Feminist Nationalism doesn't work
So Viktor Orban gave a speech recently. It's quite something. Let me quote.
A country the size of Hungary – not the size of Germany or the United States, but similar in size to us – can only be strong if there is robust majority national ownership in the strategic industries which determine its fate. This wasn’t the case in Hungary before 2010. Now, however, we can say that there is clear majority national ownership in the energy sector, the banking sector and the media sector. If I had to quantify this, I would say that in recent years the Hungarian state has spent around one thousand billion forints on repurchasing ownership in strategic sectors and companies which had previously been foolishly privatised.
Mmm... yeah, that makes sense. So Orban has been buying back strategic industries from, I assume, foreign corporations. Well done, man.
For a country to be strong, demographic decline must be out of the question. At this point in time, this is Hungary’s Achilles heel. A country which is in demographic decline – and, to put it bluntly, is not even able to sustain itself biologically – may well find that it is no longer needed. A country like that will disappear. Only those communities survive in the world which are at least able to sustain themselves biologically; and let’s be honest with ourselves, Hungary today is not yet such a country.
Good point again. And extra points for honesty. This man is a consistent nationalist. He knows what he wants and he knows what needs to be done.
We must also admit that on demographic issues – the creation and growth of families – the hands of the government of the day are tied. This is because no policies of any kind can decide whether or not there will be children in a community, whether children are being born into families – and if so, how many. This is because only women can make such decisions. Things will be what women decide them to be.
And maybe that's the problem. Thought about that, Mr. President? He then goes on to brag about he's taking money from Soros to give it to Hungarian women. Who don't want it and refuse to breed nonetheless. Hungary's president knows what he wants; what he doesn't know is how to achieve it. He has absolutely no clue. He gives a great speech on why nations are good and how to make sure our nations can survive. What ethnic identity is and why it matters. And yet he openly admits his own nation is dying; he even mentions why it's dying, and yet refuses to do anything about it.
Mr. Orban, you're doing it wrong. None of that matters until you fix that little part I bolded for you. France will not be French, Italy won't be Italian, and even Hungary won't be Magyar if you don't stop giving women the power to decide how many and whose children are born. Physical borders won't fix that. Closing down Soros' propaganda racket won't fix it. And don't get me wrong, I strongly admire Orban for doing what he's been doing. But it will all be for naught if he doesn't go to the end. If you want nationalism to work, you need the whole package. And that means 1848 sexual mores too.
ETA: Just some background data to understand how bad the demographics are in Hungary.
Year
Population (x1000)
Births
Deaths
Population growth
TFR
1980
10 707
148 673
145 355
3 318
1.92
1981
10 700
142 890
144 757
-1 867
1.88
1982
10 683
133 559
144 318
-10 759
1.78
1983
10 656
127 258
148 643
-21 385
1.73
1984
10 619
125 359
146 709
-21 350
1.73
1985
10 579
130 200
147 614
-17 414
1.83
1986
10 534
128 204
147 089
-18 885
1.83
1987
10 486
125 840
142 601
-16 761
1.79
1988
10 443
124 296
140 042
-15 746
1.78
1989
10 398
123 304
144 695
-21 391
1.78
1990
10 374
125 679
145 660
-19 981
1.84
1991
10 373
127 207
144 813
-17 606
1.85
1992
10 369
121 724
148 781
-27 057
1.76
1993
10 357
117 033
150 244
-33 211
1.68
1994
10 343
115 598
146 889
-31 291
1.64
1995
10 329
112 054
145 431
-33 377
1.57
1996
10 311
105 272
143 130
-37 858
1.45
1997
10 290
100 350
139 434
-39 084
1.37
1998
10 267
97 301
140 870
-43 569
1.33
1999
10 238
94 645
143 210
-48 565
1.29
2000
10 211
97 597
135 601
-38 004
1.31
2001
10 198
97 047
132 183
-35 136
1.31
2002
10 165
96 804
132 833
-36 029
1.31
2003
10 129
94 647
135 823
-41 176
1.28
2004
10 108
95 137
132 492
-37 355
1.28
2005
10 088
97 496
135 732
-38 236
1.32
2006
10 072
99 871
131 603
-31 732
1.35
2007
10 056
97 613
132 938
-35 325
1.32
2008
10 038
99 149
130 027
-30 878
1.35
2009
10 022
96 450
130 350
-33 972
1.33
2010
10 000
90 335
130 456
-40 121
1.26
2011
9 985
88 049
128 795
-40 746
1.24
2012
9 932
90 269
129 440
-39 171
1.34
2013
9 909
88 689
126 778
-38 089
1.34
2014
9 877
91 510
126 308
-34 798
1.41
2015
9 823
91 690
131 697
-40 007
1.44
2016
9 790
93 100
126 900
-33 800
1.49
Hungary has been losing population for 37 years straight. 37 years. With no end in sight. It has lost a million people, around 10% of the population since 1981. And to add insult to injury, there's this little map over here:
That's the Gypsy student population per province.
