And commies are Nazis, near as makes no difference to anyone who is not a Nazi or a commie
This is evident today in the seeming odd alignment of Ukrainian Nazis and State Department Jews, but was obvious enough to Papen in his Marburg speech.
Every time, always, everywhere, leftism gets ever lefter, ever more lethal, ever faster, until it is stopped by large scale deadly violence originating from a top leader, as for example Sulla, or until it destroys everything and everyone.
Hillary and Clinton bumped off no end of people, and Obama has bumped off at least one, probably more. The FBI plus DEI elements in the secret service had a go at bumping off Trump, though it is unclear who was behind it at the top. The Senate inquiry displays a curious lack of interest in subpoenaing cell phones. It begins.
No exceptions. Wiemar is not an exception. Hitler was lefter than thou, until he was not. The rise of the Sparts and the Nazis was continuing movement leftwards, just as Kamala, antifa, and BLM is continuing movement leftwards.
Papen in his Marburg speech complains of Nazi radical leftism, hints that the generals should stop it by deadly force, and appeals to Hitler to stop it by deadly force. The Brownshirts complain that Hitler is insufficiently left, boast that they are lefter than thou, and hint at doing something about it. Hitler does something about it instead. Night of the long knives.
Hitler was movement right in the same way as Deng, Stalin, Napoleon, Cromwell, and all the others were movement right.
Same pattern as all of the others, Sulla being the archetype.
[*deleted for the reasons made clear in previous discussion*]
Also for not being funny.
Attempting a joke and not being funny is not content I want on this blog.
Obama whacked people with drones as official actions but not aware of any people who committed suicide with two bullets in the back of the head around him.
Scalia
Every society that adopted the 8 year Prussian school system or the 12 year Progressive school system has been in decline, at first spiritually, then biologically. (“But DH, virtually all societies adopted those systems” – exactly my point) No high civilization has yet survived the Cult of Education, and Nazi Germany would not have become the first. Hitler should have banned the schools, gassed the pedagogues, and introduced apprenticeship; if he had actually been a Man of the Right and not a Weimar leftist, he would have.
Absolutely agree public education was the first great progressive evil.
Israel hasn’t dared to openly practice apprenticeships, but it’s obvious they’re simply [*deleted*]
Some of this might be true, but I would like to see the evidence. Some of this is flagrantly false, for example the claim that today’s high school is equivalent to yesterday’s university. That is presupposing the progressive doctrine of progress. Actual reality is that yesterday’s middle and junior school is equivalent today’s university, and yesterday’s university entrance exam was equivalent to the better modern PhDs. If you dig up old schoolbooks, the collapse in intellectual standards is extraordinary.
Both universities and high schools have become far less selective. I believe about 40-50% of US youths now go to university, compared to 10-15% in 1990 or thereabout. Likewise, going to high school is now near universal, but didn’t use to be.
Once you are enrolled, nearly all universities and high schools take the approach that you should if at all possible graduate (perhaps excepting places like Caltech and U. Chicago and such). This means what is taught is aimed at the lowest level. Even so, a fair number flunk out of community college and the like.
Finally, the returns to education appear to be declining. The main point is instead to get into a nice university. Quality of graduates is certainly not guaranteed — just consider the battery of interviews you have to go through to get a lousy programming job. Though you are certainly handshakeworthy if your degree is from Stanford. Some professions handle this by post-graduate accreditation, e.g., CPA, bar exam and such. These seem to still have some predictive value.
All in all a lamentable situation. Then again, as a society we are probably overrating formal education quite a bit.
You know, you can just go to the gym and tell when certain people are using steroids. It’s obvious. Every nation with strict educational standards has abysmal fertility rates except for Israel, which strangely and miraculously has virility like rabbits to go along with its impressive credentials. And since people cannot be faked, it’s obvious the credentials are faked.
I wasn’t talking about intellectual standards. I meant that people at high school age once went to college from 14-17 or so, the aging vat effect, but back then men hit puberty much later. Institutions simply got relabeled. Merchant mindset. If you notice too hard you might just be antisemitic, oy vey!
And what I said about Nazis was obviously true too. They would have marched straight into demographic oblivion with education obsession, just like South Korea, because it was so hard-coded into their culture. They literally banned homeschooling and it’s the only major Nazi era law that remains.
Israeli Jewish TFR by religion.
https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/documents/ece/ces/ge.11/2016/13_religiosity_presentation.pdf
1979-2014
Haredim/Ultra-Orthodox 6-7.5
Religious 3.5-4.5
Secular 2-2.5
The people gaining degrees and those having children are two different groups.
Indeed the only predominantly college educated group worldwide I can think of that has above average replacement fertility are the Mormons (certainly not reform Jews anywhere) and its hard to say whether the Mormon church will avoid turning into full progressive Mormonsm.
Mormonism is extremely progressive. They require everyone to do foreign missionary work. If you are ever in SLC visit the their temple and make sure to run through their visitor indoc “art gallery†with massive atrociously painted canvases. It’s as multi-culti assimilation as it gets, but it’s behind a veneer of trad aesthetics.
You don’t have to read deep into the Mormon text (BOM) and J. Smith to see the demonic foundation of the whole Mormon church. Complete with secret rituals and temple.
The powerful Mormons (Hunstmans, Gays, Romneys, etc.) came up in the take-down of Howard Hughes and the takeover of Hughes Tool Company. Howard was THE VIP in 20th century America and is the archetype Musk projects. The entire Hughes legacy is a fiction. He was whacked in his hotel room and removed in a refrigerator and the narrative goes that he became hyper-reclusive.
Howard had ALL of the acting talent on air tight contracts, all of the production crews, he had all of the highest technology IP, he owned Vegas before it was Vegas as we know it and he was test piloting everything.
He was an actual genius, but he was also a vulnerable single point of failure. He gambled on the character of Mormons for his personal security, but in the end he was the fattest of fat targets and his HR security structure failed because he was so big he could only fail when the wolves got organized.
If there’s one person to deep dive on and read everything about, it’s HRH and Hughes Tool Company and all of the companies and technologies that flowed out of it after he was cancelled and his life’s work deconstructed and reconstructed across the prime contractor paradigm.
“Hitler should have banned the schools, gassed the pedagogues, and introduced apprenticeship…”
Germany still had apprenticeship at that time, at least for crafts and trades, although not for medicine and law.
Anyone watched yuri bezmenov?
He has several lectures talking about psychological warfare subversions
The only criticism I can think of is that he think is primarily the Soviet, while it was in fact GAE doing the subversion.
Rule by priests will always have a subversion problem. Add in open entry to the priesthood, rules based order and the insulation that institutions have to offer individuals and you have guaranteed subversion in every case.
Rule by priests alone is the problem.
Brown fascists or red fascists. Do outfits and color choices matter?
[*enemy link deleted*]
Link inaccurately depicts Nazis.
If you want to argue for that position, OK, but the trouble with the link is that presupposes that view of the Nazis as accepted and uncontroversial.
My first thought is, “well yes of course. You’re just one rung on the ladder away from the ‘all men are equal’ stage of leftism when you proclaim ‘all white/german/ men are equal.”
But my second thought is, you need some level of equalism to create a functional synthetic tribe, do you not? The freemen of England are an example of this equalism working out well. We shall be treated as peers, and here is why: [demonstrates martial skill]. The Greeks, and the Romans, before their degeneration, shared grain communally; the Germans shared land communally. These sorts of practices were rather common among yeoman warrior societies, where some sort of equalized public good is agreed upon.
So, what level of equalism is functional, and where does it become weak to holiness spiraling? If we are talking about Nazis, first *which Nazis* are we talking about? The German ones until the end of WWII? The modern version? Then, what elements of their faith constitute degenerate leftism, versus memes functioning to unite a synthetic tribe of warriors and weaponmakers and taxpayers? Honestly I don’t know where to begin, leftism being hard to define, for myself, and relegated to ‘I know it when I see it’, which is bad for know thy wnemy purposes.
Leftism has no essence — it is not an ideology, such as all that men are created equal, except women blacks and gays are more equal, but whatever rationale facilitates knocking over whatever apple cart is currently most salient. That apple cart being thoroughly extirpated, then comes a different rationale for knocking over whatever applecart comes up next.
To recognise leftism, forget the rationales, which are complicated, not sincerely held, make little sense, and frequently change in wildly self contradictory ways. Focus on the actions.
Nazism before the night of the long knives, was communism only with nationalism instead of internationalism. Nazism after the night of the long knives, considerably saner, more pragmatic and practical.
So, Hitler’s positions were all over the place, making it difficult to define “real” Nazism or fascism in terms of Hitler.
More useful is to identify the positions of Gab Nazis and Azov Nazis.
The state department (((Blinken, Nuland, Kagan, and Soros))) are obviously left, and Azov Nazis are obviously in the pocket of the (((State Department))), as for example (((Blinken))) going to a Nazi bar in Kiev and singing with Nazis to Nazis in photo op — most of the Nazis in the bar owning palaces in Europe and mansions in America for their bugout once they have gotten rid of all those annoying Ukrainian Goyim. Is that leftism, or is that leftism?
Bring up Soros and/or Musk with Gab Nazis and it quickly becomes obvious that they believe that capital and entrepreneurship are parasitic and unproductive. Which is the theory that led to the Great Leap Forward. Mao figured that facilities for making steel were just a way of stealing from the workers, so they all got inadvertantly or deliberately ruined, and men who knew how to make steel were just parasites, so they all got murdered or sent to prison camps. He figured that value equals labor, so just command a bunch of peasants to make steel, and steel will ensue.
This theory is a rationale for knocking over the supermarket and liquor store, which has now been legalised in the big blue megalopoli. Knocking over the supermarket and the liquor store is pure essence of leftism. Kamala, having legalised theft of less than one thousand dollars, promises price control, which means you will have bureaucrats knocking over the store in addition to random thugs. That is leftism, the rest of it is just the magician’s patter while he waves his right hand around to distract your eye from his left hand.
To recognise leftism, look at the actions, which are unchanging, and pay no attention to the pious intentions and noble goals of the actions, which are ever changing.
It may be fair to posit that Hitler used people like Strasser and organizations like the SA and then disposed of them almost at once in power, which is not quite the Deng/Monck game plan where the victorious leader is a real leftist who has the run the country into the country or, in most cases, die of natural causes before something can be done about it. If Papen had shot Hitler and the Reichswehr generals had disarmed the SA, I could see a clearer correspondence. And while that’s what he hinted at in his speech, he probably hinted rather than doing because he could not do (Papen was arrested and believed he would be killed in the Night of the Long Knives but was saved, apparently, by a whim of Herman Goering, a fellow aristocrat). Instead, Hitler disposed of the left wing Nazis and replaced them with the ultra-elitist hereditarian SS as the prime agency of state power.
The SS was indeed the most right wing faction in the Nazi party (and despite being associated with the worst mass murders of the Reich they generally opposed them until the orders came down) but the problem is Hitler himself purged the far left elements only because they were a threat to him but he broadly speaking agreed with them ideologically. Goebbels Ley and Bormann were on the far left of the Nazi party. Ley only got sidelined because he was also a useless drunk. Bormann ended up more powerful than everyone except Hitler himself (despite near universal hatred from the other Nazis).
With Papen don’t take too much at face value, the guy was clearly a Jesuit and he was on the books as a Knight of Malta. He was a big factor in getting America to attack Germany in WWI… he wasn’t loyal to Germany in any sense but solely to the Pope and the Superior General in Rome. Of course he got spared and of course he was one of the people completely acquitted at Nuremberg…
The most right wing were presumably the officers remaining from the time of the Kaiser.
I read a brief history of the isle of Sark during WW2 and the German occupation forces officers were old-fashioned enough to ask for the Dame of Sark’s word of honor and trust her (she proudly mentioned that she of course abused this). They weren’t SS, just regular army. That’s old school.
“Hitler himself purged the far left elements only because they were a threat to him but he broadly speaking agreed with them ideologically”
I must confess my interest in Nazis is only as an historical example of an apparently successful rightist revolution and many people know a lot more about what Hitler said than I do, but from my reading it seems that Hitler feuded with the Strasser wing more or less continually even before they were in power.They were close to being two different parties that didn’t break apart only out of fear of losing the whole game. Not only did they feud but Hitler stated explicitly right-ideological reasons for his disagreements with the Strasser wing.
Goebbels was a leftist sure.
Bormann was an office politician and the power he came to enjoy wasn’t based on his membership of a faction based on ideas. Bormann actually resembles Stalin to Hitler’s Lenin, and would probably have been similarly successful in similar circumstances.
I agree Papen has an extremely strange background and there is much more to him than meets the eye. However, it would be ridiculous to suggest that he was a Deng to Hitler’s Mao (I know that is not what jim wrote, but is close to the implication of Hitler purging the left-Nazis only on a threat from Papen).
The old school army officers almost universally were not party members and were leary of the party.
> I must confess my interest in Nazis is only as an historical example of an apparently successful rightist revolution
It wasn’t and I wouldn’t say it was super right wing (arguably it was a left wing native faction overthrowing a hated also leftist foreign occupation government). The most successful right wing revolutions were probably the anti Soviet revolutions.
> Bormann was an office politician and the power he came to enjoy wasn’t based on his membership of a faction based on ideas. Bormann actually resembles Stalin to Hitler’s Lenin, and would probably have been similarly successful in similar circumstances.
Yes but Bormann was on the far left faction of the Nazi party as well. His bias was towards hatred of christianity, private business, and towards Jews it was towards outright genocidal hatred rather than seperation and gradual expulsion. Otto Ohlendorf testified that the 3 most consistently left wing and totalitarian Nazis who always pushed to make the Reich a more and more total state were almost always Goebbels, Ley and Bormann.
“The old school army officers almost universally were not party members and were leary of the party.”
What the Nazis claimed to be was ideological rightists using Marxist tactics to win the political battles of modernity, since Marxism seemed to be the fittest political movement of modernity (this is an almost direct paraphrase from Hitler’s book).
I am not going to endlessly argue the point, but this seems fairly consistent to me with what happened.
No they did not claim that.
Nationalism was a left wing movement that everyone perceived as left wing, until around World War II or so.
Since borders were a result of royal marriages and aristocratic alliances, borders had little relationship to nationality, so nationalism a good reason for knocking over aristocratic apple carts.
Pay no attention to the magician’s patter, nor to the hand that he is waving around.
“Nationalism was a left wing movement that everyone perceived as left wing, until around World War II or so.”
Yes, true, and this made it much easier for them to stand on nationalism than it would be today (not that anyone notices). But theirs was not an egalitarian or parliamentary nationalism.
The main contradiction within the Nazi movement was actually nationalism vs racism, not Volkish vs Beefstreak Nazis, a contradiction they never solved.
Nazis were welfare statists, advocated and practiced the command economy, and sought to dismantle the supposedly unnatural hierarchy of middle class and nobility.
What I would grant is that they lost the war because they treated non-German Aryan Europeans as enemies (on nationalist grounds) rather than as countrymen (on racist grounds). The SS, which was racist, tried to win the war, but the Party, which was nationalist, tried to secure short term advantages to ‘the German People’. I believe you have described this before, in the case of Greece.
Its the socialism of the Nazis which was the big problem… not enough food to go around. Not even enough food to go around after not feeding the Jews and a large amount of the Russians.. so lots of people had to become guerillas in order to steal food or starve.
The Drang nach Osten itself was insane; a Reich whose TFR was below replacement level need not have worried about lebensraum all that much. Should have fixed fertility first, raising it far above replacement level, and only then start planning the grand territorial expansion into the Slavlands. But Hitler was a War God, and he just couldn’t help himself.
If Hitler had had the Mandate of Heaven, enabling the Reich to last a 1,000 years rather than 12 years, his weltanschauung would’ve focused on the following five points: 1. removing all traces of first wave feminism from society (including our favorite hobby horse, the age of consent) and instituting old-type marriage and coverture; 2. encouraging homeschooling and apprenticeships instead of banning homeschooling and forcing innocent Aryan kids into the progressive cult of 12-year-long classroom “educators”; 3. thoroughly purging the socialist elements from the party and instituting free market capitalism – call it “socialism with German characteristics” if need be; 4. solving the Kirchenkampf by establishing an official Nazi Christian Church, making its religion the state religion, and its priesthood the official priesthood; 5. finally, doing away with demotism completely and translating the Fuhrership into Monarchism, with a clear mechanism for appointing a successor to Hitler.
Having removed Jews and other undesirables from positions of power, he could’ve achieved all of those things, but he didn’t have Jim’s blog and the Dark Enlightenment available when growing up and formulating his worldview, so he sperged out in a horrible fashion and (by losing spectacularly to Anglos and Soviets) brought ruin upon Western Civilization, this despite being to the right of his adversaries in important ways.
A barrel of wine with a drop of sewage is a barrel of sewage.
“The Drang nach Osten itself was insane”
Without getting into a long discussion about the causes of WWII – they wouldn’t even fully incorporate the Dutch (“Dutch” just being a dialect version of “Deutsch” i.e. “German”).
There was a tendency to knock over foreign apple carts to benefit The German People, a tendency that was maximized by people like Strasser (who were purged) and opposed by the SS (which was promtoed), but it was never fully removed from the party sure (there were also purely pragmatic reasons for this of course).
Socialism, command economy, food shortage. So the party winds up making decisions to let people starve.
A German ruler wanting to subjugate the Urals if possible was not per se insane as it transform Germany from a nation hampered by being geographically in position where coalitions of powers can easily attack it from multiple sides and that is dependent on imports of almost every raw material to a powerhouse that would be almost unconquerable… the problem is the way Hitler sought to do it was not really feasible.
His problem besides war socialism is Britain and the United States preferred Russia to the territories of Russia because there is kind of a scaling limit on how much territory in the West Russia can hold onto… whereas Germany being a world power would eventually be a more direct existential threat. And given how insanely aggressive National Socialistic ideologies tend to be it wouldn’t even have taken that long if Germany was allowed to triumph in the East. So of course they allied with Russia… Hitler thought this was insanely irrational and blamed it on a Jewish conspiracy (he was more moderately antisemitic before this but British hostility made him very extreme since he blamed the Jews for it).
Hitler’s problem, like that of King Louis the sixteenth, and like that of Napoleon, was food.
Price control plus money printing, resulted in food shortages in Germany almost immediately. He then attempted to transfer food from outgroups to ingroups by the command economy. Which meant not only not feeding the Jews but also not feeding the Greeks (who were national socialists) and not feeding the Dutch, who were a remarkable food production powerhouse, not to mention more Aryan than Germans. Which of course shut down food production in Greece, France, and the rest.
That the brownshirts were leftists is obvious. Hitler was considerably less left. But what made him still a leftist was National Socialism, and socialism manifested, as always, in shortages.
Watch Tik’s video on Hitler’s socialism. This is a settled issue, Hitler was a socialist and a leftist. Arguably Goering (Goering was undelusional about ideology he openly said he didn’t care about ideology that much he just wanted into power… and that he joined with Hitler not because he actually gave a shit about his ideology but because something about him struck him as he would be the guy who could overthrow Weimar) Himmler and Heydrich were not but Hitler was.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCkyWBPaTC8
And as for Hitler vs Strasser… leftists kill each other because they want power. Hitler also knew he needed to appear to be more right than the communists in order to win over Hindenberg and the army.
The Nazis believed in natural superiors and inferiors that should be reflected in a hierarchical state organized according to a command principle (complete responsibility for and complete power over subordinates).
They believed this should be “reshuffled” at each generation according to the individual merits and therefore were arguably to the left of the old feudal Europe. However, they were to the right not only of the Social Democrats and Communists official positions, but also to the right of Weimar as it existed, and also to the right of almost every other country on earth, with the possible exception of Japan.
You are overthinking this. They were national socialists. The key point of socialism is that you are going to help yourself to other people’s stuff.
The people depicted in Papen’s Marburg speech are obviously leftists, regardless of what rhetoric leftists dress themselves in.
If you analyse the Azov nazis the way you are analysing German Nazis, the Azov also count as extreme right. Which is, as we saw in the bar in Kiev, transparently absurd.
Leftism is as leftism does, not as leftism talks.
“You are overthinking this. They were national socialists. The key point of socialism is that you are going to help yourself to other people’s stuff.”
True, however, this is just a word, and words have different meanings in different languages. Spengler’s book Prussianism and Socialism essentially argues for abolishing working week minimums and, implicitly, returning to 12 hour factory shifts. Apparently the term made sense. The Nazis went into considerable detail concerning what they believed, and it was at least partially borne out in practice.
“The people depicted in Papen’s Marburg speech are obviously leftists, regardless of what rhetoric leftists dress themselves in.”
Yes, Papen says that Strasser is a communist, the SA are communists, and maybe Hindenburg and the Reichswehr should step in if Hitler doesn’t solve the problem. Hitler, who had been feuding with Strasser for a long time (and, for example, using the word “democrat” as a disparaging epiphet for Strasser), then solved the problem.
“If you analyse the Azov nazis the way you are analysing German Nazis, the Azov also count as extreme right. Which is, as we saw in the bar in Kiev, transparently absurd.”
Well, I have not read any Azov Nazi texts, so I can’t analyse them on the same level. But possibly they are not Nazis. The Nazis believed they were the good guys, whereas the Azov strike me as people who think it is fun to dress up as the bad guy, and be a pantomime bad guy, which is just the role a government of Jews that is still mad about the Pale of Settlement would like ethnic Ukrainians to play.
“Leftism is as leftism does, not as leftism talks.”
I don’t dispute your deep insight that ‘leftism’ is a force of social nature. Any demotic movement, and Naziism was a demotic movement at least in terms of strategy until 1933 or maybe beyond, has aspects of leftism. However, I think the Nazi ideology always understood these, always understood their role in the movement just as tools, and crushed them according to a plan quickly and deliberately as soon as the power was in their hands.
Papen was himself an aspect of Nazi appeal to the majority and parliamentary legitimacy. After the Night of the Long Knives he was effectively exiled as ambassador to Turkey and never exercised any real political influence again.
But they did help themselves to other people’s stuff. Left is as leftism does, not as leftism talks. They were socialists.
Was touring the Lobkowicz Palace in Prague recently. Super wealthy old world Czech family. During WWII the NAZIs helped themselves to all their stuff (mostly estates and art going back to the 1600s). Got it back right after the war and then the communists came in and helped themselves to all their stuff. Got it all back again after the “Velvet” revolution when Václav Havel took over. As you may have noticed over the last few decades, the art world is very finicky about provenance and title.
Via the American Sun.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-08-27/caltech-long-male-bastion-to-enroll-majority-women-for-first-time
LOL, doomed.
By 2030, Russia alone would be able to defeat America.
By 2040, Egypt alone would be able to defeat America.
Gradually, then suddenly.
Caltech has amassed 47 Nobel prizes (according to the article). Women have been present at Caltech since 1970, more than 50 years. How many of those Nobels are due to women? The article for some reason doesn’t say.
> “By 2030, Russia alone would be able to defeat America.
By 2040, Egypt alone would be able to defeat America.”
Not literally. Ever since the Western White went into super-charged mode a couple of centuries ago, everyone else has been going through horrific bloodbaths, farcical tyrannies, and absurd social experiments, trying to catch up just a little bit.
The modern white civilization in peak mode is something everyone else has to scramble to keep up with at least to some extent through enormous effort.
When the West (“post west”?) lowers its standards, there’s no one left to soar past, rather everybody else will finally have the chance to relax a bit and stop trying to be more efficient than they really are.
A world in which today’s Labor-run UK, but twice as bad, is the upper limit of quality for a civilization as a whole, not counting pet projects of some monarch somewhere in the global south. That’s certainly a version of reality that a whole bunch of people appear to be encouraging to manifest.
Grim. But plausible.
Anyone know how to pass the paywall.
Ok, found the way here
https://archive.is/qAHIM
We’re having this time loop again?
because time is a flat circle.
The problem are fascism and Marxism are religions without a God. Left untethered by the Church they are just as like to kill themselves albeit in different fashion.
This whole GAE world is a gigantic heap of dry straw. Just one safe communication medium (and a scaleable crypto currency too would be nice) to light one corner and the whole thing burns up brighter than the sun. A volcanic eruption of truth to blast away centuries of bullshit and leave nutritious ash to nourish the next round. Never so much to so few. End of line.
> “Just one safe communication medium … to light one corner and the whole thing burns up brighter than the sun.”
May it be so. My personal contribution to the effort has been to write and maintain software to self-host communications without Globohomo Tech controlling it. Simply being self-hosted is a big part of it, but eventually we get to the point where many small sites tie into each other without oversight. If that sounds like “mastodon” then it might be, but bigger and wider and with lots of different types of software interacting to reduce the number of potential choke points.
A diaspora from big tech is necessary. And I do believe it will happen but I don’t know what the catalyst will be for it to happen.
Of course. The political left and their media like to paint the right as “fascist” and “nazi” etc. etc. but it is clear that both fascism and communism are intertwined authoritarian ideologies. In the “far right” is not found violent xenophobia, but rather hard core independence.
Off topic but I’m just curious about this because its a unique historical phenomenon in the history of seizing power. So in Brazil the chief judge who theoretically should have no executive power, he has no populist cult of personality, no vast web of patronage of minor officials (ala Stalin), nor great support with the military like a traditional South American caudillo… he just kind of decided that without the pretext of any legal case can rule on anything he wants and overrule the entire rest of the government and the whole country just kind of went along with it.
I know of nothing like that in history and I’m wondering how it happened that Brazil Lex Luthor could just decide he was dictator and not get removed from office one way (legally) or another (ie not so legally)…
Subjectification. In periods of decline, the biggest factor underlaying a dysfunctional incumbent order’s continued existence so often becomes sheer habitual inertia, the accustomization of folk to simply going alone with ‘the machine’ without even the thought that there could be alternatives or that they could resist.
Generations born and died without ever knowing anything but the Calhounian rat nest.
People who have performed the role of victim their whole lives, so that acting the part of victim is the reflex, not anything else.
They don’t think in terms of people presently occupying an institution as gangs and that they could have their own gang; they don’t think in terms of men and leaders and agents that they may or may not be loyal to; everything about their life is atomized, depersonalized, and proceduralized.
This process of deterritorializing connection(s) with Being, being-in-the-world, is of course enhanced by the social(ly) media(ted) space; for all that the subject may get heated by outrage porn and doomscrolling, there is also a underlaying sense of unreality to the whole business; just another performative game in a long series of performative games; just a disembodied observer floating through life, with no purpose but to pose comment and seek validation, beholding the world, but neither acting nor acted upon by it.
(Until they are.)
Obvious a conspiracy decided to do X, where X is obviously illegal. And then told the judge to make it legal.
The Brazilian left seems to be trying to play America China and Russia off of each other (and I’ll give them credit this is generally what small countries should do) in order to get the best deal for themselves with everybody. So no I would say it has more to do with domestic politics that twitter is being banned (Brazil’s election was stolen from Bolsonarno) than say them getting an order from the US State Department. But ever since the steal the judge definitely seems to be the actual ruler of Brazil and it doesn’t seem like its really even a corrupt oligarchy anymore it seems like he is firmly in charge. And surprisingly the whole leftist party apparatus of Lula etc has done nothing to challenge him on this…
In a land of followers, the first mover is king.
Man you said it. MS13 and those Venezuelan squatter gangs are the proof. They’re the real government in many places now. Of course they don’t get the Branch Dravidian treatment because they’re illegal and brown.
Crime, reproduction, welfare and voting left.
I remember how Salvini rocketed to “power†in Italy right after that guy gunned down the nigger who had chopped up his sister. How dare he. But dare he did, and the word got out. This whole thing teeters on goyim being (presently) unable to say “no, just noâ€, get away with it, and have others find out about it.
usually left conspiracy, hate rule by single individual degree except if the he is a decrepit old male like Biden. the rule was done by single judge instead of “the supreme court†.
Clearly the judge have the will and power and he is using it.
If Mike Benz is right the judge had a friendly nudge…
https://x.com/mikebenzcyber/status/1829630737911595453?s=46
“We’re monitoring the situation.” LOL
Musk claims former Twitter employees helped the judge with election rigging:
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1830091917654168032
@TC, you’ll probably like this.
The scandalous immorality of today’s Taliban would have made the socially conservative Koreans of the Joseon era blush. For the most part. Korean women could still show their face in public and patriarchs were fined for unmarried daughters 30 years or older, quite lenient. Neo-Confucianism was the Oriental Taliban so to speak.
Catholicism’s arrival and influence in the late 1700s and early 1800s quickly led to a break down in the Neo-Confucian order as schools were opened up to educate girls and the project of social emancipation of women and children started, and yes, Jesuits were largely involved. Women could get educated and get jobs. Patriarchs were no longer fined for unmarried daughters passed a certain age. Fast forward to the 1950s, a Koreanized version of Liberation theology called Minjung theology ferments and has been a problem ever since.
And Korea is the most feminist society in Asia (and by some accounts on the planet) now… whereas Asia has to a large degree resisted feminism in some ways. If 1950s feminism is feminism they haven’t resisted so much but most of Asia has not accepted second or even 3rd wave feminism… but fucking South Korea is described by all accounts as a gynocratic nightmare. Women are chad only worse than even Southern California prostitution and porn are strictly illegal and the government is competent enough to make the enforcement of this somewhat effective.
I have often thought which is the most feminist country in the world – US, South Korea or Spain/Argentina – and which metric to use for that. Probably the birth rate is the best metric, and by this is would be South Korea by far.
What can this information be used for? Like Japan can be used as example of how the endgame of a first world country managing its unmanageable debt will look like, an eye on South Korea will tell you how the feminist endgame looks like. Granted there are some peculiarities for this country (high productivity, few immigrants, ban of prostitution/porn) – but it will be interesting whether and or when there will be a sharp shift in policy wrt women and childbirth, and whether and or when they will realize only the stick helps – as for whatever carrot they bring, it will never be enough for women.
Bans on porn and prostitution are feminist not peculiarities of Korean feminism. Prostitutes are competitors to normie women and if easily available they just can’t be too feminist.
The problems started by feminism gave away quickly to a hyper Confucianism with Western characteristics. Sort of like how the FIRE economy is cannibalizing real living standards in America, status chasing through endless testing and the knockoff effects has cannibalized real living standards in Asia.
A supreme ruler could mandate marriage and would find birth rates not climb much or at all. A ruler would need to calm everyone the fuck down and slow down competition. They’d even likely see a real increase in productivity.
>high productivity
It’s among the lowest in the OECD, and much of it is fake.
>ban of prostitution/porn
I have no idea where this is coming from. Both are easily accessible and politely ignored.
Korea isn’t really feminist (it has a sort of run away Neo-Neo Confucianism problem that bares similarity to the legalism of the Pharisees), nor is it a gynocratic nightmare. If anything it’s a country of sterile socially enforced legalism and shockingly low (real) living standards.
There are a lot of problems, many which have obvious solutions that nearly every administration since the early 2000s have proposed, but inherent problems with democracy preclude action being taken. Some very half ass measures produced a fertility rate of .971 in Sejong, a major improvement over the .55 of Seoul, but every step in the project has been hindered. Korea needs to break up Seoul, the city is devouring the people and draining the country side much in the same way Tokyo is doing for Japan, but when a majority of people live in the city, the city’s political power is the dominant force in democratic politics.
99% of accounts of feminism in Korea are from Western backed agitators who get a spotlight because of the American media. Inside Korea, there are practically zero mentions of feminism. Take the 4B ‘movement’ for example. Korean feminists who post only in Korean have twitter followings in the hundreds and rarely just above a thousand. Same with other social media platforms. As soon as they start posting in English, the followers increase exponentially into the tens and even hundreds of thousands of followers. Nearly all of the English posters are not even Korean citizens as they are often Korean Americans who have never lived or visited Korea.
The women largely don’t have time to agitate either. They are worked too much to have time for… well anything. Korea has a strange mix of extreme work hours with shockingly low productivity. There isn’t even time for sex. Stress kills libido, especially in women where 40% of them living in Seoul went without sex in the last year. It drops down to 20% of men because of a reliance on a growing number of foreign prostitutes. Something like 70% of Koreans aged 18-30 are not even dating, and the low illegitimacy rate of ~2% also backs up the sexlessness of Korean society.
Every major survey conducted in Korea by Koreans, not Americans, have found social attitudes are still fairly traditional. There’s a huge desire to get married and have children, but it’s largely outside the perceived possibilities for many.
The living standards are in reality abysmal. South Korea produces big GDP numbers in the same way LA/San Fran is on paper on of the most prosperous places in the world. It’s a lot of fake prosperity. Median income is something like 34k USD, but average house in Seoul is 1 million USD (for something that looks like a cage). Add in day to day expenses plus taxes, and your average American trailer trash is probably living a better life with a lot less stress and much higher fertility. You can be an Engineer working at a top Korean company and still feel like you’re barely getting by.
lol, no. That’s an impression you’d get if you read the English news. It’s very different inside Korea.
“Korea isn’t really feminist“
This is also my impression. The try to become feminist but the people don’t follow. You can see this in the controversy around the game stellar blade which caused the GAE media to lose their heads because of how sexy and not diverse the game was.
Feminism was successfully used to undermine the old order and institute democracy. After which feminism promptly died and was replaced by a sort of hyper democratized neo-neo-confucianism (with Western characteristics).
“And Korea is the most feminist society in Asia”
There are some ways in which this is true even though Korea is ostensibly still very male dominated. Women are educationally “promoted” and then pushed into 100hr/week jobs in which the sexiest man in their life is their married boss (the sexiest man in her, and also her ten coworkers’ lives). This is basically what is happening in all of Asia and to some extent also in the West (white women are less impressed by corporate boss “power” than Asian women but still, the job just eats all your time and whatever commands your time is a power of sorts).
>Women are educationally “promoted†and then pushed into 100hr/week jobs
Is this really feminism when it results in a sexless society and general unhappiness? At a certain point it starts looking like sub-subsistence farming to the extent that the population can’t even sustain itself and is in slow decline. Real standard of living in Korea (and the rest of NEA) is really much lower than the numbers would suggest. The society is still very patriarchal in that women are expected to (and actually do) drag prospects before their fathers before proceeding further. It’s just that they can’t find acceptable prospects and the entire society is in a managed economic famine.
Contrast with the feminist West where women are socially dominate and they are banging criminal Chads, anti-marriage, and ‘body positive’. They are not getting married, not because of economic/status shortages, but because of female hypergamy.
>the sexiest man in their life is their married boss
Being around such women, their libido is so fucked, they just want to go home and pass out. One day they might wake up and be like ‘FUUUUCK! I NEED TO GET MARRIED’ and next thing you know they are spending much money at matchmaking marriage brokers because at the end of the day they have no energy to go out looking for themselves. It’s all kinda sad.
>Is this really feminism when it results in a sexless society and general unhappiness?
Well yes, that’s usually what feminism results in.
> usually
Always. Immutably, there may be a very small fun transition period but the end result is a joyless sexless society.
> There may be a very small fun transition period but the end result is a joyless sexless society.
The swinging sixties were the fun transition period, but in the seventies, males were already bewailing a grim joyless sexless society of fear, shame, and weakness. Seemed to me the fun transition period lasted from 1966 to 1972. No one in the eighties was fondly and nostalgically recalling the early seventies.
After we figured out that GRIDS was a hoax for heteros there was plenty of ‘fun’ to be had from the late 80s until the mid-00s or so.
American feminism has resulted in a lot of sexual perversion, lots of feral women roaming society terrorizing men, endless girl boss propaganda, lots of demon worshiping, and a whole host of other problems. I just don’t see those things in Korea let alone the rest of Asia unless it’s some Asian American who is traveling there to terrorize the locals with her pink hair and body positivity.
The women in Asia are mostly tired cogs in extremely inefficient make work desk jobs that surprisingly don’t cause much problems other than generally being a massive drain on the economy. The women are generally nice and demure in public, and as a guy I’ve never been scared of them going feral on me.
I’m just saying, all this talk about Korea/Japan being some kind of feminist hell hole seems just a bit much. It’s still a tranquil hell hole for other reasons though. It’s like how some in the West call Russia a multicultural hellhole full of mongrel rape babies over run by Muslims when America/France/UK/Sweden are just so, so much worse. ‘OMG, look at that (possible) cancerous mole on that patient screams the guy with terminal stage 4 cancer!’
America partly reversed and then froze female emancipation in the 1930s, and it held all the way to the 60s. The 40s and 50s weren’t exactly feminist, sort of like how Deng’s communism wasn’t really communist. Korea and Japan both put a halt to feminism and then let academic testing for status chasing eat everything.
I’m curious as to the mechanism by which the US froze and reversed feminism in 1933, corresponding with Roosevelt taking power and also with the repeal of Prohibition. It’s clear it was done, but was this something pivotal of Roosevelt? As in, The Man in the High Castle has a point of departure with FDR getting whacked prior to inauguration—-was the author inadvertently right in that no FDR means no rollback of feminism which means no Greatest Generation which means no American hyperpower?
Feminism is totally manufactured. If the state stops pushing hard and then harder, poof it goes away.
Amelia Earhart gets a ticker tape parade and special White House visit for being carried across the ocean by a man like a sack of the potatoes. Charles Lindbergh was spontaneously organically famous. Amelia Earhart was officially defined to be officially famous. When she stopped being officially defined to the officially famous, poof, she vanished. Could not get back into the news even when she kills herself trying.
The state keeps dishing out gravy to feminists and anyone who promotes feminism, and punishes anyone for noticing the differences between men and women. When it stops doing that, poof.
> Is this really feminism when it results in a sexless society and general unhappiness
That’s what feminism always does, you don’t have to be like the Taliban exactly but feminism is not pro sex or pro fun.
Feminism is sexual energy that doesn’t have a proper outlet. An ugly twisted demonic form, but sexual nonetheless. What exactly do you categorize these young feminist women celebrating abortions as if not a sexual rite? If you look at their behavior as a shit test hoping for a barbarian to take them, well the society might be sexless but it’s certainly not asexual.
This isn’t going on in Korea or Japan. The governments found a way to neuter the women so they don’t make a fuss. It’s more than just sexless, it’s downright asexual at times. I just can’t classify that as feminism. It’s an entirely different horror show.
No… women with sexual energy without a proper outlet are quick to find an improper one and arguably they prefer to. I commented recently that its weird (even if its good on the surface) how you don’t have the phenomenom with zoomers that teenage girls 13-15ish have traditionally had where they relentlessly and habitually sneak out at night find a friend group and basically act very badly ala like the girls in the movie “Thirteen” (the globohomo aspect of the movie was that they seemed to prefer niggers but the rest of it was a pretty accurate depiction) that behavior is a manifestation of sexual energy without a good outlet but girls that age are not feminists… bad girl slutty behavior is not feminism though feminism makes men powerless to stop or punish it.
Feminism exploits the female tendency to groupthink to get them to act in ways they would not act without propaganda. Plenty of women dream of becoming prostitutes at least fleetingly or some job very close. No woman would natutrally dream of being a career girl without a lot of conditioning (now they do dream of being queen/ruling the world).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5q7jF94n-4
If that isn’t sexual energy, what is it? They’re practically presenting their bodies to be taken, but are finding there’s no barbarians willing/capable to do so. So they keep escalating to ever more extreme shit testing. Feminism is clearly sexual energy that is seeking release but is failing.
That these zoomers demonstrate no traditional sexual energy and no sexual energy in failure mode (feminism), points to some form of sexual dysfunction… which is different from sexual failure.
“Is this really feminism when it results in a sexless society and general unhappiness?”
Yeah arguable – what IS feminism?
If feminism is most fundamentally taking young women out of the possession of young men, it’s feminism. You (100hr/week job) have to persuade a woman (100hr/week job) that she should honor and obey you rather than your boss. Surprisingly, nobody reproduces, and increasingly don’t have sex.
Japan is (was until 2021 or so???) outright patriarchal in the sense that men are explicitly promoted above women in the workplace both literally and in terms of status, but the same basic mechanism still at work.
At the same time, Korean govt funded K-Pop which is just American gangster rap, usually sung in English, performed by farmed Asian girls in cut-off jorts. The Japs weren’t doing that.