such “illiberal” politics.

                • jim says:

                  > Surely Harvard wouldn’t have approved such “illiberal” politics.

                  Harvard’s outrage at illiberal politics is strikingly selective.

                  Wikipedia is the voice of Harvard. Let us see what Harvard says about Nehru.

                  Surprise, surprise. Totally democratic.

                  It does mention, very briefly in passing, widespread atrocities during Indira Ghandi’s state of emergency, neglecting to tell us anything about those atrocities, but “In 1980, she returned to power after free and fair elections. … “In 1999, Indira Gandhi was named “Woman of the Millennium” in an online poll organised by the BBC.”

                  Her social reforms are described in absolutely glowing terms, and the disastrous economic policy is unmentionable.

                • A Honest Indian says:


                  If you say that Soviets themselves were a proxy of Harvard, then I would have to defer to your judgement, but certainly the styles of the two left factions differed considerably even if the net result, as you say, wasn’t a whole lot different.

                • jim says:

                  The Soviet Union was and was not a literal proxy. Both sides engaged in entryism each against the other, both sides manipulated the other.

                  But the Indochina war was or became a red state America versus blue state America proxy war.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Dont think jim thinks the Soviet Union was a client of Harvard especially post Stalin.

                • Pooch says:

                  Moldbug theory is that Soviet Communism was very much inspired by US leftism calling it as “American as apple pie”.

                • jim says:

                  And vice versa.

                • A Honest Indian says:

                  I forgot to add, Indira Gandhi’s prime motivating force was her first son, Sanjay Gandhi, who was the biggest factor in the Emergency and kind of a dynamic force behind Indira. After his death, she kind of became a shadow of her old self.

                  Her other son, Rajiv Gandhi was never a leader. He was more a playboy type who was pushed into politics and that’s what led to the Dynasty’s decline.

                  My feeling is that Oxbridge/Harvard, despite their overall approval of the policies of the Dynasty, were deeply uncomfortable with an Indira Gandhi style dictatorship. While today it is papered over by the Cathedral, a strong dictatorship, had it succeeded in India, would not have suited Oxbridge/Harvard at all particularly with India acquiring nuclear capability around the time.

                • jim says:

                  > My feeling is that Oxbridge/Harvard, despite their overall approval of the policies of the Dynasty, were deeply uncomfortable with an Indira Gandhi style dictatorship.

                  My feeling is that they did not give a tinker’s dam. I don’t recall the New York Times decrying her dictatorship, or any dictatorship that did their bidding.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Moldbug theory is that Soviet Communism was very much inspired by US leftism calling it as “American as apple pie”.

                  That’s incorrect. Moldbug said that lowercase-c “communism”, which he went to great lengths to distinguish from capital-C Soviet Communism, is as American as apple pie. In other words, that the mostly Puritan founders were accomplished apple-cart kickers and that the impulse for “democracy” and “equality” runs in American DNA.

                  He also argued, with pretty conclusive proof, that American elites expected “convergence” between American and Soviet Communism – which itself implies that they were distinct species and that both the Americans and Soviets knew it.

                  Both possessed of the same basic leftist impulse to take take take, but strikingly different in several important areas which eventually caused a big enough rift to start a cold war. The US made war on the Soviets precisely because they weren’t a client of Harvard, refused to be, and wanted to do Communism their own way. Yes, the left is exactly that petty and jealous.

                • Kgaard says:

                  Re this comment: “But the Indochina war was or became a red state America versus blue state America proxy war.”

                  I’m reading the new Richard Holbrooke biography and it’s fascinating on this point: The young (later to become) proto-commies in the 60s seem to have been right about Vietnam … arguing against it for reasonably patriotic reasons — and yet as they rose to power in the years after they coagulate into an anti-American fifth column.

                  So it’s like they morphed into a different and evil thing as they became self-aware of their influence and power.

                  If Vietnam was a proxy war between red and blue America it’s not clear red America was on the right side at that time … though later on red America would become the right side.

                • @jim,

                  Post the cold-war a lot of history seems to have been rewritten in the West minimizing the Soviet influence in many parts, where it suited the modern Harvard narrative.

                  India got its nukes from the Soviets. India got most of its military tech from the Soviets. Indian Communist Parties practically answered to their bosses in Moscow, not Harvard (some fringe Maoist parties answered to Chinese bosses). I was born in the Soviet era and in my childhood I remember that there were a lot of Russian children’s books (translated in English by Russian authors) in book stores. Russian literature was quite popular among the elites. Indian doctors those days used to get educated in Russian universities if they couldn’t get into medical colleges in India. I remember Indian newspapers carrying quite a lot of anti-American editorials in those days, especially because it was argued that America was supporting Pakistan militarily against India.

                  Are you saying all that was Harvard’s bidding? If so, I am baffled, because Indo-Soviet cooperation was close and it was real.

                • jim says:

                  > Are you saying all that was Harvard’s bidding? If so, I am baffled, because Indo-Soviet cooperation was close and it was real.

                  And Harvard Soviet cooperation was close and it was real.

                  A lot of Western newspapers were outraged at Indira’s dictatorship. It was controversial.

                  But it was not controversial at the New York Times. Meaning it was not controversial at Harvard.

                  You are looking at leftists fighting over the apples rolling around. You need to look at leftists cooperating to knock over apple carts. Indochina fell because Harvard overthrew it, not because Russia overthrew it.

                  It was the armies of North Vietnam that gave Pol Pot part of Cambodia, and the armies of Vietnam that removed him from power, but it was Harvard, not North Vietnam, that installed him in the capital. That is a lot more than Harvard did to India.

                  Theoretically India was following a course midway between the Soviet Union and America. Meaning it was following a course aligned against red state america, the military industrial complex, and fully aligned with blue state america, Harvard and the New York Times.

                  Being aligned against Red State America was controversial in the West. Not controversial at Harvard.

                • A Honest Indian says:

                  To be fair, I’m not painting a picture that there was practically *no* Harvard influence. There sure was.

                  But I think the truth lies somewhere in between, in that, it was probably a struggle between Harvard/Oxbridge and the Soviets for gaining traction in the region. Obviously Harvard won this battle.

                  Which may explain why we are seeing the same thing from different perspectives. Ultimately of course, it all boils down to the fact that Harvard is definitely on the ascendancy in modern India.

                • A Honest Indian says:


                  Here’s an Indian Leftist newspaper with a fairly recent article (2018) on how the US and UK reacted to Indira Gandhi’s emergency,


                  So was Harvard really approving of the Emergency?

  19. onyomi says:

    At least any sort of “passing the torch,” “moving on,” “cementing the legacy,” “accepting the inevitable”-type vibes we may have got at the Georgia rally do not seem much in evidence here, though perhaps what Jim describes as Trump’s excessive optimism is:

    • onyomi says:

      “Irrational optimism,” that is–he still sounds potentially irrationally optimistic that state legislatures and/or the Supremes will pull through for him, though he’s also not necessarily giving off vibes that other options are off the table if they don’t (though he probably wouldn’t regardless; just glad to hear him firm in his “we won and Biden can’t win” messaging, which could be part of his “say it till it becomes reality” power–the more he publicly says “I won; Biden can’t be president” the better I feel about him not giving himself an easy out).

  20. hopinforabetterfuture says:

    the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and South Dakota have joined the state of Texas in its suit at SCOTUS.

    seems a bloc of trump states with friendly governments is forming.

    • The Cominator says:

      Trump is still going to have to cross the Rubicon anyway, the court is probably going to be too cowardly to reverse the fraudulent election.

      This isn’t blackpilling its just saying that the legal system isn’t Trump’s way out of this, Trump’s way out of this is using force in a very illegal and unprecedented way to overturn a very illegal and unprecedentedly fraudulent election.

      • hopinforabetterfuture says:

        Probably the closest they will come would be to nullify the results in the contested states allowing them to send unbound electors. They could also not allow those electors meaning neither trump or Biden get 270 and the house decides.

        Imagine: The house elects Trump 26-24, Riots in the streets and the nation burns, Washington DC in disarray and the west coast starts to seriously talk about secession. Intel agencies rebel.

        Trump would have to cross the rubicon to keep control.

        • Gack says:

          If they throw it into the house, trump will probably win because these things historically are almost always decided on a partyline vote which he wins. however enough Republican legislators are likely compromised corrupt or afraid of getting the Harrison deal treatment, that I can’t feel confident in this. if he loses in the house that would be bad, although I would hope he would still invoke the martial law option.

          • BC says:

            I have no confidence in the house. The GOP is full of cucks and they will cuck unless Trump’s people have guns pointed at them.

      • Pooch says:

        I still rather have SCOTUS’s blessing because along comes with it is the Senate’s blessing, as cowardly as they are they are important for Trump being viewed as restoring the Republic and bringing to Justice the mass amount of traitors.

        • Pooch says:

          In the same way Augustus brought to Justice the treacherous outlaw Mark Antony, enemy of the Senate and the Republic.

      • The Cominator says:

        The right needs to psychologically reorient itself to a more machiavellian and will to power mentality…

        The morality mindset (I blame Burke for this) has hurt us badly…

        • jim says:

          Burke was no rightist.

          He launched lawfare against the East India Company, denying its right to rule, denying it the authority granted by Charles the Second. This was an attack on order in the British Empire, and corruption of the legal system in Britain, the first major attack of many major attacks under many rationales on the apple carts full of shiny apples and on the men in splendid colorful uniforms curating those apple carts.

          • The Cominator says:

            Yes he was a fake rightist the 1st cuck as you called him but his mentality has deeply hurt the Anglo right IMHO.

      • jim says:

        What I expect and hope for is that court reverses the fraudulent election. And then the court is ignores, allowing Trump the pope’s imprimatur for a crusade.

        If the court reverses the election and its reversal is actually followed, which I would love to see but do not expect to see, then the Republic is not dead. But it looks like it has been dead for quite a while, the corpse is starting to stink, and is in urgent need of decent burial.

        • European Mutt says:

          In the event the Republic is truly not dead and Trump gets a completely regular second term, what are his options for cleaning out the deep state and civil service? Does he have to take the slow route then, via criminal investigations etc.? If I’m not mistaken then ironically conceding the loss would be the best play for the left in the medium term. They would show weakness but keep some power. Of course I can think of no historical example when they did that.

          • jim says:

            Right now the bureaucracy is slow walking schedule F, and it will continue to be slow walked until and unless some unpleasant people with guns take those slow walking it away from their offices for a little chat about policy decisions by supposedly non political permanent bureaucrats.

            After a few such chats, schedule F will be fast walked, and then the awesome power of the presidency will be in the pocket of the president.

            Absent such chats, the presidency is going to continue to ignore schedule F, and thus continue to ignore the president.

            All these problems are coup complete, and the Trump family staying out of jail and avoiding eventual execution is also coup complete.

        • Not Tom says:

          This is looking increasingly unlikely, given that the same Supreme Court rejected the Pennsylvania case without giving any reason.

          • Pooch says:

            Unless they are looking at it as being redundant to the Texas case, but I’m not all that hopeful.

          • Starman says:

            SCOTUS moved the Kelly PA case aside for the Texas lawsuit against WI/MI/PA/GA. A whole host of Trump states have joined that lawsuit.


            • Not Tom says:

              I’m aware of the expansion of the TX case but they cited no such rationale and there is no reason they couldn’t hear both cases.

              And, per the heuristic I recently mentioned in another comment, if indeed they are sidelining the PA case for the TX case, it is because they think the TX case has less merit and will be easier to dismiss without a public outcry.

              • onyomi says:

                Regardless of the merits/content, I don’t see how a case filed by the attorneys general of multiple US states against multiple other states will be easier to dismiss without a public outcry than a case filed by some individuals against the SC of a single state.

                In terms of news headlines, I can’t see how “SCOTUS tells Kelly and Parnell to take a hike” could cause more public outcry than “SCOTUS tells Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, and South Dakota to take a hike.”

                • Pooch says:

                  Normally SCOTUS would rather make a decision on the less broad case over the more broad case, but we are not in normal times.

                • Not Tom says:

                  So we’re clear: I think the Texas complaint looks great, makes specific claims, shows tons of evidence, even explains how and why Democrats benefited from the fraud in order to preempt the “you can’t prove damages” argument.

                  But my heuristic now is that SCOTUS would only prioritize the case if it saw that case as somehow less harmful, maybe saw it as a way to crush all the other cases at once. Thomas and Alito are clearly on the right side but these Federalist Society guys are proving to be 100% cucks and traitors.

                  Trump has more in-party support than he’s ever had, many congresscritters and pretty much all of the state legislators backing him, but it’s not enough to win through the old and decrepit and dying system. It’s not over till it’s over, but I don’t think Trump wins without a war, and don’t think he survives without a win. While I’ll continue to wish for a SCOTUS blessing, I hope Trump is ready to take on the Supremes in the likely event that such blessing fails to materialize.

                • jim says:

                  If he wants to live, must cross the Rubicon with or without the supremes.

                  I worry that his irrational optimism may bite him, but probably it will not bite him this time.

                  His base awaits the emperor’s command.

                  Caesar offered the senate a deal in which he would have not have been prosecuted until after he attempted to win an election that would surely have been rigged to make sure he lost, but the Senate, not being agreement capable, just went after him anyway. While the US is in the situation of the Roman Republic before Pompey was made dictator, Trump is in the situation of Caesar before he crossed the Rubicon.

                  Cross or they will imprison him, then eventually, probably a few years down the road, kill him.

                • G.T. Chesterton says:

                  Before the actual event consumes all debate the world over, I just wanted to pop in to tip my hat to Cominator, whose post here (a month ago?) was the first and only I had seen, suggesting Trump States should sue the Fraudulent Six in the USSC. I thought it was brilliant then, and never heard it anywhere else — until it happened.

                  Good call, sir.

      • Karl says:

        Nah, Trump has ways out of this using very legal forms of violence, namely riot act and 14th amendment.

        The violence would not even be unprecended as there has already been a civil war.

    • pyrrhus says:

      The South will rise again…minus Georgia

  21. European Mutt says:

    A very small step towards the dissolution of the monasteries:

    Looks like she wanted to fudge the numbers together with some other local swamp creatures. Finally the taboo against arresting very holy ‘scientists’ is breaking down.

    • The Ducking Man says:

      Looks like the scientist went with classic “number of cases” scare mongering tactic which we all know pretty much pointless and don’t scare the masses anymore.

      A senator had enough of china virus demons, the priest won’t budge. All is well, the priest got what she fucking deserve.

      • Theshadowedknight says:

        Nah, she needs to be made into an object lesson. Perp walk the bitch in front of her kids and set the precedent that if you fuck with us, we humiliate you in front of your family and peers, and saddle you with brutal court costs. Those are the rules now, so we need to be the ones enforcing them on our enemies.

        Get the co-conspirators in the government, too. Walk them all out in handcuffs.

        • Karl says:

          She has kids? I’m surpised. Usually such bitches have only cats or -at most- one child.

      • European Mutt says:

        lol just a few days ago they switched their rhetoric to the number of deaths, with coronavirus as a justification for lockdowns. Probably exactly for that reason, it sounds scarier to them. Completely retarded even according to week-old official science that at least admitted death numbers are a lagging indicator. Holiness spiral now moving in daily increments.

  22. The Cominator says:

    1. Why does the GOP have so many abject cowards in it.

    2. How the fuck do you get this attitude in a Southern State which recognizes a wide variety of threatening circumstances that justify defensive deadly force. I’m not in Georgia but NOBODY in Florida was worried about left wing rioters at all… the rednecks (even some of the broads) and some of the Cubans were outright hoping they would riot because they wanted to blow them away.

    3. Atlanta is a cancer on the whole region anyway.

    • Gack says:

      I think the real reason is they are compromised and corrupt and also afraid of receiving the same treatment as Harrison Deal.

  23. Aldon says:

    “Genome-wide sequencing of human populations has revealed substantial variation among genes in the intensity of purifying selection acting on damaging genetic variants. While genes under the strongest selective constraint are highly enriched for Mendelian disorders, most of these genes are not associated with disease and therefore the nature of the selection acting on them is not known. Here we show that genetic variants that damage these genes reduce reproductive success substantially in males but much less so in females. We present evidence that this reduction is mediated primarily by cognitive and behavioural traits, which renders male carriers of such variants less likely to find mating partners. These findings represent strong genetic evidence that sexual selection mediated through female mate choice is shaping the gene pool of contemporary human populations. Furthermore, these results suggest that sexual selection accounts for 21% of purifying selection against heterozygous variants that ablate protein-coding genes.”

    They obviously won’t admit the unwoke implications (that civilization being more than a bunch of mudhuts depends on women having their reproductive ability kept under control).

    • Gestahlt says:

      >depends on women having their reproductive ability kept under control
      My question is if the current abortionarian mindset and contraceptive technology represents something new or if it is a regression back to matriarchal values of the pre-Aryan world.

      • jim says:

        Abortionarianism is a regression back to the problems that prefigured the collapse of Bronze age civilization, depicted in the Admonitions of Ipuwer.

        • The Cominator says:

          There were methods of abortion via inducing miscarriage that were fairly reliable going way back, whores in the Roman Empire and Middle Ages would find a lot of trouble earning a living if they didn’t have a fairly reliable way to take care of things, so obviously they did.

          • European Mutt says:

            You are never going to have zero abortions, legal or illegal. There is an argument for not banning abortion but heavily discouraging it via the church. That’s what Russia is doing. They still have one of the highest abortion rates though iirc.

            • jim says:

              The problem is not abortion in itself, but female control of reproduction. Women are maladapted to having control, and not happy when they have it.

              • European Mutt says:

                Well since I can remember I considered abortion murder, was my biggest heresy against the left for a while. Feral women are a far bigger problem of course, abortions are the symptom. Feral women will always exists just like stray or aggressive dogs, but on a much smaller scale.

                Russia has plenty of feral women still. I think in Russia they just figured abortion beats single motherhood in that regard. Traditional marriage is plenty protected now for the men who want it with no divorce rape and domestic violence legalized.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Russia’s feral women (and feral women in most of Asia) are different than Western feral women.

                  As Russia and most of Asia do not have firm formal patriarchal authority the single women are still feral. But they do not make single women high status either.

                  Asia and Russia thus have a “whore” problem. The women may be fickle and uncontrollable but men are higher status then they are and thus they are more amiable and more likely to sleep with you even if you aren’t a celebrity billionaire vampire psychopath who looks like Jeremy Meeks. A “whore” problem is more livable than what we have. These women are more likely to get married in the end as well but its not as stable. After you are married they may be slightly MORE likely to cuck you than Western women… but less likely to initiate divorce (and much less likely if you have kids).

                  The US and most of Western Europe make single women high status, this is much much worse than a whore problem as the women just aren’t interested in most men at all.

                • European Mutt says:

                  Yes for example in Russia women can have careers but only if they are married. Otherwise they simply don’t get promoted.

                  Divorce is very frequent in Russia but divorce rape is not really possible by design. It’s largely an artifact of Soviet naive feminist law, from the POV of the state marriage is mostly an official version of “boyfriend and girlfriend”.

                  Russian and American whores aren’t too different in the end, but Russian whores are much more pleasant from the get go. Therefore American and Western European women are eager to label them as gold diggers.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Many facets of feral female behaviour changes based on low or high status. Even their self destructive behaviour will change.

                  Feral Russian women are much less likely to get tons of tattoos (I can tolerate this one but its not attractive and lots of guys REALLY hate it), gain tons of weight or cut their hair short than women in feminist countries.

                  Feral Russian women are far more likely to decide since that since they don’t want to get fat but need to suppress their appetite that a diet of zero calorie soda and 2+ packs of cigarettes a day is a good idea (to be fair its probably better for you than obesity even if you are smoking heavily at the 2+ pack a day level) and more likely to decide that getting drunk in public every night on some zero calorie form of hard liquor is a good recreational activity (now I hear British women do this too and they are plenty feminist except its not low calorie booze).

