Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
Disabled Alaskan Monarchist doomer
User ID: 2666
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1d ago
The question is how stable this strategy is longer term
Very stable, because us WEIRD types are hardwired to keep taking it — we are genetic defectives in whom the basic human capacity for tribalism has been utterly crippled. This is yet another example of how you need a certain level of collective identity to stand against other groups and not end up preyed upon. We lack it, and since it's in our DNA to lack it, it can't be fixed.
Thus, we're doomed. We'll be preyed upon by more tribal peoples worse and worse, have more resources taken, beaten down more and more, until we're finally hunted to extinction.
There is no escaping this. It is 100% certain, set in stone — the WEIRD populations of the world are going to go extinct. The only way any of us have even the slightest genetic legacy in future humanity is if they marry into a non-WEIRD culture. There's absolutely nothing else to be done.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
15d ago
What is a knight in the face of an autonomous drone swarm, where each unit that can kill him and his brethren costs less than his monthly salary?
Well, the Dreaded Jim has actually had a lot to say on this, particularly with the lessons of the Ukraine war. Specifically, the limits of communication links and autonomy means that drone swarm proves most effective with a skilled, mobile elite operator providing human guidance from nearby on the battlefield. Specifically, he's argued that these men in fact represent the emerging "new knights."
What is a knight when his bank account can be frozen on the whims of a bureaucrat?
How did knights historically deal with either a lack of cash on hand, or an obstructive clerk? For that matter, need I mention traditional aristocrats' disdain for commerce (and banking)? How many were cash-poor? How much of their wealth was in either land holdings, castles/fortresses, and their military equipment? How Germanic kings were described in sagas as "breaker of rings" or "foe of gold"? What need does a king have for a bank account — when he needs something, he just holds out his hand, and some loyal subject places it in that hand.
As others have pointed out, money isn't power, power gets you money. The wealthy never truly rule, because wealth is too easily expropriated; and thus, the rich end up beholden to whoever defends them from expropriation (either with the sword, or with a faith that condemns such taking). Thus, society is ruled by either warriors or priests. Our modern problem is priestly rule.
(Again, this is a problem with Moldbug. He spills enormous amounts of digital ink detailing exactly how the current priestly "brahmin"/"elf" elite are ruling terribly… and then proposes solutions that are all about making that very same elite's rule permanent, while trying to design technological mechanisms to exclude warrior rule forever…)
Yes, I meant Europe. Sorry, that was a brain hiccup. Fixed.
I mean, if you want to define any insurrection against the established order as innately leftist, sure.
No, not any insurrection; just those in the direction of the "Enlightenment" project. An insurrection against a modern, liberal democracy — yes, even one with a powerless, figurehead "king" (in name only) — to restore the pre-liberal order, and install a real monarch, would be the exact opposite of leftist.
But the Americans -- both now and then -- view their revolution as quite distinct from these others.
I am an American — at least by birth and citizenship.
The problem with Monarchists is they have to answer for kings like, well, the current king of England
Charles is not a real king. No figurehead "monarch" deserves to be considered such. A real king does not merely "reign" in some symbolic sense, he rules. He wields real power over his kingdom. Of all the so-called monarchs of Europe, only Prince Hans-Adam II appears to be the only real one. Indeed, I'd say Kim Jong-Un is more of a king than any in Europe.
This gets at one of my deepest disagreements with Curtis Yarvin. Not to go all "no true monarchist" and all, but he continually shows that he doesn't understand kingship or aristocracy at all. His CEO "King" who answers to a shadowy cabal of anonymous "shareholders" (everyone forgets that part), and who maintains the loyalty of his troops through tech tricks like "cryptographic weapons locks" is not a king. And Yarvin has repeatedly waxed poetic about the "aristocratic qualities" of himself and his social class, while never even holding back his disdain for all thing martial.
A real aristocrat is, first and foremost, a knight. It is their martial virtue that makes them "the best." An aristocratic class always begins as elite warriors, and even when reduced to mere administrators, they still thought of themselves as warriors first. (I could go on about this at length, from Tang China's sword laws, to Hagakure, to Downton Abbey, and to why World War I utterly devastated the aristocracy of Europe.)
And every new royal dynasty begins with a warlord. Liu Bang. Augustus. Alfred the Great. Charles the Hammer. William the Bastard. Temüjin. Abdulaziz Al Saud. (Even Kim Il-sung, depending on how you define it.) Nobody sat around armchair theorizing in an ivory tower coming up with "the divine right of kings" or "the mandate of heaven," then set out to establish a new form of government on the basis of those theories (the way liberal and leftist governments have been made). No, men forged kingdoms with the sword, and then the legitimating theories like the above were created to justify them later. The deed precedes the creed. To quote this tweet:
One of the most interesting things about the difference between the original aristocracy and those who wish to bring it back in some neo-feudalist worship of elite theory slop, is that the new people want to be handed elite status somehow just by proving to everyone how smart they are and how many books they’ve read and how good they are at pontification, and then just be lauded by the people and made an “elite” because they deserve it.
The origins of true nobility, of true elites, well, they didn’t really do a whole lot of theorizing or pontification. They kinda just took it with the battle axe.
The way we get a real right-wing government isn't by convincing people to become trad-caths, an entryist "long march" through academia, silicon valley billionaires building charter city "network states," or posting youtube videos droning on about Gramsci and repeatedly boasting about how much smarter this makes you than the "slopulist" plebs. No, it's the current order collapsing into anarchy and civil war, followed by one or more strongmen bringing order at the point of a gun. (And thus, the proper thing for a monarchist in the west is either to 1. join the military, the police, or otherwise develop martial skill; or 2. do whatever he can to accelerate the inevitable decay of our system to hasten than collapse (traditionalist accelerationism).)
Charles III going the way of Charles I would almost certainly be a step in the right direction for the UK.
The US colonists said, "You will not tax my stamps and tea, and if I catch you doing so, I will shoot you." These are not envious leftists or commies.
What are you talking about? The "Founding Fathers" were absolutely leftists. They were liberals, the left of their day. The Sons of Liberty and the Boston Tea Party were left wing acts of terror. Sam Adams was the Luigi Mangioni of his time. George Washington was the exact same sort of leftist filth as Tyler Robison. Every single signer of the DoI was a vile traitor to their rightful king.
Remember how the terms "left" and "right" in politics came to be in the first place. That these people are at all considered "right wing" nowadays is only because of how much further left Cthulhu has swum. The very existence of the USA is one of the prime examples of how the left has been winning for centuries. Indeed, for the past 250 years, America has been the primary font of the leftist cancer eating away at Western Civilization.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1mo ago
If you want children badly enough, you can have them.
Except for one thing you don't list here: as they say, it takes two to tango.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1mo ago
It also overlooks constitutional crisis in the sense where the tension between the constitution-as-written and the constitution-as-applied is too great, and when the illusion finally drops, it's a disaster.
This is the sense I encounter a lot, but I don't understand how it constitutes a disaster, rather than simply clarifying that "the constitution-as-applied" is the actual (small-c) constitution, the actual way our government works and will continue to work, and that "the constitution-as-written" is entirely some old dead piece of paper with no power whatsoever.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1mo ago
Over the last couple of hundred years, with the development of mass communication technology, the alignment of memes and genes has been breaking down. Today the most successful memes are those that transmit horizontally using technology, and so the selection pressures have shifted. The memes are becoming parasitic, because they no longer need their host to reproduce. In fact, the host spending time and resources trying to complete its life cycle is now directly opposed to the fitness of the memes, and so arresting development of its host in such a way that renders it literally or functionally infertile is now being selected for. These hosts then have nothing to live for except spreading the parasitic memes, and those memes then outproduce the older more symbiotic memes.
I've argued in the past that this could be a potential candidate for the Great Filter; that any civilization that develops radio — and thus could potentially be detected over interstellar distances — is quickly devoured by parasitic memes and collapses. Add that an industrial revolution is a once-per-planet event… (at best; another Great Filter candidate I like to propose is getting your planet's Carboniferous Period just right.)
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
2mo ago
As a further follow-up, here's Theo Wold on Twitter:
As somebody who worked in the White House and the DOJ on immigration issues during the first Trump admin, I am often asked how many total illegal aliens I think are in our country.
The actual answer to that question is we don’t know because we’ve never attempted to figure it out. Unlike most nations in Europe, we don’t tabulate illegal aliens— so the number of actual foreign nationals living in the U.S. is much higher than most people think.
What I can say is there were at least 30 million illegal aliens in the U.S. going into the Biden admin and they allowed in anywhere between 25 to 35 million, whether across our borders or through the bastardization of our asylum laws. And those numbers exclude their children.
All in all, I would venture to guess that the actual number of illegal foreign nationals and their children is close to 1/4th of the U.S. population.
Have people looked into how necessary slavery was in historical civilizations?
I like walking people through the thought experiment/scenario "Okay, you're a moderately-sized village of stationary agriculturalists in the Neolithic, and young men from hunter-gatherer tribes keep wandering by to hunt your livestock and gather your crops, because they find your idea that a person can 'own' such things, and that plants and animals aren't just there for whoever can take them, laughable and absurd, and mock you for the labor you put into cultivating those things instead of relying on the bounty of nature like a real man." Then ask what, after you defeat any of these raiders in a battle to defend your stuff, do you do with your defeated foe? Point out the strategic reasons (as pointed out by the likes of Sun Tzu) why you can't just kill or cripple them all. But why you also cannot just let them go to keep trying again. And then pointing out that a Neolithic farming village lacks the surplus to feed and house an idle prisoner. Then ask who supervises the prisoner you've put to work? Why would the prisoner submit to this person? Wouldn't it make sense to have it be the same guy who defeated and captured him in the first place, then? But why would this person take such a job? What does he get out of it? Can you trade that role to someone else?… and so on, through careful Socratic dialogue.
I love the looks on their faces when they finally realize what solution they've "invented."
Edit: Plus, you might also find the writings of George Fitzhugh interesting. A socialist who was answering the "socialism is state-run slavery" argument with a "chad yes" long before libertarian-types were around to make it. Who condemned the racist character of Southern chattel slavery… on the grounds that white people should be enslaved too.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
2mo ago
44, and basically never thanks to medication interactions (serious drowsiness) — not that I was much of a drinker before I went on the meds. (Though, now that I do the math, that was like 20 years ago.)
I do use some in cooking, though (deglazing with wine, beer batter, beer in chili, sake in teriyaki marinade, etc…).
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
2mo ago
You're better off trying to go Mormon, for a certain definition of "better".
Why? They're no more suited to tribe-on-tribe conflict than any other WEIRD whites. They are just as individualistic, just as genetically incapable of the level of tribal identification and collectivity necessary to survive the tribe-on-tribe conflicts of a mobile interconnected globe. They will never attain the "my tribe against other tribes" mentality of, say, the average Somali scammer, and thus they will fall prey to tribes like those of that scammer. They will try to wage ethnic battles as free individuals — and they will lose.
And they will die out.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
2mo ago
They're just as doomed as every other white subgroup, because it doesn't matter how many kids they have, they'll be picked off bit-by-bit by enemy tribes and rival cultures. Because you need a certain level of (and may Allah forgive me for uttering this word) asabiyyah to fight this sort of tribal war, and all of us whites are genetically incapable of attaining it — we will never be capable of thinking in the sort of "my tribe versus other tribes" thinking we see in, say, Somali scammers.
It's a big part of the "secret sauce" that made us so successful. But it also means we're a delicate, mutant hothouse flower that was only able to survive in the relative geographic isolation of premodern Europe. Under the conditions of modern global mobility and interconnectedness, we simply cannot survive.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
2mo ago
In reality, unconstitutional behavior only becomes a constitutional crisis if another branch of government is fighting you on it, and both sides are relatively evenly matched.
Exactly, and I don't see how that latter condition in particular ever arises.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
2mo ago
Given that WEIRD white populations are clearly too inherently individualistic to survive the tribal conflicts of a globally-connected world (see Wilhem Ivorsson in conversation with Harry Robinson here), and thus our extinction (and that of the culture we produce) is totally inevitable, if a white Westerner wants to have some kind of descendants and positive legacy long-term, which non-WEIRD culture should they seek to marry and “assimilate” (actual assimilation being only ever a multigenerational phenomenon involving intermarriage) into?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
2mo ago
Is the essential lens of American racial politics ultimately white versus non-white or black versus non-black?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
2mo ago
Can anyone explain just what exactly a "constitutional crisis" is supposed to be, and how such a thing constitutes a crisis, as opposed to an easily-resolved dispute that changes little but clearing away illusions and making the status-quo more transparent?
First, as @OliveTapenade notes, the Census includes under "white" a lot of people who aren't. MENA, yes; but there's also a lot of "white" Hispanics who are actually mestizo.
Plus, the Census office themselves admit that they probably undercounted blacks and Hispanics while overcounting whites and Asians.
According to the Census numbers — if you believe any of them — there's about 191 million non-Hispanic whites, which, per the above, is almost certainly an overestimate.
But where the real issue lies is the denominator. They claim the total population is about 335 million — ≈321 citizens and legal residents, and ≈14 million illegal aliens.
But that last number is laughable; outright lies. Our new interim DHS secretary just admitted that about 20 million (at least) arrived under Biden alone. The actual number of illegals is at least 50 million, and probably closer to 100 million, for an actual population of 371-421 million. With that "191 million whites" figure (again, almost certain to actually be lower), that gives a percentage of 45-51%.
So, again, whites are almost certainly already a minority in the US.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
2mo ago
What part of "the "official figures" that claim otherwise are deliberate lies" was unclear?
The 2020 Census is a pack of lies, and the Census Office is a bunch of politically-motivated propagandists who cannot be trusted.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
2mo ago
America is still 60% white
No, America is already minority white, and the "official figures" that claim otherwise are deliberate lies.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
2mo ago
There is not a desire for everyone to be joined alike in tough, dignified labor to be followed by a communal dinner served out of a big iron pot.
Good thing that's not what what I said. A few may still try to sell their preferred outcome as providing this, but like you point out, they barely even try that anymore.
Again, envy is about hating those who have more than you. That's perfectly compatible with having other people who have less than you. Like you say, it's not hating hierarchy, its about hating everyone above you in that hierarchy.
I'm again reminded of my dad's old employer — who passed a few weeks ago. Liked to give all the usual lefty bits about "helping the poor"… while paying employees, contractors, and so on as little as he could get away with (along with plenty of other slightly scummy business practices); and would regularly endorse "taxing the rich more"… as a millionaire whose approach to his own taxes bordered on outright evasion (near the end, he actually got dinged by the IRS for a rather substantial amount of unpaid back taxes).
Because, you see, he wasn't rich. No, he was your ordinary middle class millionaire landlord. And "the rich" who need taxed more? Anyone who had more money than him, those greedy bastards.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
2mo ago
The current elite needs to either shape up or get replaced.
And how do you propose, exactly, to replace them, should they not "shape up"?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
2mo ago
What do they actually want?
For nobody to have anything more or better than they do. Like I've said before, it's envy — not just wanting what other people have (that's "covetousness"), but resenting them for having it. Much more toxic, because it's most easily satisfied by tearing others down.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
3mo ago
Perhaps consider security work.
I have a mutual on Tumblr who works in that area, and from what she says about it, it's a lot more "standing around looking intimidating" and "dealing with Karens" than anything on that list of mine.
With respect to the odd levels of tolerance that liberals and institutions show toward various degrees of, shall we say, "illiberal and unwoke" behavior from Muslims: does anyone actually believe that a "white" Western convert to Islam would be shown even a portion of this tolerance extended "brown" Muslims, should he do anything that would get a Christian "trad" in trouble with the likes of CFS? Because I once again came across someone glibly making that claim, and I still find it utterly implausible. (I'm reminded of Fred Thompson's first episode on Law & Order.)
More options
Context Copy link