War approaches

That is deaths as a proportion of population on a logarithmic scale, so the upward trend in the graph represents a doubling in the proportion of people killed in war.

The next big war is due round about now.

Right now we are heading into civil war. War is easy, peace is hard, in the sense that falling off a cliff is easy, climbing a cliff is hard. Unless you make an effort to listen to the other guy and walk in his shoes, you are going to fall into war, and while it takes two to make peace, only takes one to make war.

They will not hear us, therefore sooner or later, probably sooner, will start killing us and each other. Probably mostly each other.

I am seeing no end of people on Twitter and Facebook calling for white genocide and the destruction of all productive activity and technology, and receiving social approval and state backing for so doing. To the best of my recollection, whenever calls for genocide and indiscriminate destruction have met social and state backing, actual genocide and indiscriminate destruction followed not very long after.

The most peaceful and humane era was about 1750 to 1911. Since then, war, mass murder, crime, violence, and slavery have generally been escalating, most notably in the colossal mass murders of communism(not shown in the graph above). Support for socialism is rising rapidly, and everyone who supports socialism, supports slavery, torture, and mass murder. Recollect that every tenured academic everywhere in the entire US Hegemony supported the Khmer Rouge until Christmas 1978 (at least in the sense of remaining piously silent) while his institution supported the Khmer Rouge even though the crimes of the Khmer Rouge were widely reported in 1975. Every socialist throughout history has, when socialism started racking up huge body counts, continued to support that socialist state until it collapsed of its own evil and self inflicted ruin.

Trouble is that crimestop renders them oblivious to hideous crimes, as in Haiti, Syria, Libya, and the Congo.

Notice how easily overseas color revolutions have turned into terror, mass murder, and attempted genocide, without affecting their sense that they are holier than God, and their confident belief that the benighted will shortly see the light and start pelting them with flowers.

Notice how raising the self esteem of Hutus by lying to them about history (We Waz Kangs) swiftly and easily turned into lowering the self esteem of Tutsis by vaginally impaling Tutsi women with objects larger than themselves, without affecting the enormously inflated self esteem of progressives in the slightest.

We are seeing attempted color revolution in the USA, and we have recently seen overseas color revolution turn genocidal without anyone except deplorables noticing.

I am seeing crazy lunatic leftists who are totally fine with communism and mass extermination of deplorables getting into trouble for insufficient leftism. If Trump is removed from power without being replaced by his son, they are going to die. The left is going to murder Scott Alexander before they come looking for me.

They are unlikely to start listening until holy war has burned itself out, and holy war is apt to be conducted by killing everyone, starting with the women and children, and destroying everything. For us to survive, we will have to kill them, destroy their stuff, and enslave their women.

Chances are that initially many of us will be massacred, and the rest will become refugees, and then, if things go well, we invade when they start fighting each other or the massacre of women and children and the destruction of capital depletes their resources, as the Tutsi refugees invaded their homeland when Hutu energies were absorbed by destroying capital and murdering women and children. Or we might get Chinese assistance to invade, as a relatively sane Khmer Rouge faction received Vietnamese assistance.

The holy, expecting the Eschaton, are apt to destroy the resources and capabilities that they need to wage war, as the Khmer Rouge did. Their indiscriminate self destruction may well work in our favor. Recall the Zealots of Jerusalem destroying their food supplies while under Roman siege, and recall the Romans of the last days of the Roman Empire murdering the wives and children of their foreign mercenaries. The guys on twitter calling for white genocide will set fire to their own cities, cut down their own power lines, and rip up their own water and sewage lines, as the Palestinians of Gaza destroyed the capital that the Jews of Gaza left behind, and that Jewish philanthropists had paid large amounts of money to transfer to the Palestinians in good order and condition, as the blacks of Detroit continued to destroy Detroit after expelling the white people that had built Detroit and given the black people of Detroit good jobs at good wages.

We may well find ourselves rebuilding and restoring order in a howling wilderness. In a long war, they will destroy the resources they need to fight a long war, and we will inherent the howling wilderness. A short war, however, will be funded by smash and grab, which is apt to favor those most willing to smash stuff and to massacre the weak, the vulnerable, and the innocent. In a short war, their superior holiness will work in their favor in that they will be more willing to massacre women and children. In a long war, the fact that understanding economics and logistics is crimethink will work in our favor.

Reaction looks to the past to restore old social technologies that have been lost, and avoid repeating past errors.

Notable among those past errors was the murder of a hundred million or so by socialists, socialism, and leftists, which outcome now threatens us once again. The cure for that error is the corporate capitalism of Charles the Second.

Another error was the thirty years war. The cure for that error is national churches and the peace of Westphalia. As with Orthodox Christianity, the Church should be both national and supranational, with neither characteristic obliterating the other. America’s current wars are, like the troubles leading to the thirty years war, universalist wars fought to impose America’s state religion of progressivism and the holy priesthood of Harvard on the world. The reason the Afghan war goes on forever is that it is not fought to prevent Al Quaeda from re-emerging, but to teach Afghan schoolgirls to put a condom on a banana. Holy wars are always costly, hence we need to restore the peace of Westphalia. Holy war with China looms. If we are going to impose a government on Afghanistan, it needs to be an Islamic monarchy, that is not going to allow Al Quaeda, but is not going to teach schoolgirls to put a condom on a banana either. If we impose a government on Afghanistan, our model should be one of emirates, not Harvard. Our relations with Russia and China need to be governed by the Peace of Westphalia.

The internal democides of twentieth century socialism threaten us once again, and the external holy wars of the seventeenth century threaten us once again. Internal civil war looms, and external holy war looms.

Science is dying, replaced by the demon haunted dark of peer review. Corporate capitalism is dying. Technology is stagnating.

We intend to restore what gave us science, technology, corporate capitalism, and empire, so that mankind can rule the stars under the star empire.

The Restoration of Charles the Second gave us empire, corporate capitalism, industrialization, technology, and science, which is what we intend to restore. Corporate capitalism is one of the things that we intend to restore, under a divine right monarchy resembling that of Charles the Second.

We are never ruled by capitalists. The capitalist class is no more capable of ruling than the proletariat is capable of ruling. We are always ruled by warriors or priests. Right now we are ruled by priests, and when priests rule, they are apt to succumb to holiness spirals.

Capitalism dates back at to least our earliest written records, to at least the early iron age, and probably all the way back to the neolithic Y chromosome bottleneck. Moses was consciously restoring the real or legendary social order of the Patriarch Israel against the decadent socialist social order of the late Bronze age, and the social order of the Patriarch Israel was a survival from the Y Chromosome bottleneck.

Our restoration, if all goes smoothly, will resemble that imposed by Charles the Second. If things go badly, will necessarily resemble that imposed by Moses. A restoration resembling that of Charles the Second will be one that avoids socialism and holy nuclear war with China. A restoration resembling that of Moses will be one that follows the democides of socialism and holy nuclear war with China.

If all goes well, the Holy American Empire and the Chinese Hegemony will both race to the stars, each seeking to grab as much of the universe as possible before the other does. Worst case, and the chance of the worst case is not insignificant, the entire white race gets murdered.

If all men are created equal, then it logically follows that the underperformance of official victim groups is caused by heterosexual white males. Since no amount of reparations seems able to remedy this underperformance, it obviously follows that killing all white male heterosexuals, then all whites, all males, and all heterosexuals, is going to to fix the problem and bring about utopia, and anyone who opposes utopia is an evil white supremacist, and therefore killing him is totally justified, indeed a heroic act of superior virtue.

141 Responses to “War approaches”

  1. Encelad says:

    A number of “spontaneous” protests against the “hate” of right wing (opposition) parties have popped up all of a sudden in Italy, capillarily covered by MSM. Protestors demands are perfectly aligned with the Cathedral (relaxed immigration laws, ban on “hate speech”, power transfer from local parliament to EU’s) and all their leaders worked either for NGOs or leftist media. The very same days, judiciary has launched an investigation against the opposition leader and several members of his team for abusing State flights, and another investigation for… Russian ties. Is this the pattern of a color revolution? Top down action disguised as bottom up?


    • Karl says:

      The goal of color revolutions is a change of government. Protests and investigations against the opposition are not the pattern of color revolutions at all.

  2. AnotherGuy says:

    Hey Jim, I would really like your advice on what to do as a Canadian who is seeing crazy stuff up here too.

    Should I run/hide/flee from what’s going to happen in the US? It seems Canada marches in lockstep with whatever American wants to do so if it decides it’s time to kill whitey I think they’ll be after me too here. I know you’ve said that as the singularity approaches it’s harder to predict what will happen. But I would still like your prediction on what trajectory Canada is going, thanks again.

  3. The Cominator says:

    Id like to hear your comments Jim on this in light of the Democrats launching a futile impeachment inquiry.

    • jim says:

      Impeachment is not intended to pass, which would require a two thirds majority in the senate, intended to be a launching pad for color revolution.

      The old folks in the Democratic party don’t want a color revolution, but they are losing power to the younger folks.

      I don’t think this is terribly newsworthy. Democracy is ending, this one more piece of froth thrown up by its fall.

      • BC says:

        It sure seems that way. These feels more like Epstein than anything solid.

        • jim says:

          And if he had called up a fellow president, and asked him what an opposing presidential candidate was up to (which he probably did, but the conversation is covered by the presidential privilege of both parties) does not seem terribly criminal on the face of it. Mueller has done a shitload of things undeniably criminal.

          And, more importantly, Biden has done a shitload of things undeniably criminal, which is what this is all about. They are indicting Trump for paying attention to Biden’s criminal misconduct.

          The right of sovereigns to have private chats about anything they feel like is long established.

      • Remember Bill Clinton? His impeachment didn’t pass in the Senate either, yet he lost a lot of status/prestige out of it. It’s the old thing: if you have to defend yourself, if you have to tell people you did nothing wrong, if you are necessarily defensive, on the defense, that makes you look weak, non-alpha. I mean, you are forced into a game where you can lose or can come out neutral, just as you were, but you cannot win. You can’t dictate the rythm, you cannot act just react to what others pull. How many times did defendants in a criminal lawsuit come out to applause and higher than previous respect?

        • jim says:

          I doubt that this impeachment would pass the house, let alone the senate. Clinton did something actually illegal. Trump has done something that is both impossible to prove, and legal except in the fevered imaginations of people driven mad by Trump derangement syndrome. I don’t think they have any intention of bringing it to a vote even in the house. It is just intended as a jumping off point for a coup, which coup will probably be stillborn for lack of support by the military and secret service. There are FBI elements that would be party to a coup, but they are being purged – had they tried it earlier, might have had a chance, but they suffered from the delusion that Mueller had the goods on Trump.

          It is merely more Trump derangement syndrome – their plans go astray because they are out of contact with reality. They kept thinking that Flynn had the goods on Trump, even though it was absolutely obvious to anyone with the slightest contact with reality that he did not.

        • Not Tom says:

          Bubba Bill don’t lose status after impeachment, he gained status because he stayed in power and showed his detectors to be impotent. It would be the same with Trump, if Democrats were dumb enough to actually impeach, or even hold a vote to impeach, which they won’t be.

  4. Andre says:

    Quick comment. So I was watching a Jordan Peterson video and he passingly mentions that men commit most murders, but mostly kill strangers, while women commit few murders but mostly kill close acquaintances/relatives. In line with that, I often hear people say men commit most murders, and murders have been on the decline historically and society getting more peaceful. However, there are about a million abortions done in the open in the U.S. alone, mostly done by men (or are most abortion doctors now also women?) by the request of a woman. So a million is A LOT more than the official number of homicides. If you include that, the picture COMPLETELY changes. A pro-abortion talking point is that even when it isn’t legal, abortions are common (there have ALWAYS been the equivalent to a million abortions every year in the U.S., it’s just that now women can do it without fear). I’m pretty sure that is bullshit but even if it wasn’t, that would mean women have always been the #1 killers in society by a massive margin.

    What I’m trying to get at is that all statistics are skewed by the social narrative and one should be careful when trying to draw conclusions from them.

    • alf says:

      I was taken aback by the statistics on abortion. Conservatively, about ten percent of women commit infanticide, but probably closer to fifteen percent.

      • Andre says:

        That wouldn’t be so bad if the other 90% didn’t demand the right to do so if they happen to feel like it.

      • Andre says:

        But men really need to get this through their head. When you are talking to a woman in the West, there is a significant chance that you are talking to a literal murderer. Don’t be surprised when the woman willing to kill her baby because she fought with her ex is also willing to divorce rape you into absolute and total ruin.

  5. Pooch says:

    Are there any statistics of the fertility rate during the time of Charles the Second? What affect did his Restoration have on the fertility rate in England?

    • jim says:

      I have looked for such statistics, have not found them.

      • Pooch says:

        That’s my fear for achieving a Charles the Second-like restoration. All well and good for science and technology, but still not all well and good for fertility.

        • jim says:

          Augustus conspicuously failed to restore fertility, and Charles the Second eased up on the enforcement of upper class husband’s authority over upper class women, though things did not start going going to hell in handbasket until the failure of King George the Fourth to discipline, punish, or divorce his adulterous wife.

          It was huge problem in the time of Augustus, and the Augustan reforms to marital laws made it worse, backing the authority of fathers over daughters, but cracking down on husbands, rather than wives, and undermining the authority of husbands over wives.

          It was not a huge problem in the time of Charles the Second, but he failed to improve matters, and perhaps made them worse. It became a huge problem after King George the Fourth, and has been getting worse ever since, with a partial recovery in the gap between first wave feminism and second wave feminism.

          • Pooch says:

            Interesting. I suspect Christianity had a positive impact on restoring fertility during the late Roman Empire but came too late to save it .

            • BC says:

              At least in the Western Roman empire the brain drain was very bad. I don’t know if the smartest people just moved to the east or if they just stopped reproducing.

  6. Korth says:

    As things stand in the American Right at the moment, white army victory in Civil War 2.0 will be quickly derailed by cuckservatives and neocons, resulting in evangelical protestant Francoism at best, “reconciliation” and drifting back into democracy in the long run.

    The Restoration is never going to happen unless cuckservatives and neocons get the long knives treatment and Harvard and Yale get bulldozed to bits.

    • TBeholder says:

      > white army victory in Civil War 2.0 will be quickly derailed by cuckservatives and neocons, resulting in evangelical protestant Francoism at best
      And simple chameleons. Quite possible.
      Many more are seriously upset by fast mode of frog-boiling, but didn’t get rid of conditioning to accept slow boiling, so they’ll accept anything declawed as “moderate” just out of habit.

      Speaking of which, mindless autocatalysis of the holiness spiral is a blessing. Otherwise, the Progressives (bosses and organ grinders out of self-preservation, monkeys because music changed) could quiet down, roll everything back to Bill Clinton time, wait a little, work out holes in the road and march on. They still can try (Pelosi seems to), but with great losses and risk.

      >and Harvard and Yale get bulldozed to bits.
      Too risky. These places deserve better decontamination and/or containment. :]

  7. TBeholder says:

    > The guys on twitter calling for white genocide will set fire to their own cities, cut down their own power lines, and rip up their own water and sewage lines,

    I doubt this.
    Thugs are dangerous, sure. Though their tenacity may vary greatly. And even unopposed, they’d probably end up warlording over whatever fiefs they can hold against each other, not wage holy wars.
    Paramilitaries are dangerous. And probably armed better that most thugs.
    But clowns mocked with #AirportsLaw? They will tweet, babble, scream, whine and blather. At most, cheer the thugs and paramilitaries, but run at a sight of real danger. How many of them have any experience at actually using an axe or a shovel? If they’d try to damage infrastructure, they are likely to hurt themselves, and then find out that basic first aid is beyond them, too.
    Of course, for example, Trotsky was infamous for verbal diarrhea, yet far from harmless, and not only as a demagogue. So probably some of them are not useless (other than as meat shields) either.
    But vast majority are. They are not a decadent elite of land-owners with decent training, hardened by several decades of conspiracies, dog-eat-dog environment, and a war. They are a soft-bellied spoiled elite of scribes.

    > In a long war, the fact that understanding economics and logistics is crimethink will work in our favor.
    This doesn’t even require a war. Just a little balkanization and brief paralysis of centralized sugar daddies. If the twitter photo of Californian cities and watermelon pipe protests are half-good samples, they don’t need to damage infrastructure to drown in their own dung.
    Also, their ideas of tactics and strategy are, obviously, from Hollywood. And not the best of Hollywood, either.

  8. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    OK people reading this, let me be very clear: I DESPISE this guy. I think he’s a crypto-Jew trying to deliberately misinform the goyim for tribal reasons. I think he’s a libertarian and I think he’s an apologist for some of the most egregious elements of the globohomo coalition that’s literally killing us.

    With that disclaimer out of the way, to establish a context,

    This article is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT ***ON THE MONEY***

    Prepare yourself physically and spiritually because the end days are at hand.

    I don’t care if you’re Old Testament, New Testament, Dawkinsite or neo-Pagan.

    Get ready for bad times a’comin

    • The Cominator says:

      When do your fellow communists revolutionaries plan to start things?

    • jim says:

      > I think he’s a crypto-Jew trying to deliberately misinform the goyim

      Well, if I am trying to misinform, debate me then.

      I will not allow you to debate me by telling me I already agree with stuff I most certainly do not agree with, and I will not allow you repeat claims you have already made far too many times while ignoring the rebuttals repeatedly made, but if you respond to a rebuttal, then, fine, I want to debate the enemy.

      The enlightenment was a terrorist attack on the ancient and divinely ordained capitalist market order, as manifested by the terrorist enforcement of the French Revolutionary Maximum, similar to what is happening in Venezuela today

      The Church of Reason murdered about fifteen hundred priests and nuns, but the vast majority of those killed in the terror were ordinary people accused of hoarding or price gouging. The attack on old type Christianity was primarily a Venezuelan style attack on capitalism and the enlightenment has been waging war on Christianity, Science, and Capitalism ever since.

      Let us debate whether capitalism is ancient, and what the enlightenment was about.

      I have listed, far too many times, the things I would like to debate with you, such as the woman question and the race problem. No, it is not white males that are getting fighting drunk in the streets, it is not whites that are engaging in acid attacks in England. Let’s debate the degradation of culture. Are white tax paying males responsible?

      • EH says:

        CR is pure poison, but you have opened yourself up to the crypto-Jew allegation with your inane position on 9/11, which was clearly of most benefit to Israel and has Jewish fingerprints all over. The tell is reinforced by your insane claims about Gaza in this piece: “Palestinians of Gaza destroyed the capital that the Jews of Gaza left behind, and that Jewish philanthropists had paid large amounts of money to transfer to the Palestinians in good order and condition, “, in which you do what CR always does, assert lies without evidence as if everyone agrees. (Not that the mohammedans aren’t inbred retards, and that’s being kind.)

        • jim says:

          No one has ever genuinely defended any of the troofer claims, except by making blatant lies, confidently asserted as unchallenged, uncontroversial and unchallengeable truth, and then, when that lie is rebutted, promptly moving on to twenty new lies, each of them as untrue as the last, without acknowledging that the first lie was rebutted.

          These are not the debating tactics of a person who genuinely believes that there was something strange about the fall of the towers.

          Everyone who argues that “9/11 has jewish footprints all over it” uses methods of argument that reveals that he knows he lies. If he genuinely believed a word he said, he would try to defend his story, rather than moving on to twenty new stories.

          Further, everyone who uses these methods of argument, will refuse to acknowledge the crimes of the FBI and the Mueller investigation, revealing who is paying him to tell these lies.

          > Your insane claims about Gaza in this piece: “Palestinians of Gaza destroyed the capital that the Jews of Gaza left behind, and that Jewish philanthropists had paid large amounts of money to transfer to the Palestinians in good order and condition, “, in which you do what CR always does, assert lies without evidence as if everyone agrees.

          You want evidence that the Palestinians of Gaza destroyed the capital that the Jews of Gaza left behind, which Jewish philanthropists had paid to have transferred to them in good order? Here is evidence.

          If you hold, as you claim, the standard reactionary position on Mohammedans, why would you find the claim surprising? Why would you ask for evidence for it? Why would you view the claim as improbable, let alone “insane”?

          Self destructiveness is stereotypically Islamic, and holiness signaling stereotypically Jewish. Jews funding the transfer is as stereotypically Jewish, as Mohammedans destroying what they received is stereotypically Islamic.

          Indeed if you genuinely doubted it, you would have done a search for evidence to refute it – for example the counter argument that the Palestinians did not destroy the Greenhouses all that badly, or for no good reason. “There was some looting but …”

          If you genuinely doubted the claim, you would have asked for evidence, or perhaps challenged it with alternate evidence. “limited looting”

          I expect, that like every troofer, you will now move right along: Neither acknowledging that the Palestinians of Gaza destroyed the capital that the Jews of Gaza left behind, that Jewish philanthropists had paid large amounts of money to transfer to the Palestinians in good order and condition, nor responding to the evidence, but rather issuing twenty new claims.

        • Not Tom says:

          9/11, which was clearly of most benefit to Israel and has Jewish fingerprints all over

          Yes, yes, of course it does.

          I don’t remember where I first found it, but this is what the narrative actually looks like if you believe Israel/Jews were in charge:

          Israel: Attack Iran!
          USA: *invades Afghanistan*
          Israel: Uhh, you missed. Come on, attack Iran!
          USA: *invades Iraq*
          Israel: Iran, Iran! With an N, damn it!
          USA: *invades Libya*
          Israel: What the hell? You guys are WAY off!
          USA: *invades Syria*
          Israel: Oh come ON, you’re not even trying! I-R-A-N!
          USA: *bombs the hell out of Yemen and Somalia*
          Israel: Alright, screw it, we’ll do it ourselves. Thanks for nothing, America!

          While it’s pretty funny to contemplate, anyone who believes this is really what happened is either an idiot or a shill.

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            I respect you. I do not disagree with you. But if you change the dialogue just a titch, you have some pretty influential American Jews, and lots of other types of people to be fair, doing some major lobbying for putting semi-permanent military deployments as well as influence operations* bracketing and ringing Iran. In addition, you have other fairly influential Jewish folks advocating for the decapitation of Qaddafi’s regime, which is the direct cause of the migrant surge in Europe which is, surprise surprise, portrayed as a blessing for Europe by none other than group of people, many of them prominent Jews. The same story goes for Syria. True, Israel seemed to like Syria as an impotent punching bag that had some moderating effect on Hezbollah, but they also don’t seem to give a shit about declarations or conventions when they decide to put resources over Syria in their own national interest. As for Yemen, well, that is US ordinance, but it is Saudi motivation and there are verifiable ties between the House of Saud and the Tribes**, both having overlapping incentives regardless of some very divergent motivations.

            All this to say, anyone who thinks Israel had a hand in 9/11 would have a pretty tough row to hoe in terms of proof. That being obvious, it does not in any way invalidate the idea that Israel and their global support network is quite adept at the game of cat’s paw.

            **http://archive.is/UBrwL , http://archive.is/bFhY1

            • Not Tom says:

              But if you change the dialogue just a titch, you have some pretty influential American Jews, and lots of other types of people to be fair, doing some major lobbying for putting semi-permanent military deployments as well as influence operations* bracketing and ringing Iran.

              No doubt; the part about Israel wanting Iran out of the picture is [probably] legitimate, and not conspiracy. But then when we look at American interventionism, we find that America basically has not helped Israel at all with Iran, and to the contrary, presidents like Obama even helped Iran build nuclear capabilities.

              Reality does not look like Jews pulling puppet strings, reality looks like Israel begging for scraps at the State Department’s table, and sometimes getting something that maybe vaguely resembles the scraps they wanted. When an organization like AIPAC does achieve what they consider to be a major policy success, it tends to look ham-fisted and idiotic, like the recent attempts to ban BDS.

              There are Israeli influence ops, just as there are Russian and Chinese influence ops, but the real enemy is Progressive Jews, not Israeli Nationalist Jews.

              In addition, you have other fairly influential Jewish folks advocating for the decapitation of Qaddafi’s regime… The same story goes for Syria

              More dubious to me – dubious in the sense that while there were clearly many Jews in the pro-“war” groups, I saw at least as many lefty Jews in the anti-war groups, and the pro-war ones seemed almost indistinguishable from any garden-variety chickenhawk. I don’t think that any of your facts are in error, but I do think they become less interesting when viewed in the proper context.

              I think that a good way to visualize the U.S.-Israel relationship is like that of a large corporation with a small-business vendor. The vendor [Israel] will constantly send in its sales and marketing people [foreign agents] to try to attract more business [favorable foreign policy], but for the most part it’s the large corporation [USA] who has the real power and dictates most of the terms.

              • The Cominator says:

                Israel wants the status quo with the Arabs all aligned with them. If Iran were eliminated as a threat they’d turn hostile immediately they just don’t want Iran to have nukes.

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                Good read. I concur in large part. Look, i do have massive misgivings about the Jews in America, but as you put very succinctly, it is the Progressives, not the Nationalists. Are the Nationalists sneaky fucking Russians? Yep. So what? I am not going to hate someone for being successful and working towards the goal of self-preservation.

                In large part, you and shaman have really forced me to reconsider my positions on the Chosen. I am in no way above making semitic jokes and talking shit, but that is for keks. I think you do not give Mossad enough credit. Naylor’s Relentless Strike briefly discusses some of the very effective ways Mossad (never named directly, of course 😉 Israeli IC uses American forces to achieve goals, but i think your metaphor is apt in this regard.

                Tangentially, that really old article about influence ops in the -stans was written by an acquaintance of mine. His personal recount of the writing process was actually much more interesting, but he never gave me any more detail that i could follow up on. I say this to acknowledge and amplify your assertion that the CIA does a whole lot of stuff in a wide spectrum of fields to achieve aims. Recommend Crumpton’s The Art of Intelligence.

          • alf says:

            Pardon me for asking, but what does Israel have specifically against Iran that it doesn’t have against all muslim countries, including perhaps more prudently their neighboring muslim countries?

            • Theshadowedknight says:

              Perhaps it is that Persians are different than Arabs. Less militarily incompetent, less self-destructive, etc. Iran is a more credible threat than the rest of their neighbors.

            • Eli says:

              My understanding is that Iran is the only quasi-functional country in the region both somewhat capable and seriously hellbent on Israel’s destruction, in a messianic way. Other ones are not, often being neither (ie just murderous hate and weakness).

              • aidan maconachy says:

                Sounds about right. Not sure how functional Iran actually is in the current period since it is hard to get beyond the misinformation and outright lies. The media pounced a while back on a minor act of dissent – an Iranian feminist burning her burqa – and conflated it into a symbol of more widespread dissent. Only on closer look do you figure out that the related demo was mainly full of males protesting something else entirely and that feminism was bit of a red herring in that particular context. Many false narratives and projections.

                The messianic threat to Israel relates to the Shia belief that Israel must be destroyed in order to hasten the appearance of the “Twelfth Imam” or “Mahdi.”

            • alf says:

              Huh. So what does that make Saudi Arabia… Tribal lands on which the Saudi royal family is the most influential tribe?

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                Basically. The genesis of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq are a fascinating tale of colonizers picking winners and resettling the dispossessed in different places. The Ottomans, for all their faults, were very good at managing minorities. When their structure was dismantled, England and France stepped in to build anew and failed horrible. The Balfour Declaration saga also fits into this story, tying the story of the Jews in the Levant into the grander picture. It is a colossal clusterfuck that makes for interesting reading, and will go a long way in explaining why the region is so chronically war torn.

                Just to pile on to your original question, Iran and Turkey are the only real existential threats to Israel, and Turkey was mitigated (for the most part) by being tied to the West through NATO hi-jinx. Israel has 0 defense-in-depth capability which is the cornerstone of modern warfare when one is outnumbered or otherwise at a tactical disadvantage. They have nowhere to retreat to. So long as disgruntled neighbors are in a wreck of confusion, they are fine. If someone were to unit the Arab world and set their sights on Israel, there is precious little they could do. This is why they work with (however surreptitiously) the Saudis, Egypt, and Turkey. When it comes to Iran, they have nothing with which to bargain, so they are always looking for an opportunity to hamstring their country.

                It makes sense, but it is tragically ironic, given how much Jews and Persians despise Arabs. It would be the colab of the century.

                • jim says:

                  Nobody made the Saudi family winners. They stole Saudi Arabia fair and square.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Nobody made the Saudi family winners. They stole Saudi Arabia fair and square.

                  They never get a 50% stake in ARAMCO unless the Cathedral ties the hands of the Red Gov and forces them to let the Saudis expropriate their oil company allies so they did have some help.

              • jim says:

                Exactly so: Saudi Arabia is not a nation, it is a family – the classic story of mobile bandits becoming stationary.

      • calov says:

        There was a discussion about Nrx and specifically about you Jim on /pol/ last night. Some apparently NazBol guy was arguing that as a capitalist you (& Moldbug) were actually not reactionary at all but still infected by the enlightenment. I thought maybe it was CR. Anyway I would like to see your argument on the ancient-ness of capitalism, because it does seem to me that the way capitalism played out in the 19th and 20th centuries is completely poisonous to a traditional society in which people have babies. Even today in agricultural communities where multiple generations are rooted to the land you have orderly communities, you have no trannies, you have churches with grandpa dad & son in the same pew. Uproot extended families and you end up with bastard children empty churches and Harvard administering the sacrament of hormone blockers to your son.

        • jim says:

          Jesus’ parable on the laborers in the Vineyard, and his parable about the talents, compare God to capitalist, and presuppose shared agreement on the existence and rightness of capitalism.

          King Solomon’s depiction of the good woman managing her family’s business depict her accumulating capital at menial tasks. Capital is not the critical factor of production – entrepeneurship and sound judgement is the critical factor. Thus the woman depicted by King Solomon does not just work hard at a menial job and buy a vineyard for her family. (And her family is most certainly not assigned a vineyard by the King.) She considereth the land and then purchaseth it, directing capital to its highest and best use through the market, and then she plants vines and tends them, physically creating capital. That she considereth land is what makes capitalism work. It is her consideration, not her hard earned savings, that make her a capitalist.

          Note also how contemptuous the businessman in Jesus’ parable of the talents is of merely investing money at interest. His servant was supposed to apply judgment to put the capital entrusted to him to its best use, which is what the parable is all about. We are supposed to act as capitalists are supposed to act.

          The story of Naboth’s vineyard in the Old Testament, book of Kings, tells us that it is contrary to the will of God for the King to seize other people’s capital and business.

          The Enlightenment was an attack on capitalism as much as it was an attack on religion. They started off guillotining priests and noblemen, but pretty soon they were guillotining peasants for hoarding grain and bakers for price gouging, after the fashion of today’s Venezuela.

          The Enlightenment was and is anti Christian and anti capitalist, a revolt against the divinely ordained economic order. A new priesthood displaced the old priesthood, then swiftly set about displacing capitalists as well, as you can see today in every Human Resources department.

          • calov says:

            I agree with this, that capitalism defined as producing something and profiting from it is in accord with natural law & the revealed will of God. However, it seems like with industrialization you did have a situation where instead of sustaining a harmonious society you had society and families being uprooted and destroyed by the pursuit of profit. I don’t know what the solution would be since the old feudal order of families rooted to land and agriculture had become unsustainable (just as the old blue collar factory jobs are now unsustainable). Second, I don’t know if I read it in Guenon or Evola or elsewhere, but it does also seem like in the last few centuries the stigma against greedy sons of bitches who pursue wealth for its own sake has disappeared. Christians until Calvin (including Luther) intrigued against usury not just because they saw usury as inherently sinful but also because merely seeking wealth was considered idolatrous. Greed was a deadly sin and even among Calvinists it wasn’t tolerated, but in the 19th century greed became virtuous. So capitalism meaning the rightness of making money certainly needs to be preserved; but Capitalism as “whatever the market dictates is good and right”–even when it disrupts the family, or when it elevates Bill Gates, Soros, or Bezos to be kings and priests–surely if we have to oppose “capitalism” defined thus.

            • jim says:

              > I agree with this, that capitalism defined as producing something and profiting from it is in accord with natural law & the revealed will of God.

              That is not how capitalism is defined. It is entrepreneurialism, the judgment that the good woman exercised in King Solomon’s story, and the good servant exercised in Christ’s story, using the market to apply capital to its highest and best use, that defines capitalism.

              > Second, I don’t know if I read it in Guenon or Evola or elsewhere, but it does also seem like in the last few centuries the stigma against greedy sons of bitches who pursue wealth for its own sake has disappeared.

              Not seeing it. The demonization of capitalists started with the Enlightenment, with open entry into the priesthood producing an excess of priests, who proceed to intrude into other professions.

              Christ treats the good servant, who is competent profit maximizing business manager, as the good guy in his story. The rich were supposed to be responsible for their employees and were supposed to be charitable, and were frequently condemned for being uncharitable or behind in paying their employees, but no one, pre-enlightenment, complained about profit maximization.

              > they saw usury as inherently sinful

              Pretty sure you are using the commie definition of usury, not the old Christian definition.

              The problem with usury is that if you have strong laws enforcing debt payment, debt slavery or debtors prison, then some people can profit from other people’s weakness, bad decisions, and vice, and are apt to encourage and facilitate that weakness, bad decisions, and vice. Anti usury laws, and proper bankruptcy laws, should share the risk between borrower and lender so that the lender has no incentive to lend money to someone who should not be borrowing, and during the Christian period, pre enlightenment, that is how usury was defined – thus, for example, according to old Christian law, you can lend money on a house mortgage, but the debt has to be against the house, not the borrower, hence fully extinguished by ceding the house to the lender even if the mortgage is underwater, even if the house turns out to be less in value than the mortgage. Which law leads to correct incentives for lenders, forcing them to exercise entrepreneurial judgement over the purpose for which the money is borrowed. Payday loans are usurious at any interest rate above zero, housing mortgages that are secured only against the house, not the borrower, are not usurious, irrespective of the interest rate.

              Payday loans are usurious because the lender lacks incentive to determine if the borrower is borrowing wisely, but with loans secured only against property, the lender has incentive to ensure that the borrower is wisely purchasing the property.

              • calov says:

                Profit is right and good. Defrauding a worker of his wages is as bad as sodomy and murder, a sin that cries to heaven. When the pursuit of profit results in a man not being able to support a family and his wife having to get a job, for instance, that is a problem. Decades later a man can’t even get married because all working class women are taking their jobs and no longer need a man to provide. Making money of course is good. Joseph enslaved all the Egyptians for Pharaoh by selling them grain. The bible reports this without the hint of censure. I’m with you on profit and on the right of those who venture to have the wealth that they have earned. Making money is a good but it is subordinate to other more important goods, like a woman being subordinate to her man, children being born, and similar things that the “capitalism” of the last few centuries have destroyed.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Stop trying to find common ground with socialists its a bad tendency people on the right have… so they try to find ways that capitalism is responsible for poz when its almost always not.

                  Mass female employment was a deep state (CIA) sponsored project to raise taxes it was not part of authentic capitalism in normal societies without specialized starte religions and memeplexes most men who attain sufficient wealth will become a “gentleman” and not do regular work as soon as they get the opportunity, generally living in extra luxury is not worth your time, the puritans were an exception.

                  It takes a very very special memeplex to get women to want to work en masse outside of the home, it was not capitalists that made women work en masse it was the Cathedral. The Cathedral also had to pervert the banking system to jackup real estate to in general require two incomes.

                • jim says:

                  This presupposes that capitalism, and not feminism, democracy, and the enlightenment destroyed the family.

                  This is stupid. Modern capitalism started in 1660. The collapse of the family started in 1820, with the failure of King George to discipline, punish, or divorce his adulterous wife.

                  It is not capitalism, it was first wave and second wave feminism.

            • Not Tom says:

              However, it seems like with industrialization you did have a situation where instead of sustaining a harmonious society you had society and families being uprooted and destroyed by the pursuit of profit.

              How do we break this circular argument? “Capitalism destroyed social ties in the last two centuries, and we know that’s true because social ties were destroyed and we blame capitalism.” But it’s not capitalism that did that; it’s secularism, progressivism, feminism, democracy, immigration, outsourcing, international free trade, and all sorts of other enlightenment ideas.

              It’s nonsense to blame capitalism when economic freedom was consistently waning during this period. We’re basically socialist now, the last traces of capitalism were stamped out around the 1920s and now it’s just a bunch of governments and political groups scrabbling for control of production through taxes, subsidies, regulations, and lawfare.

              Nobody is saying that profit is the ultimate moral virtue, that’s a cardboard cutout used by communists against tradcons who are too simple-minded to make an intelligent counter-argument, and sometimes by economic parasites who have no other reason to exist. Entrepreneurship is just one of many social goods. We aren’t libertarians, but we also aren’t going to countenance blame-shifting from communism to capitalism.

              • aidan maconachy says:

                Capitalism is not the source of the decline. Reaching that point of understanding has taken much misdirection and deconditioning. Leftist ideological blinkers are hard to shake even when you see through them to the bullshit underpinning the “progressive” fraud. Guilt even accompanies the attempt to shake leftist values that once seemed like pristine truths.

                Jim is dead on when he says that The Enlightenment was a key initiating factor behind the rot that is now threatening to destroy us. We have reached a point where this system is the enemy… absolutely nothing can be achieved by debate and compromise. We need to challenge their sacred cows head-on by calling this out for what it is, even at personal cost. In catering, you hand them the power.

    • Joe says:

      We are crypto-Christians CR, not crypto-Jews.

    • Christian Working Families Republican Union says:

      Globohomo are White genocide are surely obscene and mostrous, but it’s not enough to denounce policies, we must reject the underlying sacrilege and heresy. Salvation is by trust in the order of the universe. Marriage is for children to your better half-genome. He who will not work, neither shall he eat. It’s not even that hard to say this stuff out loud, the meek shall inherit the earth.
      Countries that have a native working class have an demographic to vote against socialism, the young hotheads can signal up to the line on PC, the family men are the cuckservatives. Which is fine, they’ll get a square deal and be happy about it.
      At some point, talking like the end is nigh just feeds the left, because their end is nigh. A lot of people, the same people even, currently sullenly selling trash fast food, are going to proudly sell nice fast food, a lot of unemployed people will be domestic servants, the cities will be able to pay for the streets to be swept. You’re middle class, right? Future England needs you and your middle class family, to employ the lower working class, and your children as the future of England.

  9. Reziac says:

    “If Trump is removed from power without being replaced by his son…”

    On that note, do you have any thoughts on a potential Trump dynasty?

    Been watching Barron when he’s (rarely) out in public. That boy is his father’s son, and he misses nothing.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      Trump Dynasty?

      Brah. When Chris Matthews on cable news called the Trump family the “Romanovs”, that’s when I knew I was a weak agreeable high-trust pansy in serious need of reform.

  10. Zach says:

    Hanson has been on this topic recently (first link uses same graph):


    (off topic)
    For some fun, I’ve time-stamped this video from a mob boss. He thinks the corruption in the government has never been higher. He uses Comey as example. I was entertained.


    • jim says:

      Hanson says:

      While old ideologies still have plenty of fire, the big new ideology on the block seems related to woke identity. While this seems to inspire sufficiently confident passions for war, it seems far from clear who would fight who and how in a woke war.

      He should check his twitter feed for tweets urging the extermination or ethnic cleansing of whites, and the destruction of industrial civilization. If all men are created equal, then the underperformance of certain groups must be caused by the evil of higher performing groups, who therefore must be eliminated, since all other efforts to ensure equal outcomes have mysteriously failed.

      The leftmost position always wins, because no friends to the right, no enemies to the left. It is always dangerous to be insufficiently left, it is never dangerous to be too far left. And today, the leftmost position is to kill all white male heterosexuals. Back that position, get praised for superior holiness. Challenge that position, bad things are likely to happen to you.

      Hanson cannot noticed the bloodlust in his twitter feed, because if he noticed it, he would likely get shadowbanned on twitter.

      • Zach says:


        He has been having trouble with the twitter mob for saying nothing radical at all on numerous occasions and then defending himself weakly, as you would expect a tenured academic to do.

        *Knock-Knock McFly. Anybody home?*

      • TBeholder says:

        The leftmost position always wins, because no friends to the right, no enemies to the left. It is always dangerous to be insufficiently left, it is never dangerous to be too far left. And today, the leftmost position is to kill all white male heterosexuals.

        Yes, but it’s too directly self-destructive. They’ll still need a fig leaf.
        Also, they seem to have a bit of disagreement on what’s the “proper” left direction. Not that it would help, since even outside «pas d’ennemis à gauche, pas d’amis à droite» it works much the same way: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15
        Speaking of which, probably not mostly leftists offing each other, as much as their less insane allies offing them like mad dogs after a bit of random riot.

        • jim says:

          The leftmost position always wins, because no friends to the right, no enemies to the left. It is always dangerous to be insufficiently left, it is never dangerous to be too far left. And today, the leftmost position is to kill all white male heterosexuals.

          Yes, but it’s too directly self-destructive. They’ll still need a fig leaf.

          You under estimate the madness, the evil, and the self delusion.

          Self delusion is the only fig leaf they need.

          • TBeholder says:

            They are quite mad. But organ grinders simply want more power, and among the monkeys so far it was “hey, wait, I’m your ally!”, not “kill me as a part of reparations, pretty please”.

            • jim says:

              Yes, but if you simply want more power, you have to be holier than the other guy near to you who also wants more power and who is also extremely holy.

              Not killing all whites, all males, and all heterosexuals is an unprincipled exception. Not destroying technological civilization, industrial civilization, and not suppressing any remaining elements of the old science is an unprincipled exception. And it is always holier to call out the other guy’s unprincipled exception.

              • The Cominator says:

                It’s more that equality is a lie they religiously believe is true so when egalitarian utopia doesn’t happen it must be those evil white male mind control rays… So the solution is killing those evil white males… When that doesn’t work other devils must be selected.

              • TBeholder says:

                Indeed, but who gets to define what is holier?
                Feminists used to wield the most torches and pitchforks, and then somehow got “punch the terf”. Exactly because one band of monkeys got too much power and became less than controllable, of course.
                The propaganda works best with one main focus, anyway.
                If it’s great Jewish conspiracy, then all other enemies are Jew puppets, and then Rosa Kaganovich is created in some crazy postmaster’s test tube. :]
                If it’s OrangeManBad because Russian Bots™, then Disney Wars bombed due to teh Russian Bots™, and while gamergators or racistsexisttransphobes are of course still evil, what’s important is them also, no doubt, being trumpkins. While the threat of dire ManBearPig seems to wax and wane with Moon phases, or something.
                So all it takes is for one organ grinder to come up with a new catchy jig (which is a problem, yes) and be noticed. Then a few years of some new distraction, and monkeys will be too busy competing in the next fashionable brand of lunacy, safer for those who pay the pipers.
                This turn already started: wasn’t BLM the first and loudest but a few years ago? And then somehow they just… fade into background. They are probably still around, and sorta kinda holy, but not the stars anymore. The big lights are on pantifa — no less aggressive, but more controllable.

                • jim says:

                  > Indeed, but who gets to define what is holier?

                  The holiness cycle is partially controllable and partially controlled – central power can steer it, but has limited ability to apply the brakes. It is both centralized and decentralized. To turn off feminism, it was necessary to do “the great society”.

                  Holiness is now charging off in a direction that is very bad for Democrats, and Pelosi and the Clintons are trying to apply the brakes, without much success. Hence the focus on “Russian trolls”. They don’t really want the focus to be on “white supremacism” – because it is painfully obvious that this is an attack on white existence and western civilization, not white supremacism, but white supremacism has legs, while Russian trolls is lame. The entire lineup of potential Democratic presidential candidates goes from crazy to crazier. When Trump is president, and the FBI is under attack, the left lacks the instruments to control the left.

                  For the moderate left to control the lunatic left, they would have to play ball with Trump, which they are not willing to do. When Obama and the Clintons were in power, the left was realistically modeled as a single entity with a single will, capable of acting in a rational and self interested manner. Now, not so much. Trump does not mind the left devouring the left.

                  BLM had power because the central government intervened with civil rights charges to prevent local police forces from restraining BLM from killing people and destroying stuff. Now that local police forces can crack down, BLM disappears. That is central power. Antifa has power in certain areas because the local government lets them get away with stuff. If the Justice Department brought civil rights charges, they would evaporate in a puff of smoke.

                • The Cominator says:

                  You mean do the New Deal…

                  Feminism got turned on again about the same time the Great Society started…

                • jim says:

                  Yes, I meant to say the New Deal.


    • EH says:


      Robin’s latest:

      If you think of yourself instead [of “loyal to a closer community”] as a world cosmopolitan, preferring to promote world peace and integration via a global culture that avoids hostile isolationist ties to local ethnicities and cultures, then not only should you like world-wide travel, music, literature, emigration, and intermarriage, you should also dislike irony. Irony is the creation of arbitrary language barriers with the sole purpose of preventing wider cultural integration.

      He’s an enemy of all mankind. He publicly says he aims to eliminate not just our nation or the White race, but all peoples and cultures, mashing them all into Globohomo paste.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Right now we are heading into civil war.

    I think we are already there.


    One of the more common memes that I’ve seen white supremacists spread around recently has been “diversity is a code word for white genocide”. The concept here is that diversity is only promoted in white nations, and that the end goal is to eliminate white people altogether by flooding all white countries with non-white people until there are no white people left. Well, guess what, white supremacists? That’s exactly right. Diversity IS about getting rid of white people, and that’s a good thing.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      …and the very next sentence:

      “First off, I am a white person myself, so allow me to get that out of the way. I’m extremely glad that the white race is dying, and you should be too.”

      Author is “Emily Goldstein”.

      Come on now. I just can’t buy this. It’s too perfect, like a gourmet steak dinner for $0.99.

      There are wheels within wheels within wheels in this JQ thing that I’m just not smart enough, or sociopathic enough, or whatever the heck enough, to comprehend just yet. And I’m not getting much smarter anymore either. Perhaps I should be glad about this.

      • Anonymous says:

        I wouldn’t worry. People have been having this issue since at least 1800BC.

        Genesis 43:32
        And they set on for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians, which did eat with him, by themselves: because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians.

        (The safest option is probably to let them have their own country.)

        • Calov says:

          Supposedly this was because of Egyptian purity/cleanness taboos, not because they hated Jews. Elsewhere in Genesis the Egyptians keep Hebrews apart from them because they are shepherds, & apparently being a herdsman was “unclean” to Egyptians. Later Herodotus records that Egyptians would not eat with Greeks because they considered them unclean because they are beef, and the Egyptians at that time considered cows sacred.

  12. Anonymous 2 says:

    Before this occurs, I’d suggest the readers here follow the wise advice of Moldbug and focus on becoming worthy.

    If nothing else, try for an official position in your rural county (why not sheriff?), make local and powerful friends and find out where your enemies live; start studying geography, logistics, where the cellphone towers, bridges, optical cables, leftist gathering points are found. Be prepared.

  13. The Cominator says:

    “and recall the Romans of the last days of the Roman Empire murdering the wives and children of their foreign mercenaries. ”

    Very obscure but good historical citation by the way I recall that from Gibbon. Don’t know how the inhabitants of the Italian peninsula avoided genocide after that given that it would make their defenders apt to join their Germanic cousins but also be out for revenge…

  14. The Cominator says:

    A Restoration that shirks from a thorough uncompromising “Final Helicopter Ride of the Leftist” will fail… it is wrong to be merciful to them and we have no right to be merciful to them. If not helicoptered… they must be exiled every one of them.

    To paraphrase Warhammer 40k (where the God-Emperor meme came from)

    “Some may question your right to helicopter ride 10s of millions of leftists. Those who truly understand know that you have no right not to do it.”

    • Reziac says:

      Food for thought… in the Ancient Times, slavery arose not because People X needed labor or hated People Y, but because People’s Army X defeated People’s Army Y, and since disarming Army Y and sending ’em on their way always meant you got to fight Army Y again next year — slavery was seen as the humane (if perhaps unwise) alternative to simply slaughtering them, along with all their camp followers.

      I vaguely recall that later Roman generals were instructed not to bring back any more slaves, because Rome was already overloaded with ’em. And the Iroquois had a policy that when they didn’t need more slaves, they genocided the defeated tribe.

      • TBeholder says:

        Mostly, it was practical.
        1. Otherwise everyone is “cornered” – stands and desperately fights to death. And as Sun Tzu taught, attacking an enemy with this attitude is not a good idea. (Chinese wars tended toward “massacre them all”, BTW)
        2. Corpses are not very useful, while slaves are loot that can be sold.

      • The Cominator says:

        Slaves ruin the labor market the way mass immigrants do which is why NRx is wrong on slavery in general.

        Young women who are disproportionately leftists will be sold as non-hereditary concubines though… they will lack the few legal protections as wives. The men should not be spared.

        The Romans never stopped bringing in slaves though they should have. They did not bring in slaves in the Italian “Social Wars” because they thought it was better to slaughter their own brothers rather then enslave them.

      • The Cominator says:

        Heres another reason from one of the Cathedral’s Old smart but evil sith lords who recently died (as opposed to the new Cathedral bosses who are evil and stupid).


        And the evil sith lord of the old Cathedral Brziezski was right, hard to control people who are hostile to you.

        If you want white males to have high trust and aasibayah with each other leftists (who are traitors) among white males must be helicopter rided or be driven into exile.

  15. Vlad the Impaler says:

    Great post as usual. My take on Trump is that for him to do a Cromwell will require a certain degree of pressure from the left, likely an immense amount of pressure. This will require him to win in 2020 (the most likely outcome by far), because the pressure needed for Trump to dissolve the monasteries will only have mounted some time between 2020 and 2024.

    However, I suspect that Trump will need to feel *directly, personally* threatened. His stance on gun control indicates a distinct underestimation of the danger that whites are currently in, meaning that he underestimates the Left’s genocidally murderous intent, meaning that he will likely not connect the dots between the threat to his base and the threat to himself.

    I also want to ask: what is your view on the limits of space travel? When you say “empire of the stars”, I’m hopeful for an empire of the solar system at best. Is your vision of this future filled with human colonization of more distant bodies than the Moon or Mars, or less sophisticated activities such as mining?

    • jim says:

      I figure we will settle more and more distant bodies, until the outer fringes of the oort cloud overlap with other Oort clouds. I expect nuclear fusion rockets that can reach about one percent of light speed, thousands of kilometers per second.

      The outer Oort cloud has about five to the three hundred earth masses. The inner oort cloud is likely much larger, but I care more about the outer Oort cloud because it likely overlaps with large numbers of extrasolar objects, so that settlement of the outer fringes of the solar system will spontaneously become settlement of the galaxy over a period that is longer than human history, but short compared to evolutionary time.

      • Vlad the Impaler says:

        I did some quick research, and using rockets such as the ones you’ve described, it would take a minimum of around 250 years to reach the outer Oort cloud on a single journey. So you’re expecting a series of colonies that gradually lose all meaningful contact with previous ones, with every outer colony having never made such contact with Earth and each colony’s citizens only being familiar with colonies within a certain range?

        It’s an interesting idea, almost like a reiteration of pre-industrial civilization, at least in terms of the rate of contact between separate peoples. Even radio broadcasts from Earth would take years to reach the furthest colonies.

        So unless these rockets are somehow outfitted to carry 250 years worth of supplies, spacefaring civilization in the Oort cloud and beyond would hardly be a unified empire of mankind and more like a field in which there are individual colonies and empires of colonies, all of which are able to trace their lineage, colony-to-colony, back to Earth.

        • jim says:

          Colonies will remain in cultural and social contact, and continued technological advance is likely to greatly increase the human lifetime, so that they remain in effective physical contact.

          As manufacturing advances, the information economy will become, is already becoming, larger than trade in physical goods. Rather than having an item sent to you, you will download the program for making it. The information economy will remain connected by lightspeed communication.

          Numerically controlled manufacturing devices in the middle of the back of beyond are already economically significant and widely used. It is already the case that I get stuff made a short distance away from information sourced from the other side of the earth.

          But, if the human lifespan remains stuck at three score and ten, they will lose physical contact.

          • Vlad the Impaler says:

            I have thought of multiple ways in which the often years-long delay in lightspeed communication would alter the way in which manufacturing is conducted, all of which can essentially be boiled down to a dramatically increased focus on the effectiveness of the storage, protection, maintenance and versatility of capital and raw materials.

            As a basic example, any data regarding a new development on Earth would take years to reach an Oort colony, so said colony would need to have positioned itself and it’s approach towards it’s capital so as to anticipate any such development, lest it lag behind Earth for any longer than it needs to.

            Overall, humanity’s outlook would need to morph into one that has a significantly lower time preference. We would also need very precise predictive capabilities in order to ensure that our available factors of production are useful for a wide range of probable circumstances.

            This cannot be acheived without spectacular eugenics and long-term social order.

            • jim says:

              Overall, humanity’s outlook would need to morph into one that has a significantly lower time preference.

              Recall the building of the Cathedrals often took centuries. People, tribes, cultures, religions, and groups with very long time preference will seize the stars. People, tribes, cultures, religions, and groups with short time preference will not.

              A people that could build a Cathedral could, with better technology, reach the stars.

              It took two and half centuries to build The York Minster Cathedral. It will take about that long to reach the nearest star.

      • Dave says:

        In the likely case that fusion reactors are impossible, our descendants might use fission and solar power to mine asteroids and eventually disassemble the planet Mercury to mass-produce hollow cylinders with a billion times Earth’s total habitable area, each cylinder containing a few square miles with whatever climate, gravity, and day length its residents desire. They’re like O’Neill cylinders except that efficient solar panels and track lighting remove the need for windows, mirrors, and complicated steering mechanisms.

        The lack of fusion forces life to crowd around stars for energy. There might be fission fuel in the outer solar system, but you’d have to dig through a lot of ice to find it. A Dyson swarm around the Sun could easily support a quadrillion humans, but they’d have to remain forever at peace, because one minor skirmish could produce enough debris to start a chain reaction of destruction that renders the entire solar system uninhabitable for millions of years.

        • jim says:

          Forever peace is unlikely. A Dyson swarm is dangerously fragile.

          What could work is a series of rings, each ring with wider orbit than the one inside, each ring at a slight angle to the one inside. That could intercept a substantial portion of the sun’s light, without being subject to a potential chain reaction of destruction. Each ring would be a chain of habitats, each habitat about one hundred times the size of the earth.

          To make fusion workable, we just need better superconducting magnets. We are a long way short of the theoretical limit on superconducting magnets. Recent advances in superconducting magnets have brought fusion in reach, albeit just barely within reach. A lot more progress is possible, if we pull out of the current social decline.

          Itar is an impractical design, incompetently executed by the usual idiots. But the stronger magnets available now arguably make fusion feasible.

          Without fusion, will have to hang close to stars, and the gulf between stars is a huge problem. With fusion, don’t need to hang close to stars and the gulf between stars is full of power and raw materials.

          • Dave says:

            All fusion reactions of readily-available light elements, i.e. what you’d get by sticking a shovel into Ultima Thule, release most of their energy as fast neutrons that cannot be contained by any sort of magnets, pass freely through lead, kill anyone who stands too close, and quickly turn your reactor into pile of brittle, highly-radioactive junk.

            • BC says:

              That’s what I’d read as well. I’m not aware any sort of advances that overcame this issue. Fusion appears to be a pipe dream.

            • jim says:

              Fast neutrons can be stopped – releasing their energy as heat. It requires a sufficient big blanket inside the magnets. And then a very big cooling tower to radiate away the heat, not very suitable for an interstellar drive.

              But helium three fusion does not release fast neutrons. You can get helium three on Uranus, but not on Ultima Thule. Assume you have a big ass deuterium based fusion reactor and a great big cooling tower to power your colony on Ultima Thule. It is going to produce helium three, which releases its energy primarily as fast protons, which can be expelled directly as rocket exhaust. So you mine deuterium on Ultima Thule, generate helium three on Ultima Thule, and use helium three to power your colony ship taking the excess population from Ultima Thule going further out.

              • Dave says:

                Sounds like a very fragile energy infrastructure dependent on a few widely-spaced large plants that are insanely expensive to build because metal is so hard to get in the outer solar system. There are no veins of ore in the Kuiper Belt, just undifferentiated frozen dust. Temperatures are near absolute zero and the distances between iceteroids are huge, so rescue and resupply are years away, while death is minutes away if your generator breaks down.

                • jim says:

                  Chon compounds can do anything metals can do, except that certain catalysts will continue to need very small amounts of metal. To settle the Kuiper belt, will need to greatly improve our Chon technology, so that we no longer rely on high atomic weight metals as a construction material. Stronger superconducting magnets mean smaller fusion plants, though the fast neutron problem means that they can never be all that small, if using fusibles obtainable in the Kuiper belt. A settlement will have a couple of fusion plants, and a very large stockpile of liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen, and liquid methane, so that when a fusion plant fails, death is years, not minutes, away. Kuiper belt seems to have a significant proportion of asteroidal material, so there is a modest amount of high atomic weight material out there. It is dirty ice, not ice. Probably about the same proportions as Uranus and Neptune. CH chondrites are forty percent metal, and probably represent the non volatile fraction of Kuiper belt material, the dirt in dirty ice.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Chon: Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen Nitrogen?

                • jim says:

                  yes. Plastics, biotechnology, carbon fiber, and such. The stuff of threedee printers.

                  We are going to need a threedee printer that can do electronics. Carbon nanotubes can take electronics down to a much smaller size, higher speed, and lower energy consumption than silicon can.

          • cloudswrest says:

            What I’ve thought of is crater cities. For a starter habitat drop one of those inflatable tennis court like structures into a suitable sized matching crater. Lightly inflate, and back fill with regolith to balance the pressure as you increase the pressure. Reinforce the interior at your leisure with columns and cables for underpressure and overpressure respectively. For larger habitats have rim railroad centrifuge living quarters for artificial gravity. I think Ceres would be best. Lower gravity for construction and egress. Far enough away from Earth to avoid too much interference.

            • impenitent says:

              Why does everyone keep assuming living on the surface is desirable? There is no air, the day cycle is not suited to humans and on the moon at least we know that darned dust is everywhere. Dig in.

              • cloudswrest says:

                Resources and raw material close at hand. Regolith ballast provides pressure containment for arbitrary large volumes without super strong materials.

                • impenitent says:

                  Why bother? If it isn’t going to be transparent, and you woudl be daft to do that with anything like current materials tech, get under a hundred feet of rock. Much safer. Remember you get no atmo OR Van Allen belt anywhere but the Earth. A hundred feet of rock is a good substitute for the protection both give us here on the Earth. We know how to cut tunnels through rock.

                  We really don’t know if any of the difficulties we have with deep tunnels here will turn up on the Moon or what unexpected differences we might find, but it should be mostly the same. But a tunnel complex under fifty to a hundred feet of it shouldn’t be a problem. The surface would be for solar arrays, launch pads, etc.

                • cloudswrest says:

                  When I say “crater cities” I don’t mean a city, sitting in a crater, exposed to the sun and space. It’s covered with regolith ballast to balance air pressure, provide shielding, and provide thermal insulation. On Ceres you need about 200 ft of ballast covering (at 0.029g and assuming regolith density of 5 g/cc). For the moon you need about 36 feet. Craters provide a ready made excavation, and backfilling with regolith is far easier than boring through rock. Just fling the dirt on top. Bored tunnels could connect adjacent cities.

    • TBeholder says:

      > His stance on gun control indicates
      Maybe. But is what he says “his stance”? He doesn’t exactly spearhead legislation. What is the actual effect of what he says?

  16. Dave says:

    Warren and Harris might inadvertently lose the war for their side. As candidates play for the Super Tuesday monkey vote, they trot out the old shibboleth that police are deliberately murdering young black men. Last time they did that, it inspired the assassinations of a dozen police officers. After a few hundred more such killings, police might tire of being the Left’s scapegoat, rise up, and become the renegade blue-clad right-wing death squads that the Dems presently imagine them to be.

    The Left will lose this war because there is no possible outcome that doesn’t put millions of Leftists into mass graves. The only question is how many of us they drag down with them.

    • jim says:

      The left will lose this war because self hating and self destructive. But that does not necessarily mean that we will win it.

    • Yul Bornhold says:

      Both police and military have been polluted with fags and women. They’re not on our side. I know good men who’ve taken off their uniforms in disgust over globohomo contaminating their profession. Guess which sort of fellows are still wearing theirs.

      • Dave says:

        True, but not necessarily bad. A faggier, more feminized police and military are less competent, therefore less able to oppress us, less able to protect liberal whites from being hacked to death by their beloved diversity, and hopelessly unable to prevent vibrants killing each other.

  17. pdimov says:

    It’s interesting that Russia is absent from both “holy nuclear war” and “race to the stars” scenarios.

    • jim says:

      This is probably my bias – I have more contact with people fleeing the US hegemony to Chinese hegemony, while people in Europe have more contact with people fleeing the US hegemony to the Russian hegemony.

    • Stuart says:

      Russia is a nation of backwards troglodytes with a GDP less than that of New York state. Like North Korea, they waste what little capital they have on military bluster.
      Forget Russia. They aren’t players. Just leave them alone and they will stay that way.

      • pdimov says:

        You can either spend your capital on “military bluster”, or you can be an American colony. Them’s the choices.

        China is an exception, but not for long.

    • jim says:

      Oh what a big surprise. Are you surprised? Another friend of Clinton tragically dies.

      If an ordinary person goes to prison, he gets no privacy. You think Epstein got privacy?

      • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

        The timing sorta supports your idea that the Epstein prosecution was driven by Trump Derangement Syndrome. It was pretty clear by now that the vast majority of people in Epstein’s social network are rich Democrat businessmen, but they are Clinton supporters and Jews and old (white heterosexual) men, none of whom are important to the Obama techlord/minority coalition ascendant in the Inner Party. Throwing some of those dinosaurs to the wolves is a small price to pay for taking down Trump, and if a Clinton or two get tarnished in the process that is actually an added bonus in the ongoing revolutionary struggles within the DNC.

        If that was the plan, it hit a fatal snag yesterday when the unsealing of Epstein “victim” depositions conclusively refuted any connection between Trump and the Epstein sex ring. It seems that Trump’s circle has no exposure at all to any Epstein revelations, and even Bill Clinton may not be tied to any sex. The upside has disappeared and the potential downsides are huge. Half a day later Epstein is dead.

        • jim says:

          Well spotted. Epstein died within hours of it being discovered he was not going to be the Trump slayer.

          • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

            It’s interesting to reconstruct the inter-factional warfare here. The Mueller FBI, run by Bush and Clinton appointees, declined prosecution of Epstein through at least the late 2000’s, as he was nominally an informant. He was in fact a useless or pretend informant, but his protection was extended through 2016 by Clinton and her people still being in office, and her interests not diverging too much from Obama’s. Trump doesn’t have any people outside the very top tiers of the FBI and DOJ, so the arrest of Epstein was basically an Obama vs Clinton party battle among the Democrats coming into the open, with Barr as a powerful but distant referee who can occasionally intervene but not control all the critical low-level details that determine Epstein’s ultimate fate.

            Once the lefter Democrats saw an opportunity to sink Trump via Epstein, Clinton interests were thrown overboard (a feature not a bug) and the re-prosecution commenced… but then Clinton folk in New York DOJ were able to have Epstein put in Riker’s island where he could be easily killed or controlled. Trump’s people (Barr) overruled that. Then the probably Clinton-embedded ex police officer “cellmate” got to Epstein as a murder attempt or a warning. Then, Epstein was transferred to a secure cell, but the prison guards (vs management) are more from the demographic on the Obama payroll, so it was probably not too hard to have them go on vacation the minute Epstein became disposable.

      • Reziac says:

        Another theory goes that he was spirited out (noting that the face on the slab is an iffy match for the face in older photos) and is now in either Witness Protection, Gitmo, or some foreign mobster’s basement. One source reports (I have no idea of the veracity) there was a power outage and something like a prisoner transfer, only odd, a few hours before the purported and overly-coincidental suicide.

        • jim says:

          Epstein knows too much.

          Therefore, is dead.

          • Reziac says:

            Theories aside, I don’t doubt it; simplest way to get rid of the prime witness. But considering his papers are thereby free-for-all’d, may not have been the wisest move.

            Forensic autopsy, if any (assuming not nixed by Jewish prohibition against it, as defiling the dead or something) and if not compromised, would be mighty interesting.

            AG Barr’s remarks indicate he doesn’t much believe the suicide story either, and intends to look into it.

        • Stuart says:

          Nobody’s interest is served by his remaining alive.

  18. ColdSteel1983 says:

    Really excellent piece of writing and thinking. Very thought provoking. Unfortunately, I don’t see a path that avoids self immolation.

    And, when we start tearing ourselves apart, I expect the virus to spread and we’ll see widespread and global disruption. China could implode far More quickly than most assume and that will be a barn burner.

  19. Matt Bracken says:

    Brilliant and fascinating!

  20. RedBible says:

    Kind of related to the upcoming civil war; what are people’s thoughts on homesteading?
    I’ve heard some say that it’s a good idea since once chaos breaks out, being able to make/grow your own food will be very useful.
    Others say that homesteaders will be early targets of mobs (wither the government or hungry hordes), and that will make one a bigger target, and thus is more of a hazard than a help.

    • CJ shannon says:

      You raise a good question. Most “preppers” have an established defense set up because of rheveey question you raise. It’s one of the reasons most of them want to be as far from civilization as they can be. I new preppers (they weren’t called it then) 40 years ago in the southwest and they had hidden outposts far, far from everything. They didn’t talk about and one l knew even had military vehicles that would allow them to get there protected.

    • Anonymous 2 says:

      Here is a possibly relevant series on prepping and Katrina: https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2008/08/lessons-learned-from-hurricanes-katrina.html

      A full-blown war might be a bit different though.

    • Reziac says:

      It’s a long long walk from the starving cities to the productive farmland. Homestead at least a week (or better yet a month) by shank’s mare from the nearest concentration of ferals, and once the fuel runs out — most won’t make that trek (starving all the way), even if they understand where their food and fuel used to come from.

      A strong and motivated adult carrying nothing can do about 30 miles a day under ideal conditions. Conditions will not be ideal, especially when they’re being attacked by their fellow starving ferals, just in case they’re carrying something edible. (Or are themselves edible.)

    • impenitent says:

      If things go full zombie apocalypse surviving that first year will be the hard part. Burn the fields and hide the livestock. Make any visible buildings look looted. This means you need stored supplies to keep people and animals going for not only the year but until crops can be grown.

      The bigger danger is Jim’s long war scenario. A long war and being anywhere near a hot zone with supplies ready for the taking by any combatant faction. Few preppers are in big enough groups to withstand any military unit wandering by to “resupply.” And it is unlikely that all comms are going down in the first year or two if it is a long civil war scenario, so even if you defeat a military unit they now know you are there and hostile.

      Then there are a lot of other wildcards. Are eyes in the sky still operating?

      In Jim’s short scenario the trick will be to escape notice of the murdering mobs somehow. In the long one you can pick. Try to survive without making contact by any of the warring factions, where sats might still be looking down on everything or be in one of the warring factions. Not seeing any good options.

      One thing is certain, instead of waiting on them to destroy their own ability to live and make war we should be ready, willing and able to do that for them. They live in very fragile cities. If we stockpiled accurate maps of the infrastructure, on go day a hundred men could take New York (or any other metropolis) off of the electric, telecom and transport grids, and in a shooting scenario make it such that it would be unlikely to be restored to anything like original capacity.

      • TBeholder says:

        Then in the end, it’s probably going to be same old: the safest strategy is to adopt “your” unit, that in return will protect you as part of their logistic chain and occasionally drop some loot useless for themselves.

      • Reziac says:

        Drive the livestock into the mountains for summer pasture; you’ll need big dogs and armed shepherds to defend against wolves, but feral humans aren’t likely to find them. And come winter when the cattle come back to the lowland pastures, let the snow and cold be your barrier.

  21. >If all goes well, the Holy American Empire and the Chinese Hegemony will both race to the stars, each seeking to grab as much of the universe as possible before the other does.

    Well, if one can dream, an Eurasian Confederation (of monarchies) could be third. I am not a fan of Dugin, the Fourth Theory is bullshit, NazBol is a particularly evil bullshit, but Eurasianism the way G. Faye had put it is sympathetic to me. To try and marry European intelligence, sophistication and limp-wristed faggotry to Russian manliness, drive and crudeness. It could result in something intelligent, sophisticated, manly and driven. (Or it could be crude but limp-wristed faggotry, but that sort of thing would not survive.)

  22. BC says:

    >If all goes well, the Holy American Empire and the Chinese Hegemony will both race to the stars, each seeking to grab as much of the universe as possible before the other does.

    Deus Vult!

  23. Theshadowedknight says:

    You mention in a short war the side most willing to slaughter their enemies and steal their shit has an advantage. Any chance that we can start putting that together? We have a religion. In hoc signo vinces: go and conquer in my name. Can we start inculcating that in the reactionary warrior class? Christianity has historically been capable of near unimaginable brutality by modern sensibilities. It would serve us well if we started building our own templars now than waiting for the fight to be on us to learn to fight back.

    • Coldsteel1983 says:


      There is likely. A “reactionary warrior class”. It’s the several million loosely aligned folks that. are disgusted and infuriated by and alienated from what passes as our “society” today. They. (we?) are essentially rule followers that. seek little more than peace, family and a modicum of Freedom.

      But, the true believers won’t let it that and will act to root out and eradicate (one way or another) the nonbelievers. They will create the instrument of their own destruction through their righteous and dogged pursuit of what they see as “right and just”.

      • Theshadowedknight says:

        The reactionary warrior class is not millions. It is the knights and lords, the military equivalent of the reactionary intellectual class as priests. Jim is High Inquisitor of the Neoreactionary American Orthodox Christian Church. We do not have a king, but we may have some nascent noblemen. How to find them and begin preparing is the problem, because I do not want to get caught unprepared when genocide/democide starts.

        • Stuart says:

          “We do not have a king, but we may have some nascent noblemen. How to find them and begin preparing is the problem”

          You do not need to “find” them. They will step out of the shadows when required. Like you, they are already preparing – although they may very well not know who they are themselves at the moment. In short, you are trying too hard my friend.

Leave a Reply