  24. onyomi says:

    So apparently the state of Texas qua the state of Texas has sued the states of Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania over how they conducted/are conducting their election procedure, as I understand with the goal of forcing them to allow their legislatures to select electors if they want to, as I thought the Constitution demanded. Anyway, don’t know the details, but as an explicit interstate conflict this seems a very positive step in terms of escalating things beyond “normal” procedure about the transition from one POTUS to another, possibly toward the (hopefully brief, decisive, not too bloody) civil war that seems inevitable, and/or maybe even secessions.

    In other news, Ted Cruz says he will argue the PA case in front of SCOTUS himself if they grant certiorari, which may be a kind of showboating, but at least indicates a certain degree of GOP support, seemingly decreasing the likelihood, to my mind, of SCOTUS just punting on everything.

    • Thales says:

      Clever girl to force this on SCOTUS via original jurisdiction, but it’s not clear how TX gets a legal say in how other states select their electors.

      • restitutor_orbis says:

        Texas is asserting that the other states are violating the US Constitution by allowing their courts and governors to direct the manner of appointment of electors, when the Constitution vests that right exclusively in state legislatures. Their doing so violates the right of Texas citizens to equal protection of their right to vote.

        I think it’s a strong case, personally.

        • jim says:

          Legality only matters to the extent that it will add to credibility of Trump’s claim to be restoring the Republic in the eyes of the warriors. That from 2020-11-04 04-05 onward, guns matter, and courts do not.

          I am reluctant to make predictions, though I have some money riding on Trump – quite a lot of money, if you count my investments, a small amount of money, if only count my bets with friends and net acquaintances.

          That his legal case is compelling matters not at all. Who is securing the Supreme court is what matters. And, if he wins in the supremes, the verdict only matters if he can make it stick, if he is willing and able to do what it takes to make it stick.

          • restitutor_orbis says:

            I agree with all of the above. It’s a matter of power, not law.

            But the presumption of legitimacy is a type of power. It seems to me that having the imprimatur of a Supreme Court judgment in his favor is helpful in the same way having the Pope declare your war to have God’s sanction was helpful in the Middle Ages. You can go to war without the sanction, you can win the war without it, but it helps your army’s morale to have the sanction.

            • The Cominator says:

              For my part I’ll march on the Emperor’s command I don’t care whether he and I are excommunicated for it or given a crusade banner.

  25. Sonny Jim says:

    Hey jim, thoughts on Curtis’s newest piece?

    • jim says:

      I don’t think much about what namefags write.

      • Sonny Jim says:

        Why exactly? Like, I get where you’re coming from, that people who use their real names are unlikely to say controversial things out of fear of retribution from friends, employers, universities etc. But Curtis is economically independent due to Urbit, so he has no reason to fear any such retribution.

        • Pooch says:

          He fears for his life.

        • jim says:

          I compare what Curtis says with what Moldbug said.

          Curtis is a namefag.

          • Sonny Jim says:

            But how exactly do they differ? Can you provide any examples?

            Not trying to be rude, but I really think you’re being unfair. If Curtis were really such a namefag he wouldn’t have moved UR from Blogspot to a snazzy new website and he wouldn’t be selling parts of UR as ebooks on Amazon. He would be trying to distance himself from UR as much as possible, which he isn’t. Curtis doesn’t run any more risk from saying something controversial today than from the mere fact of having said equally controversial things a decade ago, because everybody knows that Curtis is Moldbug.

            • jim says:

              Observed behavior: Since Moldbug has been doxxed, not saying anything interesting, and when he re-runs his old stuff, it is full of gross and politically correct inaccuracies. Not expecting him to say anything interesting or useful, and have observed that he is a major source of misinformation.

              For example “Trump would have to cross five Rubicons”. Only one Rubicon, and it has been crossed so often already, starting with Lincoln, that the bridge is getting worn. Not worth the time and energy to read someone who writes anything that matters heavily coded, and keeps inserting misinformation.

              After saying Trump would have to cross five Rubicons, he then kind of says, in a heavily coded way, that the one Rubicon Trump needs to cross has been crossed every eighty years or so since the founding of the Republic, so, in heavy code, he corrects the misinformation, but it is just too much work to decipher the code and detect the lies, even though he probably wants us to detect the lies he is compelled to tell.

              • Sonny Jim says:

                >After saying Trump would have to cross five Rubicons, he then kind of says, in a heavily coded way, that the one Rubicon Trump needs to cross has been crossed every eighty years or so since the founding of the Republic, so, in heavy code, he corrects the misinformation, but it is just too much work to decipher the code and detect the lies, even though he probably wants us to detect the lies he is compelled to tell.

                But neither of these statements contradicts the other. Curtis has indeed pointed out that America changes its regime every eighty or so years and we’re due for the next one. He just doesn’t think that Trump can or will pull off a successful regime change. This is a perfectly valid opinion even if you disagree with it, and it’s extremely uncharitable to characterize it as a “lie” or “misinformation”. None of us knows for certain what the President will do, because none of us knows the President’s mind, so any guess as to what the President will do between now and January 20th cannot possibly be a lie. Nor can it be some kind of politically correct motivated opinion, because Curtis still condemns the current regime and still wants it to be replaced. There’s no reason to believe that Curtis’s views on the election are anything other than an honest opinion based on his own understanding of the facts. And, honestly, it’s been a month and still no autocoup or Rubicon-crossing, so if anything Curtis has been vindicated.

                • jim says:

                  > But neither of these statements contradicts the other.


                  Whether Trump can or will pull it off or not, it is not five Rubicons.

                • BaboonTycoon says:

                  >because Curtis still condemns the current regime and still wants it to be replaced
                  yeah, and so does the DSA. Would you extend such charity to them?

                • Pooch says:

                  Didn’t Curtisfag also say Coronavirus was going to kill everyone?

                • European Mutt says:

                  He did and he managed to override my intuition and convince me it was not just a heavy flu. Will take a while till I trust him again on anything.

                  To be fair, a pandemic response is a mind-hack for the right. On the right you are unlikely to be criticized in the short term for coming down too hard on a potential threat, which is not always a good thing. I still think leftists would never have come up with lockdowns on their own.

                • yewotm8 says:

                  The very concept of “a Rubicon” means that there can only be one. Making an irreversible declaration of war, a declaration that you are done with negotiations, cannot happen 5 times. Unless he was declaring it separately against 5 different enemies, but he appears to have only one enemy “faction” that he needs to deal with.

            • BC says:

              He hasn’t written anything interesting and true since he was outed.

        • Not Tom says:

          Eh, all he’s writing now is Old Moldbug, repackaged to be even more circumspect, safer, abstruse and meandering. I mean, Unqualified Reservations had that quality, but it was breaking new ground, so it was worth the slog. This one’s just an obscenely long elaboration on the peace/security/order hierarchy, the modern caste system and coup-completeness.

          I don’t really understand whom he’s even speaking to; the far right already knows this stuff, the cuck right is gonna keep on cucking, and the left ain’t listening anymore. What’s the point of trotting out 15-year-old ideas and slapping on a new coat of paint? Ok sure, they’re actually much older and timeless ideas, but the point is, the time for that kind of talk has long since passed.

          • Nibui says:

            Some people just like to listen to the classics all the time, man. This time around he’s pretty explicit about turning the enterprise into an e-grifting scheme. The final book might eventually have as much as 5% new content, we’ll see.

        • simplyconnected says:

          Wasn’t he saying he would vote for Bernie in an interview?
          He is afraid (who wouldn’t be?) Anyone writing under their real name has a filter, it would be unlikely that filter is not affecting his writing, and even if it didn’t affect his writing, there would be no way for us to know.

        • Nicodemus Rex says:

          Moldbug’s shtick was always packaging reaction in such a way to avoid the left’s immune system (i.e by continually retreating to abstractions and redefining common terms with new names randomly pulled from SF novels.) He’s pretty good at it, which is why he’s never been “cancelled” with any serious effort yet despite his name having been public knowledge for a long time.

          But it’s unclear who he’s trying to reach — are there even any “open-minded” progressives left? Maybe there were ten years ago, but now? Reading Gray Mirror feels like watching a man write a book while avoiding using the letter ‘E’ — kind of impressive, artistically, but also pretty much pointless.

          • Pooch says:

            He was canceled from speaking at programming conferences after he was doxed.

            • Nicodemus Rex says:

              I’m aware of that, but the cancelling was pretty halfhearted (he’s gone to other tech conferences after that one), and they didn’t try and destroy Urbit completely, which leads me to assume that most of the people who would normally have gone after him just weren’t smart enough see the wrongthink in his writing.

      • onyomi says:

        It strikes me that the “namefag” problem is a microcosm of a more general problem we see nowadays (maybe a perennial problem, but I expect it’s worse in decaying societies): something like, if a candidate or elected official doesn’t inspire seemingly hyperbolic, apoplectic rage among “respectable” people, he’s probably no good. If a policy doesn’t inspire chicken little cries of doom it probably will have no effect. If an idea is allowed to be printed in the NYT or shown on Fox News, much less CNN, it’s probably not dangerous to the powers that be, if an election commissioner lets you conduct a “recount” or “audit” without a vicious fight, it’s probably going to be useless or they’ve already figured out how to game it… and if someone with a wife and kids is willing to put his name and face on an article it’s prima facie unlikely, again, his ideas, at least as expressed explicitly, are a danger to the status quo.

        I guess it’s called “you know you’re over the target.” Recently, the threats leveled at anyone with a name, face, and good aim have intensified greatly.

        • From what I understand, Leftism has created an illusion of a worldview in which the most Holy Left of a particular time determine the topics that can be debated, the manner in which the debates can take place and the limits to which you can safely go, all while keeping up the pretence that “normality”, “dissent”, “freedom” and “democracy” are alive and kicking. Some people can recognize this evil but are forced to consciously walk the “safe” path for their own safety because they know that this evil knows no limits and will go to any extent to silence them, while others cannot even recognize the evil and think that there is no other worldview other than that constructed by Leftism and deludedly think that they can debate or fight Leftism by the means constructed by Leftists themselves to cripple all opposition.

          “Overton Window” seems to be the name of this “safe zone.”

          Only a rare few are foolish or brave enough both to notice the extent of the evil they are up against and also speak the truth with their real identity revealed.

          Also whenever convenient, Leftists create some illusory targets for their “opponents” to practice on if only to keep them away from real mischief. If the opponent has internalized the same illusory framework as the Leftists intended, they fall for it, thinking they are fighting Leftism, while actually they are only fighting an illusion created by Leftists for their enemies to be distracted and confused by.

          It’s the old weapon of adharma – Maya or illusion. Illusory weapons cannot be efficiently defeated by old conventional weapons.

          The reason I’ve consciously framed it in terms of Dharma-adharma is because, as a Hindu, this is the absolute reference on which morality can be determined and is incorruptible. Of course, Jim is one of those who has internalized the Reality by other names from a Christian perspective while even a large section of those who call themselves reactionaries/NRx haven’t.

          • onyomi says:

            Jim’s argument as I understand it, and he can correct me if I’m wrong, is that the problem is two-fold: one, we have a pernicious state religion (liberalism) in the West, and two, we have an open-entry priesthood (academic-media complex) that by its nature encourages holiness spirals of “lefter than thou.” A redditor whose name I forget now argued that social media has greatly accelerated such spirals because it makes it super easy to call out hypocrisy and unprincipled exceptions, which are actually not always bad, as necessary to keep any system functioning in the real world.

            A question I’d like to ask Jim, or maybe someone can point me to one of his older blogs if it’s answered there, is whether the badness of our current state religion and its tendency toward holiness spirals are related, or if holiness spirals are just a fact of life that can only be controlled by eliminating the open-access priesthood and not causally related to the nature of our current state religion.

            For example, if Jim-ism became the new state religion, my understanding of Jim’s position is that we would still need some inquisitors or limits on entry to the priesthood of Jim, otherwise we’d eventually get an out-of-control spiral of Jim-er-than-thou, such that even Jim would be judged insufficiently Jim-ist or, at best, not the beneficiary of our superior understanding, within a generation or less. The fact that Jim-ism was, to begin with, a big improvement on our current state religion might not prevent it growing pernicious eventually?

            The above makes sense to me because I think the urge to virtue signal is probably universal; it does raise the question of whether even “truth” and “objective moral good” can be standards to cleave to. Though not religious, I tend to think objective moral truth exists. At the same time, human psychology and status competition may be such that even pursuit of truth may become twisted, as we see it has with leftist cries of “believe the science!” So maybe just “our state religions pursues truth!” is not enough.

            If this is true then even if we had e.g. a nation ruled according to the principles of the Bhagavad Gita, we could still run into a problem of more-dharmic-than-thou holiness spirals unless we restrict access to the priesthood (maybe traditionally this was by birth into Brahmin caste, etc.). So perhaps, paradoxically part of the truth/dharma/proper way is realization that excessive zeal on the part of too many in pursuit of the truth/dharma/proper way can actually lead one astray?

            At the same time it seems to me that running a society according to traditional principles is just better, because Lindy, in an objective sense? Also, most of the out-of-control holiness spirals we see in history seem to take on a particular (usually egalitarian) character, which would suggest it is leftism per se, rather than holiness spirals per se that is the bigger problem?

            I am also curious to hear more about how non-open-entry priesthood could work? Perhaps the key is to get the priesthood back to focusing on moral and metaphysical questions with no objectively verifiable/falsifiable answers and somehow kick the scientists out of it/diminish the fetishization of science without actually stopping people doing science? The idea of e.g. only allowing those with the proper pedigree to research and publish on academic/scientific questions doesn’t sound very feasible.

            • Actually in ancient India, Brahmins were NOT the ruling caste. This is a huge misunderstanding in the West that has perpetuated a lot even in NRx circles.

              Kshatriyas ruled exclusively and Brahmins were mostly relegated to the temples, ashrams and dealing with the religious and spiritual affairs alone.

              In the strict traditional hierarchy, Brahmins were prohibited from accumulating wealth and had to earn on a day-to-day basis only for satisfying their basic needs, forbidden from indulging in luxury and barred from most professions except religion instruction and performing religious rituals. Brahmins had no entry into politics, except only the Raja-Guru which was a hereditary position of advisor to the King, who could be overruled by the King anyway.

              There are also tales of how Kings of those days used to dress up as commoners and visit his subjects incognito to get a feel of the general mood of the public and also to not be totally reliant on his subordinates. Also how the King could be directly petitioned by the common subjects when they did not get justice from his subordinates.

              I think Hindu kingdoms of ancient India did not fall into holiness spirals, because it was recognized that the priests should not rule. When that social balance was upset, things started falling apart.

              • onyomi says:

                Yes, I know the Brahmins are not the traditional ruling caste; I guess then there is a third aspect of the problem Jim identifies: priests (rather than warriors) ruling, open-entry priesthood, and the actual content of the priesthood’s religion being bad. I would guess these are all interrelated to some degree.

                • Priesthood should necessarily demand sacrifice of personal comforts (but not Celibacy), accumulation of money except to the extent of satisfying basic needs like food and clothing, luxury and a lifestyle detached from worldly affairs especially politics, except to the extent of providing purely spiritual guidance in respect of worldly actions.

                  Not sure how these rules can be enforced, except by a Monarchy though.

                  Of course, this may lead to a shortage of priests, but it is better than having too many priests each with too little to do.

              • Forgot to add, the role of the Raja-Guru was to limited to providing general spiritual guidance in respect of the worldly actions of rulership and to provide divine sanction to the Monarchy. Not to micromanage the affairs of the state.

            • Karl says:

              Spandrell has written extensilvely about holiness spirals. I try to summarize.

              There is always a tendency to holiness spirals as they are a rather safe way to increase status. If there is a general agreement what is “good”, being a “good” man gives status, being a better man gives more status and a way to attack competitors.

              Being “good” is especially important in priestly professions. In these professions the incentive to be a more holy is larger as the top job is often given to the most holy. The more people compete to be most holy, the faster the standards for “sufficient holiness” increase. Hence, open entry priesthood suffers more quickly from holiness spiral.

              Entry to priesthood can be limited by having a hereditray priesthood or by creating a barrier to entry into priesthood. Barriers may for example be a requirement of a lifestyle that will not be attractive for many applicants, e.g. celibacy, or a significant investment of time and effort, e.g. memorizing hundreds of pages of scriture.

              Holiness spiral, leftism, pharisees – all words that describe the some thing.

              • Celibacy is not in the natural order of things, so I feel that celibacy cannot be demanded of Priesthood. However, the other aspects like sacrificing personal comforts, accumulation of wealth and not being allowed to most professions except religious practice and performing religious rituals can be made mandatory..

            • jim says:

              > For example, if Jim-ism became the new state religion, my understanding of Jim’s position is that we would still need some inquisitors or limits on entry to the priesthood of Jim, otherwise we’d eventually get an out-of-control spiral of Jim-er-than-thou, such that even Jim would be judged insufficiently Jim-ist or, at best, not the beneficiary of our superior understanding, within a generation or less

              Limits to entry work.

              But if Jimism was the state religion, and open entry, it would rapidly go off the rails.

            • I think the more I think about it, Right is not analogous to the Left. The terms Left and Right are downright confusing sometimes because I think Right is neither an ideology or religion.

              Leftism is actually an evil religion whether or not of actual literal demons or metaphorical ones it does not matter, nonetheless an evil, godless one. And a religion without an absolute God tends to spiral because every priest wants to become God.

              Is actual holiness spiralling even possible to the “right”?

              I think almost every religion in history has been subverted by demons and not by holier Gods.

              Leftism = evil religion out of touch with reality and holiness spiralling is actually a kind of lunacy spiralling with each spiral further and further detached from reality.

              Right = neither evil nor a religion.

              But mostly religion has been subverted by entryism (always to the Left) and then holiness spiralling but the movement has always been leftwards.

              Leftism works by subversion of existing religion by out-Holying it, but only further to its Left.

              By the very definition, any holiness spiral which is actually better defined as lunacy spiral (being moving further and further away from reality) is subversion and that can only happen to the Left.

              If somebody is really more “Right-wing” than Jim, then it means that the said person actually recognizes some greater truth of Gnon that Jim has not and actually both parties would discuss it in a sane and reasonable way. And actually that’s not holiness spiralling. It’s moving closer to reality by definition.

              If somebody claims to be more “Right-wing” than Jim, but actually speaks holy language of the Left to out-holy Jim, then it is simply somebody subverting Jim-ism. If somebody subverts Jim-ism by out-holying Jim without being actually to his Right then I would 100% state that the person subverting it is a Leftist entryist.

              • BC says:

                At it’s core Leftism is the exercise of power for short term gains, while Rightism is the exercise of power for long term gains.

                Sometimes power needs to be executed for short term gains but it’s destructive when used and is best used sparingly and long term assets should seldom if ever be given up for something short term.

                • A Honest Indian says:

                  While I can get this, from the point of view of explaining holiness spiraling how does this model work?

              • Not Tom says:

                To answer the specific question you’re asking, it’s best to use the model of leftism as social entropy. It behaves just like physical entropy: always increasing, always moving in the same direction, and requiring vast amounts of energy to “reduce” (really just move) in any complex system. It may have very different effects depending on what it’s affecting, but it is always the same force.

                Holiness spiraling is defection, it’s a form of social entropy and therefore always moves left. But there are other failure modes on the right, such as the Cominator failure mode of expending enormous amounts of energy on diminishing returns in the hope of completely eliminating leftism, which can’t be done, as surely as one can’t eliminate chemical entropy. Complex systems instead require frequent maintenance, which is, more or less, the Jimian position of a state religion with occasional Inquisitions, in which we take the unusually holy and send them to Siberia on missionary work.

                • A Honest Indian says:

                  But does entropy have a direction? I find it hard to wrap my head around this concept because as per the holiness spiral theory, Leftism heads towards a singularity while entropy is complete chaos.

                  But maybe the Left singularity is actually complete chaos.

                  Anway, I get the point that we are all using different mental models to map the same thing, but the analogies used tend to lead to some confusion.

