Sentences (#60)

A topical Churchill quote (and probably his greatest remark):

… every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose.

(Via.)

Such a Britain would not only be worth something, it would be worth everything. (But it’s gone.)

A relevant Sailer comment:

In the American mind, land powers are seen as militarist, brooding, and no fun: Sparta, Prussia, the Soviet Union, and now Putin’s Russia. In contrast, sea powers are the good guys, the cool kids: Athens, Holland, England, and America. […] With natural defenses and a high-tech military, sea powers generally didn’t need enormous conscript armies, martial discipline, and centralized economic control. Instead, sea power was conducive to liberty at home and adventure capitalism abroad. [There’s an additional ‘adventure capitalism’ link, which freaked out my antivirus program.]

… and a Dugin recollection.

June 20, 2016admin 94 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

94 Responses to this entry

  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Land powers are limited to annexing nearby territories, which makes for cycles of repetitive enmity that go nowhere.

    Sea powers go out and discover things.

    Space powers…

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 20th, 2016 at 2:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • TheDividualist Says:

    The choice is not between the seas and continent, given how e.g. the 7/7 bombers came from overseas and much of what is great in British culture came from Normann-France, it is about a choice between sovereignty and the Soviet Union Light.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 20th, 2016 at 2:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • holipopiloh Says:

    This is ultimately analysis by analogy and enumeration. Analysis by analogy is stillborn: societies are not geographical entities, the underlying/alluded to pattern may be (and usually is) entirely spurious. Enumeration is devoid of any sort of insight.

    The mongols were a sea power. Sounds odd? It shouldn’t. The actual dynamic at play is competition between marauders and stationary bandits. The main underlying variable is not terrain, but population density. Land is a crowded place–

    the Scramble for Africa has drained all the seas on this planet.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    [holipopiloh]: “The actual dynamic at play is competition between marauders and stationary bandits. The main underlying variable is not terrain, but population density.”

    [Sailer comment]: “liberty at home and adventure capitalism abroad”

    “And note well — Europe has always been the most densely populated area of the Earth; far more so than Latin America or Asia. Latin America, in fact, is almost under- populated compared to Europe.”
    Pournelle, Jerry (2011-04-22). A Step Farther Out (Kindle Locations 891-893). Jerry Pournelle. Kindle Edition.

    {AK}: What goes under the sign of “adventure capitalism”, is the logistics of marauding.
    What goes under the sign of “liberty”, is the freedom to participate in this logistics.

    The problem, in a globally interconnected world, is that it becomes increasingly difficult for marauders to maintain the mythologies of a benign exceptionalism, meritoriously deserving of any benefits, advantages, & ‘privileges’ ostensibly accrued. The ‘shedding’ that techncommercial Neoreaction promotes, is precisely that which the other sects of Neoreaction have fallen victim to.
    That’s why they’re so eager to maraud again; they don’t really know what else to do; it doesn’t occur to them that they could be talentless clods; too lazy to develop; too evil, insular, & ignorant to even recognise the contradictions of their own plight.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 20th, 2016 at 3:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ahote Says:

    This seems to have been the case even back in the Middle Ages. Western Europeans were appealed at the merchant culture of eastern Roman Empire. Usury was legal, pre-industrial semi-capitalism flourished, and the trade with Mahometans was preferred to warfare. The “Byzantines” were therefore seen by the West as weak and corrupt, cowards who prefer reading to sword-fights, intrigue and diplomacy to honor and battlefield.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 20th, 2016 at 3:36 pm Reply | Quote
  • NRK Says:

    Some day, exit-oriented reactionaries will have to come to terms with the notion that the earth is round: you’re always moving toward that which you’re trying to escape. The discovery of the new world may have cushioned that blow for a couple centuries, but come on, it’s the current year. And since it has already been brought up, can anyone afford to hold their breath on getting to hold their breath in space?

    Dialectical sitenote: Britons looking to the ocean is the catalyst for Europeans attempting to resolve political tension at home, and vice versa.

    [Reply]

    Mariani Reply:

    You’re looking at exit in too-concrete terms. Exit can be simply the withdrawal of consent in a context that allows it. Think of system with smart contracts, automation and a world order that can’t be centralized because the crawl of reality turned out to be stronger that the dreamy sentimentality that it used as mortar.

    Moving to the Kingdom of Idaho? Seasteading? These might as well be straw men.

    [Reply]

    NRK Reply:

    Maybe you are reading too much concreteness into what I’m saying. The earth (the material conditions of existence of both those who exit and those who do not exit) is round (a loop) in more than one way.
    Aside, eliminate the spatial component of exit, and the dialectic of escape and resolve turns even more immediately political, i.e. violent.

    [Reply]

    Mariani Reply:

    We can attack people who do things we don’t like? Well no shit.

    What’s perhaps changing is the philosophical underpinning s that permit certain kinds of violence that are necessary to maintain things. There’s a good chance that people just stop taking those underpinnings seriously, and whether they’re taken is the name of the game.

    How long does the Islam’s virtual monopoly on religious violence need to continue until people stop believing in the comforting “all belief systems are ultimately equal” principle? Humans are pattern-recognizing machines, and patterns are reality’s gospel

    NRK Reply:

    If exit depends on certain philosophies being de-legitimized, well, it isn’t really exit, is it? Hoping that exit will come by popular demand is even sillier than messianic bitcoinism.

    Also, I’ll believe that there are people who actually believe that “all belief systems are ultimately equal” once someone claims that nazism is a religion of peace, not any sooner.

    Chris B Reply:

    “Think of system with smart contracts, automation and a world order that can’t be centralized because the crawl of reality turned out to be stronger that the dreamy sentimentality that it used as mortar.” Can’t be centralised? Because obviously we are all equal. Utopianism dressed up as realism.

    [Reply]

    Mariani Reply:

    I’m not saying it has to go that way, but it very well could. Half of the stuff we take for granted is a post-WWII innovation.

    and that = than, by the way

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    The problem many of us have is while we get its a possibility some tech might in say 30 years have the ability to maybe disrupt socialism it might not it it certainly will be too late and the cathedral will certainly have the tech first and be on top of it. so if your entire strategy is to wait and see if you were wrong is pathetic. you dont have to not get MM you simply have to see there might only be a decade at most this blog is illegal most places already. there is almost no country you can exit to the cathedral cant get you you certainly are not taking your property with you.You think you can simply be some hipster refusnik in brooklyn but theres polar bear hunters in brooklyn and if you defend your self you get zimmermanned. smart people would be better off thinking about how to get around the problems MM suggests than larping aboit AI robot kings in 2050

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 20th, 2016 at 4:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • cyborg_nomade Says:

    the Pacific is indeed enormous, and populated with islands. the archipelago model could work quite literally there.

    also, geopolitical movement seems to be setting the Pacific as the major stage in the coming years, as opposed to the Atlantic. China vs America (Ina broader sense than the US) in a scramble for islands, who knows.

