No enemies to the...
Posted by Spandrell on
So this:
Led to this:
https://twitter.com/ramzpaul/status/801531616816496640
While Fidel Castro, murderer of tens of thousands, communist dictator which forever ruined what was a pretty nice country dies:
And a fucking ruling prime minister has this to say:
screen-shot-2016-11-28-at-1-52-46-am
Yes, of course, I know, it's not the same. They have power, they get to say what they want, we are not in power and gotta be careful. But the left has always been like this. They weren't always in power. Maybe they know something about power that we don't. Just sayin'.
61 comments
[…] No enemies to the… […]
[…] Source: Bloody Shovel […]
Mark Steyn said that Pierre Trudeau so diminished Canada's standing in the world, from a major military and economic power to a land of socialist multicultural faggotry, that when he died in 2000, the only foreign leader to attend his funeral was Fidel Castro!
But from a standpoint of prestige, Trudeau elevated us to new heights. We don't need a military when we have the USA on our doorstep and we (or at least our leaders) are content to let ourselves be vassals. Us being 10% poorer than we'd otherwise be isn't a big deal when current living standards for the median Canadian are among the highest in human history. But prestige makes your faction the "natural ruling party" of your nation. It gets your son with no experience or skills elected as head of government. It grants you a legacy of founding "modern" Canada. It cements the shift of a previously conservative nation into one of the most progressive nations in Earth.
Hitler is Literally™ evil, whereas Communists are fluffy kittens that are sometimes a little bit ornery, dontchaknow.
Amen. Our extremists, while sometimes overzealous or misguided, are acting from noble and understandable motives, and are only driven to commit immoderate acts by your failure to resolve their legitimate grievances. If our extremists do something you don't like, don't blame us, instead examine yourself, your flaws, and your stubborn unwillingness to give us everything we want. Your extremists, of course, demonstrate to all the world just how morally bankrupt your entire side is.
Damn right.
Is it possible that there's something to the idea that communists give an out? Communists read kind of like the inquisition; convert, or die (or convert and die anyway). Nazis don't give that option. There's nothing that an enemy of the volk can do to avoid the gallows. Communism reads like a religion, while Nazi fascism reads like pre-religious genocide.
Do elaborate.
I had similar thoughts on the matter. 1) Communism gives more plausible deniability that their mass murder was either legitimate law enforcement, or wasn't purposeful murder. They executed kulaks for stuff like "hoarding" or "economic sabotage": "shops are empty because reactionaries stole it". Stuff like Holodomor could be blamed on simply bad harvest (as opposed to criminally stupid economic policy). Same for Gulags - in theory, people were supposed to serve their sentence and be allowed to go home. If most starved to death, well, its nobody's fault (but imperialist-capitalist saboteurs) that there are shortages. So, Nazis cannot claim they didn't cause deaths on purpose. 2) Communism was big into salvation of humanity. Zealously and loudly parroting party line might not have guaranteed you'll never get bullet in back of the head, but it vastly improved your chances. But for Nazis, Jewish ghetto police and similar collaborators were simply last to be liquidated. That's no good. Even dogs understand, that once your enemy lies down on his back and show you your throat in humiliating gesture of submission, you don't bite him in the throat, you only do it if he's trying to pick a fight. Commies, like wild dogs, spared those who submitted quickly enough. It was very harsh, but fairly predictable. Nazi brutality was more random. So, Nazis cannot claim they they had no choice but to "kill dangerous and unrepentant criminals who are to blame for your family starving".
Yes, indeed. Well, as I said, Leftism is just an easy excuse. https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2015/03/01/leftism-is-just-an-easy-excuse/ And we need a new religion that ostensibly ignores HBD.
>> communists give an out? > more plausible deniability > big into salvation of humanity These are true but they seem to me consequences of the essential point, that communism embraces the religion of equalism. Therefore it may be considered (at least officially) as anti-racist; Nazism, not so much. So no matter how much blood with which it is drenched, communism is regarded by the cathedral as the embarrassing crazy uncle. They don't really care about his excesses because his heart's in the right place and he is, after all, one of the family.
Right, but on the monkey brain level, we see communists as being capable of reason/persuasion, while Nazis give no out. I'm not terribly sympathetic to either group, but if we thought Mussolini instead of Hitler, Fascism wouldn't induce such an allergic reaction, it suspect. Communism killed with equal or greater efficiency, but more arbitrarily. It's "I'm not racist, I hate everyone equally," codified.
