Violence, repression, and freedom

When the left stopped attempting to communicate with its enemies, stopped listening, stopped talking, and instead dehumanized, demonized and no platformed us, I knew that this would necessarily lead to violence against us, and eventually war.

The violence has started. War comes.

Today, if you support freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble, you are a nazi. So, what the hell, you had better ally and organize with actual unironic nazis. George Soros is a Jew, and he is providing your enemies with military grade pepper spray and restricted explosives, so if the Nazis say “the Jews” are doing this, why split hairs with them?

Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly was always a lie, sometimes, as in our past, a little white lie. Sometimes, as at present, a great big blatant arrogant lie. There is always a state religion, and you can never commit lese mageste against the state religion and its symbols. Back when the constitution was written, the reason that the federal government was forbidden from interfering with the press or from establishing a federal church was that each state had its own official state church, formally, overtly, and openly established, and the corresponding restrictions on freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the freedom to peaceably assemble.

But, as long as the state religion does not deny glaringly obvious facts about the actual world, as long as it is not aggressively intrusive, these restrictions are not all that irritating, not all that intrusive, and when these formal and official restrictions were replaced by informal and unofficial federal restrictions, when the state religion of New England became the state religion of the United States, it was possible to pretend that these restrictions were not really there.

The trouble is that our official unofficial state religion has open entry into our officially unofficial inquisition, the social justice warriors, with the result that it is intrusively developing a line on everything – not only race and sex but fatty foods and global warming, so that the necessary restrictions on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association have become alarmingly intrusive and aggressive.

The shutdown of conversation between right and left by the left is a manifestation of this. Repression of thought crime has become more heavy handed and less effective, as more and more thoughts become crimes.

The state inherently has the right to suppress falsehood and enforce truth, people will never agree on what is truth and what is falsehood, and so here we are. You always wind up with a state religion, and denying it just makes its power informal and unofficial, which is worse than having an official and formal state religion.

No one ever sincerely supports freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom to peaceably assemble. We speak, associate, and assemble with the ultimate goal of stopping the other group from doing so. If we win, social justice warriors will lose – they will lose their jobs among other things, and will be forced to refrain from certain speech, certain kinds of association, possibly in order to keep their jobs, possibly in order to stay out of jail, possibly in order to avoid helicopter rides to the pacific ocean.

The best you can get is a state religion that does not flagrantly contradict reality, and therefore does not find it necessary to flagrantly and outrageously suppress speech, association, and assembly. If we win, lots of crazy hateful evil stuff that progs say today, will not be safely sayable. This, however, is not all that obnoxious, provided that it is only crazy hateful evil stuff. If they win, lots of true and important stuff will not be sayable.

We will always have a state religion, and the corresponding restraints on speech, association, and assembly. But if we are required to believe that all men and women are created equal, or that Kim il Jong incarnates the will of the people, then the state religion will cause problems.

And now we have those problems.

In a society where we are able to say that people are not equal, it will likely be a society where you cannot advocate some kinds of affirmative action, or some kinds of taking stuff from some people to give it to other people.

Let us consider for example, women in the actual fighting military, and action girl in the movies who takes out five men in a back flip. Moldylocks watched this, decided to go into battle with brass knuckles and glass bottles to attack people peaceably assembling to say and hear politically incorrect things, and freely associating with fascists and nazis both ironic and unironic. Naturally got smacked down.

This started not in the 1960s, but in the 1860s, with making a hero out Florence Nightingale, and demons out of the actual heroes of the Crimean war, in particular Lord Cardigan. The Crimean war was fought in substantial part by each side attempting to stop the other side’s logistics and starve them out, which was rough on everyone and particularly rough on civilians. So the press had plenty of opportunity to depict heroes as baby killers. This led to camp followers, such as Florence Nightingale, becoming officially heroes, and in due course officially part of the army, and classified as soldiers.

After a while it became kind of obvious that logistic providers were not really soldiers, and were still camp followers, so, action girl in the movies, and women being given the title, but not the actual functionality, of the men who actually fight, for which category of soldier we have the thought, but strangely, the word is forbidden.


It is a little bit naughty, a little bit disturbing, to call soldiers who shoot and get shot at warriors, to distinguish them from what used to be called camp followers.

If we win, if we are able to speak, to associate, to peaceably assemble, chances are the other side will not be able to get away with demonizing our warriors as baby killers, even if our warriors use methods, such a siege and famine, that do in fact kill babies. If we get freedom of speech, association, and assembly, then as a result of the way the world is, the way society works, they will not. The state will always necessarily take a side on enforcing truth and suppressing error, especially on crucial matters like whether warriors are heroes or baby killers. And if you say the wrong thing, then at best you can kiss your prospects of a high status job in a quasi statal institution goodbye, and at worst you get helicoptered to the Pacific Ocean.

Today, saying that women are innately unsuitable to be warriors, that putting women on the front lines is wrong and that pretending to put women on the front lines is worse, is saying the wrong thing. You will not get into a good university, nor get a good job, if you are caught saying such things. If we win, calling our warriors baby killers is likely to have similar consequences, quite likely far worse consequences.

The state is incapable of being neutral, so we might as well cut out the hypocrisy and make the state openly, officially, and formally sponsor the state Church, and the state church openly, formally and officially sponsor the state. That way we can regulate the Church to prevent runaway holiness signaling.

Things are getting violent because the state’s official belief system is getting ever crazier and ever more hurtful, thus the amount of repression needed to make it stick is getting ever greater.

The solution is not freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association. The solution is that the state Church should have saner beliefs that require less repression to make the state Church stick. The solution is Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly, and Freedom of Association for us, but not for them, because our beliefs are sane and reasonable, and their beliefs are crazy and evil, and getting more crazy and evil every day.

Freedom of speech and religion is not really attainable, and if you try to attain it, then the State of Virginia, which really did have freedom of speech and religion, gets conquered by the state of Massachusetts, which really did not. The war of Northern Aggression was a holy war in which the side with the most powerful and intrusive state religion conquered the side with a milder and less intrusive state religion. Bring a gun to a gunfight, and a religion to a holy war.

The restrictions that necessarily follow from respect for the state and the state religion are only a big problem when the official state belief system vigorously enforces beliefs that are obviously false, such as “all men are created equal”, or “Kim Jong-un represents the will of the people”

Repression is ramping up not because we used to have freedom of speech and freedom to peaceably assemble before and now we do not, but because the official belief system is getting ever crazier, and thus requires ever more violence to be enforced. We used to believe in holocaustism, which is far away and long ago, and that logistic support are soldiers, which is not that close. Now we are required to believe in action girl and to disbelieve in fathers, which is mighty close, and thus causing problems.

