I was beginning to wonder if you would ever post again. But the wait was worth it. The alternative to Marxism/Leninism is some sort of Fascism. The emphasis changes from the working class, supposedly inherently one and internationalist, to the race. Mussolini defined race broadly as the whole Italian people, including various minorities. But Italians had been mixing genetically and culturally for a few thousand years, and German Lombards and Sicilian Greeks could identify as Italian despite their ethnic and remaining cultural differences. Hitler's definition was narrower. Only Aryans, Indo-Europeans, counted; Semites and Slavs be damned. Both Fascism and Naziism provided basic human services like medical care, pensions, education, etc. (So did Bismarck's German Empire.) And both Fascism and Naziism were popular mass movements, with indigenous versions of the Italian and German political parties existing in almost all European countries, including Britain, France, Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, and Spain, to name a few. The embarrassment of actual Nazis, sympathetic to Hitler, in the British and Dutch royal families was successfully papered over after the war. The current government in Ukraine is supported by an indigenous Nazi movement that has its roots in WW II. Our current American Ruling Class, which is becoming hereditary, is globalist/internationalist/cosmopolitan and deracinated. They are the sworn blood enemy of the White American working and middle classes. What Tucker dances around is that White people, the historical founders of American government, institutions and culture, and still the racial majority, need someone to represent them, their race, and their interests, and the interests of their children (the 14 words). This is especially true since the politics of the multicultural, multiethnic American empire is now overtly racial and sexual. Trump is a harbinger. Lurking somewhere out there is the real thing. For now, the American Duce/Fuhrer is shamed into silence by the cuckservatives, libertarians, communists, et al., but the inherent attraction of fascism to an oppressed majority will eventually call him forth. It will not be pretty. European fascism (and communism) was not pretty. The Republic will not survive his coming. Glad I'm old.

Easy. Abolish corporations. It is not that the Left captured Capital. Capital saw the advantages of the Corporation, and Corporations funded the Left as a weapon in inter-corporate warfare. Corporations care about quarterlies, not about human reproduction. They have to go. They are inhuman and encourage evil by removing accountability and transparency.

Brilliant. You see clearly. Avoiding denial is painful, and necessary if there’s to be any hope of survival. Your point about our metropolitan IQ shredders is obvious and bodes very ill indeed for our future. Even if reversed immediately, which is of course a fantasy, the damage is done.

Libertarianism is the the normal way out of Leftism because it accepts the basic premise of Leftism (people are equal) and draws conclusions that are radically different from any form of Leftism that has been practiced int the last 100 years. It's possible to be the most extreme Libertarian possible, to disagree with every single policy advocated by the Left in Year X and still not trespass on a single core tenet of Leftism. As such, most people who have interesting opinions will have passed through a phase when they were a libertarian. This creates a lot of counter-libertarian signalling by people keen to prove how over it they are. This is very easy to do because libertarianism is so stupid. However, there's a danger that you go too far and start denying economic reality. Tariffs may be worth the cost but they have a cost and only by recognizing why they have a cost can you design a tariff regime that minimizes the costs while maximizing whatever it is you want to achieve (and, even better, try to make as much of the costs as possible fall on people you don't like and want to suffer).

But happened it has, whether by political coercion, infiltration, or just mere cultural prestige. We better think carefully on what happened, how to reverse it, and use the same tools for our own cause. Is the Hestia society still going? Because that's what you need. High functioning people who feel no particular need to publicize their opinions because they have a social network where they can sound off whenever they fell like it, are absolutely committed to Rightist ideology, can work their way up the corporate ladder, and use their influence whenever necessary in discrete ways. The way the Right is actually set up is the opposite: people trying to maximize their status by taking the most based position as publicly as possible, ostracizing as many people as possible for being less based than them and generally making a spectacle of themselves.

What's the way out of this, short of a demagogue? I don't see any happy endings here. Not that I require happy endings, they are certainly not guaranteed.

[…] Source: Bloody Shovel […]

1. _Well, well. Everybody predicted that 2019 would be an eventful year_. This reminds me I once read in China they will say "May eventful times be waiting for you" when they wish you ill. 2) In Southern Europe, people are much less of drinkers. You see it within skngle countries. North Portugal and North Italy people have a glass of wine after meals, whilst they don't in the South. It has to do with the climate, with cooler places having the most alcohol-prone people because it gave a good feeling against the coolness (think Russia). 3) Dope is already legalized in fact — there is nobody who wants to buy it and cannot due to its being under ban. A lot of "top people" have to do with the drug market, also, and profit from keeping it a banned market. That's why you don't see any agit-prop to promote "liberalization" about dope. (Although cool and trend-marrying folks surely are for liberalization about dope: fact is, it's the people at the top's wishes that are enacted; the trend-loving snobs have the pleasant impression it's being theirs to get enacted only insofar as they align with the top guys' interests amd "beliefes". Which is why they usually align theirs by the way.) 4) In Europe, "libertarians" called themselves "liberals" for some 150 years. Liberal didn't mean leftist, it meant pro-freedom and pro small. government. I have no knowledge why the names changed meaning overseas, and of course now that it's in the USA that what a word means is set young pro small-government and pro individual freedom people in Europe have started to call their orientation liberalist. Anyway, whatever you call it, average people feel so threatened by the consequences of true freedom that it (liberalism-libertarianism) is destined to ever revulse them (all liberals/libertarians are strongly for meritocracy in the job market, for instanfe); it will always be a niche thing, out of the economic field. Take education. The average concern is that no Child is Allowed Ahead. No Child Left Behind is how it is rationalized. 4) _Facebook, Amazon and Google (FAG) have more capability than any state bureaucracy, these guys are dangerous. And these guys aren’t in our side. They are completely sincerely Leftist. On average the tech population may be even more leftist than your average bureaucratic agency. Google is particularly crazy._ Don't mistake followers and conformity-aides, however influential, with originators and motors and idea-makers. \[img\] http://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/TheoryEverything2.jpg\[/img\]. _If it takes import tariffs to achieve this? Let’s have them. If it takes higher taxes for some industries or people, let’s have it. If it takes strict anti-monopoly laws, or even the outright nationalization of some companies, Let’s have that. If it takes strict controls on the media, let’s have those too. Whatever it takes. Liberty is a means, not an end._ Indeed. Libertarians are neither left nor right, and neither the left or the right is libertarian. It's only natural that cultural elites (the value-designers on the left, and their army of designed values mongers) and economic elites (free marketers, seen as "right") ally with each other. Before the alliance wasn't worked out because the owners denied the value designers/peddlers their cake share. The mistake was dearly paid by the former, with constant genuine anti-capitalism permeating many spots and minds. Both parties eventually woke to the copiousness of the mutual fruits of an alliance. The natural alliance is that between who understands and knows, against the others (as it is presently). _But happened it has, whether by political coercion, infiltration, or just mere cultural prestige. We better think carefully on what happened, how to reverse it, and use the same tools for our own cause._ It can't be reversed, outside of the way to reverse it Moldbug propounded, for the reasons Moldbug expounded. I bet Tucker's gonna mention monarchy next time, lol.

