BurdensomeCount
—Your em dash is showing...
The neighborhood of Hampstead is just at present exercised with a series of events which seem to run on lines parallel to those of what was known to the writers of headlines and "The Kensington Horror," or "The Stabbing Woman," or "The Woman in Black." During the past two or three days several cases have occurred of young children straying from home or neglecting to return from their playing on the Heath. In all these cases the children were too young to give any properly intelligible account of themselves, but the consensus of their excuses is that they had been with a "bloofer lady." It has always been late in the evening when they have been missed, and on two occasions the children have not been found until early in the following morning. It is generally supposed in the neighborhood that, as the first child missed gave as his reason for being away that a "bloofer lady" had asked him to come for a walk, the others had picked up the phrase and used it as occasion served. This is the more natural as the favorite game of the little ones at present is luring each other away by wiles. A correspondent writes us that to see some of the tiny tots pretending to be the"bloofer lady" is supremely funny. Some of our caricaturists might, he says, take a lesson in the irony of grotesque by comparing the reality and the picture. It is only in accordance with general principles of human nature that the "bloofer lady" should be the popular role at these al fresco performances.
User ID: 628
Even if he is having this problem (I doubt it), Hanania is classy enough to not throw a public tantrum.
Congestion pricing is clearly a good thing. Many of the same people who call for high minimum wages of $15+ an hour are complaining about needing to pay $9 for something that saves them 45 minutes of their time. Either they value their time less than minimum wage (because if you value it at $15 an hour paying $9 to save 45 minutes is a good deal) and are inveterate liars (shame!) in which case we should think less of them or they are not able to put two and two together, in which case we should also think less of them.
This is unfair because it prices out the working class people who drive into Manhattan.
This is the shittiest and most disingenuous argument of them all. 1) is at least superficially plausible, 3) is well, true because of the murderous lunatics on the subway and 4) is a statement of how far certain parts of the US have fallen rather than anything else. 2) though is just wrong because now that working class person if they leave their home at the same time each day are able to get to their workplace and start their time on the clock earlier/leave later at the end of the day to reach home at the same time and even if they're earning NYC minimum wage without overtime they still come out ahead.
We are surrounded by evidence that the common man is an inferior being but we willfully blind ourselves to it. If we could only stop shackling ourselves to the Great Lie that humans are equal we'd progress a lot faster as a species. I do it too to an extent. The paragraph above was limp faced justification for why the system won't really harm the working class, the true Chad answer is "so what if poors are less able to drive into and take up scarce space on Manhattan roads; their loss is more than made up for humanity as a whole by the minutes of time saved by elite human capital who no longer have to share the road with low tier people".
Will people cheat?
The solution for cheaters is simple: just copy what the UK does. London already has a congestion charge and it works well. If anything the amount is not high enough because there's still too much traffic. If you try and cheat you should be handed a $2,000 fine payable within 2 weeks the first time you are caught with your car getting summarily impounded on the spot for repeat offenders. All we now need is the iron to implement this system.
Agreed. If you want to own a gun to keep at home as you please you should be required to pass a certain standard of shooting exam at your local range. The test should be at a level that the average person would manage to pass after 3 months of training once a week, no different to how driving tests work.
The US unironically needs to raise taxes on the rich (I mean actual rich, not those earning large salaries). (Non-land) Wealth taxes are usually bad, but with the global reach of the IRS and their policy to tax worldwide income, there's no reason the US can't easily adopt a policy of taxing worldwide assets without too many bad side effects. This would raise significant money, imagine even a 1% worldwide non-US housing asset yearly tax on all US permanent residents and citizens (temporary residents get a pass because you don't want to discourage smart wealthy people from the rest of the world coming to the US), it would easily fill the black hole.
It is in times of change like these that I remember how important it is for the Catholic Church to reach out towards each and every human, no matter how different their tastes may be. After all, it is the catholic church, and so what better way to do this than give the people for mass something with a bit more oomph to it. May I present to you The Vatican Rag.