Holocaustism is sort of true, in that Hitler really did decide to murder the Jews and made a good start on it, but it is sort of false in that there are plenty of communists who did far worse than Hitler, and making Hitler the incarnation of evil is ridiculous. Also the holocaust has been decorated and elaborated with all sorts of legends and myths to make it as different as possible from the communist mass murders. But all those issues do not matter any more, because now we are being forced to believe not in holocaustism, which our rulers are starting to forget, but in magic Negroes, the virtue of porngirls, and the fighting capability of action girls, among other things, among many, many other things. Hence the increasing violent repression. Kids today don’t remember the awful crime of Hololocaust. They remember the awful crime that back in the bad bad old days women used to be forced to fullfill their marriage vows and black people were not allowed to drive whites out of the inner city.

And though our slogan should be, and is, Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Peaceably Assemble, and Freedom of Association, that slogan is a half truth. The only way we can achieve what we want is by overthrowing the current officially unofficial state religion, and replace it with a saner religion, whose official beliefs will intrude less on people’s lives. And this requires the dissolution of the Monasteries Universities.

Truth is we are fighting for Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Peaceably Assemble, and Freedom of Association for ourselves, not for those who call warriors baby killers, who want to destroy marriage, Christmas, and Christianity. We want freedom for us, not them. Freedom of Speech for everyone is unilateral disarmament, and our enemies never disarmed for a moment. Like anarcho capitalism, freedom for everyone assumes general good behavior, tolerance, generosity, and an ethnically and culturally homogeneous society. Disarm in today’s society, you get shot. Diversity has a striking tendency to develop into the war of each group on all of the others, and if one group disarms, you get what we got.

106 Responses to “Violence, repression, and freedom”

  1. […] Headline Violence, repression, and freedom […]

  2. […] of course, no one wants to do that to an ugly woman; only cute babes get spanked. This is echoed in Jim’s comment on how Russia handles disruptive attention-whoring women: “I really love the way Russia deals […]

  3. […] A. Donald: Violence, repression, and freedom. A typical Jimian broad sweeping ramble touching many key points of Neoreactionary philosophy on […]

  4. Jack Highlands says:

    The Mayor of the City of Berkeley belongs to an antifa group:

  5. peppermint says:

    The old, more explicitly christcuck left listened to the current, less explicitly christcuck left and surrendered to them because they believed the current left is better than them. Neither the old left nor the new left ever cared for dialog with the right. The reason they took over is that they have always been in power and the reason we will take over is that they have gone so insane that they lost the White youth.

  6. thejoyluckclub says:

    What are your sources on Lord Cardigan? I’m mostly going off the (excellent, excellently-researched and often very historically accurate, but of course fictional) Flashman books, in which Cardigan is portrayed as courageous but incompetent and and rightly detested by much of the Army.

    • jim says:

      Lord Cardigan vehemently protested the order as bloody stupid, then personally led the charge, personally engaged his opposite number, the commanding officer of his opponents’ guns, with a sword, and then immediately signaled the retreat and fled at top speed with his head down, thus obeying the order in form, while minimizing it as much as he could in practice. Therefore, any stupidity involved was not that of Lord Cardigan.

      At the time, he was criticized not for leading the charge, but rather for his precipitate haste in calling the retreat. He rode all the way through heavy gunfire and heavy enemy opposition right up to the commanding officer, took a whack at the commanding officer, then immediately signaled the retreat while most of his men had not yet arrived at the guns, thereby saving the lives of a great many of his men.

      That is not stupid courage, that is very smart bravery. Lord Cardigan personally took risks so that he was fully complying with the order while shielding his men as far as possible from full compliance with the order.

      Lord Cardigan got ahead of most of his men, because he was in a hurry to call the retreat as soon as he possibly could. This was brave, smart, honorable, and decent.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      George MacDonald Fraser was on our side and he knew history very well. He also started writing in the 1960s what might seem now to be an equivocal if sympathetic portrayal of the British empire, its heroes and wars was at that time very radical and courageous. He knew history better than he wrote it.

      He got his book series published by the trick of presenting Flashman as an irredeemable coward and villain who outwardly appeared to be a perfect Victorian hero. Leftist publishers and reviewers believed the whole thing was brutal satire but by the final books Flashman really is a perfect Victorian hero whose villainy amounts to occasionally laying loose and beautiful women and not calling them back.

  7. oogenhand says:

    Leftism is insane. But is less insane than Christianity and Judeo-Christian Conservatism. It is because the insanity of the Left is FELT everyday in their flesh that Middle-Americans (White cishet Christian males) object.

    The main reason you can forget America 1955 coming back is because most Christians aren’t white anymore. If you invade America and Africa in order to bring the people there Jesus Christ, you can’t invade them again because now they are Christians. And ofyou invade Muslim of Hindu areas you will have to share the loot with brown and black Christians.

    • Cavalier says:

      “DONATE today to rescue PERSECUTED christcucks”


      “The Leader Of The Resurrected Beast With Two Horns Will Soon Be Sitting In The White House”

      “Germany And Turkey Are Creating The Migration Crises In Europe To Bring Back Nazism And To Destroy Christendom. In The End The Muslim Ottoman Empire Will Unite With Protestants To Butcher Catholics And Orthodox Christians”

      “Millions Of Muslims All Throughout Egypt Are In Shock As Coptic Christians Publicly Forgive Their Muslim Tormentors”

      stop. stop it. it’s too much.

  8. Alf says:

    I remember when Bush Jr did his Iraq spiel: ‘you’re either with us or you’re against us’. For some reason it really triggered leftists. In retrospect the left greatly fears of a strong united right bloc and Bush pretending to form such a bloc was enough to trigger them.

    The sale is to replace the current crazy state religion with a sane state religion. This means you lose Havel’s grocers who refuse such radical talk. Of course once a sane state religion is enforced they will turn, but hindsight 20/20.

    • pdimov says:

      “For some reason it really triggered leftists.” will tell you why.

      • Turtle says:

        That blog is questionable- his calling ADHD advantage-seeking, a strategy, is wrong. He’s not doing any math in his “science,” and takes criticism very poorly. At least his e-book is free sometimes, and hopefully better than the blog is.

        But triggeredness has changed since the 43rd presidency- it was more about having one’s principles/ values violated then, and one’s status/ power undermined now. It’s more military now, more hierarchical, less political, less civil, less intellectual, and median IQ has fallen since then, in my estimation, by 4 points. The anon-con author does not consider intelligence, or many other important factors in psychosocial dynamics. He’s a one-trick pony.