                • jim says:

                  Entropy is in one sense the absence of direction. But that on a large scale, in all high entropy states look boringly alike, it has direction.

                  As I regularly say leftism has no essence, and what is “lefter” at any one time and place is the shakiest apple carts with the shiniest apples.

                  During the age of empires, to the start of World War II, the shakiest apple carts with shiniest apples were curated by men in splendid and colorful military uniforms, and nationalism was leftist. Now nationalism is rightist and globalism is leftist.

                  International order between nations, each with its own state religion, is the peace of Westphalia. Globalism is universalism, an attack on the peace of Westphalia.

                  The peace of Westphalia, plus capitalism, implies national capitalism. Multilateral trade agreements are an attack on the peace of Westphalia, which manifest as corporations being turned into priestly instruments whereby one state religion assaults someone else’s state religion.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “But there are other failure modes on the right, such as the Cominator failure mode of expending enormous amounts of energy on diminishing returns in the hope of completely eliminating leftism”

                  Um I have said you cannot eliminate “natural” envy based leftism but Marxism and Progressivism are religions and can be eliminated in the same way the Cathars were eliminated.

              • suones says:

                …more “Right-wing” than Jim…

                Jim wants the re-instatement of Christianity. Alf felt that Christianity is Sol Invictus 2.0, beyond recovery. I know that Christianity is a holiness-spiralled version of Antique Judaism, and contains the seed of Leftism. Jim reconciles this with observed reality by explicitly prohibiting religion from indulging in any temporal claims, particularly any falsifiable claims, at all. While I agree this is a good requirement for religion, and Christianity starts spiralling only when it ventures into the temproral realm, yet I do not believe it is sufficient. Only time will tell.

                Crumbs for the brave/inquisitive: #SuetoniusWasRight #NeroDinduNuffin #Chrestos==Christ #ClaudiusDinduNuffin #TacitusIsFake

                • The Cominator says:


                  What is your basis for claiming Tactitus is fake?

                • suones says:

                  @The Cominator

                  Not that Tacitus himself was fake, but rather that the main tract we have of him regarding Chrestians has been tampered with by Chrestian monks.

                  Suetonius mentions a Jewish community organiser suspiciously named “Chrestos” who incited Communist Jews in Rome, who were being ‘excessively holy’ (literally superstitio — holiness spiralling) to riot and therafter they were expelled from Rome by Emperor Claudius. Chrestian apologists say “Chrestos” could not possibly be “Christ” because he was already dead/resurrected in Judea because the spelling of the name is different, and not “Christos.” HOWEVER, Tacitus doesn’t mention “Christians,” but rather Chrestians, where the ‘e’ was changed to ‘i’ by Chrestian monks.

                  Also, the Communist Jewish menace continued in Rome, culminating in the Reichstag Fire Great Fire of Rome, after which good evil Emperor Nero purged the terrorists Chrestians, oops, Christians, by feeding them to lions. Of course, modern (((historians))) all believe that it was Hitler Nero himself who lit the Reichstag fire Great Fire of Rome as a false flag operation to scapegoat his enemies the good Communists Chrestians. Also, that Nero played the lyre while Rome burned is a 100% confirmed historical Fact™ and totally not slander.

                  Finally, Chrestianism gained enough power that Romans thought it capable of driving a wedge among Jews, and Emperor Nerva made them tax-exempt. This was de-jure recognition of their power, as Jews themselves remained subject to tax. This is how to build a new religion: fight in the streets, survive when they try to purge you, make peace with the remaining power, take power when Constantine a vacuum presents itself.

                • jim says:

                  > Not that Tacitus himself was fake, but rather that the main tract we have of him regarding Chrestians has been tampered with by Chrestian monks

                  We have plenty of early historical records of Christians, and for each one someone has a clever – and improbable – rationalization explaining it away.

                  Christianity was a live and significant movement at the time that Josephus wrote. This stuff that you are claiming might explain away one historical record, but when they all get explained away, it is obviously motivated reasoning.

                  If Tacitus had been tampered with by Christian monks, the tampered writings would have spelled the name in the same way Christian monks did. The rationalization is absurd. And so are all the other rationalizations for all the other records.

                  That the early history of Christianity is much as it is depicted in the Book of Acts is not in doubt by anyone seriously interested in the evidence.

                • Joe says:

                  Christianity is a holiness-spiralled version of Antique Judaism

                  What do you mean by this?

                • jim says:

                  Whatever he means by it, he is wrong.

                  The pharisees were holiness spiraling the letter of the law to violate the spirit and intent of the law.

                  The counter offensive of Jesus against this can reasonably be interpreted as holiness spiraling the spirit of the law, but Saint Paul and early Christians led by Peter came down hard on this interpretation, arguing that the crucifixion was Christ being very holy so that you don’t have to.

                  When Jesus Christ was holiness spiraling the spirit of the law, he was laying down an impossible standard so that you would seek and receive the forgiveness of Jesus Christ for not being able to live up to it.

                • neofugue says:


                  No need to continue being salty about the British invasion.

                • Joe says:

                  Thank you.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jim Tacitus also despite being the most unambigious confirmation of the historicity of Christ and that he was in fact executed (probably around 30ish AD not 0 AD because Tactitus says that Tiberius was Emperor when it happened) its also clearly not a forgery because Tacitus (a reactionary oldschool Roman who admires ancient Agrarian Rome and hates the Rome of his own time, he clearly also admires the Germans as a virtuous martial people, hating only their lack of work ethic, and seems to predict that one day they are going to overrun and conquer the Empire) clearly despises the Christians and thinks of them as an evil subversive cult that caught on among the population of Rome because Rome in its affluent subsidized peaceful decadence is where “all things hideous and shameful in the world gather and become popular”.

              • Karl says:

                Perhaps it would be better to use the term “progressives” rather than “left”. The progressives are those at the leading edge of the holiness spiral. The opposition -right or whatever you call them- are those who want to stop the holiness spiral.

                In those terms it is easier to see that it can apply to any religion.

        • Not Tom says:

          I want to bring up another manifestation of this that’s going to rustle a few jimmies but needs to be said: if the judiciary allows or grants any relief in litigation, it is because they think it will have no negative impact on the establishment.

          Thus, they are happy to allow forensic examinations of voting machines because they know it will turn up nothing of interest. But try to get a hearing on signature verification and there are a million and one reasons why it can’t be done, most of them being bullshit procedural issues around being either too early or too late.

          SCOTUS refusing to hear the Pennsylvania case means they really do not want that evidence to be heard or that argument to be made, because they have no legal argument against it, and believe that any additional public attention whatsoever would be damaging.

          • onyomi says:

            I think Scott Adams was right, unfortunately, that the superficially positive reshuffling of SCOTUS regional assignments was actually designed to make cucking easier, because “Alito declines to hear Trump electors’ appeal” doesn’t sound as bad as “Kagan declines to hear Trump electors’ appeal.”

            So clearly cucking is their first instinct; my optimistic take is that we could be entering into a “no good cucking option” zone where e.g. there is a big public outcry if SCOTUS agrees to hear a case on election integrity brought by a bunch of state AGs, but also a big outcry if they refuse to hear it.

            • BC says:

              The basic message the GOP is sending to it’s voters is yes they rigged the election, but you just have to live with it because fighting it would be worse. The base hates this message, but they need a leader if they’re going to fight back and Trump still hasn’t committed to this role.

          • Pooch says:

            So apparently they can still hear the PA case, only the injunction was denied. Don’t know if that changes anything though.


            • BC says:

              It does not. There’s isn’t time for the normal process. If the SC was going to hear it, then they would have.

  26. Edit_XYZ says:

    “Sullivan ignored the law when he refused to grant DOJ’s motion to dismiss Flynn’s charges, he ignored the D.C. circuit when he refused to even rule on the motion, and now he’s ignoring the full pardon of Flynn. He needs to be removed from the bench.”

    Blatant disregard for the law.
    We’re definitely at a point when the left ignores any law, any decision that is not to its advantage.

    Trump most definitely sees this, also.
    At this point, him not invoking the insurrection act would be treason of the american people.

    • The Cominator says:

      I think hes going to wait until the left fraudulently wins the Georgia senatorial elections so the GOP cucks get the message… january 6th or 7th. The left will be celebrating… best time to take them out.

      • Edit_XYZ says:

        The Cominator

        Yours is an interesting idea. For a surprise attack, the moment is ideal.

        But is a surprise attack needed? Especially when january 20th is so close to january 5th?
        This depends, of course, on what forces Trump has, and what forces the left has. We have no idea of the behind the scenes plotting.

        Of course, the worst case scenario would be for Trump to only follow the legal and legislature paths.
        Perhaps because he has faith the republic will right itself, or because he thinks he doesn’t have enough forces?
        But I simply do not think Trump is so naive, so foolish. The left’s behavior was and is too in the face; Trump must know by now what’s coming if he abdicates.

        As for the GOP:
        A convincing case can be made that the GOP made a deal with the democrats: the never trumpers cheered the prospect of geting rid of Trump in favor of Biden and the return of business as usual. And the GOP gets to keep the senate, therefore keeping power.

        See for, example, how the hundreds of thousands of ballots from the night of november 4th were for Biden only. I don’t think it was because the left operatives didn’t have time to fill all positions. They just wanted to project the appearance that they are keeping their alliance with the GOP – needed in order to cover up this blatant, shameless fraud.
        That is to say, evidence presented at the legislatures showed that the left had a much better hidden system of election fraud put in place. And with it, they did steal votes/positions from the GOP. It’s just that Trump won in such a landslide, that he overwhelmed any cheating that could be more or less hidden.

        Also, see how much of the GOP was strangely silent and inactive since november 4th, or outright traitorous in covering up the election fraud.
        I think they are getting nervous, though, especially after the revelations about the left’s hidden election fraud. The Georgia secretary of state just started a lot of investigations aimed at elimination of leftist cheating – but only for the january 5th election.

        In my opinion, the GOP is idiotic. They lost their electorate with their refusal to help Trump in this stolen election.
        And without the electorate, the only way to keep their positions is by electoral fraud. But the left controls the electoral fraud system, and the left has the fanatic operatives that have no problem stealing hundreds of thousands of votes. The same left that really wants its political opponents gone.
        And the GOP has, what? The DOJ, perhaps? Without Trump winning now, the GOP is fucked, even if they manage to keep the senate, short-term.

        • The Cominator says:

          “But is a surprise attack needed”

          Its always an advantage, particularly when the enemy is liable to be mostly celebrating and drunk…

          “Of course, the worst case scenario would be for Trump to only follow the legal and legislature paths.
          Perhaps because he has faith the republic will right itself, or because he thinks he doesn’t have enough forces?”

          The left has made it clear with the phony pardongate story, and the phony refusal to allow Flynn’s case to be dismissed even that he has nothing to lose. He might have cucked before but I can’t see him surrendering peacefully now. I really don’t think he wants to get on a plane to Kazakhstan on January 19th.

          “As for the GOP:
          A convincing case can be made that the GOP made a deal with the democrats:”

          In Georgia Kemp did (and either Raffensperger did or he was an enemy agent from the beginning) did but mostly they are just kind of cowardly. I think the ones who were in a position to help us but showed cowardice in the face of the enemy should suffer the same fate as leftists though.

          “In my opinion, the GOP is idiotic. They lost their electorate with their refusal to help Trump in this stolen election.
          And without the electorate, the only way to keep their positions is by electoral fraud. But the left controls the electoral fraud system”

          They’ll realize this when the left steals the two Senate seats as well.

          • Not Tom says:

            I’m not so convinced that Trump is planning some elaborate trap, but I do think he should let them lose the Georgia elections purely on principle. Let them reap what they have sown. That’s the real reason I found his Georgia speech kind of sickening, not because he believes in the system (or pretends to) but because he appeared willing to reward their abject cowardice and/or treachery. If they can’t deliver a few electors, why should he deliver them Senate seats?

            Not that establishment Republicans really mind losing elections, it’s practically part of the job description.

            • BC says:

              That’s the real reason I found his Georgia speech kind of sickening, not because he believes in the system (or pretends to) but because he appeared willing to reward their abject cowardice and/or treachery. If they can’t deliver a few electors, why should he deliver them Senate seats?

              I took it the same way. That’s why my hope is Trump is falsely signally that he’s going to place GOP king maker and leave office as the GOP has been offering him in exchange for leaving. I hope instead he’s giving the appearance of giving up while readying his counter stroke.

          • BC says:

            They’ll realize this when the left steals the two Senate seats as well.

            The problem with cowards is they only react to the people currently threatening them. As far as I know there’s no one on the right threatening to harm the cowardly GOP cucks. As such, they’re likly to continue to cuck until they’re murdered by one side or the other.

            • The Cominator says:

              Well a surprise coup will put them between the devil and the deep sea now won’t it.

              • BC says:

                I rather hope it puts them up against the nearest wall. Rigging an election and committing treason against one’s own people should never be treated lightly.

        • Anonymous 2 says:

          “In my opinion, the GOP is idiotic. They lost their electorate with their refusal to help Trump in this stolen election.”

          Indeed. Not a good look when you’re selling “standing by muh principles, even if uncomfortable”. I suppose principles will be resumed after this short break, please stand by.

      • Pooch says:

        Wow genius. Now this is one of your predictions I can get behind. Complete 4D chess if true.

    • onyomi says:

      Trump tweets that Sullivan has finally dismissed the case against Flynn. I don’t know if this means anything bigger, but obviously it’s better if judges, for now at least, don’t think they can simply ignore presidential pardons.

  27. Robert Nares says:

    Some very mixed signals from the Trump admin that I find difficult to draw any overall conclusions from.

    As others have said, the Georgia speech seemed pretty complacent, pretty afflicted by normalcy bias. But then Trump clears house at the Pentagon and appoints loyalists, seemingly preparing for a non-democratic power struggle of some kind. Anyone willing to hazard a guess as to what Trump’s game is?

  28. Anonymous Fake says:

    Ever get the feeling that the WWII “greatest” Generation did everything right, and still lost their country and civilization because they did not fix the schools? And do you ever get the feeling that you (probably a Boomer) aren’t as good as they were? And the latest generation, well…

    I say that the school are the weak link in this civilization’s chain, the single most important point of failure, and they aren’t being fixed by the right because there still isn’t a plan to fairly compensate their victims. The “solution” is to flood the country with uneducated immigrants in an attempt to lift up the salaries of college graduates to what they feel like they were promised. We see where that ends. It ends so badly that WWII veterans can look back with regret at everything they thought they were fighting for, to see it all taken away.

    • jim says:

      Allowing this through because it is an actual argument, rather than presupposing we agree with cultural Marxism..

      What the schools are doing wrong is that instead of educating people they are training an enemy priesthood in an evil religion, producing a gross oversupply of priests, who then intrude into the activities of warriors and merchants.

      “Compensating” the miseducated means supply priestly jobs for evil priests of an evil priesthood.

      To suppress the hostile enemy religion, we have to penalize its adherents with loss of wealth and status, not reward its priests. It is time for the dissolution of the monasteries, which is not actually all that rough the competent monks and nuns, because they get jobs, marriages, and children, which the schools are denying them.

      But those who have no capability to create wealth, only the capability to be holier than thou, just have to suffer humiliation and hunger, or they will continue to afflict us, and even the competent former monks and nuns will fail to produce, fail to get married, and fail to have children, and will continue to suffer. We have to suppress the oversupply, which is necessarily rough on those with no capability to do anything else. In order to have value, we must reward those who create value, and punish those who cannot or will not create value.

      At the time of the dissolution of the monasteries, England had far too many monks and nuns, who had an alarming amount of worldly wealth and power.

      Theoretically they were supposed to focus their attention on the next world, and theoretically they had a round of rituals that were supposed to keep their attention focused on God and eternity, but in actual fact there was only one nunnery, and no monasteries, in England that were actually conducting this round of rituals.

      The vast majority of the monks and nuns got productive jobs and marriages. Some of them, a significant minority, became vagrants, beggars, and thieves. It was a minority, but a large enough minority to cause considerable problems. For which they were publicly whipped, branded, and sometimes publicly hung. That is the cure.

      Experts in priesting simply have to lose their jobs. We cannot operate a functional society with this many people trained primarily in holiness. They will just have to find other jobs – which may well be greeter at Walmar or barista at Starbucks, as a great many people with a hundred thousand in college debt training them for a job in Human Resources imposing critical race theory on the corporation already wind up doing, because of the gross oversupply of stupid people trained only in holiness and priesting.

      For the productive to get their rightful reward, the value that they create, the unproductive have to suffer hunger and humiliation.

      • Anonymous Fake says:


        • jim says:

          That is plausible argument for Marxism, rather than robotic npc spam, and if Marxism was serious opponent, I would debate it.

          But Marxism has lost both to rational and evidence based argument, and, more importantly, lost because everyone has enough bread, but no one has enough virgin pussy. So, I am ruling that debate a distraction and a waste of space. What happens when the state crushes the merchant class is evident and undeniable. Want to debate that?

          • Locust Post says:

            The powers are crushing the merchant class. I know because I am one. This morning I woke with thoughts that I’m a small business that is being snuffed out by the never ending lockdowns, “peaceful” protests (yet another marched by this past Saturday and killed the weekend by chasing patrons away) and outright unanswered crime. Somehow I’m supposed to pay bills and the latest property tax has a 15% increase and the tax is now much more than I make.

    • onyomi says:

      How does flooding the country with uneducated immigrants lift up the salaries of US college graduates? You mean, even though labor is oversupplied at the bottom end the priestly jobs will be uplifted relative to that mass of uneducated serfs? I don’t think that’s how it’s worked in practice, as academic and other “priestly” jobs have gotten more competitive and less remunerative in recent decades even as the total number of societal resources sucked up by student loans, administrators, and otherwise turning college campuses into resorts has ballooned.

      Jim is probably right that there’s no avoiding diminishing the social cache of Harvard et al. and especially of the four-year degree as a stepping stone to a good job (they are working on that already by trying to phase out the SAT and other elements of rigor at the selection phase, which is the real sorting mechanism). But it seems to me a good initial step is cutting immigration across the board, including of the sort of H1B1 visa that tech companies use to compete with the local talent. Even people that get what they assumed to be more practical degrees, like STEM now have to compete with an unlimited supply of Indian and Chinese candidates who will work for less, not make waves, not unionize, mouth the right pieties…

    • Not Tom says:

      Wrong. We have a very good solution to the problem of the academy: eliminating it, i.e. dissolving the monasteries. Trade schools and perhaps engineering may be allowed to remain, if they are willing to shed 100% of the pozzed administrators.

      It’s obviously a solution you don’t like, because you feel entitled to other people’s money, and formalizing your worthless degree as worthless will make you lose status and opportunities for more parasitism. But it is not only a great solution, it’s the only practical solution.

    • Bilge_Pump says:

      Problem? School is turning out useless fuckwits.

      Your solution? Compensate “victims” for learning how to be useless fuckwits.

      How is this not basically a more cynical and honest version of Communism? Who do you think you’re talking to?

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      >the right…flood the country with uneducated immigrants in an attempt to lift up the salaries

      Schizophrenia is funny to laugh at a distance; annoying to see in person. Clean yourself up.

  29. BC says:

    Big Talk Barr stepping down now that he’s job of protecting the deep state is done:

    • BC says:

      Early on some RINO once said that Trump should be taken out like Cesar, get someone close to him and then knife him in the back(metaphorically). That was Barr’s job.

    • pyrrhus says:

      Flynn MI team forces way into Antrim County Courthouse, copies Dominion hard drive, squashes Sheriff’s attempts to stop them….

      • Not Tom says:

        If we want a play-by-play of Teddy’s blog then we can visit it ourselves. He’s a good guy, but he links to Qtards and isn’t a reliable source on the election saga.

        • peter y connor says:

          Not Tom, Your continued use of the word “Qtards”, Q being a highly successful morale operation that has caused the Cabal to expend resources in an unsuccessful attempt to squash it, and complete lack of knowledge of what Vox actually thinks and advocates, raises serious questions about your usefulness…

          • Mike in Boston says:

            caused the Cabal to expend resources in an unsuccessful attempt to squash it

            A “morale operation” that lulls our side into inaction, telling them to trust some nonexistent plan? No thanks.