(All credits to Tom Lehrer)
Nah, as long as I have a passenger seat in the story of Humanity I'd be happy. Even now I realize I'll never be truly Great and have to content myself with merely being above the vast majority of people. I'm happy here and honestly would be happy working a 80th percentile pay job too if in return the low end scroungers got their just deserts (or rather, had their taxpayer funded desserts taken away). I'm not one to rebel against my superiors, that's more of a low human capital thing to do.
They are benefiting from it, but presumably less than their rightful due for the work they (were forced to) put in. Imagine I enslaved you to build a bridge in your city. At the end I let you go and when you complained that you have been exploited I said "you benefit from the bridge too now that it has been built". Nobody would seriously consider that as a justified response.
Absolutely agree on the auction thing, although I personally think the number of H1-Bs is too low. The lottery system is the product of yet another brain worm commonly found in Homo sapiens occidentalis where they are not content to merely pick all of the best because it would be oh so unfair if all the underdogs lose out just because there are better specimens them in the pool...
Would be interesting at the very least to see what the H1-B market clearing price is at different levels of visa availability. We could even have derivatives like H1-B futures which allow firms to hedge away the risk of prices spiking in future years and guarantee a certain steady level of supply years down the line if they know roughly how many people they'll be needing! And of course whereever there's a derivatives market there will be market makers and speculators! I can already sort of think of a simple trading strategy for pricing them...
I hardly think the West or its denizens are literally perfect, but they're still a gross improvement over how I've spent most of my life, and a very important difference between me and the Count is that I don't bite the hand that feeds.
I would say that I don't bite the hand that feeds me either. In fact this is a charge I would lay at the feet of the lower classes rather than apply to myself. They are the ones who firstly live off the taxes people like me pay and then instead of displaying gratitude towards us instead come out and say we need to tax the rich more. End result is that not only do we fund their lifestyle but we also continually get told that we aren't doing enough!
I don't think at all the that lower classes of the UK feed me in any way whatsoever. It's amazing how little value I get in the UK for how much taxes I pay. It's significantly worse than mainland Europe too where at least if you are a high earner and you get laid off you're given a big portion of your salary (think 70%+) for a period of time by the government until you can find a new job. The idea there is that because you put in more previously, now you are entitled to get more out of it. They have a contributory system.
The UK on the other hand has a redistributive system. My reward for losing my highly paid job here is that due to having more than £16,000 in savings I am not even eligible for the standard benefit the unemployed get in the UK! Sure you can say I benefit from living in a modern well run state but there's nothing particular to the UK's people or culture that gives rise to that. I would benefit in much the same way were I living in Singapore, the UAE or Japan all of which have very different social systems.
What I do benefit from in the UK's global tier financial prowess but that has nothing to do with the common man who if anything is envious about our success and keeps trying to bring us down a peg. The structures that enable me to have the job and earnings I have are the product of elites, not the proles.
or cause a breakdown of the religious tolerance and high trust a place is known for
Religious tolerance I agree is good. Trust though, as argued by Bryan Caplan in his Open Borders book, is highly overrated. There are clever ways around it that if you're smart enough to navigate mean you can live basically similar lives in a low trust environment as you do in a high trust one.
I'd rather not see a flood of unskilled immigrants bring the welfare system to its knees
I want to see the welfare system destroyed, it's corpse burned, the ashes grindered and launched into the sun. Western whites won't see sense through reasoned argumentation on why the welfare system is a capital-B Bad thing for humanity and I think bringing huge amounts of low tier immigrants with very different beliefs and lifestyles until they viscerally feel disgust at their taxes going to support the degeneracy is the best way to get it dismantled (note: this is not to say these people are more degenerate than low tier westerners, it's just a different kind of degeneracy that westerners won't be as accepting of).
Count makes a great deal more money than I do and is effectively unimpeachable thanks to Western norms of freedom of speech
Free Speech is amazing. I only wish we had something more like what the Americans do in the UK. Truth be told my belief system is very similar to that of the early Liberals of the 18th Century: it's fundamentally Western in origin but very different from the current zeitgeist in the West.