    [Reply]

    Krisis Reply:

    Full (actual) Churchill quote:

    “We are going to liberate Europe, but it is because the Americans are with us. So get this quite clear. Every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose. Every time I have to choose between you and Roosevelt, I will always choose Roosevelt.”

    (Said in an argument with de Gaulle just before D-day)

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    Chruchill was worthless. The real power was the Milner group/ Curtis gang. They we the biggest “Atlanticist” railing against “oriental despotism. They were also the architects of the international community, transferring the Empire to democracy and all the rest of the afflictions of modernity. Admins claims are a sort of extreme denialism.

    [Reply]

    cyborg_nomade Reply:

    what’s that got to do with anything?

    [Reply]

    NRK Reply:

    So it’s a pledge of allegiance rather than a declaration of independence? Guess that’s what you get for treating Breitbart twitter as a good source of Churchill quotes.

    [Reply]

    holipopiloh Reply:

    It seems I’ve gotten into the habit of repeating obvious things over the last few days, so what the heck:

    the Pacific ocean was once enormous. Not anymore.

    [Reply]

    cyborg_nomade Reply:

    that makes settlement easier, indeed. scramble for islands, as I said. but it’s harder to maintain unified authority in an archipelago. might not even be interesting anyway. just like China, such settlements can be administrated as SEZs, with greater or smaller independence.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    so your plan is to start galts gulch on the islands china and the us are going to war over? have you thought about how difficult it is to create infrastructure on an island? I can think of a thousand places smarter than that

    cyborg_nomade Reply:

    personally my idea is to go as far from war as possible. just trying to envision what are the possible oceanic trends in geopolitics

    holipopiloh Reply:

    The topic is sovereignty, not periurbanisation.

    cyborg_nomade Reply:

    there’s no sovereignty without settlement first.

    Chris B Reply:

    @cyborg_nomade what this got to do with anything? This whole Atlantis worship and classical liberalism [gratuitous obscenity] is based on a complete failure to correctly review history. We live in whig heaven. That it has all the hallmarks of hell is greeted with denial. Obviously wreckers ruined it, because the theory is perfect…

    [Reply]

    cyborg_nomade Reply:

    it’s amazing the way you managed to not answer my question

    [Reply]

    holipopiloh Reply:

    Your problem is that you’re rambling about your own thing. Krisis’ problem is that he posted that as a reply to the one guy who is off on a tangent.

    cyborg_nomade Reply:

    sounds like a good diagnose

    michael Reply:

    not easy as we will quite likely get another world war in our lifetimes.I built a homestead in northern idaho in the early 90s and so learned alot about things like creating electricity and other power and communications in the middle of nowhere as well as how difficult and expensive it can be and how that can be reduced. but i wasnt interested in say the internet then didnt really exist later satellite solved it. Point is you need to get your mission straight first do you want to simply survive how worried are you do you want subsequent generations to survive can you drive a nail or learn to.These days i think about places like newfoundland to simply weather armageddon maybe eastern europe or russia i think if someone wanted to actually start a neocameral patch asking putin for kalingrad as an economic zone might be worth a try. personally i dont care for asia and dont think if us asia relations sour it would be safe for a white.Ultimately though i dontthink sustainable exit is possible as long as the cathedral is in marxist hands and its better to defeat them while still p[ossible than learn to late theres no exit.Once you have children exit isnt something that only has to work for a few decades

    [Reply]

    Krisis Reply:

    (My comment was not intended as a reply to cyborg_nomade, sorry for the confusion. I just wanted to add the actual quote to the thread, as a reminder of what real existing Atlanticism was.)

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 20th, 2016 at 7:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • Salvador Zarco Says:

    I think that by “the open sea” Churchill meant, “profitable state-owned slaving colonies in the tropics.”

    Is this some kind of mumbling that you support Brexit? Then you say: “But it’s gone.” Woe is you.

    The chain of reasoning that brings you to your conclusions is utterly baffling to me. The UK goes into a period of moral / political decline (it happens), and therefore, you reason “all is lost,” and the best option is therefore completely abandoning ship in a dejected fatalist tizzy.

    Of course “exit” for you is either hokikomori, scamcoin, or just moving your fam to the crammed ant-hive of Shanghai, cause lets face it, there is no real “exit,” is there? And space and sea colonies may one day exist, but they’re not going to represent an “exit” they’ll represent a corporate/military aerospace career. But you still groan on here, like a teenage brat whenever something happens, mumbling “I want OUT!”

    Unable to “exit,” you write for years decrying virtue-signaling and the spectacle of liberality only to burst into a fit of ridiculous moral-emotional signaling, cause you apparently have some intense deep down sympathies for left-wing politicians you never told us about. Oh and “evil altright morons” and “literally Hitler.” You didn’t respond much at all to the dead at Bataclan or Pulse. Something about a female leftist politician did it, huh? Telling.

    You claim to not get the (essentially) neo-nazi roots of the “altright.” (Richard Spencer, Kevin MacDonald, Ricky Vaughn99, /pol/, – I mean have you read any of this shit or what? How DON’T you get it? Is that comment I left really news to you, cause if it is that’s amazing.)

    You claim to be against universalist ideology or even “universal advice” yet you evangelize a version of the future in which all the “low IQ” people are genocided and a corporate computer system – the next evolution, you believe, – stamps out the dirty humans. So you’re “anti-universalist” but promote Terminator 3 style singularity as an eschatological ideology, which is just about as hyper universalist (and anti-human) as a belief system can possibly get.

    Starting to see any contradictions here?

    There’s more, but I think I’ll just “exit” the blog, myself. I don’t think you even know where you’re at at this point. I appreciate the fact that you and many of the autists on here have convinced yourselves you have all the answers because you can code, or score high on a math competency exam, but you’re completely detached from reality. Even the title of this blog appropriately says it: (attempted) “involvements with reality.”

    My bean-bag chair psychoanalysis is that you are mortified of other human beings and much of your “philosophy” about things like “exit,” the singularity, or other fatalistic ramblings regarding your tech fetish, are simply fantasy you developed to support your intense dread of the human experience, and disdain for people who carry love, hate, tribalism, loyalty, – the people you describe as “sacks of biological material” and “poor creatures.” This likely has something to do with childhood social alienation or an abuse experience. Politics simply translates to pure terror or “horrorism” for you. I recommend therapy or alcoholism. There is no reason to live in fear and you will never escape or “exit” the reality we live. We’re in this motherfucker together, whether we like it or not.

