text:
« A merry Christmas and a blessed New Year to all men of goodwill
Current news »
Creeping coup
Doing illegal acts and getting away with it due to state power is a creeping coup. If one side in a struggle for state power can do illegal things, and the other side cannot, the illegal things eventually escalate till the political leadership of side that cannot commit crimes flees the country or goes into hiding. We are in hiding, and people in the military with dangerous ideas get prosecuted for war crimes. People associated with the Trump campaign get charged with obscure and incomprehensible crimes that everyone unknowingly commits, while Democrats stuff ballot boxes and collect bribes with complete immunity. Jon Corzine (Democratic party privilege, not Jewish privilege) got off for robbing investors, and the banks were forced to make the people he robbed whole.
Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
Thus, for example, the normalization of homosexuality. The gays were allowed to commit violence against those that disagreed with the normalization of homosexuality, the courts and police winked at the violence, and suddenly everyone agreed that homosexuality was just the cats whiskers. And now, antifa and illegal immigrant violence against white people, as for example the Kate Steinle case.
The only real crime that anyone connected to the Trump campaign has been convicted of is stretching the truth on a mortgage application. But during the great minority mortgage meltdown, every white speculator, starting in 2005 November when every white speculator realized that the bubble was going to burst, unloaded overpriced housing onto blacks and Hispanics, usually Hispanics with no income, no job, and no assets, often a drunk cat eating wetback pulled out of the gutter from outside Home Depot with a bottle of whiskey, and the loan officer, usually a loan officer working directly or indirectly for Countrywide Bank, created a pile of lies that the drunk could not read and signed with his mark. None of the people who created these highly creative loan applications were prosecuted, because the banks, and especially Countrywide Bank, were doing the very holy work of moving minorities into green leafy overwhelmingly white suburbs.
The speculators unloaded overpriced houses onto people who could not pay, because people who could not pay were unworried about the price, even if they were sufficiently sober to know what the price was and what they were signing, but were nonetheless able to borrow, because if they were not able to borrow, it would constitute redlining. Beverly Hills Bank was destroyed by the regulators for its racist reluctance to make such loans, for its insistence that borrowers should be able to pay mortgages (redlining) but when the bad loans blew up, no one was punished, everyone was bailed out. Angelo Mozillo, the biggest villain in the Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown got a slap on the wrist for billions of dollars in losses on completely fraudulent mortgages and general failure to keep legally required records of who owned what, and who owed what, while Trump adviser Paul Manafort gets severely punished for a bit of creativity on one small mortgage application, which mortgage did not go bad.
Normally if a borrower is able and willing to pay on time, no one cares exactly what was written on the mortgage application, which tends to be filled out by the loan officer with whatever it is supposed to say pro forma, without too much consideration for the underlying reality for those details that are not all that relevant to the borrowers ability and willingness to pay. There are too many boxes, and they just routinely tick them all without examining them too carefully. But the details that are relevant to ability and willingness to pay, those they are supposed to be take seriously, and for white people, they do take them seriously.
Conveniently, the white speculators unloading overpriced houses had no written connection or direct financial relationship to the borrower or the loan officer, and no part in preparing the loan application, though the (usually white) speculator usually gave the (always black or Hispanic) borrower something under the table, and the (usually Hispanic) real estate agent usually gave the (frequently Hispanic) loan officer something under the table.
By 2006, every speculator with skin in the game, every speculator willing and able to pay a mortgage, which speculators were almost always white, had unloaded onto people who were borrowing against their race, not their assets. Then in 2007, the whole house of cards came tumbling down, because the white people had stopped playing the game and left the table, and everyone who had fraudulently set pen to paper was very holy, or of a protected race, and usually both, and so none of them were punished, except for Angelo Mozillo, who got a slap on the wrist for all the innumerable wrongdoings of innumerable loan officers directly or indirectly in his employ.
When the bubble burst there was frantic search for scapegoats who were not race hustlers. They eventually decided to blame the derivatives market, even though everyone knew the problem was dodgy loans. That precisely no one was prosecuted for signing a dodgy mortgage application, even though all mortgage applications are so tediously lengthy that you could probably find something dodgy on most of them, suggests that every single white speculator who was underwater unloaded before the bubble burst. In 2006 January it appeared to me that every white speculator was unloading and most of them had unloaded by the end of 2005 November. That the derivatives market was, in significant and substantial part, managed by Jews suggests that Jewish privilege is dropping to the bottom of the list of privileged people, with dot Indians way ahead of them.
If there had been any white speculators with under water mortgages still around when the bubble burst, they would today be remembered great outrage. Whites skedaddled when it became obvious how it was going to end. Only those protected by racial privilege kept on partying to the end. White speculators got out in 2005 November. Everyone who was still partying the bubble in 2007 as if it was still 2005 was protected by racial privilege or Democratic party membership from adverse consequences.
The bank did not lose any money, or even suffer any late payments, on Paul Manafort's loan, nor was it ever likely that they would. Every loan officer everywhere is apt to routinely tick all those boring overly numerous boxes. During the great minority mortgage meltdown, they massively falsified the ability and willingness to pay of borrowers who were usually obviously unable and unwilling to pay, and sometimes had no idea what they were signing, pissing away unimaginably huge amounts of money, yet no borrowers and no loan officers were ever prosecuted, while Paul Manafort gets the book thrown at him for one trivial detail on a loan application – which implies that Mueller's lawyers went over every document of everyone connected to the Trump campaign with a fine tooth comb. If someone went over every document that you signed, often documents with far too many pages detailing lots of boring complicated routine requirements that no one actually cares about or pays much attention to, how would you fare? The stack of documents you signed in a mortgage application is several inches thick. Did you carefully read all of them? What did your loan officer write on those documents that you signed and never read?
The loan officer wrote on your stack of documents the same thing he wrote on a thousand similar six inch deep stacks of documents. Was everything he wrote applicable to your loan? You did not read them, but it looks like Mueller's lawyers read everything signed at any time by anyone involved in the Trump campaign.
After FDR the merely elected government lost power to the permanent government, the president lost power to the presidency and, starting around 2008, the permanent government lost power to the deep state. And the deep state is apt to send cops to the doors of its enemies, while the Democrats merely sends a mob of blacks, who are less dangerous.
The legislature has long ceded the boring tasks of legislating to the permanent government, the judiciary and the lobbyists, the latter faction reaching its ill fated and ludicrous extreme in the Transpacific Partnership, where skyscrapers full of high paid lawyers in New York wrote pallet loads of planned legislation and regulation to be applied world wide to govern the minutiae of daily life and economic activity in far off places of which they knew nothing and cared less, whose pallet loads of dense obscure legalese and bureaucratese could all be summarized in five words: "everything now belongs to us", the ultimate absurdist end point of lobbyist written legislation. Mostly they wanted to confiscate value created in flyover country, which is what got Trump's goat, but disrupting the value creation being done on the other side of the planet in the Australian outback would have been collateral damage, since this colossal pile of freshly minted onerous regulation would have been trans pacific.
Meanwhile the presidency auctioned of America's foreign policy to the highest bidder, cheerfully ignoring the president. Obama was content if the foreign policy establishment gave him some photo ops. Too corrupt to stay bought, they implemented both Israel's foreign policy, and the "International Community" anti Israeli policy. While their holy belief system was Harvard's foreign policy, their actual foreign policy was even more erratic and less intelligible, and terrifyingly and bloodily unpredictable. They armed and funded Islamic State, and they bombed Islamic state. They destroyed Libya, and were surprised and confused when they were unable to rule the ruins. Having destroyed Libya's military, they were unable to believe it when Al Quaeda used conventional war and a conventional military to pursue power and remove American power.
In order to govern, it is necessary for the governing elite to act as one, which requires social cohesion and rules of good conduct, which come from ethnic and religious cohesion. Puritanism arose in a holiness spiral, which rapidly spiraled to post Christianity. A holiness spiral undermines cohesion, and post Christianity drops the the beliefs that made Christendom cohesive and effective. Thus the Puritans lost power in England in 1660, and England became sane, and remained sane for a century and a half. The holiness spiral of the Church of New England escalated more slowly, but is now reaching heights of madness comparable to those of the post Christian Puritans that Cromwell had to crush. The state religion of progressivism is succumbing to madness, rendering it incapable of functioning as the faith of an elite capable of ruling.
This manifests in the increasing use of violence and coercion, police power, and the criminalization of political differences in struggles within the elite. Convicting Sheriff Joe in 2017 crossed the Rubicon, and there are no more sharp lines between "ordinary" political conflict and civil war. If you arrest one political opponent over political differences, why not all of them?
If you arrest one political opponent who is a fellow member of the elite for his political position, eventually it will be all of them.
The design of the founders was that the elite would act as one through the person of the president, and this worked. But the rise of the power of the presidency, and the decline of the power of the president, meant it stopped working, and Harvard's holy synods of bishops are a poor substitute, as illustrated by the chaos of American foreign policy and the absurdity of the Trans Pacific Partnership.
Clinton was famously crooked as a dogs hind leg, but he imposed some order among the Democrats. When Obama became president, their legal immunity resulted in all manner of crimes. Hunter Biden's legal troubles go all the way back to 2008. The democrats and the deep state have endless crimes that Trump could legally jail them for, but he does not. We all know what the Durham report will show, if it does not continue the pretense. We have known what it could and likely will reveal since 2012, long before Trump got caught up in this. The Horowitz report was a limited hangout, which points towards a full hangout. Chances are that the Durham report will make what everyone has known since 2012 official administration knowledge, that the deep state has been illegally wiretapping the political elite since 2008 and likely earlier.
In 2012 Edward Snowden and Julian Assange revealed that the NSA was illegally spying on Americans. And everyone shrugged their shoulders and said to themselves "Hey, they are not going to care about me, they are going to looking at important people." And, of course, we now know that they were looking at important people, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and everyone connected to them.
The 9/11 presidential order in 2001 gave them alarmingly broad powers to tap people – which would be not too bad if the president could control that information, but inevitably it slipped from the president's hands. In 2007 Bush rescinded that order. I conjecture that he realized it was being used against Republicans, and perhaps himself, and expected that when he left office, would be used in that manner a whole lot more, but the rescission was ignored. The actual practice has been illegally escalating ever since, and under Obama, no end of petty partisans in the elite gained the ability to spy on other members of the elite and use that knowledge for nefarious petty partisan purposes. And with the election of Trump, that presidential power inevitably came to be used by the presidency against the president. The trouble with allowing spying on Americans is that it is such a powerful tool that the elite is bound to turn it on each other, with the result that power falls into the hands of the security agencies.
Sooner or later as the elite increasingly relies on coercive means and secret police to resolve policy conflicts, they are bound to start arresting, and shortly thereafter, killing, each other. Either Trump will jail them, or they will jail Trump, and shortly thereafter start jailing each other, then kill Trump and his family, and shortly thereafter, kill each other.
If, in the Durham report, the Trump administration comes to officially know what everyone has known since 2012, that the deep state has been acting illegally, then it is war between the deep state and the Trump administration.
What is holding up the Durham report? Everyone knows what will be in it if it is not yet another cover up. I hope that what is holding it up is the same thing as is holding up Pelosi sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Trump is likely sounding out the praetorians and getting them in place. Everyone is getting ready for what happens when arresting members of the elite over political differences escalates a lot further than it has already escalated.
If Trump imprisons them, the pretense that we are still a Republic will continue to have some plausibility, but Trump will be Caesar, for the arrest of the deep state for illegal acts that everyone knows about but no one admits will give him the power to arrest democrats for everything from notorious ballot box stuffing to equally notorious graft and corruption. If they arrest Trump, the pretense will get a bit thinner, though no doubt everyone will continue to piously believe.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 31st, 2019 at 06:29 and is filed under party politics, politics, war.	You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
431 Responses to "Creeping coup"
Re how to genocide Christianity
Like I said in first post
Strong rulers who feel they have to accommodate Christianity resort to judeaism
So yeah Jews religion like most religion besides cucktianity were designed to preserve the people. Problem is despite the two religions being wedded in Christ cucks minds they are antagonistic completely contradict and can't get around fact that the Christian part of it is pure cuck and the Jew part is only intended to have added old timey provenance to the new age crap they were pedaling.
A strong euro leader today is not faced with ubiquitous and pervasive Christianity that is easier to try to own than purge he is faced with a religion barely hanging on with 5000 churches claiming title. The bigger problem would be keeping it alive. Sure it's a schelling point for some cultural conservatives but if you actually ever met them as I do daily most are morewedded to conservatism than Christianity and could be reimprinted in fact the more seriously they take Christ the cuck ire they get or if pressed they will admit a cognitive dissonance and say yes I'm a deep christcuck but no don't want more Somalis in Idaho so I know I'm a bad Christian
Let their children lose Christianity and keep antisomalism
Aswaes
Yes still awful writer my apologies to any who bother to read y scribbles
In my defense I feel my writing good enough
And there's way too much more I could be learning than schoolboy essays
Bought a percheron for instance equine world massive things to learn
Leads to need a barn with Gothic arch roof but such store bought arches alone cost 100k so need to lean adhesive technology and bought dozers and excavators for homestead projects learning curve operation and maintenance and so it goes. punctuation and essay construction keeps getting put off.
You see I don't live the life of a desk person I'm a man of action this is what puts me in conflict with you neonazinrxalts I aesthetically sympathetic but when I look at an idea it's with an idea to actually actually build it having built a lot of shit I learned to try and avoid wasted iterations in real life and get them sorted in my mind. Jim says engineer but it's narrow idea of engineer software I wouldn't even consider that engineering I like to build bridges but I'm no engineer they are a tool I use like that engineering toolbox app I like I stuff engineers into lockers make them my math bitches while I build the world. You think those pocket protector geeks landed on moon lmaorotfit
Nah chuck yeager jfk Werner men of action vision. Engineers are like ditch diggers only different skill but men of action vision change the world.
You're being deliberately obtuse
We all know there have been short periods where a strong leader using martial law has twisted cucktianity rightward.
The point I have tried to make to NRx and others is this throne and alter larp ( which appeals emotionally to myself as well) just won't work.
Jesus fuckin Christ there's so many reasons it won't I wonder what's really going on.
Even your dear leader moldberg points out its Christianity that is the root of white leftism ( white leftism is do good I Sm vs Jew leftism which is wreckerism)
Do you think it's a fuckin coincidence leftism Marxism enlightening all spring from the same literature.
Sure you can construct some NRx Larp (do you plan to open your own churches) but eventually someone will notice what the gospels actually prescribe and you're done. You. Any get around the fact that Christianity as taught by Jesus is the most morbidly leftist theology ever conceived. Worse it now has 2ooo years of history making it seem like ancient wisdom.
It's worth mentioning it's fucking unseemly euros worshiping our worst enemies god
Which brings up the point that the other major threat Jew leftism can't be confronted while cucks are imprinted on this judeao Christian meme. Jews main mind control vector is throwing Christians cucky theology in their face. So not only will you have some naive but sincere christcuck white noticing what Jesus says but Jews will continue to call Christians bad Christians for insufficient cuckiness
NRx arose out of noticing facts and untruths that were morbid
Christianity says the world of facts is unreal death itself is unreal
Immortality can be achieved by destroying yourself your culture people nation are abominations and their destruction. Will emantisize the eschaton
It also motivates the people you want pacified it's not an opioid it's acid cut with speed if you're honest the reason you want a religion is to enlist the help of these Christ cucks in our power grab I get that's tempting why republicans try it and democrats before but NRx supposed to be anti demotic. Proves not naturally interested in anything beyond work family beer and are best left in that state not pushed into thinking about shit beyond them.
> Sure you can construct some NRx Larp (do you plan to open your own churches) but eventually someone will notice what the gospels actually prescribe and you're done.
You have been reading the gospel of Our Lord Obama the Lightbringer, the Gospel of Saint Jerome, and the life of Saint Trayvon Martin.
The Old Testament is astonishingly reactionary, and is absolutely solidly red pilled on women: female sexual choice the most terrible of crimes. We cannot let go of that social technology.
Just imagine if we implement the New Testament rule that the clergy have to be male, married, fertile, and successfully exercise patriarchal authority in their families.
"Sorry, your daughter slept around. So you are losing tenure. You would not be a good role model for your pupils."
The New Testament forbids welfare for the undeserving poor and fertile age women. Old and New agree on Divine Right Kingship under God. The New Testament commands wifely submission.
It is a pile of great social technology. It is the legal framework for implementing old type marriage and a society in which old type marriage works. The tenth commandment forbids leftism. We are going to make covetousness the new "racism".
And grafted onto all that is the doctrine of Christ as the Incarnation of the Logos and Natural Law, which is what happened when the early Christians found themselves debating the Greek philosophers, and had to put their doctrine on a sound intellectual footing.
Instead of just saying "God said so", when challenged by the Greek philosophers, the early Christians said "Gnon says so", putting all that great social technology that the Hebrews preserved through the dark age following the collapse of Bronze Age civilization on a sound intellectual footing.
Is it my imagination, or is nearly every paganlarp post just a string of incoherent insults and random obscenities?
"Hail fellow engineer"
Bill Gates was an engineer. You are not.
If you are an engineer, give me an answer to the templates question. What do these templates do and why are they doing it?
info says:
Anonymous Conservative gives good guide on surveillance:
https://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/surveillance-detection-the-professional-course-montana-boogaloo/
He's a paranoid schizophrenic. He is constantly watched and feels disruptive rays shot at him from his watchers who want him to never sleep.
Every single current event is caused by Trump, according to his master plan as executed by Q, by the small group of rich bankers who run all of the world's national and local governments as well as all corporations, or by his evolutionary psychological theory of behavior. Also, any time the number 17 appears, or can be somehow calculated, it is evidence that Q is behind it. If that thing is bad, trust the plan.
I wouldn't take his word for anything, but maybe I'm wrong. I do like his blog as a news aggregator, though.
Yeah, I gave up reading his blog because the paranoia was just too deep. If you stare too long into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you.
It's really disturbing to me to see so many fellow-travelers wandering down the fork that leads into the spooky horror-movie forest of barren trees and Eldritch abominations. AC used to be a good resource; his r/K hypothesis – or the more modern life history theory – is a useful lens with which to study and classify a lot of leftist behavior.
But the rot seems to be spreading, albeit very slowly. Neon Revolt, Owen Benjamin and Vox Day are all sort of mutually amplifying this stuff in their own circle. 4chan is infested with Qtardery everywhere you look. Anonymous Conservative has had some kind of mental break, and even former "above it all" bloggers like Zman seem to be getting hopelessly depressed, nihilistic and prone to absurd conspiracy theories.
And by absurd conspiracy theories, I don't mean that all conspiracy theories are absurd, but that these particular theories are absurd as they deny readily-available contradictory evidence or insist on analyzing routine behavior with a dozen innocuous explanations as somehow sinister. ("Look, he's leaning into his car from the outside! That must mean he wants to avoid having his face on camera!").
I wonder if this happens to people who become over-invested in the "no conspiracies" framing of the mainstream liberals and conservatives, and when exposed to solid evidence of actual conspiracies or coverups (NSA surveillance, Climategate, Russiagate, Epstein, the Las Vegas shooter, etc.), they just panic and shut down all of the previous failsafes and decide that any non-mainstream theory, no matter how dumb, must be more true than the "official" explanation (9/11 trooferism, Comet Ping Pong, Adrenochrome, Lizard People, literal clones, etc.).
The frame that people in this movement should have – in my opinion, of course – is: "Yes, some conspiracy theories turn out to be partly true or all true, and which ones those turn out to be may shock you, but most of them are still bullshit, and you don't know which ones are true and which ones are bullshit until the evidence comes out, and in order to stay sane, assume they're all bullshit until proven otherwise."
Mr.P says:
How is the Antiversity is coming along? Much needed. Then again, maybe blog.reaction.la is the Antiversity.
The Antiversity is an independent producer of veracity—a truth service. It rests automatic confidence in no other institution. Its goal is to uncover any truth available to it: both matters of fact and perspective. It needs to always be right and never be wrong. Where multiple coherent perspectives of an issue exist, the Antiversity must provide all—each composed with the highest quality available.
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2009/10/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified/
We have plenty of independent producers of veracity. What we need is authority backing veracity with power and status. We need a state religion that favors truth: Avoid any falsifiable claims (for example "all men are created equal") Make the unfalsifiable claims that Christ is the Logos, and that Divine Law is manifest in natural law, which makes it holy and virtuous to look at empirical evidence, since it implies that God's will on moral matters is given effect in this world by early Christians called "material and effective causation", which we would call cause and effect, chance and necessity. For example, gay is bad, because allowing gays to be publicly gay has evil consequences.
Can't have a culture of reason backed up by a cult of irrationality
Christianity has been how leftismalways entered and destroyed
It is only irrational if falsifiable. You always have a state religion. The state religion goes on a campaign against truth speaking and reason when it lies, and its lies can be found out.
Supported old Catholicism without really believing since grade school so not typ angry atheist
But I first started falsifying Christianity ( the catholic intellectual version not snake handling variety) in second grades.
It's only unfalsafiable in that it's a religion and you can't prove there's no god
But the rest is laughable despite the efforts of some of ours and the Jews greatest minds.
The easiest way is to have it falsify itself with the trillions of self contradictions. But while having a state religion that claims reality is unimportant and a delusion is bad
What's worse is what is says is important.
It says rulers are subject to higher authority that priests and saints discern
That all social bonds and cultural norms family employer race orthodox religion are bunk and again this puts priests and saints over culture people custom family patriarchy all of it.
Whose it's the most morbid form of leftism imaginable it's the cult of some hippie who after subverting everything he come in contact with prescribes suicide by cop for not even his own sins but the sinners of others
He elevates whores thieves beggars etc o er businessmen his mother and brother foreigners etc and challenges you to try to top him with even more retarded pointless self destruction.
And this is the real problem with it. It's most esoteric sacred message is that this is what god really really wants this spirit of the law not the letter or the truer justice the Jew lawyers on good days try to reason when not just jewing god out of his commandments. No Christ worship sneers at rational justice and demands you just destroy yourself to be on the safe side and try and take you family nation race culture with you.
Sure having to live with the fact of this Jew heresys ubiquitousness some strong euro men have forced the priests at times to bend a knee but like the Jews who conjured these golems they only bend the knee for a while in no time they are again offering to bless the troops then anoint the king rinse repeat
You can not ever stop this because there's a book that it's all based on which is crystal clear that's it's a leftist suicide mission
Strong rulers usual tactic is to try and stress the older book for a is it good for the Jews or state take. But that. Ever works because then it would be Jewishness not this new garbage. So al that ever happens is soon as it's sFe some wag asks what would that Jewish nut job hippie say and any Christian who's honest knows Jesus would do the evilest shit possible self destruction on any pretext reason be damned. And off we go.
It's worth noting it's barely alive anyway at this point serving only as something to point at low IQ conservatives and snigger. Oh moldbergs correct at least on that point the other leftism is post Christ Christianity small beer it's like the unireligion that goes with the uniparty. Try redpilling some rural Christian there's a dozens roadblocks they can not pass at all worse than redpilling a liberal who has no soul to protect universal brothers in Christ, Zionist prophesy,golden rule,
The new right took off because facts
This will sound worse than I mean it but I think the nazis were on to something with their quasi religion of the folks destiny. Sure we could pick apart things like German science v Jew science ( which sort of anticipates cultmarx and who are both kinda right in that to some extent truth is relative at least truths about what's good boil down to for whom) but the totality of the nazi religion was just spiritual enough to give that awe power while not giving the priests anything to get a handhold into. It's message was we are the chosen the ubermesch destined to become gods.
To become gods is the essence of all spirituality but no people until us ever came close enough to dare dream it
We could actually do it. I'm fact despite this parasite on us we are on the verge of physical trance dance we are already experimenting with conscious evolution( not to say I think we ought to hold of till we think harder) I'm also not a nazi at least no more so than anyone on the new right besides you you know neonazis lol just saying if you and some other are right that the left side needs a religion then fucking Islam or judeaism would be better than christcuckery. I loved catholic school learning Latin or trying to gothic cathedrals theological arguments but it's hopeless it's toxic I won't go into why this wasn't always so except to say that. Before our tech shrank world suicidal altruism accrued to fellow euros and united us into whiteness otherwise known as Christendom
But now it's just a wealth power transfer to the lowest genetics.
The Christianity you condemn is holiness spiraled Christianity, and progressive Christianity. Did you read How to genocide Inferior Kinds in a properly Christian manner, Deus Vult and Priests and Warriors?
aswaes says:
Lol, I see you still haven't learnt punctuation and writing in paragraphs, Mike.
Actual conspiracies leak;
We have the internal emails of the climate conspiracy, and we see academics losing their jobs for revealing hate facts about climate, most recently the great barrier reef (corals are growing at least the same speed they always have, and arguably faster. What happened with the great barrier reef is that after a blatantly fraudulent study came out fifteen years ago, using observational data that was highly unlikely to give an accurate indication of how the reef was doing, they put a stop to any direct measurement of how it was doing. If you take an core of an old coral, you will see growth rings like the rings on a tree. So how thick are the growth rings now?
But no, taking a core of a coral is now like spitting on the Eucharist. A scientist called out the study that supposedly showed the reef in trouble (it was the usual creatively selected data, quite indirectly connected to what it purported to measure, creatively interpreted,) and of course he lost tenure. You can see the climate conspiracy in action every day. And the climate conspiracy murders quite a lot of people, most recently by causing the Australian bushfires.
NSA surveillance leaked. Russiagate leaked, Epstein's murder has not leaked, but was so incompetently done that no one believes it anyway. Las Vegas shooter has a funny smell, but has not leaked, probably because a quite small conspiracy.
Any conspiracy large enough to explain away a pile of data that you do not want to believe is going to leak like Climategate, which every day bleeds murder and lies.
jack boot says:
I think that you intended that spam for some other blog. Its relevance to the this blog, or any topic covered by this blog, is unclear.
Epstein's murder has not leaked
Eh, I beg to differ on that one. Technically it hasn't leaked in the sense of someone actually coming out and saying "yes, he was murdered and I saw it happen and know who did it", but in all other respects it was leaky from day one.
I think it's just so leaky that you can't even call it a leak at that point, it's more like the entire bottom of the boat is missing. Every time some new evidence is found, it is either ignored completely or mysteriously disappears. Like the latest about outer security camera footage being "taped over" – OK Boomer, I too have never heard of WD Purple 14 TB surveillance drives that store 3 years worth of H.264 video, it's totally a thing that people wipe them clean after a few weeks, and wipe them so clean that data forensics can't recover anything from them.
The crime was incompetent, but the coverup has been even more incompetent. And with so much incompetence at play, the idea that the conspiracies are becoming more elaborate and perfect not only strains credulity, it literally spits in the face of even the meekest and mildest skeptic. In order to believe that the same people who tried to cover up Epstein are successfully covering up a secret life-extending drug worth trillions, or the fabled moon landing "set", requires not just naivete, but an aggressive degree of infantile gullibility, like a lobotomy patient.
It's a sort of religion in the time of cho.era
People are too afraid to rebel and too ashamed to admit
So they pretend something is being done by someone somewhere
Also box Owen Benjamin these are Ferguson types IQ regardless they're rubes they grew up with wizard of oz Alex Jones conspiracy and it doesn't help most of those crazy ideas seem to have been true and worse ones are Co I g to surface
Get chrisakes it seems there's really fuckin aliens in dogfights with USA ussr prc.
I remember the qanon poster saying that the number 17 is important and evidence of his actions.
So it didnt come out of nowhere.
>President Trump has 52 Iranian targets he is all set to obliterate. That is the 35 Iran has, plus 17.
He looks too hard for the number 17.
Shitting in the Streets, Bby Jirl in the Sheets says:
What's the angle here Jim?
"H1-B holders in the United States can rest assured that changes are soon coming which will bring both simplicity and certainty to your stay, including a potential path to citizenship. We want to encourage talented and highly skilled people to pursue career options in the U.S."
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1083705208834834433
I assume there is no angle. Shocking revelation: Trump's not perfect. One of the main areas in which he has consistently shown either weakness or ignorance is the tech sector.
H-1Bs are a big problem for tech, but a tiny problem compared to Mexican cartels and Central American caravans. Sometimes, you have to swallow some bitter pills if you want to treat the disease.