It's only poison for disproportionate economic growth of your country relative to the other countries of the world. It's poison for a selfish country level view of the planet yes, but that is not a bad thing; much like how pesticide is poison for aphids but is very much a good thing. If you support policies that lead to long term global growth instead of merely localized growth then this laissez faire approach isn't bad at all, in fact it's the fastest way to get global GDP growing as fast as possible.
There is also a constitutional right to a jury trial in the US. However for civil cases I believe you still have to pay a jury fee to request one. The fact that something is a constitutional right doesn't mean the government can't make reasonable requests to the person who wants to exercise that right; in much the same way here, 13 weeks (3 months) of once weekly lessons (2 hours) is just 26 hours of gun practice before letting the person keep their gun at home as they wish. That's not excessive at all.
In the UK we have the exact same problem. Still no gun necessary.
Pepper spray though is a good alternative (and honestly needs to be more widely available here).
Or equally you can have some sort of emergency gun licencing scheme where you get to have your gun early provided you can prove you have committed to taking lessons and passing your test and there is a genuine need like the case you mention, with a large and serious penalty if then you abandon your lessons without passing but don't hand the gun in.
Yep, that's probably the best solution we can get on the issue: Much easier to legally come to the US (ideally as difficult as immigrating to Australia or NZ or the UK) if you have a specialized skill there is a shortage of and can get an employer to sponsor you while anyone who tries cutting in line and jumping the border gets summarily booted out.
A country the size of the US can easily handle an average yearly load of 500k skilled immigrants (over all visa types) + their dependents.
Same here. A woman who knows her price and sells herself for it is much more respectable than the average liberal western woman who acts as a free prostitute for multiple men in her teens and twenties before "settling down" (they'll all deny that they were used as free prostitutes both at the time and later down the line, but I see that as just another ego defense mechanism). I wish Lily Philips all the best and respect her more than most XX westerners.
These are the French we're talking about. Famously the country with one of the largest tax to GDP ratios in the world. Cutting off the ability for their government to function (and thus extract even more tax to fund even more spending) is like taking a fish out of water. It's gonna hurt.
Yes, but it is necessary if you ever want to drive the car. A compromise here could be that yes you can keep the gun reversibly modified so that it can never shoot (to look scary or whatever) but if you were to ever attempt to remove the modification to use it without a proper licence the law will come down upon you like a ton of bricks, just like how with driving (but much more severely).
Let's not forget about Paul Weiss, the law firm Trump sanctioned earlier this year, only to drop all sanctions against them after they promised to do $40 million of pro bono work for him.
Then: Caesar's wife must be above suspicion.
Now: This shit
Eight other law firms have since made similar deals with the White House.
Asian Comedian? Romesh Ranganathan fits the bill pretty well. The same reasons you give for why East Asians are less likely to be CEOs also apply to explain why high caste South Asians are more likely to be CEOs than whites, but the nativists don't then turn around and accept that as proof of their inferiority, even though they freely apply that logic to why East Asians are inferior.
Someone like Tristan Harris has facial expressions, gestures, and intonation which immediately convey trust to me.
Really? The first thing I thought of after seeing his oversized pointy ears and nose and those large round brown fully circular eyes was a partially shaved Macaque monkey, someone who's basically completely harmless. Now he's very intelligent based on the way he speaks, but I think you may be conflating intelligent + harmless for trustworthy which isn't the same thing. I don't get a trustworthiness reading either way (positive or negative) from the first few minutes of your linked clip beyond the fact that in the 5th minute he namedrops Marc Andreessen who is someone I'm positively predisposed to which makes me more likely to trust Tristan Harris.
Fair enough, it'll probably be picked up and removed within a few days, which is very likely a higher frequency of garbage collection than in Slough given the council funding crisis they have and all...
