The reactionary program.

Neoreaction plans to be the priesthood, but we think warriors should be on top and should steal sufficient to fund the army and the state, that warriors should do warrior stuff, merchants should do merchant stuff, and priests priestly stuff.

Our current problems are the result of an excessively numerous priesthood overflowing and intruding on the activities more properly performed by merchants and warriors. Thus human resources disrupts the corporation, wars are overrun by lawyers, and the military is forced to pretend that women can be warriors. This excess of priests is a result of priestly dominance with open entry into the priesthood and the resulting overflow of people into the priesthood.

We plan to cut off open entry into the priesthood. The Marxist and progressive program is a rationale for the priesthood intruding into the affairs of merchants and warriors. It is full employment program for Academia. Hence the joke that LIA, Low Intensity War, actually stands Lawyer Infested War. Hence the cat ladies of Human Resources, and the transformation of accounting from tracking value and value creation, to talmudic generation and enforcement of obscure, obstructive, and incomprehensible rules. Today, accounting is not about tracking value when it is transferred from one entity to another, and measuring the creation of value, but rather what rituals one must perform if one wants to transfer value from one entity to another.

Lawyers (who tend to be the day to day ruling class even if academia sets doctrine long term) and writers like all the priestly professions overwhelmingly oppose Trump.

In a reactionary state, the state will enforce marriage, and end open entry into the priesthood. Military priests will be trained in military academies under the control of retired warriors. Women will be forced to honor and obey the first man they have sex with till death do them part and will be denied access to men who are not yet contributing to the state and society.

Women feel that a man who is single and lonely, especially in today’s world of open sexual market, is not fully a male of the human species. At best, he may be an animal with some horrid infectious disease of the skin to be pitied from a distance. But much more often they are just ignored or laughed at. No amount of ideology can override these hard wired settings in the female brain.

On the other hand, men see this in women and join the mocking and the laughter in order to signal that they’re definitely not that type.

Since women are hypergamous, the natural tendency is for there to be a very large number of young males in this hyperoppressed class.

Further, this incel class cuts across the reactionary classes (warrior, priest, merchant, and followers), since high status wealthy businessmen, merchant class, often do very badly with women, and people that we categorize as priestly class, high status males whose career requires strict political correctness, who are required to very politically correct, usually do very badly with women.

But if we look at successful past societies, they have generally taken extraordinarily drastic coercive measures to minimize this class of men, to overule female hypergamy.

While socialism in goods invariably fails catastrophically, in part because the priests run businesses to produce holiness, rather than value, drastic coercive intervention in the market for love and sex seems to be a basic requirement of civilization, without which civilizations fail. We need to ensure that every man who pays taxes and every man who fights for order tribe, society, King and God, gets pussy, which runs contrary to natural female inclination.

Marriage is a contract between the former owner of the bride, normally her father, and the new owner of the bride, normally her husband. Reproductive sex is an essential part of this contract.
Women should be attached to one male and not allowed to ride the cock carousel, ideally the first male they ever have sex with, hence shotgun marriage.

Male society consists of priests, warriors, merchants, and followers, and the female population is not a society, but consists of feral women and women under the authority of a husband or father. Women are only part of society through an intimate relationship with a male in authority over her. That is not the reactionary program. That is biological reality, manifesting in the disastrous consequences of attempting have female run corporations. Today, we don’t have equal women, we have feral women.

Late marriage west of the Hajnal line was, in the towns, linked to enforceable apprenticeship, up to about 1800 or so. A man was typically an apprentice till about twenty four or so, and it was ok to be lonely, despised, and mistreated, since upon successfully completing his apprenticeship, he would cease to be despised and mistreated, and would soon afterwards marry a virgin about four or so years younger than himself – who had been apprenticed to housewifery, to servant and housekeeping type tasks, or some traditionally feminine occupation, but who upon marriage would perform those tasks for her husband, or under the supervision of her husband. For women, apprenticeship was typically ended by marriage, for men, marriage typically followed not long after the completion of apprenticeship, at least in the towns, where work was formalized. In rural areas, work relationships and education were informal, so no connection between formal work, education, and getting married appears in the records for rural areas.

Apprenticeship was emasculating, but apprentices were expected learn from a manly role model who was working at producing value, and expected to become that man. Today, they are trained by priests who have no knowledge of the real world, and will not read old books, instead reading what other twenty first century academics say about old books that they have not read either.

The apprentice role was effeminate and emasculating, with the vows of apprenticeship and the restraints of apprenticeship resembling a wife’s marital vows, but it was intended to prepare them for life as a man, not to prevent them from becoming men, whereas modern priestly education aims at preventing men from becoming men.

In North America apprenticeship typically ended about three years earlier at twenty one, and people correspondingly got married earlier.

Frame is a set of assumptions about the conversation and the interaction, and in order to facilitate communication and the interaction, we tend to tacitly accept the assumptions without conscious awareness.

Notice we have the word “racist”, but no word for people who claim that there are no races, that everyone is alike. We have the word “sexist”. If you think that women are different from men, you are sexist, but no word for someone who thinks they are interchangeable should be subject to the same rules, and perform the same social roles.

History shows that whoever tells you capitalism is a recent economic system intends to murder you. Notice that no one making this claim is prepared to argue it or defend it – they just frame it a way that presupposes it is indisputable fact that one doubts, that you agree that it is true. They will never argue on the basis of history, only try to project their frame on to you. Commies murdered a hundred million people, and commies told all of those people commies were on their side against evil capital.

The reactionary program is being met with efforts to frame it as if we agreed, as if everyone agreed, with progressive frame. Supposedly we want different rules for women because we hate women. Supposedly we want capitalism and security of property because we favor rule by the capitalist class. Supposedly we want families to be protected by society, Church, Sovereign, and God, because we hate women and want to beat our wives and children. Supposedly property rights are rule by capital, and did not exist for anyone except aristocrats until quite recently. Supposedly whites fled Detroit because they hate blacks, not because their houses were being burned down around their ears.

I intend a restoration modeled on Charles the Second: Fertile semi hereditary aristocratic elite, divine right monarch, openly official state religion, which one must affirm for state or quasi statal office, capitalism and modern corporate capitalism, with a restriction that the business plan be approved and adhered to. Investors need to know what they are investing in, and governments need to know that large successful corporations will not start investing in unrelated activities that buy them political influence and restrain competition. One corporation should have one business model.

The situation immediately preceding Charles the Second resembled today’s American Hegemony: An officially unofficial state religion that had suffered a leftist singularity, which singularity was ended by Cromwell, not Charles the Second. He ended it with far less bloodshed than Stalin ended it in Russia, though bloodshed is frequently unavoidable, and more difficult to avoid the further leftism has gone.

The American hegemony also resembles the Turkish empire, which had become the anti Turkish empire as the US State Department has become “The International Community”. It was the Turks, not the provinces, that revolted against the Turkish empire. I had hoped that Trump would be Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, would be Atatürk, Cromwell, and Charles the Second in one man, but that is a tall order. An Atatürk needs to be a military man, and the left has taken precautions against such a man.

As progressivism spirals to ever greater heights of madness, ever faster, there is bound to be a crack up – bound to be a Kemal Atatürk, a Cromwell if we are lucky or a Stalin if not quite as lucky, and, eventually, if we are brave, effective, prudent, and lucky, a Charles the Second.

Female emancipation never lasts, because peoples, tribes, cultures, states, and religions with emancipated females fail to reproduce. Pretty soon Japan will not have the Japanese. They either restore patriarchy, as the Japanese have done once before, or they will be conquered by manly patriarchs who enslave their women, as happened to the Chinese, or they just disappear and are replaced by outsiders. Peoples with emancipated women cannot fight very well, because they are short of young males, because involuntarily celibate young males prefer to hang out in mum’s basement, and because young males are reluctant to fight for family, society, sovereign and God, because they don’t have family. They are even more reluctant when society, official state religion, and the sovereign is hostile to them having sexual opportunity, and ejects husbands from their families. Why fight when you have no pussy to fight for, and when if you got married, would likely face a court order parting you from your children and denying you your assets. Our descendants will patriarchs, or we will be mighty short of grandchildren and we will be replaced by patriarchs.

881 Responses to “The reactionary program.”

  1. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    You always had the out of the egg and the chicken.
    No more: the government has, quite uncharacteristically, told Woke Capital to rein it tf in.

    • jim says:

      I have personally seen one hell of a lot of coercion.

      Let us consider the most infamous example of them all, the Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown.

      Banks that complied unenthusiastically, notably the Bank of Beverly Hills, were destroyed – not for anything they had done or failed to do, but for lack of faith in the program, for acting as if they suspected it was bad idea to make loans to diversities with no job, no income, and no assets.

      Banks that enthusiastically and voluntarily complied, notably Countrywide, led by the rather dim affirmative action beneficiary Angelo Mozillo, were given other banks to control, allowed to take over other banks with depositor money. In takeover bidding contests, they did not bid how much money they were going to pay out to shareholders, but how many mortgages they were going to give to diversities.

      So Mozillo did not need to be coerced, but the fact that a leftist was in charge was a consequence of coercion, as revealed in the takeover bidding contests.

  2. I wonder if some aspects can be simplified. The primary reason of propertizing women isn’t even “redistribution” but simply the same as any other property right enforcement: so that men don’t kill each other over women.

    Which sounds weird, because we have strong law enforcement and are a meek generation. But tough and lawless men always killed each other over women. Think sailors of a bit older times. Even today you can read it in East-Hajnal newspapers that some old rural drunk who can’t even get it up anymore killed the neighbor old rural drunk with an axe because he was diddling his ugly old wife. So there is that.

    I think that was basically how civilization bootstrapped itself. Intelligent populations simply looked at things men were killing each other over and figured out some rule everybody could live with. Cattle? Okay, we’ll enforce property rights. Women? Okay, we’ll enforce patriarchical marriage rules. Rulership? Okay, make it hereditary or something. Just a generic dominance contest? Invent wrestling. Insults that can only be washed down with blood? Invent the kind of formal duel where they explicitly accept not being avenged, not launching a clan feud. And so on.

    • jim says:

      > I wonder if some aspects can be simplified. The primary reason of propertizing women isn’t even “redistribution” but simply the same as any other property right enforcement: so that men don’t kill each other over women.

      Our current rule is that women have complete moment to moment control over sex and reproduction. (Even when nine months pregnant with their husband’s very much wanted child.) Which is somewhat effective at stopping men from killing people over women, but results in defect/defect equilibrium between men and women, making it very difficult to form families and have children.

      Cooperate/cooperate equilibrium requires social support from religion, family, society, and the Sovereign for doing something very unpleasant about defection and defectors.

      The problem is not so much men killing other men over women, but getting men and women to cooperate for reproduction. The current rules give men a profound disincentive against nest building and accumulating assets.

  3. Carlylean Restorationist says:


    • jim says:

      By posting that entirely true, but boring and inconsequential fact, you presuppose that it matters, that we agree that it matters – and therefore that we agree that we are ruled by Capital – which is not true, which is why no one except commies care about the crap you keep posting.

  4. Koanic says:

    muay thai defence and clinch part 1
    Jeronimas Stasys

    excellent series.

  5. Obadiah says:

    Re: Capitalism

    Stradivarius obviously deserves to make more per sale on his superior products than a kid selling paper cups with rubber bands attached to them, but I won’t pretend that Wal-Mart or the chimera that is transnational capital are somehow good things.

    Capitalism is a machine whose fruits depend on the religious beliefs—or lack thereof—of the men using it. Most current elite capitalists are freemasons who worship Lucifer, nihilist materialists, pedophiles, or some other breed of hostile.

    • The Cominator says:

      “Most current elite capitalists are freemasons”

      We’d be a lot better off if this were true. IM a freemason. Freemasons in Anglo countries tend to be right wing politically (though this is not always true). I hear more sinister things about freemasons in Catholic countries.

      It would honestly be best if all right wing Anglos became freemasons, it provides our own synthetic tribe/mafia and it excludes women.

      • Obadiah says:

        What degree of Freemason are you?

        What is the goal of Freemasonry?

        • The Cominator says:

          There’s Blue Lodge which has three degrees (the 3rd being master mason) and then there are the York Rite and Scottish Rite degrees but Scottish Rite isn’t really some ascending degree structure (as anyone with the time and money can do all 29 ordinary degrees of Scottish Rite) except for the special 33rd honorary degree. You also just sort of watch a skit of the degrees in Scottish Rite and rarely does any person get them in order… rather then reciting solemn oaths yourself.

          The highest degree I’ve observed would be the 18th degree.

          York Rite is not like this but I’m not a member so can’t speak about it with any expertise.

      • Koanic says:

        The Church is supposed to be like this. A brotherhood, with the women in submission and silent. You will not see any women speaking in Pastor Steven Anderson’s church. Try watching it on YouTube once. He even brought his wife up, and she didn’t say anything, while he talked. Based.

        • Obadiah says:

          That’s part of what makes Freemasonry so nefarious. Men crave this sort of camaraderie and brotherhood and get sucked into the organization during their youth.

          It starts with you and some bros doing this cool ritual with swords and candles feeling like you’re a part of something special and exciting as you come of age.

          Next thing you know you’re at level 33 feeling the seething energies of Lucifer as you advance the mission of the one-world global megastate at any cost.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        Hard to be a based anglo-chauvanist fraternity if so many exponents thereof keep giving alien khazars the kosher pass.

    • jim says:

      Capitalism does not depend on the moral character of those running it, only on their competence. It is thus the only possible system for fallen men. Anyone who criticises capitalism on the basis of the moral character of capitalists is claiming that priests should intrude on the authority of merchants over their own property, which always results in, at best, breadlines and you cannot get a dentist for your toothache in time to save the tooth, and at worst, artificial famine and mass murder.

      • Anonymous Fake says:


        • jim says:

          Deleted for presupposing that everyone knows and agrees that capitalism got started in 1910 or 1810 or such.

          Indeed, from some the outstandingly priestly activities that you are accusing capitalism of doing, sounds like capitalism started in 1970, and Harvard, not Wall Street is its center.

          Lets have that debate about capitalism under Queen Elizabeth and King Solomon, instead of confidently presupposing that you won that debate, and like Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, the debate is over and the science is settled.

          The reason you are being censored and will continue to be censored is that you never attempt to persuade us of communism and progressivism by telling us that it is true and good for this reason and that reason. You supposedly talk about something entirely unrelated while presupposing universal and unchallenged agreement on Marxism and progressivism.

          If you want to argue that Capitalism started yesterday, let us talk about King Solomon.

          If you want to argue that socialism has ever worked any time ever, that anything other than capitalism has ever worked anywhere at any time, let us talk about dentistry in Britain, and elderly people with breathing difficulties.

          But instead of arguing, you presuppose that all here are entirely in agreement with Marxist history and that socialism works. Persistently presupposing claims that have been challenged, as if the challenge had never been made, as if the claim was entirely calm, reasonable, and rational rather than rabid moonbat crazy, is what gets you censored.

      • pdimov says:

        “Capitalism does not depend on the moral character of those running it, only on their competence.”

        That’s one variation of the central hypothesis of capitalism, another being that rational actors pursuing their economic self interest without regards to the others results, when integrated over the entire economy, in an optimal outcome; and the efficient market hypothesis is similar.

        I don’t think there’s any evidence in favor of it. High trust economies outperform low trust ones, because low trust is costly. And economic actors pursuing their interest _with_ regards to the others result in a better economic outcome. Because IPD.

        You can fold all that into “competence” but that’s kind of a cop out.

        • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

          “High trust economies outperform low trust ones, because low trust is costly.”

          Pretty sure this is not the case unless you’re using trust as a proxy for HBD. Singapore and Hong Kong outperforms Japan now. England outperformed Germany in the 1800s. If you adjust for HBD and natural resources the GDP per capita rankings are exactly what laissez faire would predict. Markets tend to get the trust up to a level that is functional but not excessive.

          Also, high trust (at least at excessive levels like hajnals) societies tend to go on left wing spirals which tend to be bad for the economy because it’s correlated with how much you believe a priest versus your own relatives.

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            Last sentence should read “because it’s correlated with how much you believe a priest versus your own relatives, which tend to be bad for the economy and other things, to put it mildly.”

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:


            • jim says:

              You present an argument that presupposes that your interlocutor accepts that nineteenth century England was not capitalist, or was significantly less capitalist than today’s West, which presupposition is absolutely nuts.

              Nineteenth century England was immensely more capitalist than any presently existing society, even Dubai. It was comparably capitalist to sixties Hong Kong.

              What you are trying to do is sneak past us the idea that Marxist history is universally accepted and uncontroversial, by pretending to discuss something that no one cares much about, while pushing the frame on your interlocutor that everyone agrees that Marxism, socialism and all that is rainbows and unicorns.

              I insist that you must argue Marxism explicitly and overtly, in a way that acknowledges that not everyone accepts that Marxism is true and good, and that whig history is true and good: Overtly and explicitly tell us that capitalism is new, rather than framing the debate as one in which everyone agrees on this and takes it for granted, and debate counter examples such as nineteenth century England, Restoration England, Elizabethan England, and King Solomon’s Israel, in the frame that you are saying something controversial that your interlocutor does not agree with.

              • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                Lmao did he really argue that Jim? He’d be left wing of Marx if that was the case!

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  Don’t tell me what Spandrell said. It is not what he said.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  So what *did* Spandrell say in his latest piece about Andrew Yang then?

                  I seem to remember something about “woke capital is the main enemy”…. hmmm maybe I’m imagining it.

                  Wow I’m not dreaming after all, so maybe you are:

                  “…he’s promising to stop it by taxing the hell of the Enemy. Which again, as Tucker mentioned, isn’t a huge abstract thing The Jews or the Left. No. The enemy is Big Tech. It’s Amazon, it’s Google, It’s Apple. It’s Facebook. It’s Twitter. It’s Woke Capital. It’s those guys who aren’t only taking your jobs, they’re using their monopoly in the management of information to censor us, hide us, slander us and ostracize us.”

                  (I’m not a Spandrell fanboy: if Yang *were* planning to tax the Jews, that’d be even better. Still, taxing billionaires amounts to the same thing.)

                • jim says:

                  I have debated Spandrel about his Yang blog post. In a forum with only fellow reactionaries seeing it.

                  Not going to debate you about his Yang blog post.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “I have debated Spandrel about his Yang blog post. In a forum with only fellow reactionaries seeing it.”

                  I would not ask to see the forum there are too many entryists spooks kooks etc running around nowadays… but is it possible to see a transcript of this debate with Spandrell’s permission as well of course…

                  Yang’s UBI replacing the welfare state would probably be a good thing but for that reason the Democrats will never nominate him. Otherwise Yang is an awful progressive shitlib who needs a helicopter ride.

                • jim says:

                  Yang’s proposal would not replace the welfare state, but add to it.

                  If Yang had said “You cannot get UBI if you get welfare” that would work.

                  But instead he said “You cannot get welfare if you get UBI”. He knows perfectly well that there is absolutely no way to implement that. It is administratively impossible to get people off welfare. The bureaucracy would find it difficult even if they wanted to do it and they will not want to do. There are one hundred and one little welfare bureaucratic empires, and each little emperor will fight to the death against the loss of a single client. The court orders Yang would get would make the court orders Trump is getting look like nothing at all. The courts would suddenly rediscover state rights and all that. (Most welfare has the fingers of every level of government in the pie, so municipalities and states have standing to sue.)

                  We already have UBI: It is the earned income tax credit. Nearly all of it goes to single mothers, mostly non white single mothers. Supposedly you would not get the earned income tax credit if you were on welfare, but they are nearly all on welfare.

                  Yang’s program is more of the same, a transfer from whites to nonwhites, and a transfer from men to single women.

                  Yang’s UBI is just a bigger earned income tax credit. And most people who get a earned income tax credit check are single, female, nonwhite, with numerous children by numerous thugs, and all of them, as near to all of them as make no difference, vote Democrat.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Yang’s proposal would not replace the welfare state, but add to it.”

                  Then yeah it’ll suck.

                  Not that he has any chance anyway… welfare mothers will still think hes going to replace their 60-100 grand a year with 12 grand and will vote against him. He won’t even be allowed to get as close as Bernie got to the Dem nomination.

              • The Cominator says:

                19th century post corn law England was probably the most purely capitalist society in history bar none. It had the whole libertarian economic program even the free trade and open borders shit we aren’t generally fans of.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  You confidently assume that the guild system existed until very recently, that it was not capitalism, and that we agree that the guild system existed until very recently and that it was not capitalism. Neither of these are true.

                  Lets have a debate about the guild system – but you are not allowed to assume Marxist history. You have to present evidence and argument, and respond to the other guy’s evidence and argument, rather hanging a Marxist frame around his argument.

                  So respond to this comment and dispute it. I will allow it if you refrain from inventing Marxist economic history and pretending that we all agree with it and it is entirely uncontroversial. If you invent Marxist economic history, you have to provide evidence for it, not just argue from false consensus, as Marxists always do:

                  So: The guild system was dead in the water in England long before the restoration, and it was mercantilism, which is a form of capitalism. The market in the countryside was unrestricted and the market between towns was unrestricted. Guild cartels were local to a particular town, and had an enforceable cartel monopoly within each town, but not every business activity was allowed to form cartels (guilds). The guilds were fully controlled by individuals who individually owned their means of production, and had a hereditary feudal style right to own means of production in that business activity in that city. Other individuals could only participate in that business in that city as employees of people who had a hereditary right to produce that good in that city, and generally had binding and enforceable apprenticeships that bound them to that particular employer until about age twenty four or so for men in England, and about age twenty one or so for men in America. Female employees working for a guild (cartelized) employer generally had binding and enforceable apprenticeships until marriage, which tended to be about twenty one in England, though nothing stopped them from getting married as soon as their father or guardian permitted. After marriage they might work in the same business under their husband. Their employer had broad authority to restrain them from conduct that might result in them getting shotgun married at a very early age. The very broad power of the employer gave him an incentive to transfer his skills to the apprentice. Cartels with enforceable minimum prices within the city made the system less market than the present day in those business activities governed by a guild, but still capitalist – employers, employees, market pressures on employers, and they needed to make a profit. Enforceable apprenticeship made the system more capitalist and more market oriented than the present day, since employers had a property right in the skills transmitted to apprenticeships for the term of the apprenticeship.

                  The guilds enforced quality, and attempted to enforce minimum prices in their particular city but did not set production quotas, plan production, nor ration goods. People would bypass the guilds by setting up production and sales outside the city, so if a guild was too restrictive, if it set excessive minimum prices, production in that city would stagnate and decline due to market competition. Such competition frequently killed off the excessively greedy guild, and the guilds mostly expired of this in Europe in the seventeenth century, and in England in the fourteenth or fifteenth century. Guild membership remains to this day as an honor, as titles of nobility remain as an honor, but cartel enforcement of minimum prices within the city was largely abandoned many centuries ago.

                • The Cominator says:

                  In any case the guilds were gone long before the 19th century.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  You assert Marxist economic history is true without evidence or explanation.

          • pdimov says:

            >Singapore and Hong Kong outperforms Japan now.
            >Markets tend to get the trust up to a level that is functional but not excessive.

            Singapore has law enforcement that is positively draconian by our liberal standards. So it may not be the market that keeps the trust at a level conducive to economic efficiency.

            • The Cominator says:

              If you want a good economy you use capitalism.

              If you want a society of highly honest people (and I do) execute people for even very petty crimes for hundreds of years. England, Japan and Scandanavia all head centuries of the death penalty for petty crimes.

              • pdimov says:

                Right. In England, it’s my understanding that if you sold defective goods, bad things happened to you, and those bad things weren’t delivered by the market. So I’m still lacking evidence for the claim that capitalism doesn’t depend on good moral character _or strict law enforcement_ in order to effect a good economy.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  Don’t tell me what my position is. It is not my position. I am not a libertarian Marxist – indeed I am pretty sure that no such creature exists, because that position, the position you attribute to me, is, as you correctly say, incoherent.

                  If I accepted the Marxist premises that you attribute to me, I would draw the Marxist conclusions you tell me I should draw, but are illogically and mysteriously failing to draw.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  In fact it’s (Tom Woods world) doubly unstable because the economic system will be Bob Murphy globalism: “you wouldn’t be worried if you had a trade deficit with the grocery store: so silly!”

                  So resources flow out of Lew Rockwellville and into Ian Freemanville and Ian Freemanville has more ability to command physical materials from the world, so guess what the new expanded township’s gonna more closely resemble!

                  No, libertarianism isn’t a well-meaning but unimposable dream. Like communism, it’s an evil nightmare in theory just as much as in practice.

                  Communism always gives you repression and rule by the ignorant, while capitalism always gives you MacDonald’s and Nicki Minaj.

                • jim says:

                  Singapore, Dubai, and Hong Kong have free trade and unrestricted capitalism. They are doing fine economically, though because Hong Kong and Singapore fail to enforce marriage, they are gene shredders, and because none of them enforce apprenticeship, they attract skilled people whose skills die with them.

                  Sure looks to me that resources and skills are flowing into Dubai, not out of Dubai.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  What makes you think a capitalist order would ever permit the enforcement of marriage, given that reducing the labour supply by some 25%-50% would greatly drive up costs?

                  It takes radical state intervention to enforce marriage, and unless you want another ‘feminist’ revolution that’d better extend to censorship.

                • jim says:

                  > What makes you think a capitalist order would ever permit the enforcement of marriage

                  Because every single capitalist society in populations from which we are biologically descended from enforced marriage. Any capitalist society that fails to enforce marriage disappears in a time that is short, measured in centuries, because of inability to cooperate for reproduction.

                  > It takes radical state intervention to enforce marriage,

                  No more and no less than enforcement of any other property or contractual right.

                  King Solomon’s Israel primarily relied on private enforcement of marriage, in that it was normally the offended husband, perhaps assisted by his kinfolk and authorized by temple and state, that hunted down and killed the adulterers.

                  That was a very good system, since it makes the husband more manly and attractive in the eyes of his wife.

                  And today, the USA primarily relies on private enforcement of property rights, in that you can shoot burglars, and if you shoplift from Walmart, Walmart security will arrest you in the parking lot. That is a good system, and works well. Should be extended to enforcement of marriage, as in King Solomon’s Israel. It is a good system for Walmart stuff, a better system for burglars, and would be better still for marriage.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’ll agree with CR on this narrow point, the law should at least heavily discourage women working outside of their traditional professions.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Pretty sure in the absence of AA, public education and state-owned enterprises (1st big in west, 2nd / 3rd big in PRC) female employment will basically collapse similar to old China and Victorian times, with the exception of traditional occupations such as nurses, servants and textile factory workers. Besides their incompetence, women simply create far too drama in the work place for a private company to want to employ too many.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  That which goes without saying, must be said anyways; because the next generation won’t get the joke.

            • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

              Any libertarian legal code in which a criminal would have to restore a victim to his previous state would be “draconian” by Cathedral standards, at least for actual crimes and not for saying stuff like genders exist and have biological differences.

            • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

              Also, pretty sure the trust you’re talking about is stuff like living up to detailed provisions in contracts, not executing murderers, etc. Pretty sure Singapore is very strict with the latter but their regulations is much less than in any western country.

        • Art says:

          “And economic actors pursuing their interest _with_ regards to the others result in a better economic outcome. Because IPD.”
          Personal trust and caring relationships do not scale. To coordinate large scale cooperation between anonymous strangers you need trust in faceless uncaring institutions.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        “Capitalism does not depend on the moral character of those running it”

        It actually absolutely does. Depends of course on what you mean by capitalism, but taking pure anarcho-capitalism as the definition, it absolutely depends on the moral character of those running it. It’s perfectly possible to have a Tom Woods style covenant community with quiet clean neighbourhoods utterly devoid of porn, drugs and so on, but violating no-one’s rights: get caught taking smack and you’re simply kicked out, but no actual penalties at all – it’s all in your contract and since you broke it, you have to leave now.

        It’s equally possible to imagine an anarcho-capitalist community of child prostitutes, lethal gladiator games (fully consenting, and it’s not noteworthy that they’re all debtors and everyone’s in huge amounts of debt), crack and meth at Walmart and people torturing animals for fun.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:


        • jim says:

          The problem with anarcho capitalism is never gladiatorial games or child prostitution. It is that it is in every group’s interest to form a natural or synthetic tribe and use military pressure to start bending the law in their favor, recreating the state.

          Insufficient volunteers for gladiatorial games, and the child prostitutes all get married off at sword point – prostitution is a problem of feral women, not bad men. Always zero prostitution in societies that approximate anarcho capitalism, because women need to be under the protection of a man. Sometimes, often, there is a problem with boys doing singing and dancing roles that are appropriate for girls but grossly inappropriate for boys, but that is a bad as it gets.

          For this reason we reactionaries, noticing the alarming effectiveness of synthetic tribes based on heresies of the official religion, regretfully reject anarcho capitalism in favor of stationary bandits.

          Anarcho capitalist Iceland fell to Christianity like a wet noodle, and if it was still anarcho capitalist, would fall to progressivism like a wet noodle. That is the problem with anarcho capitalism, not gladiatorial games.

          • Mike says:

            Completely off-topic, but you need to read this Jim. Might make a good topic for whatever your next article is:


          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            Pretty sure all functional reactionary societies had prostitution by adult females Jim. In 1800s every town in the US had a brothel and red light district and this was the case until WWI. If you are not convinced by that 18th century Paris and old China (many other examples) also had it. Prostitution provides an important purpose because it prevents betas from pedestalizing too hard (Jackie coakley would never get married in Asia) and some women genuinely are unsuited for family life and should have an outlet.

            • The Cominator says:

              Yeah I agree. Non-feminist and non-puritan societies not only have prostitution probably 10-20% of women spend some portion of their life as prostitutes.

              Was definitely true in Restoration England.

              Most feral women don’t ideally want to become ORDINARY prostitutes because that would mean they would have to fuck beta males for money. They want instead to become some kind of super duper high class call girl or courtesan so they can f***ed by a bunch of rich high status chads. Feral women who become ordinary prostitutes are those who are more okay with screwing beta males.

              As RoL says every town in Europe and America had brothels before women could vote. I think most prostitutes eventually found their way out of their profession before they hit the wall by marrying one of their johns. Banning prostitution is feminist and puritan and legalizing it (within red light districts) is reactionary.

              • jim says:

                Prostitutes are always scouting their customers for a potential pimp better than their current pimp, where “better” usually means more violent, cruel, criminal, and stupid.

                The real reactionary solution to prostitution is that if a woman voluntarily has sex with you, and her parent, guardian, or pimp allowed this, or tends to be ineffectual in preventing it, then you are allowed to shotgun marry her. Consent to marriage should only be for women that can be presumed to be virtuous. Early Australia had severe women shortage but absolutely zero prostitution problem because they married them off. Sometimes they would have a lineup within hours of the boat arriving, and the women would consent to marriage on meeting a suitor for the first time in lineup, because if they did not consent, they got assignment to a master, which was enforceable concubinage.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  I really don’t think men in reactionary societies would be interested in marrying prostitutes except as a concubine which you also seem to oppose (and I support), pretty sure you cant extrapolate from 21st century angloland in this. On top of that there really are women who are genetically unable to form a family, a very small percentage, and i’d rather they add to GDP and provide social stability then cheat on some beta.

                • jim says:

                  Early Australia had one hundred percent success in turning whores into wives. Women love sexual compulsion. Pretty sure that there would be a lot of interest in turning whores into wives if a high success rate. The problem with marrying whores at present is that they go right on whoring.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The problem we have to solve is not prostitution. Prostitutes at least provide men with sex.

                  The problem is that too many women are not providing men with sex in the unrealistic hope of getting a booty call from Jeremy Meeks and at best practicing serial monogamy with a small % of men who are often lowlifes and criminals.

                  Any reactionary society will realistically have a far higher % of women who are prostitutes then what we have now (since thieves and any man found to be any kind of liberal will be ruthlessly hanged so there will be a slight shortage of men).

                • jim says:

                  Nah, lets have a bit of quietly tolerated concubinage for the wealthy and the respectable to mop up the surplus.

                  Allowing women to screw around raises their status in ways that make family formation difficult.

                • The Cominator says:

                  There will be that too but if Restoration England and 19th century America or almost any European society before the progressive era (excluding extreme Puritan states) is any guide there will also be brothels.

                  Some men are going to get stuck with shitty wives… and we don’t generally plan on allowing divorce. Certainly joe sixpack should be able to go to a brothel once every two weeks.

                • jim says:

                  There will be demand, and we will allow demand. He will be allowed to go to a brothel. But there will be very little supply, for if we allow supply, it raises the status of women in ways that will make his marriage shitty and impairs his capability to form a family.

                  Again, late eighteenth century and very early nineteenth century Australia: No effort to suppress men having sex with loose women, but few or no loose women. They had some great orgies, which came to a sudden end when the authorities cracked down on the women, by making sure that every women was swiftly attached to one man, whom they gave ample authority to restrain her from misconduct. And it seems that every such man, as near to all of them as made no difference, did restrain her from misconduct.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Crackdown on the women will take the form of allowing fathers to force marriage under a certain age and marriage by abduction after a certain age.

                  But the man being able to go to a whore won’t hurt his marriage his wife will respect that she has competition. We should allow about as much supply as there are surplus women, which is in fact what non-Puritan pre-feminist states did.

                  Australia shows you can force women to become wives, but honestly they would have been wiser acting as the old West did (which tended to discourage women leaving prostitution) because they had a shortage of women and under their system too many men ended up alone.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  I completely agree with Cominator. Having the dread factor is important in decreasing desperation for betas. The desperation in Anglo countries is so high, even Elizabeth Holmes (who is going to jail) and Jackie Coakley got hitched!

