This blog is not about the news of the day, but the news of the century and the millenium.
Which therefore bleeds into the future. So, taking a victory lap.
Unnamed “foreign diplomatic sources” are saying the Ukraine peace plan under discussion is a temporary short term ceasefire, followed by an election, followed by an actual peace deal. Reading between the lines, Russian sources.
American and Ukrainian “sources” are pushing back, saying an election would be marred by “Russian disinformation”, and would likely result in the election of a Putin puppet.
Unnamed “foreign diplomatic sources” (again, reading between the lines, Russian) are saying that if “Russian disinformation” is the only thing marring the election, Trump is fine with a “Putin puppet” being elected. Which was the inner meaning of Vance’s security speech.
A very short time ago I wrote:
So one deal that might cover Trump’s ass is a short term truce, say three months, to allow for the ending of martial law and all that in the Ukraine, so that free and fair elections can take place. And then hold elections that are actually (gasp) free and fair. Which would likely produce a Ukrainian national government committed to neutrality and buffer state status, and a large minority of local governments committed to union with Russia. Oh, says Trump, will of the people. Russia and the newly elected government agree to peace, and as part of that peace, America and Nato agree to a mutual security arrangement. Hey, not a defeat, Trump could say. Rather, “democracy has triumphed. America, the great defender of democracy, is great again”. Vance in Munich announced priorities that would make a peace deal like that not a defeat, but a victory.
Of course, as yet this is all “sources”. We have yet to hear from Trump, and will not hear until the deal is done.
fingers crossed.
Sort of like how some Republicans claimed the Restoration as a victory for their side because Parliament invited Charles II to come home and rule as King?
How does Putin know this isn’t another ruse to give Ukraine time to re-arm and build up new defensive lines?
>re-arm
Who is capable of sending them weapons?
>build new defensive lines
With what troops?
Putin would rather not see the war extend into Poland, Romania, Estonia, etc. Or escalate into nukes. He likely understands that the only way to eventually get unstuck here is to negotiate, and he likely trusts that Trump really does want this thing over, and sees the autogolpe that just happened. So it looks like we’re set for democracy in a neutral and neutralized Ukraine.
Europe wants to fill the void.
Looks like we’re going to find out the extent to which Europe will obey Trump’s America, the extent to which Trump can make Europe obey, the extent to which Europe actually has anything to say, and the extent to which these changed power dynamics are going to cause trouble.
It will realistically take years (a decade? a couple of decades?) for Europe to re-arm and become militarily relevant again. That kick in the behind by Vance was sorely needed, but there’s a long way to go. The offended squeals of EU bureaucrats in the meantime are if anything only counter-productive.
With what army? With what war industry? They’ve hollowed themselves out on every level for the last three decades.
We have already seen that. Europe, or a subset thereof, just had a conference to raise one hundred thousand troops to put into Ukraine. Which is the minimum needed to make a difference, but not enough to make a substantial difference. They sent around the hat, and got promises of twenty five thousand, all the promises conditional on someone else doing the heavy lifting, and no one wanted to do the heavy lifting.
And I don’t think Europe has 25000 actual fighting men. We saw during the Middle Eastern wars that Britain, who has a hundred generals, can only put a hundred boots on the ground. As a result of priestly hostility to warriors, Britain’s army was all bureaucrats and logistic workers, and by now it must be worse. Are any European powers in better shape? Europe’s military forces resemble California’s high speed rail.
If they attempted to fulfill their promises, they would wind up not sending actual soldiers, but creating bases full of brass covered bureaucrats doing what Musk has revealed that the Washington bureaucracy does.
I don’t think Europe has 25000 actual fighting men.
Almost certainly not. But the Eurocrats do have banlieues thronged with many tens of thousands of potential jihadis who they might figure could be enticed to go fight Russians.
I wonder whether the Eurocrats would be dumb enough to hand them guns.
I understand the point that armies are toothless and too bureaucracy heavy, but the UK deployed 40K troops in the Iraq war. I’ve met multiple people who saw action, so I would guess there had at least 10K fighting men at least back then. I sure things have declined in 20 years, and numbers would need to be at least 10x to 100x higher to have significance vs a real power.
In Afghanistan, theoretically Britain theoretically had five thousand troops at any one time, but approximately one hundred British troops actually facing danger, shooting, and getting shot at.
In Iraq, did in the British deploy forty thousand troops, or 39000 brass covered bureaucrats and camp followers, and only one thousand troops?
The British were supposed to be occupying Basra. Occupation was not apparent. The British did not seem to cramp the style of their enemies. One would think that one thousand rough men with guns would have considerably more impact.
The battle for the city was grunts on grunts. Whoever had the city could take the oil. And it did not look like a battle involving forty thousand, or even a thousand, British grunts.
Basra did not fall to storm, but to seige, and that seige was largely American. The enemy laid down their arms, disbanded, and allowed British troops to take Basra so that the siege would stop, The siege being ended, the Iraqi army disbanded, a new enemy army formed, the Mahdi army, which did not expel the British, possibly for fear of the siege resuming, but did take control of the city, the port and the oil.
Presumably contest for the oil was hard fought. Yet there do not seem to have been too many British casualties over the oil. Compare with the enormous casualties on both sides in the battle for Bakhmut. This was a strangely small conflict over something of immense value.
The British army retreated from the city to key forts controlling the oil and the port, supplied by air. The Mahdi army lacked anti air. But they obtained rocket artillery, and fought a conventional battle for those forts. It is probable that the British were more casualty averse than the Mahdi army, but still, does not seem to have been a large conflict. Not much flattened. Not many casualties on the British side. We do not know how many casualties the Mahdi took, but we know not a lot of lot of physical destruction on the Mahdi side, while Backhmut was largely flattened by both sides’ artillery.
Mahdi had the huge advantage of concentrated fire, because they were surrounding very small targets. The standard military response to this situation is to push forward to present a larger target. The British were unable or unwilling to do so. Pushing outwards to present a larger target is grunts on grunts. Therefore, not many British grunts.
When they were forced to retreat to a few small forts, they had lost, and was just a matter of the Mahdi army, which initially had no artillery and no anti air, getting artillery. The retreat indicates not many grunts.
Retreating to forts that had a chokehold on the port and oil was initially a viable strategy because they were facing an enemy with only small arms, no tanks, no artillery, and no anti air. A soon as the enemy acquired artillery, the British were hosed. But that they had to retreat in the first place indicates not many grunts. The battle for the city was what mattered, and that was a strangely small and unenergetic battle. It was an oil city and an oil port, and it clearly did not cost the Mahdi army much to retake the city, and besiege their former besiegers. Once the British had fallen back to a few small forts, the rest was just a mopping up operation, albeit a strangely prolonged mopping up operation, because the Mahdi army initially had no logistics. Once they had the city, they could tax the city and hire camp followers. And once they had the oil, could acquire all the stuff a modern army has.
Europe has neither the troops nor the metal. Per wikipedia, the Russian army has about 1,600 self-propelled guns. The British army, a serious army by European standards, has 57. That’s a ratio of 25-1, compared to raw troop ratio (before the war, but then most guns were built before the war), of 5-1.
The European militaries are less badly off compared to Russia in terms of high capital equipment like air power, but they are even weaker relative to the US in these categories; they would certainly not be able to fight the kind of low-casualty war enabled by air power and C4I that is now expected, if not required.
Maybe Putin has been given something as a show of good faith; I don’t know what would be a strong enough signal though.
Thats exactly right, Putin needs a show of good faith and needs to believe that Trump led US foreign policy is agreement-capable, and that Trump can make the agreement “stick”. given past history of bad behavior this is a tough lift for Trump but its clear that he is working on it, and that Putin is at least listening.
In the meantime, Ukraine is shrinking every day, and Russia is well-aware of the facts on the ground and that they hold all the cards, as Vance hilariously points out. https://x.com/JDVance/status/1892925425061351701
Well done, Jim.
The Russians (not just Putin) have repeatedly rejected a ceasefire, demanded the the removal of the Zelenskyy regime, and demanded recognition of their ownership of Crimea and the four oblasts, which includes territory Ukraine still controls.
Now imagine a timeline with a Nigger-Jeet or Rastafari-Krishna whore as President.
“And of the rest of the oil that is in his hand shall the priest put upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed…” (Leviticus 14:17)
It’s a miracle!
Ah s**t man, that’s not even the quote I was going to use to ‘boogah the goyim.
I meant Leviticus 14:14:
“And the priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and the priest shall put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed…”
That’s better.
I’m welcoming of atheists but lol imagine actually being an atheist in 2025 hahahaha
‘Atheisms’ are always contingencies in the sense of whatever the national religion is through a mirror darkly, and are likewise usually tolerated by sects of would-be usurpers for targeting against the incumbents and keeping them down afterwards. In times of transition such as of late where there is both a lack of an obvious totem to signal rebellion against and power on the table for those with the conviction to grasp it, such sorts of contrarian contingencies largely disappear.
I suspect that humorless people just won’t enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The future is funny. He who won’t laugh, won’t belong.
That doesn’t bode well for Muslims, by the way. (I’m a subversive mossadnik)
…
I’m really sorry, but I’m just too dense anymore to be sure that I’m picking up what you’re putting down. Here’s my best guess, and check me please:
Vance “told” (wink-wink?) those schmucks at the Munich “Security” Conference that they were already being overrun by a state-sponsored autogenocidal invasion anyway, and that’s doing way more damage than Russia ever would, and that their “democracies” were already obvious shams. Vance himself could afford “$300,000 of tiktok ads” himself many times over, as could most of those people.
Implication being that their way to “security”, at least as far as America feels about it, was to stop sperging about Russia and let their own people “elect” their governments again, tiktok ads notwithstanding.
And the implication of that being that they should follow and allow exactly this priority WITHIN what’s left of Ukraine itself, because those poor guys are catching the SBU/KGB internal terror wave way harder than even Germany or the UK are.
So Vance is vision-casting the “saving” of Ukraine not as dumping in more weapons and getting them all killed (crazy I know), but rather allowing them to VOTE on their future, which we here presume will be to stop the war, give Russia most-to-all of what it wants, and just get on with what’s left of their sad Ukrainian lives.
And if Russians spend $300,000 on tiktok ads there too, well fuck it, too bad.
(Like that?)
Yes, exactly like that.
It will be a real victory for us, for Ukrainians, and for Vance.
But the way I told it, I focused on the fact that a very, very large part of Thermidor is going to think it an external defeat.
“External defeat” whatever. All politics is local. Just like how the Vietnam War was a proxy war between two sides of American power (as convincingly taught by you, Sir, right here, all those groovy years ago), so the endgame of the Russo-Ukraine war has become a proxy endgame between American GAE and American Thermidor.
Trump and Vance can’t fight Putin, not really, but they CAN fight GAE at home. The Kiev regime will flee with their loot to France, London and Italy regardless, but Securing the Existence of the Ukrainian People and a Future for Ukrainian Children can still be served by putting feet up asses in DC.
I don’t know if the world is reading you here (and therefore me too, notice-me-sempai-notice-me) or if you’re just perceiving things through a clearer lens than most. If it’s even a little of the former, let me just say that I’m delighted to see Trump Team start to turn on Zelensky — and implicitly his accomplices in DC — by casting THEM as the villians perpetrating this war upon the Ukrainian people.
“Genocide” is still supposed to be BAD. We’re getting Single Mother / Brown Dick Genocide over here, and that’s still naughty to notice out loud, but BULLETS AND BOMBS are still “bad genocide” in the eyes of most people. All one has to do is use that as a the frame to rhetocially draw-and-quarter these fucking people, and then the helicopters just fly themselves.
Hard to predict the future with these things, with Zelensky refusing to agree to anything I don’t understand why he just hasn’t been whacked already.
He’ll be whacked or exiled once enough people feel that he deserves it. That’s the game now.
The Cokenfuhrer became the mask. Should have been killed years ago, but being killed tomorrow is second best.
Referencing Palpatine waxing philosophical after his disfigurement?
Holy Crap, the comedian offered to step down!
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/previously-unthinkable-now-reality
I’m gonna double-check this.
Oh, I see: He offered to step down… If Ukraine is allowed into NATO. He knows Russia will not let that happen, so this is just hot air.
So blatant. Trying to trade away what he’s already lost.
https://x.com/ChristianHeiens/status/1894119918662009316
Something I don’t understand at all is, what would be a realistic path from where we are now to the WQ, without going through total collapse first?
We may be at a point in terms of discourse that was unthinkable just a few months ago, but all this means for now, is basically restoring liberalism along with the way laws and government were supposed to work according to liberalism, and Trump and Musk have not really shown any intention of going beyond that, though they are taking some drastic measures to accomplish it.
Aside from some edgier reactionaries on twitter, the entire topic is still crimethink, inconceivable to the point of being met more with ridicule more so than hate.
If anything, the backlash against troons has enabled a sort of feminist faction within the right, which might cause trouble later on.
Moreover, many women even within the current administration. This isn’t a big problem per se, but it does show that those at the top have internalized progressive views of women.
Voting our way out of this seems totally impossible, as well.
The current movement against woke is pretty strong due to the fresh memory of what they did, and even if it comes to the ultimate conclusion of gutting Harvard, it wouldn’t result in repealing the 19th.
I have an idea. Bear with me.
1. Explain to the new American elite, like to a bunch of retards, that men produce 20 times more testosterone than women, and also have so many more testosterone-receptors in the brain, which might — just, y’know, theoretically — affect libido. Males are the small gamete producers while females are the large gamete producers. Also, employ a bunch of incels to read and understand Darwin, Huxley, Galton, etc.
2. Take representatives from the new American elite to Israel (oy vey) and study anthropologically all the Jewish communities that have lots of SEX and lots of CHILDREN.
That’s it, that’s the plan.
The US already has the Amish and Ultra-Orthodox Jews. Crime-stop is strong enough people will refuse to see the solution even when it is in front of them.
Might want to examine populations more, um, “mainstream” tham Amish and total Haredim.
Last I checked (for some reason searching isn’t working for me) mainstream Orthodox Jews in the US have above replacement fertility. There are plenty in New York City; they aren’t hidden away like the Amish or Ultras.
They are still invisible when it comes to people proposing solutions to fertility collapse.
You have a point.
I believe mainstream American culture is in the midst of an ongoing preference cascade, which will result in a Sailerization of the discourse, which means that soon everyone — or everyone who matters — will be free to notice.
In a Sailerized atmosphere, you can just say things. And then, one day, you will also be able to coordinate and organize to do things.
As for crimestop, it can only be maintained long-term if the “information faction” (priesthood) imposes it, often with draconian measures, on the unwilling populace. That operation just collapsed, so expect crimestop to disappear soon.
One can argue, “Muslims do it better, why not study them?” First, you should also study them. As Jim says, Mohammed was right about the WQ. But second – Westerners really don’t like Muslims, and instinctively “don’t want to be like those backwards desert camel fuckers.” But I say, the elite’s philosemitism and zionism, in general rather silly phenomena, nevertheless can be utilized for a good purpose. You like those BASED Jews? Then learn from them all you can about this most crucial of issues.
Also, with crimestop gone, people will notice the Mormons in America, though I’m not sure if they are currently high status enough to be seen by the elite as worthy of emulation.
These are all populations with healthy TFRs (and presumably quite healthy sex lives) in 2025, so one should examine their social technologies and structures closely, look for common denominators, and so on. Then translate your findings to New Episcopalianism or whatever you call the American state religion.
The American elite needs to understand that the current state of affairs is the result of female mate choice. You let women decide who to have sex with, and who not to have sex with, and you get this.
It’s time for you to get out of Egypt – out of the house of Isis Worship.
Non-NRx response: “But there is separation of Church and State in America.”
No, there is not.
Our host has been very open in telling us all along that Stalin beats the Seven Kill Stele. Which is to say, really winning is all well and good, but just not dying is a worthy short term goal as well. Russia had a long run of stagnation during and after their Stalin, but they kept their volk alive through it and are coming back strong now.
As much as it’s clear that Jim’s ideal positions are sincere (couldn’t fake those thought crimes), I have been assuming (but will welcome correction) that some of his enthusiasm for Trump comes from playing for Amerikaners to Just Not Die. Trump may yet turn out to be our Boomer Stalin, arresting America at the leftism of his youth, but that still beats the hell out of what the inner party had planned for us. (It cannot be overstated how much the woke left really mean it, but a longer post on that topic here would be preaching to the church elders.)
That Trump is looking mighty red-pilled after surviving two serious assassination attempts (and I think even more than two if you count the oddballs the media played down) is cause for optimism beyond that, but I can cope if the stretch goals aren’t realized in his term, or even Vance’s, because at least we’ll be around to see.
But after Trump? In normal times, after Trump or Vance a democrat would get a turn, but we’re long past normal times. What will a Hegseth presidency, or a Barron Trump succession, look like, socially/memetically as well as politically? Or, if a democrat does get a turn, that gets us to your collapse after all, but after white guys have had a taste of winning for once.
All of which leads me to say, I don’t see the “realistic” path to solving the WQ at the level of getting women out of the workforce wholesale and repealing the 19th, and yet long term, I think it’s more likely than not to occur. Republicans are the chaos agents now, voting Republican is the accelerationist position. Who knows what shakes loose from that?
This is more or less what I think, too. But it doesn’t ultimately answer my question.
The only path I can see is for these ideas to continue to spread online, between people with pseudonyms, and that those people then become more influential politically over time (but without ever being explicit about any of it, and without getting exposed), and finally, at some point, this becomes something that can be said openly.
In the meantime, with the disappearance of the thought police, and with a new cultural tolerance for politically incorrect thought, men can talk about the WQ honestly with each other in private, even in person, with the idea of someone exposing you and “cancelling” you being something now frowned upon (especially between men).
The thing is that, any of this leading to the extreme political moves necessary for even just repealing the 19th, is wishful thinking. Men talk about women honestly to each other in private all the time, and I would argue that this never really stopped in my own personal experience, but that doesn’t make it a politically viable position.
A soft change in the culture, which may be slowly starting, may well lead to women marrying younger, and no longer working, and women having a career being seen as a bad decision, teen pregnancy no longer being viewed as negatively – partly because the birth rate is an obvious existential threat that even libtards understand, and partly because “not working and spending time with kids” is actually not a very hard lifestyle to sell to women, and something you could probably even push now without being depersoned.
But this seems unlikely to lead to a change in legal status of the kind Jim wants, especially since single income households will remain unsustainable unless most women quit at once and wages rise as a result.
One positive point in this regard is the fact that while women entering the workforce might have diluted wages, it’s not like women are genuinely competing for the same jobs. Most of it, on the higher end of pay, is make-work jobs or DEI, often DEI at make-work jobs. Both of these are being dismantled by ourguys, and both can be dismantled with “plausible deniability”.
The result, making “careers” more difficult for women, and convincing everyone that college is a scam (and it is especially for them, as the statistics for college debt repayment show, men repay their debt, women do not) might have the desired effects of making work in general less desirable for them, and more desirable for men.
Still, I think this just working out that way is wishful thinking. Unlikely make-work jobs will be destroyed enough to cause significant ripple effects at the demographic level.
Trump echoed Cromwell’s speech the long parliament, and quoted Napoleon’s justification of his coup. All being well, he will be Cromwell and Napoleon.
Napoleon, Cromwell, and Stalin were gigantic improvements on the alternative, and I am really enthusiastic about such a gigantic improvement, because the alternative was likely to be the liquidation of the Amerikaners.
If Trump is Napoleon, Cromwell, and Stalin, if he restores 1980s leftism, that is a huge improvement.
But the Trump people are also saying this is a restoration, which references not only Cromwell, but Monck and Charles the Second. Trump has only referenced Napoleon and Cromwell, and at his age, if he accomplishes what they accomplished, that is still a mighty big job and one which will secure his place in history.
This is a fairly common and desirable outcome of Thermidor. Leftism must get ever lefter, ever faster, as a shark must swim or drown. And when Thermidor physically stops it from getting ever lefter, ever faster, it dies. But Thermidor’s faith is incoherent and weak. Which is apt to leave reaction as the only live faith around.
The plan of at least some of the people around him seems to be that Trump is Cromwell, and his successor is Monck.
Tanks in Harvard. One tank permanently in the courtyard as a permanent reminder of the supremacy of warriors over priests and sovereigns over high priests. It probably had to bust into the courtyard, because the entrance ways are not designed for tanks. Leave the path it made entering the courtyard permanently in ruins.
Install a new priesthood, starting at the top. The new priesthood, being selected according to the Pauline criteria, know in their hearts the nature of women, and what it takes to make a happy family, regardless of what the official position on women may be.
In due course old type Christian positions on the role of women and nature of the family become officially matters of faith, and every new member of the elite was inculcated in that official faith, though most of them will only pay enough attention to get accredited.
With the old beliefs officially in place, and the elite subscribing to them, change the laws and the interpretation of the laws so that old laws are officially the law.
The WQ is still crimethought, but over the last weeks many things that were crimethought have suddenly been mainstreamed. It’s up in the air. But probably downstream from the DQ, the Democracy Question.
I can see Vance touching the WQ eventually. Honestly, with the way he’s carrying himself I hope his security really watch over him closely. That man going places.
We need two ingredients:
– Imperator or Imperator-like governance
– The knowledge of the WQ itself has to bubble up to the Imperator. A good portion of zoomers seem to either be red-pilled or close enough that this is possible
Assuming those two, here’s an example of implementation:
– First, gradually excise women from positions of power and employment positions they do not belong to (anything beyond secretary or nurse really). Simply being sane about candidates should do this on its own, but a policy from the Imperator wouldn’t hurt. Higher “education” should have already been dealt with.
– Second, women cannot legally represent themselves in divorce, followed by cannot be represented at all in divorce, followed by divorce (annulment really) only in cases of infertility
– Sell it as, many in the warrior class have broken family lives. They need the legal protection. Then have it trickle down to the taxpayer.
– Third, end all welfare handouts, explicit and implicit.
– This will cause women to flock to a provider on their own. Ideally a husband, but probably a next of kin.
– Fourth, wrench the arm of businesses by giving fines for unmarried women in the workplace. Addendum, identify women living with at home with their fathers, and apply pressure through the workplace for the father to find a husband for her. Supply a list of good taxpaying men should he not know any candidates himself.
– Fifth, all the while, run a soft power campaign displaying true patriarchy in the media, so people have a model to aspire to. Apply some public shame for fathers who still have daughters at home, and some public honor for obedient wives with many children.
– Sixth and cont., gradually up the pressure until you return to the pre-Victorian status quo. Shouldn’t take more than one generation.
For all the women already in soft harems, possibly more coercive measures need be applied. However, these measures should fix the issue for the up and coming generation. A lot of attention needs be given to depicting patriarchy in the media, so fathers understand to watch their daughters again, and shotgun weddings emerge naturally.
Definitely need to display way more natural courtship dance between men and women in the media and ESPECIALLY in entertainment. Han kissed first. Doing this would regress feminism at least 40 years.
Agree with your point, also it highlights how crucial it is that the entertainment industry be in red-pilled and Gnon-aligned hands. Future entertainment will be “immersive,” and it’s important to ensure that an evil and disproportionately Jewish priesthood won’t use that technology for any type of leftist brainwashing or other sinister purposes.
You see, I try to meme the “reality is real” thing, but it will be increasingly difficult for normalfags to tell what is or is not real in the coming decades. The AI priesthood is truly off the rails right now, and it will eventually crash; you are not uploading grandma to a computer any time soon. Anyway, think how simple non-immersive movies, shows, and vidya games desensitized entire generations and created a zombie public merely using screens of varying sizes – then multiply the force of that by an order of magnitude. I see a potentially major problem here, at least as long as the state religion is not some version of Jimianity.
Because it’s the Synagogue of Satan, they actually think that people should rather watch an AI-generated video of blue sky and green trees (or purple sky and red trees), rather than just go outside and look at the real blue sky and the real green trees. That kind of thinking doesn’t get you to Mars, by the way, because Mars is in meatspace, and the AI Priesthood couldn’t care less about meatspace. And they make promises about all these alternative reaities everyone will be living in – zombies gonna zombie, but the non-NPC reaction to all that could well be to unplug completely from this literally fake and metaphorically gay matrix.
In other words, “I DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR BEEPING AND BOOPING. I WANT A WIFE!” The Gnostic atomizers won’t get it. They live without being alive.
Those who endlessly blabber about “machine consciousness” often do not even possess human consciousness. What are they even living for? Yes, dopamine, but you also need ikigai. They don’t have ikigai. They never looked at the clouds for longer than 3 seconds. They never smiled to a baby. There was never anyone “home,” fundamentally. Sad.
Meatspace is Mars. Meatspace is bio-tech curing diseases. Meatspace is Aryan engineering. The Judeo-Gnostics, however, reject the Logos as manifest in meatspace and seek to flee therefrom into their own computers, where they expect to possess God-like superpowers. It’s the Synagogue of Satan.
Scott Alexander is a Balaam figure, as I pointed out before, but by far the ultimate Balaam figure is Nick Land, in that he intended to summon Satan but ended up summoning God.
Nick, you’re a boomer. You don’t get mind upload / digital immortality / LE EVIL MACHINE DEMON in this millennium, no matter how radically you “accelerate.” The Jews deceived you. It’s not happening.
AGI is the modern Golden Calf. They expect their awesome and mighty demon to arrive within this century and solve all of humanity’s problems.
Meanwhile, they have absolutely no idea how to emulate even basic human consciousness. Per Wiki,
Exactly so.
The silicone valley Jews are bulls**tting humanity really hard right now. AGI this century? There won’t be any AGI this millennium. It’s oogah boogah.
The brain of Caenorhabditis elegans contains 302 neurons connected by 7000 synapses. It is possible to read out neural activity in real time, because organism is transparent, using double photon spectroscopy.
A huge project is under way to upload a worm. So far with complete lack of success, because individual neurons respond to stimuli in ways we have not been able to create an algorithm to mimic, and because the neurons communicate chemically as well as electrically, in ways we cannot read out.
Jim said
Wait, what? Neurons aren’t on/off switches? Judeo-Christian-Enlightment “science” can’t enslave people by plugging a bunch of wires into their brains…yet? Musk is working on it though.
Even that date is far too optimistic.
Idolatry.
Thing is, the AI Priesthood makes false prophesies about their AI demon, and then those to their left agree that the AI demon is about to show up, and naturally proceed to cry abloo abloo because what about noble nigger bitches in Africa or something. But both are wrong. The AI demon is not even close.
Neurons are cells. Individual cells, in and of themselves, have significant information processing capability. Perhaps quantum. How do you think paramecia swim around, hunt for food, etc? Or sperm search for and find an egg?
There is a single celled organism with an eye. It hunts other single celled organisms by eyesight. Which means it has to detect movement relative to the distant background.
Maybe they need to try uploading it before they try uploading Caenorhabditis elegans.
Other than determining the laws of chemistry, quantum mechanics plays no role in biology because its effects are too weak to matter even at molecular scale. Quantum computers must be cooled down to a few millikelvins so they don’t get swamped by thermal noise, a problem that regular computers overcome by using millions of electrons to store a single bit.
Strangely and bizarrely, we see quantum effects in very large macro molecular structures in cells and chloroplasts, at scales of time and distance vastly larger than is reasonable. This is very odd, and explanations of it somewhat incoherent.
Chloroplasts do not do any interesting information processing as far as anyone knows. Tubulin structures, which also show quantum effects over unreasonably large times and distances, do a lot of poorly understood information processing.
Mitochondria and aggregations of mitochondria do a lot of poorly understood information processing, but we have not yet identified any unreasonable quantum effects in mitochondria. But if cholorplasts, probably mitochondria.
Tubulin structures show excited states delocalised over the whole tubulin aggregate, which means the excited state has coherence from one end to the other.
Tubulins are the muscles of the cell. Where is the nervous system guiding their actions? The code that guides their actions is RNA molecules. What is interpreting this code and causing it to be executed?
If I have it correctly neurons are basically variable capacitors where the neurotransmitters modulate the discharge threshold.
I think it was Scott Locklin’s blog where I read an anecdote about midcentury NASA engineers tracking down certain production lots of electrical components from their suppliers due to the exceptional consistency of the component tolerances. Each and every capacitor, resistor, diode, etc. had to be tested individually tested for conformance because there’s no way to replace it once it’s on a satellite or a space probe. So the engineers would hoard certain batches that were known to yield good specs and high longevity.
I bet there’s something similar going on with g. Something like, high mutational load introduces random phenotypic defects during cell formation of neurons, which slightly affect the way they respond to inputs. Because the system is highly parametric and nonlinear, variances in the response behavior between different neurons turn chaotic fast (noise). So in order to maintain stability, the system has to amplify its signal levels to operate near the extremes of the value range, where a response or non-response is more certain to convey information. In aggregate this would compromise sensitivity, bandwidth, and reaction time on the macro scale.