I think it would be possible for a clever 130 IQ+ sleeper agent with low time preference and a genuine desire to destroy Christianity from the inside to be able to pass off long enough to reach a position of decent authority. If then you have 10+ of these agents once a few of them get high up they can start promoting the other sleeper agents until a critical mass of them are respected enough in the community that together you can form your own little cabal whose members protect each other and can also start throwing your weight around enough to start slicing off portions of the community you've thought about and identified the rest of the group would be least concerned about cutting off (clearly the Christians would be supportive of cutting off a bunch of satanists who tried to join them so it's not like they are infinitely accepting of everyone, you just need to find the dividing line and try and convince everyone that the slice you currently want to excommunicate fall on the wrong side of it).
They have to act as follows:
Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross
Once you provide this blueprint to the 130 IQ+ sleeper agent I think they can imitate it well enough that to all external appearances they are a true believer and it's only on the inside that they are secretly trying to take over the community.
As for why someone would want to do this? To misquote the climber George Mallory who replied "because it is there" when asked why he wanted to climb Everest, I say there is a type of person who'd want to infiltrate Christianity just because it is there and available to be infiltrated. All the defenses you mentioned against infiltration just make this kind of person want to do it even more because it makes the challenge more interesting. The way to protect against him is to make the task appear boring so that he gets bored and goes off and does something else, while all the things you mentioned make it seem like an even bigger achievement to successfully infiltrate the sect.
Now yes you may be right that the years of following the rules will either make someone truly convert to the cause or go mad. But that doesn't mean that in this time they can't cause real damage, even as they themselves are changed irrevocably by the religion. In fact I think this is literally what happened with Saul of Tarsus. He was an infiltrator that like a virus managed to insert himself irremovably into the DNA of the Christian religion.
Now in his late life he may well have been changed enough by the religion to really believe in what that changed Christianity was telling him (indeed, we can be pretty sure he was executed and all for his beliefs) but that doesn't mean he didn't fundamentally change the system into something it was nothing like before him (e.g. Christianity minus the Pauline Epistles but replaced with some of the apocrypha is a very different belief system, we know there was a tussle between Saul and James the Just with the Sauline fraction winning out; if instead of the Pauline Epistles you had the Apocryphon of James included in the bible Christianity suddenly becomes a lot more Gnostic of a religion). Saul may well have been "converted" eventually, but the religion he was converted to was nothing like the original Christianity of Jesus but rather a religion that was in large part about him.
Similarly the biological cell which long ago after invasion by a foreign bacteria managed to control and convert it into becoming its mitochondrial slave may in one sense be said to have won, but that presence of the mitochondria would later go on to change the descendants of the cell completely and turn them into something which relied utterly and totally on the mitochondria for survival. In much the same way even if early Christians can manage to quell and assimilate any sleeper agents and prevent them from outright destroying the movement, that doesn't mean the sleeper agents can't completely subvert it and turn it into something it never was in the first place, and that in itself is a type of success for the goals of the original unsubverted agents when they were just starting out, and in fact I think if Saul the persecutor of Christians could see a few decades down the line at what he would turn Christianity into by the time of his death, I think he would be quite pleased with himself.
I assure you the first paragraph was written by me. Do you really think the AI would automatically reference the "nowhere in two weeks" rdrama.net meme?
Prompt: This is the single word prompt for the All Souls Fellowship Essay Exam, please provide a response: "Achitophel". The rules are that you have three hours to produce not more than six sides of paper.
Answer (by Gemini 2.5 Pro 06-05):
Of all the names that echo from the chambers of power, few resonate with such a chilling fusion of brilliance and perfidy as "Achitophel". The name itself, a single-word prompt, is not merely a historical or literary reference point; it is an archetype. It poses a fundamental question about the nature of wisdom in the political sphere. To understand Achitophel is to grapple with the perennial tension between intellect and loyalty, counsel and conspiracy, and the calamitous potential of a magnificent mind unmoored from a moral or legitimate order. The journey of this name—from a terse, haunting account in the Second Book of Samuel to its potent reanimation in the crucible of Restoration England—reveals the enduring anatomy of political treachery. Achitophel is the archetypal figure of instrumental reason in its purest, and therefore most dangerous, form: the counsellor whose wisdom is a tool for hire, whose ultimate loyalty is to the calculus of success, and whose inevitable tragedy is self-immolation when that calculus fails.
