Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
Disabled Alaskan Monarchist doomer
User ID: 2666
and the beginning of populism dominating the west for decades to come.
I think this is serious wishful thinking. The most likely scenario, as I see it, is as follows:
- Democrats narrowly win the midterms later this year.
- Everything the Trump 2.0 admin has been accomplishing (not that there's all that much, really) is brought to a stop, or even rolled back. ICE grinds to a halt. Hegseth gets sidelined. USAID funding gets restored through various alternative bodies and channels (to the extent it hasn't already). Lawfare intensifies. We get at least another impeachment attempt or two
- The Republican Party establishment responds with the narrative they've already been circulating, preemptively, in anticipation of a midterm loss: it’s because we went too far right with Trump and are “scaring the hoes” — that we haven’t done enough to deplatform Carlson, Fuentes, etc. and get them taken of the
airwavesinterwebs (you know, that silly series of tubes that the young'uns are watching instead of proper TV — surely it can't be harder to get someone removed than it was to get the networks to pay no attention to people like the Birchers, right?); that we haven’t done nearly enough Buckleyite expulsions (see the "edgy jokes in group chat" and “Heritage society Shabbat dinner" purges); and that the party’s only path to regain all those "natural conservative" voters "scared off" by all the "extremism" and "flirting with fascism" is to "tack to the center" with "traditional conservatism" (like forever wars in the Middle East, and shipping your jobs overseas), and become the Republican Party of Mitt Romney again. (You know, the party of virtuous losers, the Washington Generals of politics, whose job — to paraphrase a Republican campaign strategist (whose interview I've been unable to find again) — is to knowingly lie and make false promises to working-class rubes to get elected, then when in office deliver corporate welfare for the GOP donor class.) So they find a way to push out Vance, and run someone like Rubio, Haley, or maybe even Youngkin. - With Democratic voters energized and the Republican base demoralized, the Democrats win handily.
- Then, as mitchfynde on Tumblr puts it:
My ultimate vision for the United States of America right now is Gavin Newsome running for president with the slogan "lock him up". He wins and Nuremberg trials are held. Trump's administration is sent to prison, or worse, I don't really care which at this point. When Trump eventually dies of old age (or otherwise), MAGAts can begin to deprogram from the cult… The Democratic Party will begin to introduce legislation that will more correctly guardrail democracy against fascism. AI and social media will face regulations. Funding of education will increase with the hopes of a population better inoculated against fascist ideology.
- Populism is killed completely in the West.
(Then things get worse from there.)
It's also different from the modern isekai genre, which usually involves older teenagers or outright adults dying and being reincarnated into a fantasy world, often with great powers.
As seen, for example, in Edgar Rice Burroughs's Barsoom series.
Only if the military actually divides then there would be a civil war.
And that's the point — our military does appear to be pretty divided. Hegseth vs. Obama-era generals. Red-tribe "tip of the spear" fighting men vs. women and "diversity" in the more logistical roles. Blue state National Guard vs. red state National Guard.
And I don't see how your "fear of internal nuclear war" will force them to stay united. The existence of nukes didn't prevent any of the post-1945 international wars, did it? Russia and NATO both having nukes hasn't prevented conventional war in Ukraine, has it?
average SEC couple
Never heard of this. What does the "SEC" stand for?
I do not believe the incel exists who couldn't find a woman, and probably a pleasant enough woman, to be a partner.
Ahem.
Any advice on how best to ask out homeless alcoholic women?
This seems unnecessarily defeatist. The law is ultimately semi-formalised human judgements, and humans are perfectly capable of making judgements without rigid rubrics.
Except a major strain of liberalism (I keep going back to what Michael Munger said in an interview as an example, where he compared all power and authority to the One Ring) holds that, no, human judgement can't be trusted, not in matters of governance, and that the whole liberal project — Weber's "rationalization" and "bureaucratization" — is about replacing all human judgement, in matters of authority, with procedure. With algorithms, based in "rigid rubrics," with no exceptional cases, such that any human beings remaining in government are quality-agnostic carbon hardware upon which that software runs, like the man in Searle's Chinese room. "I don't make the rules, I just follow them" and all that. A set of algorithms so complete, so perfect in aligning incentives, that, per Kant, they can produce optimal outcomes even from a "society of rational devils." Systems so perfect that no one will need to be good, as T.S. Eliot put it.
(And isn't fully formalized human (moral) judgements the aim of "alignment"?)
Bullet to the leg easily could kill you. Major vein there.
Artery. And that's how my great-great grandfather died in a hunting accident.
America is confusing. A society that
Well, see, that's the thing. America isn't a society. We're big and diverse (a continent-spanning empire, really). There's still enough remnants of federalism, for now, that we are still in some ways "50 smaller countries in a trench coat," as a Tumblr mutual puts it when explaining the US to Europeans. Albion's Seed may be over-referenced around these parts, but it's still quite relevant here. The American "founding stock" included both irascible, fiercely-independent Borderers, and stern, moralizing, hyper-conformist Puritans. Many of our oldest and most powerful institutions were built by the latter — Harvard, Yale, and Princeton all began as Calvinist seminaries (the first two by Congregationalist Puritans, the third by "New Light" Presbyterians). There's a lot of diversity, a lost of incompatible cultural trends and forces, brought into ever-increasing contact, with ever-increasing tensions.
The main example I keep coming bact was a post I read by a mother complaining online (Anecdotal, I know, and not something I bookmarked, either).
The story was basically that they live several blocks from the elementary school their kid (like 10-11 years old, IIRC) attends, such that, weather permitting it was actually faster (and definitely healthier) for the kid to walk straight home from school than take the bus, the kid preferred to walk home, and so she let them do just that…
…until some busybody neighbor — she's not allowed to know who — saw the kid walking home alone, decided that this constitutes child neglect, and called CFS to report it as such. Mandatory investigation rules meant CFS had to send someone out, subject the whole family to a week-long inquisition, with the threat of removing the kids hanging over them like the Sword of Damocles the whole time. They get through it… and then the next month, the same CFS investigator is back, to put them through the same process again. Because the same neighbor (again, CFS clearly isn't allowed to say who) kept reporting it, and while multiple reports in the same month as a "everything's fine" finding can be dismissed, once a new month rolls around, they have to investigate the report again.
And then a third time. And so on for several months in a row, until the CPS investigator basically laid it out — they all know she's not neglecting the kids, but it doesn't matter. The neighbor is going to keep reporting it, and they're going to have to keep doing the mandatory investigations, with full "due diligence." So either she and her family can try to live with having to go through this whole ordeal every single month, or they can just cave in to the busybody's idea of "proper parenting" and make the kid ride the bus home every day.
So, of course, they caved.
As for how often CFS investigations happen, again anecdotal, but my family was subjected to one once, thanks to me. I was in kindergarten, and my school had an after-school-hours Halloween event we went to… where I, being (then-undiagnosed) on the spectrum, suffered sensory overload which, combined with the stars coming off my "the constellation Orion" costume, caused me to have a crying autistic meltdown right in the middle of everything. So my mom had to hustle us all out of there, and try to get my screaming autistic ass loaded into the car. Well, apparently somebody saw this, and decided to report possible abuse.
So the whole family — me, my two younger brothers, both our parents — all spent a week going through the whole grueling inquisition, the whole time in terror that I was about to be taken away from my family forever, that we'd all be broken up, and I was never going to see my loved ones — my parents or my brothers, ever, ever, ever again, and it was going to be ALL MY FAULT, AND…
Well, as you can see, decades later and I still have Feelings about it all.
(And in contrast, just a little later in my childhood? Our neighbors out at Kinney Lake — the ones whose idea of "disciplining" their children was making them sit bare-assed on a hot wood stove? They never had any problems with CFS.)
- This is all protected by the government and judicial system of Minnesota. At one point, David did the work to prove that a Somali leader did $7.2 million of fraud. He was convicted unanimously by a jury, but the judge overturned the verdict and left him free to continue collecting more money. The judges are elected, probably with the help of fraudalent Somali votes.
- This isn't just state money, it's also federal money. This increases the scale, but also increases the severity of the crimes.