I have observed Trump having a dramatic effect on the tech sector choking down the supply of H1-Bs.
Now maybe this has changed, but I saw what I saw. No end of bosses screaming because they suddenly found it hard to get cheap dumb engineer slaves from India. He said he was doing one thing while he did a very different thing. Maybe he has changed that policy, but that is what I saw.
Trump sometimes says one thing to his supporters and another to people who are less than his friends (in this case the republican cheap labor lobby).
In these cases he is almost always telling the truth to his supporters and lying otherwise.
Yes, once they get here, their employer will be less able to send them home, which reduces the incentive of employers to bring them here, and at the same time, Trump has made it vastly more difficult to bring them here.
He has greatly increased the cost, delay, and complexity of bringing an H1-B over, and now he is reducing the capacity of employers to exploit H1-Bs. By freeing the slaves, you reduce the incentive to import more slaves.
The restrictions on bringing them over are intended to ensure that employers only bring over the smartest people, so we have seen a great diminution of the horde of docile idiots – who always turn out to be less docile than they seem When they get enough people of their own caste in the company, they plot against the management and the white engineers.
When they get enough people of their own caste in the company, they plot against the management and the white engineers.
Precisely what I saw happen and precisely what happened to me, from start to finish, over a 20-year career as a SV back-end (Perl, PhP, Oracle, MySQL) web software engineer.
What began with "they'll do all the menial work…" (sorry, no such thing as "menial" work in software engineering) "… so that you can focus on the creative architectural work" (sorry, cannot architect sh*t unless hands dirty with the menial) ended in replacement, ended in quarterly IT all-hands meetings with a dozen white guys, thousand of H1-B Indians, and an Indian HR chick on stage screeching we need more women engineers.
F-k this. I was mindful of the door slapping my backside on the way out.
Jews are notoriously apt to plot with their fellow Jews, but dot Indians are even more apt to plot with fellow caste members than Jews with Jews, second only to gays plotting with gays.
The people who are worried about the political elite hiring the Jewish tribe to do their dirty work, and then the Jews plot against everyone including those that hired them, should take heed of the number of dot Indians the elite has hired to do its dirty work.
Time and time again, first the white engineers get burned, and then management gets burned. They thought they were hiring cheap docile slaves that they could keep the threat of deportation hanging over, only to encounter mysterious head winds.
Gays are worse, but you are less likely to encounter a critical mass of gays. On the other hand, gays are apt to plot against you with a gay in your competitor. Gays always plot together, so you cannot have a gay in a job that involves interacting with people outside the company, as for example a purchasing officer.
Halion says:
They make a mistake that the Greeks already observed: slaves must be mixed with other races so that they lose their identity …
if you're an engineer and you're engineering in the company of indians you must not be a very good engineer. plus every engineer is a different non-fungible special snowflake with a unique skillset and disposition and this is the jim consensus on the jim blog.
ooh, burn. wow. got'em.
Why exactly is it that you don't go and congregate with your little commie wignat buddies and instead spam here with your stupidity? Getting paid or just don't have any buddies?
A favorite old example of mine:
– Ron Jeffries making a Sudoku solver: https://ronjeffries.com/xprog/articles/oksudoku/
– Peter Norvig making a Sudoku solver: http://norvig.com/sudoku.html
Not equivalent, not fungible. And if you think of Peter Norvig as Tier 1, and Ron Jeffries as perhaps Tier 3, then the average dot-Indian programmer is Tier 8 or 9, just barely above the people who literally lack the aptitude to understand variables and control structures. There is quite literally a 10X difference in both speed and accuracy between best and worst.
Of course, it depends on the Indians. Many of the Brahmins imported from Andhra Pradesh region (e.g. Hyderabad) make decent Tier 5s. And, I suppose, there might be a literal dozen or so who are Tier 3 or higher. But despite being better programmers than their kin, they are still Indians, and will still plot with their coethnics.
One weird phenomenon I've seen recently is dot-Indians increasingly being hired for PM and managerial positions, and that seems to have a more dramatic impact on company demographics as no one other than dot-Indians can stand to work for dot-Indians.
not equivalent & not fungible in talent & craft
100% equivalent and fungible on the labor market. i.e economically. and why?
because of a complete and total failure to leverage their immense value creation* potential into negotiated economic reality
they "make" millions or tens or hundreds of millions of dollars but they fail to GET PAID
and it's pathetic and embarrassing.
*for a private entity not for society at large. software has literally never made society better and mostly made it much worse. prove me wrong, code monkeys
And yet oddly, real engineers are never in favor of unionization, and no advocate of unionizing engineers is a competent engineer, always a fake engineer who hopes to ride on the backs of real engineers, as Arthur Scargill, who never worked for day in his life, was never a coal miner and never worked for a coal company in any capacity. Indeed never worked for anyone, was paid by the state, the union and the communist party. Always fake engineers incapable of producing value.
'You are obviously oppressed and need my help' says the commie to literally anyone.
How do you know that the ones who deliver that much value don't get paid? I happen to know for a fact that many of them do. When you add up salary, bonuses, and stock options, top engineers at top companies are making over a million per year.
I think most engineers are aware that while their activities may contribute toward $X in revenue, they really are just a contribution; sales, marketing, finance, operations, etc. are all necessary as well, so the pie has to get split many ways, and on top of that there's substantial overhead, in large part due to unnecessarily heavy regulation and corporate taxes (which Trump cut, and the benefits were immediate).
But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you think you're worth if someone else is both able and willing to do the same job for less. Oh, you work in a diamond mine? Yes, I realize that a single one of the diamonds you dig up is worth ten times your annual salary, but anyone can do the work you do, the real value is created when De Beers finds the deposits, builds out all of the mining infrastructure, and provides pseudo-governmental security and administration for the workers because the local authorities are basket cases.
…and on top of all that, you literally admit in the final paragraph that you hate engineers. You think they're oppressed and have a burning desire to help free them from the chains of their capitalist oppressors, but also, you hate them and don't think they have any value for society at large. Yeah, I totally buy that.
Commies always give themselves away.
> …and on top of all that, you [Jack Boot] literally admit in the final paragraph that you hate engineers. You think they're oppressed and have a burning desire to help free them from the chains of their capitalist oppressors, but also, you hate them and don't think they have any value for society at large. Yeah, I totally buy that.
Yes, Trotsky saying "hail fellow peasant, land to the tiller", while Trotsky was in fact an urban failed Jewish money lender who was planning to murder them, kill their cows, take their land, and destroy the farms that they had built.
It is obvious that "Jack Boot" is not an engineer any more than Arthur Scargill was a coal miner, and is unfamiliar with the way engineers view dot Indians. If not an engineer, and fails to understand the way white people view dot Indians, then quite likely not white either. His parody of the way white engineers view dot Indians reflects the way dot Indians think about evil white racists, not the way us evil white racists actually think. Though he might be a Jewish commie who got that picture from a dot Indian commie complaining about us evil white racists.
Just as Jack Boots engineering mask slipped, his farmer mask also slipped. Recall we were arguing as to whether farmers were oppressed serfs owned by giant corporations or proud independent folk with land, guns and dogs. I said that some farmers were struggling, but even the ones that were struggling were proud and independent, and some farmer's were doing very nicely, and I had recently been to a big party thrown by a farmer "who had some nice toys". His response revealed a murderous hatred of farmers, similar to that of Trotsky.
When a commie tells you he is on your side, he means to kill you. Dogs can smell it.
everything in this is a lie. 1. my software is better than yours. i refuse to call myself an "engineer" because its degrading. 2. of i "revealed my murderous hatred" youd quote me. you haven't quoted because nothing ever happened. 3. farmers are on the government dole like every other protected class. 4. if i had power i'd crush the non family farms cut the subsidies and let non elite farmers be profitable again. 5. unlike you i know non elite farmers and it isn't going well for them. everyone below top 5 percent is being slowly squeezed to death by the system. top 5 is getting bigger than ever. 6. the jobs haven't come back and won't, andrew yang is the tech dweeb you wish you were.
finally. show my supposed murderous hatred or
because obviously bronheim hated ukrainian peasants. all jews hated ukrainian peasants. they still do.
i'm many things but i'm not a jew
certainly i'm not a lolberg jew in spirit like the jim contingent. id be more of a roger stone jew. maybe a lawrence auster jew.
certainly not a moldberg jew either. embarrassing, less embarrassing to be a sanders jew.
i for one look forward to the coming bolshevik terror. all hail the commissariat of palm beach and park avenue.
Supposedly, farmers who have nice stuff were given that nice stuff, rather than earning it or creating it.
If they were given that nice stuff, you are planning to kill them.
farmers get government cash. it's called subsidy. it's a redistribution mechanism. taxpayers are paying farmers to farm. i've looked at the accounting tables, it's 10-20% of total revenue i think. the argument isn't that they should get it or shouldn't get it. i don't really care. it's a dole and they're on it. so not as independent as you claim.
the real problem is the system is set up so the top 5 percent of farmers are doing well at the expense of everyone else. it isn't the inevitable result of "market force" because this doesn't exist in a vacuum. someone set up the system. usually they set it up to benefit themselves. sometimes at the expense of others.
i don't want to farm myself. but i want the option to farm if i want. and so i want to restructure the system so big farms aren't gobbling up little farms because little farmers are being squeezed out because they're up to their eyeballs in debt and eventually go under.
your position. metaphysically probably. is cui bono applied to wealth accumulation. so you never ask how can we get capital into the hands of those who will use it wisely. only how everyone who has capital got it honestly and how we should all be so very greatful for all the capital they supposedly give away to others all the time and how terrible it would be if the economic system gave the twenty year old a fair shake instead of run as a racket for the boomer parasite 1980 to present
just imagine if there was an economy designed to let people accumulate capital in exchange for working part time summer jobs as bartenders to pay for certifications of competence
I know how capital got into my hands.
I earned it.
In substantial part, I created it myself, rather than earning money and using the money to purchase capital goods from the market. Most capital goods are substantially created, rather than purchased, because they are generally unique one offs, implementations of the unique vision of the owner. Hence the worthlessness of the Soviet Union's capital goods which was revealed when the Soviet Union fell and they tried to find buyers.
@jack boot
Get off this comment section if you cannot even answer a REDpill on women question!
in software? yes, congrats. you helped automate the workplace i.e kill jobs i.e erode the position of the wage earner
and were rewarded with a portion of the loot.
i'm not complaining. i don't care. just don't be a hypocrite.
You love engineers like you love farmers.
"I don't have murderous hatred quote med motherfucker"
"I also look forward to the bolshevik terror giving you all rich ppl what you deserve"
Whenever a commie tell people "hail fellow victims of oppression, I am one of you", he intends to kill the people and group he is addressing.
p.s i'm the equal of peter norvig
No you are not. You are not very bright, while peter norvig is quite smart.
You are probably a dot Indian who came here on an H1B visa to do engineering, but like so many H1B "engineers", too dumb to do engineering, so wound up in a quasi government job, as so many H1Bs do, in your case a job attempting entryism to the dissident right.
You have given me several "Hail fellow software engineer" rants. If at sometime you were employed as a software engineer, you undoubtedly have opinions about dot Indians here on H1B visas. If you are a white software engineer, those opinions would give HR the conniptions. If you were to frankly state those opinions, your race would be obvious.
So, tell us about dot Indians here on H1B visas to do engineering. This is not a test to see if you are working an FBI office with your boss and Human Resources watching your output. This is a test to see if you are white.
You already failed one whiteness test. You attributed to white engineers white racism as dot Indians imagine it to be. Try again. Tell us about H1Bs in engineering.
After they have gotten rid of the white engineers, they then get rid of the corporation. Diversity + Proximity = War.
but what about the free market of labor?? borders are an arbitrary political fiction man wth, let the free flow of markets labor be free
You cannot tell the difference between libertarians and reactionaries, because to a commie, all non commies look alike.
Foreigners undermine social cohesion, and dot Indians undermine corporate cohesion. A company is apt to collapse shortly after it gets rid of its white engineers for dot Indian engineers, because the dot Indians turn their hostility to the white management, the white shareholders, the white customers and the white suppliers, viewing, and treating, management as an alien occupation force of foreigners.
Diversity™ + Proximity = War
And this literally weeks after you made a long post against libertarianism.
The older commies were smart, but evil. Modern-day commies all seem to be stupid and evil. I wouldn't be surprised if "jack" here was an actual dot-Indian, given how the subject seems to have triggered him.
These are the ones we need to identify and then send in Cominator-style death squads.
ayu. how-did-you-know. was-i-deelly-zo-obvious? *weird head bobble*
yup. i have brown skin and stink of curry. especially with my pants down as they are now. because my crotch etc
You were triggered by unkind reference to H1-B dot Indians, and I hear rumor that the FBI is employing a lot of dot Indians to post to white male Christian terrorist blogs. ("Hail fellow white male")
I would guess that you were an H1-B that came in on an H1-B as a supposed engineer, that like so many H1-B dot Indian engineers your uselessness was immediately obvious, (The Chinese H1-Bs can actually do engineering, the Indians not so much) so you looked around for someone else hiring dot Indians for something other than engineering, and the FBI was looking for people unencumbered by potential loyalty to America.
OK, now I'm even more convinced that you're a street shitter, because only a street shitter would have such a strange and nonsensical understanding of how non-street-shitters perceive street shitters.
corporations don't need internal cohesion. the way bill gates ran micro$oft is evident enough. game theory: they need to increase their stock price quarter after quarter. that means two things: increase revenue, decrease cost
revenue is hard, especially for a monopoly. a monopoly owns all the market. what goes up must come down. it's only down from here.
cost is easier. negotiate contracts, suppress wages, low ball new grads, automate automate automate
for example. every company everywhere complains of catastrophic labor shortages even as wages are stagnant or decline and they reject talented applicants for the dumbest of reasons.
the world isn't starving for talent. the world is starving for high status resumes.
A corporation is a group of people cooperating to create value. If cooperation fails, the corporation dies. But a Marxist would not understand this because he thinks labor has value. Using labor to create value is never trivial or automatic. It is profoundly difficult, and Marxists repeatedly demonstrate that they cannot do it.
And I am pretty sure I know more about how Bill Gates ran Microsoft than you do.
Informix died as a result of loss of cohesion induced by employing to many dot Indians.
micro$oft
Wow, that's a blast from the past. The 20th century called, they want their memes back.
Deleted for posting from the world as imagined by Marx. (Who unlike myself, never had to work for a living.)
I don't know which blackpiller started spreading this on twitter, but the tweet is one year old. Nothing bad happened since then. It's called testing the waters. If I recall correctly Trump was also complaining how "he can't get DACA done due to dem obstruction" around the same time. Trump does this kind of thing all the time. He signals something totally unexpected — like he wants to do DACA 'legally' — to create chaos and probe reactions from other players, including from his base. I can't believe people still don't get Trump's MO: create chaos, fear, uncertainty, despair, in a credible way, to force everyone, except himself, to reveal their true preferences and cards. To achieve this, he wears the cloak of an erratic clown. Every now and then, he seemingly does something unhinged, unexpected, irrational, but upon closer inspection, his moves never constrain him or cost him much. His opponents take the bait and react hysterically. Or nothing happens, and he moves on to his next troll.
To be fair, there was a more recent incident, that tweet just wasn't it: https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2020/01/12/donald-trump-we-dont-have-enough-foreign-workers/
I think someone got confused and forgot to take note of the year – forgot that it's not 2019 anymore.
But correct on all the other points. Focus on the outcome, not the process.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsH2z__IlXQ
RedBible says:
Can be best summed up as: "Man who was ass raped by a gay as a child now hunts down and shames men who thought they were getting a call for a One Night Stand from a sexy teen."
one highlight: "we have the 13-15 year old teen post looking for ̶s̶e̶x̶ a relationship online, but have the ad say they are of age, but then have the first message say they aren't really of age."
Reeks to me of a man who doesn't understand basic shit test bullshit stuff women will say to test if a man is actually serious…
Also the man assumes that real feelings can't and don't develop between those who are underage, an adults.
Since that's the case to use the word "child" to describe alleged victims is based on lies.
Abuse of the term to conflate unlike categories. Inversion.
The most important question you should be asking yourself when you see this nonsense is: why does all of this material come from old, fat, angry men pretending to be 14-year-old girls, and why don't any actual 14-year-old girls ever complain?
Pre-teen boys report their predators, often at that age, but almost always by the time they are older. Either this never actually happens with 14-year-old girls, or the 14-year-old girls seem to have no regrets.
I would not shed a single tear if one of these "hunters" were to get shot between the eyes from one of their marks. But of course, they prey on the weak; they probably don't go out to meet the marks who look like they'd react violently.
I'd imagine that one of the reasons why 14 year old and younger girls don't report it (even though it seems clear to me that there is plenty of "under age" sex acts happening with men) is the perception of him as "alpha".
Here is a short list of contributing things to seeing him as an alpha:
He was her first. (I shouldn't need to restate the value of virgins on this site.)
He "broke the law" and she knows it. Good chance somewhere in the back of her mind, she has rationalized that he is willing to "break the law" in other areas if she ever told about what happened, or if he thinks she will tell about what happened.
Also, reporting him is equal to a hard line break up, so a 0% chance of getting booty called.
And, as long as she has deep feeling for him, she won't want to actually see his life destroyed.
Now that I'm reading through what I've posted, Jim's statement of "In order to be a patriarch in current society, you have to be willing to break the law." makes even more sense than it did before.
That's pretty much what I've been getting at. Actual 14 year old girls hooking up with these guys, assuming they even exist, obviously don't regret it. They want to keep seeing the guy.
The very instant they realize there's no chance of being booty-called is when they turn on their former sugar daddies and try to destroy their lives – or blackmail them, if they're particularly smart and evil.
Fergus Boone says:
This nation is all ready seeing the breakdown of norms of civility and law and order. The deliberate reduction of the bars on all sorts of crimes has caused crime to spike. This is deliberate and is aimed at destroying small business, destroying the police, and encouraging those who believe in law and order to depart such locations. It is in short a kind of ethnic cleansing.
We see at the same time an all out assault on the right to bear arms. This will probably be reduced to smaller salami slicing measures but the people understand what is going on. It is probable that a Red Flag incident will spark a major clash. No one trusts the government and the concept of denying anyone their rights without charge or trial has been sought by the Democrats since the Japanese were interned.
Topping all this off we have seen the government fail in its regulatory duties time after time yet the answer from both parties is to spend more. No one but a bureaucrat has any believe in these measures, except for perhaps the welfare lobby. Americans sense that doing the right thing is a suckers game. Felons get the vote. Illegal aliens get to get a reduced college education your child can't and will benefit from affirmative action.
So tell me how they will react when they see a coup attempt blown off as well it merits two weeks in jail. Especially after we saw a man get 16 years for burning a gay flag. People understand what is in store for them when they violate the progressives ethics. You're life will be ruined, you will be assaulted, you will be destroyed. We see whites being described as the source of all evil. If you voted for Trump you were "irredeemable and deplorable." In thirty years overseas this kind of talk preceded a genocide.
In 2019 Americans broke all records buying 26 million firearms. One assumes they did this not because they are happy, content or feel secure in themselves or their government. They realize they cannot trust their government and the bonds that united this country have been destroyed after 50 years of tireless effort on the part of the progressives. Doubt me, movies made 15 years ago would be decried as racist and worse by our alien overlords today.
Can a special trip by train to federal vacation camp equipped with special communal showers be far off? Bill Ayers said 30 years ago he saw 25 million Americans being eliminated to create a better communist future. I took at his word then. I believe others have taken up that mantra.
If we do not see justice for the coup plotters and the rest of the Obama and Clinton crime families what is the point of obeying the law and being an American? The only thing that matters is when the conflict begins. Once it begins it will engulf the entire nation quickly. One need study Sri Lanka, Yugoslavia, Yemen, Somalia, El Salvador, Peru to see how fast and how violent things will become. And the swamp will cheerfully protect itself even if this means pulling down the entire rotten structure down on the entire nation, just so long as they can enjoy their status and privileges a little bit longer. This is what a ruling class does that has lost touch with reality and the people it heads.
Their destiny will be found in gas stations across the country hanging by their heels. Reason will fail, we see the evidence before our eyes. The system is completely broken. Just as prior to 1860 the moderates were frozen out by the extremists, people will be forced to take an extreme position. One can only prepare. If you do not prepare you will not survive what is approaching.
> Especially after we saw a man get 16 years for burning a gay flag.
Let's collect a list of at least 10 such stuff, ideally from multiple countries, with links. It can be a massively effective redpill for people who are normal, just were not paying attention.
My most unpopular stance here is that if we don't do it to them they'll just keep coming back and eventually they'll win for real. On a rational level they know I'm right but sentimentally right wingers don't like to acknowledge that they can't beat the left without engaging in mass helicoptering of their enemies on a leftist scale… sometimes to beat a monster you need to become one at least temporarily…
It isn't the mass helicoptering of leftists that we mind so much, it is your definition of leftists. A massive amount of people are going to have to be killed, but what you plan is madness; killing Havel's Greengrocer for the crimes of the priesthood. There are a couple of local shopowners nearby that are libertarians who follow the leftist party line because it is "polite and decent." There are others who are actual believers in the left.
The former category will fall in line, being libertarians that support Christianity and the God-Emperor because that will be what is considered, "polite and decent," whereas the latter category is probably going to have to go for a swim. You are talking about killing roughly half of the country in your purges, which is lunacy. Just because someone votes Democrat or mouths platitudes to the left does not mean that they need to be murdered. You need a better selection mechanism than going after anyone that has ever voiced support for the left.
I do plan to spare Havel's Greengrocer, but he better not have gone beyond mere lip service. Any white male who votes Democrat or donates to them above the age of say 25 in this day and age absolutely should go for a swim. Traitors deserve harsher treatment than outsiders not more lenient treatment. If he pretends to be one but does not vote for them in a very liberal (ie if he is doing the bare minimum to conform out of fear which is what Havel's Greengrocer was doing since Havel's Greengrocer feared that he was going to be shot if he didn't pretend to be a communist) area he should not.
That being said maybe they should get some kind of chance at reeducation IF they are not a priest. What I've really been insistent about is that the priesthood should get no mercy. And the priesthood is not half the population its maybe 10%. And some few will live because about 5% of them are Trump supporters…
In the restoration, one fifth of the Church "resigned" or was purged, and it was striking to see the same mob outrage against puritan priests in the Church of England, as there had formerly been against insufficiently puritan priests in the Church of England.
Subsequent events revealed that the purge should have been more vigorous and thorough, too many crypto puritans remained, especially in Scotland, which was probably majority crypto Puritan in the Church. But there were a lot of Havel's Greengrocers.
Puritans weren't a monolith so you are going to get things mixed up when you talk about the Puritans, the Puritan hypothesis isn't all wrong but it has its flaws.
English Puritans were a mix. It had otherwise conservative puritans (like Cromwell himself and most of the army Grandees) who would have been perfectly peaceable in the time of Elizabeth and James I, radical leftist Puritans (diggers levellers and such… the faction that took over Harvard after Cromwell shut them out), busyboding moralist Presbyterians in the manner of what most of the Scots were (these dominated the long parliament until Cromwell kicked them out) and weird gnostic like cults like the 5th monarchists and the ranters.
Scottish Puritans were basically all Wahabbist like Presbyterians but the Scottish population lost faith in them after Cromwell defeated them worse than the Scots were ever defeated in the history of the wars between England and Scotland. They were not leftists but something almost as bad, Christian Wahabbists. Charles II and James were strangely much much harder on them than anyone else despite the fact they supported him… Charles must have really really come to hate them during the time he was their sort of puppet king.
So leftism may have come from Harvard but it did not at all come out of the Scottish Church and leftism came into the english church in the 1800s not as puritanism but as Oxford movement crypto catholicism. It was probably partially a Jesuit plot against the British empire.
Charles II did not need too much of a purge because both the leftists and the busybody presbyterian fanatics had already won, discredited themselves and been purged by Cromwell. He also wasn't allowed to do too much because no big purge was a promise he had to make as a condition of his restoration (declaration of Breda). We will not have that same situation…
> It had otherwise conservative puritans (like Cromwell himself and most of the army Grandees) who would have been perfectly peaceable in the time of Elizabeth and James I, radical leftist Puritans (diggers levellers and such… the faction that took over Harvard after Cromwell shut them out), busyboding moralist Presbyterians in the manner of what most of the Scots were (these dominated the long parliament until Cromwell kicked them out) and weird gnostic like cults like the 5th monarchists and the ranters.
Leftism has no essence, no defining doctrine, no fixed character other than heading off to whichever apple carts look vulnerable and have nice apples on them. Was 2008 Obama a leftist by 2012 standards? It is a tactic and coalition, not a doctrine. If you pay attention to doctrine, program, and platform, you are listening to the magician's patter instead of watching the magicians off hand. The doctrines change too fast. If you pay attention to them you are being distracted by deliberate misdirection.
Cromwell's doctrine had little in common with modern leftism, and Scottish puritans had little in common with Cromwell or modern leftism, other than hating Christmas and hating sacramental marriage, which has remained unchanged through all the other changes. Cromwell vigorously suppressed the elements of puritanism that resembled modern leftism. But they were all trapped in a holiness spiral.
Modern leftism is not a monolith either, and differences that we scarcely notice will in time be deemed gigantically important. Some elements fade, other elements will succeed and the successful doctrines will in time get linked to ideas wildly contrary to the faded elements.
Cromwellian puritan was killjoy puritanism, very different from modern leftism, the sort of puritanism that we associate with the word "Puritan", as distinct from modern leftism. But there were plenty of curiously late nineteenth century early twentieth century commies about in the seventeenth century, with no sharp separation between the strangely modern commie puritans and the fun-is-forbidden puritans.
Marxist class theory, and the concept of society as divided into a quite small and enumerable set of classes defined by economic role, is a Jewish synthesis of the more evil and insane Puritan doctrines that Cromwell vigorously suppressed (a very right wing action by Cromwell) with Jewish heresy, with the vanguard of the proletariat substituted for Jews in the Jewish heresy. So everyone that thinks that Marxist classes are real is late nineteenth century leftist, but the communism and immanentize the eschaton angle is seventeenth century. Cromwell's seventeenth century marriage ceremony and sex laws ignored the differing roles of males and females in reproduction, and the different and complementary roles in the mating dance, foreshadowing first wave and second wave feminism and the criminalization of marriage, as marriage has been understood for millenia.
Classes in the modern sense, starting in the late nineteenth century, are a transliteration of the Jewish categorization of people as Jews and non Jews, grafted onto the puritanism that Cromwell suppressed, and dialectics is Talmudism transliterated to this world. That is new, but communism is old, as is the application of the "Neither male or female, neither Jew nor Greek" applied to this world. You cannot blame Cromwell for internationalism, which he came down on like a ton of bricks, but he made a start on "Neither male nor female" with sexually symmetric laws against sexual misconduct.
I will sort of dispute both these points. Cromwell was fundamentally an independent church anti-catholic puritan whos motivating factor was that he saw Laud and Charles I as crypto papists and he disliked government control over the church at all. Now we know that there is always a state religion but this was the motivating drive for Cromwell not killjoyism.
The killjoy phase of Cromwell's rule was the rule of the major generals but the killjoyness was not his idea it was rather more popular with the Presbyterians (Cromwell personally liked music drinking smoking and alcohol) and sort of forced on him as a compromise given that he largely entirely forced the line of his independent puritans against both the leftists and the presbyterians he had to give them something as the Presbyterians (who were more willing to bring back the Stuarts) were turning against them. He gave them the three year rule of the major generals waited for it to become very unpopular and disbanded them afterwords celebrating with music drinking and dancing.
Killjoy Puritanism IS I think related to feminism and Bloomberg style progressive nanny statism. And coming from Mass myself its not a coincidence that nanny bloomberg is from Eastern mass. Coming from there Plymouth (the independent puritan settlement) and Cape Cod is not so liberal progressive and the people to this day are a lot more fun loving…
> I will sort of dispute both these points. Cromwell was fundamentally an independent church anti-catholic puritan whos motivating factor was that he saw Laud and Charles I as crypto papists and he disliked government control over the church at all. Now we know that there is always a state religion but this was the motivating drive for Cromwell not killjoyism.