So this underscores a bit of the urgency that Hungarians feel about Third World immigration. They really can't afford even a little of it. The country is in very dire straits. And it will continue to get worse until they understand that surrendering the very core of their society to the whims of their women is the root of their problem.
94 comments
[…] Feminist Nationalism doesn’t work […]
Hey, it's not so bad -- linear extrapolation show they have about 400 years before hitting 0 population. I'm sure nothing bad will happen before then. /s So Hungary has a choice: remancipate and disenfranchise women or perish. Gnon has spoken.
Give women freedom They chose to abort their entire country... "Yeah, you know, like.... having a country is something I can do after college and a career..."
Ceaușescu tried that, including checking all female workers at factories for periods so that if they miss any, they are officially recorded as pregnant and can't abort. I don't think it worked out well for him. Or for Romania, either.
There's a difference between making women the personal property of individual free men, and making them, along with men, slaves of an all-powerful state. Ceaușescu tried the latter. The birthrate doubled for a year or two, then dropped back to its original low level. I guess word got around that eating some common weed (e.g. Queen Anne's Lace) causes an abortion.
So what should be done ? What kind of laws should be passed ? How do you pass those laws without women voting you out or getting invaded by Merkel ?
For the first two questions I think Jim Donald has some answers. As for Merkel invading I don't think that's how that works.
Merkel Invading was hyperbole, but do you seriously think that Orban can implement anything close to what Jim proposes without the EU setting up economic sanctions or propping up an pink revolution ? Poland attempting to remove progressive judges already got them into deep shit. Orban has 5 kids, I guess he's not entirely blind to what needs to be done. Maybe he doesn't want to kick every door open at the same time.
Sorry for the inflammatory tone, I shouldn't comment here and troll on reddit at the same time.
>but do you seriously think that Orban can implement anything close to what Jim proposes without the EU setting up economic sanctions or propping up an pink revolution Hence, autarky.
I think autarky is only viable at china-scale now.
Maybe to get 100%. You can definitely get 90% of the way there, including energy (nuclear), food (modern agriculture, including hydroponics), and most military tech, even at Hungary's 10 million. Post-Internet electronics, maybe not, but that's a small fraction of the economy, relatively speaking. Although, http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/hun/ shows Hungary as a surprisingly major per capita exporter of "computers" and "IC": twice and three times as much, respectively, as China. I think they'd probably be alright.
Jim emphasizes the "women as property" idea, but I think that the word "property" is misleading here, because the sense of the word that would be reasonably applicable as a solution to the fertility-problem would be the one suggesting "in its proper place", with a husband or father standing for the proper place -- but the immediate appeal of the idea for many of Jim's readers seems to come rather from those sex-game associations that feed into real life only to the extent that the woman is cheerfully participating in an egalitarian manner. The emphasis should be on a natural division of roles -- men in the public sphere, ordering things geometrically, women in the private realms (which are necessarily plural), spinning their interpersonal webs. This would require the reservation of higher education and "jobs" for men, which would be enough to shoot the fertility rate up. (And you'd need to make divorce very, very difficult, of course.) But this couldn't be accomplished in a single country, such as Hungary, because the women would simply flow out into other Western countries (going to "college" and seeking "employment" elsewhere). So, a single dictatorial or oligarchical entity must govern the entire West. The most likely candidate would be a committee of people such as Musk, Bezos, Gates, and Zuckerberg. Why would they want women to have more babies, though? Well, they'd want smart women to have more babies, anyway, so that there would be an ample supply of minions. Okay, I've lost my train of thought ...
If doing all that would have the women leave, why hasn't doing all the reverse had men leave? If men will stay under feminist conditions than surely women, who are less adventurous or risk taking, would stay under patriarchal ones.