Put it this way: communism offers the illusion of control over your doom. While as a proportion it dooms many more people, one can reasonably hold the lie, "It would never happen to me."
Communism offers a temporary truce while you slaughter everyone else. Then you get to fight other communists by calling them counter-revolutionary. Getting to kill enemies is the point.
Not that I disagree... But given your comment it's semi-ironic that the people saluting in that particular pic are two jews and an asian http://www.salon.com/2016/11/23/man-who-did-nazi-salute-with-tila-tequila-outside-richard-spencers-alt-right-conference-is-jewish-and-its-causing-problems/
Castro might be Trudeau's dad.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyUDH6EXAAILfju.jpg:large
Lol
4chan, the gift that never stops giving.
This is an attack meme that needs to happen. Something like Trudeau = Little Castro :. Canada = Little Cuba
Giving this more thought, the easiest explanation I can give is that if the Communists take over, my kids have a shot, even if I end up hanging. If the Nazis take over, my kids cannot possibly survive. I realize that under many communist regimes, my kids would starve to death with me, but at least there's a chance. If my kids turn me in as a wrecker, they get adopted by comrade Stalin while I get the firing squad. If my kids turn me in as a Jew, it's to the showers for all of us.
There's always Israel now.
Yeah, which is why I'm personally very sympathetic to the ethnats. What gives me pause/raises some flags is the vibe that some of the 1488 crowd wants to kick us out, then nuke Israel. Probably just holiness signaling, but I'm really not their enemy, and it feels weird to be viewed that way.
Given that Israel could nuke you back, I don't think that's a likely possibility.
That's wishful thinking by powerless people. The real future "Nazis" with actual power are more likely to see Israel as something to emulate and learn from than to uselessly rail against. Then again, I was born and live here in Israel, so empty threats don't really bother me that much. You get used to them.
We're pretty far downstream from the original point, here. It's exceedingly unlikely that Nazis will ever pose a threat to anyone ever again, but not so much communists. Communists are less objectively frightening, in my estimation, because their theology provides for conversion, while Nazis theology does not.
Yeah, that was my first thought and seeing you'd already introduced it here I didn't post, but now I am not sure. Communists do sort of provide for conversion, but you really have to convert and love Big Brother -- condemn, lie or keep silent when the party finds it convenient, denounce even your father or your cousin or your wife -- or refuse and go to prison and death knowing that your gesture was probably futile anyway. Nazis, on the other hand, are merely brutish in their biological hate of the untermensch, "nature red in tooth and claw". Which is worse? And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
That's the praxis but not the theory. Obviously Communism was a much more effective memeplex, and it extended like wildfire all over the world.
Aren't we talking about why people fall for it in practice? As for Nazism, I suspect its unpopularity is more an accident of its (a) being originally a low-brow movement and (b) arriving late to the intellectual party, when higher rungs were already occupied by communists, than of any intrinsic feature of it as a memeplex. Still if I had to name such, its (as I mentioned above) brutish hatred of people based on purely biological criteria is less attractive the less brutish you are. Communists (a) engage the less brutish parts of our nature -- compassion for supposed downtrodden etc. -- and (b) hate people for supposed moral failings rather than their genetics. Both are more attractive the less brutish you are. (PS: could you please delete my duplicate comment above?)
Nah, it's not about theology, it's about history. All you need to explain the difference in how they're viewed is that little dust-up back in the '40s that went pretty well for the Commies and not so well for the Nazis. Nobody likes a loser, even more so when we're all still knee-deep in 75 year old war propaganda about that loser.
Communists are less objectively frightening, in my estimation, because their theology provides for conversion, while Nazis theology does not. The problem is, theology's got nothing to do with it. The way humans wield power has nothing to do with whatever ideological wheel the hamster is running. Specifically about Communism, Vaclav Havel was denied college admission because his parents were bourgeois. The Cuban regime punished the families of dissidents. How many children of kulaks were allowed to convert during the Great Purge? How many children of eyeglass-wearing Cambodians survived the killing fields?
More converts were accepted. 5% is objectively more than 1%. But even if numbers were the same, commies lauded those who defected to them, like evangelicals laud sinners who turned to born-again-christians, whereas Nazis hid those few whom they rewarded with survival. An old jewish doctor whom Hitler allowed to live because he took care of his dying mother wasn't paraded in front of cameras as "rare good jew", but that kid who turned his parents to NKVD became famous as model to all good soviet children.