If I’m correct then higher intelligence ought to correlate with more efficient brain states instead of more active brain states. I’m terrible at navigating literature but a cursory internet search lends me to believe that this is the case, maybe someone with better research skills can confirm.
This would pose a direct short-term selection mechanism in cold climates, where losing a lot of energy and body heat through your head is an immediate challenge to survival, with selection for intelligence as a fortuitous byproduct in the long term. An obvious analogy to homogeneity and social trust also springs to mind but maybe I’m just looking for nails to hammer.
There is a neural circuit where we can directly control the inputs and observe the outputs — the animal retina. And neurons don’t work like that. . We can predict the outputs, but not make sense of the circuits.
As I’ve said before, prion diseases make no sense without a secondary neural processing mechanism inside the cell that we are unaware of. The literature’s explanations of why the presence of some misfolded proteins cause other proteins to misfold is vague nonsense. Obviously, prions interfere with some code-execution mechanism that we do not know anything about.
How dare you suggest that this beeping and booping machine right here *bzzz bzzz bzzz* is not about to become a God-like superintelligence in, like, 5 years? Get in the pod and eat the bugs, soyim.
Imagine thinking that a computer program is a divine being. That’s almost as ridiculous as thinking that a LARPing incel kike stoner with hallmarks of le cluster B personality disorder is a divine being. Well, good thing nobody really believes either.
I was just listening to Penrose talking about consciousness. He was mentioning that computers are formal systems that mechanically follow rules to determine the truth. But how do you know the foundational axioms are true in the first place? This latter requires *understanding* the axioms, and understanding requires consciousness. Computers are like 3rd graders running through the standard multiplication algorithm. How many 3rd graders actually understand why the algorithm works rather than just memorizing it and “following the rules” to get the right answer?
My wife has never been able to fully grok a universal remote control for our TV system. The concept of “multiplexing” does not seem to permanently register, and there is no mental map of the underlying device connectivity (“What’s an HDMI port? Just put it on fucking channel 4.” “Dear, you have to deselect the DVD player”) I’ll show her how to use it, and she is then able to use it. But the next day she has forgotten how to use it. I’ve come to understand she is just memorizing procedures rather than having a functional mental model understanding of the device. So of course she’ll forget the key sequences after a day or so. Computers are sort of like my wife, except they don’t forget like people do.
Superradiance in microtubules. Quantum superradiance is a sort of laser effect relying on the atoms of the structure being in a state of quantum coherence.
Ultraviolet Superradiance from Mega-Networks of Tryptophan in Biological Architectures
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpcb.3c07936#
All this will go down smooth as butter once the priesthood of the official faith is composed of married men with well behaved children.
And without that, none of it will be workable.
I have a feeling that we would fail the first collective shit-tests, hence the slowly increasing pressure vs your previous proposal of a state auction for all the unowned women. Your proposal is the better solution for a much stronger and more self-assured state. In the case of what we have, the state is not yet so self-assured.
Stocking the priesthood with men selected according to Pauline criteria should feel natural. If you look at whom Trump is surrounding himself with, at the top levels of power he is already doing so. The most important cabinet picks, OPM and DoD, were reserved for the men that best fit the image. For DoGE, Elon being an exception, but it appears Elon is also on a very short leash.
Just pure meritocracy is going to snowball into Pauline selection anyway, as time passes. The challenge seems to be the same challenge Octavian cum Augustus faced: a vast, unweildy and rebellious state apparatus to flatten. Luckily we have computers, so the process of streamlining should be much faster, now that information moves at the speed of light, and can be parsed by trustless deterministic rules.
Women should be banned from anything beyond their traditional professions they held before the 1960s definitely. Nurse entertainment certain types of jobs dealing with people ok (and of course whore). Management lawyers (they can finish any trials they are working on then they are out) etc no. Any woman not married by 20 must go to a bridal auction or a brothel. If they actually own the business and employ people fine but women who can do this successfully are rare.
The guiding general principles must be
1) Women should never be allowed to compete with men for jobs
2) All women will serve men sexually either as a wife of one man or a prostitute and in almost all cases be made to depend on men for resources
3) The “Imperial Constitution” should have a clause that reads to the effect “it is clearly ordained by god and nature that women are to serve and be the helpmeet of men and bear man’s children as men are to provide and exercise dominion over nature and the sexes are never to compete but rather keep to their own spheres, as such the Emperor, his minister and his lords shall maintain a patriarchal society and never allow men and women to compete in the same jobs and shall maintain a strict division of gender roles in society and this duty shall be considered secondary only to the defense of the realm from invasion”.
The profession of the women is not all that important. It all depends on who she is working with. If a woman is working under the supervision of her husband, everything is fine. If she is married and of fertile age, problems are to be expected if she is working outside of her husband’s business.
Yes yes I know the party line but let’s be practical women even married women (husband is badly injured) do find themselves on the wrong side of fortune and needing to work sometimes but this should always be a minority and they do should do traditional women jobs and not compete for men jobs.
Imagine a nursing home full of cantankerous old coots scheming, quarreling, and sometimes fighting over stupid shit that doesn’t matter because they’ll all be dead in a few years anyway. That’s the last half-century of world politics. Had Argentina waited another ten years to grab the Falklands, Margaret Thatcher would be gone and the Royal Navy would have been sold off to pay for more welfare programs. But the junta couldn’t wait because the socialist cancer was consuming their country too, and they desperately needed a glorious victory to generate some national pride.
Russia won’t have an army in 2050 because Russian women aren’t making babies, so the logical way to conquer Russia is to wait, if you can somehow manage to still have an army in 2050.
Nations that draft men into the armed forces could also draft women into marriage and motherhood, but they probably won’t, because only a dire emergency could spur such a radical rightward social change, and dire emergencies cannot wait twenty years for the needful goods to be delivered.
But if they do decide on a draft, the rules are simple: Borders closed to all females under 50, spinster camps for women who don’t marry by 25, or do marry but don’t make babies, and forced-labor camps for anyone who thinks this system is cruel and unfair. All it needs now is a clever backronym.
Work Houses Ordered to Re-establish Excellence in Society.
Good one!
You provided a good set-up.
Realistically, it should be entirely possible to turn memes into a strong enough social movement, especially as the empire retreats and the censorship apparatus is dismantled. Women follow trends, they’ll follow this too. It’s men that need to be convinced and coordinated.
A claim I’ve made before in another context is that women fall in line the day we win. What that win is or when I don’t know. A literal tank in Harvard yard certainly might qualify, but come the day it’ll probably be something neither side planned or foresaw. But that’s my “plan” for the WQ – first, win. Win big at something else, and throw the 19th in while you’re at it.
I admit this is high on optimism and very short on details, but I think it matches the actual dynamics of the demand in a way that policy wonking doesn’t.
Bro just look at the Orthodox/Amish/Mormons/Muslims bro just copy them.
The salient commonality of these is not their functioning social technology, it’s their status as unprincipled exceptions. Jews for the obvious reason, Amish because they’re simultaneously humble enough, heads-down enough and too much trouble to stamp out (yet), Muslims as the left’s pet browns and shock troops. And the Mormons are an interesting case – higher than normal FBI and CIA recruitment numbers, they gave us Romney and tried to give us McMullin… I don’t know if the deal is explicit or implicit, planned or emergent, but there very clearly is an arrangement.
But the nature of unprincipled exceptions is we can never all get the same deal, or it wouldn’t be an exception. We don’t need to study or marvel at these subgroups, we need make it the general rule that FBI and locals don’t kick anybody’s door down for disciplining their wives or taking their daughters’ phones away and locking them in their rooms. The rest will come naturally.
Nevertheless, it’s important to have at least a general idea of what functional social technology in the 21st century looks like in practice. The point is not “just copy them bro” but understand what it is they do that results in high fertility; the principles should, first and foremost, be grasped.
To know the way, it helps to know the destination.
By the way, what do those “Orthodox/Amish/Mormons/Muslims” all have in common, pertinent to recent discussion?
No celibates in the priesthood. Huh.
It’s almost like when your Church is run by celibates, it’s actually run by faggots whose thought-forms are innately hostile to heterosexual sex and family formation and big boobaaa.
(Contrary to Eli’s malicious insinuations in the previous thread, I’m not a faggot, also not a lifelong celibate, although now I’m celibate, and I really have no personal complaints about the current situation. But the point is – people like me might fit in a monastery, probably not even that, but should definitely not be running any priesthood.)
When you let in freaks, you let in freaks. In the world of prophets, this was common. Read the Bible. The prophets were obvious freaks. Also, they were 100% right, as freaks often tend to be. But prophets need not be priests, and usually are not priests.
So, that’s just one salient point that should be noted; a common denominator among Orthodox or semi-Orthodox Jews, conservative Muslims, Amish, and Mormons.
Jim: you have said in the past that although Shockley wrote a book that contains all you need to know to build a transistor, everyone who can build a transistor today learned from someone who learned from someone who learned from Shockley. How, then, is it possible that you can build a Church using only the Bible, and without apostolic succession?
Redpill on Women Question:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/orthodox/The_Rudder.pdf – p999
In practical terms, this means that, sometimes, when around women who can be quite young, certain men must take evasive action, as prescribed by the Apostle Paul (1 Cor 6:18), in order to prevent a fall into sin.
Not quite a pass of the shill test, though close, but I am seeing a lot fewer shills these days, so letting it through.
Also, since you are asking from the Christian perspective, I want you to give the affirmation, or if not a Christian, tell us what faith you actually subscribe to.
The answer to your question is:
1. Lots of protestant Churches have apostolic succession, mostly via Roman Catholic priests who joined the Protestant Revolution in the beginning. Among them, Episcopalians, though I am far from sure that any genuine Episcopalian priests remain.
2. Divine intervention. God speaks to men. We do not rely on old books alone.
I am baptised Orthodox Christian.
Jesus Christ is Lord, born in Bethlehem, died at Jerusalem, and is, is from before the beginning of the world. Fully God and fully man. God is three and God is one.
1. Orthodox Christians do not recognise apostolic succession outside of the Orthodox Church. To strain my analogy, there is a threshold of chemical purity that must be achieved for a transistor to work, and there is a threshold of spiritual purity that must be achieved for the Church to work. This threshold is found only in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
2. God spoke directly to Paul, and blinded him, and told him to seek the Church, but this divine intervention was not enough. Paul still needed to be baptised into the Church, and have hands laid upon him by those who had themselves been given the authority to do so.
Adam heard God’s voice directly, and we’re all the children of Adam. You can think of Adam and Eve as the Platonic Forms of man and woman – every man and every woman. Of course, if every man heard the voice of God, wouldn’t need Churches at all. But as Jim says, some men do indeed hear the voice of God — or notice the Reality of God — and those men inspire Churches.
Division is death. The schismatic church withers and dies. This can happen in years, or over a millennium, but it always happens.
To create your own church in the name of reality is to deny reality.
You are now on moderation.
I don’t believe you are a Christian. I think you are a Jew who worships demons. If you are a Christian, affirm that Christ is King, born in Bethlehem, died at Jerusalem, and is, is from before the beginning of the world. Through him all things were created. Fully God and fully man. God is three and God is one.
I expect that you will be unable to write those words for fear of catching on fire.
If you can write those words, I will re-white list you, and we will debate your issues, but I do not believe you are raising these issues in good faith. You are employing the familiar tactic of trying to create division among your enemies, similar to the Democratic tactic of trying split Musk and Trump. The left always sows hatred, and tries to create wars.
I am a little paranoid, but it is better to err on the side of seeing a tiger that is not there, than not seeing a tiger that is there. So, when someone sounds demon possessed to me, on moderation.
While American federal funding of our enemies is being cut, they still have billions from state governments and European governments, which they apply to spreading division, hatred, and war. So anyone who says “hail fellow Christian”, and then tries to get Christians to hate each other, probably on the payroll. And if he is not possessed by demons literal or metaphorical, his supervisor probably is.
Christ is King, born in Bethlehem, died at Jerusalem, and is, is from before the beginning of the world. Through him all things were created. Fully God and fully man. God is three and God is one.
OK, white listed again. I apologise for flying off the handle.
So what is the one unitary sect that should not be divided? Roman Catholicism, whose pope worships demons, whose Vatican has sex in a great big pile, whose Vatican erects temples to demons, whose Jesuits have been murdering princes and subverting Kingdoms for centuries, sowing war, revolution, and division?
Tell us whom you think we should be united with?
What major mainstream faith of today would be recognised by Christians of a few centuries past, other than Russian Orthodoxy?
And Russian Orthodoxy is, as it says on the can, Russian. There should be an American Orthodoxy, but there is not.
For nearly a thousand years, the Pope, coveting what was Caesar’s, had been undermining Sovereigns, including the Holy Roman Empiror. Since the Holy Roman Emperor flattened Rome, they have been a little more circumspect about it, with the Jesuits working in the shadows with a smile in front and a dagger in their robes.
What unity is this when the covetousness of the Papacy led to the destruction of Rome?
I do believe this Freddo Frog may genuinely be Orthodox, and his post highlights some particular matters of interest concerning how the conservative personality interacts with membership in the Orthodox Church.
Essentially, heresy as understood by the Orthodox is not only incorrect doctrine but lack of communion with the rest of the Orthodox Church, so that it isn’t possible to cooperate on matters of faith with other Christian denominations. Some bishops are more ecumenical these days, but the degree of ecumenism is directly correlated with the degree of liberalism and faggotry (for example liberal bishops concelebrating with Hindus or worshipping in churches decked with LGBTQWERTY flags). Essentially, Orthodox hostility to Catholicism or any denomination is not due to the satanic stances of Catholics alone and could not be remediated simply by common doctrine, but would require the formal unification of the churches. I believe that Jimianity as American Episcopalianism would not be accepted as Orthodox and would be considered heretical if there were no formal unification, especially by those Orthodox Christians who are most temperamentally similar to the posters here. There is a tiny probability for a different course of events which I will cover later.
On the issue of Apostolic Succession also, the conservative Orthodox definition is in fact what was laid out by the unfortunate Freddy Frog: namely, that it is illegitimate if it does not occur within the Church of the Apostles which is taken to be the Orthodox Church. Specifically, the Apostolic succession of the Anglicans, Orientals, Catholics, and so forth, would be denied by conservative Orthodox theologians. This is again subject to variations, with the most liberal gay bishops taking a much more friendly stance to other denominations, supporting their claims to Apostolic succession. But these gay bishops are definitely not political allies.
Consequences to this classification of the theoretical American Episcopalians include, by mandate of Orthodox canon law as represented in the Rudder (which is not taken seriously by liberal bishops but this is irrelevant since they are demon worshippers in any event), condemnation of common prayer which is forbidden with heretics even to laymen, condemnation of concelebration by clergy in any liturgical setting, discouragement but acceptance of marriages between the two denominations, rejection of validity of baptism when performed by the theoretical American Episcopalians, refusal to partake of the Eucharist performed by theoretical American Episcopalians, refusal to administer the Eucharist to theoretical American Episcopalians, and possibly even condemnation of Orthodox parents who allow property to be inherited by theoretical American Episcopalians. The seriousness of these stances would vary with the conservatism of the Orthodox bishop or priest deciding in the particular case.
Broadly speaking, the more conservative and reactionary personalities in Orthodoxy are more likely to become monastics because monasticism is seen as an extremely manly pursuit by conservative Orthodox people, and given that monastics are made to forsake earthly attachments, these good political personality traits have no political outlet and are redirected to matters of faith and religious law. This happens often even with laymen, so that the laymen who are furthest right politically to the point of even being explicit monarchists have the least tolerance of ecumenical stances. But monastics have the most influence on Orthodox doctrine since the bishops are usually appointed from among them due to the requirement of celibacy for bishops.
The general principle you could derive from this is that a frustrated “based” political instinct tends toward inflexibility in religious laws. This can extend to the point of legalism and Phariseeism and in fact describes exactly the kind of circumstances which created the Pharisees in Jesus’ time.
On another note, I find it extremely hard to imagine any situation in which a church denying Mary’s perpetual virginity or supporting polygamy for elites could ever be in formal communion with the Orthodox Church. Remarriage is prohibited even after a divorce due to adultery or the death of a previous spouse. When it does occur, the marriage service is completely reworked into a penitential service recognizing the sinfulness of the marriage taking place. If a person wants to marry a fourth time, again even if the previous three marriages ended due to the death of the spouse, this is categorically forbidden (and this issue caused a major political scandal during the reign of Emperor Leo IV the Wise). With that in mind, endorsing polygamy seems utterly impossible. The hope, therefore, of referring to the theoretical Episcopalianism as “American Orthodoxy” is extremely unlikely to come to fruition.
To paint a more rosy picture (the tiny opposite probability mentioned above), the most limited possible definition of heresy is incorrect doctrine on the nature of God (including persons, nature, essence, and energies), so it is not absolutely impossible to imagine amiable relations given that the theoretical Episcopalianism has entirely Orthodox theology on the specifically divine matters. The split from the Catholics, for example, rests on a difference in opinion on the nature of God qua the filioque and the divine energies. The Orthodox Church does not formally classify heretics any other way than as those with different positions on the nature of God, and strictly speaking the perpetual virginity does not fall within this category. I don’t think this will make much of a difference, however.
I want to post on other topics, but typically the other commenters say what is necessary before I get the chance. It’s not my intention to shill for the Orthodox Church in any case, but only to provide useful information from this perspective.
He has not told us what he is, which I find odd and suspicious. He might be working for the Jesuits, but if so, he is a Christian Jesuit rather than a serpent Christ Jesuit, and I am happy to talk to him.
Dark Enlightenment Christianity is completely orthodox on the nature of God. It is perpetual virginity and the recruitment of childless men to the priesthood that is the problem.
So, not heretics. Good to know.
Well of course, because the other churches are full of liberal faggots. If the other Church is not full of liberal faggots, we would expect the correlation to reverse.
I predict that if we are in power, and they are in power, and we want communion, they will be inclined to find a way.
The Russian Orthodox Church.
Any church, including Orthodox Patriarchates, located with physical reach of the CIA will be pozzed.
There is an Orthodox Church of America, which descended from and received autocephaly from the Russian Orthodox Church. But, of course, its headquarters is within the reach of the CIA. So I doubt that you would find this an acceptable solution.
On the other hand, we cannot just take all of the good people and make our own church. This is uncanonical. Not even those in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, who are undergoing the most severe of persecution, would accept this as a solution.
https://orthochristian.com/163835.html
We (in the anglosphere) are in a better place than those in the Ukraine. Our governments have not outright declared the Russian Orthodox Church illegal.
Unite with the Russian Orthodox Church, for now. Once Trump, or whoever, has dealt with the CIA, the faithful who have sheltered within the Russian Orthodox Church can move to the Orthodox Church of America.
There is no unity between the Eastern Orthodox Church and Rome. This is the position of the ecumenists, which position all conservative Orthodox Christians condemn. The most conservative of the Orthodox consider ecumenism to be a pan-heresy, that is, the heresy of all heresies.
I was baptised into and am in communion with the Russian Orthodox Church.
It is the norm that priests are married men. The Russian word for family, simya, literally translates to “seven I am.” I would be very surprised if you could not find a married priest with many children at least somewhere in the Russian Orthodox Church.
Emperor and Saint Justinian (a) cominatored one tenth of Constantinople in putting down a revolution (b) reconquered the Western Roman Empire from the Arians (c) dissolved every single Origenist monastery in the Empire (some half of the monasteries at the time) and (d) took a personal interest in seeing Origen posthumously anathematised in the Fifth Ecumenical Council. He also promulgated the hymn Only-begotten Son which contains the words “holy Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary.”
And in a letter to Justinian, found in the Code of Justinian:
https://droitromain.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/Anglica/CJ1_Scott.htm
It might be best to let this one go.
It is the rule that monastics are at the top of the priesthood. Meaning people who do not know women and do not know what it takes to form a happy family are on top. We cannot address the reproduction crisis and the woman question without a state religion whose priesthood knows this stuff.
As Saint Paul said in his first epistle to Timothy, third chapter, fourth verse:
Orthodoxy has had female consent to marriage for four hundred years. It has to go.
There is a place for monasteries and monastics, but that place is not in the governance of the Church. I say this, and Saint Paul says this.
Perpetual virginity is an attack by the Lavender Mafia on marriage and the family. We cannot let this one go when we are reproducing below replacement. All the doctrines of the forgery “The protoevangelium of James” have to anathematised as the work of heretical disgusting filthy perverts, so that taxpayes and warriors of a Christian America can have wives and children.
It is also, as the protestants pointed out in the beginning, a direct rejection of scripture, and while, as you correctly say, scripture alone is insufficient, rejecting it or cleverly rationalising it away always leads to bad outcomes. They are turning somersaults over second marriages of widowers because they rejected Paul’s clear directions on recruitment of the clergy. This is ridiculous, wicked, and blatantly stupid.
And similarly, they have rejected the point and purpose of virginity: For a woman to deliver it to her husband. “A higher state than marriage” This is stupid and evil. A far greater evil than getting stroppy about widowers remarrying, and it is an evil we cannot afford when the higher races are heading into self extinction.
It is not a higher state than marriage. It is a lower state than marriage, and needs to be so deemed. See Saint Paul’s warning about keeping daughters in for too long.
Scripture alone is insufficient, and often changed times create a false context, so the literal wording may be misleading, but this does not mean you can toss an inconvenient scripture in the ditch and flee at high speed like the Jews do.
Because America is powerful, we see a whole lot of liberal faggots in Orthodoxy who want to ecumenise with the fake post Christianity of America.
When we are in charge, America will be more powerful, and there will be a whole lot of based priests in Orthodoxy who want to ecumenise with our real Christianity.
And if we are successfully addressing the fertility problem, while Russia is still in its current dire state, the Tsar of all the Russias is going to twist their arms.
We’ve been around this bend a few times before, but since it’s on the table again, I want to get it said:
The perpetual virginity has been used as a vector of attack by the lavender mafia for some hundreds of years in the West, and quite successfully.
But we have plenty of evidence that:
1. it was not a tool invented for that purpose, but was simply a historical fact.
2. It was never, anywhere, judged to be in conflict with Holy Scripture until it was expedient for modern (post-reformation) protestants to do so. It did not arise with the protoevangelium and nobody takes that work for anything beyond what it is anyway.
2. Many (most?) of the most masculine and fruitful Christian societies of the past, and the men who led them, believed it and were not harmed by doing so.
3. Many of the most masculine and fruitful Christian men of today believe it and are not harmed by it. This is important. Again, I have to ask, “how many Christian sons do you have?”
Just as St Paul required a well-ordered house to rule the church (tangible evidence of correct ideas and praxis), we lay theologians should lend more weight to arguments from men who are successfully producing Christian men, who are successfully producing Christian men. And the perpetual virginity is very widely believed in this group. There is a significant fraction who reject it, but, based on my own unscientific head count, most successful Christian patriarchs today are in traditions that believe it.
The lavender mafia needs to go, root and branch, and the orthos need to reverse their own requirement for celibate bishops. Period. The bad must go, but the true must stay. The demon worshippers grab whatever doctrine is close at hand with abandon and twist it to use as a cudgel against the faithful. That doesn’t mean everything they have misused in this way was error from the beginning and must be discarded. If we applied that logic across the board, there would be nothing of the faith left.
Besides, these details will work themselves out naturally in time. The battle over the future of Christianity is fought in joyful marriage beds and around the supper table. And the demon worshippers are losing ground fast.
‘1. it was not a tool invented for that purpose, but was simply a historical fact.
2. It was never, anywhere, judged to be in conflict with Holy Scripture until it was expedient for modern (post-reformation) protestants to do so. It did not arise with the protoevangelium and nobody takes that work for anything beyond what it is anyway.’
The Bible mentions Jesus’s siblings.
Jesus was incarnated as a human being, to live among and as one of us. His miracles were to prove his divine nature- he was not an isekai character granted cheat codes to be wish fulfillment. The idea that his family was supposed to totally unique, special and different is laughable.
Similarly, I say, if you have the tools to build the Kingdom, but instead you wait for Supernatural Sky-Daddy Jesus to physically descend from the clowds and build the Kingdom for you (or something like that), likely you will be waiting for a very long time, and the Kingdom will not be built.
“Reality is real, niggers” – Gnon
Jim, would I be correct in saying that you do not believe that you need to be a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in order to be saved?
Rather, I understand the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church very differently to our froggy friend.
But the context, however, implies apostolic succession. So not every two or three gathered together in his name have apostolic succession.
So how to resolve the seeming contradiction?
1660s established Anglicanism claimed to be part of the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. By their fruits you will know them, and in retrospect it is obvious they spoke the truth.
So let us take a look at how apostolic succession in fact worked in the New Testament. It was not a big bureaucratic organisation. Rather, anyone with apostolic succession could grant apostolic succession, and the Lord could directly intervene to grant it. And not every grant of apostolic succession by mortals worked out well.
And let us look at how Christendom actually worked in practice before the great schism, and Orthodoxy worked until very recently and still to some extent does work. You had national churches all over the place. Which were one Church in a very important sense, but not one Church in having a single centralised bureaucracy or a single mortal head.
If Christ is the head of the Church, then an official bureaucracy is not the head.
So what are mortals to do?
The best that they can, and seek guidance from the Lord. And if they do, the Church will be one, without forming one bureaucracy, which the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church has never had, and should never have.
The One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is one in having Christ at its head, not one in having one bureaucracy. By their fruits you will know them.
We live in two different realities, my friend, and one of those realities has 2,000 years of practically unchanged tradition behind it. You are just one of many pretenders to the faith. I don’t mean to be rude, Jim, but the odds are against you.
You are just spouting the same bullshit as the Roman Catholic Church comes out with, radically and wildly rewriting history. Peter was not the first pope, and a nonentity vaguely mentioned in passing in the New Testament was certainly not the second. And similarly, the one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church has never been one bureaucracy. The former is a self serving lie by the Bishop of Rome, the latter a self serving lie by a bureaucracy of monks self promoted far beyond the proper role of monks.
Paul got apostolic succession directly from Christ, went right ahead appointing Bishops and delegating the right to appoint Bishops, and the other apostles were fine with that. And the actual history of the one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is that it remained one because it went right on being fine with that sort of stuff.
Your history is as bogus and as contrary to the New Testament and to past Christian history as that of the Bishop of Rome.
By their fruits you will know them. The Church not only has two thousand years of never having one mortal head, it has two thousand years of never having one bureaucratic formalised institutionalised apparatus. One mortal head is obviously absurd, for Christ is the head of the Church. One bureaucracy is even sillier.
One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church with monks on top stands in obvious contradiction to scripture.
Freedo what are the Jesuits?
An enforcement arm of Roman Catholicism, whose pope worships demons, whose Vatican has sex in a great big pile, whose Vatican erects temples to demons, which enforcement arm has been murdering princes and subverting Kingdoms for centuries, sowing war, revolution, and division. The original glowniggers. Possibly the power base from which Anthony Fauci created COVID-19 and enacted other similar monstrocities.
Surprised and impressed.
Numbers 22:28: “And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said…”
A burning bush. A talking ass. And who knows what other abominations God might come up with.
Accept the Truth, regardless of its source.
We can, and in fact God commands we must. The Anglican church and the Dutch Reformed Church set the precedent. We will follow it.
Exactly so.
As Mark Twain would say, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.”
I can’t help but find it funny how this same conversation keeps happening every year or so but with different commenters.
The simple fact is that 90+% of NRx Christian converts are either Catholic or Orthodox. Both of these Churches believe celibacy is a holier state than marriage, mandate celibacy for bishops, profess the perpetual virginity of Mary and believe those outside their Church are not saved.
So you endlessly get conversations that boil down to:
Jim: “We must restore Christianity”
Ortho: “Hail fellow reactionary, I agree”
Jim: “Great, now deny these tenets that your Church has believed for 2000 years”
Ortho: “Well no, I’m not going to do that”
Jim: “Aha! Another entryist, I knew it!”
Your Church has certainly not believed these tenets for two thousand years. When Origen started pushing his forgery, it was controversial, being in direct and obvious contradiction to the New Testament.
further, though you are not a shill nor a fake Christian, you slithered evasively like a worm when I pressed you on Orthodox doctrine on the sacrament of marriage — as today Russian Orthodoxy slithers evasively.
What part of the marriage ceremony makes the sacrament?
I don’t recall evasively slithering on this question. I’m happy to answer it. Here’s what the Catechism of St. Plus X says on the Sacrament of Marriage:
“8 Q. Who are the Ministers of this sacrament?
A. The Ministers of this sacrament are the couple themselves, who together confer and receive the sacrament.
9 Q. How is this sacrament administered?
A. This sacrament, preserving, as it does, the nature of a contract, is administered by the contracting parties. themselves, who declare, in the presence of the parish priest, or another priest delegated by him, and of two witnesses, that they take each other in marriage.
10 Q. What use, then, is the blessing which the parish priest gives to the married couple?
A. The blessing which the parish priest gives to the married couple is not necessary to constitute the sacrament, but it is given to sanction their union in the name of the Church and to invoke on them more abundantly the blessing of God.
11 Q. What intention should those have who contract marriage?
A. Those who contract marriage should have the intention: (1) Of doing the will of God, who calls them to that state; (2) Of working out in that state the salvation of their souls; (3) Of bringing up their children as Christians, if God should bless them with any.
12 Q. How should those about to be married prepare themselves to receive this sacrament with fruit?
A. In order to receive this sacrament with fruit, those about to be married should: (1) Earnestly recommend themselves to God, so as to know His will and obtain the graces necessary for that state; (2) Consult their parents before making any promise, because obedience and the respect due to them demand this; (3) Prepare themselves by a good confession, or, if necessary, a general confession of their whole life; (4) Avoid all dangerous familiarity in word or act while in each other’s company.
13 Q. Which are the principal obligations of married persons?
A. Married persons should: (1) Guard inviolably their conjugal fidelity and behave Always and in all things as Christians; (2) Love one another, bear patiently with one another, and live in peace and concord; (3) Think seriously of providing for their children, if they have any, according to their needs; bring them up as Christians, and leave them free to choose the state of life to which they are called by God.”
I don’t know the specifics of Orthodoxy, but I would imagine they believe something similar. Except for their whole multiple divorces permitted thing.
You and they squirm like a worm. The issue is:
Is it “I do”
Or “With this ring I the wed”
If it is “I do”, then marriage is contractual, and we have ample evidence that contractual marriage is not.
Saving Ourselves For Marriage / Anal Cunt
I saw your deep blue eyes from afar
I saw you at the church bazaar
I asked the priest to introduce me to your mother
And I asked her to introduce us to each other
I asked you to go on a picnic of our own
But you insisted on taking a chaperone
I apologized for being so bold and rude
So I invited your parents for lemonade and food
We’re saving ourselves
Saving ourselves for marriage
Saving ourselves, for a baby carriage
Restraining ourselves, till the moment’s right
Saving ourselves, for our wedding night
After four years of dating, I decided to take a risk
I held both your hands, and kissed your rose-petaled lips
We stared into each others’ eyes, wondering what was next
But we knew not to ruin our love with pre-marital sex
We’re saving ourselves
Saving ourselves for marriage
Saving ourselves, for a baby carriage
Restraining ourselves, till the moment’s right
Saving ourselves, for our wedding night
Years went by, our courtship was grand
One day I asked your father for your hand
I’d never treat you like an object, only like a lady
I’d never consider having sex, except to have a baby
We’re saving ourselves
Saving ourselves for marriage
Saving ourselves, for a baby carriage
Restraining ourselves, till the moment’s right
Saving ourselves, for our wedding night
Sad.
Orthodox Jews all over the world have healthy TFR.
Conservative Muslims all over the world have healthy TFR.
Ditto the Amish, ditto most Mormons.
Does your Church have a healthy TFR, Nikolai?
Spoiler alert – nope.
Does that explain why your religious organizations — yes, yours, it’s not just the kikes — keep flooding the West with Turd Worlders, whom you seek to all convert to your satan-possessed church?
Faggots.
Все заткнитесь?
And 90+% of OG Christian converts were Jewish, Greek or some Pagan variant. What of it?
Gnon is a blend of the oldest Christian doctrine with elements of materialism, game theory, Darwinism and fragments of the Old Testament that have still held up. It is highly tolerant of and structurally similar to Catholicism and some Orthodox branches, and the founding stock does determine to a large extent what the doctrine is going to be – but not to the entire extent, and Christians are not the entire founding stock.
There is no NRx without evopsych, and evopsych unambiguously answers the WQ. Christian doctrine on spiritual matters and social technology has largely been upheld over the last 2000 years, but we have more worldly knowledge today than they had then, and no religious canon can survive open conflict with observable reality. The supposed virtues of a celibate priesthood are clearly in conflict with the facts.
And by divine design or happy coincidence, it turns out that most of the canon promoting priestly celibacy was fraudulent in the first place, and the few parts of the literal text that appear to still promote it are at best highly open to interpretation, and conflict with other, less ambiguous parts of the literal text (not to mention observable reality, per above).
Priests should be successful family men applying their paternal instincts and patriarchal skills, not homos and incels attracted to priesting for the altar boys and social status.
Vance seems a good fellow but there are just no redeeming qualities to the Catholic Church since Trent (there were some good things about the Catholic Church in the middle ages) and don’t say Jesus founded it when it didn’t exist until the 11th century.
The Kingdom will memetically descend from Protestants, not Catholics, with all due respect to Yarvin and Vance and their unfortunate personal preferences.
Lavender Third-Worldism will perish.
The American elite will convert to the Cult of Gnon, whose memeplex is rooted in the Anglo-Protestant tradition. Yes, NRx 1.0 was a teeming hodgepodge of various faiths. But anyone — and I do mean anyone — who fantasizes about converting America, meaning the real America, to anything non-Protestant should forget about it and forget about forgetting about it – it’s never happening, thank God.
What happened historically is that the Church slowly accumulated a pile of doctrines contrary to scripture. And when Rome split, the exigencies of war and politics (for it split to go after what was Caesar’s) meant it rapidly accumulated a pile of doctrines contrary to scripture.
When the Bible got printed and readily accessible, this became untenable. It still is untenable. Hence the protestant revolution. No going back. Orthodoxy must remain Orthodox, but lose its heresies.
As our froggie friend correctly points out, scripture by itself is insufficient. You do need a living tradition and apostolic succession. Cutting loose, the protestants drifted alarmingly and dangerously. But a living tradition must not be allowed to turn into a living constitution. You cannot have “Oh, we have at two thousand year old tradition of making up any $#!% we like”, or you turn into the Jews.
The reason that I have been harassing Nikolai on the sacrament of marriage is that Orthodoxy has been furtively creeping to contractual marriage for four hundred years.
If a bunch of monks changed doctrine on marriage, a bunch of married priests with well behaved children can change it right back.
If they can furtively sneak away from sacramental marriage, they can furtively sneak away from perpetual virginity and monks on top.
I do believe we should have some tolerance for Orthodoxy and maybe for Mormonism if Mormonism returns to its right wing Brighamite roots (just minus polygamy because polygamy causes problems). Mormon early and young adult education of girls something I think even though the church has gone partially pozzed in particular is worth studying…
The papacy and the Jesuits make any sort of long term toleration of catholicism impossible, basically Catholics should be gradually forced into an American form of Anglicanism or Orthodoxy by methods similar to Henry VIII not by persecuting individual lay catholics but by simply destroying and converting the church administratively. Firstly we should pursue an absolutely Hitlerian policy towards the Jesuits not only in America but forcing any country in our influence to adopt the same policy and encouraging trade partners also to do so. Second like with Henry VIII it should become absolutely forbidden and high treason for any American without diplomatic approval to contact the Holy See for any reason and then like Henry VIII we proceed from there until Catholicism is rolled into the American Orthodox church which will be like Orthodoxy except no teachings about Mary’s ever virginity and no celibate bishops either.
As said in the above quote from St. Plus X, marriage is a contract, in the sense that it’s an agreement between two parties. Obviously it’s not an ordinary contract, it’s a divinely created contract that turns two people into one flesh and is only dissolved on the death of one of the parties.
If you’re asking me whether female consent is required for marriage, the answer is in theory yes, but in practice no. Every catechism and theologian will say that consent is required from both parties. But the word consent meant something very different 500 years ago than it does today.
Catechism of Trent even says that if a woman is completely silent at her wedding but her parents say yes, that counts as a valid consensual marriage. Similarly in Taming of the Shrew, I think Kate’s marriage to Petrucchio (forced by her father) would also be perfectly valid.
Mossadnik- surprise surprise a Russian Jew hates Christianity. I really want to like Jews, they’re high iq, they’re mostly pale skinned, they’re bombing brown Muslims. They even supported Lebanese Catholics in their war against Hezbollah.
But every time you people open your mouths you reveal yourselves to be suicidal enemies of goodness, truth, beauty, justice and God. I want us to be friends but you absolute freaks can’t be normal for five fucking seconds.
Btw my Latin Mass parish is full of crying infants. The TFR of TradCaths is just fine.
Scarebucks your comment reads like a 110iq who’s never read the Bible. I’m so tired of being endlessly lectured to about my own religion by people who don’t know the bare basics of the bare basics and probably don’t even believe in God. It’s like a Jimian version of the libtards who claim Jesus was a brown anarcho communist. Just embarrassing to read.
Cominator I’ll never understand. You actually make some smart observations here and there and then you erupt into an insane blinding rage whenever the Catholic Church is mentioned. The idea that the Jesuit order has any political power in the modern world is just ridiculous. It’s like something a homeless schizophrenic would yell at passersby while masterbating into a bush. The most a Jesuit priest could do is get 10k likes on an anti-Trump tweet. A 19 year old intern at NBC has more actual power than anyone in the Society of Jesus.
At least the people who are hyper obsessed with Jews can point to Jews in positions of power. Is any S.J. a cabinet member? Is the Black Pope setting foreign policy? Is the Federal Reserve headed by a Jesuit priest? It’s the dumbest conspiracy imaginable and seeing Jim mindlessly repeat your incoherent drivel drastically lowers my estimation of him.
Nuts.
Marriage is made by union of the flesh — which is still theoretically doctrine in every Church. That is when God joins them together. The sacrament of marriage is a blessing by man and god on the prospective union.
And the historical norm, up to sixteen hundred in Orthodoxy, that the proper way to establish this was by agreement between the bridegroom and the father of the bride. To which the Anglican ceremony still gives the nod: “Who giveth this woman to this man?”
“I do” is a recent bolt on on top of a ceremony blessing the actual marriage — the churches quietly sliding from sacramental marriage to contractual marriage, which is conspicuously failing.
“Who giveth this woman to this man”
Man acquires woman.
“With this ring I the wed”
Man promises to do right by this woman.
Besides strongly objecting to some tenets of your Catholic faith, which I believe ultimately gave birth to Feminism/Lucifer, is there anything else in my weltanschauung that you consider to be inimical to All Good Things?
“The idea that the Jesuit order has any political power in the modern world is just ridiculous.”
Are you asserting they are merely humble parish priests and charity workers? Even in Catholic countries this view has never been the common one. How many catholic monarchs had the Jesuits expelled as spies. What does a catholic order have to do to be kicked out of a catholic country and not by some athiestic communist regime which hates Christianity but by a catholic monarch. I don’t think they were just doing charity work and saying prayers for people’s souls… chatter within Catholicism itself indicates an extreme shitlib orientation to the order.
And then we must ask about the man whos connections setoff all the questions about the worlds oldest order of glowniggers Anthony Fauci… the preponderance of evidence to me is that Tokugawa Ieyashu did nothing wrong.
Well then. Must have really hit a nerve to almost instantly elicit such a raving diatribe, full of incoherent psychoanalysis and other personal attacks. Every one of them factually incorrect, not that it would make a difference if there were even a kernel of truth.
I’m sure none of it is projection. Definitely not.
Quite on the contrary, I couldn’t care less about your religion. Your Pope is an out-and-proud demon worshiper and your priesthood is lousy with faggots, and while Catholics may not have ruined this country single-handedly, they helped accelerate the decline as surely as the Jews did.
I merely “lectured” you about the memetic and cultural origins of NRx and its current direction. Perpetual virginity and priestly celibacy are not going to be part of the canon, and while some Catholic ideas are sure to be incorporated, Catholicism is not going to be the bedrock doctrine. Get over it.
11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
John 14
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
John 14
20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
While this seems like one plausible possibility
1. how does anyone know what Ukrainians think when expressing their opinions is essentially illegal if not pro-government?
2. how does anyone vote for a pro-Russian party when they have all been banned, and their most credible leader Medvedchuk deported to Russia? Is there such a party? Can one be organised in three months?
3. how does not outlawing Russian social media and other internet campaigning overcome the fact that all the pro-Russian newspapers and television stations have been banned and, presumably, had their capital seized or destroyed so they can’t be quickly reconstituted?
The Ukrainian government even separated the Orthodox church and banned the Russian Orthodox Church. It’s really not clear to me that a ‘level playing field’ is possible or that the Russians would win the election even in the best achievable approximation.
I agree, any election held in Ukraine would be a total and obvious sham, with 98% of the votes in every precinct supporting the side that physically controls the ballot boxes. We will be uploading our minds into computers long before we have another genuine republic with free and fair elections.
That is a coup complete problem. Coup incoming.
Still not a genuine republic but a another fake republic, this time with our side counting the votes.
“I agree, any election held in Ukraine would be a total and obvious sham, with 98% of the votes…”
The point I am making is that even if the Ukrainian government makes a good faith effort to permit a fair election – obviously something it would only do under US pressure – it still doesn’t magic back into existence the entire political infrastructure of the pro-Russian movement that was systematically destroyed since 2014.
The suggestion in the post seems to be that Ukraine was ~100% pro-Russian before preference falsification was brought to bear, but that is not the case, and it seems unlikely that the pro-Russian movement will overcome the very real Ukrainian nationalist/independence movement if the former has no political infrastructure.
Of course in the absence of any real data (in my view, not just available to the public but also to governments) nobody can tell for sure what would happen.
Want to bet 0.001 bitcoin or 0.5 monero on that?
I win if the election is not obviously fake, and they vote for a national government that will or is obviously likely to accept neutral buffer state status and local area referenda on union with Russia (running on the platform of whatever peace they can get), you win if they don’t, nobody wins if there is reasonable doubt about the credibility of the election. Nobody wins if no election or agreement to hold an election in the next three months.
If there is no peace candidate, but the ballot is plausibly secret, they are going to write in Putin.
Per the public polling, the most likely winner of a new presidential election is the former Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Zaluzhnyi, who is not pro-Russian, but may back the positions you describe as a way of ending the war. Would you consider that to be a ‘coup’? What if it did not remove Nazis from the SBU etc.?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Ukrainian_presidential_election
I think this is a plausible path to ending the conflict but it doesn’t exactly bring to power a pro-Russian government. The conflict – albeit now less than military – would remain with battles for control of the rump Ukrainian deep state on the level of influence and intelligence agencies. And it’s far from clear that Trump would wish to throw that battle to Russia, even if he may wish to clear out the Nulandites and their maximalism from control of it on the US side.
Zaluzhnyi is another Maidan candidate.
An honest election will permit non Maidan candidates. If no non Maidan candidate running, not an honest election.
In the improbable event he runs against a non Maidan candidate, and wins, I lose if the election is somewhat plausible.
Political events that make a non Maidan candidate possible are likely to result him fleeing the country, or being hung in the streets from a lampost.
We must not bow to the false god of Democracy, even insincerely. The law must be that if you conquer a country, you have the divine right to rule it.
Latin America is full of pustulent socialist states. Good men might be able to overthrow these states and provide good government, but they don’t bother because as soon as you win a civil war, the (((international community))) says you must hold elections and give power back to the people so they can fuck it up again.
All regimes sometimes have to bow to the gods of democracy and monarchies west of Russia tended to have some democratic characteristics (and Henry VIII who was conscious of the need to manage public opinion did better at being an autocrat in practice than Charles I who disdained doing so). Making Democracy an organizing principle though is just fucking insane.
“An honest election will permit non Maidan candidates. If no non Maidan candidate running, not an honest election.”
I realize that, I’m just questioning how good their prospects will be when they have to 1. return from exile/prison(?) 2. set up a new party(?) 3. set up a campaign apparatus, etc. within a period of just a month or two, while Ukrainians are used to being taking away by balclava-clad men at 4am for posting anything pro-Russian on socmed.
Frankly I think that if, say, Medvedchuk comes back, assumes leadership of a party (a continuity rump of his now-banned party does seem to still be in the Rada), and wins the presidential election, you deserve your BTC, but as I said I’m also not 100% sure you’re wrong – I’m just not that confident you’re right either.
Arestovych sounds like he is going to make a real try at returning to the Ukraine with some possible US thermidorian backing and run for prez. He is also chums with Zaluzhnyi allegedly.
He has always been a calm, pragmatic mentant in his public life, but over the last week has begun exhibiting fire and brimstone eruptions of theatrical outrage, so it’s likely he feels his chance is looming on the horizon. Him being a retired Lieutenant Colonel from army intelligence is also not to be discounted of course, in the sense of connections, political capital, and worldview.
Also, he’s been running since 2013 his own “personal growth” sect thing (“Aperion school”). A significant segment of his online presence is thus seminars on history, philosophy etc, and reading out people’s questions about life and giving brisk answers (“I keep falling in love with people but quickly lose interest” — “well, m’am, you are obviously addicted to the biochemical high, this is not love, this is a state of mania, love is duty and honor” etc)
In this non-political space half the time he sounds like Jordan Peterson, half the time like some Robert Heinlein mystic character. He spends a surprising amount of energy analyzing sci-fi books, including Robert Heinlein books, and recording his own audio versions of them.
Here he is voicing Starship Troopers in Russian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcaNzS3veWs&list=PLHBacZjYq-jyuZcF7ZGyuUZW8lCf3_0kT
Doing a deep-dive analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reQ00y8okEk
A fascinating persona, I myself would likely feel high levels of unease just being in the same room with someone like that. “As a Christian I believe” he says quite often, but behind his blunt realism peppered with sci-fi mysticism one sometimes feels the ghostly presence of Castaneda and even Crowley.
Having him as a Ukrainian prez, or PM, or top advisor to same would be the most entertaining show this side of the Atlantic. Although I’d certainly wipe my hand with the holy water I always keep around, should we exchange polite greeting for some reason with the man.
DOGE now has admin control over all federal expenditure now apparently… so Trump theoretically could not only tell the courts to let them enforce it and impound funds already allocated he could also theoretically pay people on credit and say the congress has the purse power now let them enforce it (a power medieval kings generally did not have).
This is amazing. I never saw this coming.
Just the fact that Orange Hitler somehow won an election at all already puts us way out in “wonderland” territorty. But then, on top of that, the DOGE guys cut off 0.01% of taxpayer money from the Karenocracy and boom, no “meat shows” on the streets? Barely at all? After all that? Not even for Orange Hitler? WTF?
Scott Adams and the normiecons are talking “Shadow Government” now, because what the hell else can you call this? They get huge money, forever and for free, no one can know how much or what for, and they just run around and perpetrate lefty shit worldwide?
This helps me believe that there simply MUST be crazy-to-evil people running this, because who else claws their way to the top of something like that? It’s like the narco cartels. If the power is that strong, and the getting is that good, then there simply must be some crazy bloodsport “tournaments” going on, somehow and somewhere, to pick the winners who will sit on that throne. Those kiddie porn paintings and the backward-bent Jeffery Dahmer victim statue at Tony Podesta’s house make a lot more logical sense now, because whoever it is that drives this crazy machine, he had to get chosen over all the other contenters somehow, and for something.
To me anyway, the term “Deep State” implied government employees meeting in boiler rooms and hatching master plans to “shut down” this or “fortify” that, but this shit here is more like “They Live” Invisible Alien Occupation.
How much of my understanding of reality has been Fake and Gay this whole time? Heck, what has NOT been Fake and Gay? Is any YouTube channel or podcaster I’ve ever heard of actually legit?
Can any of my “priors” on American and world history survive this? Does any of the past look today, like it looked yesterday?
This week’s homework for you guys: Just who the heck are those DOGE guys anyway, and what motivates them? What do they think they’re doing? Because they’re another kind of “fake and gay” too, in that they were obviously pre-selected, pre-organized, and ready to jump into this from Day One. So what are THEY about, and for whom?
Is Peter Thiel the King now?
This situation is accurately modeled as demons in charge.
The materialist dark enlightenment models demons as memeplexes that expand by recruitment at the expense of their adherents. The state religion being the major instrumentality to expand by recruitment, you get a memeplex that is optimised to take over the the state religion, that is replaced by a memeplex even more optimised, which is replaced by an even more optimised memeplex.
The Christian dark enlightenment agrees that this depiction is accurate, but the devil is the father of lies.
Both Christian and materialist dark enlightenment agree that in the later stages, the memeplex is apt involve literal demon worship, regardless of whether demons are actually literal.
Somewhere in “The Screwtape Letters”, Screwtape explains to Wormwood that the goal they’re striving for is to achieve a relationship with his Subject such the Subject ends up giving Wormwood everything, and getting back absolutely nothing.
Sound familiar.
Screwtape to his student, the younger demon:
“An ever increasing craving for an ever diminishing pleasure is the formula. It is more certain; and it’s better style. To get the man’s soul and give him nothing in return-that is what really gladdens our Father’s [i.e. Satan’s] heart.”
Musk told Trump he could cut waste, corruption, and fraud. Trump says this is a smart guy who massively slimmed down Twitter, so go for it.
But the federal government is enormous, hence chopping waste, corruption and fraud, small detail by small detail is impossible. So, computers.
Musk figures everything is computerised, so he selects some good computer guys to fix the systems so that money is properly accounted for. I don’t think he expected he would be doing a coup at USAID. What happened there is that the computers at their C3I were extra special top secret, so he just went in to grab the computers, and so wound up grabbing their C3I. Which is why the protest was so hilariously anaemic, and the shills are in disarray. When Musk grabbed the C3I he disconnected Schumer from the river of meat.
They are currently putting their C3I back together again, so protests are getting bigger.
The computer guys never expected to be doing a coup. They said “Hey, Musk, security will not let us in”. Musk says “Hey Trump, they are not allowed in.” Trump 2.0 says “My security detail is bigger than their security detail.” Coup ensues.
Hilariously funny.
Hopefully Musk realizes what you are explaining here. An accidental coup is great, but if it stays accidental, the enemy will recover.
The enemy are recovering. They are setting up a new C3I. Obvious synchronisation between town hall protesters and legacy media is back up and running.
Their comms are partially back up but it seems like with all the legacy tranny media firings their budget is now very limited. Still prog believers are trouble as long as they live and will continue to try to reproduce memetically in the shadows. This is why all of them should go…
Yes. Total leftist death should be on the genetic level, ultimately. Figure out what genes (and/or other biological factors) predispose people to leftism, or at least to hardcore leftism, and turn them off – or, rather one should say, “prune them out.” This needs to happen, sooner or later.
Not all phenotypes are worth keeping. This phenotype is not worth keeping. Them’s (Dems) the facts.
There might be a tiny subset of leftists that are that way irrevocably, but for the vast majority I’m fairly sure it’s reaction to environment, and its a healthy reaction to the environment when the memes aren’t cancerous.
My thesis here is, basically greengrocers, but reacting to a different stimulus. Tear down all the institutions, destroy all the networks, and helicopter those true believers of today, probably won’t find a need to run a magnifying glass over genomes.
(I’m also quite wary of too much direct tampering with the genome, seems like the wrong layer of abstraction, and I’m not sure we actually fully understand what genes are and what they’re doing. c.f. the discussion on odd quantum effects in organelles, nucleotide helixes are known to have strange resonances.)
I don’t want to agree with this – but I agree with this. It is, unfortunately, rather too early to start the genetic engineering BNW utopia; as you suggest, the engineering involved might not even be genetic. Be that as it may, should start with eliminating diseases, if possible, and keep the hard eugenics for a later stage.
But what selection pressures bring about phenotypic leftism? I believe that it’s selection for the ability to callously status maximize. If you are rewarded socially (hence sexually) for being a successful psychopathic status maximizer a la Spandrell’s terminology, will end up with substantial phenotypic leftism among the population. Look at Ashkenazim when liberated from Orthodox Judaism – a minority become chudhisattvas, but all too many take to leftism. Pseudo-Chrysostom is right about the winnowing – yikes! But regular whites also have too much phenotypic leftism in the “pool” (whatever the pool actually is, biologically), and eventually eugenic measures should be able to minimize that too. Probably not yet, though.
It’s not a self-hating schtick, by the way. I’m actually trying to save the Jews — mostly from themselves — plus a majority of Israelis have Mizrahi (and other mystery meat) admixture so that dilutes the leftist bio-monstrosity and explains why Israel has not yet collapsed into a Left Singularity. But Mizrahim are definitely not without their own long and colorful “rap sheet” of issues, lol.
Anyway, Jews are a vivid example of what happens when you have, um, peculiar selection pressures. So I often use Jews as an example for various forms of misbehavior rooted in genes or memes or both; but the point is not “gas the kikes” but identify flawed selection pressures active in society (by investigating their unappetizing fruits) and fix them.
So what’s their end goal?
Oust Trump and turn America into another Haiti? Everyone knows they want to do that and the vast majority are against it, to the effect that the men with guns will obey Trump and ignore liberal judges.
Get more favorable peace terms? Not likely; the terms Trump has offered them are already quite generous: nine months’ pay and amnesty for most crimes committed by the Obama-Biden regime.
Start a civil war? It would be a turkey shoot; liberals and their diversity pets can’t fight, and they all have a certain physiognomy that would make it easy to set up checkpoints and shoot them on sight.
The left has no goal. It is not a rational process, nor the outcome of a rational process.
Founding Questions blog likes to fisk the dumber lefty media, and although I find it intolerable to read frequently (no one should devote that much headspace to crazy people, lest they become equally crazy), it is useful to go over once in a while just to keep a bead on them.
https://foundingquestions.wordpress.com/2025/02/25/katching-up-with-karen/
This is their milieu. There’s no goal, there’s not even a clear ideology, just their usual grab-bag of totems plus an increasing desperation over losing their goodies, and egging each other on to outright terrorism and civil war.
Why? Who knows. To what end? Who cares. How? They’ll just wing it. When? The sooner the better.
USAID and this federal payments fraud reminds me of Epstein Island.
That Lotita Express / Little Saint James freakery was far away and obscure enough to be sustainable until new technologies — cell phone cameras for raw evidence and the internet/4chan for information-collation between weaponized autists — just blew its opsec.
Well. Likewise, I expect that the federal payments system was “actively allowed” to become so scrambled up and inscrutable — “records” that no longer contained actual comprehensible information anymore — that they effectively had a financial Epstein Island going.
Aside:
Secret clubs with secret languages. It always ends up there, doesn’t it?
“It’s what it is.”
“I found a handkerchief with a map on it that appears to be pizza related.”
(And when Emperor Hirohito addressed the country on the radio to let them know that yes, they really were surrendering, most people could barely understand a word he was saying.)
Back to DOGE:
But that whole federal edifice was created before the new machine learning, LLM, data science and data mining tools that we have now, allowing those DOGE boys to air-drop into there and “decrypt” that shit, and quickly. Amazing.
It makes me wonder about the future, and what meanings might be discovered in “information” that I don’t consider “information” anymore, because it’s so spread out or degraded or whatever.
“For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.” –Luke 12:2
There might be some superficial similarities in terms of outcomes, but the process is almost entirely reversed. The Island was a honeypot run by the IC, mostly off the books, with pretty tight opsec, but personnel defected and that caused security to break down. Organizations like USAID are running completely vanilla infrastructures with minimal security, probably a lot of Oracle databases given the government’s proclivity for overpriced consultantware, and what might appear to be opsec is just party discipline.
Historically, politicians failed to cut anything or even learn anything because they used old-fashioned methods. They would bring in a team of accountants and try to “follow the money”, but could not do so, because the money is in a million places and modern accounting practices (i.e. SOX) are specifically designed for upholding the official truth. And they would bring in bureaucrats who ask other bureaucrats what they do, and receive evasive or nonsensical answers, and get stonewalled. These methods still sort of worked back in the 80s, but are ineffective today.
When Sherlock & co start rolling up Moriarty’s criminal syndicate, they don’t go after the official books, which are of course completely clean, and they don’t go after his minions, none of whom are going to talk. They deduce that he had to have a real set of books in order to organize something so massive, and go after those books and a way to decode them.
Well, the modern equivalent to Moriarty’s secret set of books is the internal computer network. Guys are getting paid, so there needs to be a payroll system. Memos are going out, so there need to be email and IM systems, and probably some less-official forums and chats. Staff need to badge in and out, so somewhere there is a database of all the EINs and badge IDs and clearances. And so on.
Musk is a smart tech guy, so he says, forget the army of lawyers and accountants and bureaucrats, I can just bring in a dozen of my best hackers, in the Stallman sense, not the Hollywood sense: programmers, IT guys, maybe a DBA, anyone who knows how to write code or SQL queries and isn’t intimidated by horrendously out-of-date systems with zero documentation. Once you have access to the social security database, really not that hard to write a query to tell you how many people above age 120 are still considered “alive” and receiving benefits.
All DOGE had to do was break the personnel blockade, and we saw what was needed for that: federal marshals. They were not going to give up the goods without a fight, but Trump/Musk/etc. were prepared, came expecting a fight and were ready to bust the door down. And lo and behold, all the information they need is in fact on these computers. Some of it will take time to sort through and decode, but it is there.
Big difference. On the one hand, with Epstein, you had intra-agency defection, defection to the left, some intentional leaks, lots of accidental leaks following it, and in general the breakdown of a system that had been carefully built up but couldn’t be formalized because plausible deniability. With USAID there had to be a concerted and officially-sanctioned raid, party members largely incompetent but unified in their resistance, protecting systems that were never designed with heightened opsec or plausible deniability in mind because they were always fully sanctioned and totally formalized by the previous regime, thus no need for opsec.
It’s going to be the same with the universities, and the legacy media, and so on. No doubt there are additional back channels here and there, replacements for the defunct JournoList and more, but mostly we’re going to find that their infrastructures are quite ordinary and not hardened against takeover, because they served the old regime faithfully and never anticipated the possibility of a takeover. And if any levers of state power are applied, probably lacking the will or the means to put up more than token resistance.
That doesn’t mean there isn’t dirt to find – there is tons and tons of dirt, huge mountains of dirt – but not well hidden because they’ve been operating with impunity thus far. All you need to do is get through the metaphorical front door, and then everything is right there in the open.
The reason Epstein got nailed is that they thought he had the goods on Trump, so put the heat on him to make him talk.
Leftists routinely turn on each other for foolish reasons.
Indeed, this is the basic reason for Thermidor. They turned on Joe Rogan, they turned on Mark Andreesan, they turned on Musk, among many others. They were turning on everyone, and everyone got scared. You could see the fear in Zuckerberg. The were turning on all the white straight males, then they were turning on the straight males.
You can turn on a large number of powerless people, and you are fine, because the powerless people will not be able to get together without being destroyed. But when you turn on a small number of powerful people who between them wield a lot of power, they get together, and Thermidor happens.
Turning on Musk was a really bad idea. They turned on someone very wealthy, and very very smart. It became obvious that they were going to destroy him, so he had to destroy them first. And now he is going right to the jugular, by defunding the left. It was him or them.
Their current narrative that President Musk and grifter in chief Trump are enriching themselves — presumably by learning the social security numbers of two hundred year old people who appear to be still receiving social security. Perhaps they are plotting identity theft against people to old to protect themselves. Also that Trump and Musk are going to cut disability pensions and put the money in their own pockets. Which is in a sense true. They are going to find a whole of healthy or nonexistent people on disability, and they, like everyone else, will benefit.
When Epstein stepped off his jet in New York or New Jersey, the cops were right there and arrested him.
Why didn’t he suspect that could happen? He could have stayed away. You’re implying here that his own side set him up, to work him over for anti-Trump dirt. Do I understand you correctly?
(Likewise, I understand that Gislane Maxwell was chilling in someone’s New England mansion when she got picked up. They had to find her, but fuck man, she had her cell phone! And she could have been in a different country too.)
So weird. Neither of these people was stupid. I guess that’s Satan for you. He’s your best buddy right until the end.
Exactly so. And he died because he had no anti Trump dirt, but had far too much other dirt.
Epstein had breezed through U.S. Customs a hundred times before — why should he expect this time to be any different, unless someone tipped him off?
“Rivers of meat” aren’t just about money. In the old days, college professors often gave course credit for attending rallies. Now colleges send the names of student protestors to Jewish oligarchs for their permanent no-hire list. If any school refused to cooperate, all their graduates would be “no-hire”.
So now rent-a-mobs need to be recruited from the chronically unemployed, and it’s a lot harder to get such people to show up on time and mostly sober.
Also seeing more signs made with brown cardboard and magic marker because they lack the money and organization for professionally printed signs. Even spending a few bucks on white poster board would make their signs a lot more legible.
Quite simply, everyone in the West who trumpets about how they “Stand With Ukraine” should be deported to Ukraine and conscripted to the front lines.
I think an important meme to push is around welfare and reproduction.
The broad TFR is well below replacement, but tax parasites who live on welfare have TFR above 2.
Now cutting off gibs would save a lot of money, but I doubt modern people will accept children being left to starve, as starvation is the only limit to reproduction for R-strategist yeastfolk.
The obvious solution is keeping some level of handouts for now, but making it contingent on getting sterilized. This would immediately save money, as there would be less per-child cash going out, and you wouldn’t need to provide schools etc for these missing children, who would be very unlikely to ever become net contributors.
Even this will be hard to swallow for most, but as bankruptcy looms those in power may see the writing on the wall, and it only takes a few months of messaging to reprogram the masses.
Everyone who eats government cheese needs to be sterilized, using a reversible method only if under 16 and white.
This is not the Catholic position, and that’s fine with me because the Catholic position leads to Brazil.
Tough, but fair. Whatever order makes it out the other side of this will probably be on board with this, provided that they even offer any kind of dole.
We have to force them to get married. We need to increase the supply of reproductive, sexual, and domestic services to taxpayers. Sterilisation is a waste.
If a black man can get enforceable rights over a wife provided he is a taxpayer, most blacks with the necessary time horizons to hold down a job will hold down a job and get married. The rest of them are natural slaves, because trapped in an eternal present, and need to be dealt with accordingly.
Exactly right, and refreshing to hear somebody not obviously from the South say it. The larger fraction of American negroes can live orderly, productive, sanctified lives given the right set of social machinery. This existed within living memory of Americans from the same place the American negro is from. Enforced strong Christian patriarchy, rural outdoor hard work, and simple, harsh, local enforcement of basic western morality, uniformly applied out of a genuine Christian charity. That’s what it takes.
I guess, due to demographics, most of “our guys'” exposure is to the third-generation urban variety, and I can’t blame them for thinking about genocide.
For the record, I’m saying it’s possible, not desirable.
What is the profit for the white man in devoting so much time and effort into this as opposed to other solutions?
Nobody trust the state that practices mass expulsion and/or genocide when they can handle it other ways. I’m with Jimmy living in Florida my observation is blacks aren’t too much trouble in the absence of leftists making them so I do not fear them here.
Ethiopians are humans (as opposed to West Africans, who are not humans), and constituting about 2% of the Israeli population last I checked, I’m perfectly okay with them. But what if they were 20% of the population?
Just take that reflection as food for thought.
There are plenty of blacks who are not just fully human, but good valuable people, and a whole lot more who would be good valuable people given the right social environment. They are, unfortunately, in our care. Would have been better for us had their ancestors been repatriated after seven years of slavery (the Australian solution). But we are now, unfortunately, stuck with that obligation, through no fault of ours or theirs.
A lot of blacks are natural slaves. Being trapped in an eternal present, they are incapable of earning a living except with a whip on their backs. These guys need to be given a realistic and practical choice between slavery and self deportation back to Africa. And a lot of blacks are not natural slaves. These guys need a social and legal environment in which being a productive and valuable citizen gets its proper reward, and have a right to such an environment which we need to honor.
That’s the prey morality talking to you com. ‘Power to do things means possibility of doing bad things; therefore no power.’
If you can’t gatekeep who’s in the club you don’t have a club.
Weak reasoning. We are all the products of a thousand genocides. Your argument only relevant when not done to the out group in the name of the in group. Burma expelling the rohingya is universally agreed on between government and rebels. Nobody gives a shit because they’re hostile muslim parasites.
Cucked thinking. We’re not obliged to honor a bad treaty an ancestor got suckered into, and we’re not obliged to take care of every group that happens to exist in physical proximity. I don’t care what happens to them in the slightest, I only want them gone because they are always and forever a pure dead weight around the necks of my people.
Only if you babysit them without getting anything back from the deal. Think of it this way, they are more energetically efficient than a robot, considering the entire supply and maintenance chain, so if you have some system keeping them on task all shift, you have an energy efficient tool. We’re just considering them objects, if I get the ingroup and outgroup rhetoric correctly here. Yet you aren’t making a material argument. You’re arguing that there are mysterious negro waves siphoning production away from whites, when not too long ago whites were making plenty of use of them.
If slaves were worth the while they wouldn’t be slaves. Ipso facto.
The problem is that while plenty of blacks are fully human, a huge proportion of them are not. The mere existence of the demihuman poses a problem to the white man’s innate view of humanity and the typical Christian moral system. When 1% of whites are not fully human, that can be considered just a few defects of nature and a strict criminal justice system weeds them out of the gene pool. When 40-60% of blacks are not fully human, and the mere application of justice is indistinguishable from genocide (if we were as assiduous about hanging as 18th century England was there would be very few blacks left), it throws a spanner into our ideas of the soul, human reason, and so on. Our society still has yet to grapple with the NQ in a fully comprehensive way, and settle the position of the black in our philosophies of mind and soul, be they Christian or “psychological”, in a stable way
Maybe the tech-optimists, who read the HBD studies while eating KFC and watermelon, are just waiting for hocus pocus genetic engineering to turn all niggers into geniuses.
HBD scholars with prognathism and steatopygia and lip plates have scientifically confirmed that turning all coons into professors is a matter of years, possibly just months. It may well be happening as we speak. I’m just not sure how the white man will compete against Doctor Professor Butt Naked.
No, I’m arguing they commit disproportionate crime (victimizing my people and demanding investment of enforcement resources they do not supply), are less productive in whatever role they are placed than a white man, invariably form an underclass easily used for leftist agitation, and finally are simply not my people. All of which are inarguably true.
The solution is to eliminate black criminality. Which was routinely done.
The West Indies were safe when Froude visited them.
This is bizarre moon logic. I’m surprised to hear it from you, of all people.
Obviously slave owners did not pay the slaves; but they paid for the slaves, and had to pay to house, feed and clothe them. Some may have skimped on those essentials, others did not.
It’s just your basic vanilla capital investment and operating cost structure, and to claim otherwise implicitly invokes the sneering Yankee depiction of confederate slave owners as slack-jawed yokels who were just too lazy to do the work themselves. Eventually, mechanization did start to overtake slave labor in terms of pure productivity, but even after emancipation or replacement, many of them continued on as “domestic servants” and the like.
Reality is the exact opposite of how you’ve worded it. If slavery had no economic utility, societies wouldn’t keep implementing it over and over and over again.
Of course economic utility doesn’t make either slavery as a concept or negro slavery as a practice inherently good; I’m normally the last person to make a “muh GDP” argument, but you and Calvin have both specifically dubbed it “unprofitable” and that is clearly not true. And once you deport 30-40 million illegals, there are going to plenty of opportunities for manual and low-skill labor catering to the Negro’s “unique” skill set.
Every society is going to have an underclass; get rid of the bottom 20% and you’ll just create a new bottom 20%. If there is always going to be an underclass, might as well be the one that’s already here and that we have tried-and-tested means of managing, even if those means have fallen into disrepair lately.
I’m starting to wonder who “your people” are, exactly. You keep issuing these proclamations as the leader or representative of… someone. Whom? “White people?” Sorry, but the floor does not recognize you as an authorized representative of everyone with white skin and European ancestry. Either speak for yourself, or identify clearly whom you think you speak for.
Like Fidelis, I can totally understand why a lower-middle-class white guy living in or near the ghettoized metro would feel that way and want every single negro gone; all they ever see is the worst of the worst, and I sympathize and agree that all of those niggers should be deported or just strung up. But that is not universal, they are not all dead weight and even the ones who are dead weight today would not necessarily have been dead weight in a different time and place.
As you’re fond of pointing out, Lincoln wanted to deport them all, and Lincoln was one of the worst things to ever happen to America. That is where your thinking leads. “But he didn’t deport them”, yes, and also “real communism has never been tried”. The issue isn’t what Lincoln’s regime actually did, but the fact that one faction of white Christians started holiness-spiraling and decided to impose their heretical ideas on another set of white Christians at gunpoint.
Deportation should definitely be an option for those who truly can’t produce any value or continue to impose extreme costs, but TND is holiness-spiraling regardless of what the “D” stands for.
A slave is something that is net-negative in value. People that are become never stop being slaves are net-negative in value. Slavery happens because marginal profits are personalized while marginal costs are socialized.
If you have people that are shiftless and or criminal without minding, you’re not running a business, you’re running a prison. People that can’t even handle their own business, let alone anything greater, are net-negative in value. Slaves don’t make rockets happen, they don’t make chip fabs happen, they don’t make civilization happen. A slave is a man who is a drain on your energies.
Americans of ethnic European ancestry you idiot. My kin. I have yet to hear a single argument why the presence of blacks is any way beneficial to them, which is all I care about. I do not, in the slightest, regard my people as having even the slightest obligation to take care of any black population anywhere and the fact that you apparently do indicates you have already accepted a key tenant of liberalism. If I’m wrong, then make an actual case as to how their presence is superior to a ethnically unified state.
If the chain of logic here is supposed to be obvious to me, then I’m sorry to say it is not. It sounds like a bald assertion without evidence.
How did confederate slave holders socialize their costs? What forms of socialism even existed at that time?
What precisely is the difference between paying a minimum-wage employee barely enough to afford rent, meals and other basic necessities, vs. providing those things directly to a slave or indentured servant who lives on your property?
I’m asking specifically in terms of the cost structure, and who ultimately pays for what, and putting aside silly notions of consent ethics. What is the difference between “minding” on a farm and “supervising” in a fast-food restaurant? It is not “net-negative” if the amount of capital allocated is less than the productivity received, which is likely the case if one “minder” can oversee a dozen others.
Do you actually have a traceable ethnicity, or is this some Le 56% bullshit?
This “my people” phrasing is sounding more and more like fedposting every day. Who actually talks like that? I have never met anyone who does in real life. Kin are family, nation, neighbors, or maybe coreligionists, not an amorphous mass of people with vaguely similar racial traits spread across 4 million square miles of land mass.
I know lots and lots of ordinary white guys who don’t like the blacks very much; some would like them all to go, others are more tolerant. Zero of them think that every other white guy within America’s borders are “their people” or claim to speak on behalf of all of them.
It’s like a caricature of evil huwhite supreemist, the kind of speech I’d expect from an FBI agent leading a fake-ass KKK meeting or the fever dream of a Hollywood hack writing a script for the same. If not literally a fed then a deluded monomaniac who never seems to have anything to talk about other than purifying America for the white race, which may as well be the same thing.
But yeah, call us “cucked” for promoting a choice between deportation and slavery. Totally rational!
I spent my 16th birthday reading Mein Kampf and watching Hitler videos and intermittently running to the mirror and pretending that I’m Hitler, so presumably Calvin is possessed of that mentality right now regardless of his age. He is stuck in the “phase.”
“I spent my 16th birthday reading Mein Kampf and watching Hitler videos and intermittently running to the mirror and pretending that I’m Hitler”
Self hating jew with a Hitler phase… bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha rotflmao.
Me: “I think America belongs to heritage Americans and no one else is owed a damn thing, let alone residency.”
You: “You’re a fed shill”
Is that really all you’ve got? I talk about other stuff all the time, including on this thread, and you can’t even an affirmative case for what value there is in keeping the first stage of the multicultural project around.
Granted. What I am asking is what is the profit in that specific approach, considering both the necessary unending resource commitment to disproportionate policing and the point of social vulnerability it creates to have a permanent visibly foreign underclass?
There is obvious massive negative value in keeping the first stage of the multicult program around, but we cannot fix it entirely except by doing bad things to good people who have deep roots in America. We have to refrain from doing unnecessary bad things to good people. The rest of them, we can get rid of.
Why? What is the negative consequence of establishing a standard of “this land is a land for this particular ethnic group, the moral status of nonmembers is, for the purposes of residency, irrelevant”? I know of no duty to allow any chinese man, however good he may be, entrance to my country. Why is it suddenly different if the man is a descendent of obsolete farm equipment?
“Oh, we would like to genocide you, but you didn’t do that to us in the past so I guess we can’t.” Has that ever happened? Literally even once?
Consider a smart hard working honest black man like the you tuber “no labcoat required”. Smarter than the average white. I don’t want to deport him because he is an asset to society and it would be morally wrong to deport him to a strange and alien land — particularly as the locals probably would not want to have a bunch of aliens dumped on them and would probably eat him. If they ate him, we would be guilty. I don’t want to be guilty of that.
And consider George Zimmerman. He was defending his neighbourhood. We need people like him. And what race is he? He himself does not know. Where do we deport him to? Our enemies made him an honorary white, a definition I heartily endorse. The addition of people who can shoot straight with blood in their eyes while their head is being pounded against the concrete is definitely a gain.
Obviously it would have been hard to miss the target at that range, but he not only hit the target, he shot his assailant directly through the heart, the heart being a considerably smaller target.
You can of course do very bad things to good people in the name of making a better world later and you might even be right at least in some ways… but when the shoe is on the other foot which it inevitably will be at some point in the future (I’m not predicting a nigger takeover but lets say its asians or other rival whites) they definitely are going to remember one should not be too eager to make oceans of innocent blood (guilty blood is another matter). I could endorse something close to TND IF I actually believe their vote stats but I don’t believe they generally actually vote. Also having at least a small amount of inferior kinds around is good because it makes people a lot less likely to believe in egalitarian crap.
Aesop:
There was once a ship that sank with all hands on board. A man who saw what had happened said that the gods’ judgment was unfair: because of just one sinner who was on board the ship, many men had died together with him, even though they were innocent. While the man was speaking, a swarm of ants started crawling over him as they rushed in their usual frenzy to feed on some bits of wheat chaff. When one of the ants bit the man, he proceeded to trample a considerable number of them underfoot. Hermes then appeared and struck the man with his wand as he said, ‘So, are you going to let the gods pass judgment on you humans just as you have passed judgment on the ants?’
@Scarebucks
A slave above all is a natural kind as recognized by Aristotle, rectification of names. Something that can be gifted any manner of objects and be no richer; can be nominated with any title and be no greater; because it has no thing to do with these things.
If you want greater wealth, need agents with greater wealth cap. Higher levels of civilization require higher levels of human capital. A relatively valuable man in one kind can be a drag on value in another.
Roman economy suffered greatly from all the garbage slave people around. Southern American economy suffered greatly from all the garbage slave people around. Natural thralls are not capable of providing the value your brothers can provide each other, that natural freemen and natural aristocrats can provide. Men who have stewardship rather than destructiveness; motivation instead of idleness; fidelity rather than defection.
>What precisely is the difference between paying a minimum-wage employee barely enough to afford rent, meals and other basic necessities, vs. providing those things directly to a slave or indentured servant who lives on your property?
For starters, minimum wage, like all forms of price control, causes distortions of market signaling mechanisms, and specifically the disappearance of goods; in this case the disappearance of ‘entry level’ economic activity and accordant loss of capital goods, services, and jump in costliness.
More topically, you think of a man organizing the affairs of his house as a trivial proposition; in one manner of speaking this can be true, the affairs of a pedestrian may be a trivial proposition; so what does that say about kinds that can’t even jump this hurdle, let alone anything beyond it? Slavery is a welfare program for slave castes. Micromanagement means you are losing.
There is a use-case for indenture in men that are instrumentally valuable but flawed on more transcendent levels in some way. E.g. soviet sharashki. Whether it’s because of irresponsibility, unreliability, infidelity, or some other reason they can’t be trustworthy. Some monasteries might, in some sense, be seen as a form of this as well.
Amused by this comment appearing right under a fable by Aesop, famously a slave.
Ahckshually, doulos or douloi had different connotations as sklavos, the former meaning something like bondservant, and could be comparable to arrangements like mentioned in the bottom line, and the latter being more like what is commonly thought of a chattel slavery today.
Thanks for the clarification, Saint Pseudo-Nietzsche.
I find it quite reasonable to assume slave owners profited from their slaves. But what about their society as a whole? I believe less than a majority owned slaves. This is probably a perfect example of privatizing profits and socializing costs.
Values that people got out of buying chattel were A. paying for the luxury of undermining their neighbors, B. paying for the luxury of status differentials, C. paying for the luxury of sadism, or D. some combination thereof.
Re: doing bad things to good people
Why? Memento mori. Speaking realpolitik here, whites are wolf to whites are you are not an omnipotent king of the world. Look at what happened to Hitler and Germany. Enough “good” people thought he was a “bad” people and ganged on him and crushed him.
If this were true, the greek colonies would have wised up to this and the latter ones would have a law of no slaves or servants. The greeks and others like them ran a heuristic search on new principals of politics and economics under pain of extinction, and their results speak for themselves. It was only when they abandoned good breeding did the cities perish.
Lets put this in purely material terms. Youre talking about a robot that lives on cassava and trace animal proteins, that can follow simple verbal instructions, and that one good man can command dozens at a time. We even have computer networks that can make the monitoring much more efficient per unit of time and attention. You’re being absurd to say this is some cost on the public.
If I may put words in your mouth to guess at why you are arguing this, and please correct me if I guess wrong, your argument is that in cases of elite and median infertility of a population, they seek wives from the slaves, and pollute the health of the population. That is a problem found with or without slaves, with or without lower order populations laying around. Maintain your breeding rituals or perish, so sayeth the Lord.
Because, at least ’round these parts, we organise around faith first. Does not mean ethnicity is not important, obviously it is, but the first question whether someone does or does not get cominator’d is not ‘what is his genetic make-up’ but ‘what has he done to deserve this’.
I’m not advocating laws against bondage, of one form or another, I’m advocating again slave people.
It’s a common mistake to analogize the Cavalier South’s states of affairs to all other settings of history. Thralldom in the Cavalier South was generally a swell deal for a west african bantu and the outcomes of the civil war were objectively a catastrophe for them (and everyone else). Never the less, there was no good business in them being there to begin with. The aboltionist’s criticisms of the plantation owners were all retarded and heretical and yet they were still making a mistake regardless and they paid for it; and not only them but indeed the American nation, and by extension the world under the American nation, all paid for it. To sin means to ‘miss the mark’. That obsolete farm equipment was not nearly as productive as the yeomanry was.
The south has no A/B experiment to reference as to whether it would have been more productive without meat robots for the farms, and further the argument seems absurd to me. Having meat robots around makes you less productive, how? That yeomen were per capita higher productivity does not make a counter argument, because you can have yeoman and slave.
We do have the Greeks, Latins, and Germans to reference, and they all decided that slaves were useful economically. Were they not useful, the tribe abstaining would take more share and crowd out the rest.
England during her incubation had plenty of the ‘natural kind’ of slave in the serf class, those who lived under the lash, and it worked out quite well.
Deportation is only a temporary solution, because all lands are valuable, and sooner rather than later we will be partaking of the spoils of Africa and ‘Latin’ America. We have three options: make economic use of them, put them on reservations, or exterminate them. I say reservations is a clear drain, and exterminating them sounds pointlessly cruel. Even if for arguments’ sake we deem them less than human, are we going to exterminate all the chimpanzee while we’re at it? We are given the responsibility of stewardship of the earth. So, that leaves finding utility, which I argue is clearly and easily possible — how are you going to argue meat robots living on cassava and trace animal proteins, pliant to orders, are somehow an economic pit?
We don’t want to have slavery at least not on a permanent basis or on a large scale because it causes perverse incentives similar to why mass slave labor immigration does… we do want to racially homogenize America but do it gradually and without mass brutal deportations of any non leftists non criminal minorities. Full blooded jeets are nearly all scammers even if they don’t have a criminal record its almost universal so other than a few selected exemplary cases and their immediate families all need to go back though…
Don’t use “we” when saying shit like this. No one is proposing this. Jim’s plan is not racial homogenization, but ethnogenesis under selection pressure, and even coming from Jim, in Jim’s territory, it’s taken controversially here.
I said we because I believe that most people want here want it done as a more ideal state is close to an ethnostate so when you object to me saying we I ask does anyone here object to it being accomplished if done gradually through a mix of methods? The pushback seems to have been against Calvin (and it would seem PC but perhaps hes just fixated on jews) wanting to use what would necessarily be methods of organized state brutality to do it very rapidly.
Rome did not benefit from the replacement of its workforce with slaves, it helped ruin itself.
>Having meat robots around makes you less productive, how?
>That yeomen were per capita higher productivity does not make a counter argument, because you can have yeoman and slave.
You can’t, because the west african slave trade was literally imported scabs undermining the local population (plus ca change, plus c’est la meme). That meat robot is taking up existential real-estate you could have had for more yeomen instead. The angle’s underclasses were not the ivory coast chief’s underclasses. Lincoln won the election by running on a platform of sending africans back to africa. The ‘Free Soil’ movement was primarily understood by people at the time as a movement for no more niggers. A significant fraction of the men fighting for the union invaded the south with the expectation that the only thing standing in the way of making good on african repatriation was the men in grey. Lincoln the man was a trollop in many was but he by all indications seemed to indeed be making good on that platform; it can be credibly argued that he was killed by the leftist harvardian – and quite possibly jesuitical – factions who had been instigating and intending to take advantage of the conflict to enforce their whig religion on the land from the outset. If you’ve got room for pet humanoids, you’ve got room for more of yourselves, and much better served thereby.
>all lands are valuable, and sooner rather than later we will be partaking of the spoils of Africa and ‘Latin’ America. We have three options: make economic use of them, put them on reservations, or exterminate them.
I should say right now that when I feel the need to comment on something, it is often not necessarily because I am reenforcing an already held inclination, or sketching out the full span of those inclinations, but because there is a logic I see going unexpressed and it demands expression. The Spirit moves and I must channel its voice.
That being said, it is good that you’re thinking about where these paths ultimately lead, but you’re stumbling in the act of treading them. It is in essence the same mistake as the baby boomers; the assumption that their position in life is a cosmic constant, that they can’t ever not be a dominant power, and that thus there is no penalty for trading on luxury beliefs.
The obvious A/B test in America was the north and south itself.
Where were all the african slaves that made Germany great? How about France? Russia? China? Japan?
>some of these people had colonies
Okay, and were the principals going to the colonies, or the colonies going to the principals?
Low wealth cap people means low wealth. If you want greater capital, need people with greater capital cap. Before you start dreaming of world conquest, need to be the kind of people capable of that kind of potency first.
If you want to bargain with the implications of life in Creation then reservations you have nothing to do with is far less spiritually perilous then entangling them in your affairs, one way or another.
It was well known after Lincoln’s assassination that JWB was either a Jesuit or a direct agent of them and PC is generally right about the free soil movement as well.
Slaves can be useful in the short and medium terms, as intelligent draft animals. But in the long run, every slave society gets taken over by people whose ancestry is a mixture of master and slave, mostly slave. The Aryan rulers of India realized this too late, after polluting their bloodlines with swarthy slave DNA.
If men ejaculating into cows produced fertile offspring, the song “Cows with Guns” would eventually come true.
All the theorycrafting in the world won’t change the fact that someone needs to stock the shelves, sweep the floors and pick up the garbage.
You don’t need to tell me it’s better if our own people do that too. I know and live it; I moved to an area where even the lower strata are white and Christian (of some sort) and prefer it very much.
But the fact remains that you don’t want your best people forced to do those jobs – if they want to, fine, but most won’t – and therefore the people doing those jobs are always going to form some sort of an underclass, and you don’t want your best people breeding too much with the underclass either, you want eugenic fertility.
You can argue gradations, sure. You can argue that Negroes who can fulfill the same basic duties as a Caucasian underclass are more likely to produce offspring who can’t. You can argue that the modern Negro has all the indolence of the 65-IQ African but has also acquired an aggressive and rebellious streak over 300 years of interbreeding that makes him unsuitable for most manual labor. You can argue that a colored underclass looks more like an explicit caste and explicit caste systems have structural problems. You can argue that the mere existence of the Negro proves that practical measures aimed at preventing miscegenation will fail…
…really, I can think of a dozen practical arguments against the press-ganging of mid-tier blacks (neither Talented Tenth nor criminal ghetto rats) into manual labor that are all worth debating. The two that aren’t worth debating to me are:
(1) “Slave labor is worthless/negative because theory says so.” Then you need to change the theory because the theory is wrong. Slave labor may very well be inferior to available alternatives for various reasons, but that is a different argument, a much weaker argument, the reasons aren’t clearly specified, and it’s far from clear that the alternatives are actually readily available. America already has what may as well be a slave class/people today, it’s just not formalized, so formalizing it and replacing the foreign with domestic seems like a significant improvement to me over the status quo, even if it’s suboptimal from some utopian perspective.
(2) “Something something not our problem we don’t owe them.” It is very much our problem, we are merely debating solutions, and whether or not we “owe” is irrelevant to the question of an individual’s character or usefulness.
I’d welcome an honest debate over the practical issues around slavery/indenturing; I’m far from convinced that it’s some wonderful thing that makes societies great – that’s the woke frame, “awesome but evil”, which is not my frame, “mediocre but maybe the best short-term compromise”. But every time the subject comes up it either seems to result in squid ink, or a repetition of old questions that have already been answered (“why should we” – because they are capital, same reason we don’t deport our horses and cows).
>All the theorycrafting in the world won’t change the fact that someone needs to stock the shelves, sweep the floors and pick up the garbage.
Exactly; and why would you deny that space to fellows? Why would you want worse kinds handling business rather than better? Why forget that personnel affect everything around them, not just their narrow remits? Again, make the distinguishment between ‘enslavement’ as things that can be done to a being, and ‘slave’ as a natural kind. What you seem to be making an unconscious assumption of is of ‘lower class’ and higher class’ as some things that, rather than being relative arrangements of beings reflecting their arrangement of qualities, are instead some form of cosmic endowment that, in of itself, carries a certain quality and retrochronically enforces that quality across any form of agent, greater or lesser, humanoid or otherwise, regardless of what kind it was to begin with; a relative with an absolute. Some folks always like talking eugenic social policy, but seem to lose their minds when looking at what it means in practice.
DOJ vs. Judge Amir Ali feels like one to watch, its plaintiffs are various grant recipients, NGOs and various leftist charities and groups suing to get their river of meat back. So far it appears they have not been paid a dime although the judge has ruled their way and ordered restoration of Jan 19 funding levels.
In fact, Judge Ali is on his third TRO after the first two have been summarily ignored. He’s getting a little testy and DOJ lawyers are flat out stiff arming him in court not giving him an inch while he’s conceding much.
https://x.com/kyledcheney/status/1894432526678048780?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1894432526678048780%7Ctwgr%5E8aea4dcc5b01f3ec2e921737926e7cfa767adbd6%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F02%2Fbreaking-biden-judge-dresses-down-doj-lawyers-usaid%2F
So this could be either a game of chicken, we’ve seen other judges blink, and Trump administration expects judge Ali to blink, or figures, (two ways to win) if this is the test case its actually a good one to appeal all the way up, and they can get an appeals court or SCOTUS to determine, finally, that inferior district judges can not overrule constitutional article II executive action. Although it is possible that the admin blinks and makes token payments that allow some superficial normalcy bias.
More likely that either through judges blinking, or through court determination, Trump grabs more executive power.
Grabbing popcorn.
It’s already quite clear that the administration while selectively complying with some court orders is not going to comply with any of them to give the left ngos and such their money back. Catholic charities and Jesuits BTFO.
Judge Ali set the timer for payment at midnight tonight… “or else”
Yesterday, Trumps DOJ stiff-armed the judges ruling with a whole bunch of hey paying stuff is hard, lots of paperwork yada yada yada… and simultaneously notified the supreme court that they might want to stay the ruling to avoid constitutional crisis…
… and yep John Roberts blinked and stays the order. normalcy bias preserved.
https://x.com/seanmdav/status/1894942404324499767/photo/1
Hot Damn! It’s just as predicted
Its almost like the Man who saw tomorrow
Order is “temporarily” stayed, in practice, stayed until the supremes get to it.
If they know what is good for them, they are never going to get to it. Nothing is as permanent as something that is temporary.
Latest dildostate tactic seems to be busing hecklers in to Rep. house townhall meetings, the usual things like booing on cue or rhetorical questions, and file suit when removed by security.
Expect to see more of the typical personal pressure, demoralization, blackmail, lawfare, and other vectors of zersetzung to be leveled against people working with Trump going forwards.
Our namelessness worshipers have been largely running around headless up to now, but as it stands Trump and Co. have arguably still not been acting fast enough in cutting heads off the hydra; would be well served by taking their enemies as seriously as their enemies take them.
When vietcong rolled into towns, they didn’t just dissolve the courts, they had their own courts ready to go for theatrical dispensation of their rule. And so every night they did rule, while all the misled GI Joes did was stand around like posts.
[*deleted for all the usual reasons*]
For all that time conservatives spend commuting, why won’t they simply build cities of their own?
Conservatives built all the cities, and the dems shipped niggers into them to drive the people who built them out with fire and knife. Detroit burned.
Take a look at the old buildings near the center of any city. They were not built by, nor for, the people that live in them now. You think the current inhabitants built that? They stole that from us.
The suburbs are built so that you cannot walk to shops as a defence measure against invaders. In the exurbs, you usually can walk to the shops, because attack less imminent.
The suburbs are built the way they are so that our wives and children do not get murdered and our houses do not get burned down.
Literal annual large-scale black arson, a.k.a. Devil’s Night.
As you might expect all the hecklers just coincidentally happen to be D operatives of some kind; one of the ones trying to sue was even a local politician who had run for office several times. These are the kinds of people they are trying to sell as ‘concerned conservative citizens of republican districts concerned about Musk grepping datas from the bureaucracy that was grepping your datas’.
Not exactly rivers of meat. In fact looks a lot like the skeleton crew trying to focus on theatrical opportunities.
Jim what in your opinion is the implication that the gay/tranny mafia/dem court eunuchs apparently getting purged (they had some kind of chatroom) how much of the extreme insanity of the modern left was maybe caused by these people likely being somewhat in charge of it (i really really wish they could just shot them too sounds like a particularly dangerous and unhinged group).
The purge just came for the Washington Post as well. Havel’s elite robber baron just changed out the signs.
“For his second act, owner Jeff Bezos announced on Wednesday morning that the Post’s opinion pages will be “writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets,” in addition to the standard fare.”
https://x.com/JeffBezos/status/1894757287052362088
I, for one, look forward to the Washington Post becoming a regime lackey broadcast node for National Capitalism.
Musk said the most entertaining timeline is the most probable one, which seems to be true these days.
On a similar interesting note, Kathleen Kennedy who is the witch who is behind making everything from Disney gay is now out.
Even South Park is mocking her.
https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1894400350871748627
Has any economist taken seriously state involvement in macroeconomics to sponsor manufacturing, particularly dual use manufacturing for civilian factories that can be switched to production of materiel?
I only see a weird binary between Keynesian-esque “the government can just do whatever it wants” and suicidal “don’t touch or regulate or invest in anything as the state or you will destroy the economy.” It’s rather annoying.
You’re looking for the book “MITI and the Japanese Miracle” by Chalmers Johnson, about the Japanese Bureaucracy doing just this after WW2 (though not quite with as much military emphasis).
This article covers the same topic pretty well: https://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue23/Locke23.htm
One can easily make a strong case for extensive state intervention in manufacturing, if one assumes that the level of competence, efficiency, and honesty in the state is not radically lower than that of private enterprise. Which is seldom the case.
Successful state interventions in manufacturing are in practice delegations of state power to a competent revenue maximising oligarch. The oligarch get monopolistic power in an import competing industry, new industry, or militarily critical industry, and successfully expands it, the expansion being the objective of the grant. The problem is that the same action, granting such power to an oligarch, can be corruption, or a rational and in the end successful effort to expand that industry. The grant can inhibit the industry as the oligarch milks his monopoly. And often does. China has had a lot of this bad outcome. Also a lot of successful interventions that had good outcomes.
That’s why the oligarch should be dealt with in a Chinese manner: he delivers the goods, he gets a free hand. He messes up, a party commissar. He does something outrageously detrimental, death penalty.
Pros of state industrial policy
When an investment in a critical industry is too risky and too capital intensive for any business group to do it it CAN make sense
Cons
Generally the government is too incompetent and corrupt to not mess this up and not make it a racket. Japan Korea and Taiwan can pull it off, America really should attempt nothing of the sort until lots of other things get fixed.
There are few, and fewer still who are halfway based, nevermind redpilled.
The all time classic is of course ‘The National System of Political Economy’, by Friedrich List. Pickings since then to later days are naturally slim, but Wang Hunin also touched on some of these themes in his ‘America against America’.
They don’t see the obvious: Oligarchs. Members of the merchant class exercising a whole lot of state power.
You will not find a single analysis noticing the oligarchical power in successful state interventions in the economy. It is the elephant in the living room.
The Dark Enlightenment analysis is that oligarchs with a specific domain and walls around it are stationary bandits, and for many problems, stationary banditry is the least bad solution to collective action problems. And certainly a whole lot easier to implement successfully than any too clever by half solutions.
The libertarian criticism is that banditry is bad. And if one has one hundred and one bureaucrats meddling in some private sector activity, of which they know nothing and care nothing, and any one of them can say “no” until he gets a payoff that satisfies him, it is very bad indeed, because mobile banditry. But if you have one oligarch in charge of that economic activity, he knows his business and cares about it, and any meddling bureaucrat leaves him and that activity well alone in case his legs get broken, then it is stationary banditry. Which has produced good results compared to everything else that has been tried. The leg breaking is an essential part of these good results. No wall can stand unless men stand behind it, and men cannot stand behind it except one man commands them.
When the leg breaking goes away, you start to get the usual very bad results.
And this leg breaking factor is something you will not find in analyses of successful state intervention in the economy. One personal domain of privatised state power has to be successfully defended against other domains of state power, or the system dissolves back into mobile banditry. Which has been the chronic problem in China’s state interventions in the economy.
With solar power, batteries, and electric vehicles, China’s first attempt failed, they got oligarchs extracting rent from their state granted monopoly, milking quasi state power, rather than developing good stuff, so they then had a second, rather more capitalist and less oligarchical, go at it, which would have met partial approval from libertarians, and this is working out rather well.
Bell Labs, Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel, Vanderbilt Rail, et cetera et cetera, could definably all be said to be monopolistic in the sense of having little to no competition; and the reason they had little to no competition is because they were so far beyond any other competitors; and the national entity as such benefited handsomely from the great value provided by such qualitative superiority.
When Ha-Joon Chang wrote ‘Kicking Away The Ladder’ about how all the richest economies in the world got that way with mercantilist corporatism, one of the main critiques from the neoliberal sphere was how he didn’t explicitly address how other countries besides the north west europeans or north east asians might have been doing the same things as well but without success. This is logically apropos in a vacuum, but runs over the obvious sticking point; the implementations were different because different people were doing them. In aggregate of factors, any given bodies will have given levels of capital, wealth, civilization, that they can possibly sustain. Beyond which appearances are not made, is ontologically a non-entity. If windfall or reappropriation or other twist of fate were to see pearls cast before swine, they would, in fact, not be any richer at all, regardless of what was nominally placed under their responsibility; and all the worse for what was.
In more civilized times, it was simply taken for granted that Prominent Men would have Houses that saw to Valuable Affairs. The most potent for much of history of course being animal husbandry; hence Capital, and likewise the connexion of landedness and sovereignty. This basic dynamic is not changed by advancement in forms of capital, but slaves of the nameless one certainly readily make attempts at occulting or perverting it; the very attempt to stick corks in the flow of power accomplishing worse malaise or calamity or catastrophe than could possibly have happened otherwise.
A prominent man using his position to facilitate valuable activities – thus benefiting himself as well – is a familiar sight to the more civilized man of more civilized times.
To the daemonhost in his bureau office however, prominent men creating value – through making arrangements between people or otherwise – is called ‘corruption’. As far as the apparatchik is concerned, capital should simply be taken (‘given’), wholesale, from folk to furnish himself. Doing anything that could be construed as working for means is profaning yourself, because creating value is viewed as at best irrelevant for the purpose of holiness in his faith – and indeed, getting in the way of creating value, viewed so oft as not being any problem at all; as proof of his ‘selflessness’, even. Revolutions in the name of Namelessness happened in places like France, Russia, China, because in large part, the incumbents in those lands had already become Whigs in spirit as their executors to begin with.
In his other book, ‘Political Life’, Hunin talk about how, while corruption can be a problem (that perennial whipping horse of the CPC), this thing he called ‘super corruption’ was an even bigger problem, or indeed the biggest problem, which…
Now, isn’t that a familiar refrain?
“you have one oligarch in charge of that economic activity”
Then should you worry about the oligarch become too powerful and start usurp state power completely?
He is more competent than the bureaucrats, my guess that the king should be the biggest oligarch around , if one of the oligarch around become bigger than the king , he should get knee caps.
Power grows out of the barrel of a gun, not out of some fat bank account. The oligarch taking state power means he has armed men loyal to him, that means he becomes the state, having both tax and soldiers. Is that a bad thing? Its only a bad thing if he doesnt then maximize the order in his realm, at the very least to find more money for more men if needed.
Number one!
https://x.com/Back_2TheMiddle/status/1894615915255210430
Which promised Gaza solution has disturbing ambiguity between Trump Gaza with Palestinians in it, and Trump Gaza with all or most of the current Gazan population eminent domained and shifted somewhere else. Trump is rather fond of eminent domain.
Obviously if Israel is to continue to exist, a very large proportion of the current Gaza population should not be around any more, or at least no longer dangerously close to Israel. On the other hand, if the current Gazan population is to continue to exist in or near Gaza, Israel should not be around any more. I don’t really care which solution is implemented — I am not altogether fond of either group, but the former solution seems more feasible and is a lot more compatible with the shining towers envisaged by Trump.
Either solution is going to be unpleasant and hurt a lot of good people, though it will hurt more bad people and hurt them worse.
Yes.
America is a Christian country, not a Jewish country, so it should not be “Zionist.” However, in the interest of both white Christians and Jews, the Spandrell Solution needs to be implemented. Rather, more specifically, Israel should implement it (Christians should not be fighting Jewish wars), while America should simply be “isolationist” and not interfere. Jews should be fighting their own wars, and should be allowed to fight them and win them, ahem ahem ahem.
Just my view as le evil subversive mossadnik 😉
Readers may also enjoy — wait for it, you will be utterly shocked — a relevant Chesterton quote.
Food for thought.
I think the scene with Trump and Bibi lounging by the pool clears up that “disturbing ambiguity”. They will remove the present population and bring in non-Muslim Arabs from somewhere else to be waiters and belly-dancers.
In his name…
https://x.com/TrumpDailyPosts/status/1894854607777751344
You are a completely obvious thermidorean shill, but your thermidorean stuff is great, so provisionally white listing you.
Addressing your content: OK. We now have a vaguely and nebulously patriarchal Christian state religion in the white house. Which retains careful ambiguity between Christianity and Judeo Christianity, so it is only nebulously Christian as well as only nebulously patriarchal.
This is a very good start, and I heartily endorse what Trump is up to, but not going to have any lasting effect until tanks in Harvard.
It looks like the WQ is pretty much going mainstream on Twitter. One month into the first real Trump Presidency, with JD Vance (who might have poasted here at some point) by his side.
(One of my frequent handles, besides “shaman” and “jewish pedophile,” was “2019 is boring.” Huh.)
Imagine being a blackpiller, lel.
Imagine not having faith.
Haha suspicions confirmed
A lot of ninnies are bitching that the Trump admin at the level either of the man himself or people directly around him got Romania to free Tate (when the case was brought at the behest of the Biden state department and the British foreign office) this is a very positive development as it signals that Trump has learned he needs to backup his people even if it will generate negative press. This gives a powerful signal that those who support Trump will be protected from retribution and that we’re done playing the losing game of imposing morality tests on our allies.
Tate is a pimp and a grifter/scammer (I think this includes his conversion to Islam) but he never kidnapped any girls ala the movie Taken and the people bitching about him are weak feminists and white knights.
https://x.com/theojaffee/status/1894771031430062360
Seeing a lot of variations on this, mostly regarding what Trump is doing rather than specifically Bezos.
The argument is that NRx is wrong because the things Trump, Musk and Bezos are doing should’ve been impossible according to Yarvin, without first becoming king/destroying the left.
I found many of these arguments bizarre, since all the related recent events seem to vindicate the overall NRx views on the power structure and the Cathedral.
DOGE and Tulsi made Bezos coup against the WaPo “blue-CIA” types possible. If Bezos had tried to do this during the Biden administration he would find himself in massive bullshit legal troubles ala Trump and Andrew Tate or worse.
Dodging a bullet and getting elected seems to have made him a king. Certainly he is acting like one anyway, in contrast to his first term.
Moldbug had excellent analysis of the structure of the Cathedral. Otherwise, however, he doesn’t really get leftism, had a lot of crazy ideas along the way (as is common with geniuses), and his “strategy,” so to speak, did not pan out, as he recently admitted. Moldbug gets the structure; does not get why it is behaving the way it is behaving. His theory-of-mind regarding leftists is altogether wrong; he really believes they are good people. And ultimately, his strategy was consciously or subconsciously designed to keep the Blue Tribe forever in power, just with a monarch – not the best idea.
Yarvin’s strategy despite his flaws (and disgusting cowardice with covid) worked pretty well.
Convert dissident elites especially in the tech money space – check
Have them establish a counter cathedral information system – check
Put the dissident elites around a new presidential administration – check
Have the new presidential administration follow his plan to actually establish presidential power and destroy the old cathredal system – Its being executed now very close to Yarvin’s script and its succeeding I think better than anyone including Yarvin ever thought was possible
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scoop-inside-elon-musks-meeting-senate-doge-caucus
The leftist sources on this meeting said there was another meeting where they were all bitching about Elon to the chief of staff. For once I believe the leftist sources in this case. As the Presidency under the Yarvin plan becomes more traditionally monarchial one figure who is present in most monarchies (not all) in history is a powerful chief minister/favorite/vizier etc who is generally understood to speak with the king’s voice in all matters unless specifically overruled by the king. And one common feature of the 2nd man in the state is that generally everyone else in the government and the elite (not necesarilly in the kingdom) tend to hate the figure of the chief minister. Elon is in the more powerful category of chief ministers because his wealth and special protection he gets from a faction in DoD makes him also analagous to be both a chief minister and a very powerful lord at the same time. A good analogy would be the Earl of Warwick (the kingmaker) under Edward IV.
Be it in greater or lesser part, chronic backbiting syndrome has ever been an eternal bane of social organisms.
Do you need help on your cryptocurrency project?
Yes I urgently need help.
https://gitea.rho.la/
Thank you.
Words have implications beyond their simple meanings, and “racially homogenize, but slowly” sounds an awful lot like “finish the Amerikaaner genocide, but slowly” — regardless whatever your actual policy intents.
I disagree with Jim that an ethnogenesis event stemming from all extant ethnes in the current US is possible in any reasonable amount of time, seeing as we lack the intense selective pressure necessary. Yet it doesn’t really matter, because I do agree with Jim’s assertions of throne, altar, and freehold, which precludes coerced mixing of people’s and favors the willful in producing the next generation. I propose we restore patriarchy and freedom of association in the meantime, set up new folkways at the grassroots as opposed to federal level to fill the vacuum, and leave these questions of ethnogenesis to our descendants, or at least until after family is restored.
Ethnogenesis has already happened and is constantly happening. It’s also not homogeneous and will never be homogeneous. White Californians are definitely a different breed from White Texans who are different from White Georgians who are different from etc. The addition of various other races add additional complexity. Culture and language is also clearly diverging into blocks that remarkably align with geographic regions. This has happened in a few hundred years. A few more hundred years may see even more divergent and clearly delineated American ethnic groups.
Lazily quoting for the fisk, forgive me.
>Rome and slaves
Rome failed for her elite classes failing to continue. I find the argument that slaves’ existence themselves, as opposed to a generally defunct economy and mismanagement, were an economic burden to be unreasonable. You may as well argue there were too many asses and oxen.
>South A/B was the north
Entirely different geography, history, culture, and you can reasonably argue even ethnicity. I don’t find this to be a close enough match for an A/B. When you bring up Europe, I’m genuinely unsure of the timelines, was the south particularly behind in industrialization when compared to France, Germany, Northern Italy etc. of the time? It was behind the North and England proper, sure, but so was the rest of the world.
>slaves displace yeomen
We had a massive frontier. Slaves were performing menial labor. These are two different economic categories. The existence of a slave class is not depressing fertility of the lower middle class, and particularly not the middle class, except that youre forcing them all to live in bug housing in urban centers.
South Africa and Rhodesia were doing perfectly fine, per capita and all when counting the the people that established governance and industry there. I think a model like theirs should work fine.
>Rome failed for her elite classes failing to continue.
Primarily. Ancillarily, degenerating polities generally have all sorts of dysfunctions, and this was one of them. Yes indeed, ‘generally defunct economy and mismanagement’, and this a seminal example of the kinds of mismanagement leading to defunction. As well say ‘socio-economic factors cause the low socio-economic status of bantus’. Yea verily.
Rome benefited greatly from its citizen soldiery, and the replacement of their agrarian classes with slaves greatly decreased its power. When Rome disastrously lost all its legions between Trebia and Cannae to Hannibal, it raised several legions more right after. By late empire, though, Rome had no armies, only xeno mercenaries. Little other forms of capital either for that matter, only currency debasement.
>You may as well argue there were too many asses and oxen.
Asses and oxen are complex forms of capital that require wise stewardship to produce and make use of; higher forms of men get great value out of them, and lower forms don’t. The capital forms complement each other and form super-organisms that do not ontologically overlap in a way that alien humanoids do.
Saying that the english or yankees were congenitally superior would just make the point for itself you know? Lower orders of men have melanges of mysterymeat involved. Coincidentally, higher orders of men don’t.
Let’s reiterate the point; it was Germans who built Germany. French who made France great. Japanese who made Japan great.
Scotsmen who made England great.Et cetera et cetera.Between spanish colonialism and anglo colonialism, obvious edge to anglo methods with respect to potency of results. Planters in the southern states started copying spanish methods. Coincidentally, the northern states that didn’t also proved more potent.
The northern states not only had no problems with feeding its – significantly larger – population without obsolete farm equipment from africa, they had even less problems than the nominally agrarian south did; and they got much more besides with the deal.
Great people are helped to greatness by their conditions… and the people create the conditions… so actually it pretty much all comes back to the agents. Wealth potential – power cap.
>These are two different economic categories.
The capital returns of which that could be going to your men. Imagine all those poor innocent teenagers and sharecroppers you are denying entry level positions in life with wages priced appropriately for the market conditions. Dey terk er jerbs!
>South Africa and Rhodesia were doing perfectly fine, per capita and all when counting the the people that established governance and industry there. I think a model like theirs should work fine.
>’This multi-kulti polity was working great for a hot minute, but then all these things happened that made it not work great’
Isn’t the endemity of this pattern remarkable? The fragility of these states of affairs – by comparison – has clear and consistent representation in the empirical record. You might start to suspect that at least some of it might have something to do with the states of affairs themselves.
Likewise, the heights they can achieve… well, ‘simply’ keeping the lights on and the trains running on time is, in the grand scheme of things, a heroic achievement in of itself. But it doesn’t compare to the polities that gave birth to them in the first place.
The American East African Company may well see itself involved in many places in the dark continent; and many of those involvements may well end up looking remarkably like nightwatchman states in the course of ensuring the security of property in ventures of business. Don’t get it twisted though. The moment you start hearing that the point of the ventures is to uplift and or integrate the aliens, is the moment it stopped being mutually beneficial arrangements, and started becoming daemon haunted catastrophes.
Surely you jest. South Africa and Rhodesia were successful ventures, embarrassingly successful in a similar way to how Jim describes Liberia as being embarrassingly successful, mocking the liberal doctrine on race and emancipation, showing everyone that not only could the negroid peoples function better under a repressive government than a liberal democratic one, but with vastly better race relations and less resentment. Not unlike the Raj before it.
It was the Cathedral that crushed South Africa and Rhodesia; “international law”, “human rights”, “decolonization” and the iron fist in the velvet glove. Let’s not pretend that these colonies merely collapsed on their own, under the weight of so many Sub-Saharan Africans or general malaise. They were destroyed by our own elites, by Harvard.
Were these fledgling nations the ideal model for America to follow? I don’t know, and I’m not making that argument, so don’t mistake my intention. But I think we need to agree on the basic facts in order to have a fruitful debate on their consequences.
Is one of my favorite analogies, and one I wish you’d consider the greater implications of.
Favorite not simply because of the “obsolete”, but because of the “equipment” as well. You see them solely as inferior kinds competing for scarce resources in an apparently zero-sum game. I prefer to consider them as our ancestors did, as capital. There’s no theoretical limit on the amount of capital that a civilization can utilize, or if there is a theoretical limit then no civilization has ever approached it.
If some capital truly has negative value, if it requires impracticably costly maintenance or produces negative externalities far in excess of any profit, then fine, dispose of it; but that argument has not been clearly made, only its conclusion asserted. I can accept that some significant portion, probably the entire criminal underclass and most of the welfare underclass, has no value or negative value; but we have all accepted that from the beginning, it is covered by policies governing behavior and virtue and doesn’t require an additional policy governing race and ethnicity.
I imagine streets full of rusted tractors and combines in various stages of disuse and neglect, some merely stripped for parts, others downright dangerous to be around, and all very obsolete; yet when someone says to “melt it all down”, my response is: hold on a moment. Yes, it would be better in theory to replace this junk with shiny new doodads, of course it would; but here in reality, producing millions of new tractors takes a lot of time, expense and skill. It just isn’t going to all be ready tomorrow. In the meantime, some (not all) of this old equipment can be salvaged, restored, and put to work again, at least for as long as it remains useful.
Analogies are crude and I’m not fond of reducing people to machines regardless of race, but the point is that I don’t believe it’s a zero-sum game. Especially after we remove 70+ million from the workforce by deporting the illegals and criminals and de-emancipating women.
>It was the Cathedral that crushed South Africa and Rhodesia
Certainly.
But the sticking point would be that A. it was easy, and B. the collapse of the polities as such, particularly in the later case, were basically total with no chance of recovery, with only an homage or recreation from without being possibilities, if people were so inclined; recreation from the same sources they sprung from to begin with – demonstrating an ultimate contingency in the order of things.
Many nations of Europe and America and East Asia were also conquered by the harvard theocracy, but A. it was difficult, and B. even now, after so long, these polities they conquered still have life, a chance at revenge and regeneration of primacy, and in some of the later cases are already objectively superior to it at this moment in history even, sovereign and secure against its transgressions. States of affairs that are empirically observable as more robust in a way that the states of affairs in Rhodesia or South Africa were not; modes of being that are demonstrably higher in ontological priority.
Victims of history are so often victim for good reasons; most especially the perennially victimized.
>If some capital truly has negative value, if it requires impracticably costly maintenance or produces negative externalities far in excess of any profit, then fine, dispose of it; but that argument has not been clearly made, only its conclusion asserted.
You waste a great deal of effort on denying the obvious. The Europeans filling North America with themselves clearly paid off more than the Europeans lording over indio underclasses. Clear differences in potential exponentiation depending on what substrates you’re working with.
>There’s no theoretical limit on the amount of capital that a civilization can utilize
I feel that there has been vacillation over mutually exclusive rationales for people keeping alien hominid pets around over the course of this discussion.
On one hand there is an argument that, since there is an always and already pre-set basket of ‘things to do’ in the world, then there is little consequential difference between having either a caste of lesser or a caste of greater around to ‘do the scut work’; that no problematic changes with the former or beneficial changes with the later to this state of affairs follow, simply a question of who gets slotted where in the cosmological constant spreadsheet of offices. This is cryptocommunist thinking.
On the other hand, the argument that there are *no* limits on capitalization of potency, and hence that there is *also* little consequential difference between having a caste of lesser or caste of greater peopling a land since you can just use your omnipotent Scientific Sociology to make whatever work whatever way you like anyways and subsidize as big of a prison planet as you wish… is also cryptocommunist thinking.
On the contrary; Throne, Altar, Freehold. It is absolutely consequential if smallholders, too, are also people who don’t need prison wardens micromanaging them; that they are also more capable of responsibility, more able to wisely multiply their capital, perform valuable services for each other, accrete social superstructures, generate civilizational energy. Such are the foundations for everything from Galactic Conquest to Good Life In The Neighborhood.
The chief error here is nominalism. Insufficient deployment of world-formation capacity to go beyond reductive adulterations that jump from one pigeonhole to another rather than appreciating fuller nuances of Being. A blinkered view of substances, human or otherwise, and the matter of all their multifarious quiddities; essential difference in kind and the consequences thereof, culturally, spiritually, genetically, not presenting themselves readily in the eye of mind, which instead leans towards seeing only formless masses of basically interchangeable substance differing only and simply on one metrical axis or another.
>It just isn’t going to all be ready tomorrow
It actually can, for one thing. Africa itself went from a population of under five hundred thousand to over a billion in little more than 50 years. For another, as already, your potential ‘carrying capacity’ is going to be limited by the substrates composing it regardless. It’s a bit precious to talk about the importance of downwards mobility while at the same time arguing so strenuously for the preservation of depreciated totems to satisfy a perverse fetish for exercising impact on powerless kinds.
Might that also have something to do with the fact that those nations of Europe and America and East Asia were much older, larger, well-established and not openly practicing racial doctrine (apartheid) that Harvard could market as doubleplus ungood?
Separately, the Afrikaaners appear to me to still have a surprising amount of life, particularly in light of the brutal repression they’ve been exposed to post-decolonization. Which to me, also reflects the waning power of Harvard and the GAE. Rhodesia was destroyed utterly, when Harvardian power was at its peak; South Africa was much later decimated but not completely eliminated.
I never denied this. I simply don’t find it interesting because I don’t see these two as mutually exclusive players in a zero sum game, and centuries later we still have not come close to “filling” North America at all. Border disputes aside (again, blame Harvard), North America and South/Central America coexist mostly peacefully. More peacefully than Californians and Texans, at any rate.
The idea that we must perfectly optimize the value of every strip of land at the continental level by never allowing any of it to come under the ownership or influence of lesser folk sounds more like 20th century Progressivism (“scientific bureaucracy”) than 17th century National/Christian Capitalism to me.
This is a misrepresentation of one coherent self-consistent capitalist position as two incoherent and exclusive communist positions.
Capital expands, therefore labor expands. It is a simple fact of numbers that there will always be a bottom quartile, a set of jobs considered low-skill and therefore low-status. It isn’t a pre-set basket, but some such basket always exists at any given instant. It is not possible for every person, or every job, to be “above average”. And because the set of all positions is constantly expanding, so is the set of low-status positions.
This isn’t – and wasn’t – an argument in favor of importing infinite scabs. It is an argument against your prior assertions of a zero-sum game, in which we have to choose between having those tiers of positions filled by “slave peoples” or “non-slave peoples”. I simply argue that there is enough to go around for the population that currently resides, and if we fix other structural problems, will be ever more to go around in the future; and with that in mind, for those lesser beings who are already here and have deep roots and have really done no wrong to us, why shouldn’t we find a use for them?
I reject the self-contradictory premise that Negroids and Europoids are each formless masses that can be abstracted away by policy, but that they cannot be incorporated into any common abstraction, nor can their mixed-race descendants be incorporated into either original abstraction. It’s all a little too convenient.
You accuse me of wanting to either do away with abstractions altogether or create one super-abstraction for all homo, but those are the two extremes I’ve explicitly rejected. I’ve stated that Negroid and Europoid are useful abstractions in some instances but fail at the policy level, because they are too fuzzy and too expansive. Nation, ethne, community, tribe, faith, kin, those are all useful abstractions.
A nationalist policy – that is genuinely nationalist, with individual states and communities being allowed to establish their own ethnes – is bound to result in some distinctive characteristics in terms of each state’s racial distribution that confirm what we all already know to be true in the abstract. But the abstraction is descriptive, not prescriptive; it’s based on a lot of fudging and averaging. The actual policy decisions are better left to individual communities.
Hardly. It is proffered as a pragmatic alternative to hot genocide. If that means “fetish” to you then fine, call it a “fetish” if you must.
Computerization, automation, and robotics reduce the scope of useful work lesser humans can perform, and make subhumans completely redundant and a net loss. People below IQ 105, people who are average or slightly below average, are not very useful and are rapidly becoming less useful. Hence the wonderful epithet for blacks “obsolete farm machinery”.
There are, however, plenty of black people who are well above the white average, and also honest, good, and industrious. Considerably fewer of them than whites who are above the white average.
We have a moral obligation to not chase out good productive people with deep roots who have done us no wrong. Racial diversity is a pain, and should not have been allowed to happen in the first place, but now it has happened, it is morally impossible to undo it. I don’t want George Zimmerman to be given a hard time. We owe him.
>your prior assertions of a zero-sum game
Nuts.
>I never denied this. I simply don’t find it interesting
You say you do not deny it, but obviously also fail to appreciate it; to grasp the dynamics at work behind the happenstance of these phenomena, and so you cannot profit from them. Of course it is also precious for you to say you are ‘uninterested’ in the glaring feedback of Creation itself devalidating these ostensibly professed arguments.
>The idea that we must perfectly optimize the value of every strip of land at the continental level by never allowing any of it to come under the ownership or influence of lesser folk sounds more like 20th century Progressivism (“scientific bureaucracy”) than 17th century National/Christian Capitalism to me.
You cannot grasp my position without adulterating it into a caricature because caricaturization is typical of your modes of thought here. This is the error of nominalism.
Yes it is neither zero-sum game *nor* an unlimited sandbox game; you have not yet thought through the implications of this fact.
Yes it is *conceivable* for you to run a handicapped polity, weird flex but okay; it will also be *less powerful* than other polities that are less inclined to such handicaps, as repeatedly demonstrated across history.
> I simply argue that there is enough to go around for the population that currently resides
Here is the problem: you are still thinking of things like ‘jobs’ like they are some sort of prefigured goodie that the nomenklatura hand out, and not a retropresentation of things people do; the things they do to take care of business, participate in higher teleologies, which can be one thing or another depending on the state of affairs, the sort of kind they are and working without. What is typical for one substrate will be different from an other; the things they do that grow capital, facilitate structures of potency. ‘Things that are done’ can not only multiply, they transform. This is what it looks like when you see different peoples with different wealth caps. Herdsmen in China and Sudan may nominally be providing like services, but they are doing different things.
>alternative to hot genocide
This is archetypical bluetribe thinking; if there are any sort of essential or incommensurate differences between agents, then the only other possibility is extermination. This is something that may or may not be true at one time or another, at one point along a continuum or other, but, aside from ignorance of continuums of actions, it is also not responsive to the observation of the facts themselves.
>Might that also have something to do with the fact that those nations of Europe and America and East Asia were much older, larger, well-established and not openly practicing racial doctrine (apartheid) that Harvard could market as doubleplus ungood?
The infinite regress. ‘You didnt succeed because of what you were, only because you had such and such advantages’. And they had such and such advantages because of what they were. No old large and well-established polities without peoples capable of such power to proliferate and not pass (be passed) out of existence before then.
>The actual policy decisions are better left to individual communities.
Sure; in such a happenstance, we can say the eventualities will be more or less in line with the dynamics I’ve been describing regardless; and in time, you will also see certain forms of agents organizing collectively and rationalizing subversion of individual gatekeeping mechanisms; and you will find you need a priesthood with a religio that can provide a foundation for explicitly tying all those threads together into a tapestry after all.
@jim
Plenty in this context meaning ‘need to go up to the top tenth before seeing things above the bottom tenth, let alone the average’. That is to say, decidenly tendentious wording. Negroid to Europoid are two of the worst examples you could have used to illustrate this dynamic. For instance, noone in the occident feels bad about excluding asians because in the back of their minds they’re thinking they can just go to asia and have a nice time there too. But actually that just goes to show how much more that sort of point would apply to such kinds rather than others; the kinds that have ‘no good place to go’ are also exactly the kinds the natives are best served by physically removing and separating. Even aside from the more transcendent matters of gene-psycho-sociological compatibility. Americans don’t have a generational east asian slave caste the way they do an african one because the asians were more powerful than africans. Ontological powerlessness. Slave people get enslaved because they are the kind of people who can be enslaved.
To the point, one honorable solution would be the option of military and logistical support for establishment of new tributary states. You can say they would still be American in spirit. You’re not just throwing them in with the other trash into the topics, and killing two birds with one stone. Whether they fly or fall hence then is up to the relationship between them and God.
To the mater of making exceptions, that is best handled by the lord(s) himself judging exceptions as he wills, not twisting your organizing frameworks to the breaking point in the attempt to include every exception. Even in mid 20th century Germany men like Wittgenstein were offered amnesty (though of course he decamped regardless).
A major part of the reason that Germany did not get nukes and America did is that many of the top minds decamped to America. So don’t do that. Aside from being morally wrong to exclude good people with deep roots, it is also counterproductive.
You are arguing as if keeping the smart, hard working, honest, and law abiding black men around means keeping the niggers around. Obviously we are not going to keep niggers around. We are going to keep Clarence Thomas and Johnny “No Lab Coat Required” around. Are they niggers?
And racial purity will do us no good unless we also get rid of wiggers, and more importantly, Edward Dutton’s “spiteful mutants”. Genetic load inevitably accumulates unless it is removed.
Niggers are bad, but you should never hate niggers or Jews so much that you forget that white liberals are the worst people in the world. Edward Dutton’s “spiteful mutant” hypothesis is that spiteful mutants — people with random abnormality caused by ever increasing genetic load, who resent normality — are the vast majority of liberals.
And if we are getting rid of both wiggers and niggers, and keeping Johnny around, means back to “Content of his character”
Johnny is a science populariser. Who, unlike 99% of science popularisers and eighty percent of academics with science degrees, actually understands what he is talking about and unconditionally accepts the scientific method. Losing him would be a loss. It is also entertaining and amusingly incongruous to hear science explained by someone who comes from black culture.
As for white liberals, we cannot get rid of people for being liberal, because this would shut down discussion, but we can get rid of people for being abnormal and spiteful. Faggots and Karens have to go, and it is far more important to get rid of that lot than niggers.
We can also prevent the spiteful and envious from organising politically to collectively give effect to their wickedness. When the spiteful and the envious organise, they organise around a faith that makes spite, lying, and envy a sacrament. This is, of course, an attack on the state religion, and the state religion defends itself.
Focusing on racial purity is a distraction. The big problem is not impurity, but ever increasing genetic load. And unless something is done about that, the white race will turn into the wigger race no matter what you do about racial purity.
Ok.
At this point we just seem to be talking in circles. There is room for contrary viewpoints and I believe these issues deserve to be hashed out, but we are not going to get there if you continue to attribute liberal, progressive, egalitarian or socialist positions that I do not hold and which a straightforward reading of my statements should suffice to convince anyone here that I do not hold.
If we are going to debate, then let’s debate the words I am actually saying, not the secret beliefs and secret motives that apparently even I am unaware that I have.
I’ve stated my position plainly: constraints on behavior, organized by a healthy state religion and administered by local communities and governments empowered to segregate or deport undesirables, are going to be almost as effective as the neon “WHITES ONLY” sign at producing healthy demographics, and many times more effective at producing virtue and social trust.
It doesn’t mean we need to keep illegals. It doesn’t mean we need to keep niggers. It doesn’t mean we need to keep kikes. It means that before we uproot people, we look for the good in them, and if we can’t find any, then we act, without regard (or with conscious disregard) for liberal nonsense like disparate impact. It means what the plain words say it means and nothing else.
The arguments against this continue to be vague, and each time I ask for clarity, the discussion evaporates in a puff of smoke, replaced by abstruse philosophizing and the later characterization that the plain words I spoke ack-shully meant something completely different from what they said. It is a waste of time for both of us. We may as well break out the boxing gloves because words are clearly failing.
I hear arguments to the effect that: (a) there will be collective organization to subvert it; OK, but how is that any different from any other policy including racial quotas? and (b) the outcomes are sub-optimal compared to racial quotas in ways that are hard to define; OK, but how exactly do we know that without cherry picking examples that look similar but quite far from identical – what is the actual mechanism of action here, the actual chain of causation, and where lies the gap in stated policy?
Is there more that I missed? If you contend that I’m caricaturizing your position then please explain your position clearly. Simply stating that I’m caricaturizing while immediately proceeding to caricaturize everything I’ve said (at considerable length, for that matter) is not a debate, it’s just a meaningless slap-fight in which everyone loses.
“As for white liberals, we cannot get rid of people for being liberal”
What do you mean. If you’re referring to classical liberals of course not they just need to know more in depth generally. If you’re referring to shitlibs and progressives you have to.
shitlibs and progressives are toxic because organised into a state religion.
Observe the dramatic effect of taking out the inner sanctum of USAID. Taking out Harvard will have even more dramatic effect.
And taking out spiteful mutants removes nearly all of those genetically predisposed to liberalism.
>sub-optimal compared to racial quotas
I had figured the meanings or implications of what I was saying were pretty clear, but as you (scarebucks) say, continuance of discussion indicates otherwise.
My observations of the rise and fall of powers can be simply distilled down to elitism. Which I don’t think is very arguable. The pertinent factor here is that everyone involved in a social organism matters to the character of that organism, not just the ones with the highest status. And that furthermore the character of agents are not randomly distributed, and that commensurability of agent sets is not immaterial either.
If you have a team of 9 great guys and 1 wastrel, you have a team of wastrels, in effect. A larger company, city, county, nation, state, and so on, are not like that to the same degrees, but are like that in kind, the dynamic that is participated in.
I don’t think you disagree with any of these premises in principle, so we might say that this is all air over which pew to sit in rather than the church itself. That kind of contention is partially inevitable; like drawing shorelines on a map, at any given point on the scale, you can disagree over where exactly to put the point, even though you agree on the general direction theretofore.
I most certainly do disagree with these premises. If you have one bad guy on a team, you have a bad team. But if all good guys on the team, does not matter who is mopping their floor, provided it is someone who will actually mop the floor.
Is there a typo in here? Best I can find is Africa went from 250 million in 1960 to 1 billion in 2010. Still quite the jump.
(1) “capital, like oxen and cattle” is a bad analogy because cattle can’t operate firearms and spray bullets around in the streets, colonize other ethnicities’ women’s uteruses, etc. Also, there’s something ethically disgusting about this. Saying “That person is my enemy and I intend to kill him” is more consistent with dignity than calling someone “capital” that could be useful to you. Ugh.
(2) “We owe him.” Aw, HELL no. There are plenty of respectable arguments in favor of handling all this with a light touch, e.g.
– A hard approach is practically impossible.
– A hard approach is possible but its material costs would be too high. Material costs referring to e.g. the jet fuel required to fly persons to various other places, etc.
– A hard approach is possible but its costs in terms of conflict, up to and including lethal violence, would be too high.
– A hard approach is possible but its ethical costs would be too high; our hands and souls would be stained with blood, etc.
– A hard approach would destroy our political coalition, which we need to solve other pressing problems.
I agree with at least one of these and disagree with at least one of them. But they are all sane arguments. But “We owe him”? WTF?
Don’t need all good guys on the team because it doesn’t matter who is mopping the floor need all good guys on the team because it matters who is mopping the floor.
Neurotoxin:
I think dignity went out the window when several folks (not including myself) began referring to them as subhuman/not fully human. Whether that characterization is true, false, or some shade of gray, it’s a little late in the programme to reprise the overture. My response has therefore been that if they are, in fact, beneath dignity and not entitled to the same rights, then logically they are property, i.e. capital.
Black people are not my enemy and I don’t intend to kill them. I just want them to leave me alone, mind their own business, get over whatever ancient racial grievances and slights exist primarily in their own imagination, and put in an honest day’s work for once. If they won’t take that deal – and neither of us are naive enough to believe that all or most of them will take it – then they can choose to either leave our domain peacefully or violently resist if their personal sense of dignity and honor demands that.
The ones who resist will be put down like dogs, except a few of the dog catchers may choose to put them to work (by force) instead of just killing them, deeming it to be either more humane or a better use of their resources. It’s just what happens in war. Though personally, I don’t think very many if any will make war; I think those that are capable of agency at all will either self-deport or have sudden epiphanies that working for whitey really isn’t such a bad deal after all, and those that aren’t capable of agency are already bound for prison so deporting them instead won’t cause much of a fuss.
The Uterus Colonization Problem is simply the Woman Question. Regulate uteri properly and miscegenation becomes pretty much a non-issue.
Remember that Jim is talking about the exceptions, not the rule. Those who’ve given us a lifetime of service, like Clarence Thomas, or distinguished themselves in a moment of heroism like George Zimmerman. If we can’t even say “one good turn deserves another”, then we are going to find it mighty difficult to instill virtue and cohesion within any new elite. In game theoretical terms, we cannot reach cooperate-cooperate equilibrium by defecting on cooperators.
When it comes to the lower races I perceive roughly four categories: (1) the tiny sliver of a minority who are truly our guys, whom betraying or deporting would be outright unconscionable; (2) not our guys but significantly above average capabilities (i.e. talented tenth), who should probably be given the opportunity to sincerely adopt the new state religion; (3) the vast expanse of sub-mediocrity, barely functional but somehow able to scratch out a living without turning to welfare or crime; and (4) the criminal and welfare underclasses.
I think we’re all pretty well aligned on what to do with (1) and (4). Most of us, anyway. It’s (2) and (3) that are causing a lot of consternation. And I agree with you that we don’t “owe” anything to them, and that is where the practical arguments come into play – whether or not they can be useful, and are of generally good character, and how many potentially good actors we’re willing to burn in order to remove the bad actors.
Pseudo-Chrysostom:
Agreed, I won’t argue against the necessity of elitism – with the caveat that elitism is for the elites, and a lack of virtue or noblesse oblige among those elites can lead to dysfunctional local minima like Brahminism.
Also agreed, again with a caveat, that non-random distribution is best handled by non-random selection for the values you actually want to optimize.
If you have a bag of red marbles numbered 1-20 and a bag of blue marbles numbered 15-25, and you want the highest average score (whatever that score means), then sure, you could throw out the entire bag of red marbles and get a better result than if you’d kept both bags. But there’s no rule against looking inside the bags and reading the numbers, and so you can get an even better result by just taking the highest values from both bags.
It’s an overly reductive analogy, of course it is, but is that not elitism in a nutshell, taking the very highest “scores” and making a new group out of them? So if there is anything to debate here then it should be the scoring criteria.
Also completely agreed, which leads me to Jim’s question about what to do with the wastrels.
I’ve been a member of more than a few elite groups of various sizes, and within any elite there is still a bottom tier; the ones who are merely average, or merely better than average but not quite incandescent, and I see this natural hierarchy as representative of society at large. Sometimes you just have to dump the poor performers, but this has to be tempered with the understanding that if everyone is elite, then no one is elite.
At least in the business world, this usually manifests as an “up or out” policy. Yes, you’ll start out as a trainee and need to be micromanaged, but we not only expect you to gain some autonomy, we insist on it. At the very bottom you have those who lack the virtue and discipline to even show up to sweep the floors, or show up but do nothing but complain all day, and that is where all the prickly questions about “rights” and “dignity” begin to manifest.
>if everyone is elite, then no one is elite
This is what I mean by unexamined cryptocommunism. You may not think like this normally, but if you find that, in the course of concatenating arguments to support a thing, they start falling into such modes of thought, that casts aspersions on the thing.
The king of the rubble pile has different circumstances from the midshipman on the Brittanic in more ways than just status.
Prosperous townships are not prosperous because they stole value from someone else, they are prosperous because they created more value. Higher wealth cap, higher capitalgenesis, means the things people are doing are not just multiplying, they transform.
Healthy societies need downwards mobility to overcome biological entropy. And downwards mobility is ultimately removal of everyone who is not the aristocratic thede, replacing them with the descendants of more aristocrats, more aristocratic aristocrats.
>Daddy Scarebucks
“I just want them to leave me alone, mind their own business, get over whatever ancient racial grievances and slights exist primarily in their own imagination…”
Bingo. Agreed. By the way, I don’t want to kill anyone, though I can see how what I wrote could suggest that. (But the Left made wanting a moot point when they tried to kill Trump.)
“Remember that Jim is talking about the exceptions, not the rule. Those who’ve given us a lifetime of service, like Clarence Thomas, or distinguished themselves in a moment of heroism like George Zimmerman… one good turn deserves another”
I was thinking about Zimmerman specifically, but yes to Clarence Thomas. What I was objecting to was the notion, as I read it, that I owe Zimmerman something because he defended himself.
“The Uterus Colonization Problem is simply the Woman Question. Regulate uteri properly…”
No argument here either… although I am not as optimistic as some here about the amount of time this will take. Hm. But then, we have seen gratifyingly rapid changes in other areas lately.
Zimmerman was attacked because he was wandering around the neighbourhood watching for bad guys, and noticed a bad guy acting suspiciously. The bad guy was murderously enraged by being noticed.
We owe him.
This is again your [mis]reading of my plain words rather than my actual plain words.
I say “up or out”. I say “every group has its lowest performers, and the ones who are too low get fired”. I say “the elite is always the best among peers, no matter how good those peers are”. This is the essence of social hierarchy; a dynamic and constantly evolving process, with no one except God consistently on top.
You say “this means you believe it doesn’t matter who is on the bottom, or that everything below the top is the same / some formless mass”. Which would indeed be cryptocommunist if that’s what I was saying, except it is not what I’ve been saying.
And where did I argue otherwise? Can you please point to a specific statement and explain how you arrived at point B from point A?
Yes. As I pithily stated so long ago: “capital expands”. Obviously not by magic, or by some arcane time-traveling self-aware entity as Nick Land liked to contend, but by people who wisely and efficiently manage their capital.
Which creates a new bottom 20%. There is always a bottom 20%. If the average IQ is 150 then those with an IQ of 105 are three sigma below average.
Read what I am writing, please. I did not just say that if you replace 85-IQ morons with 105-IQ midwits, the midwits will spontaneously revert to being morons themselves, or that the moron and midwit are interchangeable. I said that statistically, someone is still at the bottom of that group, maybe the ones at 95 or 100.
You and I are saying the same thing in the abstract. In a virtuous cycle, the process repeats indefinitely, and both the elite and the group get better and better. But there is a limit to this process. There might be no theoretical limit over infinite generations, but practically and under real time constraints, a company cannot just fire the bottom 20% of performers every month and end up with an army of ten million super geniuses after a few years, because there just aren’t that many super geniuses to go around.
At some point you have to be rational. We need someone to sweep the floors and clean the toilets, and the 130-IQ smarties just aren’t willing to sweep floors and clean toilets because they have better options open to them. The best you can do is hire janitors who aren’t cognitive elite or supreme physical specimens, but are decent and honorable and willing to put in a day’s work.
This is really just common sense, isn’t it? Eventually maybe you automate the floor-sweeping and toilet-cleaning and don’t need the janitors anymore, but that innovation takes time, and in the meantime, if no one is sweeping your floors or cleaning your toilets, then your smart employees are not going to come into work because your building is disgusting.
Now replace “janitor” with “truck driver”, “coal miner” and similar theoretically-automatable blue-collar jobs, and you have half the people who voted for Trump. Maybe we should back off just a teensy bit on the idea of replacing them all post-haste with more aristocrats, especially in an environment where “aristocrat” has been synonymous with “priest” for centuries and we are already massively overproducing priests.
Rectification of names and rectification of behavior first, then we can talk intelligibly about this stuff. It’s too early right now.
Well, perhaps that is what went down in the final act, and I agree that self-defense in and of itself is not particularly heroic or virtuous. However, I understood the circumstances surrounding that incident to be that Zimmerman was watching out for suspicious characters in his neighborhood, and found one, and chose to act when no one else would.
Thus we have someone who was watching out for his neighbors – his kin, or the people he understood and believed to be his kin – and willing and able to use violence to defend them. That he ultimately had to use violence to defend himself was incidental.
That said, it’s possible my framing is all wrong, or that I’m confusing Zimmerman with one of the other highly-publicized Nigger Removal Technicians; there were so many during the ’10s, after all. So if my rendition above is not what actually happened, then consider that part of the statement retracted.
Your rendition is accurate. Zimmerman was doing a dangerous job to keep his neighbourhood safe. We need more people willing to step up and face danger, and we owe him for the risk that he took.
Adding to my comment above, all this reminds of something I wanted to say in general.
Back when I was a libertarian I thought this:
The goal is not for Ethiopians to be ruled by other Ethiopians, Englishmen to be ruled by other Englishmen, etc. The goal is for no one to be ruled by anyone.
Now that libertarianism’s fatal flaws have been revealed by experience, I think pretty much the exact opposite:
The ideal is for Ethiopians to be ruled by other Ethiopians, Englishmen to be ruled by other Englishmen, etc.
The extent to which this possible, now that we’ve had a couple of centuries of various peoples being put into a blender and it being set to “puree,” is debatable. But I do think that would be the ideal. It’s really just Good Fences + the Peace of Westphalia.
So on this I find myself agreeing with Black Nationalism. I’m incredibly politically correct!
There is nothing more expensive than cheap labor. Keeping inferior kinds around as a slave caste to do the scut work is perennially tempting, it’s been tried over and over across history, and it never works out well in the long run. My diagnosis is that it destroys the reciprocal bonds of loyalty between your own elites and commoners. The elites start thinking they don’t need their own commoners anymore – look at all these lovely slaves! They “know their place” so much better than our own lower orders do, and unlike our own people, they don’t seem to be any threat or competition to us or our children. The elites start giving the native lower classes worse and worse deals, the lower classes catch on quickly to the broken social contract, and then when the system hits hard times, there’s no resiliency.
As for the “talented tenth” exceptions, I’d reward their good turns with lordships and princedoms in Neo-Liberia. Keep them around, and lots of them will be looking for a chance to take you down a peg. They’re talented, after all, so they’re more than capable of telling you what you want to hear, but in their hearts, most of them will bitterly resent how you’ve treated their kind and want to get even.
You seem to have accepted the leftist frame yourself. Have whites mistreated blacks? Lol, if we khazars had enslaved the niggers, they would have been under hardcore chattel slavery till this day. No, whites have been pretty nice to blacks; excessively so. And blacks should be made painfully aware of that.
>No, whites have been pretty nice to blacks; excessively so.
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. They still despise us. Just about all nonwhites do, even the Asians, and you Khazars. Like I said, some of them are smart and tactful enough to tell us what we want to hear, but the truth peaks out in unguarded moments.
It’s mostly because of the metaphorical water supply – the memeplex. Replace the anti-white memes with neutral or pro-white memes, much of the animosity will disappear.
Not that it matters to me; I won’t mind if America becomes 100% Anglo. But your idea that the metaphysical category “nonwhites” must under any and all circumstances resent the metaphysical category “whites” is simply wrong.
We have a memeplex that valorises envy and covetourness. Shame it instead of valorizing it, and a whole lot of it wil disappear.
The blackpill is just another form of gnosticism – “urrrr raaah doom is inevitable urrrrrr be scared the world is scary everything is bad rawahahahaha.” Doom is not inevitable. Why would it be?
@scarebucks
>practically and under real time constraints, a company cannot just fire the bottom 20% of performers every month and end up with an army of ten million super geniuses after a few years, because there just aren’t that many super geniuses to go around.
Yes, and there are no plain suggestions of such a thing anywhere here as well.
>I did not just say that if you replace 85-IQ morons with 105-IQ midwits, the midwits will spontaneously revert to being morons themselves, or that the moron and midwit are interchangeable. I said that statistically, someone is still at the bottom of that group, maybe the ones at 95 or 100[…]Can you please point to a specific statement and explain how you arrived at point B from point A?
I am, like you as well here I surmise, above all sensitive to the implications of what given arguments could possibly be used to justify.
If the philosophizing can sound rarefied, that is partially an inevitability of what is necessary to speak more felicitously about more transcendent matters to begin with, without making the error of straightjacketing possible truths. You sketch the contours of a dynamic here, section an angle of Being there, hold up a part of the elephant with a third tentacle…
I think the record of history shows how great it is for any given nations to not be coterminous with each other, for any given nation to not have coterminous nations, for multiple reasons, and not just in cases where one demographic has significant differences in virtue than others. I have presumed that you are trying to argue against this, at least in the case of America, particularly in the case of cases like west african imports or eurasian tribesmen. Of the quadrite schema you outlined above, you presumably want 1 and 2 and if the old discussion of indentured labouring classes were anything to go by possibly even 3. In which case, the implicit argument about ‘it makes no difference’ who makes up lower classes comes back into play.
There are a number of directionalities I think would be good improvements. For one simple separation of 2 to 4 would be perfectly good for multiple reasons outlined previously and latterly. If high quality then no loss for the alien and if low quality then curse for the native.
I also think it’s an important principle in general to provide stools for people to step off their horse; even if slim by margin, if it allows for the argument that there are ways, that it counts on worth, opens a mental release valve in the calculus. I support standards of strict standards of like kind as one uses for neighbors, for Others wanting to get into a club in particular, which the archetypical unicorn should have no problem meeting, if they so wish. One thing that one always needs is disparate impact and affirmative action; that is to say, the more dysfunctional a thede is, in one way or another, the *higher* the bar to hurdle should be in selection mechanisms for someone of that thede. Naturally this kind of dynamic may apply by degree to all forms of thede and organizations thereof, however granular or encompassing, ontologically inevitable or contingent.
I also think of how some support policy measures like full expenses paid tickets and transportation for exiles to anywhere they’d like that would take them. I would go one further, and advocate full military support and cooperation for elthedes in establishing their own tributary states, if necessary, which may include the 1 in the quadrite as well.
>Which creates a new bottom 20%. There is always a bottom 20%. If the average IQ is 150 then those with an IQ of 105 are three sigma below average.
And it’s a great thing when they are.
>Now replace “janitor” with “truck driver”, “coal miner” and similar theoretically-automatable blue-collar jobs, and you have half the people who voted for Trump. Maybe we should back off just a teensy bit on the idea of replacing them all post-haste with more aristocrats, especially in an environment where “aristocrat” has been synonymous with “priest” for centuries and we are already massively overproducing priests.
I outlined the minimally social darwinist position as a starting premise, since this is the implicit basis of arguments for colourblind meritocracy being advocated heretofore; and if it isn’t, we’ve got much bigger problems.
If you feel there are issues with it at this juncture, then you might start to feel some of the issues i’ve been imprecating from the beginning; that there are possible coordination problems, particularly with respect to nobless obligee, to purely metrical forms of ‘rule by merit’.
The harvardian, unitarian universalist strategy of attempting to vampirize talent from all peoples in all places can be credibly argued as acts of war; a form of ‘strip mining’ that leaves nothing but blasted wastelands behind. If we want to argue in terms of more parochial moral accounting, then taking the likes of Clarence Thomas was a bad turn, and returning them is a good turn.
Furthermore, a secondary problem with this sort of ‘credentialist’ meritocracy is that it helps engender a ruling class that has venal banditry in spirit; that feels no bond with or responsibility for that which they have power over, whom as atomized utilons they are not ‘of’; rather, they feel entitled by the acquisition of their credential alone, ‘passing the test’, let alone actually producing good fruit; so neither gratitude to their forebearers for their position nor obligation to their posterity for their actions is in the cards.
~
Earlier Jim made the fair point that harvard got the bomb before anyone else because so many scientists moved to America or England (which was also America). I think to be equally fair though that had more to do with the fact that the wilsonian order was so much larger than Germany to begin with, and everyone else who was on the losing sides of the war in Europe ended up there by default. Additionally, harvard also caused the genetic death of all those top minds. Clearly room for improvement.
Whig ecumenicalism allowed for the creation of a super-power for a hot minute, for the purposes of destroying all other vital powers; but this was also clearly by nature an unstable and unsustainable state of affairs – barely even a generation would pass before they stopped looking so hot – and furthermore its accomplishment in general was a heinous act of demonic evil that crippled civilization. Clearly room for improvement.
At the end of the day… it’s just not a good look. There’s not a good example of a large scale heterogenous polity to be found anywhere. Contingent city-states at most not generative entities in their own rights. North east asian countries are all positively paradisical compared to anywhere in MENA or Europe or America today. In the 17th century Europe was at it’s spiritual zenith. The states squatting over the nations of Europe today are a spent force. 19th century America was powerful. 21st century America is pathetic. Austria-Hungary was never more than an also-ran. While I love my slavic cousins like brothers it must be said as well that the Third Ceasardom had always lagged behind its neighbors in many ways. The fates of India, Brazil, Mexico, Rome… No matter what else is said, regardless of whatever else one may think be the case… the transcendent empiricism of association is clear.
As Groucho Marx once quipped, “I’ve no interest in a club that would have me as a member”.
One should do right by people who do right by them. The question then is if it is right for someone to want access to a given club to begin with.
The occident is full of people desperate to escape the conditions of being around each other. And the very act of saying ‘they have nowhere to go’, that sending away would be such a terrible imposition is in itself a condemnation of that thede and implicit demonstration of why it is to the good. If it would be so terrible, then their very attempt for that inclusion is itself a terrible sin; even if not to today, but down the generations, an ancestral curse, sins of the father.
When ancient hebrews were exiled from Egypt, doubtlessly the target pops had their own elite fractions, doubtlessly some of whom, like Moses, were very integrated with Egyptian society even. And yet, neither Egypt nor the hebrews themselves were terribly importuned by the parting; indeed, worked out rather swell for both of them even.
The big problem is that the white race is turning into the wigger race. Removing racially diverse people is not going to have much effect on this.
But, if we remove wiggers, we also remove niggers. Problems caused by racial diversity go away.
I am in full support of the quest against biological entropy vis-a-vis culling mutational load and execrables in general as well as the lionization of your distinguished vis-a-vis support of property rights, over their women particularly. I also know that this is not mutually exclusive with the benefits polities more unburdened by diversity enjoy either. There are golden means there and we are not close to them now. I also think its so great it would be venal to deny other peoples the same benefits.
It really is mutually exclusive. You are selecting for quality or selecting for ancestry. It is hard enough to accomplish one of those things, let alone both.
The mass of minorities were brought to America to get paid for voting Democrat. Stop paying them to vote Democrat, and 95% of those without deep roots are going to be headed home. Next up, wiggers and niggers. Once we are nigger free, the minority problem is enormously reduced. If we lead in with planning to get rid of Johnny and Zimmerman, removing the wiggers becomes gigantically harder, for rather small and hypothetical benefits.
You can get rid of wiggers and niggers, or merely get rid of niggers, and at the same time get rid of Johnny of “no labcoat required”. Our big problem is not niggers, it is spiteful mutants.
It is like the left wanted to make war on Russia and war on China, and decided to agree by going after both of them at the same time.
And given the success of firm law enforcement in creating a nice place among majority subhuman population, what is your case for racial purity? — that diversity divides, and division is long term danger — as for example the Jews, anciently the favorite of treasonous elite that want to do the dirty on their own race. But the diversities were not Rhodesia and South Africa’s primary problem, it just gave their enemies a point of attack.
Diversities are not the primary problem. Racial degeneration and enemies inside and outside are the problem. Existing deep rooted diversity is a minor problem, and if it is deep rooted, removing it is hard.
If it was mutually exclusive, then none of these nations would have ever become great in the first place. Civic nationalism is just another one of many losers in the test of history.
What nation has successfully carried out your purge and become great, or remained great after doing it? Notice that Britain attained greatness after Cromwell let the Jews back in and the Jews did not cause any problems for three centuries.
The litmus test that Spain applied was not race, but faith. Who has done your purge and succeeded? Who?
Great peoples, such as Aryans, arise by ethnogenesis, a policy of excellence, not a policy of purity.
The reason we are overrun by low quality humans and subhumans is not race, but that we subsidise them. Stop doing that, and they cease to be a problem. It all started to go to shit when the Victorians started paying women for bastards — nothing to do with race. It was not the Jews, it was the bastards.
“Zimmerman was doing a dangerous job to keep his neighbourhood safe.”
I hadn’t known that about Zimmerman. That is indeed virtuous behavior. But why do *I* owe him? I didn’t live in his neighborhood, or indeed his state.
We are talking about collective action by whites. Hence, in this context, collective debt to mutts who are doing the right thing. When the $#!% goes down, and collective violence is needful, who do you want at your side?
>But your idea that the metaphysical category “nonwhites” must under any and all circumstances resent the metaphysical category “whites” is simply wrong.
No, no, no. I never said there’s some bizarre mystical eternal race-enmity between Whites and non-Whites (forget the scare-quotes, everyone knows what races are and it’s only confusing to those deliberately sowing confusion to put one over on us).
However, in my experience, non-Whites, even the good ones, have a deep well of hatred for us, which they reveal when they feel secure in doing so. This isn’t some Nazi-like struggle between quintessential race-spirits that you want to put in my mouth, nor is it simply the foul memetic water supply (although that’s certainly a big part of it, I agree). What you’re missing is that is a totally normal and healthy human reaction to history and society. I’m no believer in the Leftist thesis that the White race is the cancer of history, and it seems you aren’t either, but it would be fair to characterize the White race as the winner of history, at least from the Renaissance through WWII. It’s perfectly normal for the losers to resent the winners and to want revenge, especially because that winning involved a fair amount of brutality and domination (not uniquely evil, and probably less than other groups would have dished out in the same position, I agree, but still, a bitter pill for the victims). If we somehow get our act together and save ourselves and our civilization, that is also going to require quite a bit of brutality and domination toward outgroups. Members of those outgroups, even if we let them “in,” cannot be expected to be OK with this. We are tribal animals, “us” and “them” were written in our genes by Gnon, and for good reason. This is fine. This is why we have different countries.
Biological tribalism does not scale. Whites are wolf to whites. For four millenia, synthetic tribes based on faith have been where the action is.
For people to live together, they need consensus on the rules. And a mechanism for establishing consensus on a broad scale is going to look mighty like a priesthood. When Kingdoms scaled beyond the point where the King’s extended family was sufficient to whack evildoers, they found they needed priests.
Victorian problem was it was paying the lowest class of women to have bastards with the lowest people while discouraging it too much (the upper class was considered far more sexually immoral between the Restoration and the Victorian era) among people who cared even a little about respectability. They caused too many of the wrong bastards and discouraged the right ones…
You don’t owe him anything personally, of course. Not living in his neighborhood or his state is an excellent reason to avoid micromanaging the selection process one way or the other, and leaving those kinds of decisions to the folks who do.
The sovereign only needs to ensure that state and local leadership are good people according to the criteria set out by the state religion, and let them handle their own local affairs.
Maybe it sounds like a pipe dream that such a thing could work for a place like, say, Los Angeles, but on the other hand – have we ever really tried? What happens when you install wise leaders and empower them to actually lead instead of kneecapping them whenever they try to do right?
Maybe. But I think it may simply be a lack of respect.
Personal anecdote: black former co-worker of mine would sometimes shoot the breeze, and on a number of occasions started with the “because I’m black” excuse for having less than everything he wanted. Each time, I would roll my eyes and laugh at him, tell him he had a golden ticket, and what he wanted was either beyond the pale or easily within reach if he’d actually work for it, depending on the desire in question.
This didn’t lead to any resentment. It didn’t even lead to heated arguments. He didn’t tattle on me to HR. His reply was always along the lines of “yeah, you’re probably right, but…” And of course he’d forget most of that discussion the following day. But I was just one minor character in his life; all the others were alternately kissing his boots or telling him that everything wrong in his life was because of whitey.
I’m not offering this yarn in the vein of “I know a good one”. I’m making a point about their phenotype. Their aggression is, in many if not most cases, performative, and when they don’t feel invincible because backed by state power, they actually become rather meek and follow whomever appears to be the strong horse.
They are trained by white liberals to be hateful and resentful. But when it comes to the negro race, training doesn’t always stick that well, and has to be constantly reinforced. Take away the reinforcement and many of them will forget why they’re supposed to be angry at us. They’ll stay angry for a while longer, because logic isn’t their forte either, but eventually that will fade too.
The whip hand metaphor is of course based in reality but largely metaphorical. They hate men who appear weaker than themselves; they respect and admire men with functioning balls, and when white men find their balls again, they’re likely to see a sharp reduction in racial resentment from blacks.
And if some want to keep carrying the chip on their shoulder – well, then those ones will get a one-way ticket to someplace they’ll be free from the white man’s oppression.
Pseudo:
I think our current disagreements primarily lie in, as you pointed out yesterday, precisely where we want to draw the territory lines on the map, but I should clarify my position on the above.
The taxonomy is intended as descriptive, not prescriptive. I definitely think it’s important to give the category 1 unicorns their due, lest we show ourselves lacking in the virtues we want to create in others. Aside from that tiny sliver, my purpose in elucidating the other three was to point out that they are in fact distinct categories (with the usual fuzziness along the boundaries, of course) and might warrant different treatment.
My actual position is, as it was before and I recently reiterated to Neurotoxin, that the decision-making should be left to the actual stakeholders, that is regional governments and property holders. Do I really think there will be or should be a large-scaled indentured servitude program, or that such a program should be created and enforced at the federal level? Not really, no. Would I be bothered if 1 or 2 out of the 50 states decide that’s the best policy for them? Also, no. There is a certain logic to it, I don’t consider it immoral, and don’t think it’s very likely to cause harm to anyone outside their borders.
And as for the above-average category, it really depends. I would respect the decision of local communities and polities to not want them around, either; I think segregation is a more humane, practical and productive solution than summary deportation. But it is really not about what “I” want, it’s what the people who would have to live with it want.
Long story short, the presence of niggers in America triggered the WASPs into obsession with race, which manifested first as holiness spiralling on racial purity, then in its inverted version as holiness spiralling on (((anti-whiteness))). The presence of not-entirely-human niggers, and a bunch of others, but above all it’s the ‘groids, created a bunch of “racist” and “anti-racist” ideologies that are totally retarded and no one outside the Harvard bubble actually believes, and that are totally irrelevant outside the white-black historical American context. People are primarily memetically influenced by their ethnicity, nationality, and religion (e.g., the progressive religion); and of course, in the internet age where you are exposed to basically all thought-forms, their idiosyncratic personalities play a significant role in the ideologies they end up embracing and espousing – for instance, many are motivated by envy, covetousness, and spite, and so develop (into) their worldviews accordingly.
(Hence, need a synthetic tribe centered on a healthy memeplex.)
Race is a retarded American obsession (which implies nothing about HBD science or immigration policy – I’ll repeat for the fourth time that I don’t personally care if you go full Anglo Supremacist), and if you don’t solve the WQ in a Jimian fashion within this century, none of that angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin s**t will matter, your civilization will be destroyed regardless. Illuminating discussion.
“When the $#!% goes down, and collective violence is needful, who do you want at your side?”
Zimmerman, certainly. But that’s a practical argument, not an ethical one.
If building an ingroup, you build it out of people you want at your side when the $#!% goes down.
Do you want an ingroup that is pure white, including the guys in antifa, or do you want Zimmerman?
Whites are wolf to whites. While diversity makes cohesion very difficult, whites have never cohered all that well on the basis of race either. You build the ingroup out of people you can cohere with. Just as it is not the case that every black man is lazy, stupid, and criminal, just most of them, it is similarly not the case that you can cohere with every white, and cannot cohere with any nonwhite.
‘Whites are wolf to whites’ so it is so often refrained; and how well does that serve them?
I feel like you can sense there is tension in your position, but the faultlines are not fully reasoned out yet. White is more wolf to white than anyone. White is more cooperative (‘with whites’) than anyone.
The reason noone more than whites were wolf to white is because hardly anyone else was even competitive in the first place. Other people happening to be losers of history did not mean they were more cooperative; rather, many (if not all) tended as a rule to be far more so given to backbiting, fractiousness and fisipariousness; such lack of civilizational capacity in turn tending to be a major factor in historical non-competitiveness.
There is equivocation here with mistaking a contingent state of affairs where a given party has little to no greater competition and thus competition will all but by definition come from breakdowns further down the chain of relations, with an assumption that preponderance of backstabbing cannibals is either inevitable and not a problem to deal with even and especially when they are not on top anymore or in fact a good civilizational strategy even. (Lets also head off the next step of this rhetoric where we equivocate taking out refuse as also a form of leftism.)
“Whites can’t band together with whites because whites cant band together with whites” is nigh tautological. Which is to say either that whites are doomed in any case and everything said here is pointless vanity in any case, or is not saying anything.
Scarebucks:
>Race is a retarded American obsession
‘Race is a retarded[…]obsession’ is coincidentally also a classic Americanism.
>I’ll repeat for the fourth time that I don’t personally care if you go full Anglo Supremacist
Well then you’re not doing yourself many favors by backtracking on real categories with this kind of Talmudic hairsplitting.
All stereotypes are true, and local American helps contribute to American stereotypes. Noone outside of America is as spiritually confused as people in America are on the subject, one way or another.
You cannot build a cohesive group on whiteness, because whiteness includes a whole lot of people you do not want, and excludes quite a lot of people you do want.
So yes, any attempt to build a group on whiteness is doomed to fail, always has failed, always will fail. Don’t try it. It has been tried before.
Biological tribes work only on the very small scale, and whiteness is an exceptionally bad starting material to build a biological tribe upon. Aryans have always been at each other’s throats, I am as pure an Aryan as you can find these days, and this is the fire we were forged in. You cannot build a tribe based on whiteness, because you quite certainly cannot build a tribe based on Aryaness, and Aryans are the core of what makes white white.
The reason whites are so competitive is Aryans. And Aryans were forged on the steppes by competing lethally which each other. The history of the Aryans is that we developed new technology to occupy a harsh and formerly empty environment, filled it up, then got stuck into each other, and then into the rest of humanity.
The history of the Aryans is that one wave of Aryans reached the Mediterranean, conquered it, mingling with the locals in the process, and founded Bronze age civilisation. Which went decadent and biologically infertile. Wherupon another wave of Aryans arrived in wagons and chariots. We picked up ship building from the semites, according to legend, from Dan and the children of Dan. Who appear to have remained an important ally and a significant part of the sea peoples, who took part in the founding of Sparta and remained the major ship builders for the sea peoples. The sea peoples, were, like the coalition that conquered Troy, a fractious coalition of many very different groups. And at least one part of this coalition was the children of Dan, who was one of the children of Israel.
Aryans have absolutely no history of being united as Aryans. We do have a history of building large and diverse coalitions. All the way back to the beginning, racial unity has never been part of our history.
Can we point out where anyone here has advocated for ‘whiteness’ alone as a selection criteria?
The argumentation seems to vacillate between saying aryanness is the best and that aryanness is the problem and that social orders which lead to the suicide and replacement of aryanness is the best. Which is of course also a stereotypically europoid spirit of expression.
Nuts.
No such vacillation.
Aryans should continue to do what we have always been the best at. Tech and building large diverse coalitions. Which does not mean pure Aryan tech. Back when we hit the eastern edge of the Mediteranean the second time around, we conquered the seas with semite tech.
It looks like we are going to conquer space with Aryan tech, in the sense that Musk looks about as Aryan as anyone around these days. But the Chinese are vigorously copying Musk tech, and will probably improve on it. As they did with his solar panels and electric cars. So we are likely to conquer space with tech that owes a considerable debt to China, as we conquered the Mediterranean with Semite tech, and with a substantial number of Semites in our coalition. The Chinese are woeful at innovation, but they are very good at perfecting other people’s innovations. They tend to follow other people’s recipes with excessive literal mindedness, with the result that the recipe does not work at first, but once they manage to get it working, they cut loose and improve upon it.
What I meant is that my objection to the excessive preoccupation with race on the part of Americans, as I perceive it, does not stem from any secret desire for myself or “people like me” to be included in the American Synthetic Tribe; I wish to remain an Israeli, and I don’t mind if eventually no khazars or other nonwhites are left in America. But I just don’t think that your prosperity as a nation actually depends that much on racial purity or lack thereof or racial homogeneity or lack thereof; you can quite likely prosper without recourse to any such notions, provided your selection pressures will socially and reproductively favor the more civilized, better sort of humans (who will hapen to be overwhelmingly white and yellow) while the lower orders of ‘humanity’ are ruthlessly filtered out. Asabiyyah, a crucial component of one’s national prosperity, depends on many factors, and race is not really an important one in this regard. Having said that, if you judge that, e.g., your black population cannot and should not be “preserved,” then on principle I have no objection to your not preserving it.
Pseudo-Chrysostom:
The post you quoted was not from me, it was from Mossadnik.
I haven’t backtracked on anything, and made my best effort to exit the debate on some reasonable common ground; and I see no reason to necro that week-old debate – especially considering how difficult WordPress makes it to carry on deeply-nested threads and how easy it is for mistakes like this one to be made. Only reason for this reply is to correct the record on who said what.
Personally, I think we are wasting more time and energy on the subject than it currently deserves.
There’s actually literally nothing wrong with ‘thread necromancy’, it’s just something easy for one to have performative outrage over, and thus in turn so oft gets turned into policy in online spaces since noone really cares enough to go to bat over pushing back on it either.
It is well at times to roll slowly and or have breaks with one affair or another, be it to ponder from removes or detach or decompress altogether, while perspective might filter in, or a newness spirit, or reframe of mind altogether more healtihly. Of course this was more normal when correspondence was by mail; tools transforming man as much as he aught else as the case may be.
>The post you quoted was not from me, it was from Mossadnik.
(Yes, my mistake.)
One thing is for sure, talking about this shit in a very ethnically divided country is not a good thing to do before you are in power. Ethnics who are not criminals and inclined to side with the right are going to be less inclined to side with the right if they think because of a vocal faction they are going to be gassed or at best forcibly deported to a savage area where their survival is unlikely if we win.
I believe that something much closer to racial homogenity than we have now can be achieved over time with gentler methods. And as far as the example of Rhodesia I don’t think the native blacks can be blamed for the fall of Rhodesia they were being used as a mascot. My understanding is hordes of foreign sponsored enemy blacks (who were given some vague hybrid pan africanist + commie ideology) by and large came over from Angola and the native blacks were largely happy in Rhodesia (South Africa was a different story but in Rhodesia they were merely disenfrachised but the state didn’t severely oppress them otherwise).
They were trained by the Soviet military in organized camps in neighboring countries. A lot of the RSF was black Rhodesian.
Holy fuck! This is already old news to you all I’m sure, but here’s the God Emperor helping to retcon into reality Zelenskyy’s autogenocidal villainhood arc by chewing him out on TV, right to his cokehead rat face:
(cribbing straight from history’s greatest genius Vox Day)
…
…
The concept of agreement-incapability has entered the chat. Amazing.
https://www.youtube.com/live/4bkXGLsXd84
Things that have been heard from the atlanticist gallery –
>”ARE VALUES”
>”We didn’t ask England how much it would cost to kill Hitler.”
For one thing, they did (x.com/LoliCongress/status/1894414358266175944). But obviously of course the wilsonoids overruled everyone else who was so much as exercising common sense about the prospect of instigating foreign conflict in the name of Progressive Liberalism, let alone anything more philosophically transcendent. Truth is Over-Determined.
Trump is of course always instinctually concerned about whether an involvement is actually Paying Off or not; GAE factotums meanwhile, like any thoroughbred communist, hold cost as no object; the impact they can exert on others is in of itself the whole of the object for them – and likewise, like any solipsistic narc, they are constitutionally incapable of letting go of even the merest lever of impact, of throttling their grasp for levers of impact in even the slightest bit, even and especially when that same grasping is undermining their power in the first place.
“This sort of talk should not be dragged into public.”
Reasonable enough; but there’s little doubt that all of these things are all things that Trump has *already* said to Zelenski. In the face of foolhardy obstinance, then escalates to public backhand.
“Putin wants to conquer Europe and the if Ukraine goes the Baltic states are next (because we are not going to stop and will do everything we can to instigate the conflict and push them into it).”
Natch.
As for the Baltics, nothing against them at all, but why didn’t Russia fight back against them joining NATO when they did?
I still don’t properly understand why we talk about Russia not being able to accept Ukraine joining NATO when the Baltic states were already right there, so close to Saint Petersburg.
Is it because their destructive power is inherenly limited because they’re so small and thus easy to destroy?
Or rather, did they join NATO just too soon for Russia to be able to do anything about it, and that’s that?
Or could it be because the Baltics are at least ruled by “outer Slavs” who lack the hostile instinct to Russian Man Bad that so animates the Kiev regime?
I’m obviously missing something.
Putin has spent the last 20 years trying to make a deal. As a 90’s liberal at heart, his fondest wish was always for ‘a seat at the table’ in the International Community of Harvard.
It is only in the last 4 that he has realized that no deal was – or could be – forthcoming.
Russia was too weak still, and Putin still believed the West would accept Russia instead of continuing to seek its destruction.
Ukraine is big. This was big move by Nato, and Russia was weak, but getting stronger.
Partly this was Putin waking up from his dream of a seat at the New World Order table. Partly it was Russia feeling its growing muscle, and noticing the collapse of US muscle.
The Baltics are “outer Prussian” mongrels and are hilariously anti-Russian. They joined NATO in 2004, which was still in the “we are all friends” era, before the 2007 Putin speech. The West was still (almost 20 years ago, after all) the dominant global force, Russia was just barely climbing out of the 1990s.
Later, for a brief historical moment between 2008 and 2014, the short-lived Putin golden age. Russian fertility begins to climb, alcoholism begins falling, Russian tourists were the only ones keeping the world hospitality industry alive, as everyone else was broke from the global crisis, while Russia got fat on oil and gas. Plus, the 3-day victory against Georgia helped them feel on top of the world too.
After the 2014 Crimea takeover, the first wave of sanctions started, and since then things have not been the same. Although it is after the 2014 sanctions, that Russia had to become self-sufficient in staple foods, and suddenly become the world’s leading exporter of grains, to the surprise of many, me included. The USSR could never manage this with its glorious people’s command economy, and in fact since 1974 was utterly dependent on North American grain to not starve.
The Ukraine also then became a leading global grain exporter, which shows that even a Ukrainian pseudo-capitalist kleptocracy can be a million times more efficient than the sovietsky approach.
The Baltics were part of the Russian Empire, together with neighboring Finland and Poland. After 1917 they used the chaos to go their own way. Between 1938-39, Stalin tried to get them all back, with mixed success. Got half of Poland, got the Baltics, and a sliver of Finland, the latter at an enormous cost, both direct, in terms of losses, and indirect — convincing Hitler that Soviet Russia can’t wage war. Which it couldn’t. It learned around 1942-3, after losing millions and most of its European territory, but the reserves and will ran much deeper than the krauts imagined. During the time of initial losses Belarus lost like half of its population, because war on the Eastern Front was utter hell, unlike the pseudo-gentlemanly wars against “proper humans” such as the Danes, the Dutch, the Belgians, the Frogs, the Norwegians, and the Brits.
Thus, after tasting brief independence between WWI and WWII, the Baltics got sucked back into the Moscow imperial structure. Enormous resources were funneled there, to make them the “advert for the USSR” in the sense of them having the highest standard of life in the whole empire, with the possible exceptions of Caucasus republics Armenia and Georgia, who not only were subsidized 300% more than even the Baltics, but also had an infinitely nicer southern climate.
In the USSR, of the 15 republics, in GDP terms, Russia and Belarus were net donors, subsidizing the rest, the Ukraine broke even, everyone else was a drain on the union budget. The Baltics were the most “quasi-western” republics, to the extent that Soviet productions of things like Sherlock Holmes and The Three Musketeers were filmed there on location to get that “western feel”.
Soviet Sherlock: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saVNmNaRIcY&list=PLS5g10jrGG0Fg9g-o862Kg31VAyqItsul
Soviet Three Musketeers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFBf_H3R5O0
Soviet Mary Poppins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zio4eUVwkD0
Once the USSR collapsed, of the republics in the European part (Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine), the three Baltic states became the most loudly anti-Russian ones, to this day, to the extent of honoring their SS collaborators in WWII.
However, they are midget states, with populations ranging between three million and half a million, whereas the Ukraine was the largest European country, with a population of 40+ million, and had inherited most of the good agricultural land and half the heavy industry, as well as the first echelon of the Soviet army, intended to take NATO on in case of WWIII. Russia inherited the second echelon with older tech, however the Ukraine quickly sold of its inherited top Soviet military tech to China, thus kick-starting Beijing’s military modernization, with China’s military suddenly morphing from “a larger North Korea” to “top-tier Soviet-equivalent” in a decade.
For a brief moment in the early 1990s, the newly independent Ukraine boasted the strongest military in continental Europe, as well as the largest industrial capacity, and the “breadbasket of Europe” agricultural capacity. In 1992 one could imagine, that with some solid management, it could quickly enough become the France or at least Italy of Eastern Europe, in terms both economic and military. However, the inheritance was sold off or ran into the ground with an alacrity astounding to any non-Slav. Yet even in this post-industrial state, it was a far more formidable potential adversary of Moscow, should it turn hostile, or be a base for other hostile actors, than the three Baltic midgets.
The only thing the Baltics can do to hurt Moscow is to cut access to the Kaliningrad outpost mini-oblast, or cut access to the Baltic sea as such. But this would likely be the start of ragnarok.
Re: Baltic population — not “half a million” but “a million and a half”.
More succinctly:
Table: flipped.
Seems Trump has shown the clown puppet where its place is. I’m looking forward to an article on this event, dear Jim, this one I consider historic and worth to be mentioned, even on the scale of, say centuries and millennia, that we are apt to.
Hes beyond that, Trump gave him a chance to live but they are going to whack him now.
His days are numbered. Someone will off the f**ker.
Do you know Maury tells his wife everything?
Obviously Putin would like to assassinate him, but Cathedral CIA protected their zhid plant. With purge of the CIA, he will no longer be all that protected. And if not Putin’s assassins, then someone in his circle might eventually pull the trigger or administer the poison.
Never get high on your own war propaganda kids
I started repeating the “coke goblin” line because it’s funny, but his recent erratic behavior does suggest that he is not entirely with us anymore. He did not strike me as demon possessed in the past, but looks like his rationality is gone now. So, possibly it’s the coke, but also, that’s what naturally happens when you make a deal with the Devil, any type of Devil really – at first you are using him for your purposes, but then he is using you for his. His unmitigated narcissistic vanity, his pathetic desire to be remembered historically as a Ukrainian National Hero or something ridiculous like that, ultimately sealed his doom.
This goes back to how predictive the original post was, and how it played out today.
Jim wrote:
“So one deal that might cover Trump’s ass is a short term truce, say three months, to allow for the ending of martial law and all that in the Ukraine, so that free and fair elections can take place. And then hold elections that are actually (gasp) free and fair.”
Fair deal, and Trump offered just that, and Zelensky rejected it out of hand. Trump then wash his hands of both Zelensky and Putin, kicked Zelensky out of the WH, cancelled the presser and Luncheon and sent out a message that Zelensky is clearly agreement-incapable and Trump is done with this until Zelensky comes back ready to talk.
Trump will have full support from both MAGA and normie Americans the way it played out.
Zelensky leaves with nothing, worse than nothing.
Amazing times.
The way Trump sees it is the Ukraine is a massively failing business venture that needs to be sold off for whatever he can get for it. And if he cannot get anything for it. Well, that sucks, but he has other things he needs to deal with.
At this point the logical course of action is to hang them out to dry, stand well back, wait for the dust to settle, then see what Putin is prepared to pay for American acknowledgement and acceptance of whatever reality Russian troops wind up imposing on the ruins.
“You have no cards.”
OK that’s it, I’m sperging out and losing my shit because I can’t take this anymore. They have a card. That “card” is RANSOM. They (and their local Nazi pals) have the ability to let the war continue, and thereby allow the remaining young adult Ukrainians to be killed or maimed, which therefore genocides the Ukrainian people for good. That’s their “card”. It’s not against the Russians, but against the Ukrainians.
They’re threatening to let the Ukrainian genocide continue to its completion, unless we pay them. That’s what this is. That’s their “card”. There’s no other way this makes sense (or is there?)
It’s RANSOM, and I’m sick and tired of pretending it’s NOT.
We’ll know that shit has finally gotten real out there when the normiecons start Kaiser Wilhelm posting, in reference to his accepting the Treaty of Versailles in exchange for stopping the war and preserving the German people from being killed off entirely.
So, to whoever’s lurking here for material: Firstly, I’m flattered, and secondly, that’s the meme to run with now: Muh Kaiser Wilhelm halting a German genocide by surrenderig and signing the Versailles Treaty — the greater morality of confessing failure — and how Zelenskyy-et-al are NOT doing this, because they WANT the opposite result.
(Just when I think I’m out of the JQ, they pull me back in!)
Good call. The situation reminds me of what Jim wrote on how Pol Pot was a ‘benevolent leader’ until suddenly he was a genocidal maniac killing his own people. Zelensky is not exactly the same, but there are some very eery parallels.
All too often in history, vassals see an incentive in the incitement and exacerbation of conflict, because they expect the liege to have to deal with it for them.
Zelensky has sort of been more like post battle of Kursk Hitler for the whole war but jewish…
It’s an aspect I didn’t think of before, impresses me and outlines again the bitter reality of the colourful devastation that had been organized “for” these many people living in a borderland. The genocide executive of Ukraine is willing to sacrifice soldiers, however not from being stubborn and going nuts, but him, Zelensky, being purely evil for willingful destruction from the beginning.
In fact, already the Kursk orders from 1943 to not straighten the frontlines were a crazy sacrifice from a chancellor who at least had fought in a war, but retreated to an ivory tower. It developed badly. The following reaguard battles from 1944 onwards however I consider rightful to save civilians, having seen what the Red Army did to their Russian people when entering Russia two and half years before.
This makes a difference to me, where I agree with The Cominator from the viewpoint of how soldiers are sent to certain death, quoting “Zelensky has sort of been more like post battle of Kursk Hitler for the whole war but jewish…”. On the other hand, the jewish clown doesn’t have a single grain of love or sense of obligation for the people he nominally serves. Never had, I suppose. So, being stubborn (or going bonkers) and fighting a just war are independent variables, which is what I wanted to outline.
Regarding the american negro issue, even if some are good and civilized humans, it doesn’t mean you should want them in your polity and mixing into your ethne.
May I suggest a just solution, whereby your polity has some sort of racial standard (which at the least will exclude those with significant african ancestry). There would be at least one ‘dumping ground’ territory. After 5 years, or a suitable time to sell any property and make arrangements, anyone who isn’t a documented citizen meeting the racial standard is deported to the dumping ground, and all their property is seized.
Those being kicked out can move to any country which will have them before the time limit. Blacks should be given their own territory, with the civilized ones ruling. They can choose which lesser blacks they will let in.
There is a precedent with the creation of pakistan.
In practice, there would be ‘white land’, ‘black land’, and ‘dumping ground for those neither side wants’, which could be officially named ‘multicultural coexistence utopia land’.
This is the age-old time-tested solution called “segregation” in the Amerikaaner tradition, and “apartheid” in the Afrikaaner. I believe the argument is between those who want to rocket the bantoids into the sun, just in case ‘something happens’ and also because negro mind rays sap white productivity, and those who say there’s at the very least some economic value, and the whole extermination just because you are less productive thing is a little obtuse.
It’s an approach to proper territorial separation, not apartheid/segregation, which has shared public territory. The latter is harder to keep running without failing in various ways.
In general, yes; in specific, raises the question of what “polity” and what “standard”.
A standard implies valuation. There doesn’t have to be a literal number or currency attached to it, only somebody’s vague idea of how much this object is worth to them vs. how much it will cost them to keep, a cost that may be direct or be imposed by neighbors and other community members as compensation (think CC&Rs).
This valuation is just a non-monetary expression of a price signal. You pay the cost in security, in cohesion, and if Pseudo is correct, perhaps even in net productivity over time. Most territories or polities, for whatever definition of “territory” or “polity”, aren’t going to want to accept very many if the costs are theirs and theirs alone to bear. But some will accept some, as “risk capital”, equivalent to the small % one might allocate to penny stocks or other high-risk ventures. Other territories might allow a larger number, but for work only, as it often was during Jim Crow.
I don’t have an exact picture here because I believe that once you take the emotionality out of race, this is simply a “market”. Markets are good at discovering value, at setting prices, at deciding how many blacks and Jews and Chicanos are acceptable, and exactly how black and how Jewish and so on. These are valid questions to ask and valid policies to have at a local level, and only an idiot “doesn’t see color” and thinks that Isaac Newton is the same as Ibram X Kendi, but by the same token, it is spiritual socialism to assert that they are best answered by a uniform continental policy developed by priests.
Arguments to the effect that market-like structures (aka “community standards”) are incapable of handling this almost invariably point to examples where signaling is distorted or suppressed entirely by a totalitarian terror state. If you let people self-segregate, they will. Even within the terror state, people still manage to self-segregate to a highly significant degree, it is just that this terror-assisted quasi-segregation leads to the worst people getting the best territory, which is the real problem we seek to remedy.
If the state instead supported this liberty on local polities – if the reconstruction amendments were changed to say “there shall be no law limiting the right to discriminate against whomever you please for any reason you please” in black-letter law and state/federal enforcement actively assisted local property owners in the removal of undesirables, as Florida has been doing with anti-squatter laws – then we would begin to see the most desirable areas populated by the most desirable people, and undesirables either self-deporting or living in these “dumping ground” areas you don’t care about anyway.
And without federal funding, welfare, etc., the undesirables living in these areas aren’t going to reproduce anyway unless they can find a way to scratch out their own living, thereby making them less undesirable. Either way, that problem of undesirables will resolve itself without any need for explicit quotas.
(I frankly don’t care which way it goes in the “sink” communities, and contra Pseudo’s framing I am not interested in uplifting the Negroes as a race, I simply believe people and communities and tribes, whether by blood or synthetic, should be empowered and if necessary assisted to sort out their own demographic problems because they are the ones best qualified to do so.)
When a female singer sings about dancing, e.g., “when you dance you become like a stranger,” “you are the greatest dancer,” “I wanna be dancing all night long,” does she understand what she is singing? (The lyrics are usually written by males with noses like mine.)
Is this a sperg question? Or rather a chudhisattva question that spergs cannot answer?
Anyway, even though they have the brains of pathological liars — foids are Baron Munchausen, minus the creativity — I believe they do understand perfectly well the real meaning of what they are singing.
You think that you’re an American, but you’re an Egyptian. You live in the house of bondage – the house of Isis Worship. Like fish in the water you don’t see it – and white knight simps refuse to see it, and hate it when you see it, because they are catlady grannies in semi-male forms who envy real masculinity and seek to destroy it.
My message to the white knight simps is that the Cult of Gnon was not established yesterday on this blog – it was established right about when God created the Cosmos. And you will submit.
Are you trying to sock-puppet, and forgetting to change your handle?
I think your wife is having sex with other men behind your back.
Not even wit, just projection. Where’s that famous verbal intelligence? It must be painful being a self-aware jew, but are you self-aware enough to tell us why jewishness is traced through the maternal lineage?
You’re not tall enough for this ride.
You’ve begging like a gaping prison-cocksucker for a
baptism by firebullycide for a long while.So now you get it.
You are a boring, boring, lame, mediocre, uninteresting, yawn-inducing, drab poster. Not one memorable, non-bleh post. Just tiny, little whiney faggot who blackpills, blackpills, blackpills while showing the whole world your raging, throbbing hate-boner for Israel, like all cocksucking faggots everywhere. You object to the Jimian solutions to the WQ, but afraid to speak your mind like a man, which you will never be, so being a little bitch, green with envy at the whole world, a loser’s loser, you countersignal me, grasping at “Jewishness,” which is something I don’t give a damn about.
That creampie is not yours, cucky.
Boy, that escalated quickly.
Nothing wrong with a little ball-busting, but I think Bob was initially just asking you about your eccentric tendency to reply several times to your own posts. And the answer is probably something prosaic like “old twitter habit”.
No, it’s beyond that. When I wrote the bit about envious catladies in semi-male forms, I had him in mind, and I knew he would be triggered. Worked like a charm. The thing is, he is both a literal/metaphorical cuck, based on his vibe, and has strong wignat predispositions, which show up from time to time, like here. He is a pro-Palestine fag too, and the cherry on top – he likes to blackpill. So, holding retarded positions on all issues and feeling envy towards me, he decided to “just ask a question.” Yeah, no.
White knight faggots go in the woodchipper and no amount of Joo Joo Joo will prevent that.
I can sniff out the “bad eye” from kilometers.
If I say, “Jim, Pseudo-Chrysostom, and Daddy Scarebucks are more intelligent than I am,” a person with a bad eye will automatically go, “Aha! Flattery! I got this kike.” Because a bad-eyed person would never recognize anyone as his superior, and as such is incapable of genuine compliments. The radical notion that if I say it, it’s because I sincerely believe it, would never occur to the instinctively envious.
The chronically envious are irredeemable, and will not be redeemed.
Still no wits, and not any hits. Like a bad comedian, the only tool in your box is to work blue and yell louder. My kids look like me, I’ve passed Jim’s shill test on women, and I’m pro-Israel at least in the sense that I’d be overjoyed for it to exist if you could pick a lane and stick to it instead of free-riding on me and mine at the same time.
Your hit on me boils down to, you’ve been faithfully following my every intermittent lurk-poast, mediocre as they might be, purely for failure to suck your two inch circumcised dick enough just for being a self-proclaimed le based jew.
In fact, despite everything, despite even this random out of nowhere outburst on your part, I’d happily trade you a prosperous Israel now and to the stars for no more Sacklers and Nulands. If such a deal were possible. But its very apparent such a deal is not in your power to make. Just as some negros are human but the left side of the bell curve throws out too many that aren’t, some jews are pro-social white but the bell curve shifts so far they throw off to many parasites to risk living with the whole tribe. Separation becomes necessary.
And I now realize the timing of your outburst comes after Zelensky’s humiliation. Watching a manlet jew get cut down by an Aryan jock must have hit too close to home personally. Whether or not I’m too short for the ride, at least I’m not too short in person. Unlike you, in either meaning.
Aryans were ruled by warriors, and show selection for the warrior line. Jews have been ruled by priests since the second temple, and show the detrimental phenotypic effects of excessive selection for priestliness. Hence the distinctive appearance of Aryan jocks. Priestliness gives stronger selection for intelligence, but in a legalistic religion tends to select for cleverness rather than wisdom, good taste, and smarts. Hence the considerably higher performance of secular Jews in science, rather than engineering. Jewish engineers are pretty good, but they tend to get in arguments with the compiler. They are also apt to rely excessively on C operations that are undefined in the language, but well defined in a specific compiler running on specific hardware. As Talmudists try to outsmart God, they try to outsmart the compiler. If you are trying to move Jewish code from thirty two bits to sixty four bits, it is a bitch. On the other hand, unlike God, it is actually possible to outsmart the compiler.
I rest my case.
You know, the most annoying thing about the bullycide-recepients is their absolute conviction that they are somehow “special” – that I needed to invest any effort whatsoever smashing their cockroach brains out. They all believed that, heh.
If you had any worth, faggot, which you don’t, you would not be spilling your spaghetti all over yourself with repetitive Joo Joo Joo comments in every thread. There are insightful, brilliant antisemites out there – you are retarded.
By the way, this is prime example of the “monomania” everyone likes to talk about. Like seriously, imagine calling me a Zelensky sympathizer, lol, literally in the very thread in which I advocate purging the CIA so he can be assassinated already.
It’s all so tiresome, and the creampie still isn’t yours.
This fight at this point seems petty and without good reason let it end now. Uncle get your memetic sovereignity straight if you’ve been influenced by enemy memes and Shaman certainly has shown no sympathy for cokehead Zelensky. Shaman, stream of gnonciousness is something I do too sometimes but try on the majority of occasions to collect your thoughts and consolidate your posts so you don’t do it too often, also I think Uncle’s initial remark was intended more innocently than you took it. I mean no insult to either of you and we all need a good fight sometimes but I think its gone on long enough and its not likely to accomplish anything positive if it continues any longer.
By the way, can you believe that Kalos from Twitter is not even me? I believe the Shaman Style has inspired many a poster over the years; I just hope the ideas will be adopted too.
Also, I’ll add, it will not suffice to just remove Zelensky – the entire Maidan Regime, going back to 2014, should be thoroughly and permanently dismantled. Ukraine is Russia’s periphery, and Putin needs Nato and Cathedral gay-ops in his periphery like a fish needs a bicycle. Should start the dismantling before there are elections – cut ties with the Maidanites completely, purge the (((war mongers))) from whatever positions of power they still hold, and let Europe cry about it from its cuck cage.
Women are more selective about sexual desire but its more all consuming for them in every sphere of life though this is opaque to women themselves (ussually). This is well known. I’m not sure women are lying when they feign ignorance exactly… since women are prone to decieve not only everyone else but also themselves. And yes as Ryan said dancing is a good thing and even in patriarchal cultures not run by extreme fanatics its a big thing. Pre 1960s going out dancing regularly was a pretty common things for everybody before and after marriage. If the music is actually good its about the most fun you can have with a chick other than sex. Surprisingly its apparently still a pretty normal thing with Mormons.
I think it’s more of a bifurcated brain thing (I think credit belongs here to Neurotoxin for the term) where they are lying, but they don’t know that they are lying. They are not self-aware enough to notice their lies, which is why they work so smoothly in many cases.
You are not one to talk about bifurcated brains until you start posting your comments one at a time instead of sextuple-tapping and self-threading like you do. It’s really bizarre and annoying to read.
I don’t find it a problem. One has a thought, posts it. Then one has another thought, and another.
Effortposts are obviously better, but, as it says on the can, this requires effort.
I dunno, shitpoasts have probably done more to bring down Satan than le serious well-formulated effortpoasts. It’s part of the style.
Shitposts are fertilizer in the ground of being; preparing the soil for seeds sown by great men to sprout into new realities.
Yeah, I also view it that way.
I’d be glad to inspire books, but not much interested in writing them to flesh out any Official Worldview. In other words, “the medium is the message” when it comes to freestyle stream-of-consciousness shitpoasting. The point is to capture a very small and fragmentary glimpse of Reality, but to capture it accurately and honstly – like discovering a piece belonging to Gnon’s Puzzle. Obviously, a serious, “legit” book will have far greater impact than cracking a nig joke on an anonymous comment section.
And yet – it nogs.
(Of course, the effortpoasters are much and deeply appreciated; insights should obviously take on a more solid form to bring about greater clarity and allow for the ideas to be “systematized,” and I myself occasionally indulge the habit.)
Stream of Gnonsciousness.
Not complaining about shitposts, that’s all I do after all. Just the consecutivity of it. But if our gracious host condones it, I’ll hold my peace.
Yeah, I have no objection to dancing. The point is that in popular music, which stands for broader cultural trends, dancing is not dancing, and eating candy is not eating candy. I just wonder how aware women are of the “game.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dzJS6r2qzU
“WDSMBT.”
What did I just watch? It looks like something designed to induce and epileptic seizure.
Dancing is a proper part of courtship even in a patriarchy.
How about these lyrics:
“Ooh, I want to dance with you, if my father consents. Gotta be chaperoned at public events!”
Controlling who is on her dance card is the soft form of arranged marriage that patriarchs have used for many centuries.
Smart, giving her the illusion of free choice – like modern democracy.
Limited choice yes, obviously not a completely free choice. In some of the game settings I’ve run as RPGs, the traditional number is 3, with 5 or 7 only for particularly desirable partners, and frequently just one for high nobility. Disney typically displays nobles and royalty reneging on the part of the social contract—their pampered lives are part of the tradeoff of not getting much/any choice in who they marry.
Ballroom dancing (physical contact, man leads, woman follows), is designed to get them hot and bothered. Combined with the dance card. (She is socially required to dance with a selection of men who have parental pre-approval, this being a very short list, and socially forbidden to dance with anyone else, this gets the same results as marching her up to the altar with a shotgun behind her, with considerably less drama.
Weird thought. Ukraine, even more than economic arguments about the budget or demographic arguments about immigration, has exposed most politicians as being innumerate theater kids. They legitimately have no idea what you’re talking about if you bring up the black crime data. Or any data at all. They think in terms of pictures and aesthetics, not numbers. And yet this is the kind of person who wins elections.
Incompetence, not malice.
Their inability to respond to disagreement indicates they know, at some level, they are lying.
Lying is their faith’s equivalent of prayer. They want to get rid of anyone who speaks the truth.
The liberal reaction to Zelenky’s reaction to truth speaking at the Whitehouse is illuminating. Like Zelenksy himself, and like yourself, they are unable to respond to the substantive issues.
America’s preoccupation with race and equality has led the military to hastily blaming racism and ‘mysteriously occurring’ hazing instead of recognizing underlying personnel problems, which then go unfixed and left to fester and become bigger problems.
I’m often lectured about supposed rampant racism towards minorities in the military. I have never seen it. The worst examples that get used to prove rampant ‘racism’ are situations like the suicide of Pvt. Danny Chen; however, should one dig deeper and read between the lines you see a common trend in most hazing cases regardless of what ‘bad’ words were used:
This behavior is incongruent with military culture and the mission, and sure that was as a kid but you can see echos of it while in military training:
This dude was a good bit taller than most recruits and still got walked all over. That was never going to end well. Here’s the kicker.
Anyone with military experience would know how fuck ups like this are perceived, and it appears this final fuck up was just the last time it would happened.
There is a far greater number of cases of Whites getting hazed to the point of suicide too, often for the same underlying reason of being seen as weak/incompetent (almost always because they are). All sorts of heinous slurs and name calling included, but no one blames that on racism. Name calling 99% of the time happens because men are slinging whatever kind of shit they can to see what will stick to the problem person, and if the problem person allows it to stick…
The problem is clear, some people just can’t hack it in certain units, posts, or more generally the military at large. Not that what was done in these cases of extreme persistent hazing were right, but the military’s inability to recognize some people just can’t hack it regardless of the amount of ‘remedial’ training they receive is the core problem. Greater personnel flexibility is required. Pvt. Chen was known to be smart but not a fighter. He should’ve been reassigned to admin/logistics/something intel as a translator instead of being kept in the infantry after it was clear he was being pushed through training. Why these types of assessments aren’t made early on is bizarre to me. More contracts need to be ‘needs of the military’ where they give people the opportunity to go into the training pipeline for MOS, but they aren’t locked in should performance be unsat.
[*deleted for failure to comply with the moderation policy*].
comments from email addresses that have not been white listed will be silently deleted or unkindly edited. Please follow the moderation policy to get white listed.
Off-topic, but I promised a report on my latest DEI struggle session:
It did happen, and it was led by the same venomous Asian termagant as the last one. Bizarrely, they added two new letters to the acronym in the last month, never mentioned that they were new, and acted as if everyone was obviously already familiar with the new acronym. Last month it was “DEIA,” with the “A” standing for accessibility. This month, it is “DEIAAB,” for, “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility, Antiracism, and Belonging.” Strange, pointless, and a little creepy.
The commissar had the same combination of obvious sadism barely masked by false Nurse-Ratched-esque condescending compassion as last time, and she was still spoiling for a fight. Nobody was stupid enough to give it to her, but she got more sullen silence than she wanted, until an Amen-corner of four or five White women coalesced about half-way through the event.
The content was mostly what you’d expect: race has zero biological validity; Whites, men, and White men are the source of all injustice and suffering in the world; pronouns when introducing yourself are an expected and required norm; etc.; etc. There was some interesting (and deranged) Trump-related material: we were urged to hoard physical media about race, equality, slavery, genocide, all the many crimes of the White Race, because the new administration might try to destroy all records of the past that don’t fit its ideology. More plausibly, we got a pep-talk about how DEI was still legal and still mandatory, and dozens of States’ attorneys-general are coming together for a fight to stop the administration’s illegal, illegitimate, and down-right evil policies, so keep heart. Through it all, it was taken for granted that all 100 or so people present were completely in agreement and on-board with everything, although as I said, the Dragon Lady was itching for some fool peasant to stand up so she could test her blade’s sharpness on him.
I, sadly, did not make any records to be used against the commissar in some hypothetical future punishment process. Partly, she was skilled enough not to say anything blatantly over the line, and partly I was too demoralized on seeing her and her disciples’ confidence and dissenters’ cowed submission to believe anything like that is remotely possible.
All together, it was what I’d expected: “DEI now, DEI tomorrow, DEI forever.” These people are not beaten, they do not feel they are beaten, and they do not act like they are beaten. There is some concern, but it’s still at the level of an invigorating scuffle that they are confident they will win. They like to roleplay as the plucky Rebel Alliance, but underneath they are confident that Empire and its mighty Death Star still stand behind them (and for now they are right).
At my company we have to take 1 or 2 HR classes a year, but it’s all online and automated. You have to watch some video presentation, then there is a short online quiz after each section. Sort of like online traffic school. There’s no interaction with a real person.
Ah, but then there’s no juicy 6-figure sinecure for some Leftist witch to spend her days berating and lecturing the people who do the actual work, and where’s the fun in that?
I am surprised and disappointed.
However, on February the twenty fourth, thirty five days after Trump was inaugurated, my search engine black listing was lifted. Which means their confidence that they have state backing is sorely misplaced.
I conjecture that this whitelisting was the result of Tulsi Gabbard getting confirmation on February fourth. The removal of Google celebrations of progressive holy days followed a week later.
Trump’s thunderbolt to the office of personnel management happened seven days after his inauguration, and we have seen about two thirds of businesses backing off DEI since then. Lately we are seeing mass firings of divisions that have been rendered almost completely free of straight white males.
It is not apparent that individual DEI appointments are being purged, but entire DEI divisions and entire DEI teams are being purged. If someone looks around the office, and sees very few straight white males, thunderbolt likely incoming, regardless of his race, sex, and sexual orientation.
“I am surprised and disappointed.”
Trump has only been in office like six weeks! What’s with all the consternation here? I expect it from Contaminated NEET, but everyone else? You expected to totally destroy DEI in six weeks?! My God, people! We’re getting MORE progress than I expected in this time frame, not less! As for the dispeptic cat lady – assuming our resident self-appointed black piller is telling the truth here – she knows she can maintain her “death to whitey” rhetoric for now because she knows she’s too small to be noticed, let alone dealt with, by the New Regime just yet.
Six weeks, people! Big Balls probably doesn’t even have his official DOGE building Parking Pass yet. Sheesh!
I love youse guys’s appetite for death to DEI, but patience, fuckers!
After they took total control of comms and funding in one fell swoop, yeah actually I expected the DEI demons to be running scared at this point. Once the WW3 triggers are de-armed, suspect that armed men will be frog marching some of the worst offenders out.
Think about how many DEI cat ladies there are in the US right now. It’s a significant clean-up job. They know the FedGov doesn’t have enough LEOs to escort them all out of their offices right now, so they can keep doing their song and dance for a while.
Without comms telling them the gig is up, how are they to know? I conjecture we’re not seeing mass protests for the same reason why there are (perhaps many and large) pockets of DEI not running scared.
The rank and file don’t know that comms and funding has been taken. No-one has been killed, no-one has been arrested or had its legs broken. The have no reason to be scared. When they have reason to be scared, normality bias and stupidity will keep them from being scared.
“we were urged to hoard physical media about race, equality, slavery, genocide, all the many crimes of the White Race, because the new administration might try to destroy all records of the past that don’t fit its ideology.”
Pure projection.
I had to see it for myself, but yes, they really are gone. “Pride Month”, gone. “Black History Month”, gone. “Native American Appreciation Day” or whatever the hell they’re calling it these days, gone. Poof, vanished, as if they had never existed in the first place.
I expected Google to be one of the last holdouts, but I guess all their military and other government contracts have them running scared, or maybe it is their dependency on the U.S. Department of State for maintaining operations in the oppressive EU regulatory regime. Either way, seems that Eric Schmidt is as mercenary as they come, and was simply waiting to see which way the wind was blowing.
I hope Cominator is paying attention. Even the greengrocers who seemed to be far too enthusiastic and supportive of the old regime may turn out to have merely been practicing the age-old art of sucking dick to get ahead.
And also, importantly, indicates that Schmidt sees the wind blowing away from DIE, and Schmidt is an expert at knowing which way the wind is blowing. So fear not, NEET; while I sympathize with those still under the boot heel, your Struggle Session Leaders’ apparent doubling-down is consistent with the behavior of a cornered animal, viciously growling and snarling and biting out of fear, not aggression.
And at the same time you have Trumpidor and the courts in a Mexican standoff. Trump ignores the capricious and idiotic rulings of the judiciary, but the judges keep issuing their rulings, and the stalwart HR cat lady reads Salon and MSN and hears only “judge orders Trump to reinstate DEI” – i.e. “We are winning! Full speed ahead!” And so they keep on keepin’ on, for now. For now. If the judges blink, and the leftoid hivemind sees them blink, then it is all over.
(“How can these two narratives be consistent?”, you ask? How can the mystery meat DEI consultant have the frame of both a cornered animal and a pro athlete doing a victory lap? Remember that they are leftists, there is no rational logic tying any of it together, and holding two or three or ten mutually contradictory beliefs is of no consequence to them if any single one seems to serve their interests at that particular moment.)
I watched a triumphalist cat lady gleefully, ecstatically, reporting a judge holding Trump in special extra super contempt after he had ignored the previous two rulings.
The possibility that having ignored the two previous judicial orders, Trump would ignore the third did not seem to occur to her. (Though obviously it occurred to the supremes.) She enthusiastically relished every detail of the ruling, which among other things summoned Trump to appear before the court with his tail between his legs.
Triple secret contempt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tfK_3XK4CI
Maybe they’ll settle this out of court.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pI6CBgeBVE
There is a lot of work to be done. If this is what your mandatory DEI sessions look like and stay looking like, you are right to be pessimistic.
This is my world. NEETing was better in a lot of ways, but sadly unsustainable.
Where do you work? I’ve never heard of any workplace having weekly in-person DEI meetings. I don’t think anyone has been requiring that, and those meetings are expensive to stage. Everything being posted online is suggesting the facilitators who run them have faced a sharp drop off in bookings.
I work at a government agency. We don’t have weekly DEI harangues; they’re more like yearly, but this year’s was split into two half-days, one month apart from each other. Why? I dunno. Scheduling issue? To stick it to Cheeto Benito? They’re also not in-person anymore; it’s a videoconference, because coming in to the office is for the little people (who actually work), not fake-job aristocrats like DEI Lady.
> Clarence Thomas and Johnny “No Lab Coat Required” around. Are they niggers?
Interestingly, Thomas is from the 0.5 percent of the US black population that is the Gullah people of the Sea Island region. Genetic studies indicate that US blacks are genetically homogeneous (*) except for the Sea Island group (itself internally homogeneous) which was somewhat separate reproductively and culturally. Thomas grew up with Gullah as his first language.
Are the Sea Island folks smarter than blacks in general? I don’t recognize many of the names on this list other than Thomas and Michelle Obama:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullah#Notable_Americans_with_Gullah_roots
Maybe some HBD-ers here have the goods.
((*) – forget about that “African genetic diversity” enemy meme. Our Negro Problem comes from a small slice of West Africa and intermixed during slavery and afterward. Whatever diversity may or may not exist among African Bantus, we don’t have it in the USA.)
> Edward Dutton’s “spiteful mutant” hypothesis is that spiteful mutants — people
> with random abnormality caused by ever increasing genetic load, who resent
> normality — are the vast majority of liberals.
Paper here agrees: https://openpsych.net/paper/75/
Hell of a lot of mutants around these days.