Divide et Impera

Half Sigma posted this video, and it made me think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mehk5eWcZA

Yes, damn Muslims. Damn them all. They're out to get us. Yes, they are indeed. But think about it for a second.

Obviously the Cathedral would want Muslims to convert to progressivism. Either outright, by becoming good atheist communists as good white people. Or either by watering down their religion, becoming the brown equivalent of white cuckservatives, who many are still Catholic or Protestant, but still accept every tenet of the Progressive faith with a lag of 2 or 3 years. You can be a Muslim as long as you accept gaymarriage, as a progressive activist boasted years ago at Larry Auster's blog.

But look at those Muslim men in the video. Do they want to be progressive? Do they want to become good feminist men? Hell no. They aren't buying that. But why not? Being good Muslims in their banlieus isn't doing them any good. Our good progressive bureaucrat overlords apparently really don't get why these Muslims are so obstinate.

Surely part of it is that they're tribal, hostile, aggressive men, who like to fuck with Europeans and show their hostility because it's fun to fuck with foreigners. That's what men have done since time immemorial.

Surely part of is that they're Muslims, and Islam has its jihadi tradition. It is a noble thing to fight for Islam and kill infidels. You get status points just by claiming to want to kill infidels, even if you don't really have the guts to do so. There's the signaling spiral aspect to it.

But none of that would matter if there were good incentives for them to assimilate. If it was crystal clear that they would enjoy a better, richer, more fulfilling life by becoming good progressives, well by definition they would.

But if you're a young, tribal, hostile, Muslim young man, you see around you at your European neighbors. And do you want that? Do you want to marry a feminist that can divorce you at whim? Do you want to have women in the office who you aren't allowed to make fun of? Do you want to spend the rest of your life working some lame office job in which you can't promote your family and friends, send your kids to some lame progressive school where they will be taught to be disobedient and whom you will seldom ever see after they graduate? Hell no. Modern European lifestyle is a bad deal.

Muslims in Europe have no qualms about breaking Sharia when it's good for them. They have no qualms about drinking alcohol and harassing white women in the street. They'd very gladly forget about Islam if they got to drink fuck and be merry. But that's not what progressivism offers. What if offers is constant temptation of scantily clad women around the street, and yet at the same time the threat of complete destruction if you ever fall into that temptation and the woman happens not to like it.

What is now known as the "alt-right" is a composite of many different movements. I once wrote about a very diverse bunch of how Christian traditionalists, outright fascists, libertarians aware of human biodiversity, futurists and pick-up artists all started to become friends in the internet, and nobody really understood why. The only common is the realization that modernity is a bad deal for men. Progressive honchos have started to understand that, and now openly attack men as "brutes", and blame Islamic terrorism on "toxic masculinity".

They have a point. The basic thing that keeps Muslims attached to Islam is their toxic masculinity. Because they realize that Islam is a better deal for men. It's not a good deal in general; Muslim countries are in general basket cases, and Islam itself is in some part to blame for it. But at any rate, for the average men there's absolute no good reason to abandon Islam, even nominally. Becoming progressive will only get you called a "brute" and openly discriminated against, likely killing your chances of reproducing and much social status. Of course second and third generation Muslims are more religious than their parents.

Michel Houellebecq noticed this and it led him to write Submission, where he trolled modern progressives by arguing that Islam is a good deal for people like him. I wrote something similar myself, if from another angle. But of course it likely won't happen, because Muslims don't want it to happen. Any political conflict has a racial angle; Muslims very much enjoy their hostility to white men. And the more hostile Muslims are to white men, the more white men fall into the trap of considering modern progressive culture as their turf. See how White nativists are using slogans about Islam being bad for women and gays. Or Gaving McInnes making out with Milo Yiannopoulos. I don't know if it's NSFW but it's frankly revolting.

The more hostile Muslims are against Europeans, the more progressive can get away with, the farther left the leftist singularity can advance, as White men close ranks around the only thing they're allowed to close ranks around: progressive denigration of men. Which again drives Muslim men into further hostility, as they see what assimilation would require of them. This means the Left has absolutely no incentive to crack down on Islamic extremism. Until it gets out of hand. If it ever does.