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    weev?

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    Salvador Zarco,

    Not saying anything you’ve written is false, because it isn’t. But let’s try not to psychologise our host. Having said that, it’s a powerful comment, & it’s good that it’s been written.

    I did scan a bit of the thing on the recent tragic event, & can understand NL’s view about the comment thread being “retarded”. It’s not just that, it shows some of the commenters, probably US citizens, as being …there aren’t the words, really. These ‘people’ are the scum of the planet. But they exist, & there’s no point saying anything about it. I guess that’s what goes under the sign, ‘Evil’.

    NL, really, what do you expect, if you ally yourself with stupid, selfish morons? They’s bad folks, can’t expect the gentility of moral niceties in them there bad critters. They is all ‘feralised’, fightin’ Injuns & wearing hoods, that’s their neighbour vs. neighbour, is their natural ‘hood.
    To them, an idealistic Cambridge graduate, who want’s to make the world better, is only a “Commie bitch”.

    [Reply]

    Asher Reply:

    The thing is that we think that Cambridge student who wants to “make the world a btter place” is lying and just wants power. The easier answer, of course, is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    “>It’s not just that, it shows some of the commenters, probably US citizens, as being …there aren’t the words, really. These ‘people’ are the scum of the planet. But they exist, & there’s no point saying anything about it. I guess that’s what goes under the sign, ‘Evil’.

    NL, really, what do you expect, if you ally yourself with stupid, selfish morons? They’s bad folks, can’t expect the gentility of moral niceties in them there bad critters. They is all ‘feralised’, fightin’ Injuns & wearing hoods, that’s their neighbour vs. neighbour, is their natural ‘hood.
    To them, an idealistic Cambridge graduate, who want’s to make the world better, is only a “Commie bitch”.”

    This has to be the most pathetic, weepy comment I’ve ever seen here.

    I don’t think that anybody honestly gives a shit about that woman’s death. It’s all just signalling and counter-signalling. The murder itself was no “atrocity” — it was completely predictable, and, from certain points of view, even understandable. (Though not justifiable, in my own opinion.)

    If you think that everybody who isn’t singing eulogies is “evil,” you need to harden up, because the world is an extremely evil place.

    Besides, by repeatedly referring to her as a “Cambridge graduate”, you’re implying that our deceased politician was a wet-behind-the-ears twenty-three year old who attended Cambridge recently. Nothing could be further from the truth. You should refer to her more accurately: As a vapid, replaceable, low-level political functionary. And, indeed, one who held England in real contempt.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    “To them, an idealistic Cambridge graduate, who want’s to make the world better, is only a “Commie bitch”” In what way would they be wrong?

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    In the way that calling the victims of the 9/11 atrocity, at the World Trade Centre, ‘capitalist bitches’, would be wrong. Any other questions?

    [Reply]

    holipopiloh Reply:

    So, wrong in no way whatsoever. Good to know we’re all on the same page.

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    So you don’t think being callous about atrocity is wrong?
    Do you think atrocity is wrong?
    Or are you suggesting that in the absence of moral absolutes, nothing is wrong?
    If that is your suggestion, why bother with Neoreactive arguments & justifications, such as they are, it’s all just a waste of time for you, they’re redundant, unnecessary?

    holipopiloh Reply:

    Are we really going to have a discussion about our feelings, Artxell?

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    I asked what you thought.
    If you wish to introduce ‘feeling’, & exploit any alleged distinction between it & ‘thinking’, carry on, it’s a pointless detour that doesn’t escape the logics under consideration.

    holipopiloh Reply:

    Your questions were pointless:

    The first because I had already answered it.
    The second and third because they are tautologies.
    The fourth because it is ill-posed.

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    Your statement: “wrong in no way whatsoever”; does, then, indicate that you don’t think atrocity is wrong.

    That being the case, to consider the question, “Do you think atrocity is wrong?”, as tautology, is to rest on a moral convention, equating ‘atrocity’ with ‘wrongness’; that you’ve already rejected. This is inconsistent.

    Additionally, to consider the absence of moral absolutes entailing a corollary absence of wrongness, as tautology, neglects consensual, or other, conceptions of wrongness?

    If you’re dispensing with morality, with custom & convention, why the need to ‘react’ against any political arrangement? As stated, “why bother with Neoreactive arguments & justifications, such as they are, it’s all just a waste of time for you, they’re redundant, unnecessary?”

    holipopiloh Reply:

    And now you want us to discuss semantics. Fine…

    Did you know that the word ‘wrong’ is in certain contexts synonymous with ‘mistaken’ as synonymous with ‘incorrect’ as synonymous with ‘untruthful’? E.g. “in what way would their characterisation of Cambridge graduates be…”

    Still confused? Can’t help you.

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    Now you’re alluding to a notion of ‘truth’ to which the Cambridge graduate, I only cited one, doesn’t conform. Why you should introduce this notion, at this juncture, is strange &, moreover, redundant.
    In addition to said redundancy, it’s inconsistent; if you’re condemning untruthfulness, on moral grounds.
    There are ways out, but it’s evident you lack the ability to discern them.

    holipopiloh Reply:

    Polysemy tripped you over and now you have to pretend that grovelling on the ground is standing up on your two feet. Please tell me English is not your native language because I honestly don’t want to think you’re this much of an idiot.

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    As already stated: “Carry on”: every detour is just more evidence of your inability. Resorting to invective, that you can’t intellectually back up; though cathartic fun, I guess, for those like you; only constitutes a blatant litany of Neoreactive inferioriity.

    This is what you’re trying to avoid; “If you’re dispensing with morality, with custom & convention, why the need to ‘react’ against any political arrangement? As stated, “why bother with Neoreactive arguments & justifications, such as they are, it’s all just a waste of time for you, they’re redundant, unnecessary?”

    It’s the corner you’ve backed yourself into, in an absolute way, & which you’re too stupid to ‘exit’. lol

    holipopiloh Reply:

    I’m not trying to avoid anything but you derailing the discussion to cover for your poor reading comprehension. This is my position. (You truly are an idiot.)

    [Reply]

    holipopiloh Reply:

    @Artxell Knaphni

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    So now you’re qualifying your unequivocalism – “wrong in no way whatsoever”?
    As predicted, you can’t back your absolutism up.