Men haven't left any Western country for another to escape feminism because the entire West has feminized all once. Plus, women love "study abroad" programs -- they're pretty much marketed to women. (Women always brag about where they've traveled; men don't give a shit. So "going abroad" in a purely self-actualizing way would come naturally to Hungarian women, because they're already feminist women.) French and English universities would put a big effort into luring the poor, oppressed women of Hungary and Poland into the still-feminist lands.
>Men haven’t left any Western country for another to escape feminism because the entire West has feminized all once. This isn't really true. Going from British and American women to French or Spanish women is a huge improvement. For example, the first two find it entirely normal for women to drink and cuss like a sailor, the second are still not there.
Not my experience with southern European women. But at least they're slim.
All those women on study abroad programs still come back for the resources of the "community" at home. Women rely on their extended family for resources and support when having children. Men don't. They rely on their own ability to provide. And women only brag about travelling for the same reason they brad about their education. They project what they find attractive onto men, They find well-travelled and educated men attractive, so surely those men would find those same traits attractive. Not.
How do you pass those laws without women voting you out or getting invaded by Merkel ? You can't save civilisation by democratic means. It's pure fantasy to believe that you can. You can have civilisation or you can have democracy. You can't have both. Democracy is a childish feelgood fantasy.
The social status gained from college and a career is universally recognized. If you leave your hometown to live among strangers, you can take your social status with you. The social status gained from motherhood is highest with the people in your hometown you have known since childhood. There is a tribal aspect to it. Strangers are indifferent or hostile to your children. Friends acquired later in life will not care in the same way. Therefore, an indirect solution to the fertility crisis is to enable women and men to live in one place and never be compelled to relocate.
Most people are curious about places outside their village and they wouldn't accept staying in their hometown unless there were gestapo randomly checking papers. What incentives do you propose for localism?
Localism comes built in with incentives - familiarity can be a balm for many. I think mostly you would want to promote more local social gatherings, etc. Problem is that localism fundamentally does not jive with federalism and you don't need Moldbug to know that government has become a self enabling collosus.
Or make being a wife and mother high status. Get the virtue/status signalling instinct to work for you, not against you.
I've thought about that. Make priestess-level in the new Isis-religion (with accompanying honorary corporation-officer title) dependent on number of children borne to first husband or something like that.
[…] Source: Bloody Shovel […]
#MakeWomenPropertyAgain
I'll still look on the bright side. If Obran has the right goals (and he does) then all he needs to do is either be convinced of or convince his stakeholders of the necessity of the correct actions. That is a much much smaller step. Imagine trying to start from the point where
...is met with racist! or "heh, citation needed". The conversation goes like this: "We are going to restructure society to make women property" "That's horrific! Women are people!" "That may be the case but whites simply fail to reproduce if women aren't property" "It's racist to even worry about that - who cares who reproduces, society will carry on unchanged because culture" -or- "If giving women rights results in the extinction of white people who cares? It's the right thing to do, therefore it should be done."
To be fair, many men also don't want kids. In fact, I don't know if this is true or not, but the common stereotype is that women want to have kids and men don't.
I don't think that this is true in a natural social environment in which men are able to provide for a family that they are reasonably sure will remain their own. If it's to some extent true here and now, this is only because men can't provide on their own and can be deprived of their families at any time.
That is indeed the case. But that's because kids in the West are legally property of the mother and not the father.
Most men don't have a *visceral* interest in being fathers. It's more like an interest in golf or cars than an interest in eating or sex. Back when fatherhood awarded us status and kids weren't seen as economic catastrophes, men were more interested in children. Just as men were more interested in horses back when horses were a source of status and a practical investment instead of an impractical hobby (now dominated by women). Men can find 10,000 ways to make themselves content, and they'll quickly move on from impractical hobbies to practical ones. Most women have a visceral interest in being mothers, in taking care of helpless things. They may redirect this interest towards caring for dogs or cats, but it's always there. Hand a baby to a woman who says she doesn't like kids and doesn't want kids and see what happens. I saw this happen once, and her face absolutely lit up, even as she tried her hardest to conceal it.
'Hungary's president knows what he wants; what he doesn't know is how to achieve it.' Abolish female suffrage.
Religion is the solution. The fear of God must be beaten into their souls.
Orban is confused. Nationalization of large enterprises does not strengthen the nation, on the contrary, it promotes bureaucratic management and losses. Property by global concerns assures efficient management, introduction of modern technologies and products, connection with wider markets. The Chinese communists have learned that things have to be owned by somebody and it is better if international groups are interested. Regarding Hungary's demographic collapse, it is more sever if considering only ethnic Hungarians. Gypsy babies make up much of the replacement.
