The DOD data indicates among, other things, a three fold increase in cancer, which suggests substantial damage from a quite small number of jabs.
Insurance data in most of the world indicates a forty percent rise in the working age death rate everywhere. I wish I had insurance data for Israel, but I do not. Likely the working age death rate is skyrocketing in line with their China flu infection rate.
A good friend of mine got cancer after his first jab.
In a random conversation with real life normies, they see the jab as increasing the risk of China flu, and increasing the severity of the ensuing infection.
The question then, is is this damage temporary, or lasting and cumulative?
Israel is the most jabbed country in the world, and their China flu infection is far beyond anything any other country is suffering. This suggests cumulative damage. I wish I had their death rate and cancer rate data, but, though they used to publish it regularly in Euro Momo, they suddenly went silent after they started jabbing. Death rate data is everywhere unavailable, or is inconsistent and improbable in ways that indicate massive, poorly coordinated but severely enforced lying.
Purebloods (on purely anecdotal evidence) do not notice omicron infection. America’s top agent in the USSR has been enthusiastically touting the jab, and has had himself jabbed eight times. He is now on a ventilator, major serious damage to both lungs. (Hat tip Varna.)
This is consistent my earlier guess that somewhere between five and ten jabs, everyone dies.
It is a sample size of one, but in a world where lying is mandatory and enforced by drastic means, that is a good as we are likely to get. We are lost in a fog of lies.
But though it is difficult to find truth, it is easy to find that we are being lied to. And people who lie to you knowingly intend you harm. They hate everyone, including themselves. They want to kill us all. Everything you hear the enemy saying needs to be understood in that light.
Jim, do you have any investment tips? My parents have large savings but few investments. I was going to get them into crypto, but I’m unsure how crypto is going to workout going forward. The way inflation is going they’re going to end up destitute unless they get that money moved somewhere productive.
I know you directed this towards Jim but the way I’m playing the current conditions is commodities (checkout ticker symbol GSG) and bitcoin. GSG has been making a killing for me and it will remain a good investment until inflation is brought under control (which may take months, years, or may never be based on fed policy).
Commodities are a timely indicator of inflation.
But everything else is going to catch up. Also, all complicated financial institutions located in US power are going to be looted, killed, and worn as skin suits.
Eventually, which will be followed shortly after by total American Empire institutional collapse. It will happen but it is not happening any time soon. Best not to turn your life tits over ass preparing for total institutional collapse that is not happening any time soon.
But when you invest in commodities, you are preparing for events that are happening soon.
If you are long on commodities right now, you are predicting that inflation is going to rise faster than normality bias catches up – which means you are betting your money on high likelihood of hyperinflation, because normies are starting to belatedly perceive inflation.
Commodities are a timely indicator of inflation, but if inflation remains stable at around thirty percent a year, other stuff will catch up as peoples inflationary expectations catch up to actual inflation.
It has certainly been true in recent times that inflation has had an increasing lead on normality bias, so commodities have been a good investment. But normality bias is starting to break down, so for commodities to continue to be a good investment, inflation has to accelerate. So if you are still long on commodities, you are betting that hyperinflation hits, but some considerable time passes with normies not yet realizing it has hit. Which has been what has happened in previous hyperinflations.
Long on commodities is inconsistent with the position you have been taking in the comments that a mere few hundred basis points will break inflation. To halt inflation, will need at least fifty basis points a week for at least a year.
Not seeing normality bias starting to break down. Normality bias is that inflation will stop and prices will stop rising. I am simply betting that prices will not stop rising until the fed takes necessary action to stop the prices from rising.
Normies are incapable to understand that prices will not stop rising until the fed takes necessary action to stop the prices from rising, so this will always be a winning bet.
When I see the fed start to take action indicative of a dramatic rise in rates or a dramatic crash in the markets, I will rotate out of commodities and back into equities.
If the fed never takes takes necessary corrective action to stop prices from rising, as you imply, you are likely right and we will enter hyperflation, at which point I will rotate entirely into bitcoin and start looking at flights to a safe haven to flee to.
But I am not too bullish on near term hyperinflation because I believe Fed Chairman Powell, a conservative, will do the necessary action to slow inflation to manageable levels.
Conservatives have long been the stabilizing brake of the regime to slow the preposterous actions of the left and turn the heat level back down to simmer so the frog doesn’t jump out. I don’t think this time will be any different.
“Long on commodities is inconsistent with the position you have been taking in the comments that a mere few hundred basis points will break inflation.”
Not necessarily. Pooch may think that a few bps would be enough but that no one has the balls to call for even that. More broadly, your line of thinking seems to me to be that inflation is now very challenging to stop – having been left unattended for too long – and that this almost excuses Powel and co for failing where only titanic will applying titanic means could succeed.
I and perhaps Pooch (along with most commentators such as Sumner etc( think that inflation can still be stopped on the cheap but the window is closing, making Powell very culpable for failing in these crucial months. His interview where the threw the current paradigm under the bus for all to see is a gaffe of epic proportions and I was wrong about his technical skill.
The dollar devaluation cannot be stopped with 30 trillion in government debt…
To stop inflation, have to raise interest rate 2500 basis points, maybe 5000 basis points.