Puritan rule was denounced as killjoyism, once it ended. The people that were there were likely to be the best judges. I don't see them making a distinction between one puritan and another.
What made Laud and Charles I crypto papists? What made Cromwell's Christianity supposedly purer than that of Laud and Charles I? The motivating drive was superior holiness. What is it that made his holiness superior?
I'm speaking to what Cromwell seems personally to have thought and Cromwell halted the holiness spiral.
The Major Generals rule which did not last long was denounced as killjoyness but otherwise Cromwell just lacked any enforcement mechanism to enforce laws that were unpopular.
> I'm speaking to what Cromwell seems personally to have thought and Cromwell halted the holiness spiral.
When a warrior grabs power, he is apt to halt the holiness spiral, since the holiness spiral is a grab for power, and therefore a threat to himself.
But what he personally thought was that he was holier than the people he overthrew, and a large part of that holiness was killjoy.
Carlylean Restorationist says:
The long-term effects of killjoyism haven't been particularly strong – girls puking into the gutter, cam whores, people taking out credit card debt to buy pizza, endless Poz in every corporate advertisement, perverts touching children in libraries, massive problems with gambling and drug abuse………
There were other long-term effects of Cromwell's little mysteriously-funded coup: central banking, general usury, the gradual shift of assets out of the hands of the yeoman class and into the hands of the capitalist class……..
The killjoyism was a distraction from the real sea-change: the return of the Jews to England after hundreds of years' ban.
The proposition that Jews caused the Puritan holiness spiral is too absurd to be debated.
From here on, I am going to censor you when you make over the top insane accusations against the Jews, which seem to me an attempt to excuse the Jews by associating criticism of Jews with ludicrous insanity, and to make rightists look stupid, ignorant, and crazy.
If you are genuinely pissed at Jews, rather than deliberately trying to make anti semites look stupid and ignorant, let us debate something that Jews actually are guilty of: Holocaustianity. I am now going to censor JOO JOO JOOO stuff from you until you make a critique of Holocaustianity.
Tell us about the Holocaust and Holocaustianity. Real antisemites and real Nazis are always talking about Holocaustianity, because that is a point on which the official narrative is full of blatant lies (diary of Ann Frank, gas chambers, and such) vulnerable to truth. Fake Nazis and fake antisemites don't want to touch it, precisely because the official account is vulnerable, and stick to the stuff where the anti semitic version is obviously insane.
I am not going to let you make obviously insane antisemitic accusations, until you first make some sane antisemitic accusations, because if you will not make a sane antisemitic accusation, then the insane ones are obvious a psyop.
I was under the impression, which I have not researched to verify, that Leftism was born during the Enlightenment when we started to doubt that "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree" and started to think that we were all created equal. Since we are obviously unequal, nurture was to blame, manifesting in the need to kill king louis xvi or force women to be hired as engineers, depending on which inequality was more unholy.
Am I misunderstanding the Dark Enlightenment?
You understand it just fine.
Leftism reached recognizable form in the enlightenment, and the Dark Enlightenment is a reply to the Enlightenment, not a reply to Brownism, but the Puritans that Cromwell suppressed, who inspired Marx to do with Judaism what they had done with Christianity, and who caused famine in the Puritan settlement, were clearly leftists already, and the holiness spiral that we see among modern leftists started with the Brownists, though Brownism had little in common with today's leftism, being a Christian heresy, pushing the the Reformation beyond sane limits, but not yet attempting to immanentize the eschaton, not yet holier than Christ.
The Puritans that Cromwell suppressed, and that Governor Bradford ridiculed, were, however, "wiser than God" and already had much in common with today's Democrat Squad. The first step towards modern leftism came with Calvin's rejection of sacramental marriage and the doctrine of predestination, though the Reformation remained generally sane up to the Brownists.
Antinomians are clearly recognizable as modern leftists. Martin Luther and Cromwell, finding themselves outflanked on their left, had a short way with antinomians. The holiness spiral bit Martin Luther already, and the people that were biting him sound suspiciously similar to those today sponsoring Drag Queen Story hour in the public library.
But leftism came to power with the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, and leftism in power is what the reaction addresses, though keeping leftism out of power was a problem that both Cromwell and Martin Luther had to deal with.
The Enlightenment is our primary intellectual enemy, the Enlightenment is what we intend to undo, but you can easily find plenty of modern type leftists all the way back to the people that gave Martin Luther and Oliver Cromwell trouble. The twenty first century Democrat Squad strikingly resembles those Puritans that Governor Bradford sarcastically called "wiser than God", and the Antinomians strikingly resemble the local government gay mafia sponsoring twenty first century Drag Queen Story Hour.
Fascinating stuff. A great case for warrior rule.
"people taking out credit card debt to buy pizza"
LOL you are still on this crap… who is the person you know who went into debt buying pizza. You sure they weren't just a fat lazy lardass who was already in debt and would have been in debt without buying all the pizza.
When low class people spend money they can't afford to while they may (and often do) overeat their pizza budget ain't the problem and their restaraunt budget ain't the problem.
Overspending on bar booze is common for both sexes (and yes it is common for women now because women can't so easily get guys to buy them drinks anymore since everyone knows it doesn't work and in fact they ussually consider you beta for doing so) and weed they can't afford is common for both sexes. For men also cars they can't afford and with women splurges on clothes and jewelry they can't afford is common.
I saw an ad the other day with some tagline like "Get Brexit Ready" overlaid on a Union Jack. From one of the dull globohomo companies that previously opposed Brexit with dull globohomo rhetoric and donations to astroturf movements.
Once an idea is perceived as having official legitimacy, it is amazing how fast the greengrocers will adapt. Muh corporations will believe whatever muh government tells them to believe, as long as the government appears willing and able to use force.
The strong horse.
At least interpersonally, there are means to discern the two.
Friend 1, a 30 something engineer, the ultimate nice guy, is a leftist. When i tell him the recent spate of murders and bombings in our hometown is all middle easterners, central asians and africans, he is not upset. He is incredulous. How could that possibly be? They are in the minority and surely our homegrown criminal gangs, who monopolize at least some parts of the drug trade, are at least as dangerous? And how do i even know this? The police do not tell us the racial stats. How would this even be possible?
It takes quite a few turns and different angles of attack, which he politely tries to poke holes in, until i have told enough coherent stories of why this is and why it makes sense, where i go dangerously close to blatant thought crime, before he submits that it is reasonable this is the case. He is in no way less of a leftist than before, he feels, he has only been made aware of realities he in his privileged life previously were unaware of.
Please don't helicopter friend 1.
"friend" 2 complained about the traditional name for swedish chocolate balls, which a generation ago almost universally were called negro balls (really lmao, a nation gorging themselves on negro balls, go sweden), to which i replied that in my rural hometown as well as in many others, negro wasn't wrongspeak. There were no impolite associations. I knew a guy called negro-jim, to differentiate from his classmate nazi-jim. They were both really into soccer and used to go to games together. Everyone used the word in a perfectly neutral sense, as was usual in america once too, with Garvey's "Universal Negro Improvement Association" etc.
"friend" 2 screamed "RACIST SWINE!!!" and ran away. Then she changed her gender for her transsexual homo college "professor"/activist and her name to something that isn't really a name.
Please helicopter "friend" 2, i don't want to pay for her asylum room.
Women don't have to be helicoptered. Apply enough force to turn them into good wives, or convert them to your tribe through gang rape. Both are effective and have a long track record of success.
Fertile aged women aren't combatants, they're prizes.
You don't throw valuable rewards for your followers out of helicopters.
She sounds nuts. Those spoils are spoiled. What do we do with all those women who are mentally ill because of living a Leftist lifestyle? I know Jim says Australia fixed their prostitutes with patriarchy. Would that also fix their Trump Derangement Syndrome, anti-racism, as well as their anger and unhappiness?
Giving a blue-haired 20-something cat lady as booty doesn't sound like a way to reward your followers.
Too many fertile age women as opposed to young men who are leftist to helicopter…
Leftist women should be treated by us the way ISIS treated Yezidi women not killed but they should end up as non hereditary slaves with no possibility of ever rising to the social status and dignity of wives.
Non hereditary, yes, but also must not under any circumstances be allowed direct access to any children their new owners might produce with them.
I still question whether some of these women are even useful as war brides, but I suppose if they are properly tamed, cleaned up and deprogrammed then some lower-status men would take them in spite of their history. If you're pushing 40 and still single, then I guess a 25-year-old former blue-haired aggrocunt and an official permit to backhand her if she steps out of line is still better than a 40-year-old catlady spinster/divorcee.
Let's also keep in mind those spinsters. I don't think any guys will want them as trophies. They hit the wall years ago and may already be barren. Eggs are precious, but empty vessels without eggs… not so much.
Their time with their children should be only pre verbal and after that only when overseen by the woman's owner/child's father or other responsible parties but I would not entirely seperate the children from their mother.
I hit enter by accident… strict seperation of children from parents is one cruelty I think we should use sparingly.
A lot of leftist women sabotage their appearance in various ways… we will of course reverse that before they go to the auction block. The fat ones will be put on diets and made to grow their hair to a good looking shoulder length in a sexy 1940s style (that is my preference for female hairstyles anyway). The tattoos are too costly to remove but tats while not good looking are a forgivable blemish that shows poor judgement more than it really sabotages their looks…
How about Masculinized non-HB 8-10 leftist women should be allowed to become cat-ladies.
Live their days out doing their own thing with no influence outside their nunneries whatsoever.
If no man or brothel will even bid on them as non-heriditary slaves onto the helicopters for them.
Come the revolution, friend #2 will be assigned to one of our low-ranking foot-soldiers, who will be free to flog her or kill her if not 100% satisfied with her performance. If he dies and there's the slightest suspicion that she might have caused it, she will be summarily executed and fed to dogs. No judge can spare her life or set her free, as friends and relatives of the deceased may ignore the judge and kill her anyway.
If she's being a pest and her husband wants her locked up while he decides what to do with her, we can discuss whether he should pay full price or receive a subsidy.
I pity the low ranking foot-soldier. He probably won't be happy after having to kill her.
If he follows Jim's advice, he won't have to kill her. Never mind whipping or spanking, the pain of lasering off her tattoos ought to set her straight.
The left has lost many times yet they never give up. They appear to win by attrition and wears their enemies down.
Nah. They win by being holier than thou. A democrat commits an illegal act, and bingo, it is holy, undoing it is unholy, and not long afterwards true conservatism consists of conserving it. Examples being Daca, the Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown, Bill Ayers, and Jon Corzine doing a Ponzi.
Investors thought Jon Corzine was using political influence to grow their money, but he was using their money to buy political influence.
Attrition is a warrior approach. Rewriting the past to reframe the present is the priestly approach. If it fails, they have not actually lost anything, they will just do another reframe. Saint Jerome being an early example. They are always more noble and virtuous than you are, and today's conservatives buy into yesterday's claim of superior holiness.
Case in point: Women in combat. Conservatives defend this to the death now.
Very soon the conservative position on public libraries will be that Drag Queen Story hour featuring public sex with a nine year old boy on the library floor is true conservatism, but for the library to have a book in which Perseus rescues then abducts Princess Andromeda is unthinkably horrific.
That is not exactly attrition.
Through enough repetition and assumption of leftist principles as if it were already self evident.
It becomes something that seems that it always was.
Kind of like brainwashing.
I reject mass helicoptering as un-christian and evil. Most leftists are just brainwashed sheeple.
"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do."
moldbug. says:
everybody thinks trump's a zionist puppet, but what about the pretense of confront-and-kill, a hallmark of red empire? if red empire is liquidating blue abroad (especially in the middle eastern kill-puzzle), shall we not oblige?
> everybody thinks trump's a zionist puppet
Obviously not everyone thinks Trump is a zionist puppet, and the people I have seen making that argument on this blog are obvious enemy entryists with obvious FBI sponsorship – except "Allah", who, though not whom he claims to be, is not a Cathedral agent. Probably somebody's agent.
People who make the argument that Trump is a zionist puppet are incapable of emulating an internally consistent belief system, because in most cases incapable of committing thought crimes, indicating that Human Resources is vetting their postings, indicating that they are being paid for their postings by a large bureaucratic organization and supervised by that organization. They cannot even say the things I say about the Holocaust, let alone talk about sex differences, gay conduct, or Human biodiversity.
Someone who genuinely thinks that Trump is a Zionist puppet should be able to make an informed critique of Holocaustianity and discuss Human Biodiversity, even if he cannot discuss the woman problem.
Well hey now tell me this. Everyone needs help, a team, allies, a posse, etc. I sure do so I can't begrudge someone else for same.
But is there a distinct conceptual line, in your understanding, between being allies with someone and being his "puppet"?
I am not familiar with your stance on the holocaust, Jim, what is it?
Calling Trump a puppet is a stretch, since no wars have been started, and he allowed ISIS to be destroyed, but I'd argue that Trump bends over backwards too far for Israeli interests. But so does every mainstream politician. Whether or not it is working for him I'm not sure, but I'd lean towards no, since even Trump himself has complained that what he does for Israel is not appreciated.
I always see opposition to staunch counter-semitism ("The world would be a better place without jews") in your comment section and I do not see why it is incompatible with your world view on race and women. Even if we are guilty for eating the apple, and I fully believe we are, we'd still be better off without the snake telling us to do it.
Jim accepts that the Holocaust happened, but rejects the idea that we must atone for it by forever in-grouping the Jews while they continue to out-group us.
The world would not be a better place without Jews. It would be a better place if Jews were excluded from inserting themselves in the ruling elite of nations they hate and wish to destroy, and a better place if the state religion of Israel was Judaism rather than progressivism, and if Jews ambitious of places in the ruling elite moved to Israel.
By and large, the Jews that oppose the wall in the US did so because they want us dead, and many of them, perhaps most of those Jews that oppose the wall in the US, oppose the wall in Israel because they want Israeli Jews dead.
I am not seeing that jews who oppose the wall in the US also oppose the Israeli one. They are hypocritical (and why wouldn't you be, if you have the opportunity to get away with it) in that respect. Overwhelmingly I am seeing that jews support the idea of Israel as an ethnostate and wish to see White Americans flooded with demographic refuse.
They cannot help themselves. They have a hatred of peoples of European descent brought out by selective pressure over hundreds of years. The Ashkenazim who are around today are the descendants of jews who chose not to integrate and intermarry into European society, and instead elected to remain in ghettos. Such decisions naturally became associated with a distaste for the majority population of the nation in which they resided. Some who are particularly self-aware are able to suppress this natural tendency, but most cannot. Even those who do are still nepotistic while asking Europeans not to be.
I don't see how you can ascribe the dislike of jews entirely to covetousness. It is mostly due to their willingness to push leftist politics and culture. I do not think that this is due to their desire to be holy, I'd say they simply naturally incline more towards "degeneracy", or hedonism at the expense of order. The fact that they have higher rates of homosexuality and transvestism speaks to this, I don't think this has to do with holiness. Then you throw in the general dishonesty, hypocrisy (rules for thee but not for me), and exaggeration of offenses done to them, with a dash of physical unnattractiveness, and you get something that counts for much more than "but they're rich tho".
Explain why George Soros wants to destroy Israel.
Leftists always hate near more than far. Commies murdered far more commies than they murdered fascists. Nationalist Jews are competing for power and status with internationalist Jews, and internationalist Jews don't like it. Recollect the outrage when Trump moved the embassy to Jerusalem.
> Overwhelmingly I am seeing that jews support the idea of Israel as an ethnostate
Not Jews in power. Recollect the drama that ensued when Trump moved the embassy to Jerusalem. A whole bunch of the Jewish elite boycotted the opening. The Israeli supreme court opposes Israel as an ethnostate, as does the State Department.
> I don't see how you can ascribe the dislike of jews entirely to covetousness. It is mostly due to their willingness to push leftist politics and culture.
You may recall that during my debates with B I flamed Jews with great regularity, and complained about them undermining social cohesion and engaging in one way ingrouping. Whenever you see someone say "hail fellow white, we must reflect upon white privilege", it always a Jew who does not in fact consider himself to be white. I routinely state that come the restoration, Jews will have to convert to get state and quasi state jobs. But I get called a philosemite and a Jew because I oppose smashing their windows and looting their pawnshops.
There are good reasons why some races living together causes problems for both races. Jews should not have state and quasi statal positions in the USA, and non Jews should not have state and quasi statal positions in Israel. Blacks should have their own areas, and should be guests of a white person when in white areas, and whites should be guests of a black person when in black areas. Integration of East Asians with whites works OK, but integration of middle easterners with whites causes big problems, though it is hard to tell to what extent this is race, and to what extent it is religion. Mixed teams of white and East Asian engineers work fine, but they work considerably better when a white engineer is in charge. I conjecture if the team is all, or nearly all, East Asian, the team would work better if an East Asian is in charge, but have insufficient data to support this conjecture. Mixed teams of whites and dot Indians have big problems.
Overwhelmingly I am seeing that jews support the idea of Israel as an ethnostate and wish to see White Americans flooded with demographic refuse.
No you aren't. You are seeing some Jews support the idea of Israel as an ethnostate, and other Jews who wish to see America flooded with demographic refuse, in addition to many Jews who just like Israel in a vague way and who believe whatever they're told to believe about America. Aside from a minuscule number of obvious shills like Ben Shapiro, you know this to be the case, and deliberately conflate them together anyway, because it satisfies the Marxist principle that Jews act collectively as a single class.
Jews are not a single class, do not act as a class, do not cohere into a class, and do not cooperate as a class, except to the extent that they are Progressive Jews and all Progressives cooperate as something resembling a class because Progressivism is the state religion, which by your actions you clearly support despite your claims to the contrary.
You're still capitalizing the word "White" and that still gives the game away. Whites are not a class either; the only reason to capitalize the word is to promote a Marxist view of white people as the proletariat and Jews as the capitalist oppressors.
> I am not familiar with your stance on the holocaust, Jim, what is it?
Holocaustianity
I agree with your take on their intent, in retrospect. I don't think anywhere near six million died, due to the lack of evidence (bodies) but the number is irrelevant. "Six million" has however become a meme in itself, and vulnerable to mockery.
Despite what may be assumed from my previous post, I am not a fanboy of Nazi Germany, though I do think the regime was a massive improvement over the Weimar Republic. If they'd let up on the "socialism" part of National Socialism rather than accelerated it after fixing the economic issues, I think they would have solved it in the ideal way.
This is a bit of a tangent, but our culture is so much more far gone than Germany's in the 1930s, and I'm not sure simply instituting a minarchist society with laws as you suggest would be the best way to get the ball rolling on changing it. Many people would still cling to what they'd been "educated" to believe, and academic/media institutions would still be privately owned by many who would be interested in continuing to fuck another man's wife. You could solve this with a lot of helicoptering, but I believe a short period of state control of such institutions in order to right what was wrong would help jump-start things. But then you get a problem similar to 1990s Russia, where you need to decide who gets to own what, and the people you choose might not be the best for the job as they didn't build these things in the first place. I'm not really sure what to think here.
> academic/media institutions would still be privately owned by many who would be interested in continuing to fuck another man's wife.
Academic media institutions are not in fact privately owned. We always have a state Church, and the only question is whether the State owns the Church, or the Church owns the state. Harvard was founded by clerics purged from the English State Church by Charles the Second. It was the Vatican of the New England, the central authority of the State Church and the State of New England back in the days when the separate American states had separate state churches, and in the War of Northern Aggression became the Vatican of the United States, and is now the Vatican of the American Hegemony, which is why the American empire is the anti American empire.
The story about being a private institution never occurred to anyone until they faced the problem of ruling America as they had formerly ruled New England, while pretending that constitution was still in effect. Fortunately for them, they were already holier than God, so they just declared themselves to not be a state religion. They had already ceased to be Christian, they simply acknowledged no longer being Christian, without, however, ceasing to be a state religion.
"They did so out of envy and covetousness."
I'm not too sure about that. I think it's more that Jewish cultural zeitgeist "smells" bad (in a metaphorical sense) to white Europeans (and vice versa). See "The Ordeal of Civility". I remember seeing the movie Cabaret as a teenager soon after it came out and was viscerally repulsed by the degeneracy in it. I could not understand why it won such acclaim and so many awards. The only scene I found aesthetically pleasing was the pub scene.
The German people were well aware of Communist democides at the time and its Jewish "smell".
The Entartete Kunst and its Jewish "smell" (then, and today).
Gun control and its Jewish "smell".
Third world invasion of Europe and America and its Jewish "smell".
Then what is that makes my discussion of the Jewish question supposedly Jewish and philosemitic?
Your account of Weimar Germany is that Jews were causing decadence through evil mind rays. Maybe, but our decadence today is even more horrifying, and it is absolutely clear that the evil mind rays are going from Harvard and the State Department to Israel, not from Israel to Harvard and the State Department. The Tel Aviv gay parade was organized and directed by the State Department, and worked directly out of the US Embassy.
Yes, Communism was distinctly Jewish – but Nazism was an only moderately saner form of socialism, and it was not Jewish.
The decadence is coming from Harvard, and though Harvard is full of Jews, those Jews had to convert from Judaism to the official Christian descended state religion to get professorships at Harvard. That is how state religions always work.
I'd argue that Trump bends over backwards too far for Israeli interests
And yet you and your "m8″s never seem concerned about politicians bending over backwards for South Korea, Japan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, or Micronesia, despite all of them outspending the Israeli government on foreign lobbying. I wonder why that is?
Wait, don't tell me – it must be because Israel is so much more effective with its lobbying on account of mysterious Jew mind-control powers. Right?
(Sometimes a shill will grudgingly admit to Saudi influence, but pepper it with commentary about how it's really just because the Saudis are allied with Israel in some convoluted fashion)
My point is that he does not get out more than what he puts in. You took it as an opportunity to talk about some irrelevant detail on what these other countries put in.
But I'll address the point anyway: Israel is almost at the top, and this list does not include the donations made by American Zionist jews, who if they were included, would give Israel a massive lead over the rest of the list. And they should be included, since they could be given Israeli citizenship and would be welcomed "back" at any time if they needed.
It also does not include the money spent by jews to lobby for pro-Israeli influence in non-governmental and even non-political institutions, such as churches, sports/competition organizations, and so on. And really, pro-Israeli lobbying is irrelevant. What's more important is the money and effort spent on culture-shifting initiatives, such as those pushing homosexuality, feminism, "anti-racism" and so on. I don't see many Japs or their money in any of the things I mentioned in this paragraph.
"Mind control powers" is a very disingenuous way to describe ownership of institutions that change the culture, combined with nepotism and willingness to bribe. I don't quite get the shill accusation either, what would I be shilling? What interest is there that could be profiting from what I'm preaching? I feel like you only made this comment to make yourself seem "right", rather than discuss any actual ideas, which is the real shill behaviour. Perhaps you just felt like joining in on the dogpile in order to make yourself feel like part of the group?
and this list does not include the donations made by American Zionist jews, who if they were included, would give Israel a massive lead over the rest of the list.
And you're proof of this is where? I'm hearing a "but look at the hidden evidence that's suspiciously unverifiable" argument here. We're talking about some pretty big numbers, I'm skeptical that a few Zionists would move the needle.
It also does not include the money spent by jews to lobby for pro-Israeli influence in non-governmental and even non-political institutions, such as churches, sports/competition organizations, and so on.
That is the same for every other nation on the list. Again, you demand we stop looking at the verifiable evidence and base our conclusions on unverifiable speculation.
What's more important is the money and effort spent on culture-shifting initiatives, such as those pushing homosexuality, feminism, "anti-racism" and so on.
Which isn't being pushed by Israel, it's being pushed by Jews who hate Israel. It literally has nothing to do with Israel at all, so what is the relevance of "Israeli" interests?
You are pushing the typical Marxist framing of Israel here: that Jews across the world act as a single class, and that said class is acting against American interests by pushing things like homosexuality and feminism, which are clearly against Israeli interests and against the interests of all Orthodox Jews. The position is not only factually wrong, it's inherently self-contradictory.
You're a communist shill, using communist arguments literally indistinguishable from the communist party line making its way around universities today.
It could also be the Mohamedan party line on Israel, which today is indistinguishable from the communist party line, and not entirely clear to me who influenced whom; both groups have been promoting the Marxist class theory of Jews since at least the mid 1990s, and the language has barely changed at all since then.
The world would be a better place if the Left was destroyed (Leftist Jews included).
The world would not be a better place if Israel was destroyed. Israel produced Waze, an app I use everyday and provides value to me.
O/T, but more blue pill escalation: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/01/girlsdoporn-owners-hit-with-13-million-judgment-for-fraud-and-coercion/
$13 million paid out to a bunch of literal whores, because they're victims, you see. They were tricked! They didn't mean to have their sex filmed and posted everywhere on the internet, it just sort of happened!
This is a new variation on "My brutal pimp made me do it." Which is always a lie. The brutality of the pimp is real enough – but whore is searching hard for a pimp even more brutal, and if the new pimp will not "make" her do it, dumps him in a flash. In reality, the pimp frequently attempts to make her stop. "Making" her do it is just a variation on the old old PUA trick of responding with pretended indifference to an unpassable shit test. We are all dancing monkeys.
"I was tricked and forced" They were told up front it was a porn shoot, they flew in under their own power and their own money to make a porn shoot, they signed contracts (which being whores they genuinely did not bother to read) and were paid what they were promised for doing what they had promised.
Then after the porn shoot, regrets.
Whores always have regrets, and always were tricked and forced – but have a curious failure to cooperate with any male that does not do the monkey dance of tricking and forcing.
Whores always top from the bottom, and pimps are compelled to do the monkey dance of pretending to top. The men organizing the porn shoot had to pretend to top, and now have to pay thirteen million dollars a head for their act, which political correctness forces the judge to take seriously, since women never lie. And thinking that whores lie considerably more than most women is politically incorrect.
"And thinking that whores lie considerably more than most women is politically incorrect."
In my experience this isn't really true… all women (there was one NAWALT unicorn exception in my adult life but she BECAME like the rest of them years later) lie a lot but whores not so much more than normal women.
kawaii_kike says:
Are you sure the women you thought were normal weren't just whores?
Well they were generally modern American women, and modern American women are something worse than whores.
My experience with women who are not raised and surrounded by the evil cathedral feminist mememplex is limited.
The further they are from the Cathedral, the better the quality. Notice that white fertility is markedly higher in flyover country. Don't send your daughters to whore school. Women have more time for a career, than they have to bear children.
there was one NAWALT unicorn exception in my adult life but she BECAME like the rest of them years later
Isn't this what Jim has been saying all along? Yes, Stacy will date and literally fall in love with Bob the Beta Programmer in her teens… and then she'll love Bill, the mediocre musician whose band is totally going to be a hit some day, you'll see; and then it's Chad, who pumps and dumps, and then it's random pickup artists at the bar, who also pump and dump or maybe keep her as a plate, then it's the entire men's college basketball team, then it's Jeremy Meeks.
Once the trading-up begins, it never stops. Women can only pair-bond with betas if (a) the betas learn to behave more like alphas, which does happen somewhat naturally if Cathedral programming is removed/reversed, and (b) the women are prevented from ever trading up that first time, which absolutely must be imposed by force.
She was not a teen at the time and unfortunately as she was married I wasn't dating her. I know that some women are genuinely decent people when teens but it dissapears after high school when the college feminist herd programming filters through to them (even if they don't go to college) but this wasn't that.
She was different because she deliberately kept a pretty extreme distance from other women (her younger sisters who were not "peers" being an exception) despite being out every night (she was no model paragon in all respects she was impulsive and prettymuch a drunk). so the herd mind didn't consume her as much. But for many years she never lied to me (not about anything factual she probably said a lot of nice things she didn't totally mean) and she even kept her word and that was rather unique as most women are about as honest and reliable as Bill Clinton. But she BECAME like the rest of them once she started breaking her rule about only hanging around other women in mixed groups.
AWALT is partially a case of the American female herd mind is poisoned and evil, with a better herd mind women would not be quite as bad as TRP logic says. They would still shit test, be moody, impulsive, irrational, self destructive cruise for alpha etc… but all of it in less bad ways.