Fantastic post - I want to flesh out this point:

But at some point, somebody discovered that this theory was crap. Power doesn’t work that way. Governments don’t work that way, fundamentally. You can’t change everything all the time, the incentives are just too big for people in power to find a way of keeping power amongst themselves. Like most important discoveries, different people across the world realized, independently, that alternation in power was absolutely not what happens in democracies at all; that most resorts of power are occupied by permanent bureaucrats, and that the different parties which prima facie compete for power, eventually find ways of helping each other achieve a stable sharing of power and money.

In the United States we had the spoils system - someone would win an office and fire all the old guy's cronies and replace them with his cronies. Everyone noticed that (for the most part) this was a disaster for the usual reason - they acted like mobile bandits. Andrew Jackson replaced a bunch of civil servants and competent postmasters with cronies and supporters - some apparently considered this a problem that needed to be fixed (maybe people liked reliable mail service?). James Garfield's assassinated by a disgruntled (and mentally ill) man who thought himself entitled to a patronage position was the excuse for creating a civil service that was protected from political firings. Because the system was new it had to offer some kind of advantage so people would accept it and so civil servants were hired based on exams. Of course once the system had wiped out potential competitors it could dispense with the inconvenient exams. In the long run flipping and exchanging power was unstable and eventually the bureaucracy beat the politicians in public opinion and so got permanent power.

The socially conservative, fiscally liberal thing is an entrenched part of urban politics in America, as well as rural politics in China. The people who vote for these systems are corrupt, vicious, thugs. It was historically called machine politics, and many blacks and Catholics vote this way in America, because they're conservative Democrats. I grew up in a place in America where cops make 100K and lab scientists make 40-50K. I grew up dissed in school, for being poor, ugly, and having no connections. I saw what we had to do, and I saw what they had to do. They drank and smoked weed to a 100K job, we crammed math all day to a 40K job. My neighborhood has less than a 10% university graduation rate. Yet they drive gleaming, souped up cars and wear the latest brand names because of family connections. People can't have kids? People in my area regularly have between 4 to 6 kids and we're a city. And it's not just immigrants. This includes white Catholics and Evangelicals. I live in a "big blue city" where religious whites, Hasidic Jews, and black social conservatives, are a huge and stupid cornerstone of the Democratic coalition.

About 10 years ago I remember having an online discussion in which I made the comment that "Given the nature of Government, I'm happy to use Business to attack the power of Government in service of the Individual/Family. If Business is harming the individual/family however, then we on the Right would be stupid to not use Government to attack the power of Business in order to further what should be our primary goal of free and healthy individuals and families". The number and strength of the conservatives who found this very idea unthinkable honestly surprised me at the time. It seemed pretty straightforward that Business does not always work in our best interests, despite the fact that I appreciate they often can be the best ally we have against an overreaching State. Apparently this was controversial at the time, and unfortunately still is, although things seem to be moving in a positive direction in terms of what your typical conservative thinks. Things can change quickly once a mass of those on the right realize Business is no longer our ally, although I worry the realization will come too late give the demographic factors in play.

Drop the G from GASD because it's redundant, I could actually imagine ASD used in fiction. It would be easily quotable and elicit the same reaction as degenerates, but without beating around the bush. It already stands for something, but associating homosexuality with autism would make it seem less desirable.

Another great take, Mr. Spandrell. However, you could audition as the Dos Equis most pessimistic man in the world. Remember your article series on the demise of the Song Dynasty? A mere 1000 Jurchens toppled a wealthy Empire of millions and they were but a prelude to the Mongols. All the money in the world can't pay one man to die and that is its fundamental limitation. A core premise of neo-reaction is that numbers are not decisive. After all, most of the Latin American world is still ruled by a European elite class. True, the establishment is still immensely powerful, but what we should focus on is its relative decline. They are now a pale shadow compared to what they were in the 90s, an overwhelming triumph of angels at the end of history flying on with clarion calls into an eternal horizon of progress with flights of rosy-cheeked cherubs laying down laurel wreathes on their heads. Whatever powers and intimidation they may still have, they are no longer glorious. Don't judge the game board by extrapolating from its present state. Imagine further than that.

