Technological Despotism

In the 1990’s, it was popular for conservatives to excuse their impotence by throwing around the line, “In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve”, which they attributed to Tocqueville. So-called conservatives like Newt Gingrich were supposed to be idea men, brimming with technocratic solutions to every problem, while Clinton was a windy degenerate from a bygone era. The fact that the voters sided with Clinton over conservatives reflected poorly on the people.

The quote, of course, was not from Tocqueville. It was actually Joseph de Maistre, who coined that phrase. It was oddly symbolic of the state of conservatism. They had turned their back on everything that defined Western conservatism by that point, so forgetting seminal figures in the intellectual tradition of the Right was appropriate. In retrospect, the fact that the so-called conservatives did not understand the word “people” in the context of the quote was the most poignant error.

Putting that aside, the quote itself is a nice shorthand for the actual truth that lies behind those words. The people get the ruling elite they can produce and that ruling elite will then create a government that reflects its nature. The condition of the people is reflected in the morality of its ruling class. At the same time, the ruling class is responsible for the people. Its duty is to advance their interests. In this way, the pivot point of a people is its ruling class. It is what they make of it.

The founding generation of America were men of civic virtue. The saw the willingness to put the interests of the community ahead of private interests, as the threshold item for a leader. As a result, they rejected the monarchical system of government they inherited from England and created a republic. The constitutional system they created was based on the assumption that, in general, the sort of men who would rise to prominence were men who prized civic virtue. The Constitution reflected this.

That turned out to be the fatal flaw of the constitutional order created in Philadelphia two centuries ago. While the system of checks and balances worked to prevent the ambitious and unscrupulous from gaining politician power, it was not built for the ruling elite that would evolve in the 19th century. When the North conquered the country, America became a nascent empire. It still reflected the founding order, but its elite was now changing to reflect the changing nature of America.

The ruling elite the evolved after the Civil War and into the Industrial Revolution did not place civic virtue at the top of its moral order. Instead, it was the desire for and the love of honor that motivated the ruling classes. They quickly reorganized the government to reflect this reality. Rank and status were now the coin of the realm. Whether it was dominating some area of the economy or conquering foreign lands, the path to attaining rank and status was though government and politcs.

You can see this in the type of men who occupied high office. Before the Civil War, the leadership of the country were men who either got rich before entering government, or they were born rich. This was the result of a natural ruling class that reflected the human capital of the people. After the war, there emerged men who made their names in government. Their path to high status was not as natural leaders of their community, but as shrewd operators in the political system.

The obvious example is Abraham Lincoln, who is treated as the Moses of the second founding by the previous ruling class. This was not a man who prized civic virtue or was a natural community leader. Instead, he craved status and power. He attained those through the skillful maneuvering through politics and then through the brutal use of force to create a political order that reflected this new ruling class. For those who wonder when America will have its Sulla, look no further than Lincoln.

Every phase of an elite runs its course and this one is no different. The ruling class that evolved after the Civil War through the Cold War was built for a different age. It was industrial and it was geared to a world of industrial competition. What kept it going long after its peak was the Cold War. The stand-off with communism not only locked the New Deal political order in place, it locked in place the status system of the ruling elite. That system, thirty years after the Cold War, is now giving way to something new.

The technological age, like the industrial age, is the accelerant for a long overdue transformation of the American ruling elite. This new class is no longer created and housed within the political class. It exists outside of it, within its own power centers inside and outside of government. The intelligence services, for example, are now an independent power center, beyond the reach of Congress. Silicon Valley and Wall Street are now more powerful than Washington.

This new ruling class has a unique motivation. The elite of the republic was defined by civic virtue. The elite of the empire was defined by status and rank. This new ruling elite will be defined by the fear it instills in the public. In the technological age, fear of the oligarchs will be the supreme public virtue. Fear will be ruthlessly and creatively inculcated by a ruling elite that is wholly disconnected from the people over whom it rules. This stage of America will be the age of technological despotism.

For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!

210 thoughts on “Technological Despotism

  1. Gun control; we know why the GOP sells out.

    Trump? Well Trump wants re-election. But overall Trump wants Brumaire. Let them surrender, no power, retired.

    That’s what Napoleon, Reagan did.
    I don’t know if this is possible, but I am sure that is Trump’s end state.

    My desired end state: WE rule ourselves, the rest quietly step back. We don’t share power and slowly but surely reassume prominence. We don’t degrade or shit on them -that’s gross incompetence. The overseas Empire ends by retrenchment.

    We’ll see.

  2. Great productivity gains here Z.

    We have at least 3 self-identified workers. Worker defined as showed up for work.

    Meme War Vet
    My humble vxxc self. Yes, I am.

    That’s an astounding ratio, well done.

    “But we hate you.”

    Irrelevant, we’re men. We don’t have to like each other just show up for work.

    Good job gents.

  3. The old Alt-Right is being obsolesced. New alt-right vs Paleo-Alt-Right; The new alt right are flat out white leftists who act and don’t talk. Predictably events are passing from talk to action.

    This is the S.A / Brownshirts* phase.

    Paleo-Alt-Right talked, tweeted, memed. This did advance the goal and may continue to however the banner is passing from talk to action. This leaves the Paleo-Alt-Right and Paleo-Reaction behind- and rapidly in the position of National Review denouncing and mocking those to the Right of them.
    They may mock, perhaps that’s all they can do. But those events however ugly and evil, insane – those events are taking control of the struggle.

    Good thing for the Right and all of us that the Left offers only genocide to whites, good thing too their reflexively pushing Gun Control. Gun control is always good for the Right, in America anyway. The Left is now advancing our cause more than the Right ever could.

    *That the Left Wing WN are former Leftists and hence not controllable may be why Trump talks crackdown (they can’t even control themselves). IOW Night of The Long Knives – Hitler smashing SA.

    • We are too utterly marginalized and unsupported by the masses. This is precisely the time to talk, in sophisticated terms, and to form support networks. “Action” just makes matters worse, just hurts our long-run prospects, just brings us bad publicity making the public less receptive to us, and more censorship stopping us from spreading ideas. This is the time to recruit a vanguard/proto-elite, who must be intelligent (drawn in by intelligent, sophisticated theoretical arguments) to be effective. Behind the French Revolutionaries lay Enlightenment philosophy, behind the second 1917 revolution lay Marxist philosophy, behind 1933 lay the German Conservative Revolution*, and so on. You need ideas to draw in intelligent, capable, influential people, to form the leadership, and to further disseminate the ideas to sufficiently “soften up” a mass of people for change. We are NOWHERE NEAR that level. The alt-right was ascending in its earlier, intellectual, ideas centered phase. Then, Spencer’s personality defects got in the way, sinking the original altright website (I first made my way into “our thing” by stumbling on that website, particularly through a highly intelligent and extremely well-read young commenter there who engaged in discussions in the comment sections every day, sometimes making many dozens of posts (the original alt-right website comment sections were basically a forum)). I agree with Spencer the vast majority of the time, but I think that his desire to get his face on the news by attaching himself to Trump, the Hail-Gate fiasco, the Charlottesville fiasco, etc. have kept us from growing under the radar, and from disseminating sophisticated ideas to intelligent young people, which is what centrally matters.

      Things are desperate, but there is nothing to do save study and disseminate ideas, and form support networks (look into Jack Donovan, ‘The Way of Men’, forming INFORMAL UNDER THE RADAR mannerbunds/gangs of friends). Don’t get worried about a total collapse, or some sort of massive open race war, either. Neither the elite, nor the vast, vast majority of people want that, and they will BOTH work to prevent it.

      *note that the GCR and the Nazis are NOT identical, and most of the intellectuals of that movement were heavily critical of the party, and many, many of them refused participation in the Nazi movement (some going more or less silent, some going abroad), or directly opposed them (Edgar Julius Jung got himself killed in the Night of the Long Knives for that, Ernst Niekisch got himself arrested by the Gestapo and imprisoned, and went blind during the ordeal), or entered into resistance to it (as in Otto Paetel and others for whom it was insufficiently revolutionary, spirited, (national) socialist, and anti-bourgeois, or the Stauffenberg plot of reactionary anti-liberal Right Prussian aristocrat military officers).

      • Prussian I agree which is why I’m trying to build Community where I am at…The problem is people like to talk about doing that but when it comes down to it they just aren’t ready to do it… It’s disappointing to say the least and kind of bums me out…

  4. This is an excerpt from an artical intitled “On the Despotism of Democracy.” It’s on the “European New Right.” website “Arktos” “The destruction that this unbridled technological development could bring need not be physical. The Bomb is not the only threat that technology has birthed. Perhaps it is no longer even the greatest. But if this is so, and if what I have said so far is correct, then technology is the mightiest weapon that has ever been offered to the hands of humanity’s greatest enemy – an enemy which does not, alas, become the less terrible for being so very benign in its intentions. I am speaking of that very personal inertia and meekness which Tocqueville identifies as the greatest threat in democracies, as that which will lead them to that mild despotism we have already discussed.” Here’s the link.
    Here’s their Youtube link.

  5. This is where Spandrell’s concept of BioLeninism comes to play. Like Lenin did in the ussr the American elite is creating a new loyal class of voter out of the various groups who can’t compete in a meritocracy: single women, trannies, low IQ blacks, immigrants, general mental defectives. These people are very loyal because they know without the elite’s patronage they are nothing. The competent people are seen as a threat because they don’t need the elite and will be marginalized and silenced

    • That was an interesting essay. But it seems to me that a bigger problem is that whites are either heavily loyal as well, or heavily apathetic, or somewhere in between. Understanding better why this is I believe to be vital to finding any possible way out of this.

      Whites weren’t always this way. The question is why they changed, what caused it. Another question would be, why are Russians and East Europeans seemingly the least affected by this? Why, as I understand it, is the main resistance to immigration in Germany emanating from former East Germany?

      “Chemnitz lies in the former Communist East Germany which has become the heartland of anti-immigrant groups including PEGIDA and the Alternative for Germany (AfD) political party.”

      “The last speaker today is a man called Tomislav Sunic, and his book Homo americanus, is about the American role in the world. And of course America is the model for much of the development that is going on in every continent and in every group on earth. America is the model.”

      “But in that book he said something very revealing. He said that communism kills the body, but liberalism rots the soul. And that’s exactly the case.

      “We face a situation in the West, where, paradoxically, spiritually we’re in a far worse state than the people who lived under communism. And this is one of the great ironies, because amongst its manias and the rest of it, communism froze things. It froze things glacially for 50 years in many respects.”

  6. I can’t wait for the new, highly subjective “red flag laws” that Republicans will propose in Congress. “You can have a gun, unless you hurt a woke person’s feelings.” They file a police report and it’ll cost you $60,000 in litigation to get them back.

    Useless, useless people. Of course this has to be a Federal issue, as usual. If only there was this urgency in dealing with illegal alien rapists and murderers.

    You know it’s bad when Lindsey Graham is helping to write this, as he sits with blinds shut in a teddy and silk stockings like J. Edgar Hoover.

    • I expect that my woke sister will cancel the gun rights of my brother and me because we are “mean.”

    • >>>You can have a gun, unless you hurt a woke person’s feelings.

      It’s the seriousness of the charges that counts, not the availability of “evidence”.

  7. “In the technological age, fear of the oligarchs will be the supreme public virtue.”

    Here’s my thinking lately. The Last Man that liberalism (1776, 1789, and onward to today) has ultimately reared requires little in the way of threat and fear to be brought into line. Idealism, honor, love of heroism, etc., these concepts have no real meaning or draw for him. If the elite continue providing him with his basic necessities, Taco Bell, Labron James, alcohol, and so on, he will view the elite as basically legitimate. He will furthermore be anxious to accept some or all of the lies that the elite communicate (indoctrinate) to him. He does not want to think or feel impelled to something so risky as revolt, nor to be alienated from the people and culture that surround him. He will not step forward and risk his social status, his economic status, or his life to overthrow the elite and the system that elevated and drives (through incentives) them. That could bring his enlightened existence to an end. Better to hide in a favela, and keep some tiny semblance of the party going, than to revolt. And so, the elite, and liberalism, remain basically legitimate in his eyes.

    To be clear, I view the lot of us as being exceptions to this Last Man. However, we are extreme outliers. I view populists, depending on the individual, as standing somewhere between us and Last Man. The compact between the elite of liberalism, and the masses reared by liberalism, leave us highly outnumbered. Furthermore, the material productivity and technological dynamism of capitalism that is quite wholly at their disposal, has us out-gunned. And so, the next step in the evolution of liberalism is to sweep us away, as it has swept so many away before us, and move toward global domination. The elite naturally want their global plantation, while most of the global masses want the illusion of democracy, and the material culture of capitalism (with perhaps some milquetoast religion (like modern Christianity) on the side).

    I’d also add that, with the development of technologies capable of altering human nature (genetics), and with the likelihood being that the liberal elite will not be overthrown, we can expect, at some point, for the elite to utilize these technologies to breed themselves an even better race of Last Man (“more peaceful, less racist, …”).

    • I recently came across something that I think is relevant to all this. Here is the definition of the movement of German Nihilists (the German Conservative Revolution intellectual movement) by Leo Strauss:

      “That moral meaning of modem civilisation to which the German nihilists object, is expressed in formulations such as these: to relieve man’s estate; or: to safeguard the rights of man; or: the greatest possible happiness of the greatest possible number. What is the motive underlying the protest against modem civilisation, against the spirit of the West*, and in particular of the Anglo-Saxon* West?

      “The answer must be: it is a moral protest. That protest proceeds from the conviction that the internationalism inherent in modem civilisation, or, more precisely, that the establishment of a perfectly open society which is as it were the goal of modern civilisation, and therefore all aspirations directed toward that goal, are irreconcilable with the basic demands of moral life. That protest proceeds from the conviction that the root of all moral life is essentially and therefore eternally the closed society; from the conviction that the open society is bound to be, if not immoral, at least amoral: the meeting ground of seekers of pleasure, of gain, of irresponsible power, indeed of any kind of irresponsibility and lack of seriousness. 3

      “Moral life, it is asserted, means serious life. Seriousness, and the ceremonial of seriousness—the flag and the oath to the flag—, are the distinctive features of the closed society, of the society which by its very nature, is constantly confronted with, and basically oriented toward, the Ernstfall, the serious moment, M-day, war. Only life in such a tense atmosphere, only a life which is based on constant awareness of the sacrifices* to which it owes its existence, and of the necessity, the duty of sacrifice of life and all worldly goods, is truly human: the sublime is unknown to the open society.”

      “The conviction I am trying to describe, is not, to repeat, in its origin a love of war: it is rather a love of morality, a sense of responsibility for endangered morality.”

      Leo Strauss, “German Nihilsm”, 1941

      I just wanted to share this in case anyone should find it as enlightening as I did. It puts into clear language what I’ve merely felt/groped at for quite some time. It’s not just that we have reason to be closed, to be us versus them, friend versus enemy, based on irreconcilable conflicts of interest (closed West for whites, versus open West for the Third World), but that an essential and healthy moral component to man is also lost by all this.

      • Argument from the morality of strenuousness is moot anyway, because open society is a contradiction in terms. If anyone can join, then membership has no value, and society ceases to be a relevant subset of humanity for purposes of civic engagement and public policy.
        So-called “open society” advocates want mankind as a whole to become the legitimate locus of government; in this respect they should be more properly referred to as global society advocates, since the Earth is a closed system.

        Global society, in turn, is untenable because it disregards HBD and the fact that consanguinity is a requisite for togetherness. Men not bound by blood cannot live durably in good intelligence, for biology governs state of mind, and commands stronger loyalty than can be contrived out of ideological uniformity.

        (((Leo Strauss))) engages in misdirection here, permissiveness or the unwholesomeness of license don’t enter into it.

        • His argument certainly rings true for me personally, and seems to me true also for most of the German Con. Rev., to whom I have felt drawn like a magnet for quite some time. In his early years, he was a serious Nietzschean and German Con. Rev. follower himself, and was even in Germany during the 1920’s, which would give him great insight into this area. He was also quite clearly brilliant. I wouldn’t brush him aside so easily.

          He may have been Jewish, but even Greg Johnson clearly thinks highly of him. There is little doubt this accused “Nazi Jew” was a man of the Right:

          “. . . the fact that the new Right-wing Germany does not tolerate us [Jews] says nothing against the principles of the Right. To the contrary: only from the principles of the Right, that is from fascist, authoritarian, and imperial principles, is it possible with decency, that is, without the laughable and despicable appeal to the droits imprescriptibles de l’homme [inalienable rights of man], to protest against the shabby abomination.”

          On a related not here’s what (((Paul Gottfried))) said not long ago:

          “…the right has been almost entirely vestigial, since the end of fascism, and the arguments that take place within our political discourse are almost entirely arguments of the left, we’re arguing in terms of leftist ideals, human rights, universalism, open borders, global democracy, whatever, these are all values of the left, and what becomes distinctions between right and left in our time, or conservative and liberal, are arbitrary….there is no right, the right has been pretty much eliminated, and just exists in spots in the Western world. Eastern Europe of course is different, you do have right and left there…

          “I also suggest that this belief in liberal democracy is essentially a leftist belief, because it assumes universalism, something like human rights, ideas that really come out of the left-wing of the French Revolution.”

          • LOL. In making my post above, I did a quick web search to provide an example of Greg Johnson writing positively of Strauss, and it brought me to the linked essay. I had not yet read it (I wasn’t aware of it, and it is excellent). The second part of the essay directly discusses Strauss’ “German Nihilism” essay/speech I originally pointed to. It turns out the argument I found so appealing and true above is derived from Nietzsche’s ‘Untimely Meditations’. Yet again, I read something I like, and I find the author was heavily influenced by, or derived the argument directly from, Nietzsche. I find him a difficult read. I’ve made two starts to ‘Beyond Good and Evil’, and one to ‘On the Genealogy’. I really need to spend about 10 years studying that man (and then another 10 on Heidegger).

  8. For the love of God- cheer up.
    Gun control is ALWAYS good news for the Right.

    “But what could get the normies off the couch?!?”

    Gun control.

    There are 3 certain ways to commit the American people to War.
    1. Attack the Homeland.
    2. Interfere with Freedom of the Seas.
    3. Attempt to forcibly disarm (Revolution, Texan Independence).

    Number 2 requires government to tell the Navy to shoot through.

    Numbers 1&3 can’t be stopped, only channeled.

  9. Good old Taleb. Speaking of Tech Despots. 1 tweet and blocked.

    “Mr. Taleb occupies the most intellectually and morally defensible ground since the Marines occupied Beirut airport in 1982.
    America being Lebanon say 1975.
    He’s missing the point.
    @Quillette does not.
    They have a side-even Socrates picked Athens.”.

  10. Monarchs are ordinary people who happened to be born in their place. Politicians are power hungry reptiles. There is nothing democratic about republicanism. It is oligarchy and kleptocracy combined.

    • I disagree. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. People understood hereditary greatness long before we knew of the genes. Not only did they posses the best genes, but they were raised to be elite. If we had held onto that system, there would be no foreign elites.

  11. While I maintain a deep degree of skepticism with regard to surveys and opinion polls, the one below caused me to sit up just a little.

    If it only even partially true, then the future looks a little clearer, at least to me.

    Yes, our overlords have won. They control every lever of power and every institution and they will brook neither opposition nor dissent. But theirs is not a strong rule, it is a fragile one. They will remain in control only for as long as they have the money to pay the militarised praetorians who protect them and enforce their whims.

    Yes, they have power but they have nothing else. No story, no vision, no morality, no concepts, no culture, no principles, no faith; nothing to live for, work for, dream about, love or get up in the morning for except to get our hands on whatever bit of shiny ephemera is next to roll off the Guangzhou assembly line.

    This is not a new aristocracy; it is class of brittle, paranoid, homonculi who understand only too well that they can never inspire loyalty or even grudging acceptance. Even their own clients despise them. They offer only a rotting corpse, dressed up in rainbow colours and forced to dance. Fear is their only coin.

    Yes, they rule. They rule and they reign. For now. Beneath their scabby, claw-like feet there is only a great, roaring nothingness waiting to be filled. They are a mile wide but a micron deep. Perhaps we do not need to overthrow them. Perhaps we only need to endure.

    • This subject deserves a Z-screed by itself. This is the fruit of the twin forces of multiculturalism and mass immigration. Go ahead: Look at home prices and rents where the jobs are. And please, don’t tell me to move away like any of the current or former NRO cucks.

    • King Tut;
      If anyone can endure, it will be the Englishman. Recall the Londoners during the Blitz. They would hold Shakespearean plays in the subway tunnels while the bombs fell overhead.

  12. The ruling class today, much like the voting public, wants to be famous. Even billionaires, with the current president as an obvious example, leverage their money to achieve fame. We were raised by screens, and the screens told us that we didn’t exist unless people on the screen were talking about us.

    It’s almost poetic that a Boomer like Pelosi is now being buried in Congress by a bunch of upstart media whores. Her narcissistic generation helped to create this insanity and now it’s overtaking them.

  13. The Constitution was written by and for a British, English people. Other peoples did not have the same traditions and dispositions as the English settlers.
    Allowing foreigners to take control of such vital institutions as schooling, news media and entertainment media made the current system all but inevitable.

    It is no surprise that “racism” has become the single most evil thing in an multi-ethnic empire like America. Foreigners almost immediately began campaigns to make racism the worst thing ever upon their arrival. The prevalence of foreigners in our prestigious (and common) educational institutions was bound to have this outcome.

    The so-called elite view their own narrow ethnic interests as paramount. The technocratic elite put their own ethnic interests above other interests. Is anyone really surprised that pajeet run Google does it everything it can to stamp out “racism” and to suppress the vote of “racist” Trump and is targeting mestizos for voting reminders?

  14. The Elite of Fear are animated by both spite for and fear of the White lower classes they terrorize. The GoodWhites who are given dispensation to belong are climbers like Kevin Williamson and David French who are willing to despise and shame their own people and often humble roots in return for atta-boys from the (((upper echelon))). They also either share or come to adopt the worrier-warrior mindset of the (((thought leaders))) – when they’re not despising us, they fear the prospect of what we can accompish when we awaken in numbers. David French seems to be genuinely, womanishly fearful that Stormers are going to Viking the French Estate and deport his token child unless Strzok’s FBI is given praetorian power. Kevin Williamson probably fears the same for his cats (and I’m betting a down-low “life partner” as well).
    Projection’s a reliable surmise when dealing with globoschlomo pathologies and their beloved trope that we’re rayciss because we’re afraid tells us more about what’s under (and in) their own beds than our own.

    • >>> climbers like Kevin Williamson and David French who are willing to despise and shame their own people and often humble roots in return for atta-boys from the (((upper echelon))).

      Still, it’s quite a thrill, for a bright young man to get a job based in New York City, kissing the ass of Bill Buckley’s ghost.

    • LOL. Thanks, this reference brought back many fond memories, including the other definition of “beaver” from the Junior HS days.

      • “Ward, I’m worried about the Beaver.” – June Cleaver, handing Ward his evening cocktail.

  15. “In the technological age, fear of the oligarchs will be the supreme public virtue. Fear will be ruthlessly and creatively inculcated by a ruling elite that is wholly disconnected from the people over whom it rules.”

    Funny you should say that. I live in a state with two Democratic senators, and my member of Congress is also a Democrat. I’m pondering if it would do me any good to be civically engaged, and write or call any of them and urge them to vote against any ‘Red Flag’ law, which is barreling down the tracks at us. All I can figure so far is that doing that would be likely to get me . . . red flagged.

    • Monty James said: ” “In the technological age, fear of the oligarchs will be the supreme public virtue.” Actualy, the future is already here. Go on Youtube, and you’ll see that the highest honor and respect that a person can archive goes to the person who can shove the largest number of twinkies in their mouth all at once. At last, both the heights and depths of Universal Suffrage have been realized.

  16. I tend to think we get the political candidates that reflect the elite, and from that shallow pool the citizenry gets to vote for Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum. In another sense we actually do get the government we deserve – not because of the election process – but because of our reluctance (and now 160 year tradition) to make wretched use of the 2nd Amendment in constraining government. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment wasn’t for hunt clubs or sport, but for armed leverage against tyranny. Thus Jefferson’s now archaic belief that occasional revolution was a necessary thing for free people to remain free.

    But as you put it so well Z-man, now we have porn & sportsball. Meanwhile the frog is floating at 211-degrees.

    • Well, they buy them. What do you think most of our elected officials would be doing if not for government? Most of them are sub-mediocrities like Marco Rubio. Or Ed Markey. None of them have ever had a real, value producing, job. They feed their constituents slop while planning for their big bucks “K-Street” career shilling for the MIC and endless war.

    • “The purpose of the 2nd Amendment wasn’t for hunt clubs or sport, but for armed leverage against tyranny.”

      I just laugh at the yo-yos who talk about how the founders “right to keep and bear arms” meant only muskets. They just finished up an armed revolution when they wrote it, you morons, what the f*** do you think they meant???

  17. We’ll see who has the power when this asset bubble implodes. A lot of funny money ended up in Silicon Valley. Most of these companies aren’t worth a fraction of current valuations. The future will be a government that has to live within its means. That means, taxation roughly equalling outlays. If that happens, governments will have to contract, minimally by 50%. This will happen after the next 2008 style recession, after the deficit hits 3-4 trillion+ per year, after the bond market adjusts to this reality, and after a period of high inflation. Tax receipts roughly top out at 17% of GDP, regardless of tax rates. Suddenly, “woke” tier three college professors will have to get real jobs, and millions of others currently grifting off the current credit system.

    About 10 years from now we will all be adjusting to a much smaller government, not because the people want it, but because it will be the cold reality of the traditional credit system reasserting itself. The people won’t like it one bit, and neither will the politicians. We currently have about $13 trillion in negative yielding bonds, worldwide. This is patently absurd, and these bonds will be the first to vaporize when the credit cycle adjusts. This whole era is an absurd, Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole. We tend to view the world through the prism of the present. In this case we have to step outside the false reality that the current global credit system has created.

    This era of “woke” people and trannies running around will be seen as pure black comedy to future people. What we really have to worry about is that these politicians, worldwide, including the capitulating orange blob, start WW3 as a deflection from these realities and painful by necessary adjustments. Reality must be faced at some point.

    • Global Warming/Climate Change was always a scam to enact a broad energy tax with which to continue to grow government. Ditto with the Universal Healthcare tax. Absent a revolution, the federal government will never allow itself to shrink in real terms. My guess is that they will confiscate all 401k retirement funds and replace them with SS-type IOUs. Eventually the Ponzi Scheme collapses, but when?

      • Even if they did that (they did it in Argentina six or seven years ago) those are one-offs. You can’t re-raid a 401k. The future looks very much like Argentina. A government that’s expansive on paper, but doesn’t have the firepower to really monitor the people. So in some ways you have more personal freedom in that outcome. Your currency is trash, services are bad, streets are potholed, but at least you can do a line of blow and get a call girl without much muss. It’s really TODAY that we have this Orwellian nonsense with neo-Victorian woke people finger wagging at us.

    • An economic collapse or military defeat in a major war might trigger a collapse of the government. The Pentagon projects that we would lose a war with Russia or China.

      • We haven’t “won” a war in over 70 years. And what kind of victory was letting the Soviets get half of Europe anyway? We’re really good at buying military equipment, and feeding troops, and all the things at the periphery of war, but we’re terrible at war itself, because we fall on our fainting couches when the first five year old dies, or the first hospital is inadvertently bombed. We love war as a concept, but once the real business gets started forget about it. That’s why I hated John McCain so much. The first to get us into any conflict, then a five year old gets a scrape on his knee and you get the “that’s not who we are” speech. This is why they love “droning” so much. The dirty business is very antiseptic and kept arms length from the people. But no drone will win a war.

        • Strictly speaking, we haven’t been to war since 1945. None of the subsequent military actions involved a formal declaration of war. People on all sides still died.

          FDR was pro-Soviet and thought that “colonialism” was the big threat in post-war society.

      • “The brotherhood of man is not a mere poet’s dream: it is a most depressing and humiliating reality.” – Oscar Wilde

        • Soverytired1 Quoted : “The brotherhood of man is not a mere poet’s dream: it is a most depressing and humiliating reality.” – Oscar Wilde Ha! Even though that guy was a fag, I love his thinking.

          • Pawpaw Quoted: “Either these horrid drapes go, or I do. ”
            Oscar Wilde, from his death bed. Hahaha! A wise guy too the end. 😁

    • JMDGT said: ” I just want to be free. Free to ride my machine and not be hassled by the man.” I hear Alaska’s big as the moon. And they only have like six hundred thousand full time residents up there. Give a shot. 😁

  18. “When the people fear the government, you have tyranny. When the government fears the people, you have liberty.” Or something to that effect.

  19. We literally live in a virtual panopticon. Even our thoughts can be seen or so we think..Behavior control that a utopian, technophile, control freak, prison warden gets an endless erection over.

    • Check. And if the spear tip of the rebellion against that are a bunch of ppl who think Gettysburg, or maybe Stalingrad, went the wrong way, we re gonna lose, big time.

  20. Authoritarianism by oligarchs arises when the majority of the population is seduced into dependence, conformity, and hivemindedness by welfare addiction and memetic infection/indoctrination. This is a win-win for the elites. They prosper with unfettered control and the rabble no longer posses either the inclination or means to revolt. Alas, the best laid plans of mice and men . . . sometimes things go awry. The Yellow Vests in France and the citizens of Hong Kong beg to differ.

    • (Yellow Vests are an organic movement. Hong Kong protests are US/UK backed. This is confirmed by mainstream media’s ignoring the Yellow Vests while reporting on the valiant protesters in Hong Kong.)

      • Ursula said: “(Yellow Vests are an organic movement. Hong Kong protests are US/UK backed. This is confirmed by mainstream media’s ignoring the Yellow Vests while reporting on the valiant protesters in Hong Kong.)” Indeed. Once you start noticing all of those little procedures and devices that the machine uses to massage reality you can’t unsee it.

      • The genesis of the Yellow Vest Movement was a planned exorbitant increase in the price of diesel fuel. The citizens of Hong Kong are resisting an overt attempt by China to end their independence via annexation. Fuel is freedom in France and freedom is freedom in Hong Kong. We are about to lose a Second Amendment freedom here in the US.

  21. Z Man said: ” Fear will be ruthlessly and creatively inculcated by a ruling elite that is wholly disconnected from the people over whom it rules. This stage of America will be the age of technological despotism.”
    Nicolás Gómez Dávila said: ” Between the dictatorship of technology and the technology of dictatorship, man no longer finds a crack through which he can slip away.”
    He also said: ” To hope that the growing vulnerability of a world increasingly integrated by technology will not demand a total despotism is mere foolishness.”
    Here’s an artical on a website called “Return of the Kings.” about the tyranny of technological control.

  22. “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” Mencken

  23. Fun post! Here’s the other quote from De Maistre on that link

    “All grandeur, all power, all subordination to authority rests on the executioner: he is the horror and the bond of human association. Remove this incomprehensible agent from the world and at that very moment order gives way to chaos, thrones topple and society disappears.”

  24. Lincoln served a few terms in the state legislature, when it was a part-time job, then one term in the Congress (1847–49), as a member of a party that disappeared five years later. (He did campaign for the Senate in 1858. And lost.) Then he became a corporate lawyer. Hardly a master political operative.

  25. The large scale migration of southern races into the European north adds to this transition of elites an enormous volatility. One they can probably not control. We have an endless abundance of bread and circuses and yet tensions are beginning to bubble to the surface. 60 million people ignored the 24/7 elite campaign against Trump and voted for him anyway. That means something, his failure since then aside. We are in uncharted territory: a hostile elite, the invasion of a brutal barbaric mob and access to instantaneous forms of information gathering and communication. Volatility will only increase.

    • The emerging volatility on the left can be seen in the Squad, especially Omar and Tlaib. Calling Pelosi racist and pushing back against AIPAC, signals coming tension and stress. There will be more like them because of demographics. On the right, the 60 million voters who thought they were getting a more radical Trump than what he is, are still out there, even though rightwing organizations (CPAC, Turning Point etc.) and pundits are doing their best to keep them corralled into color blind conservatism. How long can that dam hold? It’s currently springing leaks.

      • One of the characteristics of revolutionary movements is that there are different factions that will join forces to seize power, but then turn on each other after they do. Think of the aftermath of the French Revolution, the Nazis, the Soviets and, most recently, the Iranian theocrats. Even early Christianity in the Roman Empire was a revolutionary movement which, after they gained power in the 4th Century, turned on each other. The triumphant Athanasians persecuted not only non-Christians but members of dissident sects.

        The Democratic Party are “warring tribes in the common pursuit of plunder” and motivated by anti-White animus. If Whites disappeared, they would turn on each other. Blacks regard the Democratic Party as theirs, but Hispanics and Asians, who both despise Blacks, would beg to disagree.

        • Yes but it’s important to remember they turned on each other after winning power. When whites are defeated they will fight, but before that point they’ll remain allies.

          • @Mark
            Exactly which should be our motivation to not let them win but I’m beginning think that maybe we are just going for the consolation prize of knowing they won’t enjoy winning for very long…Makes my heart hurt to think that but everyone seems like they are still to comfortable…We could be doing so much right now if we had a Community going…

    • Yeah, it’s unclear how much control they have. After all Trump did win, and Brexit did pass, despite unified opposition from the elite. Another thing I wonder about is how long will the elite remain unified — you’d think there’d be a few with grandkids, who look around Paris, and think, “my god, what have we done?’

      Europe had some violence of its own last week — some guy was literally hacked to pieces in the streets of Stuttgart by an immigrant and it was caught on video. The situation is volatile indeed.

  26. Instead of China becoming more like the West, it’s clear that the West is becoming more like China with regards to governance.

    Can the elite (both in China and the West) regain complete control of the narrative without virtually abolishing the internet? I don’t know — could go either way. In some sense, we still have a much bigger voice than we’ve had in the past, and the elite is mortified. It’s hilarious how newspaper comment sections have vanished because one of us destroys the narrative with one comment. If the narrative is wrong…will the ruling class be able to ban Gab and whatever else comes next that points that out? Is it early or late in the game? I don’t know.

    • They dont want to abolish the internet, it’s the ultimate circus. They just want to control and monitor it.

    • I’m not so sure about that. In China, it’s top-down, authoritarian, and fueled by bribery. It will probably always be. In the West, though we have elements of that, we are not authoritarian, and corruption is not part and parcel of governing. Legitimacy still comes from the people, even though (as we know) democracy can be bent to elites’ will or even disregarded on occasion. And I would never say that the US is as censorious as China (or the USSR was). Not true. The only thing that the Western elites come down hard on is when someone blatantly criticizes someone’s race or ethnicity. Everything else is pretty much fair game. I’d say our dystopian future is more Brazil than China.

  27. Or not…

    There’s a lot of evidence and people that they won’t be the elite much longer.

    I hate to be the ray of sunshine in the cloud of Doom, DOOM.. but this elite is bankrupt and dying.

    For them to be despots requires 2 things that are lacking:

    1. They’d have to be strong enough to be successful tyrants. They’re not.

    2. They’d have to have an utterly supine population and they don’t.

    Look at yourselves for instance. You’re not supine. Just sullen that you have to struggle to get and keep anything in life rather than just go to work and pay your taxes. Overgrown teenagers really.

    Yes – you.

    Stop sulking and get to work.
    If you need more motivation then let this sink in; they no longer want despotism. They want you dead, your children raped and they think its funny. Slavery is not an option.
    Genocide is an option.

    They’re not despots. That would be an improvement. They’re traitors who suborned us for decades and now they’ve thrown open the gates.

    • “muh bootstraps”

      -Breitbart Commenter, born 1951, with a closet full of guns he’ll never fire in anger and 2-3 mixed race grandchildren

        • Ahh beg to differ there is men on their wall it’s called the police state and until we have enough organized men to counter that threat I wouldn’t be calling their bluff because they are holding a pat hand…Also on your little rant above I guarantee that I’m doing more at the moment than you are so I could turn that around and aim it right back at you…

          • I’m not ranting, I was pointing out there’s work to do besides sulking and DOOM. I got more sulks.
            Some snark.
            But that means the point went home- so productivity.

            But listen – NP. Don’t do anything.
            Its a free country. Feel and feels some more there’s no hope and no point unless _\_____\\____ a long list of conditions are met first.

            And remember the Meme.

    • Non-whites are the only portion of the population willing to fight for their interests. They are easily bought off, so resistance will not be much of a factor. For every racially conscious white person there are ten whites screaming at him to shut up so they can watch sportsball or porn.

      • True. And this is the second mental block for dissident whites to push through – the one very few have done.

        The first is understanding that “their” United States – their country, their culture, their society, their institutions – is gone and that it’s not coming back. Pretty much everyone here has made that very difficult journey.

        But the second journey is far more painful. We have to accept that the vast majority of whites will never join us, that we must leave friends and family behind as we try to create a community of whites who will fight for their interests. It’s one thing to accept that your country is gone; it’s another to accept that your brother or wife or child is, in essence, gone.

        • So Citizen when you going to start that journey and move west because I just don’t see you being able to get a white Community going around DC…😉

          • I’m not from the DC area. I come from a land so white that it’d bring a tear to your eye. I can always move back there.

      • Well, the racially conscious white person should just… not listen to the sportsball watching whites.

        Part of the reason that the “red pill” analogy was so apt was that those who had not yet been “unplugged” represented a threat to the people who were working to free them.

        The question is, whether a small, racially conscious white minority can do something to preserve itself in the long term and/or put itself on a track towards eventually attaining sovereignty.

        • sovereignty? we will be lucky if we can achieve survival. If we don’t start having children again , it’ll be a moot point.

      • Well the will of the POCs to advocate for their group interests is a function of the environment is it not?

        As you say they are easily bought off, so their will is tepid relative to counter forces.

        POC identity driven advocacy exists because it is allowed to exist. Even encouraged to exist as a means to suppress any positive white group identity.

        White identity is illegal. White group advocacy is explicitly racist. Nascent white awareness is implicitly racist. The will is there but the environment is not. Every social, political, and economic vehicle is working to kill white identity in the cradle, marginalize it at every turn, and demonize it across all of time such that our “will” requires not just deployed desire but also the alienation, isolation, personal risk, and disenfranchisement from nearly every dimension of society.

        That said, whitey is also easily bought off with the prog affections of status and complicit participation in the fiat economy of Progress. Ie the allure of being a goodwhite. So there is that.

      • Pew did a study earlier this year ( which asserts that whites are quite literally the only group that don’t see their race as central to their identity. We see this played out in the enthusiasms for third-world adoptions and projects. Few churches will raise money to send their youth group to help an elderly American vet to stay in their own home, but they will happily send them to the third world for a week or two of up-votes on social media.

      • The citizenry in general has been bought off with bread and circuses – keep them fed and keep them entertained.

        Plato observed in The Republic that one of the characteristics of the tyrant is that he will deliberately impoverish the people to make them more dependent on him. Most people won’t bite the hand that feeds them.

      • We’ll die waiting for the drones and Burger Nats to undergo some mass Awakening. We need to do what we can with the minority who “get it” now and start building separate, parallel communities. The drones are an albatross we need to remove from our necks. Unlike the Lincoln partisans above, I’m not for destroying them because they aren’t my kind of Woke, I just want them to let us live our own lives our own way.

      • Z thats not true.
        If you mean the majority of whites yes. Thats universal to man.

        Good thing the Left isn’t just making it the only path to survival, they’re tossing gun control to the right again. Gun control is always good news for the Right.

        It pulled Ruger back up same day.

      • They rule because they control the institutions. So many institutions have have been deliberately coopted by the very people who wished to destroy them (the Long March.) And now that the institutions have been destroyed they’ll be going after the remnant.

  28. Z, to make the Sulla/Lincoln parallel work, Lincoln would have had to be a member of the old Federalist aristocracy greatly attached to tradition and strict constitutionalism. Ol’ Abe was anything but that. Sulla was a conservative reactionary born of an old Roman aristocratic family. Had John C. Calhoun been elected president in the 1840s and seized power in order to destroy the New England merchant class, your parallel would be almost perfect. (Sadly, that did not happen.)

  29. In the 90s there used to be a monthly (or biweekly?) newspaper I subscribed to called “Middle American News.” It featured columnists such as Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and as the title suggests, considered the political, cultural and corporate elite the enemy of the American people. They would regularly go into detail how our politicians voted on various bills, gave out report cards, etc. They saw the role of the press as a watchdog, constantly nipping at the heels of Congress.

  30. This essay explains a lot. Now we wait to see how accurate it is.

    We can mull over plans for what to do while things develop.

  31. Bill Clinton may prove to be the last of the ruthless politicos scaling the corrupt slopes of political power for purely selfish purposes. He and Lyndon Johnson were two of the very best examples of sociopathic leadership. It might be helpful to see FDR as the first of our Julio-Claudian Dynasty and Obama as the last of the line. It does feel like something has changed now that the battle lines have been openly drawn between the public and the media masters.

    • That’s true. Battle lines are being drawn. That’s actually good.
      Time to have the struggle in the open and fight rather than continue to be betrayed and undermined and grumble about it.

      Cheer up: AoCortes is like her namesake Hernan only in this; she has burnt their boats.*.

      *which actually he didn’t do.

    • LBJ didn’t serve as President after he finished Kennedy’s and would not accept the nomination since being president wasn’t something he chose , well unless he was in on the JFK thing which I doubt

      That’s more principled than most I’d say.

      • LBJ finished Kennedy’s term then ran on his own against Barry Goldwater in ’64. He was president for over five years.

        • Apologies. You were correct on that. Rookie mistake.

          Still he kept to the spirit of the law by refusing the nod. Maybe this was for selfish reasons but it ain’t nothing.

          Regardless the Silents and the generations before them Interbellum and Greatest generally thought the New Deal and Great Society were good things and for many they were

          The cause of our misery is three fold, Frankfurt School, 1965 Immigration Reform and Ronald Reagan , or easy divorce if you prefer

          Unbinding this won’t be easy and alas I’m all out of fuel for the Delorean but it can be done.

          • LBJ didn’t run in ‘68 because he knew he wouldn’t have been elected. Johnson stole the ‘48 senate election. “The law” wasn’t terribly important to him.

          • I don’t know. The Dems thought otherwise since LBJ was pressured into taking the nomination and he had to refuse rather vocally

            I think LBJ was far from Mr. Ethics even by our nations loose standards though.

  32. When you criticize Lincoln it would be nice if you would say what he, or another person in the White House in 1860, should have done differently. Should he have let go of the South? Okay, I think and I think Lincoln thought that that would have been the end of the United States. The union was a revolving door apparently. As soon as there was any law from Washington someone didnt like, to heck w it, good bye union. That would have precluded an American superpower which, probably, means Germany, alternatively possibly Russia, would have owned Europe by now. Such a power would probably have moved into fractured North America at some point. Support Virginia against the deep south or Pennsylvania and New York or the other way around, whatever was convenient. Is the argument that a Germanized, or prerevolution Russified, Europe would never have gone for multiculturalism and that a rural Illinois lawyer who hit political jackpot 100 years before Europe did go for this, was the butterfly that sent multiculturalism on its way? I find that speculative to say the least.

    If it’s the civil rights record during the civil war, suspension of habeus corpus and all that, that’s the issue, well say hello to total war. Do you wanna win or not? War is a hard master, also on the winners.

    Should he have sent all former slaves to Liberia? Well, Booth didn’t really give him the chance to decide on that. Granted I don’t think he would have done that but he wasnt given the chance either.

    We totally agree on HBD and the complete failure of multiculturalism. But how exactly it is good for America to effectively say that Americans should have been another football in the 20th century instead of the foot doing the kicking on this planet?

    Being angry at Ol Abe is a little like some who get angry when you say America lost in Vietnam. ‘That was all political. The US could have won.’ I actually think the US could have won. I also think Germany could have won both world wars w a smarter strategy, ie better policy at the top. Neither happened. Lincoln did. He was not a saint, he was not perfect. But saying he was where it all went to hell, I don’t see it that way. I think events controlled him more than he controlled them.

    • Yes but saying its all downhill since Lincoln gets you likes from Southern Fantasists. In a way It’s a pity in a fantasy alternate history they didn’t grow up under Confederate Rule. Most of them would be sharecroppers or some other menial or poor and oppressed by fear regime.
      The actual Confederacy with the Romance stripped away respected few rights beyond that of the Oligarchs.
      It was basically The Articles of Confederation but only Slave Owners were full citizens. Jefferson Davis was the worst sort of despot- the one who pulled all the strings of power to himself then Froze under the burden.
      Magnificent fighting men badly served and wasted. Every principle of war violated at the National Level. A National War pursued in a fragmented and regional manner. Lee for instance never had Unified Command of all forces until 1865 when he was trapped at Petersburg.

      Here is Lincoln’s counterpart.
      The Confederate Government at Montogomery.

      And if you think you’re afraid of Darkies now imagine where we’d be with them as a greatly expanded population instead of thinned by abortion, social experiments and frankly “freeing” them to their own devices. In this we all truly owe Progressives our gratitude.

      • Yes but saying its all downhill since Lincoln gets you likes from Southern Fantasists

        Yup. This blog has a real record of home run analyses of current problems, trends and presenting hard facts. And then it sometimes goes off on ramblings about lost causes and ‘evil Abe’ and such. A Dixie victory would have made America arrive at its apparent destination, North Brazil, 100 years ahead of time in this universe. This combination of genuine and profound insights into what’s killing us and then thinly veiled lost causism, baffles me.

        • Yes. BTW the actual Confederacy was after winning Independence planning to conquer Cuba and the rest of Mexico to get more slave lands, AND form an alliance with the Slave Power of Brazil. They actually wanted a slave Empire.

          Low status whites to do the fighting. Sound familiar?

      • Dixie was never good, but becoming a multi-racial empire also destroyed the North’s potential for a society based on sound moral and racial principles

        And here we are, very clearly looking at a very, very bad ending for the United States, a bad ending that has inflicted a whole lot of collateral damage to the rest of the world. That isn’t a coincidence.

        Abolitionism and slavery were both terrible mistakes, free soil copperheads were right. A society based on free white labor is morally and economically superior to a slave society.

        But the South (and their pets) should have been allowed to go their own way in order to preserve the North.

        • There are a few problems w that theory, not counting that it would require a parallel universe that split off in 1861 to test its accuracy. One is that the US did not become a multi-racial society for real before around 1965, 100 years after Appomatox. Before then it was basically bi-racial and whatever faults you can blame on blacks in America, high crime, low impulse control, low average IQ, political influence before 1965 is not one of them. Second problem is, if secession was legitimate, why would you assume it would stop with the South? The third is, it is impossible to image slavery surviving in the South forever in any case. Every other (non-islamic) country gave it up in the 19th century, w/o Lincoln or Gettysburg. So now you have a fractured, weak, and at least biracial, North America and a united Europe, probably run from Berlin. This would probably have reversed the roles between Germany and the US. Germany the boss, Americans the beaten, neutered colonials taking orders from across the sea. Would that have reversed multiculturalism?? Well for one, no Hitler b/c Germany would have won all of Europe by 1918, probably by 1916 or sooner so no need for Austrian housepainters to reboot the fatherland. Secondly, dont forget where marxism comes from. If Lee had had won at Gettysburg, Merkel could have been your boss, w unlimited powers.

          • The presence of blacks in American society was weaponized by Jews during the civil rights movement in order to end racism and make us feel bad about it.

            Once we gave up racism and accepted a non-racial immigration policy, we were on the path to the current year.

            Merkel is a product of the American empire and the terms it imposed on Germany. She is not the kind of leader Germany would have if they were left to their own devices.

            I don’t think you’ve really thought through the historical effects of American leadership on White civilization. America did not do a good job leading White civilization, as proof we can point to the rapid decline of White civilization under American leadership and the world we live in today.

          • America did not do a good job leading White civilization

            Agreed. The question is, would any realistic alternative, of which I think there are three, Germany (most probable), Russia or Imperial Britain, have done any better? I dont think so.

            Culturally there are quite a few similarities between Germany and the US, which one would also expect if HBD and genetics matter (Germany is the most common ancestral home for white Americans). So we can use that to speculate on the fate of a white majority country (US 1960 90% white, Germany would have been 99.99% white but still). The US, despite having won the international strategic game like no other country since the height of Rome, still elected a Jimmy Carter, later a Bill Clinton and then an Obama. If a triumphant US in this universe elected such trailblazers of decadence, it is reasonable to speculate that a however triumphant fatherland would also eventually have found its soft, decadent side. And then you arrive at Merkel.

            The largest party in the Reichstag, the Imperial German parliament, in 1914, when the first world war kicked off, was the social democratic party. It had a lot of Jews and even more non-Jews. The Jews were very happy to vote for war spending to kick Czarist Russia’s progromic ass. And if Germany had won that war I dont think there would have been a Hitler.

            Also I dont think the Jews are the secret cause of our ills. I think its the natural cycle of empires. A comment a little while back here, reminded me of John Glubb’s essay The Fate of Empires. This is fantastic work. Maybe he fudged a little. But the man fought w the Jordanians against the foundation of Israel in 1948 which is strangely ‘fortunate’ b/c it shows that whatever he was, a secret ‘Jewish agent’ he was not. And if his reading of history is right, it is neither Jews nor ‘the left’ that is killing us. It’s our own, natural, decadent weakness at this stage of the ‘Great Western Empire’. It’s that decadent weakness we have to kill to save ourselves. Check out his essay

          • “…North America and a united Europe, probably run from Berlin.”

            I would go for that in a heartbeat over what we have today. Everything else you mention is weird speculation of the fever-swamp variety.

          • M y S;
            Excellent discussion and fun for a certain type of military history sperg. It does matter in one respect (see below). I think you are mistaken that Germany or Russia might have come to dominate N America had the South won Civil War I.

            IMHO, the obvious candidates are England and France. I’d postulate that they would have divided N America between themselves, England taking the N and France the S.

            To begin with, they were both on the move at the time, creating world empires. England had sea dominance and well established bases in Canada, handy to the N’s industrial centers. France was fast establishing itself as an overlord in Mexico at the time. Germany was powerless to intervene since it was not yet united and had no navy. Russia had yet to build the Trans-Siberia RR and so had no ability to project power by sea except by permission of England through the Baltic. England feared a Russian threat to India via their imperial expansion in Central Asia.

            The reason this arcane discussion matters is that it is like the current discussions in that it shows a similar disregard of external actors, the correlation of forces and their likely moves. IOW, it is totally US focused, a not-unusual problem for us.

          • In the late 19th century what you say might have happened. But I fail to see what would have prevented eventual German domination of Europe. A not really united Germany, led by Prussia, bodyslammed France into submission in 1870-71. The then united Germany mauled the combined French and British empires to the brink of defeat while beating the living daylights out of Russia 45 yrs later. Only eventual American intervention, after 3 years of supplying France and Britain w various things, and threatening Germany to hold off on total submarine warfare until 1917, saved Anglo-French bacon. So Europe would most likely have been German. And THEN I think they would have started playing w carving up North America. Made much easier if this was already largely Anglo-French colonies or protectorates and Germany had just occupied France and tamed Britain.

            But, Germany or America or Britain and France, I think they would eventually have grown soft after endless victories and ‘the easy life’. Since only America had ‘total victory’ in the 20th century it seems the best real life model for this. And, the America that produced Patton’s 3rd army and nuked Hiroshima, and was a legit bad ass, eventually elected a certain Mr Obama. So victory is no protection against decadence. Maybe quite the contrary??

          • M y S;
            The point I meant to make (but obviously didn’t) is that history is *path dependent*, depending on the initial conditions *at that time*.

            For example, at the time of the US Civil War, German unification was 12 years in the future. And they had no navy. And, even if they had one, they could only intervene in the Americas at the sufferance of the UK, which had well-established interests and infrastructure already in place in N America. So my inference is that if any of the European imperial powers were going to intervene, England was the most likely *at the time*. This possibility was a (correct, IMHO) fear of Lincoln’s cabinet, among many others.

            So, while it’s fun to explore a number of alternate futures, it is, at best, a useful intellectual training exercise if taken lightly and a waste of time if taken too far. The useful aspect is learning to argue from history, meaning one must, first of all, know history. Secondly, one must know historical parallels, geography and ‘the correlation of forces’, both military and economic. This was Clausewitz’ method, which ended up being the basis for Harvard Biz School’ Case Study Method, BTW.

          • The best argument for enforced union was that a Balkanized North America would have been more subject to the machinations of Great Game power politics. Given that we ended up being manipulated by the British as a union rather than piecemeal for the next century, I think union was a historically-proven net-negative. Everyone who’s taking Lincoln’s side here is ignoring the simple fact that there was no need for slavery to tear the country apart in the first place. Only New England abolitionists wanted slavery abolished and/or Blacks integrated into society. Southerners, Westerners and the vast majority of New England proles were happy with the status quo.

        • I don’t think that was practical in a world with the British Empire.

          A weak USA could simply be taken and the Empire at the time had that capability

          I suspect the Southrons would gladly have played along and put their guys in charge even under the British thumb in exchange for keeping slavery

          Slavery and the compromise that allowed it along with Enlightenment thinking and immigration meant the US experiment was doomed from the start.

          The only way it could have persevered was if we had remained as John Jay saw us

          With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice, that Providence has been pleased to give us this one connected country to one united people -a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by they their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”

          we’d have become New Britain basically and we’d all be WASPS

          However the lure of cheap labor and the desire for bigger wealthier farms and faster expansion laid the seeds of the endgame

          That said once we become Brasil do Norte or split up, our shadow won’t bother the rest of mankind nearly as much

          In this short term this will mean chaos , long term, a return to normalcy

          • Why DID the US become an immigrant country? I mean from the early days, just after the revolution. Who and why was it decided to let in, first (I guess) Irish and Germans, later all sorts of Europeans. And in 1965 the whole damn world.

            I’ve never actually seen a history of why the US changed from a country of republican WASPs to a ‘country of immigrants’. It would probably be hard to find an honest, non-ideological, historiography of that transformation.

          • My opinion and only that, a combination of the elite weakening rival power bases and the lust we have for cheap labor and fast expansion.

            Americans historically are as much grifters and chislers as heroic freedom fighters , hence Tom Sawyer and the fence

            More immigrants makes for cheaper factory labor , lower wages makes for more power for capital

            Early on there was also the manifest Destiny angle. Only so many English protestants and so many children with a whole lot of land and Indians

            This drive for growth was one of the triggers , Washington (IIRC) wanted to expand his farm into Indian territory

            The Crown being unready to deal with this said “no.” and this was one of the grievances that lead to him deciding that he wanted separation

            In short, greed.

            The WW2 era culture starting with FDR was a historical anomaly for us, a product of an outside threat “socialism” and an authoritarian industrial state creating fake comity

            This started its end with the end of the USSR in 1991 and was over by the election of President Trump.

            The current chaos is logical outcome of all the mess and whatever comes next won’t be as centralized or function at as high an order as the elite seem to think it will . More probable is nobody really in charge .

            Hopefully it can be made Whiter by an means necessary but beyond that, who knows.

          • “This drive for growth was one of the triggers , Washington (IIRC) wanted to expand his farm into Indian territory”

            Read Freeman’s biography of Washington, Volume 3, and realize what bullshit you wrote.

          • . My memory isn’t perfect and frankly I care little about that period however I don’t post stuff without thinking.

            From the Library of Congress


            I can never look upon the Proclamation in any other light (but this I say between ourselves) than as a temporary expedient to quiet the minds of the Indians. It must fall, of course, in a few years, especially when those Indians consent to our occupying those lands. Any person who neglects hunting out good lands, and in some measure marking and distinguishing them for his own, in order to keep others from settling them will never regain it. If you will be at the trouble of seeking out the lands, I will take upon me the part of securing them, as soon as there is a possibility of doing it and will, moreover, be at all the cost and charges surveying and patenting the same . . . . By this time it be easy for you to discover that my plan is to secure a good deal of land. You will consequently come in for a handsome quantity.

            Also in Washington’s own words

            n the same letter, however, he warned Crawford “to keep the whole matter a secret, rather than give the alarm to others or allow himself to be censured for the opinion I have given in respect to the King’s Proclamation.

            Maybe my interpretation is off but as far as I can tell this was some shady shit to get choice land he wasn’t supposed to have for good political reasons.

            This is typical founders behavior , money driven and sleazy in the name of “liberty”

            Cracked has a decent article that requires a big grain of salt but is worth a look too.


            Our Founders were smugglers , grifters, traitors to the crown and cop killers that founded a republic that died in less than a century (1776-1865 RIP)

            Lincoln’s Republic (1865-1933) fared no better and the 3rd (1933 to 2016) is gone.

            The 4th belongs to the yet undecided victor if it survives at all

            make what you like,, take what you can is all I can say.

          • MYS
            It became an immigrant country because of opportunities here that weren’t anywhere else…It was the freedom to grow and make something of yourself without the burdens of a higher earthly power taking your shit or trying to rule you…That’s what drew people here…Now to your question of the whole damn world look to who had the right to vote and who had control of the money system and that will be your answer…

        • That’s not geographically possible.
          The geography of North America does not allow sharing. There will always be winner takes it all Atlantic to Pacific. Had we remained British we would have done the same thing. Had we become French same again. Had we become Spanish same again.

          The conflict between Spanish and English for the Western Hemisphere well known. It could also be cast as age old conflict between Latin and Teuton if you want to step back far enough.

      • Westerners like my own family would not have submitted to a Confederate despotism (witness the secession of WVa) and the Confederates weren’t expansionist. They wanted to keep their own lands their own way, they were not seeking to impose the plantation system on the entire U.S.

        Messianic Protestants are the Jews of Christianity in their zeal for treating “backward” Whites who want to live by different codes as darkies who need to be “civilized” at the point of a bayonet. Your view of the South is no different from Bush, Boot & Kristol’s view of Iraq. No wonder you wind up thanking the Progs for being Prog.

    • As a southerner reading these comments, I see our government education “history” lessons at work. “Dixie was never good” … And why might that be, because you watched Roots last night, or think Harriet Beecher Stowe was more historian than propagandist? And calling out Lincoln for his unconstitutional despotism yields “southern fantasists” … Hmmm, thanks for sharing your straightforward (i.e. ignorant) logic.

      As we dissidents try to establish connections and coalitions, good reading may be found in the Anti-Federalist papers.

      • I didn’t mean my comment to be a hatefest against the South. But I dont think you guys would have been a very happy or successful country on your own. During the height of the civil war, the governor of Georgia wouldnt share his supplies w the confederate government. It would have become a real circus I think and eventually something like ‘North Brazil.’ Slavery wouldnt have lasted and eventually everything would have gone to hell a lot faster than in this world. Jefferson Davis and Bobby Lee were not the men who ‘lost the Western world.’ But we ll never know for sure who’s right.

        • By the 1860s the industrial revolution was just kicking in. Ultimately, slavery was on its way out. There was no need for a devastating war to settle the question. However, Lincoln was a war monger who wanted war, and so the country suffered the ravages of war and the horrors of reconstruction in the decades after. It would have been far better to let capitalism and industrialization systematically eliminate the need for slavery. That would have spared the country the last 150 years of endless racial hatreds that are now intractable and probably beyond solution.

        • We’re pretty sure you’re not right. I would place my bets on the descendants of the Virginians.

      • I fully acknowledge the legitimacy of Southern secession but I regard black slavery and the importation of Africans as mistakes with very serious consequences.

        And I see parallels between slave labor and today’s cheap labor. You always pay for it in the end.

        (Abolition and integration were worse mistakes of course)

        • An America that won WWII like no other country, was 90% white in 1945 and could hardly have been more triumphalist than it was, still managed to elect first a Bill Clinton and then a Barack Obama. Victory in a major war is no protection against ‘Glubb’s law of decadence and decay.’ The same would (probably) have happened to a victorious Germany, Wilhemine or Hitlerite. And we would be maybe in the same place as we are now, impossible to say.

          • America destroyed itself in WW2 because it affirmed and adopted self destructive moral premises and empowered a hostile elite with an ethnic animus against the historic majority population.

            It wasn’t obvious to me when I was a kid, but nowadays when you watch a show about WW2 a direct line is drawn between “the holocaust” and the need for diversity in America. Once people buy into this moral paradigm they lose the ability to defend themselves against immigration.

            Our triumphalism and our physical victory over Germany left us blind to an ongoing attack on our culture, which ultimately had worse consequences than an atom bomb.

            It’s wrong to suggest that any of this “just happened” due to decadence, it was made to happen, admittedly our decadence may have left us vulnerable.

          • My father and uncles served in World War II and I grew up watching War movies and tv shows. I knew about Ann Frank, but the Holocaust was simply one part of the War. In 1978, there was a tv miniseries entitled “Holocaust” and, since then, WWII was simply one part of the Holocaust era. Supposedly, the Holocaust is what happens when an innocent certified victim group is “hated” by the host population.

          • Crud Bonemeal & Ris_Eruwaehdiel

            I agree w most of what you say. The holocaust was nasty business but it is being exploited and it wasnt exactly the only nasty thing that happened.

            Now, about whether this is being done to us or not, well in a way I guess it is. But I found the Glubb essay so fascinating exactly b/c he documents how the same patterns happen over and over again. After prolonged triumph and affluence, decadence, loose morals, equality ideology between sexes and ethnicities and then influx of foreigners, happened again and again and again to empires, from Europe or Asia and of all sorts of ideologies, religions and government systems.

            To me this suggests that the cause of what’s happening, is our weakness, not something foreign being done to us. The latter is a symptom. Having gone soft, sloppy and decadent by having had it too good, that’s what happens when you win too much.

          • “…still managed to elect first a Bill Clinton and then a Barack Obama.”

            Clutching at straws much?

          • No, clutching at straws would be betting on you guys, and your pet grieves, to save the world. That’s desperation lol

      • Epa;
        So also said the US Progs of 120 years ago. Woodrow Wilson idolized the Prussian institutions. Make of that what you will. My take is that The Second Reich is fast becoming a White Wakanda. That is, a phantasy land where things are perfect for ‘our people’.

        My evidence that the Kaiserreich wasn’t quite the paradise we’d like to imagine is the large numbers of Germans who left for the Americas, North & South, at that same time. I speculate that it’s similar to South-Wins-the-Civil-War nostalgia. it’s pretty easy to see yourself as a member of both or either of these two elites and that looks pretty damn good right now. But to contemporaries at the bottom of the stack, the evidence is, life sucked.

    • Pure Second Founding fantasy fuel.

      “These united States” became “the United States” because the North forced the issue. Read J.Q. Adams’ abolitionist phillipics on pogromming the South from the 1820’s during the debates over Texas statehood. He wasn’t concerned with any “union,” he was concerned with imposing his messianic vision of moral good on the South and lining the pockets of his mercantile constituents. His voice is that of the Yankee from pre-Colonial times to the 1860’s. Westerners and Southerners who were either sympathetic or indifferent to slavery and the vast majority of the entire “union” who were totally racist and wanted nothing to do with Blacks be damned, Deus Vult.

      As for superpower and Euro-politics, read “Republic” by Buchannan – America prospered when it stayed out of European conflicts and maintained well-armed neutrality. That entire book is a great antidote to the Second Founding history of nation of immigrants, world policing and Janissary servitude to (((foreign)) interests who were much more concerned with European politics than any American was or needed to be.

    • Take it from this Yankee, _YES, the South should have been let go rather than have the USA transform into an empire run by emotionally incontinent puritans_. Both halves had resources sufficient to be successes in the following century and beyond as large mercantile and agrarian states.

      For the United States to be a republic and not an empire, the threat of secession and the balance of power necessarily had to be in the hands of the discrete states. The Civil War destroyed that.

      If letting the South run off means that America would not play the role of superpower, _so much the better_. If that meant no involvement in WWI, even better. America’s involvement in WWI was a catastrophe for Europe and set the stage for WWII, another catastrophe we ought to have to have watched from the sidelines instead of stirring the pot.

      Without American involvement in WWI, Europe would have exhausted itself and come to a more reasonable peace, undercutting some future Austrian with a funny mustache with a grudge.

      And as for North America in the latter 19th and then 20th centuries, it is big enough for several medium-large polities to exist and have sufficient resources in the case of a crack-up in either North or South. Each polity could see to its own interests and not be the plaything continental imperial monied and ruling classes. The idea that Russians or Germans would take over North America is ludicrous.

    • The answer to your question about Lincoln is very simple. Lincoln eliminated exit doors for us and now we are trapped in the fire.
      The south being let go in 1861 would give us a place to go in 2019.
      Now we are stuck with Canada or Mexico neither choice is appealing.

  33. I can see the outline of this. Since America has a three second memory, our elite are calling Trump the alpha and omega of white nationalism. Once he leaves office, white racial consciousness will be a phantasm that requires an overwhelming government to suppress. You better grovel whitey or we’ll take away your bank account, guns, speech, favorite website, kids, jobs, etc. If the corporations wont, the judges will read the law tea leaves to let the POC ascendancy do it.

    • Already happening. Virginia’s white AG introduced a bill that would have given the police the power to charge a person of a “hate crime” if they speak out against against protected groups.

      Under the law, anyone convicted of a hate crime would be prevented from owning a gun.

      If two people from a group are convicted of hate crimes, the group becomes a “domestic terrorism” group and thus can be disbanded or monitored by police.

      The bill specifically – and repeatedly – mentioned “white supremacist” and white nationalists but doesn’t BLM or Muslim groups. The bill would also allow local governments to prevent certain groups from gathering in public squares.

      The bill failed on a party-line vote. That will change.

      In the very near future, discussing racial differences will be considered a hate crime – if you’re white. This will not only bar you from owning a gun (government imposed), it will prevent you from getting a job or credit card or bank account (private industry imposed). In essence, you might as well be dead.

      Democracy will become tyranny as non-whites, Jews and their white collaborators take over. Whites’ deep belief and commitment to the country’s institutions will be used against them.

      • In other words, they tried to convince us with “diversity is a strength” propaganda. Now that there’s resistance and not everyone’s buying it, they’re going to make America multiracial even if they have to shove it down our throats by force.

          • If you are wondering how the Jews in Nazi Germany got to where they were, just look around. The lobster pot is on the boil. The underlying structure of things may be a bit different, but the process (and likely the outcome) is pretty much the same.

            But we are more likely to end up as the Huegenot rather than the Jews, at the end of it all. A historical footnote. No one will write our history, or be allowed to.

          • The Huguenot escaped to all sorts of places. South Africa, the Netherlands, and so on. They blended into the prevailing cultures, and arguably lifted them up some. But the weren’t Huguenot any more, the line ceased to exist. That’s our fate, IMO.

          • Just adopt the label “Hispanic” and you’re golden. I’ve known plenty of white-looking Hispanics.

          • You can (in most Anglo jurisdictions I’m aware of, as well as in Latin America) adopt any name you wish, as long as it’s not used to further criminal activity.

            Just call me “Bill Gutierrez”. My grandkids will thank me….

          • In some parts of the country, you can’t become a cop without “knowing” the right people. That’s one tactic the the 20th C. mobs used to take control of the cities in the northeast.

          • @ Citizen,

            A few years back I would have said you were crazy. The Trump rallies proved differently. I expected to see reactions to the violent anti-Trump protest all end like they did with the San Diego Police Department (which met force with force and behaved like a stone wall against the hordes of villains, kudos to the SDPD). I never expected the shameful behavior of the San Jose Police Department nor the later criminal complicity of law enforcement in Charlottesville. I fear you are correct.

          • San Diego alway struck me as an odd place within the California construct. They do some of the same butt-stupid shit as the rest of the leftists there, but also have these weird moments of complete clarity.

      • So-called “hate speech” is already banned in Canada and parts of Europe. Make an accurate, but unflattering, observation about a certified victim group or question the official dogma about the Holocaust and you might end up fined or even jailed.

        During the Cold War, leftists defended the Soviet Union on the grounds that its citizenry was guaranteed economic security in the form of a right to a job, housing, medical care, etc. Security was more important than liberty. In the modern age, despotism is acceptable if done in the name of promoting and defending the unholy trinity of Equality-Diversity-Inclusion, the gods of our age. Even more than Soviet communism, contemporary liberalism (and, to a lesser degree, mainstream conservatism which is liberalism lite) is disconnected from the realities of human nature and social organization. This will require ever more pressure to force people to acquiesce to obvious lies.

        This isn’t going to end well.

      • It’s only a matter of time before those laws become reality here. The current Supreme Court struck down the idea of “hate speech” unanimously, but they’re going to die off and be replaced by some serious kooks.

        Anyone remember zines? Those were fun. They’ll have to make a comeback if people want to say something interesting. It might be time to start buying up old printing presses.

  34. When Ross Perot ran for president in 1992, he constantly told us, “Remember…it’s YOUR country!” Today that seems like a much more alien concept than it did back then.

    • When I could first vote, in the 1996 election, I voted for Perot. I attended speeches by Clinton, Dole, and Perot that year, and Perot was by far the most entertaining. I used to be a bit embarrassed that he was my first vote. Now I feel that gives me some political street cred.

    • I remember Sam Donaldson’s comment:

      “The minorities re-elected president Obama, but I’m going with Katty. It’s the Tea Party and thinking of the Tea Party and people like that that are driving the Republicans out of contention as a national party. You cannot win nationally if you don’t know something about the way the country’s changed, and the Tea Party seems to think the country can go back 25 or 30 years. The greatest slogan that I hated during this last campaign was “We want to take back our country.” Guys, it’s not your country anymore – it’s our country and you’re part of it, but that thinking is going to defeat Republicans nationally if they don’t get rid of it.”

      I think that that was a major problem with too many tea partiers and Republicans in general at the time – they thought that the US still had the demographics of 1980.

      • I think that that was a major problem with too many tea partiers and Republicans in general at the time – they thought that the US still had the demographics of 1980.
        I would disagree I think they thought demographics didn’t matter which has doomed all Civic Nationalist movements…You have to understand the brainwashing worked that said all people are the same and you can’t treat anyone different than anyone else…Events like these shootings will drive everyone deeper into that mentality as well…

        • Even more then that, most Americans don’t connect dots. They see strands of the picture but never see the full picture so it is easy to distract them. This has its roots in the traditional lack of interest Americans have had for anything outside of their daily lives, celebrities and sports. Social media has just enabled people to take their traditional ignorance and get more vocal and emotional about it

        • Except for the Left’s Open Borders genocide platform and gun control.

          If we had a Fabian instead of Fabulous Left (pozzed) we’d be in Deep, Deep sheeple dip.

          We’re blessed with enemies such as these.

      • The second week of Nov 2012 the entire Hive Mind was repeating the mantra “White Men need to realize it’s not their country anymore.”

        This is the exact moment of white awakening. Go back and check anything – internet comments, columnists such as Coulter, Limbaugh, all of it.

        Thank you Sam, et al. This couldn’t have happened without you.

        Really the enemy is far more eloquent than we are, certainly more persuasive.

  35. The post Civil War elite, for all its flaws, didn’t despise the population it ruled over. Can’t say the same for the post Cold War elite.

    • The Damned Yankees despised the people the conquered and hated them as badly as our elite does us.

      However they had to have someone to exploit and didn’t want to risk an insurgency where every person of significance get what Lincoln did.

      You can’t rule if you and yours are dead.

      Lincoln as bad a fate as he got, didn’t hate the South. His overarching goal was preservation of the Union . He didn’t really care how this was done or who or what benefitted

      In my mind he was a morally ambiguous figure , commiting what was to my eyes treason for a justifiable cause

      • What bollocks.
        In his first inaugural address he clearly threatens violence if the tariffs, that he had just quadrupled in some cases, were not collected.
        The tariffs were to be spent by his owners, the Railroad Companies for which he was a paid lobbyist.
        He was prepared to kill 700,000 people in return for his bribes,

        Only a moral cripple can see any ambiguity there.

        • The USG has always used violence to collect taxes and tariffs, since the Whiskey Rebellion just as they used violence to evade taxes

          The US was founded on treason and has almost always been as corrupt as any 3rd world nation . It’s the norm here to use the military to break up strikes, beat people with private thugs and so on. It’s only been better since Roosevelt, roughly maybe Coolidge, not even a hundred years

          In a system founded by corrupt people with inherent corruption and that corruption being the social norm, politicians sucking up to the powerful is utterly unremarkable . Lincoln isn’t even notable in his conduct

          So it’s perfectly possible for keeping the union intact and getting rid of slavery, both good things to make an otherwise run of the mill thug and crook into an ambiguous person

          I think some drug dealers fit the mold since they provide a lot of opportunity and help the poor and I also think Mother Teresa with her addiction to human suffering does too

          The number of genuinely good people in world history is tiny. In my lifetime, maybe Rev. Fred Rodgers is the only public figure I can think of though I am sure there are others too none coming to mind

          Most people are good to kin and friends, sometimes even strangers but otherwise indifferent, bad, selfish or like me too lazy to be a problem .

          There are exceptions, tight knit communities, very devout people, people with an honor code but by and large this is just the human experience its neither bad nor wrong. It just as is.

          Mayberry is mostly fictional. Most of real life is Peyton Place or Tammany Hall , sometimes worse.

          if this makes more a moral cripple, so be it,

  36. People who are drawn to politics can be forgiven for thinking that fear and anger is the weapon the elites will use. They are used to being rustled, and seeing rustled people. Fear and anger certainly is the weapon the corporate media uses. But the corporate media is only interested in eyeballs and ears. The government does not want their citizenry constantly rustled. At best we’d get France and weekly demos, and at worst we’d get China, where rustling is ended by secret arrests and gunfire. I think the elites want to passify the citizenry…be it through censorship, creature comforts, entertainment options, drugs, handouts, and maybe a tiny bit of fear thrown in, such as a James Fields episode every now and then. But it is not the main component. Always remember, many more people follow sports and celebrities and TV shows than politics.

    • I’m not drawn to politics. I’d prefer they were a much smaller factor in my life. But here we are: the Kakistocracy writ large. As someone once said “you will be made to care.”

    • Marko said: “Always remember, many more people follow sports and celebrities and TV shows than politics.” Yah. The corporate MSM sock puppets where always angry and disappointed when their polling showed that Americans by and large simply couldn’t have care less about all that Russagate BS. Traped in their D.C., New York, Hollywood group think, they pounded away at it 24/7 and zip, nada, no effect on a national level. It was hilarious.

      • I got back on after a year 2 hours ago. I think I might last 48 hours this time 🤣.

        This isn’t despotism however.
        Its school marms trying desperately to channel Stalin. Petty tyrants.

        Its working marvelously: For Us.
        They get the hatred and animus directed towards tyrants, we get justly angry but super bonus points lose all regard and any fear.

        There is no real reason to fear these idiots – they are cowards to a man. Male. Women. Thing.
        These are not scary people.
        And no the cops and military and probably damn few if any actual dangerous IC people will do their dirty work.

        They’re masters of illusion but there are no men behind the curtain.

        Time to call. They’re bluffing.
        Real tyrants would have executed Trumps entire family by now.

        • Never signed up for any of them.
          I could never understand why any man would.

          I never expected any woman to resist.

        • The social media crap is kind of “meh”. But I work in the finance industry—and by proscription I mean—“hey nice little custom machining business ya got there—oh, you produce high precision screws for a small custom AR rifle maker, well no banking or insurance for you…no website hosting for you…oh, we don’t do payroll for companies like yours…”. Seen it up close dealing with internal “Corporate Responsibility” types. There and HR are where the leftists have infiltrated everything.

Comments are closed.