        It used to be interesting in the news-worthy sense, to showcase Dubya hanging out at his ranch, or spanking his wife’s ass at a debate to outdo Al Gore’s “my wife and I are hot” meme (he asserted it less blatantly, look up the details if you want). It used to be respectable to read a conservative’s wikipedia page, or be polite at their town halls. The total decline in civility is remarkable, and I generally blame Gen X- they do nothing right. all because they blame the Boomers for everything that’s wrong.

        The Boomers are sinners too, but everyone observant knows that, while Gen X gets a pass on their similar behavior. Passive selfishness is underrated, and we need to study Harding and Coolidge,besides America from 1885-1905. They are more relevant than they seem, because we don’t know exactly how history will re-meme itself, with similar event patterns. We can be better prepared to understand today’s history by knowing the history of recent centuries.

        Generationality is another issue anon-con ignores. He acts like r/K is the only game in town. On his blog, it might seem true. Anthropologically, for a human scientist, no way.

        • pdimov says:

          His theory is not as stupid or unsubstantiated as it looks.

          And is has good explanatory power. Liberal behavior can seem completely irrational without it, and I’m not aware of anything else that can explain it that well.

          Seeing everything through r/K is probably “wrong” technically, but it’s a good approximation of reality.

          • peppermint says:

            Rk is stupid because both sides claim to be the type with few children who are raised carefully and the left is indeed the side with fewer children raised more carefully. The left has always had more resources because the left is the institutions and leftists use those resources to provide their children with complete immersive indoctrination in whatever is most fashionable while having very few of them, while the right has more children and celebrates their diversity maybe paying for the athletic one’s school uniform or driving the smart one to the library.

            • Cavalier says:

              The selective effect of high-end leftism on high-end leftists is like Hajnalienism on super-duper-über steroids.

              • peppermint says:

                there is not enough time for this selection to be meaningful. Liberalism is too complex behavior to be affected by three or four or five generations of assortative mating.

                The high end leftists of the ’20s may or may not have had high end leftist children in the ’50s, I don’t really know that much about the families of my friends that far back.

                The worst generation was born in the ’20s and ’30s, the boomers in the ’40s and ’50s, genx in the ’60s and ’70s, millennials in the ’80s and ’90s, and post-millennials in the aughts and this decade.

                The high end leftists of the ’50s and ’60s (worst generation/early boomers) had a reasonable number of White children. Of those children, the more conservative in the ’70s, ’80s, and ’90s had a reasonable number of White children, the more liberal didn’t reproduce or had few mud children. Of those late genx/milllennials, the conservative children of liberals may have a few White children but this is doubtful, while the liberal White children of liberal White children of the liberals of the worst generation, themselves less numerous than the liberals of the worst generation, are not reproducing at all.

                Having mud children is for boomers and genxers. Millennials are more likely not to reproduce at all.

                • Cavalier says:

                  On the contrary. Strong selection for a trait can cause rapid and dramatic changes in the population in question. This isn’t the kind of “driving a gene to fixation” thing you’re thinking of — that takes hundreds to thousands of years. What I’m getting at is illustrated very well by Cochran here:

                  Late-stage liberalism isn’t only shredding liberal-oriented smart genes, it’s also selecting the class/caste very strongly for the sort of person who has children _in the face of the fertility-suppressing effects of liberalism_. Perhaps we might characterize this person as the perfect hypocrite.

                • peppermint says:

                  In the families of my friends I don’t see any liberal fertility and the White children of White liberals children of White liberals are just as likely to go alt-right as anyone else if not more

                • Cavalier says:

                  Alt-right is the new left as Proggism was the new Protestantism. It’s power-seekers searching for power. There are no more power microslices to distribute, so now it’s going to be seizure and concentration of power.

                • peppermint says:

                  the ultimate redpill



            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              Rk is stupid for another reason which is that genetics seem to determine outcomes not upbringing. There is no reason for a preference for careful child rearing to have evolved and the fact that Victorian elites used to send their children to be raised in distant boarding schools that lacked hot water and sufficient food strongly suggests that it didn’t.

              The alt-right is inconsistent here because if careful upbringing radically improves the quality of your children then government programmes should radically improve Blacks and they don’t. In reality r selection is itself a lefitst meme designed to persuade Whites to have few children by enormously increasing the apparent cost of children. When we were winning, we were R selected.

              The real distinction is between contract-based relationships and at-will relationships. Lack of contract in relationships (social communism) sucks as badly as lack of contract in production (economic communism). The only reason there is a racial angle is that inferior races are too stupid and short sighted to have developed, understand, or implicitly respect contracts ever. Higher races still need enforcement for the system to work though.

              • pdimov says:

                “The alt-right is inconsistent here because if careful upbringing radically improves the quality of your children…”

                Huh? Where are you getting that from? Of course it doesn’t. The quality of your children is fixed at birth.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Lots of alt-rightists, including jim, believe that the presence of a father improves the quality of the children. What’s more likely is that cad dads give their children cad genes, and cads just aren’t good for society.

              • peppermint says:

                》There is no reason for a preference for careful child rearing to have evolved

                The #1 predator of baby alligators is other alligators. Birds and mammals have strong motherhood behavior and some of them also have fatherhood behavior. The Aryan race has the most intricate and expensive motherhood and fatherhood behavior of all, in which males eschew further sexual contact with females other than their mate for the rest of her lifespan, which usually exceeds his by eight years as male Aryans usually choose females four years younger than them as female Aryans live an average of four years longer. Aryan juveniles become sexually mature at 13 for males and 11 for females, but become fully behaviorally mature as late as 26, and can stay with their parents as a family unit indefinitely.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Monogamy is a social technology. It makes society as a whole more coherent, stable, and militarily powerful. In the long term it has shaped the evolution of the Aryan races. It is a good thing. It doesn’t however make individual children in the current generation better than they would have been if they had been raised under a different pattern of parenthood.

                • peppermint says:

                  Yes, but it also evolved behavior with evolved changes in biology that reach physical changes. I gained several pounds of muscle and lost interest in dating when I met my gf. The claim that it is social technology implies that it is fragile and needs government intervention to preserve. The opposite is the case. It takes severe government suppression, with constant offers of whores to men and free government money and alpha cock to women and no-fault but take all the stuff divorce to get Whites to not behave monogamously.

                  The only possible counterpoint is the Mormons, a cult of religious fanatics. With that sole exception Whites have always been monogamous.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Fine. My only claim is that it doesn’t much change your children’s life success in and of itself.

          • Alf says:

            I generally prefer Spandrell’s story of Point Deer Make Horse to explain leftist behavior.

            • Cavalier says:

              I happen to think that very little of the big lefty stuff of the last two decades would have caught on without the aid of the Internet. Without the Internet, the societal memetic velocity would be much lower, not really all that different from from the 80s.

              • jim says:

                Completely wrong. Lefty stuff is propagated by the elite universities, not via the internet. Shut them down and subject everyone in government and quasi government institutions to a mandarinate test and a loyalty oath, then we are golden.

                • Turtle says:

                  “quasi government institutions”

                  I think you mean only those taking the loyalty oath are citizens with full rights, while those who pass the mandarinate test are qualified for civil service. These are separate factors, but can be merged, with loyalty-testing questions on the exam for mandarins (what would you do if you discovered corruption?), and civics knowledge questions and answers in the loyalty oath (when was the war of northern aggression, and why did the secessionists lose?).

                  We also need loyalty indoctrination, with solid dogma, throughout the life span, meaning everyone says the pledge of allegiance regularly, and it is correctedly un-cucked.

                • peppermint says:

                  Loyalty indoctrination and dogma throughout life is what we have now.

                  What we need is no indoctrination, because the masses are inherently right-wing.

                • AE says:

                  “Lefty stuff is propagated by the elite universities, not via the internet.”

                  Have you looked at Tumblr or Twitter over the past few years?

              • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                “Without the Internet, the societal memetic velocity would be much lower”

                All the big Anglo leftward movements – war of northern aggression, new deal and the 60s cultural revolution, all happened before the internet. Not to mention all of the communist coups.

              • peppermint says:

                Did you see what the internet did to the left? They ludicrously claimed that Trayvon Martin did nothing wrong when they could have used the case to push for professionalization of neighborhood watch. They make all manner of bizarre claims about trans theory rather than the theory being protected in the universities which they could then claim are right-wing. The activists were supposed to be useful idiots, but they have taken over thanks to the internet, meaning they have no strategic vision and are losing.

                In addition, without the internet, /pol/ wouldn’t exist and naziism would be a bunch of old guys and feminists like William Pierce and Harold Covington.

                • Turtle says:

                  It’s important that internet infrastructure is run by guys who are proto-monarchists, meaing a ‘webmaster’ is lord of his domain, and web properties are called *domains*. So doing anything on the internet encourages rightness, not even allowing much leftism.

                  The SEO culture rewards click-bait, and so we get fake news, like non-existent Musim terrorist attacks, as headlines, with no articles. The people who get and share their news on facebook are total retards who don’t even want there to be an article to read. Those publishing media content now are no longer leftist- check out buzzfeed or anything, really. They gave up on politics.

                  “Leftbook,” leftists onfacebook groups, is totally party-fascist- they are renowned for purging each other, even requiring classically Soviet self-criticism, even from autists who have no idea what they said wrong. Kicking out the autists weakens the left even further. They, the activists online, mostly oppose each other, not Trump, Jim, etc.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Did you see what the internet did to the left? They ludicrously claimed that Trayvon Martin did nothing wrong when they could have used the case to push for professionalization of neighborhood watch. They make all manner of bizarre claims about trans theory rather than the theory being protected in the universities which they could then claim are right-wing. The activists were supposed to be useful idiots, but they have taken over thanks to the internet, meaning they have no strategic vision and are losing.


                  No Internet, no

          • Turtle says:

            I got anon-con’s book a while ago, and it’s strange that he focuses so much on a single topic. His conceptual core is arguable, but the silly ideas, like ADHD = an attempt to steal info and gain an advantage, indicate he stretches his one-trick pony work too far.

            Like I said, his theory needs math work to support it. Besides his limitations, my reponse was more about triggeredness than his blog. Biologizing politics was a new thing in the 80’s, and most conservatives refused it,but it happened anyway, because of Rambo, Dancing with Wolves, etc.

            Bad, decadent culture makes people call each other animals. We’re closer to being feral than we care to admit, at any time, but there really are more feral people now than before the “socio-biology” science craze began. It’s questionably morally, because it does not help us do anything right. It helps people justify their judgmental verdicts, and dehumanize the out-group. Why do that?

            • pdimov says:

              It is indeed a one-trick pony, but if it works, it works. It’s not possible to explain leftists fainting on the news Trump has won (and then feeling sick for a week), for example, without involving biology.

              • Turtle says:

                Yes, and you remind me of Charles Darwin’s psychosomatic illness, where a public speech would make him so nervous that he would vomit repeatedly. So even smart men like him can be sick this way. It’s a sorry sight. But I don’t pity leftists, because they deserve responsibility, such as being reminded of their own values and principles. They can ‘grow up’ and contribute to society, rather than whining.

                Leftists’ sensitivity and triggeredness is biological, but all of human experience is, according to materialists. With a theological definition of biology, this remains true eternally.

                How did you feel under Obama, or the Soviet era? Were you emotionally ‘oppressed’ or just scared and angry?

                I was sad, but not sickened. So leftists are somehow less resilient.

    • peppermint says:

      White sharia promises non-degenerate sex to White men while the left promises more or less explicit cuckoldry. Kek is the god of the Internet while ((Jehovah)) is the god of a bunch of squabbling losers and old people.

      • Turtle says:

        “Non-degenerate sex” sounds odd. Trump supporters call each other centipedes to express the mystical nature of morality: are centipedes wholesome? How many orgasms is the correct quantity for “sacred” or chaste sex? How many children should a properly fertile parent have?

        We can’t really decide biological questions with our minds. Jim talks about this very often, because it is so important.

        It’s easy to define degeneracy as a lack of true sexuality, because it involves props for a show or eroticized dishonesty- sex machines are a waste of electricity, but pervs claim they are liberatingly feminist, by replacing dick. Actually, feminists would be more successful raising many children as feminists, but none do that. They prefer to cuck themselves.

        Your apparent, deeply held assumption that women do feel cucked when their man has another girlfriend is feminist, advantaging shrews and harpies over docile, mutually orgasmic young wives. I don’t get why you predicate men having sex on women’s approval- @#$%’squabbling losers’*&^% with symbols around their names might offend your leftist friends, but they do have relatively ‘full quivers,’ even when they are nominally leftist themselves. So why are the whites having children within marriage, worldwide, more often than not Christian or similar?

        I don’t think you know any white Muslims. Consider the “American Taliban” guy when advocating for his religion of choice. Сould you be friends with him? And did you know his dad went gay while he was a teenager, and then A.T. pretended to be black on irc? That’s what ~white sharia~ is- you say White, but mean anyone anti-Christian. You might find yourself with some odd bedfellows that way, not the blonde babes in hijabs you desire. And why would you want any hot women to wear hijabs?

        • Anonymous says:

          As long as whites are patriarchal, monogamous, and TFR is 3 or higher, “degeneracy” as defined by alt-righters: sexual perversion, is basically irrelevant.

          Public displays of sexuality should be forbidden, and the culture has to be thoroughly de-sexualized, but what is not done in broad daylight, should not be intruded upon, generally speaking.

  9. B says:

    >Things are getting violent because the state’s official belief system is getting ever crazier and ever more hurtful, thus the amount of repression needed to make it stick is getting ever greater.

    Things are getting violent largely theatrically because 1) there are smartphones and internet, 2) the ruling elite’s cohesion is disintegrating, its middle layer between the thinkers and doers has become cancerous, and therefore things like the last election (which turned into a meme war) are happening.

    You’d have to go a long way to get to the violence of the Civil War, the Veterans’ March or the 1960s and 70s (thousands of bombings, black riots that made the BLM thing look like an elementary school kickball game.)

    >We want freedom for us, not them.

    The second said freedom is achieved, it will turn out that some of the “us” are actually “them” and should have their freedom restricted. Of course, those “them” will counterclaim that they are actually “us” and it is the freedom of the other side which should be restricted. The revolution produces its Napoleon/Stalin, or Pol Pot.

    • jim says:

      You are an alien looking at this stuff from outside. You don’t know of what you speak. You frequently tell me you know real America and real Americans, but you do not.

      You’d have to go a long way to get to the violence of the Civil War.

      We are now at approximately the level of Bleeding Kansas. From Bleeding Kansas to the war of Northern Aggression was seven years.

      • B says:

        Why, because I’m not on the secret email list?

        I grew up in America, pretty sure I know of what I speak.

        “Our revolution will be different this time!”

        • jim says:

          > I grew up in America, pretty sure I know of what I speak.

          Your account of America is a good deal weirder than your account of your citations, and your rendering of your citations is mighty strange.

          • B says:

            Which part of my account of America do you issues with?

              • jim says:

                The riots looked like race war was coming, but race war did not happen. Largely because the white power was overwhelming, and the sole reason for the riots was whites holding back.

                The white left tried to start revolution, but revolution did not happen.

                Now, however, elements of the permanent government were attempting to start a color revolution against Trump, though they seem to have eased up after Trump bombed Syria, and alternately promised to install the head choppers in power in Syria, and promised not to do so.

                The difference between then and now is that the left, which is the permanent government at prayer, has moved leftwards, and continues to move leftwards at an ever increasing rate.

                Extrapolating the movement left, left goes infinitely far left around 2025 or so, hence war or democide, internal or external around 2025 or so. Sometime in the next decade, the left will get on with physically annihilating its enemies, internal or external or both.

                • B says:

                  Oh, I guess I do kind of know what I’m talking about.

                  Domestic terrorism and rioting were several orders of magnitude more intense than.

                  Race war did not happen, but large sections of urban America were ethnically cleansed. That trend has been reversing for a while now.

                  The left of those days was much more energetic, cohesive and talented than today’s left.

                  I am leery of predictions for the next 20 years. I mean, linear extrapolation is as easy as it is wrong.

                • Turtle says:

                  The riots looked like a wannabe slave insurrection, which failed because Latino/a-s, Asians, everyone not black or white did not participate in the rioting. Asians remembered the Japanese internment after Pearl Harbor. Latinos remembered Operation Wetback. Blacks remembered a score of victories, from Brown v. Board to MLK’s defeat of Bull Connor.

                  So only blacks thought they could get more and more concessions. This was wrong because there’s not much which can be given, even if whites becomes the slaves of blacks. Blacks cannot be given what they want, because they are not happy with what they demand once it is given. I recently heard a black woman tell her friend, who was asking her to sit at the front of the bus with her, that she’s “slapping Rosa Parks’s ass back to the back of the bus.” This is not a ‘please re-enslave us’ movement, but it shows that some blacks are totally disinterested in disobedience, insurrection, etc. They act like Jim Crow is better than the age of Beyonce and Tupac.

                  Revolution did happen in some places, but it was quashed when it came to that. American communists were part of Guatemala’s brief communism, even serving as ministers. THe CIA did not like this communism, and their coup was successful. The communist victories were pyrrhic. Che Guevara attempted revolution in the Congo. but nobody even remembers that. Che did contribute to the later Rwandan / Congolese genocide, but that’s the last stage of communism, democide, while the brief party-rule phase was skipped over. There’s more to history of the modern left than just America.

                  The pink-pussy revolution is unlikely because it does not reward men with sex. 60’s leftism was like an aggressive cult, recruiting with the promised and delivered reward of mostly free pussy. The guys who marched with shrews, median age ~45, did not even get any cougar pussy. They got blueballs, and this blue counter-revolution has brought us some peace. These guys will quickly enough drop out of the ‘trying to score pussy through activism’ club, because they are not in denial about being sexually rejected.

                  The left is also deviants at play, and brigands at work. It’s not as religious as you describe, because they are lazy and can’t agree, for example, on what size their Buddha statues or dragon dildos should be. Are they statues for group idolatry, private statues for personal garden shrines, or sex toys, or oppressively Western, because they were all made by shrewd manufacturers, who tend to be white men? Difficult decisions… a real dilemma!

                  Different parts of the left are moving in different directions. The Christian left proudly hangs up BLM posters, but they do not actually read the book written by Trayvon Martin’s female father figures. Their leftism is shallow- they don’t want Bhutan to suffer the ravages of Western, trashy television, namely divorce, violent crime, status hunger, and sloth. They want a reactionary regime for their dear Bhutanese fellow citizens of the world, and we might agree with them.

                  The Christian left is acting like Trump is bad for business, meaning that he disrupts their alliances. Yeah, he intends to, and trolls ruthlessly. But the Christian left is losing, because libertarians and other well-funded influencers are taking over, for example buying a place at seminaries, from “seminars in being filthy rich” to simply marrying and having children, which is inherently rightist. The clergy of my church give strangely abstract, deteached sermons meant to assuage prog. concern about Trump while not alienating the moderate conservatives present, and I’m already alienated by this chicanery.

                  The main thing I think B is indirectly right about on this issue is that while the left gets pastor’s daughters to buy ugly tattoos and suck the wrong dicks, that doesn’t amount to much- going to slut-college / the carousel does not ruin these sluts’ marriage prospects, it solidifies them. And by the time they are 28, these women are “ready to settle down,” even if that means settling for a beta husband. And if they have Buddhist boyfriends, they are still accepting too much patriarchy to be true leftists.

                  The left is moving left overall, but losing much of its congregants in the process. This indicates they are weakening themselves catastrophically. I expect Cal-Berkeley to suffer consequences “due to threats to our national security,” once antifa blunders again, goaded into offending the relevant moderates, including most Cal alumni, by Ann Coulter.

                  Coulter might be arrested for coming to speak when she was told not to, which cancellation is against her contract, but that will be like invoking the myth of MLK in Birmingham jail. The left, like B says, is retarded, but Jim is right that this is because they are so far left, not just because IQs have fallen since the 60’s.

      • Garr says:

        There’s a Real American in one of the classes that I “teach” here in NYC. He has an Irish surname, so that makes him a Real American. He’s stoned all the time. The Italian boys are sort of half-Real American, right? They’re stoned all the time too. The only boys that aren’t stoned all the time are the Chinese. I don’t know where they get the money for all of this weed. I certainly wouldn’t be able to afford it.

        • peppermint says:

          Weed is cheaper than booze or cigarettes, because it isn’t taxed as heavily and you don’t need as much.

          College is a waste of time for >90% of students and they respond by smoking and drinking all day while waiting for their degree to come in the mail so they can start their lives.

  10. Kevin C. says:

    OT: Trump explicitly supports DACA:

    Remember that “DACA” means non-white illegals who entered the United States as children can’t be deported.

    “The Friday comments confirm Trump’s reversal of his 2016 campaign promise to stop the DACA quasi-amnesty created by Obama during his 2012 reelection campaign. He created the program in 2012 by telling his immigration enforcement officers to provide young illegals with free work permits instead of repatriation orders. The program has allowed at least 770,000 illegal immigrants to find jobs in major U.S. cities, even though tens of millions of Americans outside the cities are unemployed or have given up trying to find work.

    Since his inauguration, Trump’s deputies at the Department of Homeland Security have awarded new work permits to illegals who claim they arrived before age 16, despite Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” slogan.”

    Go on and please explain how this isn’t a flip-flop on a core campaign promise, but somehow “the God-Emperor playing nineteen-dimensional Chinese Checkers”, and he’ll still be building the wall and “draining the swamp” any day now.

    • jim says:

      He has, however, already deported some DACA kids.

      First protected DREAMer is deported under Trump

      Trump says one thing to some people, and another thing to other people. This is called politics. Speaking truthfully and consistently would be unilateral disarmament. We would lose virtuously.

      • B says:

        Amazingly, I’ve heard the exact same reasoning about Bibi from some religious settlers here.

        He lies to everyone, so everyone thinks that he’s lying to everyone ELSE but not to them, finding confirmation in the mass of contradictory statements and actions issuing forth.

        When something happens which makes it obvious that he is also lying to them, it is blamed on American pressure/the Supreme Court/etc.

        American whites are the new Jews in some ways.

        • vxxc2014 says:

          B, I think you win this thread.

          Jim is right Trump has to say 1 to one group and another to others but you still win the thread.

      • Turtle says:

        Two days after Trump saying DACA is staying, A.G. Jeff Sessions surprisingly says DACAs can be deported, implying they will be. So we can be open-minded on what will happen- the immigration/ travel ban cases will reach the Supreme Court by, say, August. We can wait and see on these issues- France’s runoff election indicates many things are changing these months.

        • jim says:

          Of course Trump lies all the time. He is a politician. As the evangelicals observed, we elected a president, not a pastor. But so far, he seems to be lying mostly to our enemies. Deportations speak louder than words.

      • A.B. Prosper says:

        All politicians lie all the time. Only kings can afford to tell the truth and that only sometimes

        No one cares about the non criminal DACA kids being deported anyway .

        The best solution would be to deport criminals determine nation of origin of the others and take them off the tally , There are around 400,000 Mexican DACA kids so the best thing would to reduce Mexican immigration to say 20k a year , subtract 90% of it and apply that to the DACA total. We can revisits the numbers in a couple of decades

        Do that publicly and watch them squirm.

        hell while you are at it, take any illegals caught of the total at double rates

        This will pretty much ensure Mexico will police its own borders

        Now personally I want around 30-50 million deportations not the piddly number we’ll get under Trump but you take what you can get, We aren’t ready for the new ethnostates to pop up ,just yet, They will though, its nearly inevitable unless YT joins La Raza Cosmica for some reason

      • Kevin C. says:

        “First protected DREAMer is deported under Trump”

        Oh really?

        “The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees Border Patrol, says none of that happened. “There are no records or evidence to support Montes’ claim that he was detained or taken to the Calexico Port of Entry on Feb. 18, 2017,” DHS said last week. The first time CBP agents encountered Montes, officials said, was the next day, Feb. 19, when they took him into custody shortly after he climbed the border fence from Mexico into the United States.

        Montes invalidated his Dreamer status, officials say, by leaving the U.S. without authorization and then attempting to re-enter illegally.

        Now there is another question about Montes’ story. Officials say CBP does not deport people “in the middle of the night,” and that there is, in fact, a policy forbidding Border Patrol officers from doing so.”

        So much for that, then.

  11. Thales says:


  12. guest says:

    Fun fact, they also had free speech in the USSR:

    Article 50. In accordance with the interests of the people and in order to strengthen and develop the socialist system, citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations.
    Exercise of these political freedoms is ensured by putting public buildings, streets and squares at the disposal of the working people and their organisations, by broad dissemination of information, and by the opportunity to use the press, television, and radio.

    Except for hate speech of course…
    So go ahead, speak your mind comrade!

    • pdimov says:

      There was no concept of “hate speech” under Communism, as far as I know.

      • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

        Are you serious? Pdimov I know you lean WN but don’t you think defending communists cuz they were white is a little too far? That’s even assuming Russians and Hajnals are the same race.

        • pdimov says:

          I’m not saying that we had free speech under Communism, just that there wasn’t a focus on “hate speech”. It was pretty much as Jim says – you had free speech as long as you didn’t contradict the official doctrine (or didn’t offend someone in power.)

          And the problem, as Jim again correctly identifies, was that it was much too easy to contradict the official doctrine if you weren’t careful and just spoke what you saw.

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            Maybe it was better in Eastern Europe but I’m pretty sure communist control of speech was 10x as intense as (2017) Prog control of speech. There were people who got executed for dropping a book of Mao’s BS in the toilet, so we are nowhere near that level yet.

            I think you guys overrate the 1960s leftist surge and underrate the New Deal. Under the New Deal speed of left singularity Americans would have been eating dirt and human flesh by 1970. Shifting the focus (or the right’s successful resistance, whatever you prefer) to race and feminism slowed down the decline to a certain extent, although the divorce rape laws and ban on family has really hurt.

            • pdimov says:

              “Maybe it was better in Eastern Europe but I’m pretty sure communist control of speech was 10x as intense as (2017) Prog control of speech.”

              Give them time.

      • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

        On Soviet hate speech laws: “Racial prejudice or discrimination of any sort on account of race is fought by law and propaganda……..The criminal code severely penalizes stirring up religious or racial strife.”

        • pdimov says:

          You’re right, I checked the 1951-1968 Penal Code of my country and there’s indeed up to three years imprisonment for inciting racial hatred.

          I’ve never heard of someone actually being prosecuted under that clause though.

          Things were a bit different then. If you were a troublemaker, the People’s Militia would just beat you up, what the laws said wasn’t really that important.

          “The strictness of our laws is balanced with their not being enforced.”

    • Rreactionaryfuture says:

      One of the biggest planks of political theory confusion in the modern period is the assertion that Soviet Russia was in some way the opposite of the anglo-American constitutional system. Having thus asserted that everyone should consider systematically the same systems as different, no one makes any sense.

      • pdimov says:

        Nominally, the legal and political framework was the same as in France (laws were, as far as I can determine, translations of the French laws.)

        In practice though, the parliament, the prime minister, the nominal elected government, and the supreme court were entirely irrelevant. There was no division of power. The party chairman ruled, and everyone knew that.

        • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

          Thought it was the Russian proconsul running things?

          • pdimov says:

            Russia ran things in Communist countries in roughly the same way America ran things in Western countries.

            • pdimov says:

              In fact, the Communist bloc was nominally freer than the EU because Russian law didn’t automatically override national laws.

      • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

        Are you talking about back when they actually followed the constitution or after? Two completely different regimes. The Anglo old regime was constitutional and pretty good. The New Deal regime is basically communist with a lower kill count since they focused on killing unborns and people caught in riots instead of direct murder.

        One of the confusions in NRx is constantly attributing the features of the New Deal regime to pre 1929 when it was not applicable. 19th century democracy with property owners was not bad at all. The current fake bureaucrat pseudo democracy is one of the worst governments in history.

        • peppermint says:

          we need freedom of anonymous speech. Freedom of open speech is freedom to commit lese-majeste, which is nonsensical because the sovereign always has unlimited authority to deal with lese-majeste since when you play the game of thrones you win or you die. Freedom of anonymous speech is freedom to say whatever you want but not gain status from it being true or insulting to the sovereign, which is incredibly useful especially to the sovereign.

          Freedom of speech for progressive utilitarians but not for nazis means you transfer power to progressive utilitarians who accuse you of being nazis and nazis of being you.

          19th century democracy gave freedom of speech to progressive utilititarians and not to White sharia nazis. If you see what was on TV in the ’50s, White sharia nazis were portrayed as evil while commies, atheist+s, and other progressive deviations were merely misguided.

          • jim says:

            This is actually a brilliant compromise – freedom of anonymous speech – but you do not let those those who commit lese-majeste associate or assemble, except to the extent that the chans constitute association or assembly. Chan style anonymous – you don’t let pseudonyms gain power and status by deprecating throne and altar either.

            You don’t let anyone gain status by deprecating the status of throne and altar. Our enemies do not permit it, and if we permit it, they will defeat us.

            Thus the anonymous will protect the King and his Church from getting dangerously deluded, without however threatening his power, serving as a loyal opposition, or at least an opposition forbidden from engaging in organized and collective disloyalty.

            • pdimov says:

              “This is actually a brilliant compromise – freedom of anonymous speech…”

              It was also the natural state of affairs.

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            Peppermint, I’m actually impressed with your solution. It is pretty innovative and different from your usual stuff.

            Nevertheless, I remain unconvinced. I think the official state religion should be enforced on the government, but not the private sector. Obviously any leftist challenge to the state like demonstrations etc should be suppressed – no one has the right to engage in political activity. 19th century libertarianism was not subverted by free speech, it was subverted by democracy and public education, both of which should be abolished.

            But I see no harm in allowing some powerless outsiders to speak on their property, if the state is so fragile it can’t stand a few leftist speeches it probably wasn’t going to survive anyways. Also, legalizing free speech only annoymously is going to lead to a lot of doxxings – how will you restrain the inquisition from tracing down the annoymous commentators?

            • jim says:

              how will you restrain the inquisition from tracing down the annoymous commentators?

              We don’t allow open entry into the inquisition. The Grand Inquisitor does what the King tells him, and the Inquisition does what the Grand Inquisitor tells them. The inquisition monitors the elite to make sure everyone adheres to the official religion, tolerates unbelievers outside the elite, unless they engage in organized collective action to raise their status and insert unbelievers into the elite, does not tolerate lèse-majesté against throne and altar by anyone except by anonymous and by very low status people.

              From time to time, those who commit lèse-majesté are given the gypsy-beggar-tramp-whore-thief treatment, not so much to punish them, though ostensibly it is to punish them, as to punish them in a manner that affirms that they are low status. Trying too hard to find anonymous grants him status he does not possess. Pseudonymous, on the other hand, might well gain status by deprecating the status of throne and altar, and him we do indeed hunt down. We will tolerate chan type anonymity, because it is no threat, except to dangerously falsifiable beliefs of throne and altar. Pseudonymity, on the other hand, can be substantially more dangerous.

              If your identity is message ephemeral or thread ephemeral, the inquisition should not chase down such a low value identity.

              • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                I doubt in practice you can distinguish between pseudonymity and chan type annoymity, especially since people have similar talking styles and the inquisition bureaucrats are going to be looking for more targets to meet their quota for the year, these type of things have a tendency to escalate.

                I don’t think leftists have ever won with speech alone. It’s their organization that should be banned. Augustus was able to live with some people who insulted him, and Roman Empire was a lot less secure than a modern state would be.

                • peppermint says:

                  Currently tripfags, namefags and avatarfags fear getting doxed by each other almost as much as by the government and its parastatals. in the future people will fear being associated with insulting the sovereign as much as they currently fear being associated with misgendering a tranny, and there won’t be that sexy truth value associated with it.

                  But let people have private speeches on private property about how the sovereign should give power to this or that really smart guy because the forces of history make it inevitable, and you’ve reinvented the universities and communists.

                • jim says:

                  Exactly so.

                • jim says:

                  We always have Lèse-Majesté. Today, cannot insult black people – even on private property. It is a lot less onerous to be forbidden from insulting the King.

                • jim says:

                  Such is life.

                  We always have an inquisition. And it always tends to escalate. But if you don’t have open access into the inquisition it is a lot less likely to escalate.

                  For example, why is it that eating saturated fats is sinful?

                  Some scientists discovered some evidence that arguably suggested that saturated fats are bad for you, but other scientists discovered other evidence that arguably suggested that saturated fats are good for you.

                  Then, instead of doing studies that might potentially have resolved the contradiction, scientists who claimed that fats are bad for you had their students spit on and threaten scientists who produced inconvenient evidence, arranged to deny publication of anything they wrote on any topic, and anything their students wrote on any topic, denied them tenure, denied them grants, and threatened their children’s academic success. They arranged for the government to officially declare fats officially sinful, and proclaimed that their opponents were spreading lies in the service of big animal products.

                  In other words, they got inquisition jobs, rather than scientist jobs.

                  Now what the Spanish Inquisition did when it found free lance witch finders, they said,

                  “Hey, cut it out. This is our job. We are the officially authorized inquisition. Buzz off.”

                  And they would send the free lance inquisitors off with a smack around the ears, and give the witch a witch trial with proper rules of evidence. And since there are in fact no real witches, and since Spanish Inquisition had in fact reasonable rules of evidence, the Spanish Inquisition would invariably find the witch innocent.

                  And similarly, I am pretty sure that our inquisition would find scientists that produced evidence that animal fat is good for you innocent, just as the Spanish Inquisition invariably found witches innocent.

            • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

              “those who commit lèse-majesté are given the gypsy-beggar-tramp-whore-thief treatment”

              What type of punishment do you have in mind? Sounds similar to Singapore’s approach.

              • jim says:

                I really love the way Russia deals with Pussy Riot and European University. Recall the wonderful video of them breaking up a Pussy Riot event with whips, not arresting them, just chasing them away like stray dogs.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Repressing a hostile foreign state financed organization like Pussy Riot that does public demonstrations is good. Repressing people writing books and making speeches is another. Doing the latter ineffectively makes you look like an ass, doing it too effectively will lead to inquisition escalating.

                  Do you honestly think the Spanish Inquisition was a success story? It was better than our Prog inquisition but even Kevin Macdonald regarded it as a disaster, and he is no softie on the jews.

                • jim says:

                  The Spanish Inquisition executed about twelve people a year. And they were forcing every single person to subscribe to the official religion, whereas you really only need adherence to the official belief system to be required for governmental and quasi governmental jobs.

                • peppermint says:

                  Robespierre should have been horsewhipped in 1789 instead of guillotined in 1794.

                  All professors need to be horsewhipped now and sold into slavery to the corporations for part of the cost of the outstanding student loan debt, the universities sold for redevelopment as luxury condos.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Do you honestly think the Spanish Inquisition was a success story?”

                  Yes of course.

                  The goal of the Inquisition was to stop peasants burning witches on their own. Which it did. Witches in countries without an Inquisition weren’t so lucky.

                  Grassroots enforcements of the official religion (e.g. today’s SJWs) should be suppressed.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Peasants burning witches can be solved by making freelance witchhunters illegal. I am thinking more on the effect on the conversos and bourgeoisie in general since even those “reconciled” to the Church ended up having all their property confiscated by the Inquisition.

                  Over time, the Inquisition basically became a giant extortion machine wiping out the Spanish merchant class. You guys are imagining some NRx philosophers selectively hunting down leftists. In practice it’s going to become a bureaucrat extortion scheme.

                  “What was notable was the great number of persecutions against moneyed men…only the rich were burned by the Inquisition…It is the goods that were the heretics.”


                • jim says:

                  Peasants burning witches can be solved by making freelance witchhunters illegal.

                  It was never peasants burning witches. Rather it was quasi state entities burning witches. Similar examples of evil magic by evil witches happen today, for example Global Warming, Toxic Waste, and Saturated Fats.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  TLDR: Repression should be directed at actions, not words, and it should be targeted mostly at former leftists, repressing everyone will mean you soon have an out of control bureaucracy which will probably be staffed by the same people repressing us right now.

                • jim says:

                  Repression worked for our enemies.

                  If you don’t have an official state church, you wind up with an officially unofficial state church and a free lance inquisition. By making it formal and official, you can keep it under control.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Over time, the Inquisition basically became a giant extortion machine wiping out the Spanish merchant class.”

                  Evil inquisitors murdered six million of the finest Spanish merchants? (By Henry (((Kamen))).)

                • pdimov says:

                  “… and it should be targeted mostly at former leftists…”

                  Your time horizon is much too short. There’ll be no “former leftists” after 80 years.

                • peppermint says:

                  In 100 years, there will be pretty much no muds left with the last jews having lived out their live leaving behind only human children.

                  The forms leftism will take in the future are uncertain. If we win we’ll be in a much stronger position than the Founders because we don’t have cuckstainty to impose leftism on us over time, however, the usual cuckstain leftism won’t arise and what will will seem new and exciting.

                  We do have a paradox before us. We must disenfranchise the boomercucks and the genxers, and we must also create a society where experience is respected more than theory.

                  We might accuse oldfags of having lived charmed lives because they upheld the theory. This is true of professors and teachers. It is arguably true of white collar White millennials and genxers. Beyond that it’s not true and what isn’t true can’t be imposed by us.

                  A White ethnostate will generate wealth, that wealth will lead to signaling, and the institutions and their controllers will try to signal and increase their scope.

                  Maybe we can somehow ensure that all the money goes into building spaceships. Maybe some people will say that taxation to build spaceships is theft and want some niggers on their property for some reason.

                • Turtle says:

                  “only need adherence to the official belief system to be required for governmental and quasi governmental jobs”

                  You are speaking qualitatively about a specific quantity of workers. So you aren’t specifying what % of the total working population this belief-regulated segment would be. I’m guessing you just use the 80-20 rule, so 20% of the most elite, influential, etc. workers get inquiries about their feelings of devotion, reading lists, etc. Is my 20% guess right?

                • peppermint says:

                  Hopefully more like 2%. The beliefs of the non-political space agency people don’t matter (and as now, the productive are the furthest right, while the less productive and political appointees are the furthest left)

Leave a Reply