- That Somalians routinely travel back to Somali, taking large amounts of cash with them (well over the TSA limit of $10,000), and for some reason the TSA grants them an exception to this when any normal American would be arrested or stopped for questioning.
I'm reminded of some quotes from things I've seen and read online recently, and some thoughts about them on which I've been building. First, from Malcolm Collins on the Based Camp episode about rising antisemitism (my transcription):
I actually think that a lot of the leftist anti-semitism comes from, when they are modeling what the future of humanity looks like, what the future of out existing geopolitical architecture looks like, they don’t actually plan on them existing in the future.
Like, I can talk to, like, gays and trans people, and I can be like, but really, you see if only people who hate you continue to have kids, in the future, only people who cannot allow your culture to exist are going to be the dominant cultures on Earth. I talk about this in terms of pro-natalism all the time, and they’re often just like, they don’t really see it as a problem. And I’ve always been very confused as to how they don’t see it as a problem.
And what I’m realizing, and you see the wokies in, what is it, Michigan, giving all the money to the Somalians, right? It was this big scam where, like, billions have — and it’s clear that a lot of wokies knew this was happening.— to Islamist groups in Somalia. They see the future of their movements, and the territories that they feel they de facto control, as something they want to hand to Muslim groups.
They believe in a Muslim future, and because of that, they see that future as incompatible with Jewish interests, because they’re, sort of, the Muslims within the top circles of their intellectual communities. And I find this very interesting. Trace the intellectual giants on the left right now, and many of them are tied to Islamism in some way or another. Especially the younger ones. Especially the younger ones. And this didn’t used to be the case.
Or then there's Andrew Gold in his debate with "Britain's Biggest RAC*ST" Steve Laws:
At some point unfortunately white people will become a minority and will probably go extinct.
We've talked here on the Motte about how the birthrate problem is unsolvable. @hydroacetylene repeatedly talks of how the Blue Tribe is demographically doomed (with unearned, unsupported confidence that this means inevitable victory for him and his).
An analogy has been forming in my mind to how people deal with a terminal diagnosis. Do you spend your final months in a hospital, pumped full of chemotherapy, surgery after surgery, plugged into more and more machines, and liquidating your net worth to fund it all, in the hopes of dragging out an increasingly miserable, pain-filled existence for every last hour you can? Or do you get some prescriptions for painkillers and palliatives, write up your will, go on a short trip to see a few of the sights you always wanted to visit, then come home to friends and family, pass on what stories and words of wisdom you can, and enjoy every day to its fullest as you embrace the inevitable?
Now consider that tribes, cultures, civilizations — they're mortal too. They can be terminal. And so, it becomes about maximizing the time you have… and deciding to whom you will be handing off everything you've built.
And isn't the choice really obvious, once you think about it? I mean, who should "inherit" Minnesota? A bunch of uneducated, uncultured, gay-bashing, women-oppressing, cousin-fucking, tribal religious fanatics…
…or some nice POC Muslim immigrants?
I may do an efforpost later on the broader advantages of this approach.
I, for one, would like to read that effortpost, should you write it.
Perhaps, but you still knew which "large chunks of text" to copy-paste, and where to find them. You still had the expertise to know how to track down these citations and share this information with us, and then put in the effort to do so. Which, "copy-pasting" or not, still puts it ahead of the average comment this far down a reply chain on the Motte — it's definitely better than most of what I post on here. So, even if "detailed commentary" is the wrong phrase to describe it, it's still appreciated.
What's stopping him from letting his kids be free range ?
Busybody neighbors who call CFS to report "neglect" the moment they see anyone under eighteen out without an adult hovering over them "helicopter parent"-style?
easier to fill up (you do it at home overnight)
What about when you have to make a six hour (or longer) drive out into a rural area, where almost all of the roadway there are "off the grid" and have no electricity at all — then drive back the same way a day or two later? You know, like we'd do every summer weekend growing up, heading to our cabin in rural Alaska?
Outside of Anchorage, and maybe Juneau or Fairbanks, electric cars simply don't make sense here in Alaska.
I remember pointing this out to a bunch of electric-car enthusiasts at Caltech, back in the early 2000s, several times. I'd explain in detail the geographic and infrastructural realities of life in rural Alaska — the lack of electrical grid, hundreds of miles of wilderness between bits of civilization, Arctic conditions…
The ones who were engineering students working on developing electric cars were the more reasonable ones, mostly responding that, okay, sure, you guys will have to keep using gas cars a lot longer than everyone else, until the technology is someday good enough. Those who were "for the environment"-type boosters? They're the ones who would sneeringly reply about how nobody should be living in Alaska in the first place, and all those hicks will obviously be forced to move south to some big city, as they should be. (Bringing up the Natives got some interesting responses.)
This sort of detailed commentary is one of the reasons I come to this place. Thanks.
With some creativity you should be able to look at some wide categories like physical infrastructure and cyber security and come up with some ways, some of which a single person could implement. Mass general economic disruption with or without loss of life would be even easier.
People say things like this, but I don't see it. Our critical infrastructure looks pretty robust and defended to me.
So, I was thinking about a brief exchange I had a little while ago with @gattsuru, as well as an earlier thread on the arrest of the guy who started the Palisades fire (plus perhaps some other comments here and there about how mass shooters and such tend to have poor target selection, as is entirely understandable with their being of generally unsound mind), I find myself asking: setting aside very-low-probability scenarios, how much damage could a reasonably-competent solitary actor — “a lone man with a grudge against the world,” to quote @Edawayac_Tosscount — pull off in a single “attack”?
I am curious: Trump campaigned on being anti-war, and has attempted to brand himself as a peacemaker this past year. Will starting a war be what drives his supporters away from him? Or will this be considered largely justified?
As the Dreaded Jim said in response to a commenter snarking about how "your neocon “peace president” commited yet another act of aggression":
You seem to have confused “Peace President” with falafel eating surrender monkey.
If this operation is successful Trump is a peace president. If unsuccessful, he will retreat. Either way, a peace president.
Si vis pacem, para bellum. There's a difference between being pro-peace, in that you're against large-scale wars — and the kind of "foreign entanglements" that result in your country getting dragged into one — such that you're willing to use smaller, more precise applications of force to help ensure the prevention of bigger conflicts; and being the sort of "principled pacifist" who's against any use of force, no matter the consequences. A difference between preferring not to fight, but being willing to do so just as much as needed; and being unwilling to fight.
I can't tell whether you're joking.
No, I'm genuinely outraged by @ABigGuy4U's apparent baseless, unprovoked attacks.
Baneposting
I don't follow. Are you saying these are quotes, then? Well, first, there was nothing to indicate they were such. Is everyone just supposed to recognize them? What ever happened to "make your point reasonably clear and plain" and "write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included" then? Second, how are they relevant, or an argument?
So, instead of an attack aimed at me, this is, what? Low-effort "chan behavior," not making a clear point, not writing for everyone, and not in keeping with the standards of the Motte, then?
Low effort. And you're supposed to actually make a reply, not post a link to an unknown video, without even a mention of what it is or why it's relevant?
Because I'm not going to just click some video link.
So because I responded with a bit of a temper to your baseless accusations, I'm a "hothead" and you're calling the mods to ban me?
Who the [censored] do you think you are, calling me a "hired gun"!? Who am I supposed to be a "hired gun" for, in this baseless accusation of yours. Who am I supposedly displaying "a lotta loyalty" for, by daring to explain what BAME stands for?
It's evidence for the "the internet has just been devastating for Protestantism" part, perhaps, but it's also evidence against the "there aren't any “serious” Protestants left" part.
Tell me about Bame! Why is it a protected class?
AIUI, "BAME" stands for "Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic," and is the UK term for non-whites, originally for statistical and data collection purposes, later for the various "diversity" programs.
- Prev
- Next

Sounds more like a recipe for getting robbed than a path for meeting the future mother of my children — but then, didn't we have someone on here (it might have been the "Hock" guy) who argued that getting stabbed from time to time is just the price some men have to be willing to pay to get a girlfriend?
Edit: plus, I don't have a well-stocked liquor cabinet, for reasons of both lack of money and medication interactions.
More options
Context Copy link