When the Soviet Union fell, the Global American Empire got the thinly disguised control of Russia that it has over so many countries.
And proceeded to behave a grossly corrupt, exploitative, disruptive, destructive, and incompetent manner, with the result that it lost control.
And immediately started plotting to take control back through military means “extending Russia”.
Because the Deep State is many, this involved coordination between many plotters, so the plot was planned in semi public. Brian Berletic has no end of citations of government documents on this. Which of course means that the Russians can read it also.
The basic plot is to pressure Russia to make a small concession, each one far too small to fight a nuclear war over, but one that will reduce its capability to resist further concessions. And then demand another, and another. Until Russia is no more.
So Russia knows that if it makes any further concessions, it will get not peace, but a subsequent war that is more difficult than the one it just fought.
So it has to demand the equivalent of what it demanded in 2022, just before it invaded the Ukraine. Anything less, if the various papers that Brian Berletic keeps talking about are indicative, the various papers that the Russians have also have undoubtedly read, will lead to war more terrible than the current war.
Brian believes that the merely temporary government supports the permanent governments plan. Which is sort of true, and sort of false. That the merely temporary government goes along with very bad things does not mean it supports those things. It means it is irrelevant and impotent.
Trump had very little control during his first term. In this term, he is grasping for a lot more control, and is succeeding in some important areas, in particular immigration. He is also grasping for more control of the military, and it looks like he is succeeding. But it is plain he does not have control of the Global American Empire’s many satrapies, nor their militaries.
Europe has been threatening to start seizing Russian shipping. Estonia attempted to seize a Russian ship in international waters. The Russian military intervened. Russia has now issued, in the most public way possible, a threat to end maritime trade world wide by war on the oceans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7c75mrMzc4 A threat that the entire west has silently ignored, and as far as is possible silenced. Obviously the suggestion that if we attack their commercial ships, they will attack our commercial ships, is just too unthinkably absurd to possibly be taken seriously. Also Russia is just a gas station. It cannot possibly have the capability to do any harm to our shipping should we harm their shipping. Didn’t the Ukraine just defeat the Russian fleet?
The west demands that everyone accept as perfectly obvious and undeniable that the west can set sail for world war III, and Russia will inevitably back down to avoid World War III. Will it? If Russia takes the papers issued by the deep state on regaining control over Russia seriously, they cannot back down.
Europe and the deep state demand Trump escalate war on Russia. The end of that path is not Russian concessions, but nuclear war, for every escalation, in the context of the plans that they have read, implicitly threatens that if Russia makes any concession for peace, the result will be worse war, slightly delayed.
Russia cannot make the smallest of concessions under military pressure, because any concession will lead to demands for further concessions under greater military pressure.
Suppose Russia had agreed to to an “unconditional” ceasefire. This would immediately result in the movement of European troops under European flags into the Ukraine, and Russia would have to attack them. And if Russia failed to attack them, arms would continue flowing into the Ukraine, and the Ukraine would continue conscription, growing its army and receiving more arms, which it due course it would use to regain control of Russians resident in the 1990s Ukrainian borders.
Russia has demanded that Russians in the near abroad be let alone, and that Russian Orthodoxy be let alone. Having demanded this, and gone to war over it, it cannot, in the context of the Deep State’s plans for Russia, yield on that demand. The usual Ukraine shills have been telling me that it is totally reasonable to put the knackers on Russian minorities and pluralities, and it is really horrible that Russia takes exception to this. Maybe it is totally reasonable. Maybe it is really horrible. But having made that demand, and gone to war over it, Russia cannot back down even if the nukes fly, for another totally reasonable demand would swiftly follow.
The problem is that there is no concession that Russia could make that would get it off the path to World War III. Any concession means that the path to World War III will swiftly resume with Russia in a worse position than before that concession. No concession, however great, in which Russia continues to exist, will get it off that path. Russia cannot make the smallest concession for peace, for peace by concession is not on offer.
There was no reason for Russia to have invaded Ukraine.
Russia has plenty of empty land, resources, and funds and could have simply and easily imported all of its “Russian Speakers”, etc.
Ukraine and the West/NATO were never going to invade Russia, because nukes, and because Russia has plenty of other free non-Western borders to trade and move via.
Russia chose to initiate cross-border war.
Putin is no more Saint than Hitler or Muhammad, nor anyone else for that matter.
All just assholes trying to get away with whatever they can get away with.
Which just continues breeding a world full of assholes.
Russia has no natural borders. Ethnic cleansing, if successful, will continue all the way to Moscow.
Russia’s borders keep moving over people’s heads. Always have. If people go and follow the borders, the borders will follow them. Russia has a lot of history about the lack of natural borders.
The US has regularly sent large scale conventional regular US forces over supposedly sacred international borders all over the world, and even more often sent proxy forces, and even more often sent small scale proxy forces, and has been rather regularly sending small scale proxy forces across Russian borders since not very long after 2000.
Ukraine and the West have been invading Russia since 2015, in the sense that the west has been sending in people from outside to assist its proxies making war inside Russia.
Because nukes, no conventional full scale Nato invasion of Russia is likely. But low level proxy invasions, of which Kursk was the biggest example, low level wars, have been happening all the time, with the intent of maintaining pressure on Moscow to make concessions, and these operations have had deniable western operators in them, notably the Kursk operation that had a group of Poles and Americans. Notoriously the “free russians” did not speak Russian in their internal communications.
The intent, stated since 2000, was steady military pressure to impose never ending concessions but pressure short of World War III. A Nato attack on Russian commercial shipping in international waters is getting mighty close to World War III. That is pretty high military pressure, not very far short of World War III at all. And any time Russia makes any concession, the demands just get worse, and the pressure just gets higher. The pressure over that demand goes away, but very soon there are new demands.
The plan since 2000 has been low level forever war on Russia, to conquer Russia by imperceptibly small degrees. So Russia responded by escalation to high level war, since it was losing at low level war.
If Russia had quietly accept the cleansing of Russians from the Ukraine, next up on the drawing boards, it has been on the drawing board since about 2010, was cleansing Kalingrad. There is no stopping point. Not in American planning (they wanted to liberate the Chechens next) and not in the geography of Russia.
Break up of Russia into smaller division has been the plan since 2000. There is a long long list of areas with Russian majorities outside current borders that America thinks should not be have Russians in them, and there is a long long list of areas inside Russian borders that America thinks should not be inside Russian borders. Kalingrad was up next, but America has been trying to manufacture real or astro turfed support for breaking away for Russia in numerous areas inside Russia.
There are one hundred and one ethnic minority groups inside Russia, and there have been ever since 2000 US operators telling them they are oppressed by Russians, they need their own independent state, and their own independent state would somehow become free from Russians. The Americans hear their own voices from inside Russia, and tell us it is the voice of the people. Remember how when the Greatest Ukrainian Counter offensive started, the usual voices were telling us that Russian defeat would lead to the break up of Russia. If Russia had been defeated and had conceded that defeat, dismembering of Russia would be up next. They were planning to start with Kalingrad, but they made it plain they did not intend to stop at Kalingrad. So Russia just has to keep on fighting even if militarily defeated. Any concession leads to the next demand. Given the ambitions revealed in numerous papers issued by the Deep State, and frequently stated in the media, as when they were expecting a major Russian defeat in the Greatest Ukrainian Counter offensive, Russia has no choice but to keep on fighting till it wins the deal it asked for in 2022, or the world goes up in nuclear fire.
A Google Images search for maps of “decolonized” Russia, and the surprising and fractal variety of the results, will tell you everything you need to know about GAE intent here. The arcing and splintering rainbow of justice.
Curiously (I think) it was after the (perhaps fake and gay) Gingrich revolution in the 90’s that similar broken-up maps of the USA were in Mother Jones and etc., though curiously we never see them now. “For thee, not for me.”
I guess they hadn’t figured out how to hack the southern border and USAID/etc to go Full Nuclear Kallergi yet.
Timeline of NATO’s aggressions toward Russia, and ignoring Russia’s clear warnings:
https://youtu.be/on1RrmspFIQ?t=4
No.
Nobody ever sent their formal forces across Russia’s border.
Russia sent its formal forces across Ukraines’s border.
That is the historically, globally, and universally accepted definition of war, and thus serves for the identification of the true initiator thereof.
Everything else before that point is just smack talk, ‘aggression’, bullying, games, subterfuge, etc.
Until someone initiates that well defined violence of war, there is always reason not to.
Those who initiate war are always the guilty party for all the death that follows.
Putin and his Russia initiated this war and are the guilty party.
So Please Stop Lying.
The US used informal and plausibly deniable force to meddle inside Russia in a plausibly deniable way. Russians did not care and do not care about the plausible deniability, because they were and are afraid.
During the cold war, the US repeatedly sent formal forces across borders, because the Soviet Union had sent informal and plausibly deniable forces across borders. What is happening now is exactly what was happening during the cold war, except with the Global American Empire as the bad guys instead of the Soviet Union.
The point and purpose of “The Free Nations of Post Russia” is to “free” Russians inside the 1990 borders from being Russian. Russians inside the 1990 borders see Russians outside the 1990 borders being “freed” from being Russian , and it is nasty. This exactly parallels the Soviet Union “freeing” people from capitalist oppression. This was apt to involve a whole lot of murder and torture, just as “freeing” people from being Russian does. The Soviet Union used informal and plausibly deniable force to “free” people. Americans did not like it, because they figured that if allowed to stand would lead to Americans being “freed”. So Americans used soft power, hard power, and sometimes used formal force.
Most recently in Grenada. Soviet Union sponsored a coup in Grenada, which is uncomfortably close to the US. US invaded. Similarly, Globohomo sponsored a coup in the Ukraine, Russia invaded. They obviously had far better reason to do so than the US had in Grenada, because right on their border.
This is easily exposed as BS, because the suggestion is never “Usa has plenty of empty land, resources, and funds and could have simply and easily imported all of its “Ukranian Speakers”, etc.”
The number of extremists they’d have to resettle is several orders of magnitude smaller than the native population, so if you were genuine, that would be the obvious suggestion to make, not the reverse.
The goal of the empire is to turn the Donbass into Gaza and gradually follow the same model for all of Russia, which is why its mouthpieces are endlessly kvetching about how terrible the Russians are for not allowing the empire to ethnically cleanse them.
You are so close yet so far away, Becky. You are right.. Russia has no reason to invade the Ukraine. But.. just look at these articles and consider your statement from that lens.
https://www.google.com/search?q=shelling+ukraine&sca_esv=3498eaba75d41009&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F1%2F2021&tbm=
If Russia won’t make further concessions, either the West stops demanding concessions, which might happen if Trump takes control, or the deep state will have to escalate or give up (at least for now).
Western Europe doesn’t have much options for escalation outside of the Baltic Sea. Looks like any attempt to size a Russian ship will be met with military force. If sizing ships does not work, they can sink Russian ships. What will Russia do then?
Nothing? Maybe, but retaliation seems more likely, e.g. destroy whatever platform (ship, plane, coastal artillery) sunk the Russia ship. What can the deep sate then do? Western Europe doesn’t have much military to escalate further in response.
Nuclear war is some escalation steps away from the present situation, not many, but some. If Russia stands firm, I don’t see how the deep state could match all steps on the way to nukes.
Re Yes Minister “salami tactics” in reverse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg-UqIIvang
It’s not in reverse, this has always been the policy against the Soviet Union.
Goebbels is often “quoted”, but it’s never the real quote – “The cleverest trick used in propaganda against Germany during the war was to accuse Germany of what our enemies themselves were doing.”
Its not the Soviet Union anymore…
The video was referring to the Soviet Union (the series was made in the 80s) and obviously the same tactics continued against the successor state.
“Russia cannot make the smallest concession for peace, for peace by concession is not on offer.”
Greetings,
Peace is always a temporary solution. Often a puny solution. War is the natural state of mankind. War of power. Power for its own sake. War for control, resources, land, and acquiring women. It is our visceral need that drives us. The animal side.
In the time of nukes, we are going to have to remedy this.
It is by nukes that we shall return to the natural state of constant war, at least once population levels have recovered enough.
youre so full of shit liar jim
not one nation has invaded russia since wwii was settled.
EXCEPT FOR ISLAM, but that long invasion started back well before the ‘west’ well before 1900 and continues through to today.
not one ARMED ‘western proxy’ has invaded at war across russias borders since wwii either.
and you can provide NO EXAMPLE of such, much less of any formal western army doing so either.
‘kursk’ is the only time anything ‘west’ of russias western borders has crossed at arms into russia. and that ONLY occurred AFTER russia had FIRST invaded ukraine. so RUSSIA was the direct CAUSE of that RESPONSE to russias invasion. ukraine DID NOT and WAS NOT going to invade russia. because it would get its ass nuked.
further, you CANNOT CLAIM russia is itself innocent of conducting ‘proxy wars’ and ‘proxy propaganda’ as YURI BEZMENOV and others have all well told you what russia is itself guilty of in those regards.
jim’s fantastical innocence of russia outright FAILS under any honest inspection of history.
FURTHERMORE, jim UTTERLY REFUSES to prove himself by MOVING TO RUSSIA.
The US has been astroturfing movements to break up Russia for quite a while, as for example “The Free Nations of Post-Russia Forum”, with no end of official US government bodies declaring dismantling Russia to be a moral and strategic imperative.
The astroturf inside Russia regularly committed acts of violence, with foreign arms, foreign funding, and foreign fighters. The foreign faces that get arrested correspond to low level proxy invasion. Which did not amount to anything significant before the war in the Ukraine, but reveal where the never ending low level pressure on Russia aims at going.
The difference between the “Free Russian” invasion (by Poles and Americans) during the Ukraine war, and operations before the Ukraine war is merely one of degree, not of kind. During the Ukraine war the “Free Russians” rolled across the border in US tanks, while the earlier “Free Russians” relied on infiltration and smuggling.
The council of Europe has formed a tribunal to prosecute Putin, which reveals intent that the conflict ends in Moscow, not at the 1990s Ukrainian border, and we are seeing that organisation indignantly complaining that that is no longer on the Trump agenda: Which implies it was on the agenda.
Globohomo has declared the white identity toxic, and intends to eliminate it, but it has declared the Russian identity extra special super toxic among white identities, and has been trying to eradicate it since around 2000.
Your argument on the Kursk invasion is that dismantling Russia was not on the agenda until Russia invaded the Ukraine. But it has been on the agenda since about 2000, with conquest of Kalingrad being at the top of the list.
Under these circumstances, any ethnic cleansing outside official borders is going to become ethnic cleansing inside official Russian borders. Starting with Kalingrad, and ending in Moscow. America declares that Ukrainian borders are sacred, but the deep state has issued no end of publications that deny that Russian borders are sacred. If Kalingrad and “The Free Nations of Post Russia” is on the agenda, there is no sharp line between de-russianising areas outside the 1990s borders, and de-russianising areas inside the Russian borders. It is all the same agenda and same goal, acted on by the same people.
At the same time as the Global American Empire was de-russianising areas outside Russia, it was manufacturing moral legitimacy for doing the same thing inside Russia, and providing arms inside Russia to make a start on the project.
There is no bright line between de-russianising the Ukraine, de-russianising Moldova, de-russianising Kalingrad, and de-russianising Moscow. If Kalingrad, Moscow.
Your mother is a 300 pound lesbian with bushy armpits teeming with lice (which should be treated with Zyklon B) and you should consider sobering up from the sauce gloo-gloo-gloo before posting your Azovite spam here.
Imagine sipping for the globohomo dnc satrapy of Ukraine.
Haven’t seen such “early internet style” faux-rage-posts with schizo all caps in a while 😀
Gentlemen, I’ll be dipping out again for a period of likely two months at least, so have fun and take care of yourselves!
See you on the flip side.
The argument pushed by Globohomo for eradicating the Russian identity is that it is an artificial imperial identity that was imposed on people. And that was true near a thousand years ago. This identity was manufactured, but over the many centuries has grown very deep natural roots.
The artificial Ukrainian identity was manufactured starting 2014. So eradicating the Ukrainian identity, should it prove necessary to do so, will be far less bloody and terrible than the Globohomo project. Not to mention that people of the Russian identity have nukes.
The argument for de-russianising Russia is the same as the argument for white reparations to blacks — original sin. The Russian identity was born in sin, so it has to go. The astroturf “free Russian” movement and the astroturf “Free Nations of Post Russia” movement is for “freedom” to not be Russian.
It is undeniable that centuries ago, quite shocking coercion was used to impose the Russian identity on people. It is also undeniable that right now, there is quite shocking coercion is being used to remove that identity. And the exact location where that coercion is taking place with respect to the arbitrary and artificial 1990s borders does not matter to anyone. Not to Russians in Moscow, and not to globohomo in Brussels.
If Brussels intends to de-russianise Kalingrad, maybe Moscow should de-pole Poland instead.
okay, i will take as given your assertion that “no one has invaded Russia”.
.
now explain why the US gets to invade nations all over the planet with impunity. Panama, Laos, Cambodia, Haiti, Syria, Somalia, etc, the list is endless. heck, we’re still occupying Japan.
.
IF Russia has done “wrong”
THEN, by the exact same criteria, America is a raving lunatic waging war all across the planet.
We’ve you expecting anyone here to run interference for GAE malfeasance?
What’s bad for Ukraine is bad for the democrats. GO RUSSIA!
>That the merely temporary government goes along with very bad things does not mean it supports those things.
The distinction between temporary and permanent government may be meaningful – or not. For instance, Trump was popularly elected and he chose, again, to surround himself with neocons. Should those neocon criminals be considered elected or unelected.
>That the merely temporary government goes along with very bad things does not mean it supports those things. It means it is irrelevant and impotent.
That is one possible explanation. Another possible explanation is that Trump has no real objections to US imperialism. And why should he. Why should Right Wingers be weak pussies who respect lefty “human rights”.
There is also this so called “strategic ambiguity” as on official…strategy of the US imperial mafia. And it seems to me that Trump’s lack of consistency when it comes to foreign policy comments is part of it.
Trump did not “choose”. In order to govern, in order to have power, he needs alliance with Thermidor.
That he “chose” presupposes that the merely elected government is all powerful. Obviously it is powerless and irrelevant, and actually exercising power is something very like an autogolpe.
Trump does not yet rule. Should the president actually come to control the presidency, which looks like it might well be happening, this will be a change as radical and fundamental as the Meiji restoration in Japan.
The Meiji restoration was a coup. And the restoration of the power of the president over the presidency will be a coup.
Also much fewer of what are called neocons this time, Rubio who was the most neocon high profile pick has actually been surprisingly loyal and effective (is it sincere I don’t know but hes acting right now) and there have been purges of deep state organs. The most worrying thing is that for whatever reason Musk seems to suddenly want to withdraw from politics without Musk’s money Trump has little ability to control the RINO congresscritters.
>Trump does not yet rule.
Do you have an estimated date for him to start ruling, if ever?
(I’m mostly paying attention to US foreign policy. I don’t much care about what happens inside the US, as long as the power of the US to commit crimes against humanity is curtailed.)
As with all power struggles, the outcome is unpredictable. If the outcome can be predicted, it would have happened already.
But Trump appears to be winning. The best indicator is that a whole lot of journos have lost their jobs, and had to go into careers slightly less vile, disgusting and criminal, such as male prostitution. (I kid you not.) Presumably they lack the book keeping skills necessary for drug dealing. I suppose that those who do not have the stomach for prostitution are now into stealing and mugging.
Trump’s assistant deputy attorney general is currently going after community relations compliance officers — a job that pays a million dollars or so a year and gives you immunity against city police. But as of now, this group is still pulling down a million or so dollars a year each, which kind of looks like Trump is not in power. Basically you get a million dollars a year to make trouble for anyone who tries to stop shoplifting, get the homeless off the streets, arrest criminals, and stuff like that. When they stop getting a million dollars or so a year, that will be a fairly good indication that Trump is in power. If the government is still funding the left with startling and shocking generosity, Trump is not yet in power.
You are troubled that Trump is still going along with the neocon plan. Well he is still going along with paying leftists a million dollars a year for being leftists, but he is kicking and screaming about it.
He is also still funding Harvard, and also kicking and screaming about it. You cannot possibly expect him to cancel the Ukraine war until after he has cancelled Harvard.
It is obvious that most of the judiciary have been getting kickbacks, among them kickbacks from the community compliance scam. Until most of the federal judiciary is in prison, Trump is not yet in power.
>He is also still funding Harvard, and also kicking and screaming about it.
But he has taken some concrete measures against Harvard (although some of them are meant to protect joos and further the genocide in the middle east, so purely neocon).
On the other hand, I don’t think Trump has taken any concrete/meaningful steps against US imperialism.
> You cannot possibly expect him to cancel the Ukraine war until after he has cancelled Harvard.
Why not. As a matter of fact, it kinda seems more important to prevent global nuclear war than anything else. So yes, I expect him to do exactly that – cancel war first. Of course the Harvard scum is one of the ideologues behind the US empire, but hardly the only one.
Alternatively, he could go against the ideologues – all of them – while at the same time issuing the proper orders to the military. I think the US president is the supreme military commander? “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States” Article 2.
Nice try, Ahmed.
Vait a minute vhy are all these nazis eating falaffel?
Yeah, it’s perfectly obvious that people look at him suspiciously at the airport & his mom has sand in her pussy.
“No no I’m whiter-than-thou I promise, now excuse me, gonna jerk off the camel for some fresh uhhh milk.”
“The Free Nations of Post Russia” (A Globohomo astroturf organisation sponsored by Brussels that wants to free Russians from being Russian) has indignantly complained that Trump has abandoned them. They perceive some meaningful actions against US imperialism.
But it is difficult for Trump to take what you would regard as concrete action until tanks are in Harvard and most of the Judiciary is in prison.
Does not have that kind of power yet.
The US army is not currently engaged in US imperialism, and Vance and Trump just told the graduating class of West Point that it is not going to be. Trump also just told the Arab Kings that it is not going to be.
US Imperialism operates by soft power backed by the threat of hard power. What the “Free Nations of Post Russia” is complaining about is that the threat of hard power has been yanked out from under them.
I think Trump actually will bring peace to the Middle-East. Everyone likes him – Jews, Arabs, Christians… and the Democrats — party of gay feminism — are despised by everyone. Verily, Trump is the God-Emperor. I don’t know how Iran will be resolved (well, I do expect some boom boom explosions; we’ll see), but as for the rest of the region, Trump is about to enter history as one of the greatest Peace-Makers of all.
>[Trump] Does not have that kind of power yet.
OK. So I / We’ll have to wait and see some more.
>The US army is not currently engaged in US imperialism,
Ah, sorry, my bad.
So what do you think of colonel Douglas Macgregor? He has this to say about Trump :
“he owes his office, his position, his influence, to the enormous support of the israel lobby and the jewish diaspora which has funded it.”
Also, what do you think of John Mearsheimer and his book “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy “?
Obviously the Iraeli lobby. Not however, the Jewish diaspora, which was outraged by, among other things, Trump moving the Embassy to Jerusalem, and making it a substantially nicer and more impressive embassy.
Two Jews, three factions.
>Two Jews, three factions.
But that slogan doesn’t align with the way in which the jew mafia operates in the real world. If the jew mafia were so fragmented they wouldn’t get anywhere. In reality one of the key aspects of jew organized crime is…the extended organization.
Surely it is obvious that two Jews, three factions. Soros wants the Orthodox Jews of New York dead. The Jewish diaspora was was deeply pissed by Trump moving the embassy to Jerusalem.
The Jews owned the diamond trade because they had cohesion. They lost the diamond trade because they lost cohesion.
Jews also lost the gangster business for the same reason in the same way. Used to be the Jews ran all the organised crime syndicates, with Jewish criminals and Jewish judges in each other’s pockets. Now it is Democrats and gangsters in each other’s pockets.
Recall the Crown Hills pogrom against Orthodox Jews. The rioters were in the pocket of secular Jews, which is why they were able to get away with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xF9De1PiAM
For what it’s worth Macgregor is saying :
“right now it’s pretty clear that president trump absolutely does not want to go to war with iran – On the other hand he’s in a difficult position because he owes his office his position his influence to the enormous support of the israel lobby and the jewish diaspora which has funded it.”
“so i think the decision has been made for the israelis to take the first step in the direction of attacking iran which then puts us logically in the osition of having to come to their aid”
OT. Looks like Trump is setting up a battle over Humphrey’s Executor (which he will probably win) with the firings of Biden holdovers supposedly protected from firing by statute. SCOTUS 6-3 affirmed the officials stay fired while their cases work upward through the courts. Will be a bigly victory if he reverses this ancient and bogus New Deal-ism. (Prog outlets are apoplectic over this, which is a good sign of things to come.)
Went to DC a while back. Saw absolute degeneracy. Disgusting people. Disgusting place. Many rats. Been exploring the area more. Georgetown is surprisingly pretty nice for being in the DMV. Many hot women. Mostly whites with many asians. No hood. Got told it’s because it’s not in DC proper. All it took was a few miles away from the ‘actual city’. DC metro area is one of the most ‘segregated’ cities in the US, yet they are constantly sperging out about how ‘racist’ and ‘segregated’ the rest of the country is. Funny how that works.
Thought for a second maybe, on surface look, these are good people. Then walked into a few book stores. It’s all capital ‘C’ Communist literature. Tanks on Harvard Square, yes, but also Georgetown. It would be an even bigger power move due to how close to home it is to the seat of power.
>It’s all capital ‘C’ Communist literature.
Correction, there was also a large gay section.
Hahahahahahaha
I have also called for doing something about Georgetown, its a Jesuit school…
And they just so happened to post it up right by the new nation’s capital too. Pretty funny coincidence haha.
Tokugawa Ieyashu did nothing wrong.
I have a better idea. [*deleted*]
We have had this argument before. Too many times, and you never respond to the points that are made. White flight is caused by the likelihood that your wife will be assaulted while you are at work and your house will be burned down. Suburbs are unwalkable as protection against black “joggers”. Address this point. Cities that do not have allow plains apes to wander around without a leash have their elite living at the center, rather than far out on the periphery or in compounds with high walls, armed guards, and helicopter pads.
I noticed that leftists [*wildly implausible depiction of left and right positions deleted*]
Just for us retards reading, what can halt WW3 while also preserving some definition of “Russia” at the same time?
I’m not demanding a full, logical and doable path TO such a solution. Just what could a solution be, even if it sounds like fantasy football at this point?
Glasnost.
Or as the Russians say: “root causes”.
The Ukraine was the first part of Europe to go full totalitarian, now gone full terror totalitarian. Britain is imprisoning thirty thousand white Britons a year for thought crimes, but unlike the Ukraine, is not torturing and murdering them yet, but Ukraine style totalitarianism is sweeping Europe.
As with the early heady days of communism, you have a totalitarian states ruled by a universalist and evangelising state religion full of faith. This is inevitably going to be a problem for their neighbors. The state religion has to be destroyed.
I would suggest tanks in Harvard, followed by Reagan style containment plus a multitude of pinprick wars.
Vance told Europe that totalitarianism is a problem, that America does not want to ally with totalitarians. Make that rhetoric real, and fund and arm European freedom fighters at locations vulnerable to such actions. Ireland probably a good place to start, but many provinces of Europe are getting truculent. Supply freedom fighters with guns, drones, and money wherever they can make a go of it.
Iran is not a problem, for its faith is quietly dying in the same way the mainstream Christian churches are quietly dying, for the same reasons. China is not a problem, because the regime’s faith is wobbly, hypocritical, and half dead. Europe’s totalitarian ruling faith is still in a state of vigor comparable to 1950s communism, which makes Russia nervous for the same reasons as 1950s Russia made Europe nervous.
OK great. I request and recommend that you elevate your “antidote” point to the top-level message. The yippie-dog Estonians are grabbing Russian ships in the Baltic Sea now, which is so ridiculously provocative that ever-more people (some fraction of them “important”) are getting scared and looking around for “some kind of way out of here”. (So SHOW them the way out of here, Jim!)
Any outline of what can possibly solve this corundum is needed, just as desperately as your sense-making synopsis of WTF is going on over there and where it’s heading without drastic intervention.
Grade my synopsis:
It’s a religious war, and Wokeness is the strongest faith now, on a holy mission to save/convert the world, at swordpoint if necessary. It’s focusing on Russia now because it’s not only White and Christian, but also because it was the first communist country, but had then fallen to traditionalist heretics, like Jerusalem to the Muslims.
So it’s like the Crusades, where Rome (Harvard) gave the orders from a safe distance to reclaim the holy land, but didn’t actually ship out to face swords or arrows.
So now the Woke Faithful, across Europe, with their eyes turned westward for Harvard’s approval, is throwing heartland Europe at Russia, and just doesn’t give a fuck if it ends in nukes, as long as Harvard gives them a medal when it’s over.
The only way to stop this is a reformation to undermine Rome itself.
Glasnost against Wokeness, and a counter-USAID to “capacity build” and encourage pockets of resistance against it. George Soros’ business model, honestly, but pointed in a different direction. Got it.
Also:
Right of course. If one Gonzalo, many Gonzalo’s.
https://x.com/ShadowofEzra/status/1926701901933871511
Will no one rid Putin of this turbulent coke goblin?
https://nypost.com/2025/05/21/world-news/24-year-old-woman-set-friend-on-fire-for-making-misogynistic-remark-report/
What explains this species of female insanity?
He wasn’t simping obviously (she was apparently provoked by him joking she belonged in the kitchen), he knew the girl for nine years. I’ve known and hung around some really really crazy chicks before (the ones who tend to like having me around tend to be crazier on average) but they would never escalate to suddenly dousing anyone with gas and lighting them on fire no matter what combination of alcohol and drugs they were on. Certainly not with a guy they knew from childhood (and as coldy or as angrily as women can turn on guys normally they do tend to have a softer spot for guys they knew since childhood).
She grabbed a gallon of gasoline from the garage and doused Loader with the flammable substance — waving a lighter at him threateningly, the publication reported.
“Go on, do it,” Loader yelled at his friend, who was drunk and had consumed cocaine, she confessed.
—
In other words, she was just following orders, ‘it just happened’.
The crazy chicks I’ve known also would not have given a shit if you said they belonged in the kitchen or something, they might get very very mad if you said they had gained weight or mentioned any kind of physical blemish.
I’m just wondering how it got to the point where she doused him with gasoline… I’ve just never seen anything like that and half of the women I’ve been around fit the headshrinkers description of borderline personality order (and some were pretty severe cases, and also generally not free of drugs and/or alcohol for any length of time). Normal female violence generally tops off with I want to slap you or I want to punch you. Maybe in extreme cases of long term relationships she might get a knife or even threaten you with a gun… but wanting to burn a guy she was friends with since childhood over a you belong in the kitchen remark (something I’m sure she would have heard before from him many times) not even a you look fat remark (which would tend to bring about a MUCH MUCH angrier reaction) I’m just kind of shocked because it doesn’t seem to make sense no matter how psychotic she is and how drunk and coked up she was.
On some females, ego is like cancer – it just grows and grows and grows, until the tiniest injury seems like the worst thing ever, at which they let all the worst demons out. The best thing a father can do if he detects signs of a growing ego in his daughter is to go full “shaman the shitposter” in bullying it out of her. A father should build up his sons’ confidence, but with daughters, need to break their Pride again and again until it disappears, or else you might get monsters like this. Perhaps it isn’t so with all daughters, and I’m quite fond of most chicks I interact with, but as for the more problematic cases – definitely need to undergo severe bullycides in childhood to eradicate the aforementioned cancer.
She and this guy have been apparently hanging around each other regularly since childhood I doubt its the first time he told her women belong in the kitchen, and I doubt its the 1st time he told it to her while she was drunk and coked up. The severely borderline psychotic chicks also for whatever else bad you might say about them are rarely in my experience feminists of any kind (this does not apply to Jewish women so don’t use Israel as a baseline)… if anything sets them off it would be telling them they look fat or something else about their looks they are terrified of (girls of this type are more abnormally terrified of the wall and losing their looks then normie women).
What is needed to prevent such cases is a Tough, Soviet Dad.
Growing up with a Tough, Soviet Dad, no girl will be inclined to behave in such a manner. Beyond that, I don’t have any other concrete recommendations, other than (ultimately) taking refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha.
Soviet dad?
Exactly so.
Can you imagine a girl of Eastern-European background and upbringing pulling off such a stunt out of the blue against a childhood friend? It’s not the genes; it’s the mentality when growing up. Okay, likely also genes, but you get the picture.
Tough, Soviet Dad.
Its not typical behavior even for a crazy chick of any background… I can certainly picture crazy chicks of slavic background.
Slavic chicks are indeed crazy, and that’s precisely why Tough, Soviet Dad was invented in the first place.
But also, sometimes you just get a de novo mutation or otherwise a very rotten apple on the tree without any real explanation.
It’s always a good idea to look for signs of craziness on a girl (and then stay away from her), and to not get too friendly with any chick you don’t actually intend to fuck. I have one decent girl in my friend zone, but otherwise I don’t hang around ’em.
Craziness in girls is environmental, not genetic. Women are inherently adapted to living under close affectionate authority. Absent authority they are apt to be crazy. Subject to authority, will conform.
When a girl gets away from family, and has no man, will act crazy. In the environment of evolutionary adaptation, crazieness is low cost for a fertile age woman whose family is not around. Some man will take charge and clean up her mess, or make her clean it up. In the environment of evolutionary adaptation, a man away from kin and family who acts crazy is going to be killed. A woman away from kin and family who acts crazy is apt be reproductively successful.
If acts crazy in the ancestral environment, will get detained. A man detained is likely to reproductively fail, and he will probably not be detained, but killed or at best enslaved. In the ancestral environment however, detention provides her captor with paternal certainty, and thus facilitates reproductive success.
So, I logged in to a cartoon comic web site that caters to females and sampled three completely random comics. First comic, the chick is not detained but is randomly sexually assaulted in ever more intimate ways over a period of months by a handsome assailant with massive preselection. Second comic, starts with gore human sacrifice scene. Handsome prince is sacrificing her, she wants to have sex with the prince. Third comic, detained in a tower to be sacrificed in a year’s time. Captor (a handsome prince with massive evidence of successful doing terrible violence) does not want to be seduced, because that would make sacrifice disturbing, but she is working on that.
Comic 1. Assailant: Massive preselection. No captivity.
Comic 2. Captor, moderate preselection (he has a wife) substantial evidence prior violence in that it appears he has murdered numerous pretty girls previously)
Comic 3. Captor, no preselection, but massive implied previous violence, and it seems also he has previously sacrificed three pretty girls.
Comic 1 was primarily a fantasy about preselection, but comics two and three were primarily fantasies about solving prisoner’s dilemma. That support is always conditional upon paternal certainty, and it is difficult for a woman to provide reproductive certainty.
That is what women want. Random representative website that presumably caters to random representative chicks. Of course it is what they want. Reproduction is most likely to succeed if the prisoner’s dilemma problem is resolved. They all want to be abducted into Genghis Khan’s harem at knifepoint. All women are like that.
Of course the writers of these comics do not go directly to the money shot, because that would make for a very short story.
So in comic 1 we may expect ten thousand pages of ever more intimate sexual assaults, and ever more ineffectual efforts to avoid sexual assault, until in the money shot the protagonist is railed like she is riding a bike with no bike seat down a steep hill of broken rocks.
In comics two and three we may expect ever closer seduction efforts, plus the appearance of the good boy and the mysterious boy, in addition to the bad boy introduced in the opening scenes, and ten thousand pages of extremely alpha males doing extremely boring things, while the protagonist and the reader attempt to figure out who is the most alpha of them all. (Spoiler alert, it is going to be the bad boy)
In comic three, no female competition (the bad boy has already killed them all) so the subsequent ten thousand pages are going to be all attempted seduction and alpha males doing extremely boring things. But in comic two, wife is introduced during the human sacrifice (protagonist survives due to magical backfire, as the bad boy is playing with magical forces more powerful than himself), so we may expect ten thousand pages of girl versus girl conflict, as each member of the harem attempts to destroy all other members of the harem.
While the money shot for comics 1 is going to be the protagonist getting railed by a jackhammer, the money shot for comics 2 and 3 is going to be happily ever aftering, which is a more prosocial ending. (If you overlook the appallingly vicious harem girl versus harem girl subplots that will undoubtedly ensue in comic 2.)
When you realise that all women are like that, that this is what women want, that everyone, male and female, wants the ancestral environment of successful reproduction, female behavior makes sense. All women want to be abducted at knifepoint into Genghis Khan’s harem.
Agree in general im just wondering what would cause a crazy chick to escalate to setting a guy she knew from childhood on fire… I doubt it’s the first time he told her something to the effect that women belong in the kitchen. I’ve told plenty of crazy chicks they shouldn’t be allowed to vote I can’t remember any of them who gave a shit.
Totally normal. All women are Medea. You just have to keep hand.
Women should not be held responsible for their actions by society. They should be under the authority of a man who is responsible for their actions.
Thanks for coming out with it. Make it simple. Cut through the nonsense. This is good.
Women, especially badly owned women, (read: daddy issues) do crazy shit all the time. The ‘friend’ was no doubt dancing around passing shit-tests for far too long.
Reading up on the incident, it is clear that she wanted to be given a spanking and sent to the kitchen to make scones. Because of persistent and repeated failure to put her to work making scones, she set him on fire.
It looks like he was following the agree and amplify script on shit tests, laughing off the shit test. Which works fine in a bar, but if you are together for a long time, is likely to eventually explode in this fashion. Usually one gets whacked on the head with a cast iron saucepan. Laugh that one off.
Walpole dowsed him with gasoline and waved a lighter around, which was just a more severe shit test, and Loader tried to laugh off that shit test also. Bad idea. When you are in a hole, stop digging. This level of shit test can only be passed by a very severe spanking.
A woman will always eventually find a shit test you cannot laugh off. All women are Medea. Sooner or later, you have to pass your shit tests for real, and do so before this sort of thing happens. Usually all you need to do is firmly lay hands on her in a mildly scary manner and tell her what to do, and she will do it, and the problem goes away.
If much earlier in the evening he had said: “Hush woman, men are speaking. Go and make us some scones.”, and then when she screamed in outrage picked her up and carried her off to the kitchen, she would have remained in the kitchen and in due course re-appeared with scones and all would have been well.
Women, all women, are hungry for authority, and that hunger is likely to manifest in terrifying forms if it festers for too long.
Sooner or later you are always going to be hit with shit test that is difficult and dangerous to pass, for the purpose of a shit test is to separate the men from the boys, but once you have passed the tough ones, they get easier. There is no safe easy weasel way to pass shit tests, for if you keep trying the safe easy weasel way you will sooner or later be hit with a shit test in the form of a cast iron saucepan. All women are Medea.
In the intro to “Green Acres” Oliver effortlessly passes a shit test that would surely have led to divorce or separation had he failed it, and could well have led to something worse. That is how you pass shit tests. He does it exactly right, and when you do it right, it really is that easy. Loader could have passed the gasoline and lighter shit test almost as easily.
“Usually one gets whacked on the head with a cast iron saucepan. Laugh that one off.”
Yeah my experience with crazy chicks is more along those lines maybe potentially painful violent actions but actually potentially deadly violence I have not seen (and I’ve known and typically get on well with lot of bipolar/bpd chicks with virtually no impulse control) and when you read stories somewhat similar to this in the news its with a husband or long term boyfriend never an on and off again or an orbiter from childhood. The story just seemed like an outlier shit test.
Not an outlier. If you walk that path all the way, you will encounter a similar outcome. It is analogous to World War III being an “outlier” outcome of war in the Ukraine. Not an outlier because if you walk that path all the way you will arrive at that destination. Only an outlier because most of the time, men will step off that path in one direction or another.
The news report describes Loader’s final failure to pass the shit test. If he handled a long sequence of shit tests in the same way he handled the final shit test, neither failing it altogether, nor passing it altogether, each shit test would be an escalation of the previous one and he would have inevitably wound up in something similar to this situation. Not necessarily third degree burns, permanent massive scarring to most of his body, and an eight day coma, but something serious enough, typically a cast iron saucepan. All women are like that. If they had had kids, infanticide would have been on the table.
The trouble with passing a shit test the easy safe weasel way, the trouble with merely laughing off a shit test, is that it leaves the woman unsatisfied, so she gropes around to find a way of testing you for which there is no easy safe weasel pass. The shit tests get harder. And harder. All women are like that.
Conversely, every time you do a proper pass of a shit test, they get easier. It is OK to pass a few shit tests by laughing them off, it is OK to pass quite a lot of shit tests by laughing them off, but over time, you are sooner or later going to have to pass for real. All women are like that. All women are Medea. Not all women wind up setting their men on fire, but that is only because most men fail properly, and she forgets they ever existed, and the remainder sooner or later are forced to pass properly, and the shit tests de-escalate. Ninety percent of men, when covered in gasoline and facing a woman waving a lighter would fail properly, and almost all of the remaining ten percent would pass properly, but Loader kept digging his hole deeper.
She did not just sneak up on him, slosh gasoline over him, and immediately flick the lighter. No women are like that.
She approached him with a closed bottle of gasoline, and engaged in much theatrics. And at any time during those theatrics, he had solid legal grounds for using violence upon her.
And then, because he failed to use violence when he had every good reason for doing so, and every legal right to do so, she poured gasoline over him with much theatrics. And at any time during those theatrics, he had solid legal grounds for using violence upon her.
And then, because he failed to use violence when he had every good reason for doing so, and every legal right to do so, she started waving the lighter around with much theatrics. And at any time during those theatrics, he had solid legal grounds for using violence upon her.
And then, because he failed to use violence when he had every good reason for doing so, and every legal right to do so, she flicked the lighter. All women are like that. When a chick needs a spanking, she will do whatever it takes to get one. All women are Medea. All that he needed to do was make her cook some scones.
…and when you read stories somewhat similar to this in the news its with a husband or long term boyfriend never an on and off again or an orbiter from childhood.
It sounds to me like she secretly or not so secretly wanted him to man up and push past orbiter. But by the nature of it couldn’t ever come out and say so.
Jim’s answer is more on point though.
tough Soviet dad
In itself, yes.
From my personal circle, I have this hard to prove impression that the normie to normie-con American male would come out closer to white sharia if we just took the boot off his neck, even without any great change in propaganda. That if system pig responses to domestic violence calls were different, and if divorce court and custody results were different, and if CPS placing your kids with pederasts for confiscating a cell phone weren’t hanging over your head like the sword of Damocles, that things would get a couple notches better overnight. Changing the priesthood and the propaganda also would be better still, but only telling men with a boot on their neck to copy tough soviet dads, or copy the muslims or orthodox jews (both of whom still get unprincipled exceptions) is putting the cart before the horse.
Basically you’re saying, here and previously, that the regular (real) American dad tends to be naturally based, and would discipline and — which is crucial for our purposes — marry off his daughter in time were it not for the hostile regime preventing it.
That was probably true before the 1960’s hippie lovey-dovey revolution. Not sure how true it is today, but then again, you’re obviously more familiar with your own society than I am.
“the protagonist is railed like she is riding a bike with no bike seat down a steep hill of broken rocks.”
😂
Poetry.
– – – – – – – – – –
Also: What freakin’ web site is this?!
Does not matter, they are all the same. Webtoon, and the stories were “rules for dating trash” (massive preselection, slowly escalating sexual assault.)
“I decide my fate your highness” protagonist is sacrificed. Spared by magical misfire. I just glanced at the next chapter: due to magical misfire is sent back in time to do it differently, and her first action is to immediately start plotting against the future wife of the bad boy to prevent the marriage in the new timeline.
“Holding you close”: Protagonist is to be sacrificed by bad boy in one year’s time.
Cool, thanks.
I just tracked down one of them and gave it a 5-second glance. Will she get together with the (quoting here) “notorious bad boy”? Will she?! The suspense is just killing me, lol.
Jim, as your predictions often came true, what do you think about the probability of WWIII and specifically a large-scale war in Europe?
I’m not Jim, but here is my general take: large-scale war in Europe is a thing that has happened multiple times in the past, and will most likely happen again in the future. How soon, I don’t now, but to answer “never” is wishful thinking.
Most ideas for trying to make Yet Another War In Europe impossible, pursue that goal in a way that actually makes YAWIE inevitable.
It’s a bit like plate tectonics: try to never have earthquakers or volcanic eruptions, and instead of many small ones, you’ll sooner get a monstrous civilization-ending one.
How soon is YAWIE? Well, the answer at this point is “already happening”. The real question is how soon will they stop pretending that it isn’t.
Depends on what you mean by large scale. The war in the Ukraine is rather large. If events around Kaliningrad lead to the Russians depoling all of Poland between Russia and Kaliningrad, that would a much smaller war. The Russians could fight and win a war for Kaliningrad without much impairing the war for the Russian majority parts of the Ukraine. It would be a sideshow. A sideshow likely to leave Poland much reduced in size and population.
Most of Europe is not currently capable of fighting a conventional peer war, and would have to remake themselves to regain that capability. Which they might do, but because of the dispersal of power throughout the deep state, it is very difficult for them to remake themselves.
If, on the other hand, nukes come into play, then it is a much bigger war. I am fairly sure British nukes do not work. French nukes, very possibly, do work.
If a major European state, such as Germany, remade itself to be capable of fighting a conventional peer war, then, yes, a big conventional war would be possible. They are talking about doing this. Actually doing so is another thing.
What I think likely is that Europe may well go to war while lacking any real capability to go to war. A very big war of big delusion, a much smaller war of actual fighting. This war of delusion looks increasingly probable over Kaliningrad.
Another biggie is the high seas. Europe is talking big about clearing Russian shipping out of international waters. Which they certainly can do, but Russia has threatened to respond by clearing European shipping out of international waters. Which they also can do. That would be a considerably bigger war, and it is certainly very possible. Might start tomorrow. Probably will not.
What the Europeans want is for America to clear Russian shipping out international waters. On the assumption that Russia would not dare to respond against American shipping, and could not be all that effectual if it did respond. Which is plausible, but not something I would like to bet my life on, and even less do I want other people betting my life on it. That would be big, and has a lot of potential to go nuclear.
European war mongering is chickenhawk warmongering. They want to trigger American intervention, without themselves doing a whole lot of peer warfare. This creates a high probability of phoney war — much sound and fury signifying nothing. Well, nothing in terms of conventional peer war, but a considerably increased likelihood of nukes.
There is currently a creeping siege of Kaliningrad. If it creeps further, likely Russia will come to the relief of Kaliningrad, If Russia comes to the relief of Kaliningrad, likely Europe will declare war, but not actually do very much.
Kaliningrad appears to be indefensible should Europe seriously engage in warfare here — it’s all a simple flat land, and not a very big one. Could Russia possibly march through Lithuania in some very short time to break the encirclement? If not, things aren’t looking bright. But it all depends, as you said, on Europe’s real capability to wage war. As to that, I’m not sure, but I wouldn’t bet my life on that it has no such capability. It must be learning something from the Ukraine war.
Kaliningrad is entirely defensible. It is Poland and Lithuania that is indefensible. Simply remove the Poles and Lithuanians between Kaliningrad Oblast and the rest of Russia. Not a big problem.
It would take quite a while, but so would eliminating Kaliningrad. There are roughly one million people in Kaliningrad, and I figure that Europe would probably have to kill thirty thousand to seventy thousand of them. Probably more because they have nowhere to retreat to. That takes time. Particularly when Europe does not have any vets. Look how long battles for comparable cities on the Eastern Front took during World War Two, and how terrible those battles were. A big city can soak up armies for quite while. It is terribly difficult and costly to advance through the ruins of a substantial city.
Kaliningrad is inherently a huge obstacle, that is why Europe wants to destroy it, and there are not comparable obstacles between it and Russia. The Suwałki Gap is conveniently empty. In modern peer warfare, the ruins of a city are the best fortifications you can have. It is going to take a lot longer to destroy Kalingrad that it is going to take the Russians to reach the sea on both sides of the besieging forces.
Kursk is just some cow barns and farm houses, but the Ukrainians still had to destroy most stuff and kill a large proportion of the civilian population, which cost them and slowed them significantly. Doing the same to Kaliningrad would be a much bigger project. Plenty of time to reduce Poland and Lithuania.
And the Russians were not expecting Kursk. They are expecting Kaliningrad. Presumably they have been stockpiling food and weapons.
People have forgotten how terrible war is. One day Godzilla walks down your street. And the next day he walks up your street. And the day after that.
Bix Nudelman: “It’s a religious war, and Wokeness is the strongest faith now”
and
Jim: “As with the early heady days of communism, you have a totalitarian states ruled by a universalist and evangelising state religion full of faith.”
I disagree that Woke is full of faith. And if – if – it is the strongest faith, that is only due to a lack of a clear alternative faith that people can coordinate on. Woke ideology is obviously past its peak. It is hollow and exhausted, and the preference cascade against it has passed the point of irreversibility.
Of course, the lack of an alternative faith is crucial. But “lack of an alternative” is not the same thing as the Woke being full of faith. (The reason they constantly censor everything is that they know their religion is all false.)
This doesn’t mean Woke ideology is not dangerous, both within western countries and internationally. The peak danger of a violent ideology does not necessarily occur at the moment it has peak mindshare. In fact, its highest probability of starting World War III is now, precisely because its adherents can see it’s on the way out. They are desperate, with their backs to the wall, and they have demons in control of their minds. Demons, even more than normal people, haaaaate to lose. They might very well start a sequence of events that ends in everything blowing up, rather than take the loss.
The thing is, whatever faith the New Ruling Class converges on must — among other things, but first and foremost — reject the false doctrine of “All men are created equal,” from which most of Anglo-leftism derives (besides the Judaic influences) and from which endless sorts of satanic heresies are apt to issue. I’m not sure they are quite ready yet for the implications of rejecting that false doctrine, but give the vibe shift a few more years and they probably will.
The false religious tenet of “All men are created equal” is manifestly wrong, in and of itself, and moreover virtually all leftism (or reality-denial) can be deducted or holiness-spiralled therefrom. Any memeplex it’s added to as an ingredient, in any form, automatically becomes a wellspring of poison. It is the root of Anglo-Progressivism, without which most of the rest would be literally unthinkable. There can be no Restoration without discarding that article of anti-Gnonism.
What Thermidor wants is to keep the obvious lie of “All men are created equal” while allowing for the old unprincipled exceptions (which the post-2010 Left sought to do away with) to endure. But the doctrine itself is poison, and is bound to be the foundation on which leftists will always seek to topple the next applecart and then the next one. Trump himself is not a reactionary and might be okay with this doctrine officially remaining while allowing for the old unprincipled exceptions he is familiar with to endure, but that’s not a stable status quo. The New Faith, if it is to be healthy, sane, and durable, should not be based on (or otherwise contain) a lie which everyone can see is a lie, and the reactionaries in the coalition must surely know that.
That’s it. You can have holy tenets that are impossible prove, but not that are possible to DIS-prove.
You can believe in invisible leprechauns; but your very eyes tell you that all men are not, in fact, created equal.
A lot turns on what we mean by “equal” here. All men are of equal intelligence, or virtue, or physical strength? Of course not! But that was never what it was supposed to mean.
Nor was it ever meant to mean what the Left will predictably try to twist it into: that all men should be made equal economically, that no one should be allowed to be better or worse of than anyone else.
It was a statement of fact, not an ideological goal.
A false one.
It was an attack on divine right; a claim the king wasn’t special and anyone (specifically white aristocratic englishman) can rule.
This is a load of crap; few are worthy of the mandate of heaven. Any selection system that can be gamed, will be gamed so all claims that vow to leave the heavy lifting to a system implode in hilarious or horrific ways.
No one knows what it was supposed to mean. The lack of clarity was because they wanted to keep around a pile of unprincipled exceptions, and no one wanted to explain or justify those exceptions. Which inevitably meant that they would go away.
>No one knows what it was supposed to mean.
By admiting that there were/are unprincipled exceptions you are taking for granted the existence of the principle.
No doubt the oligarchs who overthrew the english monarchy in northern america and created the US used liberalism mostly as a propaganda tool, but that doesn’t invalidate the principle.
Also, all men are created equal is still true – humans are still created by sexual reproduction, until the time when the Progressive Technocratic Trannyhumanist worshipers of Science and Technology launch their next step in the destruction of humanity.
If the principle of “all men are created equal” is not Harrison Bergeron, what is it?
the principle is equality before natural law, as presented here
https://reaction.la/treason.htm
No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority.
Spooner says not a word about equality. He says all people have the right to use force to resist wrongdoing. And to organise to resist wrongdoing. But as soon as you organise, you are not equal, and as soon as anyone defines what is wrongdoing, you are not equal.
He opposes the existence of the state, and denies the state has special authority — does not propose “equality:
Empirically, people who say this admire societies that had slavery and hereditary priesthood, because the priest had to rely on the posse, and had no power to call out the militia or collect taxes. Presumably Lysander Spooner thinks Saga period Iceland was a good society, because every male landowning head of household did have the right to resist wrongdoing and to organise to resist wrongdoing. He could, and did, hang people on the spot. But in many cases he did not, because people are apt to disagree on what constitutes wrongdoing, so he would go to a priest for a ruling. And then he would hang them. Priest not equal, head of household not equal, slave not equal. People swinging in the air with a noose around their necks not equal. How is this contrary to what Lysander Spooner envisages?
Bergeron
“All men are created equal” implies Harrison Bergeron. Does anything Spooner says imply Harrison Bergeron? He is wrong about anarchy, in that as soon as people organise, you are apt to wind up with only one such organisation. But in Saga Period Iceland it sort of worked, because people generally did not organise on a scale larger than the household, and when they organised into a posse, the priest was usually head of the posse, but could not call out the posse, and when the posses’ work was done, they just went home.
>Spooner says not a word about equality. He says all people have the right to use force to resist wrongdoing.
So we all have the equal right to resist wrongdoing. It should be obvious how a liberal anarchist like Spooner takes for granted that nobody has any right to rule anybody else. And in that sense we are all equal. Human rights, that is rights to life, liberty and property are inherent to all humans. That’s the political equality at the core of liberalism.
You first claimed that there was some unknown principle, while also talking about exceptions to that principle. Yet how can you know there are exceptions if the principle is vague, undefined or unknown.
Then you suggested that equality means making everybody materially equal at the point of a gun – something that has nothing to do with liberalism. Although of course this “interpretation” of equality is the basis of socialism and is part of so called “modern liberalism”.
>Presumably Lysander Spooner thinks Saga period Iceland was a good society
No, a liberal anarchist like Spooner has to regard a feudal slave society like that as a bad society.
Equal and equality outside of mathematics and a few other specific context is a lie word that shouldn’t be tolerated.
The principle is stupid you stupid wignat.
Spooner was right about certain things but he was a true anarchist and humans just don’t do anarchy.
The problem is that soon the wrongdoer organises, and the people being wronged organise, and soon there is only one such organisation.
This is less apt to happen when you have a strong social consensus on property rights, including property rights in people. But you only get such a consensus when everyone adheres to one religion, and anyone who does not adhere is apt to be killed or enslaved.
White Bread:
Of course we know that the principle exists. Does not mean that the principle is correct, coherent, or broadly useful, and taking on a lot of unprincipled exceptions is strong evidence that it is none of the above.
Jim:
I think you mean Harrison Bergeron, assuming you’re referring to Vonnegut’s short story.
(Normally I wouldn’t play typo police but that misspelling was 3 or 4 times in a row)
Twice in a row, fixed it now.
