« The optics of noticing
And another one bites the dust »
Manafort trial
Manafort's alleged crimes are boring. The permanent government's openly criminal reaction to the possibility of an acquittal is entertaining.
It is looking increasingly possible that Manafort will be acquitted, largely because his alleged crimes are obscure violations of complicated laws that are as difficult to understand as they are to comply with, so not everyone in the jury is likely to be able to keep straight what he is supposed to be guilty of, resulting in a hung jury or an acquittal. Putting him in solitary and starving him may well misfire by making the jury cynical about legalistic stuff that no one understands, and cynical about the unsupported testimony of witnesses subjected to extreme and grossly improper pressure, similar that applied to Manafort himself.
The mass media and permanent government are starting to melt down in fear of this possibility, and are attempting to intimidate the judge, dox the jury, and intimidate the jury.
So, why is it so important to permanent government that this unimportant man be convicted of a pile of minor and incomprehensible legalistic technicalities? And why was he starved and kept in solitary confinement pending trial?
Mueller's approach to convicting Trump of high crimes was to put the heat on everyone connected to Trump to come up with stuff Trump was guilty of. Anything at all. And, in order to put the heat on them, he put the heat on everyone connected to everyone connected to Trump to come up with stuff people connected to Trump were guilty of. And one of Manafort's associates was guilty of stuff, and was induced to testify that Manafort was guilty of stuff.
Despite that, and despite solitary confinement, Manafort was disinclined to testify that the President of the United States was guilty of being guilty. So he was prosecuted, imprisoned, and badly mistreated in prison by the permanent government. Still did not crack.
Suppose Manafort gets acquitted. Then it becomes obvious that the Mueller investigation is an abuse of prosecutorial power. Hence the melt down.
If the permanent government can mistreat Trump's allies and supporters, Trump is powerless. If the permanent government is exposed as abusing the coercive powers of the state to intimidate Trump's people, maybe he can stop them. Stopping them is going to feel mighty like a coup. Stopping a coup always feels like a counter coup, always is a counter coup. And using the coercive powers of the state against a sitting president is suspiciously close to a coup, so stopping that, if Trump succeeds in stopping that, is going to be a counter coup, or close to it.
Which brings me to QAnon. QAnon is full of crap. How do I know he is full of crap?
Coups come in two major forms: Creeping coups, typically color revolutions, and sudden coups. Mueller, the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the State Department, are attempting a creeping coup or color revolution. In a creeping coup, the coupists get away with one illegal act of intimidation, and this then makes it easier get away with another, bigger, illegal act of intimidation, and then another, even bigger act of intimidation. If Trump pulls a counter coup, it will be a sudden coup. And the players in a sudden coup keep their cards very close to their chest. In the Chilean coup, no one spoke the fatal words out loud until a few hours before the coup. According to QAnon, Trump's people are speaking the fatal words ad nauseam, which is unlikely.
I hope, and it becomes increasingly possible, that Mueller's investigation gets wrapped up with the bang QAnon is predicting. But until that happens, if it happens, QAnon knows no more about what Trump is up to than anyone who holds a finger to the wind. But against this possibility, Trump's government has been acting rather intimidated lately, and the permanent government has been getting away with ever more lawless and criminal acts, attempting to intimidate the judge and jury being the biggest so far. If they get away with this, then the next act of intimidation will be correspondingly bigger.
A creeping coup is by definition slow, so if they get away with nailing Manafort tomorrow, Trump will not be impeached the day after. It is going to creep, eventually resulting in Trump being impeached or indicted, which would set us on the path to ever more openly criminal, and ever less legitimate, governments, as in 1917 Russia, and 1789 France.
From 1917 to the Holodomor was fifteen years. From 1789 to the red terror was four years.
From 1917 to civil war was few months. From 1789 to civil war was four years.
Or maybe Mueller and most of the Department of Justice will get nailed, will reveal all the blackmail material that they are holding on each other, and will all go to jail for a really long time.
The big delusion of the left is that they can overthrow Trump and it will result in the restoration of normality – failing to notice that every year for as long as I can remember has been more strikingly abnormal than the previous year. They think Trump is a right wing swing, failing to notice he is a slight slow down of the left wing swing. Trees do not grow to the sky, but they grow till they fall over.
This entry was posted on Monday, August 20th, 2018 at 08:06 and is filed under politics.	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.
281 Responses to "Manafort trial"
Gypsum work contractors Dubai says:
Superb! such a nice blog! This webpage provides useful data to us, keep it up. I had been looking. Regards Gypsum work contractors dubai
beepboopburpslurp says:
I'll just drop this here: http://archive.is/UDxOS
TL;DR – the neocons are back in charge under a new guise; Q is a modified limited hangout trying to get the Trump base back into the neocon stables; Cicada 3301 was the source of inspiration (if not the prototype) for this operation.
It's an internecine war alright: (((progs))) vs. zionists.
holy moses says:
"Pedogate" broke out 3 and half years ago. So far not a single pedophile was discovered. The alt-right has not managed to find even one member of the permanent or semi-permanent government who had sexual relations with a pre-pubescent child. Not one. Nor was a single pre-pubescent child victim produced. Not one.
Must be because "not looked hard enough."
The Cominator says:
The Podesta brothers and Madeline McCann.
The victims don't live. Apparently they have a non Podesta "suspect" on McCann now but probably a frame up.
Jimmy Saville. Dennis Hastert. Large swathes of the Dutch ruling class.
>But the alt-right didn't expose them!
No they didn't. Also, not a single American of Japanese descent committed an act of "sabotage" in the entire war. And not a single Muslim "refugee" ever committed an act of terrorism in the West. And there have been more than 400 "mass shootings" in America so far this year.
Carlylean Restorationist says:
We may remain one hundred percent agnostic, or even outright dismissive of the implications of 'Pizzagate'. It still wouldn't change the fact that these people, in positions of great power, possess very, very disturbing works of art and engage in 'edgy' entertainment practices which openly flirt with Satanic imagery.
This is cause for grave concern.
>Obviously in modern times, that's not remotely feasible but back then…….
Is it obvious? Meme and achieve.
mtnforge says:
If you read nothing else you have to check out this amazing truth bomb nobody noticed about the clowns attempting their palace coup against Mr Trump and us dirt people. Even the Normie's can't miss the obviousness of the truth here.
It ties everything and everyone together from Lois Lener's IRS to the FBI, and makes a mockery out of who these villains and scaliwags are.
It's Beautiful. The plain truth is.
I think we all could help President Trump and our selves thru spreading this far and wide. I'm not saying what it is because you have to read it in the context it's written in. It will smack you upside the heed when you see the connections and implications. How it was missed till now is one of those Black Swan things.
I'm spreading it far as I can, hope you can too.
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2018/08/21/straight-outta-qompton-all-scandals-lead-through-the-clinton-foundation/
The so called "FBIanon" a LEGIT anon source unlike Q laid nearly all of this out before the Republican Convention.
I'm pretty sure Comey decided to go double agent a while back though (one 4chan theory is that FBIanon was Comey) whenever he does or says anything it helps Trumps and hurts the Democrats in a nuclear way.
This DOES tie it together pretty well in a way people who aren't 4chan autists can understand though.
Exactly. That's a whole lot of smoke.
Yara says:
In other news, literal crossdressing twink faggot and part-time furry tells NASA legend Homer Hickam to suck its dick and balls; loses NASA internship; Homer Hickam issues groveling apology.
It's 2018.
P.S. Don't even bother asking why it had received a NASA internship.
Thanks for the smile. I was worried the Evil Empire might actually get into space, for a second there.
Denny Truck says:
BOOM goes the dynamite
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/us/politics/paul-manafort-trial-verdict.html
This is it. With Cohen pleading guilty as well that sob Trump is not far behind. How does it feel voting for and supporting a racist traitor?
Oh yeah we've got Drumpf this time.
http://i.imgur.com/hNJA5iG.jpg
This place must be getting more influential if we have more then one Shareblue shill at a time.
Socialist Matters stops linking Jim and Shareblue semi-automated shills start appearing.
It really makes you think.
I take a more nuanced view of both Jordan Peterson and Social Matter then some.
They want to maintain appeal somewhat to normies and be purple pills but are too far off the reservation on some questions (Jordan Peterson is pretty damn hardcore on the woman question, its clear between the lines he wants to go back to at least pre 1920s) to really be controlled op the way say Ben Shapiro and 95% of National Review is controlled op.
We need both purple pills and harder redpills.
I do not think Social Matter has the right strategy though, Jordan Peterson's strategy makes sense because he already has a mass following. Social Matter lacks the mass following base to make the JP strategy work.
Purple pill strategy always ends with full left assimilation, and both Jordan Peterson and Social Matter are following that path all the way back to full on Maduro Socialism and War on Toxic Masculinity.
You don't have to tell people the whole truth when dangerous to do so, but when you start mixing truth with lies to make the truth more palatable, the lies are bound to metastasize.
You can get away with the Pink Pill, which is the Red Pill with the more potent but bitter tasting ingredients left out, but the Purple Pill will always poison both those providing it, and those receiving it.
>You can get away with the Pink Pill, which is the Red Pill with the more potent but bitter tasting ingredients left out, but the Purple Pill will always poison both those providing it, and those receiving it.
Omitting truths is better than telling lies but isn't great.
Other then Vox Day's chimpout about Jewish IQ (and Vox Day has lied about the woman question, and Jordan Peterson is pretty damn honest on the woman question) which may have just been an error by JP I'm not sure what hes lied about exactly. In general I think its okay to omit things but not okay to peddle outright lies.
Social Matter has been playing it worse then JP.
calov says:
I don't think the shills know how to classify this place yet though.
The are waiting for classification to be issued from on high.
They are waiting for the Southern Poverty Law Center – which is not the actual authority, but is, like the New York Times, actual authority's official megaphone.
Because our enemies rely on centralized authority, their OODA loop is way slower than ours.
I think they are thinking long and hard whether they will benefit from attacking such a blog. They are basically fine with conservative MSM and purple pill neoreaction because it tends to accept the Big Lies while going after the nitpicks around the edge. This blog attacks the Big Lies directly and exclusively in a few hundred words. On the one hand, this is dangerous. On the other, making a rebuttal, even a strong rebuttal, accepts the fact that the Big Lie is debatable and on the table for discussion, which is contrary to the whole point of sliding Big Lies under the door while you argue with Social Matter about nonsense.
Moldbug attacked the Big Lies in ten million words that few could or would read or understand, and Moldbug can still more or less show his face in San Francisco. It's not clear whether that's because he was too dangerous to rebut (as he claimed) or because his obscurantism made him safe enough to ignore.
Moldbug is dangerous to acknowledge.
It would be very dangerous to the Cathedral if progressives and intelligent bluepilled conservatives (there aren't many of those but there are enough) were to start reading the open letter.
An intelligent person can't really read the Open Letter and remain a true good progressive, even if they don't become one of us its too devastating and well laid out attack on their faith in too much overwhelming detail to shake.
Read Scott Alexander for an example of how someone copes with knowing that he believes in a lie – he just doesn't care and happily goes on lying.
Honestly not too familiar with the guy.
Look at Carl as well as proggies who have debunked Moldbug. Communism is sort of a religion, and also sort of a psychological problem, and an attitude. It is reinforced through terror, and bribes, though the bribes have fallen away, but it existed before the terror and bribes started.
Carl gives the clearest indication of where it comes from: arrogance and worship of power. Carl imagines a world where the government has the power to ban private swimming pools and pizza, and only uses that power for the good of the people, unironically and permanently, simply because he says nationalism while jumping and clicking his heels. It comes from deemphasizing the role of family men in building and maintaining, but only looking at the eternal now. It is the ideology of an adolescent who hasn't earned a seat at the table, who has no responsibilities thinks nice things aren't made by other people's work but just sort of happen, who, having rejected the scary personal god his parents told him to fear, and having no responsibilities to anyone, has no need of the impersonal god and feels free to signal whatever.
Look at Carl's reaction to Carlyle and Moldbug. Different glorious causes to justify taking power from family men and give it to himself.
And yet family values wasn't good enough as an anti-communist shibboleth either. Somehow faggots and mexiscum and kikes are family values, and married and divorce-raped White men aren't.
Doug Smythe says:
"How does it feel to be supporting a racist"- about the same way it feels to deadlift a yellow logarithm. "Racism" is a made-up word for a made-up thing.
Jerry Trent says:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/us/unc-silent-sam-monument-toppled.html
America doesn't want your conservative hate anymore
I, for one, find it relieving that the readership of NYT see the world in trichromatic tones as illuminating as /(upStandingReligiousWatcherOfTheGoodBishopStephenColbertReport|hatefulButCompliantConservativeChristcuck|literallyHitler)/
John M Morris says:
Amazed at the confusion over QAnon. It is utterly obvious what it is simply by where it appeared and what happened next. Somebody, allegiance unknown, probably friendly but only lightly attached to any center of power, realized that the autism of 4chan could be weaponized. There had been previous attempts during the '16 campaign with mixed results but somebody realized it could be taken to a whole different level. If you aren't a sperg on 4chan you can probably ignore most of QAnon because it isn't for you.
Imagine what QAnon offered the 4chan peeps. He told them their world was broken, they weren't. That the world was in the grip of Pure Evil and that with their special talents they would be able to do great things in a mighty hidden war to set things aright. He told them they had a once in a lifetime opportunity at greatness. They bought in hook, line and sinker because they wanted to believe, or for the lulz… hard to tell with 4chan sometimes. Q gives them breadcrumbs and they dig like madmen on a mission from God. And being very talented at digging they often find nuggets and connections others would never find. Who knows who Q is, and in the end who cares? What is indisputably real is what the 4chan diggers actually find and whether it ends up making a difference.
Q was used to misdirect 4chan away from the problem people in the justice department.
"Trust Sessions" tells you all you need to know about Q. There is zero evidence that Sessions is trustworthy and overwhelming evidence he is a traitor.
John Morris says:
Remember my theory is Q isn't actually plugged into any behind the scenes info. A year or so ago when he/she/they were crafting the storyline it was more plausible to believe that since Trump was cycling through people everywhere else that if he was keeping Sessions he had a reason. Q is locked into that storyline and would find it very damaging to credibility to change it now. Yes it means he can't have the spergs dig in some pretty fertile ground but it is still an interesting experiment to watch play out.
All it will take is one really major world event that Q doesn't even hint at and this game will probably be over anyway. When that happens it will be interesting to see whether most of his followers simply rage quit and go play video games or become self organized and self directed.
One caveat here the Holodomor was just the Bolsheviks biggest mass murder (and one that happened more due to incompetence then their usual intentional mass murders) but they started committing mass murder right away and it didn't really stop until Stalin really became dictator after the great terror (where he killed most of his fellow Old Bolsheviks maniacs).
So from October 1917 to crazy mass murders was no time at all.
1. Manafort is a criminal. Ordinarily would be glad about one of his kind getting railroaded, however, strange times, he's now our criminal and we have to hope he pulls through.
2. Qanon is fake but accurate. The dept of energy Q clearance has nothing to do with most/all of the things he posts about. However, there really is a hell of a war going on behind the scenes.
3. Trump vs Jeff Sessions. Figure that out and then we know what's really going on. If he really had a problem with Sessions he would summon him to his office for a 1×1 conversation. The whiny swipes on Twitter have to be a head fake – but for what purpose?
Yes Manafort is certainly no saint (according to Corey Lewandowski Trump said of him "I have a crook running my campaign) but given the cold civil war he is our criminal. Under normal circumstances I think nearly all lobbyists should be shot and that foreign lobbyists should be broken on the wheel.
Qanon is a Brennan/McCabe op. We already knew that there was a very sinister elite conspiracy involving shared blackmail via child sacrifices from the pizzagate reveals (which was not debunked at all, it is 1000x more credible then I thought most of the 9/11 conspiracies ever were). Q just keeps Trump supporters from demanding Sessions head with one voice.
I don't see how people can believe Sessions is anything other then compromised. Evidence is overwhelming. Sessions is a traitor. Its sad to see someone who was such a good Senator become a traitor but as Titus Pullo said "Nobody's a traitor until they are".
Vxxc says:
Sessions is a Lawyer.
And a coward.
But I repeat myself.
Sessions plays the coward foil to Trump's forthright Hero.
(I'm tired of Alpha. We're not wolves).
Sessions is playing himself. But he serves a purpose.
Among other things it destroys the illusion Law will save us.
The Laws are Men.
Those Men have Damned us all.
Good thing they're cowards.
The whole Jeff Sessions thing is fascinating.
I mean surely Don was expecting him to be replaced with an agreeable Republican in his Senate spot. So there was that, because duh.