Coincidentally, excerpts of an 1871 essay by Robert Lewis Dabney were circulating today, in which he said (among other things), "it has now become a regular trick of American demagogues in power to manufacture new classes of voters to sustain them in office. It is presumed that the gratitude of the newly enfranchised will be sufficient to make them vote the ticket of their benefactors. But as gratitude is a very flimsy sort of fabric among Radicals, and soon worn threadbare, such a reliance only lasts a short time, and requires to be speedily replaced. " He saw it all coming almost 150 years ago. https://www.covenanter.org/reformed/2016/5/22/womens-rights-women

I agree with basically everything in this post. But I think you may be overemphasizing economics. This: “...sure, cultural values are more of a factor than economic factors are. But it’s also true that economic policy is orders of magnitude easier to change than cultural values.” Feels like a bit of a cop-out to me. Sure, the big-city, high-rent, dual-income, 50 hour work week lifestyle is horribly unconducive to child rearing. So is the physical environment of cities themselves. And so is the no-prospects hollowed-out small town life. But here in my neck of the woods of peripheral Japan, land is practically free. You can rent a two-story, three bedroom house for under 600 USD month, or buy one for under 250k. (Hell, if you are willing to live in an older house a little out of the way, you can get a large house for the price of a new car.) Food is cheap, school is free. The streets are safe, the air is clean, there’s room to run. Frankly I literally can hardly imagine a better place to raise children. Jobs don't pay very well, but everyone seems to be able to afford a car and big screen TV regardless. Unemployment is very low. Yet the fertility rate in this prefecture is a majestic 1.5. Look at any thread on reddit relating to having children. It’s not full of people who want large families but can’t afford it. It’s split between 30 year olds who “probably want kids someday” and people who are physically repulsed by the idea of reproducing. Lack of solid middle class jobs is bad. Big city crowding is very bad. People’s thoughts and attitudes towards family formation are catastrophic. By rights my prefecture ought to be absolutely packed with young families. I don’t think the reason it’s not can be fixed by a ministry of trade or central bank. “The goal [of government] is to have an economy which makes it possible for normal, average young people to marry and have kids.” In my opinion the word “economy” here needs to be switched out for something else. Most government actions that might be tried to solve the spiritual problem would effectively be limits on free market capitalism, to the extent that all human activity is in some way economic. And Woke Capital is now so powerful that any attempt to change moral attitudes would necessarily involve taking on big corporations. Ban porn and the sex industry (those trucks that drive around advertising high paying jobs for young women at kyabakura fill me with rage). Counter the Woke Capital impulse to get women in the work force. Do something about predatory student loans on educations that will never pay off. Stop letting Twitter and Google promote antisocial views while banning prosocial ones. And so on. But the focus would ultimately be more on the moral sphere than tariffs and trust busting.

THIS WEEK IN REACTION NOT THIS MONTH & ANTON SILESKY SITE IS DOWN ALSO CHRISTCUCKS BTFO'D BY https://chechar.wordpress.com/2018/06/17/himmler-on-christianity/ Entire blog

An excellent essay, and sure to be an influential one. I left a comment here earlier, but it seems to have been lost -- so I've linked your post, with excerpts and commentary, here.

[…] This, above all, is what the Right needs to be thinking about. Read the whole essay here. […]

Absolutely must read Carle Zimmerman's book Family and Civilization. Anti family forces have been around a long time - it goes in cycles.

Allow me to be a slightly annoying thorn in your side for a second here. I promise it will be over quickly, and then you can forget you ever read this, alright? But technocapital doesn't need you. You can have a lot of children but they'll either turn against you or find themselves useless in this world. The Californian Ideology is building the Kingdom of Heaven, and the misfits, it turns out, are the ones to do it. Traditionalism, and family and being normal are ways primitive tribes think. Sure it's baked into human DNA by this point, as the cyclical, unchanging life was the way humans used to live, but that's the trait that's being selected against by modernity. Admirable in some ways, yes, but don't act as though you're going to Mars on that. Write to Crazy Uncle Ted in Florence, Colorado for advice if these are your aims. It would be better this way, to be honest. It's unlikely anyone who writes this sort of thing has the impulse to change. Stop scheming and whinging about petty communists and rise up against Heaven and our tech angels and fight the final battle at Armageddon. Look up the Pentagon on a map. Hard to miss. It's the centre of the whole operation. I know, dreadful, right? Stupidest thing you've ever heard? Well, just try to forget about it. Everything was just going fine. I'm sure you'll convince the white masses about "bioleninism" soon enough, and inspired by your eloquence, they'll vote for a neoreactionary candidate for office, right?

Outstanding post! Just to add a quick point. Children used to contribute to the family by working on the farm from an early age, doing what they could. In the current economic and technological environment children are only a (sometimes heavy) burden for a couple decades, until they complete their education. This may contribute to the reduction of reproductive rates among low time preference populations (whites, Japanese).

“every single human population with an IQ over 95 has a fertility rate below replacement” I can think of one very conspicuous exception.

http://www.unz.com/chopkins/the-fetishization-of-the-corporate-media/ "Butt-sucked".

"Libertarianism is a completely American phenomenon; in Europe it has appeared somewhat in the last 10 years, but it’s still completely marginal, and for a long time it was completely non-existent." You need to make a careful difference between the intellectual versions or the popular / influential versions. From Bastiat to Hayek it existed on the intellectual level here, just nobody cared about it, influence zero. Too much war to see your own government as the problem. Usually it was someone else's government and army that was the problem.

Given the fundamental axiom here, the best (only) way to increase fertility is to increase status of people with children compared to people without. Its the decider for children who needs to have status increased by having a new child. In modern society, one of childcare, little sex and free contraceptives, it means women. You need women status to increase after 1 child, even more after 2 or 3. Does it does? No. Children are a burden both professionally and romantically. Socially it depends, when most of your social circle is childless then it is certainly not a status booster. When most of your social circle is traditional families, then I guess it is. So social circle effect can be though of as an amplifier. How to change children-linked status is difficult to say, one way is to use statusmoney equivalence and tax the hell out of childless womens, or sponsor childs much more. It is done more or less, but I think the amount of taxes or childcare needed to boost status enough is probably not feasible...mainly because fertility increase will be mainly on low status people, something everyone already observe and mostly disliked. If you want to shift fertility to avoid disgenic trends, it is a total failure. Or you can try to shift decider towards males, and have children boost male status. Probably even more difficult, given the historic and technical trends. You would need to go full patriarchal before it happen. Or, maybe more promising, you can try to make children signal status, like expensive cars or phones. Paradoxically, it would probably means making children more difficult to have, so only high status people can afford them. Could be "child permit", but this will be difficult to be that obvious. Maybe more subtle ways are doable, once one shift from the worldview "people are childless because childs are too difficult to raise" to "Anybody can have childs so lot of childs = low status, and nobody want to be low status". Not sure it is profound, but it is paradoxical enough to be both simple and non-obvious, it fits strange societal trends well enough, and it have a nice machiavelian feel, so this idea is probably worth something...