“All humans are conceived from a sperm and an egg” does not mean “all men are created equal”.
“All men should be entitled to fair and objective treatment under the law” also does not mean “all men are created equal”.
If you want to have a philosophy or religion that doesn’t degrade into shit-flinging nihilism, then you have to start by saying what you mean. The squirt of squid ink that is “all men are created equal” is clearly an open invitation to endless war on authority via endless re-interpretation of the principle. Statements like that have no business in a burger-flipping contract, never mind a written constitution.
Are all men entitled to fair and objective treatment under the law?
Let us suppose a shopkeeper gets into a fight in his shop with a drug addicted aids infested teenager black who has twenty previous convictions for shoplifting, seven previous convictions for buglary, and fourteen previous convictions for assault.
Should this be handled in the same way as a fight between two drug addicted aids infested black teenagers?
If it is handled in the same way, the process is punishment. And if the full process of law takes place, the teenager spends a day or so in prison, and the shopkeeper loses his business and his home.
So the full process of law does not take place. Instead the shopkeeper just lets the truculent teenager shoplift, and the business closes down. So we do not handle it in the same way, and where we do, as in Portland, the shops close down and the city dies.
You should only apply fair and objective treatment under the law to a conflict between two property owning taxpaying males, and in practice, that tends to be what happens, and when activists get outraged, and start applying fair and objective treatment under the law to everyone, your business district evaporates.
The Assistant Attorney general just gave an interview where she revealed that getting outraged over this issue is multi billion dollar industry whose activists are pulling down a million a year.
In a conflict between a taxpaying property owning male, and someone who is not a taxpaying property owning male, they should not get equal treatment under the law, and in practice, they usually do not.
There is a Soviet joke:
The principle of guaranteed rations was wrong and impractical, and the principle of equal treatment under the law is wrong and impractical. In actual practice, does not happen, and to the extent that it does happen, disaster ensues. Much as the iron rice bowl leads to famine.
Words have been massively redefined over the last several hundred years in keeping with progressive sensibilities. The historical context of “all men are created equal” clearly meant “all men are similar” in 1776, which is true enough in the sense that all dog breeds are categorically dogs. It’s similar to how “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5) is in today’s lingo better translated into “Blessed are the self disciplined”. Military lingo has also noticeably softened massively. Pogey bait used to have “underlying image of the use of such snacks as a lure by child-molesters”, but now it’s just field “luxuries”. There are dozens of other examples of language softening I could easily spam out, but I’m already beating a dead horse. The point is, it should come at no surprise that the education system, which is largely run by women and communists, controls language and therefore to a large degree perception.
Quite correct; woke is dying. But woke is not the faith, was never the faith, it is just the most extreme militant and heretical wing of the faith. The faith is Whig, not Woke. Underneath it all is still the Enlightenment ideology, aka Classical Liberalism, and apostates of the Woke sect generally return to Classical Liberalism. Very few find themselves all the way to Dark Enlightenment, i.e. rejection of the core Enlightenment faith; instead they become Born-Again Liberals.
Bix misspoke when he referred to wokeness as the “strongest faith”, but Jim is not wrong to point out that the actual faith is alive and well and continuing to evangelize. True, it’s losing a bit of steam, because leftism needs to keep swimming, and merely standing still gradually sucks out all the life and energy, but that takes a long time, and the leftward drift can easily restart itself.
Thermidor has shed Woke, and is even shedding elements of Progressive Globalism here and there to revert back to Classical Liberalism, whereas the GAE states (Western/Northern Europe and Canada especially) wear Woke as a fashion but never stopped being Progressive and Globalist. That is their faith and it is still alive and well.
Yes that is a problem. Based Christianity is still a leap too far for many. Blame this tendency of people to, when they find they are totally wrong, try to be slightly less wrong.
That’s part of it. Another part is that based Christianity is illegal and therefore hard to find.
OK, but classical liberalism in its original variants (e.g. version 1776) doesn’t have “death to whitey” as a component. I know lots of people argue that it contains the software kernel of “death to whitey” and that kernel will eventually be extracted and executed. But then we’re back to Woke. And Woke no longer has the allure of the new, and its mask has come off.
The extermination of the white population of Haiti was in 1804. You can try to separate the American and French revolutions, but the difference looks more like a power vacuum then any difference in ideology.
Yes it did. How do you think Haiti happened?
Classical liberalism started off with lawfare against the East India company for ruling India. Pretty sure the classic liberals would be as outraged as the modern left by Trump accepting South African refugees from genocide of whites.
If all men are created equal, death to whitey logically follows.
S, Jim, Haiti:
As I said, “I know lots of people argue that it contains the software kernel of “death to whitey” and that kernel will eventually be extracted and executed. But then we’re back to Woke. And Woke no longer has the allure of the new, and its mask has come off.”
That isn’t a kernel leading to the successor ideology of wokeness, it is the original ideology being executed in its original context. It took place in the same year Napoleon crowned himself emperor.
Notwithstanding examples like Haiti, and the later decolonization movement which was soft death to whitey, the relevance of this is unclear to me. The point was, as Jim said, that GAE-in-exile countries are “totalitarian states ruled by a universalist and evangelising state religion full of faith” and this is true whether the religion is something only slightly less dehumanizing and suicidal, such as 20th-century Progressivism, or significantly less dehumanizing and suicidal, such as Classical Liberalism.
I consider this… somewhat accurate. It doesn’t really matter that the novelty of Woke has worn off, because this is hardly our first rodeo; the cycle keeps repeating itself throughout history, and moreover, seems to be getting a little bit worse each time, perhaps as enhanced technology and communication enables the longer-term support of ever more demonic levels of degeneracy.
But it’s not just a slippery slope. Reinstalling Classical Liberalism as a political system today would be analogous to reinstalling Windows XP as an operating system. All the various exploits and hacks accumulated slowly, over many years (or centuries in the case of liberalism), so if you were running it at the time, it was really no big deal. But if you run Windows XP today, in any configuration that isn’t completely firewalled, it’ll become a festering cesspool of malware in less than 24 hours; similarly, if you try to install Classical Liberalism today, the demonic heresies will reassert control in less than a decade, not centuries like last time. All the exploits are known and documented and the predators are out there constantly probing for vulnerable attack surfaces.
Dark Enlightenment knows this, and rejects the principles of Classical Liberalism anyway as both factually incorrect and logically incoherent. The only cure is to roll back to a much, much earlier system that isn’t fundamentally broken (e.g. old school Christianity) and patch forward from there using new information (Darwin, game theory, 4/5GW, etc.).
I’m afraid there’s not much hope for Europe in that regard, except maybe near the empire’s farthest borders. There’s not a whole lot of hope for the USA either; but there is some hope, because this hostile faith is native to America, and thus America has its own native antibodies, crude and undisciplined as they are. There is awareness of DE among American elites, despite their reluctance to actually embrace it, and that means a restoration is at least theoretically possible.
The roots for this simply don’t exist abroad, not yet anyway; the intellectual tradition isn’t there, and will have a hard time taking root now because of the degree and sophistication of high-tech censorship. Europe has “nationalism” but European nationalism is actually just another strain of liberalism and won’t be enough to save them.
Me: “I know lots of people argue that it contains the software kernel of “death to whitey” and that kernel will eventually be extracted and executed. But then we’re back to Woke. And Woke no longer has the allure of the new, and its mask has come off.”
Scarebucks: “It doesn’t really matter that the novelty of Woke has worn off… Reinstalling Classical Liberalism as a political system today…”
To be clear, I’m not advocating that. It has revealed itself to be untenable.
“…would be analogous to reinstalling Windows XP as an operating system. All the various exploits and hacks accumulated slowly, over many years (or centuries in the case of liberalism), so if you were running it at the time, it was really no big deal. But if you run Windows XP today, in any configuration that isn’t completely firewalled, it’ll become a festering cesspool of malware in less than 24 hours.”
Continuing your analogy, defenses also have accumulated. Firewall, whatever.
The lack of novelty, and the mask coming off, matter because they mean white people can’t be tricked by gradualism again. Example: I’m old enough to remember, say, 1985. A white comedian would get up on stage and make some joke that would be mildly disparaging of white people compared to blacks. People in the audience, mostly whites, would laugh. (“We’re so not racist!”) That’s because they didn’t know that this was an early step that leads to where we are now.
Now they know.
There is no going back to the age in which we didn’t realize where this leads. White people are appropriately terrified of and enraged by Woke. The gradualism trick cannot be used again. Not, anyway, in the relevant planning horizon for anyone now alive.
The Left also knows this, which is one reason they are fiercely resisting giving even a millimeter, trying to defend indefensible political terrain. (Moar trannies and homicidal “immigrants,” death to whitey, etc.) They know that having gotten here by deception, if they’re kicked out of power now that the deception has been exposed, they cannot recapture this terrain by deception again.
Then I’m not sure I understand your angle; you seem to be a bit inconsistent here, on the one hand saying that you don’t advocate an attempted reversion to classical liberalism, but on the other hand asserting that we’d be fine to do so because of some unspecified and newly-evolved defenses against subversion.
We’ve been round and round this merry-go-round more times than many of us can count. While the left is always seeking to move ever lefter, ever faster, its primary pattern throughout most of US history is “two steps forward, one step back”, using conservatism as the backstop. The current instance – “Woke” – is unable to take its foot off the gas, yes, but it stands to reason that if we reverted to an earlier instance, i.e. “20th-century Progressivism”, that instance would be able to take its foot off the gas, temporarily, because that is how they did it before.
No, not “whatever” – a firewall is a device that blocks network connections, or more colloquially, prevents all outside access to some system. I didn’t choose the term arbitrarily to mean “any kind of defense mechanism”, I’m specifically referring to the fact that a heavily compromised OS like Windows XP is only safe if it’s completely cut off from the outside world, so that no attacker even has the opportunity to attempt to mount an attack, and it is going to be the same with old variants of liberalism.
We haven’t accumulated firewalls; we are less firewalled than ever. Information (that is, memes) can propagate instantly across national borders, and even physical assets including capital and materiel can be moved around extremely quickly. Classical liberalism might be operable for a long time on an uncharted desert island, if it were possible to find and populate one and prevent any contact with the outside world for the foreseeable future, but this isn’t a very realistic scenario in general and is entirely impossible in any part of continental Europe or North America.
Of course there is. There already has been, many times. As I noted earlier, it does seem to get progressively worse each cycle, but there clearly is a cycle, and each cycle begins with a collective amnesia among the elite, or a naive assumption that “this time we’re going to get it [liberalism] right”.
Robert Lewis Dabney predicted almost perfectly where women’s rights and minority (negro) rights would lead us, and predicted it back in the 1860s-1870s. The operative word in the phrase “we didn’t realize” isn’t the word “realize”, it’s the word “we”. Elite fertility and elite social trust are very difficult to maintain at scale, you can’t rely on every individual to be perfectly innately virtuous out of their own volition no matter how carefully you select, which is why the state is a collective action problem, why long-term success requires a state religion, and why our war is really a holy war.
From DE point of view, the heresy of classical liberalism is a competing state religion, far and away the most alive and vigorous state religion still standing, despite its destructiveness to elite fertility and social trust. Version 1.0 destroys them far slower than whatever version we’re currently at and label as “woke”, but that is a difference of degree, not kind.
I don’t say this to blackpill, I say this because in war, you need to know your enemy, and need to understand the type of war you’re fighting. “Woke” is a distraction, nothing more than a single division of shock troops. Our war is a holy war and the enemy is liberalism, or Enlightenment Philosophy, full stop. Thermidor is a bunch of Classical Liberals, but we don’t go to war with them directly because we believe they’ll defect to us after their own internal contradictions tear them apart, like watching that “totally clean, freshly-installed” Windows XP box explode with botnets and popups.
Thermidor will come to us, probably, because deluded as they are, they are still pretty smart and pretty reasonable, and once they realize their solution isn’t working, they will seek a solution that does work in order to preserve their power and influence and capital. They will voluntarily seek out the next Pinochet, or the next Grand Inquisitor. But Europe doesn’t have a Thermidor, and doesn’t even have a very strong Dark Enlightenment with good memetic sovereignty (too much prole nationalism and socialism), so any path to restoration there is going to be far more difficult and perilous.
Exactly so.
If your state religion is based on a falsifiable lie, “All men are created equal”, or any other lie, all else follows.
>Scarebucks and Jim: Classical Liberalism… we’ve been on this rodeo many times; it’s cyclical, etc.
Note that I said, “The gradualism trick cannot be used again. Not, anyway, in the relevant planning horizon for anyone now alive.” I didn’t say it can never come back.
Some people are misinterpreting me as advocating a return of Classical Liberalism. I’m not. I’m not even the one who brought up Classical Liberalism, which was first mentioned in this thread by Scarebucks.
All I said – which caused people to freak out – was “classical liberalism in its original variants (e.g. version 1776) doesn’t have “death to whitey” as a component.”
I even added,
“I know lots of people argue that it contains the software kernel of “death to whitey” and that kernel will eventually be extracted and executed. But then we’re back to Woke…”
but even this set off people’s intellectual antibodies, for some reason that leaves me baffled.
When I said “OK, but classical liberalism in its original variants (e.g. version 1776) doesn’t have “death to whitey” as a component” all I meant was that it would be much better than what we have now. YES, I KNOW IT’S INTRINSICALLY UNSTABLE. I’m the guy who wrote a couple of blog posts on the theme that no system of government is stable. But it would buy us some time, and a lot can happen given enough time.
The previous paragraph is NOT me advocating a return to Classical Liberalism. It’s me responding to someone else mentioning the prospect of its return. I wouldn’t even have mentioned it if Scarebucks hadn’t.
Death to whitey was a core principle of classical liberalism back to the beginning and swiftly put into effect. It was not subsequently added on. Merely concealed by euphemism and with lots of unprincipled exceptions. Not a result of drift from fundamental and original Classic Liberal principles, but merely the principles being revealed by actual practice.
If all men are created equal, whites are engaged in oppressive violence by being better. Sadly, it seems the only way this oppressive violence can be prevented is by killing them. Starting with the whites of Haiti, and with no defined or definable end.
BTW, I’ll be away from my computer until May 31 or June 1st. I might be able to check in here tomorrow morning, but don’t bet the farm on it. While I’m gone, try not to go into a panic-terror over the prospect that I’m a crypto-classical-liberal.
Oh come on, Jim. So Thomas Jefferson in 1776 was literally and consciously thinking, “I hope my slaves rise up and kill me”?
I’m pretty sure you don’t believe that Jefferson was thinking that, but it’s hard to interpret what you wrote any other way.
Thomsas Jefferson was literally and consciously thinking that slave uprisings far away would rise up, kill their masters, etc, and establish Jeffersonian Republics, etc, but had an unprincipled exception for himself and his friends. The sons of men who were alive in 1776 were working on fomenting slave revolution against the children and grandchildren of Jefferson.
Thomas Bluehairison.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that YA’LL BITCHEZ N’ HOEZ SUKKK MUH DIKKK MUHFUGGA NIGGA SLAY DAT CRACKER!” – from the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, before the (((copywriters))) revised it.
@Neurotoxin
The Haitian revolution literally starts in 1791, only 15 years after 1776.
And the American Government was VERY involved in helping to get that revolution started.
Jefferson might not have personally been literally thinking “Death to Whitey” but he would have for some reason been unable and unwilling to resist or stop those that did/do.
And before anyone says that anything about “the founding fathers wouldn’t have been willing to let loose hoards of criminals to harass the public.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsOAFvA3x9w (at the 4:50 mark in particular.)
There’s no need for histrionics. If I suspected you were arguing in bad faith, you’d know it; I’m not exactly bashful about saying it outright when the situation arises.
As often happens here and in any other debate, some statements may sometimes be taken out of context, and other statements from distinct individuals may collapse into a single narrative for simplicity. We all have to do this, especially in a threaded discussion; otherwise we just spawn infinite threads with no meaningful ends or outcomes.
In this instance, we started off with the assertion (Jim’s) that the totalitarian states have a still-strong and evangelizing faith; you countered with the observation that Woke is dying. Finally, I countered with the point that Woke is not the faith that Jim was talking about. That faith is simply liberalism, and when Woke starts dying (as you correctly observe), all that does is peel off an outer layer of the underlying progressive/enlightenment faith (that Jim refers to).
In other words, Jim’s assertion about the still-running “engine” of GAE totalitarianism is valid and verifiable, and your objection to it, despite being 100% true to facts, missed the point, probably because of a distracting statement made by a different poster who (again, I’m sure with no ill intent) posited a false equivalency between wokeness and the actual ruling faith. Recency bias is frequently a problem in this kind of analysis.
No one’s accusing anyone of nefarious motives here; it’s just a misunderstanding that’s been compounded multiple times.
Alright, I’m back. This is all silly.
Hundreds of millions of white people over the centuries have believed in classical liberalism. The notion that they understood themselves to be advocating their own genocide is absurd on its face. It doesn’t merit a counterargument; it just merits, to coin a phrase,
Nuts.
An individual is not going to believe in something where it is apparent that that individual belief will get him killed. But he will believe in things where the collective belief will get him killed, but his individual belief is not going to make much difference.
Hundreds of millions of any population don’t genuinely “believe” in anything at all. The majority as just proles following the official priesthood line.
I’ve always thought that liberalism from the beginning in whatever form is a poison pill concealed in a sweet/Trojan horse to conceal something far more evil than what is expressed at the surface level.
So I believe that most true priestly liberals are genuinely advocating for their own death and death of their kind in favour of some abstract “greater common good” whatever that happens to be at that moment.
@Neurotoxin
Counterargument- feminism. It has even less an excuse then classical liberalism (since if you think your wife should be treated as an equal, you can just do that) and is more immediately and obviously evil (proceeding to exterminate the human race). Yet people have supported and advocated it.
Dharmicreality: “I’ve always thought that liberalism from the beginning in whatever form is a poison pill concealed in a sweet/Trojan horse to conceal something far more evil”
I’m not talking about what some secret cabal might have secretly thought. I’m talking about the explicit public ideology.
S: “Counterargument- feminism.”
I’m not talking about feminism. I’m talking about classical liberalism.
‘people would never join a death cult!’
‘what about this other popular death cult’
‘death cult a is not death cult b’
Yes, and?
I’m not saying “people would never join a death cult.” I’m saying classical liberalism – mainstream, public-facing version(s) – wasn’t/isn’t one. You are saying that the hundreds of millions of white people who have believed and do believe in classical liberalism understood/understand themselves to be advocating white genocide. Nuts.
Naturally the founders had an unprincipled exception to white genocide for themselves, but not an unprincipled exception for the French settlers of Haiti.
What the fuck do you think feminism is?
There is usually a sharp cognitive dissonance between what normies believe that they believe, and what they actually believe; which cognitive dissonance is never noticed by the normies.
What normies believe that they believe is always decided for them by the priesthood (from one moment to the next), which absolutely controls all means of public propaganda. And what they actually believe is totally irrelevant. If the priesthood tells the normies that they all believe that “All men are created equal,” then normies will all instantly believe that they believe in it, though it’s highly doubtful that any single person on Earth has ever sincerely believed in the doctrine itself, at least outside mental asylums where loonies fling mashed potatoes on the wall.
Your Classical Liberal normie neighbor believes that he believes that “All men are created equal,” since that’s what the priesthood in control of the media, information, communication, and propaganda has long been telling him that he (and that everyone else) believes. He does not actually believe in the thing itself; no one ever does.
The doctrine is pushed by the information faction (a bunch of leftists) to legitimize the toppling of one apple cart after another, until there are no more apples, carts, food, markets, or people. What normies “actually believe” never mattered; they themselves have no idea what it is, and it’s certainly nothing coherent. And what they believe that they believe is decided for them from moment to moment – the recent rapid “vibe shift,” for instance, is not the result of any sudden epiphany among normies, but the result of the elite pulling off a Thermidor.
S: “What the fuck do you think feminism is?”
As I said, I’m not talking about feminism. I’m talking about classical liberalism.
Mossadnik: “What normies believe that they believe is always decided for them by the priesthood”
The priesthood certainly did not tell them that what they were believing in was their own genocidal extermination.
Nonetheless, their response to events in Haiti and Liberia revealed that the founding fathers were believing in their own genocidal extermination.
The were alarmingly comfortable with the genocidal extermination of the French settlers of Haiti, and were alarmingly uncomfortable with settlers of Liberia setting up a racially stratified society with mixed race on top and plains apes at the bottom very similar to the one they had, as an unprincipled exception, set up in the US with whites on top and mixed race at the bottom.
“As I said, I’m not talking about feminism. I’m talking about classical liberalism.”
You are saying hundreds of millions of people believed in classical liberalism, so it can’t be a death cult.
I am saying hundreds of millions believed in feminism and it is a death cult.
Ergo, just because something is popular doesn’t make it not a death cult.
The argument that classical liberalism is a suicide/genocide cult with a heap of unprincipled exceptions on top of it makes perfect sense. If everyone is equal, and white men keep stubbornly being better, then white men must die. As simple as.
As for classic liberals not thinking that premise through — are we really surprised? So much dumb stuff happening in the world. Just this week I attended a party where the boomers were complaining about immigrant misbehavior, while at the same time being completely blind to their daughters’ misbehavior, who were bragging about their party and childless lifestyle.
> If everyone is equal, and white men keep stubbornly being better, then white men must die.
Except that has nothing to do with classical liberalism. You are free to make up some absurd caricature of what you like to pretend “classical liberalism” is, and then “refute” it but of course that’s just a textbook fallacy.
Has absolutely everything to do with classical liberalism. Back in the beginning, there were essentially zero blacks in England, but there was one very different black in a circus making a living out of being very different. Classical Liberals went to horrifyingly drastic measures to remove her or eliminate her. But she was just one black woman. Under current circumstances it is whites who have to go.
The existence of racial difference has always been incompatible with Classical Liberalism, and classical liberals, or at least the priesthood of the movement, have always known that it was incompatible.
Liberia was the last gasp of the classical liberal effort to get rid of blacks, and they abandoned that when they saw mixed race black men with white culture being better than African black men with African culture.
Ever since then, it has been white men who have to go. Look at the movies and video games that were produced over the recent four years. You can sense the genocidal hatred.
When they have a race and sex swapped replacement for the beloved lead character of a beloved IP, such as Hans Solo or Indiana Jones, they not only have to have the white male pass the mantle, they have to destroy him. The hatred is just off the scales in your face — Loki, Bruce Banner, Tony Stark, Indiana Jones. They hated the fans for loving the lead character and want to make the fans suffer.
OK, that is looking back four years ago. Look back two hundred and twenty five years ago. Still genocidal hatred, just not in your face every time you watch a show. Two hundred and fifteen years ago, they hated not only the Hottentot Venus for making the difference obvious, but everyone else for noticing the difference. Their hatred was so great and so crazed, that, like Disney over the past few years, it caused them to totally balls up their operation. The Disney/Marvel race and sex swaps would have gone down fine if they had made the new character a young apprentice to the ageing beloved hero, and then the ageing hero passes the mantle to his young apprentice. And similarly, the operation to remove the Hottentot Venus would have gone down fine if they had not been trying to destroy her and destroy everyone in her general vicinity. Removing her would have gone down far smoother had they not been trying to destroy her, her white co-workers and employers, and her white audience.
Liberia, the Hottentot Venus, and Haiti show that the existence of biological racial difference has always been intolerable for Classical Liberalism, and that classical liberals have always reacted with rage and hatred directed at the better race. What we see now in race and sex swaps in entertainment is exactly what we saw back then, only with fewer unprincipled exceptions.
The globohomo response to the Rwandan and Congo genocides was exactly the classical liberal response to the Haitian genocide. Nothing has changed, except for a few unprincipled exceptions going down.
>Look at the movies and video games that were produced over the recent four years. You can sense the genocidal hatred.
Yes, and you’re telling me that the hollywood jews and wall street mafiosi who fund that garbage are classical liberals?
The only half serious evidence you have is some slave rebellions. And you certainly can blame the rebellions on liberalism. However, the reason whites got killed during those rebellions was not the color of their skin, but the fact that they were slave owners.
Likewise you can blame the french revolution on liberalism, but the purpose of the political violence was not “to genocide whites”.
You can’t misrepresent liberalism as entailing or logically leading to “white genocide”. If anything liberalism is a cosmopolitan doctrine.
I am telling you that the same hatred of the same people for the same things was readily detectable all the way back to the beginning.
Classical liberalism was always a suicidal death cult all the way back to beginning. If all men are created equal, yet some groups persist in being better than others, something must be done.
Nuts.
In Haiti, every white man was killed. Most of them were not slave owners. This was “accountability for historical injustices.” You were held accountable on the basis of the color of your skin.
Led to white genocide in Haiti. The blacks were speaking in the rhetoric of their sponsors. Just as the Hutus in the Congo and in Rwanda were.
And woke believes that it celebrates differences, when they create movies and video games where ever country and every historical era looks like New York and LA and every character is a New Yorker — they cannot even get twentieth century Australia looking and sounding Australian.
They were provincial then and are provincial now. One of the reasons the Japanese were pissed the black Samurai was not just that he was black, but that he was a black New Yorker in New York.
When the *Swiss* made a Mad Max video game, he was still a white New Yorker in New York, with a small touch of Switzerland.
Back in the day, Classical Liberalism Oxbridged everyone, including American revolutionaries. Much as Islam arabises everyone.
There is no “explicit public ideology”. It is always the official priesthood faith that is passed down to the proles, who don’t really matter in all this.
What you call “liberalism” is just a dressing and a formal justification for the priesthood’s sincerely held beliefs which the public mindless repeat like drones.
I am surprised that you think that the public’s opinion of a faith matters more than the official ruling priesthood’s sincerely held beliefs.
The opinions of “hundreds of millions” never mattered and never will.
This is how civilizations end.
Immigrant misbehavior is a problem, no doubt, but it’s the far lesser, far less urgent and fundamental problem than barren wombs. These boomers find the topic of migrant crime so much sexier (and psychologically easier) to discuss and complain about, when the cancer rapidly murdering civilization right now is female mate choice, which results (as it always does) in both dysgenic breeding and, ultimately, atrociously insufficient breeding. Even if you kick out all or most of the migrants tomorrow (which, to be clear, you should), that absolutely won’t matter whatsoever if you don’t reproduce. Reproduction is a far more important issue than immigration, always has been, always will be. If the wombs of your women go barren for 2-3 generations (or 4-6 decades, whichever way you prefer counting it), you literally completely cease to exist. And then every sort of hostile and retarded foreigner will occupy your entire continent by foot, by literally walking across it smiling and whistling. Focusing exclusively on the problems currently brought about by the presence of shitskins (which there are many, and again, you should kick them out) without seeing that none of this crap actually matters if you don’t and won’t have any grandchildren, having replaced them with televisions and computers beep boop – it’s some of the worst kind of blindness possible.
You are undergoing rapid white genocide right now, and not at the hands of all those third worlders. “Hot” white genocide where limbs are slashed by machetes and thrown up in the air and the lands of your fatherland all soak up oceans of old Aryan blood will follow – but that’s the end result of the far more pernicious, “cold” white genocide that you are experiencing currently at the hands of female sexual liberation and the dysfunction of social technology. Civilized humans employ social technology (a system of patriarchal marriage, to be precise) in order to reproduce, and when your priesthood is full of simps and fags and other evil people who have abolished that social technology, the inevitable result is that you will disappear from history; you are currently within the process of rapidly disappearing from history. That’s what always happens when a virtuous elite is replaced by a satanic one; sooner or later women are sexually liberated, hetero-normativity is abolished, people ignore reality as they chase the “vibes” (gay vibes) fed to them by the demon-possessed priesthood, and then that’s precisely how you are wiped out forever from the family of nations, a branch cut off from the tree of humanity.
It’s restoration of patriarchal marriage, or civilizational-racial death.
>replacement-level immigration
>cratering fertility (due to liberated women)
They’re two great tastes that taste great together. Lack of babies justifies immigration. Poor little immigrants are cuckoos’ eggs for women to poor their misdirected maternal instincts into. Immigrants lower local men’s status, consume infinite tax dollars, raise local women’s status.
Bronze age collapse is the best case scenario. Lord Humongous was right all along.
Unfortunately, it does look like it.
If current trends continue, then the (indigenous) population of Europe will be considerably older in, say, 25 years, with the vast majority of people having gray hair, and many wombs going barren or almost so. Just then, the young, highly fertile, and 70 IQ population of Africa will be exploding, and severe famine will strike their entire continent. Will all those infinity starving niggers not decide to travel (one way or another) to Europe? Will the populations of the Middle-East, who have long been dreaming of conquering Dar al-Harb, not choose to do the same? And who exactly is going to stop them all – childless old hags who were drunken sluts in their youths and now raise a few cats and a dog? The “New Europeans” who are conquerors themselves? This ends in people getting cooked inside their own ovens.
Of course, that’s not an inevitable scenario, if civilization changes course and the currents trends (at least among some civilized races) do not continue. But that will require a successful global coup against the sanatic priesthood, and a radical change in the European mode-of-living. I estimate the odds of that happening as not very high, which is why I don’t recommend growing old in Europe. But it’s possible if the elite in America (possibly also in Russia) gets the point and figures out that saving Western Civilization is, in fact, a worthy enough goal to pursue.
Looking at places where patriarchy was restored, it was generally restored Lord Humongous style. On the other hand, we have evidence suggesting, though not proving, that Assyria survived the Bronze Age collapse by the King enforcing the authority of husbands and forcing fathers to marry off their daughters.
S:
I am saying classical liberalism was not a death cult.
I am NOT saying,
“We don’t know what hundreds of millions of white CLs thought, so we’re forced to speculate about what they thought based on the sheer numbers of them.”
I AM saying,
“We all know what hundreds of millions of white CLs thought, since CL was our official ideology for centuries and we were immersed in it, so stop pretending otherwise.”
We all know the central claims of CL. It was our public ideology for centuries. Stop telling me it was a death cult.
Classical Liberalism was a death cult from day one, because biological inequality was intolerable for them from day one. Their first big cause was that the East India Company should not rule India. Which inevitably led to the current position that whites should not rule Britain.
I have read their very earliest stuff, the stuff that was furtively ditched down the memory hole in favor of nebulous abstractions. When dealing with the concrete issues of the day, death cult entirely visible, notably in the incidents of lawfare against the East India company, and lawfare against the Hottentot Venus.
From Day One, Death to Whitey.
The incident of the Hottentot Venus is akin to Disney not employing live action Dwarfs for live action Snow White, because oppression. They figured her show was oppression of black people. But they did not just attempt to cancel, deplatform, and demonetize her because her performance oppressed other black people. They attempted to enslave her. Disney cares about the differently abled so much it will not hire them for acting roles, and Classical Liberals cared so much about black people that they attempted to enslave one of them.
Of course what they actually care about is people seeing right in front of them that all men are not created equal. So they don’t want those men in view — which, done on a large enough scale, results in eradicating those men.
On day one, they were all about eliminating inequality — even if involved eliminating people who were inherently different in unequal ways. That they felt the need to get the Hottentot Venus out of sight by any means necessary implies they felt the need to get white people out of sight by any means necessary.
The incident of the Hottentot Venus was not an anti white action, but an anti black action wrapped in the grossest and most vicious anti white rhetoric, but it reveals intent to eradicate natural biological inequality, and willingness to use dreadful means to do so. I would summarise their position as “whites are oppressing black people by giving them money, so we need to own this black person to protect her from evil whites and their evil white money.
The initial Classical Liberalism was “black inferiority is disturbing, so let us make them go away”. But since they supposedly love blacks so much, got in trouble if they tried to use effective means to make blacks go away (Liberia). So, make whites go away.
Someone who does not like blacks because stupid, lazy, thieving, and violent, is likely to succeed in making blacks go away. Classical liberals could never succeed, and so whites must go away.
Alf: “The argument that classical liberalism is a suicide/genocide cult with a heap of unprincipled exceptions on top of it makes perfect sense.”
But Alf, it doesn’t say that. It’s not that CL said “death to whitey” but was temporarily saved by selective convenient hypocrisy. It never said “death to whitey” in the first place.
CL contains premises which, in combination with certain real-world facts, implies “Death to whitey!” but people didn’t think it through.
Thus when you say,
“As for classic liberals not thinking that premise through — are we really surprised?”
No, not surprised at all. Exactly this.
Classical Liberalism said “All men are created equal”, which is just “Death to Whitey” in flowery language, just as “Liquidation of the Kulaks as class” means liquidation of Kulaks as individual people, and “Accountability for Historical Injustices” means “Death to Whitey”
“Not thinking it through” is just being hypocritical about an unprincipled exception, and it did not take very long for this unprincipled exception to evaporate for white Frenchmen far away.
S (who is a strong poster, by the way) has a point. The real-world results of Feminism are rapid civilizational death, which didn’t stop normies from adhering to it when the priesthood told them to; and the very same can be said about the real-world results of Classical Liberalism, per the examples provided in this thread.
What the normie “truly believes” inside his normie brain is absolutely irrelevant, of course. These are NPCs with average IQs and no inner monologue. Evidently, millions of people can and do fall into death cults whose slogans use flowery language and whose real-world results are suffering, collapse, and genocide.
The flowery language doesn’t matter, and normie “thoughts” (lol) don’t matter. What matters is what the priesthood actually intends, and what real-life results follow from its intentions. All else are simply irrelevant, demotist distractions.
“All animals are equal.”
I think you are relying on an odd and unfamiliar definition of the phrase “death cult” here. Perhaps something to the effect of “cult whose members are actively, consciously seeking mass suicide and/or genocide”.
Which is a bit silly; it’s cartoon Thanos villainy. The physical act of suicide isn’t difficult and doesn’t require group support, so if suicide cults existed by the aforementioned definition, they would die out before anyone else heard about them. But if someone has Malthusian monomania and has convinced themselves with 100% certainty that the human race cannot survive globally above a population level of 1 billion… well, maybe they’re not thinking about genocide, but they’re not not thinking about it either.
What most of us mean by the phrase “death cult” is “beholden to an ideology whose obvious, logical conclusions will lead to mass suicide and/or murder” regardless of how effectively the members are able to concoct rationalizations to the contrary. Because eventually some future cult members are going to notice the unprincipled exceptions and logical inconsistencies, and try to fix them, and end up following the ideology to its obvious, logical conclusions.
There’s no sense trying to psychoanalyze and speculate on how consciously aware someone like John Stuart Mill might have been about where his ideology naturally led, or how effective his crimestop was on a moment-to-moment basis. Early opponents of enlightenment liberalism were quick to point out that liberalism was an inherently genocidal ideology, and early adherents denied that it was a genocidal ideology, only to go on to commit and/or rationalize genocide mere decades later. I’m not seeing a big mystery here.
Intellectual movements are always a bunch of radicals pulling a bunch of moderates. The radicals thought death to whitey, the moderates thought men are equal. As always, the radicals won, because the moderate position inevitably led to the radical conclusion.
It implies death to whitey in conjunction with a certain observed fact and a large dollop of motivated reasoning:
1. All men are created equal (classical liberal principle)
and
2. Whites are more successful in may ways than nonwhites (observed fact)
therefore
3. Whites have all their good stuff not from some sort of superiority, but from bad behavior, so we have the right to kill them and take their stuff.
Incidentally – and this may be important in the future – the problem would not go away if “All men are created equal” were replaced by “Whites are genetically superior to everyone else.” The conclusion would just change to, “Whites have their success by biological luck, which they didn’t do anything to deserve, so we have the right to kill them and take their stuff.”
This step was never required, and is not apparent in early examples. Superiority is itself felt to be wicked, and is still felt to be wicked even if it does not result in having nice things.
“Representation”, so prominent in today’s movies, is all about races and sexes being equal in excellence in everything, except that victim classes are superior and oppressor classes inferior. As for example a Iron Shaniqua and a black Samurai in medieval Japan. Also faiths, symbols, architecture and all that characteristic of oppressor classes is not nice things, but trash that needs to be trashed. Thus Iron Shaniqua is smarter than Iron man, not richer, and our black Samurai gets to beat up unarmed monks, trash temples, and so forth.
Similarly that British colonialists of the Indies frequently returned home newly rich was resented, especially by the old rich, but that they were a lot richer than the Indians they ruled was not an issue. What caused outrage was them imposing peace, traditional Indian law, justice, and order on the Indians and creating the conditions of peace and order where an Indian middle class thrived. Clive got in a bit of trouble for robbing Indian elites at gunpoint, and others got in trouble for making war, but what really enraged the classical liberals was white men dispensing peace and justice to brown men.
Similarly “Musk is not a scientist or engineer, just really rich”, as if he had purchased all his advances in science and technology from Harvard with money issued him by the Rothschilds. His science and engineering is resented more than his wealth, and the provision of peace, order, and justice by British colonialists to Indians was resented far more than their brigandage and extortion of Indians. I conjecture because the provision of order and justice represents superiority, and extortion does not. The one is a far more shocking and offensive desecration of the principle that all men are created equal than the other.
Look at attacks on Elon Musk. They tend to argue that he is not smart more than they argue he should not be rich.
If men of one race defeat men of another race and take their stuff, it is suggestive evidence that all men are not created equal, and pisses of classical liberals and always has.
If men of one race defeat men of another race and take their stuff, but give the defeated peace, order and justice, it is much more persuasive evidence that all men are not created equal, and pisses off classical liberals a whole lot more, always has.
Mossadnik:
I am not disputing the real-world results of CL; plainly it’s untenable.
Scarebucks:
I am, indeed, talking about what CL said and what its adherents consciously thought.
The conclusion follows psychologically, given the human realities of widespread envy, etc. Thus, CL “contains the software kernel of ‘death to whitey’ and that kernel will eventually be extracted and executed.”
What the adherents of Classical Liberalism not quite consciously thought is that biological differences between races were intolerable and made them murderously angry, and this was evident all the way back to the beginning, though back at the beginning who was going to murdered was not yet altogether clear.
The term “classical liberal” refers to version 1.0 of the Enlightenment ideology. Now we are on version 9.0 or however many versions later we want to say Wokeness is. Obviously they are not “classical liberals” by the strict definition, but their precise beliefs are a manifestation of the same ideology. There is perfect continuity of both ideas and personnel.
You, and for some reason also Neurotoxin (whom I generally agree with but is undergoing some sort of existential crisis over this issue) are getting hung up on the labels for the thing, and ignoring the actual thing. They change the labels constantly, they change the packaging, they even change the exact recipe from time to time, but it is still the same product, as surely as the Heinz Tomato Ketchup made today from high fructose corn syrup is the same product as the 1876 Catsup made from sun-ripened tomatoes.
Everyone is the hero of his own story. You imagine evil people who think they are evil and enjoy being evil and conspiring to do evil and committing openly evil acts, but that is obviously not the narrative they tell themselves. Those Hollywood Jews you love to hate are not telling themselves that they hate the entire movie-going public or that they want to put all white actors out of work; they are telling themselves that the “modern audience” wants to see a more “diverse cast”, hates “harmful stereotypes” and finds “ambiguous morality” more entertaining than old-school good and evil tropes; and they tell themselves that the opposition is a “tiny toxic minority” and that when they get ratioed on social media it’s “brigading”, and when someone points out that a 90-lb woman cannot win a melee against a 180-lb man on any terms, regardless of skill or training, that is actually “gaslighting” and not the obvious truth.
You think they are lying, and they obviously are lying, but they also believe their own lies. In their minds, they are good guys; they have to be.
The negro-studies academics are doing the same thing. They talk about “White Supremacy”, “White Privilege” and “White Fragility” all in (nearly) the same breath, and when you put it all together it obviously means “Death to Whitey”, but they will tell you it does not mean “Death to Whitey” and they will mean it sincerely. They are merely seeking to implement “restorative justice”, to correct historical injustices, to remove the invisible obstacles holding them back, and so on and so forth. That they cannot possibly succeed without killing and/or victimizing 300 million white people never quite enters the picture. That many of the professors, organizers and street thugs supporting their movement are white or octaroon is just an unimportant unprincipled exception not worth examining too closely. They are “allies”, that’s all.
Supposedly this debate is over the original, “classical” liberals not consciously believing that their ideology meant “death to whitey”, but that’s a fairly useless framing and a category error. First of all, “death to whitey” isn’t literally “death to whitey”, it’s a synecdoche for the deliberate “leveling” of society that happens to be easily understood in the explicit racial terms playing out in woke academic and journalistic discourse. And second, even the woke professors today don’t believe that they believe in death to whitey; it is getting harder and harder to pretend otherwise, but in response, they keep inventing ever more elaborate ways to pretend otherwise.
There’s a famous scene in the Chris Farley classic Black Sheep (1996), where he’s doing his “Rock the Vote” speech and completely owning the crowd using the kind of crude demotist rhetoric we’re all so familiar with now; everyone is cheering, until finally he turns toward a group of black voters and yells “Kill Whitey!” and suddenly the crowd goes silent and you know he just blew it. Why is this scene funny, why was it funny even back in 1996? It’s funny because he said the quiet part out loud, and everyone except him is smart enough to know that you should never say the quiet part out loud.
If “Kill Whitey” wasn’t the logical conclusion of his speech, the scene wouldn’t be funny. If it was just some random nonsense the writers threw in, then it just wouldn’t make any sense to the audience and would leave us scratching our heads. But we don’t scratch our heads, we laugh because it actually fits in perfectly, despite being unspeakable. We’re embarrassed for him, not because he blurted out some Tourette Syndrome insanity, but because he simply let his speech go on for about 10 seconds too long.
Liberalism – forget the “classical” signifier, we are just talking about Enlightenment ideology here – says that everyone starts from the same blank slate, that everyone has the same human potential. Not everyone actualizes their potential, so Neurotoxin is right when he says you can’t just make an immediate logical leap from “all men are created equal” to “death to whitey”. But it does mean you get to start asking why some people don’t actualize their potential.
The obvious, parsimonious answer is “free will” or “human agency”, which is actually just a sophomoric way of saying “it’s random”. And if that is the answer, then we expect positive and negative outcomes to be more or less randomly distributed. As soon as it becomes obvious that they are not randomly distributed, for example that one identifiable group (blacks) do much worse than another identifiable group (non-blacks) then you need a different explanation. And there are really only 3 possible explanations:
1. Biology – which is illegal under AMACE, and must be ruled out.
2. Oppression – the winning groups are deliberately holding back the losing groups.
3. Magic Dirt – the losing groups are just as innately capable, but due to various historical accidents, don’t have the same “opportunities”, due to living in the wrong place, going to the wrong schools, etc.
Magic/Tragic Dirt theory can help stave off “Death to Whitey” by advancing “equal opportunity”, and did for a long time, but causes a lot of even worse externalities in the process (forced integration, government housing, etc.) and eventually it runs out fuel when you give the losers all the Magic Dirt in the world and all they do is turn it into Tragic Dirt. So the only explanation left is Oppression. Remember, biological differences cannot under any circumstances be entertained because All Men Are Created Equal.
“Death to Whitey” is convenient shorthand because the racial divisions in America really helped to accelerate the realization that AMACE is a lie. But it would have happened eventually anyway, as in the case of the Communists vs. the Kulaks, or as in the story of Harrison Bergeron. If it is not “Death to Whitey”, then it is “Death to Landlords” or “Eat the Rich” or “Baseball players shouldn’t earn such high salaries” and blah blah blah, we’ve heard it all a million times.
That is just the logical outcome of Classical Liberalism. It is utterly, totally impossible to escape the conclusion that, if all men are created equal, and there is gross inequality in the outcome, then it must be the result of malign forces, and Something Must Be Done in order to Level Society, to make it Fair For Everyone, and if we are unable to elevate the losers then we must cut down the winners.
It’s a straight path from A to B and it does not make one whit of difference what bedtime stories the believers tell themselves in order to convince themselves that they’re not a bunch of murderous psychopaths.
>You…are getting hung up on the labels for the thing
No. I’m discussing the thing itself. And I gave one of the best sources for it https://reaction.la/treason.htm
>You imagine evil people who think they are evil and enjoy being evil and conspiring to do evil and committing openly evil acts, but that is obviously not the narrative they tell themselves.
>You think they are lying, and they obviously are lying, but they also believe their own lies. In their minds, they are good guys; they have to be.
What they pretend to believe is completely irrelevant. I don’t care if criminals “believe” they are poor innocent victims. Their alleged beliefs do not matter. Their actions do matter.
>Supposedly this debate is over the original, “classical” liberals not consciously believing that their ideology meant “death to whitey”
That’s not what I’m debating. I am debating the contents of the political philosophy known as liberalism, not the subjective feelings of some alleged liberals.
And, I won’t add anything else anyway. You think you are refuting liberalism by calling it a race-based “death cult”. Have fun.
As Alf said, if all men are created equal, and yet some men just keep on being better … something must be done. In a sense that is the opposite of being a race based death cult. But classic liberals discover a race based problem in the actually existing world, which they attempt to solve in ways that look remarkably like a death cult. In the early days, they tried to avoid overtly race based solutions, persecuting the Hottentot Venus and her white coworkers, employers, and audience equally. Overtly race based solutions are new, though inevitable.
And as I said, classical liberals have been doing thoroughly evil and irrational things about this problem from the beginning. The difference between twenty first century woke and eighteenth century classical liberalism is merely the proportion of the population protected by unprincipled exceptions. Lawfare and cancel culture go back a very long way.
Top-tier post.
>the reason whites got killed during those rebellions was not the color of their skin, but the fact that they were slave owners.
Absolutely amazing to see someone write this line unironically in the year of our Lord, 2025. Really takes me back. To yesterday’s stalkinghorses for white genocide specifically. Isn’t that a funny coincidence?
Not only were all whites in Haiti guilty for slavery, but white bread is guilty for slavery also.
Recall that when Russia started accepting refugees from South Africa, the left was outraged, and Russia=imperialist big bad came on the radar. They wanted them dead, they want you dead. They wanted it back then, and they want it now.
This “white bread” is a stale, moldy laffa.
Laffa, it’s time for you to finally get laid at the age of 56, and I know just the right method – you need to marry this striking, mewed-jaw-dropping model of aesthetics and sanity, the top Gaia Priestess who lately to converted to Palestinian, known as Greta “Vinaigretta” Thunberg.
Together, the two of you can plot the liquidation of
WHITE DEVILSclass oppressors and usher in utopia free from any trace of privilege, militarism, and running water. What are you even waiting for?!Furthermore, I suggest that for a pair-bonding honeymoon activity, you future lovebirds perform a seance together and resurrect the dead, sagacious spirit of Aye Le Mao’s frenulum, which will no doubt impart great wisdom that will serve your matrimony for happily ever after.
When you accuse a regressive of intending to do such and such, and he responds with ‘no, I do not intend to do such and such’, you must understand: in a manner of fashion, it is telling a truth.
Because he really doesn’t, *cannot*, think in such terms; in terms of intentionality, causality, teleology. Because that’s what congenital solipsism means. They see only a world without agency, whose motions are crazed, inscrutable, and without provenance. The phenomenological consequence of insufficient world-formation capacity is that they don’t see a world where things happen because beings cause them to happen, but a world where things happen because they just so happen to happen. People like teutonics being successful and people like bantus sucking shit is just blind idiot chance, as far as they can tell; a self-licking ice-cream cone where the slightest blip can snowball into permanent hegemony forever – not because of any *generative* differences in the subjects involved that would reliably produce and reproduce such results, but because everything is infinitely arbitrary (and so they just need to arbitrate otherwise).
And the same goes for their own actions. You may be hearing from a part of them that speaks words to you, but that part has no insight into what the rest of it is doing. The speech module is just along for the ride. The words are window dressing, with no necessary connection between what is done and their explanations for what was done or why they did it or how it got done; between what is said in one context or another; between what is done in one context or another.
Just weighing in to note that I’ve read the latest comments. I have nothing to add, except a couple of notes.
1. Scarebucks: “You, and for some reason also Neurotoxin (whom I generally agree with but is undergoing some sort of existential crisis over this issue) are getting hung up on the labels”
Believe me, when this topic started I didn’t realize I was punching a tar baby!
2. Jim: “Superiority is itself felt to be wicked, and is still felt to be wicked even if it does not result in having nice things.”
Hmm, yes, while I’m aware of envy, I’d neglected just how freakin’ powerful it is for some people. Also in some cases, a kind of weird envy-by-proxy on behalf of others.
@white bread
“What they pretend to believe is completely irrelevant. I don’t care if criminals “believe” they are poor innocent victims. Their alleged beliefs do not matter. Their actions do matter.”
“That’s not what I’m debating. I am debating the contents of the political philosophy known as liberalism, not the subjective feelings of some alleged liberals.”
The ‘contents’ are vibes. The first true civil war Rome experienced was the Social War. The cause was extension of the franchise to Roman allies because the faction that passed the law would have the new voters as patrons (and cement its power). America’s Founding Father’s dealt with this problem by doing… nothing. This was a problem that would only come up in the far distant year of… 1798.
The desire for power cannot be constrained by paper. What we have is a political formula to claim power- one which doesn’t change in its various manifestations.
Also, Haiti. The Revolution was in 1791, the slaves were freed in 1792 and the massacre was in 1804. A black military commander (Toussaint Louverture) tried to make himself governer for life in 1801, got crushed, there was another revolt (Napoleon wanted slavery back) and the new black government (lead by Jean-Jacques Dessalines) ordered the extermination when they won. The best part is Dessalines replaced slavery with a different system of unfree labor (wiki is hilarious- ‘the whip was prohibited so many overseers used vines’).
Accountability for historical injustices. Whenever you concede on injustice, you have to make sure you retain the power to make sure the concession does not extend to extermination.
You cannot concede on the power to protect yourself.
Which today is why we are heading into World War III. Trump is demanding entirely reasonable concessions from Russia — which if Russia made them, would inevitably result in entirely unreasonable concessions.
>Trump is demanding entirely reasonable concessions from Russia
Such as?
That’s just Trotskyism. When someone claims to be envious on your behalf, he is planning to kill both you and the subject of said envy.
Sad but true. Case in point: Thierry Baudet has a big painting of Alexis de Tocqueville in his office.
Unless the European right pivots from fighting for slightly less leftism to waging holy war, it is doomed to lose.
There is a DE-adjacent doctrine that Europeans can successfully rally behind, which is the Euro KKK (Kinder, Küche, Kirche). If an aspiring leader were to “own the label”, as it were, then I believe he could work some very MAGAesque magic with it.
European problems are going to require European solutions. America has its own history to build on, including the late-stage British empire history, but you need your own Moldbug tracking down your own memetic excavation sites. I have the most faith in pre-WWI Germany/Austria and pre-revolutionary France, with a possible extension to Spanish colonialism.
IMO, Italy and Greece are a little too ancient (culturally superseded by Christianity) and while Britain is technically European and has a wealth of religion and statehood traditions valuable to the USA and Canada, the rest of Europe seems to chafe at the Anglosphere – not entirely unjustifiably, I hasten to add – so people and institutions like Henry the Lion and the Anglican Church are out of the running.
Historically, every European monarchy looked at the neighbor and copied what worked. The English and French copied each other, Dutch copied from the French and later the English, the Russians famously copied much from the Western European monarchies.
Of all these nations, England held out the longest and best. So I am inclined to say that Jim’s prescription of 1660 England will work out pretty well, especially for the Dutch considering the success of the Glorious Revolution. Germany probably ought to ditch a good deal of its Prussian heritage. France its Catholicism.
The higher races do not reproduce successfully without practicing coverture. A durable restoration of coverture requires the firm re-institution of property rights in people (specifically: fathers owning daughters, husbands owning wives, also unowned women being taken possession of); having a faith that is highly prone to undermine property rights in people will lead to endless attacks against (and abolition of) coverture by holier-than-thou types. Thus, a faith that is not prone to undermine property rights in people is needed.
Patriarchy means an orderly transfer of ownership over women from fathers to husbands. No secure property rights in people (backed by state, church, and society), no patriarchy; no patriarchy means that the higher races are replaced by an infinity of niggers and civilization collapses.
The median age in Japan is 49.8, the TFR is 1.26, and now (despite being “ethnocentrists”) they resort to bringing in assorted brown people to replace the children and grandchildren they never had. Ditto for Korea; notably the North fares slightly better than the South.
Can that state of affairs be fixed by any strain of Classical Liberalism? I believe the poison cannot serve as the cure.
“The median age in Japan is 49.8, the TFR is 1.26… Can that state of affairs be fixed by any strain of Classical Liberalism?”
No.
“Ditto for Korea; notably the North fares slightly better than the South.”
> The godless Mao Commies of the upper half are doing better because they are stuck in stasis where the CCCP still lives eternal while the lower half has gone full speed off the cliff
Many such cases. I remember reading about how after the Korean War, the South Koreans expedited all their mixed race-baby mutts to America, all the while desegregation talk was all the rage in US of A. Can they do it today? They probably don’t even remember doing this. It’s probably just a crime thought to them.
Some might think that, with the collapse of Woke, humanity is now on a sure path towards the Space Opera. Not so; we’re still headed for Bronze Age collapse. Since all men are not, in fact, created equal, a reinstitution of Classical Liberalism as the new state religion simply means that it is Pakis, Afghanis, Nigerians, etc., who are expected to participate in this glorious age of the Space Opera – all while, of course, maintaining the superintelligent robots, with little to no help from the whites and the yellows, who had by that point already biologically disappeared. Yeah, I don’t think so. You need the higher races to advance on the Kardashev Scale; that requires the conditions for above-replacement reproduction among them. Classical Liberalism does not provide those conditions, and civilization is running out of time.
A few noticings from the new USMIL TV recruitment ad:
In Hegseth’s voice:
“No more gender confusion.”
“No more climate change worship.” <- emphasis on 'worship'
A few negroes, but not one single chick.
So that's it. Hegseth gets it. He had me at "worship".
Our ideas are now being marketed to normies. Thermidor still rules, and that is fine, for in the long run, Thermidor cannot rule. It may rule for weeks, months, years, or fifty years. Not a problem.
In the end, a state faith always rules, and they have lost their faith. The question now is not when Thermidor departs, but who is up next?
Thermidor is just a place holder pending resolution of that question.
Speaking of how the shark has to keep swimming leftward or it dies:
Note how the term “gender confusion” was originally used for things like cross-dressing, castration hormones, genital mutilation surgery, Orwellian pronouns and other boutique weirdo tranny terror stuff. The especially nonsensical and repulsive.
But here in this TV ad, the simple phrase “no more gender confusion” immediately collapses much further down than that, straight through the rickety tranny stuff and all the way down to “no more pretending that women are soldiers”, without any mental friction at all.
The viewer just instantly forgets that that was some kind of thing once.
This is what happens when the other side gets to hold the camera and work the editing desk for once.
So how far down does this house of cards go, anyway (and would you like to know more)?
“Equality confusion”?
“Equality nonsense”?
“Atheism propaganda?”
“Atheistic delusions?”
etc.
Colonel MacGregor is really dropping his normie mask today.
On Twitter, he’s surmising that the Ukrainians have over a million dead, and that Zelensky needs to keep the war going so that the soldiers can die rather than come home to kill him.
And on YouTube with Tucker, that to the war’s sponsors, dead Ukrainians are probably a “bonus” on top of dead Russians.
Holy cow.
Is he going so far as to say why?
WTF happened to the paragraphing?
[*Deleted. Please follow the moderation policy*]
[…] Jim’s Blog there has been a debate about just how explicitly classical liberalism asserts, or covertly […]