But what I just can't believe is that Sessions' behavior has taken Don by surprise. Give me a break!
This is Don we're talking about, or "Swims with Sharks" as the Shawnee call him. This just has to be some kind of WWE shenanigans for the camera.
The whole Jeff Sessions thing is infuriating and frustrating. Trump has done great on every front EXCEPT draining the swamp (on the economy hes exceeded my wildest expectations) and he has largely failed because Justice is like its own independent branch of government answerable to no one but mostly loyal to fellow team swampers. The reason why is largely because of Judas Sessions.
We all loved Sessions before he was AG. He presented every appearance of being sound. Many wanted him to be the VP.
I think the God Emperor himself was genuinely surprised and it seems because Trump has so many disloyal Republican senators he can't replace him right now.
Manafort is no more, and no less, criminal than everyone else in Washington.
QAnon is fake and inaccurate.
Trump has summoned Sessions for several 1×1 conversations.
Isn't Manafort mistreated? I'd argue yes. Trump apparently cannot prevent this which indicates he is powerless. On the other hand, there is always an element of time. No king can prevent mistreatment of allies as the king needs time to react. So only ongoing, persistent mistreatment of an ally of Trump will show that he is powerless. Perhaps a failure to avenge mistreatment of an ally also implies lack of power.
I'm unable to judge how much time Trump still has for his countercoup.
EH says:
Of course Manafort is a crook and swamp creature from way back. Trump needed him for the convention, and he was replaced as soon as possible thereafter. The charges against him are weak, though, and as you said, are just to try to get at Trump.
Q is not entirely BS, he has put out photos that prove intel access and being close to Trump. He has been quite circumspect and cryptic in a way that implies things without saying them outright, but the implications are often false, while alarming to both the base and the swamp. The glittering generalities and emotional appeals spiced with hints of actual intel are hallmarks of a disinformation psy-op; anything that he seems to be trying to get people to believe should be given a somewhat lower probability but not written off completely. There may be a boy-who-cried-wolf tactic being used here – get the enemy to overreact to feints several times before springing the real move, OTOH it risks fatiguing the base more than it does the enemy, plus it soaks up all the autists attention and energy over a long period.
This apparent contradiction is resolved if Trump is actually a front for another faction of Team Swamp. Some other indications of this: Trump's closeness to Israel and to a faction of the intel agencies, his appointment of Rothschild banker Wilbur Ross, increasing the swill in the arms contractors' trough, not having EOs ready to go on day 1, not being the target of competent assassination attempts, winning an election rigged by the supposed other side, and most of all, the consistent technique of the ruling cabal of controlling both sides of every apparent political controversy. Of course, maybe Trump really is so good that he's been able to outmaneuver them and all the preceeding is just strategic prioritization of goals and tactical positioning to allow fighting covert battles.
>This apparent contradiction is resolved if Trump is actually a front for another faction of Team Swamp. Some other indications of this: Trump's closeness to Israel and to a faction of the intel agencies, his appointment of Rothschild banker Wilbur Ross, increasing the swill in the arms contractors' trough, not having EOs ready to go on day 1, not being the target of competent assassination attempts, winning an election rigged by the supposed other side, and most of all, the consistent technique of the ruling cabal of controlling both sides of every apparent political controversy. Of course, maybe Trump really is so good that he's been able to outmaneuver them and all the preceeding is just strategic prioritization of goals and tactical positioning to allow fighting covert battles.
This is the killer. If true, we're irremediably fucked and no one will save us.
Trump was almost certainly at a certain point approached and sponsored by the military intel/"red" faction of team swamp.
Key players were Michael Flynn, Erik Prince, Admiral Mike Rogers and likely Comey as a double agent.
This faction is not nearly as bad as the other one and some of them (especially Erik Prince) are very sympathetic to our ideas. No revolution has ever been successful in the West without some elite support (in China the peasants have rebelled with no elite support and won, can't think of when that happened in the West).
Unless Trump saves us we're irredeemably fucked.
No we're not. We'll suffer more than otherwise.
We're too big and too decentralized, heavily armed to disappear.
And what's wrong with us saving ourselves?
So lazy you won't fight to save yourselves from genocide?
Not only the sin of cowardice but sloth.
What Yara, who talks about how he should be allowed as many 20 year olds as a sultan, refuses to understand, is that civilization doesn't come from pimply wannabe priests like him.
It comes from men who build communities to secure the existence of their people and a future for their children.
The priests can't steal a certain number of women from these men, but ultimately, while a parasite can kill its host, a single-species predator can't kill all its prey.
If Yara's faggots push it too hard, the civilized men will start killing anyone who acts like a priest, probably including me, so if I want me and my woman to be safe, I need to figure out how to get him to shut his fool mouth.
The humble neighborhood priest isn't the source of "civilization", but he is its focal point; his services provide the opportunity and excuse for men to get together and talk about the weather and the crops and the mercilessness of the women. The priest, in other words, is the community builder. Jesus himself was a community organizer.
The aim of the talk of Jim and others is not even the abolishment of priests or religion as such, but its forceful reabsorption into traditional post-Reformation modes of decentralized economic-oriented organizational activities, e.g. the classical limited liability corporate form and the legitimation of the scientific method, the former enabling reasonable-risk large-scale entrepreneurialism and the latter enabling the creation of objects and processes by which the white man's interaction with reality is fundamentally advantaged.
mcdollar says:
If only there was a whole blog exposing Trump's deep state connections…
https://akamaitree.wordpress.com
Obvious that the deep state is trying to overthrow him.
There appear to be factions within the USG establishment, with a militaristic-conservative-zionist faction that favors Trump, and perhaps even does psyops for him.
Yes there is (I've already stated some key players) and they tend to be the smarter people in the government too but they are VASTLY outnumbered by the other faction.
"Deep State" is bullshit.
Yes of course Trump has a gazillion 'connections' to sources of power. How else could he have been allowed to run for office?
It's irrelevant. The fact remains 99% of people wielding power in the US, and arguably 99.9% in the world as a whole, are saying "he's not our guy".
Sure most of what he's done has been the same as "our guy" would have done, but that's not enough. It needs to be 100% delivery plus pleasant surprises and sweeteners.
Imagine giving afternoon tea to the Queen. Are you going to do your usual best? Of course not, you'll 'go the extra mile'. That's what the POTUS has to do to please the rulers.
Who are the rulers: bureaucrats? No. They're executive managers so they're a fairly big part of the ruling class, but there are many other roles to perform. There's communications departments of all sorts, established interests just chugging along, make-work people who need not only funding but glorious praise: what would we DO without the global warming specialist adviser to the FDA-TSA liaison committee, diversity division?
The POTUS is beholden not just to his 'employees' but to the Academy, the Luggenpresse, charitable crusaders, recipients of subsidy, victims of redistribution, advocacy groups for change, advocacy groups for the status quo, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on.
Calling that "the deep state" is just more pretend-right nonsense. These people may receive tax money (not all of them do but most would be worse off without it) but they're not the state, unless you want to adopt a grotesque, Soviet concept of what the state consists of and in.
No, this is Power, public, private, corporate, individual, NGO, ideological, priestly, sexual, you name it.
The POTUS is the most bullied and beholden office on planet Earth, and the way to claw through the fleshy curtain of this nightmare is to be STRONG, to tell one after another to GFTs, starting with the press.
Trump scores better than zero on that front, but until the media's fully nationalised and 'given the memo', the job will be incomplete. CNN needs to live in fear of insufficiently placating the POTUS.
We can have freedom of the press when the crisis is over. Right now, freedom of the press just means continued tyranny of the powerful over the best chance for ending their rule.
The press is public enemy number one. The rest of the culture industry is public enemy number two, aptly enough.
Do you think that everyone at DoD, NSA, CIA, DIA, etc. is a soyboy with problem glasses who shares Antifa's vision for America? If not, do you suppose they might do some things to halt the Left Singularity, such as parachuting someone like Ted Cruz or Donald Trump into the White House?
Trump is the leader we've got.
First one since Reagan.
If he's a tragic figure as well he may end being it's because he just wanted to be President and it's not enough.
As much as I'd like to believe in Trump, I no longer do. I don't countenance a coup from Trump. Trump strikes me as just another man of affairs who, having attained the heights of achievement in business, decided to take his game to the next level and win the Presidency. In a normal civilization, he would have made a fine King. But we're not in a normal civilization. Mere worldly ambition is no match for the unrelenting fanaticism of the madmen who want their own people dead, and stand willing to destroy the world and themselves in order to make it happen. Neither is Trump a General who, as a military man with a keen sense of duty and an instinctual contempt for Parliamentarians, is liable to think that the burden of saving the State from civilian authorities he does not respect rests on his shoulders. He's just a businessman who wanted the supreme trophy for a mantle-piece and likely had no idea of what he was really getting himself into.
You're talking about a man who sought out Roy Cohn as a mentor, for 30 years kept the company of Jeffrey "Lolita Express" Epstein, and for 50 years lived and thrived in Manhattan, the shark tank of the shark tank of shark tanks.
We haven't had The General you are thinking of since MacArthur.
Any General or Flag Officer who reveals such colors is purged.
Witness Admiral Ham.
Petraeus: they never forgave him for The Surge.
Warriors only rarely rise above COL and if a Flag Officer reveals he's not PC he's out.
These witless losers challenge the Progs?
They're cum dumpsters for Progress.
Most of our leaders if they show any courage at all sell out for money.
To The Pentagon MONEY is the substitute for Victory.
pyrrhus says:
The Pentagon is a bunch of worthless grifters…But most coups are led by midlevel officers, like Cols. Nassar, Khaddafi, and Mustapha Kemal
Pinochet was frog marched into power at gunpoint by the junior officers. King David was forced to become King by his mighty men. Coups are performed by colonels, rather than generals.
Unless it has broad national support America is coup proof due to Federalist subsidiarity of power especially force.
You can theoretically take DC. Ends there.
Then you can't hold it.
The last century's politics has been a power struggle of Centralization. Still ongoing. Love them or hate them The Founders did succeed in preventing actual centralized tyranny.
Oh and our Colonels in DC are Prog whores.
I was talking about Brigade Commanders.
Coup is fantasy. Fantasy for those who want victory on the cheap.
If you don't believe me; solve for coup.
Can't be done.
> Unless it has broad national support America is coup proof due to Federalist subsidiarity of power
> The Founders did succeed in preventing actual centralized tyranny.
When the line changes on some issue, ever single mainstream newsman and every single academic in the entire western world changes in absolute unison, and fails to remember that yesterday he espoused the opposite line.
Hilarious. You think we have Federalist subsidiarity of power
If you take DC and have any appearance of being more amenable to red America then the current regime the coup will hold.
Red America may not have the guts to rise against the government itself, but its not going to fight for progs against non progs.
Kemal and Nassar took over Revolutions that had already been defeated in war. Oh and Kemal didn't really coup he won Indepedence against the allies and The Greeks after Ottomann defeat and occupation by allies.
The Young Turks coup kept the Caliph.
They foolishly got involved in WW1.
They were dismissed by Caliph upon defeat, fled and Caliph became British puppet. Kemal liberated Turkey (Anatolia) in his name.
Then sacked him later.
We are vastly different.
Power is vastly distributed.
Coup impossible.
Whig history, and if it were true, would be irrelevant, for power is vastly more centralized in the (Anti) American Empire, and therefore vastly easier to seize in a single act of decisive violence.
It is not one man on a throne, but it is a couple of dozen, all of them located in Washington or Boston.
Remember when we saw Colbert getting an order about the issue of the moment live on television and transmitting that order to the studio audience. Grab the chain of command that sent that text and attach electric wires to their testicles, and every pressman and every academic in the entire Western world will cheer as directed.
Colbert gets the text, tells the studio audience some guy was fired. Studio audience cheers. "No", says Colbert, "you are supposed to boo". Studio audience boos. Similarly the Clinton emails telling Clintonistas what was going to appear.
The mainstream media and tenured academia have reversed on a dime before. They will reverse on a dime again.
Two nuclear warheads. Just two nuclear warheads. But I rather have Trump crown himself Cæsar.
Filthy Liar says:
Correct, he is indeed a moral leper and a poor Rock upon which to found a dynasty never mind a nation never mind a Church. His sons are a dullard and a cuckold.
"A man doesn't get to choose his sons" — Saddam Hussein
You anti trumpers are spiraling into madness.
They went mad long ago.
He's a selectively amoral genius, and when you are adorning spikes outside the White House I will point and laugh and spit, and I will compete to cheer the loudest and most profusely when the Holy Emperor makes a fleeting appearance on His lawn.
He is the Holy Emperor.
He is our Lord and Redeemer. The entire Millennial generation will be singing "Amazing Wins, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me, I once was a part-timer, I now have a career, twas Trump that set me free".
Do you think He was motivated to put everything on the line for mere worldly ambition? If worldly ambition can drive a man to save his people, then let us have more of it.
You say worldly because you are a christcuck.
A true Christian, or truly intelligent atheist, understands that this world is this world and the next world is not this world, that God doesn't address individuals except for a rare Holy Emperor, that the duty of the individual to his family nation and race can't be compelled and attempts at compulsion are usually in reality the opposite, and therefore that a hero like Trump must be celebrated.
And yet you insult the one man who has done more for you than you could possibly know let alone do yourself, in order to feel smug about being a low-grade intellectual wherever with nothing to care about beyond which liquor store has the best Irish cream and whether it's within walking distance of a good coffeeshop.
I wish I'd known how to get in on Trump's campaign to make America great again too, but ultimately, America is us, making America great again means exhorting us to be great, as individuals, virtualky all of us, for the first time.
Great men respect greater men.
Trump is a Great Man, but not all Great Men are cut out for all things. A faggy insult like"Christcuck" is retarded beyond measure but might explain why you don't grasp the point about being "worldly" as a limitation. The Cathedral and Deep State have been in an unprecedented state of open insurrection since the day Trump won the election, to the point of declaring themselves the legitimate provisional government complete with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within the National territory and outside it. Trump to date has done nothing to restore law, order, and regular government in the face of this situation, although he easily could, and it isn't because he's weak, but because he's a worldly businessman and thinks this is all some sort of pre-bargaining posturing that will finally end when he cuts a deal with them. What he may not understand is that he's up against people who don't cut deals, because they are Puritans who believe that they will be reincarnated as beings of pure light in this life if they fight Trump to the last even if they get themselves killed doing it. They are insane; they want Trump and all White people dead; and they won't relent until they either get that or the martyrdom they crave. There is no living with them or defeating them by means of normal peacetime politics. Trump doesn't seem to be able to grasp that yet even as the USA is turning into a failed State under his watch.
Hey faggot, Jesus isn't your boyfriend. He doesn't care what you ate for dinner last night.
You think Trump isn't fighting alongside $DIETY because you can't see Him doing so. So why do you want a personal Jesus if you don't want a personal Trump you can email and send money to in exchange for hats?
Obviously Trump is fighting, or the enemy would have won every election, including 2016, by remotely controlling the voting machines.
Instead the pedos are getting exposed, and He is already our Redeemer, having saved so many Millennial men and women.
But he hasn't done the thing you, personally, want, so you, personally, refuse to believe in Him.
That's pathetic. You're a faggot.
Lol mate, keep telling yourself that trump has done "so much" when he literally is on the brink of being interrogated and put on trial by the cathedral every single day of his presidency and when he hasn't done jackshit on his immigration promises. Hell he couldn't even deport illegals without the cathedral crying about him separating families and then of course he immediately cucked out and stopped.
We can say that Trump is better than the Cathedral and still criticize him when he deserves it retard. And fuck off with your childish neo-pagan "I hate Jesus" arguments. We get that Protestantism destroyed the West, that doesn't mean Christianity is evil.
Trump has done pretty well so far.
You imagined the Cathedral would go down without a fight and without lawfare. I never did. Trump didn't back off anything with immigration.
What I didn't anticipate was that his AG would be a traitor, that has been the most serious problem.
Ya, if I hear the media talk one more time about how Sessions has "recused himself" I might lose it haha.
About Catholicism though, I think it's worth pointing out that its system of government and Priest/Warrior structure lasted a hell of a lot longer than Charles ll's so-called "perfect system".
Charles II problem was that he did not abandon James the (probably syphilitic) and insane Papist. He should have supported Monmouth.
Catholicism gets you Spain at best and Latin America at worst. Spain has 50% unemployment right now (how it has that level of unemployment without a dictator of some kind arising I don't understand).
Chatting smack about James II isn't edgy, it's just sad.
