You play hopscotch with positions whenever is convenient for your rhetoric; supposedly, ‘government’ is just an epiphenomena of ‘the capitalists’, when one wants to talk about bad things; yet at the same time, ‘capitalists’ are just an epiphenomena of ‘government’, when it is good things one is talking about. There is no coherent thinking in you.

Musk’s customers are people who want to go to space; that can include a lot of different entities, be they companies, agencies, sovereignties, or more besides. When NASA wants to send something to space, they fly it on a SpaceX rocket, and pay Musk for the privilege. Which begs the question of why.

A question you visibly recoil from like a vampire from holy water.

They used to make their own rockets, to fly their own missions, and perhaps even more significantly, fly other people’s missions, too. Why can’t they make their own rockets anymore? What good bureaucratic fungal cap would send any money to anyone when they could be sending it to themselves instead, the whole existential purpose of a bureaucracy?

Empirically, a great upsurge in lift-to-orbit capacity was created under the auspices of Elon Musk, where theretofore it had been dwindling to nothing in the west in general, and America in particular, and likewise no other entity in the occident can provide similar capability. After the 90s, people in the united states went to space in russian rockets, and after the 10s, SpaceX rockets. The leftist shill is driven to schizophrenic delirium by trying to wrap his brain around such a fact. How does he contend with it? Well by saying ‘capitalists’ are just controlled by the priesthood of course… but this is incoherent with his whole founding mythology of priestly managerial castes either not existing or simply being subordinate extensions of ‘the capitalists’ ruling over everyone in the first place.

The ‘private vs public’ distinction is itself a modern invention that cuts across the grain rather than along it; its general purpose is to confuse discussion, not assist it; and its more particular purposes are to meme more Right inclined folk into staying away from power (by equivocating dysfunction with ‘government’, and function with ‘not-government’,), and also at the same time to meme people who are seeking power and or service into engaging in leftisms (by equivocating ideas of organization that lead to dysfunction with ‘government’).

What, exactly, is different about how one organization and another here works? Why are, so named, ‘private’ entities, demonstrably capable of making cool stuff today, but certain other kinds of entities – whether, so called, ‘academic’, ‘governmental’, ‘public’, whatever – aren’t? What is the difference between them?

One might sense a big part of the key right there in the names. We say ‘NASA’, for one, but ‘Elon Musk’, for the other.

That is, one of the biggest difference is Elon Musk has sovereignty, or ‘freehold’, over SpaceX, while noone has real freehold over an entity like NASA. We can speak of something like ‘Elon’ as having a ‘SpaceX’; on the other hand, there is no such figure for NASA that can come to mind. You’d need to use a search engine to even come close to finding someone with executive authority – and whoever they may be doesn’t have a final and sufficient say over anything anyways. Just one more functionary in an infinite tangle of functionaries. Which is not a coincidence. There once was a time where there was a man who one could think of as ‘having’ NASA, who went by the name of von Braun; rockets made by that NASA used to go to space back then. Well, then he retired, and legions of effusively credentialed and academy educated apparatchiks since then seem strangely incapable of recreating his successes. As it happens, SpaceX puts rockets into space today; meanwhile, NASA sucks up millions to not put any rockets into space today. (And well, Blue Origin is kinda there too. Sorta. Technically.)

Of course, Hidden Figgers proved that, ahckschually, it was black women who flew America to space; nowadays, there are even more women, and or blacks, and or black women, inserted by USG into organizations in general, and NASA in particular; which means that the only reason they aren’t in space now, let alone conquering the whole galaxy as kangs, is because bigoted whites (is there any other kind?) are sabotaging them for no good reason, yes?

Or no? Why do you think USG was once able to fly rockets to space but now is no longer able to fly any rockets to space? How you would answer that question – which is certainly a relevant question for any true lover of of true progress of civilization – would certainly be illuminating, and should prove very illuminating to everyone in the audience too.

Ah, but you did answer, didn’t you?

“Concretely, Pseudo-Chrysostom appears to sincerely believe also that NASA sent men to the Moon.”

Ladies and Gentlemen, we got him.

Turns out ‘Jim’ was just a ‘moon landings were FAKED’ tier shill after all.

I wonder if you realise that making this pivot also just undermines the argument you were trying to make not a moment before? To say that not only is USG not capable of into space, but in fact, they were never capable in the first place! And to think you were trying to make such a big deal of the Lunar Landing Module, eh? Well, obviously you aren’t getting paid to make good arguments, but to shit up discourses with static. Assuming you are getting paid that is. We will not necessarily rule out the possibility of a creature so pathetic as to do it for free.

Of course this whole segue to begin with came about since you were completely unresponsive to any of the points in the broader discussion before then which was exposing you, so you desperately trying to divert things down a tangential rabbit hole. Well in the end you couldn’t help that either, anyways.

