Note: Behind the green door I have a post why you should fill up your diet with seed oils, a post about losers and the Sunday podcast. Subscribe here or here.
In the early days of the internet, people started to notice that there was another side to the mass accumulation of information online. The information piling up in databases and data centers was not just public information, but also what had always been assumed to be private information. Pictures of your home and maybe even you outside cutting your grass could now turn up in the public square, without you knowing it. Lots of things about your life were now public information.
Suddenly, a degenerate with free time could figure out things about you that he could not know in the past. Of course, this became a temptation for people to nose around in the lives of coworkers and neighbors. The more information that piled up online, the less privacy everyone could expect. Quickly we were moving into glass houses and subjected to the unwanted gaze. The only place where you can be free of the gaze is in your own mind, and even there the synopticon is hunting for data.
Of course, in typical American fashion, the same people gathering up your private information and making it public now sell services to keep your private information as private as possible in this age. On the other hand, people told by the state to gather your private information for things like banking are reckless with their security, so it is regularly stolen and published by gangsters. Again, in typical American fashion, the reckless people never pay a price for it.
We are quickly reaching the point where nothing is private and anything of private value will be stolen. One result of this is no one cares about the private. The rise of profilicity is a response to the collapse of individual privacy. Since no one has a private life, what distinguishes us is the public profile we create. This profile is just about disconnected from the person playing the profile. In other words, the collapse in privacy has eliminated the value in having private things.
It is tempting to blame this on technology, which is the mistake made by privacy advocates in the last century. In typical American fashion, they assumed there was a mechanical solution to a moral or spiritual problem. In the case of privacy, they assumed new rules to guard your privacy would prevent the people who laugh at the concept of a rules-based society from harvesting your privacy. Unsurprisingly, privacy has collapsed despite the rules.
The reason for the collapse in privacy in America goes back to the civil right revolution in the middle of the last century. When the ruling elites transitioned from a rights-based moral framework to the civil rights moral framework, they had no choice but to abandon the concept of personal privacy, despite claims to the contrary. This is why Europe has been much better at enforcing privacy laws. They never had a civil rights revolution, so they have not fully internalized its moral structures.
The way to understand this is to think about the moral spectrum in the political order of 19th century America. The “good” pole was where the state played no role in the decisions made by the citizens. People were on their own to sort things. The bad pole was where the citizens needed permission to do things. The concept of individual rights was not to carve out a free space for the citizen. It was to carve out space for the state to do the narrow purposes of collective security.
The civil rights revolution in the middle of the 20th century abandoned this old spectrum, which had been discredited, at least in the collective reasoning of the emerging managerial class, in the great struggle against the economic crisis of the 1930’s and the war on fascism in the 1940’s. What the civil rights revolution did was replace this old and largely civic moral paradigm with a new paradigm. The goal of which was not maximum liberty but maximum access.
The open society concept, popularized in America by Karl Popper and now George Soros, is the end point of this new moral paradigm. The new poles are openness, access, and diversity at the “good” end. The bad end is discrimination, which can only come through the mechanism of barriers to entry, so the ultimate bad thing in this new society is the locked door. The goal of the open society is to find every locked door and bust it down in order to maximize openness.
One of the immediate results of this moral revolution at the top was the end of public discrimination through the violent overthrow of the old segregation systems, in both the North and the South. What followed was pogrom after pogrom to breakdown every locked door that could be found in private America. Men’s clubs, for example, were forced to accept women or face endless litigation for discrimination. The Boy Scouts were handed over to pedophiles for the same reason.
Long before degenerates were googling your name looking for private information, the state was hunting around for locked doors on the assumption that there were private people collectively closing themselves off from others. If one wants to look for the logic behind the claim that nonwhites have a right to access white people, it lies in the fundamental logic of the open society. In a world where discrimination is the ultimate evil, everyone has a right to everyone, even their intimate life.
There is, ironically, a private benefit to this. Certain members of the ruling class benefit through the anathematization of preference. In a world where it is immoral for you to prefer not to associate with certain people, it is unacceptable for the masses to prefer that certain people not have access to power. At the same time, the ruling class as a whole benefits from the fact that it is close to impossible to organize opposition when everything must be done in plain sight.
The collapse of privacy is the logical outcome of the civil rights revolution and the synopticon that has involved to enforce it is a practical necessity. Humans are naturally self-organizing and naturally self-segregating. Unconscious bias is not just a weapon to compel submission to the new racial hierarchy but a way to condition the populace to question their own minds. A people who naturally feel in conflict with what they are told is the shared collective morality will remain docile.
Of course, much of the behavior from the ruling elite in the open society is designed to prevent asking basic questions, like who says discrimination is bad? Who or what is the moral authority for this claim? Why is diversity good? Why are my preferences less valid than the person on the television preaching about diversity? The collapse in individual and collective privacy makes it much easier to hunt down those asking these questions before they get too much of an audience.
The ultimate question is can such a system last? There is a reason why there are so few prison riots and history has not been kind to slave revolts. It is not just force that keeps the prisoner under control or the slaves from revolting. In every prison, inmates outnumber guards. Slaves always outnumber the overseers. What keeps them under control are the moral chains that tell them they deserve their position. A nation in such chains is as unlikely to revolt.
On the other hand, if the prisoners know the guards cannot rely on the state to protect them, the prisoners will begin to question the morality of their position. Similarly, if the social structures that make slavery possible collapse, then the slaves quickly overthrow their masters, even if it means their own death. One of the consequences of the open society is a deeply paranoid and conspiratorial ruling elite. They know more than anyone how near run things are for them.
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.
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
sa***@mi*********************.com
.
The private is about to make a comeback at the expense of the public. Mark my words, all this openness nonsense is going to swing hard in the opposite direction.
One thing we will most likely see is the death of public social connections, i.e. social media. I imagine many people will start to delete their social media profiles, tired with the all bullshit they have read and ingest by random and known weirdos.
Borders are coming up. Boundaries (literal and metaphorical) are being re-established.
I have cut many people out of my life, deleted my social media accounts and blocked many individuals. Many people will follow pursuit.
And only the parasites will complain about things becoming more closed, more private.
(((Karl Popper))), (((George Soros))), and (((Mark Zuckerberg))) can all go suck it.
Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Death by Openness
Why is diversity good?
There is a ton of fake “research” put out by academics in “Journals” allegedly supporting this claim. Everything from generic diversity improving productivity to women on the board improving profitability. There is fake “research” proving your neighborhood being taken over by diversity makes your housing value go up!!
The enemy controls both the journals and academia. Refuting the supposed findings of this shoddy advocacy masquerading as academic research is not allowed.
Diversity is a Strenth is !SCIENCE!, bigot.
OFF TOPIC: is Putin for real or just part of the kayfabe act?
I’m convinced most of the Cold War was kayfabe show that benefitted the rulers and wasn’t putin part of the WEF Klaus Schwab class along with all the other puppets?
It’s infighting between members of globohomo: The Anal Empire and Russia, Inc. Russian and Ukrainian nationalism is just the goyslop they feed their respective proles.
It’s possible.
Putin’s continued coddling of Ukraine makes is the reason I sometimes believe Putin is in on the whole thing.
Possible. I’d like to think it’s like Sting sang, “I hope the Russians love their children, too.”
Though I’m not convinced the West loves their children anymore…
“In typical American fashion, they assumed there was a mechanical solution to a moral or spiritual problem.”
A prog can never grok how there were no school shootings back in the 50s when schoolboys in NY took hunting rifles to school as routine. Then after decades of drenching the society in porn, drugs, violence, diversity, moral relativism, etc. they decry the current “gun issue.”
I doubt there was a family like the Cleavers even back in the 50s. But it was the proper ideal and certainly not an example of “vile fascism, sexism, blah, blah, blah.”
Dunno. I was a tail-end boomer, and when I went to HS, we wore belt knives, even sheath knives into school. I carried a butterfly. One of my friends had a 12″ blade, absolutely beautiful antler-handled Bowie. No one even thought to object. The gun racks in student parking generally had at least one varmint rifle.
And, yet, when fights broke out, the combatants would toss their knives onto the lawn before engaging. We had all seen death of livestock up front and personal, and understood it was permanent, so appreciated death was not something to take lightly.
Transvaluation of values. Pity. Revenge of the Nerds. Calling Nietzsche!
Btw, your immune system basically exists to identify and destroy invaders and cancer. It’s ‘fascist.’
Dare to be evil— to have evil thoughts, that is. We live in inverted times. You’ll find those evil thoughts aren’t so evil. Burn your Hitler costume. It’s childish, and you aren’t Hitler.
I’m still having a hard time understanding how America got to this point. Maybe the hardline notions of grace and salvation, all that hard morality, idk. I’m more inclined to think it’s diversity. Give Enlightenment ideals to an Englishman, you get an American Revolution; to a Frenchman, a French Revolution; to an African, a Haitian Revolution; etc. Sort of a regression to the mean going on here. Bit of Eastern influence creeping in with Germans. ‘48ers, Progressivism, Republicans were a midwestern party, etc.
OT, a thought that’s stuck with me from the weekend. I think from the podcast, European left is more materialistic, American left more moralistic. Likewise, European right more moralistic (tradition and custom— maybe my bias, I think culture and morality are intertwined), American right more materialistic (Capitalism!). Yet the American left attracted Marxists, American right attracted Christians, and both posed the part. Go figure!
I heard that bacon hoped America would be the great reset of Europe without the baggage of Christianity to hold her back. A society based on rationality not superstition. The new Atlantis.I think it worked!
Fair enough, but I think there’s enough moderation and irony to the Anglo character to make us poz resistant after a point. All men are created equal (wink, wink), the English Crown survives, etc. Seems like some others don’t have that, or are inclined to just go for it.
Our problem is that we tend towards greed and corruptibility imo.
“Long before degenerates were googling your name looking for private information, the state was hunting around for locked doors on the assumption that there were private people collectively closing themselves off from others.”
This is why people on the right need to stop thinking about the U.S. in terms of the “Land of the Free and the home of the Brave” bullshit and start recognizing it for what it really is, namely an ideological, totalitarian empire not nearly as different from the Soviet Union as you might think.
Just as in the USSR you had zero privacy, and anything you ever did or said or anyone you ever associated with who might be construed as a Trotskyite saboteur and traitor to the Revolution would be used against you, in the U.S. if you ever said “nigger” or “fag” or associated with anyone who did it will be found out and you will be ruined.
Unlike the USSR, which had to rely on filing cabinets full of typed paper documents, the digital revolution allows for a frighteningly and hitherto unthinkable amount of surveillance. And AI can infer what you are thinking even if you never actually said it.
It’s interesting to see how they “got” black Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Robinson in North Carolina six weeks before the election — they found some porn-related stuff that is decades old on him, now he’s toast. Who is going to win the election now? The Jew lawyer, Stein.
Probably all of the dirt on Robinson is true, but the question is, who is keeping track of all of it?
I am certain that Mossad/ZOG/CIA has dirt on every single politician and on anyone else that they want to go after. What in the hell do you think that Utah Data Center of for? Fighting al-Qaeda, LOL?
Of course, ironically if you are a true perv or weirdo on the Left you will be celebrated for being open about it, you are beyond criticism and beyond shame if you are some kind of tranny or queer like “Admiral” Levine.
“Land of the free”… Yep – get shot or stabbed to death by a negro and all he has to say is you called him a ni&&er and all is forgiven. “The White guy had it coming”.
“…in the U.S. if you ever said “nigger” or “fag” or associated with anyone who did it will be found out and you will be ruined.”
Which is why it is that much more essential that you develop side-hustles, and, if it’s at all in you, your own company or companies. Once you can’t be fired, they have a lot less leverage. And a sufficient number of shell companies/side hustles makes you immune to being unbanked.
I was online last week checking on my voter registration only to find that somebody had changed my voter registration to the other side of town. I’ve lived in the same place for 30 years. Since you need a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a social to do that online, I can only imagine where that information was obtained.
I remember in my childhood the Marxists (who still existed) would denounce the idea of a right to privacy as a desire to hoard (actual and metaphorical). Very old-fashioned. “So can we see what’s in the safe at the komissar’s dacha?” A ticket to the gulag.
When I was a teenager the people we now call “woke” made the transition from denouncing privacy as reaction against “openness to the other”—one “fascism of everyday life” of a thousand—to calling it a pathology of whiteness. It’s what they’d always meant, but now that they’d achieved victory, the only way left to increase their feeling of power was to stop pretending, so they did. Three decades later, the noticers nearly noticed.
The leftism of today holds that anything but continual self-doxing means you’re a loser—unless you’re a regime associate in good standing, in which case no one is allowed to know anything about you.
Progress!
What will end the present system will probably not be collapse or internal revolt but civilization at the gates.
The civil rights movement was a Jewish movement with the intent to abolish free association and allow Jews access to positions of power previously denied them. The non-white frontmen (e,g., MLK Jr.) had Jewish handlers who kept in the backround so as not to give away the game. The Jews have used this power to undermine the Christian society they loathe with the results you can see all around you: the normalization of the abnormal, chronic wars in the interests of Israel, and the financialization of the economy.
Good summary
“In a world where it is immoral for you to prefer not to associate with certain people”
What world is this? I’m not seeing this standard being applied universally.
Of course you don’t think the tech is an issue cause, imho, you’re a technocrat. Sorry, a Global Cosmopolitan Conservative. Patent pending? The subtext in this piece is…accept the logic of the synopticon.
If we use covid as an example, this is like saying, well, your kids are in school and school is the thing cause you need college or whatever reason. So them wearing masks is a given. What else would you do, right? You don’t have any other choices! I’m sure you could even bring in your distinction between civil rights with this issue.
However, the point is…then there were those of us who just homeschooled our kids.* They never got fucked up wearing masks all day in an antisocial, anti-education way. Our kids never got cell phones. They don’t even know what InstaTok is. When neighborhood families get together, no one plastered the photos all over your feed. The kids read constantly. They ride their bikes around and play in the woods. They get together and watch wholesome movies with their friends. There never was any pandemic for them nor were there any masks in the associating families. None. Period.
Yes, if you’re of a generation, you might think this sounds something like the 1980s.
And you’d be fucking right because the technology is the problem. True it’s only a tool but so is sex…doesn’t mean you have to watch porn.
Porn doesn’t argue like a child, doesn’t tell you its not in the mood, doesn’t give you silent treatment and expect you to mind read, doesn’t nag you about what her stupid friends think, doesn’t force you to go to cultural functions you find to be an utter waste of time, and also its free 😉
Errol Flynn and Charlie Sheen were onto something
Jeffrey, I don’t get the reference really. Can you explain? Thanks.
They are both credited with saying, “I don’t pay them for sex, I pay them to go away afterwards.”
Errol was not only famous for his swashbuckling movies, but also rumored to be quite a “ladies man”, basically a rabid hound dog and not always with willing or of age females. Charlie, is of a more modern era, so we know all about him and his drug induced exploits.
Why are you so down on women? I dislike flippant dismissal of women; my wife is a wonderful woman (and, yes, I am the head of the house, undisputedly). You can say jesting all you want, but there are two problems: 1) Jests only work if you believe they correlate to reality, and 2) This is not why porn is addictive.
IMAGO = I Married a Good One (-;
Imago Payee when you really get down to brass tacks.
There is plenty of good wive material out there. Some submissive, other simply smart enough to see the light. Only issue is that when “men” are thinking with their hormones, they can’t seem to make wise decisions.
If there were a better argument for arranged marriages…
That doesn’t describe any I’ve met under 40, sadly.
One can’t wait until his 30s and 40s to get serious about finding one. It gets much harder as they age. Before their low to mid 20s, it’s pretty easy. All you have to offer is the ability for her to be able to go back to the life of being provided for, not having to earn a living, grabbing a frozen pizza out of dad’s freezer whenever she’s hungry, etc.Once she’s figured out she can have a so-so life on her own earnings, uphill battle. You have to be SO much better.
I am under 40
well you didn’t raise the women then, i’m so used to be the youngest person on these chats
My parents were boomers, they were not typical boomers, no free love, no woodstock, no burning bras. Dated from junior high and are still together. They did it right, most of the people they grew up with have had multiple divorces, didn’t parent their kids cause they wanted to be the cool dad or mom and throw money at problems instead of actually dealing with them. And who says you don’t get the government you deserve 😉
Sorry. But it is true. I see all these people here complaining about women. Yeah, girl boss is awful. But they are the symptom. And, frankly, if you have enough charm and wits (and looks help), you can marry a good woman. All these older guys here complaining of women reek of the propoganda from the tv – like a poorly aged sitcom.
you do you, glad your happy.
Anything can be addictive, and you raised the women i deal with in an average setting. Lets just say your parenting left something to be desired. Women have life on easy mode for the most part, and all i’ve heard from them the past decade is some warp twisted version of man hating they call feminism. So yeah, i find the majority of them to be sub par. Like the single mother of two to two different guys at a place near me who is an easy 250 and lets her gut hangover her yoga pants exposing her vicros vains. And who said anything about hate? I pointed out some cons and you immediatly jump to hate? How are you any different then people that pointed out George floydd wasn’t a saint and then were called racist?
Depends on your age, I think. The older you get, the more of a sugar daddy you have to be. Probably your late 20s, maybe early 30s is the last you can get by on your charisma and boyish charm. After that, the only reason she would choose you is your affluence or her desperation.
Actually i think you have it backwards. First thing i noticed in Highschool (mine was 7-12) was the pretty girls in my grade dating older guys and football players. The young ones are giving me more attention now then when i was in my 20’s. Women have a nature, we can admit it and work with it, or ignore it and praise them to the high heavens for having a vagina. That only does not a good person make.
Right. Women don’t want boys. HS girls have been bragging up their real or imagined college BFs my whole life.
I’m somewhat surprised they are going after someone in his 30s, though. Are there really no desirable upper 20s, or are the ones in your AO just radically different than my daughter and her friends?
And if they are throwing themselves at you, why are you complaining?
This guy has good takes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN_BDrVjWvU
Good, but probably not true. There are shallow women. Yes. There are also shallow men. They deserve each other. You want the girl next door.
Pron is a horrible idea not just because it corrupts your soul (though that might be the best reason) but because it also corrupts your relationships. Like it or not, pron makes you less perceptive, and, to be crass, less able to give her the orgasm she needs to keep the marriage vital.
Both second-wave feminism and the vast majority of porn have the same originators. Don’t use feminists, thots, and poor choices in girlfriends/wives to justify discivilizational porn.
back when the church ran things and they wanted you to have babies, mastrabating was a sin, now that they don’t want you to have babies due to declining resources, degeneracy is all the rage. I’m just making observations dude.
“Dude” 😉
If your church is preaching fewer kids, get the hell out of there. Yesterday. That is not Biblical. “Be fruitful and multiply” is.
I believe his point is that the values of the times dictated the employment of the technology; in these times with these values, technology will be employed towards these ends. Z seems to be referencing the values of the society and elites, not of those who object. And, the majority of the population does accept the morals of the elites, as proven by the specific example you provide and its relative scarcity.
Yes, that’s fine and good but not the point I’m making exactly.
Z has to dismiss the technology angle because as a technocrat, he wants you to accept the technological state as a given, to see it as being the only option in your family’s life. This is easy to do by pushing a culture war issue that’s been manufactured by the damn elite we’re talking about to use as a wedge issue, much as Z is using it here.
Note I’m not saying “manufactured” as in fake but “manufactured” as in designed and implemented with the intent to use it as a wedge issue, among other reasons.
However, the history of privacy and the loss of it coincides, uncontroversially, with the rise of technology in the 1500s up until and accelerating in the early 1900s with the Great Wars. You can easily find the history of it and as it relates to the rise of espionage by governments, both abroad and in domestically. Again, early 1900s.
I concur with this.
I think you miss my point. The fact is, when discussing society in general, this is the only option.
I would be classified as a luddite. But most people are brain dead, tech worshipping zombies. The technocracy is inevitable at a large scale, based on how the world exists.
Z doesn’t write much about family issues; he writes about broad trends. And, I have to agree. This has nothing to do with what should be or what counter currents one may try to cultivate. At scale, this is the only option.
Yes, and as I said, Z is flat wrong about the broad trend causes here. You also are wrong in what you’re saying based on data.
On Z, it’s not even controversial to say the rise of espionage and technology are the root cause of changing mores regarding privacy. Not civil rights! The article blatantly ignores how its central premise appears to be a broad trend issue itself manufactured to make points exactly like it makes, in favor of the technological state.
On you, it may appear anecdotally that Americans don’t care about privacy or tech, but that’s incorrect. As time goes on, more and more people report feeling uneasy about how and where their data is used, as well as the surveillance state. It is now the majority of people, to include conservatives and liberals.
Then why do the youth post all of their information, including emotions and pictures, freely and without shame?
Paying lip-service to a concern is worlds apart genuinely changing your life around those concerns.
Crudely put. Do I even need to answer this?
Obviously, age affects maturity as well as privacy norms and historic trends take time to develop. You say you’re for looking at broad trends but then discount the data on how Americans report on privacy.
Did you think they’d invent the internet and the next day people would understand what was happening or do you think, as time goes on, more people are wising up to how technology is being used and more are starting to selective use it?
Crudely? You mean aptly. Or, as time goes on, do people become less addicted and less accustomed?
You can move along now, as you are clearly having your period.
No, I said crudely because I meant crudely. I mentioned history and data and you retort that you thirstily browse your Instagram feed at night, even after I said let’s skip the anecdotes.
You’re not even making sense now, but nice jab. Eloi? More like Weenie-a. Get it?
I’m a teacher, dumbass. I deal with teens all day and have been for a while. Nice try.
Amusing how you blame everything on technology, but then accuse me of being a technocrat for not blaming everything on technology. Maybe you simply do not understand what the word means, but my guess you think it means bad.
Maybe you don’t know why they call them the laptop class. Who knows? There couldn’t be any connections between technology and technocrat could there be? Etymologies be damned along with history and data!
@Son, I’m glad you homeschooled. Shows you care enough about your kids to give up a little “prosperity” for their benefit. I caught heck for my poor attempt to show how kids are much more capable than we give them credit for, because our indoctrination on expertocracy gives a feeling of helplessness, incompetence or even stupidity. Some very smart people can be trained to think themselves inadequate.