                  What makes you think that prostitution would raise female status, Jim? As far as I know in East Asia prostitutes were basically property of the madam until the 20th century. They certainly were not free to have sex with whoever they wanted, and they definitely were servicing betas, not alphas. I agree they should have low status though.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “What makes you think that prostitution would raise female status, Jim? As far as I know in East Asia prostitutes were basically property of the madam until the 20th century. They certainly were not free to have sex with whoever they wanted, and they definitely were servicing betas, not alphas. I agree they should have low status though.”

                  Prostitutes should have low status BUT it should be HIGHER then that of cat ladies/older spinsters (to the extent any women still become them). Cat ladies who have never been married ought to be living in constant fear of being burned as witches I exaggerate as to how low I think their status should be but not by much…

                • jim says:

                  > in East Asia prostitutes were basically property of the madam

                  I find this hard to believe. It is a story that we get told a lot of even today, but you know it is not true today. Why should you believe it was true yesterday? It runs contrary to female nature and male nature. It is the Victorian myth of inherently virtuous womanhood reluctantly submitting to the immorality of lustful men.

                  I checked out the Japanese comfort women story. Supposedly the Japanese conscripted women to service their soldiers. Utter bunkum. The Japanese bayoneted women, but those chicks prostituted themselves enthusiastically, and the Japanese authorities had the usual problems controlling their sexuality.

                  If the comfort women were not slaves of the regiment, what chance does an East Asian brothel Madam have? They would just wander off with whichever customer seemed most brutal, violent, and criminal. Women are inherently difficult to control, and if you let them fuck more than one man, you are giving them a bag full of dynamite.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:


                • jim says:

                  Deleted incorrectly.

                  I intended to delete Carlylean Restorationist.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Fair enough Jim, I will put in my evidence that brothel madams in East Asia had control over prostitutes and had to be paid off before releasing them (pre-20th century, per my previous comment). However, I object to you saying I agree with the feminists, I clearly indicated that I regard the 20th century changes as a disaster. I will present two independent sources just to show I am making a good faith argument.

                  First source: a very famous late Ming dynasty story on a man’s love affair with a courtesan (posting Chinese wikipedia link to prove it’s real since the English version is so small:

                  Although this story is blue pill, it was published in the 17th century, so I think it is proven that it was not influenced by the Cathedral in any way, shape or form. You can verify the English source below is talking about the same story through google translate of the Chinese wikipedia page.

                  Posting link to an analysis of the story in English (since I assume no one can read Chinese), which I will quote from ONLY on the story summary, not the analysis (since this is a cathedral publication):

                  “Du Shiniang, better known as Du Tenth, a young prostitute who falls in love with a young scholar named Li Jia…. After starting a relationship with Li Jia, she puts up half of the money required to buy her freedom (Li Jia’s friend Liu Yuchun provides the other half), and once she gains her freedom, receives a number of precious items from her sisters who remained at the brothel.”

                  Second source: search on google “Concubinage in seventeenth-century Chinese Literature: A Historical Study of Xing-shi yi-yuan zhuan” and click on first link. Relevant Quote (page 8, PDF):

                  “To get prostitutes as concubines, the masters needed to pay to the owners of the prostitutes the body price, which ranged widely.”

                • jim says:

                  1. Blue pilled.

                  2. “Price varied widely” Standard operating procedure in modern east asian brothels is that you pay a fee to take the girl out of the brothel, and if you take her out for a long period, it is a per day fee. This does not imply that the girl is the brothel’s property, merely that she has a longer term relationship with them than with her customers.

                  3. Even if legally the slaves of the brothel, formally and legally owned according to law, which was indeed the case in premodern china, this does not mean the slave owner is going to successfully retain a whole lot of control once he lets them sleep around.

                  4. In the Roman Empire female performers were always slave girls and whores, formally and legally owned outright, and their status became uncontrollably and dangerously high.

                  Solution to the female problem that afflicted to Roman Empire is to allow the seducer or the customer to keep the girl, if he commits to keep her indefinitely – regardless of her changing her mind. Maybe give her a very limited time to change her mind, and if she hangs out longer than that, he can insist she stays, provided that he commits to keep her, and then the state will drag her home if she leaves, on a literal leash if need be, and if she gets a whipping for cause, moderate and proportionate domestic discipline is allowed.

                • jim says:

                  > “Du Shiniang, better known as Du Tenth, a young prostitute who falls in love with a young scholar named Li Jia…. After starting a relationship with Li Jia, she puts up half of the money required to buy her freedom

                  Being a romance, unlikely to realistically depict prostitution.

                  Scholar rescues her from the evil oppressors victimizing her, but will discover she has a knack for getting herself unrescued.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “4. In the Roman Empire female performers were always slave girls and whores, formally and legally owned outright, and their status became uncontrollably and dangerously high.”

                  How so with the sole exception of Theodora in the Byzantine period. Part of the (generally bad and bluepilled) marriage laws of Augustus was infames women couldn’t marry Senators and Knights.

                  The late Roman Empire had a problem with professional charioteers becoming too high status (with Carthage being taken without resistance because the Vandals scaled the walls during a chariot race and several revolts essentially revolving around chariot races or chariot teams).

                • jim says:

                  I don’t have formal concrete evidence of high status. I just notice legislators trying to take down their status, implying it was a problem.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Even if legally the slaves of the brothel, formally and legally owned according to law, which was indeed the case in premodern china, this does not mean the slave owner is going to successfully retain a whole lot of control once he lets them sleep around.”

                  As long as the prostitute can’t run away without paying up, this limits the prostitute’s sexual choice to rich men, therefore excluding Jeremy Meeks and his sort. I for one am not that concerned if a HK oligarch decides to spend 100k on a new concubine by paying off her “debts” to the owner (which would likely not even happen given the shame he would experience in a normal society for marrying a whore).

                  Again, I limit my argument to only pre-20th century East Asia, I have never claimed things were under control in Europe or East Asia in the 20th century, clearly they weren’t if Queen Caroline herself was not under control.

                  “Blue pilled.”

                  Explain? Referring to story or my position.

                • jim says:

                  > > “Blue pilled.”

                  > Explain? Referring to story or my position.

                  Blue pilled story, in that a romance where the male love interest rescues the poor victimized prostitute is never realistically going to depict the prostitute or her environment. Whores are always shopping for a new pimp, not for a husband. They want someone who is very manly, but allows himself to be cuckolded. Someone who can command them, but not command them to stop shopping for yet another pimp. This contradictory and incompatible desire is endlessly frustrated, resulting in endless trouble. Most of this trouble is suffered by the would be rescuer. Women want to be commanded, but they also want to be commanded to fuck around. They are looking for a daddy who will command them to eat their vegetables, but instead of vegetables, command them to eat a giant tub of chocolate icecream.

                  > As long as the prostitute can’t run away without paying up.

                  But the prostitute is going to get endless opportunities to run away. And when she returns to the bar, the bar owner is going to spend most of the money that was paid for her on her. She gets resold one hundred times, and every time both she and the bar owner profits by it.

                  Women love sexual coercion. But they also love sexual adventure, endless drama, and endless romance. The whore, like the career girl, is trying to have it all. The state, the church, the family and society have to give them the former and deny them the latter, backing the use of the stick to stop it, because if you allow it, you get defect/defect equilibrium, and it becomes very difficult and dangerous to have families and children.

                  A side effect of denying them the latter is that the supply of whores gets mighty short. As in my favorite example, late eighteenth century and very early nineteenth century Australia.

                • The Cominator says:

                  > “I don’t have formal concrete evidence of high status. I just notice legislators trying to take down their status, implying it was a problem.”

                  The Romans constantly were issuing laws limiting conspicuous consumption by wealthy freedmen too but freedmen only really became powerful under Claudius even if they were rich.

                  Freed slaves of wealthy owners often were setup in business and did well for themselves, and higher class whores often did well for themselves (IF they could manage their money) the Roman social ideal was that such people should not be earning a higher income then a typical Roman smallholder or tradesmen but often they did.

                  Where we have evidence of an “infames” class accruing dangerously high status is among chariot racers in the late (and I mean real late the Christian Empire period) Empire, there are mentions of numerous revolts and civil disturbances around chariot races, Carthage falling to the Vandals because nearly the entire garrison abandoned their posts to go to the Chariot races, and Chariot racers being among the richest men in the Empire.

                  Higher end whores the evidence shows that some were earning a bit more money then people thought they should.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Whores are always shopping for a new pimp, not for a husband.”

                  I suspect that a lot of whores (above the lower end crackwhore type) eventually married out of the profession historically. Yes lots of men want virgin brides but there are a lot of men who don’t care, especially if they think other people they know don’t know what she used to do.

                  You’ve observed and I agree that while most girls tend to hate and despise nice guys fatherless girls sometimes respond well to them… same for whores some of them eventually come to realize that the party can’t last forever and that they need to jump to a safe harbor before they hit the wall.

                  I don’t think most whores at 18 are shopping for a husband but at 25 and 27 I suspect about half of them are. I’d be willing to be any amount of money they do a lot better then female lawyers.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  I agree that the prostitute is likely to scam the man marrying her. However, to me that’s a feature, not a bug. There is a reason why traditional Chinese society had a strong taboo on white knighting for them. The goal in my mind is to create two separate classes – prostitute and marriageable. Put the irredeemable sluts in the former, let them create gdp and social stability, and as long as it is extremely difficult to switch and impossible to pick Jeremy Meeks, since he can’t pay the fee, which seems to be the case under the old Chinese system i described, there’s no drama, no high status for women, and everything works well except for white knights who should be punished anyways.

                • jim says:

                  > seems to be the case under the old Chinese system i described, there’s no drama, no high status for women, and everything works well

                  The old Chinese system you described is based on description of it by blue pilled white knights.

                  Women top from the bottom.

              • The Cominator says:

                “Deleted for the confident but unsupported declaration that feminist history, the latest and most transparently insane version of whig history, is true.”

                How did RoL say this. What he said was that if a Chinese man wanted to marry a prostitute in China that he ussually had to buy her out from the madam or pimp.

                I don’t see how that was feminist history at all. Feminist history tends to be things like saying Watson and Crick didn’t discover DNA their female lab tech (which is all she really was) Franklin did. THATs feminist history.

                • jim says:

                  I did not mean to delete Rol: I deleted Carlylean Restorationist. Maybe I deleted Carlylean Restorationist twice, and the second time I deleted Reactionary Oriental.

                  Or maybe I mixed up Carlylean Restorationist with Reactionary Oriental, because Carlylean Restoration never makes a legitimate argument, always uses too-clever-by-half deceptive rhetorical tricks which are scarcely worth untangling, so I am more severe on him. As soon as I spot one trick, I delete him, because there is never anything but tricks.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:


              • jim says:

                Deleted for presupposing whig history – that progressivism and the enlightenment are the natural result of technological progress and what people spontaneously want.

                Argue whig history. Don’t presuppose it.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  People do seem to want what they’re told to want.

                  It’s just human nature. That’s not presupposing Whig history – it’s presupposing that Whigs have been in control for some considerable time.

                  The bit that upsets you is that I lump capitalists in with the rest of the Whigs where they belong.

                • jim says:

                  > People do seem to want what they’re told to want.

                  You live in your own universe. A universe where cultural Marxism is true.

                  People are loudly and forcefully told that they want and should want Captainess Marvel, Han Soyboy, transexual singers, and transexual beauty queens.

                  It is not working. Whenever they put up a transexual in a beauty contest I hear the groans.

                  > The bit that upsets you is that I lump capitalists in with the rest of the Whigs where they belong.

                  England was most capitalist when the whigs were kicked out of power in The Restoration. When they got back into power, then they attacked marriage and introduced child support, welfare, the minimum wage, and denied apprenticeship below a certain age to that they could force children to be educated in priestly schools, in the charge of ministers of the new officially unofficial state religion. All of these, especially welfare, the minimum wage, and suppressing apprenticeship, were anticapitalist measures and were accompanied by and supported by hostile propaganda campaigns against capitalism and capitalists.

                  The attack on marriage was an attack on the property rights of the husband, and made the introduction of welfare and child support necessary. The attack on apprenticeship was a direct, overt, and explicit attack on capitalism, which destroyed the intergenerational transmission of skills, resulting in a painfully visible decline in the quality of workmanship a generation later. As socialist countries build ugly stuff, the suppression of youthful apprenticeship and enforceable apprenticeship resulted in ugly stuff.

                  There is a huge price difference between antique furniture built by people trained under the apprenticeship system, and antique furniture built by people trained after the apprenticeship system. The attack on capitalism is visible in old furniture and old buildings. Capitalism produced things of great beauty, and you smashed it, while socialism mass produces ugliness, as in the British and Soviet housing projects.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  Deleted for attributing the Marxist theory of history to Moldbug.

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            every town should say every major town (probably every town in non Puritan areas). Also just googled and found London had a RLD in the 1700s.

          • The Cominator says:

            ” Always zero prostitution in societies that approximate anarcho capitalism”

            Also I have to object to this, the Wild West was as close to the AnCap ideal as possible Deadwood especially so. Probably the majority of the women there were prostitutes and given the shortage of women I think to the extent the towns had authorities they actively discouraged women leaving the profession.

            • jim says:

              In the wild west men went along with sharing women because there was a woman shortage. If the supply of females is adequate, as for example early Iceland which solved its settler male excess by raiding Ireland and abducting the women, men do not allow women to share themselves.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            “Anarcho capitalist Iceland fell to Christianity like a wet noodle, and if it was still anarcho capitalist, would fall to progressivism like a wet noodle. That is the problem with anarcho capitalism, not gladiatorial games.”

            Implying that it has a character of its own. The claim under discussion is that it has no character of its own and simply reflects whatever consumers happen to demand, which turns out to be whatever they’re told to demand, which looks an awful lot like The Cathedral to me.

            • jim says:

              The Cathedral is telling them to demand Han Soyboy and Captainess Marvel, and they are not buying.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  It is not white people that are drinking themselves to death, no matter how much you wish otherwise. It is the replacement voters.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  As usual you tell me that I “seem to be saying” the direct opposite of what I very plainly and forcefully said.

                  Not being a cultural Marxist, I would never say what I supposedly “seem to be saying”.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You’re just a liar. You delete then respond so people assume your response was to something unreasonable.

                  In fact you’re claiming that your post doesn’t imply you have zero problem with globohomo.

                  If you DO have a problem with globohomo then you MUST agree that people are being swayed by the culture, and obviously in 2019 the culture does not equal the state.

                  There’s no point talking logic to you because all you do is delete, then respond to something that was never said.

                  By setting up a straw man of “Jim is saying that he loves globohomo and wants to suck tranny dick”, you’re able to appear the reasonable one.

                  This is the same ‘tactical’ way of discussing things used by every leftist I’ve ever met.

                  “Oh so you’re saying you’re a white supremacist”
                  “Oh so you’re saying you hate the poor”

                  No I’m saying you’re a liar.

                • jim says:

                  > If you DO have a problem with globohomo then you MUST agree that people are being swayed by the culture, and obviously in 2019 the culture does not equal the state.


                  Reaction 101: Culture is downstream from power. There is always a state religion, and making it officially unofficial makes it more arrogant and intrusive, not less.

                  We look at Chinese video. Obviously the voice of the state. Then we turn around and look at videos of the US hegemony, and it is twice as obviously the voice of the state, twice as strident, twice as loud, twice as obnoxious, and ten times as arrogant.

                  Obviously writers of movies and dance videos would love to display men and women interacting naturally and realistically, if only they were allowed. That they are allowed in China, and forbidden in the US, makes it absolutely obvious that we are hearing the voice of the state.

                  Similarly the incessant denigration of Western Civilization. You are not going to hear a character in a western video invoke the giants of the past. You get to see great Chinese art in Chinese videos, but you are never going to see Cathedrals and such in Western videos.

                  A James Bond movie is in large part a travelogue of cool tourist spots. Notice the cool tourist spots that James Bond never gets to visit. Pretty sure movie makers would love to have those spots in the background.

                  And most of all, you are never going to see “Community Organizers” portrayed as rabble-rousers who launch a mob to burn down a supermarket so that they can steal a case of beer.

                  In Chinese videos, the top party officials are always wise, clever, and virtuous, but you are allowed to depict lower level officials of the party as trouble makers, rabble rousers, corrupt, violent, and arrogant. Seen any black or Hispanic thugs on US television lately? When was the last time you saw an Islamic terrorist depicted? Have you ever seen a community organizer who is a trouble maker trying to shake down his targets?

                  Movie makers would love to show blacks, community organizers, and Muslim terrorists as villains, just as they would love to show men and women interacting naturalistically. That they do not do so, shows that they are not allowed to do so.

                  In China, you can not only depict lower level officials as bad guys, you can depict socialism as an excuse to kill the cows of the peasant with two cows, socialism as destructive envy and covetousness. No one gets to depict socialism that way in the US. Do you think that is because all US video makers love socialism? No more than every Chinese video maker loves top communist party officials.

                • The Cominator says:

                  > “In Chinese videos, the top party officials are always wise, clever, and virtuous, but you are allowed to depict lower level officials of the party as trouble makers, rabble rousers, corrupt, violent, and arrogant. Seen any black or hispanic thugs on US television lately? When was the last time you saw an Islamic terrorist depicted? Have you ever seen a community organizer who is a trouble maker trying to shake down his targets?”

                  There have been some shows that do this though mostly it stopped ten years ago.

                  “The Shield” accurately depicted most criminals as minorities with drug problems or in the higher levels of crime as foreign born psychopaths and the cops as petty self interested and corrupt (with the people overseeing the cops as no better generally).

                • jim says:

                  > There have been some shows that do this though mostly it stopped ten years ago.

                  I thought it all stopped ten years ago. Do you have any current or recent examples in mind?

                  And while you were not very long ago able to depict bad guys as racial minorities and drug addicts, it has been a couple of hundred years since you could depict a rabble rouser.

                  It has been centuries since we in the west have been able to see the incident in episode 12 “Strike a severe blow to speculation and profiteering!”, “Be determined to amputate the tail of capitalism!” as the mob grabs the profiteer’s baked goods.

                  Books kept featuring rabble rousers a quite a bit longer than plays and videos, but rabble rousers became as invariably saintly as high communist officials, after the 1950s or early 1960s.

                  A rabble rouser is a quite useful plot element – you sometimes need an evil adversary for the hero to face who is far too powerful for him to deal with head on but at the same time non lethal, and easy to outsmart and evade.

                  It is one of the many, many, many tropes, that have been removed from the artist’s toolbox, until pretty much all they can write is “It is wonderful what a wonderful job our wonderfully benevolent masters are doing.”

                  Taking out realistic romance was a huge blow to artists. Men can no longer conquer, woman are no longer allowed to surrender. And males can no longer perform in ways likely to get women to choose. Bang. Half of every movie before 1960 and nine tenths of every dance video before 1975 is forbidden. Han Solo becomes Han Soyboy.

                • Contaminated NEET says:

                  CR, do you know how I know you’re either a paid shill or a volunteer entryist? You stick around and put up with this. Years of having your posts deleted go by, and still you come back, every thread, multiple times. Someone doing it for the love of truth, or the love of debate, or the lulz would have wandered off ages ago.

                • jim says:

                  Pretty sure he is paid. Volunteers are unreliable and apt to go off script. He never goes off script.

                  Entryists are always paid, because volunteers are prone to becoming double agents.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  Try your comment again, but this time without the incredulous disbelief I could possibly be interpreted as doubting the self evident truth of cultural Marxism and whig history.

                  I have made my position totally clear. But you insist on framing my position in ways consistent with cultural Marxism, as if it was unthinkable that anyone could possibly disagree with cultural Marxism, because it is supposedly so obviously true that no one could possibly disagree with it. And hence totally unnecessary for you to present any arguments or evidence for it.

                  Repeating yet again: Reaction 101: Culture is downstream from power; The state dictates the official religion; The official religion (in our case the officially unofficial religion) dictates the culture. To command the culture, the state needs a priesthood – which is what you are being paid for. Your paycheck comes from the state to do what you are doing, and if you tried doing something different, you would lose tenure de facto or de jure and be fired. The state (the permanent government, not the merely elected government) funds and empowers the officially unofficial Church, and the priesthood of the officially unofficial Church commands the culture. It is painfully obvious that no writer or artist can write what he would write if he was allowed to. Artists love to depict romance. Nothing but very drastic coercion can prevent them. And the same applies to a lesser degree to topics like socialism, rabble rousers, and the past great works of western civilization.

                  The absence of realistic romance, men conquering and women surrendering, men performing and women choosing in western videos, is as clear an indicator of state coercion as the praise for the high officials of the party in Chinese videos. For an artist, it is a lot worse to be forbidden to depict romance than it is to be compelled to praise the leadership of the party. We have not had rabble rousers in books since the 1950s, and not had rabble rousers in plays or videos for a couple of centuries, which shows the hand of our rulers.

                  We can debate the other details that you quite reasonably want to debate if you drop the frame that I cannot possibly be saying what I have repeatedly said over and over again in the most direct and unambiguous way.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Shows as redpilled as “The Shield” were rare in every era in that the Shield (being the exact opposite of law and order) accurately depicted the Legal System at every level (the “diversity” and lowlifeness of the criminals and the corruption and pettiness of the authorities, it did not depict women on either side as saints either) whereas Law and Order tells utter propaganda lies about it at every level. Probably there is nothing right now as accurate as the Shield.

                  There is probably something obscure which tells the Truth but nothing like “The Shield” in the past 10 years.

                • jim says:

                  So, black and Hispanic criminals ceased to exist on video ten years ago.

                  Rabble rousers ceased to exist much longer ago.

                  Not sure when romance disappeared – restrictions on the depiction of male and female interaction just gradually became unworkably severe, but I cannot recollect any realistic interaction between men and women since Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, thirty years ago. Maybe people can recollect a more recent story.

                • Koanic says:

                  I find it difficult to believe someone would pay him to be this ineffectual, but I have little trouble believing he is intrinsically motivated to be so.

                • Javier says:

                  Fight Club was very red pilled on women.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Fight Club was very red pilled on women.”

                  While female nature has many unsavory aspects I don’t think Marla Singer is a typical case more an extreme case…

                  Also Chuck Palahniuk is a homosexual.

                • Javier says:

                  “Marla isn’t typical”

                  Marla is the total feral woman, zfg, ruthless shit tests at will, so brazen she walked into testicular cancer group therapy for free coffee.

                  She isn’t typical but she is prophetic of what women turn into when fully unleashed. All of Tyler’s interactions with her are pure gold, once you understand the narrator is Tyler too.

                  He fucks her every night then monstrously insults her in the morning. “What are you doing in my house? Not that we don’t love your little visits.” lololol. That is a fucking iron-balls alpha line right there. Tyler passes all the shit tests. She slinks away in the morning like a wounded puppy and comes crawling back for more dick every night.

                  Trust me, try this when you bang a girl and she leaves the next day. Say “Not that we don’t love your little visits.” Watch her head explode with fury and lust. It’s magic.

                  What’s funny is the director wants Tyler to be the bad guy. You’re not supposed to like him nor sympathize with him. He made Tyler a stone cold asshole with women because *he* thinks that’s wrong. So he was rather shocked when he saw how positively people reacted to Tyler. It’s a case of a liberal accidentally telling the truth, and deeply regretting it.

                • curry eating foodcuck says:

                  Hey CR, use the evidence in Stefan Molyneux’s video about the fall of Rome and/or Revilo Oliver’s comments in iirc America’s Decline to explain why capitalism is responsible for the fall of Rome.

                  Anyway, in healthcare, schooling, whoring, food, when the payer, quality evaluator, and consumer are different, prices go up (cf Proverbs 6:26), quality goes down, customer service becomes sullen to hostile. Supply of whores is greater now in a way that cuts into supply of wives in a two-pronged denial of sex to the beta. Also we should consider that everyone who isn’t a crusty couchsurfer has a bedpost to affix a woman on a chain that reaches the kitchen to.

                  The Catholics technically held the line on divorce, but their biggest role in resisting this crisis is probably the media mockery that licensed priests as a synecdoche for the crisis.

                  PS Cominator what’s interesting about Marla? She’s a girl who wanted to hook up with Tyler. Fight Club is about how we’re the first generation of men to have been raised by women and expresses a terrorist demand for honorable work, combat sports for social ranking, and submissive women, and this Palaniuk fellow spoken of in connection with David Fincher (Seven, Alien 3) ‘s film also wrote a short story exposing masturbation to contempt. Am I excessively charitable? Being excessively uncharitable towards fags is the problem, it’s problematic to just talk about that behavior as if it isn’t shameful. As Owen Benjamin recently said Hollywood made 300 because they thought it was faggy, it must be recorded that the movie was made from a gay book and included stuff for future generations to note and charitably ignore, charity directed towards that generation that had to contribute to the geistegeschichte in this manner.

                  Will the word gaiety ever be recovered from poofterism, or will it never be rid of the poofterist notion that people exist for the purpose of the experience of gaiety? Fight Club may well have been intended by everyone involved to be sensualist, but it came out philosophical and sacralist. Generations of scribes have compared Beethoven’s sixth symphony to gay poetry for the Romantic Period thesis, this could be considered the movie from the end of the Romantic Period that subverts the Romantic Movement. In our own way we must honor Palaniuk for writing the things we wouldn’t. May he find redemption.

                  By the way, CR, tell us how Fight Club is about capitalism. One thing I really liked when I saw it a sesquidecade ago was how they blew up a Starbucks and explained that they were targeting the urban upper middle class while sounding like they were hitting capitalism.

                  CR, you don’t have to pretend here. Class hatred of the urban upper middle class is richly deserved, they are content to babble about capitalism and homophobia in lieu of taking care of their own children let alone their people. How can they be saved? Not so much through underground boxing rings leading to terrorism, but through diligence, and communism is upon the hipsters, they live in sad little expensive apartments and work menial jobs, the communist mode of production does away with the ideological superstructure of bourgeois society.

              • Starman says:

                The mosque livestream shooting video had better production values and was much more entertaining than Captainess Marvel…

  6. Oog en Hand says:

    Warriors ruling over priests:

    “The September agreement weakened the “Underground Catholic Church” in China, which had remained faithful to the Holy See through decades of communist persecution and suppression while favoring the government-approved Chinese Patriotic Church.”

    • jim says:

      Happy to see the Chinese premier snubbing heresy in the Holy See. Why talk to the monkey when you can talk to the organ grinder?

      There are real Christians in China, probably a lot more of them than in the US, but the Holy See would not touch them with a ten foot pole.

      Cuius regio, eius religio

      Reservatum ecclesiasticum means that the King cannot turn the religion of his country upside down, but Cuius regio, eius religio means that the Chinese Party gets to decide what communism is.

      When the Holy See ceded control of the Catholic Church in China to the Communist Party, Cuius regio, eius religio, it freed the local Catholics from rule by an aggressive and prosyletizing heresy, to a somewhat less aggressive hostile religion. A least Mao did not claim to have stopped the oceans from rising and to have brought world peace.

      • The Cominator says:

        China’s government is priestly even if they are telling a foreign priest to go f*** himself (I’m very glad that China has managed to reimpose lay investiture on the Catholic Church).

        They may have abandoned communist economics (and Xi seems to flirt with bringing it back all the time) but all nominally communist governments are priestly in structure. Civilian supremacy over the military is a universal tenet of communist parties.

        • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

          Not true. The current regime originated in a military coup in 1976 and secured itself in another military crackdown against priestly protesters in 1989. Deng himself was only ever chief of the military commission. PRC twitter is way less censored than Anglo twitter, there’s dissidents on there talking about bandit suppression all the time and not getting blocked.

          • The Cominator says:

            Actually a good point about Deng coming to power in a coup (though dressed up in post hoc legalities).

            So maybe the current PRC is warrior in reality but priestly in appearance?

            • jim says:

              Mao established priestly government, which bit him. Left singularity creates an environment where priests are forced to increasingly rely on warriors. But for legitimacy, the Party needs a veneer of priestly government.

              This is bad. You need a certain amount of separation of Church and state: King Solomon and High Priest Zadok, Charles the Hammer and Saint Boniface, Charles the Great and Pope Pope Leo III. On the other hand, not too much separation. You have to have an established religion, because if you don’t have one you will get one the hard way. You cannot allow judges to judge on equity, they have to judge according to law, even if the outcome of the law is inequitable. Only one supreme judge, the sovereign, can be allowed to take equity into account. If a thousand judges can judge on equity, then you have a thousand sovereigns instead one sovereign, and you get anarcho tyranny, nor can you allow apostates, heretics, and members of outgroup religions into quasi statal jobs, except, of course, that you need them to govern their own community, but only their own community.

              Priest Kings, like the Maccabees, never worked. Indeed it is a Christian heresy. Only one priest King allowed, and he is not coming back to earth any time soon.

              An independent Judiciary with power to judge on equity is rule by one thousand priest kings, which is the worst form of official religion. One priest king is bad, but a thousand priest Kings is considerably worse, hence the difference between social media here and social media in China.

              • glosoli says:

                >’ Only one priest King allowed, and he is not coming back to earth any time soon.’

                Wow, and there was me just hearing Jesus Himself say on my Bible audio player that only our Father in heaven knows the date and time when our Lord will be returning. Jim has the inside scoop though, direct line to Jehovah ‘not any time soon’. Thanks Jim for the update.

                I’ll do the right thing and correct your hubris Jim, not a single other fake-Christian will do so on this blog, they’re so far up your arse.

                Be prepared, the day He returns could well be much sooner than you think, and you’ll be zapped in short-order, and all of your crew along with you.

                • jim says:

                  There is a pile of stuff that has to happen before the second coming:

                  1. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
                  2. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
                  3. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
                  4. All these are the beginning of sorrows.
                  5. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.

                  Also Jews have to rebuild the temple, among other prophecies.

                  So, not coming soon. In the event of a worst case holiness singularity, yeah, then you can prophesy the end is nigh without committing heresy. But, if on the other hand we succeed in a restoration, not allowed to claim the end is nigh or even could be nigh, because Christianity will not be persecuted, and prophesying the end is nigh, or even could be nigh, will be heresy, lèse-majesté and subversion, since you will be implicitly denouncing the Sovereign and the Archbishop as the antichrist or an agent thereof.

                  Obama, who created world peace and stopped the oceans from rising </sarcasm>, made a plausible antichrist, though he would have had to do worse than confiscating a Christian bakery, but, on Hillary losing the election, no longer plausible. If the next Obama goes around killing Christian bakers, then you might have a case.

                  But progressive repression so far consists of attacks on people’s status, wealth, and some state tolerated beatings. Christians are merely excluded from state and quasi statal offices, not executed nor subjected to potentially lethal state tolerated and encouraged mob violence. So, no return of Christ the King tomorrow morning.

                  Therefore, no uniting the office of high priest and sovereign, though the sovereign can fire or execute the old high priest and appoint a new one in exceptional situations, and he gets to decide what is an exceptional situation. Also, if you unite the offices, as in China, the sovereign is apt to be continually threatened by holiness spirals, and is tempted to declare himself the return of Christ or God himself in order to deal with them, which is what Mao came close to doing, though he did not quite fall off the edge.

                • Starman says:


                  glosoli’s buddies can’t protect children from drag queen story hour despite controlling the local government where that event is taking place

                • Koanic says:

                  @Jim Correct.

              • calov says:

                He is coming soon, and it keeps looking sooner.

                • jim says:

                  > He is coming soon,

                  Let me know when the end times prophecies are fulfilled.

                • Koanic says:

                  “Soon” in God’s timeframe, not in human’s. The Bible specifically indicates that while no man knows the hour or the day, Christians are to discern when the hour and the day is NOT, so as to ignore false Christs. Therefore we can know when it is not, and now it is not, for the conditions are not fulfilled. The nearest unpredictable historical nexus in which the anti-Christ might arise is the collapse and transformation of the USA. However the force of this Left singularity is spent, therefore I anticipate a period of restoration before the final spiral to one-world government. The religion and technology to accomplish one-world government is yet unripe.

                • calov says:

                  We don’t know the hour and day and are commanded to “Watch.” False Christs and false prophets have been arising since the time of the apostles. Paul said the antichrist had been held back at the time of writing the letter to the Thessalonians, but it’s also obvious from his writing that he wasn’t expecting it to be held back 2000 years. He says the “man of lawlessness” would take his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself God. And this has been fulfilled long ago. This is what the Pope does. Some people try to argue that the antichrist has to be one specific person at the end of days. But Paul makes it clear that the antichrist is part of the “mystery of lawlessness”; the mystery is not that somebody blasphemes, which has happened since Adam and Eve. The mystery is that the lawlessness sets itself up in the holy place–the one actual holy place–Christ’s church, and rules over it. Antichrist co-opts Christ church. And when we see the antichrist/beast pictured in Revelation, it’s not difficult to see that it’s picturing Rome–a sort of hybrid of the pagan Roman empire and the church of Christ. That is kind of the mystery–Christianity conquers Rome and spreads throughout the world, and yet the devil surreptitiously inserts himself in the church and replaces the Gospel with its opposite.

                  You can see this happen in a gross way in places like sweden, where the lesbian archbishop takes crosses out of the church lest they offend Muslim refugees. But the more subtle way happened in Rome, where the Gospel of Christ was replaced by an infallible pope, and the forgiveness of sins was replaced with indulgences and works of supererogation.

              • calov says:

                *”Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done.” Rev. 22:12

                • jim says:

                  Jews need to go home and Judaism needs to go home. Judaism is a pain in the butt to everyone else, because it is a religion of exile. Needs to be a religion of Israel. A really big Cathedral of steel and stained glass would call Judaism back home.

                  Also, a Cathedral, like mountains and forest, helps people hear the voice of the Holy Spirit. Which would help.

                  There are a pile of end times prophecies, but many of them clearly require a temple. And even if they don’t, the number one prophecy is a storm of really savage persecution, which we are not seeing. Progs think Christianity is an irrelevant joke, and mostly they are right. If you guys do something about having your kids fed to gays, and shame single mothers and women who leave their husbands then maybe we would see some real persecution.

