"Deserves" has no place in practical reality or contests of sovereignty. The Melian dialogue shows how cruel and unjust power is. Such are the realities of nature - realities that were inflicted by a democracy, mind you, and are still inflicted by all states the power to dominate others. But don't lecture me about how losers don't deserv…
"Deserves" has no place in practical reality or contests of sovereignty. The Melian dialogue shows how cruel and unjust power is. Such are the realities of nature - realities that were inflicted by a democracy, mind you, and are still inflicted by all states the power to dominate others. But don't lecture me about how losers don't deserve to lose when you just expounded on the virtues of hating your enemy and celebrating his indiscriminate murder. You're on no moral high ground.
Strength without will is no strength at all. As I said, without any guiding force to actually utilize those strengths, they only exist on paper. They're unrealized potentials.
Both Russia and China have oligarchy. Russia's siloviki and wealthy elite made Putin and can unmake him. Xi doesn't have control of the party - there are too many processes beyond his control, and he is too timid to seize the power to course correct. See: China's property bubble, or their high speed rail, or their generation time bomb. All off these are going to slowly gut China, but the party trundles mindlessly onward, and Xi does nothing. Both of these states are oligarchies painted as monarchies for propaganda value. Granted, both are terrible, because the nobles have nobody who keeps them in line, much like our country, only worse. And how are the tired cliches of democracy and republicanism faring here, really? Where is the virtuous population who should have stepped in generations ago? They're all waiting for someone to do it for them.
We're talking about philosophy of government. There are no new talking points, except as relevant to technology. I "stole" some points from Yarvin just like he "stole" some ideas from Machiavelli and you "stole" ideas from various enlightenment and modern thinkers. It's not a meaningful accusation and it's just an attempt to make me seem intellectually lazy, while only revealing that I bother to read.
The citizenry of Sri Lanka were fighting a civil war until 2009. Violence is in their recent memory. Moreover they have a less decadent and so more vigorous society - struggle is a daily affair and so much easier to contemplate. Being poor, they also had much less to lose. Their present historical circumstances and moment in their historical epicycle is different from our own. Culture flows downstream from circumstances.
Frankly, I'm confused why you're still here at all. I thought you hated Curtis and the rest of us.
If will is the key to strength, how does it make sense for you to post about how weak we are or for Curtis to do so? Unless, of course, staving off a revolution is YOUR GOAL and HIS.
As for my "stole" line: Here is my point, you present no facts in favor of your case, no arguments. Just conclusions. You asserted that the right was weak even though I enumerated exactly why we are strong: Military experience, control of food, control of energy, more doers---fewer talkers.
It is pretty clear that Curtis is anti-Democratic not because he actually hates democracy but because he hates what it will do to his friends if it ever returns to its original state (yes, I know, I really should say Republican system). He is clearly on the side of the establishment---at least, he is on their side in terms of wanting them to go unharmed.
On the other hand, I want them reduced to nothing and America's enemies to be defanged or destroyed. I don't make apologies for China or Russia---or the fucking Democrats.
Because the will isn't there, and the only thing worse than a bloody revolution is a bloody revolution conducted by those without the stomach for rule. I exist between the American ruling class and the subject class. I was born and raised by the rulers, and live among the subjects. The subjects are politically disinterested and more libertarian than anything else. If you want these people to rule, this is a huge cultural hurdle to overcome. Their circumstances are not yet desperate enough to make them personally interested in rule, and they find politics unmotivating and dislike discussing it. So yes, I would rather they not attempt to LARP a modern day revolution until they're either ready to rule, or we have exhausted all other options. For the moment, building inheritor institutions which stand a chance of cultural domination is actually going fairly well, and we're even winning some meaningful cultural victories within major cultural institutions. We're winning the hearts and minds of the youth who see most of the bullshit and tired cliches spouted by our ruling class, and want something real and sincere. If we can skip the civil wars and go straight to Augustus, that would be optimal in my mind. Granted, I also don't see any Augustus, but who noticed Octavian?
I did present facts by way of contrary example. All the things which are true for Sri Lanka and made it work there are not true here and will not work here. Sri Lanka is not a suitable model for the US and its present historical circumstance. If current trends continue for an extended period of time, we COULD get to the level of desperation required for popular insurrection. But that's not desirable, because the foundation of a state should be laid carefully and deliberately, and violent necessity breeds compromise. You only need to look at how the desperation of war established the shaky alliance between Northern and Southern states that eventually culminated in the Civil War and ultimately the death of state identity and autonomy, and the intense corruption of the Gilded Age. As well as economic damage that the South is still technically recovering from, never properly rebuilt due to the sort of bitterness that only a war between kin can foster. War is something we should be ready for, but it shouldn't be something we hope for. It breeds too many desperate and shitty compromises and sets us up for failure later.
Curtis is an elitist, like you'd expect from a monarchist. Obviously he has personal attachments to his class, but I think those play second fiddle to his pragmatic assessment of who will rule and who must rule. The masses do not want to rule, they want to be governed well, and unlike the rest of my class I share their sentiments. I have no personal interest in power. What I believe is important is that the elites be rotated. This happens every couple of generations until the whole ruling structure is so rotten and decayed that necessity dictates it be replaced - which is where we're at, nearing the 300 year expiration date of the average republic. My argument, which I presented in so many words, is that historical circumstances drive culture and human decision making much more than human desires do. This is why historical repetition occurs so frequently. The same animal put in similar situations behaves similarly, and when they can shape their situation, you get behavioral loops. My argument is fundamentally that we're all trapped in broader historical currents that we have almost no control over, and rather than fighting the flow we must work with it. No number of infinitely eloquent Cicero's could save the republic - then or now. Rather than pining for older and better days that cannot return, we need to work with what we have. And it is better that all parties walk away from this satisfied in order to build the foundation of a stable regime.
I apologize for nobody. I only argued that they're oligarchies, not monarchies, which is true. Keep in mind that I'm probably the only other commenter on this blog who is ambivalent (and may even support a little bit) the war in Ukraine. I can tell there are many differences between us, but what I feel is one of the primary differences between you and I is how we view our enemies. I don't need avarice to be motivated. It's a superfluous emotion. If they must be destroyed, then they must be destroyed. But destroying them is a lot of work with very uncertain results, and for that reason is an option of last resort - no matter how much they deserve to suffer.
Yarvin is deliberately inciting us, yet the fear is real.
Sri Lanka;
I know Sri Lanka and its war better than most Americans.
That they got the people of Colombo to riot is truly Amazing. Those people are passive, bear, starving, but it also means the police and military stood aside.
Conversely 🇺🇸That anyone thinks that common Americans especially the 10% of fighting stock have no experience of violence is delusional, never mind how tough and violent urban and rural working class life can be just from Crime. If anyone thinks we lack virtue or morals or honor they are delusional.
In the end we’ll have the Republic back Mr Carroll, more importantly the Federation.
Nothing has really changed from the same situations and conditions of geography and diversity that the Founders faced except its 100 times the population and is Atlantic to Pacific. Diversity; if anyone thinks the English thought the Scots, Irish or Germans were the same race as them please review history.
Religion; the people still have it, the elites do not.
Elites; this has changed from the Founding- ours are cowards- deadliest of their vices to them is their cowardice. They are delusional idiot fops playing government, they’ll not survive their endless betrayals and insults.
The people; at core the same, just leaderless. That is changing.
Of course it is.
PS: don’t blame him for his insults, truly he is of his class, he has learned only how to be either fawning or snide. They really are defective.
King 🤴🏻 is simply another delusional cope of the nastiest and most unpleasant- and collapse at any push- worst imitation ruling class in history.
"Deserves" has no place in practical reality or contests of sovereignty. The Melian dialogue shows how cruel and unjust power is. Such are the realities of nature - realities that were inflicted by a democracy, mind you, and are still inflicted by all states the power to dominate others. But don't lecture me about how losers don't deserve to lose when you just expounded on the virtues of hating your enemy and celebrating his indiscriminate murder. You're on no moral high ground.
Strength without will is no strength at all. As I said, without any guiding force to actually utilize those strengths, they only exist on paper. They're unrealized potentials.
Both Russia and China have oligarchy. Russia's siloviki and wealthy elite made Putin and can unmake him. Xi doesn't have control of the party - there are too many processes beyond his control, and he is too timid to seize the power to course correct. See: China's property bubble, or their high speed rail, or their generation time bomb. All off these are going to slowly gut China, but the party trundles mindlessly onward, and Xi does nothing. Both of these states are oligarchies painted as monarchies for propaganda value. Granted, both are terrible, because the nobles have nobody who keeps them in line, much like our country, only worse. And how are the tired cliches of democracy and republicanism faring here, really? Where is the virtuous population who should have stepped in generations ago? They're all waiting for someone to do it for them.
We're talking about philosophy of government. There are no new talking points, except as relevant to technology. I "stole" some points from Yarvin just like he "stole" some ideas from Machiavelli and you "stole" ideas from various enlightenment and modern thinkers. It's not a meaningful accusation and it's just an attempt to make me seem intellectually lazy, while only revealing that I bother to read.
The citizenry of Sri Lanka were fighting a civil war until 2009. Violence is in their recent memory. Moreover they have a less decadent and so more vigorous society - struggle is a daily affair and so much easier to contemplate. Being poor, they also had much less to lose. Their present historical circumstances and moment in their historical epicycle is different from our own. Culture flows downstream from circumstances.
Frankly, I'm confused why you're still here at all. I thought you hated Curtis and the rest of us.
If will is the key to strength, how does it make sense for you to post about how weak we are or for Curtis to do so? Unless, of course, staving off a revolution is YOUR GOAL and HIS.
As for my "stole" line: Here is my point, you present no facts in favor of your case, no arguments. Just conclusions. You asserted that the right was weak even though I enumerated exactly why we are strong: Military experience, control of food, control of energy, more doers---fewer talkers.
It is pretty clear that Curtis is anti-Democratic not because he actually hates democracy but because he hates what it will do to his friends if it ever returns to its original state (yes, I know, I really should say Republican system). He is clearly on the side of the establishment---at least, he is on their side in terms of wanting them to go unharmed.
On the other hand, I want them reduced to nothing and America's enemies to be defanged or destroyed. I don't make apologies for China or Russia---or the fucking Democrats.
Because the will isn't there, and the only thing worse than a bloody revolution is a bloody revolution conducted by those without the stomach for rule. I exist between the American ruling class and the subject class. I was born and raised by the rulers, and live among the subjects. The subjects are politically disinterested and more libertarian than anything else. If you want these people to rule, this is a huge cultural hurdle to overcome. Their circumstances are not yet desperate enough to make them personally interested in rule, and they find politics unmotivating and dislike discussing it. So yes, I would rather they not attempt to LARP a modern day revolution until they're either ready to rule, or we have exhausted all other options. For the moment, building inheritor institutions which stand a chance of cultural domination is actually going fairly well, and we're even winning some meaningful cultural victories within major cultural institutions. We're winning the hearts and minds of the youth who see most of the bullshit and tired cliches spouted by our ruling class, and want something real and sincere. If we can skip the civil wars and go straight to Augustus, that would be optimal in my mind. Granted, I also don't see any Augustus, but who noticed Octavian?
I did present facts by way of contrary example. All the things which are true for Sri Lanka and made it work there are not true here and will not work here. Sri Lanka is not a suitable model for the US and its present historical circumstance. If current trends continue for an extended period of time, we COULD get to the level of desperation required for popular insurrection. But that's not desirable, because the foundation of a state should be laid carefully and deliberately, and violent necessity breeds compromise. You only need to look at how the desperation of war established the shaky alliance between Northern and Southern states that eventually culminated in the Civil War and ultimately the death of state identity and autonomy, and the intense corruption of the Gilded Age. As well as economic damage that the South is still technically recovering from, never properly rebuilt due to the sort of bitterness that only a war between kin can foster. War is something we should be ready for, but it shouldn't be something we hope for. It breeds too many desperate and shitty compromises and sets us up for failure later.
Curtis is an elitist, like you'd expect from a monarchist. Obviously he has personal attachments to his class, but I think those play second fiddle to his pragmatic assessment of who will rule and who must rule. The masses do not want to rule, they want to be governed well, and unlike the rest of my class I share their sentiments. I have no personal interest in power. What I believe is important is that the elites be rotated. This happens every couple of generations until the whole ruling structure is so rotten and decayed that necessity dictates it be replaced - which is where we're at, nearing the 300 year expiration date of the average republic. My argument, which I presented in so many words, is that historical circumstances drive culture and human decision making much more than human desires do. This is why historical repetition occurs so frequently. The same animal put in similar situations behaves similarly, and when they can shape their situation, you get behavioral loops. My argument is fundamentally that we're all trapped in broader historical currents that we have almost no control over, and rather than fighting the flow we must work with it. No number of infinitely eloquent Cicero's could save the republic - then or now. Rather than pining for older and better days that cannot return, we need to work with what we have. And it is better that all parties walk away from this satisfied in order to build the foundation of a stable regime.
I apologize for nobody. I only argued that they're oligarchies, not monarchies, which is true. Keep in mind that I'm probably the only other commenter on this blog who is ambivalent (and may even support a little bit) the war in Ukraine. I can tell there are many differences between us, but what I feel is one of the primary differences between you and I is how we view our enemies. I don't need avarice to be motivated. It's a superfluous emotion. If they must be destroyed, then they must be destroyed. But destroying them is a lot of work with very uncertain results, and for that reason is an option of last resort - no matter how much they deserve to suffer.
“If we can skip the civil wars and go straight to Augustus, that would be optimal in my mind.”
😂😂😂
NO. Not even if it were possible, if it takes 100 Million 🇺🇸 deaths ☠️ would I forbear the chance to wipe the smug from the faces ...
... who aren’t fit to run anything.
Its worth dying for 😁
Rock on 😂. FC
The elites have nothing now.
Its scared 👽
Yarvin is deliberately inciting us, yet the fear is real.
Sri Lanka;
I know Sri Lanka and its war better than most Americans.
That they got the people of Colombo to riot is truly Amazing. Those people are passive, bear, starving, but it also means the police and military stood aside.
Conversely 🇺🇸That anyone thinks that common Americans especially the 10% of fighting stock have no experience of violence is delusional, never mind how tough and violent urban and rural working class life can be just from Crime. If anyone thinks we lack virtue or morals or honor they are delusional.
In the end we’ll have the Republic back Mr Carroll, more importantly the Federation.
Nothing has really changed from the same situations and conditions of geography and diversity that the Founders faced except its 100 times the population and is Atlantic to Pacific. Diversity; if anyone thinks the English thought the Scots, Irish or Germans were the same race as them please review history.
Religion; the people still have it, the elites do not.
Elites; this has changed from the Founding- ours are cowards- deadliest of their vices to them is their cowardice. They are delusional idiot fops playing government, they’ll not survive their endless betrayals and insults.
The people; at core the same, just leaderless. That is changing.
Of course it is.
PS: don’t blame him for his insults, truly he is of his class, he has learned only how to be either fawning or snide. They really are defective.
King 🤴🏻 is simply another delusional cope of the nastiest and most unpleasant- and collapse at any push- worst imitation ruling class in history.
Only in America.
Talern; 🤡
Curtis is an Op.
this is a an Op.
And Yarvin’s being deliberately hateful to stir us up, and it works.
Mr. Yarvin, like PG Wodehouse in WW2 must say certain things, but the Cretins running things are too idiotic to catch the joke.