Says the Jew. Please try to sound a bit less stereotypical. The Chinese sure as hell don't let their strategic industries in private hands, let alone foreign ones.
Large enterprises, said the Jew, and not strategic industries. Spandrell hears what he wants to hear, which is very human, and also the beginning of dementia. Anyway, what are Hungary's strategic industries that Orban/Spandrell would never let fall into the hands of foreigners? The salami industry? The Tokay wineries? The losing railroads? Nonexistent oil wells and refineries? The entertainment of Germans industry?
The media and energy companies, I guess.
You're still sounding like a stereotypical Jew by disparaging a foreign country and the idea of it owning its own industries. Literally no one else in the world gets worked up about the idea of ethnic Hungarians owning the industries in Hungary. Nationalization of industries doesn't mean that industry has to be operated on socialist or communist lines. It can mean that industries are owned and controlled by natives and operated on capitalist lines. Any and all industries can theoretically be "strategic," and the fact that a particular country doesn't have any major industries at a particular time doesn't mean that it will never have industries or that it should just let foreigners dominate industry.
Thank you for this, your writing on this issue really does bring it into focus. You and Heartiste.
A big problem seems to be women voting, and I don't think any western nation can realistically turn that clock back, before we all adopt sharia law anyway. The second problem perhaps as grave as the first is women's power over the cradle and family structure. What I would propose as most realistic would be family = votes. Restrict the franchise to married people with children. Getting a divorce would then be like having a felony as far as voting. Along with that, if the divorce laws could be somehow balanced it would be good too. Exceptions can go before a judge, just like now (you can be ruled mentally incapable by a judge in the US). It's a long shot, but Hungary is probably the best place for it to be tried if it will be tried anywhere (as a top down solution). Just looking, practically everywhere women have suffrage, even the most backward of nations, suggesting that culture is ruling the problems, so the solution will only come from a change in culture...
A change so profound We Need a New Religion to pull it off.
This New Religion would have to spread very quickly through the entire West, because if it only grips the people of one country (who then exclude women from the public realm there) the women of this country will simply go elsewhere for "college" and "careers". And it can only spread very quickly through the entire West if it's imposed in an initially "edgy LARPing" (Ricksean's phrase, I think) way by oligarchs ruling the entire West as a committee. But if a committee of super-billionaire meta-humans already rules the entire West, then a New Religion would function only as a way of making it fun to obey what is already the Law.
Any reason why this new religion couldn't simply be an unckucked version of christianity ? If Salafists uncucked islam, why wouldn't it be possible to uncuck christianity ? For example St.Peter states that women should obey their husbands in all circumstances. The scripture themselves are quite redpilled on all the important subjects.
It's my impression that the Christian source-material denies the significance of peoples and nations (except for one) and promotes celibacy and passivity. The dominant message seems to be that marriage is for the spiritually weak; given this inferior choice, yes, women should obey, but it's an inferior choice and certainly not one to be made for the sake of any sort of national future.
Oh, sorry; now I see that you were assuming my sci-fi picture of a committee of meta-humans who rule the entire West promulgating a New Religion to make it fun for their subjects to obey what is already the Law -- so "peoples and nations" would already be irrelevant. Yes, I think you're right, Ricksean -- given a unified, oligarchically-ruled West, a sort of neo-Catholicism would be perfect. That's the way to go. Right on.
Wtf ? xD More seriously, Christianity is neither more for or against the concept of people and nations than any other religion (except for one), because that's just not the focus of religion in general. Your idea of what christianity is seems strange to say the least, but that's not the point. My point is that when the Arab World understood that its civilisation had collapsed, when they saw that their religion had been corrupted, they didn't think. 'Hey, let's convert to the invader's religion', or 'Nationalism is going to save us all'. They said. "You know, we had this religion, and when we were really fanatical and literal about it, things were going our way, let's turn it to 11.". And that's what they did, and it worked. But somehow this option is never discussed seriously, because christianity seems to trigger so many people on the right, and I don't get why.
I mean, when uncucked christianity was the sole religion, nationalists were in power, jews were kept in ghettos, leftists were burned at the stake, women were housewives, muslims were btfo, and the social order was eugenic in nature. Isn't that what we want ?