And Protestantism has given us the UK and United States at best and Sweden at worst. I dont see how Catholicism should be faulted for much of anything other than 1. Inventing the all the confusion surrounding the Papacy and temporal rule.2. Cucking out at Vatican ll. Otherwise they have been admirable in their long defence against modernism, until recently. I could give a shit if Spain has 50% unemployment, the United states has somewhere around 5% and is still a gigantic cesspool.
There is something very very very wrong with the people of a country that doesn't have the scary military and police apparatus of the US that tolerates 50% unemployment without putting their politicians on lampposts.
And they not only have not put their politicians on lampposts they haven't even voted anything radically outside what the Cathedral wants the way many other countries have.
Where are you getting this 50% number from?
Youth unemployment in Spain is not 50% now but it was in February 2013.
50% should be immediate lampposts time. 30+% should be lampposts time if it endures.
You don't understand Southern Europe.
>We get that Protestantism destroyed the West
Protestantism made the West.
Well yes, but it destroyed the old West that we want; the West that wasnt trying to create the kingdom of heaven on earth.
Catholicism is just as bad if not worse (which I always thought was a severe oversight in Moldbug's Open Letter). There should be no priest above the king, there should definitely be no priest above the king who also controls the jobs of the local priests and is in a foreign country where the king's soldier's can't get him.
Charles II did good things but Charles II should not have pressed the issue on the succession of James II. He should have let Monmouth succeed him.
Lutheranism and Anglicanism weren't trying to create the kingdom of heaven on earth…and Papism has always been trying to immanentize the eschaton by giving the bishop of Rome the power to depose kings.
Nobody wants to return to pre-movable-type, pre-scientific, pre-literate, pre-industrial, pre-Internet agrarian peasantdom. We don't want Universal tyranny from a Pope in Rome, and we don't want to be forced for lack of alternative to live on this planet anymore. We do want to try to create an Earthly utopia, one of scientists and engineers, not one of priests and pedophiles. We do want a Second Great Monastic Dissolution.
And nobody said that we did want to return to agrarianism, even if it is lacking some of the insanity of modernity. Technology has always went forwards regardless of the type of government or religion in power, that is just how things work. What is troubling is that the progs co-opt technological progress as part of their inevitable "whig history", which then makes technology be used for evil purposes, which then confuses right-wingers into thinking technology is bad.
That being said, a technological utopia still will have unforseen consequnces for man and therefore does make me uneasy. Anyone who professes to make a utopia on earth makes me uneasy. Reaction is fundamentally about our fallen state, not about how we can conquer ourselves and makes things perfect.
>And nobody said that we did want to return to agrarianism, even if it is lacking some of the insanity of modernity.
Catholicism perpetuates an essentially agrarian order. If movable type hadn't subverted its memetic hegemony in the 15th century we would still all be tied to a tiny plot of land somewhere in England or Central Europe living and dying in the same static, unchanging, unbroken, infinite interminitude, working for the benefit of the vast armies of monks in their monasteries preaching the same stupid bullshit to each other generation after generation after generation after generation….
>Technology has always [gone] forwards regardless of the type of government or religion in power, that is just how things work.
Yeah? Tell it to Mendel.
Today, in the land of the white man, skyscrapers are shorter and shittier, cars still don't have scale-free rotary engines with >40% thermal efficiency; airplanes are ancient; nuclear reactors are dwindling in number; Moore's law has stalled; and if we accept Peter Thiel's account of technology as doing more with less, housing, education, medicine, and law have undergone tremendous long-term technological decay.
Where are the space colonies? What happened to the space elevator? Why can't NASA launch a rocket? (Rhetorical.)
>What is troubling is that the progs co-opt technological progress as part of their inevitable "whig history", which then makes technology be used for evil purposes, which then confuses right-wingers into thinking technology is bad.
Oh, please.
Dont dismiss me on the technology point, it is a massive problem on the right. Have you seen how many so-called "conservatives" writers extol the virtue of small towns, agrarianism, and generally being a luddite? It is an epidemic. The left is allowed to co-opt technological progress as "their" invention and say that the right not only hates women or whatever, but also are a bunch of primitives who inhibit the March of science and technology. There is a reason the Enlightenment is presented as both the triumph of liberalism and technology/science, it's because the left wants to make them look as if they are unavoidably intertwined.
In regards to technological regress, obviously yes, it can go backwards when societies decline and collapse (as ours is). What I meant is that in any healthy society science/technology WILL advance, in some faster than others obviously.
The Luddites are a purple pill problem. They have bought into whig history that our loss of social technology is somehow the result of our advances in physical technolgy
The Nazis are a purple pill problem. They buy the holiness of women, and blame everything on the Jews, even when it is obvious women and/or the fissiparous nature of whites are to blame. The New Years eve sexual assaults in Germany were not a Jewish plot, they were a female plot, and Jews are not to blame of the fact that it is hard for whites to visit America while is easy for subsaharan black military age Muslim males screaming for infidel blood and white pussy to get asylum status, because it is equally hard for Israeli Jews to visit America. Israel asked to be included in the Visa Waiver Program, and Netanyahu himself got involved. No dice, denied.
The people who want white South Africans exterminated also want Israeli Ashkenazi exterminated.
> our loss of social technology is somehow the result of our advances in physical technolgy
Actually, it is. Technology enabled scale, and scale killed our social technology. We have to consciously reimplement that social technology in a novel environment. That's what you're doing – figuring out what it was, and how to restore it.
Once you have considerably more than the Dunbar number of subjects, it does not make a big difference how much more.
The scale that William the Conqueror's forms of action had to deal with is not all that different from the scale that the Australian Border Police database has to deal with, and we see similar methods producing similar results on a scale not all that different.
It is not all that different for your purposes, as a deliberate designer. However, as a practical lived matter, it is tremendously different. Near the end of Ulysses S. Grant's autobiography, he talks about the atomizing effects of the Civil War upon the USA, whose vast upheavals obliterated the myriad parochial barriers necessary to maintain the prior regime of a patchwork of small integrous local communities.
Moreover, changes in scale disguise the even greater concentration in population density, which has independent sociobiological effects.
The Luddites are wrong in their solution, because it is not militarily viable, but they are right as to the cause. Tribes in the ancestral environment could not go so badly awry as humans in toxic modernity, and those that began to do so were quickly erased by local competitors.
Jim just rebutted Perfectman's entire existence.
Its not even Calvinism thats the problem its Mass Bay/Boston Calvinism that is the problem, the Puritans who Cromwell couldn't get along with (and I'm from the area and Boston is the a**hole capital of the planet).
The South is Calvinist (Southern Baptists somehow deny they are Calvinists but are) even if the planter elite used to be Anglican. The South has resisted poz better then anywhere else in the Western world.
Oy vey it's not calvinism its JUST a specific variant of it. I think one bad apple ruins the rest. With how catastrophically pozzed all of Protestantism is nowadays, I think the faith is inherently weak as a whole, even if primarily puritanism is responsible for it. If even one of them had any sort of theological backbone, they would have withstood the pozz at least somewhat. Instead practically every single branch is a joke. The Anglican Church you so love is one of the most pathetic. Individualism and low church mentality just dont build a strong religion.
Also I dont know what Calov is talking about, Lutherans most definetly are trying to build the kingdom of heaven on earth now. They forgot about that whole dichotomy of the two kingdoms like 200 years ago
Anglicanism hasn't been Puritan since Charles I and Laud (William of Orange tried to turn the clock back there but failed) and it was never really "Low Church" the way the Church of Ireland (not the Catholic Church but the Irish equivalent to the Church of England) was low church.
I'm saying Southern Baptists seem to be less pozzed then almost any other group of Christians (and less pozzed by far then Catholics) not only voting for Trump overwhelmingly in the election but he also won them during the primary (unlike more pozzed Mormons and Midwestern Protestants).
If Christianity makes a revival we either want Eastern Orthodoxy or a non pozzed Calvinism like the South has and like Prussia used to have. We definitely don't want Catholicism.
>If even one of them had any sort of theological backbone, they would have withstood the pozz at least somewhat.
Hours of week spent in church: 1-3.
Hours of week spent in public or quasi-public school: 30-40.
Proportion of women 18-22 120IQ+ {7..10}/10 living some distance from their fathers cheek by jowl with very sexy, extremely horny young men: >=80%
There's your backbone right there.
Luther triggered a holiness spiral which would have devoured him, similarly the English Puritans. Lutheranism was stabilized by the dominion of princes, as Anglicanism was stabilized by Charles the Second.
Yes, Protestantism made the west. The Anglicanism of Charles the Second brought us world domination, the scientific revolution, industrialization, technology, and the joint stock corporation. But with open entry into the state religion, it rapidly becomes holier than Jesus, and then holier than God. Progressivism is Protestantism that has gone holier than God, and progressivism, not protestantism, destroyed the west.
And progressivism popped up where protestants were located because it is much more susceptible to it than Catholicism or Orthodoxy could ever hope to be. Protestantism indeed IS the West, and that is not a good thing.
DiddledByMyBicuriousAdoptiveFather666 says:
Potatonigger Patrick wrote:
Instead the pedos are getting exposed
Reminder that I've said all along that Qanon, Pizzagate, and the rest of this 4chan drivel, is FBI propaganda. I was right when I first said it in 2015, and I'll be right again in 2020. I'm mentioning here the fact that I've been right (and dipshits like you were and are wrong) not to brag, but to get the point across that until you understand what is happening, you will keep falling for hoaxes.
There is no such thing as "pedophile" or "child molester" or "kid rapist." There are gays, who predate on prepubescent boys. This has no similarity to normal men banging fertile chicks who may be 12 but look 20. Anyone using the term "children" in this context is a liar, and these people are often federal agents with a specific agenda to carry out. Anyone talking about "children" rather than boys is promoting the Federal Frame, that we don't have a woman problem, and don't have a gay problem, but have a very serious problem with heterosexual men.
"Anti-pedophile" is codeword for anti-patriarchy. You have been anti-patriarchy all along, which is not surprising, as you have also been obsessed with Jewish mind control rays all along like a typical FBI shill, and have been zealously and fanatically anti-Christian all along, like a typical Harvard-educated Progressive.
Anyone using the term "pedophile" non-ironically, as you've always done, is telling us that the misbehavior of women and gays is fine, but normal male sexuality is horrible and outrageous, and men are oh-so-oppressive towards poor angelic women.
The logical conclusion of "abolishing White people" requires WWIII with White Christian Russia.
Trump better crown Himself Cæsar… cuz we all know what WWIII with Russia means…
alf says:
Hear hear.
The question was whether Trump would be too much like Reagan. In hindsight he is nothing like Reagan and you can see the difference in their faces; Reagan's face says 'I want to be liked', Trump's face says 'I want to get shit done'.
I never really understood the Reagan cult. His motto was "I know in my heart that man is good", it is easily one of the most possibly un-conservative and plain simply wrong statements. Where is pessimism about human nature and all that?
I think at that point people were so disgusted by communists and cryptocommunists that any guy who at least wasn't one could be a conservative icon.
Right wingers are so used to Cathedral sellouts someone who at least waited till he went senile in his 2nd term (Reagan's 2nd term was a sort of tug of war between Bush and Haig) to be a Cathedral sellout seemed awesome.
Reagan also was genuinely likable to everyone (Trump is likable to non political enemies, hilarious in person… no I haven't met him but at a rally. But Trump isn't likable to his political enemies since his humor tends to be based around mocking them).
People in those days didn't understand the Cathedral system the way we do now, and above all didn't understand controlled opposition and structural Leftism. People honestly thought Reagan was going to restore order, public morality, and their rights. (I have to admit in spite of myself that it was in fact the Left who first saw through this charade, and that Reagan neither had the intention nor the wherewithal of making good on these boasts).
Nobody who understood it before Moldbug articulated it very well or very much.
The guy who came closest was probably Jerry Pournelle but he only partially understood it. Caveat I would say to some degree Chomsky of all people understood much of it, but he is an insane leftist and his problem is the Cathedral isn't left enough for him.
Nixon understood it – if he didn't fully understand before his ouster by the Cathedral then he certainly did after.
Nixon understood it but had no way to get his message out.
Nixon was also a 1930s leftist/moderate New Dealer while Trump's policies preferences (it seems to me) align with the 1920s conservatism of the Coolidge administration which by the standards of anything we've had since then are extremely right wing.
Alas, adaptive philosophies of things so often tend to appear only after they get lost. Where before, it would be something that simply *went without saying*.
A man's world is that which concerns him. A man smoothly working with a tool is not fully conscious of it; he does not again become fully conscious of it until or unless it starts to malfunction, then it becomes his greater concern and again. The trajectory of our most current years has become increasingly concerning; naturally, you have more men illustrating more lucid concerns. The squeaky wheel gets the oil.
In some ways, a Perennialist is one who seeks a 'hack' to the dynamic; to defuse, or reroute, or capture the cycle he observes so clearly. So then it goes: by what means is one able to tell if a wheel is going to squeak, before it actually squeaks? That is the magic question, the Magic question.
In my opinion Revilo P. Oliver was probably the Wokest 20th century writer, amongst that subset of men who put things to writing at any rate.
Of course the whole trouble with someone writing in the 20th century, is not unlike a man trying to make a map of a maze while already stuck in it, rather than looking down at it from commanding heights.
The wireless brought with it central broadcasting, and central broadcasting brought with it the innovation of unprecedented new powers of central control, less than visible central control. Coincidentally, this was also a time where the germination of certain nominalistic intellectual trends, like communism, began to fully bloom into grotesque buds and shoot pollen everywhere.
Probably not wholly unrelated phenomena, but at any rate, this new power was used to serve rather uncool ends. A whole century of wasted, or worse than wasted masturbation really.
Rhetorical output was good before 1906, and started to become good again in places after 2006, thanks in part to that next great disruption in informational techne. Anything in between should be pre-judiced with that much the greater in caveats, scrutiny, and circumspection, if value is to be found.
Hes a jew namer and jew namers are not really redpilled.
The redpilled view on jews is that they are more likely to be progressives, and to the extent they have a group identity it is not one that identifies with the host nation, also their women are more intelligent and domineering then non jewish women and so feminism can work for jewish societies but is a disaster for non jews.
The jew namer delusion is that all this adds up to progressivism (and lots of other bad things) being a jewish conspiracy that would go away if the jews were "resettled to the east for special treatment". This is of course not the case.
By assuming it is the case the right tends to make jews into the monolith that the jew namers assume they are as the good ones join the bad out of fear.
Putin's approach to Jews works well, Hitler's approach was insane and counterproductive.
The good Doctor Oliver wrote on many good things besides his cogent observations of khazarian antics, which is why i give him the nod, and which i suppose i must mention since everyone forms their ideas about a writers corpus by mining amazon.com reviews since reading books takes far too much time (i don't judge too harshly, i've done it too).
Of course just like i mentioned, anyone writing at the times were working under the same disadvantages, so to speak, of existing in a near fully formed clown world; even having the idea to mention that niggers were stupid publicly in a public publication was a radical enough notion to get memory holed later (which he was as it happened).
At any rate, the only good jew in American history was Admiral Rickover.
This is not an especially unusual fact or even especially particular to jews themselves; you can't really expect *anyone* of any given race to be good to people not their own*. Diversity plus proximity equals war. That set of eurasian peoples happens to be most especially egregious, but even if they weren't it would not especially change the fundamental dynamic far beyond the contingent particulars of it's expression. To speak of a 'good jew' is basically to speak of a good traitor, or janissary at the least. One has always and anyways joined the 'bad ones', much like how 'moderate muslims' have always and anyways covered for 'extremist' muslims, even when the 'extremist' muslims chop up 'moderate muslims'.
(*The one exception of course is aryans, who are unique amongst clades of beings on this sphere in that they are most given to idealism; one can easily convince itself to do things even if individually injurious, even *fillially* injurious, if it satisfies it's existential desire to be Right. It would be no coincidence hence that the true Janissaries in history where kidnapped children of balkan christians, who Did The Jobs Arabs Won't Do.)
The psychological tendency of few people in the nrx sphere to wring their hands over 'winning the alien vote' is not unlike the mindset that led to many cuckservatives deciding that trying to 'moderate the message' in order to win the black vote was definitely a killer app. Good normal right thinking white people naturally have an instinct for the minimization of in-group conflict, or conflict whatsoever. Of course, this instinct can easily steer awry in modernity, and of course, all of the above fails and has failed for similar reasons.
One could in fact speak of a good member of an other race, on a world-historical scale; those who better participate in the more inevitable, essential, and transcendent principles of divine eminence; those who might admirably raise their peoples beyond their expectations; those whos enviable triumphs might serve as examples to be profitably learned; those who are not inclined to subversion, as they are not inclined to subversive modes of thought to begin with.
