I would use "Nazgul" to describe the ruling class, not "elves." I think you need to be disabused of your feeling of sympathy towards (and belonging to) this blasphemous milieu. These people are stupid, lack any culture beyond post-modernist cliches, and function as fungi corroding the body politic upon which they economically thrive. Yes, yes, I too am rich and went to a great school, but I despise America's white liberals - the emasculated goblins and screeching harpies of our time.
I support Yarvin's plan to "burn the letters", but this piece is a good example of where certain necessities around such a plan lead to strained narratives.
This is the Witch King of Angmar and DO NOT associate me with these people, they have no place in the void, and we wouldn’t have let their sort work as prostitutes in the orc catering whorehouse backhill of Minas Mogul, which I gatta say was nasty enough even for me.
So seriously 🛑 or the 9 get a pass from Hell … Morgorth got ok from Satan (turns out he does run the place).
Nobles are the only people capable of ruling. The problem, as Curtis points out over and over again, is not the people, but the ideology and the structure.
Political reaction is antithetical to the American spirit, because the American spirit is founded on Whiggery.
Only nobles can maintain power in the long-term, but nobility isn't an innate biological quality. In the short-term, you can certainly staff a government (mainly) with commoners:
"This means you cannot use unreconstructed armigers in your civil or public service. Previous experience is not qualifying, but disqualifying. You have to make do with yeomen and a sprinkle of dissidents."
In the long run a new noble class will develop, perhaps some of its members will be children or grandchildren of the old, but most need not be.
While I obviously do not disagree that they are deranged and lunatic, why _you_ will lose is because you care about 'claims of morality' or 'rights' to rule.
Those who rule, rule. And you aren't one of them. They rule by conquest and inheritance. That's it.
Until very recently I thought hatred was compatible with good strategic sense in this conflict, but I'm not so sure anymore. You're a good example of the incompatibility - hatred clouds your judgment, makes you yell and scream in anger, signaling powerlessness and empty bravado. Thinking that morality has anything whatsoever to do with our situation.
Tucker Carlson is one of "these people". The ruling class is graduates of Harvard, Yale, Brown, Stanford, etc. The ivy league. I have a friend who just got admitted to Harvard, and she's not a disgusting person at all.
There are ivy leaguers who tribally stick with their Whig history - because that's what's been fashionable in the aristocracy for 400 years - then there are people like Curtis, Tucker, Nick Land, and other shitposters who have woken the fuck up and know how bad this shit is for common people.
Or, it could be his Havel's Greengrocer's sign. "Please pay no attention to me, I'm just making a buck off the rubes while distracting them." A pseudo-intellectual palliative for people not susceptible to the stronger form "progressivism."
I believe Paul Collier ("Exodus" and other books) described the globalist class as "parasitic".
I seem to recall Tolkiens elves as fairly self-sustaining.
The way you win a religious war is by smashing the enemy's idols, daring the enemy deity to do something about it, and coming out unscathed. The left understands this, it's why the alphabet freak show is so important to them. Curtis also understands it, he wrote a piece about it not too long ago in the context of the freak show.
So far, the right has suffered nothing at all for this. No cities burned, no terror campaign against churches, it doesn't even look like it'll have an impact in November. It's a pure victory for the right and Curtis is chaffed at seeing his "never fight back" advice belied.
Celebrating baby killing as a sacred right, rather than an execrable crime, has a terrible effect on the soul of a nation. It warps people's perceptions, and inures their minds to the gravity of murder.
Criminalization inculcates right ideas in the public mind, which is always beneficial to the side of truth and goodness.
Gerald Warner (Scottman) wrote about the murder of Alfie Evans: "Predictably, in a society where the culture of death has grown increasingly stronger, with public sensitivity anaesthetized by nearly nine million abortions, Caesar gave the thumbs-down".
The reaction so far is positively tranquil, at least compared with the riots of 2020. No 'Color Revolution' for the feminists. What aspect of the SJW cult needs to be trashed next? I'd suggest that an ambitious DA or state governor should get community services to go after a parent who takes a young child to a drag show or, better yet, prosecute a surgeon for injuring a minor through gender reassignment. They still have chain-gangs in Florida, right? There's plenty of work that needs to get done! The best part of any victory is to see the enemy in chains.
Floridian here, and I do not want to see DeSantis go after doctors or parents for transitioning kids. While I recognize the sheer immorality of what they're doing to those confused kids, I remember that leftists beget leftists, so if the leftists want to sterilize their kids and end their bloodlines, go for it. It's a long-term demographic win. Beyond that, there's probably a significant overlap in trans support and climate alarmism, so their saving the planet, right.
We have to go after them or it’s everyone’s kids. The slippery slope is the abyss as we have seen.
DeSantis is a lawyer and he moves at legal system speed only after his bases covered (he won’t work out in war BTW).
At that speed all the Lefts kids will be sterilized, but relax the pressure they’ll not only castrate but have Drag Queens pulling a train on the kids in the name of equity.
Remember always; they want you dead, they want your children raped, and they think its funny.
It's not my kids while I'm alive, so it's not everyone's kids. Actually, I don't have kids, but it won't be my partner's grandkids, or my nieces and nephews, in as much as I am able to prevent it without exercising (or delegating) force.
I do remember that they want not only me, but my way of life and all of the beliefs I hold, dead, and I accept their challenge.
It is way more than a matter of fun. It is an assault on the morale and well-being of the current and future helotry. A license for gratuitous cruelty is a reward provided by the system to those it needs to motivate.
Such a license binds ruler and henchmen together, giving the latter a taste of the thrill to be had from the exercise of power at the expense of the psychic health of others. It consolidates a constituency that supports the regime by actively victimising others and fortifying the passivity and obedience of the masses to norms that are imposed upon us from above.
The exercise of this license coarsens us all. Because it is a socially supported phenomenon, licensed gratuitous cruelty implicates us all. Our response to the mock-therapeutic sexual abuse of minors functions as a test of our loyalty to the regime.
Gimpy, I wish that I could share your sang froid on this, but I don't. For starters, the welfare of children is not wholly the responsibility of the parents. No genuine community (or group aspiring to form or sustain anything like a community) can tolerate the gross abuse of minors. A community that tolerated medically unnecessary surgical or chemical castration or hysterectomy on minors deserves no respect or loyalty whatsoever. Tolerance for anything like it forms depraved indifference on a mind-blowing scale. The practice of such cruelties demoralises and demeans everyone who is not borderline insane.
Furthermore, kids react to their parents example. A friend of mine once observed a pair of lesbians in a store trying to push some gender-fluid bullshit on their very young daughter. She wanted something girly and they wanted something gender neutral. The young girl was livid with rage and clearly very frustrated by her two mommies. My friend, the canniest guy I have ever met, gleefully predicted that the real push-back against this sinister nonsense would come from those directly effected by it. Such is the way of the world. The kids of hippies make ferociously tough-minded and ultrarealistic types...the kids who survive glitter families or related stuff will be truly ferocious biological realists...ultra-based.
Naturam expelles furca, tamen usque recurret: you may drive out nature with a pitchfork, she will return (Horace). We have reality on our side, but we should not be complacent.
Finally, putting a few of these physicians and social workers on trial would be a demonstration of power and resolve and would mobilise parents around an issue of existential significance even more potent than abortion. It would focus public attention on the malice of the forces arraigned against them and expose the judicial system to extraordinary pressure. The courts derive their legitimacy from public opinion and they, as much as the physicians involved, would be on trial. It would force the usual suspects to defend the indefensible. It would also provide a very useful test for the politicians. If elected officials won't fight like hell on something as truly obscene and life-denying as this, why bother with them at all?
I like fulfilling wishes, so let's see if I can find a framing to help you see it my way. (It may help to know that I'm an an-cap, perhaps out of place here, but one must stay abreast of various positions.)
Consider Curtis's recent post about effective altruism, specifically the heatmap. The lesbians in your anecdote probably view people as destroyers of the world anyway, and since they care more about the planet than they do about their child, they're perfectly willing to sacrifice that child to their petty gods. And they're willing to abdicate the power that their sovereignty creates to the highest governmental level they can conceive so that their goals for the universe might be realized.
I am willing to allow others to destroy their children because I refuse to cede to any government the power to decide what I do with my children. Respect for that same right in others allows my blood to run cold while my heart rends for those poor children.
Yours is a perfectly valid perspective. Ceding rights of any kind to the state is a fool's game. Nietzsche was spot on when he wrote that the state is the coldest of all cold monsters.
Respect be damned, I am just trying to be practical. We will know that we are winning when the opportunists and moral cowards decide that is in their interest to back whatever is left of sanity and decency. Prosecuting physicians who sterilise healthy children is not a test of individual character, it should be a matter of course. The courts are a vital political arena that is being neglected. There is real potential in putting a few freak-enablers on trial before a Red state jury.
My guess is that it's probably tied to the mid terms? We'll see what happens once those are over.
If the group of individuals who fortified the election had sufficient influence to "keep their people out of the streets," or whatever the quote was, I wouldn't be surprised if they were doing the same now. A lot of these spontaneous and mostly peaceful protests seem astroturfed. And if they are grassroots, they have sufficient organizational ability to restrain their mobs.
I can't think of another reason why the machine would be quiet right now. One of their sacred cows just got butchered and grilled. You'd think they'd be louder.
It's an election year, and this isn't an issue the orcs particularly care about (despite them having abortions more prolifically than anyone else).
Mass rioting creates a lot of (local) demand for repression, even in relatively blue areas. I'm not sure they can hold that back if white people are the face of it.
Large scale rioting always has the potential to turn into inter-communal violence. You can only roll the dice so many times before coming up 'snake-eyes'. This one of the reasons they prefer low-intensity conflict.
There could be any number of reasons. Most likely they are conserving energy and resources. Maintaining the momentum of serious organised violence is difficult. Also, they have to prioritise: the elections would be more important and they may well be planning for something big later in 2022 or in 2024.
Lollll, the subtext here is amazing. "You dummies went and did something so gauche it makes ME look unpopular at parties. ME. How am I supposed to convince my cool girlfriend* of anything when I've got YOU dummies to account for?"
I mean, in the words of another commenter, "yes, I too am rich and went to a great school", silicon valley mathematician, classical liberal arts training, happily married to a researcher with even better street cred, not religious, not Republican, not even against all the abortions, but I still see this as an absolute win. You created me, and a lot of people like me, and I'm sorry, but you do have to answer for us to your cool girlfriend. It's a bummer, I know.
Personally I see this as one of those political revolution vs social revolution things. It's totally reasonable to trade away a political revolution for a social revolutionary win. Otherwise, what's the point? Power accumulated forever and never spent, like so much useless hoard money. No, if something is someone's stated number one bullet point social revolutionary goal** for fifty years, believe it's in their rational interest to trade away everything else to get it done.
And it's not even necessarily a bad move for the political revolution. Let this convince a large number of people on both sides that democracy doesn't work. Let it hasten the end of America the Single Culture.
** The goal is not (and never was) to ban abortions in Oakland. It's to regain the right to ban them where they're unpopular. It's anti-federal, it's a step towards city states, it's equivalent to https://graymirror.substack.com/p/the-parent-coup
The reversal of Roe was the widely shared goal of a large group of people, and nevertheless it's shocking that it was reversed. But a federal ban isn't such a widely held goal.
You can take the W, or you can hold your breath along with your goal and see what happens. I will hold neither. I will take the W and go home.
Politics is Power. This is a threat to Power. The terror is not can’t get Abortion, its the overturning of Judicial Fiat. The entire New Deal Administrative government and so power rests on Judicial Fiat.
This court knows well that Humphreys Executors (1937) and Federal Register aren’t even powers breathed into life by the Supreme Court but directly contradictory to the explicit wording of Articles I and II.
This court is so dangerous it could actually find nothing in the Constitution or Amendment’s that transfer the money printing power from Congress to the Private Corporation that owns America called the Federal Reserve (1913).
The application of Originalism to our government can destroy the entire Progressive system from Wilson to now- it all directly contradicts the written texts or was breathed into existence from the thin air.
The entire machine’s legitimacy and so power rests on contradicting the Constitution.
I didn't expect Roe to be overturned and I don't expect a federal ban. But to rest is to die for any political movement; barring a full regime change going home is almost never going to be a good idea.
A concrete, enduring, win for the decentralisation of political power strengthens the people. The centre of gravity of democracy in America is at the state and local level. Reducing the ability of centralised authority to interfere in the choices of the states is a win for democracy in every corner of America.
IMHO, decentralisation is ultimately about the smart money reducing its liability to the financial woes of both DC and the heavily indebted Blue States, compounded by the need of multinationals to salvage zones of relative sanity in which to maintain viable centres of economic activity. Regional oligarchs are happy to either back or even front whatever it takes to make this happen. Nobody wants to lose their shirt just to fund whatever garbage is required to re-elect the current clowns. The real fight will be over mineral and energy resources on Federal land. The state pride/regional culture stuff means nothing to the real players, of course. The one thing Panem-on the-Potomac is good for is alienating the masses, thereby legitimising the devolution.
> is a win for democracy in every corner of America
Phillip, you do know that Modbug/Yarvin considers "democracy" a dirty word, don't you? And that he is a monarchist? If not, I can provide you with some salient links. If yes, then I do not understand your comment.
I was not commenting with Curtis in mind, but expressing my own opinion. I am happy to see democracy renew itself, especially in the sane portions of North America. I expect that democracy in other places could be pretty nasty.
Curtis I love you, but this essay is a steaming pile. In my nerd rage I'm going to toss you a 10 spot just to post this (I'm already up to date on all the premium content...).
Trashing Roe v Wade was an insane win for the good, the true, and the beautiful. A win not taken by replacing the entire system with a monarchy, but one taken by regular, straightforward politics. A win that, by your writing on the culture war, should have been impossible (and for what it's worth, I thought it was impossible too, until it happened). I've been waiting to hear how you update your thought or provide a counter narrative or _something_ --- but to downplay such a colossal win followed by rehashing the same old rhetoric? Weak.
First off, let's get this out of the way --- _our elites are not high elves_. They are degenerate, lack conviction, exonerate the lowest, and take pride in sin, ugliness, and relativism. Google drag queen story hour, and marinate on that hissing creature made up like satan if satan's beautician had downs syndrome --- that, my friend, is a dark elf. While it's true these dark elves occupy the honored position of the high elves, they only do so in clown world, in this inversion we are living. Don't be fooled, they are dark and getting darker.
Second off, there is no longer a hard class distinction between Hobbits and Elves. The majority of people reading this, I'd wager, enjoy art films _and_ grilling. Technology has levelled the playing field. Joe Rogan, literal real life hobbit, is destroying the gay bois at cnn and the supercilious fake sneerers at fox. The dark elves have taken over, and they are setting fire to their once great elf valley from within. The elves are learning the hard way that there is Truth in morality. They aren't the first to put themselves above Truth, and they'll fall just as hard as everyone else who as attempted it.
No really what is this metaphor --- our current oligarchy is not full of winners. More and more, strong leaders who care about strong leader things are specifically avoiding the bureaucracy, the political correctness, the mediocrity. And those that don't are filtered out of the system because they refuse to bend the knee to lies and degeneracy. You're telling me there is no one outside of this pack of raving clowns with the will to power? Biden is the high water mark of a human leader? I agree that many elites are being done wrong by the current system, and under better leadership they will be better people. But the best people are getting out of elfhood.
This is not a class battle, it is a theological battle. I've read Tolkien and the hobbits and elves are on on the same side: the side of good.
Third off, grow some cajones. I know you like to distance yourself from moral questions and have the autistic programmer takes, but some things you just can't fence sit on. "Among those who believe that an unborn baby is a human life, of course, the result of preventing an abortion is saving a life." Very diplomatic. Let the Californians set up their abortion theme parks. Let them sell little key chains with the aborted kid's leg hanging off it. Hell, the autistic silicon valley types can monetize baby parts the same way they monetized personal data. Nobody even knows about the value of their unborn child! We'll pay _you_ to abort it!
Let the horrendous evil of society's wanton murder of its most helpless be on full display, because through some spell it has been hidden from the eyes of good people. This will further divide the elves, right? Speaking of which, the repeal of Roe v Wade does just that --- it allows red states to go red, and blue states to go blue. People can sort themselves out. That's the whole point, isn't it, patchwork and all that?
Lastly, tangential, but a peeve of mine:
"Culture is still downstream from power"
If it's downstream of power how can it be leveraged to upset the existing power center? Culture/art is neither downstream, nor upstream of power/politics. They are always interacting with each other in a complex system that loops in on itself. I have no idea why this generalisation is so popular.
_To the extent that political power opts to exercise tyrannical control of culture_, it is upstream of _mainstream_ culture. But there will always be alternative cultures that exist independent of, or react against the mainstream propaganda. And as Curtis points out, these alternative cultures can end up upstream of future politics.
But more than that, power/politics is not everything. Art is deeper than the low resolution abstractions wielded by politics. Human connections are deeper. Politics are necessary and always present in human society, they are _not_ all encompassing. The latter is such misanthropic, myopic, and self evidently wrong take, yet I get it constantly from both the left and the right.
In short, step it up my man. If the "dark elves" can't take a stand on murdering unborn kids, then what good are they? Do we need to sway you with poetry on this one?
"Second off, there is no longer a hard class distinction between Hobbits and Elves. The majority of people reading this, I'd wager, enjoy art films _and_ grilling. Technology has levelled the playing field."
Well said. Very few "Hobbits" work in fields anymore. While a lot of us do not care specifically for power and its mechanisms per se, I think many do recognise it as a necessary activity that needs ripping off its current handlers. And a lot of elite culture is faux culture. What's more cultural: niche paintings no one recognises, and pontification on obscure poems, or actually showing up to church and harvest festivals and building nice big monuments?
This is a gripe I have: imagine the monuments we could build with JCBs and Caterpillars. But the "cultural elite" would rather have fancy bars with uncomfortable sofas and modern "art" on the walls.
I would argue that culture is downstream of power is *generally true*. But it is not *always* true.
"If it's downstream of power how can it be leveraged to upset the existing power center?"
When powerful ideas become ossified, their spirit gets weakened, and they are no longer powerful. They are propped up by powerful institutions, but the ideas are no longer espoused by sincere believers - merely by people who want access to power. This smells strongly of bullshit, since these people can never actually defend these ideas when interrogated. This stench offends the intellect of any sincere and reasonable person. It particularly offends the youth, who constantly interrogate and question, and who are quick to rebel when they smell bullshit.
So directly answer your question - I'd argue that during these transformative phases, the power center has been hollowed out, and there's no real power left in it. It's all fake. That vacuum is what creates a window of opportunity for new and sincere ideas to take the stage. They can do so because they have more potential power than existing institutional ideas have *real* power, primarily because these new ideas have more draw, and nobody wants to be a square. Once the new ideas flourish, they will be sincerely practiced for a generation (and maybe even achieve great things) and then be ruthlessly exploited by cynical power hungry bastards.
Culture strongly tends to flow downstream from Power - but Power isn't always powerful.
Besides that quibble I actually agree with most of your post, including your points about viewing everything human through the lens of politics. It's insufferable. But I felt I had to address this point in particular, because *I* am insufferable.
Talern, thanks for adding nuance here, this is a complex topic. I very much agree with your assessment of how the power/culture cycle operates --- something vital, fresh, and dangerous is pioneered in the margins. The power center, if they are savvy, will leverage that new thing by coopting it. Now normative, bureaucratic, and political, that new thing will ossify and start to smell of halitosis. Repeat.
However, just in this high level summary, look at how complex the feedback loop is:
Something fresh is created in the margins, that is, as far outside of state power one can be while still being part of the state, that is, subject to state power but much less so than the normal subject. So the new thing is created by resisting state power, but not resisting it so much as to completely break away. It needs to be distant from central power because central power has a deleterious effect on creation, but it needs to let enough central power in that it has the scent of power about it, because, as Curtis points out, power is always cool. It's very much like how a vaccine allows a small portion of the virus in. Pure power will kill the new thing. A sliver of power allows the new thing to kill the old thing.
This new thing is created by the powerless (or close enough), yet the thing itself can be leveraged as a form of power. So the creator now has power, but only because he's leveraging the culture he created without power. And again, he is combining a form of rebellion against central power with a form of submission to central power.
Now the power center, or state, coopts this thing, which was partially state power to begin with, but mostly not. The new thing becomes all state power, then inevitably normative, centralized power exerts its un-cool poison on the thing, the thing loses its power. Repeat.
I guess it's the implication that power/politics or culture/art is at one end of the river, and the other is _only_ the dirty laundry water from the first. That generalization is not true in either direction, and it's so far from true that I don't find the categories useful. The two ends are part of a larger system of influence that forms feedback loops. Democracy has a demoralizing effect on culture. Oligarchy pushes the kind of lowest common denominator pap that dominates our society. Maybe monarchy is the only context in which we could have created the great cathedrals. But there is always human will outside of power, in individuals and in groups.
Perhaps the best way to say what these idioms are getting at is that culture can be a form of power in and of itself. This power can be leveraged by the state, by dissident groups, by individuals, and so on. However, it's important to remember that culture is not _only_ power, and cannot be understood through this single factor analysis.
You make a good point -- high culture is not necessarily evil, low culture not necessarily good. In LotR, hobbits and elves are both on the side of light, despite being on different strata; likewise, nazgul and orcs are both on the side of darkness.
Elves are completely incapable of viewing anything outside of a "what I want at this moment" lens. "I want to be able to screw without consequence, and killing babies is a price I'm willing to pay, so law is now whatever is required to make that a 'right'".
This would seem to indicate that there can be no contract at all with elves, because there is no meaning which will survive a change in their desires, and those change frequently. Today they want to change the sex of children, down to 2 and 3 year olds.
Before I thought that this was a feature of a state. Now you say it is a feature of elves, per se.
The only reason the elves hadn't PREVIOUSLY openly come for our children was that they were afraid of being burned alive by the hobbits. The folks who figured out where this was heading in the 80s were laughed at. But they were right. Not sure the right thing to do now is just let the elves keep raping and trans-ing the kids. At least they couldn't abort MY kids. But they CAN rape and trans my kid. So I don't see not waging this war as a tenable plan.
Violence which might be directed at them or their clients. They have no problem with violence directed at hobbits. Witness the shop keeper who dared to defend himself by stabbing his attacker.
True. This is somewhat analogous to soldiers (including western, liberal, enlightened, democratic, etc. ones) who are far enough from home.
Skipping the Nazis and the Soviets, but sticking with the noble war for freedom and democracy ... pardon me, hairball ... I trust everyone is familiar with Life magazine picture with the caption "Arizona war worker writes her Navy boyfriend a thank-you note for the Jap skull he sent her." (May 22, 1944.)
The "enemy" is not really human, or conversely, if the enemy IS human it is very difficult for most soldiers to harm him. Empathy will get you killed. The SAS motto is "Who dares wins". Perhaps a better version is "who doesnt's hate loses."
The culture war has reached the point where the elves do not consider the deplorables to be fully human.
They don't have problems with violence directed at their clients, on second thought. It is useful when it happens. They're obviously very happy to immiserate their clients -- just look at the inner cities, or the streets of any major city that they run.
One would have an easier time understanding those who are in favor of abortion rights if one accepts that they do not view abortion as equivalent to killing a baby.
If you stay with them through the dodges and weaves, it usually comes down to, "Killing babies is an acceptable cost to be able to screw." And it is imperative that the baby dies, too. It can't be, in a Walter Blockean way, that the baby is transported to another place to come to term.
It is always amazing that people don't take both sides of this issue at face value. Most pro life folks really do think this is a murder issue. Most pro choice folks really do think this is a medical health and human rights issue. Very hard for most folks of any stripe to credit both thoughts as good faith principles.
People of honesty and good faith don’t make the decisions- the sociopath elves do - honest people of good faith are simply relegated to hobbit status - or fallen Halfling Gollums.
Whatever one's view there really is no middle ground on this issue! That's the problem with both "lets discuss" and "we have to pack the courts until we win".
Once upon a time there was a pseudonymous blogger who quite possibly changed the world (the jury of history is still out and will be deliberating for a while.) Then he got doxxed and, according to some opinions, has never been the same since.
Here is a quote from his earlier years: "...let’s pause for a minute, and admit that there is evil in the world. More specifically, there are evil people. And it is a glorious thing, and good for all and sundry, to wrap a rope around their necks and pull the chair away... the combination of world domination and *profound self-righteousness* is a bath of nutrients as nourishing as evil has ever found. And bacteria are not in short supply" (emphasis mine.)
He's Machiavellian. He did endorse giving red America an app to dispense townie instructions from President Trump, so they could march to the Capitol to euphemistically "make their voices heard" (read take over DC). He is more careful now, but he's still Menscius.
Why do the all the "Dark Elves" telling me to wait just a little bit longer all seem somewhat Dwarvish? And why do so many of the High Elves seem to be Dwarves as well?
If the answer is "because a significant percentage of all elves are actually dwarves" than I question your whole method and frame of analysis.
"Of dwarves and orcs we shall not speak" Ok, fine. But both are immediate problems to my life and livelihood. The orcs are killing me and the dwarves are robbing me blind. The artistic pretensions of elves are ugly and revolting to me, but they aren't ruining my immediate material existence, and they have not penetrated my family's spiritual bubble. I'm not being misruled, I'm being robbed and beaten and shot at by the unruled. The dwarves and orcs are being misruled. Rule them. Leave ME the fuck alone!
You have this idea that life is just one big burning man for leftists, but that simple folk need to be ruled by their own parochial chiefdoms. It's the other way around. It's the bat-shit crazy lefties who need the monastic discipline and the order of their own church. The common folk can be left alone.
There are two problems the way I see it. One is that Curtis can't empathize with the 'hobbit' portion of his audience that well, though I do believe he tries. The other is that he stopped coming up with genuinely new ideas so now we're getting pieces like this ad infinitum, just with different metaphors. Combined this will result in people getting increasingly pissed off.
He needs to resume writing the book. Aside from Covid-panic and some back-and-forth with other writers, it was his only line of thought that wasn't just a rehash of UR.
Really though, what does he have left to say? And I don't mean that in a rude way - he's been talking about this subject for over a decade now. You can tweak the wording and learn how to communicate key ideas more effectively, but this isn't some sort of science where you can devise experiments and expand what you know. This is philosophy of state. This is ancient and well understood.
Didn't he say in some post moons ago that he's still writing the book, but has chosen to stop writing it in public? I'll be honest - while I love Curtis' analysis, I don't see any realistic way of achieving his goals. Brilliant Pebbles wasn't implemented for a reason, and good luck developing any sort of spaceborne government that won't become a nightmare state.
There is a lot to be said on what is actually to be done. While the whole reboot the USA with a CEO emperor makes a wonderful story...I think succession of a group of states is much more practical, medium term and effective. And we are talking existential crisis here. IQs dropping, forgetting technology, hoards of low IQ uncivillized 3rd world masses converging on the developed world, and a mediocre low innovative state (china) surpassing the US. Endgame of this is all-world third-world. I'd rather have a secure state in food producing territory established where some people have to work as robots, than pontificate about what the perfect state of man would be (as craftsmen etc etc) and never have any security against the colossal tide of decay.
My question is whether or not secession is more practical. I suspect it is less practical.
The capture of the state by a political machine which subsequently reinvented the state has happened successfully three times in our history - with the ratification of the Constitution, with Lincoln, and with FDR. Secession was attempted twice (Confederacy and Whiskey rebellion) and both failed. One common thread is that these three new regimes emerged during crises, of which we have no shortage. It's a fertile time for transformative change.
Compared to capturing a regime and dismantling it, founding a separatist regime requires a substantial amount of courage from politicians, some sort of reasonably popular cultural identity distinct from the mainstream, and soldiers willing to die to defend it. It also requires the coalition of secessionists to develop a new state as they part with the old one. Divorce at the national level, much like the personal level, is a legal and bureaucratic nightmare, though with much higher stakes.
Ultimately I'm a monarchist not because I believe it is good or better, but because I see it as almost inevitable. It seems to me that monarchy is the most likely outcome because it is the path of least resistance, as evidenced by history. I want the gears of history to resume turning and the elites to be rotated. This is not for any idealistic vision on my part - the system is less important than the people who occupy it, and the only solution to our mismanagement is to install worthy leaders and award them the power to dismantle the previous regime. I just want competent government, not some grandiose narrative of things as they ought to be.
If I believed secession was more likely to deliver, I'd be a secessionist. But there are so many obstacles to initiating it, so many hurdles to overcome once you've started it, and so many ways it can go wrong. You might get a state sooner, but would it be able to deal with the problems you outlined? If you can't resolve it amicably, you'll have war, and war is fundamentally dysgenic - as well as hell on border security.
All fair points. I think founding a separatist regime is cleaner, but it could be done through capturing the political mechanisms as you mention. I think the current political mechanism should be captured and used to break up the united states. Why go through the trouble of trying to rule Californians/ Blue states. Let THEM rule themselves. Why should worthy leaders rule over those that dont want their rule (for cultish ideological reasons)?
Yes, have worthy rulers, but give them worthy subjects. Capture the political system, break the USA up into the black states of america, Republican states of america, Democratic states of america, and maybe a european ethno-state (white israel), maybe a libertarian state aswell. Give people 5 years to move about with state assistance, withdraw travel rights between states as appropriate. I think this is going to be a lot easier than trying to rule over a cult of self humiliation and cultural destruction. And would a "governmental CEO" rather rule over the fertile lands of the north USA/ rust belt etc...or california. I know which i'd pick.
The soviety Union successfully disintegrated, it was messy because it wasn't planned. A planned disintegration would have been better. Lets do that.
Basically, the reason is to avoid war and the security nightmare that is having multiple countries in north America.
If there is an incomplete transfer of power, and the blue regime is permitted to survive, you can be certain it will be vindictive. There's the matter of our foreign clients as well. I suspect they would side with whoever promises to continue security guarantees and provide technology - with red being isolationist and tech mostly in blue coastal states, that's a problem. The question I'm really worried about is weather starving out the coastal strongholds is as easy as a lot of populists seem to believe. Those are port cities. They can ship in grain.
And I'm one to hate on California too, but I wouldn't underestimate my enemy. California has some of the most productive agricultural land, and it's the cradle of tech companies that service the entire globe. The rust belt still needs to be rebuilt - California needs to get its shit together. To any sort of monarch, California would seem extremely enticing. Of course, the agricultural productivity of California is driven by water taken from further inland, which only creates another seed of conflict.
A planned disintegration is much more likely to work than unilaterally declaring independence but you're still going to have to make compromises to avoid war and becoming collectively weaker, and I would still recommend some sort of alliance/union to try and keep foreign interference off the continent. This will mean years of negotiations and swallowing some pride, and you have to be prepared for that.
After a decade or more of writing I think he has reached "critical grifting mass." This is where you can rehash your ideas in a new wrapper ("nigella seed bun with jackfruit marmalade") and there will always be new college freshmen flush with scholarship funds ready to subscribe to anything that will annoy their parents.
(There was an emphasis on "can", I'm not saying this is what is happening - I'm saying is give us a freaking progress report on the freaking book!
* How much of it has been written?
* How much is left?
* How long do we original subscribers need to continue to subscribe to get a copy when it's done?
If it's going to be a Song of Ice and Fire dealy it would be honest to tell us now. )
The solution to Elvish extremism is not to arm Elvish moderates with power. The solution, which Yarvin might be expected to know, is the return of the King.
Defeatist nonsense: The rural people control the food, the rural people control the highways, the rural people have the guns and the military training. The city people have art, paper money, and web applications.
The real problem with Dobbs is, I don't give two flying fucks if democrats kill their children, inside the womb or outside it: Dobbs is born out of a misguided "love for all humanity" which is the true enemy of the right. In fact, I would give them the power to kill their offspring until they become Republicans.
The fact that Republicans care about Democrat lives, and all the weakness that entails, is the real reason we will lose. We will lose until we view them with as much contempt as they view us. And let them die. Even celebrate it.
Also it’s my sense that for most Dobbs more fulfills a sense that dismantling the legal framework for illegitimate killing is a commandment obligation than it springs from a sense of “love” for the specific unborn child. Is my sense, could be wrong.
And you are the reason we are going to lose. Tell me, does your heart bleed for the Nazi children who died in the bombing of Dresden. I feel more for them, because we have more in common with them, than I do for our political opponents here. But I understand that war is war.
These people hate you. They use you to demonstrate to others their status. They enjoy humiliating you. They enjoy violating your human dignity. They see your children as a weapon to be used against you.
Many people misunderstand the correct concept of love. Love is to do what spiritually benefits and uplifts the fellow man, not necessarily what pleases him, indulges his weaknesses, engenders further sin, etc. to love properly often dictates a great deal of severity, even conflict. But what it isn’t, ever, is twisted hate.
"Tell me, does your heart bleed for the Nazi children who died in the bombing of Dresden. I feel more for them, because we have more in common with them, than I do for our political opponents here."
City people do not have art. They have the post-modernist fecalized substitute to it. Rural people, with the Church as a channel of historical transmission, are exposed to much more real art.
The city people have power - the power and the habit of organizing people under their command. Rural peasants don't have much capacity for much action in 2022. How did the Canadian truck protesters end up? The Yellow Jackets in France?
Owning guns means nothing if you have no appetite for its use. All the militia organizing and jeffersonian rhetoric about the tree of liberty is fake and gay. Something as tame as January 6th was enough to bring down the hammer on the yokels.
For your own sake, let go of this functionally retarded bravado. Your pitchfork is is no danger of being used - it may even be made of wood. Riling up your fellow peasants so some of them may sacrifice themselves in a futile J6th-like event should weigh badly on your conscience.
The peasants will be crushed if it comes to it. Thankfully, it will not come to that since there isn't much energy on either side for a real conflict. It will continue to be fake and gay (Proud Boys vs BLM/antifa).
The Canadian truckers were resolved upon being peaceful. Looks to me like the BLM arsonists did okay. I wonder if there is a lesson to be learned there.
If you think that the outcome from the trucker protest going violent would have resulted in anything other than permanent outright marshal law North Korea style, you do not understand the left or how political violence works.
The system does not fear low level (in the grand scheme of things molotov cocktail-ing a few run down buildings is low level) leftist violence, because leftist mobs are largely composed of useful idiots led by political actors who are in some way associated with the system. It is an unspoken form of negotiation for further incremental leftist games. They are not really a systemic threat (not even Trudeau wants to cede power retarded communists). Right wing violence on the other hand is an *actual* threat to the system, and they know it.
Thus, as Curtis has alluded to before, when it comes to that option...it's one-and-done. You better damn well win the entire war on day 1, or get ready for *actual* gulags (see jan 6).
There is no such thing as permanent tyranny---if men are willing to fight. The only thing that allows tyranny to thrive is cowardice.
And yes, if the Trucker protest had turned violent, the result would have been bad---because that strategy does not merge well with violence. Because the correct strategy is to STARVE liberals to death. Luckily, they have already caged themselves for us---they live in Gulags of their own construction called cities. And we can massacre them there.
No cowardice. No defeatism. And while I don't think the time for violence has yet come, no self-delusion. We win. The right has ALWAYS been better at war. Always.
"The right has ALWAYS been better at war." I would like to see some examples of this because I'm not aware of many from the past two centuries or so.
Our strength lies in our elevation of order as a primary value for society, not wanton violence, that is the tactic of the leftist and it works for him.
Successful right wing reactions are remarkably lacking in bloodshed (Pinochet only had to dispatch a few thousand commies during his reign, and that's if you believe the cooked mainstream numbers). Hitler ruled with chaotic mass violence and unnecessary/counterproductive warfare, and he was in an arguably stronger position to begin with. Compare the results.
We won't win by being impetuous. We bide our time and endure the unjust suffering imposed on us by morally bankrupt 'elites'. Once the commoners have had their fill of living in a broken and degenerate society, we will give them the order they will be begging for, and we won't even have to fight much for it.
No, asshole, I am not going to do your thinking for you. If you are dumb enough to think the left is as good at warfare as the right, if you cannot see how the concepts of duty and orderliness help in a fight, then you are just too fucking stupid to be dealt with. In fact, if you equate war with wanton violence, as you seem to do in your response, then you have already demonstrated just how ignorant you are of military strategy and military history. Orderliness and discipline are force multipliers.
And don't be daft, either, I obviously mean the right is better at war man for man. Yes, a hundred liberals can beat the crap out of the strongest soldier.
Have you ever seen a fight between the proud boys and Antifa? Antifa does not do that well. Yeah, stop fucking around with words and open your eyes. Any example from history where the left won a war against a right wing opponent required the left to have VASTLY LARGER RESOURCES (or it required the conservatives to have become soft and complacent, which is exactly what the American ruling class, our enemies, are).
Franco in Spain. Pinochet in Chile. The US vs. the USSR. Nazi Germany punching well above its weight in WWII (as did the German Empire in WWI). Anywhere the conservatives have had equal resources, they have won. They obviously punch above their weight and the counter-examples you will mention, like Russia vs. the Nazis, will all involve adversaries who had vastly larger resources. Conservatism is a force multiplier and you know it. Indeed, compare the Taliban with the Afghan government.
Go cower in fear of Antifa and a bunch of city dwellers who cannot even feed themselves without us if you want. But keep your specious reasoning, that---by the way---conveniently ignored my other points about land, food, and gender ratios, to yourself.
Powerlessness and impotence really are the only things that nurture such deep seated and visceral resentment. However concrete those advantages may be, until they're effectively utilized by an organization, touting them is only posturing, and posturing is for losers. Predators simply go for the kill.
You will not lose for lack of contempt. Republicans lose because they are weak. They deserve to lose because they are weak. They are the weakest part of an increasingly weak state. The citizenry and ruling class both lack virtue. The ruling class is corrupt, performative, and lazy. The citizenry are no less lazy and too timid to risk upsetting the order of things. The republic is dead and what remains is ceremony. The crew is indolent and won't mutiny - even if they kill the captain, the ship is sinking regardless.
Populists hate to hear that monarchy is the inevitable sequel to dying republics, but it's true. If the citizenry could solve the problem, the problem wouldn't have arisen in the first place. The generations that could sustain a republic are dead. Cynicism and apathy are high. The majority of the population already feels it has lost its voice in government - because it has. Politics is the art of the possible, and monarchy is the only historically validated achievable escape vector. Besides collapse, anyway.
Caring about Republicans or Democrats unironically in current year just means you're still trapped in the past rather than looking to the future.
Why do we "deserve to lose" because we are weak? Women are generally weaker than men. I guess they deserve to be victims of assault by your logic. Yours is Melian Dialogue BS. Deserves and might have nothing to do with each other.
And I listed reasons we are, in fact, strong: Greater military skill and experience, more men (yes, we are literally more male, which has advantages in a conflict), control of the food supply, control of more geographic area, higher non-verbal intelligence and higher average intelligence (the left is bimodal, tons of verbally smart people combined with a lot of morons, very few people who know how to build, engineer, etc. comparatively speaking).
You can insult me. You can engage in all your puffery about monarchy, a system the Russians and Chinese essentially have now and has not made either of them strong (China was on a better track before Xi), but your little discourse is short on facts and long on cliches and talking points stolen from Mr. Yarvin.
Furthermore, we control the defense industry and, more importantly, the energy sector. We are strong.
Tell me, how lazy was the citizenry of Sri Lanka?
Don't insult me again or I won't bother responding to you. I am done trading insults on here with people. People who insult me will be ignored.
"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.
No Talern its betrayal, not your pop pyschobabble. I took and kept the Oath, and we are all betrayed.
Now tell Mom to bring you another hot pocket so you can LARP as King, one of Yarvin’s many court Jesters, but not one honest fool.
The job actually needs a Mao probably as people like The CY family have left us impotent, coward and idiot Mandarins desperately coasting on inertia and rehashed scams and deceptions of the past. Like the court eunuchs of the Manchu without those pesky Bannermen (you’ve lost us all, as every push from Kabul to Uvalde shows).
So an American Mao it will be, the strongest warlord after a very long sorting march.
BTW the popular notion the Founding generation was more virtuous than us doesn’t really bear close scrutiny, 3% of them were braver than the others (we have at least that now, perhaps 10%) and they certainly had some better leaders, the main differences are women had no say and sin was private not publicized. The myth of the Founders virtue certainly wouldn’t match any Congress after 1776, and is largely a creation of later generations.
Idealism is a luxury of the comfortable not the desperate, all this nonsense is largely a creation of the 20th century due to the wars against Fascism and Communism- and the loss of Christianity without replacement in the elites and Harvard, Yale who still dominate the Commanding Heights.
Whiggery; America went into turmoil the revolt then Independence not because of a failure of Whiggery but a betrayal by the successor government to the ousted Pitt. Washington may have been the Father of his country but Pitt created his Army - Pitt promised an Empire of Liberty to the colonies if they fought the French, and just as importantly offered subsidies to pay for the war which came to 40% of the cost. This promise of full political equality combined with the seed money to start it energized the reluctant colonies to raise and supply, pay armies, TAXES, staff , officer and logistically support colonial militias who fought and won.
Pitt created the colonial systems that became states and the generation of colonial soldiers- that became the United States.
You see the new King didn’t like Pitt and put a Whitehall cipher in charge- who not only dismissed Pitt’s promise of representation but then tried to tax the 40% back! The colonists were already footing 60%.
This is the Revolution- BETRAYAL of the Colonists. Who then took the machine built to fight the French and turned it on the faithless and feckless British.
You see - BETRAYING YOUR ARMY IS A BAD IDEA.
But at least the British never were idiots enough to betray the British army.
This calls for a celebration, ask mom to bring another hot pocket , Rex Talern 😂
I have no desire to larp as a king, and I said as much in another comment. I want nothing to do with government. I want to live alone, heavily armed, in tranquil isolation.
Yes, I did sneer at FC, because I see those sorts of declarations of "I hate and want to kill people" as useless posturing and cope. Hatred is only a refuge for those too weak to kill out of duty. It's cope because if you're really so hard and badass, why aren't you out there doing it? Why didn't you serve? Why aren't you organizing the revolution? "Heh, I don't have christcuck morality, I'm not *weak*." Anyone who publically needs to state that they hold some belief that makes them strong is just insecure. Strength doesn't come from belief, it comes from action, and if you're strong, you don't need to tell everyone about it. They'll know. So when I see someone publically display weakness and proceed to condescendingly rag on everyone else for being weak - yeah, it gets under my skin. When I read that shit, *my* first thought is of hot pocket eating keyboard warriors, so it's funny to me that you thought the same of my response.
I think we're talking about different types of virtue. Daily life was much more of a struggle in colonial America. There was no instant gratification and you had to work for every meal, often from hunting/raising the animal all the way to putting it on the table - at least for settlers and the impoverished. Police work was less reliable and crime more prevalent, foisting the burden of self defense on the individual. The sort of patience and willingness to do hard or even violent work which necessity bred into people is the virtue I'm referring to. They didn't have a choice but to cultivate those virtues - but my point is that they held them. Too many today lack the patience to even cook a proper meal when they have the time.
Talern- I did serve in war in the US MIL, did things out of duty, and we were betrayed .
I already did my duty.
Our Oaths were monetized by the pretty people in DC (who aren’t of course, its Hollywood for ugly people) then we were used in the Valkyrie remake of Biden’s inauguration.
The good news being that our Oaths abrogated by counterparty treachery sets us free. Well, good news for us.
Hate? Hate is too strong a word, despise isn’t.
But the absolute worst part is the CYs of DC have started something they can’t place in never mind finish.
They’re (DC)!visibly afraid of guns and showed us that, they missed no opportunity to snub or degrade us including not letting us get coffee in their precious little Starbucks at the Capitol Subway- after guarding them all night. These are ☠️ people.
You don’t summon soldiers then show fear, and insult them.
And all they’ll do is start an enormous war and series of wars and probably plan to run (from us ? 😂) and that’s it.
All they have done is nihilism as the last men of history.
Anyway, thanks for the training, combat experience, really cool friends and setting us FREE of our Oaths.
The Geriatric Interlude will not last, after that mischief shall be afoot doing as we will.
You did, but I don't have the sense that FC did. I apologize, my use of the rhetorical "you" wasn't thought through.
My take is that viewing one's enemy as anything other than a human obstacle gives one's enemy an advantage they can exploit - an emotional blind spot. If they can piss me off and get me to do something stupid, I hurt for it. And worse, I might choose to do something stupid all on my own just out of a desire to hurt the enemy, instead of *finishing* the enemy. That's why I see it as superfluous. Focus on the duty, not the feelings. But I also recognize people don't work that way, generally.
If you can resurrect the republic, I'll be pleasantly surprised. I don't know of any republic of comparable size in a comparable state of systemic decay which managed to reconstitute itself. But I would love to be shown an exception. Bella Fortuna.
No need to apologize, I was just clarifying. I don’t hate them, I understand them.
As for soldiers we know we must fight and await only leadership. It will likely come.
That is our business, anyone wanting a choice on that has to make our choices, we will trust none but our own. You must be us, you must accept your death, you must accept you have to kill.
That’s our problem, we alone.
To return to governance; Lets understand the government we’ve got;
“Not my Department.”
We’ve all heard that phrase, we are now governed by such.
That’s the awful truth.
The reason the Progressive Technocracy must be thrown down is not bad governance, its no government at all.
The Progressives hollowed out and overthrew King Republic and ...didn’t replace The Republic.
No one took responsibility.
If the King is to be a puppet then there must be a Regent- there’s no Regent. There’s no Council.
There is a discussion on a different forum, which I won't link to, that there are different police departments and different army units. And they interpret the Oath to the Constitution and what "loyalty to the American people" means very differently.
The operative quote from DC mission by SGM to Gov Murfy
“Wait, I didn’t swear an Oath to you.”
Here’s my differentiation;
My Oath is abrogated by counter-party treachery and I am FREE”
THANK YOU.
Why I was a slave it seems from 1986 until 1/20/21.
But no one swore to any person or party- but the Dems in DC DID NOT PROCESS that. Not that it stopped them from abusing and insulting us, they know no other way.
That trickery into Treason even as Dupe will not work again.
If a leader rises its over fast.
The correlation of forces did not commend force as a viable solution- but desperately flailing they summoned DOD (who declined) then the unfortunate National Guardsmen who responded *
Quos Deus vult perdere prius dementat. The gods made them mad with fear ...madness it was.
*given 26 in my platoon of 21 green virgins and 5 salts like myself I came, shamefully.
A shame I will erase given a chance. That’s also the last hostages I’ll ever let be taken.
This is the first time Yarvin has made an argument on strategy that I disagreed with.
War is in many ways a battle of resource management. The resource of energy is a common focus of Yarvin's writings. There are other resources to consider in addition to energy. One such resource is territory. If Eastern Russia decided to break away from the rest of Russia right now, would it make Russia stronger or weaker in their war with Ukraine?
Territory comes with tangible resources which must be managed. High Elves have become very bad at resource management. In many Progressive territories aka Blue States or Blue Strongholds (cities), you'll find their poor resource management is becoming more and more transparent. An example: in the the 2010-2020 census, California experienced its first population decline in recorded history. Do you suppose Hobbit strength and influence on California increased or decreased over this decade? Obviously it decreased. And as it decreased, High Elves found themselves alone with each other, and their increasingly tenuous relationship with competence. And that third group (neglected by Yarvin), the humans who also want to be left alone but happen to enjoy art films and whatever, find themselves inexplicably attracted to Hobbit states. It's getting easier and easier to find kindred spirits in Florida these days. Who knew?
When people no longer desire to be ruled by your Regime, it has lost legitimacy. It is usually those individuals who enjoy the combination of gumption, competence, and means that are most likely to channel their great-great-grandfather's genes and head on a voyage to another state better suited for their talents and with significantly fewer hobos masturbating on park benches. And what effect does this have on the places they flee from? Oh yes, we have a name for that. It's called brain drain. It turns out there's about a half century of data on the effects of brain drain on the nations they flee from. It isn't good for their former homes. It is quite good for their new homes. When LeBron took his talents to South Beach, South Beach benefited. Ohio had to get its shit together in order to win him back.
Population is a type of territory. Fewer and fewer people are seeking to be ruled by Elves, and are begrudgingly warming to the Hobbits. Roe being overturned might impact that. However, it also might not. What's more important to that wine aunt who already managed to sober up long enough to realize she was tired of stepping on dirty needles and got out of dodge: abortion access for her barren womb, or the refreshing smell of not piss and conspicuous absence of hobos debasing themselves on benches?
Yarvin called Dobbs our Brexit. That's cool. It will indeed influence The Big Sort. That's also cool. Think back to the California census. We want that sort. We want the Blue states to get as Blue as possible. We want Heisenberg Progressivism, nothing beats the blue stuff. The fewer impurities it contains (Hobbits) and the more concentrated it is, the more its true nature is revealed. Turns out those Hobbits and Humans have been subsidizing the High Elves and their dumbass ideas for quite some time. They do this by virtue of being competent enough to keep the lights on while the San Francisco Regime interviewed and trained the new dirty needle collection brigade. It also turns out those Hobbits and Humans are getting tired of that, and mustering what little energy they have not to struggle, but to move.
True Believers will always tow the party line, and are wealthy enough to live comfortably among masturbating hobos and other forms of human degradation. An argument could be made that they actually kind of get off on it. Most people do not fall into this category. As the High Elf states experience population decline, and more and more LeBrons take their talents to South Beach, the High Elves will decrease in strength. The Berlin Wall was built to keep people in, not out. California does not have a Berlin Wall. Maybe it should. But it doesn't, so people are fleeing to Regimes they by definition find more favorable because they're seeking to be governed by them. Dobbs will accelerate this sort. It is by no means set in stone that Red places will get Redder as Blue places get Bluer. Maybe Blue places get Bluer and Red places get Purpler. But Conquest's 2nd Law appears to be in full force in the Red places, so maybe they're safe for now.
The Reversal of Roe will have some sort of response. It's a mistake to assume the nature or magnitude of that response just yet.
One last thing, though not related to anything prior: It's not always a mistake for an underdog to provoke an overdog. The American Civil Rights Movement is a good example of this. The underdogs provoked the overdogs, and then let the response speak for itself in shifting opinions enough to ultimately shift these categories altogether.
Thanks. One of my biggest takeaways from Dobbs was how much I'd fallen into the trap of thinking our situation to be more static than it actually is. The *system* might be for the most part intractably static, but our situation is not. As I mentioned in a post made on my website, we're still in a place where States are a better check on the Fed than vice versa. As long as this holds (which I'm hopeful for due to the dynamism that still exists here), I'm optimistic. There's a real possibility that in the near future, Congressmen from California will be taken as seriously (and have as much influence) in the House of Reps as a delegate in the UN hailing from Somalia.
"A republic, if they can keep it" is one of the most prescient things said.
It kind of feels like in the past 50 years anyone who was really serious about "making a difference" felt they had to go for the federal level, leaving the lower levels pretty much up for grabs. Turns out the states weren't out of the game yet!
I can support this: after living everywhere, I settled on California for its qualities. But after some years, I reluctantly gave up trying to help the masturbating hobos. It took someone's public overdose and a small angry condo fire, but I accepted reality, moved (back) to Texas, and have begrudgingly warmed to the Hobbits. When a tent popped up in the progressive church backyard on the other side of my north Austin garden wall, I walked around and deleted it. I'm sad, but I don't feel guilty about it. I'm satisfied with this Brexit, satisfied with this Big Sort.
>The American Civil Rights Movement is a good example of this. The underdogs provoked the overdogs, and then let the response speak for itself in shifting opinions enough to ultimately shift these categories altogether.
Which is the opposite of what Curtis and most of us (i hope) believe.
>Who was stronger—Dr. King, or Bull Connor? Well, we have a pretty good test for who was stronger. Who won? In the real story, overdogs win. Who had the full force of the world’s strongest government on his side? Who had a small-town police force staffed with backward hicks? In the real story, overdogs win.
>“Civil disobedience” is no more than a way for the overdog to say to the underdog: I am so strong that you cannot enforce your “laws” upon me. I am strong and might makes right—I give you the law, not you me. Don’t think the losing party in this conflict didn’t try its own “civil disobedience.” And even its own “active measures.” Which availed them—what? Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi.3
There's a reason I put that at the end, and made sure to explain what came before was not contingent on the final unrelated point.
I've read the post you linked before, and I agree with its points for the most part. I believe there's a way to frame the situation that makes either perspective true, but that's neither here nor there when it comes the thrust of what I was communicating in the post. I'd hope the final sentence wouldn't detract too much from the rest of it. Appreciate the feedback either way 🤙
Your analogy of 'territory' is excellent. I hope Curtis addresses this!
The rest of this comment section on this post is, sadly, a regression to the retarded, raging peasant sphere that happens with any victory for the Right (I recall a close friend telling me in 2005 that Bush was about to cleanse the government, shut down muslim immigration etc when he first coined the term 'islamofascism').
Much obliged, I hope so also. This post of his is probably one of the stranger ones I've ever read.
I've made similar points as yours with Conservatives who think Dobbs is some huge W for their strategy (whatever that means) as opposed to the product of literal luck.
Cons voted for the Con presidential candidate, and he got to pick 3 SCOTUS judges. That's it. It is in no way a reflection of "Things are turning around!" or "People are starting to wake up!" It's luck, and as such, in no way gives anyone license to let their guard down or check out any more than they already tend to. On the contrary, it should be a catalyst to bolster the red areas by making them incredibly friendly to competence. Lean into Conquest's 2nd and accelerate the brain drain from Caladishu.
Yes it's not totally clear that a judicial decision through the happenstance of the Trump victory is something the peasants can even _control_. Yes the movement was fully in support of the overturn of Roe v Wade. And somehow they got it, by golly. I've already seen calls for a federal abortion ban.
Would you at least agree that going for that would be a mistake in the Yarvinian sense?
I'd agree it's a mistake in any possible sense. Fortunately the energy just isn't there for it in any meaningful way. I suspect once the Faithful realize this won't impact them, they'll all move on to something else, save those who had already made abortion their #1 thing. The Faithful living in Pagan areas will move, provided the Pagan legislatures adhere to Conquest's 2nd. Similarly, once Pagan areas reach a non-abortion equilibrium, they'll also move on to something else, that something hopefully also involving Conquest's 2nd. But who knows. I look at the Right the same way I do clips of police officers standing around while people riot and assault their fellow citizens. I'm much more angry at the ineffectual police than I am immoral people simply acting out their immoral nature.
Agree, kind of. SCOTUS is dynamic in composition, both in members and in form. There are many ways in which a well-organized and strategically vindictive Leftist legislature could change this composition in their favor, either through action or intimidation (ala FDR style). However, I don't see this happening at the moment. Certainly the will is there among many Progs, but they just don't have the energy, ability, or capacity to right now. But it's pretty much a rule that Leftism is in one way, much like Tony Stark. If you defeat but don't kill him, his armor will be adapted to everything you threw at it last time, and he'll wipe the floor with you. The Regime absolutely will adapt to this in some way at some time, the only questions are when, how, and how effective will it be?
Hobbits and elves is a helpful metaphor. There’s another layer though. In Tolkien’s beautiful world, both races are noble and equipped with talents that enrich the overall life of the Kingdom. They are good. They struggle against evil. They engage in inherently worthy tasks throughout the day. Far from simply “grilling and raising kids” the hobbits are excellent craftsmen and farmers, gardeners and artisans. Who knows what the elves do but it’s powerful and beautiful and uplifting. And they look gorgeous doing it.
This fits only tortuously onto our red vs blue reality. Let’s be honest there is a culture-wasteland in both groups. Grilling is fine, but just not enough, and not worthy of a fully human life. Also, the effing elves are lousy degenerates ruining everything they touch. Middle earth is on a sorry state and perhaps the answer lies more in each group seeking some internal regeneration at a basic level so as to be worthy of the respect of the other.
Hobbits and elves are both good: Which is a big part of Curtis's rhetorical trick here. The analogy ignores that our enemies are EVIL. That we should hate them.
I was thinking along the same lines while reading. In my view, the problem isn’t some kind of imbalance of power between the hobbits and the elves. The problem is that we’ve _all_ become orcs. We have neither the dignified love of quiet nature and hobbit holes nor the high-minded pursuit of deeper truths and exquisite beauty. We’re mostly composed of lazy, ignorant, hateful fucks that enjoy <grilling / post-modern “art”>, <Walmart/instagram>, <megachurches/endless therapy>, <guns/“activism”>. The evangelical gun-nut, monster-truck-loving right is just as un-hobbit as the trans-queer-BLM basket weaver is un-elf.
So it’s not a left v right thing, it’s an overall loss of virtue. The only way that red tribe enters into it is via a distant relationship to a bona fide conservatism that is intellectually capable of questioning Whig history. Only by questioning Whig history can you begin to wonder whether it’s possible for things to get worse instead of better, and it’s only from there that you can imagine the possibility that we are just a shittier people. But again, questioning Whig history is a high-falutin, book-learning pattern of thought - it isn’t something that was produced by red-tribe proper. This is where a lot of the mismatch between Curtis and his audience comes from. He’s more like a person who just wants to aspire to some actual god damn virtue. But the issue is that he first needed to clarify to his readers why that was even necessary. Along the way, it was inevitable to pick up some garden variety red-tribers (or worse… some of them appear to be more like garden variety neo-nazis) who agree for all the wrong reasons.
The thing I've always been least comfortable with in your worldview is that the American essence of society isn't worth saving. The "hobbits," so to speak, aren't interested, and never will be, in being secretive or cagey with their political leanings, or ESPECIALLY their moral values, as is the case with abortion. You might convince other lapsed-liberal "dark elf" elites to be Machiavellian, and they might see babies' lives as an acceptable sacrifice in service of some greater political goal, but then what business do you "dark elves" even have ruling Christian, God-fearing Americans whose values are honesty, forthrightness, morality and decency?
You think Americans could actually have a shot at winning this great revolution you envision, if they would just learn how to be subjects. But for me, the thing worth saving about America is our distaste for being subjects.
How many ways can you not understand your delusion? The capacity seems to be endless. You are no less a subject than a citizen of Dubai. It's your illusion that prevents you from winning.
There's room to rewrite "A Modest Proposal" about many "current" issues. "Abortion" plus "Climate change" is just the starter. And I apologise for the way that sentence came out.
The Reactionary case for please don’t do what Moldbug thinks you might do until he’s dead and and and...Yarvin just wants public safety above all and always did.
He saw a Black person wander into Silicon Valley once and he’s never recovered. Lol.
Why are you even a subscriber? Curtis has not deviated from his analysis and message since 15 years in the face of lots of criticism. You think he's just a racist liberal? In 2022? What are you even doing here? Save your money and just read the normie conservative blogosphere, or perhaps the Vermuelian faction.
"Racist liberals" is the epithet used generally online for what you're talking about.
If you've been following him from "before UR" then you're woefully misread, I'm afraid.
The virtual solution was a thought experiment and easily abandoned. Gray Mirror has gone in the opposite direction (trade and tech restrictions to make people work instead).
Again, I'm amazed you're at this level of interpretation. If I shared your evaluation of Curtis, I'd be long gone. "Scared elite" heh.
The distinction drawn here between Elves and Hobbits is too self-aggrandizing. There is no reason for Tolkien's race of Men to LARP as either group, and there is no reason that from the so-called Hobbits a greatness cannot be cultivated/forged/developed.
It's also a strange analogy to me because a) Elves don't rule Hobbits, and would not be interested in such an arrangement and b) the whole story is arguably about the ennobling of the lowly Hobbits. Remind me who scours the Shire?
As Joseph de Maistre said, nothing great has great beginnings. Or, even dwarfs started small.
I would use "Nazgul" to describe the ruling class, not "elves." I think you need to be disabused of your feeling of sympathy towards (and belonging to) this blasphemous milieu. These people are stupid, lack any culture beyond post-modernist cliches, and function as fungi corroding the body politic upon which they economically thrive. Yes, yes, I too am rich and went to a great school, but I despise America's white liberals - the emasculated goblins and screeching harpies of our time.
I support Yarvin's plan to "burn the letters", but this piece is a good example of where certain necessities around such a plan lead to strained narratives.
Our society is... not ruled by elves.
Yo ,
This is the Witch King of Angmar and DO NOT associate me with these people, they have no place in the void, and we wouldn’t have let their sort work as prostitutes in the orc catering whorehouse backhill of Minas Mogul, which I gatta say was nasty enough even for me.
So seriously 🛑 or the 9 get a pass from Hell … Morgorth got ok from Satan (turns out he does run the place).
That's not very seductive now, is it
Nobles are the only people capable of ruling. The problem, as Curtis points out over and over again, is not the people, but the ideology and the structure.
Political reaction is antithetical to the American spirit, because the American spirit is founded on Whiggery.
Only nobles can maintain power in the long-term, but nobility isn't an innate biological quality. In the short-term, you can certainly staff a government (mainly) with commoners:
"This means you cannot use unreconstructed armigers in your civil or public service. Previous experience is not qualifying, but disqualifying. You have to make do with yeomen and a sprinkle of dissidents."
In the long run a new noble class will develop, perhaps some of its members will be children or grandchildren of the old, but most need not be.
Yeah how unacceptable! Hope you enjoy your long and glorious string of victories to come!
/s
This is why you will remain a peasant.
While I obviously do not disagree that they are deranged and lunatic, why _you_ will lose is because you care about 'claims of morality' or 'rights' to rule.
Those who rule, rule. And you aren't one of them. They rule by conquest and inheritance. That's it.
Until very recently I thought hatred was compatible with good strategic sense in this conflict, but I'm not so sure anymore. You're a good example of the incompatibility - hatred clouds your judgment, makes you yell and scream in anger, signaling powerlessness and empty bravado. Thinking that morality has anything whatsoever to do with our situation.
Take the clear pill, first.
Tucker Carlson is one of "these people". The ruling class is graduates of Harvard, Yale, Brown, Stanford, etc. The ivy league. I have a friend who just got admitted to Harvard, and she's not a disgusting person at all.
There are ivy leaguers who tribally stick with their Whig history - because that's what's been fashionable in the aristocracy for 400 years - then there are people like Curtis, Tucker, Nick Land, and other shitposters who have woken the fuck up and know how bad this shit is for common people.
#NotAllElites
Please just chill.
Okay
Or, it could be his Havel's Greengrocer's sign. "Please pay no attention to me, I'm just making a buck off the rubes while distracting them." A pseudo-intellectual palliative for people not susceptible to the stronger form "progressivism."
I believe Paul Collier ("Exodus" and other books) described the globalist class as "parasitic".
I seem to recall Tolkiens elves as fairly self-sustaining.
PS.
The idea that "acting against power is useless and doomed to failure" is consistent from the "clear pill" days.
The way you win a religious war is by smashing the enemy's idols, daring the enemy deity to do something about it, and coming out unscathed. The left understands this, it's why the alphabet freak show is so important to them. Curtis also understands it, he wrote a piece about it not too long ago in the context of the freak show.
So far, the right has suffered nothing at all for this. No cities burned, no terror campaign against churches, it doesn't even look like it'll have an impact in November. It's a pure victory for the right and Curtis is chaffed at seeing his "never fight back" advice belied.
Celebrating baby killing as a sacred right, rather than an execrable crime, has a terrible effect on the soul of a nation. It warps people's perceptions, and inures their minds to the gravity of murder.
Criminalization inculcates right ideas in the public mind, which is always beneficial to the side of truth and goodness.
Absolutely.
Gerald Warner (Scottman) wrote about the murder of Alfie Evans: "Predictably, in a society where the culture of death has grown increasingly stronger, with public sensitivity anaesthetized by nearly nine million abortions, Caesar gave the thumbs-down".
The reaction so far is positively tranquil, at least compared with the riots of 2020. No 'Color Revolution' for the feminists. What aspect of the SJW cult needs to be trashed next? I'd suggest that an ambitious DA or state governor should get community services to go after a parent who takes a young child to a drag show or, better yet, prosecute a surgeon for injuring a minor through gender reassignment. They still have chain-gangs in Florida, right? There's plenty of work that needs to get done! The best part of any victory is to see the enemy in chains.
Floridian here, and I do not want to see DeSantis go after doctors or parents for transitioning kids. While I recognize the sheer immorality of what they're doing to those confused kids, I remember that leftists beget leftists, so if the leftists want to sterilize their kids and end their bloodlines, go for it. It's a long-term demographic win. Beyond that, there's probably a significant overlap in trans support and climate alarmism, so their saving the planet, right.
Ruthless but effective to a point.
We have to go after them or it’s everyone’s kids. The slippery slope is the abyss as we have seen.
DeSantis is a lawyer and he moves at legal system speed only after his bases covered (he won’t work out in war BTW).
At that speed all the Lefts kids will be sterilized, but relax the pressure they’ll not only castrate but have Drag Queens pulling a train on the kids in the name of equity.
Remember always; they want you dead, they want your children raped, and they think its funny.
It's not my kids while I'm alive, so it's not everyone's kids. Actually, I don't have kids, but it won't be my partner's grandkids, or my nieces and nephews, in as much as I am able to prevent it without exercising (or delegating) force.
I do remember that they want not only me, but my way of life and all of the beliefs I hold, dead, and I accept their challenge.
It is way more than a matter of fun. It is an assault on the morale and well-being of the current and future helotry. A license for gratuitous cruelty is a reward provided by the system to those it needs to motivate.
Such a license binds ruler and henchmen together, giving the latter a taste of the thrill to be had from the exercise of power at the expense of the psychic health of others. It consolidates a constituency that supports the regime by actively victimising others and fortifying the passivity and obedience of the masses to norms that are imposed upon us from above.
The exercise of this license coarsens us all. Because it is a socially supported phenomenon, licensed gratuitous cruelty implicates us all. Our response to the mock-therapeutic sexual abuse of minors functions as a test of our loyalty to the regime.
Gimpy, I wish that I could share your sang froid on this, but I don't. For starters, the welfare of children is not wholly the responsibility of the parents. No genuine community (or group aspiring to form or sustain anything like a community) can tolerate the gross abuse of minors. A community that tolerated medically unnecessary surgical or chemical castration or hysterectomy on minors deserves no respect or loyalty whatsoever. Tolerance for anything like it forms depraved indifference on a mind-blowing scale. The practice of such cruelties demoralises and demeans everyone who is not borderline insane.
Furthermore, kids react to their parents example. A friend of mine once observed a pair of lesbians in a store trying to push some gender-fluid bullshit on their very young daughter. She wanted something girly and they wanted something gender neutral. The young girl was livid with rage and clearly very frustrated by her two mommies. My friend, the canniest guy I have ever met, gleefully predicted that the real push-back against this sinister nonsense would come from those directly effected by it. Such is the way of the world. The kids of hippies make ferociously tough-minded and ultrarealistic types...the kids who survive glitter families or related stuff will be truly ferocious biological realists...ultra-based.
Naturam expelles furca, tamen usque recurret: you may drive out nature with a pitchfork, she will return (Horace). We have reality on our side, but we should not be complacent.
Finally, putting a few of these physicians and social workers on trial would be a demonstration of power and resolve and would mobilise parents around an issue of existential significance even more potent than abortion. It would focus public attention on the malice of the forces arraigned against them and expose the judicial system to extraordinary pressure. The courts derive their legitimacy from public opinion and they, as much as the physicians involved, would be on trial. It would force the usual suspects to defend the indefensible. It would also provide a very useful test for the politicians. If elected officials won't fight like hell on something as truly obscene and life-denying as this, why bother with them at all?
I like fulfilling wishes, so let's see if I can find a framing to help you see it my way. (It may help to know that I'm an an-cap, perhaps out of place here, but one must stay abreast of various positions.)
Consider Curtis's recent post about effective altruism, specifically the heatmap. The lesbians in your anecdote probably view people as destroyers of the world anyway, and since they care more about the planet than they do about their child, they're perfectly willing to sacrifice that child to their petty gods. And they're willing to abdicate the power that their sovereignty creates to the highest governmental level they can conceive so that their goals for the universe might be realized.
I am willing to allow others to destroy their children because I refuse to cede to any government the power to decide what I do with my children. Respect for that same right in others allows my blood to run cold while my heart rends for those poor children.
Yours is a perfectly valid perspective. Ceding rights of any kind to the state is a fool's game. Nietzsche was spot on when he wrote that the state is the coldest of all cold monsters.
Yes don’t fight back works only for the predator.
Predators as opposed to aggressor. Pure Predators are cowards, see real wolves or jackals.
Or baying hyenas.
A decent or practical aggressor will respect and have use for the ones who fight back.
Respect be damned, I am just trying to be practical. We will know that we are winning when the opportunists and moral cowards decide that is in their interest to back whatever is left of sanity and decency. Prosecuting physicians who sterilise healthy children is not a test of individual character, it should be a matter of course. The courts are a vital political arena that is being neglected. There is real potential in putting a few freak-enablers on trial before a Red state jury.
I agree.
I answered elsewhere-
The board moved with Dobbs
My guess is that it's probably tied to the mid terms? We'll see what happens once those are over.
If the group of individuals who fortified the election had sufficient influence to "keep their people out of the streets," or whatever the quote was, I wouldn't be surprised if they were doing the same now. A lot of these spontaneous and mostly peaceful protests seem astroturfed. And if they are grassroots, they have sufficient organizational ability to restrain their mobs.
I can't think of another reason why the machine would be quiet right now. One of their sacred cows just got butchered and grilled. You'd think they'd be louder.
It's an election year, and this isn't an issue the orcs particularly care about (despite them having abortions more prolifically than anyone else).
Mass rioting creates a lot of (local) demand for repression, even in relatively blue areas. I'm not sure they can hold that back if white people are the face of it.
Large scale rioting always has the potential to turn into inter-communal violence. You can only roll the dice so many times before coming up 'snake-eyes'. This one of the reasons they prefer low-intensity conflict.
There could be any number of reasons. Most likely they are conserving energy and resources. Maintaining the momentum of serious organised violence is difficult. Also, they have to prioritise: the elections would be more important and they may well be planning for something big later in 2022 or in 2024.
https://graymirror.substack.com/p/three-ways-of-thinking-about-covid/
See "The Importance of Political Noise"
Arkansas Reactionary, in case you do not already know, you are quoted (but not named), in an article on Curtis's ideas (para. 11 to be precise). See https://americanmind.org/salvo/beyond-elves-and-hobbits/
Amen.
Lollll, the subtext here is amazing. "You dummies went and did something so gauche it makes ME look unpopular at parties. ME. How am I supposed to convince my cool girlfriend* of anything when I've got YOU dummies to account for?"
I mean, in the words of another commenter, "yes, I too am rich and went to a great school", silicon valley mathematician, classical liberal arts training, happily married to a researcher with even better street cred, not religious, not Republican, not even against all the abortions, but I still see this as an absolute win. You created me, and a lot of people like me, and I'm sorry, but you do have to answer for us to your cool girlfriend. It's a bummer, I know.
Personally I see this as one of those political revolution vs social revolution things. It's totally reasonable to trade away a political revolution for a social revolutionary win. Otherwise, what's the point? Power accumulated forever and never spent, like so much useless hoard money. No, if something is someone's stated number one bullet point social revolutionary goal** for fifty years, believe it's in their rational interest to trade away everything else to get it done.
And it's not even necessarily a bad move for the political revolution. Let this convince a large number of people on both sides that democracy doesn't work. Let it hasten the end of America the Single Culture.
* https://twitter.com/lydialaurenson , honestly very cool.
** The goal is not (and never was) to ban abortions in Oakland. It's to regain the right to ban them where they're unpopular. It's anti-federal, it's a step towards city states, it's equivalent to https://graymirror.substack.com/p/the-parent-coup
I mean, a federal ban would also be awesome. The anti-abortion movement certainly doesn't have any principled attachment to localism.
The reversal of Roe was the widely shared goal of a large group of people, and nevertheless it's shocking that it was reversed. But a federal ban isn't such a widely held goal.
You can take the W, or you can hold your breath along with your goal and see what happens. I will hold neither. I will take the W and go home.
Politics is Power. This is a threat to Power. The terror is not can’t get Abortion, its the overturning of Judicial Fiat. The entire New Deal Administrative government and so power rests on Judicial Fiat.
This court knows well that Humphreys Executors (1937) and Federal Register aren’t even powers breathed into life by the Supreme Court but directly contradictory to the explicit wording of Articles I and II.
This court is so dangerous it could actually find nothing in the Constitution or Amendment’s that transfer the money printing power from Congress to the Private Corporation that owns America called the Federal Reserve (1913).
The application of Originalism to our government can destroy the entire Progressive system from Wilson to now- it all directly contradicts the written texts or was breathed into existence from the thin air.
The entire machine’s legitimacy and so power rests on contradicting the Constitution.
Article I
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/article/article-i
Article II
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/article/article-ii
I didn't expect Roe to be overturned and I don't expect a federal ban. But to rest is to die for any political movement; barring a full regime change going home is almost never going to be a good idea.
Very fair thought. I will still go home.
A concrete, enduring, win for the decentralisation of political power strengthens the people. The centre of gravity of democracy in America is at the state and local level. Reducing the ability of centralised authority to interfere in the choices of the states is a win for democracy in every corner of America.
John Robb says this devolution is inevitable because the end of the Cold War takes away the reason for the centralized government-
I disagree that it’s inevitable, I agree that it’s happening.
I’d add that the clear and present and too obvious lack of actual government in DC is a strong motivation to decentralize.
(LMAO)
IMHO, decentralisation is ultimately about the smart money reducing its liability to the financial woes of both DC and the heavily indebted Blue States, compounded by the need of multinationals to salvage zones of relative sanity in which to maintain viable centres of economic activity. Regional oligarchs are happy to either back or even front whatever it takes to make this happen. Nobody wants to lose their shirt just to fund whatever garbage is required to re-elect the current clowns. The real fight will be over mineral and energy resources on Federal land. The state pride/regional culture stuff means nothing to the real players, of course. The one thing Panem-on the-Potomac is good for is alienating the masses, thereby legitimising the devolution.
Insert gif of Bane speech: "and I'm giving it back to you.. the people.."
> is a win for democracy in every corner of America
Phillip, you do know that Modbug/Yarvin considers "democracy" a dirty word, don't you? And that he is a monarchist? If not, I can provide you with some salient links. If yes, then I do not understand your comment.
I was not commenting with Curtis in mind, but expressing my own opinion. I am happy to see democracy renew itself, especially in the sane portions of North America. I expect that democracy in other places could be pretty nasty.
>You created me, and a lot of people like me, and I'm sorry, but you do have to answer for us to your cool girlfriend. It's a bummer, I know.
!!!!!!!
Curtis I love you, but this essay is a steaming pile. In my nerd rage I'm going to toss you a 10 spot just to post this (I'm already up to date on all the premium content...).
Trashing Roe v Wade was an insane win for the good, the true, and the beautiful. A win not taken by replacing the entire system with a monarchy, but one taken by regular, straightforward politics. A win that, by your writing on the culture war, should have been impossible (and for what it's worth, I thought it was impossible too, until it happened). I've been waiting to hear how you update your thought or provide a counter narrative or _something_ --- but to downplay such a colossal win followed by rehashing the same old rhetoric? Weak.
First off, let's get this out of the way --- _our elites are not high elves_. They are degenerate, lack conviction, exonerate the lowest, and take pride in sin, ugliness, and relativism. Google drag queen story hour, and marinate on that hissing creature made up like satan if satan's beautician had downs syndrome --- that, my friend, is a dark elf. While it's true these dark elves occupy the honored position of the high elves, they only do so in clown world, in this inversion we are living. Don't be fooled, they are dark and getting darker.
Second off, there is no longer a hard class distinction between Hobbits and Elves. The majority of people reading this, I'd wager, enjoy art films _and_ grilling. Technology has levelled the playing field. Joe Rogan, literal real life hobbit, is destroying the gay bois at cnn and the supercilious fake sneerers at fox. The dark elves have taken over, and they are setting fire to their once great elf valley from within. The elves are learning the hard way that there is Truth in morality. They aren't the first to put themselves above Truth, and they'll fall just as hard as everyone else who as attempted it.
No really what is this metaphor --- our current oligarchy is not full of winners. More and more, strong leaders who care about strong leader things are specifically avoiding the bureaucracy, the political correctness, the mediocrity. And those that don't are filtered out of the system because they refuse to bend the knee to lies and degeneracy. You're telling me there is no one outside of this pack of raving clowns with the will to power? Biden is the high water mark of a human leader? I agree that many elites are being done wrong by the current system, and under better leadership they will be better people. But the best people are getting out of elfhood.
This is not a class battle, it is a theological battle. I've read Tolkien and the hobbits and elves are on on the same side: the side of good.
Third off, grow some cajones. I know you like to distance yourself from moral questions and have the autistic programmer takes, but some things you just can't fence sit on. "Among those who believe that an unborn baby is a human life, of course, the result of preventing an abortion is saving a life." Very diplomatic. Let the Californians set up their abortion theme parks. Let them sell little key chains with the aborted kid's leg hanging off it. Hell, the autistic silicon valley types can monetize baby parts the same way they monetized personal data. Nobody even knows about the value of their unborn child! We'll pay _you_ to abort it!
Let the horrendous evil of society's wanton murder of its most helpless be on full display, because through some spell it has been hidden from the eyes of good people. This will further divide the elves, right? Speaking of which, the repeal of Roe v Wade does just that --- it allows red states to go red, and blue states to go blue. People can sort themselves out. That's the whole point, isn't it, patchwork and all that?
Lastly, tangential, but a peeve of mine:
"Culture is still downstream from power"
If it's downstream of power how can it be leveraged to upset the existing power center? Culture/art is neither downstream, nor upstream of power/politics. They are always interacting with each other in a complex system that loops in on itself. I have no idea why this generalisation is so popular.
_To the extent that political power opts to exercise tyrannical control of culture_, it is upstream of _mainstream_ culture. But there will always be alternative cultures that exist independent of, or react against the mainstream propaganda. And as Curtis points out, these alternative cultures can end up upstream of future politics.
But more than that, power/politics is not everything. Art is deeper than the low resolution abstractions wielded by politics. Human connections are deeper. Politics are necessary and always present in human society, they are _not_ all encompassing. The latter is such misanthropic, myopic, and self evidently wrong take, yet I get it constantly from both the left and the right.
In short, step it up my man. If the "dark elves" can't take a stand on murdering unborn kids, then what good are they? Do we need to sway you with poetry on this one?
Before I saw light, I was sheltered
in she who gave me life
never would I know such certainty
as her warmth
when I open my eyes, it will be her
face that I would see first
had she not, compelled by some curse
changed,
and taken back that which she gave
"Second off, there is no longer a hard class distinction between Hobbits and Elves. The majority of people reading this, I'd wager, enjoy art films _and_ grilling. Technology has levelled the playing field."
Well said. Very few "Hobbits" work in fields anymore. While a lot of us do not care specifically for power and its mechanisms per se, I think many do recognise it as a necessary activity that needs ripping off its current handlers. And a lot of elite culture is faux culture. What's more cultural: niche paintings no one recognises, and pontification on obscure poems, or actually showing up to church and harvest festivals and building nice big monuments?
This is a gripe I have: imagine the monuments we could build with JCBs and Caterpillars. But the "cultural elite" would rather have fancy bars with uncomfortable sofas and modern "art" on the walls.
I would argue that culture is downstream of power is *generally true*. But it is not *always* true.
"If it's downstream of power how can it be leveraged to upset the existing power center?"
When powerful ideas become ossified, their spirit gets weakened, and they are no longer powerful. They are propped up by powerful institutions, but the ideas are no longer espoused by sincere believers - merely by people who want access to power. This smells strongly of bullshit, since these people can never actually defend these ideas when interrogated. This stench offends the intellect of any sincere and reasonable person. It particularly offends the youth, who constantly interrogate and question, and who are quick to rebel when they smell bullshit.
So directly answer your question - I'd argue that during these transformative phases, the power center has been hollowed out, and there's no real power left in it. It's all fake. That vacuum is what creates a window of opportunity for new and sincere ideas to take the stage. They can do so because they have more potential power than existing institutional ideas have *real* power, primarily because these new ideas have more draw, and nobody wants to be a square. Once the new ideas flourish, they will be sincerely practiced for a generation (and maybe even achieve great things) and then be ruthlessly exploited by cynical power hungry bastards.
Culture strongly tends to flow downstream from Power - but Power isn't always powerful.
Besides that quibble I actually agree with most of your post, including your points about viewing everything human through the lens of politics. It's insufferable. But I felt I had to address this point in particular, because *I* am insufferable.
Talern, thanks for adding nuance here, this is a complex topic. I very much agree with your assessment of how the power/culture cycle operates --- something vital, fresh, and dangerous is pioneered in the margins. The power center, if they are savvy, will leverage that new thing by coopting it. Now normative, bureaucratic, and political, that new thing will ossify and start to smell of halitosis. Repeat.
However, just in this high level summary, look at how complex the feedback loop is:
Something fresh is created in the margins, that is, as far outside of state power one can be while still being part of the state, that is, subject to state power but much less so than the normal subject. So the new thing is created by resisting state power, but not resisting it so much as to completely break away. It needs to be distant from central power because central power has a deleterious effect on creation, but it needs to let enough central power in that it has the scent of power about it, because, as Curtis points out, power is always cool. It's very much like how a vaccine allows a small portion of the virus in. Pure power will kill the new thing. A sliver of power allows the new thing to kill the old thing.
This new thing is created by the powerless (or close enough), yet the thing itself can be leveraged as a form of power. So the creator now has power, but only because he's leveraging the culture he created without power. And again, he is combining a form of rebellion against central power with a form of submission to central power.
Now the power center, or state, coopts this thing, which was partially state power to begin with, but mostly not. The new thing becomes all state power, then inevitably normative, centralized power exerts its un-cool poison on the thing, the thing loses its power. Repeat.
I guess it's the implication that power/politics or culture/art is at one end of the river, and the other is _only_ the dirty laundry water from the first. That generalization is not true in either direction, and it's so far from true that I don't find the categories useful. The two ends are part of a larger system of influence that forms feedback loops. Democracy has a demoralizing effect on culture. Oligarchy pushes the kind of lowest common denominator pap that dominates our society. Maybe monarchy is the only context in which we could have created the great cathedrals. But there is always human will outside of power, in individuals and in groups.
Perhaps the best way to say what these idioms are getting at is that culture can be a form of power in and of itself. This power can be leveraged by the state, by dissident groups, by individuals, and so on. However, it's important to remember that culture is not _only_ power, and cannot be understood through this single factor analysis.
Well said!
You make a good point -- high culture is not necessarily evil, low culture not necessarily good. In LotR, hobbits and elves are both on the side of light, despite being on different strata; likewise, nazgul and orcs are both on the side of darkness.
Well said Chris
Elves are completely incapable of viewing anything outside of a "what I want at this moment" lens. "I want to be able to screw without consequence, and killing babies is a price I'm willing to pay, so law is now whatever is required to make that a 'right'".
This would seem to indicate that there can be no contract at all with elves, because there is no meaning which will survive a change in their desires, and those change frequently. Today they want to change the sex of children, down to 2 and 3 year olds.
Before I thought that this was a feature of a state. Now you say it is a feature of elves, per se.
The only reason the elves hadn't PREVIOUSLY openly come for our children was that they were afraid of being burned alive by the hobbits. The folks who figured out where this was heading in the 80s were laughed at. But they were right. Not sure the right thing to do now is just let the elves keep raping and trans-ing the kids. At least they couldn't abort MY kids. But they CAN rape and trans my kid. So I don't see not waging this war as a tenable plan.
One must understand how terrifying violence is to certain species of elves, that’s why they loathe guns, police, soldiers, Deplorables.
Violence which might be directed at them or their clients. They have no problem with violence directed at hobbits. Witness the shop keeper who dared to defend himself by stabbing his attacker.
True. This is somewhat analogous to soldiers (including western, liberal, enlightened, democratic, etc. ones) who are far enough from home.
Skipping the Nazis and the Soviets, but sticking with the noble war for freedom and democracy ... pardon me, hairball ... I trust everyone is familiar with Life magazine picture with the caption "Arizona war worker writes her Navy boyfriend a thank-you note for the Jap skull he sent her." (May 22, 1944.)
The "enemy" is not really human, or conversely, if the enemy IS human it is very difficult for most soldiers to harm him. Empathy will get you killed. The SAS motto is "Who dares wins". Perhaps a better version is "who doesnt's hate loses."
The culture war has reached the point where the elves do not consider the deplorables to be fully human.
In fact that was common, after that the censors just took them out of the packages sent home.
My Godfather sent home a shrunken head.
Nice man actually.
They don't have problems with violence directed at their clients, on second thought. It is useful when it happens. They're obviously very happy to immiserate their clients -- just look at the inner cities, or the streets of any major city that they run.
Curtis actually made a similar point about "cancel culture": it's happening now because the movement has enough power.
One would have an easier time understanding those who are in favor of abortion rights if one accepts that they do not view abortion as equivalent to killing a baby.
If you stay with them through the dodges and weaves, it usually comes down to, "Killing babies is an acceptable cost to be able to screw." And it is imperative that the baby dies, too. It can't be, in a Walter Blockean way, that the baby is transported to another place to come to term.
Equality is a jealous goddess. She requires many holocausts.
This is one to come back to, thanks.
Those are not the dodges and weaves that I remember, but I'll pay attention next time and refine my understanding. Cheers.
My mother worked as a PA in a woman's clinic in the late 70s. Not for terribly long, though.
Wow, I'm sure she bore more than her share of pain, thank you.
It is always amazing that people don't take both sides of this issue at face value. Most pro life folks really do think this is a murder issue. Most pro choice folks really do think this is a medical health and human rights issue. Very hard for most folks of any stripe to credit both thoughts as good faith principles.
What if that is how you started out, but it was by having the discussions that you came to an alternate conclusion?
I would think it means you talked to some unpleasant people on one or the other side and over generalized from them.
People of honesty and good faith don’t make the decisions- the sociopath elves do - honest people of good faith are simply relegated to hobbit status - or fallen Halfling Gollums.
(Moved this, fits better here.)
Whatever one's view there really is no middle ground on this issue! That's the problem with both "lets discuss" and "we have to pack the courts until we win".
Well said.
It takes more than a different view to exterminate a 4, 5, 6 month baby.
What more does it take?
Elves? Elves??
Once upon a time there was a pseudonymous blogger who quite possibly changed the world (the jury of history is still out and will be deliberating for a while.) Then he got doxxed and, according to some opinions, has never been the same since.
Here is a quote from his earlier years: "...let’s pause for a minute, and admit that there is evil in the world. More specifically, there are evil people. And it is a glorious thing, and good for all and sundry, to wrap a rope around their necks and pull the chair away... the combination of world domination and *profound self-righteousness* is a bath of nutrients as nourishing as evil has ever found. And bacteria are not in short supply" (emphasis mine.)
He's Machiavellian. He did endorse giving red America an app to dispense townie instructions from President Trump, so they could march to the Capitol to euphemistically "make their voices heard" (read take over DC). He is more careful now, but he's still Menscius.
“Mother Night” ends bad,
Mind you this is yes an 0p
In WWI Jeffers was steel and blood. Standing on the battlefield of pink smoke and black iron he had only assured victory.
Later, under threat of tyranny during WWII he became a forest rebel. An anarcho. Strategy was his game.
His is final years brought him to Christ and the mercy of transcendance.
Perhaps Curtis is on a similar arc of time?
Why do the all the "Dark Elves" telling me to wait just a little bit longer all seem somewhat Dwarvish? And why do so many of the High Elves seem to be Dwarves as well?
If the answer is "because a significant percentage of all elves are actually dwarves" than I question your whole method and frame of analysis.
"Of dwarves and orcs we shall not speak" Ok, fine. But both are immediate problems to my life and livelihood. The orcs are killing me and the dwarves are robbing me blind. The artistic pretensions of elves are ugly and revolting to me, but they aren't ruining my immediate material existence, and they have not penetrated my family's spiritual bubble. I'm not being misruled, I'm being robbed and beaten and shot at by the unruled. The dwarves and orcs are being misruled. Rule them. Leave ME the fuck alone!
You have this idea that life is just one big burning man for leftists, but that simple folk need to be ruled by their own parochial chiefdoms. It's the other way around. It's the bat-shit crazy lefties who need the monastic discipline and the order of their own church. The common folk can be left alone.
There are two problems the way I see it. One is that Curtis can't empathize with the 'hobbit' portion of his audience that well, though I do believe he tries. The other is that he stopped coming up with genuinely new ideas so now we're getting pieces like this ad infinitum, just with different metaphors. Combined this will result in people getting increasingly pissed off.
He needs to resume writing the book. Aside from Covid-panic and some back-and-forth with other writers, it was his only line of thought that wasn't just a rehash of UR.
Really though, what does he have left to say? And I don't mean that in a rude way - he's been talking about this subject for over a decade now. You can tweak the wording and learn how to communicate key ideas more effectively, but this isn't some sort of science where you can devise experiments and expand what you know. This is philosophy of state. This is ancient and well understood.
Didn't he say in some post moons ago that he's still writing the book, but has chosen to stop writing it in public? I'll be honest - while I love Curtis' analysis, I don't see any realistic way of achieving his goals. Brilliant Pebbles wasn't implemented for a reason, and good luck developing any sort of spaceborne government that won't become a nightmare state.
There is a lot to be said on what is actually to be done. While the whole reboot the USA with a CEO emperor makes a wonderful story...I think succession of a group of states is much more practical, medium term and effective. And we are talking existential crisis here. IQs dropping, forgetting technology, hoards of low IQ uncivillized 3rd world masses converging on the developed world, and a mediocre low innovative state (china) surpassing the US. Endgame of this is all-world third-world. I'd rather have a secure state in food producing territory established where some people have to work as robots, than pontificate about what the perfect state of man would be (as craftsmen etc etc) and never have any security against the colossal tide of decay.
My question is whether or not secession is more practical. I suspect it is less practical.
The capture of the state by a political machine which subsequently reinvented the state has happened successfully three times in our history - with the ratification of the Constitution, with Lincoln, and with FDR. Secession was attempted twice (Confederacy and Whiskey rebellion) and both failed. One common thread is that these three new regimes emerged during crises, of which we have no shortage. It's a fertile time for transformative change.
Compared to capturing a regime and dismantling it, founding a separatist regime requires a substantial amount of courage from politicians, some sort of reasonably popular cultural identity distinct from the mainstream, and soldiers willing to die to defend it. It also requires the coalition of secessionists to develop a new state as they part with the old one. Divorce at the national level, much like the personal level, is a legal and bureaucratic nightmare, though with much higher stakes.
Ultimately I'm a monarchist not because I believe it is good or better, but because I see it as almost inevitable. It seems to me that monarchy is the most likely outcome because it is the path of least resistance, as evidenced by history. I want the gears of history to resume turning and the elites to be rotated. This is not for any idealistic vision on my part - the system is less important than the people who occupy it, and the only solution to our mismanagement is to install worthy leaders and award them the power to dismantle the previous regime. I just want competent government, not some grandiose narrative of things as they ought to be.
If I believed secession was more likely to deliver, I'd be a secessionist. But there are so many obstacles to initiating it, so many hurdles to overcome once you've started it, and so many ways it can go wrong. You might get a state sooner, but would it be able to deal with the problems you outlined? If you can't resolve it amicably, you'll have war, and war is fundamentally dysgenic - as well as hell on border security.
All fair points. I think founding a separatist regime is cleaner, but it could be done through capturing the political mechanisms as you mention. I think the current political mechanism should be captured and used to break up the united states. Why go through the trouble of trying to rule Californians/ Blue states. Let THEM rule themselves. Why should worthy leaders rule over those that dont want their rule (for cultish ideological reasons)?
Yes, have worthy rulers, but give them worthy subjects. Capture the political system, break the USA up into the black states of america, Republican states of america, Democratic states of america, and maybe a european ethno-state (white israel), maybe a libertarian state aswell. Give people 5 years to move about with state assistance, withdraw travel rights between states as appropriate. I think this is going to be a lot easier than trying to rule over a cult of self humiliation and cultural destruction. And would a "governmental CEO" rather rule over the fertile lands of the north USA/ rust belt etc...or california. I know which i'd pick.
The soviety Union successfully disintegrated, it was messy because it wasn't planned. A planned disintegration would have been better. Lets do that.
Basically, the reason is to avoid war and the security nightmare that is having multiple countries in north America.
If there is an incomplete transfer of power, and the blue regime is permitted to survive, you can be certain it will be vindictive. There's the matter of our foreign clients as well. I suspect they would side with whoever promises to continue security guarantees and provide technology - with red being isolationist and tech mostly in blue coastal states, that's a problem. The question I'm really worried about is weather starving out the coastal strongholds is as easy as a lot of populists seem to believe. Those are port cities. They can ship in grain.
And I'm one to hate on California too, but I wouldn't underestimate my enemy. California has some of the most productive agricultural land, and it's the cradle of tech companies that service the entire globe. The rust belt still needs to be rebuilt - California needs to get its shit together. To any sort of monarch, California would seem extremely enticing. Of course, the agricultural productivity of California is driven by water taken from further inland, which only creates another seed of conflict.
A planned disintegration is much more likely to work than unilaterally declaring independence but you're still going to have to make compromises to avoid war and becoming collectively weaker, and I would still recommend some sort of alliance/union to try and keep foreign interference off the continent. This will mean years of negotiations and swallowing some pride, and you have to be prepared for that.
I always took Gray Mirror (the book) as being sort of like the Republic, more a thought experiment than a practical prescription.
I don't remember him saying that, if that's the case it would be nice to get some sort of update . . .
I always thought that the whole point was to be a practical guide to rule, like the mirrors of old.
It was quite some time ago. I agree that at this point an update is warranted.
After a decade or more of writing I think he has reached "critical grifting mass." This is where you can rehash your ideas in a new wrapper ("nigella seed bun with jackfruit marmalade") and there will always be new college freshmen flush with scholarship funds ready to subscribe to anything that will annoy their parents.
(There was an emphasis on "can", I'm not saying this is what is happening - I'm saying is give us a freaking progress report on the freaking book!
* How much of it has been written?
* How much is left?
* How long do we original subscribers need to continue to subscribe to get a copy when it's done?
If it's going to be a Song of Ice and Fire dealy it would be honest to tell us now. )
Yes but the effects of his pissing us off are to the good of the cause, its just now with reality in sight its scary AF …
YARVIN READ MOTHER NIGHT this isn’t necessary-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Night
The solution to Elvish extremism is not to arm Elvish moderates with power. The solution, which Yarvin might be expected to know, is the return of the King.
I see what you did there! :)
Defeatist nonsense: The rural people control the food, the rural people control the highways, the rural people have the guns and the military training. The city people have art, paper money, and web applications.
The real problem with Dobbs is, I don't give two flying fucks if democrats kill their children, inside the womb or outside it: Dobbs is born out of a misguided "love for all humanity" which is the true enemy of the right. In fact, I would give them the power to kill their offspring until they become Republicans.
The fact that Republicans care about Democrat lives, and all the weakness that entails, is the real reason we will lose. We will lose until we view them with as much contempt as they view us. And let them die. Even celebrate it.
you are a sick, sick man.
Also it’s my sense that for most Dobbs more fulfills a sense that dismantling the legal framework for illegitimate killing is a commandment obligation than it springs from a sense of “love” for the specific unborn child. Is my sense, could be wrong.
And you are the reason we are going to lose. Tell me, does your heart bleed for the Nazi children who died in the bombing of Dresden. I feel more for them, because we have more in common with them, than I do for our political opponents here. But I understand that war is war.
These people hate you. They use you to demonstrate to others their status. They enjoy humiliating you. They enjoy violating your human dignity. They see your children as a weapon to be used against you.
But you follow Jesus and love them all the same.
Many people misunderstand the correct concept of love. Love is to do what spiritually benefits and uplifts the fellow man, not necessarily what pleases him, indulges his weaknesses, engenders further sin, etc. to love properly often dictates a great deal of severity, even conflict. But what it isn’t, ever, is twisted hate.
The idea of "Nazi children" rather than "children of Nazis" is the big problem here.
War is war .
"Tell me, does your heart bleed for the Nazi children who died in the bombing of Dresden. I feel more for them, because we have more in common with them, than I do for our political opponents here."
keep posting lmao
City people do not have art. They have the post-modernist fecalized substitute to it. Rural people, with the Church as a channel of historical transmission, are exposed to much more real art.
The city people have power - the power and the habit of organizing people under their command. Rural peasants don't have much capacity for much action in 2022. How did the Canadian truck protesters end up? The Yellow Jackets in France?
Owning guns means nothing if you have no appetite for its use. All the militia organizing and jeffersonian rhetoric about the tree of liberty is fake and gay. Something as tame as January 6th was enough to bring down the hammer on the yokels.
For your own sake, let go of this functionally retarded bravado. Your pitchfork is is no danger of being used - it may even be made of wood. Riling up your fellow peasants so some of them may sacrifice themselves in a futile J6th-like event should weigh badly on your conscience.
The peasants will be crushed if it comes to it. Thankfully, it will not come to that since there isn't much energy on either side for a real conflict. It will continue to be fake and gay (Proud Boys vs BLM/antifa).
The Canadian truckers were resolved upon being peaceful. Looks to me like the BLM arsonists did okay. I wonder if there is a lesson to be learned there.
If you think that the outcome from the trucker protest going violent would have resulted in anything other than permanent outright marshal law North Korea style, you do not understand the left or how political violence works.
The system does not fear low level (in the grand scheme of things molotov cocktail-ing a few run down buildings is low level) leftist violence, because leftist mobs are largely composed of useful idiots led by political actors who are in some way associated with the system. It is an unspoken form of negotiation for further incremental leftist games. They are not really a systemic threat (not even Trudeau wants to cede power retarded communists). Right wing violence on the other hand is an *actual* threat to the system, and they know it.
Thus, as Curtis has alluded to before, when it comes to that option...it's one-and-done. You better damn well win the entire war on day 1, or get ready for *actual* gulags (see jan 6).
There is no such thing as permanent tyranny---if men are willing to fight. The only thing that allows tyranny to thrive is cowardice.
And yes, if the Trucker protest had turned violent, the result would have been bad---because that strategy does not merge well with violence. Because the correct strategy is to STARVE liberals to death. Luckily, they have already caged themselves for us---they live in Gulags of their own construction called cities. And we can massacre them there.
No cowardice. No defeatism. And while I don't think the time for violence has yet come, no self-delusion. We win. The right has ALWAYS been better at war. Always.
"The right has ALWAYS been better at war." I would like to see some examples of this because I'm not aware of many from the past two centuries or so.
Our strength lies in our elevation of order as a primary value for society, not wanton violence, that is the tactic of the leftist and it works for him.
Successful right wing reactions are remarkably lacking in bloodshed (Pinochet only had to dispatch a few thousand commies during his reign, and that's if you believe the cooked mainstream numbers). Hitler ruled with chaotic mass violence and unnecessary/counterproductive warfare, and he was in an arguably stronger position to begin with. Compare the results.
We won't win by being impetuous. We bide our time and endure the unjust suffering imposed on us by morally bankrupt 'elites'. Once the commoners have had their fill of living in a broken and degenerate society, we will give them the order they will be begging for, and we won't even have to fight much for it.
No, asshole, I am not going to do your thinking for you. If you are dumb enough to think the left is as good at warfare as the right, if you cannot see how the concepts of duty and orderliness help in a fight, then you are just too fucking stupid to be dealt with. In fact, if you equate war with wanton violence, as you seem to do in your response, then you have already demonstrated just how ignorant you are of military strategy and military history. Orderliness and discipline are force multipliers.
And don't be daft, either, I obviously mean the right is better at war man for man. Yes, a hundred liberals can beat the crap out of the strongest soldier.
Have you ever seen a fight between the proud boys and Antifa? Antifa does not do that well. Yeah, stop fucking around with words and open your eyes. Any example from history where the left won a war against a right wing opponent required the left to have VASTLY LARGER RESOURCES (or it required the conservatives to have become soft and complacent, which is exactly what the American ruling class, our enemies, are).
Franco in Spain. Pinochet in Chile. The US vs. the USSR. Nazi Germany punching well above its weight in WWII (as did the German Empire in WWI). Anywhere the conservatives have had equal resources, they have won. They obviously punch above their weight and the counter-examples you will mention, like Russia vs. the Nazis, will all involve adversaries who had vastly larger resources. Conservatism is a force multiplier and you know it. Indeed, compare the Taliban with the Afghan government.
Go cower in fear of Antifa and a bunch of city dwellers who cannot even feed themselves without us if you want. But keep your specious reasoning, that---by the way---conveniently ignored my other points about land, food, and gender ratios, to yourself.
Powerlessness and impotence really are the only things that nurture such deep seated and visceral resentment. However concrete those advantages may be, until they're effectively utilized by an organization, touting them is only posturing, and posturing is for losers. Predators simply go for the kill.
You will not lose for lack of contempt. Republicans lose because they are weak. They deserve to lose because they are weak. They are the weakest part of an increasingly weak state. The citizenry and ruling class both lack virtue. The ruling class is corrupt, performative, and lazy. The citizenry are no less lazy and too timid to risk upsetting the order of things. The republic is dead and what remains is ceremony. The crew is indolent and won't mutiny - even if they kill the captain, the ship is sinking regardless.
Populists hate to hear that monarchy is the inevitable sequel to dying republics, but it's true. If the citizenry could solve the problem, the problem wouldn't have arisen in the first place. The generations that could sustain a republic are dead. Cynicism and apathy are high. The majority of the population already feels it has lost its voice in government - because it has. Politics is the art of the possible, and monarchy is the only historically validated achievable escape vector. Besides collapse, anyway.
Caring about Republicans or Democrats unironically in current year just means you're still trapped in the past rather than looking to the future.
Why do we "deserve to lose" because we are weak? Women are generally weaker than men. I guess they deserve to be victims of assault by your logic. Yours is Melian Dialogue BS. Deserves and might have nothing to do with each other.
And I listed reasons we are, in fact, strong: Greater military skill and experience, more men (yes, we are literally more male, which has advantages in a conflict), control of the food supply, control of more geographic area, higher non-verbal intelligence and higher average intelligence (the left is bimodal, tons of verbally smart people combined with a lot of morons, very few people who know how to build, engineer, etc. comparatively speaking).
You can insult me. You can engage in all your puffery about monarchy, a system the Russians and Chinese essentially have now and has not made either of them strong (China was on a better track before Xi), but your little discourse is short on facts and long on cliches and talking points stolen from Mr. Yarvin.
Furthermore, we control the defense industry and, more importantly, the energy sector. We are strong.
Tell me, how lazy was the citizenry of Sri Lanka?
Don't insult me again or I won't bother responding to you. I am done trading insults on here with people. People who insult me will be ignored.
"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.
Well said Mr Carroll, but lets not lose sight of Yarvin’s ability to incite - and we are all incited, and all to the good.
No Talern its betrayal, not your pop pyschobabble. I took and kept the Oath, and we are all betrayed.
Now tell Mom to bring you another hot pocket so you can LARP as King, one of Yarvin’s many court Jesters, but not one honest fool.
The job actually needs a Mao probably as people like The CY family have left us impotent, coward and idiot Mandarins desperately coasting on inertia and rehashed scams and deceptions of the past. Like the court eunuchs of the Manchu without those pesky Bannermen (you’ve lost us all, as every push from Kabul to Uvalde shows).
So an American Mao it will be, the strongest warlord after a very long sorting march.
BTW the popular notion the Founding generation was more virtuous than us doesn’t really bear close scrutiny, 3% of them were braver than the others (we have at least that now, perhaps 10%) and they certainly had some better leaders, the main differences are women had no say and sin was private not publicized. The myth of the Founders virtue certainly wouldn’t match any Congress after 1776, and is largely a creation of later generations.
Idealism is a luxury of the comfortable not the desperate, all this nonsense is largely a creation of the 20th century due to the wars against Fascism and Communism- and the loss of Christianity without replacement in the elites and Harvard, Yale who still dominate the Commanding Heights.
Whiggery; America went into turmoil the revolt then Independence not because of a failure of Whiggery but a betrayal by the successor government to the ousted Pitt. Washington may have been the Father of his country but Pitt created his Army - Pitt promised an Empire of Liberty to the colonies if they fought the French, and just as importantly offered subsidies to pay for the war which came to 40% of the cost. This promise of full political equality combined with the seed money to start it energized the reluctant colonies to raise and supply, pay armies, TAXES, staff , officer and logistically support colonial militias who fought and won.
Pitt created the colonial systems that became states and the generation of colonial soldiers- that became the United States.
You see the new King didn’t like Pitt and put a Whitehall cipher in charge- who not only dismissed Pitt’s promise of representation but then tried to tax the 40% back! The colonists were already footing 60%.
This is the Revolution- BETRAYAL of the Colonists. Who then took the machine built to fight the French and turned it on the faithless and feckless British.
You see - BETRAYING YOUR ARMY IS A BAD IDEA.
But at least the British never were idiots enough to betray the British army.
This calls for a celebration, ask mom to bring another hot pocket , Rex Talern 😂
I have no desire to larp as a king, and I said as much in another comment. I want nothing to do with government. I want to live alone, heavily armed, in tranquil isolation.
Yes, I did sneer at FC, because I see those sorts of declarations of "I hate and want to kill people" as useless posturing and cope. Hatred is only a refuge for those too weak to kill out of duty. It's cope because if you're really so hard and badass, why aren't you out there doing it? Why didn't you serve? Why aren't you organizing the revolution? "Heh, I don't have christcuck morality, I'm not *weak*." Anyone who publically needs to state that they hold some belief that makes them strong is just insecure. Strength doesn't come from belief, it comes from action, and if you're strong, you don't need to tell everyone about it. They'll know. So when I see someone publically display weakness and proceed to condescendingly rag on everyone else for being weak - yeah, it gets under my skin. When I read that shit, *my* first thought is of hot pocket eating keyboard warriors, so it's funny to me that you thought the same of my response.
I think we're talking about different types of virtue. Daily life was much more of a struggle in colonial America. There was no instant gratification and you had to work for every meal, often from hunting/raising the animal all the way to putting it on the table - at least for settlers and the impoverished. Police work was less reliable and crime more prevalent, foisting the burden of self defense on the individual. The sort of patience and willingness to do hard or even violent work which necessity bred into people is the virtue I'm referring to. They didn't have a choice but to cultivate those virtues - but my point is that they held them. Too many today lack the patience to even cook a proper meal when they have the time.
As an aside, I don't eat hot pockets.
Talern- I did serve in war in the US MIL, did things out of duty, and we were betrayed .
I already did my duty.
Our Oaths were monetized by the pretty people in DC (who aren’t of course, its Hollywood for ugly people) then we were used in the Valkyrie remake of Biden’s inauguration.
The good news being that our Oaths abrogated by counterparty treachery sets us free. Well, good news for us.
Hate? Hate is too strong a word, despise isn’t.
But the absolute worst part is the CYs of DC have started something they can’t place in never mind finish.
They’re (DC)!visibly afraid of guns and showed us that, they missed no opportunity to snub or degrade us including not letting us get coffee in their precious little Starbucks at the Capitol Subway- after guarding them all night. These are ☠️ people.
You don’t summon soldiers then show fear, and insult them.
And all they’ll do is start an enormous war and series of wars and probably plan to run (from us ? 😂) and that’s it.
All they have done is nihilism as the last men of history.
Anyway, thanks for the training, combat experience, really cool friends and setting us FREE of our Oaths.
The Geriatric Interlude will not last, after that mischief shall be afoot doing as we will.
Bella Fortuna.
You did, but I don't have the sense that FC did. I apologize, my use of the rhetorical "you" wasn't thought through.
My take is that viewing one's enemy as anything other than a human obstacle gives one's enemy an advantage they can exploit - an emotional blind spot. If they can piss me off and get me to do something stupid, I hurt for it. And worse, I might choose to do something stupid all on my own just out of a desire to hurt the enemy, instead of *finishing* the enemy. That's why I see it as superfluous. Focus on the duty, not the feelings. But I also recognize people don't work that way, generally.
If you can resurrect the republic, I'll be pleasantly surprised. I don't know of any republic of comparable size in a comparable state of systemic decay which managed to reconstitute itself. But I would love to be shown an exception. Bella Fortuna.
No need to apologize, I was just clarifying. I don’t hate them, I understand them.
As for soldiers we know we must fight and await only leadership. It will likely come.
That is our business, anyone wanting a choice on that has to make our choices, we will trust none but our own. You must be us, you must accept your death, you must accept you have to kill.
That’s our problem, we alone.
To return to governance; Lets understand the government we’ve got;
“Not my Department.”
We’ve all heard that phrase, we are now governed by such.
That’s the awful truth.
The reason the Progressive Technocracy must be thrown down is not bad governance, its no government at all.
The Progressives hollowed out and overthrew King Republic and ...didn’t replace The Republic.
No one took responsibility.
If the King is to be a puppet then there must be a Regent- there’s no Regent. There’s no Council.
No Cabinet. No Politburo.
There’s a vacuum.
The vacuum must be filled.
It will be, by who or what unknown.
>The rural people...
Unfortunately, the historical record of peasant revolts is not on the side of the peasants
By peasants he and they mean commoners, not strictly farmers.
Also Rural is also suburbia.
But the soldiers and police and for that matter mercs all are “peasant “ stock. Our Oath was to the Constitution, our loyalty to the American people.
The Elites are alone.
>our oath ... The Elites are alone.
There is a discussion on a different forum, which I won't link to, that there are different police departments and different army units. And they interpret the Oath to the Constitution and what "loyalty to the American people" means very differently.
Do link to those forums!
The operative quote from DC mission by SGM to Gov Murfy
“Wait, I didn’t swear an Oath to you.”
Here’s my differentiation;
My Oath is abrogated by counter-party treachery and I am FREE”
THANK YOU.
Why I was a slave it seems from 1986 until 1/20/21.
But no one swore to any person or party- but the Dems in DC DID NOT PROCESS that. Not that it stopped them from abusing and insulting us, they know no other way.
That trickery into Treason even as Dupe will not work again.
If a leader rises its over fast.
The correlation of forces did not commend force as a viable solution- but desperately flailing they summoned DOD (who declined) then the unfortunate National Guardsmen who responded *
Quos Deus vult perdere prius dementat. The gods made them mad with fear ...madness it was.
*given 26 in my platoon of 21 green virgins and 5 salts like myself I came, shamefully.
A shame I will erase given a chance. That’s also the last hostages I’ll ever let be taken.
Do link to those Oath forums.
I want to free my Brothers.
We are FREE, the freest men in America.
The elites have their clients and their institutions.
And habits of power.
Not even all the 'elites' are elite!
>In the 2016 United States presidential election, California whites voted against Donald Trump by a 5 percentage point margin.
I'd say 'wake up' but there's not much of a possibility of that if you believe this in 2022.
Dear we are awake, thats why they’re frightened and why Congress ran
Yes but here’s the bad part for Team Rivendell (😂🤡)
Dobbs says you can’t magically breathe powers and rights from nothing into life ….this unravels the entire 20th century government legitimacy.
Next thing you know the P@pists will be looking at Humphreys Executors…
This is the first time Yarvin has made an argument on strategy that I disagreed with.
War is in many ways a battle of resource management. The resource of energy is a common focus of Yarvin's writings. There are other resources to consider in addition to energy. One such resource is territory. If Eastern Russia decided to break away from the rest of Russia right now, would it make Russia stronger or weaker in their war with Ukraine?
Territory comes with tangible resources which must be managed. High Elves have become very bad at resource management. In many Progressive territories aka Blue States or Blue Strongholds (cities), you'll find their poor resource management is becoming more and more transparent. An example: in the the 2010-2020 census, California experienced its first population decline in recorded history. Do you suppose Hobbit strength and influence on California increased or decreased over this decade? Obviously it decreased. And as it decreased, High Elves found themselves alone with each other, and their increasingly tenuous relationship with competence. And that third group (neglected by Yarvin), the humans who also want to be left alone but happen to enjoy art films and whatever, find themselves inexplicably attracted to Hobbit states. It's getting easier and easier to find kindred spirits in Florida these days. Who knew?
When people no longer desire to be ruled by your Regime, it has lost legitimacy. It is usually those individuals who enjoy the combination of gumption, competence, and means that are most likely to channel their great-great-grandfather's genes and head on a voyage to another state better suited for their talents and with significantly fewer hobos masturbating on park benches. And what effect does this have on the places they flee from? Oh yes, we have a name for that. It's called brain drain. It turns out there's about a half century of data on the effects of brain drain on the nations they flee from. It isn't good for their former homes. It is quite good for their new homes. When LeBron took his talents to South Beach, South Beach benefited. Ohio had to get its shit together in order to win him back.
Population is a type of territory. Fewer and fewer people are seeking to be ruled by Elves, and are begrudgingly warming to the Hobbits. Roe being overturned might impact that. However, it also might not. What's more important to that wine aunt who already managed to sober up long enough to realize she was tired of stepping on dirty needles and got out of dodge: abortion access for her barren womb, or the refreshing smell of not piss and conspicuous absence of hobos debasing themselves on benches?
Yarvin called Dobbs our Brexit. That's cool. It will indeed influence The Big Sort. That's also cool. Think back to the California census. We want that sort. We want the Blue states to get as Blue as possible. We want Heisenberg Progressivism, nothing beats the blue stuff. The fewer impurities it contains (Hobbits) and the more concentrated it is, the more its true nature is revealed. Turns out those Hobbits and Humans have been subsidizing the High Elves and their dumbass ideas for quite some time. They do this by virtue of being competent enough to keep the lights on while the San Francisco Regime interviewed and trained the new dirty needle collection brigade. It also turns out those Hobbits and Humans are getting tired of that, and mustering what little energy they have not to struggle, but to move.
True Believers will always tow the party line, and are wealthy enough to live comfortably among masturbating hobos and other forms of human degradation. An argument could be made that they actually kind of get off on it. Most people do not fall into this category. As the High Elf states experience population decline, and more and more LeBrons take their talents to South Beach, the High Elves will decrease in strength. The Berlin Wall was built to keep people in, not out. California does not have a Berlin Wall. Maybe it should. But it doesn't, so people are fleeing to Regimes they by definition find more favorable because they're seeking to be governed by them. Dobbs will accelerate this sort. It is by no means set in stone that Red places will get Redder as Blue places get Bluer. Maybe Blue places get Bluer and Red places get Purpler. But Conquest's 2nd Law appears to be in full force in the Red places, so maybe they're safe for now.
The Reversal of Roe will have some sort of response. It's a mistake to assume the nature or magnitude of that response just yet.
One last thing, though not related to anything prior: It's not always a mistake for an underdog to provoke an overdog. The American Civil Rights Movement is a good example of this. The underdogs provoked the overdogs, and then let the response speak for itself in shifting opinions enough to ultimately shift these categories altogether.
"High Elves found themselves alone with each other, and their increasingly tenuous relationship with competence"
Beautifully put.
"Turns out those Hobbits and Humans have been subsidizing the High Elves and their dumbass ideas for quite some time."
The parasitical globalist "nowheres" of today are the latest in a long line of "let them eat cake" aristocrats.
Thanks. One of my biggest takeaways from Dobbs was how much I'd fallen into the trap of thinking our situation to be more static than it actually is. The *system* might be for the most part intractably static, but our situation is not. As I mentioned in a post made on my website, we're still in a place where States are a better check on the Fed than vice versa. As long as this holds (which I'm hopeful for due to the dynamism that still exists here), I'm optimistic. There's a real possibility that in the near future, Congressmen from California will be taken as seriously (and have as much influence) in the House of Reps as a delegate in the UN hailing from Somalia.
Hear, hear.
"A republic, if they can keep it" is one of the most prescient things said.
It kind of feels like in the past 50 years anyone who was really serious about "making a difference" felt they had to go for the federal level, leaving the lower levels pretty much up for grabs. Turns out the states weren't out of the game yet!
Which is your website?
No idea how I didn't see this at the time. If you're still interested:
returntoreason.locals.com 🤙
Well put.
I can support this: after living everywhere, I settled on California for its qualities. But after some years, I reluctantly gave up trying to help the masturbating hobos. It took someone's public overdose and a small angry condo fire, but I accepted reality, moved (back) to Texas, and have begrudgingly warmed to the Hobbits. When a tent popped up in the progressive church backyard on the other side of my north Austin garden wall, I walked around and deleted it. I'm sad, but I don't feel guilty about it. I'm satisfied with this Brexit, satisfied with this Big Sort.
Your comment was solid until you reached..
>The American Civil Rights Movement is a good example of this. The underdogs provoked the overdogs, and then let the response speak for itself in shifting opinions enough to ultimately shift these categories altogether.
Which is the opposite of what Curtis and most of us (i hope) believe.
Quoting from https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2013/01/noam-chomsky-killed-aaron-swartz/
>Who was stronger—Dr. King, or Bull Connor? Well, we have a pretty good test for who was stronger. Who won? In the real story, overdogs win. Who had the full force of the world’s strongest government on his side? Who had a small-town police force staffed with backward hicks? In the real story, overdogs win.
>“Civil disobedience” is no more than a way for the overdog to say to the underdog: I am so strong that you cannot enforce your “laws” upon me. I am strong and might makes right—I give you the law, not you me. Don’t think the losing party in this conflict didn’t try its own “civil disobedience.” And even its own “active measures.” Which availed them—what? Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi.3
There's a reason I put that at the end, and made sure to explain what came before was not contingent on the final unrelated point.
I've read the post you linked before, and I agree with its points for the most part. I believe there's a way to frame the situation that makes either perspective true, but that's neither here nor there when it comes the thrust of what I was communicating in the post. I'd hope the final sentence wouldn't detract too much from the rest of it. Appreciate the feedback either way 🤙
Your analogy of 'territory' is excellent. I hope Curtis addresses this!
The rest of this comment section on this post is, sadly, a regression to the retarded, raging peasant sphere that happens with any victory for the Right (I recall a close friend telling me in 2005 that Bush was about to cleanse the government, shut down muslim immigration etc when he first coined the term 'islamofascism').
Much obliged, I hope so also. This post of his is probably one of the stranger ones I've ever read.
I've made similar points as yours with Conservatives who think Dobbs is some huge W for their strategy (whatever that means) as opposed to the product of literal luck.
Cons voted for the Con presidential candidate, and he got to pick 3 SCOTUS judges. That's it. It is in no way a reflection of "Things are turning around!" or "People are starting to wake up!" It's luck, and as such, in no way gives anyone license to let their guard down or check out any more than they already tend to. On the contrary, it should be a catalyst to bolster the red areas by making them incredibly friendly to competence. Lean into Conquest's 2nd and accelerate the brain drain from Caladishu.
Yes it's not totally clear that a judicial decision through the happenstance of the Trump victory is something the peasants can even _control_. Yes the movement was fully in support of the overturn of Roe v Wade. And somehow they got it, by golly. I've already seen calls for a federal abortion ban.
Would you at least agree that going for that would be a mistake in the Yarvinian sense?
I'd agree it's a mistake in any possible sense. Fortunately the energy just isn't there for it in any meaningful way. I suspect once the Faithful realize this won't impact them, they'll all move on to something else, save those who had already made abortion their #1 thing. The Faithful living in Pagan areas will move, provided the Pagan legislatures adhere to Conquest's 2nd. Similarly, once Pagan areas reach a non-abortion equilibrium, they'll also move on to something else, that something hopefully also involving Conquest's 2nd. But who knows. I look at the Right the same way I do clips of police officers standing around while people riot and assault their fellow citizens. I'm much more angry at the ineffectual police than I am immoral people simply acting out their immoral nature.
Who is Bigger Overdog than SCOTUS?
In the words of Moldbug - “If the Supreme Court were one person, that person’s proper job title would be ‘King.”.
THERE IS NO BIGGER OVERDOG THAN THE SUPREME COURT.
Agree, kind of. SCOTUS is dynamic in composition, both in members and in form. There are many ways in which a well-organized and strategically vindictive Leftist legislature could change this composition in their favor, either through action or intimidation (ala FDR style). However, I don't see this happening at the moment. Certainly the will is there among many Progs, but they just don't have the energy, ability, or capacity to right now. But it's pretty much a rule that Leftism is in one way, much like Tony Stark. If you defeat but don't kill him, his armor will be adapted to everything you threw at it last time, and he'll wipe the floor with you. The Regime absolutely will adapt to this in some way at some time, the only questions are when, how, and how effective will it be?
Excellent!
Norm Voice: See some people say the worst thing about Roe V Wade was the culture war - that was the worst part - I think maybe it was the baby killing
Hobbits and elves is a helpful metaphor. There’s another layer though. In Tolkien’s beautiful world, both races are noble and equipped with talents that enrich the overall life of the Kingdom. They are good. They struggle against evil. They engage in inherently worthy tasks throughout the day. Far from simply “grilling and raising kids” the hobbits are excellent craftsmen and farmers, gardeners and artisans. Who knows what the elves do but it’s powerful and beautiful and uplifting. And they look gorgeous doing it.
This fits only tortuously onto our red vs blue reality. Let’s be honest there is a culture-wasteland in both groups. Grilling is fine, but just not enough, and not worthy of a fully human life. Also, the effing elves are lousy degenerates ruining everything they touch. Middle earth is on a sorry state and perhaps the answer lies more in each group seeking some internal regeneration at a basic level so as to be worthy of the respect of the other.
Hobbits and elves are both good: Which is a big part of Curtis's rhetorical trick here. The analogy ignores that our enemies are EVIL. That we should hate them.
If our enemies are other human beings, why would we hate them? We can love our enemies, it's ok.
Moloch craves disease and obfuscation. You are right that hate is like taking poison and hoping it kills our enemy.
But it’s ok not to love the decay of progressive stench.
As long as we can still smote them sure pray for the souls after sent yes that ok
Not ok B4
Nope, not my style. I don't role with Jesus.
that's ok too
I was thinking along the same lines while reading. In my view, the problem isn’t some kind of imbalance of power between the hobbits and the elves. The problem is that we’ve _all_ become orcs. We have neither the dignified love of quiet nature and hobbit holes nor the high-minded pursuit of deeper truths and exquisite beauty. We’re mostly composed of lazy, ignorant, hateful fucks that enjoy <grilling / post-modern “art”>, <Walmart/instagram>, <megachurches/endless therapy>, <guns/“activism”>. The evangelical gun-nut, monster-truck-loving right is just as un-hobbit as the trans-queer-BLM basket weaver is un-elf.
So it’s not a left v right thing, it’s an overall loss of virtue. The only way that red tribe enters into it is via a distant relationship to a bona fide conservatism that is intellectually capable of questioning Whig history. Only by questioning Whig history can you begin to wonder whether it’s possible for things to get worse instead of better, and it’s only from there that you can imagine the possibility that we are just a shittier people. But again, questioning Whig history is a high-falutin, book-learning pattern of thought - it isn’t something that was produced by red-tribe proper. This is where a lot of the mismatch between Curtis and his audience comes from. He’s more like a person who just wants to aspire to some actual god damn virtue. But the issue is that he first needed to clarify to his readers why that was even necessary. Along the way, it was inevitable to pick up some garden variety red-tribers (or worse… some of them appear to be more like garden variety neo-nazis) who agree for all the wrong reasons.
The thing I've always been least comfortable with in your worldview is that the American essence of society isn't worth saving. The "hobbits," so to speak, aren't interested, and never will be, in being secretive or cagey with their political leanings, or ESPECIALLY their moral values, as is the case with abortion. You might convince other lapsed-liberal "dark elf" elites to be Machiavellian, and they might see babies' lives as an acceptable sacrifice in service of some greater political goal, but then what business do you "dark elves" even have ruling Christian, God-fearing Americans whose values are honesty, forthrightness, morality and decency?
You think Americans could actually have a shot at winning this great revolution you envision, if they would just learn how to be subjects. But for me, the thing worth saving about America is our distaste for being subjects.
How are you not subjects right now?
How many ways can you not understand your delusion? The capacity seems to be endless. You are no less a subject than a citizen of Dubai. It's your illusion that prevents you from winning.
But ... muh votez?
:)
He wants to save his America.
He wants to save Yarvin.
Lol
The Reactionary Case for Chopping Babies Up into Tiny Pieces
Where is Swift when you need him?
There's room to rewrite "A Modest Proposal" about many "current" issues. "Abortion" plus "Climate change" is just the starter. And I apologise for the way that sentence came out.
The Reactionary case for please don’t do what Moldbug thinks you might do until he’s dead and and and...Yarvin just wants public safety above all and always did.
He saw a Black person wander into Silicon Valley once and he’s never recovered. Lol.
Why are you even a subscriber? Curtis has not deviated from his analysis and message since 15 years in the face of lots of criticism. You think he's just a racist liberal? In 2022? What are you even doing here? Save your money and just read the normie conservative blogosphere, or perhaps the Vermuelian faction.
I think I have been following him since before UR, and my own counsel will I keep. So you piz off instead, lol
And I didn’t say he was racist
I said he was scared
He is , had you read his own words you’d know.
He’s not racist, its just “The Dire Problem “ is so scary. Do read UR the dire problem and its solution, it was implemented for Covid .
He just wants a gated community, with the rest in pods watching Netflix.
Now we just tried that, it didn’t work.
Have a nice day
"Racist liberals" is the epithet used generally online for what you're talking about.
If you've been following him from "before UR" then you're woefully misread, I'm afraid.
The virtual solution was a thought experiment and easily abandoned. Gray Mirror has gone in the opposite direction (trade and tech restrictions to make people work instead).
Again, I'm amazed you're at this level of interpretation. If I shared your evaluation of Curtis, I'd be long gone. "Scared elite" heh.
The distinction drawn here between Elves and Hobbits is too self-aggrandizing. There is no reason for Tolkien's race of Men to LARP as either group, and there is no reason that from the so-called Hobbits a greatness cannot be cultivated/forged/developed.
It's also a strange analogy to me because a) Elves don't rule Hobbits, and would not be interested in such an arrangement and b) the whole story is arguably about the ennobling of the lowly Hobbits. Remind me who scours the Shire?
As Joseph de Maistre said, nothing great has great beginnings. Or, even dwarfs started small.