Well, from personal experience with persons I meet face to face I note that the few men who are openly against Immigration of Muslims and against Islam, do not defend progressive culture. They are more or less aware how rotten it is (much more aware than the avergage German). In fact, same explicity call Islam in Europe a problem created by the "left" and suggest that a solution is impossible before the present leftist believes are overcome . I don't see how defending the present state of things (or progressivism) can ever become a Schelling point. Possible Schellings points are racism (which implies rejection of progressivem) or anti-Islam. The latter might be open to believers of progressivism. They will sure try to set the tone in such a coalition (which is what we are seeing and what you righty called revolting), but any one else in such a coalition will be aware that the support of progressives is luke-warm at best and that progressivsm contributed or even caused the Problem.

Anti-Islam is not a schelling point. The schelling points that Anti-Islam organizations have all been progressive: Islam is against women, it's against gays, it's violent and warlike. And that's because the only alternative which is, as you say, racism, is illegal. Checkmate.

Good post. You're pretty much right. I was irritated and disgusted by the Milo-Gavin smooch. It's like they want to join the ranks of cuckservatives. Luckily, we're here, and we're not going to fight Islam because it interrupts chemsex parties.

Hence, we need to carefully steal all good ideas currently present in Islam, especially those that were once part of European Christian cultures too but became lost, but also those that allowed Islam to shrug off progressivism in the first place. That means we must openly admit that we like some stuff about Islam, no matter how much it'll outrage everyone. Better to end up with Islam-Christianity hybrid (Sikhism?), than with progressivism or plain (and brown) Islam. Russia and eastern Europe can, and probably should keep its local-nationalistic leaning anti-modernist Christianity. Just get that shelling point that people might gather around, even if it ends up more anti-progressivist than anti-Islam. In fact, fighting Islam is distraction from fighting progressives. Like desperately picking off fleas of your body, while you gasp for breath because python is wrapped around your neck. "I don't really like Arabs, but they sure have decent ideas on how deal with sluts and fags." I recall someone mocking Orlando (maybe counter-productive, but black-comedy funny nonetheless) with "Huh, I guess Immigrants actually do some jobs that Americans won't!"

Always inspiring to read your stuff. The metapolitical problem is to know who we are, what our identity is, thus who belongs to our group and who doesn't. Right now our identity suffers from the metapolitical equivalent of AIDS. We can call it progressivist self-destruction, self-genocide, demographic suicide, great replacement. First we need to know who we are. Then and only then can we start facing the political problem of distinguishing between friend and enemy. To be progressivist and anti-islam is to attempt to tackle politics without a firm metapolitical basis. Someone like Tommy Robinson is an English Patriot for sure. His instinct is true enough to reject neoconservatism. But he seems to have forgotten about Enoch Powell. This is insufficient. People like Renaud Camus and Roger Scruton see the aesthetic weak point in progressivism. They are not themselves reactionaries, but they see the loss of beauty that "progress" has cost us... a weakness that NRx is already exploiting in its propaganda. Anti-islam, anti-replacism are negative. They are not positive by themselves. They are only positive by virtue of who asserts them. The problem is that there is no 'who' at present. You say we need to build a religion. There's something to that. We need to know who we are, for sure. How do we do that? That is the real question.

[…] Source: Bloody Shovel […]

doesn't progressivism give a batter life to many non-white men? (blacks and Latinos, more specifically). these are "toxically manly", aren't them? violent, short sighted, promiscuous? wouldn't they fight hard enough for progressivism to keep on going, effectively protecting the white educated elites of the Cathedral? I think they would. an army of black men exploding themselves to save LGBT and women's rights. gnon certainly has some more irony than gay Nazis.

This will, of course, end in societal collapse, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Wait for the crash, pick up the pieces. Once progressives are gone ( as they will be, one way or the other) I think that we will find it fairly easy to sort this whole thing out. Trad whites, Muslims, Mexicans, and Asians agree on a lot, and, once the "Gibs" are gone, will be able to cut up the pie with only the usual amount of killing and mayhem. History will then resume it's usual course. Not Nirvana, but not the Apocalypse, either.

[…] this post at Bloody Shovel the blogger touches on a similar thought: Islam and its attacks on White men seem to encourage […]

[…] this post at Bloody Shovel the blogger touches on a similar thought: Islam and its attacks on White men seem to encourage […]

Progressivism thinks it can assimilate Islam. Other macho third world cultures at least somewhat assimilated are Africans and Hispanics. Brown men get to still be macho because they are oppressed, no one can expect them to be docile, to expect it is racist. Africans are matriarchal, however, which makes it easier. Hispanics don't play a political or cultural role, they just take the money. They are somewhat matriarchal too though. All the factions of the alt right are white. It's the only thing they have in common, and the only thing they need. White people can believe different things and agree to get along, as long as they are not power-mad or doctrinaire. White interests can be expressed in a variety of different ways, but all those ways are workable for whites only. Tactical alliances are only a smokescreen. The alt right can't ally with gays, because in a healthy society homosexuality is suppressed. Gays would rather take their chances in a hostile coalition with Moslems than accept third-class citizenship. Blacks and Hispanics can support Trump, because they realize living in a white society where they are second-class citizens is better than living in a third world society where they have more power and status, but are objectively worse off. Still only about a fourth of blacks and a third of Hispanics will go for this. The system could be anti-white as long as it was rich enough to buy a lot of whites off. It can't afford it any more, so whites are banding together.

Is PEGIDA a progressive organization? If they were any less progressive they would be banned. Is HOGESA (Hooligans gegen Salafismus - Hooligans against Salafism) a progressive organization? In my experience it's not true that all Anti-Islam organizations are progressive. Maybe only the progressive ones get good press, but that's it. Oh, and whether a Schelling point is illegal might not matter that much. The more a point of view is illegal, the more subtly it can be voiced and still understood.

All the factions of the alt right are white. It’s the only thing they have in common, and the only thing they need. White people can believe different things and agree to get along, as long as they are not power-mad or doctrinaire.

Interesting. Good point. I had not thought of it that way. Are not "[a]ll the factions of the alt right" also young? (I had been under the impression that I was too old to be properly alt right.)

The system could be anti-white as long as it was rich enough to buy a lot of whites off. It can’t afford it any more, so whites are banding together.

Again interesting. You have given the reader (or have at any rate given me) something to consider.

Not really. Neither Black or Latino men on the street care much for queers and repellant women. A bunch of managerial Blacks and Hispanics might virtue signal here and there, but your Black and Latino man on the street really doesn't care for fags.

they care for progressivism, I guess

one way to verify this would be taking a look at the composition of the American army, if lower strata are becoming more and more black and Latino.

The alt-right is almost entirely white, overwhelmingly male, and mostly young. At 49, I suspect I'm somewhere out near the third standard deviation from the mean age, which I would guess is around the early thirties. There don't seem to be many Boomers in the ranks. The alt-right is a brotherhood in the making. Brothers might bicker and occasionally fight, but as long as they're there when it counts, it's all good. I'm a pretty traditional Catholic myself, and while i sometimes get irritated with the rhetoric of alt-right atheists, I still feel more commonality with them than I do with normie Catholics. To Spandrell's point, the Mahommedans couldn't have chosen a better target than Orlando, though it might benefit us more than it does them. They've thrown the left into confusion and panic, exposed cuckservatives (once again) as merely leftists-minus-ten-years, and demonstrated that our ostensible mainstream allies (like Milo and Gavin) are ultimately not on our side. Me, I think gays would be happier under an rightist regime anyway: their underground speakeasies would provide the thrill of naughty transgression that seems to go hand-in-hand with the male homosexual pathology, the periodic (and mostly pro forma) police raids would allow them to play the martyr, and they'd be relieved of the most self-destructive aspects of their lifestyle (mass anonymous sex in bathhouses and public toilets and the attention-seeking spirals of gay pride parades). On the distaff side, spinsters could continue to shack up, raise cats, and grow obese together, but everyone would be spared their compulsive need to meddle in public affairs, which only seems to make them unhappy anyway.

I found the rhetorical and brotherhood/solidarity techniques as interesting as the content. You need to gather in groups to use them. Until alt-rights do that, they're way behind everything.

The guy in that video talks a good game, but the crowd seems passably Norwegianized judging by the least enthusiastic takbir/Allahu Akbar I've ever seen at the end. Your analysis may hold more generally, but Norway doesn't really have Banlieue-equivalents. Sure, there are immigrant-dominated areas, but the government has largely managed to prevent mono-ethnic areas by disperseing the settlement of refugees (and by admitting relatively few of them). You don't have no-go areas for the police, like you have in Sweden, where immigrants can settle wherever they want.

Any group of thst size would have protesters sent in minutes. Gatherings of white men are illegal in the western world.