"... natural, inevitable and even overdue—like the fall of East Germany" is IMHO quite a stale doughnut. That particular colour revolution would have been quite impossible without the assent of USG stooge Gorbachev and his network of traitors -- whose posh houses in Miami, "professorships" in Washington, "consulting gigs" at "think tanks" etc. were already waiting for them. Current-day Russia, incidentally, is still ruled by more or less the same people (albeit well-masqueraded) -- their children are at Harvard, Oxbridge, etc., their money -- likewise in NATO Reich banks.
Russian storyteller Viktor Pelevin had a nifty passage in one of his recent books, where "in our Soviet shithole, we had one great thing: people could sometimes smuggle in bootleg jeans and music; and it was even sometimes possible to get out. And now you are building a very similar Soviet shithole right in your USA. But there is one very important difference between ours and yours: no one will ever smuggle bootleg jeans and music into *your* shithole. Because there won't be *from where* to smuggle them. And no one will ever get out from it, because there won't be *to where*. Because *your* new Soviet shithole in fact will have *no outside.*"
If Anglos did not suffer from their peculiar allergy to the study of languages -- would have recognized Trump immediately as simply an Americanized version of V. Zhirinovsky -- hired and scripted clown, originally 1991 project of the Communist Party, but later retreaded and continues to carry out the very same function (tame-oppositioner pet, Russian version of "MAGA" circus) 30 years later!
The Reich no longer has an outside. Previously there was a theatrical "opposition", but now is being sacked as surplus. What'd be the point? "Where will you desert to, from this submarine?"
Yes, this is exactly my hope - as you can tell from my username, stolen straight from Clavell's 'Tai Pan'. By the way, I highly recommend that book if you want to read something Ayn Rand would write if she was a good writer.
Recall that the Soviets produced some world-class physicists, engineers, etc. of whom (at least the first emigre wave) readily found gainful employment in the West. What kind of specialist is being produced in e.g. current day USA, that (ethnically non-universalizing!) China would want to import? Whether in 2050, or now? Writers of "TPS reports" ? "Diversity consultants" ?
Do you know anyone working on a Chinese equivalent of the USA's "H1B visa" ? (Does it even exist?)
Aahaha, I never made the connection between Zhirinovsky and Trump. Funny, and a little bit accurate, though I think Trump is a more talented version. I was just thinking today how, after the "siege", Trump is now the controlled opposition, just like Navalny and Sobol. We are China and Russia now. I really didn't see this coming, TBH
> Washington has no one to surrender to... ...Thus, its only option is to live forever.
Like e.g. Rome ? Also forever? (Can't resist asking: what credible Schelling point did the opponents of Rome agree to?)
> Andorra, Monaco and Lichtenstein... ...Singapore, Hong Kong and Dubai
I notice that Pyongyang is missing. Also "not without problems". And folks who aren't confined to the Anglo ghetto know that Pyongyang's problems came from the very successful Reich blockade -- prior to which North, rather than South, was the industrialized Korea with a rising economy.
I'm still curious what problem, exactly, the neoreaction aficionados have with Pyongyang. Other than their flag being the "wrong" (per their conception of their long-dead grandfathers' phobias) colour. AFAIK it is run exactly the way they wish to see everywhere else run. And in fact exactly as the "free world" is factually run, today, but with fewer pompous pretenses to the contrary. "Be infinitely devoted to your beloved owners."
I just learned that the Walk Away people and their pages were banned on Facebook. We truly are now in a one-party state where the Party and the country are one and the same
There still is (for the time being; this "problem" is of course being "worked on" by the Reich) something like a working net outside of the "walled gardens."
IMHO the folks who insist on posting in centralized "platforms" simply because it is superficially easier/cheaper than leasing some rack space -- and shamefully this includes a great many technically-literate people, who ought to have known better -- have made their own bed.
Consider, e.g. "Weev" Auernheimer -- gagged not by DNC death squads, but by his own stubborn refusal to get the hell off USG-controlled DNSism (public log of this astonishing convo: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/trilema/2017-12-22#1756401 )
For that matter, could ask, why is this page hosted in a trendy kolhoz, and not on Curtis-owned irons? Or is this a "wrong" question to ask?
Try to picture a group of Soviet "kitchen dissidents" in, say, 1979, having a conversation like this:
"I brought you a copy of 'Archipelago' on photopaper sheets."
"What is this garbage? I want to read it in hardcover, from a bookstore, the way Normal People read things. Or better yet, why not serialized, in 'Arguments and Facts' ?"
I don't know if it's just me - and I'm not a 'Columbian' - but the regime just feels very old and tired in the way it's spinning its current narrative. It seems like every move they're making is costing them massive amounts of energy.
The mention of the doctor’s phone call at the end of A Serious Man gave me chills. I think of that scene often in situations like this. I almost feel like the whole movie is like a long Soviet joke that builds up to that punchline. Thanks for mentioning it, I love that film.
> Rather, it must represent the end of this farce; it must hold a vision, and hold to a vision, of a government which effectively serves every American.
Sounds good. And _nihilism_ is what you're selling as the annealing force?!
"Folks, folks, calm down. All this disagreement is petty. Let's all come together on this: life is meaningless. [PAUSE] Now, breeeeeeeeath, and hug your fellow man, woman, or dog. [PAUSE] And bow before me, your prince, who will give you quests to simulate meaning while the AI bots serve you dinner and anti-trade provisions make sure you're poor enough not to question me."
Did you really miss the point that badly? Curtis is clear that his nihilism means to start “ex nihilio,” from nothing, in shedding our past conceptions to consider a new start. The example you listed is a useful thought experiment, not a prescription. You just filled in whatever preconceptions the term nihilism brought into your head, presumably involving decadent CEOs and perhaps heavy metal.
Is his use of the term really that narrow; and, even if so, is this a common usage? And even if he defines it so narrowly in one post, he then simply asserts is elsewhere; isn't this obfuscatory?
While I may disagree with the conclusions of this community, I do believe Yarvin is absolutely correctly in pointing out that most ideologies are delusionally unaware of the primacy of force and power. I think "pill" is overloaded and boring, so maybe a new term related to power/force + realization/acceptance.
If I'm understanding the responses, then the explicit content would have been: "[...] we are political nihilists—we believe in nothing when it comes to politics".
Otherwise, I don't see the purpose of using such an overloaded term so coyly. There's no strategic benefit and the risk is implying full-on nihilism. A part of me suspects Yarn actually is. I'd like to see Yarvin write a post on what is meaningful and what overall life philosophy undergirds his thoughts.
One quibble. Originally, the Right was the establishment, so by definition all revolts were from the left. Now that the establishment brands itself Left, have we not just remapped the terms, and the structure is unchanged?
I don’t have a perfect answer to that but my fuzzy interpretation would be that in one of his last posts about how capitalism and socialism is fake he establishes that socialism (the left) has always been far more hierarchically structured (officially and unofficially)and elitist ruled (and therefore unofficially right) than it proclaims itself to be. I’m bit so sure that’s the intent, but I think the dual nature of these terms (left-right) as he uses them might be the place to start at least (maybe right-left have a official/unofficially sense or a ideal/practical sense that he’s speaking in). I need to re-read the article though cuz I’m not sure myself.
Turkey in 2016 would seem to provide a model for how a right-wing self-coup could be conducted in the face of a System attempt at removal. If one had a leader who understood realpolitik.
I'm a touch drunk but this is maybe the best thing I've read
"... natural, inevitable and even overdue—like the fall of East Germany" is IMHO quite a stale doughnut. That particular colour revolution would have been quite impossible without the assent of USG stooge Gorbachev and his network of traitors -- whose posh houses in Miami, "professorships" in Washington, "consulting gigs" at "think tanks" etc. were already waiting for them. Current-day Russia, incidentally, is still ruled by more or less the same people (albeit well-masqueraded) -- their children are at Harvard, Oxbridge, etc., their money -- likewise in NATO Reich banks.
Russian storyteller Viktor Pelevin had a nifty passage in one of his recent books, where "in our Soviet shithole, we had one great thing: people could sometimes smuggle in bootleg jeans and music; and it was even sometimes possible to get out. And now you are building a very similar Soviet shithole right in your USA. But there is one very important difference between ours and yours: no one will ever smuggle bootleg jeans and music into *your* shithole. Because there won't be *from where* to smuggle them. And no one will ever get out from it, because there won't be *to where*. Because *your* new Soviet shithole in fact will have *no outside.*"
If Anglos did not suffer from their peculiar allergy to the study of languages -- would have recognized Trump immediately as simply an Americanized version of V. Zhirinovsky -- hired and scripted clown, originally 1991 project of the Communist Party, but later retreaded and continues to carry out the very same function (tame-oppositioner pet, Russian version of "MAGA" circus) 30 years later!
The Reich no longer has an outside. Previously there was a theatrical "opposition", but now is being sacked as surplus. What'd be the point? "Where will you desert to, from this submarine?"
China’s reservation for white people
Yes, this is exactly my hope - as you can tell from my username, stolen straight from Clavell's 'Tai Pan'. By the way, I highly recommend that book if you want to read something Ayn Rand would write if she was a good writer.
Recall that the Soviets produced some world-class physicists, engineers, etc. of whom (at least the first emigre wave) readily found gainful employment in the West. What kind of specialist is being produced in e.g. current day USA, that (ethnically non-universalizing!) China would want to import? Whether in 2050, or now? Writers of "TPS reports" ? "Diversity consultants" ?
Do you know anyone working on a Chinese equivalent of the USA's "H1B visa" ? (Does it even exist?)
Aahaha, I never made the connection between Zhirinovsky and Trump. Funny, and a little bit accurate, though I think Trump is a more talented version. I was just thinking today how, after the "siege", Trump is now the controlled opposition, just like Navalny and Sobol. We are China and Russia now. I really didn't see this coming, TBH
Sounds great--which book?
"Искусство легких касаний" ("Art of Light Touches"), 2019.
I always think of Pelevin, especially when Babylon comes up. Generation П was MY red pill, 22 years ago
Thanks!
> Washington has no one to surrender to... ...Thus, its only option is to live forever.
Like e.g. Rome ? Also forever? (Can't resist asking: what credible Schelling point did the opponents of Rome agree to?)
> Andorra, Monaco and Lichtenstein... ...Singapore, Hong Kong and Dubai
I notice that Pyongyang is missing. Also "not without problems". And folks who aren't confined to the Anglo ghetto know that Pyongyang's problems came from the very successful Reich blockade -- prior to which North, rather than South, was the industrialized Korea with a rising economy.
I'm still curious what problem, exactly, the neoreaction aficionados have with Pyongyang. Other than their flag being the "wrong" (per their conception of their long-dead grandfathers' phobias) colour. AFAIK it is run exactly the way they wish to see everywhere else run. And in fact exactly as the "free world" is factually run, today, but with fewer pompous pretenses to the contrary. "Be infinitely devoted to your beloved owners."
I just learned that the Walk Away people and their pages were banned on Facebook. We truly are now in a one-party state where the Party and the country are one and the same
There still is (for the time being; this "problem" is of course being "worked on" by the Reich) something like a working net outside of the "walled gardens."
IMHO the folks who insist on posting in centralized "platforms" simply because it is superficially easier/cheaper than leasing some rack space -- and shamefully this includes a great many technically-literate people, who ought to have known better -- have made their own bed.
Consider, e.g. "Weev" Auernheimer -- gagged not by DNC death squads, but by his own stubborn refusal to get the hell off USG-controlled DNSism (public log of this astonishing convo: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/trilema/2017-12-22#1756401 )
For that matter, could ask, why is this page hosted in a trendy kolhoz, and not on Curtis-owned irons? Or is this a "wrong" question to ask?
Because most people are quote/unquote normal? It's in the same category of phenomena as rational ignorance
Try to picture a group of Soviet "kitchen dissidents" in, say, 1979, having a conversation like this:
"I brought you a copy of 'Archipelago' on photopaper sheets."
"What is this garbage? I want to read it in hardcover, from a bookstore, the way Normal People read things. Or better yet, why not serialized, in 'Arguments and Facts' ?"
Most normal people in the Soviet Union in 1979 were not reading samizdat. They just wanted a nice pair of boots or imported lipstick.
Toilet paper, bread, meat ...
That'd be '89...
Here's the show that embodied the Soviet Dream - the Field of Miracles (in the country of fools), the first episode, from 1990: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDS_RjbAMCk
I don't know if it's just me - and I'm not a 'Columbian' - but the regime just feels very old and tired in the way it's spinning its current narrative. It seems like every move they're making is costing them massive amounts of energy.
https://twitter.com/MorlockP/status/1327309150913749000?s=20
The mention of the doctor’s phone call at the end of A Serious Man gave me chills. I think of that scene often in situations like this. I almost feel like the whole movie is like a long Soviet joke that builds up to that punchline. Thanks for mentioning it, I love that film.
> Rather, it must represent the end of this farce; it must hold a vision, and hold to a vision, of a government which effectively serves every American.
Sounds good. And _nihilism_ is what you're selling as the annealing force?!
"Folks, folks, calm down. All this disagreement is petty. Let's all come together on this: life is meaningless. [PAUSE] Now, breeeeeeeeath, and hug your fellow man, woman, or dog. [PAUSE] And bow before me, your prince, who will give you quests to simulate meaning while the AI bots serve you dinner and anti-trade provisions make sure you're poor enough not to question me."
Did you really miss the point that badly? Curtis is clear that his nihilism means to start “ex nihilio,” from nothing, in shedding our past conceptions to consider a new start. The example you listed is a useful thought experiment, not a prescription. You just filled in whatever preconceptions the term nihilism brought into your head, presumably involving decadent CEOs and perhaps heavy metal.
>Did you really miss the point that badly?
Yes. He does this on almost every article.
> Here, as the banner says, we are nihilists—we believe in nothing
- Curtis Yarvin
Is his use of the term really that narrow; and, even if so, is this a common usage? And even if he defines it so narrowly in one post, he then simply asserts is elsewhere; isn't this obfuscatory?
I'm sorry I don't have his whole, verbose cannon memorized. Just a few posts ago, all he wrote in relation to this was:
> Here, as the banner says, we are nihilists—we believe in nothing; and monarchists—we expect the next regime to be a monarchy.
Obfuscation to the max.
While I may disagree with the conclusions of this community, I do believe Yarvin is absolutely correctly in pointing out that most ideologies are delusionally unaware of the primacy of force and power. I think "pill" is overloaded and boring, so maybe a new term related to power/force + realization/acceptance.
> life is meaningless
nowhere near close to what is being presented. Try again.
If this community is going to use the word nihilism, then you'll have to be careful with it; otherwise, people will make inferences.
"Here, as the banner says, we are nihilists—we believe in nothing"
- Curtis Yarvin
People may well make inferences, but such would be at odds with the explicit content. A cliche phrase about books and covers comes to mind.
If I'm understanding the responses, then the explicit content would have been: "[...] we are political nihilists—we believe in nothing when it comes to politics".
Otherwise, I don't see the purpose of using such an overloaded term so coyly. There's no strategic benefit and the risk is implying full-on nihilism. A part of me suspects Yarn actually is. I'd like to see Yarvin write a post on what is meaningful and what overall life philosophy undergirds his thoughts.
One quibble. Originally, the Right was the establishment, so by definition all revolts were from the left. Now that the establishment brands itself Left, have we not just remapped the terms, and the structure is unchanged?
>Originally, the right was the establishment
Not in the USA.
I don’t have a perfect answer to that but my fuzzy interpretation would be that in one of his last posts about how capitalism and socialism is fake he establishes that socialism (the left) has always been far more hierarchically structured (officially and unofficially)and elitist ruled (and therefore unofficially right) than it proclaims itself to be. I’m bit so sure that’s the intent, but I think the dual nature of these terms (left-right) as he uses them might be the place to start at least (maybe right-left have a official/unofficially sense or a ideal/practical sense that he’s speaking in). I need to re-read the article though cuz I’m not sure myself.
Turkey in 2016 would seem to provide a model for how a right-wing self-coup could be conducted in the face of a System attempt at removal. If one had a leader who understood realpolitik.
Seems like you are finally ready to read Ernst Junger's Eumeswil.
Wut? He recommended it months ago.
Dynamite essay.