[…] más información, no se pierdan este otro artículo de Spandrell del […]

I want to preface this by saying that I’m not much of a writer, but something in me was called to write something in response to this post. I’ve been following the Spandrell’s work for some time, and, even though I’m a center-left type of guy (full disclosure), I do see a lot of the truth in what he writes about where we’re headed, as much as it pains me, and he’s always thrilling to read. I disagree with his prescriptions a lot of the time, but his diagnosis is spot on. Anyway, I watched the video of Carlson as he recommended, and it was striking to see how much Carlson has changed from his days as a snot-nosed bow-tie wearer for the Weekly Standard (I actually knew him back then). Carlson does have a very valid point but Kirk seemed to miss it completely. Kirk is basically who Carlson used to be 25 years ago. Kirk will get it eventually, maybe. But by then, it will probably be too late. I wonder if Kirk will reproduce. He might! But his kids will hate him. Anyway, as already said by the Spandrell, Carlson seems to grasp that just passing tax cuts and sucking capital’s dick - as Kirk seems mostly ok with - and not doing anything else but maybe sorta kinda stand in the way of progressive goals via the Senate and the Courts, while shouting weak praise to “the church” and “the family,” isn’t getting the job done anymore. That strategy won’t last for much longer and it’s barely working for now. I remember when Trump got elected and the Spandrell was all excited about the chance to roll back what Obama had done. Well, how’s that working out so far? Capital got their tax cuts, everyone else got diddly squat, and then R's got spanked with their biggest House loss since 1974. They lucked out with the Senate this time given the map, but D’s came within a couple points in Texas (!) and Florida of breaking even on the night. In 2020 and in future elections, the diverse wave is only going to get stronger, given who is actually reproducing. Yes, you have Mormons and Amish reproducing, but who just got elected to the Senate from Arizona and Pennsylvania? Mormons and Amish couldn’t get R’s elected, not when faced with the power of the growing diverse hordes of Phoenix and Philly. Remember, Republicans have only won the popular presidential vote once since 1988 (in 2004) and it took a major terrorist attack to do it - for 3 decades, they’ve only lucked into the presidency thanks to odd population patterns. And what’s more is that every day, several white Boomers die (good!), and several new Millennials and soon to be Gen Z voters become eligible, and they’re not going to take this shit. AOC is a harbinger of that, and there’s only going to be more of her type every year. When Millennials are running the Congress, you’re going to WISH you had someone as reasonable as Pelosi or Schumer on the other side. I believe that given that metro areas are the only sources of growth anymore, it’s only a matter of time until Texas, Georgia and North Carolina fall to the Blue Wave. Arizona and Nevada have already fallen, and so has Virginia and Colorado - all those used to be fairly frequently red states, but no more. And the Midwest already seems done with Trump, given they elected D governors last year - and the region is shrinking anyway and/or being replaced by immigrants. All those Midwestern white Boomers are moving to Florida, which is the only thing keeping that state from going Blue, but soon you’re going to run out of White Boomers and then where are you? The only near term hope is that maybe - MAYBE - you’ll be able to claw back white suburban women with a "Nikki Haley type" brand of conservatism but that just shows how far the Overton Window will have shifted in the meantime. You’re fighting a losing battle, and you know it. So, is there any way for you to stop it? If I was in your shoes, I’d be preparing a bug out plan for sure. After the 2018 election, the smart right wing guys on Twitter knew this and immediately started talking about moving to Montana or Idaho. That’s probably your best bet at this point. Well, the trouble with these right wing guys is they’re all hat and no cattle. Look at Charlie Kirk for crying out loud! He’s a total pussy. So many of these guys are 10th Amendment LARPers but they can’t get laid to save their lives because too many white women went to college and no longer have time for their shit. This shit might have been cute at age 20-25, but at age 30? Pathetic? At age 40? Downright scary. Basically, white women are just done with it - they’ll take their wine and cats and Netflix and vibrators and girls weekends and redecorating ideas and "girl power" and that’s that. They won’t reproduce, and they won't give you your grand army of the future. They’re going to age and be lonely and die out. Meanwhile, Millennial men are doomed mostly to get addicted to drugs, porn, VR and off themselves in huge numbers once they get bored/sick/tired enough. It’s a pity, but what can you do. But the birth rate is never coming back up - it might stabilize, but it’s never getting back to replacement. Millennials are just too fucked up by their Boomer parents - they’re all in therapy and on lots of anti-depression drugs, so it’s just as well. Gen Z might rebound in terms of childbearing, but it will be too little too late. But anyway, my point is, this right wing “army” I see is pathetic - those MAGA kids from Kentucky didn't even do anything and they're being burned at the stake as a warning to others. All the violent energy is on the left. In the future, if any MAGA heads try anything, they'll be mowed down by Kamala’s and AOC’s “diverse government troops” pretty quickly if they try to fight back, so most likely they’ll just continue in their dead end jobs and bitch on Twitter like they do now. So if that’s the best they’ve got, then… well. So I’d say they have to get used to it. Or eat the wrong end of a .45. That’s what was so striking about Tucker’s speech. He knows that an AOC-type would win in a heartbeat - she's an attractive face talking about popular policies to a receptive public. Tucker is trying, in vain, to stem the tide by saying, let's actually think about why capital is telling us to do what they want. But it's so clear, Kirk is just too dumb - or too young - or both - to get it. In 15 years, when D’s are crushing right wing goals all over the place, Kirk will be one of those whiny assholes on Twitter going “Muh Venezuela!” And no one will fucking care. I’m not really worried about it, because even though I’m a white male, I do have a bug out plan. Always marry a dual citizen from a stable, homogenous, prosperous country so you can bug out if you need to, gentlemen! Anyway, Spandrell, thanks. If I ever see you, I’m buying you a beer.