                  The old Christians got serious about being compelled to burn a pinch of incense to Caesar. You guys burn your children to Caesar and condemn fathers on father’s day.

                • calov says:

                  The storm of persecution has been blowing since the apostles were killed. It comes and goes from one place to another. Christians were being slaughtered in Russia and China a few decades ago. They’re still persecuted harshly in the house of Islam. It seems likely that violent persecution of the church in the west is not far away.

                  Yes, the old Christians refused to burn incense to Caesar and were flayed alive, burned, and what not. Why were they flayed alive and burned? What resistance did they put up to Caesar besides preaching Christ and refusing to worship another God?

                  You are right about Christians needing to get their house in order, especially with reference to feminism. My church continues not to have women in the clergy because “A woman must learn in quietness and full submission.” Even the liberals in my church do not dare say a word in favor of homosexual marriage. And yet we have failed to teach wives to submit to their husbands and to practice church discipline on those who leave their marriages or who fornicate. You’re right.

                  Yet, the progs betray themselves. Christianity is an irrelevant joke, and yet it bothers them immensely that there are still churches that refuse to call sodomy holy, or countenance homosexuals. The churches no doubt have been unfaithful, and yet progs rage against even the cultural memory of Christ. As long as a church of any kind remains they are angry, because it reminds them they will be judged.

                • jim says:

                  > They’re still persecuted harshly in the house of Islam.

                  When I go to the Dubai mall at Christmas time, looks to me that Christians are one hell of a lot less persecuted in Dubai than in Harvard and Princeton, and the persecution in Harvard is a fair bit short of the levels prophesied for the return of Christ.

                  If Obama and Hillary had had their way in Syria, Christians would have been expelled, as they were from Iraq. But they would not have been exterminated. Alawites and Shia of Palestinian origin would have been exterminated.

                  > It seems likely that violent persecution of the church in the west is not far away.

                  Not unless the Church digs its heels in. If Catholics will not dig in their heels over Roman Catholic priests having gay sex in a great pile, if protestants will not dig in their heels about their children being fed to gays, if no one will dig in their heels over adulterous women, what will they dig in their heels over?

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Lmao the Church will never dig its heels in. It’s role has always been deluding the betas and making sure they show up for whatever meat grinder the state has set up. How can you read something like this from a “conservative” church and not cringe.

                  “Far from being a burden, marriage to a single mom is brimming with gospel-displaying potential.”


                • calov says:

                  I hear you, but it’s not quite true that there are no protestants and no catholics that are digging their heels in. You can say there aren’t enough of them or that they are digging in their heels on some things and not others, and you’d be right. But there are plenty of protestants who are adamantly resisting gay marriage. There are protestants who continue to refuse to ordain women. I know of one denomination where women are not permitted to vote in congregational meetings, because they are to be in submission to their husbands and not to have authority over men.

                  If you say, “nevertheless, the church is doing these things inadequately and stupidly,” there’s not much of a defense I could make, but there are still 7,000 or so that have not bowed the knee to baal or kissed him.

                  And yes, Dubai is all right, but even there I wonder what it would be like for a Muslim who converts to Christianity. In other places Christians don’t fare so well, like the Catholic lady imprisoned for “blasphemy” in Pakistan for ten years.

              • evangelisch says:

                Also the Jews don’t have to rebuild the temple. That’s not a thing. Darby made that up in the 19th c. They can’t rebuild the temple, because the temple of God is the church. That’s the reason why the antichrist sits in the church.

                But the point you’re making is that going into a holiness spiral about the end of days instead of doing what is required for this world is a heresy or at least wrong, and I agree, so it’s obnoxious to twit you about eschatology.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Catholic theology and interpretation of scripture which also in the past said a literal Israel wasn’t coming back.

                  If Christian Scripture is true a literal Jewish Israel implies a literal Jewish temple to be completed before the tribulation starts.

                • calov says:

                  Nobody believed that until about the 19th c. The present nation of Israel is not the Israel God made a covenant with, because they rejected the Messiah. The true Israel is the church. This is Paul’s point in Rom. 11; the Gentiles who believe in Jesus are “grafted in” to the olive tree Israel and made heirs together with Abraham. Those who do not believe in Christ are branches that are broken off. This is Jesus’ point in John 15 when He calls Himself “the vine.”

                • calov says:

                  Also, it’s not simply papist theology. It was protestant theology too until the 19th c. I’m not a papist.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Obviously if the Bible is true end time prophecy refers to literal Israel since literal Israel came back and the Catholic Church (likely the whore of Revealation if end time prophecy is true) was wrong.

                  Literal Jewish state of Israel strongly implies literal temple.

                • calov says:

                  That’s the point. Israel didn’t “come back”. It never went away. Israel was always believers in the Messiah. The others were dead branches, and when they rejected the Messiah, they were pared away. What is now called “Israel” is not the Israel God made a covenant with in Exodus. It is a pretender. Read Romans 11. I’m not going to post it here and try to argue it with you; this simply is the teaching of all Christians until John Nelson Darby.

                • jim says:

                  This discussion is off topic, and I should not allow myself to get drawn in, but the end times prophecies require a literal state of Israel, which exists, and a literal temple, which does not.

                  We intend a restoration. We intend to win. Fulfillment of end times prophecies requires us to lose in the worst possible fashion, to lose horribly and probably die doing so. Fulfillment of the prophecies in the near future would be: Israel builds a temple. “Israel is Nazi, like Rhodesia” becomes standard leftist orthodoxy, and by the standard process of holiness escalation becomes “Judeo Christianity is Nazism” A leader who claims divinity as Obama the Lightbringer did takes control, and unlike Obama has the will and capability to make it stick with blood and fire. Left singularity turns genocidal, with “Judeo Christianity” in its sights, and the singularity goes on and on until just about everyone perishes, after the style of Szechuan province and the Cambodian autogenocide.

                  That end times prophecies might be fulfilled is possible. It the last minute rescue by the return of Christ to directly rule as priest King that I think unlikely. But they cannot be fulfilled without the temple, and they cannot be fulfilled by mere ordinary disasters, by mere wars and rumors of wars, let alone by Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

                  We intend to win by ourselves, and are not going to go along with disaster in the hope that Jesus might show up in person. Whenever people decide to go along with disaster in the hope that the Eschaton will arrive, that never works. People are always trying it, for example the Jewish Zealots going to war with Rome over stupid issues and against hopeless odds, and then burning their own food supplies during the siege of Jerusalem.

                  End of the world doctrines are necessarily either heresy (Jesus will arrive to end Global Warming and stop the oceans from rising), black pill, or suicidal. Don’t do that. Anyone who wants to immanentize the eschaton is our enemy.

                • The Cominator says:

                  That is one argument but the argument got a lot weaker in 1948.

                  Furthermore the bible seems to imply that a literal STATE of Israel is to be attacked and genocided in the tribulation seperate from the persecution of the Churches and the persecution of those who refuse to take the mark.

                  So I agree with Jim, if the bible is true there is no tribulation until the Jewish temple is rebuilt.

                  This is all off topic from neoreaction and we shouldn’t quibble about theology we should destroy progressive theology…

                • Koanic says:

                  Yes, anyone trying to bring about the end times has the same goal as Satan…

                • calov says:

                  It’s fine if you want to believe this, but it simply doesn’t work with the New Testament or with catholic (small c) readings of the NT up until the 19th c. It’s called chiliasm, or millenialism, and it’s the reason why American evangelicals have been worshipping Israel for the last 70 years.

                  Jim’s political reasoning on why it isn’t helpful to be looking for the imminent end of the world is understandable, but there are other ways of dealing with that problem than granting to godless Jews that they are Israel and that a building in Jerusalem (sans the ark of the covenant) is going to supersede Christ and his church. Christians have managed to believe that Christ was returning “soon” and still live in this world. The apocryphal story about Luther: he was asked, “What would you do if you knew Christ was going to return today?” Answer: “Plant a tree.”

                • jim says:

                  If the Jews build a temple, it is not to facilitate the end of the world and Jesus to return to rule from the temple. It is to make Judaism less subversive of its host country. Right now Judaism, being a religion of exile, tends to be subversive even when it its host country is Israel.

                • calov says:

                  Ok, I get that. I don’t care if they build a temple, except that I don’t imagine they really will unless we are willing to go to war for their right to bulldoze al-aqsa.

                  Supposedly at one point the Jews had a temple built in Egypt. And maybe a third one somewhere else. Surely they could just build a temple in the suburbs of Jerusalem or something. It’s not like they’re going to have a real ark with manna in it, or Urim and Thummim.

              • glosoli says:

                I was curious as to how you would reply Jim, and also your sheep, your flock. I only read the bit you wrote that pertained to your proud claim of knowing that Jesus would not return soon, rather than your diatribe about the nation-building you dream about (never going to happen).

                As expected, you misled your readers, again, your father, prince of deception uses you well:


                Note that most were/are believed by their followers. Jesus himself predicted it. All the other items you list have already happened, to varying degrees, some are yet to unfold, but are likely to do so in the near future, as we’re entering a period of likely droughts, famine and rising volcanic activity (a casual search of the web will reveal truth on all of those matters).

                My point also was that Jesus Himself tells us that no one knows, no one, all of those things that will happen in advance of His return could happen in a week or a day, and then Jesus appears. Only Jehovah knows.

                So you are incorrect Jim in your assertion, the opposite of correct.

                Yet you Jim claim to be able predict that ‘soon’ is impossible, whereas fearful obedient Christians know that only Jehovah knows the date, not you Jim.

                This will make an excellent blog post, deceivers and the deceived abound. And Jehovah will not allow the whole world to turn away from His ways, so ‘soon’ could be much much sooner than you and your disciples like to imagine, in your vanity and hubris.

                Never, since Jesus was last here on earth, has there been a time when zero nations follow Jehovah’s laws, commands and statutes. Soon, when America falls, with England already gone, there will be none. Game over then, or rather, game on.

                • jim says:

                  Volcanoes etc are unlikely. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a ridiculous lie intended to demonize what white people created, preparatory to the destruction of what white people have created.

                  And if all that happened, it would not be fulfillment of the end times prophecies, whose key element is Christians being persecuted bloodily by state executions and state tolerated and encouraged mob violence, which we are not seeing, and, with today’s wimpy Christians, unlikely to see.

                  Another key element of the end times prophecies is that the sovereign proclaims himself Christ, not just some obscure lunatic, or, if interpreted broadly, claims divinity – Which Mao kind of came close to doing, but refrained from doing, and Obama definitely did, but lacked the despotic power to force people to take the claim seriously.

                  To really come close to fulfilling the end times prophecies, you need a sovereign that gets seriously bloody forcing Christians to acknowledge him as Christ returned, or near equivalent. Volcanoes, wars, and Global Warming does not come close.

                  If we had a meteor strike, catastrophic global warming, gigantic volcanic eruptions, all out nuclear war, and all that it would not fulfill the end times prophecies. On the contrary it would make their fulfillment impossible because the sovereign would have difficulty exerting his authority beyond the ruins of Washington, let alone forcing Christians to acknowledge him as divine.

                • Starman says:


                  Glosoli’s buddies were too scared of lawsuits from LgBTQZYZQQFAG123 groups to protect children from drag queen story hour in jurisdictions where they had direct control. Why couldn’t you arrest them and find the crime? It’s not like the crimes are “hard” to find. Pedophilia, tax irregularities, fraud, etc. You would have more credibility if you had a spine and were red pilled

                • Koanic says:

                  When did Obama claim to be that?

                • jim says:

                  He generally had his PR people claim it for him:

                  “Obama has a sort of powerful luminosity, a unique high-vibration integrity. ”

                  “Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul. ”

                  But in his infamous claim to have stopped the oceans from rising and healed the planet merely by being elected, he arguably claimed it himself.

                  He seems to have been called “the lightbringer” sarcastically, by his enemies, not by his PR people, but he gave his enemies plenty to work with.


                  There are a bunch of portraits that show him as deity, and they generally seem to have emerged through channels that he quietly controlled.

                • Koanic says:

                  He certainly enlightened a lot of American baizuos as to the importance of being racist.

                • St. Mandela II says:

                  The most likely civilization-ending event is asteroidal impact. The second most likely is coronal mass ejection. We have three days of food on the supermarket shelves and the rest of our system is not much more resilient. Even a geologically moderate event would cripple us severely, possibly causing a cascading failure pushing us beyond the point of no return. Certainly we would be forcefully reverted to a level of technology perhaps approximating that of circa 1900, at which time the world carrying capacity was 1.6 billion, 21% that of the current year.

                  Both impact and flare are bigger risks than almost anyone understands. In addition, solar minimums may precipitate little ice ages.

                  Regarding Messianic complexes, Israel cannot build the Third Temple until Europe has fallen.

      • The Cominator says:

        ” A least Mao did not claim to have stopped the oceans from rising”

        Well he got close…

        • jim says:

          Not that close, it is merely a excessively grandiose restatement of the true claim that China needs a strong and secure stationary bandit.

          But you are not truly secure until the holiness spiral is broken. That the Gang of Four was the Gang of Four reveals that the holiness spiral was still virulent.

      • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

        Chinese christians are some of the most deluded people I’ve met. Most of them would be arrested for hate speech the moment they opened their mouths in their beloved west. I think hajnals can be christian and normal (due to it being an inheritance) but not anyone else. Found a quote on them which I think you’d enjoy, Jim.

        “Jacob Pius hoped to leave the Chinese Mainland, emigrate to the West, lead a “regular life of faith,” and perhaps get involved in “what you might call right-wing political movements, like French monarchism.””

        • calov says:


        • wayne says:

          >Extremist figures like Sargon of Akkad,
          You lost me right there.

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            I just provided the link to prove I wasn’t making up the quote. Obviously I don’t agree with these nuts.

        • Koanic says:

          Chinese people in general know nothing about the West and casually breathe hate speech. You haven’t said anything specific about Chinese Christians there.

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            Well everyone else doesn’t worship it and literally think it’s run by people who have the same views as They literally think the alt left runs the west!

  7. calov says:

    He actually eliminated the National Endowment for the Arts and the Corp for Public Broadcasting, ie PBS? Republicans have been bitching about those since I was a kid, and Trump just gets rid of them?

  8. vxxc says:

    Trump cuts The Priesthood

    “President Trump also eliminated several small agencies entirely. These include the Corporation for National and Community Service, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Legal Services Corporation, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Institute for Museum and Library Services, the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.“

    • jim says:


      Straight up handouts to the priesthood cut.

      No wonder they are feeling cornered.

      • vxxc says:

        Unlike Entitlements Americanus Bovines don’t know nor care about the Priesthood unless they do, in which case they dimly resent it.
        The more they hear about welfare for rich people the more they resent it.
        Even if Trump can’t cut them he scares them and they can’t really bitch about it much in the media, this doesn’t bear well under prolonged scutiny.

  9. vxxc says:

    More good news:

    USG has immigration activists and reporters linked to caravan on watchlist.

    Sri Lanka won in part against LTTE by banning NGOs etc from warzone.
    The other part being pounding them to dust with firepower.

    Now in truth there was more to it: key defections from LTTE, decades spent training and equipping their army but in the end ruthlessness closed the deal.
    Understand the LTTE may have been the best guerilla army on earth.
    But firepower worked.

    • Frederick Algernon says:

      Don’t forget the advice and help from the group formerly known as Executive Outcomes. They also banned all reportage from the north of the island.

  10. Shakil says:

    Fuck you moron!🖕

  11. >the transformation of accounting from tracking value and value creation, to talmudic generation and enforcement of obscure, obstructive, and incomprehensible rules. Today, accounting is not about tracking value when it is transferred from one entity to another, and measuring the creation of value, but rather what rituals one must perform if one wants to transfer value from one entity to another.

    Accounting is something I have a little experience with because I often have to prove to auditors that the software is doing it correctly. Generally I don’t know how things in the US work with S-Ox, I would say in Europe by far the largest issues are in documenting VAT tax. That is, for example, the rather un-intuitive rules like if you ship goods from Germany to a corporate customer in France, you invoice with your German VAT registration, and report a tax-free EU-export invoice. But if you store the goods in France in a rented warehouse for a few days and then ship them to corporate customers, you have to register for a VAT registration in France, pay and report VAT, all in that language. And if you go ahead and do that registration, now in both countries the tax authorities will treat you as if they were separate companies, that is, even though the goods did not change ownership when shipping to the rented warehouse, you are effectively expected to issue something invoice-like to yourself and have accounting very similar to a sales on one side or a purchase on another side. The rationale behind all this is that if you cannot prove to in this example to Germany that you move the goods out of the country, it can be assumed you sold it under the table.

    This also why stock controls are also a big deal during an audit, as finding things sold under the table is best done by catching how they disappeared from the stock ledger. Actually, large companies use the same logic for preventing theft i.e. try to catch stocks that were either not booked out (because they stole them) or not booked in (because they wanted to steal them). Anyway, during audits a lot of pressure is put on justifying the stock value of selected items based on the purchase invoices. Now the interesting part is that there are a lot of accounting software out there that does not even try to do any kind of automatic stock valuation and COGS calculation. Those who try fail for 20 years because it is hideously complicated, yes it is just a FIFO but it can be a long chain, you buy a part, build it into a product, sell it, credit it back, disassemble it, can you still track it back to the purchase? By now, at least some of the big brand name software does not make ridiculous mistakes in stock value and generally it can be justified but it wasn’t so even in 2002 or so.

    Other than these two, I would say accounting is not particularly bad over here. Whether it gives information about a company or not, I would say it was never intended to do so in the 21st century. It was intended to do so in the 17th century. That is, the method of evaluating stocks, assets on their historic purchase price and not current market price cannot possibly tell anyone whether the company owns good stuff or useful equipment in the modern, quickly changing world. For example if you have a lot of Google Daydream VR devices on stock, purchased about $100 each I seriously don’t know if you can sell them anymore or not. The historic price means nothing. Some sources are saying Google is already considering VR a flop and writing it all off and you cannot sell them at all or at a huge discount. But it could also be that people still think that maybe 10 serious games that were released for it during 3 years totally worth it. No idea. How could that historic priced stock give any information about the enterprise? So if you want to evaluate an enterprise that has tonnes of VR goggle stock, you do not look at the accounting: you do market research.

  12. Glaze of the Hyperborian Gigachad says:

    Jim, where are my comments?

    Jim, what else are you memoryholing?

    Jim, do you not understand the massive loss of legitimacy inherent to censorship?

    Freedom of speech, freedom of armory, freedom in property. These were the foundation stones of the greatest society in the history of the world. WHERE ARE YOUR PRINCIPLES?

    And why are you LARPing as something other than a lolbergtarian? A leopard doesn’t change his spots.

    • Starman says:

      Because you give sluts the pussy pass for your pathetic beta orbiting.

    • jim says:


      I have told you, and told everyone, why you are being censored.

      • My Eyes Glazeth Over says:

        My bantz haven’t made it through. Are you now also nuking witty insults? I’ll mostly refrain from insulting you, lese majeste and all that, but I want to give your commenters nasty rhetorical wedgies.


        • jim says:

          You probably mean you will insult people for supposedly being ignorant of Marxist doctrine.

          We are painfully familiar with Marxist doctrine, and we ignore it, we are not ignorant of it.

          Your latest identity will get censored also if you do the same things as all your other identities. Let us debate Marxism, instead of telling us we are already Marxists. Let us discuss the situation that Britons cannot get their teach fixed before the teeth die and suffer from painful toothaches, actually existent communism, even though as yet you are only attacking doctors and dentists, not kulaks and pizza cooks. You are murdering old age pensioners, so Britain will get to murdering pizza cooks soon enough.

          Your response was that the problem was not enough leftism, that the priestly class does not have enough authority over mere sinful dentists, who need, like the kulaks, to be punished more severely than they already are, which does not explain the fact that Britons fleeing the National Health Services generally wind up getting their teeth drilled overseas dentists who own and control their own businesses, and are not answerable to the priestly classes for their dentistry.

          So let us have a debate. Give me a reply on the issue of why socialist health care is murdering old people and leaving young people with toothaches.

          Insulting people for being ignorant of Marxism is a boring waste of space. We have seen plenty of it already.

    • Koanic says:

      “Freedom of speech”

      Nope, the several states regulated speech according to their lights. Just as you are being regulated here. Welcome to America, bitch.

  13. vxxc says:

    “The Lightening March through The Institutions.”

    T@rrant has plans of action beyond shooting.
    He advocates our “lightening march through the institutions” that is to say Blitz to dominant position.

    Ideology is yesterday.
    Identity is tomorrow and its 1155 PM.

    Accept your children Reaction, they’re growing up fast.

    In most part because of Progressive education.
    The Teachers it seems had no idea white kids get bigger.
    All The Right offered was a welcome hand.
    The Left did all the work.

    • Frederick Algernon says:

      After reading the manifesto, I will say that I was too harsh about his tactical capabilities. His tactics were predicated on his strategy and, as always, tactical perfection was marred by strategic concern. In cases like these I usually assume the actor is a “le high score xD” faghot and it usually shows through their methodology and follow through. His actions comport perfectly with his intentions. These are the areas of my interest:

      •This is the second attack wherein the actor planned to be captured (Breivik being the first). He wasn’t suicidal. He wasn’t regretful. When the red wine was served he drank deeply but measured. This has some pretty gargantuan ramifications for future actors.

      •We(I) tend to compare these actors to the pros. The reality is that SEaLs and there like have the benefit of billions of dollars of training, gear, assets, and ass behind them when they put on a smoke show. Acting alone in the dark is a different story. I need to adjust my variables of assessment accordingly.

      •If anyone is going to maintain that this was a false flag but hasn’t read the manifesto, their assertion is worth its weight in wind.

      •By his own measure(s), this op was a complete success.

      • Vxxc says:

        Yes he succeeded by his own metrics and goals.

        Any possible sympathy for that mosque can vanish: they produced at least 2 ISIS Alumni. Altogether with the money that mosque raised they probably killed and wounded more than they lost.

        Proven Radical mosques are a legitimate target.

        *before someone gets pedantic I realize that’s most of them but it’s very practical to target proven D’aesh supporting mosques.

  14. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    There are many nomenal consequences to low world-formation capacity. One of them is this: a lumpenprog lives in a world with no agency.

    Things like ‘war’, ‘poverty’, ‘success’, ‘crime’, ‘riches’, ‘peace’, ‘safety’, and et cetera, are seen like abstract energy fields, emanating from the cosmos de novo, that may randomly seem to ‘imbue’ some locations (they do not even see the inhabitants of such locations), and not others; they are not seen as things that are *done*, something that some *agent* in particular is *performing*; something that *brought into being* by the agent, the conduit or substrate through which the phenomena might be instantiated (and without which, it cannot).

    They almost always speak in terms of the passive voice: ‘someone should get rid of that guy’, ‘[X] people should just disappear’, and et cetera. Sotto voce: intentionality is something that other people have.

    You may, for example, correctly point out that the prevailing conduct of many portions of ruling/high-status populations in the west, and large portions of populations taking cues from high status populations, amounts effectively to an official europoid genocide policy. If pointed out to such a person they might so oft say, ‘thats crazy, noones trying to kill off white people’, and, they will, more or less, *be almost completely earnest in asserting this feeling*, because *they literally do not, **can not**, think in such terms*.

    They are practically allergic to the idea of anyone ever simply, ‘directly’, *doing* something. This of course has manifold implications in the formation of political opinion, amongst other things. Whenever they conceive of some state of being in their head that they desire (we may ignore for the moment what felicity it may or may not have in coherence with actual Being), they feel an instinctual preference for the most circuitous, tangential, and proximate approaches to influencing some thing in order to bring it about; and heaven forbid anyone ever actually be *in charge* of the business.

    Now why, might one think, would an otherwise less capacitous dasein feel attracted to producing needless complexifications in such approaches to governance? The reason is simple of course; they do not actually see the complexity involved. Such that would be encountered in, or created by, such approaches.

    This is the reason for a certain ‘double valence’ in the patterns of behavior or assessment of events by the congenitally solipsistic; ‘penny wise and pound foolish’.

    They can be, in more parochial contexts, almost anally retentive in their concerns or recalitrance with regards to some risks (such as a persons ability to, for example, responsibly own a firearm); yet at the same time, in more transcendent contexts, they can be unthinkingly foolhardy in pursuing or advocating for some such massively upsetting policies (such an alien immivasions, de-structing cultural superstructures, reformating directly responsible governance into indirect irresponsible non-governance, and et cetera).

    They, at the same time as phobically recoiling from instances of direct authority (responsibility), desire intensive micro-managing of particular affairs. More than once over time have more conscienteous writers (sometimes called ‘conservative’) observed a contradiction here in this, between what is said in one context and done in another; all of it however and in fact, is springing from the same mode of thought.

    When a solipsist criticises someone, *they are telling you about themself*. When he nervously recriminates over all the trouble people could possibly get up to without ‘supervision’ (who’s supervision? *passive voice*), *he is not actually talking about them*. When he heedlessly advocates massively upsetting adventures on national scales, *the scales do not actully exist in his mind*. When he thinks about great wars, great economies, foreign nations, foreign peoples, *other people*, he is not actually thinking of these things, in terms of forming a world of such motions, that is more felicitously responsive too and coherent with the World. What he thinks of when he thinks of these things, rather, are *idols and caricatures*, which have their own private particular motions, irrespective of relation to something in greater reality, that are nominally referred to by the same designation as something in greater reality. A truer relationship of such greater things is not something that he can truly produce, not something that can truly ‘fit’ within him.

    He is heedless of the greatest of risks, of life and civilization in general, because he does not see them. He is disproportionately concerned with trivial risks, because there, now, finally, tendrils of reality start coming down to levels he can begin to actually comprehend.

    Because he cannot really see such much more transcendent contexts, he also cannot really see what feedback from reality on the matter looks like; the caricatures that exist in his mind continue to exist safe from devalidation. In great matters he feels endlessly confident, because in his mind it is easy, and in his mind his answers are not contradicted; he may even fancy himself rather genius, with how effortlessly he may twirl what mental artifaction he would be fain to call [the-subject-in-question]; or perhaps a bright specialist rather, conveniently specialized in such higher things that are difficult to verify, rather than things where chronic mistakenness would be easier to verify and identify ahead of time.

    (Contemplation of modernity is full of such ironies to appreciate; persons who are *least* qualified for a certain matter, are disproportionately attracted to it, to being *authorities* on it.
    One might not help but be tempted to consider, if you say have someone who cannot even imagine how axial tilt causes seasons, how could you expect them to come to good conclusions on somethings so much more massively important to the course of civilization?)

    But come some less transcendent contexts, phenomena from Outside become increasingly intrusive in their presentation to himself, poking through veils of narcissism; he can more ably *see* such things, see *contradictions* to conceits he may be holding in such matters, in ways he cannot so easily deny or dissimulate (to himself, most importantly). It reminds more conscious parts of him of something he would not like to be reminded; reminding him that he, on some level, perceives that the world, at least parts of it that he can see more easily (and such parts he is extra ordinarily concerned by), *is not in fact* as easy as the caricatures he some times imagines; on some level, he *knows* it isn’t, and this is a source of constant cognitive dissonance for him. *He is deeply disturbed by the motions of a reality he can scarcely comprehend*, and this concern is exacerbated by, is sublimated into, an intense desire for control; the fear of people having authority, and desire for micro-managing of people, derives from the same impulse.

    He is allergic to the idea of anyone having sole direct authority over anything, because, in a part of himself he can hardly acknowledge, he imagines himself in the same situation with the same responsibility, *and finds himself wanting*.

  15. waynecolvin says:

    Hi Jim. Have you heard of Atavisionary’s new blog aggregator and chat group? (I made one too, see my link.) What is that guy up to? I had to quit his chat group tonight…

    • jim says:

      Not following him. Probably should. He is trying to build a red pilled reactionary community, primarily about our most popular issue: Sex.

      Maduro is preventing people from getting food, medicine, and dentistry. Progressives are preventing men from having sex, wives, and children.

      • Glaze of the Hyperborian Gigachad says:

        You are a Boomer to the bone.

        Venezuela has oil coming out of its ears. More oil than anyone else in the world, including Saudi Arabia.

        Your “socialism” hand wave is maximally moronic. It is literally incapable of “preventing people from getting food, medicine, and dentistry”. It could issue a monthly stipend to everyone in the country, a stipend in value exceeding the per capita income of most first-world countries, and STILL have more money than it could find ways to spend, at the gov-corp level.

        Venezuelan shelves are empty because its banking is frozen and it’s under an unofficial embargo.

        IN OTHER WORDS, it’s under assault by US because we need to secure its oil in order to withdraw from the Middle Eastern clusterfuck.


        • Starman says:

          You should stop putting ho’s on pedestals before challenging Jim…

        • jim says:


          If socialists were capable of pursuing self interest, they would be pumping their oil and mining their gold. And if socialists were capable of pursuing self interest, they would not be socialists in the first place. If a government is socialist, probably trapped in a holiness spiral.

          If the evil capitalist overlords were allowed to pursue their self interest, they would, after the style of old East India Company, put the ludicrously weak and incapable government of Venezuela to the sword, and pump their oil and mine their gold.

          The Venezuelan famine is as artificial as the French Revolutionary famine, the Cambodian autogenocide, and the Holodomor.

          Socialism stops people from getting food and medicine because that is what socialism is: Socialism is simply people like you stopping people like me from getting food and medicine because you are holier than we are and therefore have more right to our property than we do. You are going to use my property to help the poor, but actually using it to help the poor turns out to be far more complicated than expected, so the net effect is as if you set it on fire, which frequently you do. You kill the cows of the peasant with two cows and confiscate the seed corn.

          If an ordinary Briton has a toothache in Britain, how long does it take him to get a filling? He cannot get his tooth fixed in time, and the tooth dies, after a long and painful time, unless he goes overseas to some place without socialist medicine.

          It is you, not the evil capitalist overlords, who are killing is tooth and leaving him in pain, because you are holier than he is. You will not permit him to make a deal with the dentist that would make both of them better off, because then dentists would make too much money and would be able to ignore the supervision of their betters.

          • eternal anglo says:

            Nobody who thinks capital is the villain has been able to explain to me why in Rhodesia, the streets of Salisbury used to be washed with water every morning, to keep the city free of dust, whereas now, people wash their clothes in muddy water in meter deep potholes in the same streets.

            Nobody who thinks capital is the villain has been able to explain to me why I have to do my homework in candlelight, because in South Africa we get power now only sixteen and a half hours a day.

            • calov says:

              To be fair, that’s less about capitalism v. socialism, and more about rule by whites vs. rule by blecks, isn’t it? Harare still had paved roads in the 90s, but Zambia had no paved roads in the 90s, and only paraffin and kerosene in the petrol stations.

              • The Cominator says:

                Capitalist rule by blacks without socialists fucking it up gets you places like Trinidad.

                The infrastructure is bad and the economy is low skill but people don’t starve and basic services work.

                Socialism otoh results in starvation and electricity not working consistently because even high iq populations like the North Koreans and Germans can’t plan an economy all that well and the longer it goes on the more things break down.

                • calov says:

                  Yeah, socialism is bad, but having had relatives in Rhodesia I don’t think it’s just a matter of getting rid of socialism. It’s also about blacks being brought up to speed with modernity, which colonialism was, at least by some accounts, trying to do. But as the chinese guy in the documentary tells the African, the blecks ruined all the infrastructure left by Europeans even while getting humanitarian aid gibs from Europe. If socialism was the sole problem, China would still be a basket case. Ask eternal anglo what it means when an African in Zimbabwe says he will be at work at 8 am.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  Well, when you want to hire a reliable black in Souf Effrika, he’s often a Rhodesian, Nigerian or Nyasaland black. I think this is because it requires a modicum of forethought, sense and drive to make it down here to look for work.

                  What I was getting at is that we know why the US civil war happened, we know why Rhodesia was crushed, we know why the lights are going out in South Africa. The third positionist “corporations are sacrificing white nations for profits” people have no explanation for these events. Whose bottom line did that serve?

                • The Cominator says:

                  “If socialism was the sole problem, China would still be a basket case.”

                  Before Deng Xiaoping it was a basket case.

                  Deng Xiaoping made the Chinese economy in many ways less socialist then ours prior to Trump… though lately (as Spandrell has said) they’ve been moving in the other direction. Likely if they keep moving back towards socialism China will become a basket case again.

                • calov says:

                  The point I’m getting at, Cominator, is that if you spend any time around whites from say Rhodesia–missionaries, for instance, who love black people–they typically also are very clear sighted about the differences between Africans and whites. An African says he will come to work tomorrow morning and means he will get there anytime between 9 and 1 in the afternoon. I thought everyone had seen at least clips from this documentary:


                  Nations fail not simply (or probably even primarily) because the dominant economic or political ideology in them is faulty, but because of the vices of the people in them. People that don’t want to work hard or aren’t disciplined enough to do so are poor; and then if they compound the sin of sloth with the sin of envy they put communists and socialists in power, who lie to them and say they’re poor not because they’re lazy but because they’re being oppressed.

                  Yes, Deng moved away from a totally controlled economy to one more like the fascist or national socialist model, but that alone doesn’t account for China’s growth, I don’t think. At any rate, we have to acknowledge the great difficulty Africa has with governing itself. Somewhere–in Moldbug’s recapitulation of Carlyle–I thought I remember reading that Carlyle said that those who can’t rule themselves are destined to be ruled by others. That is clearly at least part of the problem in Africa. It’s a part of the problem for the American underclass also. No matter how good your economic philosophy or political philosophy, those who can’t defer gratification are going to be behind those that can.

                • jim says:

                  > Nations fail not simply (or probably even primarily) because the dominant economic or political ideology in them is faulty, but because of the vices of the people in them.

                  China is composed of smart industrious people, failed horribly until Deng.