            The “Q” grift, like the Republican party, seems to have two purposes: to channel and dissipate the energy that could otherwise be used to productively oppose the Cathedral; and to make money for its principals.

            I’m sure our side has poured more money and effort down the rathole of “Q” bullshit that whatever trivial expenditures the Left has made in the process of half-heartedly aiming a few desultory blows at it.

          • Not Tom says:

            Ok mister complete stranger newfag, your opinions about my usefulness are very important, we’ll all stop noticing and pointing out that Q is enemy propaganda because we want Jim’s blog to be a carbon copy of Ted’s blog. Thanks so much for your valuable input.

      • jim says:

        Trump has to cross a Rubicon, and needs a general.

        Looks like he has a general.

        But Steve Gruber is not a reliable source.

        Do we have independent confirmation that General Flynn’s team is taking action?

        • Edit_XYZ says:

          Whatever happened in Antrim County, gen. Flynn is just fine with Trump invoking the insurrection act:

          That is to say, if gen. Flynn’s team really forced their way to the voting machines, things are well on their way to becoming kinetic.

          • jim says:

            But the question is: Is it true that Flynn’s team forced their way to the voting machines?

            • Not Tom says:

              The legal judgment for Antrim actually happened, and I can believe that they tried to ignore that judgment and some force was required. The rest seems made up. The best disinfo tends to incorporate little tidbits of truth so that disinfo agents can play motte and bailey.

              Notice also how quickly they pivot from the magic German server to the magic Antrim machine. Very similar narrative, the Antrim machines actually exist but they are wanted for auditing purposes, not for the gay Qtard muh-algorithms narrative.

              • jim says:

                > I can believe that they tried to ignore that judgment and some force was required.

                The Qtard stuff does not matter. What matters is “some force was required”.

                They surely would have tried ignore that judgement. Was force required, and who applied that force?

                Trump says big things happening in the next couple of days.

                Big things are not going to happen without the application of force. Is force being applied, and who is applying it?

                • Not Tom says:

                  I would assume local police. If Trump stormed in with military troops, we’d be hearing about it in the legacy media, not fringe wacko sites.

                  Trump always says big things are happening, I tend not to put too much stock in it. He signals as a dictator then acts moderate. Whatever will happen will happen, but I’m just enormously tired of all the tea-leaf reading and confirmation bias. This disinfo campaign has been relentless, I just want to stick to independently verifiable facts. This is what they do, even if you don’t fall for their bait directly, it wears you down over time until you just stop caring.

                • jim says:

                  > I would assume local police. If Trump stormed in with military troops, we’d be hearing about it in the legacy media, not fringe wacko sites.

                  No. We would not hear about it from the mainstream media.

                  But we would hear about it from more than one wacko site.

                  On the other hand, for the court’s order to be actually acted on, someone had to storm in with military forces. Has the court’s order been acted on?

                • Not Tom says:

                  Dude, legacy media would be shrieking at the top of their lungs about any military troops in a civilian office. We know they would, because they did exactly that any time there was any federal or federally-deputized presence during the 2020 Festival of St Floyd.

                  They didn’t want to open up, so some local cops busted down the door, and one or two wackos invented a ridiculously complicated fairy tale to go along with it. Occam’s Razor, case closed.

                • jim says:

                  > Legacy media would be shrieking at the top of their lungs about any military troops in a civilian office.


                  Mentioning any coercive investigation of ballot fraud would undermine the no evidence of ballot fraud narrative.

                  you are suffering from normalcy bias.

                • jim says:

                  > so some local cops busted down the door


                  No damned way are some local cops busting down that door.

                  “A group of patriots from northern Michigan answered Mr. Bailey’s call for help”

                  This is not normality happening.

                  One source says patriots, another source says troops with Flynn in charge. Two sources reporting something highly abnormal, not clear what, and whatever went down, that machines were secured at all could not have happened unless something highly abnormal went down.

                  Laws, legality, elections and due process ceased to matter on 2020-11-04 04-05 Any time something like this happens, it is someone pointing guns at someone.

                  War is upon us. The only question is are we fighting back. If the machines were seized, and I still do not trust that information, someone is fighting back.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Mentioning any coercive investigation of ballot fraud would undermine the no evidence of ballot fraud narrative.

                  How so? Their narrative is “Trump is trying to overturn our totally fair and legitimate election and disenfranchise millions of voters”. They’d love to be able to show military intervention.

                  And it was locals, the clarification from Pooch had already come in before you replied. They were escorted by some local sheriffs. Sounds like they didn’t really have to break down the door, just have law enforcement physically present.

                  “Normalcy bias” isn’t taking police into a ballot office to take away a machine for forensic analysis, no matter how it was precisely organized. Give us a break.

        • Pooch says:

          I’m not hearing anything about this outside of this Gruber guy. As of now, it’s just an internet rumor.

  30. The Cominator says:

    For anyone who is feeling bad or blackpilled right now I’ll remind you of four important facts

    1. The Democrats have made it clear they intend to prosecute and imprison (and yes eventually probably murder but they aren’t saying that part yet) Trump his family and anyone around him. They’ve made it clear they will not respect his pardons either.

    2. Trump has said recently “Biden can’t be President”.

    3. Trump immediately after the election installed a loyalist command structure in the Pentagon and cut the perfumed princes out of specops command entirely.

    4. The military has refused Biden’s transition access to intelligence.

  31. stan says:

    Rudy Giuliani tests positive for covid. Time for Trump to quit the court game, I guess.

  32. loclun-midwyt says:

    I was also quite blackpilled by the Georgia rally, though a lot of normie MAGA twitter accounts seem quite happy.

    What I saw was Trump complaining about blatant fraud, and complaining that the governor has the power to change things, but won’t. Insisting on election reform, but that we’ll be doing it once we win the senate, once its too late. Praising Dan Crenshaw, Cucker, and others. It would seem like an attempt to return to the preelection state of things. Joking about having to wait until 2024 to run again. Lots of emphasis on how great he did on election night. Some discussion of fraud (the video was good), but no real discussion of how he plans to win or any of the court cases. Or punishment for the culprits. Just generic “in a few weeks we will win and the media won’t be happy” type comments.

    If Trump was a dumb boomer, this would be the exact speech he would give if he intented on giving up the fight. Go out with a bang. A huge rally, with the biggest crowds. Convince all of his supporters that he truly did win bigly, though give them no way of fighting the corrupt system, but rather, endorse the rigged system by telling them all to vote in the runoffs. With the added bonus that he can add keeping the senate majority to his legacy.

    But we know Trump isn’t a dumb boomer. And we know about the restructuring of the military he has been doing, and the blocking of Biden’s people from intel. So for now, I’m willing to trust the plan.

    Someone whitepill me by explaining how retarded my interpretation is.

    • Jehu says:

      Well, you can’t say.
      The states are corrupt, the legislatures are corrupt, the media is corrupt, the federal courts are corrupt. They all know this was stolen but they refuse to do the right thing. Therefore I am calling out the military and we’re going to burn them all down, have military tribunals and helicopter rides,
      Until you have sufficient support for burning it all down among whatever group you’re relying on to do it. Therefore you say nice doggie, and stoke the anger of your supporters while you try to get critical mass.

    • BC says:

      Telling your foes you’re going cross the Rubicon is likly to result in them having a bunch of armies waiting at the Rubicon. If you put them at ease, you have better chance of striking when they don’t have their forces assembled. My guess is Trump is ready to cross and he’s counter signalling so his foes won’t be ready for it.

      But that’s just a guess.

    • onyomi says:

      My sort of grey-pilled interpretation reconciling the “passing the torch,” “cementing my legacy”-type talk at Georgia with the more bellicose tone of the Oval Office address and suggestive reshuffling of Pentagon leadership, etc. is that Trump is still trying to win through conventional means like SCOTUS and state legislatures but is aware of the need to enforce victory and put down an antifa rebellion if and when he achieves such favorable outcomes. The black pill is that he is not acting like he intends to stay in office even in the case all legal victories are denied, but the white pill is that, so long as he still has, at his fingertips, the power to enforce a victory and put down an antifa rebellion, he can, at any time prior to 1/20, decide he doesn’t actually need them.

      Also a mixed bag: it was clear the crowd in GA was 100% there for #fightfortrump and 0% there for #keepthesenate. The white pill is that the people genuinely love Trump and, I think, would literally fight for him if called upon to do so. The black pill is that, being lawful good types, it seems unlikely they will fight back en masse if not directed to do so by a leader like Trump, which are not a dime-a-dozen (people will not go to the barricades for Ted Cruz). It will be very sad if this intense anti-establishment anger, loyalty, and unity goes to waste.

    • Pooch says:

      Was Trump’s speech directed to the Senate? Although rapidly becoming irrelevant as it did during the fall of the Roman Republic, Augustus smartly rallied for support of the Senate against Mark Antony, knowing it was necessary for him to be viewed as the savior of the Republic.

  33. […] To understand modern day politics and why labels such are Left and Right have become nonsensical without an absolute scale, we need to actually understand what is true Left and Right. This is actually not my own invention but what I have gathered from reading and understanding neoreactionary stuff. […]

  34. The Cominator says:

    Looks like the military command is loyalist controlled enough that they are refusing Biden intel access, Rubicon looks like it should go off without a hitch.

    • European Mutt says:

      If Biden ever made it to the White House would he be facing a military coup? Sounds more and more like it.

      • jim says:

        Biden is irrelevant. He will be ignored, not couped. The deep staters may well be couped while Biden remains in place.

        • European Mutt says:

          Would be funny to watch at least. Imagine Dementia Joe or Cameltoe having to announce something like the deportation of all illegals as ‘their policy’. If Trump had the sense to flee to Kazakhstan he could come back like Napoleon from Elba. Might even work but very risky.

          • jim says:

            I would strongly recommend that quite a lot of people flee to the periphery of the Russian or Chinese hegemonies.

            • The Cominator says:

              Nah looks like the Rubicon will be crossed to me…

              • Pooch says:

                Betting against Jim is often not a smart play.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Yes, but then so has betting against Trump. How often has he said or done something that appears to be suicidal, and yet he comes out looking better than ever. Whenever it looks like Trump has put a gun to his head, once the smoke clears all his enemies are mysteriously the only ones who caught a bullet.

              • jim says:

                I have hope.

              • Eli says:

                There is one week remaining for action. I don’t see how he has more time than that.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Election challenges can and have lasted until the day before inauguration, and some of those in the past have been when inauguration day was much later.

                  It’s not over until either Trump concedes or Biden/Kamala is in the White House. I doubt that the latter will happen without the former happening first, so even if the Electoral College is a sham, still not over if Trump doesn’t concede.

                  Remember the Democrats’ wargames? Don’t concede under any circumstances. Their own words for their own strategy.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’m not talking about “legal”.

                • Jehu says:

                  If the courts basically say, yeah Biden stole it but we can’t or won’t do anything about it, that pretty much guarantees there will be war, probably hot war. It might even go hot before the ink is dry. People will not accept being procedurally defeated in a case like this, even if it has ‘sound’ legal reasoning.

                • jim says:

                  It will lead to war eventually.

                  It will lead to war before the ink is dry if Trump proclaims the insurrection act.

                  If he fails to proclaim the insurrection act, will lead to war around 2026 or so.

            • BC says:

              Would any part of the American periphery be somewhat safe? My family has friends well established in some of the freer parts of Latin America.

              • jim says:

                I expect the American empire to contract.

                Further, when Rome went down the toilet, a whole lot of the Roman elite moved to the periphery of empire, where things remained tranquil for centuries.

  35. BC says:

    Looks like the left has singled Antifa to start attacking Trump supporters again. They’re back out in force wearing full battle gear. Check out Andy Ngo’s feed.

    • Bilge_Pump says:

      I try to warn my parents about feral minorities and communists burning and looting shit. They treat me like I’m making shit up, and go back to listening to NPR….

      • Starman says:


        Your parents and social circle are quite a contrast to my relatives and social circle, who are mostly police, military and veterans. They are deeply enraged by Antifa/BLM violence and the election fraud.

        • Bilge_Pump says:

          I don’t want to give too much away but my dad’s side of the family has a long history of military / government involvement, and he is paid as a contractor to do things with members of the armed forces. He claims he’s not a liberal, but he listens to NPR / reads NYT daily and looks and me like I’m retarded when I talk about antifa / communist subversion.

          • Starman says:

            So not actual military, but DC contractors/civilian employees who work with the military?

            Nobody in my military/police social circle listens to NPR.

    • pyrrhus says:

      Apparently they bombed the house of a Trump supporter in MI on Saturday night…

  36. ~loclun-midwyt says:

    I see Betfair have him at 32 to 1. What’s the chance if Trump wins, they still payout for Biden on some technicality? Otherwise that seems like free money.

    • INDY says:

      I didn’t bet on any websites before election day for this reason. I still imagine they will try and weasel out.

      I made several personal bets and made sure it was “Biden will be in office Jan 22 vs Trump will be in office Jan 22”

      • Gack says:

        Back in 2008 my son bet online against Guáantnamo being closed. the website adjudicated it had been closed because Obama said he was going to close it.

    • Pooch says:

      Yeah I bet pre-election on an off shore book and they already processed my Trump bets as losing bets. I would make sure there’s fine print about who is being inaugurated like INDY is saying.

      • BC says:

        I looked into betting but considering the sort of insane crap I expected with this election I decide they probably wouldn’t pay out no matter what.

    • jim says:

      I would not bet, because I would not expect a payout.

      I bet very heavily on the collapse of the great minority mortgage meltdown. It collapsed exactly when I and everyone else expected it to collapse, and I did not get a payout.

      The official prices of worthless mortgage backed securities remained high, and they continued to be rated as equal in security to government bonds, even though no one could sell them at any price, and they stopped paying out.

      • Dave says:

        The technical term for this is “counterparty risk” — you win a bet but the other guy doesn’t pay up. You probably shouldn’t buy earthquake insurance for the same reason.

        • jim says:

          When your counterparty is quasi statal entity, and you are betting against the state, you will be declared to have lost your bet, no matter what happens. Short of total government collapse, in which case your counterparty is not going to pay out anyway.

          • suones says:

            I do not understand. Isn’t counterparty risk (along with all other risk) already priced into the initial transaction price?

            How is the price for a junk security kept high if no-one is willing to buy at any price? In my country the usual technique is that the Govt starts buying those securities (using funny money) through various proxies, thus the price actually remains high. If you hold such junk yourself, you can sell to the Govt proxy and at least recover some of your investment.

            I understand if you shorted the junk, expecting it to go down catastrophically, and it doesn’t, then you take a loss. Mybe this is what you did.

            • bindine says:

              I believe our host sees this incorrectly on a few levels

              If the odds are currently 3% but Trump makes convincing moves and the odds go to 30% you can exit your position up 10x

              The counterparty risk becomes someone else’s problem only if they hold into February

              If you knew or stongly suspected that Trump’s chances were under valued Nov 2 at roughly 20% but were bound to increase election night to 80% as returns came in, before plummeting to 30% or lower as forged ballots were discovered?

              There was no reason not to make tens of thousands of dollars as it played out.

              Likewise if we all strongly suspect that Trump will can convince the public like he has a 50% chance of winning then we should all make a lot of money between now and February.

              Many places to make these bets including crypto platforms.

              • jim says:

                Been there done that with mortgage backed securities in the Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown. (Which melted down exactly when, and in the manner, everyone with half a brain expected them to melt down, but the people shorting them were not paid.)

                In such a circumstance, you are betting that the bookie is honest when you are betting that the game is rigged. The official price of mortgage backed securities remained at their official price even though they had stopped payments and noone could sell them at any price.

                And if you bet that Biden will not become president, the bookie will say he became president even if Trump has him shot on January nineteenth. This being what happened to people attempting to short Mortgage backed securities.

                • hegs says:

                  Slight difference between normal bookie and Betfair as it is an exchange, therefore punter vs punter, and takes a commission, approx 2% on settled bets, therefore their interest is primarily in settling the market.

                  Interestingly, the ‘USA – Presidential Election 2020 – Next President’ on Betfair is open for over a year, on the night after the election there was about $500 million staked, this market now has $2000 million staked. The 2016 election I think was their previous biggest market on anything which ended up at around $300 million so this is a staggering volume.

                  Trump is now about 25/1, free money to be made with odds moving, as Betfair must settle this market to make their 2%. Though a wise move would be too cash out when Trumps odd collapse in again once he makes his move.


                • jim says:

                  This has never worked in the past. It would be astonishing if it worked in the future.

                • bindine says:

                  If you bought TRUMPWIN at .20c and sold at .80c you would have 4xd your money.

                  This was absolutely possible on election night. The order books and charts are public.

                  Say you buy TRUMPSTAY for .11c today. After supreme court victories, insurrection acts and audits roll in and pump the price to .33c you will triple your money.

                  What happens if you hold TRUMPSTAY until expiry on 12am 1 Feb? That is harder to predict but it doesn’t really matter. By that point you will be so deep in the money you will properly hedged or taken profit.

                  Try it with $100 so that *next time* you have this kind of alpha you can win bigger.

                  Jim got burned 13 years ago on a series of bets with complex structure, sure. But don’t let that stop you from making simple trades on prediction markets when you have an edge.

  37. Anonymous Fake says:

    Lots of people below are talking about education reform. No one talking about fairly compensating those who performed well under the old system. I sense a lot of closet revolutionaries here, not reactionaries. Ever think you’re trying to beat the left at their own game?

    • jim says:

      No one deserves compensation for performing in academia.

      Academic qualifications are only of value if they are evidence of ability to create value.

      No one deserves or should receive compensation for work. They deserve value for creating value. Work has no value, unless it creates value. Work is worthless and deserves no compensation. People deserve the value that their work creates, if their work creates value.

      And they also deserve the value that their wise application of capital to its highest and best use creates.

      Work has no value. Creating value, however, often requires a great deal of work.

      Looking for diamonds creates no value and deserves no reward. Finding diamonds creates value and deserves the value created.

      I will resume silently deleting your excessively numerous comments if you ignore my response, and just go on presupposing that labor content is value and no one disagrees. If you want to debate the labor theory of value, we will proceed with that debate, but I expect you to just go right on assuming the labor theory of value is self evidently true, and everyone, including me, agrees that it is true. Which unresponsive responses I intend to continue to silently delete.

      • Anonymous Fake says:


        • jim says:

          As I expected, you, as usual, explained to me what I am really saying, what I really meant, and what my reasoning really implied, on the presupposition that I accept the Marxist theory that I just flatout rejected.

          Returning to silent deletion.

    • The Cominator says:

      So what useless cathedral job do you have, I had an ee degree I got in the mid Bush years and I almost guarantee my academic course was harder than yours. There were no entry jobs for white guys so I’m not sympathetic to you.

      • Mike says:

        @Anonymous Fake

        While I do have sympathy for those unfortunate few (and I do say few, most who go for the leftist sinecure path today do so knowing full well what they’re doing) who went for academia/media/HR due to their parents or society pushing those careers on them as “high-status,” the reality is, sometimes you get hit. You can’t expect every closet rightist or misguided bureaucrat to get a fair shake during a mass purge. I’m sure some academics, politicians, and bureaucrats who weren’t “true believers” got fucked over during Franco’s purges, it happens. The vast majority of the people in those fields however, at this moment in history, are full-on leftists who deserve little to no thought whatsoever. At best they deserve to be demoted and given new superiors who are aligned with the new way of doing things. At worst, they deserve to be fired, exiled, or shot.

      • European Mutt says:

        Is he already trying to negotiate his terms of surrender? Should not be negotiated under any circumstances.

        Anyone with a useless degree but enough competence in any area will land on his feet if we win. Fertile women will go back to being housewives. Cat ladies will have to become nuns or whatever equivalent of nuns to survive.