If or when they come into conflict with you, it is through those most noble and high expressions of cold war, or trade war, or proxy war, or actual war. The most beneficient gift a prince can give to a rival, a prince who is a prince and both head and expression of a Nation, is that of stern but understanding rivalry. Even the great losers of history, the poetic doomed adversary, in who's own virtues, in who's overcoming, elevates the victor that much the greater.
Some burnt out yet unlapsed post-progs say, 'I just want to see the singularity, is it too much to ask for the invention of cool shit? I don't care about anything else, and i think [insert liberal-ism here] is best for it.'
I say, i can sympathize; there's few things i love more than to see the progression of techne, the unfolding of divine inspiration. And nothing inspires better than that divine sacrament of War, in it's multitudinous of forms; some more holy, some more profane. And to have War, you need to have Armies. And if everyone is taken to be in the same Army (universalism), or none taken to be in any Army (nominalism), then the whole dynamic stalls and stagnates, becomes perverted even.
It can be possible to say the words: 'he is a good [xeno]', but so oft, he can only be good his own country, amongst his own kind. The words can hardly be said of someone who *does* become an alien, in an alien nation, by his hand or anothers. It is, as they say, 'inherent in the system'.
A Good Jew is a temple Israeli, pursuing the interests of Israel.
A bad Jew is a progressive, pursuing the interests of progressivism, which include destroying Israel by turning it into a Muslim majority "democracy" – and, more seriously for us, eradicating Western Civilization at the roots.
Show me this mythical "good Jew".
I have trouble believing the descendants of Pilate's crowd deserve that adjective.
Did Moldbug not do a good thing?
Jonas Salk?
Stephen Miller?
Doing a good thing does not make one good. And we are talking Temple Jews, which is a subset of Jews.
Trump has already failed. He blinked when the Generals told him to fuck himself with regards to transgender people in the military. Every minute since then he's just been marking time until the Deep State finds an excuse.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/military-faces-a-sweeping-turnover-among-upper-commanders-1534700301
https://www.voanews.com/a/erik-prince-again-touts-plan-to-privatize-us-war-afghanistan/4536504.html
And even without this… imagine how deep shit we would be without him.
There is no prospect of legally removing him from office. Putin took years to consolidate power. Calm down. And don't criticize Trump on moral grounds… thats for leftists and Nevertrump cucks.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/23/596594346/trump-memo-disqualifies-certain-transgender-people-from-military-service
Anti Trumpers are flailing.
Used to be that the order came down on from on high "You shall say X about Trump" Now they are throwing shit at the wall at random hoping something will stick. Orders have not been coming down from on high for a while.
Brennan lost his security clearance for trying to overthrow the president of the United States, for trying to organize a creeping coup, for treason. For a while they defended him, now they are kind of abandoning him.
So, the creeping coup is currently in disarray – orders are not coming forth, failed coupists are being abandoned.
Jim what do you think the actual command and control structure for the media is?
CNN, NYT, WaPo etc are clearly not run by their owners because they consistently lose money and Jeff Zucker remains CEO of CNN despite both being a rating's failure and top shareholders of Time Warner wanting him out.
So where do the orders come from, and if the top is in disarray who is running things now?
If someone thinks that men and women are very different, he is a sexist.
If someone thinks that men and women are completely interchangeable, he is a ….
The hierarchy has no name, and the roles of authority within it have no name.
You can see this in the climategate emails. One guy says "frog" and every tenured academic in the entire western world jumps, but there is nothing in the emails or in his official titles that explicitly identifies him as special.
Sometimes the hierarchy is discombobulated and does not know what to do, sometimes there are power struggles and multiple lines conflict, and everyone is paralyzed waiting for one line to be settled, but most of the time it is one guy who cracks the whip, and everyone everywhere falls into line. Not all the time, but most of the time. From time to time, during periods of uncertainty, everyone is eyeing each other trying to figure out whom the one guy that they are supposed to pay attention to is. Most of the time, everyone who matters knows who is in charge, but are not allowed to say.
They are not acting in a coordinated manner now but previously they were. I think the key is Lisa Page supposedly ratting a lot of people out (they trusted a thot to keep secrets when it was against her own best interest lol)…
So there must have been for the Mockingbird media some kind of command and control structure (secretly) before…
I'll take your post as an indication that you are as in the dark as I am. I'm pretty sure such a thing existed but I'm not sure what it was…
Thanks for this. You're implying that the JQ is such a big thing probably because we have a word for them: the J-word.
Whereas we lack a clear and obvious word for someone who believes — or at least says that he believes — that men and women are exactly the same.
"Liberal"?
"Progressive"?
"Equalist"?
My best guesses just don't cut the mustard.
The other way around. The whole thing about J's is that it is not a very exact category. For starters, many look so white that when you hear statemens like the media is ran by J's you cannot just look at the faces and cannot really tell. You look at the names, and you see thek Kohnbergstein here and there, but it is not exact either, some are just of a German ancestry, while others are J with a name that is not like that. So basically J's are sort of a stealth invisible race which IMHO makes many on the far right unreasonably paranoid about them. Fear of the unseen, the unknown. If the idea was that the media is ran by the Chinese you could far easier tell who is one and who not and not much unknowns would be left and the whole thing would be less paranoid.
On the other hand, the unexactness of the J category and the invisibility of the race means a lot of people don't really know if they themselves are J or not. Granted it seems in the US identities are more binary, you are J or not. Here in Central Europe it seems everybody smart having a J grandma somewhere, normally they don't think they are J, don't have that identity, don't think about it at all, but if someone attacks J's they turn into paranoia mode "aargh someone wants to gas me" and push back. This again comes from the very same fear of the unknown. People of other racial mixture, like mulattoes and hapans, they look like that and everybody knows they are that and they get treated like that. They feel no such unknowns in their lives, everybody at school knew Barry Obama is a mulatto, some gave him shit for this, some not, some worshipped the holy victim, it was clear for him. But J Random dude (more over here than in America) with the white face but kinda bigger nose and maybe J maybe German surname has no idea what other people think about him. Maybe they seem as J, maybe they see him as a white dude. This is why he is paranoid, fear of the unknown. Hence any criticism of J's make him go full paranoia mode.
So to cut a long story short, if a race is hard to see and identify, it makes both them and their critics paranoid as fuck.
OTOH women are a fairly clear category of we ignore the trans silliness. Gays know they are gays, you don't always know they are gays, so the lavender mafia thing can also have a fear of the unknown element. Usually though these days they tend to be out which reduces the fear of the unknown effect so it is not really a big deal anymore, we tend to think we know which famous dude is gay and that helps.
Right now it is the pedo mafia and satanist mafia that is people are getting paranoid about, as those are not out and you don't know just who is one and how much influence they have. On the other hand they themselves probably know if they are pedos or satanists.
As of now I can't really think of any other group than J with a lot of people who unsure if they are members of the group or not and don't know hence afraid of other people thinking they are members of the group or not.
Thanks Divvy. That's sharp.
Also, sorry for the shitty (verbal?) IQ. By calling the JQ "such a thing", I meant that's it's a strong, clear and mentally-convenient meme. It's an easy hammer to reach for that makes many a complicated phenomenon look like a nail, when really-real sociopolitical shit be, like, you know, a lot more complicated and stuff.
The "Cathedral Question" is certainly closer to the truth, but requires much more thought and humility from the user. At least this user.
Thanks also for pointing out how whether it's a pedo mafia or a satanic mafia or what have you, a key element of their secret-society power is that they know who is and isn't a member, and we don't. Right of course.
Surely there's a Game Theory vocabulary word for this, am-I-rite?
It's much easier to quantify, and tell at a glance, the percentage of jew a putative person is, try imagining them with forelocks, it's more efficient than consciously looking at every little feature, and tell which plausibly White names are probably jew names, jews have certain preferences for names and ways of creating White-sounding names, than it is to tell from behavior alone, while behavior is what we really care about.
Are they gays or women? Because this not how men like to operate. Men tend to like the formal and unambigious. A hobby club for building small robots has an actual president and treasurer. Because some has to decide debates on what robot to build and someone must be responsible for how money gets spent. Really what you describe sounds like typical chick hierarchies where influence is social, informal and personal.
Someone is responsible. They just do not have an org chart telling you, or even each other, whom it is. You can see how things go behind the scenes in the climategate emails.
>Really what you describe sounds like typical chick hierarchies where influence is social, informal and personal.
Not a coincidence. Pathological effeminacy is a hallmark of left-ism. Conditional solipsism is a hallmark of both women and leftists.
Yet Manafort got busted today. So you'd think they'd relax. But no. Maybe they're pissed that he LET himself get busted rather than ratting instead?
Like once he's convicted, has that Schroedinger's Weapon been spent forever, never to be useful again, case closed done and forgotten?
Like all they have now is this porn star business, and, as you said, the appearance that Trump can't protect his crooks from their crooks. Ouch. I'm not a crook at all (by this week's standards) myself and even I feel that one.
This evidence fits the hypothesis that Q is in control, has the key conspirators under ankle-bracelet catch and release, and has ordered them to expend the institutional credibility of the MSM on a suicidal charge of Trump's fortifications.
Which might be a brilliant way to defeat a Left singularity, without realizing that is what one is doing. Or at least to make one particular wave of it look unfashionable, while legitimizing previous waves.
I suspect Q thinks he is more in control than he really is, because he keeps expecting people to behave somewhat rationally or self-interestedly, not realizing what a Left singularity is. His Boomer-esque appeals to raw evil as the explanatory factor regularly reveal this.
In other words, you can both be right.
For such a smart guy your weakness for LARPers sticks out.
How are you not a Boomer and falling for Q? It's explicitly a 4chan hoax designed to appeal to the same lead-addled idiots who fell for the Satanic Panic. Better question I suppose, do you have a hard date for nut up or shutu with Q?
Satan-worshipping pedophiles are real and if Trump is going to win he needs to defeat them.
Pizzagate is at least somewhat true and there is good solid evidence for it (I hate living in a world where a lot of Alex Jones darkest theories are mostly right but here we are).
It does not follow that Q is legit, there is scant evidence for and very much against.
Potatonigger Patrick, who doesn't know how to meme properly due to debilitating paralyzing autism, wrote:
Satan-worshipping pedophiles are real
Satanist homosexuals are real indeed, and you are clearly one of them. Whenever you quote Scripture, you lie, exactly as your father desires. Whenever you tell us about "pedophiles" and "child abuse," you repeat lies intended to destroy the family, the Church, and society. Whenever you open your metaphorical mouth, revealing a split coal-colored demon-tongue dripping with various poisonous fluids and breathing green fire, you do so to spread lies and confusion.
It is because you are a gay effete Satanist, and — take it literally or metaphorically — you are intrinsically rotten due to belonging not to God, but to your father, the Devil, who was a murderer from the beginning and the father of lies (John 8:44), as indeed your kind have been murdering society and promulgating dangerous lies since you first emerged.
Your diseased memes will be forgotten, are already largely forgotten in NRx. You've spent 2014-2019 destroying this blog with postmodernist gibberish and effeminacy, and now it's time to fix all the damage that you have wrought – and it is being fixed, rapidly. Gay Satanists like you make for excellent punching bags for NRx to use for honing and establishing its memeplex.
All your works, Satan, shall perish; and God's Kingdom will never perish. You will burn in Hell for what you've done.
You knew as soon as he said "Trust Sessions".
Trump may be stage-managing conflict with Sessions as misdirection. Or it may be that Q thought Sessions was in his camp, but didn't anticipate the insanity effect of Left singularity on Sessions' behavior. That he expected loyalty, and this was not returned.
We know Trump is susceptible to this bias, based on Comey's leaks of their conversations. Trump said it himself in an interview: his greatest weakness is trusting people too much.
The thing I find surprising is that supposedly jaded reactionaries disbelieve in Q's authenticity because top-level security clearance does not render him infallibly omniscient.
I disbelieve Q because evidence shows Sessions is compromised and the evidence that he is planning a super secret takedown of DC just doesn't exist.
Q is a psyop designed to take pressure off Judas Sessions. I'd like to be wrong but I don't think I am.
I disbelieve in Q's authenticity because a Trump countercoup would be as secretive as the Chilean coup – which Pinochet did not know about until the junior officers conscripted him a few hours before the coup.
Pinochet knew there was a coup in the air, but was not informed of anything he could potentially betray until a few hours before the coup.
The Chilean coup had to be secretive because a coup is treason and illegal. What Trump+MI did was the opposite. It sounds as if you are confusing metaphor with reality.
Morever, the key arrests were done secretly and rapidly, with Trump+MI going hard from day 1.
Q's role is PR. Unlike Pinochet's more direct ascent to power, Trumpmerica intends to keep freedom of press and democracy, which requires a PR campaign to change the minds of voters and topple the MSM.
This latter portion is, I think, part of the insanity of the Left singularity, and may doom Trump. But he has little choice, given his Muh Constitooshun base.
I would not believe in the version of Q you would find plausible. Perhaps it is because you are not genuinely from America, and thus do not understand how a Pinochet-style revolution would go over like a lead balloon at this stage.
There's a superficial plausibility to what you say, Koanic, but in the end it might just as well actually be a kōan.
See the thing is, sure people like Doctor Paul and The Judge might talk about muh constitution but the people cheering their speeches about "end the Fed", "hung in the public square with government trumpets blaring", "bring all the troops home" and "free association and no compelled speech" haven't actually read the constitution and don't care about it.
The reason they tune in to Free Talk Live, Kontra Krugman and all the rest has nothing to do, ultimately, with constitutional small government republics, or with Austrian economics, or anything else of that nature. They may pay lipservice to Lysander Spooner or even Rose Wilder Lane, but what really makes their willies stand to attention is just how far away that stuff is from their hated enemies, those smug bougie liberals at the coffee shop calling them racist and hick and making fun of their cheap clothing, their uneducated speech and their low status jobs.
Those people are the enemy and they have to be attacked, offended and counter-signalled. Sure, most of the ways it'd make sense to attack them are ruthlessly put down by our own leaders: Ron Paul might talk about ending the welfare state, but start going on about scroungers in council houses and he'll soon virtue-signal that he's not with you on that stuff at allllllll. Same with the spicier topics. Gerald Celente and Peter Schiff will throw you under the bus in five seconds flat if you start going on about the blagues without euphemising it as 'inner cities of all sexes' or 'youths and thugs'….. and talk about the you know whos and he'll call the cops himself!
("Love me love me love me, I'm a classical liberal!")
So sure, Adam Kokesh and Jacob Hornberger would HATE a Pinochet coup: heck Hornberger holds Pinochet up as the ultimate example of the CIA gone feral! FARRRRRR worse than Castro, right? lolol
But the Magapedes?
I guess we shall see.
All I can tell you is if I'm asked to choose between average IQ blue collar working class whites from rural Europe who don't like foreigners, and post-doctoral public intellectuals at the frontiers of the new economy, I'll throw the Harvard guys under the bus every single time.
>Morever, the key arrests were done secretly and rapidly, with Trump+MI going hard from day 1.
Which key arrests?
Why is Mueller still at large?
Why is Stephen Colbert still promulgating bullshit?
When will we see Hillary Clinton in an orange jumpsuit?
I actually agree with the "foreign agent" law and wish it was enforced on people other then Manafort (like say the Podestas and Hillary). But Manafort isn't in trouble for that hes in trouble for helping Trump with the Republican convention and thus should be acquitted.
george strong says:
Change "red terror" to "Reign of Terror".
Neurotoxin says:
Thank you for calling out Q. It worries me how seriously Q is taken by many on the right.
As you say, why would our side broadcast its intentions in advance? That makes no fucking sense.
You obviously are not familiar with Q's posts…He has warned from the first that deception would be necessary some of the time. Q also called NK correctly when everyone else was wrong….Regardless, Q has been one of the most successful propaganda campaigns in history and has completely wrong footed many of the media idiots…
Wasn't so hard to call NK correctly.
…or to wrong-foot the media idiots.
A LOT of people called the NK situation. Nearly all of Q's "proofs" are easy to debunk. For instance, the one where Q supposedly made a post with "+++" in it just minutes before Q tweeted something similar. It's amazing how many people still think that actually happened. When you check the timestamps of the post and the tweet, and correct for the difference in timezones, Q's post actually came hours after the tweet.
Most of the "predictions" that supposedly came true were not predictions at all. They were simply vague statements regarding events in the news. The followers of Q then assigned "predictions" to these statements after the event happened.
simplyconnected says:
Either way since spooks have tools to identify and track people commenting in certain forums (they tried to do this with pol), it would be a great way for them to compile a long list of potentially troublesome people. Too risky to comment there.