    You should have said so, at the beginning, if you don’t have the ability to articulate an effective logic, or even an interesting & creative rationale, for it. As already stated; “There are ways out.” But, unfortunately, as evidenced, you’re too stupid to produce any of them.

    As is typical of Neoreactive inferiority, you now resort to the shelter of the consensual, after your essay towards absolute revelation has collapsed. lol
    You’re hoping to shift the ground to the mystified given of a probabilistic ‘reality’, wherein you can rely on acceptable doxa; more room for the inferior to resort to variations on the rhetoric of concrete plausability, as substitute for thinking. Monkey see, monkey say, but holipopiloh monkey, no can abstract thinkee! lol

    holipopiloh Reply:

    I’m not (re)qualifying anything I’ve said. Please take a step back and retread the conversation. You’re just embarrassing yourself at this point.

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    The absence of actual self-citation(s), in the service of promised, but never delivered, demonstrations, is glaringly evident. I’m quite satisfied to work with the logical stringency of the absolute unequivocation you elected to work with, but evidently you seem reluctant to do so.
    This is to be expected, as are the obligatory ad hominem gestures, which, it seems are your true métier. You should consider being a chat show host. lol

    holipopiloh Reply:

    I will not hold your hand.

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    Are you religious fundamentalist? It seems that appealing to a dogmatic faith, of which you’re unable to demonstrate even the barest logic, could only suggest that. Sheltering in ad hominem gestures alone, only constitutes your concession of inferiority.

    holipopiloh Reply:

    Do you work in a cinema?

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    SUMMARY OF AN ENCOUNTER WITH THE ANAGRAMMATIC ANDROID OF ATROCIOUS INFERIORITIES

    [holipopiloh]: “So, wrong in no way whatsoever. Good to know we’re all on the same page.”

    {AK}: Wrongness, is unequivocally ruled out. Therefore, everything is right. If atrocity is ruled out, if there is no conception of cruelty, whatsoever, then there is nothing left to distinguish or arbitrate. If cruelty isn’t wrong, why do Neoreactionaries whine about Social Justice Warriors, Political Correctness, etc.?

    If nothing is cruel, then there can be no stable criteria of evaluation of political & administrative action, as distributed over populations. There is no basis for any law or legislation. To unequivocally state that killing is “wrong in no way whatsoever”, is to absolutely remove moral & ethical consideration altogether. This leaves only random personal preference, & the vagaries of situational response, as guidelines for ‘extreme’ behaviour.

    Introducing a link to Moral Naturalism as one’s “position”, as holipopiloh did, explicitly contradicts the absolutism of holipopiloh’s opening statement, a statement s/he in no way retracted or did the work of qualifying, quite the contrary, there was an explicit adherence to the contradiction: “I’m not (re)qualifying anything I’ve said.”

    The contour of holipopiloh’s objections is interesting; consisting mostly of allusions to discursive zones s/he doesn’t seem to be able to state, let alone effectively connect. When there are claims (pointlessness; “already answered”; alleged tautologies; & “ill-posed”), their glib delivery is undermined by holipopiloh’s inability to effectively contest refutations of those claims (see http://www.xenosystems.net/sentences-60/#comment-278918).
    Instead, there is a further itinerary of allusions, to undemonstrated assumptions, conveyed under the guise of ‘truths’ too obvious to demonstrate; followed by requests to reconsider these allusions.
    All of this, would be understandable, in the context of abstruse speculations on the mystical, but in the banal contexts of reactionary politics, would seem to index only laziness, disingenuousness, &/or incompetence.

    There is a sense in which Neoreactionary perspectives & thinking styles suffer ossification, turning into restrictive dogma, reflecting only the emotional prejudices & feelings of those who exclusively subscribe to them. There is then a corresponding loss of the ability to distinguish, let alone entertain, the notion of impartial evaluation. A strong sign of such inability is the metonymic shifting between conventionally distributed styles of the ’emotional’ & ‘intellectual’ faculties, as if such distributions were innately & objectively demarcated as absolute, in the so-called ‘world’. That strong feelings are at work, is testified by the incessant repetition of concerns surrounding this psychological distinction; concerns that themselves shift, in oscillations, contingent on the desire for identification with the powers of legitimation, as these occur with respect to whichever faculty is perceived as being valorised & ‘powerful’.
    Hence, the stylistic clichés of atrophied feelings, desensitisation, acceptance of cruelty as fact, then, as absolute, necessarily requiring coping mechanisms; then, invulnerable coping mechanisms; at this stage, calculation is required. However, the atrophication of feeling exercises corresponding restrictions on intellectual mobility, resulting in loss of imagination & theoretical power, producing only the androids of dogmatic fixation, as in religious & political fundamentalisms; as in the typical Neoreactionary, such as holipopiloh.
    Hamstrung by their own internalised accommodations with absolute cruelty, they are no longer able to negotiate the sphere of calculation in any neutral way. All equations lead back to the statistic of their own hatred, incompetence, & inferiority. Trapped by self-loathing, they can only congregate together, & reproduce their errors & distortions as an alternative ‘reality’ of ‘rightness’. This is a standard subcultural reaction of those who feel inferior.

    holipopiloh Reply:

    >Wrongness, is unequivocally ruled out. Therefore, everything is right. If atrocity is ruled out, if there is no conception of crue

    Ding, ding, ding: Wrong!

    The descriptive inaccuracy of the characterisation is what’s unequivocally ruled out.

    The idealistic Cambridge graduate is a communist bitch — a useful idiot for a lost cause.
    The 9/11 victims were capitalist bitches — useless, totally replaceable cogs in a machine.

    Like I said, you need to take some remedial English lessons.
    So […] and start catching up on your studies.

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    SUMMARY OF AN ENCOUNTER WITH THE ANAGRAMMATIC ANDROID OF ATROCIOUS INFERIORITIES II

    {AK}: This is holipopiloh’s actual, unmoderated response:

    “>Wrongness, is unequivocally ruled out. Therefore, everything is right. If atrocity is ruled out, if there is no conception of crue

    Ding, ding, ding: Wrong!

    The descriptive inaccuracy of the characterisation is what’s unequivocally ruled out.

    The idealistic Cambridge graduate is a communist bitch — a useful idiot for a lost cause.
    The 9/11 victims were capitalist bitches — useless, totally replaceable cogs in a machine.

    Like I said, you need to take some remedial English lessons.
    So fuck off and start catching up on your studies.”

    [holipopiloh]: Ding, ding, ding: Wrong!

    The descriptive inaccuracy of the characterisation is what’s unequivocally ruled out.