        Fairness and equality do not exist. Progs and marxists always get very angry and incoherent when you explain to them that the real problem is poverty.

    • Not Tom says:

      “Wah wah wah, I’ll be out of a job, my useless degree will be useless, if you don’t do something about that then you’re no better than the revolutionaries”.

      What a dipshit. Revolutionaries want to kill everyone and take their stuff. We just want them to stop trying to kill us and take our stuff and paying useless parasites such as yourself a tiny fraction of the spoils that none of them earned.

      And yes, you’re clearly one of them because you’re a Marxist, and all Marxists are either parasites or revolutionaries, which are just the passive and active versions of the same thing.

      • The Cominator says:

        To be fair I at least want to be similarly merciless to them and all who support them. And any greengrocer’s better have acted entirely under coercion, the minute they acted beyond the bare minimum they stop being a greengrocer and start being a prog…

        • Not Tom says:

          Since the rules are informal and constantly changing, there are going to be a few who act in anticipation of punishment absent actual coercion. That doesn’t make them leftists.

          But no one is coercing anyone to take African Studies. That’s self-evidently not done under real or anticipated coercion, it’s an obvious attempt to gain entry into the progressive priesthood. There’s a clear difference here, no need to purity spiral.

          • The Cominator says:

            “Since the rules are informal and constantly changing, there are going to be a few who act in anticipation of punishment absent actual coercion. That doesn’t make them leftists.”

            Nits make lice.

        • jim says:

          Coercion is unobvious, implied, and unpredictable. No one knows whether they are being coerced, so it is impossible for an outside party to know. You see this dynamic in the climategate files.

          • The Cominator says:

            Businessmen in blue areas can plausibly argue coercion. Businessmen who are systematically important like Zuck can plausibly argue coercion. People with jobs in big corps can plausibly argue it. Loss of livelihood and possible violent or legal harassment should be considered a defense.

            Other people should be assumed that they weren’t coerced that they did it to be fashionable (this is what I saw when I lived in Massachussetts) doing it merely to avoid losing social capital absent loss of job or livelihood should not be considered a sufficient defense.

            • jim says:

              Look, I am not happy with executing Scott Alexander, despite the fact he did no end of crimes worthy of execution while under no direct coercion, and indeed rationalizing away the knowledge that he was being coerced even when he was in fact acting under quite direct and open coercion – because his very thoughts were coerced, causing him to “voluntarily” engage in no end of evil, self destructive and self hurting acts that he could have easily gotten away with not doing.

              Thus, when he wanted to do research that would have obviously produced thought crime data, hate facts, he was quite directly and overtly silenced by the official organs of the state, and proceeded to generate innocuous rationalizations of his silence and the fact that he was being quite directly silenced, which rationalizations bled over into his private life and caused him to do wicked and stupid things that he could have quite safely avoided doing.

              And if he had done the research, he would have come up with a clever rationalization of the hate facts, and would have told the inquisitors “Hey this data is fine, it merely implies X”. And would have been punished anyway because the inquisitors would know what they did not know and could not say, or even think, that the data did not imply X, but Y, where Y is unthinkable and unsayable.

            • European Mutt says:

              People who did it only to be fashionable have no incentive to continue doing so when the wind happens to be blowing in the other direction. So present them with 39 or whatever number of articles, including ‘Nazism is left-wing’, ‘Women are the lustful sex’ and ‘Gays must be killed’. If they affirm all of them, they get off scot free. If not, which won’t be the case for many, then maybe execute them.

              I agree with executing the top leftists and essentially all the ‘true believers’ but image-focused normies are not a comparable threat.

              • The Cominator says:

                Sure but they have no interest in truth and I hate them for that in itself.

                • BC says:

                  @Cominator, that’s a pretty normal way to look at it for Spergs who value correct information above all else. However, we’re dealing with religion here. Religion is about shaping people’s behavior through ideas, not truth.

                • jim says:

                  When religion starts making this worldly claims, some of them are bound to be wrong, as Saint Augustine complained and foresaw.

                  Then, to protect the religion, the religion starts making war on truth, which war gets out of control.

                  Religious claims should be demonstrably and reliably true, or else unfalsifiable.

                  The most important religious claim applicable to this word is to settle the rules and expectations for cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, to prevent people gaming what constitutes cooperation.

                  Saint Augustine declared himself a biblical literalist, and then proceeded to qualify and redefine “literalism” to allow for all sorts of empirical facts that he clearly suspected might well be true, among them, old earth creationism.

                  I am a biblical literalist as Saint Augustine was – meaning I know the earth to be immensely old, I think that the story of exodus is true poetically, but the divine wrath and the ten plagues of Egypt manifested through cause and effect, chance and necessity, as described in the Admonitions of Ipuwer, rather than through literal miracles, that Adam was the first priest patriarch, that Babel was the first big city and the first empire, and that in Babel people’s language was not supernaturally divided, but rather that a polyethnic polylinguistic empire fragmented along ethnic lines that approximately corresponded to dialects and languages, with ethnic groups departing the central city to create nations and expand cities of their own ethnicity, the point of the story being that division into many nations is divinely ordained.

                • I think the best way I am able to navigate modern politics is by the Bus analogy, wherein we can map left-right politics easily and find out who’s a real leftist and who’s a real rightist.

                  From my own understanding of Jim’s writings, which are extraordinarily sane and meaningful.

                  Bus = State

                  Straight narrow path with leftward direction signs showing “this way to Utopia” = Constitution

                  Leftists = Competing bus drivers who compete to increase the speed of the bus regardless of whether it stays safely on the straight narrow path, because they think they can reach the destination faster.

                  Modern Establishment Right = Bus drivers who’re alarmed at the speed of the bus, rather than the direction and who want to keep the bus on the straight narrow path regardless of whether the movement is further leftwards.

                  Normies or common people = Passengers who are blindfolded and who’re repeatedly assured by the Leftist bus drivers that they’re on the right path to the destination safely while the Establishment Rightist bus drivers are crying out against the increasing speed and lack of safety. They are confused by the competing signals but still believe that the path they’re heading towards is right, because all the drivers say so.

                  Reactionaries = Passengers with blindfold off who shout that we are heading in the wrong direction and that the signboards are wrong. They want to halt the bus and take a 180 degree turn and return to the original spot from which the bus started.

                  Dictator of the Stalin mould = A driver who takes control of the bus by eliminating all the other competing drivers and decides on what he determines to be a safe place to halt the bus, because it preserves the bus and keeps him in power.

                  I think the main argument among reactionaries seem to be able the mechanics of halting the bus and taking the 180 degree turn safely. Some want the bus to crash hard and hope to survive the crash and build another bus to head back to where they came from, whereas others seem to think that it’s possible to safely stop the bus by eliminating the Leftist drivers completely, tying up or eliminating the Establishment Right drivers kicking and screaming, and then steer the bus back home safely with most of the passengers intact.

                • jim says:

                  > others seem to think that it’s possible to safely stop the bus by eliminating the Leftist drivers completely, tying up or eliminating the Establishment Right drivers kicking and screaming, and then steer the bus back home safely with most of the passengers intact.

                  Obviously I hope for the latter solution, but I was severely black pilled by Trump’s Saturday Georgia speech, in which he seemed to presuppose that politics as normal would resume. Politics as normal are not going to resume.

                • BC says:

                  Obviously I hope for the latter solution, but I was severely black pilled by Trump’s Saturday Georgia speech, in which he seemed to presuppose that politics as normal would resume. Politics as normal are not going to resume.

                  Lots of people are encouraged by the Biden’s politics as normal cabinet picks, he dumped the progressives overboard and social media is now banning progressives like they ban conservatives.

                  They’re playing at putting communism back into it’s box and focus on making corruption money. I doubt it will work but the GOP seems to believe it.

                  Trump always plays the win/win and he’s setting himself up to be the GOP king maker or cross the Rubicon. Of course if you’re going to cross the Rubicon it’s best to make sure your foes don’t know about it.

                  When Caesar crossed the Rubicon he only took the 13th with him. The Senate had spies watching his other armies for signs for preparing to move, so Caesar only moved with lightning speed with a single legion so they wouldn’t have the time to react. His moves at the Pentigon are centered around bringing US troops home but could just as easily be used to strike at his foes.

                • Mister Grumpus says:

                  Don’t blackpill.

                  The first reason being that what blackpills you is also what makes his foes relax. Appear weak when you’re strong. You know this isn’t complicated, but it is truly torturous at the emotional level.

                  Trump has to be so careful now. He has to communicate X to A, but also Y to B, and yet still Z to C, all without getting his speech censored off of Fox News and Youtube.

                  I’m not saying anyone is wrong about anything, but you might be.

                  The basic logic of “Well if they can rig this one, then they’ll just rig all of them forever” is too obvious for anyone to miss. And from there it’s just a baby step to “and if that’s the case, then they’ll never stop doing whatever the fuck they want because no one can vote them out”, and we all saw in June what that will mean in real life.

                  People are scared to death of signing their names, faces and cell phone GPS records to a failed Ins Act, but people also know danger when they feel it. Their minds are too afraid to say anything but their guts know what’s up.

                • BC says:

                  @Mister Grumpus

                  You missed the point of my post. If Trump is going to cross the Rubicon it’s best his foes don’t believe he will just as Cesar’s foes didn’t see the 13th coming. This will require him to look weak and potentially agree to walk away in exchange for being GOP kingmaker.

                  But of course those signals from Trump could be his true intentions as well. There’s no way to tell from our perspective, which is good. If we can’t tell, then neither can the left.

                • ten says:

                  Humans have had individually way more use of compliance to power than of truth in evolutionary time. Individual truth seeking is a win in the edge case where power is going all in against truth and will cause the destruction of the compliant.

                • Not Tom says:

                  in which he seemed to presuppose that politics as normal would resume. Politics as normal are not going to resume.

                  The most ridiculous part being the Senate runoffs, as if any Trump voter either (a) cares which establishment faggot gets to play political make-believe if Trump doesn’t remain in office, and (b) isn’t going to get disenfranchised by Democrat election fraud anyway. The only possible way those seats get filled by Republicans is if the Democratic machine either wants them to or doesn’t care, which implies something like he made a deal with them in order to keep the Senate, a deal which they probably have no intention of honoring. But that last part is just my speculation.

                  Barnes uses Andrew Jackson as an example of someone who actually did lose to fraud and came back 4 years later with a huge movement and a team of loyalists. But Jackson didn’t lose as an incumbent with his job half-done, and political machines with the size and scope of Milwaukee/Atlanta/Detroit/Philadelphia didn’t exist back then. He has a great knowledge of legal and political history in the American context but doesn’t understand the broader context, the decline and fall of empires.

                  I can understand the concept of Trump’s speech being misdirection, and why people would want that to be true, but that type of misdirection really isn’t Trump’s style. It would be unprecedented for him, not even Syria was that devious. Refer back to what I said several days ago about massive optimism, it’s more likely he’s been listening to people like Barnes and actually believes he can somehow make a comeback in 4 years, or even survive that long.

                  There is one other simple, less-blackpilled possibility which is that the Georgia speech came from a different speechwriter. No President ever writes his own speeches, so maybe a cuck wrote that speech and Trump doesn’t have time to vet them all in advance.

                • Starman says:

                  @Not Tom

                  “but that type of misdirection really isn’t Trump’s style.”

                  Trump did plenty of misdirection during the 2015/2016 election campaign.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Trump did plenty of misdirection during the 2015/2016 election campaign.

                  Only in the opposite direction, e.g. “lock her up”.

                  If Trump has two public faces, one as a hardliner and one as a deal maker, then the hardliner is the less trustworthy one. Sometimes that might work to our advantage, and to the advantage of the USA, such as the Syrian fake-out and North Korean “diplomacy”, but it means we have to take speeches that sound hardline with a grain of salt and interpret as a possible feint.

                  You may not like it, but I’m just being honest here when I say that observed behavior is for him to dog-whistle to the far right for greater support while actually playing mostly mild normie politics. We can all recall examples such as Lafayette Park, but that’s the availability heuristic/bias (i.e. we have no idea how probable it is for Trump to take drastic action, so we substitute a few vivid easy-to-remember examples).

                  And I would say that Jim has largely made the same point: Trump has no real desire to be a hardline dictator, but we think, or maybe hope, that history has him in its grasp and has left him with no other options for dealing with a hostile, fanatical and hysterical enemy. Well, there’s always an alternative to survival, it’s just a shitty alternative.

                  I’m with Jim that Trump has the will to survive and that survival means winning this war; there’s simply no alternative in which Trump and his family survive. However, I’m not going to idealize the man and substitute wishful thinking for reality. He’s had perpetual personnel problems, was barely able to claw away enough power just to remain in office for his first time, and is certainly no wartime consigliere. But, I’ve learned to do lots of things out of pure necessity, and my optimism lies in the fact that Trump can too, and observably has for most of his career. Which means he will get where he needs to be only with great reluctance and many stumbles, but will nevertheless get there somehow.

              • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                ‘Women are the lustful sex’ and ‘Gays must be killed’ are strong, ‘Nazism is left-wing’ is weak.

              • A Honest Indian says:

                @jim, yes, the bus is already off road, by some considerable distance I think. The only question I suppose, is whether there will be a Stalin who will drive the bus to safety and halt it somewhere or whether the bus will crash hard into a tree.

  38. The Cominator says:

    I was well justified in calling for a mass execution of all so called public health experts who did not from an early time oppose lockdowns.

    • Pooch says:

      They will be tried at the Military Tribunals along with all the vote fraudsters.

    • S.J., Esquire says:

      “Only 29 percent were willing to get a haircut”

      What in the bloody cripes? Tell me you guys are getting haircuts.

      • Dave says:

        Walmart now sells hair clippers for eleven dollars. Ask a family member to trim the back, or look around for a haircut-buddy. I’ve been doing this since long before Covid because haircuts are so expensive, owing to the time and expense of getting a barber’s license.

        • S.J., Esquire says:

          My wife does my boys with clippers, but I never take this advice seriously for an adult. She was doing my hair briefly in the spring, when all barbers were closed, and did a horrid job.

      • neofugue says:

        I pay $65 for my nice haircut once every 2 months from a late middle-aged Japanese barber who has his own studio.

        It’s expensive but I like looking handsome.

    • European Mutt says:

      Off-topic, would you take a vaccine? Something tells me the rollout is going to be massively delayed anyway and there are going to be a whole lot of saline solution injections. I am ordinarily no anti-vaxxer but I don’t trust the medical industry any more because of tech decline, especially not with mRNA. (WTF)

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        From a very early stage, the notion of a ‘covid vaccine’, when looked at as something that could be pushed as an unofficially officially ‘mandatory universal injection’, could then also be used as a convenient pretext for pushing through other ‘riders’ in to go along with it, that folk otherwise ordinarily would never stick themselves out for.

        The banality of evil bureaucratism could be the least of it; ie, functionaries mandating vaccines in accordance with their Official Science, such as only ‘approving’ vaccines that use old mercury or aluminum based preservatives to prove to the bigots that there is nothing wrong with heavy metal poisoning.

      • jim says:

        Pretty sure flu vaccines kill more people than flu does.

        Vaccination was great back when we were worried about smallpox and polio, but more and more vaccines are being applied more and more indiscriminately against ailments that are less and less lethal, and for which vaccines are less and less effective. We are well past the point of declining returns.

        Social security payments indicate the excess death rate resulting from China flu is now zero. There are no China Flu deaths. There are people who died of their ailments who had been exposed to China flu some time in their past. Pretty sure that if we vaccinate everyone with yet another vaccine, there are going to be some vaccination deaths.

        • Cloudswrest says:

          “Social security payments indicate the excess death rate resulting from China flu is now zero.”

          Basically what is going on is that Covid takes out people in the hospice stage of life *sooner* that they would have died otherwise, but the total deaths overall is still the same. From a computer science/engineering point of view Covid is draining the hospice FIFOs faster than before, but the FIFOs are still being stuffed at the same rate. So there may be a little bump as the FIFOs are initially drained and emptied, but the FIFOs aren’t being stuffed any faster, so there is natural flow control. There may be an initial transient, such as the NYC Cuomo nursing home fiasco, but the steady state death rate is still the same. This is standard pipeline theory.

          • Not Tom says:

            Basically what is going on is that Covid takes out people in the hospice stage of life *sooner* that they would have died otherwise

            No, it’s not even that. People went with that narrative back in June-ish but it can still be used to justify lockdows and shit based on “life-years” and other statistical sleight of hand. But it isn’t causing anyone to die sooner, that’s the new revelation from a few weeks ago. It’s just displacing other diseases and causes of mortality, especially heart disease.

            It is as though a company announced $100 million in revenue from a new product and hyped it up through the media, but when you actually take a look at their financial statements, you find that every last dollar was cannibalized from some other product the company was already selling, and that they didn’t attract any new business whatsoever. That’s Covid, we just took deaths from other columns and put them in the Covid column, neither the people nor the times of death changed.

            Possibly, some people did die early in places like New York, but not due to Covid, rather due to De Blasio forcing them into dangerous living conditions.

            • Not Tom says:

              Actually, better analogy is that this hypothetical company decided to bundle their new product with all of their other products and booked it all as sales of the new product, with no changes at all to cash flow at any level – monthly, quarterly or annually.

              Pretty sure this would raise alarms at the SEC, if done as a business practice. But when it comes to “public health”, par for the course.

            • Mike in Boston says:

              it isn’t causing anyone to die sooner

              Isn’t this is an overly broad statement? Lots of diseases have long-term effects that cause you to die sooner, especially if they weaken the heart. One relative of mine had a bad case of rheumatic fever in her thirties that weakened her heart and gave her lifelong heart problems; she died in her sixties, a couple of decades before her sisters. Families of long-term TB patients have similar stories.

              And now my colleague, a very active 61-year old, had a bad bout of the Wuhan coronavirus and although mostly fine now, can no longer do the punishing 90-minute morning workout he used to do pre-coronavirus. His GP is sending him for an MRI to confirm heart damage from the (still very poorly understood) hyperthrombic activity associated with the coronavirus. It is hard to imagine that this did not age him a few years prematurely.

              This blog is at least in part about believing what one sees with one’s own eyes, and what I see is a nasty viral illness less severe than the Spanish flu, but with potential long-term consequences much less well understood. I would be surprised if Anatoly Karlin’s early estimate that the Wuhan virus knocks a couple of years off of average U.S. lifespan doesn’t turn out to be mostly accurate.

              • The Cominator says:

                If you get a virus that causes pneumonia you aren’t going to fully recover for a while afterwords. Pneumonia sucks.

                But not recovering for a while after pneumonia is typical of any virus that causes pneumonia.

                • Mike in Boston says:

                  not recovering for a while after pneumonia is typical of any virus that causes pneumonia.

                  Perfectly true.

                  But the hypercoagulativity that comes along with a bad case of the Wuhan virus seems to be much worse, and maybe qualitatively different, than what you would have gotten from even the worst flus of the past. This virus also seems to cause morbidity associated with elevated seritonin levels in a way that is weird and not yet understood.

                  Of course it’s criminal for our elites to use the Wuhan virus as an excuse to lock down society in a dry run for whatever they’re planning later in the decade. But our side in the upcoming civil war is supposed to be the one that recognizes and acknowledges reality.

                  If I make sweeping generalizations about the coronavirus that are contradicted by what people see firsthand in coronavirus patients, then I undermine my credibility with those people, who I would rather have on my side in that civil war.

                • jim says:

                  We are just not seeing those deaths in the social security data, except in the first two months.

                  I would say that anything different about the China flu was caused by the use of ventilators, not the flu

                  Major issue with the virus is that it drops your oxygen levels more than other flu, and in ways that other flues do not. Any flu is going to impair your oxygen intake, and if your oxygen intake is already pretty bad, you have a problem.

                  Which gives doctors an excuse for heroic high status radical medical intervention.

                  In the first two months we had a pandemic of heroic high status medical interventions against frail people, not a pandemic of flu. Or rather we did indeed also have a pandemic of flu, and it did kill quite a few people who did not receive heroic high status medical intervention, but it only killed people who were going to croak in a couple of months anyway from cascading organ failure. The drop in oxygen levels sped up the cascading organ failure.

                  Most of the deaths were caused by ventilators, and the rest were deaths that were in the pipeline.

                  On the social security data, it is the worst flu we have had for a long time, but not enormously worse than the 2018 flu, and it is likely that if not for heroic medical intervention, probably would have been fairly similar.

                • Mike in Boston says:

                  We are just not seeing those deaths in the social security data, except in the first two months.

                  Suppose for the sake of illustration that the Wuhan virus were to, on average, knock two years off the life of those who catch a bad case of it.

                  Then I think you would expect to see, first, the deaths of people who were going to succumb to something else within the next couple of years.

                  Next, you would see a slightly elevated death rate over time as the same effect pulls deaths backwards in time, but that would be hard to tease apart from confounders. For example, it might have been hard to tell that my relative’s death in her sixties had anything to do with the levels of rheumatic fever decades earlier given all the other changes over those decades.

                  If you’re not seeing any increase in overall death rate, that could be a flaw in my reasoning. But it could also mean that excess coronavirus deaths are more or less matched by reduced deaths from other causes.

                  I would say that anything different about the China virus was caused by the use of ventilators, not the virus.

                  Certainly ventilators seem to have been the wrong prescription for this virus and were dramatically overused.

                  But I would point to hypercoagulability in particular to claim that there is indeed something different about this virus compared to influenza. Even if that difference can’t be seen in death rates, if people notice it qualitatively firsthand in terms of post-infection morbidity (as I see with my colleague’s case), then it undermines the credibility of the Right if we stick to the contention that this virus is just a flu. So we should be very careful of painting with too broad a brush.

                  That’s not to say any of the establishment response to the Wuhan virus was proportionate. Doctors’ tendency to heroic high status radical medical intervention has a flip side: the medical establishment’s self-serving claims that there are no antivirals effective early, except maybe remdesivir, and it would take a (very holy, Cathedral-blessed) RCT to establish otherwise.

                  In fact, it seems very likely that early intervention with many things except than remdesivir would be effective early. But the establishment found it politically preferable to impose lockdowns and wait for establishment-blessed vaccines and RCTs, rather than pursuing low risk early treatments.

                  With platelet activity so high in bad cases of this virus, the simple suggestion that people ought to take a couple of aspirin and some Vitamin D daily as soon as they feel sick would likely have saved lives and certainly couldn’t have hurt. The fact that even this basic step wasn’t done suggests to me that our elites just didn’t want to let the crisis of a moderately severe viral disease go to waste.

                • jim says:

                  > If you’re not seeing any increase in overall death rate, that could be a flaw in my reasoning. But it could also mean that excess coronavirus deaths are more or less matched by reduced deaths from other causes.

                  The invisible intangible demon.

                  Your demons are powerless.

                • Mike in Boston says:

                  invisible intangible demon

                  Invisible in death statistics? Maybe.


                  If it were me that could no longer do my morning workout, I would consider it very tangible indeed.

                  And I would look more favorably on a Right that emphasizes the establishment’s botched handling of the disease, rather than one that emphasizes a narrative of it being just another flu.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “If it were me that could no longer do my morning workout, I would consider it very tangible indeed.”

                  You get any pneumonia causing flu and you aren’t going to be in great shape for a while.

                  “And I would look more favorably on a Right that emphasizes the establishment’s botched handling of the disease, rather than one that emphasizes a narrative of it being just another flu.”

                  Switzerland, South Korea and Japan could keep it from spreading. The US government no matter how smart the leader was… probably could not have. Trump or someone better would need to have been an autocrat for 10 years before the US government would have that level of competence on both high and low levels.

                  Emphasizing botched handling implies it could have been kept from spreading (in the US), that it was Trump’s fault and downplays what an overblown hoax this was from the beginning (yeah the virus exists, no its not that deadly). You essentially want the right to emphasize lies over truth.

                • Mike in Boston says:

                  Emphasizing botched handling implies … that it was Trump’s fault

                  Only insofar as the permanent government thwarted Trump at every turn.

                  The one thing I can fault Trump for, is that he should have taken pandemic response away from the CDC (a microcosm of the whole rotten establishment: leftist politicians at the top, ignorant black women at the bottom) and turned it over to some competent military officer.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Even if the permanent government had been willing it wasn’t competent enough. This is not Japan or South Korea.

                  Couldn’t have been done here, herd immunity should have been our policy from day one. Lockdown health risk people on a voluntary basis but otherwise do very little.

              • Cloudswrest says:

                “I would be surprised if Anatoly Karlin’s early estimate that the Wuhan virus knocks a couple of years off of average U.S. lifespan doesn’t turn out to be mostly accurate.”

                Similar to what I’ve read. Actuarilly your chance of dying from Covid is approximately the same as your chance of dying from natural causes over the next two years.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  That is, *if you have a Covid infection your change of dying …” The statistic doesn’t include your chances of catching it.

                • jim says:

                  > “I would be surprised if Anatoly Karlin’s early estimate that the Wuhan virus knocks a couple of years off of average U.S. lifespan doesn’t turn out to be mostly accurate.”

                  If getting sick with Wu flu knocked two years of people’s lifespans, it would cause a bump in the excess deaths indicated by the social security data for two years.

                  It has not.

                  The worst case estimate consistent with the social security data is two months. And that we were using ventilators and stopped using ventilators after two months because we realized we were killing frail people suggests that the worst case estimate is pessimistic.

                  The social security data is consistent with it killing people who already have cascading organ failure that is going to kill them very soon indeed.

              • neofugue says:

                Anatoly Karlin is a competent entryist into the dissident right, in that he is able to publish ideas such as “Soviet Freezer Theory,” presupposing Progressivism the natural course of history, and still is taken seriously. All he does is blackpill and demoralize. Anyone who presumes Progressivism spreads not by force is an enemy, and it is best to avoid filth.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Agree, Karlin is great at writing stuff that’s plausible and complex and almost always misleading and mildly evil. He is absolutely not to be trusted, as are most Unz writers. (I still like Sailer, but overall the Unz Review is like a training ground for entryists.)

                • Mike in Boston says:

                  Anyone who presumes Progressivism spreads not by force is an enemy, and it is best to avoid filth.

                  Really? Here’s a version of Soviet Freezer Theory that I believe to be consistent with our host’s very compelling framework:

                  Progressivism is civilizational entropy, and entropy increases on its own as society proceeds towards the left singularity. Only an organized effort– energy input to the system– can halt the entropic increase of Progressivism, as the efforts of the Soviet state did for a while, mostly by accident.

                • jim says:

                  The Anglican Church organized in 1660, and the Royal Society, were organized effort to reduce civilizational entropy. The battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton.

                  Similarly the Christian state Church created by Alfred the Great’s ancestors.

                  Judges Israel and saga Iceland were theocracies without a state, or with very minimal and barely existent state. They worked fine for a while, eventually succumbed to entropy, (the sons of Samuel not following in their father’s ways) which entropy necessitated a King. Pagan Iceland got a Christian theocracy under a King. Under Solomon, the priesthood was purged.

                  Following Constantine, we see his social technology being replicated across the board, as in Alfred’s England and the end of saga period Iceland.

                  Charles the Second’s England was a recovery of the social technology of Alfred the great, which was a copy of the social technology of Constantine directly exported from and copied from Constantinople. I don’t know the chain of transmission of the social technology applied to Saga period Iceland, but it came originally from Constantinople. The priests were answerable to, and appointed by, the local King, but were part of Orthodox Christianity, so probably a direct export similar to that received by Alfred’s ancestors.

                  Alfred defeated the pagans, because the pagan leaders were always murdering each other. The pagan social technology for cooperation was failing, as it was starting to fail in Iceland. We see in Iceland the Godar (which can be translated as “god botherer”) becoming increasingly cynical about their supposed beliefs. It is probable that Charles the Second was pretty cynical also, but everyone shut up and went through the motions, and that sufficed. The Royal Society’s absolutely genuine commitment to observable truth meant that the state Church could survive a fair bit of quiet cynicism. What the state Church failed to survive was entryism by Socinians, who sincerely believed in something that was not Christianity, nor observable truth. Quiet cynicism was vulnerable to sincere heresy. People stopped caring about the 39 articles – which were designed to keep out very real enemies, the second article being the Socinian stopper.

                • Mike in Boston says:

                  Thank you Jim.

                  But I think that although progressivism is entropic and spreads naturally, neofugue was not wrong either.

                  Progressivism is spread by force, as witness USG’s strong-arming of its client regimes to allow gaymarriage and pride parades.

                  The question is why? Is it just that holier than thou leftists can’t abide the thought of heretics or dissidents existing?

                • The Cominator says:

                  The progressive state uses force to enforce progressive policies of course (such as lockdowns) but how does progressivism convert people to at least pretend convincingly to be progressives themselves…

                  Well progressivism being feminine in its essence as opposed to masculine old style Bolshevism prefers the velvet glove to the mailed fist.

                  Force is sometimes used, but more often overwhelming social pressure and coercion short of physical force is used.

                • Mike in Boston says:

                  Indeed so. And people are converted to progressivism because of its perceived higher status, funded from the progressive state’s robbery of apple carts and the extortionate tuition that the progressive university charges as a lottery ticket for admission to the progressive elite.

                  All that is clear. And it seems to me that as cracks begin to appear in the progressive edifice, it’s clear what the right wing must do: organize. Create a nexus of order to take over when progressivism either collapses in the left singularity, or (we may hope) to push the progressive state aside before its final collapse, a la Franco or Pinochet. And then to ensure that status within that new order is derived from creating actual value.

                  So maybe it’s irrelevant why progressivism is such a jealous god that it seeks to spread itself by force. But understanding one’s enemy can only help to defeat it, and that is one aspect of progressivism I still don’t understand.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “So maybe it’s irrelevant why progressivism is such a jealous god that it seeks to spread itself by force. But understanding one’s enemy can only help to defeat it, and that is one aspect of progressivism I still don’t understand.”

                  All universal religions have jealous gods.

                  Since progressivism is a form of universal demon worship… its going to be especially jealous.

                • Mike in Boston says:

                  Well and pithily put, Cominator. Thanks.

                • European Mutt says:

                  The reason is ‘equality’ and covetousness. If they can’t make all people equally smart, rich or attractive, they settle for making them all retards, crazy, welfare moochers and trannies. If anyone in the world retains virtue, he needs to be killed and assimilated, otherwise he is not equal.

                  It fights against anything that is ‘good and true’ because it can’t bear being compared to it. It’s an entropic force the way a fire is, but you put out a fire, you don’t put it into a freezer.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “The reason is ‘equality’ and covetousness. If they can’t make all people equally smart, rich or attractive, they settle for making them all retards, crazy, welfare moochers and trannies.”

                  Yes the endpoint of progressive logic is the short story Harrison Bergeron. The state puts handicap shit on everyone to make them equally suck (the movie where they had a hidden elite that ran things and that wasn’t crippled wasn’t in the original short story).

                • European Mutt says:

                  They call ‘Harrison Bergeron’ and ‘Modern Educayshun’ parodies. When our grandkids ask us why nobody stood up to the left for so long are we going to say ‘because we thought it was all a big joke’?

                • neofugue says:

                  > Progressivism is civilizational entropy, and entropy increases on its own as society proceeds towards the left singularity. Only an organized effort– energy input to the system– can halt the entropic increase of Progressivism, as the efforts of the Soviet state did for a while, mostly by accident.

                  That take is acceptable but it is not Karlin’s “Soviet Freezer Theory,” which frames the advance of Progressivism as the march of history. Every nation has measures to counter entropy which must be disabled in order for Progressivism to spread; for example, support for homosexuals obtaining marriage contracts in Russia has declined in the last ten years, disproving Karlin’s Soviet Freezer Theory. The key is not the ideas themselves, it is how they are framed. It is impossible to look at someone who writes about “magacope” and conclude him anything more than a shill.

                • Anon says:

                  Katlin is an idiot and a Richard Spencer flunkie. He has a political economy degree from UC Berkeley, writes at Unz Review (entryist shithole), and regularly has terrible takes on Twitter:


        • European Mutt says:

          I have no intention of getting the vaccine, and I’m pretty loud about it because this is still within the Overton Window here. Makes no sense anyway, I’m young and healthy and most likely had COVID already. Should have gotten an antibody test back then, Cathedral sources say after some time antibodies vanish, but that might be horseshit too.

          This is more about convincing other people, or in the event they suddenly make it mandatory. Plan B might be paying off the local doctor to administer saline. I am not really worried about the vaccine itself being very harmful, even the preservatives, I’m more worried they are gonna screw up the manufacturing.

          Info about flu vaccines is hard to come by. To Americans getting a flu shot seems to be a very ordinary thing, while in Europe they primarily give them to old people. You read some anecdotes on the internet, but usually from stopped-clock conspiratards. But of course, vaccines by the nature of them always have some risk. Believing in a religion that makes this-worldly claims cuts you off from perceiving trade-offs.

          My kids are going to get the same vaccines I got–polio, diphtheria, measles (although maybe even that is not necessary) etc. But definitely not chickenpox–that’s retarded.

          • Oak says:

            The story so far

            > Modelling by ‘experts’ establishes logical connection between rate of deaths and final death toll due to health services reaching overcapacity.
            > Amazingly the experts were wrong. So no logical connection between rate of deaths and total death toll.
            > Through malice/stupidity/status-seeking by academics, governments continue to target rate of deaths with lockdowns and simply delay the inevitable (very ineffectively).
            > Elites realise that people might actually analyse excess mortality/use Sweden as a control when all is said and done. Real risk that normies get angry about economic devastation and (more importantly) their malice/stupidity might be exposed.
            > Must reestablish logical connection between rate of deaths and total death count by introducing vaccine ASAP and definitely before herd immunity reached.
            > Rush through vaccines that would otherwise take years to test.

            And this is all ignoring the fact that the virus is extremely mild and could never be used to justify this level of government interference by anyone with a sane risk tolerance.

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          What’s the insider’s vocabulary term for data that routes around cathedral filtration and fake news? Like for example the Social Security pay-out figures being used to reveal the death rate in accidental/unauthorized fashion?

          That has to be a whole professional specialization, just right there.

  39. stan says:

    Off topic but interesting. Waiting for the vaccines is completely pointless:

    All they do is reduce the symptoms. They do not protect you from the covid infection. Therefore no herd immunity, lockdowns forever ….

    • European Mutt says:

      They are also amping up the reinfection narrative. Gay Boris Johnson self-isolating a month ago because one of his staff had COVID, even though he had the disease already and reinfections are incredible outliers (cancer patients etc.)

      And ‘long COVID’ leading to fake disabilities like chronic fatigue, i.e. chronic welfare mooch syndrome.

      Completely divorced from facts, exactly what they are accusing the right of being. At this point it should be obvious to normies that it would be kinder to shoot them in the head than to let them live out their delusions for one more day.

      • BC says:

        Watching them dump the concept immune system immunity overboard in real time has driven me crazy. I can’t argue with people over science anymore because science is effectively illegal to know now.

        • European Mutt says:

          Science has been illegal to know since about 1970. I learned most about what I know about science even today as kid from old Asimov books: (published in 1960 and probably even then was pozzed on some points, for example I remember him being a warmist but then the left was coolist back then)

          Then in school I failed an exam for explaining evolution ‘incorrectly’, i.e. describing how natural selection works. I still don’t know what that Karen teacher wanted to hear from me back then, but it was not natural selection. Maybe tree of life:

          And as Jim describes peer review since 1945 had killed scientific research long before. They are just tearing the skin suit apart now. I thought they would milk ‘the science’ a little longer but it looks like it’s not of use to them any more.

    • European Mutt says:

      Lockdowns forever, for whites… For rapefugees they are oppressive and racist. At this speed of the holiness spiral, expect an op-ed to that effect in about a week.

  40. BC says:

    Off topic, but not too long ago I had to do some mandated HR implicit basis training. I’ve generally spent my life avoiding such things since I have a very difficult time not calling out bullshit and lies. The implicit basis tests were ridiculous word association software that’s basically voodoo that I intentionally weighted the direction I figured they’d want. Later I was questioned about the results by the head of HR with a few other people who took similar tests.

    It wasn’t a moaist struggle style session, but the head of HR came after me hard for being a white male. I decided to view the encounter like he was a priest of an evil religion and I sprinkled in his desired Shibboleths as I blathered nonsense sentences without ever having to say anything demeaning about myself. He was satisfied and pronounced me holy. The religious frame is amazingly useful, but oh how I hate this fucking bullshit.

    • onyomi says:

      It definitely has the quality of a religious creed.

      It’s not uncommon in academia for websites and job ads (which jobs also often require ideological purity tests in the form of “diversity statements) to open with axiomatic statements like, “Diversity and inclusion are essential to academic excellence.” (No citation needed; of course, “diversity and inclusion” here mean not “diversity of ideas” but “fewer white males.”)

      Any sane high school teacher, much less an academic peer reviewer worth his salt would flag such a statement, “Plato, Aristotle, Isaac Newton… aren’t examples of academic excellence??” But such “critical thinking” as we are supposedly taught in schools just takes a total vacation for seemingly very smart and hyper-educated people when it comes to such unquestionable articles of faith. Or they keep their mouths shut about it.

      • The Ducking Man says:

        I’ve met a few Harvard graduates, on paper everyone seems super accomplished, super smart, they ooze confidence whenever they speak.

        Even more confusing to me that they indeed have “critical thinking” to scrutinize every dollar in my report.

        Though at the end of the day, all of them fiddle, hear, and plan like a blind monkey, the very example of biblical fools. They hear and see wisdom but receive it not.

        There is definitely something terribly wrong in modern education that I cannot quite put my finger on it.

        • jim says:

          What is wrong with modern education is that they are failing to select for smarts, and therefore, being unable to give them an education, give the students a cargo cult imitation of education.

          When I interviewed, I was interviewing programmers, so I had a plentiful supply of coding related questions to separate the smarts from the idiots, but I was just recently reminded that Microsoft would ask candidates questions like “Why are manhole covers round”? and “How would you distinguish left and right if you were talking to over the phone to a foreigner who spoke English well enough, but did not know which was which.”

          And anyone who cannot explain the seasons is seriously stupid. That is average IQ stuff.

          Does anyone need a reminder on what a cargo cult is?

          When stone age people encountered modern goods, they generally came in as a result of a white person with a radio calling in a small plane to deliver supplies. Sometimes on a small airstrip, and sometimes the plane just dropped stuff in very strong small bags onto soft dirt. So the cargo cultists built things that looked to them like radios and small airports, and attempted to call in planes, imitating the superficial appearance of what was done, without real comprehension of what was in fact done. Notice that Arecibo is still seemingly functioning as a science bureaucracy, even though the radio telescope has collapsed and was for some time been in the same condition as the stone age people’s mock radios.

          • Encelad says:

            “Notice that Arecibo is still seemingly functioning as a science bureaucracy, even though the radio telescope has collapsed and was for some time been in the same condition as the stone age people’s mock radios.”

            This is a strong statement. Is it a sort of a hyperbole or do you literally mean that they are not capable of understanding what the instruments show anymore, thus the “data” they are taking are wrong and meaningless?

            • simplyconnected says:

              I’m sure you already know this: understanding what the instruments show is many floors below from the sort of mental ability that it takes to do actual science.
              At a top place this colleague was placed because wamen, and she was a good student and understood very well what the instruments showed: she was the equivalent of a good lab technician. But all the actual science in the projects came from other, much smarter people. Actual science requires a talent that is very, very rare. If you displace that talent, and put there people who are only kind of smart, the science dies very quickly.

            • jim says:

              I checked a few papers requesting use of the Arecibo telescope, not a statistically significant sample, concluded that they were going to use it as heap big magic juju, not as an instrument for seeing the universe.

              Maybe they would not have been granted use, likely at least some of the requests for use would have been actually using it for something useful. I have not done a thorough examination, but the papers I saw wanted the Arecibo telescope as a decoration, not as a source of useful info. They failed to explain how the signals they would pick up would shed light on the questions they were supposedly addressing, how they would recognize what they were supposedly looking for. If one wants to pick up a faint signal, one needs to know how faint and what it would look like.

              Example: Exoplanet biosignatures. OK, how will life on distant planets change the radio emissions from that planet, short of someone setting up a television transmission? I don’t think the authors had the faintest idea. What kind of radio signals do earthlike planets with atmospheres emit in their natural condition and how strong are these signals? If the authors knew, I don’t think they cared. Did Earth have a biosignature in the radio spectrum before we set up television stations? If so, what was it and how strong was it? How much spatial resolution do you need to tease out the weak emissions from the planet from the strong emissions from the star? If it is very hard to separate them in the visible spectrum, how will things go in the radio spectrum? Is it physically possible for the Arecibo telescope to detect earth sized exoplanets at all, or any exoplanets at all, let alone biosignatures? I don’t think the authors knew or cared.

              They no more knew what to do with a radio telescope than the stone age savages knew how to call in a plane to deliver cargo.

              That was an egregious example, but none of the papers requesting use that I glanced at had any idea of what they were supposedly looking for would look like in the Arecibo telescope.

              I conjecture that the endless openings and unopenings of Intel’s Fab 42 indicate that when it opens, it is operated the way those papers proposed to operate the Arecibo telescope.

              • Cloudswrest says:

                I was thinking about some of the past and present uber rich philanthropists.

                Some advanced science and technology. One often reads stories about how some famous scientist from the past had some rich sponsor. Others seem to just virtue signal by dumping their money into some social sink hole.

                Some in the first class:

                Howard Hughes (at least until he died): Aviation, medicine film.
                Musk: Rockets, cars, tunnel boring, trains (he seems to have technology ADD).
                Henry Ford (at least until he died).

                Some of these are vilified today.

                Two examples of the latter: Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg. I remember reading something about Zuckerberg donating some large amount of money to the Newark, NJ school system, as if those organizations don’t get enough government largess to begin with.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  What got me thinking about this was the collapse of Arecibo. There are a number of VLA style radio telescope projects going on around the world. Typical costs were listed around the $1 billion range. These technologies typically provide the highest telescopic resolution available. There’s a lot of unknown out there in the Universe to observe and discover. Funding one of these projects would seem to offer more to humanity then dumping the money into the toilet.

                  I’m reminding of the current Thirty Meter Telescope (optical) project for Mauna Kea that’s currently on hold due to objections from the “natives” (it’s a “sacred” place). My guess is it’s some scam attempting to get a payoff.

                • INDY says:

                  I recall hearing from someone I trust that Booker played Zuckerberg for a fool in that deal

                • Icon says:

                  [*deleted for ignorance and irrelevance*]

                • jim says:

                  You don’t understand adaptive optics, and I am going to put you back on moderation for talking ignorant $#!% if you keep swerving the topic and talking irrelevant stuff you know not of.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I don’t understand adaptive optics either but looks like you need a camera that can take a picture of a mirror and then a computer program is supposed to rectify to a clear image.

                  So it seems like for adaptive optics to work outside the visual spectrum you need a camera that sense things outside the visual spectrum. This may be possible for infrared and ultraviolet waves but its going to get very hard when you go far outside the visual spectrum.

                • jim says:

                  No, it gets easier, much easier, when you go to the radio spectrum, but becomes irrelevant, because at most radio frequencies that the atmosphere is transparent to, the atmosphere distorts the wave front by considerably less than a quarter wavelength.

                  There is a wide range of frequencies where ionization in the upper atmosphere distorts the wave front by one hell of a lot, but radio astronomers generally do not attempt to correct for that, though they easily could, but rather use frequencies where this is not a problem. The frequencies where it is a problem are too low for radio astronomers to care much about.

                  And Icon has just successfully shut down discussion about the decline of science.

                • The Cominator says:

                  So radio waves are lower frequency higher wavelength so what about higher frequency shorter wavelength ie gamma and cosmic radiation?

                • jim says:

                  The higher the frequency and shorter the wavelength, the harder it is to do adaptive optics. The atmosphere blocks the higher UV frequencies, so no one cares, and does not distort the wave fronts of gamma and X rays, so no one cares, not that it is practical to do adaptive optics in the X ray spectrum anyway.

                  Adaptive optics is a non trivial and useful thing in the visible frequencies. At all other frequencies, it is trivial, or useless, or both. Radio frequencies always trivial, usually useless. If you have a wifi router with a large number of antenna, it is probably doing the equivalent of adaptive optics, that being trivial at wifi frequencies, not to compensate for atmospheric distortion, which is non existent at those frequencies, but for other causes of distortion.

                  And Icon’s shutdown of the discussion of the decline of science is still working.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Hmmmm looks like they have cameras that can do that too… never knew that. I thought there IR cameras and cameras for ultraviolet light but honestly never knew there were cameras to sense and rectify the rest of the EM spectrum.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  Adaptive optics words by dynamically adjusting the shape of the mirror to compensate for fluctuations in the atmosphere. There are man little “pistons” mounted behind the mirror to push or pull on it. Typically it uses a reference “guide” star to maintain its position and pinpoint focus. It is presumed the rest of the field will then have optimum focus.
                  As for high energy photons like x-rays and gamma rays, they are too penetrating so they can’t be focused using surfaces with high angle of incidence, so traditional parabolas are out. They require low incidence glancing surfaces to do the focusing. So the lenses are more like fresnel lenses.

                • Icon says:

                  Actually, I do know about it. More than you anyway. But, you just wanted to open up dialog with me so you could later pretend to out debate me.

                  You’re so negative about everything and can’t stand to be disagreed with. You know nothing about law, very little about science, and your history focuses on issues that have long passed.

                  You cannot arrest people for being a Democrat alone, or having their name in a news article. You need evidence of a crime. And the military will not arrest people for you either.

                  You are so full of shit Jim. And the other names on here are either you posting pretending to be other people or lemmings.

                  You aren’t going to accomplish shit behind a keyboard. And if you’re a computer type, as you claim, you’re either a skinny nerd or a fat slob.

                  I’ll be back to troll you more later so keep me moderated. I do like your writing style though.

                • Not Tom says:

                  He’s obviously trying to bait you, just put him back on moderation.

                  Shills have obviously been given some updated scripts to pass some of the tests, or been given slightly more autonomy, but they still aren’t going to contribute anything of value.

        • RedBible says:

          The Prussian school system (the same system US schools use currently) is designed to do three things:
          1. Make the “students” conform to the correct norms
          2. Discourage learning (not just in school but in life in general) and instead focus on Memorizing trivia (rather than learning logic and reasoning.)
          3. Reinforce the idea that life sucks so that the students can be controlled their whole lives.

          Having gotten to interact with kids and adult who were homeschooled, the difference is almost night and day on the willingness and desire to learn.

          Having also seen some who were homeschooled and then put through modern college… they are almost undistinguishable from others that go to college…

          • neofugue says:

            > Discourage learning (not just in school but in life in general) and instead focus on Memorizing trivia (rather than learning logic and reasoning.)

            Thinking about western education in terms of learning is aiming for the matador’s cape.

            Public and secondary education do work for their intended purposes, just not in the way most think it does. Brainwashing is not trivia, it is inculcated morality and epistemology through socialization.

            When an NPC type consumes Leftist media, he interprets the information through his pre-programming, which causes him to think his opinions are his when they are in fact not.

            Before the advent of public schooling, “public education” was done through the parish. The education of the future must be incorporated into the church in the same way it is now incorporated into Harvard; in other words, there can be no distinction between the two.

            • The Cominator says:

              Most people should not get much in the way of “education” beyond basic literacy. Then its right to their trades for men and to marriage for women.

              • European Mutt says:

                Exactly. Women should have the max number of children they possibly can, and that requires young, virgin marriage and a husband with enough money and ideally a house. The more money and the younger the women–the more kids.

                Even the priests should learn a trade probably, they can go to college after finishing an apprenticeship. Keeps them down to earth.

                By the way, coding, engineering and business should absolutely be trades.

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          @Ducking Man:
          “ Though at the end of the day, all of them fiddle, hear, and plan like a blind monkey, the very example of biblical fools. They hear and see wisdom but receive it not.”

          Oh come on give us some kind of details. Just something to hang your narrative on.

          • The Ducking Man says:

            I can give the lots of example because they are doing it every month.

            Meeting purpose: Discussing costing to lease existing infrastructure to outside party. The biggest cost in the costing is Maintenance Cost.

            The meeting goes:
            Me and facility manager who do the costing: “Historically our target pricing is 20 cents/MT of traffic, taken from $1 million/200,000 MT of traffic from previous years performance”

            The Harvard graduate CFO: “9 months running your traffic is only 90,000MT to date, now change the quantity let’s say 100,000 MT”.

            The costing is now $0.40/MT

            The Harvard graduate CFO: “See I know what I’m doing, I’m giving you free money” (note: he never went to the facility, never know any person involved in the operation, never know how the facility works)

            The customer aptly reject our proposal for being too expensive because elsewhere is a lot cheaper.

            The meeting with them is always hilarious.

        • A few years back I was dating a grad school student who was going for an advanced degree in the hard sciences. She realized, too late, that the thesis she had spent years preparing was total bullshit, that it was fake science, and there was no time for her to redo it. I read her thesis, because I would edit her papers for grammar and coherence, and even I could tell that it was bullshit. The model she invented would not only fail to accurately predict future events, but it could not even explain the actual data that she actually had. She was terrified that she would fail out, that the faculty would expose her thesis as garbage and she would not get her degree.

          Instead, the faculty unanimously approved the paper, and her professor put his name on it, and it was published. From this I concluded that her entire department was doing fake science, since they could not tell the difference between real and fake, and that every department everywhere was doing fake science, since “peer review” obviously failed to stamp out a fake department of fake scientists.

          Like Jim said, the problem with education is that it is all fake, it teaches all lies, lies from head to tail, and thus selects for people of middling IQs and high conformity.

          • Dave says:

            Like all good Marxists, the faculty applied the Labor Theory of Value to something your girlfriend evidently worked very hard on.

            • European Mutt says:

              Jim’s comment made me realize, very belatedly, that education in American/anglo society is really infested primarily with the Labor Theory of Value, more than in any other culture including Soviet Russia. The bizarre anti-cheating fixation in academia (cheaters=’scabs’)*, the ever-widening definition of plagiarism, participation trophies (‘at least you made an effort’) etc.

              *To be fair this is also necessitated by the ‘grading on a curve’ system which reflects more of a Harvardist conception of equality, but is equally retarded.

              • BC says:

                Cheating isn’t really punished in higher education anymore. Blacks and browns can’t pass classes without it so it’s basically OK. I’m not sure how whites and Asians are treated when caught cheating.

                • European Mutt says:

                  The left has never been good at following its own principles, but has always been great at loudly proclaiming them.

    • The Ducking Man says:

      Sounds like modern corporate america are neck-deep in woke movement and in dire need of Trump calling out their BS.

      Oh how I long the days when I can freely calling out everyone’s bs.

    • Javier says:

      Taking the test itself was a mistake. You should decline on the basis it infringes on your first amendment rights, assuming you are American. Compare it to mandated Dianetics.

      Basically they can’t use the system against you if you refuse to participate.

      • Not Tom says:

        1. The law doesn’t matter.
        2. Even if it did matter, the first amendment applies to governments, not corporations.

        Seriously, I keep hearing this “first amendment” shit regarding corporate training and corporate censorship and it’s just so damn stupid. Go ahead and use that strategy if you want to (a) lose, (b) get laughed at and (c) get yourself on some kind of blacklist.

        If you work in one of these corporations out of necessity, then first of all you have my sympathy, and second, shut up and keep your head down and pay whatever lip service is required (as BC says, treat it like a religious Inquisition). If you work there and either don’t care about your job or can’t be fired, then just troll the inquisitors and don’t bother with legalfagging. And if you need to have some kind of job but have easily transferable skills, then find a better (generally smaller) employer now, before the Inquisition finds you.

        There is no situation whatsoever that merits this incredibly gay “muh first amendment” blathering.

        • Javier says:

          The point isn’t to *actually* sue, it’s to throw the ball back rhetorically and force them to try to justify brainwashing you. As you reveal, many people *believe* 1A has power, even if that power is actually quite limited in reality. As long as you aren’t instantly combative and hostile, you’re unlikely to be fired, and you may save yourself and others from a dumb struggle session. May even save the whole company. Worked out pretty good for James Damore, and he did way more than politely decline the training.

          Also seems to be working out well for this guy:

          though he is going with the autistic ‘dems are the real racists’ angle so I guess we’ll see.

          • Not Tom says:

            What are you talking about, “worked out” for Damore? He was fired and blacklisted.

            Nobody believes the first amendment has power over corporations except some lolbertarians (ironically) and maybe the bottom quartile of cuckservatives.

            Yeah, sure, “heighten the contradictions”. How’s that working out for our side? Is it not obvious to you by now from this massive and open election fraud that they don’t care? And that even if they did care, they’re not capable of any strategy other than doubling down? In what universe do you imagine freeze peach faggotry to be even remotely effective?

      • BC says:

        I passed the test easily. And I partially took it because I was curious about how it worked. I’ve learned many tricks over the years to avoid being detected as a heretic of the state religion. As I said the test was more like voodoo. Any heretics they detect are almost certainly not heretics.

    • Thales says:

      [[[It wasn’t a moaist struggle style session, but the head of HR came after me hard for being a white male.]]]

      The irony is that if someone comes at you hard for being a white male, you’re supposed to report it to HR.

      People need to start reporting these incidents to their supervisors as there are laws against racial/gender harassment in all 57 states, and if management ignores the problem, that’s grounds for law$uit.

      • bjorn says:

        In how many recent legal cases (recent defined as: since social justice started emerging in 2012 or thereabouts) did an anti-discrimination suit on behalf men/Whites/straights win?

        This isn’t a rhetorical question, for all I know it could be many or it could be zero. But the written law of the land contradicts the unwritten law, so I would bet that the number is zero, or close enough to it.

        • Thales says:

          Would need to research, but I’ve been in a supervisory position for 15 years, and from what I’ve read, legal outcomes tend to be fair in that winners rightly win, and losers rightly lose. This is in part because it’s easy for employers to avoid liability by taking adequate steps when responding to complaints. Most common outcomes I read are white person wins because employer was pozzed shitheel who thought “who/whom” would protect him in the end, and black person loses because massive sense of entitlement and harassment was either imagined or remediated by employer.

          Now, the Struggle Session Industry has been around for a few years, gaining notoriety for the past couple years and massive notoriety after the death of St. George Fentanyl. I haven’t read of (or gone looking for) the results of lawsuits due to aggressive bias training since it takes a while for people to find their spines, but the potential exposure for liability here is huge because what’s key to the “hostile work environment” is the employee’s feelings and what steps the employer takes in response.

          The situation is not unlike the lawsuits brought in response to collegiate kangaroo courts, where men are expelled after a regretted sexual encounter without even the appearance of due process, and win in civil court. In civil court, there’s no Soros-bought-and-paid-for DA to enforce “who/whom” via prosecutorial discretion.

    • Pooch says:

      I’d have a hard time working there after that.

      • BC says:

        Welcome to the future of all corporate jobs. 10 or so years ago I and a bunch of people pushed back hard against white privdge training and got the people pushing it to shutup and back off. Today they’d toss anyone who tried that out the door in 5 minutes and send our home addresses to antifa.

        There left’s using COVID to destroy small businesses because corporate is much easier to control.

    • European Mutt says:

      Dealing with people like that is incredibly easy in a way. Just say the shibboleths and they’re happy even if it makes no sense. The religion of stupidity. The hard parts are to not sound too smart and to shut up about the truth.

      How is the religious frame not obvious to people? In fact that’s why Moldbug made so much sense to me right from the start, he saw what I saw.

      • suones says:

        The hard parts are to not sound too smart and to shut up about the truth.

        Reminded me of an article by Scott Alexander regarding the Stalin-era Russian mathematician Kantorovich[1] who thought he had worked out how to run the perfect planned economy:

        How could such a smart guy make such a stupid mistake? My guess: the Soviet government didn’t officially say “We will kill anyone who criticizes us”. They officially said “Comrade Stalin loves freedom and welcomes criticism from his fellow citizens”, and you had to have some basic level of cynicism and social competence to figure out that wasn’t true.

        PS: Kantorovich’s approach works really well, as long as all inputs and processes are predictable within limits. I would love to see a modern corporation apply these principles. Scientific research to enhance production seems to have died out after Henry Ford. Even Aldous Huxley thought our dystopian future would be one of huge efficiency, if nothing else. What a spectacular change!

        PPS: No, “scientific Communism” still isn’t possible, even though Real Communism™ has never been tried.[2] That’s because it fundamentally depends on other people’s money, which people end up getting killed sooner or later. Markets do not solve for the computational problem (which is trivial in the modern era), but for the information-flow problem which is decidedly non-trivial in a general sense.


        • European Mutt says:

          Thank you for the links. I faintly remember that article. But then how did Scott Alexander not internalize exactly what he had written and made this exact mistake by talking to NYT?

          I was unfamiliar with Kantorovich. Could probably be used for some things, but then again you will probably hit a bottleneck as soon as it comes to hiring, firing and retraining employees. Employment needs to be a market, otherwise you have universal slavery. Socialist countries solved the problem by never closing plants that hemorrhaged resources, but that is not an option for capitalist businesses.

          • jim says:

            Observed Scott behavior was to continually come up with overly clever rationalizations for orthodoxy.

            The medieval scientists who wisely avoided criticizing the Roman Catholic Church also cut themselves off from knowledge of what was wrong with the Roman Catholic Church – which probably did not harm them much.

            Cutting yourself yourself off from knowledge of women, sex, and the nature of the legacy media is apt to slit your own throat.

            In the Kathy Forth suicide, his whisper network was telling him a slightly less evil and insane version of the story – but the difference between the orthodoxy and what was on his whisper networks did not matter, they were both evil and insane. The difference was not interesting or important. A trivially different version of the same destructive and self destructive lies.

            The trouble with taking that option is that you are immersed in an environment of lies, and tend to internalize the lies – the double think gets inside. He cut himself off from his whisper network, because it was filled with those horrid evil people who had horrid evil thoughts.

            He engaged in a personally self destructive and hurtful cuck lifestyle, which grossly endangered himself and his friends – observe their grossly defective response to Kathy Forth. He massively failed, at immense cost to himself, to avail himself of the information about women, sex, desire, and love, widely available on the internet.

            Scott Alexander hurt himself by not knowing about women, and he hurt himself by not knowing about the legacy media.

            He and his whisper network were pushing back on the orthodoxy in small ways on small issues, when the orthodoxy is evil and insane in big ways on big issues.

            • European Mutt says:

              Indeed, looks like he has always been a leftist. Probably rightists and leftists read this Scott article in completely different ways.

              Observed Scott behavior was to continually come up with overly clever rationalizations for orthodoxy.

              Which combined with talking to the media ended for him like it would ordinarily have ended for Kantorovich.

              The trouble with taking that option is that you are immersed in an environment of lies, and tend to internalize the lies – the double think gets inside.

              I don’t know why many are so vulnerable this internalization–but I personally know such cases as well. I suppose the trick is to have an outlet–sane people you can talk to. Scott did not have that.

              • jim says:

                > Probably rightists and leftists read this Scott article in completely different ways.

                And probably the sane part of Scott’s mind, locked in a closet and screaming to get out, wrote it with the sane meaning, while the rest of his mind read it with the insane and evil meaning. The sane part of him was telling the insane part of him how to find his way back to sanity, and the insane part was not listening.

              • >I don’t know why many are so vulnerable this internalization–but I personally know such cases as well.