And suddenly the government would have to pay ten trillion a year on its debt, which it can only do by issuing a whole lot more debt. And before long people are going to doubt that the debt is good.
The debt is so great that it has to be monetized, hence inflation, and very likely hyperinflation.
From a purely mechanical point of view, 130 of GDP is not the end of the world in debt, and can be gotten out of.
In practice, the sort of country that rakes up that sort of debt is not the sort of country to make the necessary changes to get out of it, so in that sense you are right, it will go all the way.
To resolve the inflation during Crisis of the Third Century, the Roman Emperors enacted brutal and oppressive taxation on their populace. I would not rule this out for us.
>To resolve the inflation during Crisis of the Third Century, the Roman Emperors enacted brutal and oppressive taxation on their populace. I would not rule this out for us.
That’s how you get people dropping out and forming bandit groups. The Romans had an effective military that could somewhat suppress them, we don’t.
That’s how you get people dropping out and forming bandit groups. The Romans had an effective military that could somewhat suppress them, we don’t.
Exactly what happened as a result of the oppressive taxation to resolve the Crisis of the Third Century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagaudae
Brutal taxation then was like taxes now…
We are beyond the laffer maximum already.
We aren’t even close to the level of taxation levied after the Crisis of the Third Century. Most peasants could no longer afford property and could only be serfs on the estates of large landowners.
Do you know what those taxes were, peasants joined large estates not because of taxes but because of constant war…. needed local warlords with local militia.
We are beyond the laffer maximum. The government cannot raise revenues by raising taxes, debt is unservicable.
Anyway… why is it so hard to understand that there is no way out of 30T in debt except either repudiation or monetization… none zero.
That’s absolutely not what happened. There were no local warlords in the 3rd century. Warlords didn’t start coming until after Rome was sacked in the 5th century. Read about the taxation reforms.
https://mises.org/library/inflation-and-fall-roman-empire
No one is saying that. Unless we get some magical reactionary regime change restoration that is looking exceedingly unlikely at this point, the Empire is going to collapse under its own weight. It’s just a matter of when not if.
During the crisis of the 3rd century Rome looked a lot like the 5th century, most of the Empire falling into barbarian hands and also constant civil wars. Unlike in the 5th century it was saved by a couple Emperor’s (Claudius II and Aurelian mainly) having miraculous military successes in retaking territory.
Don’t think the state could easily collect taxes from a reluctant population in such circumstances, what likely happened is that when the armies did move thru they took everything of value. What did happen that was economically terrible is that Aurelian to some degree followed by Diocletian instituted a kind of command economy, and Constantine basically tied everyone to their locality (without special permission) so that they could be accounted for to fufill their taxes and quotas under the command economy system and as such that kind of was brutal taxation. But it came after the crisis of the 3rd century.
Marcian reinvigorated the Eastern economy by abolishing prettymuch every aspect of the command economy (Procopius in his secret history details that the Eastern Empire’s economic policies were downright minarchist and libertarian before Justinian) but this was not done in the West and as such the West finally became too broke to raise another army when they needed to… and oh they also pissed off their barbarian soldiers who joined Alaric by ordering their families killed.
Why is debt so all-important? Biden, or the junta standing over Biden’s bullet-riddled corpse, could void the debt, print just enough money to pay the men with guns, and tell everyone else to get a fucking job.
They could also do a partial default where foreign creditors get nothing but Americans are compensated up to some limit.
So instead of inflation, where your dollars gradually become worthless, we could have deflation, where your dollars suddenly disappear and you have to fill out an application to get some of them back.
Because the government would not be able to buy foreign currency or goods. It would be a shock, and result in a lot of death, but might at least get a good jump going on building domestic industry….. For anyone who survives it.
Given that the US Treasury has unwisely shortened the maturation of the debt over the last 30 years, a large enough increase increase in rates to kill inflation would cause a severe recession, and practically force devaluation, an end to Reserve currency status, and ultimately default…All of which would ultimately benefit most Americans….But would be massively unpopular with the .1% who rule us…
Normality bias also says that you own the commodities listed on your account statement, that they actually exist in some warehouse or storage tank, and the government won’t confiscate them “for the common good”.
That will happen, among other things, but it is not happening yet.
My advice is that the future is likely to be surprising, Bitcoin is at increasing risk of the blood diamonds attack, and urgently needs to get the Lightning Network working as originally envisaged. Therefore one needs to diversify, and any asset not dollar denominated is good. Local assets should be physical things embedded in your local social network, and far off assets need to be far from the power of the American state. Crypto is good, and likely to get better, but should envisaged and implemented for an environment where it is illegal one needs to get the last plane out to a location where technology still works, which requires a certain amount of technical knowledge.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/67828
I really want to post the whole thing, but it is quite long. So uncomfortably invigorating to read a politician speaking like this. You can really feel the desperation in his words, balancing the weight of historical legacy with the grim reality that you are in fact alone, your potential allies are just as greedy and dangerous as your enemies, and that you will always be accused of doing what the opposition is doing to you.
A great speech, in dialogue with history. Just being familiar with and acknowledging basic, realty-rooted history gives a man like him immense power in this era of ignorant self-deletion. There is probably not a single human being in Washington, except maybe Kissinger, who can even understand what the hell he is talking about. And if they don’t know how to read, how can they choose the correct course of action?
I wonder how much of his theory of history is his own, and how much his circle’s. There’s something to it that strikes me as the product of a single mind rather than a committee.
I don’t know how familiar you are with Slavs or with people that make it their business to do violence, but just trying to imagine the tiger a physical manlet like Putin has to ride every day, just to get to sleep at the end of it, is so off-putting. He has to be incredibly smart and incredibly loyal, because Russia is a godsdamn deathtrap under normal circumstances, not even taking into account the details involved in power circles. He’s gotta be the loneliest man in the planet. This may sound like sycophantry, but I’m genuinely impressed by the guy. He may just be lucky, otherwise he’s nearly superhuman.
It’s truly impressive, very much worth a read.
Between all the times he shits on “the virus of nationalism”, right-wingers and neo-nazis and then he compains about the “prejudices” that some some countries have towards Russia, half of this could have been drafted by a grad in State , mutatis mutandis.
Alas, the US is such a monomaniacal propagator of degeneracy that even Russia will ahve to do as a break. But this guy is no rightists, and thise who come after him shall be so even less.
Putin does not have the false perspective of the West. To him, “nationalists” are not the right-wing bogeyman under the bed that they are to the anglosphere, that modern rightists tragically larp as. Nationalists are obviously a left-wing faction allying with communists to destroy the Russian Empire.
Calling oneself a nationalist is enemy occupation of your brain, and the word and concept of “nationalism” is taking the natural preference a man has for those of similar blood and language, which used to not have a word in the same way that preferring to eat food over garbage did not have a word, and using it as a justification for insane leftist schemes.
Putin sees Russia as an Empire. Nationalism means the rebellion of parts of the Empire. Which in practice means conflict with other empires, because the nationalists seceding from the empire make alliances with other empires. So yes, if you are the ruler of an Empire, nationalism is bad.
And Russia is the blood-enemy of the Nazis. Why would any sane Russian feel an ounce of warmth towards Hitler? The Greek fascists hate Hitler too. Liking Hitler or not is not a reliable indicator of being on the side of GNON.
So, in denouncing many times nationalism, Putin the Head of Empire lets his subjects know that they are to prefer the far to the near, the Moskovite to the cousin jew or whatnot, not just the fellow Russian to the foreigner, which is fair to ask. Even by the standards of Empire, this is wicked and leftist, a perversion of the natural afinity towards one’s own.
Nationalism means the same thing to Putin as it does to the EU, I see no difference whatsoever, hence no ground for criticising one but not the other.
Nationalism only has meaning in the context of democracy. As a monarch, he is right to criticize it because it is a threat to monarchy.
Democracy is also a threat to oligarchy, so from the US/EU perspective they must criticize it too.
So, if were speaking of how the vile Ukrainians are preventing faggots from parading in Kiev (you know, like neo-nazis are wont to do), would he be justified in saying that too, as a defender or freedom instead of a pusher of degeneracy in the mould of globohomo? If he gets cross with dagestanis tomorrow and goes AWOL since they supress women rights, would he be justified then? Why is this different from hitting at nationalism, all being attacks from the left.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48738251.amp
I know thats not true, was making that scenario up to prove that it doesn’t matter if a right-wing concept is criticized from an oligarchy or monarchy , an attack from the left is the same in both cases.
Ok, but you made your central thesis upon a fabricated scenario. Putin isn’t talking about men that live their blood, heritage, and neighbors, he’s talking about people that would sell their souls for a shred of power. This is plainly obvious in context.
For anyone else, I’d immediately cry entryist shill. But I am a nationalist, and I like you a lot, so help me understand what you’re seeing that the rest of us don’t.
Here’s what I’m seeing: a speech that would have been just as powerfull with no swipe or mention at all of nationalism, right-wingers ir neo-nazis. My fellow Russians are bring oppressed, the survival of my country is at stake and our brothers in history and faith are being depredated by a band of thiefs. Seems powerfull enough to me.
Why, oh why, you have to take swipe after swipe at right-wing concepts? Unless you don’t think that nationalism is a right-wing concept, with which reading I disagree mightily.
I am left with a very bad taste from reading it, and don’t understand how the others here aren’t.
Ok, I was too. But I think Aidan, as usual, nailed it. Consider what this speech heralds: Russia is going to war. It is going to war with its cousins. The motivation for this war is an implacable enemy that parades around in the skin suit of self determination. In this context, nationalism is being used as an anti-concept.
His phrasing tripped my danger circuits as well, but I am choosing to give the benefit of the doubt.
There are some words which, when used as accusations and only when used as accusations, give away a leftist. Nationalist! Racist! Mysoginist! Fascist! Reactionary! You hear them and you know the guy is either an NPC or a true believer.
I am no fascist (simply becouse I cannot understand what the hell it means) but if I hear a guy throw “fascist” around I know where he stands right away. No context needed.
The same with accusing the globohomo puppets in Kiev if being nationalistic. This can only have one meaning: that they put the interest of their nation above those of other nations, i.e. Russia. Doesn’t matter that this is silly in the extreme,what mattwris thta you would consider this bad enough to use an an accusation! Something an EU eunuch may do.
I think in this particular case Aidan is looking ffor context that is just not there.
I think you are looking at it from a perspective that is too Western by far. When he criticizes “fascism” and “neo-Nazis,” he is not talking about a group that does not exist except as online agitators serving the Cathedral. There are actual neo-Nazi fascists in Ukraine that waze actual swastikas around and are not just some boogeyman to use to beat right-wingers. The US allied with–then armed and funded–no shit, legitimate, true believer fascists. It would be similar to Russia funding Al Queda organizations in Canada. The self-defense response and historical animosity would absolutely be included in the American declaration of war.
Fascii was a latin/italian word to refer to a collection of staves lashed together to form a single strong beam. Informally, it was often used as a term for groups, gangs, bands of men, organizations, states…
A colloquial analysis of use-cases involving the word fascism over the past 70 years produces a relatively simple definition; fascism is a word that is used when describing things preclusive to communism. Policies that preclude communism are fascist. People that preclude communism are fascist. Things that preclude communist are fascist. Existence is fascist.
Thus, ‘fascism’ is a synecdoche for everything standing in the way of the gnostic’s unbridled political dominion. We can recognize it, ultimately, as a gnostic’s reification of Being itself. In archetypical terms, ‘the fascist’ is everything that he is not; the fascist is not socialist; the fascist is not feminist; the fascist is not egalitarian; the fascist is not effete; the fascist is not barren…
Yeah I think Aidan nailed it. You are letting the enemy definition of nationalism occupy your brain. For Putin, Ukrainian nationalism means gay parades in Kiev, the potential genocide of its Russian population, and potential nuclear attack on Russia itself. Obviously, he is right to attack it.
It should be emphasized that we are not nationalists, we are reactionaries. This is an important distinction. If nationalism can be leveraged to bring us to a reactionary monarchy than fine, but it is the means not the end.
In the sense that Putin is attempting to restore the Russian Empire of the 18th century and not the fake and gay nationalisms that Lenin created in the 20th, he is going full blown neo-reactionary and we should be rooting him on.
Pseudo-Chrysostom, that is still looking at facism from the perspective of the Western socialist. The people in Ukraine calling themselves fascists are national socialists that look to repeat Hitler’s follies. Putin is not railing against some made up force. He is talking about a bunch of people who think that Hitler had a really good idea, and want to institute national socialism. In this case, the fascists are on the side of the communists. An international socialist alliance, one might say, inasmuch as communists can every truly work together.
@Pooch, on the reactionary- nationalistic distinction.
Would you be OK with importing 100 million high-functionin chinese to the US then? Of course not, I think most here are both reactionaries and nationalists.
One can be a cosmopolitan reactionary and I think Yarvin fits the mould but, you know, Yarvin.
Is importing 100 million Chinese a reactionary policy? Is this something the monarchs of the 17th century would have wanted? Nationalism wasn’t even a word until the late 19th century, born out of democracy. It has no meaning outside the context of democracy. I’m not a nationalist. I’m a monarchist. I reject everything that has to do with the cancer that is democracy.
And like I said, if nationalism can be leveraged as some intermediate step that gets us closer to absolute monarchy ie the 20th century, then ok I am listening, but the track record on that has been less than stellar.
Singapore has some claim to be a reactionary-adjacent polity, and they import high-functioning foreigners for sport, being the only country I know of that started and continued to be 105IQ on average despite massive immigration, due to savage vetting. So yeah, I think bringing 100m chinamen to the US would be well within the rea of the possible.
In general, I disagree that nationslism is a by-product of – and makes sense only in the context of democracy. Both evolved due to the widespread circulation of the press, but have nothing in common beyond the tech that unlocked them. When some on the right pooh-pooh nationalism as a thing that is created by democracy I think “oh boy, here we go again, another faction that thinks their magic pixxie ideology will make issues that broke Europe go away”.
>The people in Ukraine calling themselves fascists are national socialists that look to repeat Hitler’s follies. Putin is not railing against some made up force.
Well that’s the thing friend; when a bad guy is telling you about what he’s about, he can just lie about it.
Catherine the Great invited her fellow Germans to settle the Volga region in the 18th century; does that count?
Allowing white Christians to settle unsettled land is obviously reactionary policy in the European tradition. How do I know this? It is strictly forbidden by the Cathedral.
The migrations of teutonic species to America in the 19th century were recapitulated by latter day leftists to justify immivasions of meso-american and other species in the 20th. The man who would say both were good, and the man who would say neither were good, are both springing from the same sin, which is mere process level spergmaticism, unable to make useful distinctions in substantial differences between different objects in question.
Well said Pseudo.
Nationalism isn’t “right-wing”, it’s just “more right than communism”.
Nationalism is a “left-wing” idea set because it puts the interests of the nation, ie, people that are kind of like you that aren’t in your family group, above the interests of your family group.
A King acknowledges that your family has its own interests – accepts that the father is the King of his home. (How he may deal with that fact is what makes a King good or bad. But that’s the political reality that monarchy sees).
A leftoid tells you that your own family interests are equal in value to everyone elses family interests and therefore you should supplicate to them.
A Nationalist will tell you that your personal family interests are second to the Nations.
And so whatever the Nationalist defines as the National Interest thus becomes more important than your personal and family interests. You thus lose control over your children, your wife, so on, since they should behave in accordance with the National Interest.
Nationalism is just “racist”, so not sufficiently left to be acceptable to moderns.
Being a Nationalist is just saying “THIS is the line, no further left than this!”
All good but you are missing a key issue that needs solving: coordination is hard. If it were trivial, we would not speak of politics at all, people would just coalesce as needed and disband, and no one would think of this stuff twice. Albanians and Serbs would join forces in the morning to exchnage hands with Turks in some Vienna ghetto where they all live, go to work and meet up again to fight one-another in the afternoon.
Since coordination is hard, you need to sometimes sacrifice your short-term interest to that of the unit being coordinated. Monarhcy? Nation? Empire? You need some unit which will sometimes ask you to die so that you children may live.
Nationalism is simply saying: the nation is the smallest such unit that is still survivable, as coordination with fellows of the same tongue and mental habits is much easier, multiplying what numbers you have. Going abive your nation makes you militarily weak and you need massive numbers to overcome this.
So, it’s not all leftism depending on who you ask. The Milanese cannot survive as such, they will either fight as Padanians, Italians or Europeans. A King will know this and act accordingly.
>All good but you are missing a key issue that needs solving: coordination is hard.
No, it’s not hard at all. The Kings of old managed it. The problem comes when the King wants to rule ALL of the people. One solution is Nationalism. You’re trying to right wing from the left.
Instead of the King ruling Lords who rule ever smaller kingdoms, down to the atomic level of the family home, you have a King who wants to rule you directly in your family home.
I am Nation, says the over-reaching King, and you will obey Nations Interests.
>Nationalism is simply saying: the nation is the smallest such unit that is still survivable,
No, it’s the tribe. But a Nation can crush the tribe, so, be a Nationalist. So says the over-reaching King.
>So, it’s not all leftism depending on who you ask.
I know. Because some people see “national interests” as being racist, thus not sufficiently left.
What is “Nationalism” other than a rebranding of “Democracy”. You cannot divide political power into 5 million chunks, but you can pretend that “the national character” is some sub-unit of political power that isn’t actually democracy.
Good points but I think you are speaking of two issues which appear intertwined but are separate.
1. Tribe vs Nation. This is completely set by the level of technology in communication and transportation, and has nothing to do with King or Assembly. I am closer to my brother than my cousin, closer to my cousin than to my fellow villager, and so on all the way to the sentinel island inhabitant. Near trumps far, generically speaking.
When communication and transportation only allow routine movement within the 80miles radius, your tribe is the broadest “near” unit that you can coordinate into. hence tribalism.
Once communication and transport tech allow people to aggregate along a far wider region, tribes intermarry and trade far more often, in time creating a nation. Hence, nationalism.
Some hope that current tech will create globalism in this sense, but it won’t: genetic and cultural affinity has to be there, and will only take you as far as the Nation. Frenchmen in Alsace would still intermarry less with Germans in Alsace than Frenchmen living more inland.
Being on one and not the other social tech is entirely out of anyone’s control, least of all the King’s. You will say “Kings made nations by aggressive cultural programs”, to which I say “what stopped French Kings from doing this in the IX century, why did they have to wait until the XVIII century to propagandize frenchness to those in Aquitaine? It was already happening that roads and canals showed those in Carcassonne that they could easily tolerate trade and marriage with those of Marseilles, the King just leaned into this movement.
2. Feudalism vs. Bureaucracy. Agree with you on this, but nationalism has little to do with the move to the latter, except that both centralization and nationalism were allowed by tech. Russia or Austria-Hungary were as centralised as France, despite being multi-ethnic empires. Indeed, you can make the case that a multi-ethnic empire requires centralisation in the age of easy communication lest the Hungarian Nobles defect on you.
So, I see no conflict between nationalism and feudalism, although I recognize the correlation between the rise of the former and decline of the latter, both explained by tech I think.
Also good points, I address them without repasting the whole thing.
> Tribe vs Nation
1. Technology
I disagree here. Nationalism is a set of political precepts which assumes that my neighbour and my neighbours neighbours interests are of equal value to me personally as my brothers.
2. Some hope that current tech will create globalism in this sense, but it won’t:
Nationalism is the first step to globalism. You’re correct in your analysis of how we get nationalism, but it’s just a trick.
Take your neighbours interests seriously, and your countrymen.
3.what stopped French Kings from doing this in the IX century
Yes, again, you’re totally right. But what happened as we got more technology? We got the left wing, doctrines of equality, and so on. Revolution. The King tried to rep
4. The King leaned in
As I note above; the over-reaching King.
> both centralization and nationalism were allowed by tech.
Yes, as you note. You’re looking at what caused nationalism, rather than whether or not nationalism is a reasonable political stance.
Yes, but not as an entire set of policies. Should the King care about Nation? Yes. But that’s the King.
>Nationalism is a set of political precepts which assumes that my neighbour and my neighbours neighbours interests are of equal value to me personally as my brothers.
That may be your definition of nationalism, but it does not appear to be Arquiduka’s.
Yes, definitions matter.
I suppose, to be fair, I would say that a nation-centred spirit is important for a nation to have.
But if a government uses the spirit of nationalism as a blunt instrument, that is wrong.
Humans are not ants. We all have our own self interests and, should we be governed, this assumption must be kept in mind.
Well spoken, there is nothing much I can add to this or you last reply. At some point it becomes an issue of definitional minutiae but I think we agree on the basics.
Here’s the Russian perspective. For people who support Putin (roughly 70%, imo) nationalism = nazism and fascism, which are extremely bad because of Hitler and the WWII atrocities against the Soviet population. Russia has over 190 ethnic groups. Nationalism for Putin now means the Chechen war. He cannot use the term in a positive sense (although he, it seemed, wanted to get closer to Russian nationalists in 2010). Why does he not omit it? Because the Ukrainian nationalists use swastikas and other Reich symbols and speak of literally killing the Russians or those who say they are Russians. This way, it’s easy to explain why Ukraine is currently an enemy to an average Russian who generally thinks that Ukrainians are a ‘brother people’ and there should be no war at all.
Pure nationalism wouldn’t work in Russia, and I doubt it would work anywhere without faith. Soviet Union had stoicism, brotherhood of the Soviet men and the WWII as religion (revolutionary enthusiasm evaporated quite quickly). It didn’t last long. What remains are the remnants of Soviet ideology – those and Putin manage to keep the country intact for now. Russia needs to revive actual faith as the bonding elements of its many peoples and return to its Imperial statutes that didn’t allow non-Christians in the government and higher officer positions. If Russia fails to acquire an ideology, it will probably fall apart soon after Putin leaves.
If Russians have evolved such a relationship to the concept of a nation then Putin is explaining things is such a way as to make himself understood to his citizens. I was thinking that he was sending some signal to the Turks or whatnot, or even just ingratiating with the euros, but it may be as simple as this.
Here’s the longer-term issue that I see now contingent on your explanation: there is at the very most one spot for a tribe that has evolved a dislike for nationalism and acts to prevent all Europeans from homogenating out of fear of events traspired in WW2. The smurfs have filled that niche with gusto and there’s no room for the Russians to join. An issue going forward for those who place much hope on Moskow.
No. In the West, ‘nationalism’ has come to mean “please stop attacking my people’s traditions and importing dumb and violent foreigners to shit on everything we hold dear’.
In the East, nationalism means “Ukraine has the right to be independent of the Russian Empire. Because Ukraine does not have the military power to resist Russia, Ukraine will ally with the American Empire to secure the holy goal of Ukrainian self-determination, [that Russia is not really harming its province of Ukraine means nothing] and if vast amounts of blood and treasure are wasted in a war between two empires, we do not care.”
Putin is not telling his people to prefer far over near, he is telling his people not to turn over the applecart for selfish and destructive reasons
In the East, nationalism also means the genocide of ethnic minorities. The most horrific nationalist regime was not the Nazis, it was the Croatian Ustaše regime who killed their Serbian citizens in the most horrifying ways possible. So much so that even the Nazis complained about it. Putin is correct to worry about the genocide of ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
Are the”neo-nazis” in Ukraine entirely fabrications of the state dept, or are there a sizable number organic Nazis the state dept is taking advantage of? I would assume it’s mostly the former. Other than “we hated being under soviet control, therefore hate Russia, therefore like Nazis” I can’t understand why they would be a factor at all in Ukraine. Even if I can understand the reflexive Russia hate, wouldn’t they also have opinions on the (((Ukrainian government)))? Or, is Putin using neo-nazi as an epiteth that the”neonazis”themselves would reject? If that’s what Putin is doing, maybe he’s trying to counter western propaganda in support of the Ukrainian government, but that seems unnecessary as none of our propaganda ever needs to be consistent.
Additional posts above and below clarified this more for me
On Sunday, March 17th, 3 p.m., 1929, the Chicago Forum hosted a debate between Lothrop Stoddard and W.E.B. DuBois, on the subject of, “Shall the Negro Be Encouraged to Seek Cultural Equality?â€
Stoddard, of course, was a greatly intelligent man, an erudite scholar of Harvard, and most of all possessed of a sensitivity to and respect for reality; a contest between him and some up-jumped mulatto spoiling for gibs would be all but preordained, would it not?
But alas, for you see, in this mess of accolades, Stoddard had a fatal flaw: “‘The more enlightened men of southern white America … are doing their best to see that separation shall not mean discrimination; that if the Negroes have separate schools, they shall be good schools; that if they have separate train accommodations, they shall have good accommodations.’ [laughter].”
And why did people laugh? Because even in spite of the fact that his observations reflected a basic reality of the matter, *he betrayed weakness*; both in himself, and *in those he spoke of*.
His flaw was that he allowed his ethic of concern in the debate to be, ‘what is good for the negro man?’ And once settled in such a frame, it was his disenfranchisement that was all but preordained; and that of all the yankee realists of that period. Because he implicitly granted his counterpart a status superior to his own; and if it so happens that, at the limit, a sensitivity to and respect for reality impugns the status of his counterpart, well, then in due course that has to go, too.
Which brings up the question of empire. What’s the point of invading another country?
This is not an idle question; if the explicit point is ‘for the benefit of the nation’, then that in turn inherently begs the question of what utility would be served by trying to larp with the natives as suzerain, instead of just moving your own guys over, in order to have more nation. Any reasons not to or modulations to approach in general would ultimately be merely tactical in scope, not a question of strategic aim as such.
If on the other hand the explicit point is ‘for the benefit of the indigens’, then you have firmly stepped onto the path to globohomo.
Certainly, we can say that the multicultural suzeraintys of the late European powers seen in history, were indeed by most any measure objectively beneficial for the natives and colonials both; but the shift in frame from ‘conquistadore’ to ‘consigliere’ carried with it a concordant shift in cardinality, which ultimately could not settle but for one destination, as we have seen.
There have been times and places in history were nationalist sentiment has been used as a tactic for doing leftism; there are many things that can have have been used as tactics for doing leftism in various times and places, if and when copacetic to those times and places.
We will not so far as to say that the idea of empire is in itself inherently leftish; but we can say it can quite easily lend itself to it much more easily in comparison.
Wow, amazing speech. We appear to be very close to war.
Looks like Ukraine is all about blaming everything bad the Dems are doing to America on Putin. Their plan for the 2024 elections is becoming clear, they’ll federalize them claiming the Russians are interfering and then rig the vote. Anyone who objects will called a traitor and might even be arrested.
Clearly the strategy is to blame all inflation that ever happened everywhere in the history of the world, present and prior, on the evil Putler. The question is, will they then use this as justification to actually go to war with Russia, after which arresting people as pro-Russian sympathizers becomes a real possibility.
I tend to think not because the leaders are still male, even if they are demented and/or faggy and gay. Apparently some insane high-ranking “Pentagon Official” bitch from the Obama Admin is calling for a No Fly Zone over Ukraine. As soon as dumb cunts like this are actually making military decisions, war will be unavoidable.
The average American can’t find Illinois on a map. You think the country will tolerate martial law because of some skirmish half a world away?
Let’s be serious here.
We just endured medical marshal law for 2 years. Without elite leadership the people are nothing.
Who’s “we”? Half the country stopped paying attention to Covid a year ago.
Regardless, “elite leadership” isn’t going to magically appear out of the clouds. The leftists don’t have “elite leadership,” either, but they actually show up when it counts rather than waste time peddling conspiracy theories on the internet.
Interesting analysis. Well golly what do you think we should do about it? You do have some plan of action you recommend for us to follow? I’m interested to learn more.
It’s right there in the comment: Start showing up.
Our enemies aren’t winning because they’re smarter or stronger or because of some grand, far-ranging conspiracy. They win because they show up, from school board meetings to state legislatures to street protests, while our side grills and watches Netflix and wastes time online peddling conspiracy theories and accusing each other of being feds.
UM WTF. Anyone on our side who “shows up” just gets arrested.
He’s sarcastically asserting that you’re a fed. Don’t take the bait.
You’re not wrong, but you’re in the wrong place to advocate anything besides talk. One of the bigger victories for Leftists was denial of coordination spaces for the Right. You can’t organize on public platforms, and organizing isn’t tolerated in places like this. I feel your pain. Best to start “showing up” in your local area, and coming here for guidance on how to organize your Bible Study. There’s no point in asking for or listening to the guidance of blackpillers; they’re going to mock you for inaction just the same as for action.
Confrontational Politics by H.L. Richardson
https://www.amazon.com/Confrontational-politics-H-L-Richardson/dp/B0006R72KI
Check that out. Quick read with good, concise guidance.
>He’s sarcastically asserting that you’re a fed. Don’t take the bait.
Right, that’s why I said what I said.
I have no interest in organizing anything, here or anywhere else. Aside from that being the hallmark of fed activity, it’s not clear that organizing is what we need, anyway. There’s never been a shortage of conservative organizations. The problem is they’ve all had a strong bias against any type of action.
Thanks for the link. I’ll check it out.
“One of the bigger victories for Leftists was denial of coordination spaces for the Right. ”
Here’s my blackpill, but maybe better men can make this into something more.
Communism went on for 70 years by infiltrating male spaces and nipping all dissent in the bud. Secret policemen really were the heroes of those societies. Add a monolithic media that gaslights morning, afternoon and twice on the evening, and you will never be able to assemble critical mass. Never.
In the East communism fell when growing dissatisfaction was sparked into spontaneous protest by some seemingly minor incident, which is the only way you coordinate without being allowed to: everyone must get fed up at once, and this requires an incident. With us, it was a silly call by a ref in a third tier soccer game in a town on the malaria plain. What started that day never stopped until the regime fell.
I think this is what Yarvin means with “be worthy”. Dissatisfaction will trigger spontaneous protest at some point, and then all bets are off. Don’t know what more can one do to be prepared, but probably not the bets place to discuss here.
>Aside from that being the hallmark of fed activity, it’s not clear that organizing is what we need, anyway.
But, organizing is what everyone needs everywhere for everything.
It is the matter of what is necessary for organization that is the turning point.
>There’s never been a shortage of conservative organizations.
Which so often have been worse than useless, by capturing potential parallel state actors into the plantation of outer-party surrogate activities.
>The problem is they’ve all had a strong bias against any type of action.
More specifically, a bias against actions with more perennialist cardinality in general, and actions genuinely oppositional to the inner party in particular.
Working on software to make that possible. I will issue a progress report and a git repository when I have some progress, and software that would make sense to anyone other than myself.
The right has principles that motivate them to act. The left just seems power. It is infinitely easier for the left because they just seek power in any situation. Book club, project, town council, whatever, they very quickly assess where the power is, then relentlessly pursue it. So they self organize easily, and promiscuously. The purpose or cause is irrelevant. Take 5 leftist issues, give them complete victory, and they will immediately pivot to 5 more.
The right is slow to act, hard to organize, and embarrassingly easy to outmaneuver via compromises. Right-wingers are always looking for an excuse to stop fighting and get back to whatever their real passion is. This is, in my opinion, the critical issue of liberal democracy and precisely why progressives love it: it rewards the obsessed busybodies and punishes the the independently capable.
There is no success to be had on the national/federal level for conservative coordination. As was mentioned, there is an abundance of conservative organizations, and almost every single one is converged, compromised, or waiting to be converged or compromised the moment they become relevant. It is a battlefield that rewards leftists by default. So there’s no reason to compete. The Right must exist the field. No candidates for federal positions, no applications for federal jobs. Expose the artifice of democracy by refusing to participate.
The local battlefield is a completely different story. There are many situations and places that can be dominated by organized, concerted effort. The primary targets should be rural areas. This is the training battlefield. The secondary battlefield is the inner city. The management is so poor, so lacking in capability, that I posit there will be real possibilities to invest and dominate in the next decade. I know many will disagree, and I know they have many good points to support their pessimism. Regardless, I still maintain that there are hidden opportunities in the most unlikely places.
The most certain way to become worthy is to win. The easiest way to win is to identify the easiest targets and ignore the impossible ones. This is the political strategy.
Concurrently, the Right must organized a logistical/infrastructural strategy. This needs to be a campaign of parallelism. Starting very small, right-wingers must identify services and goods that can be provided/dominated by explicitly conservative/Christian providers. Conservatives must actively support businesses that put Bible verses and crosses on their marketing materials, or include traditional or religious messaging. This is not a simple or easy strategy, but I don’t think it’s impossible. We just have to start very, very small. Parallelism could also be called the Amish Strategy, as it is about withdrawal from the urban central, benefits heavy civic society.
The average American is unmarried, childless, in debt and caved in on every issue the feds pushed. The average American has tesosterone levels significantly lower than that of generations past. The average American has been brainwashed their whole lives on mass media to believe in phenomenal bull shit. Land of the serfs and home of the fearful.
Then I guess it’s all over. Assuming you’re American, to which country have you moved?
Not sure if it is all over. But I don’t see the majority of Americans rising up. America is composed of conformists who don’t want to rock the boat. The covid lunacy proved that. I am thinking of leaving, but haven’t given up yet. I think we are going to lose a lot more territory before anything gets done.
>Not sure if it is all over. But I don’t see the majority of Americans rising up. America is composed of conformists who don’t want to rock the boat. The covid lunacy proved that.
Lots of people stood up and rocked the boat. They where tossed overboard for doing so. Without elite support the people don’t matter at all.
Yeah sadly I see a lot of cons buying into the 1776 LARP unable to understand why their protesting and freedom of assembly is not working as intended as the police cave their skulls in and torture them in jails before this is all said and done. Even now apparently a US trucker convoy is assembling as if we didn’t just watch the Canadians get savagely beaten and trampled by horses.
The Feds are organizing the US convoy. You can tell by the shill comments promoting it. They’re going to have some sort of fuckery with it.
The people who get their “skulls caved in” are unarmed buffoons in MAGA hats. But if anyone suggests such people should arm and defend themselves, you scream “nut case!” and “fed!”
Very strange. As I’ve said before, everything you post here is some flavor of defeatism.
Yeah true. You’re right. Go take your AR15 to the Capital and show us how it’s done. Report back with your findings.
Nobody said anything about attacking the Capitol. But our elites crapped their pants after a bunch of unarmed buffoons in viking hats stormed the place and took some selfies, which should have told you something.
Anyone with an IQ over room temperature knows that our elites’ power is entire illusory, but you seem to prefer hiding under your bed until some Caesar type magically emerges from the clouds with a hundred thousand mercenaries to free us from our oppressors. Sad and pathetic.
https://babylonbee.com/news/massacre-as-great-white-shark-allowed-to-compete-in-womens-500-freestyle
We need some sweetness and light so here is a great joke from the Babylon Bee…
“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.†― Theodore Dalrymple
People have it in us to forfeit ourselves to help the gathering. Biting the dust for your children, bouncing on a nade, and so on. Self-destruction is a depravity of the respectable impulse of benevolence, similarly to all wrongdoings are corruptions of in a general sense solid ways of behaving and mentalities. https://domycourses.com/