IF it's legit, is it really the best way to get the word out?
Manafort trial | Reaction Times says:
[…] Source: Jim […]
Qanon is real, and really in control:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-confidence-game.html
The problem is that Q is a Boomer or older who has no clue about Jim's NRx thesis. He thinks things can return to normal. He doesn't understand the power of left singularity.
In this sense, he is not in control. In this sense, he is full of crap.
Q is propaganda, pizzagate is propaganda, "sealed indictments" is propaganda. The work of Cambridge Analytica and the like. And VD is a shill.
Q is an extraordinarily successful propaganda campaign for Boomer proles.
If Pizzagate is simply a propaganda campaign, please explain the Molestas' affinity for Biljana Djurdjevic's "artwork", Hillary Clinton's affiliation with Marina Abramovic, and NYT's official denial.
Also be sure to include why, shortly after the story broke, pedophile symbolism was scrubbed from the Besta Pizza logo.
If the moon isn't made of Swiss cheese, please explain all the holes and craters.
Were the Podesta brothers responsible for running Hillary Clinton's campaign?
Were they invited to a "spirit cooking" dinner hosted by Marina Abramovic?
Do normal people produce occult grotesqueries thinly veiled as performance art?
Do normal people attend events with occult grotesqueries in view?
Why did Hillary Clinton throw the election?
>Why did Hillary Clinton throw the election?
This is going to require some explanation. She threw the election? What makes you say that? And why would she?
Since Pizzagate & Co. we have had a highly plausible chain of evidence beginning from sources like NYT and leading directly to the world political elite as a den of vipers, thieves, occultists, kid fuckers, and possibly (though not assuredly) human sacrificers and cannibals.
It is implausible that Pizzagate & Co. is a PSYOP perpetrated by the alphabet soup, unless there is a plausible scenario by which the mainline alphabet leadership wanted Clinton to lose and Trump to win.
It is slightly more plausible that Pizzagate & Co. is a PSYOP perpetrated by Trump and/or Trump-aligned insurgent elements of the alphabet soup, though this line of reasoning is more or less obliterated by, for example, friendly expositional articles on the Podesta brothers having been published by NYT in the run-up to the inevitable Clinton presidency, including official debunkings written in the Cthulhuian voice of Official Power… unless the latter-day editorial integrity of NYT is somehow in doubt as the slavish American Pravda of Official Power.
Personally, I don't think that Hillary Clinton threw the election. I don't know why she would have done so. But I'm open to the possibility, provided sufficient evidence.
Obvious from behavior that there are cabals based on shared blackmail material. To get into the inner ring, you have to do something grossly incriminating.
Probably so.
>It is implausible that Pizzagate & Co. is a PSYOP perpetrated by the alphabet soup
Probably not alphabet soup; seem more like the style of some private contractors.
>Probably not alphabet soup; seem more like the style of some private contractors.
Pizzagate the supposedly fabricated evidence, Pizzagate the true evidence dredged up and posted on the Internet for dissemination to the interested public, or Pizzagate the Internet-conducted citizen's investigation?
And supposing private intelligence is somehow involved, which I will grant is possible, which contractors do you have in mind?
Erik Prince is in the private intel business and he is aligned with the Red Deep State of Trump. He is the most likely candidate if you think it was private but professional intel operatives.
But lots of military intel types Kim Dotcom and wikileaks were also aligned with Trump (though in the case of Kim and wikileaks they weren't so much pro Trump as anti Hillary).
I linked there before, haven't I?
https://isgp-studies.com/pizzagate
I'm sorry, were you saying something? I don't speak Spanish.
That's ridiculous. Spain has far hotter women than China. And with the Basque, youd also have access to Thal mates.
For as long as I can remember, people dismissed the entertainment industry as a bunch of clowns raping each other all day.
More recently people started talking about how they support pedos amongst them and make enrertainment for children designed to shock and frighten the children. Example is James Gunn's Guardians II, which included child abuse and cold-blooded murder despite Guardians I having deserved a G rating, smugly designed to bait and switch parents into taking their children to it and exposing them to that "because thats the way the world really is".
Turns out he's a pedofag and needs his ass kicked.
Turns out the entire industry is pedofags and need machinegunning.
If Q is fake, why does he keep exposing pedos?
We know our enemies control the CIA and FBI and could theoretically swing any election with the remore control software on the voting machines.
Who do we have who is loyal to non-pedos? Who vets everyone the Holy Emperor interacts with, why hasn't the CIA been able to assasainate Him yet?
Should have expected you'd be dumb enough to fall for a 4chan troll. Q is real, real dumb. Unless you think Hillary has an ankle monitor?
Whether or not Q is real, Trump has to have an intelligence network on his side.
The diggers and bakers really are finding things.
Is it a coincidence that after Trump won in 2016 our enemies are getting #metoo'd?
If making peace with NK was that easy, why didn't Obummer do it?
Not knowing whether or not Q is real is part of the fun. Emboldening some of our stupider enemes by looking fake is a good idea, because then they don't hedge their bets.
The other part of the fun is digging.
The explanation is that in 1991 the commies stopped being a useful scary bogeyman, and the internet got going, so commies needed replacing with other bogeymen such as Islamic terrorists and, later on, pedophiles. As long as you live in psychological tension and allow CIA-FBI-NSA to do as they please, every bogeyman will do.
One writer said, "The endgame will be criminalization of anonymity and encryption." Well, the endgame will be rather more dystopian than that, but you get the point. Since you're no fan of the Jews, let me put it antisemitically:
"Oy vey goyim, we need to urgently criminalize anonymity and encryption because ISIS cavemen are using their (suspiciously un-banned) accounts on Twitter to recruit followers and post propaganda. Oh you silly, silly, silly cattle pigs! It seems like you no longer buy my "muh Muslims" scare mongering. Well in that case, goy, I'll find some other pretext to take away all of your internet liberty. Ah yes – we must immediately do away with anonymity and encryption in order to protect children from anonymous pedophiles who possess encrypted child pornography of their 17-year-old girlfriends."
You don't get it because you refuse to.
The CIA and most of official Washington was ecstatic to drop commies from their list of official boogeymen because they were extensively compromised by communists and their progressive sympathizers.
They've also never forgiven Russia for giving up on "the dream" (aka the nightmare).
Mil industrial complex just wants any enemy where they can sell bombs so Muslims are fine for them but the blue empire wants evil straight christian white guys as the enemy, hence Muh Russia.
When it comes to thought-enforcement and deprivation of liberty, it serves TPTB to frighten you about a de-centralized enemy found "here, there, and everywhere," rather than a conventional enemy with its own army and territory. Sure, the State Department needs you to hate the bigoted racist shitlords of Russia and Israel, but that doesn't suffice to convince you that you don't need freedom on the internet.
Hence, Muslims and pedophiles:
"Apples iOS 8 software has encryption mechanisms that make it difficult for the government to get through. Apple provided no backdoor for surveillance without the company's discretion. However, Comey stated that he did not want a backdoor method of surveillance and that "We want to use the front door, with clarity and transparency, and with clear guidance provided by law." He believes that special access is required in order to stop criminals such as "terrorists and child molesters". Many companies such as Apple would not give the U.S. access due to the policies Apple has in place on users' confidentiality.[107]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute
In other words, "Yes goyim, you must not have privacy because the ISIS menace (which we created) posts dank may-mays on Twitter and also children are cruelly molested by pedophiles who have erotic vidz of their girlfriend who is neither a loli nor a jailbait but is in fact legal age. Be very afraid goy and give up your freedoms now," saith Comey in the parallel universe wherein he's a Jew.
A rather revealing wiki entry, btw.
Muslims and especially Sunni Muslims are genuinely bad news, the powers that be may have helped to guide them along in this but they still are. They should not be allowed in any civilized country and should gradually be driven back into the Arabian desert which should be walled off.
Fag-pedophiles are bad news 99% of heterosexual male so called pedophiles like post pubescent girls (and such laws exist and are enforced because women hate younger competition, they were never really enforced before Polanski). Women who like teenage boys are widely considered a joke but often busted due to a purity spiral (Asia Argento busted for a 17 year old male so called child are you kidding me).
Part of me thinks the last part is especially ridiculous while part of me likes seeing thots hoisted on their own petard.
Do you remember when 22 year old student teachers showed up at high school, and how the boys and girls felt about it?
13 year old girls are by and large unattractive. There's an occasional 15 year old with massive boobies who is legitimately attractive to normal adults because she looks fully grown.
Polanski's justification for statutory rape was consent, by the way, which is itself based on the idea that women always make correct sexual decisions and men have no responsibility for the sexual decisions of women who sleep with them. Which came from the religion saying that no one should ever think about sex, which came from the bad experiences with sexual heresies that ruined so many lives.
Hopefully, Jim's book will help future Aryans avoid having their society destroyed by sexual heresy.
I wasn't commenting about the case other then to establish a time context I was saying that as far as pedophile hysteria goes a pedophile used to mean a fag chickenhawk or a guy who liked PREpubescent girls.
Going after postpubescent teenagers was not prior to Polanski considered pedophilia the way it is now.
I think the break came largely due to the boomer kids having so much disposable income (and even older siblings) in relative terms that any parental control broke down and enough girls (probably not too many but enough to be noticed) acted as Jim said they would (as portrayed in the movies Taxi Driver and Hardcore) that there was enough of a cryout that beta-socons and feminists got the law enforced.
Asia Argento going after a 17 year old high school boy would just be considered a crazy old broad. If you had said that made her a pedophile even ten years ago they would have laughed at you. If you had said that in the 70s or before they would think you were insane.
Most chicks have fine breasts at fifteen, full adult size, without much further growth after fifteen.
You are correct that usually boobs are bit small and funny looking under fifteen, and even if their breast size is nice well before fifteen, their breasts are still a bit funny looking under fifteen. But full sized breasts at twelve are mighty common, even though they look a bit odd, and are going to grow further.
The big problem is that sexual desire and sexual response is apt to set in long before any substantial or significant breast growth.
Full adult sized and adult shaped breasts indicate near adult fertility. Most girls have near adult sized and full adult shaped breasts at fifteen.
Substantial but child shaped breasts indicate subadult fertility, but still significant fertility. Boob growth is heavily influenced by hormones released during ovulation, thus is an honest indicator of fertility. If a chick has boobs, even subadult boobs, probably fertile.
The whole 'leftism is a religion' meme came about largely as a snarky 'gotcha' and it's getting really stale now.
Regardless of what any particular individual thinks about the proper age of consent, what's normal and what's not normal, etc. etc. etc. the fact remains that thanks to modernity, lots of people who are situationally de facto kids are getting interfered with in ways that are harmful to their future wellbeing. As a free bonus, this also has lots of harmful side effects for society as a whole, from the necessary measures to combat it, through to the effects on the wider culture of there being something unhealthy that dwells in close proximity to normal affection.
Once we find a way to reverse most of the harm done over the past couple of centuries, these esoteric questions will just be irrelevant. If a girl's too immature to get married, her father will likely have no reason to want her to be, or if he does, it'll be to someone responsible enough not to interfere with her prior to full maturity. Husbands will correspondingly not tend to be pleasure-seeking predators and the men who are will tend not to become husbands.
It's called the high trust society, and it depends to a surprisingly large extent on the establishment of actual Patriarchy.
Wasting too much effort determining what the proper laissez-faire mating regulations ought to be is about as worthwhile as determining what the proper laissez-faire labour market regulations ought to be. Minimum wage or dog eat dog? All totally beside the point because labour isn't a damn commodity in the first place.
> The whole 'leftism is a religion' meme came about largely as a snarky 'gotcha' and it's getting really stale now.
Of course leftism is a religion. And as leftism goes to ever greater extremes of holiness this becomes ever more obvious to normies. The regular rando normie no longer blinks when I in one of my pick-up-chicks non political identities refer to leftism as religion.
That leftism is a religion has gone mainstream, not because of Mencius, but because ever more obvious.
With holy war looming, we are going to have to recognize the holy war as a holy war, or die.
Totally non political gamers pissed off by tranny Thor have no trouble understanding references to "holiness spiral", "Holier than thou", and "holier than God".
You are definitely an entryist.
The whole 'entryist' thing's pretty lame also.
I just get fed up seeing people lay into Jim over this one tiny issue when it's not something he even writes about very often. It's a total non-topic – we all agree (I assume) that little girls (birth to 25) shouldn't be out there chasing the heart-racing 'One' that'll throw them into an endless rage of romantic infatuation….. so what does it matter where the state decides to draw the line that stops the free-for-all turning into one big pizza parlour?
It's irrelevant.
As for the 'religion' thing, who cares if the evil shower of globohomo is analysable in chin-touching ways while snarking at Richard Dawkins?
It's EVIL!! Isn't that what we hate about it?
Plenty of non-evil religions, so evil globohomo being rather like a religion from a certain (((perspective))) is just a distracting blind alley.
>Regardless of what any particular individual thinks about the proper age of consent, what's normal and what's not normal, etc. etc. etc. the fact remains that thanks to modernity, lots of people who are situationally de facto kids are getting interfered with in ways that are harmful to their future wellbeing.
>lots of people
That's another prog shibboleth – generalizing about "people" when talking about sexual matters. It's meant to obscure the differences between the nature of men and women and to signal that you're part of the prog herd by saying you don't acknowledge those differences.
It's a fun troll, painting the dissenter to your right as a leftie prog entryist, but you know perfectly well what I'm talking about.
Fine, you nit-picked the term 'people' as opposed to 'little girls'. I'll double down: plenty of little boys are getting diddled under globohomo as well, and not all of them by priests and other hated reactionary professions.
Until the idea of a sexual marketplace is reversed and replaced with the tried&tested sexual socialism of old Europe, people of both sexes are going to continue being traumatised by predators.
How do we do fellow reactionaries?
How do you define relative beauty / whatever a man wants in a woman?
You want to get rid of that word so you can have sexual socialism.
You're often quite insightful Peppermint. This is one of those occasions. Quite right, 'sexual socialism' isn't entirely right. Patriarchy will do, so long as it loses its Current Year baggage.
Basically what Jim always says: the father marries the daughter off to the husband, who then looks after her for life. She has little or no say in this and certainly no say beyond what the men in her life allow her to have (which will vary).
The only point I'm making here is that all the waffle about whether Jim's right or wrong when it comes to age of consent, blah-di-blah, is totally missing the point.
This right here is the issue:
Not so. It was a fun bit of snark. Everyone loves being sarcastic towards the most sarcastic man on Earth, Richard Dawkins.
"Peerless Stinker" is it Richard? Ha ha ha well you got PWND booyakasha!
It's a holy war in the sense of good vs evil, but that's just a figure of speech. We're in conflict with people pushing genocide and the total dismantling of civilisation.
You can expend all your energy casting clever similes and tracing the ideological origins of the wickedness, or you can just clamp down on them like a ton of bricks, throw them in jail and restore order with an iron fist.
They can be as 'religious' as they like when they're silenced, trapped and expropriated.
Ideas are more powerful than guns. A holy war is a war between ideas equipped with guns and armies. Cannot win if you cannot identify your enemy.
That the coming war is going to be a holy war is obvious to every comics purchaser who does not much like trannie Thor.
If you don't correctly trace the ideological origins of wickedness, you wind up hanging Havel's Greengrocer, and failing to hang the man who assigned him the posters.
If William Wilberforce and his elect had been sent to Jamaica to cut sugarcane we would not be in this mess.
If we don't send the modern equivalents of his elect to Alaska, we will get in this mess all over again. Which means we have to be able to know a member of the elect when we see one.
They are controlling our ideas. We will need to control their ideas. That is what the struggle over Star Wars and Thor is all about. That is why they are erasing and demonizing our history.
"If we don't send the modern equivalents of his elect to Alaska, we will get in this mess all over again"
They just can't be spared at all if we win… and they are far worse then William Wilberforce.
Abolitionism as a progressive cause had some moral legitimacy, there latest cause of branding anyone who doesn't believe in 57 genders a heretic has no legitimacy and I have no sympathy.
If you have sympathy with the abolitionists, check on the story of the hottentot venus.
Evil then, evil now.
John Brown needed hanging, William Wilberforce needed hanging, and the Africa Association, all of them, needed hanging.
This is a holy war.
Trump is the Holy Emperor.
His enemies are satan-worshipping pedophiles and the twisted gamma male cucks and soyboys who have been lied into aligning with them.
If you tell an agnostic woman to slut it up, she'll take it into consideration. If you tell her God or Science commands her to be a slut, she has the excuse to engage in behavior she knows isn't good long term. In the future she'll hear that the Nation expects good behavior.