(Final try at posting, my computer doesn't want to upload this shit right, apparently. Like the guy above I used to be Left (but Marxist)) I agree that the state needs to facilitate societal reproduction. However, I’m not sure how. I note that you (and commenters) seem to want a return to patriarchy, but that is impossible, I think (setting aside that it’s not something I want or think is ethical). The structure and incentives of modern society makes that very hard, and even modern patriarchies often have very low birth rates. First there’s the paradox of emancipation. In this article (yeah, it’s a reasonable article by the Atlantic) there’s a chart which shows that the higher the emancipation level, the least women are in STEM. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/ And that’s up to a pretty absurd level: some Arab countries like Algeria and Qatar have the most women in STEM. Scandinavia has the least. One explanation given in the article basically comes down to women choosing STEM out of spite in patriarchal societies, whereas if given free choice, they don’t actually even like STEM. So it seems to me that, if Islamic countries, who even in Medieval times were more ruthlessly patriarchal than the Christian West, can’t even be bothered to keep women out of higher education, why would any Western society ever manage to get its people to invest in patriarchy continuously e.g. why would men bother now when they don’t give a shit all over the world? Patriarchy could hold because a. most women couldn’t read which made it easier for b. simply indoctrinate them with traditional values and beat them with sticks if they disobeyed. Setting aside morals, that’s not going to return in societies that are rich, where most people don’t really give a shit if they just get their paycheck. That are urbanized and modern, which always implies growth of uprooting, anomie and hedonist indifference to morals. That have educated women, who will not just accept a return to the disciplining mechanisms of real patriarchy (not the 1920s bullshit or even Victorian morals, I mean Medieval or Reform-period actual patriarchy with sticks and mass shaming.) Second, I should note that pretty sexually conservative societies like Japan, especially Korea, of course have even lower birth rates than we do. Of course our birth rate is also higher because of non-Europeans in Western countries, but still. So, establishing patriarchy again seems both delusional and not very useful to me. I’m Dutch and most women in my country don’t really give a shit about feminism (although this might have changed somewhat with #MeToo and the White Privilege stuff, America is truly cancerous)- and I notice this at the university I go to (it does vary by university). Fuck, I study History, part of the humanities, and they still don’t care there. The sub-university level probably gives even less of a shit. I often read articles by feminists bitching women here are complacent because they often just work part-time (I think Dutch women work near the most at part-time in Europe) and spend a lot of time on kids.One time an Anglo-sphere professor complained that in our parliament there are so few women, and they again just failed to give a shit and proposed that men are perhaps just more ambitious. Dutch women are a bit slovenly and rude but generally pretty pleasant, in my experience. They still don’t get replacement level children, but I think that from a Dutch perspective birth rate hysteria doesn’t make sense. My country is also one of the most overpopulated in the world (17 million, Denmark is the same size and has 5 million with a marginally higher GDP per capita), so I don’t really care if birth-rates are a bit low as long as it’s not below 1.7 or so. The problem is that they are low while immigrant rates are high. Fun fact: up until 1960 when we had 12 million people the government actually wanted people to emigrate since even then it was fucking full here, and we have a chronic housing shortage because there are too many immigrants. So a. women are a voting block we need (and inb4 ‘you’re a cuck’, there’s a reason Italian fascists explicitly wanted to legalize the female vote and claimed they were ‘progressive’. It’s simple mobilization). They have the ability to organize. b. I don’t see the need for patriarchy, I don’t think it’s a realistic demand (setting aside moral distaste). I think the way we do things would work fine, the problem is not women themselves, but left-wing newspapers and curricula and such which try to whip them into mobilization. Now, most women actually like masculine men and they’re semi-open about that here in private. Imo in the Netherlands the problem is not women, it’s men, specifically university schooled men, which are pussies. It’s also shit like iq differences and criminality differences being pushed into the taboo sphere. I’d say that European men need to cultivate pretty strict masculinity that is pleasant to women vis. a vis. non-European masculinity which tends to be pretty nasty. Imo women don’t really give a fuck about nationalism but they do give a fuck about men and if they’re attracted to us (while having plausible reason to think they won’t be hit with sticks again) they’ll settle more easily with a nationalist or at least more culturally conservative order. If we claim a (convincing) and role of masculine protectors of their freedom vis a vis the non-West, I think women will work with us and like that. For example, it’s not a closed and shut case that women vote Left: https://www.dw.com/en/women-increasingly-drawn-to-right-wing-populist-parties-study-shows/a-45284465 (more women than men vote PiS in Poland). In Spain 1930 or so left-feminists wanted to block the female vote for a while because of the masses of church-going women that would vote right. In Weimar Germany, women usually voted Right over Left (Hindenburg and more overwhelmingly the catholic Zentrum, instead of Hitler) https://www.johndclare.net/Weimar6\_Geary.htm. WordPress.com / Gravatar.com credentials can be used.

While I personally have no love for small or large-L Libertarianism, I believe that their love of capital and the poorly sourced view of English law and society does have one common thread, that they believe that people can dictate policy to a State, be it economic or legal. Since they have absolutely nothing to organize with or any coherent policies to dictate, they (thankfully) lose by default. I mention both parts of that since I think a great many so-called libertarians actually never put the pieces together on what actually they are "struggling" for. Democracy has issues in any event, based on the then-Great Powers of Western Europe needing to train their citizenry to operate and attach machine guns and later to work on mechanical assembly lines to supply said forces. I leave it to the HBD theories to say if there was also some of the Germanic tribal structure in the Western European "democratic" tradition. Grafting some of the other parts of the modern State onto a birthright franchise caused a great many issues and feedback loops.