Read the New Testament. Jesus was a celibate activist. Saint Paul was a celibate activist. Muhammad was a warmonger psycho who married an heiress and used her money to get himself a kingdom and 9 year old concubines. The uncucking process is rather easy on Islam, harder on Christianity.
Jesus is the father of all mankind, it would be rather incestuous for him to have a child with his own children. He's also the chief commander of God's army of angels, Muhammad a mere mortal, who's rather dead and burning in Hell as we speak. ... Ok I get what you're saying but being uncucked is not the same as being a psycho warlord. Recognizing that there's more to manhood than having big muscles and fucking little girls is what made western civilisation great in the first place, If we have to go back on that then frankly why bother.
Sure, but we've gone so far to the anti manhood side that we rather need to be reminded that there's plenty to celebrate about manhood too. That's why Muslims (barely) reproduce under modernity, while Christians don't. Plenty of people would prefer going back to barbarian paganism rather than perish under feminist diversity.
I personally hope that we don't have to choose between barbarism or death by feminism, but I'm an optimist.
In operational terms: there's plenty of uncucked or decucked Christian denominations. Even Catholic groups. How are they doing? Not very well.
By Uncucked Christianity I'm thinking of people like Brother Dean. I live close to Molenbeek and I don't see christian groups going door to door trying to convert muslims, ripping corans in the streets screaming it is lies from Satan. Christianity has been too long removed from its ennemies and has forgotten its basics. There was a very good priest (Mgr Leonard) that attempted to do stuff like that, and was starting to see some success (he singlehandedly defated FEMEN) , but he was removed by Pope Francis for being too conservative ... oh well ... I think it was simply too soon, hell is not visible enough yet. You have to understand that the muslims in Molenbeek were only radicalised after the 79's petrol crisis when they all lost their jobs, and the Imams went "That's because you're not real muslims". Life is still too confortable in the west for religion to make a come back.
Btw, this is how he defeated FEMEN: http://imgur.com/a/oY7kf Richard Spencer would have punched them and the headlines would have been "Nazi beats innocent young girls", and nobody would have given a shit except of the few people who care. The point of 'turning the other cheek' is to make it extremely clear who is the aggressor, and who is innocent. I was present at that event and it left a huge impression on the audience. People were angry and disgusted, and if there were pitchfork available, the FEMEN wouldn't have made it out alive. Regular people found murderous instincts they didn't know they had. Turning the other cheek is how you teach the saxon to Hate.
You have described the Kingdom of France a year before the Revolution.
Warlike Christendom was transnational -- Charlemagne's empire, the Crusader-alliances, the coalitions that defeated the Turks at Lepanto in 1571 and Vienna in 1683. I don't think that it can make an individual nation warlike, or even become dominant in an individual nation. But if a kind of neo-Catholicism were imposed on the entire West all at once ... that might work. Right, the Western Oligarchs are unlikely to impose neo-Catholicism on their subjects. But a transnational (West-spanning) militant Church might rise to power during the coming Troubles. It would have to be transnational to look convincing to people -- to tempt newbies to LARP it -- because its internal logic is transnational (Jesus saves [at least the Western part of] humanity by drawing it into his Church).
I think women's rights, feminism, etc. are by-products of technological change. As new technologies reduced the need for physical labor, women became less dependent on men economically. In a primarily agricultural society, a woman without any male support would have had a tough time surviving, but today a woman can do a make-work office job as well as a man--maybe even better, since women are more obedient, more willing to tolerate BS and office politics, etc. Labor-saving household devices and more reliable birth control have also liberated women from traditional constraints. That makes me think rolling back women's rights will be very difficult. Not just because taking away suffrage goes against the natural progression of democracy, but because technology has eroded the traditional male power that underpinned patriarchy. You mention a new religion, but we've seen the old ones change radically as society has changed. In the U.S., fundamentalist Christian leaders who would have been super-patriarchal a century ago now endorse feminism, or at least go out of their way to avoid offending feminists. The blogger Dalrock has written a lot about this, e.g. https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/07/24/submission-with-a-twist-and-denying-rebellion/. I'm sorry to be a defeatist, but I don't think cultural changes will accomplish anything unless they're accompanied by structural changes that increase male power.
>but today a woman can do a make-work office job as well as a man >but because technology has eroded the traditional male power that underpinned patriarchy beep beep boop boop >welfare undermined men >technology undermined men Make up your mind. >That makes me think rolling back women’s rights will be very difficult. Make Women Property Again
Fuck you too
To be frank, power shouldn't be verbalized at all. To talk of it is like revealing the workings of a magic trick. Everyone should just know that this is the way things are. In a civilized era it would be extraordinarily impolite, even outrageous, to talk about chattel this and patriarchy that. It only works on the Internet because you're reading these squiggly lines in your own internal monologue. I would never utter such horrendous sentences aloud. A few raised eyebrows and derisive chuckles are more than sufficient to house-train a bitch before she chews on the table legs and urinates on the carpet.
I agree that it's to be done through raised eyebrows and derisive chuckles; I think, though, that this succeeds because your woman appreciates your skillful game-playing and is motivated to play along. My claim is always that the women have to WANT to play -- for the fun of it, not from fear of being punished for not playing. When women are in an open-minded, alertly friendly mood (that is, an intelligent mood), they LIKE playing the role of sidekick and helper. The smarter they are (and they're as smart as we are, on average), the more they enjoy playing this role, and the more skillfully they play it -- unless their minds are filled by stupefying feminist rage/resentment-mist. So, raise your eyebrows and chuckle derisively because you LIKE women and want to clear the mist from their minds so that they are able to live as they naturally want to live.
You can walk softly and in a civilized manner, with suit and top hat and excellent manners and courtesy to women, but what makes it work is the big stick looming in the background. Without the stick, you're just a neckbeard with a fedora. A raised eyebrow and smirk work to the extent that you have an iron will lurking beneath the surface. https://youtube.com/watch?v=ytMXSLeqFMY It isn't "game-playing"; it isn't a game.
But there really isn't a big stick looming in the background, Cavalier; she knows it, and you know that she knows it, and she knows that you know that she knows it. Jim recently told us that his latest girlfriend "dumped" him. If big sticks were an actual thing -- in the West -- could this have happened? So maybe you'll say, "Okay, they're not an actual thing NOW, but we should actualize them!" But in Tom Jones, published before Jim's cut-off date of 1790, they're not an actual thing. In Orlando Furioso, published in 1530 or thereabouts, they're not an actual thing. In Ovid they're not an actual thing. Here in the West, the women have to want to play, and the men don't want big-stickiness and never have. A week or so ago you posted a cute picture of your (or someone's) girlfriend here, pretending to be scared. I'm sure that as soon as the thought, "Wait a minute, is she really scared?" crossed your mind you'd make sure it was still fun for her.
I don't have a big stick and I don't need one. (But I would like one.) That specific example was intended to highlight the sort of overdramatic-ironic "chivalrous" bits of etiquette from times gone by. It's countersignaling, basically, as when the average male is so secure from female subversion that all women, or nearly all women, can all be treated kindly and gently, and still respond well to such. I don't know who the woman was. I'm not averse to scaring a woman, but I don't want a woman I have to scare. But I still want the big stick in reserve, like every other man with chest hair and a functioning pair of testicles.
In the civilized era when raised eyebrow was sufficient to convey the message, the eyebrow was backed by the laws, by tradition, by police, by religion. In Spain and Spanish America, a husband and a father could legally send wife/daughter to a convent.
Oops; that was supposed to go to Garr. And you were supposed to get: tits or gtfo
If you ask a woman who's already fond of you, "Would you like to be my property?," she'll probably giggle appreciatively, and then you might well end up walking behind her in Macy's while she purchases meta-property.
You do have a point. But you yourself mention that most of women's jobs are makework. It should be possible to get rid of those. Muslims do.
Victor Orban is a Calvinist. What about importing Dutch Calvinists, "SGP-ers"? They have large white families and other Dutch people hate them very much.
1848 is perhaps an unfortunate year to have chosen, given the mass of republican revolts. Anyhow, this is a problem that can easily be fixed in the mid-to-long term. Immigration controls, then structure the rules to 'discourage' people going abroad for jobs and education. Then all the ones who don't breed die out, leaving the country to those who do, because they're more or less resistant to the Internationalist mind-virus. The trick is a) putting those structural changes in place, and b) making sure nobody else takes over in the meanwhile. A) doesn't require a new religion, especially in a place like Hungary - it can pick up an old one instead. But in any case, you have time, so long as you stay strong on immigration.
I think this is basically correct; the white population 100 years from now will be primarily descended from a small subset of today's white population that is much better adapted to resisting the gene shredders of the modern world. Preventing emigration is important to Hungary's future, though it's difficult to accomplish and not nearly so big an issue for major countries. And unless a major country is saved from the abyss, it doesn't really matter what Orban does.
1848 was a mass explosion of popular nationalism. It happened because European men thought nationalism was a good deal. And they thought so because the sexual dynamics of the day allowed for that. 1848 was especially important as a nation for Hungary. The structural changes might be possible, but does Orban have what it takes?
Spandrell, off topic but thought you might appreciate this: Timeline of Trump's Slide Into Globalism part 1: https://nationalistperspective.wordpress.com/2017/08/04/timeline-of-trumps-slide-into-globalism-part-1-november-2016-april-2017/ Part 2: https://nationalistperspective.wordpress.com/2017/08/04/timeline-of-trumps-slide-into-globalism-part-2-may-2017-june-2017/ And an analysis of new Chief of Staff John Kelly: https://nationalistperspective.wordpress.com/2017/08/04/an-analysis-of-john-kelly/
Orban does need structural changes to help him but credit to him for the TFR rising from 1.28 to 1.49 under his watch. Since he reformed the media, a steady portrayal of families as good and careerism as bad would help on the edges. Russia's TFR has increased since '99 so what has Putin and Co done that Orban hasn't? Might be a way to combine things.
Spandrell, here I make my case from a nationalist perspective why Trump has been a disaster: https://nationalistperspective.wordpress.com/2017/08/05/why-trump-is-a-disaster-or-demographics-is-destiny-and-personnel-is-policy/
I was very interested in the first paragraph you quote. You realise he's turned Hungary into a literal National Socialist country? That's the future *they* plan for the whole world I believe. Watch out for major central banks launching QE and buying trillions in equity in the major multinational corporations. We're already seeing the rising nationalism, with the Islamists painted as the bad guys. (Manchester et al were fake attacks). It's fascinating to watch, also frightening.
You're thinking that the Puppeteers intentionally provoke a "National Socialist" resurgence by promoting Islam in Europe and staging supposed Jihad-attacks in order to make Islam look extra-threatening, and that the Puppeteers want this Nazi resurgence because it will seem to justify an explicitly One-World-Government anti-Nazi totalitarianism? (Maybe the phrase "social nationalism" would convey the relevant political-economic content without "national socialism's" misleading historical associations ...)
Sounds like a fun movie.
No, the endgame is Brazil: gated islands of wealth linked by air, surrounded by a feral brown peasantry. And then, sometime thereafter, gated islands of wealth linked by air, surrounded by nature preserve. https://youtube.com/watch?v=DVg2EJvvlF8
That might well be what super-powerful Progressives envision (except that they'd probably imagine the brown peasantry as peaceful and contented, and imagine themselves as caring for this peasantry in a benevolent, parental way). Jim seems to think that even super-powerful Progressives have no such goal in mind, though; he seems to think they're simply religious fanatics obeying the purely destructive logic of their faith. I was just wondering what Glosoli was picturing -- with regard to the means as well as with regard to the end.
There's the point that Brazil can exist in that precarious equilibrium because there's a civilized world out there which influences and it and buys its exports. A World-Brazil would likely not be as stable.
Then you have to explain how Ian Smith ran a functional, fairly stable, and reasonably prosperous country whilst under a trade embargo complete but for a few minor countries, and outnumbered 25 to 1 by Zimbabwe-tier blacks.
Didn't last very long did it.
Because literal 60-IQ Stone Age cannibals finally persevered over the white man? Or for some other reason, perhaps mysteriously corresponding to three mysterious decades of mysterious liquidation of mysterious colonial assets? It really is a mystery what happened to those Rhodesians, isn't it? They were embargoed by a group of people one full standard deviation dumber than this. That's some powerful voodoo indeed. Blood magic, probably. Wouldn't want to mess with them.
Lasted longer than the vast majority of countries that are at war with the US. North Korea has lasted longer, but with a stronger hand.
Your internal state has no importance beyond the effect it leads you to have on your external world. It's true that progressives are in power; it's false that Progressivism is in power. Jim thinks that progressives are a cult of blind fanatical religious whackos because he pays attention to the thoughts and feelings of blind fanatical religious whackos. He doesn't understand how Bernie Sanders drives
, and he doesn't understand how Hillary Clinton maintains both a private and public position.
The phrase "IQ shredder" has appeared a couple of times in the current Slatestarcodex comments, Spandrell. You're leaving your mark on the Culture. One of the guys using it thinks that female autonomy is necessary for maximum creativity and freedom of thought. I can't comment over there, but it seems to me that creativity and thought-freedom merely produce female autonomy as a side-effect. The women say, "Well, if you guys can just say and talk about whatever you want without being punished, then why can't we just go off and do whatever we want whenever we feel like it?"
[…] Spandrell finds another human subspecies that doesn’t breed well in captivity. He also finds Orban’s Nationalism—whilst in many ways laudable—coming up just a teensy bit short. […]
Crowding is an issue with Hungary though not as bad as with Germany. Its around 9 million which is quite a few for a nation as small as it is, it doesn't have much room to grow. It can get more stable though which it needs to do Frankly though, Europe is overcrowded and the better more habitable parts of the rest of the European inhabited world are as well . The Earth is which is one point the Greens I agree on. Take the US . There is tons of gorgeous land in Wyoming but its a hard place to live and these days telling people from developed comfortable societies to go breed and live there for the greater good is nonsensical . Even if our societies were sane and they aren't people don't want to do that People generally baring overcrowding or really bad conditions at home don't want to be colonists, its a bad enough problem that we often used convicts or other shady methods and that was when colonies made some sense. They don't know and in cases like Wyoming or parts of Texas for that matter there is reason most people would not want to live there outside of resource gathering, know. I have lived there, Its not fun or profitable or really necessary Long term we don't have an overcrowding problem anyway as our population can easily shrink to fit What we have a migrant problem and a growth drive political system problem , get rid of those and we'll do fine.
You're right that fewer people would be better, but what's going on now isn't the way to achieve that (I'm guessing you agree). If having 2 kids within lifelong marriage were the norm that everyone aspired to, there'd be a healthy society with a very slowly declining population -- but the population-drop now is just due to despair.
I quite agree with you here Fixing the West will require It will require taking Capitalism out behind the proverbial chemical shed and shooting it though. Markets are vital, system by which a few Oligarchs own everything are not Frankly corporations have to be controlled tightly and anything larger than a limited partnership, any of the responsibility dodges we allow for superior economies of scale have to be made to serve the common good. This, basically distributism writ large will fix the economic issue which is a big part of why the population rate is low Don't get me wrong some of it is feminism and cultural Marxism but a lot of it is economic, Poland for example can't have babies because so many of its men have no work at home and they are in England On top of that many jobs pay to little for a margin of error , the margin between doing OK and poverty is often one child and decent people can in fact say "nope" and opt out . They should Our leaders cannot understand that people can and will do this and have every right to look out for their own familial interests and if that society wants children, wages muct go up Some are just too dumb, as Upton Sinclair put it paraphrased "You can teach a man something his job requires he not know" and the rest don't care as long as they have someone to rule , sub 80IQ savages is good enough , well till they get eaten anyway Basically Whites instead of rolling over and accepting increasing poverty opted out to a higher degree. Its a self correcting solution, since the complexity will collapse or the few immune to the IQ shredder will smash it flat anyway After that the status of women needs to be reduced to a manageable level and the expectation made clear that women need to be wives and mothers first and everything else second. Its not going to be easy, its probably impossible with suffrage so it will require a very different state than we are used to, I'm not sanguine about the prospects so I suppose we'll end up getting there the hard way, vast levels of violence, civil collapse and a situation where women need men to survive anyway.
Hi Spandrell, There is always a second way, a way that is far closer to the way things usually work in the region. Instead of trying to make laws that go right against the EU, the ECHR, sixteen million international treaties, the UN and the State Dept, one can simply half-ass the enforcement of existing laws. This has excellent precedents in the region, back when it took a lawsuit of 6 years to collect a debt, at first nobody would lend money, but then people realized not only the courts suck, the police also sucks at tracking down violent crime so enforcers popped up who kicked the debts out of the debtors for a percentage. That was an acceptable solution so lending resumed. Similar to drug dealer gang turfs in the US, shitty law enforcement creates primary property, property that is protected by personal violence, not state violence. Effectively Orban should just figure out the enforcement of which laws to half-ass with the intended result that women both can be forced into and in most cases will also happily accept male guardianship for the protection. Both sides need work at the same time.
Besides not enforcing collection of alimony, what do you suggest?
[…] of less than ten million, slightly smaller than Michigan’s. The country has also been losing population for nearly forty years due to underwater fertility rates, though Orbán has helped partially reverse this in the past […]