The conventional model for framing Western politics, since the French Revolution, is the Left-Right axis. This dates from when supporters of the king sat to the right of the president in the National Assembly, while supporters of the revolution sat to the left of the president. Ever since, the Left are the radicals of one sort or another, who seek to overturn the present order in favor of something else. On the Right are the defenders of the present order, but also those who seek to restore a past order.
That means radical republicans in the 18th century, like the American Founders, would be on the Left, along side 19th century Marxists or even 21st century queer theorists. In the 18th century, Thomas Jefferson was a radical. In fact, he was a supporter of the French Revolution. It also means that modern Civic Nationalists, who claim allegiance to the Founders vision of republican order, are on the same side as 19th century monarchists and 20th century fascists. It turns out that libertarians are the real Nazis.
This also means that the game of political theory always has the Left playing offense, while the Right is playing defense. It’s why 20th century fascism never made any sense as a right-wing or left-wing movement. The fascists were just as anti-traditionalist as the communist. They were not trying to restore an old order. On the other hand, they were a reactionary movement, driven by a rejection of international communism. The fascists were both reactionaries and radicals, embracing the rhetoric and tactics of the Left.
The interwar period in Europe is a good example of the Left-Right political model not holding up in the face of reality. There were multiple social and cultural forces working on European society, in addition to the consequences of the Great War. Even in America, the first half of the 20th century saw the old Left radicalize into something that drew on European fascism, but was littered with communists. It’s why people today, who try to argue that the fascists were left-wing or right-wing, are simply missing the point.
That’s what makes the period so fascinating. A lot of history happened in a very short period of time. It’s a lot like Roman history, in that there is something for everyone and their favorite political theory. On the other hand, the period is not very useful for understanding the present age. Interwar Europe may as well be a story set on different planet. The flow of events that led up to that period and the history of the people involved, is foreign even to their descendants alive today. it was the great break in the timeline.
Now, the interwar period is useful for one particular reason and that is as an example of how history is not a river that flows uninterrupted through time. Instead, it is many rivers and sometimes those rivers find themselves occupying the same space. The Thirty Years’ War, for example, was the confluence of historical forces leading into the 17th century. Similarly, the two industrial wars of the 20th century were bookends to the great confluence of intellectual forces in Europe, dating to the Enlightenment.
This age may be another such confluence. Like the interwar period, there are many forces in conflict with one another today. You have global capitalism, which is disrupting the normal functioning of western societies. There is the collapse of the Cold War political order, that is collapsing the domestic political arrangements within nations. There’s mass migration, where hundreds of millions seek to move from the fringe of civilization into the heart of it. Of course, there are the various reactions to these forces, as well.
This piece by Victor David Hanson is a good illustration of how the conventional way of framing politics is not helpful today. Hanson is one of the remaining sober minded people on the conventional Right. He’s actually a conservative of the old sort. He’s also a good analyst who lives in the real world, rather than the Potemkin village that is the home of the commentariat. Despite that, he remains attached to the old paradigm of Left and Right, trying to jam present reality into the old model of two warring political camps.
Hansen is that sort of conservative who is excellent at describing what is rotting away the present, separating us from the past. He just cannot bring himself to accept that there is no going back. There will be no great rollback.The present conflict is not a choice between the glorious future and the status quo. That’s the old mode of thought. Today is one of those great confluences. What comes out the other end will bear little resemblance to what came before it and may not even have a strong connection to the forces that shaped it.
For example, the alt-right is not about restoring an old order. To assume that misses the fundamental point. Richard Spencer has spoken for years about how the past is what caused the current crisis. To return to 1950’s America, for example, means replaying the 1960’s and 1970’s with the same outcomes. His concept of the ethno-state, even if it is limited to North America, results in an America that is completely different than anything imagined by conventional politics. His idea is a complete departure from the liberal past.
Greg Johnson’s new book is about as radical as it gets, with regards to conventional political thinking. What he describes as white nationalism, is an overthrowing of liberal social democracy. What his version of the ethno-state means is a rejection of the foundation item of neo-liberalism, the free movement of people. It’s not a “return to tribalism” as that is a past that never existed in the age of the nation state. It is a new nation state that accepts the fundamental biological reality of man.
The Dissident Right world view that is slowly coming into focus, one that has grown out of the paleocon critiques of managerialism, is also a sharp break with the past. What’s the point of fetishizing the Founding period, when what they created lasted one lifetime. That form of social order simply could not hold up to modernity and was replaced by a series of increasingly radical innovations. To go back and start that process all over is to relive the same nightmare. The antidote to radicalism is not going to be its antecedents.
The revolutionary mind of the new opposition is not focused on restoring the past or even engaging in conventional politics. The use of “us versus them” rhetoric is only useful as a rallying cry. The real fight is about what comes after liberal democracy. Ours is not a fight to restore the past or even romanticize it. Ours is a fight about who will build the future, after this present is vanquished. Whatever comes out of this great confluence will not reflect the past. Instead, it will reflect the spirit and aspirations of those who build it.
There are three things you have to understand to get a clue as to why we have the defective and hostile elite we have today.
1. The elite by the 19th century wasn’t all that great, it just looks good compared to what we have today.
2. There was a not so silent coup of the elite by a small tribe that viewes the majority of the population as a threat and holds no allegiance to it or the culture. I know Z Man doesn’t like to address the JQ but you can’t understand the modern US without acknowledging it. The fact that this tiny tribe owns almost all of the traditional media and much of social media as well as most of the entertainment industry makes it even more powerful than the old elite.
3. The elite both shapes the culture and is a product of it. All institutions are corrupted now and nearly all are not focused on the welfare of the traditional people or culture. This means that most of the elite lives in a bubble and our intellectuals are, as Taleb notes, intellectual but idiot.
Let me just cut to the chase: unless or until robots to do the menial jobs “team white” don’t want to do are widespread, there will be no white ethnostate. You will get something like Apartheid South Africa (as an inevitable result of culture being downstream from biology). Good luck with making that stick.
Thats an excellent post Mr. Zman. Be a cool thing if there was a thumbs up app for us to use for your pieces. You deserve a lot of thumbs for this one.
The only way out… is through.
ZMan Please bring back vote numbers…
Anything created by man, past or present, is corruptible The let can always fall back on core principles, as bad as they are, but the right finds it harder to do this.
For White People, White Nationalism is the only solution. A White Ethno Country out of part of the former United States. A Country for White People only. No Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Mestizos , Asians etc., etc., etc. Where we can rebuild our institutions of Higher Learning. Discover the best among us and educate them and train them to take the rest of us to the next level of technology and civilization. While the rest of us perform those necessary functions that civilization requires. Our attitude to the rest of the people on the Planet should be one of indifference. We shared the technology developed by our White Brethren with the World and it has come back to threaten our existence as distinct Race. If we are able to survive and thrive into the next century one of our core principles must be to never share our technology with the other people on the Planet. As Revilo P.Oliver said , “We owe them nothing”. And hopefully one day our White Ancestors will be able to leave this Planet and find a new Home for us out amongst the Stars. Where we will be safe from the other Races
who want to destroy us.
Sinn Fein. For Ourselves, Ourselves Alone. La Raza has a good one too. Can’t remember the Spanish, but it translates as, “For our Race everything, for other Races, nothing.”
I’m afraid Christian Charity has proven to be a two edged sword. It keeps them alive, but the often don’t have the wit to improve anything. So they hate us for making them feel inferior – and simultaneously want to come here and get the goodies. And typically they still don’t stop hating us. African Blacks are often raised better, at least the ones coming, but surely they will be dragged into the shit culture of Black America.
And the Browns and Yellows? More gifted and far more gifted, their pride is better founded and they are even more of a danger to us. Maybe we could have helped some of these people, but without a real loved and appreciation for ourselves, disaster was inevitable. Bringing them into the West and putting them ahead of Whites? Sickness. Evil. Madness. And above all, Malice on the part of our Ancient Enemy.
The Beatles were pre-on to you Z.
Koo Koo ka Joo!!!!!!!
Fascinating insights into our ‘plight’…
Sometimes I wonder if Z isn’t just a Jew trying to gin up a civil war with a single pseudonymous blog on the internet just for the hell of it.
/sarc/
/maybe/
You got me. I’m Special Agent Zayin sent by the Volcano Demon to undermine the honky.
Maybe the new acronym for Tom’s crowd should be “UEB”, for “(a Jew agent) Under Every Bed”.
Jaqship is committed to the Volcano Demon and speaks with a worm-tongue. Scrutinize his comments.
I’m just here to get my Volcano Demon t-shirt. Where da t-shirts at?
Interesting as always.
Conservatives in America today thus find themselves in a position more like that of Frenchmen of a rightward bent in the late 19th Century. The French right was disunified and consisted of groups leaning towards several competing sources of authority: Orleanists, Bonapartists, Bourbonist Restorationists, and moderate Republicans. Each group had different practical policies under the circumstances of France. More important, each appealed to a different mode of legitimacy; in late 19th Century France, the very idea of what France was, who was and was not a part of it, and the purpose of the French regime were highly contested questions.
Similarly, on the American right of today, we find not just different areas of emphasis–as arguably was the case in the Reagan era–but radically different views, represented by libertarians, socially liberal pro-business types, Christian Evangelicals, neoconservatives, and nationalists, whose chief champion is Trump.
Like French Bonapartists, Trump-leaning conservatives see a rotten, corrupt system where disloyal elements use the language of constitutionalism to promote their pet causes and narrow, factional interests. They also see high-minded rhetoric regarding free markets as a mask for the interests of a narrow, international business class, that is coextensive with many prominent political donors. Like the French rallying to the Second Empire, American conservatives can, in my view, recognize that desperate times call for desperate measures.
The sine qua non of an American restoration is a restoration of the American people and charting a way for it to prosper and remain independent in an increasingly unforgiving global economy and multipolar world. Warmed over Reaganism–a different view for a different time addressing a different set of problems–won’t cut it, nor will Burkean traditionalism, because, as in the case of France 100 years after its revolution, the question of which France (or in our case which America) prevails is paramount. And appealing to traditionalism without sifting through the layers of leftist, anti-American tradition that have been grafted onto the American whole is a fool’s errand that fails to recognize the extent of the damage to any traditionalist approach.
There is all this dancing around the central issue, which is that there is a substantial minority of people in this country that simply want security of life and property, and want a culture that will nurture these ideals for the long run. Our current culture ain’t it. The ideal of the ‘50’s U.S. culture is that it seemed to more greatly identify, and hold up as ideal, sanctity of life and property. The “live as a Prepper in the woods” idea is the creating a microcosm of sanctity of life and property today, in a larger culture that respects neither. Kavanaugh symbolizes these ideals in a broader culture that despises them. So he must be thrown to the wolves.
It is not right-left, fascist-communist, or even a Jewish or libertarian question. It is what kind of world do you want to live in, long term. Our country has tried to approach some sort of ancient Roman-style republic in our form of societal structure, because it best allows society to build itself up in the long run. Sanctity of life and property, along with a properly functioning and respected rule of law, is fundamental to all that. It encourages the grandfather to plant the tree his grandson will sit under.
The Left, The dusky, the young (who have not been taught better), the singles, and the women do not understand long term thinking, that the culture must hold up these ideals as a means to long term societal and cultural success, and that the culture must be supported, but also protected from those, inside and outside it, that think only of what they can grab in the short run, rather than plan for the long run. Big chunks of the top 1% have also sold out to short term thinking, get the big stock option exercise and build the mansion. The heck with everyone else.
Yes, ordinary people have the right to security. It’s part of the social contract. That’s why they pay taxes. The “pillars of the community” who outsourced our industrial base to China are simply traitors when seen clearly.
Ever go up to a woman, or hell, anybody, and say, “I have nothing against you, I just hate your body” and then strike them? These so called patriots do just that when they support this kind of Traitor Capitalism. The Economy is the Body of the Nation. Fuck with that and your are fucking with the Nation.
If Trump-leaning conservatives today are like French Bonapartists, then Trump would be Napoleon III, and look how that turned out. But, come to think of it, maybe having the U.S. military destroyed and Trump captured by Putin/Bismarck might not be all bad….
Perhaps we should be skeptical of the past. Was J. Edgar Hoover less corrupt than Brennan? Or were we just too preoccupied with our jobs and responsibilities to notice the corruption of our rulers?
“The real fight is about what comes after liberal democracy. Ours is not a fight to restore the past or even romanticize it.”
I currently dont have a clue what I think should come after liberal democracy. I believe women are not healthy for politics, I believe ethnically and religiously homogenous societies are more stable and peaceful, I am not personally too much into religion but I believe it sustains the culture, gives meaning to many and helps keep out worse ideas such as ideologies (which are largely substitute religions anyway, and except for islam which is really bad, tend to be worse).
Maybe what is needed is not to abolish democracy but more to roll it back, to taxpaying males over 30 perhaps. W absolute monarchy or enlightened dictatorship, I would like to be the monarch or dictator if the rest of you dont mind, coz I m quick to trust someone w absolute power for indefinite periods of time.
Roll it back to empower those who work diligently for the good of all, over the long run. White male landowners. Everyone else, by and large, is in it for the short run. The leftist game is really about organizing and recruiting short run thinkers to scoop as much as they can, as quickly as possible.
Democracy is simply the terminal state of factionalism, of which all forms of representative government – including the capitalist/militarist republic – are a subset. Eventually, they all degenerate into universal suffrage, because there is always a faction who can benefit from expanding the franchise.
Delegation of power is fine. But can you recall any situation in your life when ownership of a resource or decision was shared among multiple individuals or groups, and there wasn’t squabbling and infighting over control? And is there not always that one guy who says “let’s see what X thinks”, where X is someone who had no prior authority whatsoever?
This is human nature. You cannot stop dominance hierarchies any more than you can stop bowel movements. Even SJWs form hierarchies, pathetic as they are.
I’d like to add that the reactionary philosophy (as in royalist, NRx, etc.) is not about rollbacks either. To the contrary, a great deal of the literature is a synthesis with modern structures: corporate governance, hard fiat currency, crypto-locked transferable rights, biometric-controlled census and borders, virtualization and other unusual solutions for the underclass. It’s about acknowledging the reality of rulers, hierarchy and incentives, AS WELL AS the reality of race, sex, IQ, and other demographic factors. Or, to put it another way, reimagining modern technology and state apparatus used to uphold the natural order instead of overturning it.
I am not trying to evangelize anyone; everyone needs to find their own way to whatever philosophy works for them (and, hopefully, civilization). But it is my opinion that even if white nationalists succeed in their goal of an ethnostate-by-revolution – which they won’t – it will merely lead to another cycle of division and revolution as it selects for leaders who can’t govern.
Please note that this doesn’t mean I oppose ethnostates; in fact, just about every viable state either already is or eventually becomes an ethnostate. It’s a question of what the “ethno” is and how you get there. A poorly-governed ethnostate isn’t a much better place to live than a well-governed multiracial state like Singapore or Hong Kong, and won’t stay an ethnostate for very long because the left cannot resist expanding the franchise.
Angry take just based on the Supreme Court thing: the current political divide is between the sociopaths and non-sociopaths.
Part of the problem is the right’s pathetic lack of organization. The left might be a bunch of evil, pozzed-out, hate-marinated freaks, but they do things. They infest the institutions, ruthlessly thought-police the public sphere, and arrange thuggish protests and paramilitary attacks.
There was a good article in the now-shuttered Thermidor magazine by Jake Bowyer about the right’s pathetic lack of organization. And it’s true. It’s a big problem.
In fact, the establishment left functions a LOT like the Communist Chinese government, in that it tries to shut down ANY sign of organization among political enemies: movements (hence relentless smearing of the “alt-right”), media outlets (–>deplatforming, defunding, DDos), Facebook groups (gone with a click), even things like fraternities and social clubs; more fundamentally, free association as a general principle.
One historical analogy: the Chinese revolution was carried out primarily by government soldiers who were radicalized in situ by anti-regime propaganda. That’s a useful analogy. If we want to win, we’re going to have to figure out how to redpill soldiers across a fairly wide IQ spectrum. The Redpill Missionaries need to know each particular audience.
I know a lot of guys fantasize about lone-gunman-in-the-woods stuff, but I don’t think that’s going to wash in a Major Event. When shit meets fan, we’re not going to need a bunch of emaciated Unabombers, we’re going to need guys with airplanes, tanks, and missiles–and organization.
The small cell model may also be appropriate. We need to gets guys getting together in person to talk things over and then make contact with other groups of guys. Needless to say, the other side, with all their tools of suppression, will do everything they can to stop our guys from getting together.
Sorry so long. Maybe I’m just venting. The Supreme Court thing is really getting to me, I’m not sure why.
Democratic government supports sociopaths, restrains normies. A partially red pilled democratically elected politician cannot speak truthfully without alienating a very large number of people who are in urgent need of schooling; no one who does is elected in the first place. This truck turns left. To turn right you must make three left turns, and then you are still left a block behind where you started. This is not a mystery. Democratic government inevitably becomes socialist. The mystery is that the country lasted as long as it did.
And the Left is funded by the Capitalists or “Right”, right? Left and Right are nonsense now. Who stands for America as a sovereign state? And who is against the Nation State in general or America in particular? Those are the proper questions.
No one made the Corporations outsource our industrial base to get that coolie slave labor. Or to bring in colored coolie labor right in to America to replace us. Global Capitalism is the enemy, along with its ally, the Left. The Elite want us a system of Communism for us and Capitalism for themselves.
The more the French revolution gets studied the harder it is for people to apply current political categories to it. Many of the ideas of the left of that day are considered to be right wing today, and even the Marxists say that the winners in the revolution were not what they would consider the natural left (proletarian sanscullotes), but the bourgeoisie, who they consider an early form of liberalism.
These difficulties leave us with a remainder in which all we have is a left that is for “change”, and a right that is not. And even Burke would disagree with this conclusion, as he himself stated that change was necessary. His disagreement was with the mode of change.
I keep looking at the FR, and speculate about what would have happened if…
What I find is that France had set itself up to fail in a million ways, and practically nothing was going to stop it.
One theory I came across in an outline of French History written by a French conservative back in the fifties was that it could’ve been avoided if the king had not called the states general and had merely depreciated the currency like everyone else in history has under similar circumstances. The problem with this is that France had undergone the experience of John Law in the previous generation, and no one was going to tolerate it. That is why no minister proposed doing so, and it was as far from the consciousness of Louis XVI as it could get. Besides, despite being in deficit, the national currency itself was the strongest in Europe.
And given the various personalities involved, there was almost no way a constitutional monarchy was going to work out. And later events may have proved that it was never meant to be for France regardless of who the players were.
How does this apply to us? I think the best we can do is to try and identify the powers and ideas associated with them as best we can, decide who is friend and foe, and act accordingly.
The time to put all your eggs in one basket is when an existential crisis occurs. I don’t think we are quite there yet.
What if thinking is a lot of fun with the French Revolution, because there were so many opportunities for the primary actors to go a different way. It almost feels like a random walk. That said, I tend toward system analysis and monarchical France strikes meas an example of a society evolving down a dead end. The Bronze Age societies of the Mediterranean and Mesopotamia met a similar fate as their palace economies became unworkable.
Follow the money. Who funded and directed it? Peasants get nowhere on their own. Apparently, it was directed by minor French Aristocrats who wanted a Capitalist system like that of England. And some English money flowed in too. But before that could be built, the Traditional Monarchy and medieval economic system had to be destroyed. Ditto the religion of the people.
The only labels I accept are “Christian”, “American”, and my family name.
The only ideology I accept is loyalty to God, family and nation.
If that makes me a “conservative” in your eyes, I don’t care.
Church, family and nation may be rooted in the past, but they are real and worthy of loyalty.
The same can’t be said for whatever philo-semitic neo-fascist castle in the sky you hope to concoct.
“The only ideology I accept is loyalty to God, family and nation.”
Maybe you want to substitute “the US Constitution,” in lieu of “nation”.
A constitution means zero if its political leaders ignore it.
If you say “A constitution means zero if its political leaders ignore it” then why do you endorse the Constitution?
It’s the people, you coward, not the parchment.
The people, the WHITE people, must supersede any foolish legalisms.
The Jews are against all Fascisms except their own. Likud is classic Fascism as Pat Buchanan said. Or since their ethnicity is everything to them, a national socialism.
I picture being a great grandfather one day and taking the great grandkid to the new capital. There’s a statue of Zman. She walks up to get a closer look at the plaque, and starts to read aloud:
“The real fight is about what comes after liberal democracy. Ours is not a fight to restore the past or even romanticize it. Ours is a fight about who will build the future, after this present is vanquished. Whatever comes out of this great confluence will not reflect the past. Instead, it will reflect the spirit and aspirations of those who build it.” The Zman 1966 – 2024
“It’s my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of sommbitch or another.” — Malcolm Reynolds
P.S. You’re putting Zman into the grave pretty darn quick, too! 😉
I feel that is the year they will come for him.
Nah. January 21, 2025.
“It’s why people today, who try to argue that the fascists were left-wing or right-wing, are simply missing the point.”
Regardless if fascists can be pigeon holed into the right or left boxes, fascism/fascists – as a political ideology – and as an economic ideology, believe(d) that individual rights must be subordinate to the dictates of the state and abhor capitalism.
These two beliefs go hand in hand; you cannot have economic freedom without individual freedom.
Mussolini , the founder of Fascism said it best; ” All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”
Recall that Mussolini publicly stated his approval of FDR’s New Deal as did Joseph Goebbels.
Nazism, Italian Fascism, Communism are all siblings.
Frankly, FDR / Obama / present day democrat party liberalism is in fact fascism-lite (or maybe not so lite).
Ditto for their close allies, BLM, By Any Means, ANTIFA, the Socialist Workers Party and, of course, their Big Brother (ideologically speaking), the CPUSA.
They are all variations of the same flavor of ice cream and this is why you have never heard, and will not hear, democrat party leaders condemn the violence carried out by ANTIFA, et. al; they, the democrat party leaders, approve of their violence, their tactics and most significantly, their political goals.
Recall Obama “inviting” the CEOs of the biggest corporations to meet him in the White House to discuss, or more precisely, for the Messiah to tell the evil CEOs how they were going to do business during his reign.
Does anybody think that the corporate CEOs had a choice in any of this (assuming they did not wish to participate in the dictators programs)??
After all, the DOJ can find guilt anywhere they choose to, in the best tradition of that great humanitarian and libertarian, Lavrentyi Beria, who famously said; “show me the man and I will show you the crime.”
This is no different than Hitler in the 1930s-40s telling Germany’s big corporations how, what, where and at what price they will produce their products. (he also dictated to small business owners their allowable open-for-business hours).
What is puzzling is that nobody believes that communism – a murderous, totalitarian, repressive ideology that believes capitalism is anathema – is anything other than left wing.
Yet, when discussing fascism – a murderous, totalitarian, repressive ideology that believes capitalism is anathema – there is always this argument; is it left wing? right wing? no wing? what does fascism mean? does it mean anything at all, etc?.
Well, define it anyway you choose, or it’s position along the linear axis of political ideologies wherever you choose, but the left has been very successful (once again !!) in defining Fascist(ism) as somebody/something totally distinct from and opposite to a communist(ism), yet, they are ideological siblings.
You have to give credit where credit is due; leftists have been very, very successful in DEFINING history, words (Newspeak), language and, coming soon to a theatre near you (if not there already) “appropriate” thought.
The future is unknown and unpredictable; but history has shown there are really only two forms of government; one in which individual rights exist for all, and the other in which individual rights exist ONLY for the self anointed few.
The nouns used to describe these two basic forms of government are really irrelevant when it comes down to the bottom line
It really is pretty basic.
Yet, when discussing fascism – a murderous, totalitarian, repressive ideology that believes capitalism is anathema…
See, I’ve had leftists tell me with a straight face that Fascism is extreme, out-of-control capitalism. They don’t even understand the terms they are using well enough for me to be able to communicate with them. The guy I’m thinking of reacted with the typical fingers-in-the-ears when I tried to correct him on his definition.
It’s hard to explain to people that Obamacare is one of the purest examples of practical Fascism implemented in the modern age when their understanding of Fascism is simply “stuff I don’t like.”
The Evil Elite won’t be defeated until their Corporate Capitalism is crushed. You think that such late stage Capitalism is pro-Life? Pro-America? Pro-Individual – except for the very, very few? C’mon. Early and mid level Capitalism went well with the American Way, but late stage Capitalism is a horse of a different color. And the Bankers, in advance of the rest of Capitalism, did finance the Communist Revolution. But the Corporations have caught up to them now and are for open borders and against the Nation State, Western Civilization, and the White Race.
We are past the point where the states could get more done cheaper by refusing all federal funds.
This is basically how the various Egyptian dynasties came to ruin. The minor rulers up and down the Nile found that Memphis, or whatever capital was current, was simply sucking away resources with little or no return. At that point, even a shot at immortality wasn’t enough to keep them in line.
To: georgiaboy
“Those who wish to overturn the existing status quo are necessarily political-ideological allies…”
Nailed it. Would also like to add a voice of support to your contiuum analysis of right to left. Personally I think you got that one correct as well. It allows for a better philosophical approach. Your depiction states with precision my point about the fundamental dilemma being between freedom versus obligations and individual versus community. We need to fully grasp the founding assessment of that to understand how best to proceed before we throw the baby out with the bath water.
Yes, but that does not make the Muslims leftists. That the Left has forgotten that will be their undoing. Or perhaps they think they will corrupt their youth. Maybe, but my bet is on the Muslims coming out on top if we fail to stop their alliance.
>>…people today, who try to argue that the fascists were left-wing or right-wing, are simply missing the point.
Sincere, un-ironic labeling of the NSDP as right or left wing lies in ignorance or convenience.
>>The use of “us versus them” rhetoric is only useful as a rallying cry.
It is also necessary for survival of a euro-western nation, especially here in N America. Before we “fight about who will build the future” we need to survive the coming destruction of the present. Determined individualists unwilling to band together, will be drowned.
>>Ours is a fight about who will build the future, after this present is vanquished.
Yes, long-term.
Immediately, it is about attracting larger numbers to our way of thought, especially the younger crowd. Beyond that, short term goals of organization and preparation are paramount. Mid-term is fighting & surviving the collapse of the current regime/system. And then long term is building the future. Beyond that is veiled. Some may presently have ideas about what the future is/ought to be, but that end state (of the struggle) will be partly shaped by what occurs on the way there.
You’re missing an important biological reality in the modern technological age. Affluence is making us soft as a species and mass media indoctrination is turning these softies (both mental & physical) into hive-minded and dependent drones. Political beliefs will just become whatever convenient meme the autocracy wishes to program at any particular time. Independent thinkers are destined for the re-education camps in this new world order. But fear not, there is an effective remedy.
Yeah, the overflowing material culture is the one element that makes historical analogies difficult.
I know a lot of guys who know that the current situation is a disgrace, but either (a) they’re too soft, fat, citified, and socially atomized to do any physical organizing or (b) they really don’t want to lose their video games, formulaic TV serials, retro pop culture detritus collection, etc.
It’s a problem.
Derek Black’s bio-piece by (((Eli Saslow))) “Rising out of Hatred” review was on NPR’s Fresh Air yesterday. I listened to the whole thing and somehow heroically managed to not vomit.
If you don’t already know how the cucks, jews, race-traitors and SJW’s view White Nationalism and the Alt Right it was on prime display. I wanted to tear my car stereo out of the dash and stomp it to powder. There is going to have to be a whole lot of blood spilled going forward unfortunately. We are dealing with true-believers who are absolutely convinced they are “On the Right Side of History.”
The “right side of history” meme cracks me up. My response is that Alaric was on the right side of history, Socrates on the wrong side, what’s your point?
Yup the kid has spat in his father’s face for fame and Leftist glory. He is shit. And the many contributions to Stormfront helped him get his Leftist education. The gods weep at the folly of it all.
1. Generally speaking, white people (by which I mean European-descended Christian people) find it very difficult to thrive and reproduce in societies which are not either completely white or else overwhelmingly majority white.
2. Whites tend to have nice stuff: they are inventive, ingenious and industrious, their folkways adduce towards social stability, their manners are pleasant, their religion has a healthy outlook, and they tend to live in the temperate, forested, farm-able, environmentally non-degraded regions of the world.
3. Whites, on top of creating all the best science and technology, also have, by far and away, the best art, music, literature, architecture, philosophy. No one else comes even remotely close — not even East Asians, whose achievements are admirable and substantial, but simply not in the same league. There are many fine Chinese poets; but there is simply no Chinese answer to Homer, Sophocles, Ovid, Catullus, Dante, Shakespeare, Byron, Goethe, Bach, Mozart, Chopin, Wagner, Michelangelo, one could go on for hours.
4. An unfortunate but inescapable truth is that DeShauntius, Mohammed, Shlomo, Fareed, Javier, Pablo, N’Gongo, Sanjay and Chen Chao all want to date Becky. Sorry guys, but access to white women is not a universal human right.
5. Non-whites find all white stuff desirable, they’d pretty much all prefer to live in white lands, in white society, among white people, enjoying (preferably free) white stuff. But they are a) incapable of making nice stuff on their own, b) incapable of showing any gratitude to whites for all the nice stuff, c) eternally trying to game, scheme, manipulate, dominate and parasitism whites. This appears to be a general structural law of human nature.
6. Quite obviously, this state of affairs is a) intolerable for whites and b) completely unsustainable for everyone concerned. Therefore,
7. White sustainability is THE major political, social, economic and theoretical question of our time, and
8. White separatism is the only reasonable, rational pathway to white sustainability.
Left/right be damned; white/non-white (and as a substrate, schemer/non-schemer) is the only political dichotomy worthy of discussion.
Fantastically stated and summarized. *hat tip*
Upvote!
Try to distill your post into a succinct meme.
* Whites create the societies that non-whites want to live in but degrade.
* Access of non-whites to white societies is not a human right.
You should send this to John Derbyshire, who thinks that Black/Non-Black is the fundamental division.
John divvies the world into Ice People (Euro and east Asian) and Sun People (Arabs, Hispanics, blacks). Most white people, if they were being honest, would agree. Just ask your normie pals what it would be like if there were no blacks in America. They will easily agree with the point being made.
That said, the argument from white nationalists is that even a dash of diversity tends to set-off a chain reaction where before long the borders are open and some portion of whites are preaching suicide, our present situation. For example, Jews look at WASP’s as rivals and enlist non-whites as a weapon in their struggle with the WASP. Or, East Asians join Team Brown to fight Team White.
If we can reduce Team Brown/Black to a fraction of its current size, it’ll be largely because the erratic ones among Ice People faced the music about the depravity of those Teams.
In that circumstance, Team White will’ve become far more united than ever before, so the remaining dash of diversity won’t be anywhere near as bad as it was in 1965.
I suspect that our very best shot, at uniting Team White, is along the lines of Derb’s approach.
My sense is that most Normies would be far more open to the Ice People pitch, or to us standing tall for “Western Civ”, than to explicit WN-ism.
(See my thread on “Western Civ” with Felix and Lance on Sunday.)
Yeah, makes sense. But the East Asians want to be with the winners. And they’re going with the Left despite any similarity they have with us. They voted for Obama even more than the Hispanics did.
To put it more succinctly, whites are good at taking the long view, patiently building and saving for the future, and for the benefit of their children’s children. Others take the short view, the “grab what I can, while I can”. Whites have difficulty taking the long view, when everyone else around them is grabbing what they can, and skimming everything off the top. That is why whites need to live in a white dominated culture. Anything else will defeat the whites in working for the long run, because of all the non-white stealing along the way.
Well said, Sir!
Lester, whites created the white space between paragraphs. Please utilize the concept going forward.
Scrumptious description, Lester Fewer.
Exactly so. Even Fascism with its adoration of the Nation State is sufficient to protect us now, especially as they are already here. Only National Socialism which insists that Race is the essence of the Nation (google the etymology of Nation as opposed to country) will suffice now. And no, it does not ban private property or enterprise. It only insists that men of genius or fortune play ball with Nation for the good of all. If not, well they can leave or at least step aside and someone else will be found. Private property is sacred. But there are other sacred things….
Meant to say “insufficient now”
Re: “That means radical republicans in the 18th century, like the American Founders, would be on the Left, along side 19th century Marxists or even 21st century queer theorists. In the 18th century, Thomas Jefferson was a radical. In fact, he was a supporter of the French Revolution. It also means that modern Civic Nationalists, who claim allegiance to the Founders vision of republican order, are on the same side as 19th century monarchists and 20th century fascists. It turns out that libertarians are the real Nazis.”
That’s one way of interpreting it, but not the only way. A useful tool for understanding political-ideological orientation is the continuum of collectivism, i.e., by the degree of government and other external controls found within a society.
If we use this trait as our basis of analysis, then highly-collectivized forms of totalitarianism like communism, fascism and Islam are found together as neighbors on the far-left of the spectrum – as all are totalitarians forms of collectivism, whatever else they may be.
As one moves rightward, one encounters less and less government and other external interference on day-to-day life, until finally one ends up the far-right extreme, the absence of any government at all – or true anarchism.
The conventional left-right paradigm of which you speak also falls within this continuum. Most leftists being in favor of the status quo or even more government control over life, and most rightists (Republicans) being in favor of somewhat less, although there are so-called “big-government conservatives” and neo-cons who are simply rebranded leftists who happen to favor fiscal conservatism and a Wilsonian foreign policy and strong national defense.
The above system of classification avoids the awkward outcomes of your analysis, which places Nazism and libertarianism in the same camp – which is clearly false. ZMan, I know you aren’t a fan of libertarianism, but isn’t equating it with national socialism going too far?
Those who wish to overturn the existing status quo are necessarily political-ideological allies – they may seek to do the same thing for very different reasons – just as those who defend the status quo may be doing it because they genuinely value it, or simply because they view it as the least-poor alternative. Stated differently, correlation isn’t the same as causality.
Bear in mind also that one of the greatest historical lies of the 20th century has been the notion that fascism is a phenomenon of the political right. It is not and was not. All of the leading lights of early fascism, including its founder, Benito Mussolini, regarded their system of thought as the ultimate improvement upon classical Marxism, the final refinement of communism. All of the early fascists had been socialists/communists before adopting the new ideology. Hitler spoke often in the early days of national socialism about the kinship he felt with communism and Stalin, its exemplar at the time.
Circling back around to our continuum of collectivism, it can be seen that fascism and communism are not opposites at all, but are in fact close ideological and political neighbors on the far-left of the scale.
This is the thesis of Dinesh D’Souza’s new book, “The Big Lie,” one which he proves convincingly and well. He also amply documents the various links between communism, fascism and the American left.
The fact that anyone reading me still falls in the DR3 trap just shows how much work there is left to be done.
Dinesh D’Souza is a con-man and a grifter. He’s also an ignoramus.
Also, the idea that “true anarchism” is right-wing at all is complete nonsense. I thought everyone on the real right understood the concept of anarcho-tyranny by now.
To the extent that “true” anarchy can exist at all, it’s an unstable moment in a transition of power that lasts for a femtosecond and leads to greater entropy and worse governance.
Libertarianism is a mental disorder.
The shorthand formulation that Leftism = collectivism might have had some rhetorical value during the Cold War, but as a general theory it’s retarded, as the poster above proves, by following the premise to its logical conclusion: “therefore anarchy must be rightwing??!?!?!?”
To the extent that right-wing means anything at all in this era, it refers to a traditionalist temperament more so than to any particular political program. Zman is correct, of course, that we can’t restore the past; he’s probably also correct in arguing that we shouldn’t want to.
But our goals are rooted in a traditional understanding of the world that stands in stark contrast with the ruling class’ secular religion.
There’s nothing traditional or rational about anarchy, or for that matter about Libertarianism. You might be able to make the latter work in a smaller scaled society, governed by a strict, shared morality, because then you can rely on social pressures to compensate for light legal pressures – but we’re a long way from that situation.
Modern Libertarianism is more accurately described as libertinism – a kind of nihilistic hedonism dressed up as American tradition and sold to gullible patriots by a cabal of rent-seeking think tanks in the employ of monopolistic corporations.
Wake up, Georgia boy; you’ve been sold a bill of goods.
Every society will have a balance of collectivism and individualism. If one jettisons these fundamentals, then the whole Left/Right dynamic loses all reality and relevance.
National Socialism is neither Left nor Right, or both Left and Right. Nor is it in the middle like European Socialism purports to be. It is on its own line. Why? Because Capitalism/Communism are economic systems or philosophies of matter. Nationalism Socialism is a Philosophy of Man or Spirit. Fascism is more moderate, but still on its own line because it honors the Nation State before all. As you know, Capitalism is now Globalist – just like Communism. And neither National Socialism nor Fascism would accept American individualism per se, though they do say that each Nation will have its own Fascism or National Socialism, one in line with its own unique traditions and needs.
This is historicist bullshit based on abstracting political relationships to a graph and then coming to conclusions and making predictions based on a faulty model.
It isn’t even conservative. Edmund Burke and Samuel Johnson would laugh you out of the rooom.
Some of this is helpful, Georgiaboy, tho D’Sousa can take a hike.
“ZMan, I know you aren’t a fan of libertarianism, but isn’t equating it with national socialism going too far? Those who wish to overturn the existing status quo are necessarily political-ideological allies – they may seek to do the same thing for very different reasons….”
Yeah, they’re political-ideological allies, for very different reasons, i.e. allies of expediency, not Principle.
When Zman puts Libts with Nazis, he’s emphasizing the expediency aspect of all this, and thus obscuring the Principle aspects.
To start a historical analysis of the conventional model with the French Revolution is sound enough, but the Nolan Chart was a major advance (for mapping the Principles) to which Zman is not doing justice here.
Yeah, the Nazis were “revolutionary”, but for hugely different principles than are Libts.
“… fascism and communism are not opposites at all…”, but they venomously clashed over one Principle-issue: should the nation/ race be the central focus of loyalty, or can one’s class-heritage (at least in the first instance) be the central focus?
Civnats here are clearly closer to fascists, and Libts are at least a shade closer to them than to Commies.
At least some versions of Libt-ism place some value on the Nation, whereas none place any value upon Class.
Fascism utterly rejects both Libertarianism and Communism. You have it exactly opposite: Communism and Capitalism are both philosophies of matter, both globalist in their mature form – and thus both against the Nation State. As you may not know, love of the Nation State is the essence of Fascism. And race is the essence of National Socialism.
Thus it is no accident that the two economic Philosophies allied against Fascism and National Socialism last time. The will again too if America and the White race make a bid for survival. Of the two, Capitalism is senior. Who do you think funded the French and Russian revolutions?Think farmers with pitchforks and workers with hammers could have gotten anywhere on their own?
On top this, Hitler said over and over “We are socialists”.
The man never spoke to me, but I suspect when saying “we are all socialist” he meant that they were all bound into an Aryan social contract by nature. Whereas, here we are, communist by nurture, under the banner of liberty and justice for all. Words, like facts, are not truths, they speak for competing truths.
Bravo. Getting warm.
My understanding is that Thomas Jefferson was not a supporter of the French Revolution. He observed it and considered ours to be quite different. The American revolution was based heavily upon classical approaches to politics and life. It was built upon the concept of Natural Law. Jefferson felt the French Revolution to be anarchic possessing no foundation.
The problem in America is a failed ability to rest any case upon the Metaphysics of the founders. The system no longer teaches nor makes any attempt to explain itself. It wallows now in nothing more then emotion. Our educational system needs to be refocused on teaching the founding principles of the country now long lost in a fog of discord. The tradition and thought of the founders in this land is not flawed it has only become distorted due to the drifting away of serious thought. All my study reveals that early Americans were very conversant with the thought of Greece, Rome and Christianity. They drew from each in building the Republic. There is great depth behind their words and they should not be discarded casually. They, it turns out appear to me to have been infinitely more wise then our current citizenry and the thugs that we have been electing for many long years now. We do not need to abandon the course we simply need to go back and understand the point of it. When one comes to the point of understanding then the wisdom of what has been given in our political order becomes worthy. The fundamental dilemma will always be a dilemma and that is just what is the proper balance between freedom and responsibility and as well the proper balance between community and individual and how to maintain it without excessive force.
Most colonial Americans didn’t support the Revolution, otherwise the war would have been far shorter. The Continental Army had continuing problems with retention.
In a sense, the revolution was started by a gang of rich merchants that had their racket undercut by the Tea Act of 1773. Often the same merchants were angry at the Quebec Act removing western lands from speculative purchase.
I think a better comparison to our present situation is the Shah’s Iran. It’s a story of how an autocrat attempted to force liberalism onto a country that didn’t want it. Khomeini was a sort of Dissident Right, and his movement muscled out the more numerous liberals and socialists. Trump is comparable to Mossadegh, a populist that attempted to save the system from itself, only to be deposed by the establishment with the help of foreigners.
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jeffworld.html
Jefferson supported the revolution.
Jefferson wrote a lot of things at different times. The earlier Jefferson had an infatuation with the coming Revolution since he didn’t like traditional Aristocracy. The reality of the Terror cured him of his romanticism. The later Jefferson took a very dim view of what had happened and what happened to Whites in French Santa Domingo (Haiti) and along with others, took measures to keep Illuminism out of American Masonry. The Revolution had used Masonry as a vehicle of organization.
Trump has risen to power at a crucial time in the emergent system’s lifecycle; when it is malleable. With any luck, he will be able to leave a lasting imprint on the structures of governance. Big countries and big companies are both going to be partitioned into more manageable units. And that I think is the defining characteristic of the new system — it will be responsive to the voters. Sounds crazy, but you have to admit that outcome satisfies the thesis that what comes next is different than what we have now.
Itsmore accurate to call fascism progressive rather than left wing. That’s the shortest way to put it.
Fascism is the guidance and/or control (not ownership) of the large industries of the private sector by the public for the good of the Nation State. Beyond that, it endorses an honoring of the traditions and history of the Nation is vehemently against all that would disparage them. No wonder America hated Fascism so much. You see what have the opposite: control of the public sector by the private, or Plutocratic Totalitarianism.
Fascism is a thing. It’s not a malleable term to be used for Leftists or Totalitarians or anyone one doesn’t like. But yes, it certainly believes in a strong government, and is against Libertarianism or rule by the Corporations – which is all it amounts to.
If you want to see Fascism taken to perfection…Japan. Totally Fascist. They saw what Germany did and how fast they improved their lot under Fascism and copied the whole thing minus attacking the Jews. They were smart enough not to let any in the country though.
There is plenty of history and reflection to suggest reexamining the assertion that “Interwar Europe may as well be a story set on different planet.”
In Europe generally and Germany especially, the interwar period was seen as a broad efflorescence of cultural marxism that had many familiar features. the article at: https://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/24/sexual-decadence-weimar-germany/ describes decadence that was somewhat different in form but familiar in outline to the poz degenerate cultural arc playing out here and now. why?
Dr. Kevin McDonald (Culture of Critique) offers plenty to suggest the similarity and even continuity between earlier bolshevism, which again was widely seen as a creature of zionism from the early 20th century and now the cultural marxism destroying institutions now have a common thread. This latest article is worth a look: https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/09/23/modify-the-standards-of-the-in-group-on-jews-and-mass-communications-part-one-of-two/
McDonald’s thesis is pretty simple: any group with an identity will act in its own interests, especially if that group is under threat. Early Christianity was pushed underground very vigorously, the result being 2 millennia of durability. The wrinkle here is that one group acting in its own interests has managed to make questioning those interests or any acts done to promote them verboten and off limits – a cultural sin.
Ron Unz may be an aspie nerd, but more rigor will be applied to the 20th century history that was written very shortly after WW2 ended, and which re-examination has always had many no-go areas. We will never understand where we are now if those no-goes are not pried open.
Whether all of this gels into a dominant perspective remains to be seen, but this awareness is rising, and will likely be at or near the center of the increasing friction.
You know, we can always call a constitutional convention. Try a new articles of confederation.
Amending the constitution even with the Article V method still requires 3/4ths of the states. Allowing greater decentralization, such as allowing red states to control immigration and become Hungary/Russia style “illiberal democracy”, would be clashing with the dominant establishment morality that would fret about “Nazi Nukes”.
Look at the flak that Brexit has taken, that’s mild compared to what is needed. Also worth mentioning that there never would have been a Brexit if the Cameron and May had simply shut down non-EU immigration which they always held the power to do without consulting Brussels.
But Third World immigration is a fundamental element of the globalist program.
It’s free market fundamentalism. Wreck the economy and migrants don’t come.
That path closed when states became servile to the Feds, and dependent on them.
That happened in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787 and during the ratifying conventions.
We don’t need a new Constitution. The one we have is just fine. What we do need is some politicians that will work what we have in our favor. We could totally change the power structure in the country in a few months. If the Republicans were willing we could take control of the out of control Judiciary. It only takes a majority in Congress to do so. The Judges may decide case law but Congress decides what cases the Judges can rule on in the first place. Don’t want Judges to decide any laws that have to do with treaties, immigration, national security as relating to foreigners, etc. Then Congress can just tell them to butt out. It’s written right into the Constitution in plain English.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
“…In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make…”
“…with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make…” The important part. The earlier part declares what powers they have but it ends with control of these functions by Congress. Congress could tell them to butt out of any GloboHomo, Statist rulings. They could do that with with lots of stuff they keep ramming down our throats. The Judiciary could be stuck with only deciding water rights cases between States if they push too hard to SJW the Constitution to death.
This only takes will power and the ability to to just ignore the point and shriek of the press which would go to stratospheric levels if Congress actually limited the Judges to deciding only cases that are delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution. There’s a whole massive amount of POZZ that could be cleared up if the Judiciary was brought to heel and States would be allowed to decide for themselves. The total lock down Blue States would carry on as before but as we have seen their quality of life would eventually become so bad as to destroy their power base.
What could we change that would vastly increase the power of Whites?
1. First we make sure all voters have some qualifications, high school diploma or equivalent, maybe pay a certain amount of property taxes, the actual numbers are not so important. The idea is that the voter have some skin in the game. Be a taxpayer or retired taxpayer who has put into the system instead of just receiving. This was ruled against by the Supreme court but this ruling can be tossed in the trash by a 51% vote in the House and Senate. Federal judges can be told what their jurisdiction is. It’s written right into the Constitution.
2. Federal judges, once again, have ruled that in the States there can only be representatives based on proportional representation of the population. Before they had representation in the Senates of most States based on regions and population based in the House. Just like the Federal government structure. This change gives more power to urban areas. It too can be thrown out. This would vastly curtail the power of the cities to tyrannize the rural areas.
3. Make sure all votes are by real registered and documented voters. Voter fraud is at extreme levels in the cities. They have more people voting than there are even voters in some districts. With the other two rules in place we would have the power to just call all their votes illegal and ignore them. We could have an electronic voting system that is foolproof against fraud, (this can be done I’m 100% positive and I even have a simple cheap way to implement). The votes could NOT be changed and each person and organization could 100% check each vote for themselves. The only problem with any of the systems is you must control who gets to vote in the first place and who is authorized to vote. With the two other powers in place this could be assured.
If most States changed to the older method designed to protect minority rights, rural areas, then it would vastly improve our position. These two changes would insure that we could not be rolled over legislatively. Now some States may be lost already like California but they will lose power anyways because of the complete stupidity and incompetence of their Representatives. Detroit and other minority run cites have the same problems. In California the destruction of the spillway caused by not repairing cracks in it raising the cost from maybe $2 million to repair the cracks to as much as $500 million is illustrative of the way they run things. Not to mention they destroyed a valve in the damn that should have let the water out and they didn’t move heaven and Earth to repair it even knowing the record water level coming.
All it would take is willpower to do this. The Republicans by party line vote have the power to do this right now and so do most States. I would say the majority. If pushed we could force the same on the other States with Constitutional amendments after power is consolidated.
Starting from the civil war there has been nothing but one big fight between rural and urban areas. So far the cities won but it doesn’t have to stay this way.
All these people thinking about splitting the country up or civil war…uh…why don’t we try to do something with what we have already first.
A feminized society, and America is the most feminized in history, is inherently both very leftist and extremely unstable. Women like invaders, want to “have it all” at the expense of everyone else, and can’t say no to panhandlers or drama queens.All of which leads to collapse..Consequently, it seems likely that the great reset will have to incorporate strong patriarchy, which neither current party can imagine….So when the smoke clears, that part of the future will resemble the past.
To summarize, men will have to start being men again for ordered civilization to prevail. Could not agree more. Extreme feminization is likely the most suicidal element of modern America. From that specific toxin seems to spring most or all of the others.
‘So when the smoke clears, that part of the future will resemble the past.’
“History doesn’t always exactly repeat itself, but it does always rhyme.” -Mark Twain
Or as Marx puts it, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce?
Women are great at ignoring the truths they don’t wish to confront. That’s what happens when their role is to nurture, while the men‘s role is to provide. Providers are familiar with the risks and difficulties involved.
Very good post.
The bad part about the realisation of this is that it’s probably gonna involve a whole lot of blood being spilled.
I see it as you do. To go a few steps out, once again, its the dirt people who will end up effecting positive change. There still is no one else that can effect that. That, and most of us, the one thing we have to remember as things get more and more violent is if you ignore certain historical aspects of violent power blocks you end up taking the dirt nap.
I think many of us will be too busy surviving what happens to have the energy our resources to pay much attention to the larger scope of history in the making, except regarding how to avoid being caught up in the worst of it in the day to day dealings. Not that that implies not caring or not wanting to effect positive change, though that always begins with each of us and grows from there. Its an incredibly complex and dynamic time to be alive.
I figure there will be all sorts of 4th Generation war on small local scales going on at least for a period of time. How that shakes out depends on how tribal like formations coalesce, enclaves, tight isolated communities, gangs even, in defensible positions with the kind of agrarian resources to survive austere times.
There could be “leaderless resistance” of every political cultural stripe, with one or two “factions” most prominent.
I think what is an underlying element that is effecting whats happening is the day of the large nation state is over, at least in the West. Its an unmitigated disaster of biblical proportions, responsible for the most corrupt, tyrannical, bloody period in history. The Leviathan is defending its last days. There’s that kind of motive power of millions who though they may not be actively, consciously resisting, or even understand it, its still millions who have an effect because they have in a myriad of fashions withdrawn consent for the large nation state. It is a great determinator, yet very subtle seeming. A plurality that effects the course of events. Its low key, its mostly an unconscious thing, but its real. Its when people begin to wake up to this that dynamics become more influential. Then there is the plurality who desires large government protect them, to bend government to their needs and provide for them. They see this as a right, its owed them. And that as always is manipulated, those little totalitarians among us are very useful dupes for political power like communism, socialistic or marxist orientated form of raw naked power over everyone.
Those things don’t change all that much in history, only the circumstances, the players actors and victims change. So theirs a certain circular feature to history, at least in regards socialism/marxism/communism, they repeat the same damn thing over and over, like the adage say, expecting different results.
Can we just get past that crap please if nothing else good happens for awhile? Who in their right minds wants to be caught up in somebody else dystopian nighmare?
In any case, it won’t be long by the looks of things, we all get to find out we are all wrong and some crazy wacky thing happens that is a true outlier and paradigm. Lord knows something has to change in drastic ways or we are caught like a hamster on the wheel of history.
LET ME OFF PLEASE!
I don’t see much evidence of a fight to change but a reaction to the left’s assaults and heel smashing. The US will by hook or crook have to be broken up into smaller nation states, the present state and where it is headed is untenable.
Spencer and his ilk shouldn’t even be mentioned. For all the talk about the alt-right, the reality is that Trump is pretty much all we got, and disgruntled whites put him there. That is not to say paleos, dissidents and some alt-righter don’t contribute intellectually to the resistance. But that’s it, it is a resistance more than it is a revolution.
“The US will by hook or crook have to be broken up into smaller nation states, the present state and where it is headed is untenable.”
This, a thousand times. But the only way out is through the future. Be like a shark, moving ever forward. The past, as beautiful as parts of it may have been, is gone, and there is no time machine.
Buckley was wrong; there is no stopping the course of history. But it CAN be diverted into a new course – which is what is going to happen. A future is going to come no matter what we do – it might as well be ours.
Whatever its faults, the alt-right is still able to attract lots of young people. Given that the Left is a click away from shooting dissidents and assassinating judges, getting young white guys involved is a priority. Voting is just a time waster until the action starts.
Furthermore, the alt-right is the only group that has a clue where we’re going, and that identity politics has taken over.
Yes. Established guys may recoil from the harsh words of the Alt-Right but they don’t live in the world in which their nephews and grandsons do. Young men see that they have targets on their chest and are unlikely to achieve the anesthetizing success that their elders did and thus are willing to consider measures that strike their elders as rash or low status.
Yup. I’m an old guy myself and pretty much insulated from harm by SJWs, but I have two young grandsons and it’s them I worry about. The language and concerns of the alt-right make perfect sense to me in light of the future of these two kids. I’m glad somebody’s taking up their cause because I won’t be around long enough to do them much good.
How old are your grandsons?
Do their parents understand matters as you do?
well im an old bastard who is thankful as hell for the young “alt right ” when ever feeling blackpilled i think of the young fellas and I know they will win because that’s what we do.
I’ve never met Spencer but have had the privilege of having dinner with Mr. Johnson, Mr. Taylor and Dr. McDonald. At some future time spencer as well as many others will be in a pantheon of greats. You too Mr. Z
thank you for your clear take, its much appreciated.
Neo-progressive? Just a thought.
All the gratitude and historical consciousness of the hog at the trough.
Spencer’s star is falling and he may soon exit the political stage, but without him, much of the alt/dissident right would not be.
Yeah, it’s a shame about Charlottesville. What an absolute shitshow.
I’m not sure Spenser was much of an intellectual heavyweight, but he had the underappreciated virtue of … just kind of looking and talking normal. Normies looked at him and, despite the media’s wailing, the back of their mind thought “oh, he doesn’t look so bad.”
Just the kind of guy who should NOT get associated with people wearing absurd, antediluvian Halloween-Nazi costumes.
A point I have been making for a few years is that the first leaders of a successful movement are always pushed aside at some point. Even the Nazis eventually got around to eliminated most of the early leaders. The reason is that the early leaders of an outsider movement have to be more brave than smart. Once the movement gains numbers, that math changes. The leadership has to be more smart than brave.
No sensible person associates with costume Nazis and Hitlarpers no matter how charismatic and helpful a few of them are,
Almost all of them lack even rudimentary discipline media savvy or grasp of optics and they won’t keep agreement
More importantly they are creatures of the Left , nothing based of Democratic Workers Socialism even if there is a National in there is Right Wing , period
Allowing those fools to latch on even if Spencer coined the term .Alt Right was and is stupid.
The .Alt Right might be Restore pre 68 BAMN or it might be Sons of Jacob Lite , New Nationalism or it might be something else but its not any variation of Socialism
The only thing that can be said about those guys is that if the .Alt Right wins they can be allowed to live and let live unlike nearly everyone on the Left who paraphrasing WRSA here all the others will have to be treated as enemy combatants
Well unless we get very lucky anyway
Agreed, we’re more of a resistance than a revolution. The alt-right has no real platform of ideas or what it wants to do. Get beyond HBD and it’s silent. It has nothing to offer the average white guy on the street and it needs to find a way to make itself relevant to these folks.
And yes Trump is all we have and he was put there by pissed off blue collar and lower middle-class whites. Not by the alt-right who didn’t even get why the guy was running. I remember Sailer and his cronies. They didn’t get him at all.
What a lot of people don’t realize is that Trump also won college-educated Whites. Trump isn’t just the candidate of working class Whites. He’s the candidate of Whites in general.
Revolutions really don’t offer the average guy on the street more than the offer of relief from current circumstances. The mobs attacking the Bastille were not spending their free time debating republicanism versus constitutional monarchy. They operated on the assumption that anything had to be better than the present arrangements.
Off topic:
Leftists freaking out over the judicial nomination
https://twitter.com/YahooNews/status/1044295425514254336
I count three browns, and I’m guessing all are subcontinentals. The left couldn’t even bother to pay a few token Black Yas Kweens to show up.
“Ours is not a fight to restore the past or even romanticize it. Ours is a fight about who will build the future, after this present is vanquished.”
————————————
It won’t be much of a fight. The unemployable millennial interior designers, the grievance studies grads, the guys with the man-buns…. they couldn’t build a tree house. They’ll be lucky if they can feed themselves in the days ahead.
It will be tougher than you think. Whatever the Left’s faults are and they are plenty. They are very organized, fanatical and led by some very ruthless and monied SOB’s. They know how how to apply intimidation and violence.
Worse they have control of the police, federal law enforcement and the defense dept All of these people’s livelihoods are dependent on the status quo and they will fight to keep it.
While our side cannot even organize a pot luck, We have no organization, no leadership, no principals, ideas or goals to unify under. Nothing. Trump and his MAGA is about the closet we have and that’s not saying much.
Don’t be silly. The right can organize. Your problem is that the right is white and whites are not protected in their right to organize due to the various civil rights amendments which are explicitly putting whites at a legal handicap.
If the right could simply gain equal protection for whites before the law, they would have no issue pressing their issues. The trouble is that no right winger with political capital to spare wants to risk it demanding that minorities lose their legal superior status, as that will put them on the wrong side of the most brutal and ruthless diaspora in human history.
The worst part is that if the whites in the army and police are not highly redpilled, they’ll just follow orders from non-white leaders, and then go smash and arrest their fellow whites. That’s the ultimate humiliation.
You already see that in England, with white policemen dragging away other whites who have committed the “crime” of complaining about Muslim rape and third-world violence. It’s stomach-churning stuff.
The US is far more red pilled and much better armed than the UK. A few years ago one disgruntled ex cop shut down half of So Cal for weeks. I can’t imagine what actual kinetic action from well trained cells would be like.
We are brittle far more now than in the 70’s days of rage and that was no fun.
That said the problem isn’t lack of equal protection, the Left won’t obey such a law anyway as the IRS scandal has shown,
The problem is simply that leave me alone is not an ideology. Its not a belief system, its a childish reaction to being imposed on
A true ideology is a heaping serving of Do As I Say Or Else backed with guns and lots of them.
The Right is so pozzed with “muh nuclear family” “muh Constitution and muh individual liberty” that many of them can’t even consider imposing their views on others or society
The problem is you absolutely have to do this, if you want a society driven by Christian mores especially one that is not that religious you have to make people comply.
if say a teacher decides to damned the torpedoes and go all Frankfurt School on some under 21’s than you can’t chalk it up to free speech . Its subversion and said party should be getting five years in segregated custody and a life ban on teaching.
If your city has blue laws and you want them and you might than you need to fine and arrest as needed and so on.
Now after an period of time, an interregnum of maybe 40 years or whatever and you’ve shaped society or your liking maybe you can go with a bit more liberty
or maybe not, Commies are patient and even though their ideas are shit they keep popping up over and over no matter what.
Until though you have in the words of the Founding Fathers “A moral and religious people.” you has best give a lot of orders
Once the Right embraces actual authority they’ll do well but until than , the Left has an hell of an edge, They like power and using it
Be willing to give orders or be a slave to those who will
Try your “Do As I Say Or Else” bullshit here and you’ll get a steaming helping of mind your own damn business or else (backed up with guns). LMAO at your “Christian mores.” Your Political philosophy sounds more Jewish than Christian but what it is in fact is just more statist authoritarianism. Left, right, call it whatever you want, it’s just one person telling another to comply or die and pretending to have the authority in the name of the almighty state. So just take your state and shove it and leave me the hell alone!