All because of a lack of benevolent fatherly authority. Which would have tamed them.
As Jesus was easily able to master the women in his life on this earth. As the penultimate Chad.
https://sociological-eye.blogspot.com/2014/04/jesus-in-interaction-micro-sociology-of.html
"All because of a lack of benevolent fatherly authority. Which would have tamed them"
Seems like a bit of an understatement. Women, some as young as 12 actively seek out men to beat and rape them and if they cannot find a man to ravage them then they fuck dogs. I think women need a lot more than a benevolent Ned Flanders type of father figure to curb their depraved sexual desires.
@kawaii_kike
So Jesus is Ned Flanders?
Progressive Jesus is Ned Flanders.
Nope, he's God. You're the one who reduced Jesus to a benevolent father figure. And its bluepilled to say that all that women need to behave is a nice dad. If all they needed was a nice dad then the reactionary solution would be easy.
If they have a dad who impresses them as alpha, they will look for a man like him. And thus their image of an alpha male is apt to be more prosocial than that of women raised by a beta male or an absent father, who are apt to cruise for Marlon Brando in "The Wild One".
So restoring intact families would be half the battle? Full on patriarchical restoration is somewhere between coup-complete and jihad-complete, but just keeping fathers around by abolishing no-fault divorce (and not considering cheating a fault on the mans side) sounds easier.
Does this also mean that the feralization of women in the West was a two-step process? First women divorced the fathers of their daughters, but they were still mostly normal, shopping around for a better beta, except that better betas back then used to have better options than divorced moms. And it was their daughters, growing up without fathers, who went full feral, as the next step?
If you bothered to read the link I sent. I think you will believe otherwise.
Likewise my definition of benevolent obviously differs from your definition.
God is the standard of benevolence. Therefore the Ned Flander's version is obviously wrong.
And also you missed actually reading my complete comment rather than a kneejerk reaction.
@info
I read your complete comment, I just didn't like it. I also read the link you sent and it has nothing to do with how whores need dads, lol.
My original comment was about how being a nice dad isn't enough to tame women and you replied by intententionally misinterpreting me and conflating Jesus with Ned Flanders.
It takes an entire social system of patriarchal control to tame women, not just benevolent fathers. Alpha fathers are important but I wouldn't say being alpha and being benevolent are the same. You did not say these whores needed alpha fathers to beat them into submission, you said if only these whores had nice dads.
Then you missed the point of my comment. Making up a strawman that I conflated Jesus with Ned Flanders.
As well as conflating benevolence with Ned Flanders when I used Jesus as the ultimate example.
Tell me about the character of Jesus according to the link? Does that look like Ned Flanders?
In your initial comment you specifically said "benevolent", not alpha fathers. I only took umbrage with the first paragraph of your comment and saw the second paragraph as unrelated. You called Jesus a penultimate Chad, you did not call him a benevolent father figure to whores.
Your first comment basically read:
"1. Whores need nice dads
2. Jesus was a Chad
(Link talking about how charismatic Jesus was)"
I didn't make a strawman of you, it is you who continue to make a strawman of me. You compared Jesus to Ned Flanders in your reply to me, I never compared him to Ned Flanders. I think you missed the point of my comment, my point was that whores need more than benevolent fathers, and they do.
If your point was that whores need fathers like Jesus, then sure I guess. But I dont typically associate Jesus with the role of a brutal patriarch that is willing to keep his bitches chained in the basement if they dont behave. Taming whores like Mary Magdalene must be easy when you're God, but for us the solutions will be much more difficult.
If I used Jesus as an ultimate example of Benevolent Authority. How is it talking about Ned Flanders?
Benevolent Authority is personified by God. And manifested in Jesus.(John 14:9)
It never was about Ned Flanders except by misconception.
A strawman even an inadvertent one due to misunderstanding.
"But I dont typically associate Jesus with the role of a brutal patriarch that is willing to keep his bitches chained in the basement if they dont behave. Taming whores like Mary Magdalene must be easy when you're God, but for us the solutions will be much more difficult."
Since Jesus is the model of Manhood. And in his humanity he is meant to demonstrate what is possible as humans can achieve in terms of behavior. "Brutal Patriarchs" aren't necessary.
Gentleness and Firmness in perfect harmony.
See this example:
"23But Jesus did not answer a word. So His disciples came and urged Him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."
24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
25The woman came and knelt before Him. "Lord, help me!" she said.
26But Jesus replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs."
27"Yes, Lord," she said, "even the dogsf eat the crumbs that fall from their master's table."
28"O woman," Jesus answered, "your faith is great! Let it be done for you as you desire." And her daughter was healed from that very hour. "
See how he acts like a Jerk. And will not attend to her until she submits utterly.
"1On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, 2and Jesus and His disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3When the wine ran out, Jesus' mother said to Him, "They have no more wine."
"4"Woman, why does this concern us?" Jesus replied. "My hour has not yet come."
5His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever He tells you." "
See also how he seems to be an asshole to his mother.
To be Christlike includes behavior such as this towards women. Unless imitating Jesus is something Christians shouldn't do.
Even the PUA of the Manosphere had this post on Jesus and his AMOG behavior:
https://heartiste.org/2014/04/17/jesus-had-game/
Now if its marriage is about imaging Jesus and his Church.
How should a man not act this way?
Modern women are far more out of control than they were in Jesus's time. Women's perverse nature has run rampant and requires a proportionate response. Jesus didn't have to be brutal because the women he was dealing with, for the most part were already tamed. The women we have today are feral. Women in Jesus's time were like docile house pets, the women we have today are like rabid dogs, they require different treatment.
Women today need alot more firmness than gentleness. In fact, I doubt they need much gentleness at all.
Funny how mediocre sociology is Marxist bullshit, but the top men of the sociology profession like Collins or Kemper put out really good stuff. I expected the top brass to be the most fanatically leftist, but no, not at all.
Collins have recommended Donald Blacks Moral Time. I was reading it just yesterday. It is not fanatically leftist. It is just pretty boring and obvious. It boils down to people often not liking change. In the sense of e.g. if a friend of yours gets much richer than you or much poorer than you it will strain your friendship. Boringly obvious.
The presupposition there is that envy is universal. Not obvious. Untrue.
If you are in the upper 0.001% in terms of talent, of course you are not going to feel a lot of envy. But even then you're not immune, and especially then, you should see envy on the faces of those around you. Hopefully it is healthy envy, as in, 'damn I hope to one day have my shit in order like that guy', but sometimes it is unhealthy envy, as in, 'damn I hope something horrible happens to that guy.'
I haven't read the book, but I will say it's not necessarily describing or assuming envy. It can make conversations awkward when any kind of dispute comes up and the rich person makes a statement implying "if you're so smart, how come I have all this wealth and you don't?" which is usually not stated explicitly but still felt by both parties. Or if the poorer person says something that implies luck was a big factor in rich person's success. Or if poorer person is prideful and does not like rich person offering to pay for stuff, or conversely, if poor person thinks that rich person should be doing more to take care of his close friends.
These aren't unsolvable problems, and definitely are not an excuse for Marxism, but they add a new dimension to relationships that people must work through. Little land mines hidden in ordinary conversations. The employer-employee relationship is much simpler.
> It can make conversations awkward when any kind of dispute comes up
You are going to get a whole lot of landmines in a society where envy, malice, hatred, and destruction are holy sacraments and that all men are created equal is holy doctrine.
I don't perceive landmines as natural, normal, and inevitable. Not among regular sane people who merely give superficial lip service to the most holy state religion. It just is not my experience. I think is is primarily a religious problem.
Trump voters like Trump owning a flying palace with gold plated toilets. Pretty sure that that is the normal and natural reaction, and the contrary reaction is a religious artifice, like men supposedly not being attracted to fertile age women under eighteen, and women under eighteen supposedly being asexual.
Envy is a vice that is not all that much more common than men getting off on dressing up in women's clothing. It has just been made, like abortion and gay marriage, into a holy sacrament.
I think envy is slightly more common based on the bible having an entire story on envy (Cain/Abel) and only a sentence on cross-dressing (Deuteronomy calling it an abomination).
At any rate, yes, a vice made into a holy sacrament.
Envy is in the ten commandments, along with murder and theft, while cross dressing is somewhere mighty deep in the fine print. But most people are not all that inclined to murder and theft.
Yes, it is a way bigger problem than cross dressing. But that still does not mean it is naturally all over the place and everywhere.
> > Trump voters like Trump owning a flying palace with gold plated toilets.
> Indeed. But an actual two-way conversation between someone who owns a flying palace with gold plated toilets and someone who cleans toilets for a living can easily become awkward. No resentment or envy required.
We have plenty of first hand testimony that conversations with Trump are not awkward.
And while I have not had any conversations with someone who owns a flying palace with gold plated toilets, I have had plenty of conversations over a substantial gap in both directions, and really have not noticed any awkwardness. What I do see are priest merchant tensions, which they project onto their mascots.
I think this was supposed to be a reply to me, rather than an edit of my comment (most of the original is gone). But anyway.
I'll just say again that large disparities of any kind – wealth, ability, spirituality, passion, and more – tend to make conversations awkward and friendships harder. We relate better to people who are like us.
This shouldn't be a controversial point. It's not just cultural programming that causes us to place higher importance on families and close friends than on acquaintances and strangers. And most people – not all, but most – choose their friends based on some kind of similarity to themselves, either similarity of interests or similarity of deeply-held beliefs. That's not envy, it's normal social behavior.
I have also communicated across the gap, and I have felt much awkwardness at times, and would only rarely label it as envy. Maybe you are more extroverted, empathetic and agreeable in person than I am. I don't think your experience is universal.
> I think this was supposed to be a reply to me, rather than an edit of my comment (most of the original is gone).
Oops, I clicked the wrong button, again.
I believe said behavior is unconscious. And they are not even aware of their actions in this way.
Even self-deception plays a role in shielding the reality from their conscious mind.
So the lizard brain is at odds with the frontal cortex where conscious decision making occurs.
Yes, that's what the PUA/WRP community has for the better part of a decade referred to as the rationalization hamster.
Women act self-destructively, then invent rational-sounding explanations after the fact. Their own biology does not allow them to understand their own behavior, which is why you can never trust their stated intentions or explanations, and most of the time, shouldn't even bother listening.
And for the most egregiously self-destructive behavior, said explanations almost always include rape or some form of coercion. Imagine finding yourself a coach or instructor, paying them to structure your practice and tell you exactly what to do, and then later suing them because you regret doing those things they "forced" you to do. If it sounds totally ridiculous and insane, that's because it is, and yet that is essentially the relationship between a whore and her pimp. Women are unconsciously aware of this, but cannot consciously internalize it, so given the opportunity, they will instead act out their aggression on the men around them, preferably betas, though any men will do.
This is probably why there is cognitive dissonance between what their conscious mind deems right and wrong and their longing for a chad.
Leading to internal torment that they then take out on others.
When a leftist social values informs the morality of women at odds with the biology. The result is what you say above.
No, that's just how women are when unrestrained. And the left is solidly opposed to female restraint, or really restraint of any kind.
If masculinity and patriarchy is regarded as evil then what women are programmed in regards to morality in their relationship with men is contradicted by the lizard brain. Women will take it out on beta men.
How else is there a better explanation for the duluth model which criminalizes chad behavior as domestic violence despite it not being so?
The Duluth model is not in fact applied by women against chads, but against betas. See Dalrock's frequent rants.
You've gotta stop with the tabula rasa shit. Women aren't this way because they're programmed, they are this way because they are this way. Alpha fucks, beta bucks is just one of the core subroutines in the female brain.
Call it the way God made them, as described in the story of Adam and Eve, or call it evolutionary psychology playing out over thousands of years; go for the material or spiritual explanation, doesn't matter which, but the only explanation that is clearly and always wrong is "women do evil things because evil men make them".
Except that women famously never go to the police when they are actually being abused, my own aunt included.
If a woman goes to the police, the game is low. And when I say game I'm not talking about "red pill" faggots and their immense faggotry, I'm talking about the real biological game, like a lion to the lioness, putting the fear of God in her.
Your woman should always be wondering if you're about to fuck her brains out or actually break her neck, they like it that way. If you are not willing to be strong then you're not a worthy man. Weren't you talking about God and Jesus a few comments up? If you don't submit you literally burn for eternity, imagine that.
The poor fools that end up in police custody are the guys who ask their gf what she wants to eat, start an argument because "she can't decide" and she ends up emasculating him and telling the cops he is a fag. She never goes to the cops when a guy that can lift 200lbs with ease tells her they are going x place and then back so she can get his cock in her mouth as dessert.
I find the terms "beta" and "alpha" really strange, though they can help clarify, often they end up being misleading. It's not about being beta, it's about being weak. Women don't leash out against LE and SEALs, 99% of them being beta considering they are not in command. Women leash out against weak men that let themselves be treated as doormats. Every man should learn to kidney shot a bitch if need be, leaves no trace for the police to find and it's very painful. You'd probably make more than one fall in love with you with that.
Women don't leash out against LE and SEALs, 99% of them being beta considering they are not in command. Women leash out against weak men
Good point. In any functioning group of males, even though per definition one guy is top dog, the other guys will attract above average attention from the ladies also, because as a group they display strength.
Cantandum in Ezkhaton 01/05/20 | Liberae Sunt Nostrae Cogitatiores says:
[…] posts on the Creeping Coup, or how all the illegal activities of the Dems amount to a coup in any […]
What is your thoughts on how MS-13 got so powerful in El Salvador taking over parts of the country and Cartels also in Mexico.
Are they examples of Guerrilla groups? If so how are they so successful?
I don't know anything about MS-13, but the Mexican Cartels are based on a revival of the old religion from before the Spanish conquest, or something rather like it.
In Brazil, entering or leaving a gang is a religious conversion, but I don't know what they are converting to when they join the gang, or what they convert from when the apostacize from the gang faith to Christianity.
Mara Salvatruca originated as a metalhead subculture street gang, in the vein of south american satanist black metal like sarcofago, vulcano, holocausto etc. The difference between earlier shock rock wasn't really that big, but they held up a pretense of actually being dangerous psycho satanists, and some of their fans took them up on it.
As they started becoming less youth gang and more organized crime, they also shaped up their empty hollywood devil worship, and merged it with an amalgamation of other religious practices popular among criminals, like the santa muerte cult, which is also a thing among regular catholics, the voodoo like quimbanda sacrificial and necromancy cult coming from the black slaves, and brujo witchcraft.
But they largely improvise and go for the darkest and most striking displays of savagery, there is no old "core tradition", they invented their religion.
Worship that consists of "the darkest and most striking displays of savagery" is an ancient Mexican tradition.
Santa Muerte is not Catholic – she has long been suppressed as pagan by the Catholic Church – therefore an old god, one whose religion they have been trying to suppress since the conquest.
If the Church now thinks she is Catholic, that is because Pope Francis hates God, hates, Christ, and hates Christians. He recently held an earth worship ceremony featuring an Amazonian earth goddess, so the opinion of today's Catholic Church on who are old gods is unlikely to be reliable. Old Catholic Church was rather more certain about what was Catholic and what was not.
It has been standard operating procedure for Christianity since the beginning to take some of the old gods on board as saints, the nicer and more prosocial Gods, or at least less nasty and anti social Gods, giving them a new names, and casting the nastier ones out as demons. Quetzalcoatl was taken on board as Saint Thomas. But Santa Muerte was not taken on board as a saint, because her worship was always dark and savage. Definitely demonic.
They took other old Gods on board as Christian Saints, giving them Christian names, but Santa Muerte was not one they took on board. She was recast by her worshipers as "Santa" because that is what the Old Gods that were taken on board were called.
There are a lot of Mexican Churches in which various saints are depicted with the attributes and non human physical features of various Old Gods, Saint Thomas as feathered serpent and/or feathered dragon, and so forth, and I suppose that makes them Catholic enough, but Santa Muerte was always suppressed, back in the days when the Catholic Church was Christian.
Yes – i called it "a thing among regular catholics", did not imply it was not a thing of darkness. Some churches allow the santa muerte cult, or so i have read. Not so for quimbanda or brujeria.
Aztec descendants converging on similar form of tradition is to be expected, but it is not the same tradition nor a revival of the same tradition in the vocabulary of esotericism, which would require unbroken links of traditional initiation.
I thought I'd ask this here,
Why believe that we actually did kill the Iranian general?
Could it not also be something that the US military wants to believe, based on intel, and that the Iranians are taking advantage of? Something like, the US believes they got their tit for tat in, relaxes, and Suleimani gets to move around a little easier?
Couldn't this be a lie that is perpetuated in order to advance the prospect of war with Iran?
I just don't understand why this announcement should be taken on face value.
Your theory is he faked his death? Highly unlikely.
I like the Scott Adams theory though, that this will cause no war because the Mullahs (who preside over an unpopular regime entirely dependent on their praetorian guard to stay in power) are happy to have a too powerful and too independent and scary Praetorian guard commander out of the way.
Sanctions are biting Iran badly. So Iran decided to try military options. They are attacking US troops in combat zones, which is legitimate. But Trump can respond by attacking Iranian troops in combat zones, and he just did.
Iran can afford the blood, but they cannot afford the treasure. War is expensive. Reagan's strategy was to send the Soviet Union broke with an arms race and hundred small wars, draining them economically with a lot of pinpricks. And, similarly, America versus Japan in World War II. Japan just flat ran out of stuff.
Trump is pressuring Iran economically. So Iran decided to try military action. Now it is suffering economic pressure and military pressure. Trump wants concessions, a major peace deal, before the 2020 election. If he does not get it, going to hurt them, hurt them a lot. But not forever war, and not war with Russia.
Iran's Trump card is to close the straights of Hormuz. But America is an oil exporter. Does not hurt America, and Trump can make closing the straights hurt Iran. The Uniparty will demand forever war in Iran and war with Russia over the straights of Hormuz, and Trump just will not give it to them. And that he has killed an Iranian general makes it easier to not give it to them. Hard to portray him as weak, when he defended the embassy, unlike Obama, and killed the general, unlike Carter.
They will say not going into Iran for forever war is weak, not starting World War III with Russia is weak. And at the same time, say that defending the embassy and killing the general is reckless. They are in a cleft stick.
It would hurt us because gas prices would rise and the economy would suffer… I suppose Trump could ban oil exports.
The economy will not suffer, because the money stays inside the US, albeit it would move from the hands of Americans consuming gasoline, which is a lot of voters, to Americans producing gasoline, which is considerably fewer voters. On the other hand, Americans producing gasoline tend to be located in swing states.
Texas and the Dakotas are real the oil producers (and only a minority of Texans) and Texas despite all the Democrat propaganda is not going to be a swing state nor are the Dakotas.
Maybe Pennsylvania produces oil but Florida (Florida is safe for now btw but no idea whether it will be if gas goes up) Michigan and Wisconsin to my knowledge do not.
If Trump gets a favorable nuclear deal with Iran out of this….4D chess.
Why would Trump want a deal with Iran over anything? Jesus fuck, what a stupid comment.
Trump has said he wants a deal where Iran agrees to be at peace with its neighbors and not develop nuclear weapons.
Why would he not want such a deal.?But before he can get such a deal, must first make them fear us more than they hate us.
Iran is a blue client and doesn't even stick to deals with blue team, so why would red team bother? How do you force Iran to stick to a deal? (And if you can somehow force Iran to stick to a deal, why bother with a deal? Just tell them what to do and treat them like any other satrapy.)
Do you remember what happened with the North Korean nuclear deal a quarter-century ago? NK is a blue client too.
Second, a deal has something in it for both parties. "Don't develop nukes or your facilities will mysteriously blow up and/or your leadership will die mysterious but horrible deaths" is not a deal but a threat.
That is the kind of "deal" that Trump has in mind for Iran.
My theory is more of a blind guess. I don't know if faking deaths is useful or even common, it was just an example I came up with because I'm extremely uncertain about the truth of any claim of the US to have killed someone in an airstrike. Seems to me that someone is always getting killed in an airstrike when some kind of PR is needed.
Trump even remarked about he gets to watch such military operations on live reality TV feed. He remarked something to the effect of being nearly the same as being right there. Hollywood special effects? Pixar, etc.. Them Zionist faithful are self-righteously in on cooperating to rid the world of "tribal, barbaric" patriarchy.
Technology has progressed since the 1980s Max Headroom's Coke commercials.
False-flags are the usual means of inducing mass psychosis.
Perhaps the only thing we can be sure is reality anymore is that whatever happens on the international geopolitical stage is bad for us.
So my stance is just turn off the idiot box and find something more productive to do.
We know this is not false flag because we read Trump, leader of the free world, and Khamenei, leader of Iran, sparring over it on Twitter.
I know we killed an Iranian general because the Iranians are treating Iraq as a satrapy, therefore go in an out through the airport. Until now.
Easy target. Next time it will be a harder target.
Given the circumstances. Seems criminal to me.
https://twitter.com/RealScottRitter/status/1213142720350445568
More like a Mafia hit rather than combat.
This is Cathedral priest talk, he was certainly violating international law by organizing embassy attacks.
He was in Iraq to organize attacks on the embassy and on Americans.
Combatant in a combat zone.
Saker commentary from Unz.
https://www.unz.com/tsaker/soleimani-murder-what-could-happen-next/
Unresponsive. Instead of debating the evidence, you assume your position is obvious.
Jim, I think a comment of mine got ate by your filter. It had a fair amount of profanity and insults, so it might have gotten flagged.
There's a less polemical essay/analysis on Unz today from another author.
https://www.unz.com/wwebb/a-dubious-official-story-masks-the-true-motives-behind-the-soleimani-assassination/
Your link is idiocy, insanity, and barefaced lies.
It tells us the official story is some insane stupid nonsense, which they easily and glibly refute. They are steelmanning the official story.
Nah, there is no official story. What happened unfolded before our eyes on Twitter. The world saw what happening as it happened live.
Iran had a go at rerunning the glory days of the Carter Hostage crisis and the Benghazi attack, by attacking our embassy.
On January 1, Trump on twitter told the ruler of Iran to cut it out, "this is a threat". the ruler of Iran. on twitter, taunted Trump, "You can't do anything"
so, boom!
We saw the story unfold before our eyes on Twitter.
There is no "official story" It all happened in public.
Unz talks about the identity of the person killed that started this business. When the Iranians tried to re-run the hostage crisis and Benghazi, that did not matter any more.
Unz says the attack was illegal. Trump has congressional authority to target enemies in Iraq, which congress could withdraw at any time, but has not done.
The moment Soleimani's entourage swept through customs, he was an enemy in a Congressionally declared combat zone, so Trump could legally kill him. Trump blew him up the instant it became legal to do so.
The Saker is controlled opposition. There are a million shitty leftists offering the same shit take with minute variations. Hurry, durr, orange man bad, Israel evil, poor Muslim dindu nuffin, he was gonna go to colle–I mean he was going to do diplomacy. His analysis is so blind that he does not recognize that the "international community" is wholly owned by the US State Department.
I mean, even the tagline of the headline photo is cringe. "A spiritual father kisses his beloved son?" Please, that's so gay I could suck a dick and end up with less of a gay taste in my mouth. Its gayer than a San Fran bathhouse client list. It's so fucking pozzed I now have to get checked for GRIDS after reading it. The rest of the article, as far as I got, which was fairly deep, is perfectly encapsulated by the overwhelming gayness of the first fucking sentence.
If you are going to post analyses of an event, please choose your sources with more care. If I wanted to see gay shit like this I'd go on Pornhub or Bing and search "gay twink orgy."
no one in particular says:
There is something profoundly elegant about correctly applied profanity
Jim I like your above explanation for why killing Suleimani is actually de-escalation in terms of war.
I don't really know anything about what's going on over there obviously, but moving in and out of an airport like that appears fairly reckless. Even more so given the penchant of the US for killing by air strike. I'm assuming he went through that airport regularly if we were able to kill him.
It is not de-escalation. Iran escalated, attempting a rerun of the embassy disasters of Carter and Obama, and Trump responded. But his response did not consist of putting more American soldiers on the blood stained sands of the Middle East. It is not the response that the uniparty wanted.
If the Iranians really shot up the U.S. Embassy they know retaliation could be coming. They would be taking countermeasures against potential drone attacks. The Iranians have a reasonably sophisticate military and nuclear program, and yet you think they would be this careless?
And how do you know what Iranians had been and are doing now? Are you there or have informants who are there?
We can't trust any (dis)information we receive from the media.
Iran may want escalation and may be participating in some CIA false-flag. This geopolitics situations can be very complex. I haven't even attempt to research and analyze Iran.
Remember the elite in all these countries become wealthier from war. War focuses power.
We are gullible fools.
> and yet you think they would be this careless?
I knew on January the first that they would be this careless:
Trump, leader of the free world, tweets, to the world and to Khamenei, leader of Iran:
"Iran will be held fully responsible for the events in Baghdad … This is a threat"
Khamenei, tweets in reply
"You can't do anything"
Trump puts down phone.
Khamenei's tweet reveals the Iranians were under the impression that they are still dealing with Carter, Obama, and Clinton.
This gives me good reason to hope that the Durham report will be released with dawn raids on the deep state.
Here is an interesting performance analysis of the Iranian missile strike.
https://thesaker.is/analysis-of-the-iranian-missile-strikes-on-ayn-al-asad-airbase/
Looks like ballistic missile accuracy averages around 11 meters, with some much tighter. And the US failed to shoot many (in any) down. Even with warning. In my opinion this is a game changer for military vulnerability. Think about it. This gives the Iranians a "nuclear" deterrent without having to actually possess any nuclear weapons. How many fixed based nuclear reactors (civilian and military) are there in Israel? Each one a potential Chernobyl if the Iranians decide to bomb it.
Man I hope Trump knows what he's doing with Iran. Killing one of their generals seems like a neocon move.
Allah says:
I'm guessing they told Trump the guy was really important and did bad things to Americans so he OK'd the hit and to Trump it must have seemed real convenient since it makes him look tough and satisfies Jews. Doubt he knows what he just did but I'm guessing Iranians will just have to take it and keep quiet for now, hope they never forget this.
Trump has been telling Iran for some time now to refrain from projecting its power outside its borders. An Iranian general in Iraq is Iranian power outside its borders. Trump is pals with the Saudis and the Emirs, and Iranians are trying to overthrow the middle eastern monarchies.
Dubai is a rather nice place, and it would not be a nice place any more if the Iranians got their way.
A lot of things have been done to contain Iran, why would Trump's words change anything? But yes, Iranians were definitely getting too comfortable.
Aren't most of his children and all of his grandchildren Jewish? Aren't Iranians also supposedly trying to destroy Israel? Why do you ignore those?
You are supposedly a Sunni. Iran wants Shia to rule Sunnis, which is what is getting Trump's goat. The general was in Iraq to impose Shia rule over Iraqi Sunnis. They are not blowing up Jews, they are blowing up Sunnis. Why are you worried about what happens to a Shia general who was busy crushing Iraqi Sunnis?
Every so often I come around to the conclusion that you are what you purport to be, and then you say something like this, which gets me back to thinking you are an ngo.
I am not. I have stated repeatedly that I am not Muslim.
What are you then? And what are you doing with a Turkish IP? Every Turk is at least superficially a Sunni, even if he does not really believe. Hard to get along in Turkey if one does not at least go through the motions. Do you tell people near the location of your IP that you are not a Sunni?
Your information is out of date. We're not immune to Progress.
Do you tell people near the location of your IP that you are not a Sunni?
If you say you are not Sunni in this country, you would mean you are an Alevi/Shia. I say I am not Muslim, or that I have my own beliefs which conveniently align somewhat well with Islam.
Baghdad is in Iraq, not Iran. What is an Iranian general doing in Iraq?
There is a war, or a bunch of low level wars, going on within Iraq and on its borders. Somebody is running those wars, allegedly he is running them, and another man who was also killed was with him and definitely involved in running them.
Running wars is apt to be bad for your health.
If Trump had nailed him in Tehran, that would have been a move towards war with Iran, which could be very bad, but nailing him when he sticks his fingers into Iraq sends a message to Iran to keep its fingers inside Iran.
Obviously it is a waste of blood and treasure spend American lives on the endlessly blood stained sands of the middle east in the never ending conflicts of Muslims with Muslims, but nailing a general is very economical and cheap projection of power.
It is likely to persuade Muslims in power everywhere not to piss on Trump.
It also, regardless of who he was and why he was killed, is apt to undermine the color revolution story "weak, weak, weaker, weaker, he is falling, falling, falling, fallen."
You should really do a full post on your past as a commie entryist. You know how to talk a lot without saying anything. What are Americans doing in Iraq? Keeping Jews Safe?
what he has to say about nailing an Iranian general.
Big loss for local goyim. If Iran falls, we'll be next.
The American invasion of Iraq was to impose progressivism. Maybe it was also to make Jews safe, but the Obama sponsored Color Revolution in Egypt certainly was not to make Jews safe.
When the dust settled on Iraq, looks more that the effect was to impose Shi'ism than progressivism, though it is unlikely that was the intent. Probably Shi'ism and the expulsion of Iraqi Christians was the intent of hostile Mohammedan entryists into progressivism. Progressive ideology makes it hard for them to call out hostile Mohammedan entryists, because racist.
There can be multiple congruent truths.
Soros et al hate patriarchy. Iraq was run by a patriarch Saddam. They want to bring us to a multicultural world that undermines parochial control, wherein the only patriarchs are those who control the entire world via the 666 system. IOW, foster maximum disorder at the local level while consolidating the control grid.
I'm not blaming the typical Jew. They can be our friends. But those behind the curtain who have hijacked Judaism as Zionism for other purposes…
Then we can pontificate about who likely created Bitcoin and how this might plausibly become the reserve currency of the 666 system — transaction volume scaling isn't needed for the reserve currency in a two-tier currency system wherein only $billionaires will transact in Bitcoin.
All those neocons working for the New American Century seem to be aligned with this consolidation of power in varying degrees of compartmentalization.This is one of the reasons (in addition to the physical evidence and physics considerations) I did not agree with your (what I believe/understand to be) simplistic assessment of 9/11, but I will not reignite that tangential debate again.
P.S. Seems you and I are not enemies, just some differences in analysis, knowledge, experience, and historical context? I could be swayed though by clear arguments in the future but not here on your blog trying to have a debate about 9/11 in this narrow columnar format. If we want to debate 9/11, we need a conference where we all come together and debate face-to-face with all the necessary experts in the various fields and sub-disciplines.
You are supposedly Turk, or at any rate you have a Turkish IP and say you are a Turk. Turks are killing Iranians in Syria. Iranians are killing Turks. You are supposedly a Sunni. Iranians are killing Sunnis in Iraq, which is probably why Trump blew up the Iranian general in Iraq. Why are you identifying with Iran?
As I said, if Iran falls, we'll be next. We got away with what scraps we could get out of Syria and Iraq partly because Iran is sucking up most of the attention and even then we almost became a "rogue state".
Iran is attempting to impose Shia rule on large parts of the middle east. Trump is no longer attempting to impose progressive rule in Turkey. You are not speaking as a Turk, you are speaking as an ngo.
You say "we", but if you thought that you and the Turks were "us", you would think of Iran killing Turks, and be pleased that one of Iranians doing it got nailed.
You tell me, do you think we'll do better next to a neutralized or Western-subverted Iran?
Did the Shah of Iran cause the problems for Turkey that the Ayatollahs are causing for Turkey?
Who is "we" – you don't sound like you identify with Turks or Turkey.
Iranians killed an American in Iraq, so Trump killed some Iranians in Iraq. So Iranians attacked the US embassy in Iraq, so Trump kills an Iranian general in Iraq.
This is not a plot to dominate Iran. Maybe it is an American plot to dominate Iraq. Shedding tears of concern that Iran might come under US domination is a little implausible under the circumstances, plus out of character for someone who actually identifies with Turks.
Need to include the West in this deceptive thought experiment.
And what thought experiment is that?
Saddam was the buffer between the two. Now gone because of the neocons.
Our military exists to serve the aims of those who want to manufacture Hegelian dialectic crises so that appropriate reactions must be taken which ultimately grind patriarchy into a power vacuum of chaos that can be filled by progressivism, social media, public education, etc…
Much better to let the patriarchs fight each other and consolidate power among themselves. Every time our military is deployed, we're losing because it's always weakening the natural order between competing patriarchs. Sunni and Shia are the two brothers offshoots of the Muslim patriarchy.
Jim you're heart is in the right place. And your mind is sharp. And you're more articulate than I am. But you sometimes you don't see over the forest.
I was extremely worried initially because I suspected that the embassy and airport attacks might have been staged by Brennan and co to frame Iran and start a war I'm somewhat less worried now. Apparently all this started when some American was killed in Iraq by Iranian paramilitaries and they were killed in response.
Its still not good but at least I know its not the CIA causing it in order to start a war… the main worry now is if Iran gets Russian backing to close the straits of Hormuz (they'd never do it otherwise).
If Trump were allowed to have followed his stated policy of letting Russia have their sphere of influence without interference there is no way Putin would back the Iranians in this… but given that Trump has almost been forced by Senators in own party to follow an irrational anti-Russian foreign policy he never wanted I don't know. I think its unlikely but its possible.
You should really do a full post on your past as a commie entryist.
I don't want to expend the time to try to dig and research this allegation. Can someone please explain? Jim did you radically (diametrically) change your core ideology later in life, or was there some strategic reason for this alleged past affiliation with commies and Cuba?
I'm not aiming to DOXX you.
https://reaction.la/confess.htm
China seems to be going through the similar ideological transformation, from Marxism towards capitalism. Capitalism requires patriarchy. Demo[n]cracy is a power vacuum which subverts patriarchy and property rights. In demo[n]cracy, capitalism is captured by the left singularity (because unearned votes for sale) as evident by the societalcide TV commercials I viewed this holiday season for American football games, e.g. two men kissing each other, KFC Chickendales (gay male strippers of Chippendales), etc..
Hey Amerikan has a vote just because he/she/it was born. Said Amerikan is thus vested in believing this "wonderful" snowflake existence wherein value is still created out of nothing. So said Amerikan votes for the delusion. Thus left singularity.
We really need decentralization technology to counteract patriarchy at its dysfunctional winner-take-all end game, which is what I claim the patriarchal elite are trying to do now with a 666 global control grid to subjugate the nation-state patriarchy.
That completes the circle of my understanding of what is going on.
I have been thinking. Perhaps without hitler and how germany treated slavs.
Involvement of generals with strategy as well as tactics. As hitler prevented the generals from participating in strategy. Thereby tactical rather than strategic victory ultimately losing the war.
And if Germany was capitalist instead of national socialist. Perhaps they would have fared better vs USSR?
Nazi Germany failed because of the usual famine of socialism.
Had they stuck with capitalism, would not have guaranteed success, but it would have prevented that cause of failure.
On the other hand socialism is more capable of total war mobilization, but because they started socialism earlier than Britain, food failure hit them earlier than Britain. Had they started socialism later, the total state of total war would have had more stuff to loot. He was starting to run out of other people's money at the beginning, rather than the end, of the war. Famine hit his occupation of Greece almost immediately, quite early in the war.
If he had had a more capitalist economic order, he could afforded to take his time. Attack Russia when things had adequately quieted down on the western front. He launched Operation Barbarossa against Russia eight months after losing the Battle of Britain, which guaranteed a two front war against enemies with air and sea superiority. He needed to either make peace at any price before attacking Russia, or link up with the Japanese through Asia before attacking Russia. But it is a long way overland to link up with the Japanese.
He needed quick victory because the economy of pillage, the total war economy of the total state, was failing. And when he lost the battle of Britain, no prospect of quick victory. When a land power fights an airsea power, the airsea power has as much time it wants and is going to take advantage of that.
When the British won the battle of Britain, they won time which Hitler did not have. After the Battle of Britain, he needed an economy that could go for the long run, which economic order he had destroyed.
There's been some recent research that indicates that Hitler's best move would have been sending 2 or 3 panzer divisions to North Africa shortly after France fell and taking the Mediterranean and the middle east oil fields. The UK had very few troops in North Africa at the time and Malta could have been easily taken by airborne troops. This would have resulted in the UK making peace or losing India and would have put German armies both in Iran and Turkey putting the USSR in a death grip.
Part of this plan would have been a partial battle of Briton to keep UK troops and more importantly airplanes tied up while Naval Bombers where moved to the Mediterranean.
The Germans studied this idea to the point of sending a Panzer general to North Africa and Admiral Raider proposed it to Hitler. He rejected it out of hand in pursuit of his holy war against the Soviet Union.
India is the path to Japan. Linking up with Japan, and gaining access to the vast resources of Asia and the Pacific would have put him in good position to fight a long war against airsea power.
Hitler was aiming, however, for quick and decisive victory, which was undoubtedly the correct choice given that the total war, total state, economy was starting to go bust.
Given that he was racing against time, he had to reject that plan. But with defeat in the Battle of Britain, quick and decisive victory fell out of reach.
It was not a mistake to reject that plan when victory in the Battle of Britain was still in prospect. But with defeat in the Battle of Britain, the correct solution would have been to invade Asia and back off from the total war, total state, economy, to focus on food and raw materials through the Asian market, following the wise advice of Xenophon. An army marches on its stomach and it turns that extorting food at swordpoint is difficult, complicated, distracting, and ineffectual. The effectual strategy, followed by Xenophon wherever possible, is to extort gold at swordpoint and buy food in the marketplace at freely negotiated mutually agreed market prices.
If Germany was capitalist could they have hit the USSR economically as a primary effort reinforced with military force until the collapse of USSR?
The best plan would have been to immediately go to seize Malta and Crete and then both the Suez and Gibraltar (threaten Franco with invasion if he had too). Stalin wasn't planning to attack until at least 1942 (but by 1943 at the latest).
The bad thing about Hitler's command economy is it was until 1943 socialism for the sake of socialism rather than socialism for total war as they were still allocating a higher % of production to non war essential things than almost any other participant in WWII.
I thought Trump was supposed to end the forever wars not escalate them. As an American, why should I care that Iran is sticking its fingers in Iraq? Why should I care about the ongoing wars between Muslim factions? Why are American troops still even there?
The US "contractors" should not be there. But if the Iranians kill US contractors, Trump should kill Iranians.
For how much you support Assad, it seems quite odd to fully support the killing of a man who did much to help Assad survive during the darkest days of the Syrian Civil War. The Shia, as you have noted, are by far the less dangerous of the two sects to the US. Why waste resources attacking them instead of the Sunnis? Do you really think the type of people in Trump's inner circle who supported this also support Assad and the Christians in Syria? I don't think so.
I'd make a separate blog post on this.
I am pretty keen on killing people who kill Americans.
"Allah" seems strangely indignant about killing people who kill Turks.
I really really would like to kick the can down the road on this till after the election though, without war with Iran Trump's reelection is a certainty…
If one starts not so much.
The uniparty wants war with Russia and war with China and more forever wars in the Middle East. Trump not so much. Killing people who kill Americans is a good thing, and keeps the Generals happy and busy.
If Iran closes the straights of Hormuz, then the uniparty is going to demand war with Iran. Preferably with Russia involved in defending Iran.
Recall how he went through the motions of engaging in war with Russia in Syria, but did not. This will be resolved with something he can plausibly claim is the victory that Obama failed to deliver, and without giving the uniparty another forever war or war with Russia.
Benghazi was an immense humiliation for Hillary Obama, and the Carter Iran Hostage crisis an immense humiliation for Carter. The uniparty is thirsting for vengeance, and wants Trump to have his Benghazi and his Iranian hostage crisis. He cannot afford that, but neither can he afford forever war with Iran. So he is going to have to thread the needle, and it will look mighty like he is risking another forever war. But he got us out of Syria with a victory that suited us, and horrified and enraged the uniparty. Likely he is going to do the same with Iran.
Jim I also contemplated that Trump is just feeding the monster enough to bide his time until November 2020. He's a master politician. His myopia those appears to be further out beyond the near-term forest he is astutely navigating. Or maybe he has a long-range plan I can't detect yet.
I believe Trump's long range plan is to be Caesar Augustus – which he, like Caesar Augustus, will perceive as preserving and restoring the Republic, rather than ending the pretense that a long dead Republic still lives.
It will be tricky. The historical record suggests that a rather more likely outcome that leftists take total power, and proceed to kill off each other and everyone else.
You are again ignoring the role of the West in this. Americans and Jews killing Iranians is not going to teach Iranians that killing Turks have consequences, especially not in Iraq. It is certainly good that our enemies fight each other, but it's not good if one of them wins. If Jews get what they want it is going to be much worse for Turks.
It is going to teach the Iranians that attacking Americans in Iraq is a bad idea, which is a broad hint that attacking Turks in Turkey is a bad idea.
You identify with your fellow Muslim when he is in conflict with a non Muslim, even though your fellow Muslim is murdering your countrymen.
Both sides are murdering my countrymen.
Then you should be happy that your enemies are killing each other. I always am.
Turkey is a Nato ally, and the US and Turkey seem to be mostly on the same side in Syria these days, in so far as one can tell which side is which when Muslims kill each other. When has the US murdered your countrymen?
You are suffering from the Islamic equivalent of "No enemies to the left, no friends to the right", which guarantees that all your friends are your enemies, and all your enemies are your friends.
The leftist always takes the side of the more leftist against the less leftist, which means he always takes the side of people lefter than himself, but those people are not on his side because he is less left than their very holy selves. They intend to murder him, as he intends to murder those less left than himself.
And similarly, the Muslim takes the side of people who intend to murder him for being insufficiently Islamic.
And how happy are you when one of them eventually wins?
I don't care. I expect the winning side will immediately start purging itself, forever finding new enemies within its own ranks.
Don't understand the newly added part, how so?
The more Islamic faction always intends to murder the less Islamic faction, and so Mohammedans always identify with and support those who intend to murder them.
Which is what you are doing right here. It is like communists worrying about fascists. The fascists killed hardly any communists, the communists usually wound up killing damn near all of themselves.
You complain because America is failing to restrain Russia from restraining Turkey from killing insufficiently Mohammedan Mohammedans. But there are always going to be Mohammedans who think that Turks are insufficiently Mohammedan.
The Alawites were, and arguably still are, pagan. When the crusaders came through, they superficially adopted Christian coloration. When the crusaders retreated, they superficially adopted Mohammedan coloration. And so you want to kill them, and wind up identifying with the people who want to kill you.
I am worrying about the West making short work of Iran then quickly turning its sights on us.
Turkey is a Nato ally, and the US and Turkey seem to be mostly on the same side in Syria these days
Oh boy. After we ended their dreams of creating a communist Kurdish puppet state right on our border, they deliberately left their bases to Russians as they retreated. If US was actually on Turkey's side, we would have conquered Syria together by 2013 or before.
Declining to give armed support to Turkish aggression against Assad is not equivalent to murdering Turks. Trump would prefer to stay out of war with Russia.
Trump has a deal with Putin to not attempt to overthrow Assad. Turks don't like the deal, because they want to overthrow Assad, but declining to bleed further on the bloodstained sands of the Middle East is not aggression against Turkey.
When US troops left their bases, Russian troops then occupied those now empty bases. Turks could have tried to occupy them, but had they attempted to do so, might well have found themselves shooting at Russians, and being shot at by Russians. The US was not going to stop them, but the Trump Putin deal implies that the US was not going to stop the Russians either.
You are complaining that the US failed to give you stuff on a platter. This is not equivalent to murdering Turks. It is standing back from the bloodstained sands, standing back from a potential quarrel between Turkey and Russia.
Russia is a nuclear power. Getting involved in other people's quarrels with Russia is not our business, and is not wise.
Declining to give armed support to Turkish aggression against Assad is not equivalent to murdering Turks.
It is not. The crap they tried to pull with the Kurds is. Americans handed over the land to Russia on purpose, it was not accidental. If US really wanted to stand back, they would not be sanctioning us and not working up to war with Iran.
> Americans handed over the land to Russia
Americans did not hand over the land to anyone. We left the bloodstained sands. Then other people moved in after we left.
When the Russians moved in, there were no Americans there to "hand over" to anyone.
The Turks could have tried to move in, but had they done so, the Russians would likely have given them trouble. And America would have stood back, while the sands got even more blood on them. Not our problem.
You are not complaining about Americans killing Turks. We killed no Turks. You are complaining that Americans were unwilling to die so that Turks could kill Alawites.
Americans are not killing Turks. Iranians are killing Turks. And you are pissed because America will not protect Turks who want to kill Alawites from Russians who want to stop them from killing Alawites.
You identify with Mohammedans who kill Mohammedans for being insufficiently Mohammedan – and you identify with those Mohammedans who think that you are insufficiently Mohammedan, much as leftists identify with leftists who think that they are insufficiently leftist, and who will undoubtedly murder them should they get power.
When Turks try to move in, they get sanctions and potentially more. It is your problem, apparently. Not only that, Americans had most of their guns literally pointed at Turkey, not Assad or Russians while they were there. Americans were perfectly willing to die for their Kurdish commie utopia, they used their own soldiers as meat shields.
You can spin US' inaction against Assad or Russia as isolationism, but how do you explain US' bizarre anger at Turkey?
Economic sanctions against invading other countries does not constitute murdering Turks. Iranians are using actual guns to kill Turks.
Mohammedans kill Mohammedans. Christians seldom kill Mohammedans.
Obama's policy was that Americans should die for Kurdish commies who were industriously murdering Kurdish nationalists. This was part of his general policy of imposing progressivism on Islam.
It took a while for Trump to end this policy, just as it took him three years to free American warriors imprisoned for "war crimes" – but in fact imprisoned for having dangerous ideas.
The Kurdish commies seem to be withering for lack of Cathedral support, not so much because Trump is neglecting them, though he is, but because a Trump Deranged Cathedral has forgotten about them in its Trump obsession.
So, not clear to me whom the sanctions are protecting, or why they are being protected. I would expect, with the Kurdish commies withering, the primary beneficiaries would be Kurdish nationalists, but I have no idea what is happening and do not much care.
But one person that they are protecting is Assad, so I support those sanctions.
Russia is Christian. Turkey is muslim. If America must pick a side in a dispute, they should always be on the side of Christians against Muslims.
It disproves your claims that US and Turkey are on the same side, and that US is apathetic and does not want to get involved.
Economic sanctions against invading other countries does not constitute murdering Turks.
It does not. The crap they tried to pull with the Kurds does.
The US cares about Turkey conquering Syria, but not to the extent that it is inclined to shoot Turks. Iran cares about conquering Syria to the extent of actually shooting Turks.
It is obvious that Iran would like to rule the middle east, and this would very bad indeed for Turks. That the US wandered off from most of Syrian bases and let the Russians have them is good indication that the US, at least under Trump, does not want to rule the middle east.
You are aligning with people who would probably kill you, against people who really don't care about ruling Turkey.
Very strange that US would rather hand over Syria to Russia than let Turkey take it, this was the case before Trump.
You are aligning with people who would probably kill you
Both sides want to kill me, have to pick my poison.
Projection. Christians don't want to kill Muslims. Muslims want to kill everyone, including each other.
Look at how many times Trump turned the other cheek to Iran.
You are siding with people who actually are actively killing Turks, against people who have refrained from killing Turks even when Turks act aggressively.
"Projection. Christians don't want to kill Muslims."
They should want to though.
When a Westerner starts talking about de-escalation or responding to aggression or some other ominous euphemism, you know they're going to start some shit.
Observe how many Muslims have been killed by Muslims, and compare with the number of Muslims killed by Christians. You are taking the side that is at war with Sunnis everywhere, including Turkey, against the side whose alliance with Turkey is under strain because Turks are at low level war with Russia and Trump is making peace with Russia.
Naturally Turkey is in a state of war or near war with Russia and with Alawites, because Russia is Christian, and Alawites are not exactly Muslim. Alawites are pagans with protective Muslim coloration. Muslims are always at war or near war with the people who are arguably less Muslim, who are the people least likely to kill them. Notice that when Alawites ruled Syria, the place was safe and comfortable for people of all races and faiths. Iran is violently unsafe for people of the incorrect faith, and Turkey is far from comfortable.
Iran cannot launch war on the US because it already has launched war on the entire middle east, Turkey included. Its logistic capability is exhausted.
Observe the bloody borders of Islam. We see bloodshed between Muslims and every other religion – Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, and whatever the Chinese are. We don't see similar bloodshed between Hindus and Christians. There is a bit of trouble between Buddhists and Hindus, but it is insignificant compared to the troubles both have with Muslims. Similarly, Sikhs.
And we see bloodshed between Muslims and Muslims.
General Soleimani killed hundreds of US warriors, and the US very holy priesthood would not allow the warriors to kill Soleimani, because they holiness spiraled the parable of the good Samaritan to "everyone is your neighbor" and the Christian slogan of "peace on earth to all men of good will" to the slogan "peace on earth" . Who is it that is starting shit?
Iran cannot escalate, because they already have.
Iran can continue what they are doing, in which case Trump will probably continue whacking them, or they can de-escalate. But they are flat out of capability to escalate. Their economy is collapsing, in substantial part because of endless war with Sunnis everywhere, Turkey included.
You identify with people who want to kill you, against people who don't want to kill you. Islam has the same problem as leftism. Leftists have no friends to the right, no enemies to the left, so all their friends are their enemies, and all their enemies are their friends. The people you regard as friends want to kill you, and the people you regard as your enemies do not want to kill you.
If Turkey wants to be treated like a Western country again it needs to restore the rule of Kemalists military officers and Turd and his Islamists supporters will have to die.
you know they're going to start some shit.
"Start nothing, finish everything" is our motto. Or should be.
> "Start nothing, finish everything" is our motto.
Iran has been at low level war with the US since they seized the US embassy during the Carter administration. And has been escalating since then. They never paid for that act of war, so inevitably and predictably, since they were Muslim, escalated.
It is not going to stop until we give them the martyrdom that they are always calling for. The Mullahs have to die. Maybe everyone in Iran has to die, but that would be inconveniently expensive, and would produce a radiation hazard. Also I suspect our nukes have been maintained not to keep them working, but to prove that women and nonwhites can be nuclear engineers – which is to say, it is far from certain that they still work.
Over a thousand years of history tells us that it is not going to stop until we kill a sufficient number of Muslims. Which tends to be quite a lot of Muslims. If it turns out that we need to erase Iran, it may first be necessary to get our priesthood out of the military, or at least out of nuclear engineering.
Apparently the storming of that embassy is a national holiday for them, Nov. 4th. "Death to America" Day
The Christian slogan is "peace on earth to all men of goodwill".
I am inclined to doubt that people who celebrate a "Death to America" holiday are of goodwill.
If you knew more about either Turkey or Iran, you would've mentioned the Azeris instead of the clash of civilizations nonsense you keep going on about. The Western alliance with Turkey is under strain because Turkey was supposed to take the hit for Europe and like it. Turkey tries being something more than a satellite state and is currently being reminded of its place. Iran has been at low level war with the US since finally getting rid of their puppet king of goodwill installed by US and England.
General Soleimani killed hundreds of US soldiers. Who is it that is starting shit?
US soldiers want to get real close to Iran for some reason, they come from the other of the world just to visit and look how Iran treats them.
But yes, I agree Iran is just being an annoyance. What they really should've done is keep smiling and waving until they get the bomb then do whatever they wanted to do. They got too excited after their revolution and wanted to share it with everyone, as is often the case.
The people you regard as friends want to kill you, and the people you regard as enemies do not want to kill you.
I don't regard any side as my friend. I don't know of a side that doesn't want to kill me. You want world conquest, therefore want to kill me.
> Turkey was supposed to take the hit for Europe
We don't want Turkey to take a hit. Turkey was not supposed to start a war with Russia. Even Obama was unhappy about that.
We want peace, the peace of Westphalia, and Mohammedans, including our supposed ally Turkey, keep making war. Turkey wanted to start a war with Russia and have NATO take the hit.
Just like social justice warriors, you project, accusing everyone else of doing what Muslims do to everyone else, and to each other. Iranians are murdering Turks, and you are indignant, not with Iranians, but with Christians because NATO was disinclined to be dragged into war on Russia on Turkey's side, and Trump disinclined to be dragged into war on Turkey's side against Alawites.
You tell me to not talk about war of civilizations, but you back the Mohammedan side in every conflict across the world against the less Mohammedan side – including the Iranian side against your fellow Turks.
It is absolutely obvious that you view the Mohammedan side, despite its endless and terribly bloody internal conflict, as one nation, engaged in a life and death struggle to subjugate or exterminate all insufficiently Mohammedan people everywhere. And your fellow Turks do not all qualify as sufficiently Mohammedan, just as no leftist views his fellow leftists as sufficiently leftist.
> I don't know of a side that doesn't want to kill me. You want world conquest, therefore want to kill me.
Our side does not want to kill you. You want to kill us, and are projecting to justify it. We want Mohammedans to accept the peace of Westphalia, and we oppose progressive foreign policy because it rejects the peace of Westphalia. You are enraged at insufficiently Muslim allies, while supporting Muslims who are trying to murder you because they are plausibly more Muslim than thou, just as leftists always wind up supporting those who murder them.
We don't want world conquest. We want the peace of Westphalia, but we will enslave or kill everyone who refuses to accept peace.
Iran has been at low level war with the US since finally getting rid of their puppet king of goodwill installed by US and England.
You mean the shahs? Surely you aren't implying that Iran has been better off without them, because that would just be totally insane and unhinged.
Please employ the sarcasm/irony mark "🙃", because there is so much genuine insanity on the internet that it is hard to tell the difference.
@TheContaminator
Actually it would even better if Turkey converts to Orthodox Christianity.
Kemalists and their genocidal campaigns against Armenians is a black mark against Turkish secularism.
A couple minutes ago you were fantasizing about nuking Iran for being annoying.
Every conflict across the world being Uyghurs and China which you also branded a civilizational war? I recall commenting on some others but don't actually remember what I said.
We were not talking about the Turkish-Iranian conflict, we were talking about the Jewish/American-Iranian conflict. Don't you support keeping your enemies divided and occasionally giving a kick to the weaker side so they keep fighting? Same thinking here. How is this wrong?
> A couple minutes ago you were fantasizing about nuking Iran for being annoying.
In the end we will nuke Iran if it, after killing the Mullah's, it still refuses to make peace.
I was not fantasizing about nuking Iraq for being annoying. I predicted that if it obstinately continues to make war against a militarily superior enemy, mistaking the peacefulness of Christians for weakness, Iranians will die. Perhaps just the Mullahs, perhaps all of them.
That is what we always have to do in the end with people who will not make peace. What else can we do?
Following the twitter exchange between the president of the United States, and the Supreme leader of Iran, there were no end of Iranians gloating in the comment sections that the US was weak, and that its failure to respond to previous provocations proved it was weak, and therefore they would soon be killing Americans. Mohammedans always mistake peacefulness for weakness and they were out in force in the comment sections making that error. Seeing weakness where it is not there, of which error there was a mighty storm in the comments, is going to get you killed.
It was obvious in the comments section that failure to respond to the hostage taking and numberless other provocations that they enthusiastically gloated over has caused large numbers of Mohammedans to entertain delusions that are likely to get them killed.
We are strong and virtuous. Even the progressives are virtuous compared to Mohammedans. You are weak and evil, your evil daily demonstrated in blood on the sand. If the weak stubbornly make war on the strong, they die.
No side is allowed to win, thus the fighting keeps going on forever. Without foreign interference, we would most likely restore our pre-WW1 borders and there would be much less blood on those sands. Of course, that would be Bad For Israel, so can't have that. Basing one's understanding of foreigners on twitter fights is not good for one's mind.
How come you're going extinct if you're so strong and virtuous?
Even the progressives are virtuous compared to Mohammedans.
Interesting, how so?
> No side is allowed to win, thus the fighting keeps going on forever
No side won in Europe for a thousand years, yet the fighting did not go on forever.
It was not Europe that ended the Caliphate, but Turkish nationalists, who were pissed that the Turkish empire had become the anti Turkish empire, much as the American empire has become the anti American empire.
So even if Europe had built a mile high steel wall around the middle east, you would still be killing each other.
And the fundamental reason you keep on killing each other is that you think your friends are your enemies and your enemies are your friends.
> we would most likely restore our pre-WW1 borders
Which the nationalists ditched, and the reason they ditched them still applies. Priests wanted those borders, warriors did not. Restoring the Turkish Caliphate is priests in charge of warriors.
It was not foreign interference that ended those borders. It was Kemal Atatürk who did not particularly want to rule a hostile empire full of hostile priests.
Plus, if it is priests versus priests, chances are the Shia priests would win, and kill you. That is what Iran is betting on. Their priesthood is more martial than your priesthood. Your warriors and your priests do not get on with each other.
The Turkish Empire was the anti Turkish empire, and if you restored the pre World War I borders, it would be the anti Turkish Empire all over again. Kemal Atatürk did not much like the Turkish empire and did not try very hard to hold it together for the same reasons as Trump does not like the American empire and is not trying very hard to hold it together. He wanted, and largely obtained, a Turkey whose borders corresponded to the National Pact. If Turkey gets territories beyond the National Pact, there will either be no end of bloodshed, or it will again become the anti Turkish empire, or very likely both.
@Not Tom
>You mean the shahs? Surely you aren't implying that Iran has been better off without them, because that would just be totally insane and unhinged.
Considering the propaganda channels are currently flooded with images of the "poor oppressed Iranian women" and the "poor oppressed Iranian LGBT minority" and how things were "so much better for them under the Shah" and how we need to "free them" from the oppressive Mullahs, I really don't see why I should consider the Shahs, who are being used as Boomer-tier war propaganda by the mainstream media, to be my friend.
Other than, I suppose, the fact that he was not intent on waging war against all other states in the area that were not as holy as him.
> Other than, I suppose, the fact that he was not intent on waging war against all other states in the area that were not as holy as him.
That is what I had in mind, plus the fact that war and priestly intrusion into merchant activities has been economically disastrous for Iran, plus the fact that they are not in fact applying the spirit, substance and purpose of Islamic law to restrain gays and female sexual misconduct. They have the appearance of Islamic law on sex, which enrages progressives delightfully, but not the substance.
You will find a whole lot more of the substance in Dubai, which avoids the appearance to avoid enraging progressives, but applies the substance. Likely the Shah, being dependent on progressive support, and losing power due to withdrawal of progressive support, would have enforced neither the appearance nor the substance.
Persia was probably more of a patriarchal society in reality under the Shah it just didn't have the unsexy dress code.
Iran has been a feminist Islam society for years and its no wonder because the Iranian revolution was a sort of commie muslim hybrid.
Can't disagree with that, everything I've heard from people who have actually been to Iran says to me that their supposed austere Islamic society is a joke and that if anything their women are worse than ours. Quite similar to Saudi Arabia really.
I have also heard this about Iran I don't know about Saudi.
I don't know about Saudi (Jim has told me that Saudi is feminist Islam too but I find that hard to believe when they still maintain their super gay dress code combined with strict gender segregation and until recently they didn't even have movie theatres) being feminist Islam though. Saudi seems more like prison homosexuality Islam.
An Iranian wife can obtain a divorce through dislike of her husband, but it does not have the awful enslavement consequences that it does in the progressive west. In particular, and most importantly, the wife cannot use the children as hostages against the father. Iranian law presupposes a continuing connection of authority and affection between fathers and children that is indissoluble except in cases of paternal misconduct, death, or incapacity.
So why then has Iranian fertility collapsed? Children are not the terrible liability for men that they are in the west.
Well, marriage requires consent, even for women who have engaged in sexual misconduct. So what is the state of sexual misconduct in Iran?
It is fairly bad, and the Mullahs are not doing anything about it.
Until 2011 the Mullahs were doing a terrible job on higher education which was going the same way as the west – women were flocking to whore school, and whore school gave them high status.
Women were dominating higher education, but in 2011 – 2012 the Mullahs finally, very belatedly, and at last smelled something funny going on, (whore school) and took action to sexually segregate courses, which has had the effect of cutting women back to fifty percent, and may well have the effect of restraining universities from being whore school. It is certainly intended to restrain universities from being whore school and to support social and legal enforcement of sex roles.
The Iranians are talking about doing something about sexual immorality, but what they are talking is is unlikely to be effective, because it is sexually symmetric. Eggs are precious, sperm is cheap. Women need to be restrained, and the restraint must be that the father has broad authority to restrain her and that if a woman engages in sexual immorality anyway, she winds up with a husband who has enforceable authority over her sexual activity.
Since 2011-2012 the mullahs have been doing OK on peripheral issues, but they are failing on the core issue. Male authority over female sexuality, without which their otherwise reasonable laws on marriage, divorce, and education are unlikely to work well or have the desired effect. They are constructing the superficial appearance of a conservative Muslim society, without the core substance.
The have also failed to amend the traditional Muslim laws on paternity to deploy the new technology on DNA, which suggests that they are more concerned with form than substance – like the Jews of Jesus time scrupulously following the letter of the law, while massively violating the spirit and intent of the law. They are following the letter of Islamic law (veils) while failing to notice that the intent of the law was to prevent women from seducing men. When a chick attempted paternity fraud on me, it would have been legal by Islamic law as applied and interpreted by the Mullahs, since I had sex with her at close to the time of conception, before and after the time of conception. I think she moved in with me when her menstruation was late, though her relationship with me started well before she became pregnant, but if she moved in with me when her menstruation was late, she would have known that she had not had sex with me during her fertile period. The Mullahs don't seem to be aware of this kind of problem, which modern knowledge and technology can address.
Mohammed seems to have been aware of the nature of the mating dance, but the Iranian Mullahs seem to be oblivious.
The letter of Islamic law on women, veils and such, is there to support male authority over female sexuality. But in Iran, it is merely there to be Islamic, like the Jews doubling down on not boiling a kid in its mother's milk, while being oblivious to the tenth commandment (which led to the Romans expelling them from Israel in accordance with divine prophecy). If DNA technology does not have legal and social consequences, you are not giving effect to the spirit of Islamic law.
If you view Christ as the incarnation of the logos, then the adverse consequences of social decay operating through cause and effect, what the early Christians called material and effective causation, are God's wrath. In which case you have moral authority to do something about social decay, to enforce the spirit of divine law, to interpret and apply the law in ways that give effect to the intent of the law. The mullahs are implementing the letter of Islamic law, but they still have social decay, and the adverse consequences of social decay.
That they apply Islamic law on paternity without reference to DNA, and thus without reference to its spirit and intent, without reference to the fruits of the tree, implies that they apply the whole ball of was without reference to its intent, its intent being to bring female sexuality under male authority.
You have to interpret divine law and divine prophecy as acting through what the early Christians called material and effective causation, what moderns call cause and effect, chance and necessity. Otherwise it is no use.
Jim I think when you talk about female sexual misconduct even you miss the salient point.
Eugenically desirable women just should not be allowed to be single AT ALL. I don't care if they want to become nuns. I really just don't care whether they are slutty or pure at all.
When you talk about women looking for a booty call from Jeremy Meeks and serial monogamy you are correct about the kind of sexual misconduct of modern women… BUT when you talk about whore school or general female sexual misconduct sluttiness etc. no that is not the problem not today anyway. And if we had that problem it would be more tolerable than what we have now.
Progressive brahmin women who go to college are more like progressive nuns who occasionally sneak out of the convent to fuck Jeremy Meeks but they don't have much sex (with men anyway) in general and certainly not with many men in the fashion of a whore. We need to avoid mixing up our correct diagnosis of the problem with stupid beta tradcon theories which get it completely wrong.
> Progressive brahmin women who go to college … don't have much sex (with men anyway) in general
You are wrong. They don't have much sex with ninety five percent of the men who go to college. Nineteen out of twenty men who go to college do not get much sex. Does not imply that women who go to college are not getting lots and lots of sex, most of it sex with men.
They have lots and lots of sex, the vast majority of it heterosexual. Even gold star lesbians usually have more sex with men than they have with women. A gold star lesbian has never had a relationship with a man, but she has usually had a good deal more sex with men than with women.
A gold star lesbian is a woman who goes out to the club, and goes backstage to chat the the guitarist, but when the guitarist assigns her to fuck one of the roadies, does not count it as having a relationship to the guitarist, while a regular non gold star lesbian thinks she is in a relationship with the guitarist.
What? American girls go to college and get fucked. Alot. You're lucky if you can find a college grad with an n-count below 10.
"You are wrong.
They have lots and lots of sex. They don't have much sex with ninety five percent of the men who go to college."
Oh they have sex with Jeremy Meeks when he calls but Jeremy Meeks has lots of girls and even if he is having a threesome he can only get to so many of them in a day.
They are having far less sex than women in the 60s 70s and 80s (who supposedly really were promiscous whores) were having. I know women lie about sex constantly but all the data points in that direction.
> They are having far less sex than women in the 60s 70s and 80s
My data does not point in that direction. The supply of virgins is ever shorter, and women are more hardboiled, indicating that more of them have had sex with more males whom they perceive as extremely alpha.
Most men are having less sex than we did in the eighties.
Even gold star lesbians usually have more sex with men than they have with women.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pregnancy-teen-lgbt/pregnancies-more-common-among-lesbian-gay-bisexual-youths-idUSKBN0NZ2AT20150514
The reason lesbians are twice as likely to get pregnant is that if a girl thinks she is a relationship with a man, that means she is turning down booty calls from lesser alphas while she awaits a second booty call from Jeremy Meeks, while if a girl does not think she is in a relationship with a man, still taking booty calls from alphas lesser than Jeremy Meeks.
Women are having less and less sex in the sense that they are spending more and more time waiting for a second booty call for Jeremy Meeks, but they are having more sex in the sense of banging more males that they perceive as extremely alpha, which renders them less and less marriageable.
You will recall that the "A Rape on Campus" drama was concocted by a woman who failed to get a second booty call, and then instead of letting go, concocted fake pre-selection (in the form of imaginary rape) foolishly thinking that what is attractive to women is attractive to men.
Lesbians get more straight sex than straight women, because when they score a booty call from Jeremy Meeks they do not put their entire life on hold while they await a second booty call.
When I was in university, the common wisdom among the boys was "date off-campus", as in, date girls who did not go to university.
Because it was well known that almost all of the girls at the university were (a) disgusting whores and (b) liable to start serious drama that could harm a dude's future prospects, both at the university and afterward.
And this was before the Rolling Stone hoax. Long before. College boys have known this for decades upon decades, so it's a mystery why so many men who went to college seem to not only have forgotten it, but flat-out deny it.
Same as the AoC hysteria. Every guy knows that girls have sexual desires long before age 18, because every guy was 14 once. There's some kind of memetic virus that's rewriting men's memories of their own past.
> There's some kind of memetic virus that's rewriting men's memories of their own past.
That is nothing compared to the memetic virus rewriting girl's memories of their own past.
Well take the whores from your day and ratchet it up a few notches for the modern day American college girl.
https://www.instagram.com/p/B3U9XTGgJqp/
https://www.instagram.com/p/B1g8ijDgKF2/
Nah, that's girl brain WAD.
>When I was in university, the common wisdom among the boys was "date off-campus", as in, date girls who did not go to university.
And especially, marry off-campus. I just figure that in the US there is such a strong push on people to go to college that the off-campus dating pool is going to consist of non-whites and very stupid whites.
It is easier over here but not that easy – my hairdresser and similar GFs were boringly stupid and only useful for sex. And the worst part was that their status ladders and mine did not match.
Eventually I found a woman from a small village who was smart but her family was too poor to support her through college so had to start working as a waitress at 18 to help out her parents and never got around to go to college. I married her.
BTW another thing that sounds bad to me in the US is the habit to go to a different city to college precisely to get out from under parental authority. When girls commute to a local college from their parents house and thus still under the fathers authority they tend to be better behaved.
I just figure that in the US there is such a strong push on people to go to college that the off-campus dating pool is going to consist of non-whites and very stupid whites.
What's wrong with the latter? Especially if "dumb" really just means in the 95-105 range.
Nothing against the choice you made, but I'd pick a dumb white virgin over a brilliant whore 100 times out of 100. And if the dummy is not a virgin, but has had maybe three or four serial LTRs, would still pick that 99 times out of 100.
Unless we are talking about DMV-lady tier stupidity and aggression, brains just aren't that important in a marital prospect. Large gaps in IQ can make it difficult to communicate, but that's only an issue if you assume men and women are supposed to be equal partners.
Not Tom:
Won't your kids end up with average (your iq + her iq) /2?
Not that high iq is necessary for a good life, but still. What we do here would not be on the table for your kids in that case.
Otoh i have heard the mental faculties would inherit more from the father than the mother. Don't know why that would be, is there something to it?
No, the average IQ of their race is also included with a high weight, along with a high degree of randomness. Which means you can't breed geniuses, you can only breed races like pre-WW2 Hungarian Jews that are known to produce a few geniuses per million births. Or dig up John von Neumann and clone him from teeth.
If any significant number of IQ-influencing genes are on the X chromosome, a boy's IQ would correlate more closely with his mother's than his father's, while girls inherit equally from both parents.
Yeah, more or less what Dave said, though I'd call it hereditary IQ rather than racial IQ, because there are subgroups within races.
Our intelligence is about 80% genetic and 20% "unknown" (let's call it environmental, with the caveat that no known successful interventions exist). Actually, that ratio changes with age, but it ultimately settles on 80/20 according to current evidence.
So if my ancestors were all average 115 IQ (and yes, that's totally a jab at "Allah" and friends), and my IQ is inexplicably 180, and I have children with another 115er, then our kids will average 115, or perhaps slightly above that because there may be legitimate mutations in the 180, but nowhere even close to the 147.5 that you suggest.
If I am from a 100 IQ group, and my wife is from a 100 IQ group, and our actual IQs happen to be 130 and 120 respectively, then our children will be around 100 – not 125. Thus, it makes little difference whether I choose a wife with an IQ of 120, or an IQ of 80, if both are from the same 100 baseline group.
If reality were otherwise, assortative mating would have produced a race of geniuses by now. But it hasn't, it has only succeeded in producing an isolated, degenerate, and increasingly stupid elite.
Miscegenation is a real problem, but marrying down is not.
There ARE some families where the really smart kids aren't outliers but they are all like that (or at least all the males are while the women are above average but closer to the mean) others they are anomalies. So yes some couples consistently seem to produce 130+ or even higher children its rare but it exists.
So yes some couples consistently seem to produce 130+ or even higher children its rare but it exists.
Again: not racial, but hereditary.
Hereditary intelligence is like hereditary diseases. There are groups within groups; African blacks are at high risk for sickle cell anemia, Ashkenazi Jews are at risk for Tay-Sachs, but that's just probability; either you're a carrier or you aren't, and if not a carrier, your kids can't get it. Intelligence is dozens or hundreds of these alleles that we're getting better at identifying but that interact in ways we're still very far from understanding.
So yes, you can have a couple that's just more intelligent, genetically, than the average for their race, because race doesn't tell you everything. If you take two 85-IQ white people, they can still have 100-IQ children, and if you take two 100-IQ white people, it might turn out that they themselves had 115-IQ ancestors and produce 115-IQ children.
What does not happen is couples who are average intelligence for their race, with no family history of above-average intelligence, mysteriously managing to consistently produce children that are above average and who themselves have above-average children. The Law of Large Numbers makes it a near-certainty that the first part will happen entirely by chance, due to the environmental factors we still don't understand, but those results are not persistent because the mechanism isn't genetic.
We can try to get high-IQ people to breed in the hope that some of them turn out to have persistent traits, and maybe that's not the worst strategy in the world, but spontaneous mutations don't produce children with persistent, hereditary intelligence two standard deviations above their parents. It's just not a thing outside the fantasy world of Marvel comics.
We've had this conversation before; regression toward the mean is very real, which is why I'm dismissive of your plan to guarantee harems for smart guys. It won't work; like all other interventions, it'll just screw things up in ways you can't predict, like promoting other undesirable traits or just causing massive social problems.
If we want to get smarter through breeding – as opposed to some sort of futuristic genetic engineering or synthetic enhancement – then we will have to follow Gnon's plan, which is naturally eugenic, but also a very slow grind. Very hard and very slow to make gains in average IQ, because positive genetic mutations happen very slowly, and very easy to lose them, because positive genetic mutations don't stick unless they reproduce.
Gnon's solution:
1. A smart group finds effective methods for large scale cooperation.
2. Rules. Imposes cooperate equilibrium on everyone.
3. Imposes cooperate/cooperate equilibrium on elite women. Possibly imposes female cooperate, male defect, reproduction with non elite women, but this is apt to result in problems with non elite taxpayers and warriors.
4. Breeds.
The historical record tells us that religious repression, repression of non elite systems for cooperation and anti elite systems for cooperation against the elite, works, but not if it is carried out to the extent that risks troubles from other causes turning into holy war. Even if you win the ensuing holy war, as for example Ireland, you lose. The English elite were successfully turning Ireland Anglican, and successfully imposing the West of Hajnal line reproduction pattern, until a succession dispute turned into a holy war, and they never recovered, even though they won the war. The Catholics lost the war, but the war entrenched Catholicism and the East of the Hajnal line reproductive pattern in Ireland. The far milder progressive repression has successfully suppressed the old East of the Hajnal line reproduction pattern in Ireland in favor of child support and childless cat ladies, and Irish Catholic priests are celebrating abortion, divorce at female whim, and gay marriage.
Also, you need at least three quarters of the male population able to accomplish property, wife and children, and secure possession of these, or else things are apt to get a bit tense. You don't automatically get trouble, but when trouble happens for some seemingly unrelated reason, it is hard to recover. Turns out that warriors are more willing to fight for God, King, Country, and family, than they are for God, King, and Country.
uranus rises says:
Not Tom, Dave, do you have textbooks or reviews explaining the latest research on intelligence and heredity?
The latest research is unlikely to be reliable. You are likely to be better off with older research.
So an individual has a baseline genetic iq that regression to the mean will revert his descendants' iq towards. He might express his genetics diverging from it.
I know many families where this baseline seems to lie around 2sd, across the three generations i have knowledge of. Don't you? I know of other older families where similar or greater baselines seem to have lasted centuries.
My family is such, 1 grandma dumb as a nutcracker, bless her soul, but her husband near genius, other grandparents very sharp, parents and all aunts and uncles sharp, all siblings and cousins sharp, some impressively so, myself of course the embarrassing black sheep from a great flock of stable geniuses.
Subgroups within races, yes, very small subgroups, it seems to me.
Does not fit at all with there being movement towards a lower baseline.
Let me modify – on average over big numbers, kids iq = (dads baseline iq + moms baseline iq)/2. Is there any data to suggest regression to the mean implies anything more than that outliers within a family will have more normal kids, and that the ultra outliers won't reliably breed with other ultra outliers since they are too rare?
I haven't seen it, and it doesn't make sense to me nor look like what i see in smart families.
In historical mating, groups where rather small – the smartest mate you would find would rarely exceed 2sd simply because of rarity.
I have read quite a lot of material claiming that whore school assortative mating actually increased this cap to 3sd, which will establish families with that baseline. Good material for future post restoration elites!
> I have read quite a lot of material claiming that whore school assortative mating actually increased this cap to 3sd
The material that projects this also makes the outrageously false claim that universities are selecting on IQ more than they used to. This claim is self serving and a blatant lie. University selection for IQ was highest in about 1800-1875 and has been diminishing since then. It collapsed in the 1980s, and by 2010 was insignificant.
Measures of IQ for college graduates have been declining steadily, and in recent years collapsed.
[jim] Gnon's solution:
Yes, that is roughly what I had in mind. The smart fraction must be given the freedom to succeed, form communities and have large families without imposing this top-down.
Intelligent, healthy, functioning communities seem to intuitively figure out what traits to look for and promote among their people, which are not the same traits in every community; but all attempts so far to centrally-manage the process – that is, state eugenics programs – have failed horribly, and often caused holiness spirals. Among other factors, eugenics have to focus on achievement, not theoretical potential.
[uranus rises] Not Tom, Dave, do you have textbooks or reviews explaining the latest research on intelligence and heredity?
If you're looking for a single treatise, then no, not that I know of; only individual research papers and meta-analyses. Textbooks are Cathedral artifacts so you're unlikely to find answers there.
But I don't think that most of the claims I'm making on this particular subject are very controversial or heavily disputed. What in particular are you looking for a citation on? If you're not convinced of regression to the mean, consider also that IQ is highly correlated with wealth, and most family fortunes tend to vanish after a few generations; both of these findings are individually robust, and together do not prove, but do strongly suggest, that IQ itself regresses.
[ten] I know many families where this baseline seems to lie around 2sd, across the three generations i have knowledge of.
What does "seems" mean? I find that word suspicious in context, given that IQ is empirically testable.
I am quite good at estimating IQ, and I don't believe I've ever seen this phenomenon. Not in my own family, not in university, not in any of the elite institutions I've worked in or with. Admittedly I've never looked at Mensa as I've never had any interest, but I'd expect to see the same pattern there, if not more so.
It is not uncommon at all to see families that average 110-115, and if they produce a lot of male descendants, then several will be close to 130 by chance alone. But to average 130 across multiple generations? I have never seen this, it's far more common for parents ~130 to have children ~115 or even lower.
Maybe you are projecting a higher IQ onto some of these folks than they actually have, because of their family association and your own apparent bias that it tends to run in the family.
[ten] I have read quite a lot of material claiming that whore school assortative mating actually increased this cap to 3sd
OK – where are those families? Let's see these positive outcomes that interventionists always claim are real yet somehow we can never seem to verify. In particular, I'd like to see the black families consistently producing 130-IQ kids and grandkids, because there's no reason for this effect to be racially bounded, and surely if these families existed then they'd be poster boys and girls, and the New York Times would be writing gushing articles about their greatness and how important it is for Diversity programs to keep sweeping the streets of Chicago and Baltimore looking for marginally-intelligent blacks to assortatively mate.
I think it was Charles Murray who speculated that assortative mating could produce these super-tribes, but that's one part of his research that hasn't held up very well in practice. What we have seen, however, is that brain drain is a social disaster for everyone involved; communities stagnate, and intellectual migrants reproduce at a much lower rate. Even if assortative mating did consistently produce smarter offspring, which is not in evidence, that is not very helpful if it produces those offspring at 1/10th the normal rate and far below that needed for replacement.
If anyone has seen studies with real data on the frequency of high-IQ individuals (130+) having grandparents with high IQs, that would be a very useful contribution that could potentially cause me to reconsider some of them above. Absent that, I'll go with my own observations plus the logical consequences of existent science.
Since i only know of two iq tests in the three multigenerational smart families i am thinking of, i can only go by my estimation of the iqs of the rest, thus "seems".
I trust my estimation ability quite highly, but of course this might be wrong.
Interventionists? Luring as many smart people as possible to a campus and letting them mate is no intervention. The overpopulated universites themselves are an intervention, but eventual assortative mating effects are not.
There are not enough 130 iq black people at campuses for it to happen to black people. There would have to be large enough black smart factions at universities for them to be able to form racial groups while still guaranteed to find enough 130 iq blacks within those groups that one of them will want to mate. None of these criteria are remotely true, nor will ever be.
They are basically true for whites though.
The assortative mating can occur and produce a new tier of baseline in the midst of whore school, crap birthrates etc, they are not mutually exclusive. But you are obviously correct, if the positive effects occur at all they are minuscule compared to the terribly ruinous effects.
If i find some sources that i think might cause you to reconsider i will come back to you on it.
> Luring as many smart people as possible to a campus and letting them mate is no intervention.
Trouble is that they are luring stupid people to the campus, and that smart women who somehow wind up on campus anyway are substantially less likely bear children
At least, since they are no longer selecting for smarts, the dysgenic effect of pulling smart women out of marriage and into whoredom has diminished.
Perhaps that academic selection for smarts has been diminishing ever since 1875, and diminished radically in the 1980s-1990s, is counterbalancing the ever increasing efforts to discourage marriage and children among university educated females.
To the extent that smart women go to university it is dysgenic. Female marriage and reproductive success is positively correlated with IQ for any given educational level, but negatively correlated with education. Education causes cat ladies.
Jim's description of Gnon's method reminds me of the Netherlands. My limited understanding is that men were promised land if they helped reclaim it from the sea. New communities were created with groups of cooperative men who had probably had some level of intelligence. I don't know their level of patriarchy. If some coverture we're added, would that sound like an effective way to increase the base iq?
My limited understanding is that men were promised land if they helped reclaim it from the sea. New communities were created with groups of cooperative men who had probably had some level of intelligence.
First time I hear that, but would make sense, at least say in the 15th century of land reclaiming. Can't imagine such a racist policy in the 20th century creation of Flevoland.
(It is interesting that there's still plenty of space left in the Ijsselmeer to reclaim, and originally the plan was to do exactly that, but I read that the plan was killed in 2003 because of environmental concerns.)
As for patriarchy in the Netherlands… As dead as a doornail >_<. I wager the Netherlands scores very well on the emancipation ladder; hence the failure of my generation to have children.
>As for patriarchy in the Netherlands
Glad you weighed in. What about patriarchy in the 15th century or whenever land reclaimation occurred? Would that have created a nice environment to raise the Netherland's base iq?
Likely, but not in any way that deviates from Jim's 'Gnon's method'. If you look at art from the Dutch golden century, 17th century, it's proud men with stretched arms and colorful clothes. Patriarchy is assumed. Which means a fertile, expanding elite. That such an elite expands, whether towards foreign land, reclaimed sea or outer space, is a consequence of a healthy society; not the other way around.
For the last 1000 years the minimum IQ needed to perform useful work has been increasing, albeit slowly enough for most of that time that evolution was able to keep up by letting unemployable people starve to death.
When, in 2050, the 160-IQ manager of a fully-robotized factory marries a woman of 140 IQ, 90 percent of their children will be unemployable dunces with IQs below 125. With those odds, why bother having kids?
We'll always need tens of millions of moderately intelligent breeders for the same reason baseball needs minor leagues. Without the occasional genius to address unforeseen problems, robot/AI-based civilization will collapse. Amish farmers will then clear the ruins as best they can and plant crops.
Not-Tom's takes are usually top notch, but he's misinformed on how heredity of IQ works. Measured IQ = (1) Genetic potential (50-80%) + (2) Ontogenic Stochasticity (20-50%) + (3) Measurement Error
Regression to the mean happens when you luck out on items (2) and (3), and then your descendants don't have your luck, so their IQ converges to item (1).
So regression to the mean happens on both levels: If you score extremely high, chances are, it was (kinda) a fluke, and next time your score will regress to your true potential.
And then, regression of your descendants due to them not having the ontogenic luck you had.
A pair of 130IQs will absolutely produce a normal distribution of offspring IQs with a mean of 130, if both parents had zero ontogenic luck (their genetic potential was actually 130).
Now take a subpopulation with average IQ 130 from a population with average IQ 100. If narrow sense heritability of IQ is 50%, then the next generation will have an average IQ of 115, normally distributed. Thereafter, this population will ALWAYS produce offspring with average IQ 115. Take from this new population, a subpop with average IQ 130. The offspring of this new subpop will regress TOWARDS 115: assuming again heritability of 50%, a normal distribution with average IQ 122.5.
"ten" is correct. Average IQ runs in families. If you want to select a mate with high genetic IQ potential, ask about her parents, or better yet, grand parents.
Let's say the grandparents (4 of them) had an average IQ of 100. Parents have an average IQ of 120. Then the children are expected to have an average IQ of 110 (50% heritability).
Grand Parents: Avg 100
Parents: Avg 120
Children: Avg 110
If the grandparents had an average IQ of 120, and their parents (8 of them) had an average IQ of 100, then assuming again the parents to have 120 IQ, now the children will regress towards the parental potential of 110, averaging 115.
GGPs: 100
GPs: 120
Like breeding horses, the more you know about the lineage, the better.
Now take a subpopulation with average IQ 130 from a population with average IQ 100. If narrow sense heritability of IQ is 50%, then the next generation will have an average IQ of 115, normally distributed
When we say 80%, or 50%, or whatever percent of IQ is genetic, we don't mean that as a literal mathematical function. IQ is distributed on a bell curve because we measure it that way; in terms of its effect on intelligence it's more like a logarithmic function, and log-distributed traits probably don't work with linear math.
But let's pretend that they do. You're right that there is genetic luck in addition to environmental luck. Same with all of these hereditary diseases – heterozygosity means you might get two copies (disease), one copy (carrier), or no copies at all of the defective gene.
If both parents have one "good" copy of a gene – and we have to assume it is just one copy, otherwise we'd be talking about preexisting persistent racial/ethnic traits and not spontaneous mutations – then the probability of inheriting both copies (because remember, our goal is to fix these mutations, so we don't care about only getting a single copy) is 0.25.
The problem is that intelligence is not one gene, it's hundreds of them (at least), and those smart parents are unlikely to have the same mutations. If X, Y and Z all contribute, then yes, there's a 50% chance of carrying (one copy) and a 25% chance of fixing (two copies), if both parents have a copy of each.
But if that's not what happens, then odds get much worse. Let's take the worst-case scenario where parents have totally exclusive sets of mutations:
– Mom has one copy of A1 and A2, zero copies of B1 and B2
– Dad has zero copies of A1 and A2, one copy of B1 and B2
– Therefore your chances of receiving just one copy of A1, A2, B1 and B2 are 25% each. Chance of two copies is obviously 0% in the first generation.
– Chance of receiving all of [A1, A2, B1, B2] is 0.25^4, or about 0.4%.
– Chance of receiving any of [A1, A2, B1, B2] is 1 – 0.75^4, about 68%.
– Chance of receiving at least two is 0.25^2 * 0.75^2 * 6 + 0.25^3 * 0.75 * 3 + 0.25^4, or exactly 25% which should be the intuitive guess.
So already in this scenario there is less than a 50% chance of inheriting as many mutations as either parent had, and we are assuming that that a single A and a single B has the same synergistic effect as two As or two Bs, which isn't necessarily the case. If it isn't the case, and you actually need either both As or both Bs, then the probability of inheritance goes down to 0.25^2 * 2 + 0.75^2 * 2 + 0.25^3 * 0.75 * 3 + 0.25^4, or only 11%.
And even this is ignoring the possibility that some combinations of mutations are harmful or even deadly. And of course, to actually fix a mutation you need to have this happen twice, in different families, and for those offspring to mate, and eventually produce descendants with two copies, and for those descendants not to mate with other descendants who have zero copies. Clearly this is more likely to happen in a sub-population where at least one copy of all the "good" genes is being "carried", if not actually fixed – but how far are you willing to go with this, are you willing to form a tribe like the Ashkenazi Jews and just flat-out ban outmarriage, enforced through very strict patriarchal control? And if so, how?
The worst part is, no one really understands how all of the genes interact, which ones are synergistic and which ones might actually be harmful, the relative importance of each one, etc. Maybe the wrong combination gives you low-functioning autism. And of course it is possible that some genes can only be inherited from one parent – such as whether you get an X or Y chromosome.
There are just so many unknowns here right now, that at best we're able to say something like: "there is somewhere between a 1% chance and a 50% chance that positive genetic mutations for intelligence will become fixed through assortative mating", and very high-level observational data on the actual impact of 100+ years of assortative mating is looking none too promising for the upper end of that range.
This is why I say it's a very slow grind. Mate after mate, generation after generation, and eventually maybe a population will manage to get just a few pro-intelligence mutations to actually fix, out of the hundreds that are potentially floating around.
And the one example you give – two 130-IQ parents from a 100-IQ population producing grandchildren with an average of 115 or better – is exactly what we don't see, what I'm insisting on evidence for because the insane complexity of genetic intelligence makes it extremely unlikely even if 100% of the numerical IQ score were determined by genes, which it isn't.
Again: where are these families? Historical records and common sense all point to the fact that even with rather strict limits on outmarriage (such as hard geographical boundaries), it can take tens of generations for significant populating differences to emerge. A permanent 15-point jump in IQ after a single generation would be an absolutely shocking find; a 30-point jump, which is what ten was suggesting, is simply beyond the pale.
Not-Tom,
I hate to see you dig deeper like this, because you're otherwise highly insightful. However, you're plainly wrong on this.
Most of the variance in genetic potential of IQ comes from 10s of thousands of ADDITIVE alleles. That is, there are positive and negative versions of a strip of DNA code whose effects on IQ are small, but these effects are linear: they add up.
Narrow sense heritability is concerned with this additive part of the polygenicity. And it's dead simple. Breeder's equation from wiki: Response to Selection (R) is equal to narrow sense heritability (h^2) times selection differential (S).
R = (h^2)S
This works for all kinds of highly polygenic (and due to central limit theorem, normally distributed) traits: height, bone density, athletic performance, milk yield, size of organs, tendency to obey order, tendency to be good at shepherding sheep etc. As long as you can quantify, you can observe h^2, and then you can selectively breed.
The reason most polygenic traits are mostly additive is that evolution loves it. If most of the genetic structure was due to weird non-linear synergistic effects (epistasis), (as you seem to be pointing out with your calculations) natural selection would not work. When an allele's effect is additive, it has a good chance of spreading via natural selection. When it requires weird synergistic effects, it's useless to others.
Taleb used this non-linear polygenicity argument on twitter and was swiftly BTFO'd by Cochran. Taleb says you need HUGE (on the order of 10^30 or so) data sets to infer genetic structure of highly polygenic traits due to CURSE OF DIMENSIONALITY (with added obscure arrogant mathy prose for maximum bamboozlement). Cochran laconically asked: how do you talk away something that already works? Implying of course that selective breeding works, and that we already have polygenic risk scores for things like height (which, last I checked explained 40% of the total variance). (Also PRS for Educational Attainment, proxy for IQ, at 10%).
Look, we're so advanced at inferring additive structure of intelligence that there are now papers estimating genetic intelligence of Bronze Age, Iron Age, and classical period Greeks from publicly available ancient genome databases. (See Woodley).
> Where are these families.
Cochran talks about this (for instance Los Alamos High School if I remember correctly). And he also successfully conducted his own positive eugenics program: all five of his kids have >130IQ.
>it can take tens of generations for significant populating differences to emerge. A permanent 15-point jump in IQ after a single generation would be an absolutely shocking find;
The truth is, it is trivial to achieve.
> a 30-point jump
You would need a pool averaging 160IQ to achieve that from a baseline of 100. But, there are already families with genetic potential exceeding 130IQ (as Cochran demonstrated).
Epistasis vs additivity
https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2011/08/epistasis-vs-additivity.html
Why additive variance is the main driver
https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.1630
Estimation of height: (skip to part 4, and 4.2 in particular. By including 47k SNPs they achieve a lower bound for h^2 of 0.69)
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/05/07/630079.full.pdf
It's at times like this i wish i paid more attention and dedicated more stuff i read to memory, instead of just absorbing the general gist of it and trying to recreate an ad hoc model out of my ass when needed
And he also successfully conducted his own positive eugenics program: all five of his kids have >130IQ.
I keep seeing examples like this cited as evidence. Kids are not evidence; grandkids would be evidence. Again, where is the evidence?
I'm not really clear on the rest of your point about the effects being additive. I've been assuming that they're additive the whole time; the possibility of non-additive or harmful combinations was in the disclaimers, not in the math.
I never said anything about nonlinearity except in the context of IQ itself functioning as more of a log scale, which it does. And I didn't deny that selective breeding works, which it clearly does, but pointed out that it takes many generations even for traits that are far less complex than general intelligence, which it absolutely does. Refuting these is strawmanning. I'm not Taleb and I've never been interested in his ridiculous arguments about IQ; I am 100% on the IQ heredity train, I am just saying it is not as trivial an equation as having high IQ people mate.
Sure, we've got people "estimating" that historical figures and even entire populations were this or that IQ. We've got people saying that the American pioneers averaged 120, for example. So what? Are these testable claims? What is their function as scientific evidence, as distinct from e.g. psychics doing Remote Viewing sessions and describing their visions in elaborate detail? Anyone can make predictions, and anyone can say their predictions must be true because of all the glorious data we have, but in the long run what matters is reproducibility – in both senses of the word.
You are saying the same thing that I am saying in several places – that all of the technical arguments aren't worth a damn in the face of actual outcomes. But you are pointing out outcomes that don't qualify as success. Having kids with high IQ is not success, it's guaranteed to happen to some couples by chance and doesn't prove that the traits are fixed. We need to see the second and third generation descendants. IQ tests have been around for over a hundred years; surely there must be a few examples of intelligence fixing in 2-3 generations if it's that easy for it to happen.
The proof is when the high-IQ kids of one couple mate with the high-IQ kids of another couple and produce children with the same IQ. I'd all the grandkids have same or higher IQ, that supports the claim that the mutations are fixed. If the grandkids are lower, even if not quite as low as population average, then that instead supports the regression-toward-mean hypothesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli_family
The proof is when the high-IQ kids of one couple mate with the high-IQ kids of another couple and produce children with the same IQ. I'd all the grandkids have same or higher IQ, that supports the claim that the mutations are fixed.
Mutations are nearly 100% deleterious.
> I'd all the grandkids have same or higher IQ, that supports the claim that the mutations are fixed
Ignorant and unwarrantedly confident. Like I explained in my previous comment, de novo mutations are not what makes you smarter. In general they make you slightly dumber, and dumber still if homozygous (1st cousin marriage). But they're not the primary, or secondary driver of genetic intelligence. STOP ASSUMING YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AND LISTEN.
> I've been assuming that they're additive the whole time
No you haven't. Significant additivity predicts what I'm saying (i.e. response to selection will be governed by Breeder's Equation). You're denying what the Breeder's Equation predicts for genetic intelligence. And apparently you don't even understand that you're rejecting the additivity assumption. You don't even know enough about the subject to know that you're arguing for domination by epistatic effects. Or you have a novel model for genetic structure of intelligence (doubt).
> then that instead supports the regression-toward-mean hypothesis.
Your conception of what regression-towards-the-mean means is wrong. Take a subgroup of avg IQ 130 from a baseline pop with avg IQ 100. Their offspring will have avg IQ 115 following Breeder's Equation with h^2 = 0.5. First, explain why this happens. Why didn't they regress further back? Why is the new mean 115? Second, explain why you think the offspring of the second generation will regress AGAIN? What theory, what hypothesis predicts this? You think "regression-toward-mean" predicts this. IT DOES NOT. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT REGRESSION TOWARDS THE MEAN IS.
> Having kids with high IQ is not success, it's guaranteed to happen to some couples by chance
Predicting the winning number is different from predicting _a number_ will win. Predicting that there will be couples with offspring average IQ 130 is trivial. Predicting that the average IQ of _this specific couple_ will be greater than 130 demonstrates you have prior knowledge, i.e. predictive power.
> Are these testable claims?
Testability comes from applying the predictor to out of sample data. They predict.
> There must be a few examples of intelligence fixing in 2-3 generations if it's that easy for it to happen.
What you demand is an unreasonable standard for evidence (a commie tactic). You would need such a sample that contains IQ scores for all grand parents, then IQ scores for all parents, and then IQ scores for all children. Knowing the scores of a prospective grand parents group would be totally insufficient to kick off this experiment as the group would not inbreed (unless you have totalitarian powers to make them so). So what you demand is basically time travel.
However, we have observations like noticeably high achievement in high schools near concentrations of scientific endeavor. And multi-generational high achievers. And Cochran. And personal observation if you went to selective schools and asked your peers about their parents.
Anyway, I won't keep debating you unless you admit your ignorance.
Ten,
It's a very simple model really. Think of intelligence increasing and intelligence diminishing alleles as discrete balls. Now these balls have all different effect sizes, and they're almost all small. But you can add these effects up when calculating genetic intelligence. So to determine intelligence of a person, you simply add up all the negative and positive balls weighted by their effect sizes and voila.
Now because there are 10s of thousands of balls, the distribution approximates Gaussian. Just do the math and you'll see it turns out this way.
Now the offspring average intelligence depends on parents' aggregate pool of positive and negative balls. You draw randomly from this pool and distribute the balls to the offspring. Which constitutes a normal distribution with mean equal to parental average.
The offspring get to keep the genetic luck (their positive balls). They don't get to keep ontogenic luck (no balls). Hence regression to genetic potential.
Take a subgroup of avg IQ 130 from a baseline pop with avg IQ 100. Their offspring will have avg IQ 115 following Breeder's Equation with h^2 = 0.5. First, explain why this happens.
You've given this example twice, but what I've seen suggests that intelligence has very high broad-sense heritability and considerably lower narrow-sense heritability. I saw at least one study estimating h^2 at 0.35; with that figure, you'd get 110, not 115.
But assortative mating is also not breeding. The breeder's equation says that third generation (100 -> 130 -> 110) sticks. If the third generation 110s mate with other third generation 110s then they stay at an average of 110 (according to the equation, and assuming we accept its applicability to IQ). But if the third generation 110s mate with second generation 110s, which is what university-style assortative mating is doing, then even the equation does not say they stay at 110, it says that they keep regressing. One could argue that there are enough third generations in the system to make that a non-issue, but that is especially unlikely to be the case when these pops have crashing fertility; almost all breeding is with "immigrants", so to speak.
I hardly think that IQ scores for parents and grandchildren is an unreasonable standard of evidence. We've had IQ tests for over a century – that should be 4-5 generations on average – and with ~300 million Americans, that's 7 million current individuals above 130. And you are calling me a commie for saying that out of a pool of 7 million, we should be able to find at least one couple who married within the last 2 generations and had both themselves and their grandchildren tested? Complete bullshit. The odds of this happening are above 99%, if the underlying premises hold. If the underlying premises don't hold, then it would indeed be very hard to find examples.
I am not an expert in quantitative genetics and never claimed to be. If that's the admission you want, then there it is. What I do know how to do is identify assumptions inherent in arguments. For example, by claiming that the univariate breeder's equation perfectly predicts multi-generational effects on IQ, you are making all of the following assumptions:
– That IQ is a single, simple variable like height. We actually know for sure that it's not; some populations show differences between verbal and spatial IQ, and that may be a simplification. There are still some phenomena that don't have universally accepted explanations, like the Flynn Effect.
– That all of the selection events are independent, which may or may be the case; for example, factors such as maternal age and stress during pregnancy can affect IQ, and previous children affect those factors.
– That there is a single documented and accepted value or range for narrow-sense heritability of IQ; there are reproducibility problems with these values, and where there are repro problems, there is the distinct possibility that all of the results are wrong.
– That the breeder's equation works perfectly and over long periods of time. It's an approximation that works well over a small number of generations, that's all. And yes, now that I read more about this, it turns out that nonlinearities actually can be an issue.
– That people like Cochran having smart kids is unquestionable proof that all of the criticisms are wrong. At best, these are evidence for the applicability of the first and least important part of the breeder's equation; the second part, the one that matters, the one that says that the resulting trait from the offspring actually becomes the new average and does not regress further, is still not in evidence.
The Bernoulli family example is interesting and worth looking into. As of this moment I'm still undecided, because we don't know much about the progenitors, and while the Wiki article says a lot about which general areas of study the sons went into, it's not clear how many of them were high achievers (for example, look up the entry on Jakob II Bernoulli – drowned while bathing the river, WTF?). But it's a lead, and I'm following it.
> assortative mating
I don't care about contemporary assortative mating. You were stating incorrect things and I corrected you. That's all.
> should be able to find at least one couple who married within the last 2 generations and had both themselves and their grandchildren tested
This would be very very rare to begin with. But such a case with added condition of all 3 generations having 130 averages is much much rarer. Think about the logistics of testing for your standard. The easiest way I can think of would be to tap into a database like SAT or ACT scores since the inception of these tests. I don't know if such a database exists, or how far back the records go, but even assuming you have the data, ascertaining familial relations would be hard. You would need a public database for all family trees (this does exist in my country going back to early 19th century, but idk about USA). Then you have to worry about lots of surname changes (marriage), and collision in surnames. Then there's the problem of not many people going to college 3 generations ago, thereby not many grandparents taking the SAT or ACT.
If you went the way of IQ testing all three generations now, you'd first have to find a pool of willing 130s (already not that easy), then convince all their parents to take IQ tests (very hard), then convince their grandparents to take IQ tests (ooof). And then there's the problem of cognitive decline after age 30. Sure maybe you can control for that, but the task is already a tall order. Then within this sample you'd look for multi generational 130s. Since the initial sample would already be small (willing 130s), maybe you'd find what you were looking for or not. Let's say you did. What would this prove? You could always say this was bound to happen just by chance.
> That IQ is a single, simple variable like height.
There we go again with the Talebian smoke blowing. (Taleb made this exact argument, that IQ is not a true measure because … what exactly? His excuse was that you'll have different scores if you take the test multiple times, i.e. that there's measurement error. Yes he really made this argument with a straight face.)
> simple variable like height
What makes you think height is simpler than 'g'? Do you think there's a simple slider in the genetic config files of humans, for determining height? Height is just as polygenic as 'g', with 10s of thousands of SNPs contributing. All those SNPs are involved in just as complex metabolic pathways with potential pleiotropy and epistasis. Truth is, the logic of measuring phenotypic height, validating that measure (consistency etc), and then associating those phenotypic measures to genome wide data to infer a predictor (PRS) is exactly the same for 'g', measured by proxy via IQ.
> the Flynn Effect
Flynn Effect is not on 'g'.
> maternal age
As maternal age increases (like paternal age), offspring IQ slightly decreases due to more accumulated de novo mutations. This effect is not huge. Why? Because 10s of new mutations vs 10s of thousands of hereditary SNPs.
> and stress during pregnancy
Consider that literal famine did not diminish the average IQ of the Danish cohort born in 1944. Same in North Korea. Same in Chinese Great Leap Forward. 'g' seems to be remarkably canalized (look this term up with search terms: "evolution canalization").
>there is the distinct possibility that all of the results are wrong
More smoke blowing.
> [Breeder's Equation is] an approximation that works well over a small number of generations, that's all.
Again, unwarrantedly confident assertion. It is true that since genetic variation of the initial population is finite, after a finite amount of steps, Breeder's Equation will stop working: all the positive SNPs will fix, and all the negative SNPs will perish. However, with moderately large pops (1000s), this will not happen before 100s of steps. Look at agricultural practices for example. Chickens, corn. The shifts in averages they achieved since 1950s in terms of std is mind boggling.
> unquestionable proof
Ok. Let's calculate an upper bound for the probability of having 5 children with all +130 IQs (from a baseline of 100). +130 is 2.5 in 100. So p ≤ (1/40)^5 the second part, the one that matters, the one that says that the resulting trait from the offspring actually becomes the new average and does not regress further, is still not in evidence.
No you still don't get it. The "regress further" part is your addition. When breeding for all kinds of phenotypic measures, Breeder's Equation calculates the new genetic average from the offspring of the selected group. This empirically works for all kinds of selection criteria. Your contention is that this singularly shouldn't/won't work for IQ.
Oops. Using the 'less than' symbol fudged the format up. The last part starting with "+130 is 2.5 in 100. So p ≤ (1/40)^5" should continue:
"So p ≤ (1/40)^5 ≤ 10^-8. So predicting this would be equivalent to predicting a 1 in a 100 million event, based on your assumptions."
Then the last sentence of that paragraph starting with "the second part, the one that matters," should be in green text arrow. What followed was my response to that quote.
Anonymous 2 says:
Presumably it was tit-for-tat after those Iran-sponsored fellows ran wild on the US embassy a couple of days ago. Which was, if memory serves, tit-for-tat for a previous air strike. Immediate reaction: I don't like it.
I'm not namefagging.
Jim, when are you going to realize I won our debate and correct your myopia?
https://busy.org/@anonymint/east-vs-west-china-to-dominate-the-world
You're referred to in my blogs. Note I agree with and have supported most of your core tenets, except for our major disagreement about the Big Picture behind the curtain.
And why were you the first person to respond to Satoshi within hours of his initial post on every mailing list where he announced Bitcoin? Are you a pysops disinformation agent?
Please answer and not censor.
I will not belabor the point. I only want to read your answer. Please do correct me. I will read with an open mind.
Is this the same Shelby who vowed to fight to the last drop of blood… after giving up his guns and running to the Philippines?
Yes. That Shelby.
The one who declined to answer when I asked him about his current guns.
I may well do the same, and I currently spend a great deal of time outside the US, so am sort of half way to doing the same. It is a good solution on the individual level, and if things go really bad, we will likely wind up with a large expat community. The genocide of the Tutsi was stopped by Tutsi expats, who had solved the problem individually when the genocide was small and slow, and when the genocide was had gone massive, took action to solve it collectively, and in the worst case outcome, the same may happen with whites, but applying the individual solution while loudly advocating collective resistance within the United States is unimpressive.
A refugee community, rather. "Expat" is used by Westerners who cannot accept the fact that they are immigrants/refugees.
I've seen it used by immigrants to the U.S. as well, so not strictly a western thing.
If we're being completely honest, I think it primarily distinguishes white immigrants from nonwhites.
> I think it primarily distinguishes white immigrants from nonwhites.
An expat is someone who fills out IRS form 2555, and it is primarily white people who fill out IRS forms. If we return to the Peace of Westphalia, there will be no more form 2555.
Jim, I'll be ready to fight if I'm not too old, when we can win. My weakness is being too brave and willing to fight (the damn Cherokee genetics I guess), not vice versa. I'll keep an eye on Trump's draining of the swamp, and keep one foot in the USA in case opportunity beckons.
In the meantime, Soros is pissed off that the Chinese patriarchy is succeeding. So perhaps it's best to align with that strong horse for the time being and keep my head below the tall poppies in their sphere.
P.S. I'm writing a blog about Angeles City where I am at the moment. Seems this might be the one of the sweet spots. Mindanao has been a pita. Will be interesting also to observe what happens with Australia. Thanks for allowing the dialogue.
Mindanao is great, aside from the small problem that Muslims are apt to blow one up or abduct one. I was in Davao when Mayor Rodrigo Duterte made the place safe, and considerably less corrupt, and it was very nice. What did you find wrong with it?
I also first visited Davao in 1994 just after the San Pedro Cathedral had been bombed.
Back then Davao was a paradise but now with development the traffic has become a pita. A coastal road is being constructed which may alleviate for a while, but they'll stay far ahead of insatiable demand for vehicles. Overpopulation is a drag.
Massive infrastructure projects are planned for Davao, and so I expect this means torn up roads, snarled bumper-to-bumper traffic, mud everywhere, etc.. Which is what I've been observing lately under the Build, Build, Build program. I'd rather leave while they upgrade Davao and come back in a decade when they're done.
Additionally Davao is boring. No nightlife. Nothing is Americanized. Can't even find Chicken Strogonoff or a sports bar that displays the American college football and NFL games. No decent Mexican nor Thai food either. Angeles City has all these because of the former U.S. airbase here. Some 800,000 filipinos here in Angeles with American fathers. So you can see some cuties with American genetics. I am tired of living in a backwater locale with nothing to do other than the Internet.
Also C. and N. Luzon are a few degrees cooler. I am active in outdoor sports so the equatorial heat wears me down. I find it to be a breezier and less humid up north here in Angeles.
The idyllic climate I would choose in Mindanao would be Manolo Fortich. There's just so many problems lurking such as jealous neighbors, greedy local govt officials, corrupt police, roaming kidnap for ransom gangs, Abu Sayaf, NPA, etc.. Your neighbor can decide to produce charcoal inundating you will smoke. Or run their karaoke so loud you can't hear yourself talk in your living room. The larger your investment (i.e. if you want a large land area to protect from neighborly misconduct), the more of a target you are.
Tagalogs seem to be more educated and respectful. In the SM Clark mall, 3 times I bumped into someone because of my blinded right eye, and they all profusely apologized to me. I was shocked. In Mindanao they get pissed at me when they cut me off and run into me because I can not see them coming on my right side.
Mindanao was historically a place where every man had several knives strapped to his body. There's a reason the Americans had to slaughter the Muslim women and children in 1906. The Muslims were using them as human shields and then conducting raids on farms.
Mindanao is a pita. Do not try to invest there as a white man.
Angeles City is full of whores and thieves, and Filipino street food in Davao is great – fresh bread and lechon baboy.
Durian is indeed the King of Fruits. If you are hanging out in Angeles City's little America with all the other Americans, you missed out on all the good stuff.
But if you are a white man in Mindanao without the appropriate social connection, you will likely get killed. I am mildly surprised you survived. Little America in Angelese city will indeed keep you alive.
Jim maybe you're thinking of something along these lines?
https://www.getrealpundit.com/2019/01/jolo-terrorist-attack-could-justify-moro-islamic-liberation-front-renege-on-promise-to-disarm/
Thanks for the discussion. I will probably go silent again for months or longer.
Same old same old. We have been up and down this road for centuries.
Would you say expats might be a group more likely to recognize the Cathedral?
I wonder if it is easier for Americans to organize outside American hegemony. Fewer federal agents, but still have to use English language internet.
My perhaps partial and unrepresentative perception of expats is that in substantial part they either think of themselves as refugees from the Cathedral, or are likely to easily come to that conclusion.
Self-defense is not a right. It's something we will just do regardless when the stakes are high enough. In the Philippines, afaik we're allowed to possess and deploy semi-automatic rifles in our homes for self-defense, which is already more permissive than Chile for example. In Latin America, it's effectively illegal to use your gun for self-defense. And Chile may soon have a Marxist Constitutional change. California will soon if not already have less permissive gun rights than the Philippines.
I'm confident you agree that strategic thinking is more important than some gun right edicts from some illegitimate State. When the time is ripe, we'll take up arms in the West and reestablish the homeland. I'm afraid we may need to stand by first and allow economic, societalcide creative destruction to open the necessary opportunity for it.
I'll argue that strategically we'd be wise to help the societalcide collapse accelerate, rather than resist, so that the idiots won't even have the organization to get around to taking our guns from every cold, dead hand. And the sooner we can accelerate to Madmax or civil war, the greater the percentage of the population which hasn't kept up with the radical migration of the Overton window. The more shocking, extreme and devastating the lurch to the left, perhaps the more strong the reaction you want.
As I think you've alluded to in some blogs about history of left singularities, what we don't want instead is decades or centuries slow slide of attrition into a Dark Age. IOW, strategically we want a horrific left singularity?!
Why would the Chinese patriarchs fear a restoration of Western patriarchy? Are we natural combatants and competitors? Must there be only one superpower in some more well considered future world? Would integrating into their system now help forge an interconnected future economy?
Do you in fact possess a semi automatic rifle in your home in the Philippines?
Because if you are in Mindanao, you are going to need it.
I'm no longer going to be in Mindanao. I recently sold everything (any any guns) and currently living in short-term rentals out of two suitcases until I decide where I'm going to settle. I thought I was headed back to the U.S.A. in January, but I've apparently changed my mind again. I have not visited the USA since 2006.
Can/will you share? Something worse than Marawi imminent? Or just the usual warlordism and roaming kidnappers?
Recently I visited Dahican Beach near Mati. A prominent national politician's son has a beach house there. I was told some foreign lady was banned from the Philippines for taking photos of the DENR violations there. You know how it works in the Philippines. With the right connections, the law can be bent in your favor. When I was there in Dahican I climbed the mountain on the peninsula and was later told I was lucky I had not been abducted by Muslims there.
I have traveled all over Mindanao even in Maguindanao and Cotabato City for example. Mindanao is extremely dangerous. As I said I am too brave for my own good. I have even walked around in the mountains in these areas all alone at night and the local Datus thought I was missing a few screws upstairs. I have carried felled trees on my head for up to a kilometer up and down from the mountains to see if I was as strong as the natives (before I contracted the Tuberculosis and Dengue which has so messed up my liver).
Jim if you want to lose weight then adopt the Warrior diet. Eat only dinner as much food as you want but avoid fructose. Fast more than 18 hours a day. MSM will help you avoid hunger throughout the day and has numerous other positive health benefits. I dropped from 75 to 65 kg in two weeks. 65 kg was my weight 30 years ago in my 20s.
> Or just the usual warlordism and roaming kidnappers
Just the usual Muslim problem Same as it has ever been, but getting a little bit worse because Duterte's health is failing.
Five percent Muslim is a crime problem, ten percent Muslim is a crime problem sometimes breaking into low level civil war, thirty percent Muslim is low level civil war sometimes breaking into high level civil war. The only thing that ever works is the Burmese solution.
> Jim, when are you going to realize I won our debate
You did not win the debate. I fell silent not because I was dazzled by your brilliant arguments, but because I lost interest in debating you when you asserted with great confidence that mining is satisfactory, and the proof of stake problem is insoluble.
Mining is not a satisfactory solution to governance. Bitcoin is controlled by a single pool of very large miners, totally vulnerable to state power, who have fled the the US hegemony to locations in the Chinese Hegemony, and on the periphery of the Chinese and Russian Hegemonies. This is an inherent result, not so much of mining, but of the scaling problem, which inevitably results in a relatively small elite issuing the decision on the total order of transactions and the validity of transactions. We need a governance model that aligns incentives and enables the inevitably concentrated elite with power over the currency to more effectively evade large scale centralized coordinated violence. Which implies control by private keys, rather than weight of computing power, which implies a solution similar to weight of stake, since we want many keys controlled by many people, a numerous elite dispersed over the world and resistant to coercion.
I also lost interest in you because you confidently asserted that we do not need a solution to the problem of coordinating large scale organized violence. We are always ruled by priests or warriors, or something of both, and the bitcoin governance model does not scale, and has hit its scaling limit.
The double spend problem is a particular case of the problem of rapidly establishing a single broad consensus on the total order of transactions in a very large highly distributed database, and it turns out that a lot of governance problems can be reduced to a solution to the problem of totally ordering transactions in a very large distributed database, but not, however the problem of organizing large scale violence.
You made two foolish assertions, and I judged that if you did not understand the problem, you are unlikely to understand the solutions.
Our current political situation is rule by priests. Which was OK for a while, but has now gone bad and is rapidly getting worse, which will inevitably result, possibly after a long time and much chaos and bloodshed, in rule by warriors. My plan is:
1. Catch the tide, handle the inevitable return to warrior rule by recovering the lost social technologies that made it work not too badly. That solution being rule under God by a divine right monarch, alpha backed by the ultimate alpha. England stabilized as a result of the successful centralization measures implemented by William the Conqueror, and got good governance, and a good state religion, as a result of the successful decentralization measures implemented by Charles the Second.
2. Solve the crypto currency and scaling problem with the crypto corporation.
I was referring to my argument that we Westerners need to adopt decentralized fiefdoms because restoration of a monarchy is probably not realistic (if the reasons I reiterated in my recent blog linked above are valid). In said blog I have responded to your original point of contention that we need large-scale patriarchy (i.e. monarchy) for our defense, by suggesting that we move to Asia and live in some country under China's Belt & Road empire underway. I wonder if Australia or New Zealand will break free from the Five Eyes Uniparty progressivism and join the patriarchal Belt & Road empire? Are too many Australians are cucked? Are the legal immigrants to Australia adherents of demo[n]cracy or patriarchy?
I didn't argue that we don't a coordination solution. Rather I argued that your proposal for the restoration of a monarchy is not likely going to be a realistic solution at this juncture. And I proposed looking for other solutions such as decentralized coordination and now I am adding to the suggestion of (at least temporarily) aligning with China's coordination.
Hey I lost interest before you did. I didn't reply again after you censored my last comment in the prior discussion some months ago. The discussion had reached a stalemate. Was pointless to waste time. I came back with some more organized/researched articulation in my recent blog and also a new suggestion.
…but not, however the problem of organizing large scale violence.
Possibly smart contracts might help patriarchy avoid winner-take-all imbalances, deceit, defection, and other problems with coordination. IOW, if 50+% of decentralized fiefdoms concur with some smart contract which calls for them to contribute coordinated violence given some violation signaled by said smart contract. Blockchains can help us check transparency while also enabling privacy. For example, homomorphic proofs can enable proving that some invariants were met or not met without revealing the private details of those.
I've been accused of having a highly unrestrained imagination.
Mining is not a satisfactory solution to governance. Bitcoin is controlled by a single pool of very large miners, totally vulnerable to state power, who have fled the the US hegemony to locations in the Chinese Hegemony…
I mentioned some months ago that there may be a solution to the proof-of-work mining centralization problem. Satoshi appears to have intentionally designed Bitcoin to become centralized whereas I contemplate that a few tweaks could have ameliorated the problem. Note there can be no such thing as CPU-only proof-of-work. For example, I blew up RandomX with both a generalized abstract argument and a specific case of that abstraction that applies to the RandomX design (check their Github issues for the thread).
The one hint I will give you is that it's not the computational algorithm that needs be tweaked (although I have a significant improvement for that also), rather the protocol rules for choosing the longest chain. I've had this solution in mind for more than a year, but I've been dealing with liver health problems as a first priority. My liver was preventing me from sustaining enough brain energy to work effectively. Seems to be much improved due to MSM. Now I just need to decide where to settle down again and get back to being a programmer again.
I agree Bitcoin mining is apparently sufficiently centralized to allow the FATF to regulate it:
https://busy.org/@anonymint/our-bitcoins-will-be-taken-frozen-by-the-miners-involuntary-income-tax-on-frozen-bitcoin
Proof-of-stake can not be a solution in any formulation because it will always devolve into patriarchy/oligarchy, which can be rubberhosed. Also decentralization should ideally be an antidote or resistant to the dysfunctional modes of oligarchy.
When you don't understand what the other person is doing, it can appear indistinguishable from voodoo — Arthur C. Clarke
So then the fool thinks he is observing a fool. You're no fool. Just sometimes a bit overzealous when dealing with nerds like myself who are not that articulate nor on point (probably worse when I was dealing with chronic fatigue, dementia, and discombobulated semi-consciousness).
My plan is:
Ditto. Just timing and details between here and there we may differ.
(been awake all night and do not have time to proof-read what I wrote)
> I argued that your proposal for the restoration of a monarchy is not likely going to be a realistic solution at this juncture.
The argument that return to divine right monarchy is not practical is just the argument that reversing progress is not practical.
If reversing progress is not practical, then we are stuck with child protective services criminalizing the biological family, with Sarbanes Oxley converting accounting from a method of tracking the creation and transfer of value, to an ever growing collection of holy rituals empowering an ever growing collection of priests to screw over merchants whenever merchants attempt to create value and move it around. We are stuck with law that allows a person identifying as a man to have sex with a person identifying as a woman, but criminalizes the heterosexual mating dance, criminalizes the behavior that heterogamous organisms need to successfully reproduce.
But progress has happened before, many times, and been reversed before many times, and the first step in that reversal is usually a warrior taking imperial power with the priests trembling before his praetorians.
The tide comes in, and then it goes out, and the turning of the tide is warriors taking power from priests.
Your proposed solution to bitcoin centralization is too idiotic to merit a response. Tweaking the algorithm can only have a modest effect on centralization, which is caused by the necessary coupling between scaling and mining.
Satoshi believed that we should not let the best be the enemy of the good enough, and figured we could deal with scaling problems when they arrived. The important thing to do was to get a working decentralized crypto currency out there and running. But now scaling problems have arrived.
Too corrupt to stay bought, they implemented both Israel's foreign policy, and the "International Community" anti Israeli policy.
Or were playing both sides. To maintain as much of ugly mess as possible, so it "requires" intervention all the time. And to avoid either doing something genuinely unpredictable that could inconvenience them.
Jim, posted a comment to the thread re the glorious revolution which I think got caught in the filter, can you look into it? Thanks!
Here is the original comment:
Jim, want to challenge you a bit on the Glorious Revolution being not a Whig victory
1) Both Moldbug ("The Hanoverians were sham kings") and Carlyle thought 1688 was a Whig coup and a turning point for England.
2) Locke moved to England post-1688 and got a high level job in the government (Board of Trade)
3) How can a revolt which displaced the legitimate heir to Charles II (which you credit as a great monarch), installed two women as rulers and made Parliament powerful be considered right wing? I think you can defend it from a libertarian perspective as having reduced state power (I don't agree with this, btw) but not from a right wing perspective.
> 2) Locke moved to England post-1688
I stand corrected.
I mistakenly thought that Locke moved out in response to the Glorious Revolution, but he moved out earlier and moved back in response to the Glorious Revolution, which does make it look awfully like a Whig coup.
Locke was a "freethinker", which is not exactly a puritan descended belief system, but tended to be a cover for, and rapidly assimilated into, puritan descended belief systems.
Freethinkers were not holiness spiraling, but they always wound up acknowledging the sincerity and moral superiority of those that were holiness spiraling, so always wound up being dominated, used, and absorbed by holiness spirals.
The only possible response to weaponized holiness is not to say "misguided and impractical virtue and goodness", but to denounce their beliefs as evil, self serving, and demonic, and attribute to them the intention to do what most holiness spiraling movements wind up doing: Mass murder and mass destruction. Any attempt to ally with a holiness spiraled movement always winds up as a one way alliance, because they view you as evil, and a tool to be used and then destroyed. A holiness spiraling faction always assimilates or destroys its allies, and frequently both. That is inherent in the nature of weaponized moral superiority. Because of moral superiority, they are bound to treat their ally's cooperation as defection.
Free thinkers and puritans had the same abusive one way relationship as "fellow travellers" and communists.
Locke should have been put in a lunatic asylum.
Does this change your assessment of the period from 1688 to Queen Caroline?
I think there is a more complex relationship between Whiggism / Classical liberalism and Puritanism / leftism in that the former was generally good on what they wanted but bad in their means, e.g. democrazy, which lead them sometimes to become a stalking horse for the latter (even though I would point out a majority of classical liberals opposed non property qualified and female suffrage, although this is already pretty left wing). I think the royalist classical liberals like Voltaire and Turgot had it right in trying to push through reforms using the power of the king.
I would blame the drive towards democrazy as more of something that was inherent in Christianity once it became secularized given that the Tories also contributed a lot to leftism (who pushed through 1832 reform act, factory acts?). Under a Christian environment the path of least resistance is for everyone to out left each other which lead to bizarre outcomes like George Fitzhugh defending slavery through anti capitalism and Carlyle being in favour of socialistic measures and not reproducing.
Anonymous Fake says:
Abolishing indulgences and usurping ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the matters over such matters (Puritan theocracy and later leftist "theocracy without God") is the beginning of usury. Governments and state churches always come to accept usury as a source of funding after they reject the doctrine of purgatory, and the need for indulgences to escape it.
From usury, we get capitalism, and from capitalism, we get "wolf of wall street" lust driven capitalists, motivated by sexual desire to work harder. They work their tails off and pay for everyone else's welfare state, used to destroy the family and deliver more meat to the capitalists.
Republican government is also Protestant territory, based on elected politician bishops rather than those rightfully appointed by the pope, or at least the king, and then recognized by the pope. The capitalists of course love this because big elections are expensive and are de facto controlled by the rich who can afford to run, the bankers and merchants.
This is the perfect storm explanation of how republicanism, capitalism, sexual liberation, and ultimately the demographic fall of the white race can all be traced back to a handful of heresies that defied the rightful authority of Rome. God grinds slow in history, but he grinds small…
It's still strange how atheists can be open to this theory, but it's always different denominations of Christians, even Catholics, who don't want to believe it. Capitalists don't believe it but they only believe in money and everyone already knows this and accepts it.
Capitalism is ancient beyond history.
Off topic.
That New York Landlords are disproportionately Jewish is irrelevant to the great Minority Mortgage Meltdown, which had no obvious connection to New York Landlords, and only a peripheral connection to Jews. The Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown had a minor and peripheral connection to Jews through the disproportionately Jewish derivatives market, (Jews selling dud financial products derived from Mozillo's dud mortgages) which connection I mentioned in the post to which you reply.
Your implied argument is "You guys are hate Jews, so let us burn down the supermarket and steal a case of beer."
In my post, I gave Jews coverage proportionate to their sins in the Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown, which is a quite small proportion.
You hate landlords because they have stuff, and you want to take other people's stuff. We don't have a problem with other people having stuff, and that New York landlords are disproportionately Jewish fails to enrage us against Jews.
Some Jews behaved badly in the Great Minority Mortgage meltdown, but the Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown was overwhelming Hispanics and Democrats, not Jews, behaving badly, in particular Angelo Mozillo. The Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown is an argument for sending Hispanics to Mexico, not an argument for sending Jews to Israel. In particular, it is an argument for purging Hispanics from the banking system, not Jews from the banking system. Jews in banking will figure out clever ways to charge you too much if you don't pay attention. Hispanics in banking will just loot the bank and neglect to pay out your parent's IRA when they die.
"not an argument for sending Jews to Israel"
Aidan MacLear says:
Jewish NY landlords live in terror of being royally screwed over by the liberal city government's stupid and evil housing laws, and have next to no influence on said city government. NYC catladies sent Steve Croman to jail, Steve Croman could not send the catladies working for the city to jail.
I saw the "American Greed" episode on Steve Croman, landlords never go to jail for the kind of shit he was doing.
My guess is that he was approached to make a huge contribution to the Democratic party, he being a greedy jew and not wanting to part with any of his money told them to go fuck themselves and they railroaded him.
The God-Emperor was an NYC landlord and before he President he used to make payoffs to the Democratic party. It was not the NYC catladies who sent him to jail but his failure to payoff the Democrats that sent him to jail.
Dunno about NY, but I do know an American professor living here in Austria who owns an apartment in Massaschusetts or Minnesota, don't remember which one, and told me it is a nightmare, he needs the rent income to pay the mortgage but the tenants regularly stop paying in November and he is not allowed to throw them out during the winter. I told him we have a similar law here in Austria but that is why I had to pay 5 months of rent worth of deposit on my apartment, precisely to bridge over this winter expulsion ban period in case of not paying. Then he told me the law allows only 2-4 weeks worth of deposits there. Wow!
That's really stupid and evil. And the only solution is to rent to friends of friends who are reliable. Referral system. You know, I did live under Communism and everything worked with a referral system because not having a proper market we had to have a secondary market of favors but those not being enforceable at a court of law we had to ensure the other guy is reliable.
Such referral systems do work on a small scale. You can rent out one apartment that way. Or three. Not three hundred. It does not scale up. The whole point of capitalism is having court enforceable transactions between strangers because that is what scales up.
"We all know that …" Appeal to false consensus. Oldest leftist trick in the book.
Not only do we not know that, the post to which you reply vigorously denied what we supposedly all know.
If you want to argue that Trump is a criminal, and the Trump campaign is a nest of criminals, you are free to argue that but I am not going to let you tell us we already agree. Trump and the Trump campaign have been gone over by a team of hostile lawyers with a fine tooth comb, looking for something, anything, that could be used against them, and they came up clean as a whistle.
trump is a criminal
all of his close associates are known or convicted criminals or associates of known or convicted criminals
washington is full of criminals
trump waltzed into washington with zero political capital
the top criminals in washington burned an insane amount of credibility to remove him from office
and got nothing for it
If Trump was a criminal, then when Mueller went over his affairs and the affairs of everyone connected to him with a fine tooth comb, would have found something more interesting that what he managed to find.
That they went after Manafort for an inaccurate mortgage declaration shows how hard up they were for any actual illegality. Very few mortgage applications are accurate, because there is a pile of papers a couple of inches thick, and no one ever reads everything on them, and normally no one cares about inaccuracies that do not misrepresent the value of the property and the ability and willingness of the borrower to repay.
All the other stuff was stuff like "lying to the FBI". If you talk to the FBI for eighty hours, they will find something you mispoke, misremembered, or phrased in a way that can be deliberately misinterpreted.
okay, let me rephrase
if a politician is heir to a power base (e.g jfk) he's the cleanest person in existence
if a politician isn't heir to a power base (e.g most congresspeople) he goes to a jeffrey epstein and "buys in"
That Mueller only turned up a few frivolous, technical, minor, and incredibly obscure illegalities indicates that Trump and his circle are incredibly clean, far more clean than any normal person, probably because they expected someone to go over their affairs with fine tooth comb.
I think he is saying "cleanest person" in an ironic manner.
Pepe's Ghost says:
Looks like it might be even worse with talking to the FBI. They dpn't record the interviews, only the agent's recollection of it after the fact. So it really doesn't matter if YOU get every fact right in an eighty hour interview. If they want to bust you the agent just has to "misremember" what you said and you go to prison. And if they can pull that stunt on a full bird General they can danged sure do it to you.
Now, more than ever, if you are ever in the presence of a Fed you SAY NOTHING. If they allow you to record and you can somehow (pro tip, you can't) put a copy out of their reach, then maybe. Otherwise do everything in writing only. And probably only with digital signatures involved. Our government should be considered a hostile actor with zero trust or honor.
This is why if the FBI interrogates you you insist to have it done in your lawyer's office with you recording it.
Our government should be considered a hostile actor with zero trust or honor.
It got so bad in Rome that only 30,000 of the original 1.3 million inhabitants hadn't fled. Mostly it was just cows who had occupied the former great city.
Why anyone would want to stick around when the writing is on the wall. It's time to just turn off the lights, because when the corruption is this deep there's no such thing as draining it. The priests who control 90% of the minds of the population, including apparently most of those who write on this blog, are in control because we won't just turn off the switch. We continue to give legitimacy to their BS by even wasting one iota of time discussing whatever BS lies of the day they are promulgating.
Edward Snowden was the point of no return. Martin Armstrong's 224 year collapsing model for the U.S. (which he created more than a decade before) peaked precisely on the date that Snowden made is irreversible move towards the expose.
There is no switch to be turned off.
There is no mind control, there are status hierarchies embedded in meme systems, and the forced propagation of these meme systems, and the forced destruction of alternative meme systems and organisational models.
The priests do not lose power if the radically few leave.
Snowden was just a fucking dude who pulled down the pants on his boss.
You are insane.
After reading the Bender affidavit
https://www.docdroid.net/DtiLYBH/bender-affidavit.pdf
I concluded that the real reason there's so much political hate and orange-man-bad propaganda is because our enemies had already tried to corrupt Trump in the usual way, starting back when he first came to financial prominence — and failed. Repeatedly. And that means — he knows about their corruption, and is doing what he can to stop it.
Also likely the real reason some formerly jello-spined congresscritters have started finding their balls: suddenly it's okay to NOT be corrupt, because Trump has their backs, and they no longer need to keep their heads down if they're not on the take.
> "Thus the Puritans lost power in England in 1660, and England became sane, and remained sane for a century and a half…."
Jim, can you recommend a history text or an old book that goes into this in detail?
That the puritans lost power in 1660 (The restoration) and were subjected to unrelenting ridicule until about 1810, is standard mainstream history, albeit they retroactively write the Whigs (originally another name adopted by the Puritans since the name "puritan" had become a laugh line) backwards into that period. I am giving you standard mainstream history, except that my interpretation of the Glorious Revolution is not mainstream, pretty much the reverse of mainstream. That the Glorious Revolution was anti whig is demonstrated by the fact that John Locke and people who believed as he did fled England, and rewriting it as a glorious victory for whiggism is simply the reverse of the truth. The nonconformists ran away. (Nonconformist being the then word for people who choked on the official state religion, which was Puritans under their multitudinous new names, and Roman Catholics)
The mainstream reluctantly acknowledges that science, technology, industry, and empire got going, by mysterious coincidence, immediately after 1660, but never mentions those events in connection with the restoration, or the restoration in connection with those events, though it was Charles the Seconds men at arms that made meeting of the Royal Society possible, and his patronage that made them and the scientific method high status.
Well, to me the Glorious Revolution does look like the Parliamentarians won. Not the Puritans, but the Parliamentarians, who were allied in the Cromwell era. Which means the Whigs won, does it not?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronation_Oath_Act_1688
"The oath was fundamentally different from the traditional coronation oath which recognized laws as being the grant of the King whereas the Act's oath sought to bind the King to rule according to the law agreed in parliament."
This is what the Parliamentarians wanted. A constitutional monarchy. A monarchy of sham figurehead kings. This oath implies a slippery slope towards democracy.
Locke fled England during James. And returned under William, accompanying Mary. And wrote in the preface to the Two Treatises:
"Our Great Restorer, our present King William…in the consent of the people, which being the only one of all lawful, governments…has more fully and clearly than any prince in Christendom…and to justify to the world, the people of England, whose Just and Natural rights, with their resolution to preserve them, saved the Nation when it was on the brink of Slavery and ruin."
So, I think the Parliamentarian Whigs won. Maybe the Puritan Whigs not so much.
I stand corrected on John Locke.
'English Society 1660-1832' by JCD Clark.
Thank you. On it.
I have not read this, but on checking the reviews and summaries, I am going to read it now.
It solves the question, to whose answer I was unaware, of late virgin marriage. Women were simply prevented from engaging in sexual activity until the support of their children could be secured, which restraints started to fail in the early nineteenth century, resulting in the crisis depicted by Dickens and substitution of the welfare state for the family. I look forward to his analysis of marriage and family in Ireland, where things happened rather differently.
newwest says:
What is the presidency? (if not the president's office and authority)
The executive branch bureaucracy, much of it civil service.
Samuel Skinner says:
I think it is basically every department whose head is appointed by the president and is supposed to be accountable to him; nearly all of the US government with the FBI, CIA and NSA the most relevant.
Creeping coup | Reaction Times says:
They are searching at least for their initial prosecutions for ways around the Trump deranged swamp creature D.C. jury pool…
Hence Durham and Giuliani trying to find their crimes in foreign countries to extradite them to.
Extradition of US citizens? The cover of legality would be less transparent if martial law were declared and the swamp creates simply shot on sight.
Filthy Liar says:
What country do you think United States citizens should be extradited to?
Whatever one we can…
Oh, they're U.S. citizens now? Where's that famous "dual citizenship" that's such a popular topic with the blackpill shills?
You think extradition is the plan.
But then again, if these wankers are not tried in washington, where else can they be tried for treason.
After looking at what that place did to roger stone, maybe washington needs to get fucking drained entirely.
Federal crimes tend to be tried in the district they were commited or where you are living the problem is most of these people were living and did most of their crimes while in DC.
I suppose the prosecution could ask for a change of venue but that is a huge long shot… but a lot of the big players in the Democratic party were involved in looting former Soviet states such as Ukraine and may have committed crimes in foreign countries that they can be handed over to… and in such cases the DC jury pool will not be a concern. Handing over US citizens for crimes commited in foreign countries is generally legal and mandated by treaty in some cases (though not with Ukraine)… there are exceptions if the country wants them for a double jeopardy trial then they cannot be handed over but its quite legal…
Hell, just look at Julian Assange. Australian citizen, being held in a UK prison, supposedly awaiting extradition to the U.S.
If foreign nationals can be tried in the U.S., then obviously U.S. nationals can de jure be tried in other countries.
And this is not a new technique for Trump.
Trump could not stop the migrant caravans with US law so he forced Mexico to do it by threatening to ruin their economy… if he can't convict Democrats in DC under US law it makes sense and is very Trumpian to have another country do it.
Handing over US citizens for crimes commited in foreign countries is generally legal and mandated by treaty in some cases (though not with Ukraine)… there are exceptions if the country wants them for a double jeopardy trial then they cannot be handed over but its quite legal…
Foreign countries are very unlikely to do this unless Trump is firmly in control of the US goverment, which he isn't. This is something that might happen after a Trumpain counter coup, but not before it. The arrests and detainments will have to happen in the US.
They do it for Trump and all the sudden Trump becomes firmly in control of the US government.
If they do it and Trump isn't firmly in control the US goverment then they'll get destroyed. They have no incentive to make such a move.
"No incentive?" You don't think there's just a teeny bit of incentive for an ambitious foreign leader to help the most powerful man in the world on paper become the most powerful man in the world in reality?
Not Tom exactly… that and Trump managed to get the Mexican leader to stop the caravans despite the fact that the caravans were an invading army hired by Soros and I'm sure the Cathedral was quite pissed that he helped Trump out.
It largely depends if they think Trump is going to win or not. The safe play is to do nothing especially since it's not clear that Trump is going to win.
Everyone is waiting to see which way the wind blows. If Trump looks like he is about to become the most powerful man in the world in reality there will be a world wide cascade of Trumpists.
But until the people that committed crimes against Trump, and vast numbers of other Americans, go to jail, he is not the most powerful man in the world. If he cannot send them to jail, the crimes will escalate, resulting in the elimination of Trump, Trumpists, and the entire right.
Big Brutha says:
Which is to say, when it comes to Democrats giving us due process, none. At that point we will be faced with a choice: get out or make war. Because short of picking either of those two options the Democrats and ruling elite have only to decide you are a problem and then use state apparatuses to make you persona non grata and jail you or commit you to a facility or disappear you or assist you in having an unfortunate suicide/accident. And they will pick those who resist off one by one. Red flag laws being an example of this kind of trend. When you say the wrong thing you'll get mobbed on social media, then doxxed, then called into HR first, then fired, then end up under investigation, then have your assets frozen. And if you still won't back down then you go to jail or get put in the nut house, or suicide you.
Problem is that war is a collective endeavor. Can't be done without leadership and organisation. Only a leader can choose to make war. If your leader is absent or doesn't choose war, you only have the choice between getting out and submitting – unless you are an expetional man and have the potential to become a leader.
Indeed. However, at a certain point, waging a private war is no worse than the alternative since they are going to kill you anyway. And if enough citizens wage private wars that has a way of starting a preference cascade. But it is also clear that you have to be ready to fail and die because in all probability you will.
Screwing your optics and going in doesn't work… not unless you manage to get top leadership people anyway.
Brevik did it right but the other idiots only hurt and didn't help.
Kevin Churchel says:
Except, even if you start a "preference cascade," the resulting mass uprising will still need organization and leadership.
My favorite historical example to analogize to is the German Peasants' War. About 300,000 German common folk uprose against the lords, fighing against a few thousand knights. The peasants had "knives" that were legally distinct from "swords" but in terms of actual blade fairly similar, and a number of cannons, and in many battles started out having favorable terrain.
But, despite being outnumbered something like 50:1, what the professional troops had were two things:
1. Heavy cavalry
2. Coordination — that is, leadership, organizational structure, and experience fighting as a unit — through which the professionals generally ended up literally outmaneuvering their more numerous enemy.
The result of the war: total failure of the rebellion, with about 1/3 of the peasants — thats 100,000 — killed, while losses on the sides of the lords and knights were, to quote Wikipedia, "negligible." We're talking a kill ratio like 1000:1 or higher.
So, it doesn't matter if your "private war" gets millions of ordinary Americans to rise up, if their lack of organization allows the much smaller, but better armed, trained, and orgazed forces at the disposal of the Cathedral (esp. the Deep State portion) are able to obtain similar kill ratios.
You're describing a warrior elite experienced in combat fighting off an unorganized mob assembled with the aim of beating them in battle. This teaches a specific lesson as to what is and isn't possible with disorganized violence but not a more general lesson.
If your the underdog, you have to fight with guerilla tactics.
This has been true since forever.
In an "honest fight" tanks, planes and drones will matter the most. In guerilla warfare, number become a lot more important. (the big key being to not be identifiable when not doing guerilla/terrorist actions.)
Guerrilas never win except they have friends in high places, priestly support from inside the state that whose army are fighting, and outside support from a foreign power hostile to the state whose army they are fighting. Guerrila warfare is just not an effective strategy. Guerrilas are just theater to cover power struggles within and between states.
If they arrest Trump, the pretense will get a bit thinner, though no doubt everyone will continue to piously believe.
Wouldn't arresting Trump trigger a civil war?
Probably. But the concept of "triggering" civil war is inappropriate. As in the drift towards Civil War I, there is gradual escalation of violence and coercion, which eventually becomes overt warfare, without any sharp dividing line between what is happening now and using nukes, though the official narrative of the aggressing side will have an official dividing line, and this escalation in violence and coercion has been happening since at least the Stonewall "riots", though the word "riot" implies that the riot happened "spontaneously" without state instigation and protection, which was not what happened at Stonewall.
There is no sharp dividing line between civil war and what has been happening and steadily escalating since at least Stonewall. If the Democrats ever get back into power, we will all get the same due process they have been giving to Trump, to the warriors, and to Trump advisers.
No. The Boomers are lazy af and the youth view Trump as corrupt. That they also view the Dems as corrupt is beside the point, because the Dems are doing what the youth want, ie getting government out of the bedroom and putting it back in the boardroom. The Cathedral is doing just fine, as far as anyone who doesn't believe Q can tell.
This is so wide of reality I can't tell if you are a bad infiltrator or just crazy.