True of the original Nazis. However, it's fairly easy (in an armchair) to craft an ethnonationalism that can accomodate conversion. Base it on the way human tribes already discriminate. "We hate niggers! Except for Bob. He's a good nigger; he's our nigger."
Nah, it doesn't work like that. If people start signaling their belief in HBD everyday is a race war. Look in Storm front how much time they lose arguing whether Italians or Spaniards are Aryan or "swarthy".
An older brother who doesn't believe in ghosts has a younger sister who does. The older brother tells his little sister: "The ghosts under your bed are going to eat you!" Sister is scared, brother laughs, and you suddenly notice the people who send you oven memes also use words like "holohoax."
The two sieg-heiling boys look homosexual, and the girl looks like the sort of girl that mainly hangs out with homosexuals. The whole scene in that room looks homosexual. And here we have a lot of people tweeting and retweeting and fussing about tweets about tweets and lots of other social-media stuff, like a bunch of girls. Like a bunch of Black girls, in fact: "Oh no she di'int!" "Why you all buggin' out 'n' shit? Just chill out, y'all! She just be doin' her thang 'n y'all be actin' crazy." The whole alt-right scene is effeminate. It's Negro-effeminate.
Another point related to this: Neoreaction probably was born out of progressivism shifting from communist theology to Nazi theology (there needs to be a better set of labels for this). A generation ago, a goodwhite could keep his status by saying the right things, and implicit in this was that by raising his kids as goodwhites, they were ensured a place in the world to come (and the opportunity for status there). In the last decade there has been a shift to the SJW model, invisible backpack, privilege, etc. and whites are taught that if they have white kids, those kids will be cut off from the status structure. There is no out anymore, and our monkey brains have responded to that.
See my post on North Korea.
So, I'm not sure there is a meaningful distinction, but what I seem to perceive is that North Korea doesn't have a deep theology governing its status parameters; get on the wrong side of power, lose all your tendies. Certainly there is an element of that in the West, but we also have a theology that focuses on the concept of meekness. Previously, status decisions were judged on the degree to which someone expressed generosity to those less fortunate. Now we've passed a theological threshold where certain subsets are cut off completely, with no hope of redemption. If we need a new religion, it needs to have consistent theology that allows and demands that individuals to grow without letting status competitions mutate it. The point of a religion is to facilitate group stability when the group grows too large for individual relationships to keep everyone cooperating. Do North Korean peasants get bogged down with holiness signaling?
That wasn't the point of that post. My point was that even North Korea style government is preferable to the current team status dynamics of the West, where white men see their status diminishing day by day, so Communism, fascism anything makes sense no matter how materially miserable. The Norks, in their misery, reproduce themselves, South Koreans don't and have the highest rate of suicide in modern history. Communism produces plenty of evil signaling spirals, often provoked by the government. Old monarchy wasn't much better,see Thailand these days. But at least their signaling doesn't involve feminism and demographic death.
Yeah, I think I'm trying to articulate something more broad, and the language doesn't necessarily exist. There is some ancient horror in the idea that one's sons will be made into eunuchs and one's daughters will be sold as slaves. Both the Nazis and the Cathedral signal that outcome, and both are openly and overtly feminist. Good leadership, especially when paired with good theology, will give its subjects a lot of space in which to signal over meaningless things, without ever allowing those meaningless things to acquire value to the leadership class.
This is an extremely powerful point and an extremely powerful confirmation of status as a primary driver of human behaviour and happiness. The revealed preferences of the populations governed show that, despite being a material hell-hole with a harsh, naked soul-warping theology, the government of North Korea is preferable to the government of South Korea (or the West). (Does simple HTML work in your comments? I guess we'll find out.)
Simple HTML works.
Sorry, sir, you are not making any sense. Where are these revealed preferences? Have Nork border guards been overwhelmed by South Korean refugees? Do South Korean girls go to the North to bear babies for Kim III the Fat? Pfui.
The revealed preferences are the fertility rates.
I'm beginning to question if fertility rates have anything to do with revealed preferences for one socio-political system over others. African peasants have lots of kids, but a lot of African peasants would like to decamp for Europe or America. SWPLs don't have kids, but they're not moving en masse to Africa.
"What should we do about North Ikea?" -Zach Galifianakis (Between Two Ferns, 2014)
Seems like we're stretching the concept of revealed preferences to claim that people PREFER a place they're trying to ESCAPE FROM It's better to say that North Korea is good for humans... in the sense that it keeps their reproductive fitness up... while the West is bad for humans... in the sense that it drives down their fitness... but sadly humans don't know what's good for them.
Plenty of escapees have gone back, but agreed. "Preferences" is not the apt word here.
Not only "preferences" is not the apt word, I think that "good for humans" is not apt either. It is too broad. Is being a dirt poor peasant good for humans? Maybe in one sense, maybe not in another sense, so why confuse yourself with the useless label "good"? I bet dollars to donuts that birth rates in Joseon dynasty times were a lot higher than in modern North Korea, but was Joseon dynasty good for humans? If you want to say that there is something about North Korea that keeps birth rates reasonably above replacement levels, better to confine yourself to that and not muddy things up. As for escapees going back, plenty of Russian emigres went back to USSR in the '20s and even '30s. The combination of nostalgia and dislocation of living in an environment utterly different from the one you grew up in is quite powerful.
What I said is indeed that there is something about NK that keeps birth rates at a reasonable level, unlike SK. In a zoological sense indeed the Joseon Dynasty was better for humans that an increasingly mongrelized SK. I'd rather we had the choice of a reasonably comfortable and civilized society that reproduced itself, but at this rate the choice sees to be Islam or doom. Or North Korea.
I think we're maybe reading too much into North Korean fertility - after all, it's been trending down and is only at 2. Could probably just be explained by the lower marginal costs per child common to all dirt poor societies
Maybe we ought to all convert to Islam, as a sort of "backfire" strategy to the larger wildfire. It's the desert Abrahamic religion that best suits alt-right, with it still keeping women in check and encouraging men to conquer. Amish beards and modest, covered women. The Left, who consider Islam their anti-christian golem, would be in a fix. Would Alisyn Camerota still advocate wearing a veil in solidarity mit der Islamish? Of course she would, or be birched in public. (Which probably fulfills one of her fantasies she read in a bonnet-grabber anyway.) Al-Shadilay!
No where I have I read that argument...
You don't want to convert to Islam. In theory, you'd get to keep women in check and take pride in your conquests, but you'd have to give up every other comfort, technology, and freedom you know and love. Want a beer? Want to develop a space program? Too bad, kaffir, get ye to a mosque. Know who has it figured out? The Iranians. They pretend to be Islamists, with a conservative public sphere and a love of Persian race, but behind closed doors, they fuck and drink and develop nuclear programs. Not a bad con job.
spandrell, could you change the above post to 'Seth Largo', then delete this comment :) danke
Possible because Sunni Arabs don't know Farsi. BTW Pakistan AND Saudi-Arabia do have nukes and ICBMs to deliver them. Anyway, learning Arabic would be a very smart move.
Trump full cuck watch: Trump freezing out original political operatives: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-original-operatives-frozen-out-232383 Ann Coulter: Every Trump cabinet pick except Sessions would've been picked by Jeb Bush. https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/807147476113354757 Labor Secretary pick a 100% open borders advocate: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/12/08/trump-expected-to-tap-labor-secretary-who-prefers-foreign-labor-to-american-workers/ John Kelly, SHS pick, would've been open to serving in a Hillary administration: "During the campaign between Trump and Hillary Clinton, Kelly said he'd be willing to serve in either administration. But unlike other notable high-ranking former military officials like Flynn and Gen. John Allen, the retired four star general never endorsed a candidate." http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2016/12/john-kelly-department-of-homeland-security-trump-232210
Oh, also: In an interview with Time magazine announcing him as "Person of the Year," Trump didn't go into specifics but signaled that he could find a way to accommodate the Dreamers. "We’re going to work something out that’s going to make people happy and proud,” Trump told the magazine. “They got brought here at a very young age, they’ve worked here, they’ve gone to school here. Some were good students. Some have wonderful jobs. And they’re in never-never land because they don’t know what’s going to happen.” http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-dreamers-undocumented-immigrants-232301
No enemies 'round the guaca bowle.
[…] reaches of the political blogosphere, you will have noticed a certain phrase making the rounds: No enemies to the right. Indeed, I would put the single unifying belief of the many groups called “alt-right” […]