No good Jew-hater would be a communist, since as we all know communists were all Jews, and communism as an ideological praxis is just Talmudic modes of thought with a different coat of paint. It’s a long observation, if you see someone saying boo about Khazars in one breath, then mouth Marxist talking points the next, you can bet it’s a glownigger plant ready to stand up to defend the honor of globohomo; what a world to find another data point in confirmation in this little old place! Honestly pretty funny of you to talk about ‘original thought’ while parroting shill scripts programmed decades before you were even born.

And you called yourself ‘American’. Well either you’re not a real American, or ‘America’ is a communist country. Really, you got so mad and offended when I described roundhead rejects as the main stream of leftism on the American continent. Methinks the lady doth protest too much!

Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

David Rockefeller, Memoirs, 2011.

You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.

World Economic Forum, Official Tweet, 2016.

Is that a stamp? To me that’s not a stamp.

Bill Gates, Antitrust Deposition, 1998.

That isn’t the case here, unfortunately. Pseudo-Chrysostom hasn’t said a single original, creative, or interesting thing for as long as I’ve been aware of his sorry existence. As far as I can tell, he copied his entire belief system wholesale from a small handful of ideologues on the Internet at some point in the last few years, which he now wears about like an ill-fitting suit. This isn’t unusual. Most people are NPC’s who think in thoughts thought for them by others, but the self-righteousnessness and blithe unsubtlety with which Pseudo-Chrysostom inflicts his imitation-thought upon others is nothing if not remarkable. Even so, when necessary I am capable of being very tolerant of lunacy and could overlook his total lack of creativity and originality or the honorlessness and profanity of his character had he other redeeming qualities, such as well-written prose or witty banter. Regrettably he has neither: his writing is stilted and rough, and his substanceless belligerence is unimpressive at best. On the whole, reading his words is like being yapped at by a small dog.

Concretely, Pseudo-Chrysostom appears to sincerely believe that Elon Musk’s SpaceX, which is funded entirely by NASA, DOD, and the U.S. military-industrial complex broadly, is not, ackshually, an appendage of USG. The idea is absurd on its face; anyone willing to advance it is a retard.

Concretely, Pseudo-Chrysostom appears to sincerely believe also that NASA sent men to the Moon, with 1960′s rocket technology, materials science, and computer technology, six times in three years, without a single failed or aborted mission or casualty, past the Van Allen belt without any shielding, to a distance from Earth hundreds or thousands of times farther than any distance traveled by human beings before or since, landing them without incident on the Moon’s surface in a small vehicle with an absurdly low moment of inertia bolted atop a miniature never-test-fired rocket engine executing a propulsive landing capability not successfully demonstrated on Earth until the 1990′s[1], a vehicle which to modern eyes looks, quite frankly, like the fakest and gayest movie prop ever made, by all appearances haphazardly constructed from roughly painted cardboard panels and flimsy PVC pipe, and loosely and sloppily draped with tin foil.

Presumably Pseudo-Chrysostom also sincerely believes that hijacker passports were found on 9/11.

I declare victory by default. Case closed.

Thank you for so gallantly answering the first question, “Which entity in which year in which location successfully demonstrated the first [rocket] propulsive landing?”

The purpose of this comment is to give you notice that this is your third and final opportunity to answer the first question’s logical successor question, “Which entity in which year successfully demonstrated the first [rocket] propulsive landing on Earth?”

Should you fail to answer I’ll declare victory by default and proceed to use my evidently superior intellect and coherence of thought to ridicule you in public for your ridiculousness and so on.

After all, if you can’t trivially defend the Moon Landings, what’s the chance of there being any validity whatsoever to anything else you have to say? (Spoiler: none, lol.)

For your convenience I provide a template for your answer below.

* Which entity: [?]
* Which year: [?]
* Which location: [?]

The whole world awaits.

You seem like you spend a lot of time imagining ‘gotcha’ scenarios in your mind, where your interlocutors spontaneously combust, everyone claps, and Obama himself shows up to hand a medal of freedom on your neck. Only to repeatedly find yourself confused and frustrated when events don’t play out the same way your narrative fantasies did. Perhaps you were ‘that kid’? You know, ‘that kid’, who always sat by himself in the cafeteria, who walked the halls with his head down staring at his shoes, who probably should have gotten a few more toilet bowl swirlies than he already did.

That isn’t a better question, it’s a worse question, and we both know you’re deflecting because we both know what you saw when you searched “propulsive landing” and landed on the VTVL Wikipedia page.

Answer the question or I’ll simply declare victory by default.

So in response to the question “Which entity in which year in which location successfully demonstrated the first [rocket] propulsive landing?” you answer:

* Which entity: NASA
* Which year: 1969
* Which location: the Moon

That is correct.

Now for the follow-up question.

Which entity in which year successfully demonstrated the first [rocket] propulsive landing on Earth?