                  China had been going downhill ever since the Song Dynasty fell. China, not Africa, used to be the synecdoche of third world poverty.

                  Khmer Rouge Cambodia used to be composed of smart industrious people, until the Khmer Rouge killed them all, including the Khmer Rouge themselves.

                  Race makes a big difference, but misgovernment makes a bigger difference.

                  Compare Haiti under the Duvaliers, with Haiti under the NGOs following the earthquake. Rule by high IQ white Harvard graduates with piles of aid money was vastly worse than rule by mulatto thugs.

                • calov says:

                  I’m not even saying it’s a matter of racial inferiority; I’m not convinced the average iq of a race can’t improve with literacy over generations. It seems to have in the west. I’m saying when certain vices are entrenched in a group of people it often makes them weak and poor regardless of other factors. I think you can attribute to the inferior work ethic of mediterranean/catholic countries, and the tolerance of corruption there, their consistent economic and political weakness relative to northern Protestant Europe.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “China is composed of smart industrious people, failed horribly until Deng.

                  China had been going downhill ever since the Song Dynasty fell. China, not Africa, used to be the synecdoche of third world poverty.

                  Khmer Rouge Cambodia used to be composed of smart industrious people, until the Khmer Rouge killed them all, including the Khmer Rouge themselves.”

                  With all respect Jim this is a pretty ridiculous comment.
                  1. Without going too far back (Ming ran a huge trade surplus vs Europe), industrial growth rates under the late imperial government and Chiang (pre-Japan invasion; were double digits. The post-Deng regime may be an improvement on the Cathedral, but it’s ridiculous to say that a government which originated from communist banditry and promotes fiat money, feminism, SOEs (30% of the economy), affirmative action, extensive regulation, and spends 30% of GDP is an improvement on its reactionary predecessors. At most, Deng restored (a fraction) old China’s superior government.
                  2. Khmers are neither smart or industrious. I’m sure you’ve been to Cambodia, and everything there validates that their IQ estimate in the high 80s.

                • jim says:

                  China was a synecdoche for backwardness and poverty during Victorian times, and it was a synecdoche for poverty when Deng came to power.

                  Therefore, backwards all the way from the Song Dynasty to Deng.

                  Cambodia had its IQ permanently lowered by its left singularity. Before the Cambodian autogenocide, they were fine. The same may well happen to white people in our left singularity if it goes all the way to massively autogenocidal before it gets its Stalin its Cromwell, or its Sulla. Google was very smart, is now fairly ordinary compared to the average engineer, perhaps a bit dim compared to the average successful engineer. The best engineers were laid off from Google. The way the wind blows, in a few years, the best engineers may well be murdered, though the wind is apt to change when you get that close to infinite leftism in finite time.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Capitalist rule by blacks without socialists fucking it up gets you places like Trinidad.”

                  Trinidad is 38% Indian. Pretty sure this is not a good example.

                • jim says:

                  If capitalism allows a competent minority to supervise an incompetent majority, pretty good system for black people.

                  Right now a lot chinese are moving to Africa to perform that role.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “China was a synecdoche for backwardness and poverty during Victorian times, and it was a synecdoche for poverty when Deng came to power.

                  Therefore, backwards all the way from the Song Dynasty to Deng.”

                  Song Dynasty to Victorian times is 800 years, you can’t just generalize all that using one anecdote. During most of that time Chinese were exporting large quantities of manufactured products to Europe (check out any museum exhibition), hardly a sign of economic backwardness. Do you have proof that Victorians saw China as especially poor compared with Africa, India (regular famines) or even Eastern Europe?

                  In any case, I did a quick look and saw that old China’s share of world GDP as of 1870 was the same as the PRC now, keeping in mind these estimates are not that reliable. ( In any case, even if the comparison gets pushed back to early 1800s at most the Deng regime got China’s economic weight back to its original place.

                  Cambodians did get screwed over by the left singularity but given that pre Pol Pot the sino khmers were already dominant economically (and these were people who couldn’t make it in China), I doubt their IQ was that high. Pretty sure the left singularity that happened at Angkor had a bigger impact than Pol Pot.

                • jim says:

                  I said China in decline since the Song Dynasty, and only recovering under Deng.

                  It was not steadily in decline, but it never recovered to Song Dynasty levels, and the recovery from 1913 levels is impressive and promising and suggests it will recover imminently.

                  > In any case, even if the comparison gets pushed back to early 1800s at most the Deng regime got China’s economic weight back to its original place

                  But now it is headed in the correct direction and fast.

                  > Cambodians did get screwed over by the left singularity but given that pre Pol Pot the sino khmers were already dominant economically (and these were people who couldn’t make it in China), I doubt their IQ was that high

                  Maybe the reason that Cambodia was doing OK before the Khmer Rouge was their Chinese minority. But the Khmer Rouge did not specifically target the Chinese, the way they targeted the Vietnamese. They killed off all the Chinese as a side effect of killing off all the smart people.

                  Emigrants tend to be higher IQ than the stay at homes, because emigration is difficult. The more difficult the emigration, as for example Africa to the US, the greater the selection effect.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “If capitalism allows a competent minority to supervise an incompetent majority, pretty good system for black people.”

                  Yes exactly. Capitalism if not disturbed among low IQ populations allows for capital to be managed by higher IQ market dominant minorities.

                  So blacks in Carribbean non socialists countries have a lot of their businesses and nearly all their higher level infrastructure engineering done by whites or asians and as a consequence things sort of work.

                  Rhodesia would have continued working pretty well if not for Mugabe. South Africa did okay economically under Mandela (though crime skyrocketed) because he mostly backed off socialism… now though the same thing is going to happen to them as happened to Rhodesia.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “It was not steadily in decline, but it never recovered to Song Dynasty levels, and the recovery from 1913 levels is impressive and promising and suggests it will recover imminently.”

                  This I think is likely correct, only addition being most of the decline happened from 1911 to 1976 due to the two exported revolutions from the West, with a brief recovery in the 1930s.

                  “Emigrants tend to be higher IQ than the stay at homes, because emigration is difficult.”

                  Pretty sure this was not the case in the 19th century, when most of the Southeast Asian Chinese migrated and there was more or less open borders. Compare 19th century Irish immigrants to Irish back home. In any case, I think it was the French who re-discovered Angkor, not the Khmers, so I think the decline predates Pol Pot.

              • jim says:

                > rule by whites vs. rule by blecks

                Compare Haiti under the Duvaliers (mulattos) with NGO Haiti, Haiti ruled by Harvard graduates distributing billions of dollars in aid.

                Under Harvard, the lights went out, people starved, and plague walked the streets. (Socialism’s problems plus the carpetbagger problem. Haiti after the earthquake was ruled by people whose clothes and stuff were in airline carryon bags. Today, instead of spotting mobile bandits by their carpetbags, they have carryons.) English healthcare is socialist, and so you cannot get a toothache fixed, and instead lose the tooth, but at least the rulers find it inconvenient to fly out to get their teeth fixed, while the guys ruling Haiti were flying out next month anyway.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  The problem with the NHS isn’t socialism, it’s the total lack of genuine accountability and the profusion of fake accountability that stands in for it.
                  Half the services now are provided by private firms, many of whom were built on legitimately private activities. It hasn’t made any difference, because they’re still paid according to KPTs through government contracts, and they’re no more accountable than their pure socialist equivalents. In fact the veneer of ‘entrepreneurial efficiency’ allows them to do brazen things the old-style socialist bodies didn’t dare: ostentatious artworks, single rooms for all instead of wards, televisions and posh restaurants on site, etc. etc.

                  Meanwhile you go in with a broken toe and die of pneumonia.

                  It’s an accountability problem plain and simple. There’ve been cases of the wrong leg cut off, old people left laying in faeces until their bedsores get infected and they lose limbs, scalpels left inside people’s bodies, etc. etc.

                  There are equivalent cases in the US too because you’ve got your own accountability problems that will only get worse as authority and hierarchy disappears.

                  It irks me to see this being cast as a matter of economics where left is egalitarian redistribution socialism and right is free market capitalism. I used to buy the Bob Murphy model of PAYG plus catastrophic insurance but that was before I found out how bad insurance companies were and how protected doctors were. His system would make no more difference than John Major’s private out-sourcers did.

                  In fact I’ll go further than that: the private out-sourcing has actually made the debt crisis worse. The out-sources’ borrowing isn’t included in government debt estimates so the state can appear to be standing still while it vastly increases in size and scope.

                  The Murphy solution would have the same effect for the same reason.

                  Our problems aren’t economic.

                • jim says:

                  > The problem with the NHS isn’t socialism, it’s the total lack of genuine accountability

                  Socialism fails every single time.

                  When you say “accountability” you mean even more priestly power.

                  No, dentists need to be independent. They don’t need yet another layer of priestly bureaucrats holding them accountable. No one holds my dentists to account except me. I get good dentistry, and I get dentistry on time, because I myself pay the dentist himself, and the money goes right into the pocket of the man drilling, who is in charge of his own office, which he personally owns. You plan to murder or enslave my dentist, because he is not working under bureaucrats, bureaucrats being fellow members of your own priestly class. If you murder or enslave my dentist, I will not be able to get a toothache seen to. Also, I like the guy, being a member of my own religion, my own social class and all that.

                  When you say the cure for the problems of socialism is “accountability”, you mean the cure is even more socialism. Been tried. That way lies Khmer Rouge Cambodia and Szechuan province.

                  Socialism fails every single time.

                  And today Britons are losing their teeth.

                  Wherever there is socialism, socialism instituted to make sure that everyone has sufficient bread, or everyone has sufficient rice, or everyone has adequate dentistry, they don’t get bread or rice, and millions starve, they don’t get dentistry, and they lose their teeth and suffer agony from toothaches.

                  If you look at the patterns of medical tourism, it is obvious that socialist medicine does not work anywhere. If a country is a medical tourist destination, it has a free market medical system. They usually also have a socialist medical system, but that system is for losers, the unlucky, and the poor, and its administrators don’t get the power to bug the real doctors.

                  As soon as you institute a socialist medical system for the poor, it starts to look really bad compared to the market system, and its administrators demand the power to turn regular doctors into clerks, making unlimited demands on their time to fill out endless forms, to disrupt and destroy the supply of medical services that make them look bad. To the extent that they succeed, medical tourism dries up.

                  Under the socialism of the French Revolution, people starved.

                  King Louis XVI started socialism in France, in that he took over the supply of grain – and so people went hungry. For which he was very rightly blamed, so he turned that around and blamed the butchers and bakers. He encouraged people to riot against butchers and bakers and turned a blind eye to the rioters, much as the police turned a blind eye to the Ferguson rioters. The King was fostering socialist revolution in the streets, and got socialist revolution, and died of it.

                  The socialist revolutionaries (the Popular Society, which was named after the ancient Roman political party, the Populares) came to power as the infamously bloody Committee for Public Safety, which murdered so many merchants to punish them for the disastrous results of socialism, the infamous red terror. And then they themselves were guillotined, like the King before them.

                  When Kings institute socialism, they create a dangerously powerful bureaucracy dangerously close to the throne, and create a crisis which gives those dangerous people the excuse to take power.

                  This situation results from, and results in, priestly power, in that higher bureaucrats are members of the priestly class trained in the official religion by priests of the official religion. Socialism gives priests power at the expense of merchants. So the priestly classes always favor socialism, criticizing merchants for insufficiently holy behavior, hence the Human Resources Department, which results in businesses being run for holiness, rather than to provide goods and services. Thus the Star Wars disaster and the latest Captain Marvel.

                  Captain Marvel is no damned good for the same reason as British dentistry is no good. Nothing to do with “accountability”. Or rather, everything to do with “accountability” as a code word for socialism. If a business is “accountable” to bureaucrats, it is not accountable to customers, suppliers, or employees.

                • Mackus says:

                  > King Louis XVI started socialism in France, in that he took over the supply of grain – and so people went hungry.
                  Wikipedia of course blames evil grain traders for hoarding grain.
                  Could you tell us more about events leading to anti-french revolution?

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  There’s a whole histories worth of prominent rulers from whom examples could be taken for this or that; yet out of all of the conceivable options you could pick on the matter you wish to pick, you pick the one female you could possibly pick?

                  Seems kinda sus.

                • info says:

                  What’s your thoughts on Ancient and Medieval Chinese Bureaucracy? Did it function better?

                  If so why?

                • jim says:

                  Hard to say.

                  We know that at the time of the Opium wars, it functioned very badly.

                • The Cominator says:

                  History records one bureaucracy which sort of functioned well without mission creep. That would be the Prussian bureaucracy.

                  I suspect it was because that while the lower level bureaucrats had a better job then soldiers or peasants there was zero prospect of their ever being promoted even if the bureaucracy expanded because their supervisors were strictly limited to nobles doing their expected time in the king’s service but who generally hated the bureaucracy and didn’t want to be there.

                • jim says:

                  Apply the priest warrior analysis. And status analysis. Carlylean Restorationist wants to enforce holiness on everyone in every way. Which gives no end of opportunities for more priestly jobs. Each intervention is power, and also demonstration of superior holiness.

                  Your bureaucracy tends to be of the priestly class – and if not kept in line, the priestly class can make hay with the power of the sovereign.

                  The prussian nobility tended to be of the warrior class, and regulating the hell out of people did not demonstrate superior warrior virtues.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Yes that was the unique feature of the Prussian bureaucracy all the top ranks and even the middle managers were from the warrior nobility and were only sort of there voluntarily.

                  In every other country (even as far back as the Middle Ages) while military office was almost a monopoly of the nobility until the 20th century bureaucratic work was generally considered beneath their dignity.

                  Frederick William and Frederick the Great generally almost compelled nobles (I think they could refuse but they and their children would not be welcome at court not be able to “borrow” state money at low rates not get preferment at military academies etc if they refused) to spend part of their service years supervising the lower bureaucrats.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Shame I keep getting mentioned, otherwise I’d be long gone.

                  I was quite clear what I meant: fewer bureaucrats.

                  The problem with the NHS is that nobody’s accountable – every single one of them can kick the can, and the buck never stops anywhere.
                  Internal complaint becomes external complaint becomes Royal Commission becomes lessons will be learned and training undertaken becomes increase our funding.

                  I know it’s more convenient for you to just paint critics as Marxists but in reality a lot of the dichotomies put forth by the libertarians are AS WRONG as those favoured by Marx.
                  Marx predicted that English workers and German workers would side with each other to overthrow business owners and the remaining old money power. In reality they took their own national side and we got WW1.

                  Libertarians believe that people wearing name badges beginning in ‘Ministry Of’ will always war with people wearing name badges ending in ‘PLC’. In reality, real existing capitalism is always crony capitalism, and would still be even without a state. The an-cap housing associations and insurance providers would take on all the roles currently performed by government.

                  The reactionary insight is that power needs to be formal. If your surgeon leaves a scalpel inside your body after an operation, you need to know who holds power, not send in a form and watch it get passed around until the people responsible end up having their funding increased!

                  Privatisation doesn’t help. In fact in many ways it hinders because all you end up getting is shadow boards and replicated quality assurance frameworks.

                  I assume anything short of ‘privatise the oceans so we can increase GDP’ is Marxism round these parts however.

                • jim says:

                  > The problem with the NHS is that nobody’s accountable


                  When affluent people flee Britain to get their teeth fixed, do they go some place where dentists are “accountable”?

                  They go some place where dentists are capitalists, they get their teeth drilled by a dentist who owns his own office and his own drill and does as he pleases.

                  > real existing capitalism is always crony capitalism,

                  If your teeth get fixed, they are going to be fixed by a capitalist operating in a free market.

                  Is he a crony capitalist?

                  “Crony capitalism” and “accountability” is just an excuse for setting fire to the supermarket to grab a case of beer.

                  You guys knock over the apple cart to grab some apples, telling us it will produce an abundance of apples. And for a little while there is an abundance of apples, but pretty soon a mysterious apple shortage ensues, followed by a search for evil witches who are casting the evil spells causing the entirely mysterious and utterly inexplicable apple shortage.

                  When you say “accountable” you mean that knocking over the apple cart worked, so maybe if you kick the wreckage and set fire to the cart, more apples will show up. “Accountability” is the path to the Holodomor. You persecuted dentists, and now cannot get your teeth fixed, so plan to double down on persecuting them.

                • The Cominator says:

                  CR the nature of bureaucracies is that they make sure they aren’t accountable following the principle of Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy.

                  Prussian bureaucracies did not fall victim to the Iron Law because the heads of the bureaucracies even the supervisors were from the noble class who were hostile to the bureaucracy as an institution (and most probably bitterly resented even being there) and as such made them less powerful and more user friendly.

                • jim says:

                  When a socialist says “accountability” he does not propose to make bureaucrats accountable. He proposes to make dentists and bakers accountable.

                  It is a code word for shooting the cows of the peasant with two cows.

                  “Strike a severe blow to speculation and profiteering!” says the community organizer as the rabble he has roused beat up a peddler and steal his bread rolls.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  There’s a reason that you guys call me Marxist and I call you libertarian and both of us feel like the other side’s telling outrageous lies lol

                  Look, this old dichotomy of Republicans for free markets vs Democrats for intervention no longer applies to the real world.
                  It applies to a theoretical world in which if you just privatise the oceans, entrepreneurs will seek personal monetary gain by doing whatever other people ask of them, but if you actually look at real existing capitalism, it turns out that the marginal utility of money does indeed go off a cliff after a certain point.

                  To say that Jeff Bezos is primarily seeking to increase his total personal net worth by another few billion dollars is completely absurd, and think about that for a second: how much enterprise does it take to increase your net worth by, say, $5b? A LOT!
                  So the libertarian take is that Jeff Bezos is going to work like a nigger all year round just to increase his net worth by an amount he not only won’t notice but has no use for at this point.

                  I mean ok he can buy another football team or a few more houses but what for? His days are crammed full of admin meetings as it is: why would he want more? Best case scenario he’ll buy houses for some manager or other to look after on his behalf – booooooring!

                  No, he wants to ‘change the world’. He wants to take his power (don’t spit the dummy: power to command goods and services lol) and move the world in a direction he believes will improve it.

                  Wouldn’t we all do the exact same thing? To imagine that capitalists are just greedy pigs who’d never dream of dreaming is completely unrealistic, and reality’s run the experiment: the results are in.

                  The result is: buy the Washington Post, extend censorship and ban a bunch of books on Amazon.


                  I hardly think so. If any of this had anything to do with profit, people would be queuing up to buy advertising time from Fox News for the Tucker Carlson slot with more than three million viewers. I believe he’s down to one advertiser at this point.
                  This time next year he’ll be swapped out for Ben Shapiro, the advertisers will return and the viewers will depart!

                  In the interests of anyone, financially speaking? Not directly, and I’m not going to make the case for following the money because following the money is Marxism lol

                  Look, the problem with the NHS is that you go in with a stubbed toe and come out with your arm hanging off, riddled with SARS.

                  How could that happen?

                  A libertarian would say “because they’re not afraid of losing future business”. Then from the other side of his mouth, the libertarian will say “purchase lots of personal indemnity insurance in case of problems”. Which is it? Blank-out……….

                  No, this stuff happens when the person who does it KNOWS that nothing will happen to them. (Join the dots about ancapistan and, well, I personally don’t see anything standing in the way of the NHS’s ‘no punishment ever’ business model: it’s called insurance, and if you own the company then you share your own costs with all the other people who use it. One quick deal with the housing and utility providers and you don’t have to worry about competition, and the Mises Institute will explain to the goyim that monopoly minus government is nothing to worry about lol but I digress)

                  The current régime’s only solution to this problem is indeed more bureaucrats, more bits of paper, more independent reviews, and ultimately more funding.

                  I’m in no wise disputing that, and am not, and have never been, arguing for the status quo for heaven’s sake lol
                  (Isn’t your hatred of me based on my stated intent to CLOSE Franky&Benny’s? That’s hardly the status quo: the status quo is to laud and glorify the freedom to pay a hundred bucks for junk food while singing the birthday song at age 59 while living paycheck to paycheck and never having kids.)

                  What I’m SAYING is that this has nothing to do with how it’s funded. It does NOT in fact follow that indirect payment leads to bureaucratic bloat. That’s just a libertarian myth.

                  Cominator you’re British (I think? Not trying to doxx you, don’t really care one way or the other). If you’ve ever interacted with the Automobile Association you’ll know their system’s fully automated – no bits of paper, no bureaucratic bullshit – everything works and works FAST, and their costs are dirt cheap.

                  How can this possibly be, when their funding model is subscribers pay a pretty much flat fee (with fixed price optional extras, but not fully personalised like insurance) and then the ‘pot’ funds call-outs no matter how that pattern ends up working?

                  Isn’t that socialism with a ‘PLC’ name badge? Isn’t that exactly what fails so miserably in the NHS?

                  The difference is, if you’re the AA and you cause someone to have an accident, you end up in deep water. Even if the company pays the fines with indemnity insurance, they still care (FOR NOW ANYWAY! LOOK AT THEIR DEBT!!!!) about profit (so does the NHS by the way, or they wouldn’t ask for more funding!) and they realise, unlike the NHS, that for them (unlike the NHS) the way to maximising it is to punish wrongdoers: the individual operative responsible would, at the very least, be sacked.

                  That’s not remotely true of social services, the police or your local council, and that’s the crucial difference:

                  Are people afraid of losing their jobs if they fuck up, or do they know they’ll be protected?

                • jim says:

                  > There’s a reason that you guys call me Marxist and I call you libertarian and both of us feel like the other side’s telling outrageous lies lol

                  You lie, you know you are lying. You are Marxist in that you pretend that there is a universally accepted consensus that Marxist class theory is true, that capitalists rule, you are Marxist in that you pretend that there is a universally accepted consensus that Marxist history is true, that capitalism appeared recently. You are a feminist, in that you pretend that there is a universally accepted consensus that women in men’s jobs produce approximately as much value for the employer and customer as men in men’s jobs, you are a progressive in that you pretend that there is a universally accepted consensus that whig history is true, and refuse to hear or understand when we flatly tell you that whig history is false. You are Marxist in that you intend to murder or enslave everyone like me, you intend to kill the cows of the peasant with two cows. You tell me that the guy who owns the Domino’s pizza franchise near me is a giant international corporation and crony capitalism, much like the socialists parodied in the video, beating and robbing a peddler while denouncing him as a profiteer. That you denounce the guy who owns the the Domino’s pizza franchise near me as a giant international crony capitalist corporation tells me you plan to rob him and likely murder him, in which case you are planning to rob and murder me.

                  I am not what you call a libertarian in that I do not have the beliefs that you attribute to me – and for the most part libertarians don’t have those beliefs either, since you attribute Marxist beliefs to libertarians, in that libertarians supposedly believe the world is the way Marxists say it is, but back the bad guys for some insane religious reason.

                  You tell outrageous lies about what I believe, about what everyone who is not a Marxist believes, projecting onto everyone an unchallenged and unchallengeable consensus that Marxism is true, that progressivism is true, that whig history is true; I call Marxist beliefs Marxist. Big difference.

                  Further, Marxists do not genuinely believe in Marxism. It is a scam. You try to persuade us of stuff that you know is all a pile of barefaced lies. If Marxists actually believed what they try to get other people to believe, if Marxists drank their own Koolaide, they would argue on the basis of evidence, rather than pretending there is a consensus and everyone already agrees. You would address us as unbelievers, and tell us we should believe for this reason and that reason, instead of telling us that we already believe that Marxism is true because everyone knows perfectly well that it is true.

                  Your method of argument reveals that you know that Marxism is a lie that Marxists tell to deceive people so that they can rob them and murder them, that you yourself know that the things that you seek to persuade us are true, are not true, that you seek to deceive us in order to destroy us.

                  If you genuinely believed any of this stuff you would be arguing about women at work, and the woman King Solomon depicted as getting her family a vineyard by thrift, hard work, and good judgement. The methods that you use to persuade us, arguing from false consensus instead of from evidence, reveal that you know it is all a lie, told to people you intend to rob, enslave, and murder. As do a century of gigantic mass murders and terrible destruction by people who persuaded their victims of the things that you are trying to persuade us of, using the methods that you use to deceive those that they enslaved and murdered. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. You guys have been pulling this scam for over a century now, and have murdered nearly two hundred million. It is getting old.

                • jim says:

                  > No, he [Jeff Bezos] wants to ‘change the world’. He wants to take his power (don’t spit the dummy: power to command goods and services lol) and move the world in a direction he believes will improve it.

                  As recent events demonstrated, Bezos has no power. He is frightened and insignificant. If Capital ruled the world, the first thing capitalists would do is fix things so that they could get laid. I am more powerful than he is, because people listen to me and women respect me. He craves the kind of power that women desire, which I have in some small degree, and he does not.

                  The worst thing about our current social order is that it is very difficult for warriors and taxpayers to get laid, and if Capital ruled, that would be the first thing they would fix. And the next thing would be Venezuela, which is sitting on a lake of oil that they are unable to pump, and a mountain of gold that they are unable to mine.

                  So he buys himself some priestly power, but it does not help, and it is not in fact much priestly power. Trump can fill a stadium, I can make Trump’s people think. What priestly power has Bezos got? He has purchased himself a great big megaphone, from which much bellicose shouting emerges, but does not have much to say, and if he did have much to say, does not have a whole lot of influence over the microphone. He purchased a great big pile of priestly power, because he is rich, powerless and frightened, but it is slipping through his fingers, into the hands of holy media horde whose holy priestly prestige he hoped to purchase.

                  If Mary Curie is your poster girl for women productively doing men’s work, women cannot do men’s work, and if Jeff Bezos is your poster boy for capitalists ruling the world, capitalists are frightened, impotent, and powerless. .

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Cominator you’re British (I think? Not trying to doxx you, don’t really care one way or the other). If you’ve ever interacted with the Automobile Association you’ll know their system’s fully automated – no bits of paper, no bureaucratic bullshit – everything works and works FAST, and their costs are dirt cheap.”

                  Not a Brit… most NRxers are former libertarians but we have moved beyond being libertarian.

                  Formalism is not Moldbug’s only insight and I would in fact argue that in many things it doesn’t apply. Formalim DOES need to apply to the state religion though in order to LIMIT the influence of the state religion so the state religion doesn’t strangle intellectual life.

                • jim says:

                  > Formalism is not Moldbug’s only insight and I would in fact argue that in many things it doesn’t apply. Formalim DOES need to apply to the state religion though in order to LIMIT the influence of the state religion so the state religion doesn’t strangle intellectual life.

                  Informal power tends to be more comfortable for those exercising it, and those over whom it is exercised, for formal power has sharp edges, but but informal power tends to corruption, and can easily swell to extravagant, outrageous, and grossly intrusive levels under cover of the lie that it does not exist.

                  Informal power is always corrupt when it is denied, when it is not acknowledged.

                • The Cominator says:

                  To presume Bezos ever had priestly power is to assume he ever had any real control over the Washington Post.

                  What likely really happened is that very shortly before or after purchasing the Washington Post some CIA men came to see him and told him in no uncertain terms that he would have zero editorial control over the Washington Post because it was really under their control on pain of dire consequences.

                  Zuckerberg had a similar offer he can’t refuse but he did refuse and many bad things happened to him.

                • jim says:

                  > To presume Bezos ever had priestly power is to assume he ever had any real control over the Washington Post.

                  He has real control within certain limits, and those limits seriously cramp him.

                  If he had real control, the Washington post would favor a social order in which billionaires can get laid.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “He has real control within certain limits, and those limits seriously cramp him.

                  If he had real control, the Washington post would favor a social order in which billionaires can get laid.”

                  He can perhaps suppress negative news about Amazon and himself. If he tried to make WaPo pro Trump, pro-Nationalist, pro-Capitalist and as you said anti-feminist… those that glow in the dark would destroy him.

                  He also doesn’t even have full control over personnel, I guarantee you it wasn’t him who decided to hire Podesta.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:


                  When I accused you of presupposing that women were as valuable in men’s jobs as women and presupposing that we agree that women are as valuable in men, I quoted the text in which you did that. When you denied presupposing that, you failed to quote me, or the material I responded to.

                  Supposedly you are just arguing the law of supply and demand. I say you are, not arguing Marxism and feminism, but rather presupposing we already agree with Marxism and feminism.

                  If the government supplies me dirt, and forces me call it flour, that is not going to drive down the price of flour through the law of supply and demand, and the government forcing me to eat bread made with dirt does not constitute fulfilling my demand.

                  You are going to have to present evidence and argument that I actually want to eat dirt. Telling me it is supply and demand presupposes that dirt is bread – presupposes that women are doing men’s jobs because that is what employers want. Maybe it is, maybe that is what employers want, but telling me that to doubt it is to doubt the law of supply and demand presupposes that I agree with feminism and Marxism.

                  You tell me that you don’t agree with feminism, but strangely, you also tell me that I do agree that women doing men’s jobs create value comparable to men doing men’s jobs.

                  Similarly, you attribute to me the Marxist position that capitalist started yesterday – you tell me I am calling a past system utterly and fundamentally different from capitalism “capitalism”, that I am inconsistently calling a system very different from capitalism “capitalism” when it suits me – which presupposes that I agree that those differences existed, that everyone agrees that those differences existed, there are lots of people with no intention to murder me and everyone like me who totally agree that these differences existed.

                  Maybe those differences existed, but you will have to provide evidence and argument that they existed rather than attributing to me a position that concedes that these differences existed. Let us start by discussing the Book of Proverbs, which originates from first Temple Israel, and claims to be largely written by King Solomon himself.

                  You tell me that you are not claiming that capitalism began very recently – but strangely, you also tell me that I do agree that capitalism did start very recently.

                  You passionately disown all the Marxist, feminist, and progressive positions I accuse you of. And then, strangely, you attribute those positions to myself and Bastiat, as if they were utterly uncontroversial and universally agreed;

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  Reaction 101: Only priests and warriors can exercise political power, because merchants do not naturally cohere. If you disagree present argument and evidence, rather than assuming that we are Marxists;

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  No one here cares what Bezos thinks,says he thinks, or piously virtue signals, because Bezos is frightened and powerless.

                  He is frightened and powerless under progressives, he will be frightened and powerless under us, and would be powerless, though probably less frightened, if libertarians were in charge.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  If you want to tell us “the truth about capitalism” go right ahead. I will certainly allow it if you present argument and evidence, such as the long long list of corporations virtue signaling and paying tribute to priests, What, however, I will not permit is for you to deduce things about capitalism from our supposedly shared agreement that Marxism is true, progressivism is true, and whig history is true. That corporations are paying does not reveal whether they are paying danegeld, or wages.

                  Whenever you draw a conclusion from Marxist theory, it will be silently deleted unless you present evidence and argument for that point of Marxist theory.
                  Which no Marxist in the entire history of Marxism has ever done, because every Marxist knows that Marxism is a lie that Marxists tell to people that they intend to rob and kill.

        • pdimov says:

          >Venezuelan shelves are empty because its banking is frozen and it’s under an unofficial embargo.

          Venezuelan shelves are empty because no matter how much oil you have, for shelves to fill up, somebody needs to make that happen. The King issuing a proclamation to that effect doesn’t magically cause stuff to appear there.

        • jim says:

          I am now deleting all your stuff as spam, because it is just low effort repetition and Marxism asserted with supreme confidence and total lack of evidence.

          I responded to your comment. You are not responding to my comment.

          Let us have a discussion about why I can get my teeth fixed, while ordinary Britons live in pain and lose their teeth unless they fly overseas to some country where dentists are capitalists.

          • Koanic says:

            Advances in artificial stupidity have permitted the creation of article spinner software that passes the Göring Test by generating endless paragraphs of socialist spam. The mobile version is known as the CR App. A machine which can generate an infinite amount of something nobody wants heralds the arrival of the communist utopia, by transcending the so-called laws of supply and demand. Divided by zero, Capitalism must collapse under the weight of its own contradictions!

  16. vxxc says:

    Robert Reich says Red Alert !!

    Neglecting to mention who is exactly supposed to alert that isn’t already hysterical or who alerts besides lawyers, academics and reporters.

    Now that humors done I’ll make my main point: Fear works.
    They’re afraid for good reason.

    Some here are afraid without any real reason at all.
    The consequences of their positions begin to manifest and they run for the hills – ignoring that the very hills eyes are opened now by the very words written here, at UR, at Outsideness.

    I said real reasons. Attempting to run from yourselves will not work.

  17. vxxc says:

    AU Senator sparks outrage over remarks that it’s due to immigration.

    I am unable to see the Maori reaction but I’ll make a prediction: they’ll stick with the whites. Just as our Blacks will stick with us.
    History is full of Bad Marriages that work.

    If you forgot I’m not racist. Too practical in my cold way to throw away allies or their potential.

      • yewotm8 says:

        They’re clamouring for charges to be pressed against him for defending himself against a hit to the head from behind. Regardless of whether or not it was with an egg, the little shit needed to be socked in the face, and it happened. I can’t imagine the level of cuckery that would be required to view the Senator’s reaction as unjustified.

        • Cloudswrest says:

          I submit that anybody who is not truly emotionally gratified by the Senator’s response is someone who can not be trusted. They have an alternate psychology.

          Claire Lehmann, founder of the Quillette and member of the “far right” media approved “Intellectual Dark Web” (along with Ben Shapiro) was “ashamed” by it. See tweet below. I wonder how’d she react if, while publicly speaking, someone walked up and gave one of her breasts a good squeeze.

        • calov says:

          I love that he hit the kid more than once. That little shit needed to begin his education by having an older man whip his ass on tv.

  18. BC says:

    NZ is a false flag. The trend that started with the 2018 election will only accelerate from here on out.

    • Obadiah says:

      Quite possible. I’m waiting for more info to roll in.

    • jim says:

      As yet, no verified cases of false flag attacks using guns – though they do tend to improve the optics of an actual attack with crisis actors.

      • Koanic says:

        Agreed, that was what threw all the tinfoilers off.

      • The Cominator says:

        I’m quite sure the official story on the Mandalay Bay shooting is not the whole truth.

        I’m quite sure that Paddock was not a professional video poker player because that is mathematically impossible and if he claimed income from that… he was laundering money. I’m quite sure that there is casino footage related to the shooter that was covered up.

        I’m not sure what the truth is but I’m quite sure that there is something close to False Flag there. Also strange is the lack of loudmouth crisis actors… almost like someone wants it forgotten about.

        • Koanic says:

          Yeah he was probably a Deep State Boomer making a pro- gun control, anti Republican statement, as a way to escape personal life failure. True believers. You can’t talk to them, you just have to kill them all.

    • alf says:

      Judging from the shooter video and what I read of the shooter manifesto, seems real. The video was Professional, as if to say: ‘look, this is how we white people do mass sbootings. We film them in high quality, we park our cars smartly and we double-tap.’

      If NZ was a false flag, better than any real flag I’ve yet seen.

      • yewotm8 says:

        Also judging from the video, the shooter was untrained. He was prepared to the best of his own ability, but he lacked the tactical background that a proper asset would have had.

    • Frederick Algernon says:

      Maybe try and qualify a statement like that? I watched the livestream. I will probably read the manifesto. If it is a False Flag, que bono?

      I think these 88ers are convinced that they will set off a chain reaction. In this way, they have much more in common with the SPLC in terms of fantasies about the hills being crawling with people on the wrong side of history.

      • Vxxc says:

        I’m from the Hills.

        They’re there and there’s many Them there and they are done with crawling.

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          Haha I know you jest. The hills are completely safe for liberal transit.

          Kidding aside, the biggest signal to me that there is no “standalone complex” is how tactically abysmal the few incidences are. I watched the NZ attack. Terrible methodology, terrible kit, purely amateur across the board. To me, this says two things: pro-LARPERs are capable of delivering fairly devastating attacks (so why so few?) AND it isn’t a real movement until territory is taken and held.

          Understand, I’m not discussing sides, morals, or aspirations. Rather, I am making the counterassertion that there is no international, coordinated WN movement. Yet. This is in response to the MSM scaremongering that was going on in the NZ wake.

          A final comparison with completely made up placeholder numbers:

          A muzzie inbred hats up and shoots a bunch of people in a non-muzzie nation. Of 100% of muzzies polled, 5% say “snackbar and continue mashallah,” 25% say “I something something violence BUT the West is the real aggressor so inshallah,” 50% say “not all muzzies iselamulakum,” and 20% No Comment.

          A white wannabe hats up and shoots a bunch people in a white country. Of 100% of whites polled, 80% say “Sorry and I will work harder to [boilerplate],” 10% say “[encrypt: genocide white males], and 9% say “how terrible. Terrible things are terrible. We should un-terrible the world somehow.” 1% say “HDNW.”

          • The Cominator says:

            “I am making the counterassertion that there is no international, coordinated WN movement.”

            Nor will there ever be, whites are wolf to whites.

            Synthetic tribe with multiple languages distributed across the earth that is also supposed to be based on an inorganic ethnicity (whiteness) rather then religion.. WIGGA please.

            • Pseudo-crhysostom says:

              >Nor will there ever be, whites are wolf to whites.

              The first step to denaturing leftism is to not find yourself possessed by modes of thought coherent or compatible with leftism.

  19. vxxc says:

    Up NZ!

    • Simon says:

      He was an Aussie mate, the only Anglos with stones left.

    • Obadiah says:

      Can’t dent the Brent

      • vxxc says:

        Up AU in NZ then.
        NZ suddenly not looking so tempting for flight methinks.

        I refer to my pre-NZ incident post: I am observing.
        Note there were multiple attackers.
        They aren’t crazy. They just committed.

        Really it’s just Human Nature winning.
        Whites are openly targeted for demographic extinction in their own lands.
        The Diverse invaders bring their intrinsic violence excited by Liberal betrayals into dreams of conquest that are tantalyzingly within their grasp.
        So they grasp for conquest drawing our blood.
        As the Left wing Ruling Priesthood offers only Holy submission to genocide some begin to fight. More are coming.
        If you think its starting to get loud now wait until the voters swing Left again and they will.
        If Brevik can be lionized and he is in many quarters such as the remarks below then so can Tarrant.

        The Will to Survive will win.

        As for dismissing as fantasy the Hills crawling with Crazies – I’m from the Hills. Not crazy but hard nosed practical and their done crawling.

        As for false flag: No. You’re False Flagging yourself.
        Then again Steel doesn’t burn either….

    • The Cominator says:

      Shooting rank and file diversity is not the right kind of blaze of glory if you intend that sort of thing (don’t worry FBI I don’t), although I don’t delude myself to think that mosque going Muslims in Western countries are innocent people (and normally when some “screw your optics” dumbass does this sort of thing they mainly get innocent people). If you are attending mosque only need only a little motivation to become an Islamic terrorist and most of them were probably already supporting Islamic terrorists financially.

      The right approach is to target politically ultra elite shitlibs the way Brevik did.

      • Koanic says:

        You’re not wrong. Matador, cape. Kill the ones scared of dying. He’ll be canonized regardless.

      • Andre says:

        “I don’t delude myself to think that mosque going Muslims in Western countries are innocent people”

        Innocent people… relative to who are these muslims “not innocent people”?

        • jim says:

          All Muslims who take Islam seriously provide a friendly and supportive environment for terrorists, and give terrorists high status.

          No Christians who take Christianity seriously provide a friendly and supportive environment for terrorists, or give terrorists high status. At best, Christians think them nuts, and even if sympathetic an on the same side, still give them low status and a not very friendly environment.

          • Andre says:

            Why should islamic terrorists have lower status than soldiers in the employ of the USG?

          • Andre says:

            Why should islamic terrorists have lower status than abortion doctors?

          • Andre says:

            Why should islamic terrorists have lower status than cops enforcing “domestic violence” and “child support” laws?

            • jim says:

              Because the cops are doing what the state tells them to, and when the state instead tells them to return runaway wives and daughters to fathers and husbands instead of telling them to evict fathers and husbands from their homes, they will do that, and be much relieved to be doing so.

              A good warrior obeys orders, even when they are bad orders.

              The warrior ethos was famously exemplified by the Charge of the Light Brigade. Lord Cardigan knew someone had blundered horribly, and protested, but followed orders anyway, taking the greatest danger upon himself, to reduce the danger to those following him.

              And that made him a great warrior.

              • Andre says:

                Islamic terrorists are also doing what the state tells them to. It’s just a different state.

                • jim says:

                  Most Islamic terrorists target their own state first, and are targeted by their own state first. Islamic terrorism is a big problem for Islamic states, and has been since shortly after Mohammed died. Islamic states fund Islamic terrorism that is in some other state.

                • Andre says:

                  No Jim. Islamic terrorists don’t target their own state at all.

                • jim says:

                  Isis does little else but target existing Islamic states, usually states that their members were citizens and subjects of, and born and resident in those states.

                  The only good example of a terrorist organization not targeting its own state was Al Quaeda, which targeted neither Talibanic Afghanistan nor Saudi Arabia nor Pakistan. And Saudi Arabia, the Taliban, and Pakistan, had substantial cutouts between themselves and Al Quaeda, which makes those terrorists doing bad things different from cops and soldiers doing bad things.

                  Osama bin Laden wrote and heavily promoted a lengthy Islamic argument that doing state like things without state approval was legitimate. One cannot imagine a senior Christian cop or soldier doing that.

                • Contaminated NEET says:

                  >It’s just a different state.
                  Exactly. Therefore they should expect to have high status in that state, and we see that they do. They are the avowed enemies of both our current Progressive Western states and any hypothetical wished-for right-wing successors, so both would be wise to lower their status as far as possible.

              • Andre says:

                -“warriors should be on top”
                -“a good warrior obeys orders”

                Pick one. You can’t have both.

                • vxxc says:

                  Very True.

                  Good warriors are on top.
                  Good SOLDIERS always obey orders.
                  They don’t always win wars.

                  Warriors these days tend to migrate to PMC/merc.
                  Soldiers who are or were warriors serve on doing what they can to mitigate despair (me).

              • bxxc says:

                The Other advantage of the cops is they are readily accessible as they are local and answer locally.

                They certainly don’t like Progressives, who harm them.

          • Andre says:

            Why should islamic terrorists have lower status than tax collectors in the service of western governments?

          • Andre says:

            I am not a muslim because I do not believe Allah is the only God and Mohammad was his messenger. I believe in Jesus Christ. But islamic terrorists are fighting a corrupt civilization, they are fighting my enemies, they are not fighting my civilization. I don’t know how christian the christians that ISIS persecutes are, so maybe there they are, but they are still more distant enemies than western normies.

            • jim says:


              Progressivism cannot stand any deviation, and Islam cannot stand any deviation.

              • Andre says:

                I have no idea why you think that is a relevant reply.

              • Andre says:

                Let me be clearer. Throughout western society, people provide a friendly and supportive environment for people that engage in bad behaviour. To put it simply, some people don’t like cops but they’ll back up abortion doctors while some people don’t like abortion doctors but they’ll back up cops. The cops are actively enforcing the feminist laws. They are the ones who carry the disobedient man to jail under threat of death. Soldiers in the employ of the USG in Iraq fought to impose women’s suffrage. Why are muslims who befriend islamic terrorists less innocent than the average normie in western societies? I don’t believe they are.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  You must be aware that you are using a microscope for one and a wide angle lens for the other. The police in the US absolutely do enforce feminized bullshit laws. The muzzy terrorists absolutely do incorporate reactionary elements in their “civilisations.” But is this all they do? For one, you say “see? not 100% perfect ergo Bad” and for the other you say “see? 1% ok ergo Good.” You are a female brained dipshit.

                • jim says:

                  > The muzzy terrorists absolutely do incorporate reactionary elements in their “civilisations.

                  With the striking exceptions of Isis, the Taliban and Boko Haram, they absolutely don’t enforce reactionary elements in their civilizations.

                  Osama bin Laden swallowed the left wing anti imperialist critique of our civilization. Isis was reactionary, but Al Quaeda was not.

                  And, in any case, none of them, except perhaps Boko Haram, are attacking us for social decay, feminism, and leftism. They are attacking us for not submitting, and if we install a highly reactionary official state religion to replace the currently unofficially official state religion of progressivism, none of them will care, and few of them will even notice. Boko Haram will notice, but will not care all that much.

                  All of them will continue to attack us. In Syria, they all agreed on genocide against Alawites, and the US was happy with that because the Alawites were insufficiently progressive.

                • Andre says:


                • jim says:

                  Provide evidence and examples, not mere confident assertion.

                • Andre says:

                  Evidence and examples of what? Fred seems to think western civilization as it exists today isn’t 100% perfect but it’s mostly ok, therefore we should side with it against the islamic takeover, thus muslim “normies” not innocent but western normies innocent. I am not of that opinion. I will defend a reactionary west against radical islamists. I will not defend a progressive west against radical islamists. The west as it exists today hates me more than it hates the radical islamist. This is the literal truth. To normies, I am a monster.

                • jim says:

                  Trouble is, Islam hates you more.

                • Andre says:

                  Not really.

                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive. If you disagree, provide evidence. Given the Islamic propensity to drive trucks into people, and suchlike, it looks very much as if they hate us even more than progressives do. Progressives denigrate husbands and fathers from the pulpit. Muslims kill husbands and fathers and take their wives and daughters.

                  Similarly a Jew is apt to find a strangely creative interpretation of a promise or a contract, but a Muslim will say he will keep the promise or the contract, “God willing”, and surprise surprise, God is never willing.

                • Andre says:

                  “Given the Islamic propensity to drive trucks into people, and suchlike, it looks very much as if they hate us even more than progressives do.”

                  I find that a very strange argument. Muslims say “ally with our group or be treated as an enemy”. That they drive trucks into crowds of their enemies tells me nothing. The USG killed a ton of people in its multiple crusades for progressivism around the world.

                  Progressives say “ally with our group so we can jump off a cliff together”. The muslim promises a somewhat decent life if I join their group. The progressive promises hell on earth. That makes the muslim an honorable enemy, and the progressive outright demonic.

                  “Progressives denigrate husbands and fathers from the pulpit. Muslims kill husbands and fathers and take their wives and daughters.”

                  Progressives don’t just fucking “denigrate husbands and fathers from the pulpit”, they destroy husbands and fathers, they take everything they have, drive them to suicide, kill them if they resist, and then laugh about it. You have a very strange notion of what progressives are doing. They do kill husbands and fathers and take their wives and daughters.

                • jim says:

                  > > “Given the Islamic propensity to drive trucks into people, and suchlike, it looks very much as if they hate us even more than progressives do.”

                  > I find that a very strange argument. Muslims say “ally with our group or be treated as an enemy

                  Not what they say: They say “Submit to our religion or we will kill you.”

                  That was the problem in Burma and it is the problem in Thailand. Have the Burmese intervened in the Middle East? The boundaries of Islam are covered in blood, mostly the blood of people and peoples you have never heard of.

                • Andre says:

                  “Ally with our group or be treated as an enemy.” and “Submit to our religion or we will kill you.” are just different ways of saying the same thing. They do not always kill those who do not submit, they are pragmatic, but killing is part of the range of ways you treat an enemy. Progressives are not meaningfully different in that sense. The difference is that if you join Islam, you stand a good chance of having grandkids. If you join Progressivism, you stand a good chance of seeing your grandkid be castrated, drugged, and made to dance in a cage in a gay bar, and have to pay for all of it.

                • jim says:

                  > “Ally with our group or be treated as an enemy.” and “Submit to our religion or we will kill you.” are just different ways of saying the same thing

                  Allies are equals. People who submit are merely enemies too contemptible to be killed in the event of failure to convert.

                • Andre says:

                  And you really can’t ignore the fact that Islam is itself being subverted by progressivism, that radical Islam is a reactionary movement (though it sometimes takes a detour into fascism/nazism instead of tradition, just like in the west), and that most of the muslim world is made up of low IQ populations. The islamic world seems kind of crappy, but it is actually very similar to latin america, which is mostly catholic. It’s mostly just a low IQ problem. Why are they low IQ? It’s possible that some elements of Islam caused this but I’m entirely certain that progressivism is going to crash IQs in the western world much faster.

                • jim says:

                  > It’s mostly just a low IQ problem.

                  No, the trouble with Islam is not just a low IQ problem. Other low IQ peoples don’t have bloody borders, and when Islam conquered advanced peoples, those peoples regressed.

                • Andre says:

                  If you convert you are an equal. That is how any civilized group operates. There is nothing at all wrong with that aspect of Islam.

                • jim says:

                  > If you convert you are an equal.

                  In the end, we may have to do that. But Islam sucks. When a higher technology, higher mathematics people, are conquered by Islam they lose it. The Damascus steel swords that so impressed the crusaders were rare heirlooms owned by aristocrats, having been made by an India that lost the ability to make them soon after being conquered by Muslims. Similarly Persia.

                  Islam is inimical to science and technology. Partly it is an effect of the God too big problem. God needed to be flogged through the streets of Jerusalem to allow room for human flourishing. Partly it is a side effect of the anti innovation measures they implemented after their tenth century leftist singularity to prevent further leftist singularities. Needed to limit religious innovation. We also will need to limit religious innovation, but we will do so by an inquisition that only restrains scientists in quasi statal jobs, and having plenty of non statal science jobs by outsourcing military logistics.

                • Andre says:

                  I’m not saying “Yay, Islam is so cool, I love Islam!”. I’m saying “Stop demonizing muslim normies while giving progressive normies a pass. You are being manipulated into hating them because the muslims run trucks over progressive normies, while the progressives drop bombs on the muslim normies and then point the finger at you. And they aren’t entirely wrong, because it is often the most conservative in the west that are dropping the bombs in order to further the progressive crusades.” This is the big fucking problem, the elephant in the room. You people keep ingrouping your enemies, and as a consequence of being sincere instead of blatant hypocrites like them, you outgroup those who pose the greatest danger to them and act as their fucking shield. Meanwhile the progressives laugh. Like the feminists say, a conservative becomes a feminist as soon as brown people come into the picture. So what do they do? They side with the brown people, of course! Because they hate YOU more than anything. And like fucking idiots, you do exactly what they want, which is hate the brown people. You worry about building a wall instead of purging your own society of the traitors seeking its destruction.

                • jim says:

                  I don’t give normies a pass. But you were arguing that Islam is on the same side. Islam is it is own side, and it is even more hostile to us than progressivism.

                  The problem is that progressives are seeking alliance with Islam, and apt to delude themselves that they have succeeded, as with Obama’s infamous moderate Muslims in Syria, the infamous Free Syrian Army (he should have realized something was funny when they had an English name) and his propensity to import large numbers of rapeugees to marginal federal electorates. We should not make a similar error.

                  Russia is also its own side, but we could have alliance with them, and it would be great to do so. Everyone that makes alliance with Islam gets burned.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Islam is not really even its own side. Pretty sure most of them are funded / backed indirectly by the Cathedral, most blatant example being Xinjiang. ISIS is hardly reactionary given that a key selling point of it is socialist health care, even being to the left of the NHS. In any case, leftism is worse, but it just takes a coup to get rid of them, so far nobody has fixed a conversion to Islam.

          • Vxxc says:

            Christians absolutely don’t support fighting.
            Holiness wise Diversity > Christ.

            Christendom Illicet.

            So consistently we see the appeal to the older gods of paganism just as we saw in Germany. Again.

            And will see again.

            I don’t care. Whoever fights can win. Whoever doesn’t fight can’t win as they’ve eliminated the possibilty.

  20. vxxc says:

    The Duffleblog (military The Onion) is also informative and useful.


  21. vxxc says:

    Warriors need Priests to be inspired to fight and win.

    We have a priesthood: Lawyers. Complete with ritual war- the rules of engagement. The Laws of war, the lawyering of war.
    The same actual priesthood that regulates every aspect of our lives, especially money and sexuality. They don’t fail to inspire.
    They retard war into defeat.

    We fight plenty. Lots of combat experience now.
    We have tactical victory and strategic defeat.

    Now true warriordom and victory are to be had, but you have to become a contractor aka PMC. Mercenaries are illegal. So they’re contractors.

    We have a priesthood in line with our society and its fucked.
    But we have no shortage of priests.

    Really few here serve but you can’t read our blogs?
    Our social media postings?

    As far as a working civil religion its the Constitution.
    Helps to have our guy as President.

    Jim has referred to this before re The Federalist society.
    You could save a lot of bandwidth working with what you have as opposed to searching for a replacement for Christianity that doesn’t exist.

    You could also use the loathing for the legal priesthood that is universal.
    Most of you haven’t suffered from ROE. (Rules of Engagement).
    Surely however you have suffered or fear Family Law.

    As far as a Dictator you are overlooking that we’re a Federation.
    America isn’t a Constitutional Republic, its a Federation of many Republics.
    A glaring error in the Progressive calculus and yours.

      • jim says:

        Your link:

        > “Military Defeat as a Financial Collapse Trigger

        is very informative.

        I had assumed that Obama and Hillary were consciously and intentionally arming and funding ISIS, but the picture he shows is more corruption, incompetence, and self delusion at every level of government, and double agents at the lower level. Most of that half a billion wound up funding ISIS, buying arms for ISIS, and supplying those arms to ISIS, and what did not get to ISIS stayed with double agents.

        I conjecture that the double agents were facilitated by the Major Hasan problem – affirmative action Muslims openly hostile to the US being promoted into positions for which they are grossly unqualified.

        The business about financial collapse is unlikely. The Trump tax cuts brought taxes on the rich down the Laffer limit, and as a result the debt to GDP ratio has stabilized, at levels that are alarmingly high, and give us no buffer against the unexpected, but at levels that do not in themselves amount to crisis, but he is full of interesting information on corruption, incompetence, treachery, and delusion.

        He is wrong about fracking. It is highly profitable. He is wrong about debt, but he has lots of data on the military and CIA, which fits together.

        A fish rots from the head. The Democrats are the party of government as interest group and Harvard as a religion, and Harvard is very deluded and somewhat corrupt, and the Democrats are somewhat deluded and very corrupt. And the CIA is deluded and corrupt, feeding delusion back upon itself to their masters.

        • The Cominator says:

          “And the CIA is deluded and corrupt”

          And it gets worse all the time as the CIA has always tended to recruit most of their people out of Ivy League Universities (ala The Good Shepherd) and the more they go to shit the more the CIA goes to shit.

          • The Cominator says:

            He is wrong about the reserve currency allowing Americans to rip off the rest of the world.

            The reserve currency is never a benefit historically its always a curse on any nation that acquires it.

            The dollar carry trade racket enriches a bunch of Cathedral/DC types, their pet banks and their hangers on but outside of the District of Corruption and a few universities and banks ordinary Americans get more ripped off in real terms out of the system then anyone. This was one of the issues Trump ran on and he was right.

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            As someone who actually studies the CIA… exactly. You are so right bro. Hollywood is definitely the best source for understanding the CIA. I mean, you nailed it. Like, perfectly. Gj.

            • The Cominator says:

              I know you are being sarcastic but where am I wrong about the CIA being recruited primarily from Ivy league Cathedral universities… and how was the Good Shepherd incorrect on that point?

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                1) I was responding to previous.

                2) The actual point of Good Shepherd (one of my favorite movies) is that the CIA was the OSS minus triage. Sure, it was predicated on a good ol’ boys network, but that ended in the 70s. 80s through 90s saw a pseudo-codification of norms (aberrant so useless) and that all went to shit in the 90s when the cold war ended. When Afghanistan started, SAD/SOG was about 40 dudes, almost all of them contractors. The Mille

                • Frederick Algernon says:


                  …the Millennium Plot was foiled (google Crumpton) and no lessons were learned. 9/11 brought the Agency into the fore for basically 8 months before the wannabe cold warriors regained control.

                  Now, the Agency is staffed by boomer leaders and the few GenX that decided to Be Better + Mormons. The Op side of Agency cares more about “dip and Velcro” status than manipulation. The Ivy league is too busy gargling PoC ballsack to get involved with grinding out a GS10+ working wage.

                  If ever an institution was ripe for hostel takeover, it is CIA. Leaderless, aimless, all sizzle no steak.

                  Just my 2¢.

                • Oog en Hand says:

                  The Dutch BVD kept a close tab on Esperantists. Many American Christians have religious objections against learning Esperanto.

                • kony2038 says:

                  esperanto is srs bsns… shut down the guy who sold me pops some bad food… give me 1000$/mo… reserve currency is something or other but I’m sure there’s an A essay backing it… i was mommy teacher’s favorite, she called me a scholar once and i was so proud. the government should give mommy teacher a boyfriend. school shooters are the worst and kids should stop go to the guidance counselor if they have a problem otherwise stop talking in or out of class just do your homework, kids here really need to do their homework. someone should reread the latter-day pamphlets and write a retrospective, probably not cr, he’ll just repeat the carlylean restorationist perspective, he should be assigned mein kampf by the original econoqueer. cr would like to point out that carlyle wrote that kings are small men who should go along with the business of things and the greatest sham is the idea that shams must cease. actually he probably said something else but maybe i should read more sherlock holmes stories full of ineffable twaddle before getting bumptious enough to reinterpret carlyle. also idk how he managed to be so tl;dr in 18xx and considering “in the history of human things, which needs above all to abridge itself”

                  in 2007 it was politically incorrect to say windows isn’t gay, some sjws were recently criticizing some dude who was calling himself faggotron saying windows is gay back then, earlier fruit baskets were cool and everyone knew their contents are delicious and “excellent nutriment” as plato said about meat once to make some point or other. i would open my bananas in the natural way that zoo moneys open them if i ate bananas. it sounds like it would be cooler if brenton had snuck into a university daycare and put soy in the baby formula, srsly, the point of the nonviolent resistance meme is there is no actual target, from which we derive that we can cleverly criticize any target to assert that we’re not terrorists. our plan was always meta-accelerationism and we’ve driven tons of memes into the ground over the past decade

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  I will not allow you to tell us what our position is. It is never accurate.

                  We know what Carlyle said, and we know what Moldbug said, and we agree with them – well we all agree with Moldbug, and quite a lot of us, myself among them, agree with Carlyle.

                  If you want to argue “my interpretation of the implications of so and so’s statement is such and such”, argue as your interpretation of so and so, argue your position, and acknowledge that we, including so and so, are unlikely to agree.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You’re in denial about economics. I was where you are now, a while back. It’s understandable: we were all raised to believe socialism was on the left and capitalism was on the right.

                  The idea that both are on the left is just too crazy for our mortal minds to comprehend.

                  I get it.

                  Nevertheless, the implications of a book like “Shooting Niagara” or “Chartism” take a while to crystallise in the reader’s mind.

                  I’d invite anyone who considers themselves an admirer of Carlyle just because Moldbug said he was a (very very strong: “I’m a Carlylean in the same way that some people are Marxists”) big fan.

                  I get that too: I didn’t read every book on Moldbug’s reading list while I was an NRxer….. but I read a lot of them and to my mind the message is very clear:

                  MY INTERPRETATION is that there are no Tories alive today, just a handful of strains of Whig.

                  I’m fairly sure you’d agree that today’s conservatives are yesterday’s far left. Moldbug uses the example of “A View From The Right” and says Larry Auster would’ve had to’ve called it “A View From The Left” a hundred years earlier.

                  Well that goes all the way back. When Bastiat was agitating, along with Proudhon, to destroy what remained of the old state power of the aristocracy, he was a far left radical.

                  That sounds insane to a modern reader because limited government and increased personal liberties is a Ron Paul far right ultra-libertarian idea nowadays. I don’t think many people who favour that worldview would be satisfied with Paul Ryan, for example, who claims you should be satisfied with him because he likes Ayn Rand. Even Paul Ryan’s on the right compared to many of the alternatives – by that way of thinking at least!

                  But it’s true. When the dust was settling from the various European revolutions, free markets were a left-wing cause.

                  The reason it changed, according to Moldbug, and I agree with him, is that once the left obtained power, why would they continue to be against power!

                  It’s like if the alt.right took power in America: would we still be championing free speech? Some would, no doubt, but by no means all. It’d be very easy to shift logically from “people should not be sacked from their jobs for having said ‘faggot’ in 1985” to “people going round talking about men chopping their dicks off in front of children should be silenced”.

                  The truth is, rule by principle instead of men is the HEART AND SOUL of Whiggery. Carlyle calls this concept “the rudderless boat” or “the phantasm-captain”.

                  The choice TODAY does very much seem to be between capitalism and Marxism, but there’s no reason at all why any individual human being should accede to that paradigm.

                  Anyway you allowed through a pretty clear statement before that proves to anyone with a brain that I’m not a Marxist, so since I’m not being slandered, I’ve no real reason to be here.

                  Just found the “tl;dr” comment interesting. People absorb modernity without really quite knowing why or how. Put simply, our friend who finds Carlyle too long-winded would’ve struggled with love letters and builders’ invoices in the 1860s.

                  Strike that: the 1960s too.

                • jim says:

                  > I’m fairly sure you’d agree that today’s conservatives are yesterday’s far left. Moldbug uses the example of “A View From The Right” and says Larry Auster would’ve had to’ve called it “A View From The Left” a hundred years earlier.
                  > Well that goes all the way back. When Bastiat was agitating, along with Proudhon, to destroy what remained of the old state power of the aristocracy, he was a far left radical.

                  At last, at last, you present an actual argument, instead of just confidently assuming that all agree that Marxist history and whig history is uncontroversially true, instead of just imposing Cultural Marxist frame on our ideas.

                  No, we have not always been moving left. It does not go all the way back.

                  We have been getting lefter for a very long time, but if you go back far enough, to the British civil war and the French revolution, you see today’s leftists all over again.

                  As Kipling’s poem “The Gods of the Copybook Headings” tells us, leftism expires over and over again in terror and slaughter, and the Gods of the Copybook headings return, over and over again.

                  Bastiat was considered a rightist then as now for the same reasons as he is considered a rightist today. The French Revolution was today’s left in power, much resembling Chavez and today’s Democratic party left.

                  You tell me Bastiat was a left winger at the time. But who is he attacking? He is attacking the left, for example he attacks Proudhon and pre Marxist communists – “communists” at that time being not a reference to Marx but a reference to the Paris commune, which was ultra leftist.

                  The French revolution instituted price control and the movement of goods by command. They lost, and price control ended with the final defeat of Napoleon. Bastiat is on the winning side, arguing against price control and the movement of goods by command, thus allied with the winning right against the defeated left.

                  The Paris Commune called back to the Red Terror, and saw itself as a reincarnation of the Committee of Public Safety of the French Revolution.

                  So, at the time that Bastiat wrote, his doctrines were not seen as leftist, but rightist, then as now, for the same reasons then as now, and he was looking back on a history that in his time, had moved dramatically right by his standards and ours – the communists being nostalgic for the Paris Commune and the Committee of Public Safety, the left, that we would recognize as very much today’s left, the Communists then looked back to the good old days when the left was in power.

                  Marxism and whig history tells the left the good news that history is on their side, that we have always been moving left. But history is not on your side. Leftism comes and it goes. Trees do not grow to the sky – rather, trees grow till they fall, and the time approaches for leftism to fall.

                  We moved left from Henry the eighth to Charles the first to the British civil war. After the King is beheaded, today’s left appears, horrifying and frightening Cromwell Cromwell halted the left singularity. General Monck and Charles the second rolled it back overnight. Leftism evaporated and nobody cared, like Sauron at the end of Lord of the Rings, like the Soviet Union. And since then we have been moving left again.

                  The French Revolution was a movement left, in part because it was anticapitalist and socialist, similar to Hitler’s socialism, today’s Venezuelan socialism and today’s Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. They confiscated the property of merchants and farmers and frequently beheaded them. Its overthrow was movement right, in the same way and for the same reasons as Bolsanaro overthrowing the Venezuelan government would be movement right.

                  So Bastiat was attacking the left, a left quite similar today’s left. A left that called itself the left. A left that had been in power, and is today now in power again, but in Bastiat’s time was thoroughly out of power. We would today regard Bastiat as on the same side as Bolsonaro and against the side of the Venezuelan government, and the communists he refutes then had much the same incoherent economic doctrines as the communists we use his arguments to refute now.

                  Leftism has not been growing forever. It does not grow forever. Like a tree it grows for a time, but the tree eventually falls over. The French Revolution was today’s far left in power. In the British civil war, more like the moderate and sane left of the 1950s in power, but todays far left was visible and frightened Cromwell.

                  The murderous attack on merchants, farmers, butchers, and bakers by the French revolutionaries was then as now, left wing anticapitalism, today’s left. The hippies of the 1960s consciously recognized themselves as a revival of the diggers of the 1650s that so frightened and angered Oliver Cromwell. In their confrontation with the military they re-enacted the diggers confrontation with Cromwell’s military.

                  Outside academia, everyone knows that the cyclic history depicted by Kipling is true, because they read old books, even if only the bible (Pharaoh leftist, Moses rightist) while academics only read twenty first century academics lying about what is in old books. The ever more ludicrous ignorance of our priestly classes is undermining their priestly role.

                • Andre says:

                  It is noteworthy that in his writings on economics Bastiat always says “there may be good reasons to restrict economic freedom or have the government spend money on this, that is fine, it just won’t create wealth out of thin air as these nutjobs claim it will”..

                • Steve Johnson says:


                  You’re in denial about economics. I was where you are now, a while back. It’s understandable: we were all raised to believe socialism was on the left and capitalism was on the right.

                  The idea that both are on the left is just too crazy for our mortal minds to comprehend.


                  It is noteworthy that in his writings on economics Bastiat always says “there may be good reasons to restrict economic freedom or have the government spend money on this, that is fine, it just won’t create wealth out of thin air as these nutjobs claim it will”..

                  What’s really going on is that communism is on the left and a free market isn’t on the left or right – it’s just a feature of human relations – an outgrowth of man’s nature requiring him to have property to survive.

                  Here’s an analogy – saying a trannie is really a woman is left wing but saying he’s a delusional eunuch isn’t right wing – it’s reality.

                • jim says:

                  Leftists think that if they knock over the apple cart, there will be an abundance of apples, and for a little while, there is an abundance of apples. Not long thereafter, a mysterious shortage of apples and apple carts occurs. Leftists then search for the witches who are causing the entirely mysterious apple shortage, but no matter how many witches they burn, apples mysteriously fail to re-appear, demonstrating the continued existence of witches.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Yep, it’s a self-licking ice cream cone. The only possible reason for problems is insufficient leftism and leftism causes problems so the more leftism gets you more problems that justifies more leftism.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  OK I’m not really here so if you censor this, that’s totally fine it makes very little difference to the article above, or to the topical digressions in the comments so it’s all good.

                  But, since there are some interesting comments here, I’ll indulge my gob for a bit and see what gets through…

                  Jim’s big post is the most important here but there’s also, from André I think, the standard libertarian canard that liberty is neither left nor right but something orthogonal, even though the left is (at least partially) defined by a certain economic mindset that also affects their social policies.

                  I’m going to both agree and disagree lol

                  Here’s what I’m responding to: ah it’s Steve Johnson, but touches on André’s previous post:

                  “What’s really going on is that communism is on the left and a free market isn’t on the left or right – it’s just a feature of human relations – an outgrowth of man’s nature requiring him to have property to survive.

                  Here’s an analogy – saying a trannie is really a woman is left wing but saying he’s a delusional eunuch isn’t right wing – it’s reality.”

                  I’m going to agree that free markets themselves, TODAY, are neither left nor right. The reason I say that is that you have broad agreement between on the left Jacob Hornberger, Sheldon Richman and Jeffrey Tucker, and on the right Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods. (Even if anyone argues about who goes in what category, eg. Jeff Tucker, who used to be very conservative, I hope most people will agree that the above people all largely agree with one another about free markets.)

                  I’ve said here many times that this wasn’t always the way. Bastiat wasn’t a negative campaigner against the socialist programme: sure he opposed it, and we might even all agree on principle that he was right to do so, since Marxian socialism is more egalitarian (in many ways that matter) than laissez-faire. Laissez-faire is about the possibility at least of equality of legal standing, whereas Marxian socialism is about (among other things of course) the possibility at least of equality of the wherewithal to command goods and services. (These aren’t rigid characterisations, more flavours, but I hope they’re not too controversial.)

                  So other than opposing the Marxists, what was the *positive* agenda that Bastiat and the other free market advocates were writing all those books about in the 19th century, and the classical economists before that? That body of literature from “The Wealth of Nations” to “The Pure Time Preference Theory Of Interest” was not simply a negative agenda of “please don’t do X Y and Z or bad things will happen”.

                  No, they were advocating for laissez-faire. Instead of nations applying protectionist tariffs, Smith proposed a system of free trade in which the international division of labour was respected as a fact of nature, and capital was free to flow across borders so that investment could be concentrated where it would do the most good, to the mutual benefit of all market participants.

                  The prior wisdom Ricardo et al were attacking was rather that even if it’d be more efficient and profitable, and hence genuinely better economically, sometimes it was better to maintain the status quo at home so that society’s orderly, coherent fabric could remain undisturbed.
                  I’ve been arguing for that view here for a long time. It was the Tory view, the view that radical change was always a bad thing, and that anything that protected the way things currently were was inherently to be desired, without prejudice to efficiency or profitability, and especially when the benefits weren’t guaranteed to accrue to the home team.
                  Call it a nasty, competitive mindset by all means, but the Tories of the 18th century wants English traditions and institutions to survive intact, for the benefit of the people of England, all of whom were connected across social classes and roles by a combination of duty and noblesse oblige.

                  Now if you want to say that this is a nod in the direction of the command economy, I agree entirely: we find the level at which sufficient housing, furniture, clothing, food, etc. is produced to meet the needs of the population as it stands, and make only tiny quantitative adjustments as the population changes in number and nature. Innovation can be restricted to a small number of fields: medicine, theoretical science (to a point but not beyond that point), the arts, and so on.

                  This is pretty much the opposite of the ‘creative destruction’ of the capitalist consumer world where your iPhone’s terribly out of date every ten years and perhaps it’s time to start using an ‘app’ to book a taxi or order a table at a chain restaurant rather than rocking up in person.
                  I’m also more than happy to admit that while the Tory order of the pre-Georgian era is a nod and a wink to the command economy, I personally would favour an even stronger version, mostly because of modern circumstances. There’s a LOT to change before we get anywhere near what Charles II had, economically – and by ‘economically’ I mean the stuff that went on in the economy, rather than any philosophical underpinning.

                  To be clear, it’s not that anti-laissez-faire Tories were opposed to particular theories of Say or Cantillon or whatever: it’s just they knew what was currently working, and they had this pessimistic suspicion that when you muck around with things that work, they quite often work less well. Their prejudice was, in other words, that their ancestors were not morons, while the Whig prejudice is that anything prior to the Current Year is completely stupid.

                  Remember Tom Woods loves the online gig economy, electronically provided homeschooling, clever advertising techniques and the dream of a world in which you wake up, press a button, then your workday’s finished thanks to automation.

                  There are no Tories alive today: I’d be shot as a dumb progressive revolutionary if the Tories ruled the world, and you guys OMG…….. lol

                  But a Tory alive today would hate all the above that Tom Woods loves. They’d be for shutting down Uber and Air BnB straight away because they threaten existing institutions. They’d hate the idea of some political activist connected to an elected politician producing educational materials for other people’s kids, and they’d be highly contemptuous of the idle hands produced by Tom’s future paradise of automation and maximal leisure. They’d anticipate terrible crime-waves, drunkenness and God knows what else…….. and if Ron Paul talked about legalising drugs, WOW JUST WOW, they’d make the audience in that old clip on YouTube look like Paul campaign donors and family friends.

                  At risk of this getting long, on to Jim’s comment:

                  “We would today regard Bastiat as on the same side as Bolsonaro and against the side of the Venezuelan government”


                  Bolsonaro’s hatred of the Venezuelan régime is very strange. On the surface, both are independence-oriented administrations trying to focus on their own people rather than the global order, but then Bolsonaro’s very philo-Semitic and that leads him to see a larger picture from time to time.

                  At this point if I had to pick, I’d side with Maduro *in spite of* his crazy egalitarian economic policies. Respect for the self-determination of other nations is part and parcel of putting the interests of your own nation first, which means that Bolsonaro’s nationalism is imperfect as he focuses his attention to things that won’t benefit his own. I’ll grant you it’s not an easy situation, but national loyalty has to come first for the Tory/reactionary mindset.

                  Bastiat would see no dilemma at all: one wants the government to interfere, the other does not, so the one that does not is the goodie and the one that does is the baddie.

                  Do you see how, to the modern mind, the choice is always “the government will interfere in pursuit of equality” vs “the government will not do that”?

                  The Tory choice is off the table: “the government will interfere in pursuit of stability, order and the continued functioning of the things that are currently working”.

                  To frame it another way, focusing on the private rather than public sector, laissez-faireists favour “entrepreneurs will interfere in pursuit of efficiency and increase prosperity available, potentially, to every market participant” while the now extinct Tories favoured “entrepreneurs will not be allowed to interfere in the working of society”.

                  I’m still adamant that that latter attitude is not a form of Marxism. It’s implicitly hierarchical: we say what goes, you do not get to meddle. It has nothing at all to do with equality: there will still be plebs and smallholders and bankers and builders, tomorrow just as yesterday.

                  *usual disclaimer: there was always the possibility for individuals to better themselves through the grammar school and university system, perhaps supplying the personnel for the state bureaucracy, entering the priesthood or perhaps entering industry. Indeed the concept of ‘new firms’ was certainly not alien. It takes a lot to disrupt the functioning of a society: even under outright liberal progressivism, a lot remains intact today. Consider how many dominoes slowly fell since say the 1960s: by 1990 many of the dominoes that today have fallen were still standing thirty years on from 1960.

                  OK this is getting too long.

                • jim says:


                  Instead of framing us and telling us what we think, you frame sundry politicians and philosophers and tell us what they thought. It is not what they thought and I will not allow it again.

                  Bolsonaro is for God, Nation, Family, and Property. Nicolás Maduro and Hugo Chávez are against them. It is not complicated.

                • jim says:

                  > I’m still adamant that that latter attitude is not a form of Marxism.

                  It is a form of Marxism because it presupposes that King Solomon and Queen Elizabeth the First ran command economies. It is a form of Marxism because it presupposes that the French revolution was capitalists taking power, rather than capitalists getting their property effectively confiscated as in Venezuela today, and getting beheaded, which is worse than Venezuela today.

                  It is also a form of progressivism and whig history, because it presupposes we have always been moving left all the way back, denying The Restoration and the defeat of the French Revolution.

                  And you argue for Marxism, progressivism, and whig history, by not by providing evidence and argument, but by imposing the frame on people past and present, that we agree with Marxism, progressivism, and whig history.

                • jim says:

                  > Bastiat wasn’t a negative campaigner against the socialist programme:

                  Lying about Bastiat. I will not allow any more of this.

                  Bastiat coined the famous phrase, “Sculptors in human flesh” to describe socialists, and William Bradford, the Governor of the Pilgrims, pushing back against the leftist singularity that happened four centuries before the present day leftist singularity, sarcastically described them as “Wiser than God” – which sarcasm implies that capitalism and the market economy was divinely ordained following the fall, and a multiplicity of nations divinely ordained in Chapter 11 of Genesis.

                  They attacked socialism for its arrogance and violence, not its egalitarianism, and the existence of these attacks show that we have already done many turns on this merry go round, that we get leftism similar to today’s leftism over and over again, as depicted in “The Gods of the Market Place”, and it usually ends in terror and slaughter, as the Gods of the Copybook Headings return.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive and repetitious.

                  You presuppose, rather than arguing, that gay marriage and such is the spontaneous result of markets and demand, that advertisers plugging couples and groups that grossly deviate from their customer profile and likely customer profile are the spontaneous result of markets and demand.

                  It is not.

                  In your previous post, that I allowed, you presuppose that various past figures agree that it is a spontaneous result of markets and demand. They did not.

                  Queen Elizabeth the first suppressed actresses without interfering in artistic freedom the way progressives do today, and she suppressed piracy that adversely affected British trade without interfering in the raw and bloody capitalism of the merchant adventurers the way progressives do today, and the same is true to some considerable extent of everyone else that you discuss in that post.

                  Our current problems reflect policies of the priesthood, which policies are implemented in substantial part through the suppression of capitalism and markets. You blame the crimes of the priestly classes on the spontaneous demand of the masses, the advance of technology, and the natural outcome of markets.

                  I allowed your previous post, but not this post, because it is a new claim. Instead of an evil plot by our capitalist rulers, you claim that leftism is spontaneous.

                  And instead of imposing Marxist frame on everyone, you are imposing progressive frame on everyone.

                  But from here forward, you are going to have to argue for the progressive story with evidence, rather than by imposing progressive frame on everyone else, the way you previously imposed Marxist frame on everyone else, and the way you imposed progressive frame on all the opponents of progressivism in your previous post.

                • jim says:

                  I allowed this claim once. I replied to it.

                  If you want to continue with this claim, respond to my reply. Not going to allow you to continue to repeat it while ignoring rebuttals.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  Repetitious and unresponsive.

                  Reply to my arguments, don’t reframe them as accepting Marxism, progressivism, and whig history, and merely disputing minor irrelevancies.

                  To argue that because Queen Elizabeth had power, and exercised it, therefore not capitalism, presupposes that Capitalists today have power and exercise it, that capitalism is a system of government and that we already agree that capitalism is a system of government. Capitalism is not a political system, not a system of rule. It is what happens when people are able to have property. If no terror and mass murder, market economy. If market economy over an area larger than is ruled by a single patriarch and occupied by his quite small clan, some specialists in the market economy get quite wealthy, hence capitalism.

                  Trade tends to be restrained by the boundaries between one ruler and another, because goods protected by one sovereign have to transferred to the protection of a different sovereign, which necessarily involves the sovereigns with each other and with the merchants. This does not make what happens within the area protected by one sovereign any the less capitalism, unless the area is so small and trade between sovereignties so difficult that specialists in the market economy cannot get rich, for lack of scale, as tends to happen in areas that are protected and occupied by single patriarchal and patrilineal clan.

                  If you want to argue it is a system of rule, going to have provide evidence and argument, rather than imposing that frame on everyone, including me.

                  You demand answers to a bunch of question that I already answered at length in the plainest possible fashion, but your questions presuppose that in my previous replies I acknowledged and accepted Marxist history, Marxist economics, and whig history, and that thus that my replies were internally inconsistent and incoherent.

                  You demand proof of things that are uncontroversial to anyone except Marxists. If I answered, you would ignore the evidence, as you have ignored all my previous evidence. Your objective is not to find the facts, but to present Marxism as a mainstream view that everyone accepts.

                  My previous replies were inconsistent with the frame you impose on those replies, because the actual frame was: that that the French revolution was twenty first century socialist leftism, that socialism had been militarily defeated, and that Bastiat, by condemning socialism with savage, vehement, and magnificent writing, was endorsing the victors and condemning the losers.

                  Bastiat was telling the sovereign he should make it easier to transfer property from the protection of one sovereign to the protection of another sovereign. He is not telling the sovereign he should permit capitalism, because he took for granted that after the leftist singularity had been militarily defeated, of course the sovereign permitted capitalism. Only crazy and evil sovereigns suppress capitalism, though sovereign weakness can result in property being protected small area by small area by a single baron or a single patriarchal and patrilineal clan, with the result that the area is so small that specialists in the market economy cannot get rich.

        • vxxc says:

          Agents on the take likely aren’t Muslims.

          They’re likely White Boys of modest means dazzled by the splendor and opulent corruption of the Orient who foolishly take whats on hand.
          They have no natural resistance or moral antibodies to all this – like the Spartans who took the dazzling Persians silver coin.

          The Ivy League certainly wouldn’t have prepared anyone for moral tests.
          These Fish do rot from the head down.

        • Koanic says:

          > I had assumed that Obama and Hillary were consciously and intentionally arming and funding ISIS, but the picture he shows is more corruption, incompetence, and self delusion at every level of government, and double agents at the lower level.

          This satisfies my skepticism 100%. Tinfoil hatters BTFO’d.

          • Vxxc says:

            Yes to Koranic: corrupt and incompetent.
            Huge competency gap: understanding religion and religious people.
            Staffers who come from families who had religion notice the entire long war a complete blank spot regarding God, religion, Islam.

  22. IAMAgnostic says:

    Would that be 1950s Christianity, the same one that compelled American astronauts to recite the first ten chapters of Genesis when first orbiting the moon?

    • jim says:

      Your question presupposes and takes for granted, the progressive reframe of Christianity. Progressive “Christians” still today recite Genesis with as much enthusiasm as, and usually more enthusiasm than, any actual Christian.

      Progressives reject evolution through natural selection and survival of the fittest. They don’t care much one way or the other about mere evolution, and neither do old type Christians. See Saint Augustine on this issue.

      When a progressive “Christian” ditches the bible on marriage and family, he doubles down on his enthusiasm for parts of the bible that no one else cares about. Chapters five to ten of Genesis are boring and inconsequential, irrelevant to modern times, mostly consist of so and so begat so and so, and no cares about them, though chapter eleven is important, interesting, and very relevant to modern times. If its true that they read the first ten chapters, then they stopped just before the chapter than actual Christians do very care very about: that God intends men to live in many different nations.

      The genuinely non progressive Christian fantasy writer John Wright recently wrote a rattling good dystopian yarn set on a twenty first century earth where Babel was never broken and earth was one nation.

      • IAMAgnostic says:

        What do you mean by ‘recently existed’? What is your recent? I would have thought that’s the 1950s, you would say what year?

        Give me a date or spectrum of dates such as 1870 or 1700 or whenever you mean that shows what your Christianity is, and which society, the one you say is recent, forbidden and unthinkably reactionary.

        1890 England?

        • jim says:

          Decent sized pockets of Christianity still held out till about 1960, 1970, and old type Christianity was nominally dominant and still wielded a great deal of influence in England in 1931, but its collapse became evident in retrospect in 1911.

          • IAMAgnostic says:

            What are you referring to in 1911?

            How do you propose to prevent the next collapse?

            These collapses seem like a natural cycle, 1890 England generating more prosperity and opportunities for everyone, therefore naturally weakening the power of the aristocracy and tradition.

            Same with 1950s to 60s USA.

            So, 1890 England. You propose a return to 1800s England and the Anglican church of that time as a religious foundation.

            How was a church service different then?

            Was an Anglican service of that time more like a traditional Catholic service, what is now done by the SPXX, with Latin and ritual?

            • jim says:

              > These collapses seem like a natural cycle

              Nothing natural about it. It is like a mugging. You get old because its time, but you don’t get mugged because it is time:

              Plotters plot to take the state. To succeed, they need more people than can meet around a coffee table, and if they are all kin, it would be too obvious. So they need a synthetic tribe, which means they need to be of some heresy against the ruling religion. And, since the ruling religion does not allow such people, they have to pass as adherents of the ruling religion.

              Such a plot usually fails, but it sometimes succeeds, just as muggers lurk for a long time till they see their chance.

              And then you have a new ruling religion, thinly disguised as the old one.

              Sometimes the plotters fail to stabilize the new state religion against holiness spirals, or are unable to stabilize the new state religion against holiness spirals, then it is a natural process – in the sense that once cancer starts, then you are apt to die of it.

              The plotters tried in England in the late 18th century, and the King, who had the job of keeping the state religion stable, put them down.

              “Whig” at that time was primarily a religious designation, rather than political designation, and the whigs infiltrating the English state generally did not openly admit to being whigs, though they got retroactively classified as being whigs – first by their enemies, then by their successful adherents when those adherents gained power in the subsequent try.

              Unfortunately the subsequent King, King George the fourth, was a lazy fatass adulterer, who alienated the aristocracy by fucking their wives – always a disastrous move for Kings, and always done by a weak man. A strong King selects his mistresses from those whose menfolk he does not need and who are in no position to cause him trouble. A weak man gets manipulated by women he meets socially – and if you are King, such women are apt to be the wives of men that are vital to yourself and the state.

              And then, it became widely known that his Queen was massively cuckolding him with numerous men, thus discrediting him as a man. If he could not make his wife obey him, no one needed to obey him. There was no one capable of stabilizing the state religion against its enemies.

              Then the plotters made their move, and eventually came out openly as whigs, and as always having been whigs. And then Christianity was doomed, though it still retained a substantial grasp for over a century. It took until 1911 for the disease to become obviously terminal, until the 1930s for Christianity to lose all power, and until the 1960s for the remaining groups of Christians to disappear almost completely.

              If King George the fourth had had a better wife, or if he had selected his mistresses instead of allowing them to select him, or if he been more inclined to get off his oversized ass and do some Kinging, or if he had had a better tailor, the power of Kings would have lasted a lot longer, and we would probably still have Kings, and we would still be Christian.

              Why a tailor, you ask? Because a major factor inclining people to start ignoring him, was that he snubbed Beau Brummell, and because Beau Brummell was popular and better dressed than he was, it was as if Beau Brummell had snubbed him. Beau Brummell held frame perfectly as always, and his frame suceeded, while the King’s frame failed. If Beau Brummel could snub the King, anyone could insult the King. And they did.

              • IAMAgnostic says:

                In the Old Testament if rulers became overly corrupt or oppressive there was only one solution: Contesting them by prophets.

                • jim says:

                  Jehu was no prophet, and was anointed King in secret by a young and inconsequential priest in training – or at least that was his story. Who can know if he was anointed at all.

                  Jehu was the solution, the prophet was not.

                • alf says:

                  I guess it depends.

                  As a rule of thumb, king is in charge, high priest advises. If high priest takes charge, will have to behave as a king, will need a new high priest. Same with monkeys: you cannot rule without kingly silverback behavior. That’s just the way things work.

                  At the same time, what about Jesus. He was a prophet, not a king. He spoke truth and was crucified for it; not exactly the typical succesful high priest story. Yet he is arguably the most succesful high priest of em all. So sometimes, the prophet is the solution.

                • jim says:

                  The prophet breaks the rules when the rules need to be broken, and the King gets to decide exceptions to the rules. Normally the King should not appoint the high priest, except when he should. Prophet, obviously, tends to be a more dangerous position than King.

              • IAMAgnostic says:

                After Jehu did his slaughter:

                Then the Lord said to Hosea, “Call him Jezreel, because I will soon punish the house of Jehu for the massacre at Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of Israel.”

                Hosea 1:4

                Jehu was anointed by one of a company of prophets who wanted to eliminate Jezebel for her actions against the prophets.

                The prophet Elisha had to give the anointment. There was an established line of prophets.

                You have no Elisha. You can’t get a minor appointed prophet without an appointer.

                You have no warrior class waiting for an excuse to appoint a king.

                It’s clear that Elisha, Hosea, and all the other prophets are central to the creation of nation or a king, and the Lord goes after the excess bloodshed of Jehu, it’s clear that the only Biblical way to confront modernity’s wretched corruption is with prophets.

                • jim says:

                  Problem with your story is that Elisha did not give the anointment. It was given in secret by a student priest.

                  Thus Jehu was on top, and prophets not on top.

                  Consistent with Solomon being on top, high priest not on top, having been appointed by Solomon while the blood of predecessor was still fresh.

                  And, similarly, Charles the hammer and Pepin the short – who treated Saint Boniface, head of their Frankish Church, as an instrument of policy. Charles the Great then extended the same treatment to the Bishop Rome, making the Bishop of Rome into the Pope and head of the what was to become universal religion of the Holy Roman Empire, becoming a distinct religion from Orthodoxy.

                • IAMAgnostic says:

                  Oh you meant Recent as in 800 BC! And here I thought you meant the 1950s.

                  Remember the Lord spake thusly about the actions of Jehu:

                  “…I will soon punish the house of Jehu for the massacre at Jezreel…”

                  Prophets granted power even if through a student. Perhaps breaking the chain with Jehu, which the warriors wanted an excuse to do, lead to the Lord’s reproach later.

                  From prophets Elijah to Elisha to one of the sons of the prophets, a blood priesthood:

                  1 And Elisha the prophet called one of the sons of the prophets, and said to him, “Get yourself ready, take this flask of oil in your hand, and go to Ramoth Gilead. 2 Now when you arrive at that place, look there for Jehu…”

                  2 Kings 9:1-2

                  What was given by a student priest was from the flask of oil given by Elisha the prophet.

                  You still need a legit prophet to give the oil.

                  Priesthood by blood.

                  No exceptions.

                  Solomon was regarded as a prophet and a builder of the Temple which he dedicated to Yahweh. Also he prayed for wisdom, not military power. Wisdom is for the prophets.

                  King Solomon was also a prophet.

                • jim says:

                  A student behind closed doors is not effectually granting power.

                  Similarly, when Solomon was anointed King by a high priest that he had just appointed after killing the high priests predecessor.

                  Similarly, when Charles the Great was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by a pope he had just installed in Rome, as Charles the Hammer installed Saint Boniface head of the Frankish Church.

                • jim says:

                  > You still need a legit prophet to give the oil.

                  No, you don’t need a legit prophet. You need a high priest, like the high priest who anointed King Solomon, and the Pope who crowned Charles the Great. And, should the need arise, you appoint that high priest, possibly after creating a vacancy by killing his predecessor as King Solomon did.

                • says:


                • jim says:

                  Your comment presupposes, as obvious and uncontroversial, without attempting to argue or explain, that the bible says something radically different from what Christians have for two millenia understood it as saying.

                  That is argument from fake consensus: Not a legitimate form of argument. I don’t allow it from troofers, I don’t allow it from Marxists, and I will not allow it from heretics and apostates against Christianity.

                • Koanic says:

                  Yeah, here’s how anointing works: Anointing tells the guy who’s going to be king, that God says to try to be king. Then his success at trying to be king, shows everyone else, that God says he is supposed to be king. And nobody lifts a hand against the anointed, unless God says otherwise.

                  Barack was a coward because he did not go when anointed. What faggots American “Christians” have become, to see something other than a weakling bastard in that son of a whore.

                • IAMAgnostic says:

                  Koanic, it’s clear how anointing works in the Bible.

                  Jim is openly declaring legitimate succession of prophet power to anoint kings is not necessary.

                • jim says:

                  Solomon did not become King by legitimate succession of prophet power, but by legitimate succession of Kingly power. He was anointed by Zadok, not by the prophet Nathan. He then executed the previous high priest, and made Zadok high priest, as Charles the Hammer made Saint Boniface archbishop of the Franks, and Charles the Great made Gregory Pope.

                • IAMAgnostic says:


                • jim says:

                  Christianity and Satanism off topic for this blog, except as they relate to politics – which they usually do, but not when you are trying to reconcile the bible with gnosticism.

              • calov says:

                wikipedia says of beau brummel: “Eventually he died shabby and insane at Caen.”

                lol! One can tolerate dying insane in France, but dying “shabby” is intolerable.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Spent 5 hours in front of the mirror” this is one of those instances where I have to admire the Puritans who have executed such a person for homosexuality…

                  Such an effeminate should never have been allowed to become an officer much less be anywhere near the king.

          • Koanic says:

            Yes, I was raised in one of those pockets, which had dwindled to the size of a nuclear family, more or less.

  23. IAMAgnostic says:


    • jim says:

      Irrelevant to this blog.

      Anyone who talks of Christianity on this blog without acknowledging that Christianity is forbidden in our society, that Christianity as it very recently existed is unthinkably and unspeakably reactionary, then his “Christianity” is off topic.

  24. Andre says:

    “Neoreaction plans to be the priesthood, but we think warriors should be on top and should steal sufficient to fund the army and the state, that warriors should do warrior stuff, merchants should do merchant stuff, and priests priestly stuff.”

    Guess I’m not a neoreactionary then.

    • jim says:

      So, what do you think the classes should do?

      • Andre says:

        Exactly what they have done since the beginning of time. You seem to think the state needs a religion in order to get the stupid to go along with what the warrior elite decides. That is not how it works. Every state is the embodyment of a religion and warriors are nothing more than the enforcers of the priests, their interface with the human world of non-believers, while the merchants are their interface with the natural world of things. Priests always lead. You cannot escape this truth by pretending it’s a leftist thing. These three roles of priest, warrior and merchant, they are parts of the human psyche. The priest rules the psyche at the individual as well as the collective social level.

        Warriors don’t steal. The very concept of property is a priestly fantasy, subject to priestly rules. So no, I don’t think warriors should steal to fund the army and the state. That would mean they are my enemies, infidels. I think warriors should obey the priests, my priests. I think merchants should obey the priests, my priests. And I think priests should obey the priests, my priests. Call that a purity spiral, convergence towards priestly singularity if you want, I don’t care. That is how power works, always has worked, and always will work. You cannot think of taxes as theft, they are the voluntary sign of the allegiance of merchants to the priestly order. A tax evader is an enemy of the state; he is the thief, not the warrior.

        • jim says:

          That is not how Moses did it.

          That is not how it was done in First Temple Israel, not how it was done in the Holy Roman Empire until it started to fall apart.

          And when the priesthood successfully asserted their right to appoint Bishops rather Kings, then Christianity started to spiral into heresy and the Holy Roman Empire fell apart.

          And it is not how it done in Russian Orthodoxy today. The Orthodox priesthood serves Putin. Putin does not serve the priesthood.

          • Andre says:

            That is exactly how Moses did it, at least according to the Bible. Look you can point at this or that example and say “that’s not how they did it” but you are not actually showing that to be true by making the statement. I just don’t see things the same way you do. The priestly class is more subtle than just “the men in the official explicit church hierarchy”. It’s more subtle today with The Cathedral and it has always been more subtle. The priests are those who organize and lead the human imagination. Even if you call someone a king, if his rule depends more on theather and moral authority than on fear of violence, if the very capacity of said king to exercise violence rests on this theather and moral authority, then that is priestly rule, period. And it does, always. Because that is just how power works, always has worked, and always will work. In theory you could have so much control over logistics that this power alone can compel soldiers to obey the merchants; and to a degree this is the power that keeps armies together. In theory a big guy could intimidate a smaller guy to exercise violence for him. But none of that has staying power without the priests. It just doesn’t. And the priests aren’t a tool used by the warriors. It’s the warriors that are a tool used by the priests.

            As far what is done in Russian Orthodoxy today, I couldn’t care less. Russia is a degenerate failure of a nation that, unless things radically change, will be conquered by radical Islam or incorporated into some transhumanist future.

        • jim says:

          > Exactly what they have done since the beginning of time.

          That is fake Christian history, different from but analogous to, Marxist history and Whig history.

          What they have done from the beginning of time was usually warriors on top (King David, King Solomon, Emperor Constantine, Charles the Hammer, Charles the Great, Charles the Second, the tsars, and Putin.

          And when priests got on top, society and the state self destructed.

        • The Cominator says:

          “So no, I don’t think warriors should steal to fund the army and the state. That would mean they are my enemies, infidels. I think warriors should obey the priests, my priests. I think merchants should obey the priests, my priests. And I think priests should obey the priests, my priests.”

          A quasi-human spic with delusions of grandeur. You don’t have any priests and you never will. Priestly civilizations with the SOLE exception of China tend to be dysfunctional. India is typically what happens with priestly dominant societies.

          Europe until the progressive era (despite attempted Popish usurpation in the “High” Middle Ages) always been warrior dominated. Rome was warrior dominated and the Germanic kingdoms were warrior dominated.

          • Andre says:

            Why do you think Rome was warrior dominated?

            • The Cominator says:

              “Why do you think Rome was warrior dominated?”

              The Ruling families dominated the priesthood (rather then the priesthood being open entry and giving orders to high military officials) and the priesthood did not exert direct authority over the military magistracies.

              Lepidus was Pontifex Maximus during the 2nd Triumvariate yet still obviously the inferior partner of the three. Would be unthinkable in a priestly state.

          • jim says:

            East Asians are different from whites. Works, somewhat, for them. Invariably fails for us.

            But progressivism is difficult for them to handle, because whites are better than East Asians at using priestly methods effectively.

            That whites can easily outmaneuver East Asians in these tactics was hilariously demonstrated in the conference on the Rohingya rapeugee problem – though that conference also demonstrated that East Asians are rather more resistant to these tactics than whites. The combination of less ability to use the tactics and greater resistance to these tactics makes priestly states less deadly to them than priestly states are to us.

            Jews, unfortunately, have greater ability to deploy these tactics effectively than we do, and also greater ability to resist them. Inferior creativity though: Reflect on Jewish art.

          • Andre says:

            Let me be very clear here. It doesn’t even matter what I think “should” happen. I believe this is simply part of the structure of reality, it is a rule of human society and it is foolish and futile to want to change it. I’m not saying this or that society that you identify as being better was wrong to put warriors on top. I’m saying they didn’t. You are mistaken. Let me ask you this, can you show me a society today that has warriors on top?

        • jim says:

          > The very concept of property is a priestly fantasy, subject to priestly rules


          Every man that owns stuff, owns it because he will defend it.

          Moldbug argued that the sovereign is the ultimate owner of everything, and in a sense he is the ultimate owner of everything, granting his subjects property rights that he could change his mind about. But you do not own your computer because it is registered with the sovereign. It is not registered with the sovereign.

          And still less do you own your computer because the official priesthood says so. Today’s officially unofficial priesthood tells you that you do not own it, which frequent declarations have very little effect.

          The official priesthood should regularize property by getting all property owners to agree that other property owners rightly own their stuff, but that is the opposite of what the current officially unofficial priesthood is doing.

          • Andre says:

            “Every man that owns stuff, owns it because he will defend it.”

            Uh… no. Property does have to be defended, obviously. And as I said, the priestly role is part of the human psyche, it’s not just a social role, so you can very well decide on your own “I am the legitimate owner of this”. The social role of the priests is to converge ideas within society, so that everyone agrees that “I am the legitimate owner of this”. Warriors and merchants cannot converge property rights because they are derived from ethics. They are a religious concept.

            “But you do not own your computer because it is registered with the sovereign. It is not registered with the sovereign.”

            It doesn’t have to be registered.

            “Today’s officially unofficial priesthood tells you that you do not own it”

            To the degree that they do that, and are effective in their preaching, I don’t. I mean obviously I reject them as my priests but if I can’t handle those who accept them, I can’t handle those who accept them. It’s not about what they do and do not tell me. Plenty of men have their homes and paychecks taken from them because the priesthood says those belong to their ex-wives, do they not? Plenty of soldiers and cops.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:


              • jim says:

                Don’t tell us what Moldbug said. It’s not what he said.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  Deleted for telling us what our doctrine is.

                  If you had made almost the same comment, but framed it as your interpretation of the implications of our doctrine of primary and secondary property rights, rather than flat out than attributing it to us, I would have allowed the comment and replied.

                  Your interpretation of Moldbug is quite reasonable if you take that one fragment and run with it, and ignore the fact that he then proceeded to give a different account of the implications.

                  In a sense, my post on “throne, altar, and freehold” contains a reply to your comment, since in that post I discuss the implications of that doctrine.

                  Also, your comment would be in context and more relevant as a reply to that post, rather than as a reply to “The reactionary program”, though I would still suppress your comment if, as usual, you failed to acknowledge that you were disagreeing with my account of the implications, and offering a contrary account, and instead, as usual, implied that we already agree with you.

            • jim says:

              As Darwin observed, even dogs and apes have property.

              A sovereign makes a big difference to property rights, a huge difference. Priests, not so much, except as they influence the sovereign. If priests made a big difference, we would be in bigger trouble than we are.

              • Koanic says:

                Territory is the first property, and that is what they have taken from us.

              • Andre says:

                Priests are the sovereign. And dogs do not have property. There is certainly a rudimentary sense of hierarchy and social status, which is what property essentialy is, but by those standards ants have property.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Ants are what true communism (within one colony) is. Ants and bees have communism not property.

                  Most species and certainly not humans are not like that though.

            • The Cominator says:

              “Plenty of men have their homes and paychecks taken from them because the priesthood says those belong to their ex-wives, do they not? Plenty of soldiers and cops.”

              Nobody here is arguing that Western Civilization is ruled by warrior types now.

              Warrior types have lost ground to priestly types since the progressive era (Jim would argue since the Crimean War but the loss was only slight) and in 1968 they lost ALL their power.

              • Andre says:

                Warrior types NEVER HAD ANY GROUND IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION. Not even in Sparta and Rome and certainly not in recent Britain or America, who have always been explicit theocracies. Julius Caesar ascended as a priest using leftist tactics, won the war, yet was overthrown by the supreme religious authority, the council of fathers. From then on the Caesars continued as religious figures, the supreme father, which eventually morphed into catholicism, the Roman Universal Church which continued to rule over Europe until the protestant revolution, which was obviously a conflict of priesthoods. That fatherhood was respected and martial values regarded as important did not make western civilization “warrior dominated”, it was just the continuation of the cult of Jupiter, the Heavenly Father.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Ahistorical claptrap.

                  Caesar did not become dictator because he was Pontifex Maximus (though he was and became so years before getting his Gallic command), he became dictator by winning a civil war with his army.

                  His assassins were not the supreme religious authority (that would be Caesar as Pontifex Maximus which made him stand at the head of all Rome’s priestly “colleges”) they were a bunch of selfish petty aristocrats who Caesar foolish spare Octavian was certainly right to hunt all of them down and confiscate all their families property. Octavian lacked Caesar’s brilliant grasp of economic policy unfortunately…

                  If Julius Caesar lived we’d have likely reached the stars by now.

                • The Cominator says:

                  During the “Second Triumvariate” Lepidus was Pontifex Maximus as I’ve mentioned.

                  His legions defected to Octavian and Octavian didn’t bother having him killed (and Octavian usual policy unlike Caesar was to show no mercy) nor did he ever have him killed.

                  He waited patiently for him to die of natural causes before making himself Pontifex Maximus.

                • Andre says:

                  Let me guess, you’re on the spectrum?

  25. BC says:

    Did the left singularity just pop?

  26. Carlylean Restorationist says:


    • jim says:

      I tell you and the world why I censor the posts that I censor. Further complaints that my real reason for censoring you is because I conceal the self evident truth of Marxism will be silently deleted without explanation and without repetitiously telling the world.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        Again, you’re lying about what I said.

        You say that you censored because I claimed I was being censored on account of the self-evident truth of Marxism.

        That is a complete lie, and you know it’s a complete lie.

        Everyone who sees you do it knows that it’s a complete lie.

        I woke this morning with an urge to make peace among people who ought to be allies, and I’m going to try to do that. You may agree or disagree with what I’m about to say, but if you don’t censor it, it’ll be a gesture of co-existence that can finally lead to my disappearance (which you can firm up by applying a blanket ban if you think that prudent).
        The reason I’m here, I realised this morning, is this ‘Marxist’ stuff. I’m never going to concede that what I, an anti-Marxist, stand for, is Marxism, and so far you’ve shown you’re never willing to let up calling me it.

        Fine, there’s a way out.

        It occurred to me this morning (and I’m not going to blaspheme by saying it came from above: my rational faculty did and that’s enough) that there are many ways to oppose modernity.

        I look at society under rule by globalism (characterise it as you will, with or without the words ‘capitalism’, ‘socialism’ or anything else: they can all be arguably included or excluded and everybody still knows what we’re all talking about – the current ruling élite permanent government – The Cathedral if you will, or the Blue Empire) and I see rampant gluttony (in the Thomasian sense), selfishness, short-sightedness, entitlement, pride (in the bad sense), sodomy (in the broadest sense) and usury (in whatever sense you like).

        Like Dante, I’m not ok with those things, NAP be damned. Others, like Catholic in good standing Tom Woods, insist that the NAP takes precedence. (Note that I’m not tying you to Tom Woods. Your degree of agreement with him is your business.)

        The difference in perspective is a subtle one. Jesus told us to fix ourselves first, and Jordan Peterson would say that’s where it stays: there’s no limit to how far you can self-improve once you’ve taken the first step of tidying your room. There’s truth to that.
        But Christ kicked over the tables when he saw something not in its proper place: we should forgive those who trespass against US, but not against God.

        There’s no hard-and-fast way of knowing when laws need to be passed to combat the forces of Mammon that move among us, creating mortal moral hazards for us and for those weaker than us.

        What I’m saying here is that while you favour letting merchants offer what they will, within reason, for sale and demanding caveat emptor, I favour a protector at the helm of the state ready to step in and defend the weak when they’re being led astray: a leader of the flock – yes a kind of priest if you insist.

        The state is to the church, by my reckoning, as the body is to the soul.

        I’m not 100% right. It would not be proper for the state to ‘assist’ when it comes to individual acts of gluttony, lustful thoughts and so on. We can all agree on that.

        I assume we can all agree also that it wouldn’t be proper for the state to sit back when it comes to snuff porn.

        The truth then is that we should indeed improve ourselves first, but that the extent to which the state should help us with that is an open question.
        I don’t need to further reinforce the level at which I think it should occur, and Tom Woods doesn’t need to either. We all understand that Tom Woods would allow supermarkets to sell crack cocaine whereas I wouldn’t allow them to sell “Don’t Stop Me Now” by Queen.

        If you can resist the temptation to declare my position, and any other position than your own “Marxism” then you’ll have increased the chances of the broadest coalition, because believe me, I’m not the only one who finds it hard to simply shrug his shoulders when he sees much of what modernity entails.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          By the way, to the theologians reading this, I’m not laying claim to originating the notion that the state is to the church as the body is to the soul.
          I gather that was Catholic doctrine for hundreds of years.
          I am not myself a Catholic in good standing, unlike Tom Woods, so I’m not laying claim to originality and nor am I laying claim to holiness. Indeed it’s my own fallen nature that makes the fallen nature of society so lamentable. That’s not an excuse, just an observation.

          • jim says:

            Whether we already agree that the reaction believes the same things as Marxism is on topic for this blog.

            Whether we already agree that Christianity believes the same things as Marxism is off topic for this blog, and I will delete all further comments where you pose as a Christian.

            Not because I want to defend Christianity from commies and progressives, though I do, but because off topic for this blog.

            Go back to pretending to be a Reactionary or a Nazi. That, at least, is on topic.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              A reactionary, broadly defined, is one who prefers the status quo ante, generally for ‘socially conservative’ reasons, though this could also include economic reasons such as objections to the central banking system or the welfare state for example. I certainly consider myself that way, and you too, and I think my conciliatory comment reflects that.

              It’s to your immense credit that you decided not to censor it. If you censor this, it means nothing: you have every right to do whatever you want, and as far as I’m concerned, the disagreement is over. Live and let live in the interests of more important objectives.

              I’ve never claimed to be a Nazi. I’m a third positionist, as arguably were the Nazis, but this is not the 1930s and it’s also not Hitler’s Germany. Those days and places are gone forever.
              I will assert however that since I value the use of the authoritarian state as a tool in achieving the goals I favour, and since the third position not only shares that belief but also the goals, I’m more than happy to include myself in the category of ‘third positionists’ and will never disavow other members of that group, including all the evil nazis you can imagine. Goebbels is an ally of mine. Whether he is of yours or not, I don’t much care.

              As for Christian, I’ve always been very clear: I accept science, not just up to Darwin but up to Hamilton/Trivers and Dennett too. I’m much less sceptical of the environmental stuff than you are, but I entirely share your concerns about the state of the scientific method and the scientific community with regards that topic and frankly all others too. Nevertheless, ‘eco-fascism’ is, to my mind, certainly not a slur but an assertion of virtue and beauty. I neither expect nor request that you agree with me on that.

              I’m certainly not pretending. I simply assert that to question the Buckleyite free market dogma does not constitute Marxism and does not disqualify one from seeking to radically reform the culture and structure of society towards an explicitly reactionary end.

              As the alt.right said to the libertarians coming down the ‘pipeline’, we can debate economics once the security of our people’s achieved and it’s only white people in the room having the debate.

              I predict something different than you predict, but let’s hope we find out some day.

              Thank you, over and out. Censor or not, it’s not important. Everything that needed to be clarified was clarified and I for one am certainly at peace with the idea that I gave enough of my case for not being a Marxist that it’s finally time to just stop.

              If people here remain entirely unconvinced that anything much at all is wrong with the consumer culture of globohomo, and that the problems lie elsewhere, well I did my best to make the contrary case and failed. That’s fine and perhaps you’re right and I’m wrong. Perhaps people, left to their own devices, but absent Cathedral propaganda, are more than capable of surviving an environment rich in moral hazard.

              That would be a WONDERFUL discovery and I hope it’s the case.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  Christianity off topic, except where it relates to reaction (proper relationship of priests and warriors) or the red pill (Old and New Testament family law.)

              • jim says:

                > If people here remain entirely unconvinced that anything much at all is wrong with …

                And you then give us the option of two positions, both of which presuppose that we uncontroversially accept Marxist class theory and that capital rules, as self evidently true:

                If we are convinced of one position, we then all agree with Marxist class theory and that capital rules, and if we are convinced of the contrary position then we also all agree with Marxist class theory and that capital rules.

                > If people here remain entirely unconvinced that anything much at all is wrong with the consumer culture of globohomo.

                Which presupposes that we agree that capitalism causes globohomo, and that we could only support capitalism if we support the consumer culture of globohomo, and therefore presupposes that capital rules, and that the priestly class, of which you are plainly a member, and probably being paid by them to bombard this blog with crap, does not rule.

                When Gillette insults its customers, when Disney writers gloat that they are making fanboys cry, is that consumer culture?

                When rock music videos depict the mating dance as equal and symmetric, with males and female characters dancing interchangeable roles, without men leading and women following, without men conquering and women surrendering, without men performing for women and women choosing, is that consumer culture?

                A pimp can no more show himself in authority over and supervising his camwhore, than Shakespeare could use an actress to play a female character. Is that consumer culture?

                No matter what the ostensible topic of your comments, it is never the real issue, the real substance of your comment.

                The real issue of almost every comment, the real substance of almost every comment, the assertion you keep trying to slip in while no one is looking, is that Marxism is true, and everyone, including us, agrees that it is uncontroversially true: Argument by fake consensus.

                Since everyone supposedly believes this lunatic nonsense, obviously the reader should believe it.

                You never attempt to defend this lunatic nonsense, and you will never attempt to defend this nonsense, because you know perfectly well that it is indefensible, that it is transparently crazy, that it is a lie you are telling us in order to get into a position where you can murder us as you murdered the peasants and murdered the Popular Fronts using the same cynical lie in the same cynical way.

                Did you really believe that the peasant with two cows was an instrument of Wall Street?

                You might possibly believe that capital rules, but you cannot possibly believe that we believe that, after I denounced this idea so many times and yourself as murderer for advocating it. So, if lying about our beliefs, surely lying about your own beliefs.

                If you genuinely believed that capital rules, that capitalism causes globohomo culture, then after me denouncing this belief so many times, you would attempt to provide evidence and argument for this belief.

                You know that it is not true, for if you thought it was true, you would defend it by evidence and argument after I endless denounced your beliefs, and endlessly urged you to present evidence and argument for them. You cynically lie about your own beliefs, as you cynically lie about our beliefs, Christian beliefs, libertarian beliefs, anarcho capitalist beliefs, and Randian beliefs. Lenin, (in “What is to be done” when writing about “The Economists”) implicitly admitted that Marxist class theory, Marxists economics, and Marxist history is a cynical lie, and that any Marxist who takes it seriously is a fool for drinking his own Kool-Aid, which is why you will never argue for any of them, never present evidence for any of them, merely assume that they are true and that we already agree that they are true.

                > I’m a third positionist

                Over the past century there have been many supposedly third positionist groups and organizations. And every single time they revealed themselves as Marxists engaged in entryism against hostile groups, hostile organizations, and hostile ideologies. “Third positionism” has been revealed over and over again as a Marxist trademark used only for entryism.

              • barf says:

                See you next week.

        • jim says:

          You were telling us that you are a reactionary, and that we already agree that the principles of the reaction just happen to be the principles of Marxism.

          Now you tell us that you are a Christian, and that we already agree that the principles of Christianity just happen to be the principles of Marxism.

          You decorated yourself with random shibboleths snatched up from the reaction and Daily Stormer Nazism, without bothering to understand the ideas and belief system that they were shibboleths of, so you used them in a random and incoherent way that revealed lack of interest in the idea system that those shibboleths expressed.

          Now you decorate yourself with random shibboleths snatched up from Christianity, without bothering to understand the ideas and belief system that they are shibboleths of, so you use them in a random and incoherent way that reveals lack of interest in the idea system that those shibboleths express.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            I’m frankly not interested in shibboleths or any other Hebraic framework of thought.
            I entirely agree with the Judeo-sceptic theory and am unpersuaded by The Cominator’s NAXALT argument, as I’m unpersuaded by your genetic test results that your love of the Old Testament and the world described therein is a coincidence.

            I do sincerely believe that without a proper understanding of the mindset and motivations of a diaspora people – of which we may end up availing ourselves too at some point – it’s unlikely that anyone can properly understand the world we’re living in in these interesting times.

            That absolutely does not translate to a seething hatred of the Jews or any wish to do them (or anyone else) harm.

            We just desperately need an honest grasp on reality. There are already too many lies in the world to add more.

            The Christian God is first and foremost merciful. Come the day of victory, everyone on Earth will be glad.

            • jim says:

              > I’m frankly not interested in shibboleths or any other Hebraic framework of thought.

              Yes, you are frankly not interested in any of the Christian shibboleths you threw around so vigorously and so enthusiastically while pretending to be a Christian, pretending that Christianity has doctrines strangely similar to those of Marxism, and pretending that Christians cheerfully an uncontroversially agree with the doctrines that you attribute to Christianity.

        • The Cominator says:

          “There’s no hard-and-fast way of knowing when laws need to be passed to combat the forces of Mammon that move among us, creating mortal moral hazards for us and for those weaker than us.

          What I’m saying here is that while you favour letting merchants offer what they will, within reason, for sale and demanding caveat emptor, I favour a protector at the helm of the state ready to step in and defend the weak when they’re being led astray: a leader of the flock – yes a kind of priest if you insist.”

          Doesn’t work. Dysfunctionally low agency people need to be in the words of Hoppe “physically removed from society”. NRx errs in proposing slavery for such people. Its an error because

          1) The existence of slavery imposes externalities on free people and disrupts the market.

          2) Too many people who shouldn’t be slaves end up as slaves if its broadly legal.

          The best solution is to put them in special ghettoes give them a token dole and sterilize them.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:


            • jim says:

              You presuppose progressive doctrine on race and that your interlocutor agrees with that doctrine.

              I get it now: If some one says that blacks are stupid, violent, and are not very good at human speech, he is not saying that “blacks are stupid, violent, and not very good at human speech”, because it is inconceivable that blacks could be stupid, violent, and not very good at human speech. He is saying “I hate blacks”. So you, of course, supposedly hate blacks twice as much, while taking it entirely for granted that everyone knows that they are not only equal to us, but more equal than us.

              Nah, we don’t hate other races and ethnic groups, rather, we are aware of the differences, and claiming to hate them twice as much as we do does not cause us to perceive you as one of us.

              • Mackus says:

                You might want to save some “hail fellow reactionaries” posts for later, for educational purposes.

                I for one, am genuinely curious how badly he mangled them.

          • Andre says:

            Children and women are dysfunctionally low agency people. Is that how you would handle them?

            • The Cominator says:

              Obvious strawman is obvious.

              I’ve said in detail my view on how the women question should be handled. Women who are not legally under the control of a man are not permitted (maybe with some flexibility for older widows). I dissent from Jim in think that marriage by abduction or elopment without the father’s consent should not be permitted before a certain age and that adultery should be a pillorying and horsewhipping matter not life and death.

              Other then that we are pretty much agreed.

              • Andre says:

                It was a rethorical question. Why do you accept guardianship over some and reject it over others? And why should I pay them welfare if I’m not going to consider them a real part of my society?

  27. Anonymous Fake says:


    • jim says:

      Repeating yourself. Also, presupposes Marxist class theory, and that capital rules. From here, on, deleting repetition unmarked.

  28. Reactionary Ghost says:

    Jim, what’s your take on letter 199 of St Basil, an early church father?

    I ask because I have heard people say that XXVI is a prohibition on shotgun marriage. I don’t think that shotgun marriage was much of a thing in Basil’s time, because it existed before modern feminism, and so it is a means of preventing sneaky fuckers from stealing women, thus protecting patriarchy.

    Am I reading Basil properly? It’s difficult to find Christians who aren’t Leftists.

    • jim says:

      I don’t see any mention of shotgun marriage in XXVI.

      It prohibits illegal marriage, without telling us what makes it illegal.

      So, to figure out what is illegal, lets read some context:

      XXII is purple pilled: Says that marriage by abduction or seduction is invalid, and the father alone shall decide if the marriage shall stand – but not so blue pilled as to suggest that the daughter’s opinion on the matter should be taken into account. If she is abducted, and the father does not want to do anything about it, because she has lost her virginity and might well be pregnant, then the marriage shall stand regardless of her opininion.

      So, in the event of abduction or seduction, marriage is up to the father to decide.

      Which means that by XXI she is forbidden to leave her abductor.

      XXI is red pilled enough:

      If a man living with a wife is not satisfied with his marriage and falls into fornication, I account him a fornicator, and prolong his period of punishment. Nevertheless, we have no canon subjecting him to the charge of adultery, if the sin be committed against an unmarried woman. For the adulteress, it is said, being polluted shall be polluted, Jeremiah 3:1 and she shall not return to her husband: and He that keeps an adulteress is a fool and impious. He, however, who has committed fornication is not to be cut off from the society of his own wife. So the wife will receive the husband on his return from fornication, but the husband will expel the polluted woman from his house.

      So if a woman sleeps with a man, and her father decides she damn well will get married to that man, she is stuck with that man even if he sleeps with other women as well.

      In the event of abduction or seduction, shotgun marriage at the father’s discretion.

      He takes for granted a red pilled or purple pilled social order, so you have to read XXVI in the context of the social order that he endorses and takes for granted in the preceding paragraphs, not in the context of the post 1972 social order.

      • eternal anglo says:

        If a man living with a wife is not satisfied with his marriage and falls into fornication, I account him a fornicator, and prolong his period of punishment.

        What is the Jimian/Jacomist position on male fornication in a reactionary society? Is the state or the church to force a man to be faithful to his wife, in addition to cherishing and loving?

        And I suppose it is best left ambiguous where we are merely restoring ancient, tried and tested Christian patriarchy, and where we have decided to be even more redpilled than the Church Fathers.

      • Reactionary Ghost says:

        Thank you for clarifying things. Your articles extend to your comments sections, which is what makes this blog unique.

        I heard about XXVI being against shotgun marriage from someone who gave me this article:

        I get a sense that the above article is either purple or blue pilled, but am unable to pinpoint exactly where and exactly how.

        If the article is indeed entryist, it might lend a valuable insight into the language of infiltrators into more Rightist churches. Valuable at protecting the little we have left.

        • Tietonian ☦️ says:

          That website only exists to target traditional Orthodox monasteries and the people who support them. Not a legitimate source of any info except as a study of how leftists attack reactionary Christian groups. They could not infiltrate anything.

          • jim says:

            Entryism: Like Carlylean Restorationist, they dig through ancient documents and force fit them to twenty first century cultural Marxism, progressivism, and whig history, with casual disregard for their clear and plain meaning. Except that while Carlylean Restorationist tells us that our heroes were actually commies, and indeed we are commies also, that website tells Orthodox Christians that their saints were commies, and they are commies.

      • The Cominator says:

        “XXII is purple pilled: Says that marriage by abduction or seduction is invalid, and the father alone shall decide if the marriage shall stand”

        This should be the rule up until say the age of 20.

        Why shouldn’t the father be able to veto an unsuitable man up until a certain age?

    • Alrenous says:

      On one hand, 15 is also when rape peaks. And if you’re going to rape a bitch anyway, why would you choose a fugly one?

      On the other hand, they seem to like traps. A bit. Which suggests a deviant sexuality and thus not a representative sample.

      • alf says:

        She’s no fugly, she’s the cutie next door.

        Any anon board goes with a certain level of paranoia, so that they fear a trap does not surprise me. The way they respond seems pretty natural to me: they think she’s cute, because for a 15-year old she is pretty cute, her interest is piqued, but because they are unconfident NEETs they screw up the very first shit-test.

  29. WRB says:

    “Notice we have the word “racist”, but no word for people who claim that there are no races, that everyone is alike. We have the word “sexist”. If you think that women are different from men, you are sexist, but no word for someone who thinks they are interchangeable should be subject to the same rules, and perform the same social roles.”

    I propose:

    • pterantula says:

      SJW caught on because everyone, including SJWs, sees SJWs as warriors for social justice. Equalitarianism can’t be debated because it’s insane, and equalitarians will avoid the label in mixed company, as SJWs will claim they are pro-civility in mixed company. TERFs, aka feminists, lost to transhumanists, because transhumanism was where individualism and equalitarianism pointed.

      Transhumanism is dead because * google goggles are creepy * rare earth magnet in your finger to sense magnetic fields is a well understood trick * sexbots aren’t interesting enough for The Twilight Zone anymore, Black Mirror features virtual interracial lesbian sex between dead women instead * trannies don’t have frontholes, transplanted or synthetic organs aren’t available, and would be creepy

      Chekov was impressed with Harry Mudd’s phalanx of fleshlight-wielding androids in the early 60s.

    • Lance says:

      You’re confused. The problem is not that our cleverest wordsmiths have failed to produce clever enough epithets. The problem is the massive institutional power of the Cathedral that gives words like “racist” and “sexist” social power.

      When the neoliberal order collapses and reactionaries are once again in charge, we won’t need new words, because to the average person, the words “feminist” and “democrat” will elicit a minor chuckle while “progressive” and “anti-racist” trigger seething contempt. It’s not the words themselves that matter (although the rectification of names IS important), it’s who controls their meaning and emotional polarity

      • jim says:

        We nonetheless need words to refer to their doctrines, even though, lacking power, those words will not be dangerous to the person to which they are applied.

        As a political tactic, not effective without power.

        As a tool for understanding the world, useful now.

        How about flatsexer and flatracer?

        • WRB says:

          Of course, I was inspired by similarity to “flat earther.”

        • Theshadowedknight says:

          Just call it equalist.

          Why is a scientist–science- and -ist–high status? Science is high status, whether the true science of the Royal Society or the fake priestly science of Harvard. Racist and sexist are low status because the priests have made mention of the differences low status. Doing a low status thing makes you low status.

          Eventually, believing in equality will get the same response as believing that women are emotional and blacks commit more crime, but until then we need language we can use. The problem is that contrary to the claim, they do not desire equality but the eradication of European peoples. Destructionist might catch on if it can get memed hard. “Not just obstructionist but working to break America down again. Dont be a destructionist, Make America Great Again.” Also plays off deconstructionism, which is a little too high brow for most, but might make a good catch.

          • pdimov says:

            >Destructionist might catch on if it can get memed hard.

            “Destructionist” will never catch on because by the time you’re finished saying it the audience is asleep. To catch on, need to be accessible to the leftist portion of the bell curve.

            – raciss
            – sexiss
            – nazi
            – cuck
            – jew
            – NPC

            If by some miracle “destructionist” catches on, it will probably be shortened to “destro”.

            • Theshadowedknight says:

              It is not so much for the normal people to use, because by the time we get in power, equalist will work for pretty much everything the left wants. Class warfare? Burn, equalist. Racial equality? Burn, equalist. Sexual liberation? Burn, equalist. That is all they will need to know.

              Perhaps entropist. The left is the heat death of a civilization, the status death, where every useful social structure has been burned for status until status is the only thing remaining. It gets at the fundamental problem of the left, their monomaniacal pursuit of status at any cost.

          • jim says:


            Equalist is readily intelligible.

            • Koanic says:

              Yes that’s the egghead dialectical version.

            • Alrenous says:

              Egalitarian: someone who believes everyone should be treated identically.

              Equalitarian: someone who believes everyone is literally identical. (Or rather, claims to. Nobody actually believes this.)

              The egalitarian position is faintly arguable.
              If you argue with an equalitarian you’ll see they’re hysterical, as if you noticed that they doubt their own position. Have to cover up their weak faith with loud pronouncements.

              • Koanic says:

                Good distinction. I think the reasoning goes like this:

                “I am weak scared and lazy, but that’s not my fault, life is unfair, I should get more stuff, and [designated victim group] is also weak scared and lazy, they should get more stuff too, now I’m noble and you are bad! And since we the weak should get more stuff, we’re really equal to the scary mean strong, except more equal, because we’re nobler. You’re not better than us! We girls have to stick together, we’re the important ones.”

                The solution is to put a baby in the bitches and a bullet in the rest. Solipsism solved!

                • ten says:

                  I think the reasoning goes

                  “Everyone is of equal value, this we hold sacred and true and do not argue (it’s implied in the bible if you wear silly glasses and we didn’t read the rest). Thus what is unacceptable in one case can’t be acceptable in another. If it is wrong to kill your son, it is wrong to kill our enemies. If you would not work a shit job for a shit wage, noone should have to. If you wouldn’t want career impairing effects from necessary life events, women shouldn’t have to take it.”

                  Obviously all such “inequalities” are gnon compliant so fighting them hampers strength and excellence, as a side effect to the benevolent progressive mind. But since he is tricked by the devil, actually the main effect, all “equality” and “justice” arising from it temporary side effects, paving the road before hell.

              • pterantula says:

                Who says they’re not equalist they’re egalitarian? They do. I expect I’m egalitarian not equalist from CR. What I want from CR is an essay about why Yang is the socialist to end socialism.

                Instead of pouring their perfume on the Lord’s feet, the Boomers, agreeing with Judas, sold everything and gave it to the poor. Consequently God gives the lands and daughters to foreigners like in Jeremiah. Judas is described by John in this passage as a thief because religion is the part of justice that gives to God what is God’s, and if I may paraphrase the Lord, Jesus says that Mary Magdalene had been saving that perfume for a special occasion and His crucifixion counted. Judas was a SJW proclaiming no fun allowed.

                “The first shall be last and the last shall be first” is, through converting God’s is not to their ought, interpreted as meaning that the holiest should rule. Claiming the right to rule based on holiness is an invitation to superstition, which is itself blasphemy and superstition.

                Instead of arguing their own motte and bailey, we should distinguish our enemies on our terms. Perhaps we could try to separate the irreligious who steal from God from the socialists who steal from men, and distinguish malicious irreligion that thinks it knows better than God, invincible ignorance to which superstition is the closest thing to religion, and wilfully ignorant irreligion that refuses to, as Cicero remarked, read again. Following which, we can observe that this country has been humbled before the Lord and malicious irreligion isn’t as popular now as it was a decade ago when Obama gave that pseudo-Christian race speech.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  Every time you put up an effort post, I have to reluctantly censor it, for the reasons that I give you at length whenever you make an effort post.

                  Don’t do those things. Don’t tell us what we are thinking, don’t tell us what Moldbug says, don’t tell us what Carlyle said, don’t hang Marxist frame on your interlocutor.

                  Whenever someone says something that flatly and directly rejects Cultural Marxism or whig history in the plainest and bluntest possible fashion, you proceed to “misunderstand” him and ask him a bunch of “questions” that presuppose he cannot possibly have said what he said, but must be saying something Marxist or progressive which he has somehow phrased in a confusing fashion. Don’t do that.

                  Make arguments from evidence, rather than the presupposition that there is universal consensus on progressivism and cultural Marxism, that cultural Marxism and whig history is true and uncontroversial, and so universally agreed to be obviously true that it is entirely unnecessary for you to provide evidence and arguments for it.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  I would have allowed your argument had you not attributed it to Moldbug.

        • Koanic says:

          I fail to see what is wrong with “Feminist” and “Nigger-lover”.

          • jim says:

            Concedes the progressive frame that by noticing hate facts, we are hating Jews and blacks. We are not.

            Israel rightly does not allow people with dual US and Israeli citizenship in the top levels of its government. We should not either, and most Jews are effectively dual citizens or not psychologically citizens. That is not hating Jews, any more than Israel not allowing American citizens in its government is Israel is hating Americans.

            Australia does not allow dual citizens to be elected to its parliament. Does this mean they hate everyone?

            We would not call someone who favored allowing American citizens to be elected to his country’s parliament a Yankee lover. We would call him something that implied he was nuts.

            Judaism is a religion of exile, and Jews are aliens everywhere. Not only do Jews need to go home, gradually, with their assets, and bearing arms, Judaism needs to go home. They need to build the third temple. Build a Cathedral of steel and stained glass, three times the size of our biggest cathedral. It will help Jews hear the voice of the holy spirit, the still small voice that Ezekiel heard on the mountain. Mountains and forests help people listen, and a cathedral helps people listen.

            That is not hating Jews. That is noticing hate facts that are getting in our faces.

            • Koanic says:

              I don’t hate niggers any more than I hate monkeys. I do hate nigger-lovers, and if hippie faggots were trying to bus my kids with chimps, I would also hate chimp-lovers. Loving niggers is low status.

    • Goy Rogers says:


  30. Bob says:

    I was homeschooled and was in an area with many other homeschoolers, mostly orthodox presbyterian. I’m surprised no one else ever mentions it, but homeschooling amplifies the parent’s influence on the kids. A lot. Social parents, very social kids. Christian parents, very faithful kids. Military officer dad, ultra Chad sons. Awkward parents, very awkward kids.
    I suspect the hierarchy problem is what you described, combined with what I described. I knew a number of homeschooled guys who fit in well, at the top or bottom of the group, but they either had eight brothers or hung out a lot with other homeschool guys.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      Those effects are genetic. The environmental effect of parents is extremely limited. Around half of all the cause of any social/psychological trait you care to mention is always genetic. The other half is in effect random, in that it comes from all the various interactions the developing person has. A homeschooled child will generally have friends, will watch television, play video games, read books, learn things and ‘take to’ some subjects more than others, etc. etc. and of course the learning is itself genetically shaped in all manner of ways, not least the importance of preparing for life in a social hierarchy and finding a mate.

      The idea that parents are responsible for your psychological foibles in adulthood is a (((psychiatric))) plot to spitefully undermine the family.

  31. BC says:

    I’ve been doing some thinking about homeschooling. In my experience so far most male home school kids are not terribly well adjusted to normal male hierarchies due to the lack of interaction with them that would normally happen in school. Apprenticeship would probably solve this issue, but it’s currently not really a thing in the US for most people. However, girls do very well with homeschool are likely to come out much more interested in being a wife and mother instead of an Instagram slut even with the pozed state of the churches that homeschool groups tend to form around.

    I think it might be useful to send boys to regular school but definitely keep the girls homeschooled.

    • Koanic says:

      > I think it might be useful to send boys to regular school but definitely keep the girls homeschooled.

      Absolutely not. It is a soul-corroding character-degrading waste of time. If you have not figured out how to lead your son into the adulthood in the age of the Internet, don’t have children.

      • BC says:

        Fuck off with that bullshit Koanic.

        • Obadiah says:

          The one thing that improved my character in any way as a consequence of attending public school was participation in team sports–which is an activity that school isn’t necessary to organize or participate in to begin with.

          Aside from basic math and science, along with elementary skills like reading and writing and whatnot, the educational curriculum in my public school was worthless for turning students into anything other than neurotic, Western-civilization-hating, morally degenerate, deluded, confused, hoodwinked, unthinking debt slaves.

          Fuck public schools.

          • Jehu says:

            Team sports are the one area in public schools where striving for excellence is still actually sort of, kind of tolerated.

            • Anonymous Fake says:

              Sports are the hardest lesson for conservatives to accept. It’s the first and most brutal experience of being beaten down by cheating elites who start abusing performance enhancing drugs as soon as they hit puberty. The elites in most other fields, especially capitalism, are the same kind of sociopaths.

              I say avoid sports. Avoid rigged competitions. It’s better than “winning” a cuck bronze medal because the liberal gold medal winners won’t engage in nice fair play.

              • Simon says:

                What a faggot!

              • Theshadowedknight says:


                That said, martial pursuits are better than sports for inculcating masculinity in young men, particularly those that are team based. Lifting, shooting, wrestling, hiking. Maybe hockey, particularly if the fighting is allowed.

                Let the invaders have the games. Priests play games, but we can make new games. Warriors practice to hurt people, and if you priests want warriors, you have to learn the warrior lingo. Jim has it, but most of the rest of you do not. Learn it, or when the time comes, no one is going to pay you any attention.

                Fake, what is your position on sports for women?

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                I’mma pile on and say you have the big gay, but only because you are a copout. I’m sure some kids are juicing. So what? You sound like a weeaboo faghot bemoaning the use of ballistic projectiles in war. Cheaters add another dimension of challenge. The point of sports is team building and instilling disciprine, not trophies. Cheaters are not an excuse to not play; they are an excuse to not play by the rules.

      • alf says:

        Koanic stop being an idiot.

        You’re what, 30-ish? You talk like someone pretending to be 60 who for the first time in his life has procured a gun and really REALLY wants to kill a commie to make up for all the repressed stuff in his life.

        Calm down. Stop overcompensating. You’re fine as you are. You are among friends here. A bit of modesty goes a long way.

        • pterantula says:

          Koanic is fine. Cominator is the first one we feed to right-wing CR when we need to prove our loyalty ;]

        • Koanic says:

          You’re some sort of Scandinavian who spent time in New York right? I’m sure your advice is relevant to those milquetoast milieus.

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            Accept the criticism and tone down the faggotry. He was trying to help you. There is a reason your comments rarely generate responses.

      • Theshadowedknight says:

        Koanic is correct; stop being pussies.

        Send your sons and daughters to public school, you get effeminate sons and masculine daughters, and no grandchildren.

        Send your son to public school and homeschool your daughters, and you end up with effeminate sons and feminine daughters, and maybe your daughters give you grandchildren.

        Homeschool your sons and daughters and you will will have masculine sons and feminine daughters. You will most likely have grandchildren.

        If you do not want to do the work of raising sons, then you should not have them. Koanic might be obnoxious and overly aggressive sometimes, but in this case he is absolutely correct. Find a mentor for your sons if you must, but do not send them to public school to find one.

        • alf says:

          Around here, no one does homeschooling. For me, if I’d do such a thing, I’d be raising eyebrows.

          At the moment I’d rather risk the damage of public schools than the damage of stamping my kids social outcasts.

          Besides, how big is the teachers’ influence really? It wastes time sure. Maybe they could spend that time learning more useful stuff. But, unless you are grandfathered into a farm or some stuff, you just don’t have the resources to provide full-time private tutoring.

          • Alchemist says:

            I think that it is easy to underestimate the degree to which public schools have become soul crushing for most if not all young men.

            >Besides, how big is the teachers’ influence really?

            An actually good tutor – life changing. ie. one that teaches you to learn, instead of instructing and proselytizing.

            >It wastes time sure. Maybe they could spend that time learning more >useful stuff.
            Not all but many of the greats in science and math started early. Waiting until senior year in high school to learn calculus is deathly.

            >you just don’t have the resources to provide full-time private tutoring.

            1. If you live in a place where you can pool with neighbors/congregations then you can do it reasonably.
            2. If I had it to do over I would spend all my college tuition $$ on a writing tutor and a physics/applied math tutor and just get a PhD. Way better use of time and $$.

            And I graduated high school in ’87. My nephews are in grade school and jr high now. It is so so so much worse. The one bright spot is they have robotics club, and good sports outside of the school.

          • Bob says:

            It’s not so much the teacher’s influence, but the habits of sit down shut up. Homeschoolers aren’t programmed to fit into the system. Sometimes it shows up in bad ways, like with antivax, sometimes in good, like resisting poz.

            If you have sports teams they can participate in, they’ll be fine, socially. That is, if you and your wife are normal. Good luck.

            • Theshadowedknight says:

              Is anti-vax so astounding?

              Doctor: “Eat according to this food pyramid, eat eggs, take these drugs oops they are unhealthy lol. Don’t eat eggs eat eggs, take *this* drug, eggs are bad again. You can eat eggs food pyramid is bad that last drug was bad, have some opioids instead. I know you lost 50 pounds on that diet but it’s clearly unhealthy unlike my diet because I am healthy at any size. Oops opioids are bad lol sorry for killing your friends. Would you like to get vaccinated?”

              “Uhhh, no, I’ll pass on the shots, thanks.”


              Oh, also, that man is now a woman its science.”

              More to the point, the Gardasil vaccine has had enough fatal adverse effects that is has statistically killed more young women then it will save. Question the wisdom of that shot, and you get rabidly attacked by normally sane people. Is anti-vaxx such a strange phenomenon?

              We judge people based on the red pill most of all, because it it the best test for loyalist or interloper. If you, a normy, have to set up a heuristic for lefty science hoax nonsense and you see that behavior around all the usual suspects like global warming, queers, and vaccines, are you going to shoot your kids up with the shit that the doctor is offering you?

              • jim says:

                Back when smallpox and polio were real threats, it was reasonable to cut a few corners in preparing vaccines and coercively imposing vaccination campaigns.

                Trouble is that this got institutionalized, and they are still cutting a few corners in preparing vaccines and imposing vaccination campaigns.

                The HPV vaccine, a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease was imposed on nine year old girls, because imposing it on the actual carriers, adult gay males, was too politically incorrect, has caused an epidemic of sterility and infertility. One quarter of girls vaccinated with HPV become infertile.

                • Roger u says:

                  “The HPV vaccine, a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease was imposed on nine year old girls, because imposing it on the actual carriers, adult gay males”

                  My wife was having lunch with some female friends (all early 40s) and HPV came up. All of her friends had it. This is anecdotal, of course, but what are the odds that they all had slept with a bisexual man? Based on this anecdote, it seems HPV is likely widespread. Are “Chads” bisexual or did enough women sleep with bisexual men in the past to spread it to the general population of men or some third possibility?

                  To be clear, I’m against vaccinating underage girls for it.

                • jim says:

                  Perhaps you are right. On the other hand, perhaps you under estimate how many men those women have slept with. Early thirties, very late twenties, right? Heterosexual males recover from HPV very quickly, because they only get one strain at a time, and don’t get it all that often, while gays usually have multiple strains. Women who catch HPV frequently fail to recover, depending on the strain. If it lingers for a long time, harms them.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  Slightly tangential, I read that Ebola is in the news again. Is there a record of ANY white person dying from Ebola? I remember a case of a few years ago of white people contracting it, along with some of their black associates. They were flown to the US for treatment. All the whites recovered and some of the blacks died.

                • jim says:

                  To the best of my knowledge, no white person.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “To the best of my knowledge, no white person.”

                  Some cathedral personnel has been infected.


                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Please ignore comment above, misread the initial comment.

              • jim says:

                Some anti vaxxers are nuts. Some are looking to sue the doctors, subconciously or consciously knowing that lawyers and judges are priests, and bitterly hate anyone who has high status without being a priest.

                But events have confirmed the vaxxer thesis that the vaccine makers, and those that impose vaccines upon us, are reckless and dangerous. The HPV vaccination program has been a catastrophe, and everyone is quietly ignoring that catastrophe.

                • BC says:

                  >The HPV vaccine, a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease was imposed on nine year old girls, because imposing it on the actual carriers, adult gay males, was too politically incorrect, has caused an epidemic of sterility and infertility. One quarter of girls vaccinated with HPV become infertile.

                  I had no idea.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Source please? Not skeptical at all and I will do my own digging as well, just trying to save some effort…

                • jim says:

                  A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25–29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection

                  Needless to say, this result is being ignored and resisted. No end of scientists to announce that it is not true because of data that they will not show you.

                  HPV vaccination of sexually immature virgins was always evil, insane, and dangerous. It is part of the same program as “How to put a condom on a banana”, and the joys of sodomy. You don’t get herd immunity by vaccinating women. The intent was never to prevent the spread of HPV, for its infection pool is gays who spread it to women through bisexuality, but to tell nine year old girls that it is normal for them to have sex, and that HPV has nothing to do with gays.

                  Gays are the only males who individually benefit from being vaccinated, because they are the only males for which HPV is a problem, and vaccinating gays would have a large impact on herd immunity.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Doctors are definitely “priests” as well but not in the power structure of the priesthood outside of their own field.

                • jim says:

                  Doctors are not in the power structure even in their own field. The point of government interventions is to put them under a priestly administrative class.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  They’re certainly starting to be. Pretty dangerous corruption of an important role.

              • Anonymous 2 says:

                As I understand it, vaccination these days furthermore encompasses something like 30 different diseases, with multiple doses administered per visit. By contrast, I had a handful of vaccinations through my youth, perhaps one per year, and never more than one at once.

                Since a vaccine is basically broken down dead bacteria (cell walls), it’s not surprising that there can be severe adverse reactions. Even a single vaccination dose can put an adult to bed for days, e.g., bird flu vaccine. In short, it’s not risk free.

                Finally, neither am I surprised at seeing what strongly looks like (1) rent seeking, by getting your vaccine added to the mandatory list, and (2) ideological/degenerate entries, like HPV.

                • jim says:

                  Everything is poisonous if you administer enough of it. There does not seem to have been any research into the effect of massively multiple vaccinations, and the reaction to the HPV vaccine news shows why.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  The biggest issue isn’t even just whatever denatured infectious material itself, but rather, the additional ‘inactive ingredients’ many vaccination serums have (most particularly, preservatives, both hydrocarbon based, and heavy metal based containing mercury or aluminum salts).

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  Indeed, both of you.

                  Here is the CDC immunization schedule:


                  From birth to 15 months, they have two variant schedules. For the first one, they recommend vaccination against 8 diseases with a total of about 20 doses administered. The second one just(?) requires four doses (though sometimes more).

                • Zach says:

                  My son got sick after a flu vaccination.

          • Anonymous Fake says:

            Schools can no longer enforce the value of their degrees for white men, or Asians at all. Blacks and Latinx’s dominate education now. Stern disciplinarian principals just damage good kids for no reason now. There’s no payoff and no prestige career for conservative study robots who work harder than everyone else.

            Schools are rigged for the left. I have no idea what fresh college students expect out of their education now, when they can see older millennials approaching 40 with no promised rich career in exchange for earning good grades, extracurricular work, volunteering, etc.

          • Koanic says:

            He’s too afraid of raising eyebrows to raise his kids! It’s a wonder you can manage an erection.

            • alf says:

              Nah man my dick actually grew three inches this year you should come take a look.

              • Theshadowedknight says:

                I am afraid that if we have a dick measuring contest, that I would just embarrass the both of you, so I will, in the interest of unity and not upsetting allies, concede and bow out.

              • pterantula says:

                michaelangelo didn’t think men get chosen for their dongers and neither do you ┴┬┴┤・_・├┴┬┴

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            I left school here in the US for a decade to do military service then reintegrate before college. I wound up having to relearn what I learned in middle school math class as college level algebra because the schools have gotten so bad that basic algebra is now a college level course. The math that I was learning at home is now a sophomore year college course. By the time your children reach it, it will be worse, and I doubt that accommodations for decreasing congnitive ability are not being made to cater to invaders in Europe.

            You can teach your children better that a teacher can because you know them better, and you actually care. You can place them in social circles that will prepare them for their futures, because they will be able to interact with adults as equals much faster when they are not surrounded by the savages in public schools.

          • Alrenous says:

            “I’m going to let my children get spiritually raped because I’m afraid of something that cannot materially hurt me.”

            And the Prussian school survives another generation.

        • Howard J. Harrison says:

          Homeschooling boys works less well in fact than one would like, unfortunately. Nice idea. Results are mixed.

          Every nine-year-old boy needs a couple of fistfights with boys who outweigh him by 10 or 20 pounds. Then, having survived the fistfights, he needs to learn to find his place in the male status hierarchy. It’s not neat but it’s kind of fun, and in any case it is necessary for proper maturity into manhood.

          All the theoretical benefits of homeschool cannot make up for the raw lack of fights and such. Approach the homeschooling of boys with caution. Avoid if possible.

          • I totally agree, but they won’t get that at public school either. Public school made the male hierarchy and the status placement games and fights that boys play illegal, encourages gay and womanly behavior of snitching and tattling.

            I don’t care what they’ll teach my future sons, I can undo the programming, but I care very much that they won’t let him socialize like a boy socializes, that they won’t let him grow into a man.

            I feel pretty confident that I can find a way to let my sons socialize with other kids without catlady supervision. Of course, you might live somewhere remote where the schools aren’t nearly as pozzed.

          • Koanic says:

            If homeschooling means being raised by a woman, or a neutered man, in a precious bubble of smarmy ideological delusion, then it is obviously a bad idea.

            • Howard J. Harrison says:

              Koanic, theory is fine. You and I are after all surrounded by Clown World. Neoreaction reacts to the Clown and I am for it to that extent.

              However, I wasn’t actually theorizing.

              Below, Bob is right about the brothers. Brothers help.

            • The Cominator says:

              Homeschooling should generally be done if you can do it. Public education especially pre high-school is turning your children over to the dumbest (I assume we all know statistically how dumb education marjors are) generally female acolytes of the priesthood.

              A few fistfights are good but public school social enviroment (especially pre high school) is not.

          • Bob says:

            Your son needs many brothers as much as you and your nation need many sons.

    • Andre says:

      Define regular school. If you mean today’s mainstream schools, absolutely not.

  32. Reziac says:

    “Women should be attached to one male and not allowed to ride the cock carousel, ideally the first male they ever have sex with, hence shotgun marriage.”

    The flipside of this is that each man would be permanently attached to one female and would not be allowed to provide that cock carousel, which would both preserve the availability of virgin females for their fellow males, and put an end to the scourge of fatherless children (thus greatly reducing the number of feral juveniles).

    • Koanic says:

      Blue pill is gay pill. Consult your Old Testament for a dose of testosterone, stat.

      • Lance says:

        That’s not blue pill, it’s simple math. If the population is 50/50 male/female, and we have a near-perfect patriarchy that ensures nearly 100% of eligible men are able to take a chaste wife, then it is literally impossible for a significant number of men to have multiple sex partners, because then there would no longer be enough chaste women to maintain that system.

        Red pill is understanding female sexuality, it is acknowledging the mutually beneficial but non-reciprocal nature of marriage and sex. It is not refusing all constraints on male sexuality. In an actual patriarchy, only a very small number of alphas can be permitted to sleep around, otherwise ordinary men have no incentive to loyalty (to the sovereign, that is).

        The pussy utopia you imagine can only be maintained with a sex ratio that skews heavily female, which could not last longer than 1 generation absent some bizarre genetic manipulation. Also, I really don’t want to think about the kind of culture produced by a society of 80% women.

        • Reziac says:

          Basically what I was getting at, yes.

        • Koanic says:

          > That’s not blue pill, it’s simple math.

          Comrade, you are ready for the Central Planning Bureau. Don’t worry, all the math is simple!

          In Biblical patriarchy, no alphas are permitted to sleep around. If the King tries it, God punishes him spectacularly.

          > The pussy utopia you imagine

          You have no idea what you’re talking about. The Law worked fine.

          • Lance says:

            Don’t accuse me of socialism because you can’t do math. Fact: if you have polygyny, you have promiscuity and incels. The more polygyny, the fewer virgins and the more incels.

            Yes, The Law did work fine. The Law also, while primarily restricting female sexuality, did proscribe at least some male sexuality. Rape, for example, while technically being a crime against the husband or father, was still a crime.

            No reactionary society can constrain the behavior of a sovereign. That’s unimportant here. The King may be the ultimate alpha but he isn’t the only one.

            • jim says:

              No rape was not a crime in Old Testament times.

              Raping a girl and then dumping her was a crime – it was exactly the same crime as seducing a woman and dumping her.

              Whether the woman consented or not made no difference to the man’s culpability, though it made a big difference to the woman’s culpability.

              This reflects the real world behavior of women, who behave in a way that makes consent profoundly unclear, and even more unclear to themselves.

              In practice, women do not complain about rape. They complain about having sex with a man who then promptly fails their shit test. After such an event, a woman feels creeped out and disgusted, and mentally files that feeling of revulsion and disgust under whatever heading is socially acceptable in her society.

              Husbands and fathers object rape – and if they were allowed would object exactly as strenuously to seduction. We have to make the complainant, the primary victim in law, someone who is likely to object to the behavior that we want to suppress, which rape law fails to do, and sexual harassment law fails to do.

          • jim says:

            The King sleeping with other men’s wives is apt to be disastrous, and regularly ends the power of Kings.

            Solomon with thousands of concubines, no problem.

    • Bob says:

      Afaik, the OT says to replace
      “each man would not be allowed to provide that cock carousel”
      “the father can kill the married man who sleeps with his daughter”
      “the father can shotgun marry his daughter to the unmarried man who sleeps with his daughter”
      “the husband can kill the man who sleeps with his wife”

      • jim says:

        Not what the old Testament says.

        The old Testament says that the father should ordinarily give his daughter to the married man who sleeps with her as an additional wife.

    • jim says:

      One pin can pop a hundred balloons. We have to control female sexuality, not male sexuality.

      If you try to control male sexuality, that just means that uncontrollable anti social males father a large proportion of the children.

      Eggs are precious, sperm is cheap. You guard what precious, not what is cheap.

  33. Monogamy is capitalism rather than socialism, a transaction rather than the assignment of goods by command. Pussy for military service if you are a nominalist.

    I usually write like I am a nominalist because it tends to ensure substantial debate rather than specious debate about the nature of truth, but in my opinion this transaction is a bit easier to intuit as a covenant of two intangibles. As the supreme alpha male of the land, the sovereign trades some of his authority over women to the common man to ensure that he can enforce chastity in his daughters and obedience in his wife. In return, the common man gives his sovereign loyalty in war and obedience in peace.

    This is not redistribution by command, this is a mutually beneficial trade of things which properly belong to each party and are more valuable when traded. The King could bang every woman in his territory, but then he would be king over a henhouse of bickering bitches and disloyal cucks. His supreme alphaness is more valuable when traded for loyalty. A common man could live far from society and use his violence only for himself, give his obedience only to himself, but then he is fighting a constant war against nature and other men. So his violence and his obedience are more valuable when traded for security, peace, and marriage.

    This covenant leaves a man enough violence and agency to run his household and defend his property while leaving the King enough alphaness to marry the highest-status woman according to male society and fuck the prettiest mistress according to nature.

    If a government tried to enact actual pussy socialism by ticking off boxes to assign wives to husbands, it would probably be as disastrous as socialism of goods and no one has been stupid enough to try it.

    • pterantula says:

      > I usually write like I am a nominalist because it tends to ensure substantial debate rather than specious debate about the nature of truth

      nominalism is specious debate about the nature of truth

      > defense of marriage using masonic social contract theory

      I prefer the classical liberal state of nature as householder with woman theory lol

      it is a criticism of progress that it’s unsustainable. We should prefer good government to bad government in our terms for right and wrong, and our world is composed of freeholders who freely choose what is comfy. The terms of marriage between our people have always been, and will always be,

      “from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.” +

      • Monogamy is not a masonic social contract that has to be renewed by consent for every man in every generation. It is made once and you inherit it. In this it is unlike capitalism but also unlike socialism, which requires continual progress and reform.

        I am not defending monogamy in the terms of capitalism because the principles of capitalism are the first eternal good and monogamy+monarchy has to derive its good from the principles of free exchange, rather both have similarities because they are both reflections of the eternal good that comes from God or Gnon or whatever you prefer.

    • alf says:

      Yeah been thinking about this too.

      It is not entirely correct to call it socialism, although it gets the point across.

      I think enforced monogamy is capitalism for men, socialism for women. Men are free to purchase a woman on the market, if they can afford it, and women are divided like winner’s loot.

  34. peter says:

    You make a very compelling case against a society that empowers feral women…The only remedy for that, it would appear, is the looming CW2, and perhaps also the influx of Asians who don’t buy into that narrative at all.

  35. Glance of the Promethian Firebestower says:

    Interests. The world runs on interests. Ideology is fine, but it must rest harmoniously atop the underlying interests.

    You repeatedly say that monogamy is top-down coercively enforced socialism of the means of reproduction. This is also fine. But it is important to keep in mind that this is not a natural state of affairs. It is a POLICY pursued in light of certain specific INTERESTS.

    A policy, pursued BY WHOM, in the interest of WHAT??

    To ask is to answer: the masses of young men are bought off, paid off, their loyalty purchased, so that they labor for the good of society, id est the wealth and power of the tawp dawgs.

    And this is the rub: that in order for the grand authorities of wealth and power to DESIRE to enforce monogamy, the BENEFIT they gain thereby must exceed the COST they incur.

    What is the benefit, what is the cost?

    The benefit is positive — male laborers and soldiers — and negative — preemptively subdued riots and/or revolution. The cost is to give up the right of droit du signeur X 100 which now exists in 5 C.Y.

    The cynical observer would observe that that net balance, in the real world, isn’t looking so good for the little guy.

    It also must be considered that, as E. Michael Jones so eloquently lays out in his oeuvre, sexual liberation is 100%, through-and-through, start-to-finish, a scientifically engineered form of SUBJUGATION explicitly intended from the very beginning to literally dissolve the Western civilization.

    But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by ideology alone, but by every interest that proceedeth out of the design of Nature.

    • jim says:


      Who is going to riot? Women?

      Emancipation is a shit test that we failed. Women get bitter, angry, resentful, and frustrated when you fail their shit tests. They love it when you pass their shit tests.

      Who are the biggest losers from the sexual revolution?

      Billionaire Bezos, owner of Amazon, is one of the biggest losers. Under the older system, he would have an obedient respectful virgin wife, and would also be banging his eighteen year old secretary on the side. (Which we would tolerate provided he did not spoil too many women, thereby undermining patriarchy, and did not leave his wife, thereby undermining marriage.)

      • Glance of the Promethian Firebestower says:


        • jim says:

          Don’t tell me “its obvious”. It is not at all obvious. Explain as if you are addressing someone who does not reflexively accept every article of progressivism and Marxism as self evidently true, and is not familiar with every single doctrine of a rapidly increasing pile of doctrines, many of them mutually contradictory.

          State your premise explicitly, and reason to this “obvious” conclusion.

          • Incredulous Stare of the Bequeather of Reason says:

            Jim, I never would have expected you, of all people, to deny the mass sedative power of vidya, porn, and high fructose corn syrup.

            I long thought you smart, sane, and reasonable.

            My disappointment is inarticulable.

          • Koanic says:

            Communist Revolutionary and florid faggot, I think it would be hilarious if you started commenting on Jim’s site using the Gab Dissenter app. You slot right in with the Flat Earthers.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              I’m not in touch with this part of the discussion thread and since ‘Jim’ has censored the guy before responding to what he claims was said, I have no idea what he’s supposed to even have said.

              I have nothing intelligent to add to any of this.

              I do however sincerely hold that the above question beggar is wrong.

              He writes:

              “the mass sedative power of vidya, porn, and high fructose corn syrup.” and invites the reader to concede his implied claim that these things have no power over anyone in society. The whole concept of degeneracy and a culture gone awry is fake and gay by this way of thinking.

              This is a surprising attitude and it’s hard to understand why anyone would think this, or anything remotely like it.

              It’s demonstrably true that there exist in this world ‘problem gamblers’, ‘problem drinkers’, the morbidly obese, people with out-of-control debts, the mass prevalence of payday loans and so on.
              There are only two POSSIBLE, let alone legitimate, responses to this: either it’s a problem or it isn’t a problem.

              There’s no sane way anyone can simply deny the existence of these utterly and undeniably real phenomena, and one might expect self-identifying reactionaries to be the loudest critics, not the most eager defenders.

              • jim says:

                It is also demonstrably true that the morbidly obese, the alcoholics, etc, are mostly hispanic. So I don’t care.

                It is also demonstrably true that reactionaries have the individual solution to the individual problem of obesity: Meat, fasting, lifting iron, manliness, and supplemental testosterone. So I care even less. I and others have published the solution, and if anyone fails to apply it, sucks to be him.

                Obesity etc are individual problems, not political issues.

                It is also demonstrably true that socialism is not the cure for these problems, because under socialism there is not much to eat except bread, which is as bad for your health as a similar quantity of sweet drinks based on high fructose corn syrup, except that there is never enough bread. So instead of people under socialist rule getting obese, they suffer agonies of toothache and their teeth fall out.

                The problem of gluttony is an individual vice, not susceptible to political solutions, except that you guys shoot the cows of the peasant with two cows, which is a political solution that solves gluttony alright, but is a less than satisfactory solution.

                The problem of adultery is far more serious and far more important, and it is susceptible to political solutions.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive. You are responding to what the left says I say, not what I say.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Oh it’s much simpler than that. I’m dismissing your individualism. It’s Jordan Peterson tier Whiggery and it does nothing but harm.
                  The Cathedral LOVES right-wing individualism.

                  You can bet every Burkean, Spoonerite, Calhounian, Randian and Georgist from the past two centuries had very clean rooms indeed, kept themselves fit and healthy and always remembered to be kind to their servants.

                  We need the iron fist of a state that we control: a state that bends to our equally iron WILL. We need to milk liberal tears until we breathe the salty air in every hallway.

                  First a thousand dollars, then upwards from there: the demands of the white lobby are never-ending.

                • jim says:

                  The Cathedral’s position on right wing individualism is rendered obvious by the mindless conformity and rigid ideological uniformity of our tenured academics, and by the ever swelling apparatus to impose correct thought on everyone, for example the Human Resources Department.

                  Burke is the father of cuckservatism, not the father of individualism. The trouble with Burke is that the Burke of Liberty subverted the Burke of authority. Whenever Burke had to deal with you lot, as when he condemned the French Revolution, he had to invoke the throne and altar that he was otherwise busy undermining.

                  If no stationary bandit, going to have mobile bandits. If no state religion, going to have a worse state religion.

                  Cuckservatives have no ground to stand on. If liberty, why should some people have property and others not have property, why should some people have authority and others not have authority, which is why Burke had to turn to throne and altar when viewing the catastrophic consequences of his own cuckservative doctrines. The Burke of liberty continually contradicts and subverts the Burke of authority.

                  But wholesale rejection of individualism is not an option, because then everything becomes a coordination problem, and coordination problems are at best difficult to solve, seldom have satisfactory solutions, and usually have only utterly disastrous solutions.

                  Rejecting individualism does not help with the obesity problem: You will forbid food you deem unhealthy and mandate food that you deem healthy? The school lunch program already does this which results in disastrously unhealthy official school meals, and the terrible food characteristic of every socialist regime. Turns out that it is much easier for a mother to feed her children healthy food than for a vast overpaid bureaucracy to feed an army of children healthy food.

                  At the same time, making individualism a religious principle leads not to freedom, but to totalitarianism, for freedom is secured by walls that separate the proper domain of my power and decisions from other people’s, and those walls are an intrusion on their freedom to set fire to the supermarket and steal a case of beer, leading to the socialism painfully familiar to the Chinese who produced this video.

                  And, as Moldbug argued, those walls have to be ultimately backed by a sovereign – though you turn him on his head by telling us that he told us the sovereign should tear down those walls, and the walls should be torn down to punish the peasant with two cows and the man who runs the local Domino’s pizza franchise.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  No, as I’ve said a gazillion times, I would shut down the globalist chain restaurants for a plethora of reasons which include, pretty far down the list, the fact that consumption of their garbage has historically gone hand in hand with the obesity epidemic that’s making our countries ugly, lazy, weak and sick.

                  Every time I make this point, you respond as if I’m calling for liberal regulators to wag fingers at people to get them to cut calories.

                  You have to attack this straw man because if you try to attack the real argument you know you’ll lose. You’re literally ‘defending the undefendable’, and for exactly the same reasons!

                • jim says:

                  > I would shut down the globalist chain restaurants

                  There are no “globalist chain restaurants”.

                  It is utterly impractical and completely hopeless to run a restaurant from wall street for much the same reasons as socialism always fails. Every Domino’s pizza is owned by an individual franchisee, a small businessman who is his own boss, and can at any time take down Domino’s sign and put up his own sign.

                  That you want to go after the “globalist chain restaurants” tells me that you intend to murder the peasant with two cows on the basis that he is a giant agribusiness that is threatening the earth with global warming or some such.

                  The guy who owns my local Domino’s pizza franchise is an OK guy, and you mean to kill him or enslave him, as dentists have been enslaved in England.

                  Enslaved dentists in England are not fixing people’s teeth, and enslaved pizza shop owners of confiscated pizza shops would not produce pizza.

                  Or, for that matter, bread, as they are now discovering in Venezuela.

                  If globalist chain restaurants actually existed, they could not provide pizza for much the same reasons as Britain’s national health service cannot fix people’s teeth.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jim you should make an individual article on “right wing individualism” and “cuckservatism” along the lines of your comment here.

                  Authentic NRxers all know it but this is a very good executive summary of it to be put on forums and such…

      • Dave says:

        Tom Brady, the greatest football player of all time and one of the sexiest men alive, married a rapidly fading 29-year-old supermodel who had already been banged by several other famous athletes, and is now so ugly that some people think she’s a witch. What hope is there for us regular guys?

        • Incredulous Stare of the Bequeather of Reason says:

          Dude, they all have an expiration date. Gisele was hot for nearly an entire extra decade.

          Marry at 20 and at 30 you’ll be in the same boat.

          (Unless you practice serial monogamy.)

          Speaking of, if a cabal of tawp dawgs got together and plotted to make droit du signeur real, and about a decade long, they could hardly have done a better job.

          It really makes you think.

          • Dave says:

            Tom Brady didn’t get that extra decade, other guys did. Any woman could give you an extra decade of hotness by marrying you at 18 instead of 28, but she won’t because she doesn’t want to waste one more minute of her youth on her husband than she absolutely has to.

            Had I married my present wife ten years sooner, I would have gained a decade of great sex with a beautiful young woman, had two or three more children, and lost nothing at all.

    • pterantula says:

      lol you replaced the substance of bread with the substance of words to deny the importance of ideas


      I’m derriere diffident about my favorite board, /doomer/, dedicated to the idea that there are no incentives, now has a sodomy thread and a voodoo thread where the doomer aesthetic only includes the vice of drunkenness as intellectual self-mortification

      so denying incentives doesn’t work either

      but i guess thats what you said anyway

      next time less blasphemy plz also droit du signeur is an evil hoax

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:


  36. Carlylean Restorationist says:


    • jim says:

      Deleted for telling people what I say:

      You accurately quote me at some length, and then put your frame on my words, leaving out the my surrounding text where I directly contradict the frame that you imposed.

      Deleting, instead of responding, because repeating fuller quote in context, in which context I directly and explicitly state the opposite of your frame, is a waste of space.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:


        • jim says:

          You are asking me “If you think that capitalism is ancient, why do you totally agree that capitalism in England is recent, and why did King Charles totally agree that capitalism was a new thing he was instituting?”


          • Carlylean Restorationist says:


            • jim says:

              Your “summary of what I said” is, as always, nearly the opposite of what I said in my characteristically blunt and clear fashion.

              I think you have mixed up your scripts with a script assigned for a libertarian blog.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:


          • Carlylean Restorationist says:


            • jim says:

              I told you I will delete every comment that frames Marxism as already agreed, instead of producing relevant evidence for Marxism

              Your comment presupposes and takes for granted Marxist class theory and Marxist history as simply true and uncontroversial, in that you take for granted that Charles the Second’s England was largely pre-capitalist, that capitalists rule today, and did not rule then, and that I agree with Marxist class theory and Marxist history

              Capitalists don’t rule today and they did not rule then. The big difference between today and the restoration is not more capitalism – we have considerably less capitalism. It is that today priests rule – and you are a priest, defending priests and the priesthood.

              No matter how many times you tell us that we already agree with Marxism, we don’t think the primary problem is capitalist power, and we don’t think there has been any great change in capitalist power. We think the problem is priestly power.

              Instead of assuming there has been a radical change in capitalist power and we already agree that there has been, present evidence.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                “Your comment presupposes and takes for granted Marxist class theory and Marxist history as simply true and uncontroversial, in that you take for granted that Charles the Second’s England was largely pre-capitalist, that capitalists rule today, and did not rule then, and that I agree with Marxist class theory and Marxist history”

                Nope nope nope nope, but everybody will believe your side of the story because you deleted then replied. At least that’s the plan.

                Sadly for you, when people see this kind of thing, they take away the correct opinion that you’re not to be trusted, you know that the things you say are lies and you’re doing it for reasons that you’re careful don’t get out.

                Even if you delete this one too, it changes nothing: that’s how people will see it because that’s exactly how it is.

                I repeat: if capitalism pre-dated Charles II (your choice of specific watershed not mine) then why were reforms necessary and why indeed do you continue to defend those reforms.

                You don’t have an answer because you know you’re talking shite.

                • jim says:

                  You continue to presuppose that I am a Marxist, that everyone is a Marxist. To a Marxist, the economic system is the political system, so if I say Charles the Second was a watershed, I supposedly must be saying he was a watershed for the economic system. Charles the second was not a watershed for the economic system, not a watershed for capital, not a watershed for capitalists, who are as they were back in King Solomon’s Israel, performing a similar role with similar effect, except for a handful of Shockley’s.

                  Charles the second was a watershed because he put the priesthood back in their bottle, because he restored the pre civil war order, because he cut off open entry into the priesthood. That is why we refer to the “Restoration”, not the “Innovation”. He made England great again.

                  We are always ruled by priests or warriors. King Charles the Second was a watershed because he made an enormous change to the priesthood. He made minor changes to economic system, and those changes were innovation, not restoration, but everyone calls it “The Restoration” because that is what mattered.

                  Corporate capitalism is a minor innovation to capitalism that only makes a difference when a Shockley gets hold of it. Corporate capitalism, as compared to regular capitalism, makes a major impact on wealth and technology when a Shockley gets to be a CEO, but does not make any political difference, does not have any significant impact on culture, society, faith, or political order. Our economic order is still that of King Solomon’s Israel, except, of course, for accounting and Human Resources. (Human Resources in businesses with more than fifty employees is a government full employment program for the priesthood, and Sarbanes-Oxley transformed accounting into yet another government full employment program for the priesthood. Similarly the enormous and rapidly expanding healthcare administration, composed of people utterly ignorant of medicine, but extremely knowledgeable about transsexuality and the oppression of women. The democrats healthcare program would criminalize formerly high status private doctors and transform into humble and terrified minions of priests. It is an attack on the status of a high status non priest group.)

                  Corporate capitalism makes a big difference to wealth and technology if you get a Shockley or two, but it does not have significant impact on gay sex, mass immigration of people to live on crime, welfare, and voting left, and stuff like that.

                  Notice the entire political class, including most of the Republican party, is fighting tooth and nail against the wall, but when Trump radically cut back H1B visas, which is what really matters to the corporate bottom line, not a whimper was heard. No one noticed except us engineers. The corporations quietly fell into line with a bit of whining.

                  If you are in the political class, or a federal bureaucrat you heard some mighty loud whining from major donors, but guess what happened?

                  The political class totally ignored the corporations, many of them major donors, in favor of bringing criminal gangs in to vote Democrat. Not a dog barked. No one except the corporations care about H1B visas, and the corporations were utterly impotent to make any difference. The political elite continually pulls strings so that a particular donor can bring in a particular H1B worker, but are utterly oblivious to woeful cries from big donors that it should go back to being easy and automatic the way it was before Trump.

                  We are ruled by Harvard, not Wall Street. For example, gay marriage came from Harvard, and corporations did not promote it after until it was already law and already a serious offense to be the first person to stop cheering at a gay wedding. (No one dares stop cheering till the groom signals them to stop.) I have been telling you that forever, and you continue to presuppose that we are ruled by Wall Street, and that everyone agrees we are ruled by wall street, but that is just not what we see in front of our noses. We see Harvard.

                  You absolutely refuse to hear anyone disagreeing with Marxism. No matter how plainly I tell you, will not hear.

                  So pretty soon I am just going to delete all your posts unread, because this conversation is entirely one way. I write, but you do not read – or at least you will not read anything inconsistent with Marxism.

                  Corporations matter, they matter a lot, because of those rare people like Shockley, because they enable people like Shockley to get hold of other people’s capital, but as we saw with gay marriage and H1B visas, this change in capitalism is insignificant for culture, society, official faith, and politics. Charles the Second’s amendments to capitalism affects wealth, technology, and science, but not the social order, not culture, faith, and political authority. Except for a Shockley or two, capitalists continue today to perform the same role with same effect as in King Solomon’s Israel. Charles the Second closing off open entry into the priesthood, and burning one excessively holy heretic at the stake had a major and radical impact on culture, faith, and political authority, and this impact fell apart when we failed to enslave William Wilberfore for apostacy and sell him to Jamaica

                • The Cominator says:

                  What do you mean by capitalism CR?

                  Corporations did not predate Charles II (the closest thing in England is that people could have “shares” of shipping expeditions) but sole propertiorships for profit sure did.

                  What makes you think England before Charles II was a command economy?