                Depression is low self-regard. Self-regard or self-esteem are internal meters evolved to track social status but they work only about as well as appetite tracks nutritional needs. Believing low-status ideas = feeling like a worthless piece of shit, for people who are prone to depression. So I see it the a bit the other way around, it is not the lack sane people but being in leftist circles who very clearly signal that they consider everybody not toeing the line a worthless piece of shit, it really makes that type anxious.

                Thing is, leftists today have low SMV. For me even way back them when I was really naive, it was sort of obvious I am not gonna hang out with sexual losers. As for me that was really the status ladder that mattered. I sort of reflexively weighed people’s IRL opinions by their SMV. Opinions from low-SMV people always sounded like sour grapes to me.

                • European Mutt says:

                  Makes some sense. I tend to see it the other way around because to me it’s also a danger–safety thing. Leftism vs rightism is currently a conflict between being socially safe but physically in danger, and the exact opposite. Leftists socially condition/shame people into ignoring the physical dangers while rightists supply a dose of reality.

                  By the way I think I figured it out since last time we discussed this–male depression and female depression are two quite different conditions. Male depression = low self-regard, female depression = persistent despair.

            • European Mutt says:

              Sane people you can talk to IRL. Online doesn’t seem to be enough.

              • The Cominator says:

                I know someone who got much much much worse after he went from Central Mass (which still had some sane people up until early 2016 or so… virtually none by 2018 when I left) to non rural California (which to my understanding had none).

            • If it is true that childhood antidepressants made him asexual, he did not have much of a practical motive to learn about women. Of course a serious intellectual cannot just ignore studying the sexual motives of human behavior as they are obviously huge, but if he himself does not know what it feels like flying on the autopilot in the pants, he won’t understand them anyway.

              • jim says:

                Your instincts know how to seduce women a whole lot better than your conscious mind and willed intent. For me, the biggest part of game was knowing that the autopilot was doing things right, and my conscious mind should shut up and get out of the way.

                But your conscious mind does need to navigate the social environment to get a woman isolated in place where sex can take place. From there on, autopilot works.

        • The information-flow problem might be real, but what I find remarkable is that Soviet engineers often designed advanced weaponry that could not be produced because it required more precisey manufacturing, smaller tolerances, that was doable in practice. A year or so ago I posted here a video of how Trabant cars were made in East Germany, fairly hilarious. There was something very bad on the basic management level, getting decent work out of workers.

          My take is that of Talebs, that systems learn by elimination. That is, the point of markets is not really motivation. If a factory manager does not have an internal motivation to run the ship well, you cannot just motivate him by dangling a cash prize in front of him, I think in this sense people tend to misunderstand how capitalism really works. Rather you want that guy out and the place taken over by a manager who does have an internal motivation to do it well and this is what did not work. So you want that factory to go bankrupt so that its assets and workers are taken over by a better ran one, or that guy fired by shareholders who keep seeing red figures. I keep seeing people defende capitalism by saying you motivate people by cash prizes and I think it is missing the point.

          • European Mutt says:

            ‘Hurr durr capitalism motivates people because everyone wants to have more money than all the others’ is a Marxist meme that unfortunately many capitalists have internalized. There is a grain of truth to it but not much.

            Capitalism works if, and because, the only way to get a profit, any profit, is to improve the lot of other people. If you find someone who has the internal motivation as well, so much for the better. The essence of NRx is that this principle should equally apply to the state.

            And, I just realized, this maps perfectly to democracies and monarchies and the stages in between. From monarchies to republics to democracies the ‘managers’ get more and more disinterested and increasingly lack internal motivation as you put it, and at the same time increase their cash prizes.

            • The Cominator says:

              There are a number of reasons capitalism works.

              One is that there is a limitation of competence of central planning no matter how smart the central planners are. Pricing is an extra special problem in this respect.

              One issue is motivation, so yes it does channel personal greed to at least sometimes positive incentives.

              Doing something socially useful is not the only way to make a profit, I’m essentially a gambler right now (though my preferred vehicle is securities). Gambling is socially useful in that the smarter gamblers tend to end up taking the money from the dumber ones over time, and MIGHT eventually really invest the money in more useful ways if they actually go VC.

  41. Pooch says:

    Smoking gun video footage being shown in the Georgia hearing right now showing shaboons pulling out ballots from under tables in the middle of the night after counting supposedly “stopped” and everyone was asked to leave. Wow doesn’t get any more clear that this.

    • The Cominator says:

      “Smoking gun video footage being shown in the Georgia hearing right now showing shaboons pulling out ballots from under tables in the middle of the night after counting supposedly “stopped”

      Obviously what they did in Milwaukee, Detroit and Philidelphia too.

      • BC says:

        Betting against Trump is the dumbest thing anyone can do. The left has no answer for this video. It’s fucking amazing.

        • onyomi says:

          Will update in favor of “4D Chessmaster Trump” if this results in substantive guarantee of serious signature verification in GA by the time of his Saturday rally, as it will indicate his decision to postpone it a week, presumably in the belief he could apply the necessary pressure to conduct said rally on a much more victorious note a week later, was correct.

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          Jimminy Crickets is it 100% Shaniquas too? Do we get to break “racism” while we’re at it, like as a bonus? Holy shit.

    • Not Tom says:

      Not that I really need further convincing, but for entertainment purposes, is there a convenient link with timestamp? Not gonna watch the whole hearing.

    • BC says:

      This is the legitimacy we needed. Even if the Supreme Court cucks out(which they appear to be doing) the military won’t with this to justify martial law.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      Who oh who had the self control to sit on this video until today?

      Or rather, who had been sitting on it, all this time, scared shitless of releasing it, but then today finally changed his mind? And why? Finally responding to what… sense or feeling?

      One thing — of many — that amazes me about Trump is his balls, and his confidence. He’ll just run flat out toward the end zone, from however far away, and just assume that probably, someone, somewhere, at some point, will throw him something. Why? Because they could see that he was the only one running!

      • RedBible says:

        It’s possible that it was more than just “fear of being slandered for showing fraud” but also a fear of “being racist + sexist” since the video show 4 black women doing the crime. (and the person hoped other evidence would be enough…)

        We should not underestimate how much the “don’t be a racist” slogan affects normies…

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          “It’s not illegal if negroes do it, but it is illegal to see them doing it.” Of course it had to end up there. Wow just wow.

          This really is a holy war. Jim Was Right.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      Hold on a second.

      Are those really ballots in those hard cases or styrofoam packing pieces?

      Wuz we had?

      Did I want to see something so much that I chomped down on the turd in the punchbowl?

  42. BC says:

    And the Republicans cut their own throats:

    Unlimited green cards.

    • Publius says:

      No, Republicans, tech will not love you even if you give them unlimited H-1Bs and warm bodies. Simps.

    • Not Tom says:

      This shit comes straight out of Silicon Valley and big tech; all the Indian CEOs and managers think there should be no caps. China is of course the other vector – and Indian immigrants may even be a distraction here for more Chinese colonization. Shitty consulting companies like Infosys will abuse the hell out of it, but they’re not the lobbyists.

      Just in case there was any lingering doubt about why there’s been no serious attempt to regulate big tech and why big tech was so eager to help swing this election. And this was supposedly passed unanimously, so technically Trump can’t even veto it.

      Well, not unless he does the same thing he needs to do regarding the election, in which case the legality of a veto becomes pretty irrelevant.

      • Jehu says:

        Yeah honestly monarchy can’t come too soon. I find I’m starting to genuinely hate most of the people of the area I live in, precisely because I loathe being ruled by the people that they elect. It is causing me to actually look forward to a hot civil war, which I find kind of concerning. I would much rather not have to give a damn how they felt.

      • The Cominator says:

        Trump can veto it they then have to override…

        • Jehu says:

          This late in the year he might be able to pocket veto it, or at least drag it out long enough that they don’t have time to override.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      Mid-retreat looting, I presume. Why else on earth would they do this now?

      The one last thing they can grab on the way out the door, and it’s this? Really?

      These nerds thought they could rule the planet with a fair trade organic soy latte and the right Java app, or whatever. Really? How long is that going to last? Will the right Java app keep Shaniqua off their lawn? Am I the dumbass? What am I missing?

      • Not Tom says:

        They honestly expect to be able to return to the old “loyal opposition” routine that establishment Republicans have always preferred.

        Suones analogy the other day is essentially apt: Mammon will always play second fiddle to Moloch, and in fact prefers it that way. Trump or “Trumpism” is a movement, but the Republican party is essentially a business, and they’re not picky about who they provide services to, whether it’s Wall Street, Silicon Valley or the Democratic Party.

        If you prefer, you can think of it as Orwell’s inner and outer party. GOPe not only represents the outer party, it has no aspirations of becoming the inner party. It was much happier and more content in its former role under the Bushes and Clintons and Obamas than it has ever been in its current role under Trump, and will do anything to go back to those days, even if it comes in the form of empty promises from agreement-incapable ideologues that are almost certain to be broken.

        The only way to change this would be a major shake-up in the party membership. Trump would need to take control of not only the soapbox, but also the treasury and personnel.

      • suones says:

        These nerds thought they could rule the planet with a fair trade organic soy latte and the right Java app, or whatever. Really? How long is that going to last? Will the right Java app keep Shaniqua off their lawn?

        Do not mock the Machine God, for he is subtle and quick to anger.

        And yes, the right Java app will indeed keep $WHATEVER off my lawn, while you get strafed by Amazon drones.[1] A dozen soldiers are no match for the power of a single well-built Java app.

        [1]: 😉

  43. simplyconnected says:

    Whoever was writing this could at least credit where credit’s due. He even uses “normalcy bias”.

    • INDY says:

      Is the credit important?

      Might be better getting the ideas dispersed sans attribution. How many people can read this site?

      • simplyconnected says:

        There are much more important things right now, but yes, credit is important, perhaps our host disagrees.
        Not sure who can’t read this site, it doesn’t even have google trackers: it’s hard to find a more privacy-friendly site than this one out there.

        • jim says:

          I steal from the best – so cannot complain too much when others copy my stuff.

          I am just too lazy to look up attributions, especially when the source of the idea has been dead for centuries. I try to give a hat tip for current stuff, but by the time I write it up, am apt to have forgotten the exact source.

        • INDY says:

          How many people can read this site? meaning:

          How many people can handle the content as written on this site?

        • INDY says:

          And does some guy writing about the President invoking the Insurrection Act need to be linked with this site at the present time?

          I am in favor of more eyes on the material presented here.

          • jim says:

            > And does some guy writing about the President invoking the Insurrection Act need to be linked with this site at the present time?

            That might not be good for his health.

        • Not Tom says:

          He may legitimately not know where it came from. It’s hard to understate the extent to which this place punches above its weight. Our memes reach far and wide, because they explain things that no other memes can properly explain.

          One of the quasi-mainstream pundits, I can’t remember which one, has been using the “cathedral” term quite often. Should he credit Moldbug? I bet he doesn’t even know who Moldbug is.

          You can optimize for reach, or you can optimize for credit, and since we can’t monetize or otherwise capitalize on the credit anyway, we should probably be optimizing for reach. Demanding credit is likely to reduce reach, not least of which is due to fear of direct association, as others have stated. Better to maintain plausible deniability even if someone does read this blog, because the more people are using a meme without pointing to here as its source, the easier it becomes for other people to do the same and say “I don’t know who came up with it”. That’s terrible for works of art, but very good for ideas.

          • simplyconnected says:

            One of the quasi-mainstream pundits, I can’t remember which one, has been using the “cathedral” term quite often. Should he credit Moldbug? I bet he doesn’t even know who Moldbug is.

            I vaguely recall it may be Tim Pool. I would bet he does know who Moldbug is but might not want to admit it. Not sure it makes practical difference.
            Re attribution, hopefully the brave of soul will somehow find his way here.

            • BC says:

              Tim Pool’s never read Moldbug, I doubt he’s done much reading in general. His historical knowledge is awful. One of his guests has read Moldbug and brings up the idea of the Cathedral, which Tim then repeated for a few weeks without really understanding what it means.

            • Hesiod says:

              Greg Gutfeld properly used the term Cathedral on Fox News a few months ago. It drew a knowing smile from one of the babes on his show, IIRC.

              • Mister Grumpus says:

                And Greg almost surely got it from Michael Malice only a day or two earlier. I saw that one.

                These face-fagging media types have to understand reality as well as they can in order to catch people’s intrigued interest, thus reading this blog through their scuba gear on Tor through 50 VPN’s, but they must also water it down, sanitize and sugar-coat it on the air well enough to stay out of too much trouble. It’s not an easy job! I’d be out on my ass in a week.

                Both Greg and Michael have the libertarian Jew act going for them to a degree, but Kushner and Bibi kinda spoiled that one. In the final analysis I salute them.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I think it was Michael Malice, and IIRC I just stumbled across something he’d written on a site hosting someone else I was reading; I still don’t really know who he is.

                  The point is, it’s better if audiences and authors themselves don’t know the primary source of a meme, as long as it’s being used correctly. The danger, of course, is having it subverted, but they’ll attempt that regardless (like Pepe).

    • suones says:

      You’ve got to understand that the author of that piece is writing under his real name. He was a successful businessman and the owner of the media group operating The Escapist online gaming magazine. Due to certain events he was purged from the industry and removed from the company he created. It’s a bit like Brendan Eich, on a smaller scale.

      His political position used to be right-libertarianism, but the actual events of his life Darkly Enlightened him. My politics used to be farther right than his, and still are, but reality has closed the gap quite a lot. Also, I’m anon.

      Unlike Moldfag, Macris has never cucked on anything in my knowledge, always wrote under his real name, and is a genuinely high-IQ individual.

      I cannot imagine Moldfag writing about Trump and a “Rubicon” now that he is a namefag. So cut Macris some slack.

      • Would love to read more of you actually. A dissident right view on Indian politics would be great reading. I would love some inspiration as well. 😉

      • Bilge_Pump says:

        Moldbug wrote about exactly that, Trump and the Rubicon, in his latest substack writing.

        Here’s a quote: “So it is not just that, for President Trump to keep his job (and probably his freedom), he would have to cross the Rubicon. He would have to cross five Rubicons, and do it without stopping. He also does not have (a) a map; (b) an army; or (c), of course, a general”

        • Bilge_Pump says:

          Apparently he’s written 2 things since then, I thought it was his latest, also he seems to have a general now, namely Flynn.

        • suones says:

          Yeah haha. The point is that Moldfag was doxed and now he has the courage to write stuff like this but still:

          Though I did not put this in writing, not from responsibility but just out of cowardice,

          The man knows himself!

          • Not Tom says:

            I find the whole thing with Moldbug/Yarvin kind of sad. It’s not so much that he got doxed or became a namefag, it’s that he became obsolete. People write about what they know, and he knows a whole lot about economics and history and the old Progressive ethos, but not so much about war and warfare, and as we drift headlong into war, whether conventional or holy, his knowledge becomes increasingly irrelevant.

            He really wanted Silicon Valley to save us, and for a while, it had the potential. It’s true that the Sergey Brin of 2005 would probably have been a much better President than anyone that any of the political parties have or had on offer – save Trump, who is fundamentally the same archetype, just from a different industry. But Silicon Valley was co-opted, Silicon Valley cucked, now it’s just a more powerful and ideological Wall Street and social media is a more grotesque and low-brow traditional media, right up to the unskippable parade of nauseating ads.

            And I think he just can’t admit it. He looks at his neighborhood and sees his neighborhood 20 years ago, as many people do when their neighborhoods are crumbling and let nostalgia and sentiment cloud their vision. He looks at Silicon Valley today and sees only the legacy of 2000 Silicon Valley, not the creature currently inhabiting it. And so he makes poor strategic decisions, imagining that the new revolving door between SV and USG might be a good thing, that the CEOs are just sort of politically unsophisticated, but if we give them the real levers of power, they’d rule benevolently. He can’t see that they’ve become just as rabidly ideological as the rest of the Cathedral.

            The irony to me is that Moldbug wrote about this very phenomenon, when he chronicled the decline and fall of academia. He says, and is probably correct, that the ivory tower came crashing down when progressives had the bright idea to connect the academy with the political machine; they forgot the aphorism about a barrel of wine and a cup of sewage. And then he went and made the same mistake with Silicon Valley. Oh, he wanted them to be sovereign, as I’m sure the old progressives wanted the academy to be sovereign, but it was never going to work that way – the fat pipe is not a one-way valve.

            And now here we are: the Valley helped fix an election to install Kamala Harris, arguably the worst president-in-waiting America could imagine, and it will break America if allowed to occur, hence war. President Trump says we cannot have a President Biden, but I think what he really means is we cannot have a President Kamala because Biden would not even last a year. Yarvin doesn’t know war, doesn’t believe it could happen, so writes as though this is all just another bump in the road, nothing to get worked up about.

            So congratulations, Curtis, we are this close to the technocratic CEO rule that you so idealistically dreamed about. Is it everything you hoped for, or do you regret following the same path as the early 20th century progressives?

            • Bilge_Pump says:

              “So congratulations, Curtis, we are this close to the technocratic CEO rule that you so idealistically dreamed about.”

              Not to be a bugbear, but he did write this recently : “”

              Here’s a quote : “Protocol transparency means banning secret Internet protocols, at least for monopolies. Governments can tame the platform dragons—tame, not slay, though they will squeal as if being slain—by compelling them to use only free, published network protocols.”

              If he wants technoligarchic rule, doesn’t seem to be advocating for it here. You do have a point about the war stuff, Moldbug is definitely a nerd. I don’t think he needs to be shoved into a locker though, he says interesting things.

              • Not Tom says:

                Yes, I saw that. Frankly, his solution sounds bizarre and pointless; most of the big tech companies already use open protocols. In fact they all fight for their pet projects to get into the W3 standards.

                Maybe he means they should open up their actual APIs to anyone, but I don’t think he does, as that would basically eliminate any kind of security.

                He’s squirming; he knows that the industry he used to back has become monstrous and evil, but still can’t let go, thus advocates these non-solutions, which allows him to discuss the superficial aspects of the problem while ignoring its essence.

            • suones says:

              … technocratic CEO rule…

              Is fundamentally impossible, in the nature of things.

              Silicon Valley is basically tech-priest central. The wave of Hackers (along the Minsky->Sussman->Stallman axis) or hackers (Backus->Codd->Ritchie/Thompson->Torvalds axis) were/are all observably Brahmins. The founders of Microsoft are Brahmins, and much of the initial team at Apple Computer are also (famously excluding Jobs, of course). NVIDIA, Google, all founded and largely run by tech-priests. And huge numbers still work for FAAGS.

              The apparent takeover of SV has largely been a multi-pronged assault: 1) by media Brahmins upon tech-Brahmins, aided by 2) Vaishyas hired by the tech-Brahmins to “manage” their companies, enabled by 3) Shudras in Government. Much of this happened very fast, and I consider the first Obama presidency as the turning point, but the groundwork was already being laid during WBush-II era.

              This then leads to such strange incidences as Eric Schmidt firing James Damore from Goolag for pointing out that women don’t really dig computers.

              Of course, no surviving tech-priest will admit this, and tech-priest articles of faith are gone or disappearing fast. I already feel nostalgic for:

              Shut up and show us the code!
              There are no women on the Internet
              On the Internet, no-one knows you’re a dog
              Don’t be evil
              Meritocracy rug at Github
              Free speech wing of the Free speech party

              This is a fundamentally unique religion/memeplex that is being suppressed by the Prog machine. At one time it appeared that it would triumph (I think 2005 was the high point). But then prog tentacles started infiltrating and destroying. It is really beautifully put by Vox Day in his SJWs series.

              I was an optimist back then, but then so were Peter Thiel and Mark Shuttleworth, and I daresay even James 😉 Victory was almost palpable! Then it turned to shit in 2014.

              • The Cominator says:

                You don’t understand our memes entirely…

                Brahmins are generally evil and vaisyas are generally good. The government is entirely Brahmin.

                The problem is not Vaisyas subverting the Brahmins but quite the other way around.

                • European Mutt says: