ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, March 01, 2020

Extremists vs moderates

The Z-Man explains a pair of natural divides. I point out a third.
Michelle Malkin is a good example of why civic nationalism must inevitably lead to someone like Ben Shapiro lecturing you about the creedal nation. Her speech was pretty much what Ben Shapiro says, except she strongly opposes immigration and what she calls globalism. For obvious reasons, Malkin must argue on ideological grounds, rather than from nature. Her brand of dissident politics must be open to everyone, who accepts the ideological points of her program.

It’s one of those things that sounds good in theory, but in reality it is impossible to police ideological borders. The Left has been trying to solve that puzzle since the French Revolution and it always ends in disaster. The right-wing effort at it led to Buckley conservatism and eventually David French. For now, ideology and argument are the tools required to win people to our side, but ultimately the goal must be boundaries that do not require constant maintenance…

Listening to Fuentes speak, I was thinking about how this spasm of white identity politics has mirrored previous iterations. The alt-right split in two. One group is seeking to operate above ground and gain legitimacy. The other group retreated into a self-imposed ghetto. The TRS crowd is really just a younger version of the old Stormfront community that formed up after the Buchanan movement. Go back further and it is a replay of the Bircher-Buckley split.

Fundamentally, these splits are over presentation. The “optics” side cannot fathom why the hardcore cannot understand the need to make a good presentation. The hardcore cannot understand why the optics guys don’t see the dangers of compromise. Both sides are right, but both sides have always failed. The hardcore ends up in something similar to a cult and the optics guys get gobbled up by the system. There really needs to be a different approach to this in order to avoid a repeat of the past…
The reality is that every successful movement requires both its extremists and its moderates. See Sinn Fein and the Irish Republican Army, or the Palestine Zionist Executive and the Irgun. In this case, the core problem that the moderates face is that no matter how flawless their optics might be, their position simply isn't a viable one. Like communism, like socialism, like secular humanism, civic nationalism has been thoroughly tried and tested. And it has failed, even more spectacularly than these other ideological catastrophes.

Of course, the one thing the political activists of every stripe never seem to grasp is that the political philosophers simply aren't interested in activism of any kind. In my case, both the activists and their enemies alike fail to grasp that I'm neither interested in joining a cult nor in being gobbled up by the system. I'm not interested in joining anything, least of all a mass movement. There are no shortage of opinion leaders who seek attention and influence in pursuit of their ideals, and that is well and good, but there should always be someone to observe the events and make sense of them in a historical context too.

Those who venerate Aristotle, Virgil, and Thucydides are seldom inclined to follow the paths of Alexander, Caesar, and Alcibiades.

Labels: , ,

54 Comments:

Blogger maniacprovost March 01, 2020 11:26 AM  

ideology and argument are the tools required to win people to our side,

This is what a lot of people online are doing but I question how true it really is. Real world politics works mostly on tribal identification and social hierarchy. I think z-man and most others are trying to impose the reality that they implicitly understand onto the abstract world of ideology, which it doesn't really apply to.

What is a "side" in the realm of abstract ideas?

What do they are usually doing is trying to sort out social hierarchies using a veneer of ideological terms.

Blogger map March 01, 2020 11:28 AM  

Of course, the example of the PZE/Irgun and Sinn Fein/IRA presupposed the existence of two nationalist groups, Jews and Irish, who both agreed that they were a distinct people who deserved a distinct nation. This moderate/extremist dynamic was basically a con they ran against outside groups, and, really, a con they ran against the British. Like passive resistance, it never would have worked against the Germans or the Ottomans.

Blogger Johnny March 01, 2020 11:43 AM  

On a verbal level it would be rhetoric and dialectic. Supporters of a movement should hope for both, a sound analysis somewhere, and then the rhetoric to sell it.

Too bad Trump can't split himself in two, one the God Emperor figurehead president, the other the rhetorical street freighter.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 01, 2020 12:09 PM  

Johnny wrote:Too bad Trump can't split himself in two, one the God Emperor figurehead president, the other the rhetorical street freighter.
The God Emperor is what he is because he does rhetoric so well. Without his street fighter side, he'd be Little Jebbie!, please clapping. Nobody wants an empty suit on the podium. Nobody wants a soulless technocrat. Everyone wants a leader who can communicate that he understands our feelings and communicate that he's working for what we need.

Why did Billy Clinton do so well? The Dem ballot fraud helped, of course, but Billy-boy was a really slick liar. When he said ``I feel your pain,'' most people forgot that he caused it. MPAI.

Street Freighter. That's heavy, man.

Blogger tuberman March 01, 2020 12:25 PM  

Well, the Culture Wars is a whole different type of "activism." If I'm a cultist for supporting that, SO BE IT.

BTW, never liked or trusted Malkin. Only a smidgen off that BS guy. The fact that Vdare gave her a huge forum, caused me to look at them with a grain of salt also.

"Fundamentally, these splits are over presentation."

Naw, most of the time the breaks are due to controlled opposition, as in Wm. Buckley.

Blogger Up from the pond March 01, 2020 12:27 PM  

"The core problem that the moderates face is that no matter how flawless their optics might be, their position [civic nationalism] simply isn't a viable one."

Right, leading to persuasive accusations that they are controlled opposition.

The closest thing to an "optical" side our position has is Ramzpaul's Happy Homelands. Not perfect and the IRL following is small.

Blogger Sam March 01, 2020 12:28 PM  

@1
Agreed. People bow to power. If the left is going to gain power and start killing people, knowing that isn't as helpful as not being on their shit list. Of course the commies biggest target is other commies, but people are tireless optimists.

@2
It only works when part of the elite are traitors/leftists who are willing to sabotage their own side to gain more power.

Blogger Pseudotsuga March 01, 2020 12:34 PM  

"Fundamentally, these splits are over presentation. The “optics” side cannot fathom why the hardcore cannot understand the need to make a good presentation. The hardcore cannot understand why the optics guys don’t see the dangers of compromise. Both sides are right, but both sides have always failed."

That last paragraph sums up some of my young "never-Trump" relatives very well. They value the compromise, of "being nice," over actual Conservative principles. They were Evan McMuffin voters... I wonder who they will vote for this year?

Blogger Dire Badger March 01, 2020 12:52 PM  

Optics, Shmoptics. I am just looking for a way to legally start killing Orcs.

Blogger Doktor Jeep March 01, 2020 1:06 PM  

The best first step is to drive out the bowties.

Blogger Jack Amok March 01, 2020 1:20 PM  

... every successful movement requires both its extremists and its moderates

With the caveat that both have to actually be part of the movement. I have this image of Little Benji and Spencer getting together and looking at each other in surprise. "You're CIA too? Why didn't they tell me..."

Ultimately one vital thing every movement really needs is a visible path to success that the mass of people can see and believe in. The moderate's message of boiling the frog more slowly doesn't work on the middle-class frogs who are already scalded and starting to blister. Anyone more moderate than Trump doesn't have a strategy anyone can believe in. Trump is the moderate here, but the Left is hell-bent on painting him as the extremist.

Blogger Akulkis March 01, 2020 2:05 PM  

"Optics, Shmoptics. I am just looking for a way to legally start killing Orcs."

You, and nearly every combat arms vet capable of walking and carrying a weapon.

Blogger LZ March 01, 2020 2:10 PM  

You need a person who can bring both sides together. He hasn't emerged yet, but given enough ground support, he will. Trump effectively won by attracting both camps, but he's not the guy.

Blogger Greg from the Piedmont March 01, 2020 2:15 PM  

@11 - Straight out of "The Man Who Was Thursday"...

Blogger Mr.MantraMan March 01, 2020 2:16 PM  

Where provost was going with "social hierarchy", instead of that ideological crap which is a synonym of catastrophe. Reduce the social status of your enemies, raise your own and offer that to the normies.

Bob Whitaker was a Reagan appointee and long time anti-commie activist, so anyway in 1980 he gets his 5 minutes with the man pre-election and he advised Reagan to stop with the dumb ass conservative think tank wonkery which appeals to dorks and dorks only, but instead raise the social status of the regular Americans with his campaign. So RR ditched the wonkery and handily beat President Peanut Malaise.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia March 01, 2020 2:21 PM  

VD wrote:

Those who venerate Aristotle, Virgil, and Thucydides are seldom inclined to follow the paths of Alexander, Caesar, and Alcibiades.

And of those six characters, which ones have had the greatest long term and most significant impact on humankind?

It ain't the last three, that's for sure.

Oh, alright, they were dominant historical figures, but they were "of a time." To use the art analogy, they were "period pieces."
.
There would be no discipline of historical analysis without Thucydides. Virgil assured the continuation of the highest written art form.

And there would be no discipline of philosophy, and arguably a landscape without logic and reason, and, in the end, no Western civilization without Aristotle.



Blogger Kiwi March 01, 2020 2:53 PM  

Trump in the past - I don't see myself ever being president, hopefully there is a good candidate I can support who is better suited to the job, logic logic.

Some time later - "Cofvete"

Blogger Kingly Gift March 01, 2020 3:07 PM  

I'm very intrigued by the topic of the flaws of civic nationalism. I'm a newbie to this space and still trying to figure it out. Since every lie has a kernel of truth within it (otherwise it wouldn't capture anyone's belief to begin with), I want to understand the core of the CivNat argument, so I can decipher where the truth ends and the lie begins (or more accurately, how the truth is distorted/inverted).

The core truth of the CivNat idea is that people can in fact assimilate to a different Nation. This is shown to be true on a mass scale by the historical fact that new Nations can form from the breakup of Empires. Through breakup, the various regions of the Empire take on new National identities that were only there in a nascent form. This is also shown to be true on the personal scale by examples of individual people who fully assimilate into a new Nation. I think the Biblical story of Ruth illustrates how this can work. She fully assimilate into the Nation through both blood and ideology. Ruth says "your people will be my people, your God will be my God." Ruth converted ideologically (religiously) and twice married into the Nation. Perhaps you may argue that Ruth was never really an Israelite. I agree. But certainly her great-grandson, King David, could not be accused of being a Moabite.

As far as I can tell, those two examples are the limits of National conversion or assimilation. It doesn't appear to me that any two Nations can successfully merge together to become one Nation, even while living for generations under one political yoke. Are the Scotts ever going to be British? Are American Southerners ever going to stop being the whipping boy of the Yankees? In political unions, perhaps the demarcation between two Nations gets more porous to individuals, i.e. it's not too difficult for a Southerner to move to the North and take on a the New England identity, and leave the South behind forever. But I don't know if the two Nations can ever fully merge. It seems more likely that one Nation simply dies off as it is swallowed by the other (which can perhaps be the summary of all of US history, i.e. the New-Englander's attempt to swallow up everyone else). Or there is a breakup when the political arrangement becomes untenable.

Whatever core truth there is in CivNatism, it cannot apply to mass migration. Which is essentially the introduction of a new Nations into a political union with previous Nation(s) already present. Since both the Dems and Repubs do not want a break-up of the Empire, their stance on immigration is insane, to put it mildly. It's like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. The Dems misguided stance on immigration can at least be excused because they are true believers in the power of the State to hold all the disparate Nations under one yoke forever. The Repubs handling of immigration, with their lip service to limited State power, is truly unforgivable.

Any critique is welcome, I'm still sorting this stuff out. Thanks.

Blogger Akuma March 01, 2020 4:01 PM  

"You need a person who can bring both sides together. He hasn't emerged yet, but given enough ground support, he will. Trump effectively won by attracting both camps, but he's not the guy."

The guy needs:
-Prior Military Combat Service. Mid-grade enlisted or Officer. This gets him the Normie Vote, and a makes him a foe to the Military-Industrial Complex and deep state.
-Formal Scientific training. Allows him to attack Academia from the inside.
-Formal Medical Training. This allows him to be the Chief Doctor of the United States.
-Formal Psychiatry training other than basic undergraduate and graduate school courses. This means the left can never use the DSM or ICD to try and remove him from office. He can also use their pseudoscience against them, as Chief Psychiatrist of the United States.
-Formal Legal training. He needs to have an understanding of the law so he can maneuver like a leftist in matters of lawfare. Combine this with Medical and Psychiatry training and he can be a Forensic Racist.
-An IQ in the 135+ Range. He needs to be able to get the smart people on his side who only understand complex rhetoric and dialectical.
-An ability to hold his own in an impromptu fist fight.
-Most importantly of all a Christian Ethos.

Blogger tuberman March 01, 2020 4:56 PM  

We NEED people who can bring the Christian West Culture back first, then after the West knows itself, you find the best fighters that know the enemy. Trump and his people know the enemy, but are weak about knowing the West. He many prove me wrong, and he will win more battles than most think. Yet it will likely be up to you guys to win the West back.

Blogger Taco Town March 01, 2020 4:59 PM  

Ideology and argument are tools to augment tribal allegiances and the social hierarchy, not ends in themselves or a substitute/alternative for tribal allegiances and the social hierarchy. Ideologies hostile to the the concept of tribal allegiances and social hierarchy are doomed to fail. The purpose of ideology is to strengthen tribal ties and make the social hierarchy more competent.

As said above, both are necessary.

Blogger Akulkis March 01, 2020 4:59 PM  

" Are the Scotts ever going to be British?"

Considering that the Scots and the Welsh and the Mersians, and the Cornish, and the Devonians were Britannia before the first Angle ever set foot on the Island, the better question is, "Will the English, let alone the Normans and the Hanovers ever be British?

The Scots are British by definition.

Blogger papabear March 01, 2020 5:25 PM  

@18

"The core truth of the CivNat idea is that people can in fact assimilate to a different Nation. This is shown to be true on a mass scale by the historical fact that new Nations can form from the breakup of Empires. Through breakup, the various regions of the Empire take on new National identities that were only there in a nascent form."

1. One must differentiate between assimilating to another culture and being integrated into another people. The former is easier than the latter.

2. "This is shown to be true on a mass scale by the historical fact that new Nations can form from the breakup of Empires."

Historical examples of this, in which there are "new" nations that had no ethnic identity before they were conquered by the empire and did not maintain them, but only found a new one after collapse?

Blogger Daniel March 01, 2020 6:52 PM  

Nathan Hornok, the error in your axiom is here:

"The core truth of the CivNat idea is that people can in fact assimilate to a different Nation. This is shown to be true on a mass scale by the historical fact that new Nations can form from the breakup of Empires."

Those "new" nations are not from Union and assimilation, but from segregation and disintigration.

The nation of Latvians and Estonians are not assimilating to a diversity within the old Soviet Union, for example. They are emerging as segregated nations.

Thus, the "kernel" of truth in CivNationalism is the opposite of your axiom: that Empires can form for a time, under CivNattery. Eventually they morph into pure globalism, or just skip right to the break up of emerging nationalism.

The lie of CivNationalism is that the best way to break up an empire is to start building a new empire with diverse union.

Blogger VFM #7634 March 01, 2020 7:12 PM  

The Scots are British by definition.

Akshully… the Welsh and Cornish are British, but the Scots are far Northern Irish.

Blogger Kingly Gift March 01, 2020 7:39 PM  

@23

I don't know. My historical knowledge is not what it should be. I'm trying to change that.

I've heard Vox say something along the lines of "Nations emerge from crumbling Empires." I'm only on the first volume of "The history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire." So I'm looking for examples of this. But it does seem like the various tribal people who were conquered by the Romans, emerged centuries later from the collapse with new or greatly modified National identities. I agree that some ethnic traces could be mapped out if we had perfectly recorded history.

If/when the USA breaks up, it's impossible for most people to snap back to whatever ethnic heritage their ancestors were because we have mixed ethnic heritage and most of us have forgotten where we even come from. We have some fragmented knowledge of which great-grandparent came from where, but that doesn't play a strong role in who we see ourselves as. For some it does, but not for many others. So we may have to choose a new identity, probably based on religion and the region of the country we find most culturally hospitable to us.

Blogger rumpole5 March 01, 2020 8:37 PM  

I understand and agree with much of the criticism of civic nationalism. However, when one examines the history of our country, we have been importing obnoxious ethnics and races almost from the beginning. And, meanwhile, the USA has become one of the richest and powerful countries in the world. This process must have involved some degree of Civic Nationalism because we have not been one nationality since the Afros and Germans were unloaded centuries ago. If you don't believe me just read Benjamin Franklin's criticism of German immigration, and look up the history of the Know Nothings. If we don't have a real USA nationality to rally around, we need some substitute if we are to hold together.

Blogger doctrev March 01, 2020 9:12 PM  

Akuma wrote:"You need a person who can bring both sides together. He hasn't emerged yet, but given enough ground support, he will. Trump effectively won by attracting both camps, but he's not the guy."

The guy needs:

-Prior Military Combat Service. Mid-grade enlisted or Officer. This gets him the Normie Vote, and a makes him a foe to the Military-Industrial Complex and deep state.

-Formal Scientific training. Allows him to attack Academia from the inside.

-An ability to hold his own in an impromptu fist fight.

-Most importantly of all a Christian Ethos.


That guy sounds amazing, seriously. But I don't think he could actually bring together two nations. Pete Bootyguy is the kind of milquetoast Churchian that makes David French jack it all night, but even his pro-abortion pro-sodomy spectacle is furiously denounced by much of the left just for being associated with Jesus Christ. Say what you want about him, but Hitler was ludicrously under-qualified by any possible standard. Yet he eventually became the leader of a nation that had continental mastery over Europe, and united most of a fractious nation behind his leadership. Yes, he was doomed from 1939 onward, but that's really not the point. He was the guy in the arena, and made the most of every chance he had for decades.

In the end, extremists and moderates can only succeed if they're actually working for the same goal. The Zionists of Israel are actually a great example of this. Their moderates repeatedly excused and excuse all political violence by their extremist wing. The extremist wing, in turn, either retired or became part of the state once modern Israel was established. Nowadays we see the "mainstream" right-wing parties openly celebrate annexing land, while the extremists are pacified enough to not shoot cucky prime ministers.

Papabear, I would say Australia is a relatively monocultural nation (as far as most nations can be, these days) that has jettisoned their legacy as part of an empire. Taiwan is a nation openly rejecting the Chinese Empire, and won't re-integrate without massive demographic changes- either mass immigration or mass murder, which are really the same thing. India is reclaiming its heritage and excluding the Muslims in an era where that's considered an international hate crime. None of these places are a perfect answer to your question, but they're practical examples of new nations arising from the ashes of the old.

Blogger Monotonous Languor March 01, 2020 9:13 PM  

Civic nationalism's greatest flaw is not just that ideological boundaries cannot be realistically policed. Instead, civic nationalism depends on the idealistic assumption that all races are created equal. Then these races are expected to be able to compete to equal levels of accomplishment based on a single standard of merit, i.e., meritocracy.

In reality, different races are innately different as to abilities. There will be outliers, but it's impossible to predetermine the exceptional good from the great mass of bad, without waiting until it's too late to do anything about it. Even then, the exceptions are cultural parasites that drag down the host culture, thereby undercutting the society that was deemed desirable in the first place.

A non-racist society is incompatible with meritocracy. Only whites are naïve enough, have been brainwashed enough, to believe that America is just "a shining city on a hill", that as long as everyone has the same ideals floating around in their little brain, that's sufficient to make us all Americans.

But at no point in history has that ever been true. Each time it's been tried, it's failed miserably, and whatever geopolitical entity was involved, broke apart into it's ethnic, cultural constituencies. The same will inevitably happen to this country. Being sold out by our leaders is just a symptom; the underlying disease is that we are not one hereditary people, there is no commonality in our personal self-identities, and those innate differences must drive us apart. To think otherwise is to live in fantasyland. There's a lot of ruin in a country, but utter ruin is still coming. Read it and weep, America.

Blogger Jay Will March 01, 2020 9:31 PM  

Essay question at the end.

Blogger Up from the pond March 01, 2020 10:29 PM  

>>"we may have to choose a new identity"

There's no one who doesn't know what he is. Even mixed-race people feel drawn to a dominant heritage no later than their late teens.

You seem to see identity or race as merely a mask or an acting role which one takes off and on in order to make a place "hospitable to us."

If you're a Jew and you're looking for an answer, then move to Israel. Or at least admit your identity and embrace it. But you could stop already with the identity-is-arbitrary shtick in any case, Nathan. Nobody is believing this.

Blogger John Galley March 01, 2020 11:55 PM  

Does or can such a person even exist.

Blogger Vaughan Williams March 02, 2020 1:07 AM  

VFM #7634 wrote:The Scots are British by definition.

Akshully… the Welsh and Cornish are British, but the Scots are far Northern Irish.


Pictsies are annoying. Yeah, they are British, but what matters is, who are the men of Doggerland, who are the descendants of the Belgicae. At a future date, Rensburg saw that even Northern Ireland will evict its Puritan population and the whole Island will become Irish once more. And all this, before Ireland had even gotten its independance.

Blogger Monotonous Languor March 02, 2020 4:31 AM  

@27 rumpole5

There's a huge difference between settlers of the past, and invaders of today. First of all, there's a spectrum of compatibility for races and religions. In the past, waves of settlers were on the upper end of the scale relative to the host society. Also, they had time to assimilate. Many of them were put in a position where they had to fight their environment in order to exist, a process which inevitably changed them. The only exception was blacks, who have never been able to fit in.

But ever since the Hart-Cellar Act, immivaders are much less compatible with the host society. They come to an environment which is a soft welfare state demanding no great sacrifice. Their hordes guarantee they don't have to assimilate, but can easily create their own cultural zones that eventually crowd out the host. They are economic opportunists and cultural parasites, and should be dealt with accordingly.

Blogger rumpole5 March 02, 2020 5:59 AM  

Monotonous Langour says: "Many of them were put in a position where they had to fight their environment in order to exist, a process which inevitably changed them."

But they WEREN'T changed in the process. A hardworking, narrow minded, deference to authority, legalistic, 99% pure Kraut, like myself, is simply not the same as a Scotts Irish, independence minded, pickup/gun rack driving, gap toothed, Hillbilly with a round chewing tobacco tin imprint in his back pocket, and a cigarette pack bulge in the rolled up sleeve on his tattooed arm. And the Hillbilly and I are not the same as a pug nosed, lower IQ, dishonest, brawling, Tammany Hall voting, Irishman. (Sorry if I pricked your ethnicity, but - hyperbole to make a point).

These guys and I may be of the same "white race". We may love and salute the same old glory. But as the Sesame Street jingle says: "One of these things is not like the others, one of these things is not the same". 300 f***king years together, shoulder to shoulder building the USA, and we are still not the same! We either go back to Teddy Roosevelt style Civic Nationalism propaganda in a big way or the USA will break up into warring clans.

Blogger Monotonous Languor March 02, 2020 6:47 AM  

@35 rumpole5

You're straining mightily to miss the point. Go back to where I talked about a spectrum of compatibility. Certainly hillbillies and krauts are much more compatible than a Sudanese moslem or a Mexican gang-banger. Who in the world do you want to put into exclusion zones, your 3rd-generation from Sweden neighbor, or your Hmong girlfriend's family? Whatever Teddy Roosevelt's style of civic nationalism you're referring to, it certainly depended on white European Christian ethnicities. And even then, it barely held together.

Blogger Akulkis March 02, 2020 7:14 AM  

"So we may have to choose a new identity"

That's the kind of thing which only a perpetually wandering, rootless cosmopolitan would say.

Blogger NRx March 02, 2020 8:00 AM  

Rumpole's post above is quite right.

"White" nationalism is not any more viable than civic nationalism as white is not really a tribal identity, the Germans the Scots-Irish and Anglos might have been able to make it work but the mass immigration of the famine shanty Irish forever made American white ethnonationalism of the kind European nations had quite impossible. There is also the problem that wignats are on the whole (if not outright feds) on average incredibly stupid and useless people who in Nazi Germany would be put in concentration camps as asocials or killed.

The best option for the United States right now is a rapid transition to a kind of Augustan settlement where the Republic is in reality (but not entirely in outward form) is replaced by the House of Trump and it adopts a civic nationalist ethos... for now. But the civic nationalism is to be somewhat Straussian in nature.

Civic nationalism with a very Jared Taylor kind of immigration policy pursued by theoretically neutral means like a strict public charge rule and then you find some pretext to exclude even high caste wealthy Indians (we can't check their backgrounds because India is too corrupt so no one from India can come here). With the aim of gradually whitening the population... I also would support certain eugenic policies (not killing people) that may not be popular here given the extent that papist pro-life thinking has taken hold in the right in modern times.

I don't support civic nationalism per se but I support "civic" nationalism.

Blogger wreckage March 02, 2020 8:40 AM  

@26 have a look at this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY9P0QSxlnI
Notice how the Kingdoms and Nations keep reverting to the same people-groups, over and over, except when those people-groups are displaced. Not conquered by a larger administrative empire but pushed out completely by a different tribe. It helps to know which kingdoms and groups are descended from which, but this gets you started.

Blogger Canada78Bear March 02, 2020 8:41 AM  

Have moderates actually accomplished anything? Aside from maybe seatbelts.
Looking back it seems as if we are pulled by extremism forces (rubber band) only and that any moderate voice is just an illusion.

Blogger The Cooler March 02, 2020 10:09 AM  

Emergent nations and the dissolution of Empires are organic phenomena. Nations also form, when they can form, by the Right of Conquest and the shared experiences that engenders, so long as fundamental compatibilities exist. Sometimes, these compatibilities can only be known ex post facto.

While some post-modernist pustule might argue all's fair in love and war; a stronger argument, I believe, is made by asserting the Absolute Mind F*uck going on in the West -- the United States in particular -- is so ridiculous as to be immediately dismissible as either an organic or legitimate conquest (thus opening the door for all manner of counter-legitimacies, righteous in themselves).

One cannot have a country as large as the United States and have a single nation. Even geographic diversity is at play as regards what any particular nation ultimately is/how it presents. What we 'Americans' have are a series of sub-nations, some more compatible than others: It's a formula, not an equation. Compatibility problems present themselves and are about as in-your-face as anything can be.

That said, the greatest differences between Americans of European descent are smaller -- obviously smaller -- than the smallest differences between they and the post-1965 wave of immigrants that now displace us. Because Western Civilization.

Dikembe, Mohammed and Juan are not Americans. O'McSullivan and Rizzo? We'll see.

Blogger robins111 March 02, 2020 10:37 AM  

It appears to be working in North America, with Antifa and the Dems, or KKK and the Dems, or Aboriginal/Environmental groups and Liberals in Canada

Blogger Avalanche March 02, 2020 10:42 AM  

@27 "If we don't have a real USA nationality to rally around, we need some substitute if we are to hold together."

Hence the need for "White" Americans -- to differentiate posterity and other generally acceptable "genetically related extremely extended family" members from all the other ... colors of the rainbow. {gag}

I still can't see how we an have "American nationalism"; and "United Statesian nationalism" doesn't trip off the tongue: it trips up the tongue!

If we try to use/be "American nationalism" -- every d@mned paperwork American will be trying to stay right where they are! Indians, Chinese, Hmong, Vietnamese, negros of every 'national' variety, will ALL claim to "be Americans!"

Vox says: "'White' won't do." But what will? What do we put on our flags and flyers? How do we pull and 'hold together' a force, a belief, a group, that is, in fact, "United Statesian"?

Pan-Arabism failed because they HAD tribalism, they HAD tribes, they were still more connected to their closer Sailer-defined family than their more-distantly related Sailer-defined family, three tribes over. Whites in America don't have tribes in that sense. Yes of course, "White" was developed in opposition to non-White. Is it not, in fact, the accurate description?

Tribalism for the specific group of Whites that are the U.S. cannot exist. Waaaay back, I'm German, Scots, English: I'm posterity. Which is MY tribe? My friend next door is Polish and French, just 2-3 generations here. Which is his tribe? Everyone in my lily-White neighborhood does not have a tribe, beyond "White" -- because we're all mutts! We're mixes.

I'm not suggesting Europeans -- who still have their own clear nations, their own coherent tribes, along with their hostile imvaders -- can be subsumed into "White" nationalism. I guess I'm suggesting that "American Whites" have no workable description that I can see? "White American nationalism"?

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 02, 2020 11:38 AM  

Avalanche wrote:Vox says: "'White' won't do." But what will?
White won't do. But it does better than American.

We'll have to settle for White nationalism for a starting point. Maybe that will settle things down enough that the several White nations here can hang out together peacefully and see what comes naturally afterward.

Blogger The Cooler March 02, 2020 12:06 PM  

The first free-range groid has yet to break in to rumploe5's house looking for crackers and liquorice, and he's already at war with Kentucky whites. Because caricature.

Some of y'all get insufferably spergy with this shit, so here it is, for those who haven't figured it out already: you're going to know your 'tribe' when somebody knocks on your door and tells you; or, when the first bullets start whizzing past your face.

Blogger Johnny March 02, 2020 12:23 PM  

@18

There's also "regression to the mean". That's why 2nd Generation immigrants often become even harder to assimilate than their parents.

And Republicans and Democrats aren't simply opening borders because they're insane. They're both just tools of the donor class and the media. Which tribe runs the media? The one that benefits from diversity (Except for the ones in Israel who suddenly decide to become Closed Borders).

https://www.bitchute.com/video/KUkk9xisGinI/

https://www.jpost.com/US-Elections/US-Jews-contribute-half-of-all-donations-to-the-Democratic-party-468774

https://imgur.com/a/CGPqhae

Blogger Up from the pond March 02, 2020 12:24 PM  

>>"'White' was developed in opposition to non-White."

All concepts are formed by defining their boundaries, which requires the observation of a contrast.

Everything is not only defined, but also noticed to begin with, by its contrast with other things. If everything were eternally red, the concept "red" would never have been formed. It takes a contrast even for perception to occur. Ditto conception.

Rejecting the concept of White on the grounds that it was formed in contrast to other peoples is rejecting concept-formation per se.

One makes a fallacious argument when one rejects any definition solely on the grounds that its boundaries are drawn where a difference is observed.

Blacks didn't consider themselves Black until they saw the first non-Black. But the Papists certainly don't deny that Black exists. Only White may not exist. That gives their whole game away.

Blogger Johnny March 02, 2020 1:06 PM  

@43 I use the term "Heritage American" to describe all White Americans who have been here for 2+ generations and see themselves as indistinguishable from other whites.

Vox applies a may European way of looking at Nationality to America, but it doesn't really hold up with reality. Americans are the mutts of Europe so "Posterity America" and his definition of "Heritage America" don't make sense. Due to ethnic similarity, the free availability of land, intermixing, and lack of mass media from the Old Country, and the newness of America/the American identity there has been a melding of various European nations into a relatively new Heritage American nation.

Blogger Johnny March 02, 2020 1:06 PM  

@43 I use the term "Heritage American" to describe all White Americans who have been here for 2+ generations and see themselves as indistinguishable from other whites.

Vox applies a may European way of looking at Nationality to America, but it doesn't really hold up with reality. Americans are the mutts of Europe so "Posterity America" and his definition of "Heritage America" don't make sense. Due to ethnic similarity, the free availability of land, intermixing, and lack of mass media from the Old Country, and the newness of America/the American identity there has been a melding of various European nations into a relatively new Heritage American nation.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 02, 2020 3:15 PM  

"Ultimately one vital thing every movement really needs is a visible path to success that the mass of people can see and believe in."

That's what it needs to aim people and lubricate their movement. Gathering and gaining people are about what that success's goal is. Getting people moving is about amplifying morale boosts and suppressing blackpilling.

"You need a person who can bring both sides together."

You do need optics people, but you need aggressive ones. These people aren't disciplined, they're just cowards too afraid to move at all. Moderates are at their best when they're really on board with the extremists, but able to soften the impact of their more aggressive actions so they don't cause bigger problems than they have to.

As for the other side, the argument that they devolve into cults is very sneakily dishonest. They're all looking for systems of rules and guidance, they only turn cult if they pick wrong. Extremists are at their best when they're correctly founded enough to not give an inch, and disciplined enough to not set their allies on fire.

"And of those six characters, which ones have had the greatest long term and most significant impact on humankind?

It ain't the last three, that's for sure."


Blind. Both sets have their influence. Ideas have no value if you don't live long enough to develop, propagate, or implement them.

"The guy needs:"

That list isn't going to happen Akuma. Too much conflicting to fit into one person in a workable timeframe. Narrow it down to maybe a third of that list that's most important entirely cohesive in one person, the other attributes can be filled by his confidantes.

"And, meanwhile, the USA has become one of the richest and powerful countries in the world. This process must have involved some degree of Civic Nationalism"

No, all it means is that it didn't die from the civicism yet.

"If we don't have a real USA nationality to rally around, we need some substitute if we are to hold together."

No, you can't just select an identity. The only way to make an identity is to breed it.

"300 f***king years together, shoulder to shoulder building the USA, and we are still not the same! We either go back to Teddy Roosevelt style Civic Nationalism propaganda in a big way or the USA will break up into warring clans."

It needs to break up. Here's the deal, if you can't keep the large scale together, you need to work on splitting into the most cohesive and capable chunks you can. Flexibility is useful to grow larger, but it can only come at the cost of cohesion, so there is a balance to be kept.

Civic nationalists are at best lubricant that will be destroyed for the sake of everyone else.

"I also would support certain eugenic policies (not killing people) that may not be popular here given the extent that papist pro-life thinking has taken hold in the right in modern times."

It's a slot machine that you can play on the cheap. The best move is to pull the lever about as many times as you possibly can, do the best you can with your outcomes, and let God sort them out from there. Children people are scared out of even trying to have are little different from children aborted, from the teleological perspective.

"While some post-modernist pustule might argue all's fair in love and war; a stronger argument, I believe, is made by asserting the Absolute Mind F*uck going on in the West -- the United States in particular -- is so ridiculous as to be immediately dismissible as either an organic or legitimate conquest"

Everyone who sins willingly will be held to account, though the prices may differ for different sins.

The butterfly effect is in play. Fortunately for us, God only holds us personally accountable for things we knew were wrong, though the world might exact payment for everything else.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 02, 2020 3:22 PM  

Johnny wrote:Due to ethnic similarity, the free availability of land, intermixing, and lack of mass media from the Old Country, and the newness of America/the American identity there has been a melding of various European nations into a relatively new Heritage American nation.
Not sure I agree with that.

It is certainly true that American doesn't mean today what the Founding Fathers would have meant by it. As the early waves of immigrants came in and assimilated with us, they changed us. As the later waves came and didn't assimilate at all, they changed us some more.

It is also certainly true that our enemies today hate us because we're White, not because we're kraut or Irish. That common enmity is the only reason we have any sort of White identity. That doesn't make Whites a nation, doesn't make us all Americans whatever American may mean today, but it does make us allies, like it or not.

As I said above, White won't do as a nationality for the long term, but it's better than nothing as long as the Globohomo Left and their hordes of dusky pets want us dead.

Blogger VD March 02, 2020 6:56 PM  

Vox says: "'White' won't do." But what will? What do we put on our flags and flyers? How do we pull and 'hold together' a force, a belief, a group, that is, in fact, "United Statesian"?

You don't. You either create a new identity or you are subsumed and replaced. If you're lucky, maybe you'll get some reservations. But probably not.

it doesn't really hold up with reality. Americans are the mutts of Europe so "Posterity America" and his definition of "Heritage America" don't make sense.

It not only holds up with reality, it is reality. My definition of "Posterity America" is the only America. What you call "American" is little more American than it is Chinese or German. When you change the substance, the label no longer applies. Sugar dissolved in carbonated water is no longer sugar, it is something else that we call "soda". And it won't taste very good if you put it on your cereal in the morning.

Blogger Monotonous Languor March 02, 2020 9:00 PM  

I have no idea what Posterity America means. I have no idea what a new identity would look like. I wish someone would elaborate, instead of leaving it as an exercise for the reader. Examples would be good. Pictures for all us dummies would be even better.

After WWII, the flight to suburbia broke up all the different white ethnic neighborhoods that used to peacefully coexist with each other, and provide a sense of self-identity. Now Americans are mutts. But there has to be some kind of unity to oppose non-whites, who are either actively engaged in eliminating YT, or else look on with benign neglect. Until something better is offered, European American or Euro-American will have to do. It's an attempt to provide some kind of unified opposition. And after that, who knows ???

Blogger Athelstane March 04, 2020 3:26 AM  

And of those six characters, which ones have had the greatest long term and most significant impact on humankind?

Oh, I think Alexander the Great's impact, long-term, was *enormous*. His conquests enabled the entire Hellenistic Age and the Roman world, with all the history that followed. It is hard to think of many human beings who were more consequential than Alexander.

Ceasar and Alcibiades - sure, not nearly so much.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts