Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
Disabled Alaskan Monarchist doomer
User ID: 2666
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
3d 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
3d 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
3d 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
3d 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
3d 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
3d ago
Is the essential lens of American racial politics ultimately white versus non-white or black versus non-black?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
3d 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
4d 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
5d 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
9d 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
9d 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
9d 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
16d 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.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
18d ago
In the American tradition (going back to the "Revolution") governments are found on both sides of the rebellion, and any rebellion that meaningfully threatened the status quo of the regime (I don't use the term in a pejorative sense, mind you) would almost certainly involve a split government and likely a split armed forces.
And it is precisely because of the unlikelihood of that split government that one will not see rebellions meaningfully threaten the status quo of the regime.
While a ground-up rebellion in the United States would not overthrow the government, it might gain concessions.
Highly doubtful. (This bit from Military Strategy Magazine comes to mind.) I think Yarvin is right that when you see the government make "concessions" to appease some violent group — always a leftward concession — this is just a Mutt-and-Jeff act where the violent group is just giving (Left) elites an excuse to sell to the public for doing something they already wanted to do anyway.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
18d ago
If the United States hadn't withdrawn in a hurry from Afghanistan after 20 years of pouring military materiel into it, I might grant that argument.
But as it happens, a bunch of religious zealots with guns won their country back despite the economic and technology imbalance.
First of all, as I've explained many times before (all the way back to the subreddit), fighting off a foreign occupation is an entirely different thing than a domestic insurgency. Guerrilla warfare can sometimes work to accomplish the former, never the latter.
And I do not think that modern first-world politicians are assassination-proof.
No, but they're entirely replaceable. Because elected politicians are basically figureheads (see Congress, the Biden presidency, etc.). Kill them and nothing much changes. Because the actual government, where the actual power resides, is in the million-strong permanent bureaucracy. The "swamp." The "deep state." And how effective is assassinating a few faceless bureaucrat, when there's millions more just like them?
And civilian uprisings have successfully unseated heads of state in Nepal, Madagascar, Bangaladesh, and Sri Lanka.
First, I wouldn't class any of those as First World countries. And second, did unseating and replacing those heads of state actually replace the regimes as well, or did the same Deep State stay in place and keep on running things in pretty much the same way? (I'm genuinely asking, because I don't know.)
And I doubt any of them had anything comparable to the massive surveillance apparatus of the US Government. Or the might and — more importantly — sheer institutional loyalty of the US Armed Forces.
To quote Google's AI (since some people here appreciate this sort of thing) when asked if such a rebellion could succeed:
An armed rebellion against the U.S. government is highly unlikely to succeed due to the overwhelming technological, firepower, and logistical advantages of the U.S. military. While asymmetric warfare could pose challenges, federal forces—including the military and National Guard—can be mobilized under the Insurrection Act to suppress domestic uprisings.
Key factors influencing this analysis:
• Military Superiority: The U.S. government possesses advanced weaponry, including drones, tanks, and aircraft, which outmatch civilian equipment.
• Historical Precedents: Attempts at insurrection, such as the Civil War, have been successfully met by federal force.
• Challenges to Success: For a rebellion to succeed, it would likely require significant, massive defection within the U.S. military, which is not considered likely.
• Expert Consensus: Analysts suggest that while localized political violence is possible, a large-scale, organized, and successful overthrow of the U.S. government is highly unlikely.
While some argue that widespread civilian insurrection could mirror insurgency tactics used in foreign conflicts like Afghanistan, the overwhelming consensus is that a direct armed revolt against the U.S. government is futile.
Or, from the National Constitution Center:
Much has changed since 1791. The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. The nation’s military establishment has become enormously more powerful than eighteenth century armies. We still hear political rhetoric about federal tyranny, but most Americans do not fear the nation’s armed forces and virtually no one thinks that an armed populace could defeat those forces in battle. Furthermore, eighteenth century civilians routinely kept at home the very same weapons they would need if called to serve in the militia, while modern soldiers are equipped with weapons that differ significantly from those generally thought appropriate for civilian uses.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
19d ago
Quoth the Declaration of Independence
The Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution occurred near the peak of the "age of the gun," when the nature of warfare was most favorable to the masses versus states. That ended some time ago, and modern first-world governments are effectively rebellion-proof.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
19d ago
it turns out you can just do things if there's the political will and organization to do it.
That's a very Laconic "if" there. I'd argue that there isn't the political will and organization needed, and that any attempt to build the organization would be crushed well before it could get off the ground.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
19d ago
At some point it is valid to question whether the Constitution is still fulfilling the purposes it was created for as per the pre-amble.
And if the answer is that it isn't, what then? What does that matter, if there's nothing you can do about it?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
19d ago
Basically, in discussing my anxiety, politics came up. The specific things she said:
- That there's no such thing as left-wing political violence because "they're the side who all hate guns"
and (when I gave counterexamples):
- "Everyone knows Charlie Kirk was shot by a fellow Republican" and any reports to the contrary are "right-wing disinformation" from "internet conspiracy theorists."
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
21d ago
Advice on how to "cool down" from a session with my therapist where she really pissed me off?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
21d ago
America has all the hallmarks of high culture and deep habits, except perhaps for a time measured in millennia
The US has been compared, not without justification, to a melting-pot. It actually presents us with a case in which a human type was formed, with characteristics that are to a large extent uniform and constant, from out of a highly heterogeneous raw material. Emigrating to America, men of the most diverse peoples receive the same imprint; after two generations, except in rare cases, they lose almost all of their original characteristics, reproducing a fairly homogeneous unit in terms of mentality, sensibility, and behavior: the American type.
In this regard, theories such as those formulated by Frobenius and Spengler, who have asserted that there is a close relationship between the forms of a given culture and a kind of “soul” bound to the natural environment, to the “landscape” and the original population, do not seem applicable. Otherwise, an essential part of American culture would have been possessed by the indigenous element, which consists of Amerindians, the redskins. The red Indians were proud races with their own style, their own dignity, sensibility and forms of religiosity; not without justification, a traditionalist writer, F. Schuon, spoke of the presence in their being, of something “aquiline and solar.” And we will not hesitate to assert that had it been their spirit that to an appreciable extent had imbued – in its best aspects and on an appropriate plane – the human material thrown into the “American melting pot,” the level of American civilization would probably be higher.[2]
Instead, besides its Puritan-Protestant component (which, in turn, as a result of its fetishistic emphasis on the Old Testament, possesses many judaized, degenerate traits), it seems that it is precisely the negro element, in its primitivism, that has set the tone in important aspects of the American psyche. It is already characteristic that when speaking of American folklore, it is to the Negroes one is referring, as if they were the original inhabitants of the country. Thus, the famous Porgy and Bess by the Jew Gershwin, which deals exclusively with blacks, is considered in the US to be a classic work inspired by “American folklore.” The composer has declared that he lived for some time among American blacks in preparation for this work.
But the phenomenon of popular and dance music is even more conspicuous and general. Fitzgerald was not wrong when he said that in one of its main aspects, American civilization can be called a civilization of jazz, i.e., of a negrified music and dance. In this domain, very singular “elective affinities” have led America, by way of a process of regression and primitivization, to imitate the Negroes. Assuming there would be a need for frenzied rhythms and forms as a legitimate compensation for the mechanical and materialistic soullessness of modern civilization, one would have done much better to look to the many sources available in Europe: we have elsewhere mentioned, for example, the dance rhythms of South Eastern Europe, which often have something truly Dionysian. But America has chosen to imitate the blacks and the Afro-Cubans, and then from America the contagion has gradually spread to all other countries.
…
The brutality that unquestionably is a characteristic of Americans can well be said to have a negro character. In the happy days of what Eisenhower was not ashamed to call the “Crusade in Europe,” as well as in the early days of the occupation, we had the occasion to observe the typical forms of that brutality, but we also saw that at times, American “whites” went even farther in this respect than their negro comrades, whose infantilism, however, they often shared.
Generally speaking, the taste for brutality now seems to be ingrained in the American mindset. It is true that the most brutal of all sports, boxing, originated in England, but it is in the United States that its most aberrant forms have developed, and it is there that it has become the object of a collective obsession, soon transmitted to other nations. Concerning the taste for getting into fights and coming to blows in the most savage manner it is enough, though, to consider the greater part of American films and popular detective stories: vulgar fist-fighting is a constant theme, evidently because it corresponds to the tastes of American audiences and readers, for whom it seems to be the symbol of true masculinity. America, the world leader, has, on the other hand, more than any other nation relegated the traditional duel to the status of ridiculous European antiquated rubbish. The duel is a method of settling disputes, following strict rules, without resorting to the primitive brute force of the mere arm and fist. There is no need to point out the striking contrast between this American trait and the ideal behavior of the English gentleman, despite the fact that the English made up a component of the original people of the United States.
…
Another obvious aspect of American primitivism concerns the concept of “bigness.” Werner Sombart has successfully put his finger on it in saying that “they mistake bigness for greatness.” Now, this trait is not found in all non-European peoples or peoples of color. For example, an authentic Arab of the old race, a redskin, an East Asian are not overly impressed by merely material, quantitative, ostentatious size, including that related to machinery, technology and the economy (apart, of course, from already Europeanized individuals). It is a trait found only in truly primitive and childish races like the Negro. It is no exaggeration to assert that the foolish pride of Americans in spectacular “bigness,” in the “achievements” of their civilization, reek of the Negro psyche.
And as for:
But we’re still a juvenile culture and we’re currently in one of those manic phases of adolescent grandiosity. We can do anything!!! Just you fucking watch and try to stop us.
Evola continued with this:
Here, we ought to mention the oft-repeated nonsense about Americans being a “young race,” with the tacit corollary that they are the race of the future. It is true that a myopic gaze easily mistakes regressive infantilism for true youth. Strictly speaking, according to the traditional conception, this perspective must be inverted. Despite appearances, recent peoples, since they came last, are the most removed from their origins, and as such must be considered to be the most senile and decadent peoples. This view, moreover, corresponds to the organic world.[4]. It explains how paradoxically, the similarities of supposedly “young” peoples, in the above sense of late-comers, with genuinely primitive races that have remained outside of world history, and explains the taste for primitivism and the return to primitivism. We have already remarked upon the American predilection, from an elective affinity, for Negro and sub-tropical music; but the same phenomenon is apparent in other domains of more recent culture and art. We could consider, for example, the glorification of “négritude” by existentialists, intellectuals, and “progressive” artists in France.
It follows that Europeans, including the imitators of the higher non-European civilizations, demonstrate, in turn, the same primitive and provincial mentality when they admire America, when they let themselves be impressed by America, when they stupidly allow themselves to be Americanized and enthusiastically believe that this means catching up with the march of progress, and that it is a sign of being liberated and open-minded.
…
Pour la bonne bouche, we will conclude with a significant statement by a far from superficial American author, James Burnham (in The Struggle for the World): “There is in American life a strain of callow brutality. This betrays itself no less in the lynching and gangsterism at home than in the arrogance and hooliganism of soldiers or tourists abroad. The provincialism of the American mind expresses itself in a lack of sensitivity toward other peoples and other cultures. There is in many Americans an ignorant contempt for ideas and tradition and history, a complacency with the trifles of merely material triumph. Who, listening a few hours to the American radio, could repress a shudder if he thought that the price of survival [of a non-communist society] would be the Americanization of the world?” And unfortunately, to a certain extent, this is already happening.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
21d ago
"A ship is always referred to as 'she' because it costs so much to keep one in paint and powder."
—Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
22d ago
Meanwhile, in an example of horseshoe theory, in my far-right-oriented "media bubble," almost everyone in my feed is talking about "how there is no plan, how Trump has betrayed MAGA principles for Zionist interests and as a result the GOP is surely going to get creamed in the mid-terms."
Not so much the "this came out of nowhere" part, though, because a lot of them are gloating about they've been saying since his first term that Trump is just containment, there to prevent a real pro-White candidate from emerging; that he pretends to be for the American people, but he's actually just another ZOG puppet; that the only surprise here is that it took something this blatant for people to start waking up to the obvious truth (that they've seen all along) that Trump is the top shabbos goy for International Jewry; and that they've once again been vindicated in believing that nothing will change until we get a Leader who truly understands the Jewish Question and how to finally solve it…
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.
More options
Context Copy link