    {AK}: Holipopiloh, has yet to discern that disregarding atrocity with the callous epithet, “bitch”, was the common factor or denominator, between the two statements at issue, not the initial adjectival qualifier, as to the type of ‘bitch’.
    However, even as regards the point of “descriptive inaccuracy”, s/he is erroneous, &, moreover, conflating personal, or marginal, opinion with wider, conventional use. It is not the case, that the idealistic Cambridge graduate was viewed as a Communist politician. On the ‘Left’, she may have been; she could even have subscribed to some socialist ideas, without being a ‘Socialist’. I don’t know, I haven’t researched it. She could well have been a ‘champagne socialist’, as some have claimed. All of that, is irrelevant.
    Secondly, even being a Communist does not exclude being an ‘idealistic Cambridge graduate’; they aren’t opposed, as the nature of the idealism is not specified, other than carrying an informal & conventional connotation of ‘goodness’. That holipopiloh may not view Communism as ‘good’, does not disqualify the description, ‘idealistic Cambridge graduate’, as an error. That would be the projection of ideological bias onto the apolitical. Whatever else the ‘idealistic Cambridge graduate’ may have been, after Cambridge, doesn’t alter that.

    Considering a Labour politician, who has no history of Communist or Socialist party affiliation, nor of the expression of any significantly connected beliefs specific only to those ideologies, as a ‘Commie’, is redolent only of the kind of extreme insularity exemplified by dogmatic fanaticism. Like a fundamentalist muslim, who views other moderate muslims, not sharing his views, as non-muslims; there are large numbers of US Americans, as well as others, who view the complexity of outlooks only through the simplifying polarisation of their own self-imaged identity, labelling all else not explicitly conforming to this identity, under the sign of a single negation. Unable to exercise effective discernment beyond this simplistic opposition, they can only project this structural ignorance onto everything else.

    Driven only by the need to justify themselves & their value (‘usefulness’), in a society that tacitly ever-indoctrinates its citizens with the ideology that not being wealthy is tantamount to being a bad or ineffective person, those who are unsuccessful in meeting the demands of this doctrine, in whatever way, are taken over entirely, by it, reduced to an interminable project of self-justification. The project of defending their self-imaged identity, turns all else not seen to conform to that identity, into a perceived threat. Such a project, of always already assumed contentions, displaces the development of any serious, wide-ranging understanding; that isn’t tainted by the desperation of these contentions; especially so, in those who are the most desperate of all, the ‘unsuccessful’, or those who ‘feel’ unsuccessful.

    [holipopiloh]: The idealistic Cambridge graduate is a communist bitch — a useful idiot for a lost cause.

    {AK}: Aside from the question of how a cause that has been already allegedly ‘lost’, can actually use anything; &, moreover, the assumption of monolithic ideologies succeeding each other as universally hegemonic, in precisely the way obviated by claims of ‘patchwork’ secessionism that such assumption entails; if there is no conception of cruelty, there can be no criteria to determine whether a cause is ‘lost’ or ‘found’. The Stalinist purges would be merely instrumental operations; their atrocity would be irrelevant. There would be no grounds, Neoreactionary or otherwise, that could constitute criteria of significant differentiation. This is confirmed by holipopiloh’s subsequent claim, that:
    “The 9/11 victims were capitalist bitches — useless, totally replaceable cogs in a machine.”
    How does viewing the diversity of US citizens, workers, visitors, all the people affected, in only such a purely instrumental way, differ from the instrumentalities of both Communism & Capitalism condemned by Neoreaction? What does holipopiloh do, & why wouldn’t he be viewed as equally ‘useless’? What would constitute a conception of the ‘worthwhile’ or the ‘worthy’, that didn’t descend into the arbitrariness of allegedly incommensurable preferences? Without some conception of consensual morality, only these incommensurable preferences are left, as criteria of the distribution of cruelty & atrocity. Such an scenario cannot even be called ‘war’, in the sense of collective ideological identity vs. collective ideological identity.

    The actual scenario of Neoreaction, is the inability of those like holipopiloh to function in the very contradictions which their own ideologies have created in the past. When they can no longer distribute atrocity quite so easily, & without publicity, resentment sets in. When they are no longer the prime beneficiaries of the convolutions of capitalism, their delusions of superiority, & faith in the corollary meritocracy such superiority might suggest, begin to collapse. Victims of the very hypocrisy they always felt justified in conveying, they are reduced to celebration of the successes & victories of an earlier, imagined age, which peacefully acquiesced to their structures of atrocity, & the enforced delusions with which those structures were masked.

    [holipopiloh]: Like I said, you need to take some remedial English lessons.
    So fuck off and start catching up on your studies.

    {AK}: Here, we can observe that holipopiloh seems annoyed, or even upset. Why would this be the case? The reason given, that of the need for remedial English, suggests holipopiloh’s requirement for a language of abrupt epithets, which he demonstrates in the last line, with “So fuck off”.
    Again, there is an interesting resonance, the rhetoric of ‘swearing’, as in the ‘cursing’ of informal slang; & the ritual of ‘swearing’, as solemnity in contexts requiring serious emphasis &/or justification. It seems to be the case, that the first is used, to compensate for the failures of the second. When the solemn presentation of inferior thinking & dogma is contested, on the grounds of its intellectual disconnection; instead of counter critique, there are only evasions, & emotive epithets of a confused morality.

    Any other questions?

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    NL, it’s your blog, but why bother moderating-censoring holipopiloh’s answer?

    [Reply]

    pedanticmoron Reply:

    He’s not surprised, he’s playing coy. He’s pointing out a instance of someone actually straight up saying this rather than playing it off with dumb excuses like “oh, we’re just being ironic”, or “well we aren’t REALLY Nazis”

    He’s been calling the altright Nazis (ethno-Bolsheviks to be more precise, but that’s just a fancy way of saying Nazi) for quite some time. Read the last couple comment sections, they’re full of people shitting their pants and saying they aren’t actually Nazis. You’re pretty much the only person who’s actually saying this, everyone else vehemently denies it.

    [Reply]

    Salvador Zarco Reply:

    @pedanticmoron lol

    Well I say it in a very general sense. The Right is so brainwashed by PC that even they are afraid of the term cause a tatted up skinhead pops into their mind and they likely get anxiety from the label, even though most of their beliefs would generally align with the average skinhead of the 1990s. Almost all of it: lifting weights, “red pill” gender politics, white genocide, the jewish question, degenerate media, separatism.