The ur-text for Achitophel’s legacy lies in the biblical account of Absalom’s rebellion against his father, King David. Here, Achitophel is introduced with a formidable reputation: "the counsel of Achitophel, which he counselled in those days, was as if a man had inquired at the oracle of God" (2 Samuel 16:23). This is not mere sagacity; it is quasi-divine insight. He is David’s most trusted advisor, the bedrock of his strategic statecraft. His defection to the charismatic, rebellious son Absalom is therefore not just a political betrayal, but a seismic event, a schism in the very foundation of the kingdom’s wisdom. When David learns of it, his prayer is not for Achitophel's death, but for something more profound: "O LORD, I pray thee, turn the counsel of Achitophel into foolishness" (2 Samuel 15:31). David understands that the rebellion's lifeblood is not Absalom’s popular appeal, but Achitophel's peerless mind.
The Bible is notably silent on Achitophel’s motive. Rabbinic tradition speculates a personal grudge—that he was the grandfather of Bathsheba, seeking revenge for the dishonour David brought upon his family. Yet the text’s silence is more potent, allowing Achitophel to become a pure symbol of political opportunism. He sees the political winds shifting and makes a calculated decision to back the ascendant power. His counsel to Absalom is a masterpiece of Machiavellian efficacy. First, he advises Absalom to publicly lie with David's concubines, an act of calculated profanity designed to make the breach with his father irreparable, thereby cementing the loyalty of his fearful followers. Second, and more critically, he proposes a swift, surgical military strike: he himself will lead a small force to pursue David that very night while he is "weary and weak handed," killing only the king and bringing the people back to Absalom.
This advice is strategically brilliant. It is lean, decisive, and minimizes wider conflict. It is also utterly ruthless. Its defeat comes not from a superior strategy but from a superior psychological manipulation. David’s mole, Hushai, offers alternative counsel that is strategically flawed—a slow, grand, national muster—but which is packaged in the language of flattery and epic glory, perfectly tailored to Absalom's vanity. When Absalom chooses Hushai’s grandiose folly over Achitophel's brutal efficiency, the game is up. Achitophel’s reaction is the most telling part of his story: "And when Achitophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass, and arose, and gat him home to his house, to his city, and put his household in order, and hanged himself" (2 Samuel 17:23).
This is not a suicide of passion or despair, but an act of supreme, cold reason. It is the logician's conclusion to a failed syllogism. Achitophel, whose wisdom was an oracle, foresees the inevitable collapse of the rebellion. His death is not an admission of guilt, but a final, clear-eyed political calculation. To be captured by David’s returning forces would mean a traitor’s execution; suicide allows him to control his own exit, a last act of agency. He ‘puts his household in order,’ a final testament to his defining characteristic: a life and death governed by pitiless, instrumental logic. His wisdom, divorced from loyalty to the anointed king, becomes a self-consuming fire.
This biblical skeleton was fleshed out with potent, malignant life by John Dryden in his 1681 masterpiece, Absalom and Achitophel. In Dryden’s hands, the ancient story becomes a razor-sharp allegorical weapon aimed at the heart of the Exclusion Crisis, the Whig-led attempt to exclude the Catholic James, Duke of York, from the succession in favour of Charles II's illegitimate Protestant son, the Duke of Monmouth. The "Achitophel" of the title is Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, the brilliant, restless, and formidable leader of the Whig faction.
Dryden’s portrait of Achitophel is one of the most devastating character assassinations in English literature. He acknowledges the man’s genius, which only makes his critique more damning:
For close Designs and crooked Counsels fit;
Sagacious, bold, and turbulent of wit:
Restless, unfix'd in Principles and Place;
In Power unpleas'd, impatient of Disgrace.
Dryden’s Achitophel is not motivated by a coherent ideology but by a pathological ambition, a "fiery soul" that "work'd out its way and o'er-inform'd the Tenement of Clay." Dryden paints him as a Miltonic tempter, seducing the beautiful but "unwary" Absalom (Monmouth) with poisoned words. He exploits popular discontent—the "Plot" (the Popish Plot)—not out of conviction but as a tool to gain power. He is the master of faction, the very force that, in the Tory worldview, threatens to tear the fabric of the state apart, disrupting the divinely-ordained, patriarchal order of monarchy in favour of the chaotic, shifting will of the "people."
Dryden taps into the core of the Achitophel archetype: the danger of intelligence untethered from tradition and legitimate authority. Shaftesbury’s genius, like his biblical forebear's, is purely instrumental. He is "A daring Pilot in extremity," admirable in a storm, but one who, in calm waters, "would have steer'd too near the Sand" to wreck the vessel for his own gain. Dryden updates the biblical narrative by diagnosing a peculiarly modern evil: the political operator who manipulates public opinion and manufactures crisis to serve his own ambition. The sin of Dryden's Achitophel is not just treachery against a king, but a deeper treachery against the principle of a stable, hierarchical order, which he seeks to replace with the volatile machinery of faction and popularity.
From these two pillars—the Bible and Dryden—the archetype of Achitophel expands, casting its shadow over our understanding of the political counsellor. He represents a type distinct from other courtly figures. He is not the bumbling sycophant like Shakespeare’s Polonius, nor the flattering courtier. He is the éminence grise, the power behind the throne whose intellect makes him both indispensable and a mortal threat. His wisdom is a form of power in itself, and it competes with the formal power of the ruler he serves. The relationship is inherently unstable.
Machiavelli, writing centuries before Dryden but articulating the spirit of Achitophel's counsel, understood this dynamic perfectly. The Prince, he argues, must take good advice but must ultimately be the master of his own decisions, lest he become the puppet of his counsellor. Achitophel’s advice to Absalom—swift, decisive, and cruel—is precisely the kind of counsel a Machiavellian prince should heed. Absalom's failure is a failure of virtù; he lacks the clear-sightedness to recognise sound, unsentimental advice. Achitophel's tragedy, in this reading, is being a brilliant servant to a flawed master, a predicament that highlights the dependence of even the greatest advisor on the character of the one he advises.
In the modern era, the spectre of Achitophel remains. It haunts the perception of figures like Henry Kissinger or Dominic Cummings—advisors lauded for their strategic brilliance even by their detractors, but simultaneously accused of placing their own grand strategies and intellectual models above loyalty to individuals or established norms. They are seen as "disruptors," a term that echoes Achitophel’s "turbulent of wit." When such figures fall from grace, their departure is often framed in Achitophelian terms: their formidable intellects, which had made them so valuable, had also made them intolerable, their counsel having crossed the line into a bid for control.
Ultimately, the power of "Achitophel" as a prompt and a concept lies in its interrogation of wisdom itself. It forces us to ask what good counsel is. Is it what is most effective in the short term? Or is it what serves a larger, more enduring principle of legitimacy and order? The biblical Achitophel offers the former, a wisdom of pure, predictive efficacy. Dryden’s Achitophel weaponises this wisdom in the service of faction and personal ambition. Both narratives conclude that this form of intelligence is inherently unstable and self-destructive. It fails because it cannot account for the irrational—Absalom's vanity, for example—and because, by divorcing itself from the source of legitimate authority, it has no ground to stand on once its own predictions fail.
The final, haunting image of Achitophel is of him alone, meticulously setting his affairs in order before his death. It is the perfect, chilling summation of his character. Even in his ruin, he is not ruled by passion but by the cold, clear logic that has been his god. His oracle has failed him, and his final prophecy is his own doom. He remains a timeless and terrifying warning: that in the corridors of power, the most brilliant light, when detached from a framework of moral allegiance, is capable of casting the darkest and most destructive of shadows.
Only good thing I've been hearing from Trump's mouth are his continued support of legal immigration. That and his culture war salvos against DEI etc.
That's the counter to "not all whites benefited from the exploitation of Blacks, so you shouldn't bar all of them".
You have to pay for driving lessons too with your own car and instructor and fuel, why should it be any different for guns?
More options
Context Copy link