Leftists correctly see themselves as ruling over everyone else by right of conquest. I’ll repeat for the slow crowd: This is entirely correct. Unlike most leftist ideas, which may be half-truths that require deconstruction, this fundamental belief is perfectly in keeping with the laws of nature. Rightists who disagree with it are hamstringing their own ability to understand the world around them.
It follows then that this empire must be maintained by continual bullying in response to small acts of dissent. This is, again, not in the realm of speculation. If you are ever in a position of real authority you will have to play whack-a-mole with challenges to your authority because failure to do so will escalate the challenges with the consistency of gravity.
This is the first dip into my personal speculations: the salient feature distinguishing left and right is directness. Leftists prefer indirect conflict, rightists prefer direct conflict. In combination with the compulsion to social dominance displays mentioned above, this gives rise to the leftist style of argumentation. It is reactive rather than proactive, deconstructivist rather than productive, concerned less with winning than with not losing (see 4D chess article), and most importantly intended to demoralize and exhaust the opposition. It’s the latter quality I want to unpack a bit.
Another observation from listening to Behind the Bastards is that the one running joke is “It’s all so tiresome.” This is joke is continually retold in smarmy comedy bits about how exhausting the subject material is punctuated by big, melodramatic sighs. You may recognize this as an internet right-wing meme. (That’s probably why they never explicitly say “it’s all so tiresome” that I’ve heard in maybe 12 episodes so far.) I found it curious that lefties and righties would have the same meme, so I looked for a distinguishing feature.
In the case of the leftists, it’s a performative contradiction: they follow up their sighs with frenetic, consistent political activity. We must conclude they don’t find the right tiresome, but are rather strongly motivated to reacting to it, and the bit is a disingenuous pose passed off as comedy. Whereas the rightists who say “it’s all so tiresome” genuinely mean it. My tentative conclusion is that this meme serves two purposes for leftists: 1) it trains their minds in crimestop (“IQ and race? How tiresome.”), which bolsters their ability to argue disingenuously, and 2) the act rubs off on other people sympathetically who are more susceptible to the idea that “it’s all so tiresome”. In effect, talking about how tired you are all the time makes the people around you want to exercise less (or reproduce, or engage in political activity), and if you’re Machiavellian the lying won’t bother you at all.
It struck me that if your social dominance displays consist of responding to any good faith challenges ad nauseum until the challenger becomes disgusted and exhausted, this is a perfect disposition. When you’re treating political dialogue as a competition of endurance, circular reasoning becomes a feature rather than a bug. This is why the internet right has unsuccessfully attempted to weaponize fundamentalism and stupidity, attempting to play the same game of repeating ideas in a war of attrition until the opponent runs out of social support. It wasn’t the worst strategy, as strategies go, but in retrospect it’s hard not to see it as a small band of hunter gatherers attempting to besiege and starve out a fortified city.
If there’s one big takeaway from Michael Anton’s dialogue in Asylum, it’s that Malcolm (the archetypal leftist) will brook no compromises in his claim to absolute sovereignty over Tom (the archetypal rightist). As mentioned before, he views Tom as his property by right of conquest, in perfect consistency with the law of nature. Like any other member of a privileged class in history, he doesn’t have to explain himself and if his class’s claims to absolute sovereignty don’t make sense that’s a feature, not a bug. “Never complain, never explain.”
The one compulsion on Malcolm is that he must always respond to Tom’s challenges (hence the enormous utility of recent neo-Nazi flyer campaigns). He doesn’t have to be sincere, he doesn’t have to be genuine, he doesn’t have to look good for the audience, he doesn’t even have to respond in English. He just has to keep talking, keep frame, and make zero concessions until Tom gives up. This leaves Tom in the no-win situation he was already in like so many Dhalits before him: do nothing, try to unite the right (without any money to pay them, HA!), or become the Unabomber.
My own platform is to win by attrition not in terms of social dominance, but in terms of living well under systematic oppression. The act of existing as a tranissary or a xanniessary is more demoralizing over time than having a jackboot stomping on your face from 8 to 5 and then going to church with your beautiful family on Sunday. They will run out of social capital before we run out of white people. In practical terms:
- Keep a long-term focus.
- Be hard to cancel.
- Be economically desirable.
- Appear nonthreatening.
- Be a rabbit: indirect, fast, tricky, cunning, etc.
- The more economically independent you become, the more politically radical you can afford to be.
- Maintain a very well-defined litmus test to distinguish between enemy combatants and enablers.
- Lie to enemies to misdirect them. All of warfare is based in deception, so give up your pride and honor as luxuries you can’t afford.
- Be so healthy that you’re basically immortal.
- Strengthen existing ties with close friends and family.
- Give money to radical voices as finances allow.
- Look for small wins that won’t attract any attention. Do all the side quests to level up before taking a shot at the king.
- “When you find yourself thinking 80-99% of these fucking peasants need to go it’s time to take a break, go to a safehouse, and maybe get drunk with an old war buddy to get it out of your system.”
That last quote comes from one of my best posts that’s always pertinent to discussions of this sort: https://aeolipera.wordpress.com/2020/04/05/what-they-dont-teach-you-at-the-white-knight-academy/.
“When you find yourself thinking 80-99% of these fucking peasants need to go it’s time to take a break, go to a safehouse, and maybe get drunk with an old war buddy to get it out of your system.”
Or go full “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God”
We aint voting, or long gaming our way out of this. At some point we need to form a Phalanx and start lobbing spears. We should have been doing 50 years ago at this point.
And giving everyone brain scans to determine whose of the right, and whose of the left. Then go from there.
Well, you do your way and I’ll do my way and we’ll see whose is better!
I’m reminded of the Discord. Anybody remember what I said about the Discord?
`Well, you do your way and I’ll do my way and we’ll see whose is better!`
This is a Team Effort brah! Kill it with the Toxic Individualism, 1000% Personal Accountability, and Pile on The Hero.
This is Whyte The Right Fails.
> This is a Team Effort brah!
I could say the same to you, except you’d never follow someone else’s plan. So you’ll have to rely on your own personal effectiveness and charisma.
`except you’d never follow someone else’s plan.`
Actually I would. However, MPAI and dont know how to think properly. Also, I generally encounter other people not wanting to follow my plans or listening to me, because well Appeals to Authority rule rhe day.
And if your plan is so superior to mine: Give me some advice about what you think I should do, and what you think is best for me.
That’s a bit of a brain teaser when you get down to it, because I have to infer your situation, your potential, and present a reasonably attainable future in a vaguely persuasive way. I’ll give it a shot, but it may take a couple of days of coming hack to the question.
The most important starting point is to puzzle out what you are and what God made you to be in the best case. I think in the past I’ve compared you to Black Star from Soul Eater and Arthur from Fire Force. Your restlessness makes you singularly unsuited to the life of a humble farmer, putting you solidly in some hunter-gatherer social role like a niche interest entrepreneur or some other such wildman. It’s pretty easy to imagine you as the proprietor of a weird hipster shop making ends meet in a way that wouldn’t even occur to a much more conservative person like me.
This isn’t advice yet, these are just initial thoughts.
I think the ideal picture of you I’m getting is that of a cheerful warrior stuck in a cage in a zoo with nothing to fight. The picture of you in my head where you’re happily running a niche shop with your waifu and ranting to the customers about your UFO theories is supposed to come after the war, when you’re settling down into the family life in your own zany way. It’s the sort of afterstory I imagine being told in funny pictures while the credits roll.
none of this blog makes any sense any more tbh
`Your restlessness makes you singularly unsuited to the life of a humble farmer,`
What restlessness? Theres that inability to incorporate external factors inti a view me of me. Your viewing me as a character in a vaccum. Yoh see this all the time in language and speech:
“Now why would you do that?”
“How did you end up in that situtation?”
“Why do you have to do that?”
This viewing of the individual as living in a vaccum in an environment and other people, or laws, or rules, or regulations, or luck, or the laws of the universe, or divine intervention as not existing is stereotypical just world fallacy in action. Amongst a whole sleu of other cognitice biases.
I am well suited to the life of a farmer If I can get away from people. I can work for extended periods of time on a project if it enthralls me. The problem, is always, and forever will be other people. And their inability to see the larger picture. Instead focusing on some minute detail of what I said, or am doing, and twisting it.
We are largely products of our environment. Other humans live in that environment. If they arent thinking objectively, which they arent, well you can see why I come off as restless.
Take for example my current job situation. I have many skills across broad modal domains. However, whenever I am employed on a task I always get targeted by pigeon holing assholes who cant let things be. Currently I have to switch to another contract job. Someone would say this means I am job hopping and unstable. No thats how contract work functions. And see as the foreman is always and idiot they always assume I got fired. But in every case it always turns out I did not violate attendance rules, break chain of command (except in safety rules which is allowed as thats everyones job), and was not a cause or any problems with the external tools.
However since I changed contracts I must have done something. I must be the problem. No this is per projection on the part of the other players in the situation who attack the man and not the ball.
You see why I think most males are Gamma. They screw up cause and effect. They are concerned with hierarchy so they are constantly battleling for dominance. They are managing people and not the project. They are managing their egos and not the work.
But if you, or your standard run of the Mill American idiot, spoke to me theyd think I was “struggling”, “job hopping”(or just between work tasks on a project), or the problem for jumping contracts. What they fail to see managements hand in all this. I just show up and do my job assigned. And conquer it. And that to these idiots becomes “Thats what your known for!” They have no mental model for competent worker.
Im not restless at all. My time time tables are just longer term and Im surrounded by short term thinking feckless retards who dont think to do anything themselves that doesnt immeadiately serve them. They have no concept of doing things for the larger team or operation. Or even doing something that Glorifies God.
Its not me. I am not restless. Its other people.
Ill stop now before the “Just do it Theorism” rears its ugly head.
I suppose then I was wrong to imagine you as a happy warrior type who then settles down to run a laptop repair shop.
<3 no moderation
oh wait spoke too soon.
This is about Aeoli if he had balls.
“The motivations of my work, which culminates in a philosophy of history, are simple. They arise from the political situation. Anybody with an informed and reflective mind who lives in the twentieth century since the end of the First World War, as I did, finds himself hemmed in, if not oppressed, from all sides by a flood of ideological language—meaning thereby language symbols that pretend to be concepts but in fact are unanalyzed topoi or topics. Moreover, anybody who is exposed to this dominant climate of opinion has to cope with the problem that language is a social phenomenon. He cannot deal with the users of ideological language as partners in a discussion, but he has to make them the object of investigation. There is no community of language with the representatives of the dominant ideologies. Hence, the community of language that he himself wants to use in order to criticize the users of ideological language must first be discovered and, if necessary, established.
“The peculiar situation just characterized is not the fate of the philosopher for the first time in history. More than once in history, language has been degraded and corrupted to such a degree that it no longer can be used for expressing the truth of existence. This was the situation, for instance, of Sir Francis Bacon when he wrote his Novum Organum. Bacon classified the unanalyzed topics current in his time as “idols”: the idols of the cave, the idols of the marketplace, the idols of pseudo-theoretical speculation. In resistance to the dominance of idols—i.e., of language symbols that have lost their contact with reality—one has to rediscover the experiences of reality as well as the language that will adequately express them. The situation today is not very different. One has only to remember Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s chapter on “Idols of the Marketplace” in Cancer Ward [chapter 31] in order to recognize the continuity of the problem. Solzhenitsyn had to fall back on Bacon and his conception of idols in order to defend the reality of Reason in his own existence against the impact of Communist dogma. I like to refer to the case of Solzhenitsyn because his awareness of the problem, as well as his competence as a philosopher in his reference to Bacon, is certainly a model that would, if followed, fundamentally change the intellectual climate of our universities and colleges. In relation to the dominant climate of the social sciences, the philosopher in America finds himself very much in the situation of Solzhenitsyn in relation to the Soviet Writer’s Union—the important difference, of course, being that our Soviet Writer’s Union cannot enlist governmental power for the purpose of suppressing scholars. Hence, there are always enclaves in the West in which science can continue, and even flourish, in spite of the intellectual terrorism of institutions such as the mass media, university departments, foundations, and commercial publishing houses.”
I like that you started “listening to the enemy”.
I’ve done my own homework on that, getting deep into the labyrinthine narratives the conspiracy/”alternative” Left (think bloggers like Knowles but farther Left, plus the people whose books they read) spin.
If you’re interested, I can summarize how their narrative structure works ; )
I am interested.
Not rabbit. It assumes there is unlimited food and shelter.
Coyote is the correct mindset. Wolves can only dominate in a pack. Coyotes are impossible to get rid of.
The scarcity is artificially imposed. There’s plenty of shelter, but the government may decide to kick you out of your home as part of its racial displacement policy. So while I have nothing against scavenging, the predator-prey model is more clarifying.
How come I’m busy when your writing good(or at least better quality/ more to my liking) posts and “on the toilet”, when you are not?
I have a guy watching when you poop to ensure it’s inconvenient timing. Standard procedure.