    Becoming “essentially a neo-nazi” is a rational path for most young white men who are being attacked for their heritage, gender, and are forced to watch their nations dissolve before their eyes. I personally go out of my way to avoid the anti-semitic attitude but at a certain point it becomes physically impossible to ignore the fact that all these anti-white academics, politicians, and activists are from the same tribe. Even Nick can’t help but mention it. To ignore the pattern would be cognitive dissonance, and it gets quite funny watching people go through mental obstacle courses trying to avoid something that is so apparent. They just don’t know how to get past the step of noticing it.

    Nick’s use of the term “ethno bolshevism” is just clever trolling. It’s also him trying to signal that he is “the real right wing.” It’s completely absurd. The (actual) Nazis fought the bolsheviks to the death and all their allies in Eastern Europe were fanatically anti-bolshevik. I forget what the term for this is in rhetoric, but he is just noticing a few similarities in the ideologies and claiming they’re all the same based on those few parallels. He is actually terrified of the “altright” and doesn’t know how to directly respond to it, so now he’s stumbling.

    The “alt” is actually just the Overton-Window-altering phase of something much bigger.

    [Reply]

    Cryptogenic Reply:

    Why is “low IQ” in scare quotes?

    [Reply]

    Dale Rooster Reply:

    “The UK goes into a period of moral / political decline (it happens), and therefore, you reason “all is lost,” and the best option is therefore completely abandoning ship in a dejected fatalist tizzy.”

    That which is falling deserves to be pushed. Also, reforming international democracy through activism is a total waste of time. You believe in reform. That’s fine. Best of luck.

    “cause lets face it, there is no real “exit,” is there?”

    Existentially, no. Of course not. But accepting and loving one’s fate, the dismal reality of the problem, challenges us to face the real world, including the political world. Accelerating the degeneration of natural democratic orders to the point of collapse to build something new (or a millions new realms) offers a productive and realistic assessment of the problem. Reforming democracy through activism is nothing but denial. The nihilism hidden beneath the surface of such hopes is thoroughly degenerate in its lack of self-awareness.

    “So you’re “anti-universalist” but promote Terminator 3 style singularity as an eschatological ideology, which is just about as hyper universalist (and anti-human) as a belief system can possibly get.”

    Don’t shrink from nature’s brutal perfection, dude. (Boyd Rice) Universalists, like all crypto-christians, shriek in terror and with moral indignation at the reality of evolution and what it entails. You just did so yourself. Equality will be crushed no matter how much anyone wails. Embrace your fate. You’ll have more dignity.

    “Politics simply translates to pure terror or “horrorism” for you.”

    Democracy–politics–has provided us with some rather horrific things, no?

    “Becoming “essentially a neo-nazi” is a rational path for most young white men who are being attacked for their heritage, gender, and are forced to watch their nations dissolve before their eyes.”

    Trump and the altright have done something cool for freedom of speech by shrugging off accusations of racism/sexism/homophobe/nazi/etc. charges. But does ethno-socialism actually entail free speech? If private property and free association are discarded for the betterment of our people through ethno-nationalist-redistribution programs, then, no, it’s not a rational path for those young white men at all…because they haven’t thought it through.

    “The (actual) Nazis fought the bolsheviks to the death and all their allies in Eastern Europe were fanatically anti-bolshevik. I forget what the term for this is in rhetoric, but he is just noticing a few similarities in the ideologies and claiming they’re all the same based on those few parallels.”

    The Nazis were probably the lesser of two evils. But attempting to secure the universal equality and progress of the white race through demotist–that is, socialist–means will lead to nothing but its destruction. Western Civilization signs off. Gnon wins. Too bad. So sad.

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    I don’t see hy one can’t just be partisan in favor of ‘techno-commercialism’ & eugenics, it ought to happen whether or not it does.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 20th, 2016 at 9:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • Salvador Zarco Says:

    @Salvador Zarco
    No.

    [Reply]

    Johan Schmidt Reply:

    >replying to yourself

    Obviously not. Elite hacker weev would never make such an elementary mistake. Unless it’s a double-bluff!

    [Reply]

    Nathan Cook Reply:

    LMAO. Always nice to have positive confirmation of the sort of tactics a man will stoop to, no matter how common sock-puppeting is in his gang.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 20th, 2016 at 9:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • cyborg_nomade Says:

    “there is no exit anymore (if there ever was)”

    well then, build one! if it can’t be done, then we’re just hopeless fucks.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    or you know you could fight, just saying.

    [Reply]

    cyborg_nomade Reply:

    yeah, not my thing though. let the tough headed do that, if they will. division of labor and alienation is the raw material of intelligence optimization. it’s important that some think that fighting is a good idea and do that. and it’s important that high IQ people steer the fuck away from them.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    ideally a general usually mid iq say 130 finds suitable work for high low and mid iqs all are needed when i say fight i dont mean necessarily physical, yesterday debate about effectiveness of that. nicks right if someone has a shot at developing an app that say eliminates a branch of government or btc whatever great very few like that but hacking into splc might be helpful, some of this twitter meme is i think useful what really needs to be done is putting together a very serious war council think tank thats serious about seizing power within a decade whether its terrorism politics massive populism incitement or inventing a technology that just nullifies them or a million other things that might be done if instead of blogging about ai and seasteading

    Johan Schmidt Reply:

    A society which draws a distinction between warriors and philosophers will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.

    cyborg_nomade Reply:

    one that doesn’t will have its philosophers killed

    Aeroguy Reply:

    Don’t you start conceding to their frame, modern warfare is a domain for nerds (What? Nerds can be jocks and jocks can be nerds? Yeah, it’s called having good genes). Tech grows ever more complex and the warrior class are making a resurgence from an era of conscription (sure there’s the purging of right thinking men in western militaries, but that doesn’t change of meta of warfare). Fighter pilot jocks aren’t intellectual slouches, one of the smartest guys I know flies F-15s for Singapore. You’re sorely mistaken if you think being able to hold a rifle and march are the end all be all of warfare. Sure enlisted merely do maintenance on advanced weapon systems which still requires above average intelligence. Officers participate heavily in the design and testing of new weapon systems (where I was headed before being purged). Can you think of an industry that makes advanced products specifically for professionals that would bar those professionals from participating in the design of such? Philosophy is like math, it has broad application, if effective fighting didn’t require intellect then admin’s thesis would collapse.

    “A society which draws a distinction between warriors and philosophers will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.” Exactly this. Right wing philosophy in particular maintains this. You know Socrates fought as a hoplite, Plato’s philosopher king is drawn from the warrior class all the way through to Nietzsche’s warrior elite. Frankly I don’t trust any man who delegates tasks he himself is unwilling to ever do. As seen in these threads, do you really want to leave these guys in charge of the fighting? An essential part of fighting is having the wisdom to know when and how to fight.

