Since it became clear during the 2016 election cycle that Conservative Inc no longer had any influence on the Dirt People, there has been an effort to reconstitute a New Right that will fill the void left by the now Old Right. This being the mass media age, one part of that effort is to promote certain online personalities as spokesmen for a particular point of view. You see an example in this debate organized by a site called IM1776, which is “a magazine of cultural and sociopolitical analysis.”
It should be noted that IM1776 is the product of a not-for-profit called The Art & Literature Foundation, which appears to be the brainchild of an Italian guy named Mark Granza, who had his political awakening in 2016. You can read a lengthy interview of him in this English language Hungarian site. For the sake of clarity, IM1776 is financially supported by Claremont. It is always wise to know how someone pays his bills before assessing his political opinions.
That aside, what you see in this back and forth is the same specter that has haunted Western political thought since 1789. That is the specter of ideology. Both men are in their own way ideologues. They have an image of how society ought to be organized based on how they think men ought to act toward one another. While their ideal society is something of an end point, it is, in fact, the starting point for them. In other words, they begin with the end in mind.
For Curtis Yarvin, the end is a form of monarchy not because he thinks it is the best in the abstract sense of the best society, but that only through an absolute ruler can the things he likes about Western society be defended from the dark forces that seek to unsettle our cultural norms. Rufo, on the other hand, is a natural rights republican, who thinks the ideal society is based in individual rights. It is only through reaffirming our natural rights that we can restore the republic.
While there is a lot of overlap between what both see as the ideal society, they clearly have different visions for how to achieve it. Yarvin thinks we have to wait for the great man to emerge and topple the present order. Alternatively, the present orders collapses, and a great man emerges. Rufo thinks the way forward is to nibble away at the civil rights order by attacking it fruits. His current project is to hold the diversity hires in the academy to the alleged standards of the academy.
For most people this sounds logical. You start every project with the end in mind and you see that is the Yarvin – Rufo debate. In fact, that is the primary appeal of both Chris Rufo and Curtis Yarvin. They hold up this image of a possible future and if you like what you see, you support their program. This has been how political debate has been framed in the West since the French Revolution. You are presented with two images of the future and asked to pick one of them.
The problem with this, the reason that ideology must always fail, is that it never considers if the end is possible or even plausible. This is not because the ideologue is incapable of doubting the ideology. It is because ideology must always rest on the assumption that all societies are intentional societies. What we see is the product of human labor, therefore the goodness or badness of society reflects the goodness or badness of the people who made it.
Good people not only follow a certain code, but they must constitute the telos of the society of which they are a part. No ideology ever concludes that the ideologue must disengage with society, other than if it helps him engage with fellow ideologues in plotting to overthrow the present order. Ideology assumes you must be engage in the project of moving society toward the desired end. Otherwise, you are assumed to be working against those who are doing so.
To think that society is anything other than the fruit of human labor would be a nullification of ideology. If society is the product or random chance, for example, then what we ought to do to improve society is meaningless. It makes no difference what we think we ought to do, as the result is just a random walk. If what we see is the best we can muster from the material at hand, then the ideal, what we ought to seek, is actually a hindrance to creating a harmonious society.
As an aside, this explains the rejection of biological reality. The popularity of the trans business is one way of denying biological reality and the limits it must place on what is possible for human society. The New Right rejects biology as it undermines their claims about the nature of man. As soon as you accept biological reality, most arguments about how we ought to live become superstition. You are left with the question of what can we do with the material at hand.
Another thing you see with all of the participants in the New Right project is that none of them are looking forward in the sense that some novel vision of the future is leading them to question their own assumptions of the past. Their prize is something like what the French philosopher Jacques Derrida called hauntology. The New Right is sentimental for a promised future that never materialized. It is why they focus so much on the “wrong turns” of the past.
What all this leads to is the fact that we are seeing the end of ideology. It is easy to forget, but ideology is a relatively novel thing in the history of man. The Franks did not have a governing ideology. The Greeks were not ideologues. Rameses did not govern with a vision of the future in mind. For all of human history, how we ought to organize society was a practical question, not a moral one. Ideology is an invention of Western man, the weeds that grew out of the rubble of the Thirty Years War.
If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!
Promotions: Good Svffer is an online retailer partnering with several prolific content creators on the Dissident Right, both designing and producing a variety of merchandise including shirts, posters, and books. If you are looking for a way to let the world know you are one of us without letting the world know you are one one is us, then you should but a shirt with the Lagos Trading Company logo.
Above Time Coffee Roasters are a small, dissident friendly company that roasts its own coffee and ships all over the country. They actually roast the beans themselves based on their own secret coffee magic. If you like coffee, buy it from these folks as they are great people who deserve your support.
Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start.
Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb. Just email them directly to book at sales@minterandrichterdesigns.com.
[…] Last week in this post I linked to something at Claremont and said they are financially backing the IM1776 project. I am […]
Rousseau casted a spell to the modern man. He said that man was good and institutions were the cause of evil. This was a denial of original sin. Hence, to improve things, the solution must be political: change the system, through reform or revolution. Because people are good … and pigs fly. Modern people cannot think in a different way. For each social problem, people start debating political proposals. They don’t consider that the solution may be non-political. It never crosses their mind. So we have monarchists vs civil nationalists vs white nationalists vs social democrats vs woke vs comunists… Read more »
Every individual is good by and through himself.
Vs every individual has the power to make himself good by and through himself!
It’s only slightly different than Rousseau.
The world is old and weary. It’s shweepy time!
“… the reason that ideology must always fail, is that it never considers if the end is possible or even plausible.” “… For all of human history, how we ought to organize society was a practical question” -Very Aristotelian of you, Z. “…not a moral one.” -I have to disagree here, Z, morality was clearly central to Jewish, Christian, and Muslim societies. I don’t know a whole lot about Eastern religions but I assume they considered themselves moral people, too. “Ideology is an invention of Western man, the weeds that grew out of the rubble of the Thirty Years War.”… Read more »
Simply put, ideology is religion “without God”– that is, the attempt at a moral framework without a traditional hierarchy of authority. I argue that such a sense traditional hierarchy is instinctive; it is natural to a social primate. In our case, this instinct has been “outverted”; loyalties, in many, are directed to an outgroup rather than one’s ingroup. The outgroup is an imagined ideal, one can readily see the warts and flaws of one’s ingroup. The attempt at cutting the God part out was a result of the religious wars, as the Zman attests. “Whose God? Whose Church?” was the… Read more »
Simply put, ideology is religion “without God”
-Correct. Religion argues that Man is the creation of a higher being, and the purpose of religion is for man to understand his place in the God-ordained natural order. Reality is imposed upon Man by a higher power.
Modernity is homo-centric; Man is the center of the universe, and uses science, reason and technology to manipulate nature to create a reality of his own choosing. Ideology is the narrative justifying that process.
[…] ZMan looks under the hood. […]
I have been reading “On Power” by Bertrand de Jouvenel and he argues that ideology starts with the Reformation. In the Middle Ages the kings dealt with the political, friends vs. enemies, and the Pope dealt with the moral, good vs. evil. But with the Reformation — and then the Thirty Years War — politics and religion got combined. So now we get mostly peaceful protesters blocking the Golden Gate Bridge because of the immorality of war — when the bad guys do it.
The Guelfs and the Ghibilines predate the Thirty Years War. Before Protestantism the fundamental conflict was between the Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope. On the one side, the warriors. On the other, the Church. It was no accident as the Marxists say that the Church was the primary sponsor of the great artists. Michaelangelo, Bernini (his is the altar at St. Peter’s) and so on. The German Emperors, not so much. Then of course you have the Optimates and the Populares. Ideology IMHO always overlaps with class, family, and dynastic interests the latter being the strongest force in human… Read more »
Ideology is the desire of whites to evade the tribalism of non-whites.
More specifically, only whites can have legitimate ideologies. No one else.
Most non-whites literally cannot understand the words that express ideology. They can only understand racial conflict.
The reality that very few can accept is that the massive injection of 3d worlders and jews into American society has rendered ideology irrelevant…Your skin color is your uniform now, and the huge body of anglo-saxon rights and jurisprudence that America relied on to create a coherent nation has been destroyed…Just look at these ridiculous Trump cases, and the lawless DOJ…
What a ridiculous thing to say. It is like Asia never existed.
I’ll reup and recommend it again because of the substance involved. It isn’t what disgusts you (and me)–a tortured admission of sorts wrapped in an apologia is not what it is. As for the interviewer, well, that is a different matter and I wouldn’t have read it, either, if the author had been known to me beforehand.
(misplaced here, sorry)
Great post . We are clearl not going to direct events now , the whole thing seems like a runaway train.
I’m a little confused on the definition of “ideology”. In this piece, it seems to mean something like defining a goal, an end state, and proposing a means to achieve or at least approach that state.
But by that definition, libertarianism is not an ideology. Libertarianism defines the means (non-aggression or natural rights, depending on the strain), then predicts what characteristics such a society might tend towards. It’s a lot like geometry in that regard, which is probably why so many spectrum types are drawn to it.
It just seems libertarianism should be an ideology. Am I misunderstanding your definition?
Yarvin is Moldbug and is of a Jewish ethnicity, correct? What’s Rufo’s background? Is this another installment of “Public debates about social experiments on those wayward Gentiles?” If so, I’m all out at this point. Tired of my country/people just being interesting play toys for a group that has a hard time in minding it’s business.
Not sure of Rufo’s ancestry, but as for his posterity he has forfeited his bloodline.
I agree with you of being tired of having proxies speak on our behalf, and of other ethnos discussing our future as if we are, “interesting play toys.”
I reserve my anger for myself and for my kin for allowing ourselves to become a plaything and play to. Well said.
“Rufo” is an Italian surname.
Just to be clear, the facts are
Yarvin is one half Tribe.
His hero us unabashedly Carlyle.
And whatever his understanding of Jews in our play I don’t recall him ever naming them, which means either they have no play or he won’t go there.
Excerpted from littoria.substack. com/p/third-worldism: As anti-Israel sentiment creeps into mainstream conservative discourse, a number of Jewish authors — some who try to interface with white radicals — have sought to counter this rising tendency with proverbial Pavlovian bell-ringing: opposition to Zionism is the agenda of “brown people,” “the woke left,” “anti-whites,” and “Third Worldism.” The Jewish figures involved in pushing various shades of this narrative include Constantin Alamariu (“Bronze Age Pervert”), Nathan Cofnas, Paul Gottfried, Curtis Yarvin (“Moldbug”), and so on. Most recently, Robert Stark, who claims to be the descendant of a prominent Zionist ideologue, begged the “alt-right” to… Read more »
Hey Jerry, there was big news over the weekend.
Hey George, nah, nothing big.
Some news
Naw, no news.
Tax day.
Ya, tax day
Usta be big,
Ya usta be big.
Not so big now.
Ya not so big
Usta be though.
Saying Yarvin is on the right is hilarious and part of why I reject the “dissident right,” if that term even has any real meaning behind an obvious attempt to rebrand the factions from 2016 who have us the “populist” God-emperor.
Yarvin is a global technocrat to the bone, not unlike Musk. And like Musk, seemingly connected to the intelligence agencies through how he’s been promoted. His brother appears to have worked or works for intelligence.
How do you not see this stuff, Z?
I suggest that the Z man isn’t suggesting that Yarvin is on the right, but that he is, obviously, someone being put forth to define the new right. And the people being put forth are more of the same impotence, failure and gatekeeping we’ve always gotten. Because that’s what the people doing the “putting forth” want. That’s correct.
Deep dives into “Who is Curtis Yarvin?” and “Who is behind it all?” are different topics.
I tried to give this benefit of the doubt, but the piece accepts the basic frame: that Yarvin both has a legtimate ideology and is a monarchist (aka on the right or conservative).
Neither of these are any more true than with Musk: they are more likely state-sponsored propagandists. For other reasons, it’s important to understand this.
Idealism may be a telos problem; but it’s not because men aim for the good as a final end. That’s just baked into beings who have an intellect and a will, operating from more than mere biological instinct and environmental conditioning. Zman hints at the real failure point when he diagnoses that ideologues rarely ask whether the end is possible. The allure of Utopia beguiled Western man long before More gave it written expression from a Renaissance humanist perspective during the liminal age between the twilight of the Medieval and the dawn of the Enlightenment. Transforming the potential (ideas) to… Read more »
Life existed on Earth for about a billion years before the first sentient species arose, and natural evolution reigned supreme during that era. It has taken several tens of thousands of years, but we now have a new paradigm via the introduction of man-made evolutionary forces; of which, the tool of “money” is a relatively new invention. I will argue that we are on the cusp of another hinge-point in history in which the man-made drone is another gamechanger. Yes, the power of money has propelled many a pathogen into dominance via the corruption of natural antibodies as a Praetorian… Read more »
Another proverb from the Right Rev. Mao Tse Tung is more on point: all power flows form the barrel of a gun.
Hm. I thought that was Eldridge Cleaver.
OK–
Pretty sure that ‘Dridge said All power flows from the end of a codpiece.
He struggled gallantly to return the codpiece to fashion but alas, it was just him.
“What a little swine, denouncing his own father.”
– Saint Joseph Djugashvili,
in re Pavlik Morozov.
This proverb has long annoyed me. “All power flows from the barrel of a gun”* gropes for an idea far better expressed by one of the “bad” Roman emperors (Nero? Caligula? I forget) who supposedly said, “let them hate me so long as they fear me.” While that certainly is one way to look at this core reality of human organization called “power”, it ignores how organic societies (of family, traditions, customs, law, language) place what Z man likes to call “hard limits” on what even rulers can do, if they don’t want to be thrown into the Tiber. Reducing… Read more »
It is quoted because it is true. The Left is in full control because it realized this long ago.
I guess the point I wanted to make – I am awkward in this comment environment – is that Mao was not describing power in general, but his own route to it. An aphorism for militants but hardly a useful insight into the nature of social power generally over time. Are we debating a concept or are we arming for battle?
I know what what Mao would be doing.
@steve w:
Mao actually was talking both about how power is/was attained and more importantly how it is retained. In a sense, this is what Andrew Jackson much earlier meant about Chief Justice Marshall one of his opinions. Any political and/or legal action only is as good as the force of arms required to carry it out.
This inability to grasp this reality is why conservatives and libertarians are utter failure.
@steve w, I think Mao is speaking specifically of political power. There’s very little gunplay coming from the Vatican when they change popes. Or when Walmart (and later Amazon) edged out mom & pops. What are called power dynamics at the workplace rarely involve firearms.
It’s also rare in politics, though the implicit threat is always there. The praetorians are always itching to draw blood. They face little opposition because few think that today is a good day to die.
If biology is destiny–and I wouldn’t gainsay it–then it behooves us to control biology. And that requires a certain amount of intentionality. Z’s argument here is a bit underdetermined.
Said it before, applies just as much. Europeans spent centuries executing anti-social hyper-violent types. If you couldn’t behave, the gallows or stake ended your bloodline, and cleaned up our gene pool. Africa never did. They just captured their excess population and sold them off as agricultural equipment. I suspect they probably can clean up their bloodlines, as IKAGO suggests, but there may be no shortcut. Until the bloodlines are cleaned up, though, I see no way they can be a part of European-based societies. Go back to Africa and clean up your gene pool. I’ll even send some rope to… Read more »
Agree.
The Chinese, though, may have overdone it a bit. The result, hard wired conformity. Or as the Japanese say, the nail that sticks out gets the hammer.
I’m not sure there’s enough chlorine on the planet…
Rufo has had small victories. Yarvin has not even had that. But neither address the real issues at hand. The Coalition of the Ascendant is now coming apart, and the only way to create unity among groups that hate each other: (((Wall Street Managers))) and BLM grifters and Muslims, is the mutual hatred and Young Turk solution to the modern Armenians. Us. And even Rufo’s “victories” are pointless — USF has simply renamed their DEI admins and programs. No one got fired, and the policies remain the same just different names. It seems quite clear the coming “solution” to the… Read more »
It took me a while to figure out the whole YT thing. The first thing that came to mind was youtube, but in context it made no sense. I think this is the first time I’ve seen it here. Before it went down, I use it to see it at the chimp mania site (hilarious). For those not in the know, it’s a way of saying whitey, as in “whytee”
Agreed. Which is why of all the movements, counter-movements, media darling, dissidents, useful idiots, and Rufo’s the only that is explicitly and implicitly verboten is YT identity. In the positive as in PRO YT for YT interest alone. Sailerism is tolerated because it only points out the failing of others without elevating YT, Rufo can get his little ‘wins’ because at it’s heart his argument still lives in the warm glow of tabula rasa and denial of biology, and every flavor of identity can have have their “lives matter”/”day of visibility”/”power” to chip away at culture. But the minute you… Read more »
Anyone thinks that society implodes rather than explodes? Like what happens if everyone is afraid to take risks or even have sex? I find the passive violence of bridges or buildings collapsing to be more likely than the active violence of mad max
Fertility collapse is baked into the cake, and will be worldwide. It’s going to be a mix of massive genetic culling for people who can’t be pushed to have kids in the new environment and an extensive update on cultural taboos against virtual environments like Social Media, Pr0n. etc.
I really don’t know why anyone believes this. Even if there was no natural mechanism to prevent this, the state could always outlaw birth control. I reckon we’re going to see this in China if their pronatalist policies fail to raise birth rates. They will do it first because they don’t even pretend they care what the mass of people think.
Easiest way to address a bunch of these problems in one fell swoop is to retain something like Social Security, but base the benefits not on the taxes you paid in, but on the taxes your children pay in. It is greatly to your benefit to have lots of highly productive kids. If you also reduce benefits by the amount the net parasites you raised cost society…
Sooner or later, it will dawn on people that this is just reinventing the multi-generational family, but with a middleman skimming his 10%. At which time, we can easily dispense with the middleman.
This. If you raise three or more children to the age of majority and they become tax payers not tax consumers, you shouldn’t have to pay a dime in taxes for the rest of your life.
The failed experiment has been to use massive migration to solve the demographic problem. But massive migration is creating the perfect conditions for societal collapse.
The only other option is to promote childbearing.
I think the fertility crisis is bigger than the state, and human organizations are powerless to do anything effective about it. It’s not any one thing — not just “birth control” — and the people in charge don’t even know all the factors, nor how to address them, especially in this time period when peoples’ trust in and allegiance to their governments is at record lows. The folks in charge waited about two generations too long to address the problem — now the people starting to be in charge are the Beautiful Ones from Calhoun’s rat Utopia and they’re so… Read more »
Krusty-
I’ll play devil’s advocate and point out the highly-urbanized Aussies began to show signs of life after the recent Orthodox church stabbing.
Check out the last two video clips here:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/guardian-ludicrously-reports-orthodox-bishop-was-allegedly-stabbed
Wild Geese: Are those genuine, European-descended Aussies? Because I read that the church – and the protestors challenging the police – are Assyrian. How much genetic distance between the Christian Assyrians and the Muslim stabber?
Don’t know why you got a down vote. Australia opened it’s immigration to the world after the 1970’s. It’s got a huge mix of population, as America does. It’s the stabbing of an Assyrian (off brand) Eastern Orthodox Bishop who is on TikTok. My guess is he was probably saying dumb things about ME Muslims, also in Australia.
The English simply don’t do these sorts of things. We do get stuck with vibrant diversity problems however.
Wifflle: Exactly my point. From what I’ve seen, all involved on both sides are post 1965 non-European immigrants to Australia. I do not subscribe to the school of thought that says all putative Christians equal a genetic brotherhood.
they are organized masculine christians. that’s enough for me
They are not Australians and they never will be.
To beat a dead horse. What persists is what “works” in a particular environment. Society evolves like every other living thing, and the traits that become dominant in a particular society (over a long time frame) are those that have organically proven to work for the inhabitants in that locale. There is no “striving” for an ideal, so promoting an abstract ideology is simply attempting to play God and impose a man-made alternative to natural evolution. As such, there is no “one size fits all.” There is, however, societal disease (again, just like every other living thing). Viruses, pathogens, parasites… Read more »
It’s really ironic to me that we can see what is needed because we have ton of examples in nature and yet we continue to narrate our own genocide…Boggles the mind…
One of the tragic downsides to having a complex brain capable of abstract thought is the vulnerability to propaganda. For simpler creatures if you want to kill them, you have to actively do it yourself. Man, however, can be talked into destroying himself.
This is another aspect of what Z calls ideology. Dogs and cats don’t genocide each other with visions of some perfect dogtopia in their heads.
“It’s really ironic to me that we can see what is needed because we have ton of examples in nature and yet we continue to narrate our own genocide…Boggles the mind…” The “problems” that “we” have are those of people who are too rich, too secure, too well-fed, and who have way too much time on their hands. Life *requires* adversity not only to make it meaningful, but quite simply to keep it from degenerating into what we live with today. Without *natural* adversity, people will generate adversity in the form of the various “problems” that everybody is always yammering… Read more »
Hence covid and the vaccines that cause heart problems. It was and is an effort to cull the herd. But the virus wasn’t lethal enough, nor were the vaccines.
The problem with the virus option is that if it’s too lethal, it could get out of hand and kill the wrong people. They undershot on the lethality.
Off-topic, so I apologize. But speaking of rightwing pundits/commenters/activists; what happened to this Richard Spencer fellow?
I watched a video of him the other day being interviewed by black Guardian journalist Gary Younge. Spencer said some of the most offensive things one can imagine – so seemed under no illusions of the race issue. He really went in all guns blazing, as far as I could see.
My understanding is that he has since “mellowed” or “sold out” – but that is what I picked up from this blog, one of the five websites I read, so forgive my ignorance.
Can you provide a link to it? I think I actually recall such an interview Spencer did some years ago. I don’t think Spencer was ever any good for DR or what was called Alt-Right politics 8 years ago. He is a total screw up besides. Some of the things he’s done are so retarded that you have to conclude he was working for the enemy. For example, his supporters all got doxed by someone he allowed to have access to his member database. Then, after that doxing, he stated he would be willing to give this same doxer a… Read more »
This is the one. Admittedly, it popped up as I was just finishing a Jared Taylor lecture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puJ-arJgkZU
I’d never heard Mr. Spencer speak before, but what he was saying (don’t know if he believed it), was quite blunt, and delivered in an almost mocking and pitying tone. Particularly at the end when Mr. Younge reasoned that if blacks hadn’t been taken as slaves from Africa, it would have been much better; Spencer’s look and blunt reaction are priceless.
This wasn’t the interview I was thinking of, but I did see this one too. The one I was thinking of was like an hour long special. Thanks for the link.
A couple of years ago Spencer gave up on the immigration issue because he believes it’s over, there’s nothing that can be done, demographic change is baked in the cake, etc.
As for other issues, I don’t know, I gave up on taking him seriously since there’s been a pattern of being a contrarian in order to, in my opinion, shock or get attention. There’s also a pattern of Spencer burning bridges with those who have collaborated with him. I think it’s best to ignore him.
Spencer was in an interesting talk with “Millennial Woes,” in the latter’s series of Milleniyule podcasts around the end of last year. Spencer was kind of all over the place. He showed the charm that he’s capable of, and he’s clearly a bright guy, but I wouldn’t say he inspired confidence with some of his judgments, both in that podcast and in his previous actions. The Milleniyule talk is worth watching/listening to, though. Enjoyable, if you can still stand the sight and sound of Spencer.
I admit that I fell into the trap when I was younger, but in hindsighted amuses me that they tried to reduce conservative into something like a ten commandments of life. You know, stuff like “thou shalt not have high taxes,” “thou shalt support Israel,” and other such catechisms. You’re right about people trying to field these new right conservative superstars, but as far as I’m concerned most of them are scum. You might as well follow Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce. They are arguably more interesting than MTG, “groypers” and Lauren Boebert parading around her multi-generational family of ferals.… Read more »
But what about the DR? I’m not saying there should be some sort of a priori catechism for a DR policy platform, but we can certainly descry traits and stances that are common on the DR and are even perhaps necessary. The difference, I suppose, is between prescription and description. But once you describe are you prescribing?
” … they tried to reduce conservative into something like a ten commandments of life. You know, stuff like “thou shalt not have high taxes,” “thou shalt support Israel,” and other such catechisms.” Very well stated. You have gone right to the heart of the matter; to the Truth. For there is no such thing as conservative ideology, nor can there be. Ideology and conservatism are mutually exclusive, for the conservative lives life without reference to ideology. His grounding is in received custom and tradition, to which he gives little, if any, “thought.” His bedrock values are stability, continuity, tradition,… Read more »
As soon as you accept biological reality, most arguments about how we ought to live become superstition Yes – I agree one-hundred percent. However, as we all know here, infighting and disagreement become far less of a problem in a racially similar society. That’s not to say that whites don’t have various forms of factionalism and fighting; it’s just that they are not so great a barrier to a functioning society overall. We’re finding out, all of us first hand, what it’s like with 60% percent white, 10% musselman, 20% black and Heaven knows what else. Not good at all,… Read more »
Oh, the West has hard limits on “extremities,” alright. Anybody to the right of Jacques Lacan and Leon Trotsky will not be tolerated.
I think ice pick for both of us when I say:
I agree
“We simply cannot live side-by-side with people who believe in this stuff, believe in equality across the board; not to mention other races/cultures.” Sadly, it’s even worse than that. They preach equality, but they don’t mean it. What they want and impose is White inferiority. When team brown can win, like in certain sports, that’s just meritocracy. But when they can’t win, it’s because we’re cheating and need to crushed and humiliated. Same with the trannies and homos. This is why they love pushing the whole bearded man in a dress or people like “Kerry/Kayla Lemieux.” They want us to… Read more »
This is Dalrymple in a nutshell; by even ceding the possibility, one loses all ability to respect oneself, and morale is lost. This is the manner in which the dice are loaded.
“To be forced to tell such obvious lies in the face of truth eats at our soul and makes us less able to resist … ” True. It even makes us complicit in the lies to a certain extent. Dalrymple went on to say that the purpose is not to convince but to humiliate. If you can oblige somebody to parrot lies, you humiliate them, making them, as you say, easy marks. ” … and that’s why they do it.” Many of them, yes, no doubt. But I suspect that most do it b/c they actually believe the nonsense they… Read more »
For “Rufoism” to have any chance of success, the Supreme Court would have to overturn part or all of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and restore at least the private freedom of association. Some serious people think that’s what Gorsuch is aiming at, but it’s hard to imagine Roberts or ACB going along.
Even if they did, the regime would no doubt respond as they have with Dodd, and do everything in their power to undermine the decision, but it’s an interesting thought experiment.
They would have to overturn Brown as well. Frankly, I think you would need to remove the Reconstruction amendments. If it is possible to do that, then it is possible to start from a blank sheet of paper and not try to patch up what turned out to be a failed experiment.
Rufo suffers from the same incorrect assumption that every colorblind CivNat starts with: he just assumes that other races think like he does. When I occasionally tweak the Sailer crowd, I ask them that very question. What if other races don’t want a colorblind society? What if they find it immoral? Rufo, Anton and Sailer types just assume that other groups will want what maybe a slight majority of white men (but not white women) want. They really believe the natural in natural rights. Heck, even the victory over AA in colleges was Asians complaining about being discriminated against. They… Read more »
Citizen: Spot on. Whatever they all claim they are championing, their goal is not “What is best for White people?” They may not be active enemies, but neither are they in any way legitimate allies.
They’re not anti-white because they’re pro-white. They’re anti-white because they’re pro-colorblind.
But it never dawns on them that maybe, just maybe, other groups think differently. They’re as bad as libertarians.
With all due respect, anyone who isn’t helping, is most likely hurting our cause.
Z — Correct that ideology is d-e-d. This is a religious war. But failed experiment? I see neither experiment nor failure. Race Grievance Industry, institutionalized and dominant Feminism, homo and tranny celebrationism, open borders etc. . . . all of these elements were quite intentionally created and seeded-in incrementally to the population, with a desired result based on long-settled mass-behaviorism. Human behavior at the collective level is, sadly, predictable and manipulable. The mass-com age provided the platforms. As for ‘failure’, the Project has been a massive success across the anglo, and western, worlds. With deep inroads into the East. New… Read more »
The American Experiment comes down to the problem of building a nation on ideas. Which is why it keeps failing— wrong tool for the job.
” … building a nation on ideas.”
Bingo! It does viloence to the very meaning and etymology of the word “nation,” which is derived from the Latin “natus” meaning “to be born.” A nation *by definition* is a people related by blood. How can there be a nation of ideas or a “proposition nation.”
Who would are to suggest that “the Navajo Nation” could be founded on a proposition? Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth!?
It’s nonsense.
Just like nearly everything nowadays.
Interesting that we’re even considering these possibilities when a school marm lopping off your third-grader’s schlong is holy writ and negroes are worshiped as seraphim and cherubim. What’s intimated here is that there is a radical chasm (ideological?) between the judiciary and AINO’s Power Structure. I’m not necessarily denying the possibility, but it would be pretty remarkable if true.
“Conservative” Justice Neil Gorsuch is a case in point. He claimed at his confirmation hearing that judges have to rule in ways they don’t like when the law compels them to do so. Once on the bench, he extended civil rights law to apply to trannies and acknowledge it was not part of the law.
Gosh. Gorshuch a serial liar. Who would have thought it?
The United States will split into several successor states (peaceably or otherwise) long before the 1964 Civil Rights Act is overturned or the Reconstruction Amendments are repealed.
That has already happened; they just haven’t drawn new lines on the maps.
The experiment succeeded right up to the War. Messily, as any sophisticated understanding would predict. But the central government was denied the power it would need to accomplish everything it did accomplish in the following 159 years. Suffrage was limited to white men and it excluded many of those as well. Suffrrage advanced from less than half of white man to, by the War, 100% of white men. In 1920 followed the deluge. My Frenchman wrote that universal suffrage was the bane of democracy even before women were a factor, and not only was it a “detesable element of government”… Read more »
Ideology is borne from K-selected peoples. I’m trying to think of which peoples have created philosophies and ideologies and then tried their hardest to graft it onto the world’s other peoples? *Definitely European Man (later including Russian Man and Ashkenazi Man). They created the fires from which the world is now burning. *East Asian Man to a lesser extent. They have philosphies but not ideologies so much, they import ideologues, and they took to Democracy and then Marxism with gusto. Others like South Korea and Taiwan do Liberalism very well. *Indian Man? They started Buddhism and all sorts of hippie-dippie… Read more »
*Irish Man.
The most wildly successful of all, with St. Patrick’s Day, Conor MacGregor, and U2.
Heh. Whilst they’re very easy to mock, the Irish have produced some outstanding minds: the mathematician William Rowan Hamilton and the physicist George Gabriel Stokes, to name two.
They do like a drink, though…
And while I’m here and on the subject, two of my favourite characters of times gone by:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nicholson_(East_India_Company_officer)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddy_Mayne
William Butler Yeats was a dam’ good Mick. Some folks even hold James Joyce in high regard.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. Surely some revelation is at hand; Surely the Second Coming is at hand. The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert A shape with lion body and the head of… Read more »
And they are also importing one million black Africans into a country the size of South Carolina. So, yeah, they really re easy to mock.
Rufo destroyed Yarvin. Basically, real deeds (“facts on the ground”) versus whining inaction waiting for der Based Aryan Superman.
Foundational America was organized around a People.
Revolutionary America was organized around ideology.
Industrial America was organized around the exigencies of the marketplace.
Post-industrial/financial collapse America will be organized around a People.
If you think about it, the system they put in place could have changed into whatever the people felt appropriate, as long as it was those people making the decision. Like, the Seeds of Albion could have passed a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the Constitution but it was based on the assumption that they knew what they were doing (and this was also what they themselves did by moving from the Articles to the Constitution). Instead we got the inverse, where a bunch of tyrants, degenerates, and lunatics took over the system, kept the trappings of it, but changed everything… Read more »
“ The Supreme Court might be a well-designed institution, but it can’t function with people like Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor running it,…” The above seems like an oxymoron. How can a well designed institution accept such political mediocrities and be called “well designed”. I maintain that the SCOTUS was ill-designed as it assumed something not in evidence—that members would be “apolitical” and that all would have a higher allegiance to the Constitution rather than to a political ideology. In short it failed to account for the weaknesses of man. I have no solution myself, and do not particularly fault the… Read more »
Marbury v. Madison. SCOTUS wasn’t intended to deal with constitutionality of laws.
The Constitution is an expression of the spirit of the people. Says as much in the preamble. That got turned backwards pretty quickly. If you can fault the Framers, it’s for that. Ideas, not people.
I tend to think that the Founders did not recognize the danger that the fairly undefined power of the Supreme Court could be when usurped by a raging partisan idealogue such as Chief Justice Marshall.
Perhaps the Founders were influenced by the unwritten constitution of Great Britain, and failed to grasp that a written constitution would be susceptible to Marshall’s naked power grab in ways not to be seen in that unwritten constitution with which they were familiar.
Yep, that’s probably true, but even writing down the rules implies a step away from spirit. They were coming out of the Anglo tradition, and maybe it was seen as necessary to make things explicit in the absence of tradition, but it ended up being a change in direction, and I doubt they could’ve been completely aware of it.
CPT Willard, I admire how succinctly you make an excellent point.
Wow! Well said Captain Willard. This is one of the best posts I have ever seen, anywhere. Take a bow.
However, after the collapse there will be no America. Hell, there isn’t one now. But you’re right that blood and soil will soon prove determinitive.
“Revolutionary America was organized around ideology.” Wellll … I don’t think I can go along with that although I do know what you mean by it. And Puritan New England very likely believed in the ideology stuff. But the plantation South? JEfferson’s text in the Declaration was a very conscious propaganda effort of a country already at war. They wanted–had to have–French support, and the Committee knew that Jefferson could write the kind of BS that was trendy in France at that time. And it worked like a charm. But Ben Franklin wrote, years after independence, that the *real* reason… Read more »
“The problem with this, the reason that ideology must always fail, is that it never considers if the end is possible or even plausible.” It’s in the nature of the ideal. Timeless, universal, uncorrupted, not in this world, not ultimately compatible with it. “Ideology is an invention of Western man, the weeds that grew out of the rubble of the Thirty Years War.” The loss of religion, which is the loss of spirit, or will. This takes a long time, but you’re left with the critical ideal (because you’ll always fall short of it), and the desires of the flesh.… Read more »
It seems to me that the organization of all societies is based on both the practical and moral – at least in the sense of right and wrong. I guess the practical is always evolving, hopefully for the betterment of society, while the moral should be stable over time – which is not what we have now. The moral has evolved (and practical devolved) into a freak show which is tearing our society apart.
usNthem, That’s a good way to put it. A 50 year old man abducting a schoolgirl will always be wrong. Lying and cunning will always be wrong. Stealing a watch from a jewellers will always be wrong… Well, except in Clown World. It is the moral foundation that has begun disintegrating, and the loss of Christ from our hearts must surely explain it to a large degree. One thing I tell people often, when they tell me that our society has progressed, is: No. Our technology has progressed. In every other measure we’re likely worse. This statement seems so obvious… Read more »
Indeed. Progress is a chimera. And even our undoubted advances in medical science and technology have begotten multifarious other unanticipated problems that largely cancel out the gains. Are whites actually happier in 2024 than we were in 1524? We certainly live longer, but I’m by no means certain we’re happier.
All civilizations that are advancing leave the seeds for their decline. The Greeks declined rapidy. Perhaps the Romans lasted so long because they stopped advancing after inventing property law and concrete, while carrying letters as a numerical system throughout. The Chinese were like that. The Renaissance broke that mold but even there we are experiencing its seeds of decline.
On the other hand, we do have vaccines, so there’s that. (-;
I believe that this is why so many revolutionaries attack established morals. We all know that this is part of the Communist playbook, but it was also true in the French and Iranian revolutions.
We now have the answer to James Madison’s question in Federalist Paper #1: “whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from ref[l]ection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force.” We *are* capable of establishing good government, but only when circumstances of accident and force support that goal. Otherwise, we regress to a state of barbarism or savagery, whose level depends on the history, culture, and biological traits of the populations involved. However, that doesn’t mean we are completely helpless. Occasionally, the stars *do*… Read more »
It can only work in a homogenous society. A society that elevates low IQ, violent savages over its natural citizens who built said society will fail 100% of the time. ‘Merica, or whatever we call this hellscape dump now is living proof.
The problem is essential the fallacy of equality. Race not withstanding. Seems the more we believe such nonsense, the more we seek to destroy our “betters”. As they remind us of this reality and our own inabilities/mediocrity.
We no longer celebrate our good fortune in having such people among us. We no longer promote and elevate them. We no longer follow and allow them to guide us. Indeed, we elevate just the opposite people to rule over us. We “cut off our nose to spite our face”.
Equality can only be achieved by kneecapping the superior and transfiguring the inferior. This is, of course, what’s going on in AINO. And this afflatus is the very source of the Satanic Inversion.
Great post Z. As Plato showed 2500 years ago, no government type is stable in the long run, and is destined to evolve. There’s no “right” way to organize society, and when societies get reorganized, it is largely to address the wrongs of the system they are revolting against, with a secondary concern being how well will that system address the unknown unknowns. A good system is adaptable (and perhaps this why monarchies stuck around for so long – a monarch can change his mind based on practical concerns!), but even then, at some point it ceases to be the… Read more »
The biological organizing principle that Z seems consistently to prefer, the practical v. moral dichotomy, is itself an ideology.
Perhaps, but a eugenic ideology is both moral and practical, although its ethics differ from the current consensus, such as it is.
This is negation by conflation. Conflating the descriptive with the prescriptive is a way of dealing with Hume’s guillotine by declaring that there are no truly descriptive statements. The ID’ers love doing this by declaring “Darwinism” a form of religion. Hume’s guillotine remains undefeated, however, because non-contextual reality must exist for us to exist, unless one is prepared to argue that we are a figment of our own imagination.
Samuel Johnson: I refute it thus.
Though, to be fair, I would say that that the moment you start creating umbrella categories such as “biological reality,” you have introduced, inductively and implicitly, conclusions about the essence of those things beyond the descriptive components. I am not expert on Hume, but I believe this touches on his fallacy or whatever of uniformity of nature.
But, to be fair, again, who wants to live near diversity?
I refute it thus 🙂
” … unless one is prepared to argue that we are a figment of our own imagination.”
Well … that would explain a good deal or stuff that is otherwise inexplicable. A kind of delusion.
The Left has conclusively proven over the last century that culture can, in fact, be idealogically driven and changed. The ascention of the trannies didn’t happen by accident. It took generations of committed effort.
True—and a powerful argument against rule by ideologues and other know-it-alls. Hubris does not produce good results.
Was there really a long march to tranny teachers sneaking hormones into the kids, or was it accomplished instantly—underlings swarming on command to manifest the will of one pervert, our king, or a few, our royalty? Your sense while it was happening is that it happened suddenly, right? There wasn’t much “while it was happening.” There was something like an autocratic decision made somewhere, then quickly implemented and harshly enforced everywhere. One day trannies are the weirdest sex maniacs, rare even in fetish pornography, and the next they’re our masters, in charge of the nation’s child raising and moral uplift… Read more »
Valid, but I would counter that this is the natural byproduct of the degenerate consumer culture and advertising age we exist in. This would make it around 100 years in the making.
Consumer culture ultimately makes identity based on the artificial (buying that which is not me to make me) – and what is more attention grabbing and off the shelf than a sundress transforming 55 year old mirror aroused John into 17 year old Jane?
Tranny characters started to appear in pop culture aimed at children more than a decade ago. It wasn’t overnight, but your point that it didn’t take generations also is true. What is described as “emergent behavior” in the sociopolitical context almost invariably is directed and prompted.
The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert came out in 1994. Too Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar in 1995. The latter the one where Patrick Swayze, Wesley Snipes, and John Leguizamo portrayed drag queens. I dunno if those were aimed at children, but I’m certain they weren’t hidden from children. The latter rated PG 13.
Of course Victor/Victoria was a dozen years earlier. Around the same time as Tootsie, which broached the topic more deceptively.
Hell, Blofeld dressed in drag in Diamonds Are Forever (1971). And he was played by heauxmeaux Charles Gray.
Bert & Ernie.
You know?
Simplify, please. I realize there is a butt-ton behind the ‘why’, the driving ideology, but the practical matter is that Tranny, Inc. is a marketing campaign for Teva Pharma in Israel*, and the fact that Michelle is a man.
*The clinics, having gone from 3 to 2500 in a few years as profit-making centers for Teva, the only maker of gender transition drugs. This is a shiny new thing like wind turbines or Prohibition.
Teva is not the only manufacturer of transition drugs. They are only one of several companies making generic versions of standard hormone replacement therapies, which have been around for ages to treat menopause (m->f) or “legal” performance enhancing drugs (f->m).
They may have something new; I don’t know. My PDR is the last printed edition, from 2017. Trans Inc predates 2017, though…
True. But all these decades of frenzied and focused effort, instead of producing utopia are resulting in dystopia. Don’t all utopian projects end thus?
Most utopian schemes I’ve looked into share the same fault. They think the means they desire will bring about the end that they desire just because they are good people or something.
I think you can either define a movement by means (Golden rule, for example), or maybe an end state (judging from history, usually some kumbayah crap) but you don’t get to select both end and means except for some very special cases.
Read Hawthorne’s The Blithesdale Romance, for it covers this issue beautifully.
The interview with Granza is interesting. He seems to have nearly crossed the great divide but isn’t sure if he wants to come ashore. However, from what he says, I’d be pretty damn surprised if he hadn’t read Z. As to Z’s post, it clarifies again that we are no longer a people. Indeed, the entire West has lost that foundation, which is why ideology takes center stage. When you are a people, how to run society focuses on practical matters. It’s no different than a person who knows himself. If you feel comfortable with who you are, you spend… Read more »
Thanks for the prompt. I read the Granza interview in its entirety and really enjoyed it. Only afterwards did I scan to see who the interviewer was–thank God. If the Rod Dreher byline had been known beforehand the content would not have been appreciated.
Granza is close, but he hasn’t yet reached the culture is downstream from biology stage – at least not publicly.
Once you understand that, everything clears up.
“Publicly.” Reading between the lines, Granza already has arrived. He touches on biological realities several times with his discussion of mass migration and acknowledgement the people Adams said were necessary for the system he created were more than simply churchgoers. Claremont funding and Dreher interviews are not possible in the present environment when someone rings the bell after walking up to it. Even the walking part was vilified not so long ago, so the open discussion is moving in the right direction.
a VERY FINE COMMMENT. bUT THIS
“Since Americans are no longer a people, ”
IS TRUE ONLY PARTIALLY. tHERE is AN aMERICAN pEOPLE, EVEN TODAY.
bUT i KNOW WHAT YOU WERE GETTING AT WITH THAT STATEMENT.
> Their prize is something like what the French philosopher Jacques Derrida called hauntology.
As much as the right has lambasted the post-modernists, It’s hard to conclude they had nothing useful to say, even if their ultimate world-view is antithetical to ours.
“It is easy to forget, but ideology is a relatively novel thing in the history of man.”
Aren’t Catholic Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. also ideologies at the individual scale (such as your afterlife depends on the credit score you accumulate in current life)? Maybe I am missing something here.
Buddhism is more of a lifeway or philosophy rather than an ideology or a religion.
Religions have scripture and are gnostic. I think you can turn an ideology into a religion but not the other way around.
The distintion between ‘religion’ and ‘ideology’ that the Zman is making is this: the Enlightenment attempt to get away from the wars of religion. Even the Buddhist wars were genocidal.
Thus, the Age of Reason. Taking out an instinctive hierarchy of authority– that is, “for God, King, and Country”, what the religious refer to as “we lost God!”, a natural understanding of order in one’s personal perspective– led to the scramble of ‘every man for himself’ in the opportunism of modern democracy, equality, and capitalism.
“Aren’t Catholic Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. also ideologies”
No.
“Maybe I am missing something here.”
Yes.
You could trace it back to Luther, who thought he could create a new religion out of misinterpreting scripture.
I would add that ideology is also the product of sufficient leisure and surplus goods fhanks to the Industrial, Green and Technological Revolutions. A potential outcome is these ongoing revolutions enable a ruthlessly realistic, managerial approach to human affairs. Haiti doesn’t get”foreign aid;” Haiti gets an occupying robot/drone army distributing MREs and tazer shocks, as needed.
“Haiti gets an occupying robot/drone army distributing MREs and tazer shocks, as needed.”
If only!
Biological determinism will be denied until the day it cannot be. The door to putting an end to this avoidance may have been opened, ironically enough, by the Left’s claim that “whiteness” more or less is a genetic defect much like a predisposition toward disease. If “whiteness” is biologically predetermined, what else is? Everything, of course. Yes, the power centers will try to contain the principle but is that possible? Expansive discussion of the concept has been pushed underground about as long as possible. This move beyond radical equalitarianism toward what is in effect an argument for extermination and genocide… Read more »
It is remarkable (also unexpected and ironic) that in just the last 5 years or so, the “left” has done more to promote biological determinism, and also “antisemitism,” and bring them into the mainstream, than anyone else has in a very long time. The recent growth of the DR is far more due to them than to its own efforts. The “colorblind” society persisted as long as it did, and fooled as many civnats as it did, because the left played along with it. Now that they’ve stopped playing, the only question is why any civnats still do.
Recep Erdogan: “(D)emocracy is like a train; you get off once you have reached your [real] destination.” CivNats take all of their cues, and I do mean all, from the Left. Even their positions in alleged opposition are the moral leftist framework. Now that their directors have told the white ones that they are evil, I suspect those who do not wake up, which will be the majority, will embrace the idea. The Conservative Case for White Genocide is waiting to happen. I don’t really buy that our enemies are destroying themselves, at least as of now, but they no… Read more »
Jack: “Ideology is reality avoidance presented as an intellectual exercise.” Excellently put. Just another credentialed way to avoid reality. And why I cannot find the desire to read today’s links. Claremont – founded by Jew Harry Jaffa and pushing ‘natural rights.’ Yarvin – a strange looking and sounding Jew with an obsessive following. Rufo – a cuckservatard married to a Thai who believes the system can be fixed, piecemeal, via lawfare. And they all claim to be the champions of Western Civilization. I am so, so over all these mental masturbators. Either one accepts the reality and highly-predictive nature of… Read more »
I do recommend the linked Granza interview–highly. I had the great fortune of not reading the byline until completing the piece. It would have been spoiled otherwise.
Jack: Appreciate the recommendation, but avoiding it is – in a way – the whole point of my comment. I’m just not interested in yet one more account of how some guy is finally, tortuously, figuring out racial reality. One more tale of “Oh, yeah. I guess the theories don’t comport with reality.” I am very far past all that, and just no longer find it of interest. People who get it, and alter their choices and lives to better align with reality – are generally busy doing – not debating. I understand the point of Zman’s posts are to… Read more »
I’ll reup and recommend it again because of the substance involved. It isn’t what disgusts you (and me)–a tortured admission of sorts wrapped in an apologia is not what it is. As for the interviewer, well, that is a different matter and I wouldn’t have read it, either, if the author had been known to me beforehand.
This chick is so right that it is blinding. Respect to the lady for her perspacacity.
There is no point is entertaining these shadow dances when you see the reality, as does the lady. Shut up and learn from her clear vision.
As I read this something memories of um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um Yarvin came to me. His analogy of the Monarch is the CEO. The CEO is the monarch. In other words, Yarvin is a quintessential managerialist and mercantilist. A CEO is not a monarch. He is a manager with an extremely narrow view – pursuing the well-being of his business and maximizing profits and product quality. He considers nothing else. This is why a mercantilist society is doomed. Its most powerful people may end up spending and bending all of their energy and wealth destroying… Read more »
Will the emergent aristocrats be from the Warrior or the Priest castes? I don’t think we make Princes anymore.
The truly successful emperors have been both. That is the difference between Augustus and Napoleon, or the First Reich and the Third.
I intuitively suspect that you are right. But one should not forget that both Napoleonic France and the third Reich were only a few avoided mistakes (and less robust Russian adversaries) away from being far more permanent than they turned out to be. Contingencies do matter
“I don’t think we make Princes anymore.”
Let us agree, rather, that princes are not made famous anymore. One does not see princes on TeeVee or in People Magazine. But we do still make them. They are out there.
that we have government promoting this “public private partnership” (PPP) b.s. is a fairly obvious example of idiocracy. We have to suffer the indignity of Barnum statements like that and “defending our democracy” .
The “Public” in PPP does not represent the voter (whatever that means nowadays) but the hijacked globohomo government.
Democracy, as we all know, is just sodomy.
The very idea of just leaving people alone will never occur to them, If something is good and also not theirs, it must be taken or destroyed.
Lest anyone forget, or never knew, Yarvin was an enthusiastic proponent of Seasteading. Its members have the admirable need to divorce themselves from the madness of the world that rules us, which is an exellent cause, and absolutely not one particle of practical awareness.
Well I think the way forward may lie in the past. One of the bloggers (might have been Z) said that Rome bounced between tyrants and democracy as the situation dictated. Power and money corrupt. When your leader or leaders stop working, they are killed and swept aside. Human nature is what it is. If you allow greed and corruption to take hold in your leadership, and the people being governed are apathetic…no system or ideology is going to hold. There’s nothing new under the sun. The American Empire’s problems are “people” problems. Nothing will change until our leaders are… Read more »
Two difficult questions:
What are people really like?
What is the best way for them to live together?
The answers will vary with which group of people you deal with.
Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, English and Franks didn’t posses an equivalent to modern universities. Those matriculated were indoctrinated by ideologues with ideologies acceptable to the state. Ideologies became new religions that supplanted the old ones and molded the public eventually so it no longer had faith or common sense.