Karlin, intriguingly (and empirically), on what *really* makes people have kids - in response to the Spandrell's MOPRA-priority (Make Our People Reproduce Again!) and the musings by some commenters: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/where-do-babies-come-from/ Karlin is indispensable for the Dissident Right because of his ruthless empiricism. Not the kind to avert his eyes or engage in wishful thinking. MOPRA!

“Because free markets.” Capitalists hate free markets. Read Adam Smith. See what he had to say about capitalists conspiring to fix prices.

Capital today is perhaps the biggest force of the Left. They’re the biggest enemy.

Really? More so than the media or the education system? Sure, social media companies are with less than total success trying to shut down counter-left discourse on their platforms, and sure, corporations are paying for conspicuous displays of leftist piety such as rainbow flags, hymns of hatred disguised as razor ads, etc. I don't think this is the elephant in the room. Who's forcing white men to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to waste 20 years of their lives in leftist seminaries learning lies and self-hatred if they want any remote chance at a decent job and a family? Not Woke Capital.

>No, that means that every single alcoholic in France or Italy who couldn’t hold their liquor died Ancient Greeks believed that drinking wine undiluted can kill you and that Brennus committed suicide this way. Which supports this, but also that it was not only biological but also cultural adaptation, towards moderateness, like diluting wine. On a general note, there is this problem with HBD-only explanations. A relatively intelligent population, when seeing drinking kills people left and right, won't just shrug and do it anyway until enough are killed to develop resistance. They will change their cultural practices. It is absolutely true that human evolution sped up at the beginning of civilization, but the point is, it cannot be the only thing that happened, but there must be a complicated interplay between human evolution and cultural choices. Like if get diarrhea from drinking milk because you lack adult lactase, you know it and keep only a small number of dairy animals around for the kids, and organize your agriculture differently. Which means there won't even be enough milk around to give any advantage to people who randomly get the genes for adult lactase. Why are you drinking the kids milk, Lee? Because I can. Fuck off, Lee, we need it for the kids. Meanwhile, the whiter populations who got the adult lactase gene widespread got it because there was something in the cultural or environmental background that helped it. My guess: the mutation happened at a time of extreme famine, population bottleneck. If it happens during a period of advanced agriculture and relative plenty, it does not get widespread. So then the few surviving milk-drinkers noticed they survived, noticed how they did it, then made a conscious cultural choice to breed cows or other animals for milk and dairy. I am just speculating of course. Just saying yes human evolution sped up, but people didn't just bumble through it randomly like animals but made choices too.

[…] Spandrell on Tucker – Spandrell and I message near daily. We both were at a loss how to criticize Tucker for his monologue, and Spandrell found one bit with Tucker’s idea that the Left is terrified instead of just hysterical in a victory fueled frenzy. Economically and policy wise, Tucker is spot on. Capital might not but the clever silly managerial class that guides it thinks it can manage the Morlocks forever. Ask South African businesses. The future is ending the crony capitalist system we have now that uses a libertarian free market fig leaf ideology for cover. The future is big business under a nationalist populist framework or under a socialist looting regime a la Latin America. […]

I think you have it the wrong way around. >Capital is now Woke, if the Left has successfully captured the capitalists I see it exactly reversed: The capitalists have captured the left! What I see is happening: The losers and weirdos want high social status, too. High status 1st class is corporate/rich/career. Shiny business suits, fancy name tags, important professional people. In the past the deviants were shut out from corporate world. Fags and transsexuals and all the other defectives had too look elsewhere for their social status/power - and the left, communism, socialism, offered it to them. By rejecting the deviants and losers, the corporate world has DRIVEN them into the arms of the leftists, who were low status, but offered a glimpse of hope in revolution and then a little bit higher (promised) social status. But even after the revolution, those status gains are meager. Full communism provides less (apparent) status than being "corporate" with real nice big wages. The deviants never wanted to be socialists - it was always only their 2nd-best option, after getting rich and corporate the "normal" way. And the corporate elites have realized this - and embraced the losers, feminists and weirdos - by rolling out the red carpet for them, diversity quotas, women's quotas, gay welcomes, all the "woke" stuff you can see everywhere to a degree it feels sickening. Now what are the real effects from this? 1. The corporate world draws legions of potential leftist recruits away from the real leftists. The weirdos and losers are not only explicitly welcome in the corporate system, they are outright sucked in aggressively. Thus, they identify themselves as corporate members, have careers and nice wages and fancy name tags - they get their social status now from being corporate. They may still wear furry suits and are heavily tattooed and deviants, but they now have changed tribe - their real loyalty is with where the money and status comes from, and they even can keep their gay pride and furry suits. THIS IS GAME OVER FOR THE LEFT: Their personnel, their recruits are only superficially leftist anymore, actually they now are "Google Engineers" and whatnot, real, live, incorporated business drones. They do not attend readings of Marx' Capital anymore or attend hard-left demonstrations - they are now concerned with shareholder value, because they got shares and options and wage bonuses for reaching business goals! They have been ripped from the bloody claws of the real hard left, and have become de-facto soldiers of the corporate army, pay taxes, enjoy having lots of disposable income. This is GAME OVER for the real leftists. Their recruits have been taken over by the other side. 2. Mot weirdos can work, they may be sexually or mentally defective, but even transsexual autistic queer persons are technically perfectly able to be software engineers making 6-figure wages. It is unreasonable to care for the private and superficial appearances of human profit sources - if they work, if they can make a profit for their employer, it matters not if they are sexually strictly into gay dogs and wear furry suits. Weirdos were in the past excluded from normal corporate functions. That was doubly wrong; it limited potential profits and pushed those rejects right in the arms of the left. 3. Feminism today is nothing else than a trick to get females into work. This trick is needed: Women do not want and do not need to work hard. Why should they? They have the vaginal superpower, and can always find men to pay for their lives, or become full-time (single) mothers. WOMEN CANNOT BE FORCED TO WORK IF THEY DO NOT WANT TO. Their sexual power over thirsty men and motherhood (welfare-financed) are too powerful. And women do not care if they are work/money-wise low status - because- and this is critical - WOMEN DO NOT COMPETE WITH MEN. If they would, nobody could win: In women-male competition a winning woman gains nothing she values, and if she loses she loses nothing she values; men on the other hand always lose if they start to seriously compete with women: If the female wins, the man is embarrassed by having lost against a woman and his status falls, and if he wins, he has only won against a woman, which is seen as embarrassingly as winning against a child. Men can be motivated to work by making them compete with other men (ultimately for women/sexual access) by showing them that the richer guy with the fancy car etc. gets the sexy girls. But women winning over men do not get sexy men, and women losing against men do not lose access to sexy men. To make women work (and thus counter to their instincts start to compete with men) is to exploit the single competitive drive women do have - against other women, competing for high-status men. The whole propaganda complex of current feminism is carrying the message: Professionally working, successful women are better (richer) women than other women who do not work, and therefore get not only fancy bling (to make other women envious), but also the high-status men. Further, women are tricked into working by reverse psychology: The narrative is that the evil patriarchy prevented women in the past from working, therefore preventing them from gaining money/bling/social status, evil men keeping the women down by monopolizing all the wonderful work and jobs! Not so today! The great joys of work are now to be had for women, too! Women are made to believe that working is not something one suffers because one has to, but a fancy privilege and revolutionary act! Empowering!! 4. All this not only results in greater social order - under the control and command of the corporate world - but also higher profits and higher GENERAL wealth. Ask yourself: Why would you care where your profits come from? Say, you get 10k$ per month in capital income, but you need to pretend to be "woke". Would you reject this if it's feminists and transsexuals making this money for you? Of course not. Women and deviants, even the Negros now become black workers and slick office employees, we're all so wonderful "woke". And it works. There are more profits, more social order (from more general wealth from more organized work in regular jobs and taxes as well as from removing the potential recruits from leftists and other shady or criminal organisations). 5. Corporate elites/upper class/the owners have NOT suddenly become leftists. They are coldly calculating as always. And they have figured out a way to both increase profits/"Labor Force Participation Rate" by integrating deviants into their corporate profit-machinery, but at the same time paralyzing the real left. 6. Real leftism has been outright neutered by this strategy. Real hard leftists are only very low in numbers anymore, lacking social power. Their potential followers are now under corporate command - and they love it, not only do they like the income and status that comes with it - they also love to be "understood" for their deviancy: The new corporate rules make clear that deviants are to be respected, to be taken serious, and they are given social status. SUDDENLY IT'S NOT ONLY THE LEFTISTS WHO OFFER SUPPORT FOR AND WELCOME THE DEVIANTS - THE CORPORATE ELITES WELCOME THEM, TOO! And the latter also have the fancy real status, name tags, careers and real money in wages - so the deviants look at what leftists and corporate world have to offer, and clearly can see that the offer of the latter is much, much better than what the leftists have to offer (not much status, even after the questionable revolution, no money, no career, and only the acceptance for being "oppressed" deviants which the corporate world now offers, too). Embracing the deviants and thus stealing them away from leftists by pretending to appreciate them and by integrating them into the work force is a genius strategy by the Western ruling class, as is the feminism complex that tricks women into working hard. The net result is game over for real leftists, victory for capitalist elites over commies, and increased general welfare for everybody because more actual work is done. To gain and keep that victory all that is necessary for the ruling class is to pretend to be "woke". As long as these women and converted potential lefties work productively, produce profits, and behave (stay away from supporting real commies/socialists) - they can have their pussy hat parades and all the silly BUT HARMLESS merely superficially left-signaling idiocy (which media even can sell profitably in the outrage-mill). But their real interests is now in their wages and careers, in pleasing and enriching the owning class. They have been assimilated functionally, while being allowed to keep their otherwise (sexually, culturally, ...) deviant ways. And we should applaud that secretly. The left has been defeated, despite the harmless leftism-like retarded child games that are now medially more visible than ever. This is not real, hard, dangerous leftism, merely hollow, empty shapes of leftism, no real revolutionary intent, harmless, merely show business. You can safely ignore it all. But the money is real, the GDP increase is real, the outright wrecking of the real left is real. Just go on with your lives, make many children and live richer and safer. The colorful ex-lefty clowns, the gay parades and all the other disgusting stuff will go on, but you can avoid it, just move someplace else - deviants tend to aggregate, just avoid those areas. The media garbage can be ignored, too. Just shut it out and off like your TV. These people are nothing important, have no power; if you ignore them and keep your distance, just like it already works with staying away from ghetto-drug-dealers and celebrity news. Just like you are keeping clean by staying away from dirt, you keep away from the worst people and influences from the "woke" world. There are sane places to live, sane schools for your kids, sane cultural products available, the ruling class makes sure of it (of course they privately live "un-woke"). What would the alternative be? What otherwise do with millions and millions of deviants? Put them into reeducation camps? Or ghettos? Make them (relatively poor) welfare-recipients? This will only drive them back into the hands of the real left, giving it real power again. The current solution may not be perfect, but it works very well, cripples the real left, and is very profitable. So, pretend to be woke if necessary - even if you shudder, it's easy if you never forget that this wokeness cripples and wrecks the left, without them even realizing what is going on.

Just wanted to publicly endorse this article. Once the penny drops that egalitarianism is bad, that's game over for left-wing social and economic goals, but what rightists sometimes fail to grasp is that it's game over for free markets too. In fact the whole notion of sovereign consumers making rational choices to create Bastiat's 'dual inequality of exchange value' collapses. There are good choices and there are bad choices, and a healthy society takes active steps to incentivise the good and prohibit the bad. That doesn't look at all like a libertarian socio-economic order, no matter what 'copes' people like HHH come up with.

[…] discusses Tucker Carlson’s war against woke capital and the right’s future. A follow-up at Motus Mentis. Also, Malcolm’s thoughts on the ongoing Russian election […]

Hypothesis: the left's final move in capturing capital was to alleviate the guilt over rising inequality and being upper class, by letting them make symbolic sacrifices and routing a fraction of the wealth down to the right pseudoclerics. Cos they sure don't practice what they preach.

An encouraging sign in the evolution of the right.

"Tucker then goes on explaining why he places the focus on government in the economy, not in cultural values per se. He says that the reason why young people can’t get married and have kids early is because of economic reasons, not cultural values, as the Right has been saying for decades. This is an important point. This is the most important point. This is everything. " It's also an incorrect point. Why is everyone in the cities? The cities are full of women because every woman wants to chase the same fifty billionaires/sportsmen/celebrities and they go where those people are. The provinces are left devoid of women so the men who have the talent to do so follow the women to the cities. The women compete for the billionaires/sportsmen/celebrities until they're 25-30 and then the losers (as close to all of them as makes no difference) start settling for those ordinary men who followed. By the time they're 35 and getting infertile most of the women are married. Some are used to this pattern of life or still hoping to divorce hubby and remarry a billionaire in the future; those women might have one child to stay in the city whereas those who move to the suburbs or to a cheaper city might have two. That's what economics is - a tiny perturbation to the basic problem. Will the proposed remedies even help? Mostly no. Maybe tariffs and so forth will raise salaries for middle ability men in flyover country somewhat and that's great but it won't make the women stay. They want to play their lottery ticket for an extraordinary man, not settle for an ordinary man who is just slightly better than the one they already rejected. They are already rejecting ordinary men in the cities who earn way more than any guy back home. What is our problem? Lack of enforceable marriage. Women will marry ordinary guys young when the ultra-desirable men are legally off-limits already and the penalty for playing the lottery ticket is a large chance of ending up with nothing at all. Families will move for a $30k salary that buys a $60k lifestyle rather than sticking with a $60k salary that buys a $30k lifestyle in NYC when men have their wives at 25 and are heads of household who can just move the household without their wives' momentary consent. Maybe Tucker knows all that and is trying to edge the discourse closer to the real point while preserving his job and influence. Maybe he doesn't know much at all. He's a normie commentator with a TV show; his thinking is impressively on-point given that fact. It isn't impressively on-point in any other sense. Talking about economics as the reason for the lack of family formation rather than marriage laws is like objecting to immigration on the grounds that a vanishingly small number of immigrants commit murders. The reason immigration is bad that the vast majority of good family men among the racially inferior incomers will inevitably mongrelise our race to a similar level as them perfectly peacefully and legally. It's OK to use dishonest arguments when the real one is too scary or too illegal, but it's not the actual reason and making our plans on that basis is a recipe for defeat.

Thank you for your excellent article! I found your site through the channel Asian Capitalist at Youtube today. Since you are a sinologist, you probably have heard about the ideal society of Confucianism: 内无怨妇外无旷夫 (there is no single man or woman without spouse). I think that the ideal society Tucker Carlson described here is not so far from that. What do you think?

I know this is off-topic, but I just got finished with reading Chandler's The Little Sister, and if all of Chandler's novels are works of lofty quality with a focus on the feminine, this one tops the whole of them. It's insanely good and subtle (I think I'll re-read it to taste it better) and I thought I'd recommend it here.

[…] thing that manage to keep the monster in a box for a fleeting while – is consistently horrified. examples abound. the subsequent conflicts are, as clarified before, more excitement for the intelligent […]

[…] Note: Bloody Shovel also has an excellent essay on this which you can read here. […]

[…] más información, no se pierdan este otro artículo de Spandrell del […]

As "Jim" points out capitalists are by and large /ourguys ideologically but generally terrified of the government. Trump mostly donated to Democrats when in NYC, it obviously was not reflective of any genuinely left wing views on his part.

Gucci has been marketing an $890 black knitted top whose neck you can roll halfway up to your face, where is has an opening for your mouth, the opening featuring a red knitted surround that looks like big lips. This has caused outrage. \[Gucci ‘deeply apologizes’ and removes from the shelves its $890 balaclava knit top after thousands on Twitter branded it ‘blackface for millennials’, Daily Mail, February 7, 2019\] Gucci’s withdrawn the item and issued gushing apologies, affirming that— if I can get through the quote without throwing up all over my microphone —”We are fully committed to increasing diversity throughout our organization and turning this incident into a powerful learning moment for the Gucci team and beyond.” Adidas brought out a new line of sneakers expressly in celebration of Black History Month. Unfortunately the sneakers are totally white. Twitterstorm! Adidas has now withdrawn the sneakers. Humans are so mechanical. When you look at their virtue spirals (or lying spirals) you realize they would never stop of themselves; they'd go on, a step further everytime, to no end. Very mechanical. I wonder if one day their majority will grow into something hard to summarize by a couple simple math functions.

To quote: "What the Right needs to do now is to reflect on how the Left was able to capture Capital and turn it into its most lucrative constituency. Any successful country needs a business community, and the capture of the West’s by the Bioleninist left has been so unexpected that still many people refuse to believe it. But happened it has, whether by political coercion, infiltration, or just mere cultural prestige. We better think carefully on what happened, how to reverse it, and use the same tools for our own cause." I will work on answering this -- let me test first.

More -- here is a link to an article about ethical investing. Very lefty. Littered with lefty buzzwords and word salad. Makes the point again that lefties are not capitalists. Make SOME money investing, but make sure that you are engaging in "socially responsible investing." One must only invest in companies that have "acceptable environmental, social and governance standards." There are medium-sized hedge funds that (supposedly) specialize in these sorts of investments. It may just be a marketing gimmick; it is CERTAINLY lefty virtue signalling. Note that the right has NOTHING like this. There is no hedge fund that invests in companies that have acceptable patriotic, America-first and Christian standards. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/africa-focus-spring-2019-doing-well-by-84696/