How to Win
Posted by Spandrell on
https://twitter.com/bronzeagemantis/status/896611724748574721
Is this guy ever wrong?
That said, no enemies to the right.
https://twitter.com/bronzeagemantis/status/896611724748574721
Is this guy ever wrong?
That said, no enemies to the right.
118 comments
[…] How to Win […]
At the risk of being tarred, I will have to disagree. I know it's unpopular, but realism on the alt-right needs advocates. First, any public gathering of /your guys/ is a "cartoonish rally," so avoiding that is essentially avoiding personal contact and organization efforts. The internet makes up for this, but it is not a panacea. Secondly, you can't have an NGO because that status will not be given to any alt-right organization. You can have an alt-lite-ish conservative NGO and staff it will mostly cucks and a few sympathetic deep-cover alt-right, but those already exist and do the bidding of the establishment. Third, gyms, farms, and other cooperative efforts are fine and dandy. Your grass roots are important, but they are not mutually exclusive with political action. Retreating to your clubhouse and cleaning up some addicts will build you good will with people, but you will still need to organize and fund these things and if you are being hemmed in on all sides as cartoonish racists who shouldn't be allowed to exist, you won't get far with that either. In sum, a parallel society for whites is explicitly against the federal and most state government's laws, in spirit if not in letter. You won't have any luck building those institutions if you don't have the stomach for negative publicity surrounding public gatherings. Accusing people who want to be activist of LARPing should be grounds for dismissing any subsequent opinions as agitprop. These are the views of a submissive cuckold one step removed from cuckservatism's standard fare.
I'm open to discussion. What exactly did this rally achieve? I guess it drew attention. What's the idea, that the attention will increase numbers? Any evidence that thats how it's working? Because one could just as well argue that the rally caused bad publicity which drew more people to the cucks and away from the altright.
It's a demonstration of the double standard. A standard cucks are ok with. Organization means nothing if the bulk of the right believes they can overcome non-person status with no frictive encounters.
"...It’s a demonstration of the double standard..." I agree with this. Even if it looks bad over time it shows a double standard. I think all the cloth wringing over Nazis is a wast of time. Everyone knows that the press lies. Even the dumbest know this. When they call Whites White Supremacist and Nazi all should just deny that they are anything but a minority and say nothing else. Attack them constantly for hatred of Whites. I also say condemning the Nazis and the KKK and all the others is a waste of time. Merely state that no one on right is my enemy. I'm not a Nazi, a KKK'er or a White Supremacist but they aren't my enemy.
Three things: 1) It got Trump to publicly call out antifa - who, if you get all your news from any mainstream source, didn't exist until Monday. 2) Damore's example demonstrates to people of a particular bent the nature of our governance. Charlottesville demonstrates it to people of a different bent. 3) Some people listen to someone like Mitt Romeny [and John McCain] and think "well, if even Mitt Romney condemns only one side then the left must be right" others who aren't fully on board will think - "why exactly are the two previous Republican presidential candidates firmly on the side that hates me? Maybe there's something to this 'controlled opposition' idea". Don't know how valuable any of these things are but they're all real.
Is it too much to ask to have nationalist rallies without skin-heads / KKK / natsocs and all those loser movements who have kept the right a laughing stock for so many decades ? Can we not have decently dressed people marching calmly and peacefully with American flags ? I hear 'no ennemies to the right', but with friends like that ...
Yes, it's too much to ask. You can't physically stop them and they're very motivated to join the party. So odds are they are going to be there. If you do a public rally, that is.
Rallies are democracy. They might work or they might not, but they are democracy. So do you want to be a democrat, or not?
This is a crass individualist libertarian argument. Rallies are a show of political will. Monarchs deal with them as often as democracies. The proviso that one shouldn't rally for any cause owed to a dedication to anti-democratic principles is reactionary passivism taken to a cartoonish conclusion.
A rally done right is a crass show of strength. Or, to put it in other words, an implicit threat: "look at this mob we have mobilized; should we go to war, we will win, so kneel to our people power while we are still feeling conciliatory". It might even work. If you have enough people. And if enough of those people are tough sons-of-bitches with prospects poor enough to have little to lose and lots to gain. But it's still a mob, and if it succeeds, you rode the mob-wave to power, and the mob-wave is a fickle thing, and there is always a left-er aspirant mob-ruler than you. Hitler, for example, was a dictator with far more practical power than the Kaiser ever had, but he still felt the need to suck the dick of the public with his plebiscites and approval ratings, and he couldn't help but impose his ideology on his subjects with his constant interminable speeches and radio broadcasts, probably because he felt the need to maintain popular legitimacy, and if you have power and want to maintain your popular legitimacy, you need to tell your populace what to do, what to think, and what to feel. We don't need no education. We don't need no thought control. Raze the universities.
Which is why all public gatherings should be by organizations that screen their membership ruthlessly and only allow members to attend.
One good trick is to have your rally in the context of an existing family friendly event (baseball game, music concert) and have the existing security remove them for you.
They're going to always be there, at any slightly right wing movement. Either outcasts that believe they'll achieve something through LARPing, or Gov agents looking to start something criminal. The latter has been reported times and times again. Especially in far-right circles, for obvious reasons.
"Confucius said: to set the world in order, first set yourself in order. Nigga wasn't kidding, either. He may well have been reading Eugen Herrigel, who taught us that to release the arrow, one must first not-release the arrow. Fact: not even UR is as reactionary as Zen." "The steel rule of passivism is absolute renunciation of official power. We note instantly that any form of resistance to sovereignty, so long as it succeeds, is a share in power itself. Thus, absolute renunciation of power over USG implies absolute submission to the Structure." "The logic of the steel rule is simple. As a reactionary, you don't believe that political power is a human right. You will never convince anyone to adopt the same attitude, without first adopting it yourself. Since you believe others should be willing to accept the rule of the New Structure, over which they wield no power, you must be the first to make the great refusal. They must submit to the New; you must submit to the Old." "The reactionary's opinion of USG is that it is what it is. It is run by the people who run it. And at present, the present management may well be the best people in the world to run USG, and even if they're not he can't imagine what might be done about it - short of replacing the whole thing. This simple and final judgment, like the death penalty, admits no possible compromise." "As a matter of both principle and tactics, the passivist rejects any involvement with any activity whose goal is to influence, coerce, or resist the government, either directly or indirectly. He is revolted by the thought of setting public policy. He would rather drink his own piss, than shift public opinion. He finds elections - national, state or local - grimly hilarious. And if he needs to get from Richmond to Baltimore, he drives through West Virginia." "The passivist has a term for democratic activism directed by the right against the left. That term is counter-activism. Passivism does not dispute the fact that counter-activism sometimes works. For instance, it worked for Hitler. (We'll say more about Hitler.) However, it only works in very unusual circumstances (such as those of Hitler), and is extremely dangerous when it does work (eg, the result may be Hitler)." "In case this isn't crystal-clear, the steel rule precludes, in no particular order: demonstrations, press releases, suicide bombs, lawsuits, dirty bombs, Facebook campaigns, clean bombs, mimeographed leaflets, robbing banks, interning at nonprofits, assassination, "tea parties," journalism, bribery, grantwriting, graffiti, crypto-anarchism, balaclavas, lynching, campaign contributions, revolutionary cells, new political parties, old political parties, flash mobs, botnets, sit-ins, direct mail, monkeywrenching, and any other activist technique, violent or harmless, legal or illegal, fashionable or despicable." "One excellent way to make this relationship concrete in your mind is to use the word "subject," rather than "citizen." If by some unfortunate coincidence you remain a resident of the British Isles, you are already taught to say "subject." So you'll have to shift to something even more demeaning, like "peasant." This may still overstate your political impact." "The steel rule has one exception that demonstrates the rule. As a passivist, you can still address direct, individual petitions to the sovereign - eg, calling your Congressman. Individual petition does not violate the steel rule because any petition from subject to sovereign is already a confession of abject submission. Only the powerless beg. The rite, of course, is ancient." https://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.ch/2009/09/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified.html Read him, you lazy louts, I swear to X.
A lot of the guys in CVille WERE decently dressed, in shape, peacefully marching. Those just weren't the ones that the MSM chose to portray. No surprise there. In the long run, all publicity is good publicity. Because the Alt Right WILL win the argument with young white men, period. No question about it. It really doesn't even matter how badly the Alt Right figureheads do anything that they do. Because the Alt Right is telling young white men that they are valuable & important. And the other side is telling young white men that they are evil & disposable. There's no contest. So every time that a young white guy hears the words "white genocide" or "anti-white bias" or "replace whites" it plants a seed. Even if those words are being said in a condemnatory, sneering, mocking or dismissive manner. Because those are the things that ARE happening, and tamping down that knowledge with social status diminishment threats won't last forever. There's really no bad outcome for us with young white men. Being violently repressed is good for us because it proves our point that there is an anti-white, anti-male bias. Having a peaceful productive meeting like AmRem is good for us because it shows that we are intelligent, thoughtful & decent. Being denounced is good for us because it raises awareness & makes people aware of our talking points. Being ignored is good for us because it lets us do our work in peace. America's young white men are going AltRight no matter what. The larger issue is whether there are still enough of them left.
>Those just weren’t the ones that the MSM chose to portray. No surprise there. This is a fair point. In some ways it points to a stronger corollary of BAP's point... if you're gonna organize a rally that is bound to attract those elements, you might as well embrace the LARP yourself and deliberately choreograph the most bizarre, offensive, clickbait-worthy cadres you can think of. If you show up in public the Cathedral *will* get its symbolic white debbil, so the debbil they get might as well be you.
Wrong quaslacrimas. The lessons are: 1. Don't appear in public unless necessary. 2. When you do be careful you let attend.
"Be careful who you let attend"...at a public gathering?
Yes you can control who comes at a public gathering. First you say that X,Y,Z groups are not welcome. If they still come, have your security guys prevent them from joining your main gathering. Then don't let people talk to the press, have a PR guy do that instead, and he'll say that X,Y,Z groups were not welcome, that they're idiots, etc. And if some guy in your group does a roman salute because he's drunk, have your security beat him up and expel him. Do that a few times and the X,Y,Z groups will not bother coming anymore.
Depends on how long we have. If we're counting down 20 years to South Africa, RaHoWa can't come fast enough. If we're looking at a decline into 1990's post-Soviet America stretched over two generations, we want parallel institutions to usurp the state once it loses its will and capability.
What caused whitey to suddenly lose control of his overseas assets after four centuries of uninterrupted, uneventful colonial rule? Please be specific.
In the years post-WWII, the US tied Britain's hands while sponsoring revolutions and regime changes in former UK colonies. The most obvious example being the Suez Canal crisis. But one could argue that the US never relinquished economic control of those assets, and de facto is their ruler. It just lets their internal affairs go to shit to avoid the impression of imperialism. Why ask?
Because if you recognize that the muddification of your country isn't "just happening" to you (it isn't), and you accept that this aforementioned muddification doesn't threaten state power (it doesn't), then you have to acknowledge that the muds are a blunt instrument mobilized against you, a marionette animated by invisible wires, and the puppeteer isn't losing grasp of the wires. Counting on the weakening and atrophy of USG may be a profitable enterprise, but I suspect not; there are no viable rival powers.
You will not be permitted to create this alternate culture. The enemy does not want you to form any kind of parallel institutions or advocacy. They want you dead, your children defiled and your history erased.
Will-to-power, friend.
Avoid publicity except on your own terms and be friendly towards the real power centres ie. military-industrial complex.
[…] Source: Bloody Shovel […]
Spandrell, can you talk about historical examples of the right winning fully against the left? I don't think they're very common, but some that come to mind: - Franco winning the Spanish Civil War (although it went left again after his death) - El Sisi taking over in Egypt (but he's in a very precarious position) - Sulla winning in Rome (overturned within 10 years of his death) - Caesar and then Augustus winning in Rome - Would you say China turning full capitalist in recent decades? - Russia reestablishing sovereignty after disastrous perestroika. Perhaps we can look at these historical examples to see what can be done. Military coup seems unlikely from the right as the military highbrass are all career Democrats...
I don't think Caesar was a rightist in any way... he allied with the populares, fought to usurp the aristocracy's control of the government, and proposed land reforms. He also ignored many laws and political traditions that would have limited his power. Much of what he did was arguably beneficial, but it was very anti-traditional.
PoL, left and right don't really work in a pre-modern context. What matters is that Caesar and Augustus revitalized a dying state and society, so they're good examples for us.
There's a difference between open wars between self-declared left and right, like Sulla vs. Marius or Franco vs. the Popular Front; rightish coups during times of chaos, like Augustus, Sisi or Napoleon, and slow evolution away from leftist policies, like in China or post-Soviet Russia. China had Yuan Shikai recover control from the 1912 republic for a while, and he even tried to restore the monarchy, but it didn't work out. And Meiji Japan also had the revolutionary government stop its radical elements after the Southwest War and the "Freedom and Rights movement". If you look at a long enough timespan, the right tautologically wins, because the left will always spiral into complete chaos. The question is at what point the right reacts; if the right fights early on, the left may still be quite organized and so outright war is needed; if the right fights at the very end; leftism has already wrecked most of the previous society. At this point in US history we're probably beyond Sulla but before Augustus.
Trouble is the right has no long game here. They'll be wildly outnumbered in a generation and most likely purged from any meaningful societal role long before that. It's happening already.
Numbers are irrelevant unless all people are created equal. "In 1978, there were 270,000 Rhodesians of European descent and more than six million Africans.[84]" “Rhodesian white people had enjoyed a very high standard of living. The Land Tenure Act had reserved 30% of agricultural land for white ownership and black labour costs were low (around US$40 per month in 1975), but included free housing, food and clothing. Nurses earned US$120 per month in 1975, which had a large effect in the context of an agricultural economy.[25] Public spending on education, healthcare and other social services was heavily weighted towards provision for white people. Most of the better paid jobs in public service were reserved for white people.[26] White people in skilled manual occupations enjoyed employment protection against black competition.[27] In 1975, the average annual income per head for Rhodesian white people was around US$8,000 (with income tax at a marginal rate of 5%) – making them one of the richest communities in the world.[25]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodesia How are both of these statements true?
Quantity has a quality of it's own. Analogues to Europeans dealing with tribal Africans aren't apropos of the situation. The left has a carefully cultivated hierarchy of the sort that would make most throne and alter reactionaries envious. High caste Jewish and European Brahmans settle the accounts, various mid-castes handle the organizational work, hoards of underclass refuse are thereby mobilized and militarized to push strategic objectives. Even in the alt-right were to become as coherent and unified as a Boer Bund, they would still be up against a much more dangerous enemy. Ultimately, the right has only one play. They need attention in the short term and they need to convince anyone with status and political pull in the mid-term of the disaster that's coming so that they can have alliances of convenience when the long-term plans on the left begin to reach fruition. The opportunity for the latter won't be coming very soon, but it will come as society continues to unravel beneath the crush-weight of affirmative action, diversity, and militant anti-white social attitudes blared from the establishment at full volume.
"Quantity has a quality of it’s own." Israel's fence seems to work just fine. "The left has a carefully cultivated hierarchy of the sort that would make most throne and alter reactionaries envious. High caste Jewish and European Brahmans settle the accounts, various mid-castes handle the organizational work, hoards of underclass refuse are thereby mobilized and militarized to push strategic objectives. Even in the alt-right were to become as coherent and unified as a Boer Bund, they would still be up against a much more dangerous enemy." Eminently true. "They need attention in the short term and they need to convince anyone with status and political pull in the mid-term of the disaster that’s coming so that they can have alliances of convenience when the long-term plans on the left begin to reach fruition. As you mentioned, "the left" is a real organization with a "carefully cultivated hierarchy" and control of all the levers of power (except, now, the President), while "the right" is an ad-hoc misfit mob of discontents in opportunistic opposition. Spencer, Derb, etc., quite besides their ideas, just don't have any taste, and they're a repellant to anyone with.
Salazar in Portugal Pinochet in Chile both overturned eventually, although some of Pinochet's work in Chile was preserved. At the very least they didn't go back to full-retard Marxism and Chile is currently the most prosperous country in South America.
Leadership is needed. You have to tell the troops what to do and then they'll do it.
Troops get paid. They follow for a reason. There's no shortage of leaders, but given a lack of funding and a clear pathway to potential spoils, there's, unsurprisingly, a shortage of discipline.
There is always a lot of hot air out of much of nrx about how the altright is wrong for pursuing these things, but I think the blame falls squarely on them. If a group fancies itself the intellectuals of the right, it should take into consideration the need to funnel the energy and efforts of the types of men that are attracted to the altright. Anyone can tweet and blog about how others are taking the wrong path, that is easy. The challenge is to channel the energy somewhere productive. nrx has a reputation among the rest of the right, well earned I think, for doing nothing. Obviously many are doing vital work, but they fail miserably when it comes to relating and utilizing the youth and energy of the rest of the right. It is true that civilization will not be saved with marches and speeches, but it is equally true that it will not be saved by writing about how marches are pointless. I am filled with frustration on this topic. We have the ideas, we have the people and the energy, but we lack anyone capable of connecting them.
"I am filled with frustration on this topic. We have the ideas, we have the people and the energy, but we lack anyone capable of connecting them." You are filled with frustration because you are thinking magically. If you cannot at least plausibly stage a military coup, you do not have the ideas, people, or energy. If you cannot stage a military coup, you cannot achieve a "right-wing" "restoration".
the nrxers are correct as far as the efficient functioning of an alt right state on a long time horizon with high living standards. it is impossible. they simply aren't smart enough, on the whole, to deliver this. mingle with them and they can mostly not read above a tenth grade level, let alone function at a high conceptual level that said are alt righters capable of creating an all white state with low murder rates, reasonable tax policy, etc for a reasonable period before normal decay sets in? given sufficient guns, i think so. i'll take it.
We nrx are smart, they alt-right dumb, because we know stuff, we read them books. This is exactly what hcm meant when he talked about alt-right stereotypes about NRX folk. You've gone down de maistre, evola, or at the very least a few moldburg articles and now decided you have all of society figured out. Those damn nazis just dont understand our complex metaphysical qualias!
many of them struggle doing algebra. that proves a rather mighty problem in managing an economy. I never said I didn't trust them to be kind and decent. don't tell me you are denying hbd? a sub 90 iq european society in america looks more like italy or spain than the thing you have in mind. it is safe, but you'll notice there is a lot of poverty that comes in lockstep alongside it. I'll take it over modern america, but that's the result a european racial-social mandate. praytell, do you have a plan to avoid that? Let's ask the guy that can't do arithmetic, the guy that thinks social security is solvent, after all, he read about it in time mag, so he's VERY VERY sure
this is the part where you tell me social security is solvent, because white people are math warlocks, right? that's the mindset of the fundamentally decent boomers. look at the fuckup they've caused. you think like a boomer. most of us are not terribly giddy about that, given that the boomers are killing us indirectly look, I hope you win the shooting war the only request I have is that you please don't shoot me for correcting your math homework on your social security solvency project. that's what 90% of neoreactionaries are afraid of that and a rapidly degenerating tax regime eating its children like in, oh, I dunno, 99% genetically european italy
A lot of inflated ego, and all your claims are not based on reality. White people are "doing maths" fine right now. Nobody will need you "correcting their homework" after "the shooting war". Whatever those metaphors mean, the dumb white people have been able to do math quite fine for the last few centuries, at least enough to run a state without hiring from the local DnD branch. As for the Italy talk, this is what I mean by "not based on reality". Italy is "99% genetically European" (wow, you can use percentages! We'll need you in our NSDAP chapter!) if you don't pay attention to history, geography, or well, anything. It's hardly a conspiracy or close guarded secret that North Italians were conquered by the Visigoths, as well as benefitted from a cultural, georgraphical proximity to several advanced European empires, among which France and Austria - While the southerners were subject to the moors and Spaniards, the latter didn't really treat the locals eugenically to say the least. Which led to a different racial, and cultural make-up. I'm not even going to go into the Spain talk, it irritates me so much that you're so ignorant, and yet so proud of your ignorance. I'd be surprised if your (real, not self-assigned) IQ was above the average of Somalia, much more Italy.
italy is objectively collapsing under the strain of demotism that claims the european underclass is "totally not a problem bro" if the euro underclass is capable of arithmetic get them to say social security is unsustainable. you can't. they are innumerate for any practical purposes. stop virtue signaling. you're not kinder and more tolerant.
Italy is collapsing due to several reasons. None of which you got right and which I don't really feel obliged to explain to somebody who thinks Italy and Spain are sub-iqers because of their "99% European genetics" (other way around, dummy). Other than memorizing RPG bestiaries and dice-roll stats, study some history once in a while. Maybe that will help, or maybe it's genetic.
"Taking into consideration the need to funnel the energy and efforts of the types of men that are attracted to the altight" gets you, unsurprisingly, Alex Jones. There's plenty of intellectuals out there that know how to motivate the white masses. It just happens that what the white masses want is Christian Magical Feminist Nazism; not Moldbug. Certainly not my stuff. We don't have the ideas yet; not even close. What I'm doing here is explain what the left is and how it works; I wouldn't mind somebody building from this and starting a movement which understands status mechanics the way, say, Mussolini did. But I won't be that man, and you shouldn't expect me to.
I think a measure of the things the white nationalist are saying is true, in the sense that europeans are evolved by selection to be, precisely, magical christian feminist natsocs. Europe never had stable language/societal equilibriums like china, this implies more or less constant war and interbreeding. constant war and interbreeding produces genetic stock that tend towards war and interbreeding, and to me, that sounds like magic feminist natsoc. rationalized commerce, fungibility in exchange and labor emerged from a particular phase of racial interbreeding in the netherlands whose political climate had incentives for openness and punishing clannishness. that didn't permanently change the biological equilibrium of european traits. the markets had been destined to disappear from the start unless the biological traits that produced them eliminated competing phenotypes. but that part never happened. the least clannish of anglos conquered america, but europe lay untouched. europe could never more have settled there than can africans build smithian economies and build contracts. I think people like land are correct in saying that capital and markets are a speciation event.
Interesting comment, but I don't entirely understand it. What does "but that part never happened" refer to -- disappearance of markets or elimination of competing phenotypes? As long as there are Dutch and English, why wouldn't markets survive even if there continue to be Germans and Spaniards (competing phenotypes)? Is it that markets must continually expand in order to exist at all? The Chinese are a competing phenotype, and markets have (sort of?) expanded into China. Please explain.
purely germanic societies have a reduced incentive to set up institutions to enforce meritocracy. you promote the 'honorable' man. that's all well and good from a more shortsighted eugenic/teleological perspective, but it doesn't escape medieval malthusianism: the most competent of your rivals are threats. honorable people don't change allegiance. you need to kill enemy talent. marketplaces put competent rivals at the top, and put incompetents under malthusian pressure. traditional european utility schemes will marshal a germanic conquerer king to rally his germanic low iq peasants to wage war against and kill other rival germanics within germany preferably killing the best among them, and the spoils of war, women and children, go to the lower iq rapists on your side. honorable rapists everywhere within greater germany. joy. that's a great setup for imperium in imperio. can you find the market? in the netherlands, england, northern france, german holdings had been tenuous because germans had neither ancestral right, nepotistic systems of support, or "honor" and holdings therefore needed to be secured by contractual agreements based on meritocratic fulfillment of duty, and the appropriate allocation of chicks and loot to anyone and everyone that could do just that. markets. markets had been caused in the netherlands, england, and northern france by the incentives of the state to maximize gains from racial integration of more or less honorable but still different people. after the idea of race became more stable, many of those incentives seem to have disappeared. I doubt it lasted long enough to change the phenotype of anglos or dutch very much. others have likely not changed at all humans faces are evolved. have human limbic systems been under selection at all? chicks have neotenous skulls, but still dig cavemen and rapists. the monkey genes run deep and rooting them out requires more thorough selection of a complete suite of traits. preference for markets strikes me as a trait necessarily supported by a very large suite of genes, and I am unconvinced that most populations have transitioned as dygenia sets in, anglo descended individuals regress into more germanic patterns of magical honor feminist crusaders. can you convince an african to build contractual neoreactionary markets? seemingly, not even germans are great at it. I can't think of any clever thing to say to convince them to do so. I can't even think of a clever thing to convince a german that gang rape is preventable. the german state has bought europe. there are no functional markets. the germans never cared for them anyhoo. the chinese are a competitor inasfar as they aren't a culture full of magical feminist natsoc vikings that can reap outstanding cutlural benefits from calling you an islamophobic misogynist before killing you in the street. then raping your daughter and pumping her full of 8 children. they have a madness all their on. it precludes them from actually constructing functional markets, though they can derive some benefits from them. in fact, I'd bet this "honor" looks a lot like the germanic conquest of the netherlands. I don't think honor built those markets. the germans are locked into a genetic pattern of behavior. they haven't escaped today because they never have. the anglos drug them along for the ride of the 21st century. and germany shall become peripheral again markets are constructued. the genetics that predispose humans to create markets are a temporary and lucky genetic mistake. they both disappear if there is no blatant state scaffolding in support of them. they are not prominent feature of any europeans outside of the dutch/anglo, let alone a permanent one.
Thanks -- very interesting. It never occurred to me that Progressivism might be a kind of Teutonic/Viking magical-honor-alliance(?) ... I've never heard or read of this proposal before.
But are the Germans capable of using capital letters at the beginning of a sentence? Some people make a big deal out of the JQ, but the GQ is also a serious issue. Germans love their forests, and this German notion may be the root of the modern environmental movement. The US civil war was also the fault of German immigrants in a sense. A huge influx of Germans had arrived in the 1830's. These people tended to be very pro-Union, and joined pro-Union militias even before the war officially started. The German's had little concept of individual liberty at that time. A major skirmish, the Camp Jackson affair, occurred in the middle of St. Louis during 1861. The expansion of slavery into western states was a dubious proposition. The vast majority of immigrants in the 1850's aligned as pro-Union. The North was inviting in a new people to defeat the South via the ballot, and immigration assured northern victory. Even though Germans may not be as good at creating markets and individual liberty as Anglos, the Germans are a relatively high trust people. Would you prefer to live in a somewhat rigid German society with nice parks, or perhaps you would prefer Detroit?
Anyone seriously contemplating nationalism is deluded and insane. "Bronze Age Pervert" is so far left as to be virtually undifferentiated from SJWs. When you say "no enemies to the right" in connection to "Bronze Age Pervert", what you're saying is either that you're more deluded and insane than this fellow, or that "no enemies to the right" really means "no enemies to this arbitrary line of kind-of-but-not-full-on-left-left".
What the hell are you talking about? Is this bait? What is the alternative to nationalism? Tribalism? Monarchy? What does right or far right mean to you? Curious minds want to know.
Did Garibaldi unite Italy, or divide Africa? >Suddenly we realized that it was late, and we didn't know when the subway stopped running, to get us back to our albergo, near the Stazione Centrale. So we asked. And no one knew. Not the waitress, not anyone in the bar. These hip young people had no idea of the subway hours in their own city. I believe the waitress actually said something like, "why do you want to go there?" Huh.
Such a powerful reactionary has realized ethnic identity doesn't matter, only individualism does. Enlightenment thinking isn't "right wing".
I believe in power. Ethnic solidarity can be a lubricant to power: it's easier to work with people like yourself. But the Western aristocracy didn't have ethnic solidarity with their subjects, and somehow they maintained uninterrupted control for nearly one thousand years and oversaw the highest flourishing of high culture to date.
The European aristocracy was certainly a mix, but an European mix at that. And while they didn't feel great brotherhood with their subjects (at first), their pan-european perceptions were pretty much a befalling of their genetic identity. Rejecting identity IS modernist, no matter which way you spin it. When Europe was great, and had "the highest flourishing of high culture to date", everyone was an Identitarian. Not only racial, but also religious, ethnic, familial, regional, guild-based and so on. Stripping the last vestiges of Identity down isn't returning to the past, but making The Revolution stronger.
For one thing, it wasn't "Europe". "Europe" is a continent. Really, it's the ass-end of the Asian continent, but that's beside the point. This "high culture" I speak was Western, i.e. a few key areas clustered primarily in the Blue Banana and certainly not including Eastern Europe and other backwaters. You can think of "the West", and its accompanying high culture, as having been a tapestry of many legitimately independent polities in friendly competition, owned and operated by one extended family culturally and genetically speciated from the commoners they ruled. Our received culture is industrial-age, factory-optimized, mass-produced "consumer culture". Fabricated. Artificial. Intensely local "identity" as you use the word, while perhaps desirable, is impossible without the devolution of energy utilization to preindustrial levels, entailing among other things an epic die-off, quite independent of our mere ideological whims. The House of Saxe-Coburg didn't even speak English.
I'm saying no enemies to the right in connection to the rally. Reading comprehension must not be your thing. And tone down your lecturing or you're out of here.
> I’m saying no enemies to the right in connection to the rally. Somebody like James Alex Fields is "not an enemy"? If the next Jeffrey Dahmer admired Hitler in high school, was rejected by the Army on mental illness grounds, and favored WN symbols on his clothing and online, then he'd be "not an enemy," too? That's messed up. If you mean something different, I guess my reading comprehension's not so hot, either.
Not an enemy. Not a guy I'm going to seek actively to become friends with , of course. But not an enemy. That's how the left does it, and it works mighty well for them.
Left-right is a spectrum. "No enemies to the left" means that however "left" somebody is, they understand their allies and don't criticize somebody else for being "lefter". To be equivalent, "no enemies to the right" must mean that however "right" somebody is, they understand their allies and don't criticize somebody else for being "righter". I am, of course, far "righter", unimaginably "righter", than this Pervert fellow. He is thus on my far left. "No enemies to the right" cannot possibly apply to someone on my far left. How about you? I can't help but notice in your writings that your worldview still fundamentally includes the belief that all men are created equal, that you believe in People Power, and that you think that mass-Moslem-immigration is somehow a function of Whitey weakness and Moslem strength.
I say it again, I wasn't referring to BAP. This is the last time you slander me for no reason. I believe that all men are created equal? What the hell are you talking about? I'll ban you if you don't make brief and coherent points from now on. Stop wasting my time and that of my readers.
I'm not trying to slander you, and I'm not suggesting that you literally think all men are created equal. I think I know you better than that. What I am saying is that you display detectable subterraneous currents of a related concept in your patterns of thought. Maybe "all men are created equal" isn't the best way to describe it, but it's what came to mind. By way of example, 1) anyone who (in pursuing a white-genocide-like narrative) cites the racial demographics of a country as a relevant statistic is displaying this fallacy, as is 2) anyone who attributes the fall of Rhodesia or South Africa to blacks (or "racial demographics"), as well as 3) anyone who paints the Moslemification and Mexification of Europe and America, respectively, as evidence of the waxing power of this rising tide of color. >I say it again, I wasn’t referring to BAP. >I’m saying no enemies to the right in connection to the rally. Yes, but those concepts are linked. And also, are the same "way extremely unpleasantly indistinguishably far left" thing. For wasting your time, I apologize.
If you mean that demographics don't matter because even a 10% white country could work well if those 10% whites had total power and their shit together, well go ahead and say it. Clearly and in less than 3 sentences. See, it isn't that hard. That argument I've seen before, by Foseti 5 years ago for instance. It's not a good argument. Power isn't stable; shit happens. Not having to gamble everything on a 10% minority grabbing power is vastly preferable. White tribalists have a better argument there, as flawed as it may be.
"If you mean that demographics don’t matter because even a 10% white country could work well if those 10% whites had total power and their shit together, well go ahead and say it. Clearly and in less than 3 sentences. See, it isn’t that hard." Okay. "After the collapse of Portuguese rule in Mozambique in 1974–75, it was no longer viable for the Smith regime to sustain white minority rule indefinitely. By this time, even South Africa's Vorster had come to this view. While Vorster was unwilling to make concessions to his own country's blacks, he concluded that white minority rule was not sustainable in a country where blacks outnumbered whites 22:1.[83] In 1978, there were 270,000 Rhodesians of European descent and more than six million Africans.[84]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RhodesiaNo longer viableWhite minority rule was not sustainable Why not? "In 1976, the South African government and United States governments worked together to place pressure on Smith to agree to a form of majority rule. In response to the initiative of US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, in 1976 Ian Smith accepted the principle of black majority rule within two years.[92] The Rhodesians now offered more concessions, but those concessions, focused on reaching an "internal settlement" with moderate black leaders, were insufficient to end the war." That's why. The blacks were completely and totally irrelevant. They were never any threat until riled up, organized, funded, and armed by what I've taken to calling "the Invisible Thumb" (on the great scale of life and power).
Yes, it's a fact that without USG actively undermining them, a lot of white minority governments could have flourished across the world. So what? Does that mean that having 80% third world populations across Europe and North America is a good thing? Hell no. It may not necessarily be the end of the world in terms of civilization, ok. But isn't the Netherlands in 1960 preferable to Colombia in 1960? Look at Mexico, not Rhodesia. USG wasn't into undermining white minority governments before 1930. Mexico still got periodic revolutions by its mestizo peasantry. And don't even mention the Muslims that Europe is getting. Those won't be Rhodesian blacks. Again, weak argument.
The difference between then and now is that warfare was more democratic. Stick a rifle in a peasant's hands in the 18th century and you're most of the way to marching on the capital. Stick a rifle in a peasant's hands today and you haven't accomplished much: your opposition has tanks, planes, missiles, napalm, drones, bombs, snipers, satellite surveillance, and so on. How do you defeat that? The Moslems that Europe is getting might as well be Zimbabweans for all the threat they pose to state power. If ISIS can't defend its own airspace, Moslems in Europe can't march on the capital. The purpose of the Moslems is to terrorize the populace. Speak out, get canned. Etc.
That’s why. The blacks were completely and totally irrelevant. They were never any threat until riled up, organized, funded, and armed by what I’ve taken to calling “the Invisible Thumb” (on the great scale of life and power). That's exactly the point Spandrell is making. If you rule as a 10% minority, you're vulnerable to many things--infighting, external pressure, etc.--to which an ethnically cohesive society wouldn't be vulnerable, at least not to anywhere near the same extent.
Poland is 95% Polish, and it's still vulnerable because it cannot go to war and win. Hungary, too. "Power grows from the barrel of a gun." — Mao If you cannot go to war and win, you are not sovereign, or you won't be for long — think 1930s Germany. This is why nonwhites are irrelevant (with the possible exception of the Chinese, but it's still too early to say). All other explanations presuppose the silent scale-tilting meaty pressure of the Invisible Thumb, i.e. the State Department, etc.
Or the Ukraine. 80ish percent Ukrainian, 15ish percent Ukrainian Russian as I recall. 100% white. Still vulnerable. There is or was an actual civil war going on, with at least one actual territorial conquest. Not between Ukrainians and Ukrainian Russians, of course, but between the State Department and Putin.
"Poland is 95% Polish, and it’s still vulnerable because it cannot go to war and win. Hungary, too." Yes, but it's not vulnerable to having 80% of the population riled up to commit ethnic violence - there's a vector of attack that's just missing. Any method of attack on Poland is also useful on nations that aren't 95% white plus there are a whole bunch of others. No matter how you slice it being a minority is a weakness that will always be a weakness.
There is no vulnerability inherent in being a minority, only in being weaker than your nearest rival.
the middle class has no money spandrell any opiate shelters would get flooded with the "local wildlife" in order to squash any political aims by cost vortexes and mistreatment suits the parallel society already exists in white afghanistan mobilization, incrementally, incompletely, insufficiently to avoid casualties, but perhaps enough to win, will come next normally your posts are phenomenal but i wonder if you have blinders on right now
Well maybe the middle class has to organize and try to make some money. Hey, I don't know, maybe the Charlottesville strategy works out in the end. But I'm not quite seeing the rationale here.
dunno if you buy into patchwork, but it can operate at the level of "kindly removing and respecting 100% of the civil rights of" the mayors, and families of mayors, and police, and families of police, and lawyers and families of lawyers that support, say, refugee shelters. probably included: those that support said mayors and police vocally unless obese 80 iq obese mulattos are going to be airdropped into the midwest to the point of saturation, that's enough to kick off a schelling point for regional sovereignty
>that’s enough to kick off a schelling point for regional sovereignty What is your proposed mechanism for this phenomenon? The right of peoples to self-determination?
amendment 69: hello immigration proponent/mayor: if my daughter is shot or raped by your pet negroes, I can make sure your family is not safe either
Death threats and/or threats of personal violence. Yeah, that'll turn out well.
compulsion for me to see your daughters get raped ad infinitum is making you less sullen than the prospect of violence? you're a strange one. are you high time preference or do you eat too much soy?
*ring ring ring* "Hello, this is Congressman Blanketyblank's office. How may I help you?" "Hello, I'd like to speak with the Congressman." "Hang on, I'll put you right through." (this would never happen, but it's my fiction so I can do what I want) "Hello, this is Congressman Blanketyblank." "Hello Congressman Blanketyblank, this is Self-Appointed Avatar of the People™ speaking." "Self-Appointed Avatar of the People™, what would you like to speak with me about?" "Well Congressman Blanketyblank, I'd like to let you know that if you vote to allow Obama to import more planeloads of Somalians into Minnesota to rape my pretty white 12-year-old daughters, I'll come to your office, cut off your head, and nail it to the top of your door with a 12-inch iron spike." "Oh dear, Self-Appointed Avatar of the People™, I'm afraid that's quite unacceptable. Stay where you are, I'll send a SWAT team right over." *Self-Appointed Avatar of the People™ then spends the next 50 years in prison for threatening an agent of the state.* The moral if the story is that violence, and the prospect thereof, is attractive when you think you can reasonably win. The Germans precipitated two World Wars because they were wary of the growing Anglo-Russian pincer-encirclement of their embattled Central Powers, but they were smart and strong and reasonably thought that they could win. I'm not stupid enough to think that I can succeed where 80 million of the most simultaneously civilized-warlike people on Earth, a formidable force indeed, failed utterly and catastrophically. "The steel rule of passivism is absolute renunciation of official power. We note instantly that any form of resistance to sovereignty, so long as it succeeds, is a share in power itself. Thus, absolute renunciation of power over USG implies absolute submission to the Structure." https://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.ch/2009/09/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified.html I'm just going to keep quoting Moldbug.
and why would anyone give a warning to said mayor? he'd be "treated kindly and gently" and everyone would know why.
Twenty years ago I was cautiously optimistic about the LDS of Utah. The Mormon church had created a parallel welfare system which helped out families in need, but the help came with some strings attached. LDS members lose their temple privilege if they drink, shoot heroin, or act like degenerates. The best feature from a Spandrellian point of view is that they were patriarchal. But as the story goes any organization that is not explicitly white wing (errr, right wing) will be converged. Resistance is futile. All shall be assimilated including the LDS church. I do not expect the LDS welfare system to hold up to the brown immigration onslaught. While the Larpers of TWP may be seen as distasteful by some, I must admit that actual Nazis are harder to converge to the great rainbow dream.
The Charlottesville fiasco illustrates perfectly why activism is a losing strategy for the right. There really is such a thing as bad publicity. My parents are both old school red, white, and blue patriots. They heard the story as, "Nazis cause violence in defense of slavery." They had never heard of antifa until I explained who the counter protesters were. Now they think dangerous white supremacy is a rising threat to America. The alt right brand has been rendered toxic to normies. The takeaways are: 1. Activism cannot succeed in the face of hostile media. 2. Any violence between right and left will be blamed on the right. 3. Confederate statues are a strategically poor hill to die on. 4. Large public gatherings will attract degenerates, idiots, and maniacs. 5. If you must appear in public, screen everyone involved. That means all participants must be well dressed, well groomed, and in reasonable shape. 6. You must have a media savvy spokesman with a normie friendly message. 7. Last, but not least, NO SWASTIKAS!
Tweetstorm relevant: https://twitter.com/Pius\_Vindex/status/896941208437653504
if anyone tries to build a refugee shelter in south dakota, i imagine we are very close to burning it down, shooting any cops that try to arrest the arsonist, shooting the mayor and his family, and shooting the families of the lawyers that try to prosecute unless trump plans on airdropping our obese mulatto servicemen into sioux falls, that is default patchwork, is it not?
>i imagine we are very close to burning it down, shooting any cops that try to arrest the arsonist, shooting the mayor and his family, and shooting the families of the lawyers that try to prosecute What makes South Dakotans less civilized than Germans, Englishmen, Italians, Spaniards, Swedes, Frenchmen, Rhodesians, South Africans, or Australians? Would you like to know what I discovered recently: native Australians (Australians born to two native-born Australians) now comprise just 51% of the Australian population. Remarkable, isn't it? So, anyway, what selective forces have made South Dakotans less civilized than the descendants of a literal penal colony?
omnipresence of guns, territorial inacessibility, self sufficiency, ability to see mass gang rapes, freedom to discuss said rapes australia is heavily urban. south dakota is basically impossible to police. like I said, a president is gonna need to airdrop squadrons of mullato soldiers that have tight unit cohesion and saturate the state. it is, of course, just a name I tossed out. the united states has a surplus of angry pissed off armed racial supremacists in different territorial configurations. one configuration is going to be optimal. that is the place that capital and resistance is going to form around once success can be seen
Ammon Bundy "occupied" an empty government building, and the FBI came down on him like a ton of bricks. No uprising. FedGov decided to desegregate the schools and dropped the 101st Airborne into Little Rock. (
) No uprising. Then there was Ruby Ridge. No uprising. And, of course, Waco. No uprising. USG ain't going away. It just keeps getting stronger and more panopticony: more drones, more satellites, more solar-powered perpetually-flying UAVs equipped with truly amazing cameras capable of constant surveillance of absolutely everything for miles and miles and with the software to automatically track cars and people, too, and pretty soon: capable robots soon with turrets. Let's just say that the capital-human ratio of combat-effectiveness is way up and is going way higher. When's the Revolution, baby? You'll need a king, so let me know.
somehow dying boomers who plan on taxing minimum wage millennials at 50% to pay for the medicare costs to keep them alive for one extra week, does not strike me as the core demographic we must appeal to. LEAST of all if you believe voting systems are useless and powerless for anything except as a vecyor for thr cathedral they will be unplugged one way or another. there is no way to support their cost i have no interest in being so much as humane to dying leeches who plan on stealing the food from the mouths of my children. what is your personal breaking point, friend? i bet it is proportionate to your disposable income. if your job at mullattocorp pays well I am happy for you. the finances of most youth are stretched thin, and their anger will be directed at various stripes of redistributionists
Baby boomers aren't the people the alt-right wants to appeal to. It is focused on youthful white men, those don't eat CNN propaganda hook line and sinker. Baby boomers had their chance, several of them. And they've wasted all.
He's wrong and you're wrong.
Based off some of the responses to my comment, I must assume I did a poor job of making my point. Please indulge my second attempt: If the altright is acting ineffectively or counter-productively, I argue that the blame is on nrx - the intellectuals of the modern right. If these outcomes of altright action are so easily predicted, such action should have been planned for years ago and diverted months ago. The energy should have been directed elsewhere. If only the nrx sees the way forward, they must steer the ship. I struggle to see the worth of criticism of the altright that is not paired with reflection on the way forward. It is not sufficient to say they should organize locally, they must be given orders, structures, and work. It is not sufficient to denounce LARPing, you must provide a more meaningful outlet to their energy. The altright are doers. If they arent given something productive and practical to do, they will continue to do things not are not productive or practical. We cannot expect everyone to be an intellectual, and we can't expect everyone to sit on their thumbs until some restoration. The question at hand is HOW do you make use of the energy of the altright. They are here and they will act one way or the other. Shouting for them so stop is a waste of time.
What the hell. The "doers" don't listen to me, why the hell should I be held responsible for their behavior? The intellectuals of the altright arent neoreactionaries. There's plenty of smart people at countercurrents or other places. Go talk to them.
Just replace "build parallel society based on nationalist principles, and win the" with "help" in the tweet and you've got something that wealthy, altruistic urban gentlemen might want to invest in, as a sort of fashionable hobby. Right, Cavalier?
Broadly defined, "the left" is: political agitation -> take the government -> suck the teat; "the right" is: accumulate immense property -> privatize the government -> turn a profit. I have no use for politics: demonstrations, press releases, suicide bombs, lawsuits, dirty bombs, Facebook campaigns, clean bombs, mimeographed leaflets, robbing banks, interning at nonprofits, assassination, “tea parties,” journalism, bribery, grantwriting, graffiti, crypto-anarchism, balaclavas, lynching, campaign contributions, revolutionary cells, new political parties, old political parties, flash mobs, botnets, sit-ins, direct mail, or monkeywrenching. Add rallies to that list. "Confucius said: to set the world in order, first set yourself in order." If you can't run a profitable company, you can't run a government. If you're fat and poor because of those evil rich Jews, maybe you should stop showing up to, or thinking about, rallies. Also stop thinking about founding companies or organizations on "nationalist principles". If they worked, every company in existence would be following them. I've got your founding principles right here: turn a profit. It's remarkably non-ideological, isn't it? Exactly.
That's your personal definition of the right. You won't get very far with personal definitions. If you're saying a Peter Thiel strategy is the only one that might work; well you may have a point there. But call that "Peter Thiel strategy", not "the right". Becaue it isn't.
I believe in winning. When has the activist right won? Not "not lost". Not "lost less badly than otherwise". Won. The entire thing. The whole kit-and-kaboodle. Trump? Maybe. I remain hopeful for reasons I will keep to myself, but A) so far it's been six months and He's accomplished almost nothing, and B) He wasn't the product of any activist right. And before Him? Don't say Reagan. I maintain that "the right"'s win condition is the final dissolution of Washington, the quiet termination of the Federal Reserve, the immediate cessation of proxy wars in all American Provinces, the grisly public execution of everyone involved in Pizzagate, and the succession of Donald Trump by Donald Trump, Jr. Can victory be achieved by a rally, march, demonstration, petition, party platform, political campaign, NGO founded on nationalist principles, unprofitable company, or tweet?
Well, I'd argue that Frano won. He was right, wasn't he?
Yeah, but did activism win him the war?
Before the war there was a pre-war period in which various right-wing groups formed, like the Falange. They had their activism, like rallies and such. Maybe the army would have won the war without the support of these groups, possibly perhaps even probably. But would the army (part of the army really, as some officers stayed loyal to the elected government) have dared to fight if there had not been several, very visible right-wing groups? I don't think you can motivate a large group of people to fight unless you have pre-war activism (or you are the government and can simply draft them into service)
A rally has several purposes. The obvious purpose is to show that the guys attending the rally are many and want public attention for whatever issue they are rallying for, maybe even convert others to their cause. This is the effect of the rally on the guys not attenting it. Maybe it is miniscule and negligible. But there is also a purpose for the guys attending the rally. For them it's an emotional experience, epecially if they face a hostile counter-rally. This experience can create an emotional bond, an artifical tribe. Someone can go to such a rally as a moderate and leave it as a radical. By going to such a rally, men get status within their artifical tribe. Any movement must have a ritual to achieve an emotional bond between its members. Singing works, marches work, facing a hostile group works. Helping opiate addicts, starting a gym or an organic farm doesen't. So I think bronze age pervert is wrong. He misses a point. If you don't believe it, go and attend a rally and face a crowd of antifa.
That's fair.
So, how do we win? "build parallel society based on nationalist principles, and win the youth" As others have said above, building a parallel society is not going to be permitted. It's all cool for Chassids and Muslims, and even the Amish, but that's because they're either useful to our betters or irrelevant to them. If a parallel society of right-wing whites ever started getting traction, they'd bury it in an avalanche of lawfare and propaganda. As for winning the youth - again, how? The memes of production are in enemy hands: education, the media, popular culture. The only success on that front has been the Nazi-LARPing frog-posting, anime-masturbating NEET army of the chans, and that has a lot more in common with the goofy marchers than any hypothetical sober Fabian gym-opening fascist charity operation. There really is no way to win that I can see. We shall drown, etc., etc.
There is a way. A New Religion. It can be done, but it's hard, and it may take centuries.
I've seen it a couple other places. many older thinkers classified continental german philosophy/society as honor based vs anglo/dutch analytics. classical literary analysis (for the little it is of value) also makes the distinction. the problem here is that we have been divorced from history as recorded for several centuries. people in the past had been plenty aware of the distinction. hitler's ideology latched strongly onto a rejection of anglo analytics and a reaffirmation of anti-market german humanism. markets are anti human, and churchill was a monster, so our kamphy uncle is correct as far as that goes, but as many note, championing our dignity as hairless monkeys leads to lots of hairless chimping. doolittle is a strange guy but he does a good job of digging up a lot of this kind of ontology/epistemology. I think you'll not run into this perspective much because even in the comments here, you have natsocs and demotic people that champion iq gaps for blacks but deny its presence inside endogamous populations of any european country. the readership for this kind of material is limited. possibly of note: chinese proto-markets had things such as notaries and escro. they developed in the south, in areas that the northern han had conquered/raped, and thus faced capital incentive to avoid a caste system that put the han at he top and the southern interbred austronesians at the bottom. the han had a different form of honor, vastly different. no matter, it ceded ground under the same conditions german honor ceded ground to markets. markets seem to be the higher teleological principle: this schema makes it clear that natsocs are leftists
shoot. this is directed at garr.
if you regard the emergence of capital as a speciation event that selects for iq, the germans have been fighting it tooth and nail unceasingly for 200 years. hence, leftism. genetically, they missed out on the capital train, their economy is based on enslaving its most skilled subjects
The Anglo-American model, by letting its "most skilled subjects" run wild and replace the rest of us with any Third-Worlder who can beat our bid by a nickel is showing some wear these days, too. History will be the judge, and she is a merciless bitch.
the current conditions of the "market" enforce rulings such as duke vs griggs (disparate impact, iq testing is illegal,) and rock bottom interest rates that by definition destroy market conditions. that is hardly market conditions anglos and dutch invented the markets in the first place, IF they broke them, that doesn't mean they invented the current crisis any more than the sumerians that invented agriculture are responsible for modern day africans starving after a crop failure. that said, anglos are not the ones that created rulings like duke vs griggs. there is a phenotype that survived in the desert, surrounded by pagan child sacrificers turned mohammedan. mohammedanism is proto socialism, the tribe thrives under these condition by encouraging and hiding during escalations of tribal conflict. this should sound familiar see spandrell's post for today. You think they hadn't been doing that in the middle east? anglos create markets in the places they settle. look at the things this tribe creates, and it is clear. the worst thing that can be said about anglos is that they're just low T faggots
Yeah, well, real communism has never been tried either. There's never going to be a perfect market (at least until Nick Land's T1000s exterminate the last dire ape), but the anglo societies that come the closest have awfully shaky futures. A certain ancient desert tribe can be implicated in our downfall, sure, but marketolatry is to blame there also. A smooth-talking hook-nosed foreigner proposes plan to make a buck by gnawing away at your community and then replacing your laborers with slightly cheaper coolies? Absolutely, do it! You have a moral obligation to make the most you possibly can for your shareholders. What the hell do you mean by "foreigner," anyway? The only color we care about is green!
my argument is not that markets have never been tried. my argument is that markets can only emerge under a certain phenotype and then must be deliberately supported by the state, or they disappear, like most selective pressure you can argue that marriage or courts are also impossible institutions, your reasons being that they fail if king solomon forces you to live among homo habilis. the issue for markets that you aren't talking about is that if any given structure does not promote iq and competence, then that structure has an active and omnipresent incentive to eliminate, kill, or demote talent and high wherever it can be found, because it poses an existential and the most palpable risk to the current sovereign
The "no enemies to the left" doctrine, as practiced by the left, doesn't go quite that far. When there are Islamic (or other leftist) terrorist attacks, they don't praise or directly defend the attacks or the terrorists.[*] What they do is first keep “but what if it’s a white supremacist, it’s-probably-a-white-supremacist” going as long as possible, then when that fails retreat to • How dare you politicize this tragedy! • Whataboutism • Frontlash • Lone-wolf-nothing-to-do-with-Islam/leftism • “Gun violence” / “violence against women” ✪ Above all, ignore the story as much as possible in the hopes of hastening its departure from the news cycle. So the way to go about “no enemies to the right” is to copy that playbook, which is to never allow violent crazies to take you off-message (in either direction). Sailer, for example, is copying the leftist tactic by simply not posting about Charlottesville. [*] Sure, there are the odd Ward Churchill or Yuri Kochiyama types, who are in turn ignored, excused or praised in one of the mainstream left's many motte-and-bailey routines. It's nevertheless a real stretch to say they represent typical leftist messaging tactics.
Yes, I could have done that, but then I wouldn't have 110 comments without having really said anything, would I. Point taken though.
28 of them free.