The 15yo should have a discounted SMV vs the 19yo because you need to hold her for a few years to get optimal use out of her. But if you're a 19yo boy, you're going to take a few years to get your career going. So if you can tell which 15yo is going to have high SMV in a few years you know who to hit on.
What do people say about old men who hit on 15yo's?
They still see themselves as teenagers waiting for their pathetic lives to start.
That's the kind of insight commies don't want to have. The whole point of being a commie is that the Revolution will give you a second chance at adolescence.
If you tell an agnostic man to defend his nation against satan-worshiping pedophiles, he'll take it into consideration, especially if you point out all the in his face degeneracy. If you tell a nationalist, well, you don't have to tell a nationalist, he already knows.
It is hard to tell the difference between a naked fifteen year old girl and a naked twenty two year old girl. About half the time you can tell the difference, about half the time you cannot tell the difference.
I see slavery as something akin to the cheap labor/mass immigration lobby of today and like mass immigration it causes massive problems and only enriches those in the slave business.
They never should have been brought here, the reactionary nationalist position should be that of the free soilers. Our position towards slave lobbyists from the past should be the same as open borders lobbyists now. That they should be share the fate of gender studies professors when the proper time comes…
To control men, you must control a need. That need can be water, it can be oxygen, it can be land, it can be labor, it can be sex.
To control men, control access to to sex, create a situation where you control the access to that need, and you control those men.
An 80 year old man who desperately wants to have sex with a 15 year old girl will do nearly anything to fulfill that need. Many men by that time have been hurt and broken so badly that they will throw away everything for the possibility of happiness.
If that 80 year old man has means, and a man with a serious libido at 80 almost definitely has means, then when you control access to what he desperately needs you control him.
When you arbitrarily make what he needs illegal then you force him into a position of torment. This is so whether the need is for whiskey, cocaine, marijuana, sex with a 15 year old girl, property rights, the right to read the bible, the right to swim in the ocean etc.
I say "arbitrarily" because you have not made any kind of genuine case that the 15 year old girl is in any wise different than a 25 year old girl, or a 35 year old girl, save that after riding the cock carousel, each is a great deal more screwed up than the other.
Sexually speaking, a 15 year old girl in this generation has probably had more sex than most men by the time they hit 30.
And four generations ago, many of these "15 year old girls" were already mothers in an age where to cook a simple chicken meant "the girl" had to raise it, kill it herself, pluck it by hand, cut it apart, put wood in a metal pipe called a "stove", fire it up, draw the water herself, boil it and the chicken, then when all was done, roll up her sleeves and use elbow grease to get the grime out of the metal pipe.
Bringing african slaves over to white america (but i repeat myself) was a mistake for several reasons, and one of those reasons is that slavery is too great a benefit to waste on people not your own race.
You're both right. Slavery should not have been used in the colonies (or anywhere else) for the same reason as open borders (even in a libertarian Utopia) are doom for the host society, but at the same time the abolitionists were evil and destructive.
The correct response was something along the spectrum of "kill/sterilise everyone involved" to "send everyone involved to Africa". Obviously in modern times, that's not remotely feasible but back then…….
This is really the same problem over and over: bad things are done and then also-bad things are done to address the symptoms.
The same thing's true of cradle-to-grave and laissez-faire capitalism. Bad idea treating labour as a commodity; bad idea fixing the symptoms through social welfare.
The same thing's true of the so-called sexual marketplace: bad idea giving women sexual anarchy; bad idea fixing the symptoms with hand-holding and interference, let alone divorce etc.
How can we get from C back to A? That's the question. Easy to get from C back to B: end civil rights, end welfare, end free association between the sexes.
But that only takes us to B (laissez-faire and mixed population).
> The correct response was something along the spectrum of "kill/sterilise everyone involved" to "send everyone involved to Africa". Obviously in modern times, that's not remotely feasible but back then……
Genocide and ethnic cleansing is the easiest thing in the world, and the modern trend has been towards bigger, better, bloodier, and more frequent ethnic cleansings, as for example expelling whites from Detroit, Tutsis from lots of places, whites from Haiti, Stalin on the nationalities questions, Christians, Jews, and innumerable little known ethnicities and religions from the Middle East right now.
The major purpose of the State Department's color revolution in Syria was to exterminate Alawites and expel Christians to Lebanon, which would have had the side effect of expelling Palestinians to Jordan. Similarly, whites expelled from Rhodesia.
The collapse of communism led to one ethnic cleansing after another in the former Soviet Empire, more ethnic cleansings than you can shake a stick at, and the ethnic cleansing of whites from America is coming right up.
In the Congo the US Government dressed in UN blue helmets gave massive air and ground support to a military operation whose major objective was to vaginally impale Tutsi women, all Tutsi women, with objects larger than themselves, and everyone was fine with that.
Modernity means that mass murder and ethnic cleansing becomes ever easier, more frequent, and more popular.
If the world applauds when whites are expelled from Rhodesia, and averts its eyes from mass murder of Tutsis, there should be no problem "gentrifying" America's inner cities.
You would be able to tell the difference if you actually had social contact with high school girls, also high school tv shows and movies have particularly soulless 30+ women playing high school girls leading men to believe that high school girls are more attractive than they actually are.
Granted, a lot of fifteen year olds have considerably less than full sized breasts. But a lot of fifteen year olds do have full sized breasts. Maybe adult appearance is not common, but it is not uncommon either.
At what age do you estimate about half of young women have completed their growth spurt? About half are close to full adult height?
Jim you could replace all Carlylean Restorationist comments with the following:
"I am a communist who wants communism so I can ban gluten. Also I am a cuck who will never reproduce."
Nothing of value will be lost.
It's hard to say, but a college girl student teacher steals all the male attention from a classroom of 14yo's, doesn't in a classroom of 18yo's, the 18yo's are all jealous of the derpy 16yo with the boobies, but the 16yo can't get top tier college boys the way the 18yo's can.
It should be a subtle thing that tells men this one has this SMV and that one will have that SMV in a few years and keep it for how long, ti facilitate choosing who to give attention to.
I know I was predicting the future SMV of various women to pick who to give attention to when I was in high school and college.
Quite so. If my comments on fifteen year olds with nice boobs seemed to say otherwise, I was unintentionally misleading.
Carl's presence flatters us, because it means this place smells of power.
Cloudswrest says:
"It is hard to tell the difference between a naked fifteen year old girl and a naked twenty two year old girl."
This is the jim's blog corollary to Godwin's Law. Discussion on any subject, e.g., Manafort trial, will eventually devolve into discussion of teen tits.
Clarification: It is hard to tell the difference between some fifteen year old girls and a twenty two year old girl.
Theshadowedknight says:
I knew an attractive 15 year old girl in college. Smart, pretty, seemed like a possible wife, and I started evaluating her. Until I realized that she was 15 and I dropped the issue. No idea what has happened to her since.
Those types of girls do exist, and denial does them no favors. Who knows what will happen to her in the future, but as a young woman at a college, I doubt it will benefit her in the long run. Almost certainly worse than if it had not been completely socially unacceptable to marry young.
>Carl's presence flatters us, because it means this place smells of power.
>mfw
jewish pedophile says:
>Do you remember when 22 year old student teachers showed up at high school, and how the boys and girls felt about it?
I remember ages 12-17 like yesterday; we were all horny all the time, usually for each other, and I personally would have fucked *all* of my female classmates *and* the young hottie teachers.
>13 year old girls are by and large unattractive.
And yet, if they possess SSC, men *will* play ball. Are you going to out-group those men, because the poor dear little angels are oh so horribly victimized by sex?
>There's an occasional 15 year old with massive boobies who is legitimately attractive to normal adults because she looks fully grown.
Not "occasional." Plenty of 15-year-olds are attractive. I'd say the vast majority. And I don't mean "attractive to me personally," but exactly to normal men. At any rate, that should mean nothing as regards the AoC.
>Polanski's justification for statutory rape was consent
There should not be "statutory rape" legislation in the first place; Polanski did nothing wrong when he fucked that little whore. And yes, she did enthusiastically consent to fuck him by taking him up the ass and by grinding her dripping-her cunt all over his cock.
>Hopefully, Jim's book will help future Aryans avoid having their society destroyed by sexual heresy.
Yes, sexual heresies such as "men are not attracted to teenagers," "teenagers are not horny," "female secondary sexual characteristics do not elicit boners among all healthy heterosexual men," aka agecuckery.
And, I should add: "female teenagers just are not MATUUUUUURE enough to fuck, although sometimes they magically become mature if the partner is less than 3 or 4 years older than them," which is the weltanschauung of Gender Studies catladies with blue hair, problem glasses, a let-me-talk-to-the-manager countenance, and the smell of fur and cheap wine.
Reminds me of Neurotoxin telling me that eight year old girls are not attracted to aging adult males, they are attracted to eight year old boys.
Of course eight year old girls are far more attracted to adult alpha males – but Neurotoxin is able to see pre-pubertal female sexuality when the target is age appropriate, and unable to see it in the vastly more common case that they are creeping on someone much older, much more alpha, and with adult female pre-selection.
>satan-worshipping pedophiles
Pizzagate is lame, pizzagaters are liars, you are perpetuating a lie.
>The 15yo should have a discounted SMV vs the 19yo because you need to hold her for a few years to get optimal use out of her. But if you're a 19yo boy, you're going to take a few years to get your career going. So if you can tell which 15yo is going to have high SMV in a few years you know who to hit on.
Yeah yeah, blah-blah-blah, "I am not attracted to teenagers and my sex drive is dysfunctional, therefore let's socially engineer society to fit my own idiosyncratic preferences, regardless of what's best for society." We've heard it all before a thousand times. No, 13-year-old women are — or, rather, *should be* and *had been most of human history* — ready to be housewives, and 17-year-old men are — or, rather, *should be* and *had been most of human history* — ready to be husbands. Men are sexually attracted to 15-year-olds, always have been, always will be.
>What do people say about old men who hit on 15yo's?
Yes, "people" (cucks) in 2018 say a whole lot of nasty things about normal men, which category does not include you and is not represented by you. Yes, "people" call them pedophiles, and some alt-righters tend to insinuate that they must Jewish, too.
>They still see themselves as teenagers waiting for their pathetic lives to start.
It's because of the mass mandatory Prussian School System, you dipshit. People used to start families while in their teenage years throughout the saner centuries.
>You would be able to tell the difference if you actually had social contact with high school girls, also high school tv shows and movies have particularly soulless 30+ women playing high school girls leading men to believe that high school girls are more attractive than they actually are.
HAHAHAHA, YOU'RE A FLAMING FAGGOT.
Do you really think that men find high school women (ages 15-18) attractive only because they are "played by 30+ year olds on television"? You are a vile mutant! Men are attracted to high school girls because high school girls are extremely sexy and extremely seductive.
You have it exactly backwards: TV shows usually show ugly roastie post-wall women precisely because showing sexy teenagers doing sexy things is both illegal and against Political Correctness; society is being socially engineered by Puritan-Feminists to pretend that teenagers, despite their fervently raging hormones, despite their developing SSCs, are not sexual entities (or to pretend that they are much less sexual than they actually are, i.e., extremely sexual), because they are "not mature" for sex, are "victimized" by sex, according to Gender Studies dogma and its cladistic predecessor ideologies.
All men are attracted to high schoolers, some greatly attracted, some less so, but the attraction is visceral and intense. The idea that men *do not* find high schoolers attractive is Feminist lunacy.
It's over, roastie-lover.
Potatonigger Patrick blurted:
Polanski's justification for statutory rape was consent
St. Polanski did nothing wrong when he fucked that Horny Hollywood Ho up her wide-spread and lubricated ass. That she happened to be 13-year-old is irrelevant ("statutory rape" is a crazy Puritan meme), as women start misbehaving at disturbingly young ages — sometimes at age 8 — and at 13 they are attractive enough and fertile enough to take in the dicks that they crave so strongly and get themselves drilled into pregnancy.
Yes: The girls generally did not notice the teachers, and the boys sometimes noticed them, but were more focused on getting their dicks wet with their approximately same-age classmates. Your wife has been lying to you about her wild teenage years, and it's very likely that she's lied to you about many other things as well. Never believe what women say about sexual matters, as they themselves have no idea what is going on – it always "just happens," and women tend to use doublethink to convince themselves of their own lies and delusions.
13 year old girls are by and large unattractive. There's an occasional 15 year old with massive boobies who is legitimately attractive
Nuts. Lots of girls aged 12-13 are well developed and attractive to normal heterosexual men with healthy T-levels, a category which obviously doesn't describe you. NRx stands for young marriage, and the lie that teenage girls are unattractive was designed and disseminated by Puritans and Feminists to disrupt young marriage, because like you, Puritans and Feminists are of their father, the Devil, a sinner from the beginning and the father of lies.
Exactly so: If Jim ever writes a book, your sexual heresies will be refuted one-by-one in it; your worldview will serve as a concrete example of what NRx isn't; and possibly, you will serve as Jim's convenient punching bag.
Let me clarify something:
The girls generally did not notice the female teachers, as you falsely imply based on your wife's lies to you. The girls obviously and demonstrably did, however, notice the male teachers ("big time," in fact), with whom some of them were sleeping right after school hours inside the school.
A large part of 20th century 'statecraft' (if it could be called that) is based around learning and trying to turn various catastrophes, panics, or imbroglios, into vehicles for pushing your policy in particular, or pushing things in way/direction that is indefinite but who's implied cardinality is teleologically agreeable with you in general. Because you know, it's demotism, you can't just *say* you are going to decree such and such (which would be far too elegant with not nearly enough unintended consequences), you need a *pretext*.
Naturally of course, the implied incentives quite easily proceed towards *permitted* catastrophes, to help get the dance going; sometimes, even *planned* catastrophes.
All of which is to say specifically here, just since you have some clades of tranzis looking to spin a hysteria (like kiddyfucking) into something they desire (like arbitrary powers of censorship), doesn't mean that there isn't *also* a bunch who incidentally are het all up in kiddyfucking themselves (as a personal coordination mechanism).
None of which no doubt being especially *virtuous* manners of achieving such aims, as might be expected of wanting exponents of particularly wanting times, especially when they cross wires. Unintended consequences? Fireworks.
Re: older woman/underage guy: In the old times this wasn't considered "rape" but it wasn't considered OK either. On the contrary, if discovered the withered old THOT would be liable to being charged with corrupting the morals of a minor and would be shamed out of the community in any case. As well she ought to be. A woman in her thirties socially outranks a teenage boy, and it's contrary to the Nature of things for there to be a sexual relationship in which the woman has social precedence vis-a-vis the male. It is a form of role-reversal on a continuum with homosexuality, a type of gay sex in which the youth is a type of catamite. (For that matter, the cougar and the fag hag are cut from the same cloth).
Re: Is Leftism a religion? Sure- in the same sense that rubbing alcohol is booze. It'll get you drunk if the latter isn't available, but it's a deadly poison.
"On the contrary, if discovered the withered old THOT would be liable to being charged with corrupting the morals of a minor"
Maybe the other women would go after her and if married (which Asia Argento was) her husband would probably and rightfully beat the shit out of her.
The men of the community (who weren't the husband) would generally think it was funny.
I don't care about Asia Argento getting hoisted on her own thotard she joined the pound me too crusade to get her name back in the headlines and turnabout is fair play, but the idea that she raped someone she couldn't even physically overpower is insane. We may applaud her going down but we should keep in mind that it represents the pound me too purity spiral reaching a new level of insanity.
Oh definitely, the idea that this is "rape" is a holiness spiral reaching the level of intensity where last week's holy accuser is impugned by others holier still; in other words, it's progressed from mere Puritanism into Maoism.
What I said about cougars being charged w/corrupting the morals of minors is probably inaccurate and should be disregarded.
I was there back then. There was a whole lot of it going on, and while it was not OK, that was not obviously distinct from casual sex generally being not OK. No female was ever charged with corrupting the morals of a minor. This is a new level of holiness spiraling. It has not been around for very long.
A necessary condition for "rape" should include sexual penetration of the victim. E.g. a teenage boy can be raped in the ass. But a teenage boy doing an older woman is not being raped.
Potatonigger Peppermint asked:
"Anti-pedophile" is codeword for anti-patriarchy. The FBI, which sends armies of shills to troll the internet, one of those shills being Q, urgently seeks to have the entire population panicked about "pedophiles," because that facilitates USG's assault on the family.
"Pedophilia" is a 20th century anti-concept with political implications, the implication being that trannies, homosexuals, and bisexuals (like you for instance), should be allowed to diddle prepubescent boys, to rub their penises on their butt-creases and scrota, often to a conspicuous climax, whereas men who possess a video of their girlfriend, aged 17 years, 11 months, and 27 days, should spend long years in prison for "possession of child pornography," and should be registered as sex offenders.
"Child abuse" is an anti-concept, because what faggots do with 10-year-old boys is altogether dissimilar to heterosexual relations between older males and younger females, for reasons explained at length elsewhere some 6 zillion times. Whoever talks about "children" being abused, rather than boys, does so to support the priestly Puritan-Feminist war against patriarchy and young marriage, and to legitimize gay sex, which is of course never regarded as "child abuse."
Anyone who uses the gender-neutral term "children" is lying. "Children" are not being abused by "pedophiles." It is boys who are being abused by gays. When your medium-boobed 13-year-old whore daughter rides Biff Bulkington's cock all night, it is not "child abuse," it is the consequence of your fatherly failure to forcefully restrain her sexual freedom, and it's the result your failure marry her off promptly when she first got wet and ready to go. And when your flat chested hairless 8-year-old daughter sneaks into an alpha male's bed while he's drunk and asleep, and starts playing rodeo, she is the sexual predator, not the alpha male. This is altogether dissimilar to older gays predating on prepubescent boys.
Anyone who uses the term "children" in this context is a lying liar, and should be rightly suspected of harboring homoerotic urges, at the very least. Q is commie FBI propaganda, and Q's pedo-hysteria is altogether unsurprising.
Everyone identifying as "anti-pedophile," rather than anti-sodomite, is an enemy of young marriage, patriarchy, men, male sexuality, heterosexuality, Christianity, and the white race. Everyone complaining about "child abuse," rather than abuse of boys by homosexuals, is on the side of the Cathedral, and an enemy of NRx.
When someone talks about "pedophilia", he is not talking about Drag Queen story hour and man dressed as woman having sex in public with a nine year old boy on the floor of a public library.
Exactly. When they say "pedo, pedo, pedo, pedo, pedo," it is aimed against normal heterosexual males who have natural sexual relations with fertile females. It is never used as a weapon against men-who-pretend-to-be-women who make little boys sit on their laps with their penile bulges rubbing on the boys' bottoms, sometimes till climax.
Go troll somewhere else…
Vox is a true believer not a shill.
That said Q Anon is probably a psyop , J.M Greer better known as the Arch Druid thinks it smells of the military and he's generally a pretty hoopy frood who knows where his towel is at
That said who is doing the Psyop is an interesting question .
My guess would be its designed to act as a safety valve to slow organization among Whites and Deplorables to prevent a war but it could be something else.
Anonymous conservative believes Q is real. And they are doing their best to take down Cabal.
That's a point against Q being real.
Anonymous Conservative also believes that very large numbers of human beings adopt a 'spray and pray' reproductive strategy, seemingly unaware that nine months of pregnancy aren't negotiable.
At best, AC is a cookie-cutter anti-welfare libertarian who wants to roll back from C to B when it comes to laissez-faire applied to human labour.
"unaware that nine months of pregnancy aren't negotiable."
They are for the man, who doesn't need to stick around for nine minutes after conception. His hos don't mind if they perceive him as sufficiently high-value (i.e. resembling a dominant alpha male monkey) and can lean on relatives and the welfare state to help raise his babies.
The problem with AC is that he now sees a giant evil conspiracy *everywhere*, even when more mundane theories suffice to explain the observed behavior. The abyss is staring back into him.
It takes two to, er, tango, and this too is non-negotiable.
It is simply not possible to CHOOSE to reproduce like a rabbit or a frog.
The fact AC brings out statements like I just made is really the main reason he's so harmful for our movement. It's dumb and liberals who encounter otherwise very smart people saying stuff like "Democrats adopt the reproductive strategy of newts" are right to laugh.
It's about as helpful to our cause as "Hillary and Bill have fled to Mexico" or "perhaps we should revisit the question of the shape and age of the Earth"…..or for that matter Lew Rockwell pushing Doctor Mercola.
With marriage abolished and criminalized, reproduction is increasingly dominated by those who do reproduce like a rabbit or a frog. We now have majority fatherless amongst young boys.
Anyone who follows a the white reproductive strategy is acting illegally, and may well be subject to penalties considerably more severe than those connected to robbery and murder,
I really do despair.
Humans require nine months to bring a baby (one at a time usually, and no more than five at the very most – on average not much higher than one) to a state where it can be birthed. After that, the baby requires many years – at least five and usually ten, during which they require intensive support in order to realistically survive.
It doesn't matter how the males behave: the females will always require nine months and the children will always require post-natal support for many years.
Even if you factor in all manner of support from the state and assume that every child produced will be put up for adoption, this is nowhere near the so-called 'r strategy'.
An r-strategy female creature lays its eggs in large clusters. The male of the species then fertilises all of those eggs before swimming away. As soon as the eggs hatch, the newborn creature is ready to go its own way within days at the very most – usually far less. Many will be eaten quickly after birth but the ones that survive require no parental investment at all.
There is no crossover between these two strategies. At MOST, humans may be evolving shorter gestation periods and larger litter sizes, but these are very tiny changes. There does not exist any living human capable of producing litters of thirty, none of which require post-natum care and attention.
I really should not need to tell you this.
See the thing is, the phenomena that r/K 'selection' theory sets out to explain can very easily be explained without recourse to some bizarre sympatric speciation event.
Blacks (because that's what he's really talking about) and to a surprising extent 'Hispanics' (ie. Squatamalan post-Aztecs with some Cimarron mixed in for good measure) tend to be less intelligent than whites, more prone to anti-social "FU Jack I'm alright" types of behaviour, more subservient to big governments and more content to see them grow, more likely to drop out of the good things and more likely to opt into the bad things, less likely to sacrifice their own interests for those of their children, less susceptible to status competitions based on achievement and wealth (as opposed to consumption), less conforming to traditional institutions and less impressed by them, and so on and so forth.
This is all perfectly true, but we don't need to appeal to seriously dodgy biology to explain it. We can just do a racist Ron Paul and say "these people here are more susceptible to the adverse effects of the big welfare state so since they're here, we can't do that any more, and let's be honest eventually it affects us too so let's go back to the wild west", or we can do a Carlyle and say "this laissez-faire labour market thing is a problem and it's leading people to social-socialist solutions which are also a problem, plus it's hugely dysgenic, so let's reverse the whole thing, and since we do still have some 'captains of industry', just force the plebs to go to work and take it from there".
What we don't need is outlandish claims like r/K.
For anyone who isn't familiar with the r/K 'selection' theory, it goes like this:
Humanity is in the process of splitting into two overlapping but reproductively compatible species with the sympatric (same location) speciation being driven not by any die-offs but purely by comparative reproductive rates. This process has been going on for a couple of hundred years and accelerated with increased immigration and leftism (of the sort libertarians don't like), so basically under a dozen human generations.
What's happening is that one half of the current human species is sticking largely with the hominid reproductive strategy: carry a child for nine months, usually one at a time, give birth then look after it for a decade or so, often with two people pair-bonding in the interests of making this process more effective and achievable.
The other half of the current human species doesn't do any of this: they breed like rabbits – a male sees a female and just inseminates her randomly before flying off into the night; the female just wants to churn out as many babies as possible, with the responsibility for caring for them mostly or wholly out-sourced to the welfare state ("someone has to pay for allllll my children").
This difference in behaviour constitues a speciation event, even though the two sub-species (or new species) can still easily produce viable young when they interbreed. The gestation period for the r-type females is well on the way to something closer to a moth or at most a cat, and litter size will also end up reflecting this, so in ooooh thirty years or so we should start seeing alpha sheboons producing two or three hundred young in a five year period with the remaining white strivers paying for all of it and not adjusting their behaviour at all.
It has a superficial plausibility to it. There ARE some bodies – babies just dumped in the garbage in some communities; there ARE some indications of changes to gestation time and litter size; there ARE plausible behavioural accounts and we can certainly assume they're around 50% heritable, perhaps higher; there ARE political ramifications of these factors.
However, biologically it's the most stark staring mad nonsense anyone's ever come up with!
There simply ARE no examples of extremely rapid sympatric speciation without piles of bodies and affecting the entire reproductive strategy of a species whilst keeping the divided sub-species reproductively viable for interbreeding.
This would be, if true, the single most astonishing development in the evolution of life on this planet!
Thankfully the whole thing can be explained without any need for anything remotely of the kind. Leftists to some extent (though most leftists under-reproduce), women to some extent (at least when not married and provided for) and blacks/spics to a large extent favour minimising parental investment and maximising parasitism and this correlates with lower intelligence and a greater intensity of time preference, which in turn correlates with criminality and poorer life outcomes.
Are the races well on their way to speciating? Sure, if kept ruthlessly separate, it's not unthinkable that things like gestation time could drift over time (though if geographically separated, blacks wouldn't be 'distorted' (as Tom Woods would say) in their behaviour by the welfare state) to the extent that interbreeding was no longer likely to produce viable offspring.
Would that be a good thing? In many ways it probably would.
Is it happening right now in the way Anonymous Conservative's claiming? Not in a million years. It's crackpot anti-science and horrifically bad optics, making us look exactly the way we're portrayed by our enemies: buffoonish, illiterate and delusional.
7817 says:
"Hello there, fellow reactionaries."
Is that how all human discourse actually works: memes getting repeated in competition, then discovering which one has the most copies?
Susan Blackmore claimed something similar, but she spoiled it all by turning into a total hippy unfortunately.
Seemed to make sense at the time, and if you're willing to entertain human litters in the dozens and babies crawling out of their mothers' wombs straight into the gig economy, you ought to give her thesis a whirl about how the human cranial inflation was driven by memes lol
Read the Lucifer principle (His book is entirely in keeping with neoreactionary and alt-rightish views of human nature even if he at least plays at opposing Trump on twitter), generally one meme gets a critical mass of military strength and murders the others.
> There simply ARE no examples of extremely rapid sympatric speciation without piles of bodies and affecting the entire reproductive strategy of a species whilst keeping the divided sub-species reproductively viable for interbreeding.
Bullshit. Extremely rapid sympatric speciation with liberal interbreeding happens all the time. Particularly noticeable in foraminifera, because they are fast breeding, numerous, and leave numerous skeletons. Also much studied in three spined sticklebacks, because every lake system and river system gets its own parallel speciation events. In each lake, we find two species, or two subspecies, or more, of three spined sticklebacks sharing that lake, despite the presence of numerous fertile hybrids in that lake.
I don't agree with r/K theory in that I model this event as slow white genocide – their breeding strategy is subsidized, our breeding strategy is criminalized. It is an extinction event, not a speciation event. But speciation happens this way all the time everywhere.
Sympatric speciation with heavy interbreeding is happening in most places most of the time to most successful and numerous species. Any species that is successful starts pressing on the borders of its niche, different lifestyles of its specialization, starts developing specialized sympatric subspecies for each lifestyle.
Whenever you look at nature, you are likely to look at a very common species, because they are easier to find, and you don't run into the protected species laws, and whenever you look at a very common species, you are likely to see sympatric speciation whilst the divided sub-species are reproductively viable for interbreeding.
Each lake in the Philippines has a pile of sympatric tilapia speciation events in progress inside that lake. Since a lot of these lakes are recent, I figure the speciation events must be rapid. Since there are a thousand lakes, there are a thousand PhD theses waiting to be written.
It's a shame you can't resist the impulse to straw man me at every turn, but I'll go through the motions because these things are worth getting to the truth around.
I'm not claiming sympatric speciation doesn't exist. I'm claiming that under conditions of overlapping niches, speciation does not occur without significant die-offs. Invasive unrelated species can displace other species, but that's not what we're talking about.
We're talking about Species A in an established niche transforming, without die-offs, into Species B and Species C with lots of interbreeding along the way.
This never happens. Any genetic steps that might lead to speciation are eliminated by interbreeding.
When sympatric speciation occurs, there are always mass die-offs such that creatures with some crucial adaptation survive and creatures lacking it do not. That's what 'selection' means. There simply is no 'selection' between humans without there being significant piles of bodies.
I agree with you entirely that what we're experiencing is deliberate planned genocide, not sympatric speciation without die-offs.
"Sympatric speciation" is a shibboleth of Social Justice Warriors in academia who have murdered the biological sciences, gutted their corpses, are wearing their corpses as skin suits, and demanding respect for "science".
You use our shibboleths incorrectly, and the shibboleths of the enemies of western civilization correctly.
To put it more snappily, it makes us look like morons when we start talking about human beings being 'selected' for adopting the reproductive strategy of rabbits, because that idea's retarded, but if we hammer home the fact that people in positions of power and imposing wide-ranging measures that tend to lead to the extinction of our people, it becomes impossible for them to deny it.
Of course this is all moot because the time's fast approaching when they won't deny it anyway.
I have no constructive answer as to what we should do, and this is why I read this blog: your analysis of the coming civil war, or even global race war, or worse even global leftist purity spiral ending in planetary slaughter, is pretty much the best out there.
> it makes us look like morons when we start talking about human beings being 'selected' for adopting the reproductive strategy of rabbits, because that idea's retarded
Hail fellow reactionaries: It makes all us good reactionaries look like morons if you use that stupid ig'rant old fashioned biological sciences that Social Justice Warriors murdered and gutted instead of our new uptodate social justice biology that all the high status universities are teaching these days. And did I mention that the new sciency biology is high status, and this old science biology is low status.
I would not want we fellow reactionaries to look stupid and low status, would I? Status, status, status, all that old science stuff is, like the evil ig'rant western civiliation that created it, low status. </sarcasm>
Rejection of r/K theory is a reliable indicator of a midwit incapable of multi-paradigm cognition, when it isn't simply Leftism.
I'll just repeat the facts of the matter:
Human females take nine months to bring a baby to term.
Human females have a litter size of approximately one.
The new baby is not ready to go its own way for some considerable time.
I had to google rabbits because I'm not a biologist, just an interested layman. Here's what came up:
"After 40 seconds of magic, the egg is emitted for fertilization. Rabbits gestate for only 30 days, and usually have litters of between 4 and 12 babies (kits), depending on the breed. Once the babies are born, the doe can mate and get pregnant again as soon as the following day."
Admirers of r/K 'selection' theory are claiming that the former is evolving into the latter, with no piles of bodies and easy interbreeding between humans and the (definitely not dehumanised) new folks.
Can you see why that might be problematic in terms of optics? (Let alone insane in terms of the science of it!)
I am in favor of anything that makes midwits leave.
Indeed, when action's available, everyone here will support it. I hope it's Trump, or someone very much like Trump. Trump's better than Ron Paul or Barry Goldwater for example, and arguably better than Pat Buchanan in many ways. Those guys would have made perfectly fine dictators but Trump, thanks to his personality and so on, would be even better.
In the meantime, what use is r/K selection theory (or indeed Icke's lizart people or Jones' chemtrails)?
What does r/K add that you couldn't explain just as well by saying blacks do badly in IQ tests and are prone to impulsivity and lack of self-ownership?
And don't say it's not about the blacks it's about the left, because that's nonsense. r/K's unnecessary for explaining blacks but completely wrong for explaining cat ladies soyboys trannies purple haired SJWs and degenerates.
Yes, r/K does not explain cat ladies, does not explain social Justice Warriors. But it explains black people and indios. It depicts them as a species and a subspecies.
It does not explain why leftists criminalize the white reproduction pattern, and subsidize the black reproduction pattern. But it explains those patterns, and predicts the consequences of criminalizing the one, and subsidizing the other. It predicts that the white race will become the race of those with fathers, and the colored races will become the race of those without fathers.
Aah I think I get it.
'Hello fellow reactionaries. Nice movement you I mean we have here. Might go somewhere. Say, I have got some friends in academia who also disagree with leftists, perhaps we could work together? I mean, you do want this to work, right?'
>Yes, r/K does not explain cat ladies, does not explain social Justice Warriors. But it explains black people and indios. It depicts them as a species and a subspecies.
True – but here's the thing – Anonymous Conservative has poisoned the well on using r/K terms in this context because that moron insists that white liberals are acting r in contrast to white conservatives who act K – which is plainly false (white libs tend to be the higher parental investment, later pregnancy, etc.).
He, of course, never mentions where r vs K really does apply – across racial / species lines. Even though CR pretends he doesn't know this all the markers are there – blacks *do* have larger litters, shorter gestation periods, less parental investment, shorter time to maturity (younger menarche and adrenarche), etc.
Here's a typical use from one of his recent posts:
Despite Vox's historical analysis, humans have not devolved back to the state of r-selected rabbits yet. Although he can cite numerous cases where the left won, the cases where the right won were so affecting and K-ifying, they undid any gains the left attained, and brought humans right back to K-selection.
He's a moron and he's destroying a useful framework.
Agreed: Anonymous Conservative is destroying a useful framework. r/K theory is true and matters. Anonymous Conservative, because he will not address race, is making an untrue and distracting application of that theory.
Jim: "[r/K selection theory]explains black people and indios. It depicts them as a species and a subspecies."
It explains them incorrectly!
Bog standard evo-psych goes something like this: blacks have continued to live in Africa, which means their cognitive style hasn't changed much from hunter-gatherer times. Even when they've moved elsewhere, absent the drive for higher cognitive function brought about by the harsh winters and focus on long-term planning so necessary to survive in Eurasia, blacks have not been equipped to move on from hunter-gatherer lifestyles. Even in an urban setting with advanced technology, this leaves them quite maladapted to modernity on account of their relatively high preference for now over a year's time. Further, their propensity for random acts of impulsive violence makes them poor neighbours and this in turn brings poor outcomes for them and everyone else.
The white man on the other hand was lucky enough to have suffered huge continued die-offs thanks to less friendly climate and fluctuations in the food supply relative to Africa. These difficulties removed the most impulsive individuals from the gene pool, and whilst there may have been some interbreeding between the two populations, this has not been a significant counter-driver of cognitive style, leaving the white European and his descendants somewhat well-adapted to urban life, business&investment and long-term thinking, which has the beneficial knock-on effect of making all sorts of social cooperation far more feasible than they would otherwise be, up to and including advanced collective solutions to problems, such as roads, postal services, the internet, widespread electrical infrastructure and social safety nets of all kinds.
That's the evo-psych take, and I endorse it 100%. It correctly analyses (not predicts necessarily although predictions can be made and tested and will tend to be right) the condition of extant human populations.
r/K theory throws that out and falls back on 'reproductive strategies'. The basic thesis is that modern black behaviour is best explained in terms of shorter gestation times and reduced parental investment.
I entirely agree, and have always openly stated, that these phenomena do indeed exist. What's not really debatable however is that the modern American negro is in no meaningful way 'r-selected' in the way that a grasshopper or cod is r-selected. They are not currently subject to selection pressure (ie. lots of them dying childless) which pushes them towards shorter gestations and reduced parental investment.
What they ARE subject to is mal-adaption to their environment. A black woman finding herself in an American city setting is a fish out of water.
The black in jail, who, during his brief appearances out of jail, lives by sponging off his numerous baby mamas, is definitely r selected. The black woman on welfare with twelve children, starting at age eleven, by twelve different criminals, definitely r selected.
The horde of fatherless mestizo and indio children afflicting Southern California, whose mothers frequently start popping them out at twelve or thirteen, r selected.
We are seeing a whole lot of people having a whole lot of children, starting at a very early age, and those numerous children are causing huge problems. These people who are driving whites out of Southern California are clearly r selected. To the extent people are still walking around in your town, they are 4'11" latinas, each pushing three kids in strollers and each so pregnant they are wider than they are tall. They have not gone full rabbit, but, relative to whites, behavior and ovulation patterns closer to rabbits. Also, like rabbits, more likely than whites to produce multiple children in one litter. Not as many as rabbits, but, under the selective pressure of the welfare state, headed in that direction. Shorter lives, earlier breeding phases, more fecund breeding phase, less childcare. That is r-selection all right, and you can see it walking around Southern California.
Steve: "r vs K really does apply – across racial / species lines"
If blacks were isolated in Africa and whites were isolated in Europe, and furthermore if former conditions continued unchanged, ie. harsh winters that kill large numbers of Europeans and no welfare state or similar mitigation; plentiful wild food supplies growing and living in Africa; etc. etc. then we could reasonably expect to see speciation occur in the not too distant future.
This would be a perfectly normal allopatric speciation event of two subsets of a species separated and adapting to differing conditions.
That's not what AC's r/K selection theory is. AC's version is that whites and blacks both live under a welfare state, no piles of bodies are apparent in the streets, yet somehow magically some selection pressure is exerted, mostly through differential reproduction, which leads blacks but not whites to literally change how they reproduce until they're closer to cats than people!
It's tin foil hat garbage.
Here's the alarm bell that AC's r/K theory is stopping people from hearing:
Under the welfare state, the higher reproductive rates of blacks compared to whites means that sooner rather than later, the whites will be eliminated from the single gene pool and 'the human species' will in the not too distant future be synonymous with 'the black race'.
>whites and blacks both live under a welfare state, no piles of bodies are apparent in the streets, yet somehow magically some selection pressure is exerted, mostly through differential reproduction, which leads blacks but not whites to literally change how they reproduce
Just to be clear, which do you say is tin foil hat garbage: A) natural selection driving evolution by way of differential reproduction, or B) the existence of significant interspecies difference in susceptibility to redistributionary-originating selective pressures?
Please note: selective pressure cannot be exerted through differential reproduction.
Yara:
OK firstly (to part A), speciation can occur within a single niche but it's very rare. Quite often what looks like sympatric speciation is in fact multiple niches at the same latitude and longitude, for example within Lake Victoria but at different depths or for different prey, etc. etc.
It can even operate in the same niche but at different times. These are all rather esoteric.
Similarly, speciation can be driven by selection pressures operating on differential reproductive success rates only, without any piles of bodies, but again this is not the norm and the examples we know about are quite 'far out'.
The normal case for evolution most of the time is that something harmful happens in the environment and failing to adapt to it results in mass deaths. The usual outcome is extinction but in other cases some outliers survive and become a new species.
OK to part B…
You're not talking about interspecies, you're talking about intraspecies or at most between subspecies that are perfectly capable of interbreeding.
It's perfectly obvious to anyone with a brain that populations with low IQs and high impulsivity are especially susceptible to the unwanted side effects of things like welfare states, where the citizen's invited, in effect, to offload responsibility for large parts (or all) of their life to the government.
What I'm saying is that THAT explanation is sane and reasonable, whereas what AC proposes is insane and unreasonable.
Basically AC's claim is that some people (he says leftists, but we know that's not the case and he means blacks, basically) are well on their way to adopting the reproductive strategy of "spray and pray", like a rabbit or a frog.
The idea is not so much that negroes aren't human beings (although that's how many have taken it) – it's more that negroes are transitioning to a new type of hominid that has large litters that are viable pretty much straight away after birth, and that this transition isn't due to the environmental conditions in Africa, but rather the environmental conditions in the West! (Either that or it's a kind of 'ballistic' evolution already set in motion in the genes.)
It's really full-on tin foil hat territory and provides liberals with a very easy target: the Right now believes that black people aren't even human and their reason for this is some whack-job pseudo-science that calls itself Darwinism yet no sane Darwinist has the slightest bit of respect for it, not even 'evil racists' like Ed Wilson who created the labels for the categories as they apply in nature.
I never wanted to be the boogieman here but it's crucially important that we clean up our thinking if we're to play the science card, as indeed we should because for the most part we're the ones interested in the truth and not just mad ideology.
> OK firstly (to part A), speciation can occur within a single niche but it's very rare
This is nonsense, and politically correct nonsense, coming from social Justice warriors (Gould) taking over biology and killing it. Far from being rare, "sympatric speciation" is almost universal. Whenever one species fills a niche, when it is a very common species in an area, as for example tilapia in a lake, it starts to diversify, with different individual becoming specialists in this and that subniche, and the diverse lifestyles become species.
The most studied example is three spined sticklebacks.
The Gould position on what is now called sympatric speciation is explicitly and overtly motivated by desire to revise biology by making evolution compatible with the doctrine that all men are created equal. If sympatric speciation is common as dirt, which it is, then race is real, and races are the origin of species.
Gould overtly and openly linked his position on sympatric speciation to human equality. If you believe that sympatric speciation is normal, common, and happening everywhere all the time, then raciiisssst. If sympatric speciation is rare, then human equality is a fact of biology.
In fact, having a name for sympatric speciation is nonsense, because it is so common and normal. It is just speciation. "Sympatric speciation" is not a thing, any more than murder on Tuesday is a thing. The day of the week does not make a difference, and "sympatric" does not make a difference. Coining the phrase bypasses the evidence and assumes the sale, assumes that it makes a difference by definition.
"Sympatric" is typical left wing argument – instead of presenting evidence, destroy the language, destroy the means by which thoughts are communicated.
Instead of presenting evidence that it makes a difference, the leftist tells you that if you use language that fails to acknowledge the difference, you are low status.
By the way, I'd bet there are a lot of Molyneux fans round these parts. It explains the pro-capitalist biases and the love of the kinds of pseudo-science he pushes on his silly show.
I'm quite amazed nobody's yet said "not an argument" lol
YAY for parental determinism (forget Judith Rich Harris) and simultaneously YAY for genetic determinism (forget the fact we all had to learn in order to change sufficiently to arrive here); meanwhile YAY for closed borders (because IQ) but but but YAY for unbridled capitalism, ideally with zero government at all (who will close those borders Stefan?) – not an argument!
Just give me unapologetic (and yes unscientific if needs be) nationalism that puts our people first. You can keep your silly theories.
"pro-capitalist biases"
Isn't socialism great my fellow reactionaries.
CR is either an entriest (likely) or doesn't know what he's talking about (probably also true). Let's take his mistakes here one by one:
Bog standard evo-psych goes something like this: blacks have continued to live in Africa, which means their cognitive style hasn't changed much from hunter-gatherer times.
Absolutely not. Blacks live in Africa as horticulturalists – meaning they get most calories from female agricultural labor. This drives different mating patterns which drives reproduction patterns which is what causes specization (which has already happened – blacks are plainly a different species – yes, they can produce fertile offspring by inter-species mating but so can wolves and coyotes – who are exactly as genetically distant as blacks and whites and everyone recognizes they're different species).
The white man on the other hand was lucky enough to have suffered huge continued die-offs thanks to less friendly climate and fluctuations in the food supply relative to Africa. These difficulties removed the most impulsive individuals from the gene pool, and whilst there may have been some interbreeding between the two populations, this has not been a significant counter-driver of cognitive style, leaving the white European and his descendants somewhat well-adapted to urban life, business&investment and long-term thinking, which has the beneficial knock-on effect of making all sorts of social cooperation far more feasible…
Also wrong.
Different seasons left Europeans with higher IQs. Invasion and replacement (of the men) by cohesive outsiders left Europeans with greater ability to cooperate.
Most importantly however was that these changes were enough to get cities to develop. From there the most important changes happened – as is well documented – evolution in the last 10k years has been accelerating in pace. The lack of criminality is down to the fact that for ~500 yeas in the Middle Ages the execution rate for European men was around 10% – weeding out the criminally inclined. This is why even when you match for IQ blacks are more criminal than whites – they've never been subject to that type of selection (having had no cities).
None of this is incompatible with r/K selection – it describes the environmental forces that cause r/K selection.
You incorrectly describe the conditions and the selective pressures and make specization some magical event that might happen in the future but will be announced with writing in the sky. It already happened.
That's not what AC's r/K selection theory is. AC's version is that whites and blacks both live under a welfare state, no piles of bodies are apparent in the streets,yet somehow magically some selection pressure is exerted, mostly through differential reproduction, which leads blacks but not whites to literally change how they reproduce until they're closer to cats than people!
No, AC's r/K is stupid – it's that white liberals are r and white conservatives are K and that all races are the same.
You are equally stupid, however. blacks don't have to be "closer to cats" to be a different species and you certainly don't need to go all the way to sea turtle levels of r to be importantly more r and only someone invested in muddying the waters makes this kind of intentional mistake.
Differential reproduction can certainly cause specization – there's no evolutionary difference between death and failing to reproduce.
I could go on but you just don't know what you're talking about – your academic crimestop prevents you from learning.
Carlylean Restorationist is coming from the progressive mental framework
"How", he asks, and expects us to ask, "shall we apply the wisdom, greatness, and goodness of government to immanentize the eschaton?"
He is only superficially familiar with the pessimistic (darkly enlightened) reactionary mental framework, has not understood, perhaps not heard of, the basic reactionary concept that government is always and necessarily banditry, and the less mobile the bandit, the better, appears to be unaware that we favor fallen governance for a fallen world.
He is frequently unaware of the ways in which our thinking differs from that of our enemies, projecting onto us the prog mental framework. He thinks we are progressives, except race realists. If he has noticed we are sex realists, does not think it matters.
> I am in favor of anyting that makes midwits leave
By all means
My Triple 9 status is obvious, Peppermint. Pretty sure you don't qualify in the verbal department.
>Pretty sure you don't qualify in the verbal department.
Nigger, is you serious? Peppermint is Interesting Commenter #1, excluding our gracious host. You may be 999 in other respects, but rhetorically you don't hold a candle.
>seemingly unaware that nine months of pregnancy aren't negotiable
Main reason why AC doesn't know what he's talking about is the opposite – nine months is negotiable. Gestation periods differ by race – which is real r/K selection – goes along with twinning rates.
He wants to pretend there's some kind of r vs K difference between leftists and non-leftists but when such differences exist they get reflected in obvious physical differences – which aren't present.
This is largely true, and what's so insidious about AC's theory is that since it doesn't adequately explain several very important factors in modernity (LGBTQ++, sexual degeneracy/promiscuity-without-reproduction/etc., opting out/MGTOW/asexuality/hikikomori, envy-based socialism, insane levels of debt, etc. etc. etc.) it leaves them unexplained while providing a false answer to the people who most need to answer them for real.
Where I'll draw the line in agreeing with you however is that no human population whatsoever can be reasonably described as pursuing the evolutionary 'r strategy' for reproduction. That's simply false.
Our gestation times are always rather long and our litter sizes rather tiny. Worse, our young are entirely helpless and require parental investment to survive – especially in the black countries by the way!
r/K is best simply forgotten entirely. We already have evo-psych, and whilst most of its practitioners are straitjacketed by political correctness, the basic framework has proven itself to be of considerable utility.
>This is largely true, and what's so insidious about AC's theory is that since it doesn't adequately explain several very important factors in modernity
He's aware of these objections and has addressed them a number of times, but if you show up at his blog and repeat them, he might be inclined to do another explanatory post.
F.ex. https://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/liberal-responses-to-the-concept-of-ideology-as-r-and-k-selected-reproductive-strategies/
>LGBTQ+
One might argue that these are reproductive strategies. https://twitter.com/AdamantAnarchy/status/1031565905384288258
He is completely wrong.
(1) Conservatives have a higher TFR than liberals. Therefore conservatives are R and liberals are k. Lying by calling liberals niggers just helps liberals call proles niggers, like in that movie about the guy with the IQ of 100 who goes into the future and finds it inhabited by retarded Whites who approve of prostitution, as if stupidity and prostitution are the only things selected for. Which liberals secretly liked but were aware of political implications of openly discussing the long term effects of selective pressures.
(2) There are food-limited species and territory-limited species. Feeding territory-limited species won't cause a population explosion, which is why Whites instictively approve of feeding the poor but not giving them housing. The terms of Section Ape are women can't have a live-in man, because that would mean direct cuckoldry of the taxpayer in a way the taxpayer immediately understands.
If you remove politics, it becomes amusing that Gould both popularized punctuated equilibrium and denied sympatric speciation, asserting one as the replacement for the other when both are driven by the same biodiversity. Removing politics makes the R/k thing just sound flatly wrong and like a self-aggrandizing liberal meme. Which I am certain I heard it as over a decade ago.
To repeat the bunnies example, rabbits fall pregnant all the time and are fertile all the time. Ovulation occurs *on demand*.
Their gestation period is at most a month and the young, arriving in litters of four to twelve, are viable without any parental investment at all. They appear, they arise, they run off and reproduce themselves!
That's a mammalian example – fish are that on steroids.
But not all that much is riding on Manafort or even the midterms.
You are not quite correct about the swing.
Elite culture and the official religion have been swinging ever more Left.
But the people have already begun to swing Right.
The Elites vs the People: our interests fatally conflict.
There simply isn't enough money in the world now to save – or even sate – the elites. The other fatal conflict is we want to live – and they want us dead.
White genocide is quite in the open now and the term is mainstreaming into the conservative consciousness. The effect of the alt-right is indeed moving the conservative Overton Window Right. The Left responded by dropping the mask. Even Hillary openly Deplored us – never mind the NYT, National Review [DIE GARBUTT DIE] et al.
So we have a fatal conflict of interests. Elites/Davos Man as Apex Predator needs and wants more money than exists. Elites want non-elite white genocide and Whites know it. Whites want to live.
Not that much rides on Manafort.
All does not ride on Trump. He's simply a [great] leader but we can get another – and we now know we can.
Manafort trial | @the_arv says:
[…] Manafort trial […]