But you do need to make sure your kids are tech-savvy. Times have changed. You just need to do your best to make them as capable as possible of dealing with those changes.
Thanks, Steve. Yes, you’re right. It’s nice to have someone acknowledge the difficulty but importance of homeschool. We’d tried to ensure our kids understand how tech can work in their favor, either through learning or networking. It’s a hard balance these days, but we hope that we’re navigating it right. You’re spot on: times are changing, and they require our kids to know how to use the tools, as long as we make sure those tools don’t use them.
“One of the consequences of the open society is a deeply paranoid and conspiratorial ruling elite. They know more than anyone how near run things are for them.”
Most of this is directed at potential and emerging intra-Elite competition I think. Revolutions are rarely directed by the average slob. Sure every now and then they make an example out of someone like poor Doug Mackey. But the real venom is reserved for elite competition – like Trump, Vance, Kennedy, Musk, Carlson.
The principal stakes in this election is the struggle between the rising tech elite and the intrenched finance elite that has been in power at least since the New Deal, and arguably since the creation of the Federal Reserve. The paradigm is complicated somewhat by ethnic interests, and to what degree you consider media to be tech, but there is no doubt that the ruling class’ real fear is that Trump (and Vance even more so) is a vehicle for their replacement.
This is why, despite all her shortcomings, the elites have to go all in for Kamala. Ironically, Trump’s great hope may come down to the personal ambitions of Josh Shapiro.
That’s why being a hard line cukservatard as 3g4me calls me allows me to conserve my venom cause Trump, Vance, Kennedy, Musk, Carlson are doing it for me. plus I have discovered my best response to leftist commies is FU. drives them nuts. (Not a long trip I must say)
Hoagie – With all due respect – while we may disagree on many things, I don’t believe I ever singled you out with any label. I write and speak of cuckservatards in general. I am blessed not to have to deal with leftists or most people in general – my husband and I revel in our privacy and acreage. I have zero interest in electoral politics or the hero of the day.
your article based on a faulty belief; you think law and legal are the same thing; if that belief was true then your article would have value; and we would have no hope in life;
legal enslaves us; law gives us all the power;
legal traps through contract and our own permission to it;
law gives us completely freedom; it gives us the full ability to stop everything in the legal system;
??? He used the word, “laws” once.
“Law” gives us absolutely no power. All it gives is a post-hoc rationalization for whatever we might have done. It’s very similar to the “but muh rights” crowd.
Without the willingness and ability to resort to extreme violence, neither “law” nor “rights” matter.
Majestic.
Libertie. Fraternatie. Equalitie.
Diversity. Equity. Inclusion.
Access.
The right to your women, your wealth, your identity, your history, your children…
No great quibble, but would note that access to one’s “children”, at least, is quite often “voluntary” on one’s part. Way too many people–White and non-White–turn their children over to government run agencies rather than spend the time and effort needed to avoid the indoctrination that comes with such. We often speak of “home schooling”, but the problem runs much deeper.
Aristotle is quoted to have said: “Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the foundations of the man”. And so it is.
Compsci: Well said and vital point. Cuckservatards like to sneer at the African “it takes a village” aphorism, but yet they live by it daily. “Kids need to be socialized.” “Let’s stamp out bullying.” Everything is a society-wide moral crusade.
Women are the ones who need to be reined in by shared mores, social standards, and public shaming. Children need to be raised by a loving mother and father – one of each.
Having dealt with a large number of home-schooled kids (many parents will send them in their last year or two of secondary ed. in order to prepare for social dynamics of college), I will state that there exists one huge difference between home-schooled kids and your average public school kid: The home-schooled kids generally view adults as helpers and workmates, and not with the conspiratorial and evasive quality of “us(students) vs. them (teachers)” that describes most youth.
I could write a good book regarding public schooling’s role in shaping generational politics and the workforce.
There’s no way of knowing how much damage has been dealt society by isolating kids into age groups. While my younger siblings (early to mid GenX) were around to learn tricks about saddlery and roping from Mr. MacIntosh, and the work of farriers from Mr. Iverson, and car maintenance from Mr. Senn, many of their age group grew up to view those people as enemies. (In this case, yes, actual names. They are long dead.)
At the moment, the answer has to involve homeschooling, but there’s got to be a way to de-escalate this madness.
I don’t know what “Cuckservatards” you associate with but the conservatives I am among all the time of my own choice are nothing like your description.
I don’t associate with self-identified conservatives. I am a fascist, evil, rayciss notsee hater.
Don’t sweat it, @Hoagie. My money is on few to none of the harshest critics cared enough to raise/homeschool their own kids.
It’s most likely guilt speaking.
Even though it could be done with no one checking, at least people from our age group won’t lie about it, though we will disparage people who didn’t do as we wish we had.
That Hilary fake african proverb was always used to the effect that taxpayers need to pay more for dem programs.
But it is true in a way. Americans have been atomised down to the nuclear family (at best) to raise children when it should be extended family as well as decent schools and communities where they can walk and ride their bikes safely.
There are many arguments – on both sides – about the best balance between the individual and the community. Yes, humans are social animals, but not all of us want to buy the world a Coke.
Yea but if all the africans were back in Africa and all the mexicans were back in Mexico I would buy you a coke😉
You are a gallant gentleman.
Weirdly, if you try to walk into any Soros home and wander the grounds or plop yourself down in the living room with a beer, you will find a large amount of “closedness.”
Exactly, Vizzini: “maximize openness,” like the openness on display in Martha’s Vineyard.
“Openness and access for thee but definitely NOT for me.”
Pure genius Vizzini.
They have to keep the plates spinning or face the wrath of the uprising. That is their worst dilemma. And they were counting on raping the resources of Ukraine and Russia in order to buy a few more years of leeway. Putin said no and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Similarly, when the collapse gets rolling, they were counting on a manufactured slaughter between the plebs and invaders. But the invaders can be incentivized to go after the elites and Deep State, who are also victims of the demise of privacy. After all, there lies the best plunder. It ain’t over until the fat lady sings.
Returning chickens roost on spinning plates…
Giving the vote to women inevitably led to this chain of consequences, because most women think that it’s mean to prevent everyone from having or doing everything, including the right to move into your neighborhood and trash the place…and they rationalize the resulting differences as just unfortunate differences in culture….
Women do not separate the household from the polis. There is no separation of private goods from public ones. Letting women out of the household into the public square means that they will treat the res publica as their own, which in nature, means like children or domestic goods. They will tyrannize everything because they believe it is theirs to manage. When the public things do not respond to them like the private ones (a boiling tea pot is far different from projecting the next 25 years of road repairs), they will react as women do, both emotionally and psychologically to the damage. Meaning: blame it on the object, rather than themselves. Or men.
Men have great difficulty understanding why women tell them what they can say and cannot say — “I’m a grown man, Mabel!” Not to Mabel. Schopenhauer’s essay “On Women” is also instructive in this regard.
The damage is catastrophic. There is a book to be written about the attitudes of the men who permitted the 19th Amendment, and why. If they did not foresee this, then there is no hope we will, and it points to a fundamental flaw in our nature (man’s nature, not women’s) that can and will be exploited, always, to our political destruction.
“There is a book to be written about the attitudes of the men who permitted the 19th Amendment, and why.”
I’ve not read the book, or any book on the 19th, but do know that such privileges as voting were in vogue long before the 19th was adopted. Many States allowed various forms/degrees of women’s suffrage. This was the classic example of the camel’s nose in the tent. My suspicion is that these local “experiments” paved the way for the catastrophic event of the 19th Amendment.
There is no way back short of tearing up the Constitution and starting over. But there may be a path to establishing/enacting “earned suffrage”–for *all* citizens. This would go a long way to correcting the 19th.
Z had a good quip that (paraphrasing) Democracy has an insatiable appetite for votes: the more votes the better, after all, the more people who vote, the more legitimacy the system has. The 19th amendment wasn’t done in a vacuum, voting liberalization only ever went one way.
Given that both the dead and aliens now vote, animals and cartoon characters must be the next great ubtapped source of votes. Clown team R carried the Bronx Zoo while clown team D wins un the Marvel universe
Didn’t female voting start in the frontier states (Alaska, Wyoming) long before the 19th? In those places there was somewhat less differentiation of labor by sex, and women were relatively scarcer– but if it’s not that demographic, they’ll find some other on a pretext; democracy protectors, i.e. politicians, are the ultimate cheap-labor factory managers. Terry McAuliffe put the jailbirds back on the rolls in Virginia.
You can’t explain this logically to them. They will simply tell you that the people trashing your neighborhood are victims of oppression which is why they behave the way they do. They just haven’t been given the opportunities needed to advance themselves. The only thing stopping the cannibalistic Haitian from being an astronaut is racism by evil White men.
Yes. Because this is what the media tells them, and they are only repeating what they’ve heard. It takes a lot of mental fortitude to go against the grain of propaganda. Even among men, it’s all too rare. If we hadn’t let our enemies control our media, we wouldn’t be in this position with either sex.
Yes, the media is guilty of a great deal of evil but . . . they are merely taking advantage of the natural female proclivity towards both gossip and credulity.
…and their feelings, woah, woah, woah, feelings…
(I’ve got to fill a bit more space, so I’ll just say that the arpeggiated chords of that song are excellent.)
It’s not just women who believe such nonsense. A considerable percentage of white men believe the same thing.
Women are normally more validation-seeking than men are. In our feminized society, it is just a touch more. That’s why so many white men go along with the ideology.
If the ideology changes, the females will change along with it. The role for men is to identify and repulse self-destructive ideologies.
“If the ideology changes, the females will change along with it.”
This needs to be emphasized. It’s important to note that women being empathetic and having a natural desire to take care are very positive and important attributes for society. The problem is that the Nuremberg regime has weaponized it against us, and them. When I saw BLM protests in my then-neighborhood in 2020, and I saw that a good 80% of the participants were fair-skinned women, I didn’t just see a really big problem but I also saw a lot of victims. According to current trends, 40% of those women are going to end up as childless wine aunts. That doesn’t help them any more than it helps us.
“According to current trends, 40% of those women are going to end up as childless wine aunts. That doesn’t help them any more than it helps us.”
I don’t know about that. That is to say, that “it doesn’t help us”. Dutton has an entire book based upon those “childless wine aunts”. The essence of the basic book theme being that these “spiteful mutants” (childless wine aunts) will “die out” of their own accord and aid in cleansing the gene pool.
Such would be of great help to future generations.
“You can’t explain this logically to them.”
They exist at the confluence of no life experience outside their bubble and illiterate. They may be ‘educated’, but read their ’50 shades’ and otherwise gobble whatever the MSM and the crowd has on offer.
Reading historical accounts, from the past and from authors, dead authors I do not want to posthumously dox … one gets a clear picture. Life experience like I have had working across urban areas, again. Clear picture. Put both together, and you realize the childlike creatures that lord over us are beyond ignorant.
And beyond ‘convincing.’
“Cannibal Haitian Astronauts” sounds like a perfect title for a Troma Studios D-grade horror film.
I saw this and Attack of the Killer Tomatoes as a double-feature matinee back in ’79.
Attack! Wow, havnt seen that movie in a while’s back in the early 80s it would come on during elviras show.
thats not blood…
“Leg on the moon. How did it get there?”
Beast of Yucca Flats is the greatest bad movie of all time. It’s complete, utter trash but so loveable and earnest in how badly it fails at everything. Good ol’ Tor Johnson.
This is a vast oversimplification. A majority of White women voted for Trump in spite of nonstop propaganda pushing them in the other direction.
As far as the other White women, those who didn’t vote for Trump, they were reliably informed by the media, by their churches, by their schools, and by nearly every entertainment product that only bad people vote for racism and closed borders.
All levers of power and influence are controlled by people who hate us. Yes, women are too gullible and ruled by emotion, but they could just as easily be swayed in the opposite direction if the propaganda went the other way. By design, women conform with what society tells them is right. In a healthy society, this isn’t a bad thing. In a dysfunctional society controlled by our enemies, it’s disastrous.
We can debate the wisdom of giving the women the vote, but first, let’s debate the wisdom of letting foreigners control the levels of power and influence.
Yes, there is always a snake in the garden. But there is a reason why the snake went first to Eve.
Yeah, and whom did God chastise the most?
God told Adam not to eat from a particular tree before Eve was created. He expected Adam to keep Eve in line.
And that’s where we have failed.
That is exactly my point.
Yup, Adam was the first Beta Male.
“Adam was the first beta male”.
I do enjoy the range and variety of entirely relevant and rational – but sometimes, as here, quite surprising and sometimes funny – insights and perspectives on this site
Gotta’ do this. Sorry.
By design, women conform with what the strong tell them to do.
Married White women voted for Trump. Single White women voted against him. Completely different beasts.
This married vs single women political phenomenon was covered quite nicely in Black Pigeon Speaks classic video, “Why Women Destroy Nations.”
Wh Auden lecture on taming of the shrew c 1946. He hated taming, being the only farce Shakespeare wrote abd says it doesn’t work:
Women don’t want their neighborhoods trashed by foreigners and the “people of brown” any less than men. For example, women were very well represented in the protests against the forced integration of schools (while it was men forcing it at gunpoint). The degradation of voting as a political mechanism in the US came about first with the elimination of the property requirement to vote, and then allowing non-whites to vote in what was once a white country. White women voting in a white country is absolutely no problem at all. Voting at all in a “diverse” society ruled over by a “chosen” elite is simply practicing self-delusion.
My father always told me when I was young and penniless that “only property owners should be allowed to vote.”
I hated that, but age has shown the wisdom of that opinion.
I’d add “property owners with a minimum level of education.” Open to the idea of needing to have kids as well.
Rhodesia was like this before the West demanded it’s destruction (including WF Buckley).
It’s not necessary to make it a gender thing. Property owners are forward looking.
There are all sorts of stipulations one could place on voting to contour a superior electorate. AINO went the opposite direction and now has an electorate that is diverse, dumb, depraved, dysfunctional and disturbed.
The way education is these days, I wouldn’t make a qualification for “minimum level of education”.
I’d limit it to property owners, or those that have a family. Meaning a traditional nuclear family.
Married with children property owners. Those Black-crock ghouls are buying up a lot of property.
We want the voters to have skin in the game, not to be throwing other people’s money around. A variant on this idea is that the people who can vote are those who have paid more to the government than they have received over their life.
Every system has its problems and the problem with this idea is that if the economy tanked for an extended period of time then no one but the rich could vote and what if they had no empathy for those who were struggling.
We want the voters to have white skin in the game…
I don’t want voters making decisions for me in the first place, but the last thing a rational person wants is to give the hyper-violent fraction of the population the idea they have absolutely no control over their lives.
Well, since all of this is sheerest fantasy anyway, I fantasize that we place the hyper-violent fraction on a slow boat to Africa so that they have no control over our lives.
I’m not agreed that we should inflict prosperity-based American pathologies on Africa. Entitled POSs would screw up Africa even worse than it is.
I fantasize about some narcotic perma-sleep, probably the most humane solution. Maybe my Final Solution puts me in bad company. So be it.
and what if they had no empathy for those who were struggling.
This is not hypothetical. We have the worst rich people imaginable. They have ZERO loyalty to either the nation or the country. Money is their god.
rootless cosmopolitans – both juice and gentile.
Maybe you get as many votes as digits in your net tax bill. Possibly multiplied by number of biological kids. IME, wives rarely cancel out their husband’s vote, but one could also make a case for 1 ballot per household.
agreed, must be invested. when lefty implements the female draft, we may see the tide turn at the ballot box. caution, do not expect many women to survive the draft and endless wars. expect to see lots of suicide. when command wants warm bodies on the front, gender will have no influence. we have arrived at the point in history when dei women will demand their own horrid destruction and all women will pay the price. a nation with no mothers is doomed.
Most homosexuals are property owners. Insufficient criterion.
Male homosexuals are about 2% of the population. Insignificant in themselves.
Yeah. The 2% can’t have any effect.
Oh, wait…
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t mean they’re harmless to society, but they’re harmless at the ballot box. It’s their cultural and political activism that’s a problem. Meanwhile, if you start getting over-detailed with the voting restrictions, it soon becomes unworkable. How are you going to certify straightness in the context of voter registration?
But ask me if I’d favor just reviving all the old anti-sodomy laws, and — yeah, absolutely. Make it a felony, and keep the restrictions against felons voting, and there you go.
Most gays I know (admittedly, not many; offhand, maybe a dozen, tops) don’t want drag queen story hour or gay pride or gay marriage or any of that. If one thinks voting is a valid way of deciding what individuals are allowed to do, homosexuality seems more or less harmless.
And even if you do think voting should determine an individual’s life choices and actions, it seems more or less harmless. Get rid of the activists and you fix the problem, IMO.
This is a dodge, and meaningless, because we are where we are and all the gays who “don’t want that” have been absolutely useless in stopping it. But what they do want — first “tolerance,” then “acceptance” quickly morphed into normalization and worship.
Once you say “it’s okay to be gay,” then you can’t exclude homosexuality from the spectrum of “normal” and thus you can’t keep it away from kids — it’s perfectly “normal” right?
As I was trying to say above, voting is the least of it. Gays can and have contributed greatly to the degeneration of society just by being normalized.
“[They] have been absolutely useless in stopping it. “
How do you excuse yourself for where the government has us now? Whatever you want to talk about immigration, cultural degeneracy, crappy schools, whatever, if one believes in collective guilt, haven’t we also been “absolutely useless in stopping it?”
Stealing from Carville, “It’s the government, stupid!”
Yes, we have. Why should I excuse myself? But what is done is done. We have tomorrow to worry about. You don’t lie down and die today because you were wrong yesterday.
That’s a funny meme and I’m all for repealing the 19th, but I don’t think female suffrage is the underlying cause of the problem. Feminism is by far way more destructive than female suffrage ever was. Granted, the 19th was one of the first feminist causes.
The men of the 19th century allowed endless immigration from all across Europe because they wanted cheap and dispensable labor. This continued into the early 1920s (just after the 19th), but then largely stopped, at least for a few decades.
My explanation is that when white men become prosperous they become self-destructively generous: let women vote, let the immigrants in, who cares… If we’re going to survive, we have to learn from this.
As long as I’ve been alive, there’s been a feeling that if you complain about immigration or letting everyone vote then you’re some kind of loser who isn’t successful enough to protect himself and his family from the consequences of these stupid decisions.
Robert E. Howard, the creator of so much more than Conan, wrote 100 years ago:
Aryans deteriorate swiftly in sedentary and peaceful lives. Their proper existence is a nomadic one; when they settle down to an agricultural existence, they pave the way for their downfall; and when they pen themselves with city walls, they seal their doom.
T Jefferson is seething!
But laws mean things and teach things. So when your wife is your political rival in the household, they children see them as equals and they aren’t. It’s psychologically confusing to have two heads.
it also implies females as political leaders which is disastrous. For one thing for any Christian it blasphemy because it goes against explicit scripture. For ye secularists it implies that females are equally capable of leading because we are spirits in a machine with reproductive implications only .
True, but what kind of household is split that way? What kind of idiot would think he could change her?
In more sensible times, she would have been the spinster aunt, childless because her income would not permit it. Crazy gene dead in one generation.
Mostly it was not to get cheap labor, but rather that it just didn’t matter. People still intuited the market was not zero sum. And that their taxes would not be supporting dead weight. Sink or swim, and a huge number sunk. Doing research on my family tree, looking at church records, it was amazing to see how many of them and their offspring died out, nothing to show for their lives and families but gravestones and a short entry in some book.
Though I upvoted on the rest of the post, I absolutely loathe the word, “inevitably”. There are few enough cases in most physical sciences, and I think it’s absurd to apply it to the social “sciences”, where it is almost certainly wrong.
Chesterton on Macbeth:
Will privacy even be a concept in twenty years??
For most of the world, it’s not now. Ever note how Asians (both east and south) do everything in a group? Studying, cheating, shopping, traveling, etc. All non-White societies are totally communal. Only among a subset of Whites (now down to less than 10% of the world’s population) understand and value privacy and individual physical and mental space. It’s rapidly vanishing and will be gone in a decade, under the non-White onslaught and the female demand to ‘share’ everything with everyone.
That’s a good point and very ominous. We really are a breed apart
Spinoza famously wrote:
“In a free state every man may think what he likes and say what he thinks.”
We are so far removed from this that the focus now is “how can we hide our true thoughts privately?”
“The open society concept, popularized in America by Karl Popper and now George Soros, is the end point of this new moral paradigm. The new poles are openness, access, and diversity at the “good” end. The bad end is discrimination, which can only come through the mechanism of barriers to entry, so the ultimate bad thing in this new society is the locked door. The goal of the open society is to find every locked door and bust it down in order to maximize openness.”
Yet, this moral regime has as its first premise that discrimination and closed doors are the ultimate good – if the object of discrimination and closing doors of opportunity is White men.
Anti-Discrimination. Diversity. Inclusion and Belonging. They are all undergirded by a premise that it is White man who discriminates.
The moral authority of this entire regime is best understood by reading the writings of Noel Saul Ignatiev. Once you read that then the TV commercials, the historical cultural genocide, the statues falling, the normalized and even celebrated genocidal advocacy make perfect sense.
Then, once you scratch your head and ponder, “But this guy is White? Why would he advocate for the annihilation of White men after deconstructing them and destroying their culture?”
Then you come to understand The Regime. It is Anti-White Gentile.
The Regime is at once salivating and at once trembling. That is why the border is dissolved and your town being settler colonized. They are awake to their aims and they are desperate to outnumber you everywhere before you wake up and organize to resist them.
I don’t think anyone here thinks of Ignatiev as white.
Diversity seems to only be good in White countries. Huh…. Who knew?
Like all Leftist Finkels, Ignatiev didn’t consider himself to be white. And they’re right.
You’re correct, but the boyz & girlz in the hood and the new imports consider Iggy to be as white as Audie (NOT Eddie) Murphy, but nowhere near as dangerous.
Clown World is showing puny amateurs Stalin and oil Pot (autocorrect said “oil” and I thought “why not?”) how domestic genocide is really done. If that sounds like hyperbole that’s normalcy bias; it is not