    The graves are filled with irreplaceable men. Men die, ideas and civilization live on. Young men do most of the dying in war, wisdom comes with age and experience. A good education is expensive, it includes a price in blood and it’s classrooms go beyond libraries.

    Specialization without the ability to put it in the context of the whole is worthless.

    (Visited your blog, you’re a self described leftist, so I’m not surprised that fighting to you is something reserved for the lowly. The nature of who does the fighting within left and right is asymmetric, now mind yourself by not conflating yourself with us)

    cyborg_nomade Reply:

    dying in vain in bloodthirsty wars is a bad business (turns in no cash for those dying, usually). I may be a leftist, but I don’t like bad business.

    for sure *some defense* – especially high tech defense that requires little to no fighting at all – is necessary and I would love acquiring (or maybe acquiring services that get it reliably operated on my behalf – without killing most or even many of their employees (that’s bad business again))

    high IQs and nice certificates are useless when you brain is blown by rifles, that’s what I mean.

    Posted on June 20th, 2016 at 10:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • phiguy110 Says:

    Land is Masculine. Water is Feminine. Land is Stable. Water is Loose. Land is Obiedence. Water is Permisiveness. Land is Father. Water is Mother.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    if youre making fun of the whole atlantean meme good. the only thing to it is defendability and oceans are no longer great defenses.And that russia should not get cucked.

    [Reply]

    Quint Essential Reply:

    Your logic is impeccable, but the ancients didn’t see it that way. The earth was always the mother, soft, nurturing, caring, calm, dependable like a mother’s bosom, hard to let go of, familiar. In contrast, the sea is tough, dangerous, harsh, contrary, uncaring, drowning lord and commoner alike, foreign.

    There is a reason that the only female primal force in Greek myths is Gaia, the earth. (Nearly) everything else, the sea (Pontus), the cosmos (Ouranos), the abyss (Tartarus), and time (Chronos), is male. The earth nurtures, and gives birth to man. The primal forces, the dangers and hardships, forge man.

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    Nyx is that Greek Tiamat, the night mother, and even Zeus gives her ample deference.

    [Reply]

    Quint Essential Reply:

    True, Nyx is female, as is her daughter/sister Hemera, the day. However, complications exist, as there are two male primal forces for Darkness (Erebus) and Light (Aether), the consorts of Nyx and Hemera respectively. There is confusion over which of each pair has primacy, or even if they are actually separate at all. It is notable that Nyx had extremely few cults dedicated to her.

    Also, you are quoting from two different sources there. Hesiod mentions Nyx as the Night Mother, but does not mention Zeus in connection to her. Homer mentions that Zeus feared her power, but does not say that this is the same Nyx mentioned by Hesiod. The two are only connected as the mother of Hypnos.

    Note also that the Greek Tiamat is much more likely to be Thalassa or Tethys, both sea goddesses, and have closer names phonetically than Nyx.

    Though Nyx is the Night Mother, she is not the mother of monsters (or even really anyone of much importance), unlike Tiamat. Tiamat’s closest analogue is probably Gaia, the mother/ancestor of the vast majority of the gods, titans and monsters.

    All monsters (bar one or two groups) are children of Phorcys and Ceto (Pontus’ offspring), Gaia and Tartarus, or Tartarus and his children alone.

    @FakeNickLand Reply:

    Land is Masculine.
    Land is Stable.
    Land is Obedience.

    Why, thank you.

    Land is Father.

    Finally. Enough of this “childless” nonsense.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    (There’s a limit of one ‘Land’ joke per comment thread, unless it’s subtle enough to pass under the radar.)

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 20th, 2016 at 11:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lucian Says:

    Australia is the next great imperial seapower. The 21st and 22nd centuries will belong to the Dingo.

    [Reply]

    Xoth Reply:

    I don’t think a mixture of coast-hugging chinese and middle eastern boat people will get the job done, actually.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Sounds like you’re referring to Melbourne and Sydney. I said Australia.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 21st, 2016 at 3:27 am Reply | Quote
  • Asher Says:

    admin,

    I suggest you look at what happened to Yarvin recently being disinvited to a tech conference. The individual who led the charge was a Ruby developer who fancies himself a post-Marxist philosopher. His main objection to Yarvin is that the future envisioned at MM does not include much, if not most, of the current population. I don’t think he’s incorrect about that assessment on it’s face. He may be wrong but it is on Yarvin to explain why he is or at least the extent to which that charge is incorrect.

    My guess is that a very significant majority of the population is unable to distinguish between you and a garden-variety libertarian. That there are very real differences is irrelevant. What they suspect is that you want to be left alone while you develop technologies that would banish most of them from the future and who could blame them for denying you exit based on those suspicions. Frankly, I think that in your long-term future there is no place for at least a pretty significant portion of the current population.

    The practical way to address this is to convince enough people that they will be a part of the future and that the absence of those who won’t be there benefits those who remain. This is, of course, what you are calling ethno-bolshevism.

    [Reply]

    Quint Essential Reply:

    “In the long run, everyone is dead.”

    Isn’t that the basis of modern economics? Much of Keynesianism is ruinous in the long term. But it’s a-ok, since people are killing themselves instead of an AI doing it.

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    Such a civilization does not desderve to exist. Eugenics is a matter of aesthetics, a far more important subject than ethics or politics. Normies are bad people,. and have to go. If not, fuck humanity

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 21st, 2016 at 4:54 am Reply | Quote
  • Doc Benway Says:

    Admin, you’ve really stirred up the “alt-right” retards, huh? I didn’t realize so many populists followed this blog, but I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised. Your memes are too dank to not draw a crowd of chimps.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    THe entire “alt right” which until a few months ago used to include everyone to the right of NRO is dark and dank so if you showed up ten minutes ago and thought this was sci fi themed libertarian blog your mistaken Land is as evil a racist as the rest of us hes just like one of those racists who likes to say he hates everyone then lists them as black white red yellow and of course purple. By purple he means the entire human race. But you’re supposed to think he means hes kidding and hates no one.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 21st, 2016 at 3:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    Galt had a cloaking ray allowing his pirates to hide in plain sight in the rockies.He had a bunch of science fiction tech including what amounted to cold fusion.He manged to steal all the gold from the cathedral by piracy,and to crash the world securities markets by false flag insider information, He completely sabotage their infrastructure by convincing the middle class to walk away from their jobs and starve on principle. The masses dying by the millions in aftermath is not made explicit nor is clear what russia china islam and the crips were doing during all this. ther werent a bunch of indian software developers/ islamic terrorists chinese biologists/ sino spies,Jewish intelectual/ alynskists, or or outlier african and amerindians competeing for dagny in galts gulch in fact what to do about all the women not like Dagny is not clear though Dagnys bed alpha up trading is.
    If you find solutions to all of the above Im as ready as I was at 17 to stand with you if you would accept my lowly uneducated 130 ass,the masses be damned let them eat soylent green

    In fact I already have the gulch in the Rockies and Ive already developed the autonomous energy and an airstrip so youre way ahead of the game. You wont have to convince the middle class to strike they have already been pushed out by affirmative action and globalism.Hopefully you all have had the sense to trade your BTC for gold already cause when the lights go out.
    Ah when the lights go out they will get torches and pitchforks and hunt us down without those ray guns we are toast even up there or in eastern europe, newfoundland, or china if the world begins to collapse because we opted out they will hunt us down and chain us to the infra structure. But say they didnt

    Do you think every baby in the gulch is going to come out with the same traits as the parents particularly if other races are brought in. How long will it take for A neo neo nrx to start complaining about the sub 200 IQ population? Or do you plan to only implant printed embryos from approved genomes Im cool with that as long as you have the ray guns. Im not averse to horror I just dont think you have the chops and wont have them for at least decades by which time the ANC will be running things and also have the tech.

    Look there are already places you can go to live among high IQ geeks its not low IQ masses that are putting the peas under you mattresses its the high IQ. Low IQ people are well aware what they are and that they need high IQs who will want to be compensated accordingly, What the masses want is security and dignity to raise their families and continue their culture so they can get about the business of producing the next crop of high IQ babies. {Not only do 60% of high IQs come from average parents but they keep the cog elite population from inbreeding too much]. Without huge prole population theres no consumers so no capital to invent shit with or any point in inventing it.There no culture or any point to it. The world would be a bore. Proles are endlessly entertaining particularly if the are responsibly cultivated by elites, They remind us of who we really are they teach us to play to love to enjoy food. In all sorts of ways they nurture and support us. But there are limits to how much a gap a nation can function with. Communism needs a gap to thrive it was dying in homogenous european nations so it imported populations with huge gaps in not just IQ but all sorts of other traits associated with what westerns consider civilization and communism revived. This Hajinal line Canard is nothing more than the commie argument that races dont exist inverted. The commie says you cant have ethnic interests or nations because ethnicities dont exists; show us on a map where europeans stop. the neo nazi dutifully traces a line around the southern border of greece and albania sacrificing the Byzantine empire for arguments sake. AhHa says the commie if I grant for a moment the existance of DNA and deny the reality that we are all essentially africans I can still prove to you that your greeks are more like turks than swedes so we get to keep the Greeks in the human race. The neo nazi says well i never liked those half breeds anyway so I am moving my border to the northern border of Greece and Albania. AhHa say the commie your Macedonians Albanians and Romanians are more like Greeks and Bulgarians than Swedes and Icelanders so we get to keep them in the human race. Pretty soon wogs begin at Reykjavik. DENRX types who havnt the stomach for the horrors of racism start with the Hajinal line and work out with essentially the same argument but excluding They say i cant support WN because frankly Im not European im hajinal not euro.Granted Land avoids this problem altogether by throwing the entire human race under the bus in favor of machines that will never be built unless the white race gets its act together, {I cant even give that the dignity of a reply}
    There are so many problems with the Hajinal nationalism theory to really do more than list some of the most glaring.
    First if you lay the Murray human achievement data over the Hajinal/Eurasia map the Hajinal race sort of shrinks to an unsustainable handful of city states, If you break the data out into types of achievement and where the achievers were actually born you realize you lose a lot of human resource outside the line particularly science and literature.If you look at both the hajinal and murray data and use your common sense for a minute you realize the Greek Roman Byzantine empires and the source areas judeao/ christian cultures are outside of the Hajinal line.To say nothing of the united states canada australia new zealand etc.

    Youre also loosing asia and the mideast which is fine since no ones positing white supremacy just where a line stipulated to be arbitrary will have the best chance of success of a sustainable alliance. {and lets be get this pan WN misrepresentation out of the way Im pretty sure no ones suggesting whites all join the EU and make it racist, they are suggesting the separate thnic euro nations and the anglosphere nations of no specific euro ethnicities work together against multiculturalism] But pretending a few city states within the hajinal line could have achieved what they did all alone is a stretch. The sensible stance is that Euros are close enough culturally and genetically and have distinguished themselves enough that an alliance among them would be sustainable defendable and enjoyable. The hajinals stance further deteriorates when you overlay haplogroups on the map. When you look at the record of the anglosphere which can only be describes as white not hajinal. when you look at the marriage patterns of elites within the hajinal they match non hajinals. when you compare high iq east asians with hajinals and non hajinals. when you think about whatever the accomplishments of hajinals they are also the source of the suicidal altruism. is the hajinal line defendable is it a large enough population to sustain its former glory or is it in dire need of back breeding and alliances with other nations against the rest of the very tribal world. The hajinals were mostly a seafaring lot at a time when the sea could be both a superhighway for trade and information and a defence. Cities near enough to coasts to benifit while inland enough to make pirates ineffective did well against foreign marauders and had first mover advantage on their inland cousins this also gave them a brain drain advantage and things led to other things. The fact that the anglosphere is not hajinal and much of the hajinal is celtic and the huge difference between european averages and the third worlds makes this really frustrating to even have to debate. Do you seriously think tribalism is going to be killed by an app? It doesnt matter if we dont feel it we must learn to act as if.Thers an argument that this must mean socialism where the fuck does that come from stormfront thats what long knives are for. Greeks may have become addicted to goldman sachs loans but they were more than happy to do without before some commie decided to give them welfare and take a cut. Without third world wards the western nations will become very rich and powerful again. they dont need idian programmers and sino spies to survive they need the cultural confidence to continue to evolve their own ways again without the white mans burden

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 21st, 2016 at 4:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • Apatheos Says:

    What is the social order of the sea? Village life? Chinese SEZ?

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 22nd, 2016 at 2:14 am Reply | Quote
  • R. J. Moore II Says:

    @michaelGenomic engineering & basically genocide are the ansver. Normies are not interesting, & hold us back by social retardation more than they contribute by labor.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 22nd, 2016 at 5:06 am Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    Nick,

    Do you really see no light at the end of the tunnel at all? What do you make of the title of James Bennett’s new book? Is he simply not taking into consideration the pessimistic conclusions NRX has drawn RE: the West?

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1910440175/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=3A46C3BRZLVVH&coliid=I188I1LQW3WHZB

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 23rd, 2016 at 4:33 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment