Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

Tucker Carlson’s war against Woke Capital and the future of the Right

Well, well. Everybody predicted that 2019 would be an eventful year, with Trump realizing he must start to build the wall if he wants to be reelected; Cold War 2 against China heating up, and the trade war doing some serious damage to the Chinese economy, and China’s slowdown dragging down the world economy in exchange. It’s gonna be bad, but it’s not gonna be boring.

And just after we welcomed the new year, this video by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson came out and has owned the attention of political media for more than a week now. And for good reason: it’s good. Well, he’s usually good, but this time he was something more than good. He stated very clearly what the right half of his country wants, what got Trump elected. And he made it very clear to the media, think tanks and the wider propaganda apparatus of the Republican party what they must do to survive. They must go to war with libertarianism. To war with Woke Capital.

The cuckservative media went immediately in panic. Ross Douthat on the NYT, who, besides being the physical incarnation of being a cuck, is a pretty good writer, made a good summary here.

As we all know, the political left, born out of the chaos of the French Revolution, came of age when Karl Marx produced a working formula: class struggle. You go find the low status people in your country, tell them the world is divided in two sorts of people: them, and the guys on top of them. The guys on top are oppressors, the guys on the bottom are oppressed: if you, the oppressed follow me, we’ll turn the table, “liberate you” i.e. grab their stuff and their status and give it to you.

Then after WW2 the Western left realized that the oppressor/oppressed template worked much better with groups disadvantaged biologically than with mere social class. Hence we got Bioleninism. The industrial worker who was so much into socialism could after all become a manager, or start his own company and not be so interested in socialism anymore. Happened all the time. That’s not a good deal if you’re a leftist politician. You want your underlings to stick around and be loyal, and the underclass doesn’t feel so oppressed if there’s not an underclass anymore. Of course, you can change class (in modern Western societies), but you can’t change biology. The average racial minority, the sexual deviant, the mentally ill, the fat cat lady, those will always be low status, always feel oppressed. That’s firm, absolute loyalty right there.

Ever since the Left found out this trick, the ball has been on the Right’s camp. How do you deal with Bioleninism? The only workable strategy was formulated by Steve Sailer decades ago: if the Left is the Coalition of the Fringes, the Right must be the Party of the Normal. In the US, where demographics mean that the minority-supported Democratic party will by 2025 or so have a rock-solid electoral majority, that meant the Republican Party becoming the party of White people. It’s taken a while, but as the critical date when Texas flips blue approaches, the Republicans have slowly, if somewhat unawares, moved in that direction. Hence, Donald Trump.

Of course the Right has to do a lot of work before that change of direction is complete. The Left is more flexible and responsible to change, because its basic formula is simple. They’re the party of the oppressed. If things change they just need to change the identity of the oppressed, and they’re set. Easy. The Right though, can hardly be the party of the oppressors. At its core, sociologically, the Right is the party of the people who wanna be left alone. That’s not a very exciting way of running a political movement, though, so they must always come up with random reasons to justify their attachment to the status quo. The usual are traditional religion, which is useful as it doesn’t need to be justified, and has centuries of history fighting the Left, long a force for atheism. There’s also nationalism, to the extent it is allowed to exist post-WW2, which tends to be the refuge of secular, masculine people who dislike the Left’s push for egalitarianism.

And of course, capitalism. When the Left was primarily about economic socialism, about state-control of the economy, the Right had a very strong Schelling Point in free-market ideology. Opposing socialism made for good politics for non-leftist people, it has a ready source of funding from business owners. And it just makes a lot of sense. Socialism is a very stupid economic policy, which produces poverty. And nobody likes poverty, least of all the poor. So the political Right in much of the Western world, and even out of it, became mostly a coalition of religious people, nationalists, and business owners. God, Country and Capital. 

This kinda worked for a while; but it was never very stable. And most importantly, it was never very strong. Of those three parts of the coalition, the religious have the actual numbers. In America, by far, in Europe it’s a closer contest with the nationalists, but I’d say the religious still have a small edge. At any rate, the ones with the money, funding the whole thing was the business owners. Capital. And money talks. Capital was funding and basically running the political right for a long time; and completely so since the Thatcher-Reagan revolution where they took over the whole movement with force, and took over the governments of much of the Western world for quite some time.

What came out of the increasing influence of Capital in the political right was this weird intellectual movement called “libertarianism”. Libertarianism is a completely American phenomenon; in Europe it has appeared somewhat in the last 10 years, but it’s still completely marginal, and for a long time it was completely non-existent. In the US, though, libertarianism is quite big. Not in numbers, of course, but it is very influential in the economics departments of American academia and, as an extension of that, as economic advisors for the political Right. The DC think tanks and all that crowd. It would be an exaggeration to say that all Republican politicians in the US are libertarians, but they are very influential in those circles, and their academic prestige is quite high.

Libertarianism strikes me as an escapist strategy. Democracy was founded in the idea of frequent changes in government. We have a team of guys running the state; if they stop doing a good job, you change them. Most places developed a two-party system, around a left-right axis, which disagreed more or less on how to do things; but the point is change is built into the system. So everybody has an incentive to play the game, and try to be there when the next change happens.

But at some point, somebody discovered that this theory was crap. Power doesn’t work that way. Governments don’t work that way, fundamentally. You can’t change everything all the time, the incentives are just too big for people in power to find a way of keeping power amongst themselves. Like most important discoveries, different people across the world realized, independently, that alternation in power was absolutely not what happens in democracies at all; that most resorts of power are occupied by permanent bureaucrats, and that the different parties which prima facie compete for power, eventually find ways of helping each other achieve a stable sharing of power and money. The first to make a solid theory on how this works were the Italian elite theorists, Pareto, Mosca and Michels.

Libertarianism is what you do when you realize that the government is socialist by definition. Socialism being the control of the economy by the government, well, yes, odds are the government is going to want to control the economy. So if you don’t trust the government to respect your interests, then you go libertarian. You do that because you are a business person and have an actual reason to want the government to get away from your business. Or you do that if you are opposed to the government for other reasons, say cultural reasons, and just want to signal your distrust of the government. Libertarianism came from both sides of that. Not by coincidence, much of libertarianism came of the American South after the Civil Rights movement. US Southerners realized the US Federal Government wanted to destroy their culture; and many of them became free market fundamentalists as a way to oppose that. That again connects with the 3-way coalition of religious, nationalists and capitalists that has formed the Political Right for decades.

Well, Tucker’s speech basically said this alliance was over. The alliance of God, Country and Capital has achieved some electoral victories over the decades, but it has failed miserably at the only important task: the Culture War, influencing the behavior of the people so that they form stable and moral families. The Left has destroyed traditional culture bit by bit, and neither Nixon, nor Reagan, nor Bush, nor anyone, has been able to do stop it even by an inch. And why is that? Has God failed us? Do the people not love their Country? No, it’s the other guys. Capital has betrayed us. The libertarians have been playing a double game, and they are now pretty much the enemy. They haven’t just surrendered, or been neutralized. Capital today is perhaps the biggest force of the Left. They’re the biggest enemy.

Tucker Carlson makes his argument much better in this video where he is interviewed by Charlie Kirk, one of those classical cuckservatism propaganda guys, doing both the evangelical and the libertarian thing. It goes without saying that Tucker completely destroys him, and he has fun doing it. Understandably given what a complete tool this Kirk guy is. Do watch the whole video. 

Of course not all the video is good. The first 10 minutes are actually a very disappointing collection of cuckservative platitudes, where he talks how the increased insanity of Leftist activists is a sign of “fear” on their side. That they’re “losing control”. What is Tucker smoking? The Left is losing control? Of what? They can put transexuals on kindergartens. They have 10 year old boys in drag on national TV. They have successfully derailed pretty much everything that the elected president of the USA Donald Trump has tried to do for 2 years: a point which he makes himself all the time. Yes, sure, Donald Trump is actually president, and he confirmed two justices for the Supreme Court. But the Left is in complete control in pretty much everything they care for. Most importantly, the Left has the demographic advantage. They control the votes of every single Bioleninist constituency, and they are all growing. Single women? Growing. Gays and assorted sexual deviants? (can we call them GASD?) growing. Ethnic minorities? Growing. White Americans just posted the lowest fertility rate in history. It won’t be long until the Hispanic population of Texas grows to the point where the state votes Democrat, and then the Democratic Party will have a permanent electoral majority.

So no, they aren’t losing control. They aren’t “terrified”. Well, maybe they are, but that’s besides the point. When Stalin launched his purges in the 1930 Soviet Union, he was quite terrified of losing control. That’s indeed why he launched the purges. Which were wildly successful, killed a million people, displaced tens of millions, and made him a dictator for life. So yes, besides the point. The cuckservative idea seems to be that the utter defeat of the Right in the Culture War is a sign of some sort of demon-induced “insanity”, and that through a few exhortations to calm down given by DC aristocrats (like, say, Tucker Carlson) everybody will calm down and we’ll be back to the 1950s like nothing ever happened. 

“When you are standing on principle, and when you truly believe you’re right (…) that you’ll be proving right at some point; you don’t need to get mad (…) you can softly chuckle, and you can persist in the face of all the threats, in saying what you think is true, if you really believe it is. If everybody did that, this crap will end tomorrow.”

No, Tucker, no. I’m sorry, that’s not how it works. The current-year Leftist insanity is not a sign of anything, it’s just the logical progression of the Culture War, which the Left has won, utterly, and is now engaging in mop-up operations, gearing up the insanity just to gloat, to show off the power they have. Which they have, and we don’t. You can’t just tell people to “believe”, i.e. to have “faith”, and everything bad will go away. It won’t. When people oppose the left, they lose their jobs, they lose their friends, they lose everything. Sure, if everybody made a stand, and you had 100 million people in the streets, that would be something. But you don’t have 100 million people. You have at most 80. You have 200 million white Americans, of which taking out gays and single women and weirdos and nerds and snobs and cowards, you have at most 80 million people who oppose the left Out of a country of 330 million. So no, let’s not play the numbers game. 

And the Right isn’t even right. The Right doesn’t have a coherent theory of how things work, “consistent with thousands of years of human experience” as he puts it. The Left does: it has Marxism-Leninism, the old template of oppressors and the oppressed, now applied to biological groups. That may be wrong, quite bogus really, but it’s simple, and it works at the job it has to do: building a political coalition. Meanwhile the Right, which prides itself in caring about reality more than politics, can’t even agree on the reality of Human Biodiversity! No, Tucker, no. What we need is not just faith and courage. We need something more. We need smart politics.

But he knows that, and he elaborates that very well in the next part of the talk, where he puts forward his political platform. Tucker Carlson’s political platform is not about Freedom. Or God. Or Improving the world. He makes a much narrow commitment, which sounds strange for the absolute obviousness of its desirability.

—-The goal [of government] is to have an economy which makes it possible for normal, average young people to marry and have kids.

“Period, that’s it”. Yes. That’s exactly it. That’s the one thing that all human societies since the beginning of time. Hell, that’s the one thing that all apes, all social animals are able to achieve. But modern liberal society is incapable of doing. You could rephrase this in more scientific terms to make it even more obvious.

 The goal of human society is to have a normal biological cycle of reproduction.

The genius of this is that in order to achieve this utterly obvious, minimal goal of existence, you’d have to completely dismantle liberal society from its foundation. And you could do that without hard feelings, without hate, without outright enmity towards liberalism. Nothing personal here, we’re just optimizing the government in order to achieve a normal biological cycle of reproduction.

Tucker then goes on explaining why he places the focus on government in the economy, not in cultural values per se. He says that the reason why young people can’t get married and have kids early is because of economic reasons, not cultural values, as the Right has been saying for decades. This is an important point. This is the most important point. This is everything. 

Everyone, from rat-voice Ben Shapiro to Cuckold General David French has come out against Tucker and his suggestion that economic policy may have something to do family formation being unaffordable in the only cities in the world where good jobs are available. It’s all about culture, they say. If people just pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and read Shapiro’s or Jordan Peterson’s latest book, they’d be able to be productive enough to get a high-flying job in a big city and afford their their USD 5k a month rent.

Now, it is certainly true that many of our ancestors used to have lots of children, up to 5 or 6 children per woman, while being much poorer than we are. It is also true that other people, say Africans, have way more children than we do while being much poorer than we are. So sure, cultural values are more of a factor than economic factors are.

But it’s also true that economic policy is orders of magnitude easier to change than cultural values. It may be that people today are spoiled consumerist drones who think they are entitled to living the Sex in the City lifestyle, and even then won’t have much children anyway. That may be right. But it is also the case that economic activity is increasingly concentrated in a few global centers all across the world, and that people who don’t get access to those are increasingly depressed, with an epidemic of suicide by opioid abuse killing thousands of people a year.

The way that cuckservative pundits with their double libertarian-religious shtick (see Kirk and his “Proud Capitalist, Saved by Jesus” line) think of present economic trends reminds me of my friends back home who argue for the legalization of drugs. “People should have freedom”, they say. “Drugs are no worse than alcohol”, they say.

Alcohol is actually a great example. Obviously alcoholism is a big problem in some parts of the worlds, but oddly not everywhere. In many parts of Southern Europe, alcoholism barely exists at all, while in Northern Europe is quite serious. And with peoples like US Amerindians (“Native Americans”) or Australian Aborigenes, alcohol causes severe physical and mental problems to pretty much every single one of them. “Liquid fire” some call it, for how it wastes them.

The only explanation for this fact is that humans in societies with a long history of agriculture have developed genetic adaptations to digest alcohol, while people with shorter histories of agriculture have not. This doesn’t mean that people slowly developed an adaptation while merrily drinking their wine. No, that means that every single alcoholic in France or Italy who couldn’t hold their liquor died, while the few (at the beginning *very* few) who didn’t become addicted were able to survive and leave descendants. I have no idea what percentage of the population of early farmers in Southern Europe had to die in order for widespread adaptation to wine to spread, but given how Amerindians hold their liquor, it may have been in the order of 80%.

Legalizing drugs would start the process all over again. Sure, some people can get high on coke or meth and still be productive. The vast majority can’t. If we legalized coke and meth, we would be basically killing off the 80% of the population who would get addicted and waste away. Is that a reasonable price to pay for “liberty”? 

The same applies to our present economic system. At this moment, every single human population with an IQ over 95 has a fertility rate below replacement; and the places where the most intelligent and productive people tend to live, big cities, have generally fertility rates below 1. Not below 2, replacement, but below 1, half of replacement. As I’ve said again and again, big cities today are IQ shredders, where the genes that code for high intelligence go to get shredded in the corporate and bureaucratic rat-race, depriving humanity of the biological building blocks for a better future.

Why? Because some people are making money out of it. Who? The same people who fund the likes of Kirk, Shapiro, and the vast libertarian and associated free-market pundit ecosystem. Why are these guys on the Right at all? Says Tucker Carlson. And he’s right. It’s time they left. The cucks, cry, though “you can’t do this! Capitalists are our allies against Socialism and the Left”.

No. They aren’t. Not anymore. Capitalists were indeed mostly in the Right side of the Culture wars for many decades. But not anymore. Libertarianism was a rational strategy to signal one’s complete rejection of the state and the Cathedral and its associated cultural ideology; because the state wanted Socialism. It still wants it, of course. But not so hard, the Left has long reached an agreement with Capital, through which Neoliberalism lets Capital make some money in exchange of Capital going Woke. Woke Capital is a real thing now. It took decades of brainwashing and back-rubbing and cross marriage and outright coercion, but in 2019, the vast majority of capitalists, of investors, of bankers, of corporate executives, even down to the average middle manager, are now culturally leftist. They are Woke. If you don’t believe me, go read this guy for a couple hours.

And as Tucker mentions, in an age of technological revolution, in an age where Facebook, Amazon and Google (FAG) have more capability than any state bureaucracy, these guys are dangerous. And these guys aren’t in our side. They are completely sincerely Leftist. On average the tech population may be even more leftist than your average bureaucratic agency. Google is particularly crazy.

If Capital is now Woke, if the Left has successfully captured the capitalists, why should the Right be nice to them? Because muh-free markets? That was a means, not an end. The goal of the Right is, again…

The goal [of government] is to have an economy which makes it possible for normal, average young people to marry and have kids.

Or in other words, to ensure a future for our children. There’s another version out there in 14 words.

If it takes import tariffs to achieve this? Let’s have them. If it takes higher taxes for some industries or people, let’s have it. If it takes strict anti-monopoly laws, or even the outright nationalization of some companies, Let’s have that. If it takes strict controls on the media, let’s have those too. Whatever it takes. Liberty is a means, not an end.

The problem of means and ends, of process and goals, is of course an old one and a very hard one when you need to coordinate millions of people and keep them focused and loyal. An important point there is the careful use of language. When people speak of Capitalism it can mean a million things. You can have completely unrestricted markets or 90% tax rates, and they’ll both be Capitalism, because the only thing that the word Capitalism means is “not Socialism”, and the actual referents of those two words depend a lot on whether the Soviet Union still exists. National Socialism was less socialist than most capitalist countries today.

See that Tucker is careful to say he’s still a proud Capitalist, even though he’d probably crush most capitalists that live today. At least he sounds like he would. At any rate, using the same words as the Right has for decades is good rhetoric: you do want to signal continuity to the people you want to support you. And besides, Socialism *is* bad for you. Everything else equal, economic freedom does create economic growth. Which is why any good plan to crackdown on Woke Capital must be phrased in a way that blames big Capital of socialist policies, and promises to bring economic freedom to the middle classes and small business owners. That was also Trump’s rhetoric, Salvini’s rhetoric, and the rhetoric of every single successful right winger in a long time.

What the Right needs to do now is to reflect on how the Left was able to capture Capital and turn it into its most lucrative constituency. Any successful country needs a business community, and the capture of the West’s by the Bioleninist left has been so unexpected that still many people refuse to believe it. But happened it has, whether by political coercion, infiltration, or just mere cultural prestige. We better think carefully on what happened, how to reverse it, and use the same tools for our own cause.

188 responses to “Tucker Carlson’s war against Woke Capital and the future of the Right

  1. Robert Sykes January 21, 2019 at 13:30

    I was beginning to wonder if you would ever post again. But the wait was worth it.

    The alternative to Marxism/Leninism is some sort of Fascism. The emphasis changes from the working class, supposedly inherently one and internationalist, to the race. Mussolini defined race broadly as the whole Italian people, including various minorities. But Italians had been mixing genetically and culturally for a few thousand years, and German Lombards and Sicilian Greeks could identify as Italian despite their ethnic and remaining cultural differences. Hitler’s definition was narrower. Only Aryans, Indo-Europeans, counted; Semites and Slavs be damned.

    Both Fascism and Naziism provided basic human services like medical care, pensions, education, etc. (So did Bismarck’s German Empire.) And both Fascism and Naziism were popular mass movements, with indigenous versions of the Italian and German political parties existing in almost all European countries, including Britain, France, Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, and Spain, to name a few. The embarrassment of actual Nazis, sympathetic to Hitler, in the British and Dutch royal families was successfully papered over after the war. The current government in Ukraine is supported by an indigenous Nazi movement that has its roots in WW II.

    Our current American Ruling Class, which is becoming hereditary, is globalist/internationalist/cosmopolitan and deracinated. They are the sworn blood enemy of the White American working and middle classes. What Tucker dances around is that White people, the historical founders of American government, institutions and culture, and still the racial majority, need someone to represent them, their race, and their interests, and the interests of their children (the 14 words). This is especially true since the politics of the multicultural, multiethnic American empire is now overtly racial and sexual. Trump is a harbinger. Lurking somewhere out there is the real thing. For now, the American Duce/Fuhrer is shamed into silence by the cuckservatives, libertarians, communists, et al., but the inherent attraction of fascism to an oppressed majority will eventually call him forth.

    It will not be pretty. European fascism (and communism) was not pretty. The Republic will not survive his coming. Glad I’m old.

    • Samuel Skinner January 21, 2019 at 18:02

      Fascism doesn’t work.

      Mussolini failed to stop the decline in birth rates and Hitler didn’t manage to reverse the damage of the Weimer Republic.

      • Issac January 22, 2019 at 23:40

        Far be it from a diaspora member such as myself to point this out, but your chart in fact indicates trend-breaking success on the part of the Austrian who lead Germany during the 1930’s.

        I do think it is fair to say that nominal fascism died in the 20th century, not to be resurrected due to the damage it and neoliberalism did to the world; however, the general third position is still the only realistic means of governing a society with the intent to preserve said society. Both progressive socialism and market conservatism demand that society be organized in service to ideas, which are easily exploited by cynics to re-engineer that society out of existence.

        The story of everything from the early 20th century onward is that of idealists being subverted by realists, to the point now where the ethnic groups disposed to idealism are being convinced that out right suicide is mandatory. Only with a government system obliged to a defined existing citizenry and their posterity can such a fate be avoided. And if this fate is of no concern to you, then fascism is dovish compared to your own worldview.

      • Rhetocrates January 23, 2019 at 03:48

        “Fascism doesn’t raise birth-rates,” he says, while posting a graph that shows a significant increase in birth rates in Nazi Germany and a lesser but still much greater than the comparison-countries’ increase (or gradient increase, at least) in birth rates in Fascist Italy.

        I’m no fan of Fascism (I’m holding out for the complete collapse of civilization, a Dark Age, and a rebuilding of Catholic Syndicalism) but read the graph next time.

      • Samuel Skinner January 23, 2019 at 16:24

        “Far be it from a diaspora member such as myself to point this out, but your chart in fact indicates trend-breaking success on the part of the Austrian who lead Germany during the 1930’s. ”

        You could say the same about Stalin. Trend breaking is not enough- you have to return to the original healthy society. Remember, it isn’t enough to be above replacement, you need to have your elite have higher or equal fertility to the rest of society or else it slowly cannibalizes everyone intelligent and decays.

        “however, the general third position is still the only realistic means of governing a society with the intent to preserve said society.”

        Unfortunately the best examples of third way countries would probably be the Asian Tigers whose fertility is in the toilet.

        @Rhetocrates
        If I actually said that, I would have been wrong. Which is why I didn’t. You are also being mislead by the UK (whose decline is highest)- Italy’s slope is about the same as Belgium and France.

      • Carlylean Restorationist January 27, 2019 at 03:07

        Reproductive rates per se don’t matter. The problem right now is relative reproductive rates.

        Even if you do insist on caring about reproductive rates, logical positivist methodology hinders understanding. The proper variable to track is offspring surviving to reproductive age. If someone has five children, four of which die, they’re no better off than someone else who has one healthy child. Moreover, an irresponsible person who has two irresponsible children averages with a second, responsible, person who has none at all and produces the same statistical result as two responsible people having one each (replacement level). To put it mildly, those two scenarios are not equally desirable.

        In a healthy society of developed medicine, high personal wealth and high technological productivity, a small population may well be optimal, so long as it’s homogeneous and virtuous.
        I’d take a Britain of twenty million shitlord miser environmentalists over a Britain of ninety million mystery meat party people any day, even if per capita GDP were substantially higher in the latter case. (And remember GDP takes the ‘broken window fallacy’ completely seriously.)

      • A.B. Prosper February 6, 2019 at 22:22

        That’s because both of these were Leftist regimes. Substituting one form of cancer for another is not a cure.

        An actual repair is authoritarian and right wing, mixing enforced social conservatism with economic nationalism and when needed outright economic control. There are two things this sort of system can’t do though, engage in large scale warfare and expect miraculous economic and/or population growth

        The natural processes of urbanization and technological increase makes for smaller families. Always has.

        What the system does is reduce the free fall and maybe stabilize the system. To reuse my cancer analogy, its chemo and comes at a horrid cost to the patient

        That said all this mess is self correcting. Every single group on planet earth even Africa is starting on population or fertility decline and to use the US as an example, all modern groups including Hispanics are well below replacement

        This will correct all problems

        Looking at it this way, the US has had over 40 years of below replacement, assuming an ethnic and/or cultural civil war can be averted which is not certain , over time the highly religious groups will take over its mostly Amish with various Orthodox and some LDS and Evangelicals

        In 200 years in theory the main US group will be Amish and Amish descended. Stats don’t work this way however we are over 20% to that decline cycle there already

        Given a few more generations the US will resemble the old US , much Whiter , much more Christian and probably much less developed from the combination of the culture and the catabolic decline we are in.

        Smaller population, more agrarian and stable maybe increasing population. If it gets bad enough some of our cities will make for great farmland too.

  2. Mycroft Jones January 21, 2019 at 14:05

    Easy. Abolish corporations. It is not that the Left captured Capital. Capital saw the advantages of the Corporation, and Corporations funded the Left as a weapon in inter-corporate warfare. Corporations care about quarterlies, not about human reproduction. They have to go. They are inhuman and encourage evil by removing accountability and transparency.

    • Rhetocrates January 23, 2019 at 03:49

      Corporations

      I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

      • Carlylean Restorationist January 27, 2019 at 03:10

        On the contrary, it’s you who doesn’t get it. Mycroft Jones is correct – probably more than they think: the institution of the joint stock corporation transforms companies into shifting parliaments of shareholders, often anonymous and always unaccountable. The corporation is to the family business what a bureaucracy within a universal franchise democracy is to the Congress Of Vienna.

        • Carlylean Restorationist January 27, 2019 at 03:12

          Anticipating the objection, yes of course what’s good about existing corporations is their scale: mass production for the benefit of the masses.

          Guilds perform the same service for the same reason in the same way, except instead of a shifting parliament of unaccountable anonymous shareholders, they’re designed as a mutual interest society fiercely protecting its standards against competition from the inferior.

    • Howard J. Harrison February 9, 2019 at 16:02

      I can never quite tell whether neoreactionaries are having fun with an interesting intellectual exercise or are serious. Probably serious.

      Neoreactionary ideas are indeed interesting. We need such ideas, if for no other reason than to explore alternatives to the pervasive neo-Jacobinism that has wrecked European man.

      Neoreaction however quickly spirals into ethereal unreality. Now, one does not mind the unreality as such. Exploration of ideas will often be unreal, but abolishing the joint-stock corporation? Come.

      One doubts that history works that way.

      A nuclear war that killed every single person writing in this comment column would hardly suffice to abolish the joint-stock corporation. The joint-stock corporation is a technology with an effective principle of self-preservation—or at least of fluid adaptation and reorganization. Moreover, the joint-stock corporation is a technology that works. In what way does it work? Answer: it generates greater material wealth than anything else ever tried and, though it distributes this wealth rather unevenly, even the gleanings of the wealth are rather magnificent.

      The laptop computer on which I type these words, the chair on which I sit, the glass out of which I sip water as I write, and the plumbing materials assembled to direct clean water into the glass are all products of the joint-stock corporation. Am I not suppose to notice these?

      To abolish the joint-stock corporation is an immodest suggestion. Neoreaction is stuffed too full of immodest suggestions. It almost seems that neoreaction despises, on principle, any suggestion modest enough to succor European man in medium-term, practical ways—which is why neoreactionaries are so apt to fantasizing about civilizational collapse.

      Not that a civilization cannot collapse. It can, maybe, but you would not want it to. Not really. A true collapse would be very bad.

      It is not so much that civilizational collapse is impossible as it is that resort to the fantasy of collapse is a way of avoiding admission that one’s interesting, ethereal ideas might be fundamentally flawed. You’re never wrong as long as your response is, Burn It All Down! But you’re never right, either, and you aren’t getting very far.

      Is there a single neoreactionary, anywhere, who has a wife and more than two natural children? Or are neoreactionaries purely and strictly persons shorn of any real stake in the here and the now?

      In the U.S., when neoreaction condescends to a slightly more practical spirit, they call it the Alt Right. The Alt Right is better in my opinion.

      Anyway, when it comes to the joint-stock corporation, not even a nuclear war seems likely to abolish it. The joint-stock corporation is one of those things that, for good or ill, just works.

  3. Dave January 21, 2019 at 14:09

    Brilliant. You see clearly. Avoiding denial is painful, and necessary if there’s to be any hope of survival. Your point about our metropolitan IQ shredders is obvious and bodes very ill indeed for our future. Even if reversed immediately, which is of course a fantasy, the damage is done.

  4. Gabriel M January 21, 2019 at 14:24

    Libertarianism is the the normal way out of Leftism because it accepts the basic premise of Leftism (people are equal) and draws conclusions that are radically different from any form of Leftism that has been practiced int the last 100 years. It’s possible to be the most extreme Libertarian possible, to disagree with every single policy advocated by the Left in Year X and still not trespass on a single core tenet of Leftism.

    As such, most people who have interesting opinions will have passed through a phase when they were a libertarian. This creates a lot of counter-libertarian signalling by people keen to prove how over it they are. This is very easy to do because libertarianism is so stupid. However, there’s a danger that you go too far and start denying economic reality. Tariffs may be worth the cost but they have a cost and only by recognizing why they have a cost can you design a tariff regime that minimizes the costs while maximizing whatever it is you want to achieve (and, even better, try to make as much of the costs as possible fall on people you don’t like and want to suffer).

  5. Gabriel M January 21, 2019 at 14:32

    But happened it has, whether by political coercion, infiltration, or just mere cultural prestige. We better think carefully on what happened, how to reverse it, and use the same tools for our own cause.

    Is the Hestia society still going? Because that’s what you need. High functioning people who feel no particular need to publicize their opinions because they have a social network where they can sound off whenever they fell like it, are absolutely committed to Rightist ideology, can work their way up the corporate ladder, and use their influence whenever necessary in discrete ways. The way the Right is actually set up is the opposite: people trying to maximize their status by taking the most based position as publicly as possible, ostracizing as many people as possible for being less based than them and generally making a spectacle of themselves.

  6. Scott January 21, 2019 at 15:54

    What’s the way out of this, short of a demagogue? I don’t see any happy endings here.

    Not that I require happy endings, they are certainly not guaranteed.

    • Samuel Skinner January 21, 2019 at 18:14

      There is no way out of existence. If you mean the death spiral, the solution is the same as every other time it has happened in human history. Leftism is a strategy to seize power which means the solution involves someone gaining power and arresting, torturing and executing all their competitors.

      Of course US military effectiveness could completely collapse and we get chaos. Or a nuclear war could break out. Or the collapse of science and bacteria getting used to our drugs could allow new plagues to break out.

  7. Pingback: Tucker Carlson’s war against Woke Capital and the future of the Right | Reaction Times

  8. iI January 21, 2019 at 19:30

    1) Well, well. Everybody predicted that 2019 would be an eventful year.

    This reminds me I once read in China they will say “May eventful times be waiting for you” when they wish you ill.

    2) In Southern Europe, people are much less of drinkers. You see it within skngle countries. North Portugal and North Italy people have a glass of wine after meals, whilst they don’t in the South.
    It has to do with the climate, with cooler places having the most alcohol-prone people because it gave a good feeling against the coolness (think Russia).

    3) Dope is already legalized in fact — there is nobody who wants to buy it and cannot due to its being under ban. A lot of “top people” have to do with the drug market, also, and profit from keeping it a banned market. That’s why you don’t see any agit-prop to promote “liberalization” about dope.
    (Although cool and trend-marrying folks surely are for liberalization about dope: fact is, it’s the people at the top’s wishes that are enacted; the trend-loving snobs have the pleasant impression it’s being theirs to get enacted only insofar as they align with the top guys’ interests amd “beliefes”. Which is why they usually align theirs by the way.)

    4) In Europe, “libertarians” called themselves “liberals” for some 150 years. Liberal didn’t mean leftist, it meant pro-freedom and pro small. government. I have no knowledge why the names changed meaning overseas, and of course now that it’s in the USA that what a word means is set young pro small-government and pro individual freedom people in Europe have started to call their orientation liberalist.
    Anyway, whatever you call it, average people feel so threatened by the consequences of true freedom that it (liberalism-libertarianism) is destined to ever revulse them (all liberals/libertarians are strongly for meritocracy in the job market, for instanfe); it will always be a niche thing, out of the economic field.
    Take education. The average concern is that no Child is Allowed Ahead. No Child Left Behind is how it is rationalized.

    4) Facebook, Amazon and Google (FAG) have more capability than any state bureaucracy, these guys are dangerous. And these guys aren’t in our side. They are completely sincerely Leftist. On average the tech population may be even more leftist than your average bureaucratic agency. Google is particularly crazy.

    Don’t mistake followers and conformity-aides, however influential, with originators and motors and idea-makers. [img]
    http://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/TheoryEverything2.jpg%5B/img%5D.

    If it takes import tariffs to achieve this? Let’s have them. If it takes higher taxes for some industries or people, let’s have it. If it takes strict anti-monopoly laws, or even the outright nationalization of some companies, Let’s have that. If it takes strict controls on the media, let’s have those too. Whatever it takes. Liberty is a means, not an end.

    Indeed. Libertarians are neither left nor right, and neither the left or the right is libertarian.
    It’s only natural that cultural elites (the value-designers on the left, and their army of designed values mongers) and economic elites (free marketers, seen as “right”) ally with each other. Before the alliance wasn’t worked out because the owners denied the value designers/peddlers their cake share. The mistake was dearly paid by the former, with constant genuine anti-capitalism permeating many spots and minds. Both parties eventually woke to the copiousness of the mutual fruits of an alliance.
    The natural alliance is that between who understands and knows, against the others (as it is presently).

    But happened it has, whether by political coercion, infiltration, or just mere cultural prestige. We better think carefully on what happened, how to reverse it, and use the same tools for our own cause.

    It can’t be reversed, outside of the way to reverse it Moldbug propounded, for the reasons Moldbug expounded.
    I bet Tucker’s gonna mention monarchy next time, lol.

    • iI January 21, 2019 at 19:33

      The link doesn’t work. It is to the USA power map in Chibo’s Political Science’s “Theory of Everything” on the 2016 US Election article for who wants to reach it through a search.

    • Samuel Skinner January 21, 2019 at 22:30

      The problem with freedom is that without someone looting the public purse in order to enrich themselves there is no one who is paid to prevent a group of people from occupying that role.

      It is a bit like advocating for the elimination of the military because it is a useless cost. That is true, but then the cops realize there is no one who can stop them and declare they are in charge.

      • iI January 22, 2019 at 11:05

        I hope you didn’t form the impression I was advocating for freedom.
        Freedom is something the minds of a “social species”/”primates” (as the post says) aren’t designed to have and manage. Freedom frightens your average person. Now because it was useful and is useful the myth that everyone wants to be and is free has been installed in the public’s mind. So along with being frightened by freedom and not wanting to be feee, they are also humiliated in their vanity if they know the thereof — so what they know is that they are free and want to be free.

        And what this gives you is… parody.
        Hundreds of thousands of females starting to write in their online profiles that they are “strong and independent” concomitantly, without noticing the concomitancy, without knowing they think they are what they want to be, and what they want to be is an image projected by the United Media of America unanimously and tirelessly.

        Or, about ten years ago I read an interview to a car company executive, he said: for cars, white’s gonna be the colour in the next years. Well, wonder of wonders, 10 years later almost every Winner Car (the cars people shell out huge deals of money because they symbolize their being Winners) is white. Every new customers has noticed that White is the Winners’ uniform, and wants to wear the Winners’ uniform in order to ensure he/she wins too. Lol.

        Libertarians, where in good faith, are people who see too little of the mind of the social species, thus of mankind.

        • Dividualist January 22, 2019 at 14:21

          I always had the impression that if you remove immense amounts of rhethorics from the word “freedom”, what you get is a definite, visceral feeling. Remember what it was like to run out of school ever year at the end of the last day before the the summer breaks? Finally, freeeeedooooom! I would define this feeling as getting rid of something you really disliked to have. You just feel lighter. Floating. It follows it is a short term thing. Lasts only as you get used to the new state of things. Probably all ideas about long-lasting freedom are rhethorics.

      • A.B. Prosper February 6, 2019 at 22:26

        The public purse exists to serve the public good and this can mean handouts. There is nothing wrong with this as it necessary to incentivize people when you want them to live in cities among strangers

        Otherwise its far more rational to go tribal but the various centralizers fear that with good reason.

  9. Steve Johnson January 21, 2019 at 20:01

    Fantastic post – I want to flesh out this point:

    But at some point, somebody discovered that this theory was crap. Power doesn’t work that way. Governments don’t work that way, fundamentally. You can’t change everything all the time, the incentives are just too big for people in power to find a way of keeping power amongst themselves. Like most important discoveries, different people across the world realized, independently, that alternation in power was absolutely not what happens in democracies at all; that most resorts of power are occupied by permanent bureaucrats, and that the different parties which prima facie compete for power, eventually find ways of helping each other achieve a stable sharing of power and money.

    In the United States we had the spoils system – someone would win an office and fire all the old guy’s cronies and replace them with his cronies. Everyone noticed that (for the most part) this was a disaster for the usual reason – they acted like mobile bandits. Andrew Jackson replaced a bunch of civil servants and competent postmasters with cronies and supporters – some apparently considered this a problem that needed to be fixed (maybe people liked reliable mail service?).

    James Garfield’s assassinated by a disgruntled (and mentally ill) man who thought himself entitled to a patronage position was the excuse for creating a civil service that was protected from political firings. Because the system was new it had to offer some kind of advantage so people would accept it and so civil servants were hired based on exams. Of course once the system had wiped out potential competitors it could dispense with the inconvenient exams.

    In the long run flipping and exchanging power was unstable and eventually the bureaucracy beat the politicians in public opinion and so got permanent power.

    • CVLR January 24, 2019 at 22:14

      These “bureaucrats” of whom you speak are principally outgrowths of the tech-intelligence-military complex, and if there’s one thing the history of Playboy can tell us it’s that the wellspring of their power is in assuring the complete compromisation of all political positions, by hook or by crook.

      It really is no coincidence that their only serious opponents since 1942 have been Roy Cohn and his protégé.

  10. Harmony Pax January 21, 2019 at 20:31

    The socially conservative, fiscally liberal thing is an entrenched part of urban politics in America, as well as rural politics in China. The people who vote for these systems are corrupt, vicious, thugs. It was historically called machine politics, and many blacks and Catholics vote this way in America, because they’re conservative Democrats.

    I grew up in a place in America where cops make 100K and lab scientists make 40-50K. I grew up dissed in school, for being poor, ugly, and having no connections. I saw what we had to do, and I saw what they had to do. They drank and smoked weed to a 100K job, we crammed math all day to a 40K job. My neighborhood has less than a 10% university graduation rate. Yet they drive gleaming, souped up cars and wear the latest brand names because of family connections.

    People can’t have kids? People in my area regularly have between 4 to 6 kids and we’re a city. And it’s not just immigrants. This includes white Catholics and Evangelicals. I live in a “big blue city” where religious whites, Hasidic Jews, and black social conservatives, are a huge and stupid cornerstone of the Democratic coalition.

  11. Jakeithus January 21, 2019 at 21:44

    About 10 years ago I remember having an online discussion in which I made the comment that “Given the nature of Government, I’m happy to use Business to attack the power of Government in service of the Individual/Family. If Business is harming the individual/family however, then we on the Right would be stupid to not use Government to attack the power of Business in order to further what should be our primary goal of free and healthy individuals and families”.

    The number and strength of the conservatives who found this very idea unthinkable honestly surprised me at the time. It seemed pretty straightforward that Business does not always work in our best interests, despite the fact that I appreciate they often can be the best ally we have against an overreaching State. Apparently this was controversial at the time, and unfortunately still is, although things seem to be moving in a positive direction in terms of what your typical conservative thinks.

    Things can change quickly once a mass of those on the right realize Business is no longer our ally, although I worry the realization will come too late give the demographic factors in play.

  12. Anon January 21, 2019 at 22:16

    Drop the G from GASD because it’s redundant, I could actually imagine ASD used in fiction. It would be easily quotable and elicit the same reaction as degenerates, but without beating around the bush. It already stands for something, but associating homosexuality with autism would make it seem less desirable.

  13. Giovanni Dannato January 22, 2019 at 01:32

    Another great take, Mr. Spandrell. However, you could audition as the Dos Equis most pessimistic man in the world.
    Remember your article series on the demise of the Song Dynasty? A mere 1000 Jurchens toppled a wealthy Empire of millions and they were but a prelude to the Mongols. All the money in the world can’t pay one man to die and that is its fundamental limitation.
    A core premise of neo-reaction is that numbers are not decisive. After all, most of the Latin American world is still ruled by a European elite class.

    True, the establishment is still immensely powerful, but what we should focus on is its relative decline. They are now a pale shadow compared to what they were in the 90s, an overwhelming triumph of angels at the end of history flying on with clarion calls into an eternal horizon of progress with flights of rosy-cheeked cherubs laying down laurel wreathes on their heads.
    Whatever powers and intimidation they may still have, they are no longer glorious.

    Don’t judge the game board by extrapolating from its present state. Imagine further than that.

    • Spandrell January 22, 2019 at 06:06

      Numbers do matter in a democracy.

      At any rate my call of attention to the worst case scenario is a way of getting people to work to prevent it.

      • Karl January 22, 2019 at 09:46

        Numbers matter in a Democracy, but Giovanni’s argument assumes that democracies won’t last. Based on the historical record this is a reasonable assumption.

        • spandrell January 22, 2019 at 10:08

          They will outlast us, and I can’t be blamed for focusing in my own lifetime.

          • Karl January 22, 2019 at 18:39

            Why do you think so? Sure, there will still be a democracy somewhere even in 50 years or so, but I don’t think the democracies in the USA (or e.g. France or Germany) will last another generation, at least not in the sense that numbers matter.

            Voter fraud wasn’t a topic in these countries 20 years ago. Now it is. If there is enough voter fraud, numbers don’t matter anymore.

            Violence against political opponents wasn’t a topic in these countries 20 years ago, Now it is. If there is enough violence against the opposition, number don’t matter anymore.

            I assume elections will still be held, even 30 years from now – and they will matter as much as elections in any third world dictatorship.

            For a democracy to last, you’d need some powerful group defening it. Otherwise any party will find it convenient to push a bit more against cultural inertia until finally there is no meaningful vote anymore. Who do you think would want to (and could) defend democracy?

  14. WMBriggs January 22, 2019 at 01:51

    Coincidentally, excerpts of an 1871 essay by Robert Lewis Dabney were circulating today, in which he said (among other things), “it has now become a regular trick of American demagogues in power to manufacture new classes of voters to sustain them in office. It is presumed that the gratitude of the newly enfranchised will be sufficient to make them vote the ticket of their benefactors. But as gratitude is a very flimsy sort of fabric among Radicals, and soon worn threadbare, such a reliance only lasts a short time, and requires to be speedily replaced. ”

    He saw it all coming almost 150 years ago.

    https://www.covenanter.org/reformed/2016/5/22/womens-rights-women

  15. rtsukazaki January 22, 2019 at 02:23

    I agree with basically everything in this post. But I think you may be overemphasizing economics. This:

    “…sure, cultural values are more of a factor than economic factors are. But it’s also true that economic policy is orders of magnitude easier to change than cultural values.”

    Feels like a bit of a cop-out to me.
    Sure, the big-city, high-rent, dual-income, 50+ hour work week lifestyle is horribly unconducive to child rearing. So is the physical environment of cities themselves. And so is the no-prospects hollowed-out small town life.

    But here in my neck of the woods of peripheral Japan, land is practically free. You can rent a two-story, three bedroom house for under 600 USD month, or buy one for under 250k. (Hell, if you are willing to live in an older house a little out of the way, you can get a large house for the price of a new car.) Food is cheap, school is free. The streets are safe, the air is clean, there’s room to run. Frankly I literally can hardly imagine a better place to raise children. Jobs don’t pay very well, but everyone seems to be able to afford a car and big screen TV regardless. Unemployment is very low. Yet the fertility rate in this prefecture is a majestic 1.5.

    Look at any thread on reddit relating to having children. It’s not full of people who want large families but can’t afford it. It’s split between 30 year olds who “probably want kids someday” and people who are physically repulsed by the idea of reproducing.

    Lack of solid middle class jobs is bad. Big city crowding is very bad. People’s thoughts and attitudes towards family formation are catastrophic.

    By rights my prefecture ought to be absolutely packed with young families. I don’t think the reason it’s not can be fixed by a ministry of trade or central bank.

    “The goal [of government] is to have an economy which makes it possible for normal, average young people to marry and have kids.”

    In my opinion the word “economy” here needs to be switched out for something else.

    Most government actions that might be tried to solve the spiritual problem would effectively be limits on free market capitalism, to the extent that all human activity is in some way economic. And Woke Capital is now so powerful that any attempt to change moral attitudes would necessarily involve taking on big corporations. Ban porn and the sex industry (those trucks that drive around advertising high paying jobs for young women at kyabakura fill me with rage). Counter the Woke Capital impulse to get women in the work force. Do something about predatory student loans on educations that will never pay off. Stop letting Twitter and Google promote antisocial views while banning prosocial ones. And so on. But the focus would ultimately be more on the moral sphere than tariffs and trust busting.

    • Bartolo January 22, 2019 at 02:45

      Where I work we all have jobs for life and fantastic salaries, including very generous allowances for every child (more than enough to pay for everything that the child needs). Still, I would be surprised if we reach a fertility of around 1.5 children among those who are still of reproductive age.

    • Spandrell January 22, 2019 at 06:10

      The jobs in rural Japan don’t pay well, and 250k is a lot of money for an average local salary. Cars aren’t expensive but taxes on cars are brutal. 車検 is particularly outrageous.

      I know lots of people in rural Japan with 3 kids and it’s not an easy lifestyle. Gotta drive them everywhere, etc. But yes, there’s absurd amounts of amenities for children and it’s a great environment if you’re so inclined.

    • iI January 22, 2019 at 11:23

      Good, far-sighted comment.

    • Dividualist January 22, 2019 at 13:58

      Physical disgust at the idea of having children… yes, that is how every college student in my neck of Central Europe behaved, too. It is all about disgust at the idea of becoming someone like your parents. Parents are low status. Like, they are totally out of touch and don’t even know which bands count as cool lately. From between 1935 and 1965 things moved to “I can only hope I will be as great and respectable as my parents” to “my parents are so eww, gag me with a spoon”.

      Why exactly this happened is a good question. Okay, feminism fucked fathers – but there is even less respect for mothers, too and it does not explain that. Stacy, 16 finds the idea of having kinds disgusting because it means she would be like her mother, 37, in her eyes fat, ugly, out of touch and could not compete with her for the attention of the jocks.

    • Forward Synthesis January 24, 2019 at 11:27

      “Look at any thread on reddit relating to having children. It’s not full of people who want large families but can’t afford it. It’s split between 30 year olds who “probably want kids someday” and people who are physically repulsed by the idea of reproducing.”

      Fundamentally, this is why traditionalism isn’t coming back and while it may have one last big push politically, socially speaking; it’s done. Humans are not unitary beings, and each one of us contains conflicting desires that resolve to produce behavior in a specific context. You can romanticize the idea of hard work, and when people have to work hard in order to survive that tends to be what they do, but as soon as that pressure relaxes, people will, as a population, choose the easier option. Most of those people like the positive aspects of having children, the idea of raising someone and passing on knowledge, but baulk when they remember that they have to stay up listening to a screaming baby filling its diaper with shit, and even when that’s over, they still have to take legal responsibility for another human being for decades (as people have softened childhood has been extended too), and for a generation of mentally and physically soft people, that sounds like way too much hard work even if you supplied them with all the resources needed.

      It’s not the economy or the media that defeated tradition, but easy living and technology. The pill alone deserves far more credit for destroying traditionalism than feminism or Woke Capital. Of course, capital makes such ease and bio-hacking available for sale, but once people have tasted the forbidden fruit the spell is broken socially because people will go ballistic if they think it’s going to all be taken away from them. They can still romanticize traditional life, but they will resist any attempt to ACTUALLY enact it because it would mean giving up their goodies. Even the internet right wing is absolutely stocked to the brim with degenerates who can talk the talk but can’t walk the walk, so how on Earth do you expect the average dopamine hacked person to?

      In this sense, traditionalism (unlike nationalism which is what fools people) is, or more accurately, has become, an anti-populist ideology. To really enact it, you have to force feed it to people. It didn’t used to be this way before people learned how easy things could be, and before people learned it was even possible to defy their biology with convenient chemicals, but that is the way it is now. Before traditionalism was compatible with how normal people actually lived, and what it did was guard against weirdos and freaks at the fringe, but now traditionalism would make life very inconvenient for normal people because normal people have changed.

      It’s easy to criminalize sodomy or crack down on gangs of “youths”, but much harder to point that state force in the direction of normal people who aren’t freaks on the fringe, which is what traditionalism would require at this point if it wanted to raise birthrates.

      “Ban porn and the sex industry”

      It’s too late for that. You could ban all porn tomorrow and there’s still enough of it out there to last for a single person’s lifetime.

    • Eli January 24, 2019 at 21:44

      >Most government actions that might be tried to solve the spiritual problem would effectively be limits on free market capitalism, to the extent that all human activity is in some way economic

      I respect the posters here, but I feel that you got it utterly backwards. It is not so much that free market capitalism that needs to be regulated, it is the rules by which one defines “freedom.” For example, a man’s wife and children ought to be propertized, as things were from the time immemorial. This would solve most of the problems, including low fertility.

      Imagine being able to employ your children to help you in your job. That is, instead of fulfilling a bureaucrat’s dream of having control of schoolchildren and teenagers, you’d be making your job much easier. This would work for a great many occupations, including stimulating people creating their own businesses. I’m willing to bet that having your children being financial assets, instead of liability, would make “free market capitalism” work much better, as well as stimulate fertility of higher classes of people.

      Quite different from “Woke”

      P.S. My previous comment was not put in the right spot

  16. Anonnua January 22, 2019 at 03:20

    THIS WEEK IN REACTION NOT THIS MONTH & ANTON SILESKY SITE IS DOWN

    ALSO CHRISTCUCKS BTFO’D BY https://chechar.wordpress.com/2018/06/17/himmler-on-christianity/ Entire blog

  17. Malcolm Pollack January 22, 2019 at 04:01

    An excellent essay, and sure to be an influential one. I left a comment here earlier, but it seems to have been lost — so I’ve linked your post, with excerpts and commentary, here.

  18. Pingback: What Should The Right Want? – Motus Mentis

  19. WordPress Reader January 22, 2019 at 05:26

    Absolutely must read Carle Zimmerman’s book Family and Civilization. Anti family forces have been around a long time – it goes in cycles.

  20. fengxia January 22, 2019 at 07:56

    Allow me to be a slightly annoying thorn in your side for a second here. I promise it will be over quickly, and then you can forget you ever read this, alright?

    But technocapital doesn’t need you. You can have a lot of children but they’ll either turn against you or find themselves useless in this world. The Californian Ideology is building the Kingdom of Heaven, and the misfits, it turns out, are the ones to do it.

    Traditionalism, and family and being normal are ways primitive tribes think. Sure it’s baked into human DNA by this point, as the cyclical, unchanging life was the way humans used to live, but that’s the trait that’s being selected against by modernity. Admirable in some ways, yes, but don’t act as though you’re going to Mars on that. Write to Crazy Uncle Ted in Florence, Colorado for advice if these are your aims.

    It would be better this way, to be honest. It’s unlikely anyone who writes this sort of thing has the impulse to change. Stop scheming and whinging about petty communists and rise up against Heaven and our tech angels and fight the final battle at Armageddon. Look up the Pentagon on a map. Hard to miss. It’s the centre of the whole operation.

    I know, dreadful, right? Stupidest thing you’ve ever heard? Well, just try to forget about it. Everything was just going fine. I’m sure you’ll convince the white masses about “bioleninism” soon enough, and inspired by your eloquence, they’ll vote for a neoreactionary candidate for office, right?

    • spandrell January 22, 2019 at 08:18

      The Californian Ideology is building the Kingdom of Mexico, and in other places it’s just making place for the Caliphate. No smart babies, no capital.

      If you had ectogenesis in the pipeline I might even give the accelerationists some credit. But we have nothing but armies of Somalis and Guatemalans at the gates.

    • Steve Johnson January 22, 2019 at 17:25

      It’s a sign of… something that Marxist entryists are appearing in NRx blog comments a lot lately.

  21. VKR January 22, 2019 at 08:05

    Outstanding post!

    Just to add a quick point. Children used to contribute to the family by working on the farm from an early age, doing what they could. In the current economic and technological environment children are only a (sometimes heavy) burden for a couple decades, until they complete their education. This may contribute to the reduction of reproductive rates among low time preference populations (whites, Japanese).

  22. Magus January 22, 2019 at 10:19

    “every single human population with an IQ over 95 has a fertility rate below replacement”

    I can think of one very conspicuous exception.

    • Spandrell January 22, 2019 at 11:21

      I think Israel’s average isn’t that high.

      • yilan January 22, 2019 at 13:05

        It isn’t very high, specifically due to the 15% – 20% or so Arab population and due to some Jewish subpopulations. Yet the smartest subpopulations of Jews are STILL reproducing above replacement level, and perhaps significantly so — Tel Aviv, probably the most educated, Ashkenazi, Secular and ‘pozzed’ city in Israel, had an average birthrate of 2.67 in 2017. The stats are from Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics; it’s probably hard to find these on their English site, but I have the document if anybody wants to take a look.

        Additionally, if you want to get into the details of Jewish IQ in Israel there’s nice study from 2004, “Intelligence differences between European and Oriental Jews in Israel”, which breaks things down quite nicely. It concludes so:

        “The results raise four points of interest. First, the high average IQ obtained by the Ashkenazim is not shared by the Oriental Jews in Israel whose mean IQ is approximately 1.0d (15 IQ points) lower than that of the Ashkenazim. Second, this IQ difference is confirmed by the difference in educational attainment in maths, geography, language, etc. Third, the Ashkenazi Jews in Israel have the same intelligence profile of high verbal and mathematical intelligence but not so high spatial intelligence that has been found in Ashkenazi Jews in the United States”

        • Gabriel M January 22, 2019 at 13:31

          There is no evidence that secular Ashkenazim in Israel have high birth rates. Half of Tel Aviv is a third world slum full of Moroccan Jews (and Eritreans) that looks worse than most Palestinian refugee camps. That’s where they’re having the babies.

          On the other hand, it is certainly true that religious Ashkenazim are reproducing well and, and, at least among Haredim, they are not doing it with Mizrahim. Mormons also breed well and Amish. This is not a particularly difficult problem to solve, intellectually at least.

          • yilan January 22, 2019 at 13:58

            There certainly is evidence of secular birthrates being high and going up, although I haven’t found any stats for specifically secular and Ashkenazi. Still, Ashkenazim tend to be less traditional/religious and more secular, probably more so than any other Jewish subpopulation. Secular Jewish women had a TFR of 2.14 in 2014 — and since then, Jewish birthrates have only gone up, yet Ultra-Orthodox birthrates have specifically gone down. So it’s the secular, traditional, and Modern Orthodox/Religious Zionists who have been picking up the pace. Anyways, I live in Tel Aviv… Yes, there certainly are plenty of Oriental Jews here, but besides a few small areas it’s simply impossible for the cognitively ungifted and/or poor to afford living here. You’re heavily exaggerating when you say that half of Tel Aviv is a slum — and many of those areas that LOOK slummy are quite expensive (the Florentine neighborhood, for example).

            • spandrell January 22, 2019 at 14:27

              Could you write a small summary about how education costs and general attitudes towards raising children are in Tel Aviv? Kids running around unattended at what age, etc.

              • yilan January 22, 2019 at 17:03

                Public education is basically free, with parents probably paying 1200 NIS a year per child for books, trips, and such. I believe that when it comes to private schools with additional programing, parents would pay at most 12000 NIS per child, probably less. I’ve heard that many private schools give nice discounts for additional children. The good, public universities cost only about 10,000 NIS a year (that’s less than 3000 USD) — and nowadays, the State pays for released combat soldiers’ degrees. Shittier private colleges cost more than that, though.

                When it comes to attitudes towards children, I would say that from the age of 10 or so parents tend to be fine with letting their kids roam around freely and use public transportation. Lots of latchkey kids, since quite often both parents work. I’m not a parent yet, so I’m not entirely sure how expensive daycares and such are, but I believe they’re subsidized. Society expects parents to have children, and parents want to have children — there’s a saying that 4 is the new 3: in the past, 3 was the magic number of children that many parents wished and aimed for, 4 is the magic number nowadays. Tel Avivians are not exempted from this general attitude, even if they’re completely secular and educated. The many gays in Tel Aviv are also pretty interested in having children, and they often do. Admittedly, plenty of young couples move out of Tel Aviv when the time comes to have children… But there’re still plenty of children running around here.

                • spandrell January 22, 2019 at 17:45

                  Thanks. Sounds like a very healthy society.

                  • Eli January 24, 2019 at 22:56

                    I lived in Israel in late 80’s/early 90’s. I think that Israel is an interesting case of feminism winning BUT, in a roundabout way, adopting some religious social status values as their own. One of those values is having large families.

                    In some ways, Israel is actually *more* pro-feminist, women- and gay- rights, than United States. I would even say further, unless we talking about ultra-ultra-Orthodox enclaves in Israel (e.g. small stubborn sects, like the one led by R Shmuel Auerbach or the one nicknamed “Jewish Taliban”) — even the ultra-Orthodox are becoming more feminist.

                    In particular, unilateral divorce by women is on increase among the Haredim. Because most of them follow the custom by R Tam (a medieval rabbi) in name but NOT in spirit, these divorces can be initiated by woman on pretense of “unhappines.”

                    It is *because* due to a weird combo of women feeling powerful and wanting to signal their girlfriends and peers their high status — it is because of that that even the secular women in Israel have their fertility going on an increase. Heck, even gays in Israel are having children.

                    These social status values are not too different from weird beliefs of anti-vaxxers and recyclers — which many of them ARE. They just happen to also be pro-fertility also.

                  • Eli January 24, 2019 at 23:34

                    What I’m moving towards in my thinking is that Israel is a kind of society where women, if one is to compare humans to animals, are evolving towards the mode of hyenas.

                    In hyena society, females tend to be very assertive and, in fact, due to very high testosterone, tend to develop a so-called “pseudopenis.” Many of the Jewish girls I’ve met are extremely assertive and even aggressive — though I haven’t seen a pseudopenis yet. I am usually not a good match for them, because I’m not a true believer in female rights and intersectionalism and am, unfortunately, too straightforward for my own good.

                    So, perhaps, dare I be heretical on this blog: maybe it’s normal and OK for men to evolve into subs of women? Maybe, thinking higher level, feminism itself can be co-opted, in the way that anti-vaxx, natural-birth, recycling, etc obsessions have coopted many urban, otherwise educated people nowadays?

                    Is that a good, stable arrangement? Probably not, since like all left-wing fashions, like public schooling, it rests on the power of centralized bureaucracy. It is also certainly not good for us, men. But, if one thinks of one’s own extinction, maybe becoming a feminist (though probably not a literal cuck), is a viable approach, for a generation or two or three? Feel free to e-stone me.

                    Again, let me reiterate that it only makes sense in a kind of weird feminism where it’s high-status for women to procreate. American feminism is not exactly that, but perhaps it might move towards it. Not sure… I consider the biggest stumbling blocks for such evolution to be: global-warmism (which drives anti-natalism), intersectionality (which drives women to equate good men with trash, and waste their best years on criminals and actual trash), and the fact that required, high-status schooling is expensive (which makes children way too expensive).

                    High-status expensive schooling is possible to solve via socialist economic policies. But the other two anti-natalist/dysgenic drivers are too strongly cultural, and I don’t have any ideas on how to solve them. It’s a uniquely Western, esp. American problem of high-diversity democratic societies where holiness points are gained by letting the other cheek be slapped/masochism.

                  • spandrell January 25, 2019 at 06:30

                    Are Israeli men more pussy-whipped than Scandinavians?

                    I agree that stable female supremacy could bring a decent birthrate, and that would be … (ugh it’ s hard to write this) preferable to extinction, but seems Israel is a bit too sui generis for that model to scale well.

                  • yilan January 25, 2019 at 09:22

                    Certainly, Israeli women are generally aggressive and assertive. So are Israeli men, though. From my experience, you simply need to have the right approach and attitude. No need to be pussy-whipped, and I definitely don’t think most Israeli men are victimized and controlled by their wife/girlfriend. Maybe that’s because I was actually born and raised here and spent less than a decade in passive-aggressive Canada. Admittedly, it’s definitely much easier to handle American women! lol

                • Gabriel M January 27, 2019 at 18:38

                  One thing I would add is that Israeli women are much, much less likely to be Leftists than American or (a fortiori) European women. Take for example Ayelet Shaked: in pretty much every other western country she would obviously be a leftist scold. I was once trying to persuade an Israeli friend to get his skates on about marriage and mentioned the difficulty of finding women who didn’t have leftist opinions as a reason not to wait, which coming from the UK seemed obvious (one friend, if memory serves, went on 50 dates before finding a moderate conservative); he really had no idea what I was talking about.

                  So even if Israeli women are more assertive, they are still a lot less annoying.

          • yilan January 22, 2019 at 14:22

            In 2017, the Kibbutzim had a TFR of 2.56. Not sure if I can get a better proxy for Secular + Ashkenazi. lol

            • Gabriel M January 22, 2019 at 15:24

              Not really. Kibutzniks were never representative of the general Ask-sec population, and now no-one even pretends they are. Your challenge is to find a population with an IQ of 95+ who have healthy fertility rates and don’t practice a religion that the rest of the world considers weird/nuts. Maybe you have one, but you need proof. My anecdotal experience of secular middle class Israelis – admittedly limited – is that they get married in their mid 30s and have 2 children or less, just like everyone else in the West.

              … Yes, there certainly are plenty of Oriental Jews here, but besides a few small areas it’s simply impossible for the cognitively ungifted and/or poor to afford living here.

              15,000 Eritreans seem to manage okay. It’s true that areas that are objectively slummy and disgusting are full of relatively affluent young hipsters because they are willing to stupid rent to to live in s**ty accommodation. So is London, so is New York. All these cities also have lots of low IQ poor people too. I’ve never quite understood how they manage it, but they do. As to who is having the babies. On the mercifully infrequent occasions I go to Tel Aviv, I see arsim with prams and hipsters with dogs.

              • yilan January 22, 2019 at 17:31

                Well, I’m trying not to rely on anecdotal evidence. But if I happen to walk on Rothschild Boulevard, I’m liable to see quite a few young, educated, European-looking individuals walking around with young children, or pushing prams. Not a whole lot of ars-presenting individuals over there, either. I also know plenty of secular Israeli couples with 3 or 4 children, and plenty of my friends from middle school had at least 2 siblings. Anyways, here’s an anecdotal article from 2013 about how richer families have become interested in having more children, and at older ages as well:
                https://www.mako.co.il/home-family-weekend/Article-7a470f6d5628041006.htm?br=ro&
                (alas, google translate is having a hard time translating this to English for me)

                Tel Aviv is definitely a singles’ city, though. It’s just that plenty of these singles ultimately marry, move out of Tel Aviv, and have children.

                • Gabriel M January 22, 2019 at 18:41

                  OK, fair enough. Interesting article. I’m probably laying too much store by confident predictions of an imminent religious takeover.

      • info January 24, 2019 at 13:48

        Patriarchal groups like Haredi jews make up for majority of above replacement births in Israel.

    • Zephyr January 22, 2019 at 12:35

      What is this conspicuous exception? Don’t be coy and tell me to Google it, you made the effort to comment.

    • A.B. Prosper February 6, 2019 at 22:42

      The Amish TFR is between 5 and 7 and as silly as it is to consider, the fertility gap is so great that theoretically in a couple of centuries most of the US will be of Amish stock . This isn’t much time, to reiterate something I noted earlier, we’ve already had population decline for over 20% of that time frame

      This is obviously not going to happen but what the Amish are doing works, they have high fertility and even with the rumspinga opt out , high retention and because of the all this , have even started to quietly deal with inbreeding issues.

      And Amish IQ is typical White too.

      I will note there that we don’t need this level of population growth and we can’t
      repeat what makes their society work anyway

      if we truly wanted a more stable population situation you have to lower female status , ban the pill and drastically increase wages and job stability, worker equality and job dispersion , at least doubling wages as percentage GDP after mass deportation of non assimilated persons

      Our Republic can’t do any of the most basic things well if at all so doing anything tough would require a dictator. Largely it would have to be someone who could

      #1 Take over by force killing many people especially potential revivals

      #2 Force ideology down throats over a couple of generations

      #3 Have slow growth among the now smaller population and note this might not happen if the war was too brutal

      Otherwise the best that can happen is to make society more homogeneous and let is self correct. Whatever you do don’t build Idiocracy , since the tech and the cities are killing us, let them die.

  23. Dividualist January 22, 2019 at 14:03

    “Libertarianism is a completely American phenomenon; in Europe it has appeared somewhat in the last 10 years, but it’s still completely marginal, and for a long time it was completely non-existent.”

    You need to make a careful difference between the intellectual versions or the popular / influential versions. From Bastiat to Hayek it existed on the intellectual level here, just nobody cared about it, influence zero. Too much war to see your own government as the problem. Usually it was someone else’s government and army that was the problem.

  24. gkai January 22, 2019 at 15:22

    Given the fundamental axiom here, the best (only) way to increase fertility is to increase status of people with children compared to people without. Its the decider for children who needs to have status increased by having a new child.
    In modern society, one of childcare, little sex and free contraceptives, it means women. You need women status to increase after 1 child, even more after 2 or 3.

    Does it does? No. Children are a burden both professionally and romantically. Socially it depends, when most of your social circle is childless then it is certainly not a status booster. When most of your social circle is traditional families, then I guess it is. So social circle effect can be though of as an amplifier.

    How to change children-linked status is difficult to say, one way is to use statusmoney equivalence and tax the hell out of childless womens, or sponsor childs much more. It is done more or less, but I think the amount of taxes or childcare needed to boost status enough is probably not feasible…mainly because fertility increase will be mainly on low status people, something everyone already observe and mostly disliked. If you want to shift fertility to avoid disgenic trends, it is a total failure.

    Or you can try to shift decider towards males, and have children boost male status. Probably even more difficult, given the historic and technical trends. You would need to go full patriarchal before it happen.

    Or, maybe more promising, you can try to make children signal status, like expensive cars or phones. Paradoxically, it would probably means making children more difficult to have, so only high status people can afford them. Could be “child permit”, but this will be difficult to be that obvious. Maybe more subtle ways are doable, once one shift from the worldview “people are childless because childs are too difficult to raise” to “Anybody can have childs so lot of childs = low status, and nobody want to be low status”.
    Not sure it is profound, but it is paradoxical enough to be both simple and non-obvious, it fits strange societal trends well enough, and it have a nice machiavelian feel, so this idea is probably worth something…

    • Samuel Skinner January 22, 2019 at 21:16

      That is called patriarchy- men control women and reward other high status men with wives.

    • i:) January 23, 2019 at 00:01

      Given the fundamental axiom here, the best (only) way to increase fertility is to increase status of people with children compared to people without.

      That is the most clear-minded claim.
      Before you could have physical safety, hunger,… other motivators even overriding sfatus-boosting and pleasure-seeking. Now, those are gone by. You have pleasure-seeking, and status-gathering.

  25. Pingback: La guerra contra el Woke Capitalism — el espíritu anticapitalista de la nueva derecha. – El Reaccionario

  26. The Spandrell Respecter January 22, 2019 at 21:34

    I want to preface this by saying that I’m not much of a writer, but something in me was called to write something in response to this post. I’ve been following the Spandrell’s work for some time, and, even though I’m a center-left type of guy (full disclosure), I do see a lot of the truth in what he writes about where we’re headed, as much as it pains me, and he’s always thrilling to read. I disagree with his prescriptions a lot of the time, but his diagnosis is spot on.

    Anyway, I watched the video of Carlson as he recommended, and it was striking to see how much Carlson has changed from his days as a snot-nosed bow-tie wearer for the Weekly Standard (I actually knew him back then). Carlson does have a very valid point but Kirk seemed to miss it completely. Kirk is basically who Carlson used to be 25 years ago. Kirk will get it eventually, maybe. But by then, it will probably be too late. I wonder if Kirk will reproduce. He might! But his kids will hate him.

    Anyway, as already said by the Spandrell, Carlson seems to grasp that just passing tax cuts and sucking capital’s dick – as Kirk seems mostly ok with – and not doing anything else but maybe sorta kinda stand in the way of progressive goals via the Senate and the Courts, while shouting weak praise to “the church” and “the family,” isn’t getting the job done anymore. That strategy won’t last for much longer and it’s barely working for now.

    I remember when Trump got elected and the Spandrell was all excited about the chance to roll back what Obama had done. Well, how’s that working out so far? Capital got their tax cuts, everyone else got diddly squat, and then R’s got spanked with their biggest House loss since 1974. They lucked out with the Senate this time given the map, but D’s came within a couple points in Texas (!) and Florida of breaking even on the night.

    In 2020 and in future elections, the diverse wave is only going to get stronger, given who is actually reproducing. Yes, you have Mormons and Amish reproducing, but who just got elected to the Senate from Arizona and Pennsylvania? Mormons and Amish couldn’t get R’s elected, not when faced with the power of the growing diverse hordes of Phoenix and Philly.

    Remember, Republicans have only won the popular presidential vote once since 1988 (in 2004) and it took a major terrorist attack to do it – for 3 decades, they’ve only lucked into the presidency thanks to odd population patterns. And what’s more is that every day, several white Boomers die (good!), and several new Millennials and soon to be Gen Z voters become eligible, and they’re not going to take this shit. AOC is a harbinger of that, and there’s only going to be more of her type every year. When Millennials are running the Congress, you’re going to WISH you had someone as reasonable as Pelosi or Schumer on the other side.

    I believe that given that metro areas are the only sources of growth anymore, it’s only a matter of time until Texas, Georgia and North Carolina fall to the Blue Wave. Arizona and Nevada have already fallen, and so has Virginia and Colorado – all those used to be fairly frequently red states, but no more. And the Midwest already seems done with Trump, given they elected D governors last year – and the region is shrinking anyway and/or being replaced by immigrants. All those Midwestern white Boomers are moving to Florida, which is the only thing keeping that state from going Blue, but soon you’re going to run out of White Boomers and then where are you?

    The only near term hope is that maybe – MAYBE – you’ll be able to claw back white suburban women with a “Nikki Haley type” brand of conservatism but that just shows how far the Overton Window will have shifted in the meantime. You’re fighting a losing battle, and you know it.

    So, is there any way for you to stop it? If I was in your shoes, I’d be preparing a bug out plan for sure. After the 2018 election, the smart right wing guys on Twitter knew this and immediately started talking about moving to Montana or Idaho. That’s probably your best bet at this point. Well, the trouble with these right wing guys is they’re all hat and no cattle. Look at Charlie Kirk for crying out loud! He’s a total pussy. So many of these guys are 10th Amendment LARPers but they can’t get laid to save their lives because too many white women went to college and no longer have time for their shit. This shit might have been cute at age 20-25, but at age 30? Pathetic? At age 40? Downright scary.

    Basically, white women are just done with it – they’ll take their wine and cats and Netflix and vibrators and girls weekends and redecorating ideas and “girl power” and that’s that. They won’t reproduce, and they won’t give you your grand army of the future. They’re going to age and be lonely and die out. Meanwhile, Millennial men are doomed mostly to get addicted to drugs, porn, VR and off themselves in huge numbers once they get bored/sick/tired enough. It’s a pity, but what can you do. But the birth rate is never coming back up – it might stabilize, but it’s never getting back to replacement. Millennials are just too fucked up by their Boomer parents – they’re all in therapy and on lots of anti-depression drugs, so it’s just as well. Gen Z might rebound in terms of childbearing, but it will be too little too late.

    But anyway, my point is, this right wing “army” I see is pathetic – those MAGA kids from Kentucky didn’t even do anything and they’re being burned at the stake as a warning to others. All the violent energy is on the left. In the future, if any MAGA heads try anything, they’ll be mowed down by Kamala’s and AOC’s “diverse government troops” pretty quickly if they try to fight back, so most likely they’ll just continue in their dead end jobs and bitch on Twitter like they do now. So if that’s the best they’ve got, then… well. So I’d say they have to get used to it. Or eat the wrong end of a .45.

    That’s what was so striking about Tucker’s speech. He knows that an AOC-type would win in a heartbeat – she’s an attractive face talking about popular policies to a receptive public. Tucker is trying, in vain, to stem the tide by saying, let’s actually think about why capital is telling us to do what they want. But it’s so clear, Kirk is just too dumb – or too young – or both – to get it. In 15 years, when D’s are crushing right wing goals all over the place, Kirk will be one of those whiny assholes on Twitter going “Muh Venezuela!” And no one will fucking care.

    I’m not really worried about it, because even though I’m a white male, I do have a bug out plan. Always marry a dual citizen from a stable, homogenous, prosperous country so you can bug out if you need to, gentlemen!

    Anyway, Spandrell, thanks. If I ever see you, I’m buying you a beer.

    • Johan January 22, 2019 at 22:46

      Homogenous prosperous areas attract migrants from non-prosperous areas who will make it less prosperous and homogenous. Rinse and repeat, to a certain extent. You can move to a white shithole (Russia) or a prosperous place with no culture (Singapore) I guess but the two together disappear all over the place.

      There’s always Israel of course, the dream. I’ll give it you, if I could marry a Jew and scam my way into a get-out-jail-free card that way, that’s actually a solid if hilarious out.

      • The Spandrell Respecter January 22, 2019 at 22:48

        LOL, you don’t know which country it is. And there’s 0 chance that it becomes un-prosperous and un-homogenous in my lifetime. Land is cheap, and there’s almost no crime. It’s not Israel, that’s for damn sure.

        • The Spandrell Respecter January 22, 2019 at 22:50

          It’s not a white country, either. I honestly can’t stand most white people. They’re so fucking loud!

        • Johan January 22, 2019 at 23:01

          ‘I honestly can’t stand most white people’ – The Eternal American projecting the behavior of obnoxious American whites on all whites.

          Jokes aside, I’m pretty curious what country it is now, haha. My first guess is Costa Rica, not much crime there, but that’s one of the whitest countries in Latin America, even if they’re getting Nicaraguan immigrants and shit. Not China, they’re loud themselves… Korea and Japan are pretty full… Shit, maybe Thailand or Burma?

    • spandrell January 23, 2019 at 06:22

      As bad as the MAGA kids can be, the Leftist violent guys (Antifa et al.) are actually worse more pathetic. At least what I’ve seen.

      Sounds you’re in Asia. Drop me an email and we’ll talk.

      • The Spandrell Respecter January 23, 2019 at 06:28

        Agreed – Antifa is super lame. They’re cosplaying. But Antifa doesn’t win US elections. Diverse women do. That’s the lesson of 2018 and beyond. How the MAGA guys overcome that… I don’t know. It’s going to be a rout. You watch.

        Not in Asia yet! Lived there once, will be back someday for sure. To watch it all burn down from a safe distance.

    • CVLR January 25, 2019 at 03:27

      Your comment is excruciating but probably accurate.

    • dfordoom January 29, 2019 at 04:47

      Gen Z might rebound in terms of childbearing, but it will be too little too late.

      Why on earth would you believe that Gen Z would do that?

      I mean, apart from the usual rightist “Gen Z is so based” wishful thinking?

  27. Johan January 22, 2019 at 22:33

    (Final try at posting, my computer doesn’t want to upload this shit right, apparently. Like the guy above I used to be Left (but Marxist))

    I agree that the state needs to facilitate societal reproduction. However, I’m not sure how. I note that you (and commenters) seem to want a return to patriarchy, but that is impossible, I think (setting aside that it’s not something I want or think is ethical). The structure and incentives of modern society makes that very hard, and even modern patriarchies often have very low birth rates.
    First there’s the paradox of emancipation. In this article (yeah, it’s a reasonable article by the Atlantic) there’s a chart which shows that the higher the emancipation level, the least women are in STEM. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/

    And that’s up to a pretty absurd level: some Arab countries like Algeria and Qatar have the most women in STEM. Scandinavia has the least. One explanation given in the article basically comes down to women choosing STEM out of spite in patriarchal societies, whereas if given free choice, they don’t actually even like STEM. So it seems to me that, if Islamic countries, who even in Medieval times were more ruthlessly patriarchal than the Christian West, can’t even be bothered to keep women out of higher education, why would any Western society ever manage to get its people to invest in patriarchy continuously e.g. why would men bother now when they don’t give a shit all over the world? Patriarchy could hold because a. most women couldn’t read which made it easier for b. simply indoctrinate them with traditional values and beat them with sticks if they disobeyed.
    Setting aside morals, that’s not going to return in societies that are rich, where most people don’t really give a shit if they just get their paycheck. That are urbanized and modern, which always implies growth of uprooting, anomie and hedonist indifference to morals. That have educated women, who will not just accept a return to the disciplining mechanisms of real patriarchy (not the 1920s bullshit or even Victorian morals, I mean Medieval or Reform-period actual patriarchy with sticks and mass shaming.)

    Second, I should note that pretty sexually conservative societies like Japan, especially Korea, of course have even lower birth rates than we do. Of course our birth rate is also higher because of non-Europeans in Western countries, but still. So, establishing patriarchy again seems both delusional and not very useful to me.

    I’m Dutch and most women in my country don’t really give a shit about feminism (although this might have changed somewhat with #MeToo and the White Privilege stuff, America is truly cancerous)- and I notice this at the university I go to (it does vary by university). Fuck, I study History, part of the humanities, and they still don’t care there. The sub-university level probably gives even less of a shit. I often read articles by feminists bitching women here are complacent because they often just work part-time (I think Dutch women work near the most at part-time in Europe) and spend a lot of time on kids.One time an Anglo-sphere professor complained that in our parliament there are so few women, and they again just failed to give a shit and proposed that men are perhaps just more ambitious. Dutch women are a bit slovenly and rude but generally pretty pleasant, in my experience.
    They still don’t get replacement level children, but I think that from a Dutch perspective birth rate hysteria doesn’t make sense. My country is also one of the most overpopulated in the world (17 million, Denmark is the same size and has 5 million with a marginally higher GDP per capita), so I don’t really care if birth-rates are a bit low as long as it’s not below 1.7 or so. The problem is that they are low while immigrant rates are high. Fun fact: up until 1960 when we had 12 million people the government actually wanted people to emigrate since even then it was fucking full here, and we have a chronic housing shortage because there are too many immigrants.

    So a. women are a voting block we need (and inb4 ‘you’re a cuck’, there’s a reason Italian fascists explicitly wanted to legalize the female vote and claimed they were ‘progressive’. It’s simple mobilization). They have the ability to organize. b. I don’t see the need for patriarchy, I don’t think it’s a realistic demand (setting aside moral distaste). I think the way we do things would work fine, the problem is not women themselves, but left-wing newspapers and curricula and such which try to whip them into mobilization.

    Now, most women actually like masculine men and they’re semi-open about that here in private. Imo in the Netherlands the problem is not women, it’s men, specifically university schooled men, which are pussies. It’s also shit like iq differences and criminality differences being pushed into the taboo sphere. I’d say that European men need to cultivate pretty strict masculinity that is pleasant to women vis. a vis. non-European masculinity which tends to be pretty nasty. Imo women don’t really give a fuck about nationalism but they do give a fuck about men and if they’re attracted to us (while having plausible reason to think they won’t be hit with sticks again) they’ll settle more easily with a nationalist or at least more culturally conservative order. If we claim a (convincing) and role of masculine protectors of their freedom vis a vis the non-West, I think women will work with us and like that.

    For example, it’s not a closed and shut case that women vote Left: https://www.dw.com/en/women-increasingly-drawn-to-right-wing-populist-parties-study-shows/a-45284465 (more women than men vote PiS in Poland). In Spain 1930 or so left-feminists wanted to block the female vote for a while because of the masses of church-going women that would vote right. In Weimar Germany, women usually voted Right over Left (Hindenburg and more overwhelmingly the catholic Zentrum, instead of Hitler) https://www.johndclare.net/Weimar6_Geary.htm.
    WordPress.com / Gravatar.com credentials can be used.

    • Samuel Skinner January 22, 2019 at 23:30

      ” So it seems to me that, if Islamic countries, who even in Medieval times were more ruthlessly patriarchal than the Christian West, can’t even be bothered to keep women out of higher education, why would any Western society ever manage to get its people to invest in patriarchy continuously e.g. why would men bother now when they don’t give a shit all over the world?”

      The Islamic world wasn’t more patriarchal in Medieval times- they had a feminist outbreak that destroyed society and lead to the rules regarding the burka and other controls on women.

      “Setting aside morals, that’s not going to return in societies that are rich, where most people don’t really give a shit if they just get their paycheck.”

      Society exists because of the threat of force, not because peasants work to make the machinery run.

      “That have educated women, who will not just accept a return to the disciplining mechanisms of real patriarchy.”

      Killing people is a wonderful motivator. Repeat until established. If you are unwilling to be strong, guess what? You get exterminated and replaced by people who are willing to be tough.

      “Second, I should note that pretty sexually conservative societies like Japan, especially Korea, of course have even lower birth rates than we do.”

      Japan’s birth rates started declining after WW2 when the part of the constitution regarding female rights was written by a Jewish feminist from New York. Not patriarchy.

      “They still don’t get replacement level children, but I think that from a Dutch perspective birth rate hysteria doesn’t make sense.”

      The issue is the smartest and most ambitious have the lowest birth rate. Which means your society is dying because you need those people to solve problems.

      “So a. women are a voting block we need (and inb4 ‘you’re a cuck’, there’s a reason Italian fascists explicitly wanted to legalize the female vote and claimed they were ‘progressive’. It’s simple mobilization).”

      Italy had a constantly declining birth rate under Mussolini. That is not a solution.

      “I’d say that European men need to cultivate pretty strict masculinity that is pleasant to women vis. a vis. non-European masculinity which tends to be pretty nasty. ”

      Honor killing is a European tradition from when Europeans reproduced above replacement. The only bright line I can think of is European men do not mutilate their women; but beatings are normal and were practiced until the 1970s.

      • Johan January 23, 2019 at 00:44

        ‘The Islamic world wasn’t more patriarchal in Medieval times’

        Female Islamic rulers were almost unknown whereas you had some in Western Christendom. But sure, it’s maybe not so cut and dry. Do you have documentation that they had a ‘feminist outbreak’ by the way?

        ‘Society exists because of the threat of force’

        The statement is so wide that it’s meaningless (who has force? Who wants to use it? Against who? Why and when?) and it’s not a real reply to what I said. My point was that man nowadays are bought off by hedonism and have showed themselves uninterested in maintaining real patriarchy; even in Islamic countries the resolve is faltering (a side point here was that they don’t give enough of a shit to block women from STEM and women are slowly getting a better bargaining position). So you’ve reinstated patriarchy. Great. Why isn’t it going to collapse again in fifty years, since in all modernized and prosperous societies it is collapsing and men care more about hedonism than upholding morals?

        ‘Killing people is a wonderful motivator.’

        You’re deluded if you think you’ll ever get away with building up a movement which wants to kill women until they’re back into the kitchen. And if you do, or hint at this, you’re giving the Left 50 percent of the population on a silver platter, forever, even as white women (in Europe) are not that solid a Left base atm. Morals aside, as a tactic that’s just insane signaling of a big dick, completely losing the bigger point. If you see 50 percent of the population, you need to work with it or risk total Left-collaboration.

        ‘You get exterminated and replaced by people who are willing to be tough.’

        That’s never women and they’re really passive and content where I live, which I think is pretty universally possible without patriarchy. That was the entire point.

        ‘Japan’s birth rates started declining after WW2 when the part of the constitution regarding female rights was written by a Jewish feminist from New York. Not patriarchy.’

        That’s ridiculously simple. I’m sure Jews are real concerned about Japanese birth rates and can be used to explain quickly a complex problem. After WW2 Japan started to Americanize in general, Yukio Mishima the fascist is himself an example of that (a spiritualist who was a bodybuilder with a commercial image). Japanese lack time to raise children and, like any modern people, probably view them as a potential impediment to consumption. Did ‘jewish feminists’ also conspire to cut down Korean birth rates even lower, to cut down birth rates in Singapore?

        ‘The issue is the smartest and most ambitious have the lowest birth rate.’

        Fair enough, but this was already the case in Victorian times though.

        ‘Italy had a constantly declining birth rate under Mussolini. That is not a solution.’

        I’m not a fascist, and I didn’t offer that as a solution. Imo we can’t create a forceful moral-cultural framework to social-shame people into having children until we get IQ and maybe HBD out of the taboo sphere. I think the only hope atm is that people aren’t such bugmen that they’ll respond to collective consensus that smart people must have children or risk social collapse and we can act accordingly. I don’t think patriarchy is necessary here per se. In my country 50 percent of women with children don’t work full-time, 20 percent don’t work at all. In a poll of young women, only 2,6 wants to keep working full-time when they have a family, 40 percent only want to work 2 days even before having a family. It’s actually the government plus some bitter feminists that’s undermining the family here (in the name of equality, bla bla bla, it’s obviously about wanting more workers and who gives a shit about the consequences or cohesion), women themselves don’t care until prodded into action.

        It’s a decent starting point just have more collectivism, cash incentives and social shaming of middle-class people who don’t get children imo. Women are also more given to slut-shaming than men, that might offer some possibilities.

        ‘but beatings are normal and were practiced until the 1970s.’

        That’s not something I could find documentation about regarding my country. But again, I think the thought that people don’t get children because we don’t have honor killings… is a bit ridiculous. In those days, there was no contraception, kids had concrete economic value, you needed to get a lot because medicine wasn’t very good, we had less opportunity for hedonism and a less individualistic mentality, religious values and worldviews etc. Those are direct causes. An honor killing is not.

        • Johan January 23, 2019 at 00:48

          *in a poll, only 2,6 percent

        • Samuel Skinner January 23, 2019 at 17:10

          “Female Islamic rulers were almost unknown whereas you had some in Western Christendom. But sure, it’s maybe not so cut and dry. Do you have documentation that they had a ‘feminist outbreak’ by the way?”

          Not on me; I remember reading about it but it is hard to look up since it gives contemporary stuff. If you are interested, it is probably from one of the Islamic authors talking about decline and fall.

          “My point was that man nowadays are bought off by hedonism and have showed themselves uninterested in maintaining real patriarchy;”

          That is a bit like saying people in the USSR were bought off by material gain. No, the people who complained went to the gulag. Try acting like a historical patriarch in the US and see how long it is before you loss your job or get arrested.

          “You’re deluded if you think you’ll ever get away with building up a movement which wants to kill women until they’re back into the kitchen.”

          That isn’t what you do- women are attracted to violent men. You shot the people who stop you from implementing patriarchy.

          “That’s never women and they’re really passive and content where I live, which I think is pretty universally possible without patriarchy. That was the entire point. ”

          Rotherham?

          “That’s ridiculously simple. I’m sure Jews are real concerned about Japanese birth rates and can be used to explain quickly a complex problem.”

          The important part is feminist- Jewish tells you their ideals were probably second wave so Japan got the 1960s 15 years early. I don’t think Jewish feminists have the good of the Jewish people in mind and more then British feminists care about British people.

          ” Did ‘jewish feminists’ also conspire to cut down Korean birth rates even lower, to cut down birth rates in Singapore?”

          South Korea appears to have imported 2nd wave feminism from the United States which was mostly promoted by Jewish women.

          “Fair enough, but this was already the case in Victorian times though. ”

          There was a time when this wasn’t true otherwise humans would never have evolved intelligence in the first place. I’ve variously heard the American Revolution, the French Revolution and the end of the Regency as the cut off point.

          “Imo we can’t create a forceful moral-cultural framework to social-shame people into having children until we get IQ and maybe HBD out of the taboo sphere.”

          That is a like convincing people not to commit human sacrifice through logical arguments. It doesn’t work- the more damaging to oneself a social signal is, the strong it signals sincerity.

          “It’s a decent starting point just have more collectivism, cash incentives and social shaming of middle-class people who don’t get children imo.”

          Hitler went beyond that. He gave out medals to women who had large families and required members of the Hitler Youth to salute them. It wasn’t enough.

          “That’s not something I could find documentation about regarding my country.”

          The best way to understand how alien the current mores are is to realize marital rape was not a crime in the Netherlands until 1991.

          “But again, I think the thought that people don’t get children because we don’t have honor killings… is a bit ridiculous. ”

          The decriminalization of adultery and the punishment of men for murdering adulterers takes place with the decline of birth rates. Marriage is the social technology that lets people reproduce and when you stop clamping down on adultery, it stops working.

          • Johan January 23, 2019 at 21:28

            ‘it is probably from one of the Islamic authors talking about decline and fall.’

            I am interested, but I have a lot to read atm so I don’t think I’ll search for it soon tbh.

            ‘Try acting like a historical patriarch in the US and see how long it is before you loss your job or get arrested.’

            Mormons can be a bit out there, but that’s not the point. I think we’re talking about different things here. I wasn’t trying to claim you can larp like a patriarch nowadays: of course there are people that care, and it’s the Left. But the Left cares about shoring up weak groups with rights and advantages and my point was that in modern societies, people will generally accept that as long as it doesn’t affect their paycheck or personal freedom all too much (subjectively). No, you can’t resist liberalism, but that’s exactly what people don’t care about doing. If you reinstate patriarchy, you’re gonna get renewed waves of liberalism and men will put up with it because they did so everywhere, do so everywhere, whenever society gets modern and urbanized. The bit about the gulag proves my point. When feminists started complaining, were they whipped like you would predict with the ‘force’ thing? No, because the left wanted a base and men didn’t give much of a fuck in the end.

            ‘women are attracted to violent men.’

            Doesn’t seem to stop feminism in the Middle East or wherever- they don’t them enough then. But tbh, I don’t really whether this was ever researched properly of is just reactosphere folk wisdom.

            ‘You shot the people who stop you from implementing patriarchy.’

            Back in fantasyland.

            ‘Rotherham?’

            Lmao, that’s a good one. Translating passief into passive does sound a bit weird in English, I guess. In Dutch the word just means the opposite of active- there’s not a lot of political (feminist) initiative here or it’s marginal.

            ‘Japan got the 1960s 15 years early.’

            https://www.jil.go.jp/institute/kokusai/documents/2014_s-ikeda.pdf

            It says here that 20% percent of women keep working after the first child is born, in Japan. Doesn’t sound very 2d wave to me.

            ‘South Korea appears to have imported 2nd wave feminism from the United States’

            It has a ridiculously low birth rate (wasn’t it like 1.1 or 1.2?) which places like France, Sweden or Ireland (little migrants) don’t have and they had the third wave. South Korea has one of the largest earning gaps in the world, I strongly doubt women working there is about much more than mere exploitation of a potential 50 per cent increase in the workforce.

            ‘There was a time when this wasn’t true otherwise humans would never have evolved intelligence in the first place’

            Pre-modernity had a different incentive structure for getting children. I could write it all down here but the article by Anatoly Karlin linked by another guy summarized it pretty well, I thought (he makes the same point about patriarchy btw).

            ‘the more damaging to oneself a social signal is, the strong it signals sincerity.’

            lmao, this can’t be true in the way you put it or humanity would’ve been the most retarded species around. Yes, morality is damaging to you, but you use it to signal behavior that’s useful to the group you belong to (or that everyone identifies with) so people feel they have an interest in you indirectly and directly- because you are good for the group they belong to and because you won’t screw them over.

            This is why I believe altruism in a non-hypocritical sense (e.g. which isn’t pure signaling) probably exists btw, since it’s not completely maladaptive to be a real altruist even when that’s suddenly not a safe option. The following is pure speculation, but we know that men lie and brag and manipulate to get sex, and that they especially like naive women (can’t find the source right now). If you’re a man in a primitive environment that is altruistic, you get screwed over and cannot screw. If you’re a woman that is altruistic, you get screwed over and get screwed. It’s just a thought process, but yeah I’d expect more ‘real’ altruism on average with women and I’d altruistic ‘genes’, if they exist, to pass down maternally even with boys.

            But I digress. The larger point is that morality can still work if getting pregnant is seen as needed altruism to a larger group.

            ‘He gave out medals to women who had large families and required members of the Hitler Youth to salute them. It wasn’t enough.’

            But then this is also true, hahaha. Though 1. the nazis never had more than a single generation so you can’t know how it would’ve worked out with women born into the new German culture from a simple average. 2. They were in a depression for a while and a lot of men were away from home during WW2. I just don’t know how representative it is.

            ‘The best way to understand how alien the current mores are is to realize marital rape was not a crime in the Netherlands until 1991.’

            That’s a really good point and I didn’t know that.

            ‘when you stop clamping down on adultery, it stops working.’

            If a partner adulters you don’t have to pay them money after the divorce and it’s ground for quick divorce, but yeah that’s not all that much in comparison. I agree that adultery is pretty ridiculous at the moment although it’s not crashing society. Still, you also impose fines or jail time (lol) instead of reverting to honor killings, although I wonder whether even that will hold long-term.

            • Johan January 23, 2019 at 21:38

              Oh, marriage still ‘works’ just 10% of children are cuck-kids (which really should be a crime) people fuck on the side.

            • Samuel Skinner January 24, 2019 at 18:28

              “But the Left cares about shoring up weak groups with rights and advantages and my point was that in modern societies, people will generally accept that as long as it doesn’t affect their paycheck or personal freedom all too much (subjectively).”

              That is because they lost and the left is trying to engage in a mop up- people were more willing to fight in the past when there was more large scale organization.

              “Doesn’t seem to stop feminism in the Middle East or wherever- they don’t them enough then. But tbh, I don’t really whether this was ever researched properly of is just reactosphere folk wisdom. ”

              Feminism is promoted top down. If the governments there wanted to, they could restrict women from entering universities. They don’t. Saudi Arabia is a good example of this in action- it had a high fertility rate until recently when the government decided to start expanding the rights of women.

              “Back in fantasyland.”

              Historically the only thing leftism has been stopped by is leftists getting executed. Aside from invasion or total social breakdown, I’m not seeing any other way out.

              “It says here that 20% percent of women keep working after the first child is born, in Japan. Doesn’t sound very 2d wave to me. ”

              I’m not talking about women working. Nearly 100% of women worked in pre-modern times. Women marry up which means men need to have higher status then women. This means men have to have power over women because that is how women rate status.

              “lmao, this can’t be true in the way you put it or humanity would’ve been the most retarded species around.”

              Human sacrifice works precisely on this principle which is the reason it was universal for our species. Notably it only ends when there is a single strong individual who has the power to prohibit it.

              There is plenty of less crazy but still extreme examples- sending your children to monasteries for example to show your dedication to God.

              “I agree that adultery is pretty ridiculous at the moment although it’s not crashing society. ”

              France bans paternity tests which suggests it is a serious problem there. For the rest of the world it is an case of reducing the relative status of men to women and increasing the effectiveness of spray and pray relative to other strategies.

    • spandrell January 23, 2019 at 06:24

      How many women in the far right in the Netherlands? How many women in the far left?

      I’m glad for you if your women are pleasant; that does happen in some places, though not all. At any rate you tell me how to get your women to have 3 kids instead of 1.5.

      • Dividualist January 23, 2019 at 10:34

        >how to get your women to have 3 kids instead of 1.5.

        That’s not the real problem. The real problem is how to make the *smart* women do that. Stupid women of any race are easily made to be have more kids: just pull a Ceaucescu, take away abortion AND birth control, pills, condoms, all, while slutting around is still allowed: stupid women get drunk, get pregnant, pop kids out, easy. Throw in welfare which takes away the incentive to infanticide and you got it. Any race can be maintained that way – the issue is that it is still dysgenic as fuck, the *quality* of the race cannot be maintained that way. It would just recreate the white thrash that mostly disappeared from Western Europe by now.

        • dfordoom January 29, 2019 at 05:14

          That’s not the real problem. The real problem is how to make the *smart* women do that.

          The *smart* women are the ones who cause most of the problems. They’re the ones who have played a major role in wrecking society. Why would we want them to breed?

          One of our biggest problems is that we have so many surplus intellectuals.

          We need higher birthrates among decent moral people, not among high IQ people who just become more worthless intellectuals.

      • Johan January 23, 2019 at 12:17

        How many women in the far right in the Netherlands?

        Firstly, women here were known as more right and conservative up until the 70s. I’d guess it’s the church thing again.

        Now, active party members in the far right are usually men- but that’s pretty normal for any political party. We have two far-right parties, the Freedom Party (Geert Wilders) and Forum for Democracy (Thierry Baudet) with more complex rhetoric. In the polls they would together by far be the biggest party (if they were one party). Both want about zero immigration.

        Wilders is for lower class voters and people that really hate Islam. They are sorta civnat on the surface, dunno how much that still is the case. They also post shit about ‘colonization by Africans’ and from time to time there’s a guy with a hitler haircut in a community council that reposts Stormfront- or a Hungarian candidate for Rotterdam that turned out to have been on a fascist podcast musing about building a white ethnostate in Holland, or that guy who said he hoped mosques are going to burn down. They’re a bit out there. At any rate the vote in their favor was 55 per cent men and 45 per cent women, I guess because they don’t come off as a men’s club,

        Baudet is pretty over the top. His self-declared mission is starting a new rennaissance, and he is a big fan of The Decline of the West, so Spengler, and thinks his mission is stopping the death of its culture. He met with Jared Taylor in a hotel (in secret) and had a three hour chat. He stated he wants a ‘dominantly white Europe.’ In a speech (held multiple times) he stated that ‘hostile elements’ are being ‘introduced’ into our society and ‘homeopathically diluting’ it so that ‘The Dutch will disappear and never be again’. He also wants more democratization (a more swiss system). FvD has a 76% male base, but that’s a rough prediction as it’s still a very small but rising party (2 seats) polling 17 seats. I don’t think it helps that Baudet gives off a boys club image, e.g. he said that women want to be ‘taken’, are usually left but become right as they have to admit right men are correct as they have a relationship, etc. The pvv doesn’t really have the all-male voter problem even as it’s also pretty out there.

        ‘How many women in the far left?’

        Well I used to be a Marxist, and qua active members, far left parties are still predominantly male but composed of emotionally fragile humanities students and a lot of Jews + other minorities. Greens and shit are also all-white and 50/50 women and men. The far left here is a bit ambiguous on migration however (SP), and qua migration the real cuck parties (PVDA (social democrats), D66 (social-liberals), Greens) either have a male bias (PVDA, D66) or a female one (Greens). And that with the Greens is mostly because women think the leader is sexy.

        Imo what this story shows is that women aren’t exactly lost nor do they have to be. The most politically correct, left-wing group here are higher educated white people in general- not just women, and it’s unfair to just shovel all blame onto them. Of course, immigrants also vote social democrats, greens, or (DENK) a literal pro-Erdogan party that wants to demolish national identity here, started by two Turks split from the PVDA. Our political problem here is how to deal with the consortia press/humanities/IQ taboos so the higher educated swing around a bit.

        ‘you tell me how to get your women to have 3 kids instead of 1.5.’

        Like I said above, my country is overpopulated. We have traffic jams constantly already plus a chronic housing shortage. I don’t want white women on average to have 3 (and the exponential growth that implies) kids ad nauseam so we can become more and more overpopulated for ever since that’s kind off the implication of ‘general’ birth rate hysteria.

        Here’s our research on fertility rates: https://www.cbs.nl/-/media/imported/documents/2012/37/2012-bt-vruchtbaarheid-opleidingsniveau-mw.xls?la=nl-nl

        Of interest are ‘tabel 4’ and ‘tabel 5’.

        4 is about the fertility rate by level of education (low, middle, higher). It’s pretty interesting. For men, there’s not a lot of difference by class (1,67-1,73), and higher educated men actually have the most children (the 1,73). Lower-educated women get 1,99 children, middle-educated 1,84 and higher educated 1,63. Now, the lower-class is disproportionately composed of immigrants which you almost never see around at the university. (We have free education and cheap universities, and we differentiate high-shool education by intelligence into three levels. We have a IQ test in elementary school to select where you should go, so Morrocans and Surinamers usually just don’t cut it.) So the higher lower-class birthrate is probably mostly immigrants and smart white men and women have almost the same amounts of children, I’d say.

        5 is about fertility rates for actual fathers and mothers. These are almost identical across class, and for men and women. If men and women actually get children, it’s at a 2,2-2,3 rate.

        So the Dutch problem is not mothers an sich, (those rates are solid), it’s a specific group of women (27 percent) and men (26) in specific that don’t want children at all which pushes down the rate so much.

        Like I said, the only thing that would help us is ‘eugenics with a human face’, or at least broad societal awareness of the necessity of high IQ people. In our liberal monoculture you can give general cash incentives but like the poster above pointed out, those also reach the people you don’t want to have even more children. The higher-educated need that cash less.

        I see two obvious options. We could push the discourse that smart people have a proud duty to get children and use shaming if they don’t. Maybe use the climate change thing to push collectivism, as in, ‘you need to behave properly to protect the well-being of society’, a bit before starting that?

        We could also give that up and instead push smart men and women that do have children to have more and awarding them status if they do. I you already want children, maybe the idea of just having one more is easier to push than forcing people that want to be childless to have children. This second option seems the most realistic and easy, and women with children usually indicate they’d want more.

        • Johan January 23, 2019 at 12:23

          Oh I should also add that mass migration was started by (male) Right christian democrats at time (50s), and the Social Democrat leader Drees opposed having people coming in because he thought the country was full.

        • spandrell January 23, 2019 at 15:43

          Well then your problems are not our problems. You just need to send the Moroccans back home.

          • Johan January 23, 2019 at 19:21

            Sure, I intended the post to offer a productive comparative case, I know that we have different problems. I think that since full-blown patriarchy isn’t ever going to return, but also that not everyone is the eternal anglo in post-feminist societies. It might help to compare which cultures in the West have proven most manageable qua reproduction and gender relations and tweak those ‘models’ instead of trying to return to sticks and honor killings- even implying such will just alienate women forever into a bio-base. Like it or not, you gotta come to terms with them somehow unless you want to take ridiculous gambles, and as I pointed out above repression isn’t gonna stick. I think our culture might be helpful in that regard, in some ways and not others (though I might just be too rosy about it, I can be a bit of a nationalist I guess).

            By the way, overpopulation is also your concern. Growth with a ‘rate’ (like a rate of 3) is always exponential. At some point, every country is going to be choked with people. Like I said, Denmark has three times less density than we do and it doesn’t matter. You need to formulate some philosophy about overpopulation at some time- the rightwing mixup of high birth rates and societal vitality doesn’t hold forever.

            • Eli January 25, 2019 at 00:19

              >You need to formulate some philosophy about overpopulation at some time- the rightwing mixup of high birth rates and societal vitality doesn’t hold forever.

              Population control is, for me, one of the litmus tests for discovering a leftist/cuckservative. No society ever got ahead by facing the dilemmas brought about by population pressure and succumbing to ant-natalism or feminism. All healthy vital societies overcame population pressures via warfare, expansion, and, of course, technology (including non-zero sum ones, like increasing food production by better agro-methods etc). All other top-down cultural “solutions” result in eventual death, sooner or later.

              • Johan January 25, 2019 at 14:08

                >Population control is, for me, one of the litmus tests for discovering a leftist/cuckservative.

                If you disagree with me about my right-wing shibboleth then you’re a cuck.

                >No society ever got ahead by facing the dilemmas brought about by population pressure

                Facing problems is for the weak, only strong people pray it’ll all just go away if only they face the prospect of all-out nuclear war and famines and genocidal war over food.

                >All healthy vital societies overcame population pressures

                European history before and in early modernity was one intermittent series of famines, and plagues worsened by cramped living conditions. The Black Plague was partly an economic boon for Europe because it was overpopulated. Throughout history, we overwhelmingly did not overcome the pressures and were at constant risk of famine and death- but then, that’s just what strong societies do.

                >via warfare, expansion

                Ever heard of Volk ohne Raum and Raum ohne Volk? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volk_ohne_Raum

                The nazis and Germans were real convinced a strong society should overcome population pressure through war and expansion. Worked out real well for them, big success. They’re a real strong nation now.

                >technology

                Strong people don’t face dilemmas, they plug their ears, shut their eyes, and hope technology will make the problem go away before there’s a famine.

                >including non-zero sum ones, like increasing food production by better agro-methods etc

                Even if Africa wasn’t popping out masses of people and even if farmeable land wasn’t degrading, it’s not about food per se. I think my country is too full, it’s irritating and I don’t want more people.

                >All other top-down cultural “solutions” result in eventual death, sooner or later.

                That’s folk-wisdom with no actual evidence since (mild) population control has never been tried intensely, there’s just no empirical evidence to back up the idea that top-down cultural changes as I described them result in ‘death’. Japan and Korea aren’t anti-natalist, they’re pro-natalist, and still just dying off, no tweaking needed. Same story for all low birth-rate countries in Europe: people just stopped giving a fuck even as the government is prodding them on (if very weakly). Oh, and I’m not prescribing anti-natalism or feminism.

                I don’t want to mock you here. But the idea that you shouldn’t just face your problems and instead risk nuclear war, getting fucked over like the Germans were, or intermittent famines like we used to have, simply because that seems strong to you for whatever reason (sure, having millions of their women raped by the Soviets and having their country split in two really confirmed German strength), is just a very bad argument.

                • spandrell January 25, 2019 at 16:00

                  You’ll admit that the circumstances of the Netherlands are quite particular. You may be able to convince your women to vote for expelling the Moroccans and have a pleasant life with low-ish fertility; but much of Europe has outright evil women depressing fertility in places that could use more children.

                  • Johan January 25, 2019 at 17:03

                    Yeah, I’ll definitely admit both. And I don’t want to give off the impression that everything is perfect here, just that the problem isn’t Dutch women per se atm.

                    But, one, our general population is pretty toothless and nobody understands that, even if 80 per cent is still white, that includes a huge amount of old white people- I’d say about 60 percent or a bit more of the youth is white atm and the youth is the future. Since nobody realizes that, and since nobody has a spine when it comes to consistent immigration policy (we’re still in the ‘you’re safe for asylum if you manage to get into the EU policy) we’re still going to be a minority in about 50 or 60 years- and we already have to deal with endless bitching by urban soy and angry foreigners.

                    Two, the softer sex might just as well get anglified in the future, the government certainly pushes it and so does the ‘respectable’ media.

                  • Johan January 25, 2019 at 17:37

                    *Actually 90 percent is white here, 20 is non-ethnic Dutch but about 10 of those come from Europe, so, whatever there. That’s still an okay number.

                  • spandrell January 25, 2019 at 17:52

                    Just send some mercs to France or Germany when the time comes to expel the Muslims and you’re good.

                • Samuel Skinner January 25, 2019 at 17:38

                  “European history before and in early modernity was one intermittent series of famines, and plagues worsened by cramped living conditions.”

                  Famines caused by poor transportation systems and/or war meaning local crop failures were catastrophic.

                  “The Black Plague was partly an economic boon for Europe because it was overpopulated.”

                  Because it reduced the amount of marginal land being farmed which meant average productivity was higher. I’m sure we can survive several more percentage points of our people working tractors.

                  “The nazis and Germans were real convinced a strong society should overcome population pressure through war and expansion. Worked out real well for them, big success. They’re a real strong nation now.”

                  The English live in Wales. The people in the rest of the island are invaders who arrived at the fall of the Roman Empire and pushed out the natives. So yes, it does work- you just have to win.

                  “Even if Africa wasn’t popping out masses of people and even if farmeable land wasn’t degrading, it’s not about food per se. I think my country is too full, it’s irritating and I don’t want more people. ”

                  Just send them to the Northern half of the country- it is less populated. Or build arcologies to free up more space.

                  “That’s folk-wisdom with no actual evidence since (mild) population control has never been tried intensely, there’s just no empirical evidence to back up the idea that top-down cultural changes as I described them result in ‘death’. ”

                  The reason is pretty simple- people want kids so only top down measures make them stop. The elite are most effected by top down measures so they will result in the elite being a smaller fraction of society every generation and the overall intelligence dropping.

                  You can try sterilizing stupid people as an alternative but that is liable to an insane degree of abuse; the ‘sanest’ way to pull it off is to bring back serfdom, ban sex out of marriage and make marriage require your local lords approval.

                  Colonizing Africa is more palatable.

                  • spandrell January 25, 2019 at 17:53

                    The Britons live in Wales. The English came from Anglia, which is in modern Germany, close to Denmark.

                  • Johan January 25, 2019 at 19:13

                    Real quick comment because I think I wrote enough in this thread, but there seem to be some misunderstandings. I said above that I don’t want a rate of 3, that doesn’t mean I want to stop people from having kids. I just want a replacement rate or thereabouts, so right now we could do with getting some more children here imo.

                    ‘people want kids so only top down measures make them stop. ‘

                    You’re the same guy that said getting the birth rate back up was about impossible. Also, they don’t seem to give much of a shit in Korea.

                    ‘you just have to win.’

                    Bit hard to say what happened in England, not sure the English ‘won’ so much as filled a power vacuum by throwing their weight around when Rome fell. Like, these guys usually didn’t arrive en masse as is the traditional thought, barbarians were usually semi-assimilated into the Roman army and stayed when Rome fell.

                    But that’s not important. Wars of conquest are one thing when no one has nuclear weapons, when they do, it’s just a fantasy or at least extremely dangerous.

        • gkai January 24, 2019 at 11:38

          I don’t think you can use “climate change” to push for any positive outcomes, it is always used as
          – a way to make working people smallow additonal taxes
          – a way to push for puritanism. A “new” brand of puritanism, maybe, but not so new: frugality, self-repentance, with a lot of signaling but no emphasis on efficiency. It’s new because there is no sexual component. Maybe it’s not needed as actual sex getting lower and lower anyway.
          – centralized control of people behavior, with more and more monitoring.
          All of this is a little bit the same, less liberty and more centralized control, very reminiscent of communism.
          And a particular brand of communism, with young (sometimes very young) vocal supporters. Media like it and push it, like this 16yo, supposed autistic, swedish girl that is regularly show as example in the news…I don’t like it, it reminds me a lot the red khmers or mao cultural revolution. I have started disliking greens since they went from conservation efforts to global polution control (and started to organise politically, at the same time). Hated them when they embraced/created global warming catastrophism. Now they fit more and more to the “green khmer” (les khmers verts, it sounds nicer in french) derogatory label, they start to frighten me. On one hand, they looks weaker that a few years ago, with “general support for the greens” feeling manufactured by the media, so that is good. The “Gilets jaunes” are certainly not green, as you would expect, people struggling to meets ends or just suffering wealth-decrease usually do not like expensive signaling policies…
          But On the other hand, seeing pure students protests (instead of the family-ones in the past) and younger and younger public figures smell very bad. Hopefully there is not enough youngs in the western world to have a new mao with a little green book….

        • Alex January 25, 2019 at 16:42

          @Johan

          “Like I said above, my country is overpopulated. We have traffic jams constantly already plus a chronic housing shortage. I don’t want white women on average to have 3 (and the exponential growth that implies) kids ad nauseam so we can become more and more overpopulated for ever since that’s kind off the implication of ‘general’ birth rate hysteria.”

          Send some of the excess to SE-E Europe (no Swarthies and junkies, please, we’ve got plenty of the former and few of the latter). I’m not into importing an overclass, but assimilating some nice blonds and blondes will be good for the gene pool. With large amounts of emigration to the rest of Europe, my country now has the same population it had 100 years ago, when its territory was a bit larger. It’s two thirds of the size of Germany and a quarter of the population, four fifths of Poland with half the population. And its within the EU, so mobility is easy.

          My personal favorite is taking in some Boers (the ones not ruined by miscegenation and Africanization), but my country is, I believe, the only one in Europe or the world whose Constitution explicitly forbids the settling and colonization of foreign peoples in the country (which is good). That still means they can come as individuals and apply for admittance on individual merit. It’s why we have the better sort of Arab minority – that, and low gibs.

          • Johan January 25, 2019 at 17:10

            ‘Send some of the excess to SE-E Europe’

            God knows you guys are going to need it, with a birthrate of 1.4 and emigration up north, you’re all pretty fucked when your working population finally starts needing a pension.

            ‘My personal favorite is taking in some Boers’

            Boer is Dutch for farmer btw, they came from here. Yeah I would also make an exception for Boers, their language is a bit of a dialect of Dutch anyhow.

            • Alex January 26, 2019 at 01:18

              @Johan

              Yeah, I know. I am fascinated by the history of South Africa and Rhodesia. My thinking is that they are the only first world population in human capital who live in a hostile third world country. So they would be more likely to want to move and, indeed, this is what happened, but only towards certain countries that would receive them.

              Forget the pensions. We are literally dwindling away to nothing. The Communist baby booms came late and were undersized. Emigration is a bitch. Sure, we offloaded some Gypsies, but we also thinned the smart fraction massively. Population-wise, my country has been more affected that in any of the wars of the modern era. Who knows if we will be able to hold onto the land.

        • Alex January 25, 2019 at 16:45

          @Johan

          I read in the Economist that Dutch women have the highest rates of part time work in the EU (which they presented as lost GDP and stated they should be encouraged to work full time).

          Do you think that this … habit, preference, whatever… has been accommodated sufficiently by society to actually make having extra children easier by increasing the level of involvement in child rearing and the household?

          • Johan January 25, 2019 at 17:24

            ‘I read in the Economist that Dutch women have the highest rates of part time work in the EU (which they presented as lost GDP and stated they should be encouraged to work full time).’

            There is one mag I hate from the bottom of my heart, and it’s the Economist. It’s pure evil, just the incarnation of soulless neoliberalism. What lost GDP? We have one of the richest and most pleasant countries in the world, who gives a shit.

            ‘do you think that this … habit, preference, whatever… has been accommodated sufficiently by society to actually make having extra children easier by increasing the level of involvement in child rearing and the household?’

            Yeah, I think so, since if women just work part-time it would plausibly mean that they aren’t worrying about a career all that much. In countries like Korea there’s just no time for children and everybody wants a career, women here usually (I think 75 percent of the time) eventually want women from the beginning but they also want some life outside of the house and some financial independence in case of a divorce. Imo having women work part-time but not too much would help societal harmony more than having them all be housewifes, in that regard. You have do some career women and feminists that are bitching at other women that they are betraying the female sex (dunno how much success they’ll have long-term in anglifying everyone else).

            But I digress, yeah I think the general orientation of women is more towards children than career and part-time work strengthens that orientation since it’s not career-friendly.

      • A.B. Prosper February 6, 2019 at 23:18

        We don’t need three kids . The West is grossly crowded now, Germany is around the size of Montana and has 80 million people. That’s crazy. California USA is hideously crowded at half that.

        Kick out the foreigners and 2.1 is more than enough. Heck 1.5 for a few decades till the cost of housing declines and it will self correct. Broadly most women want two children and the few cases they don’t , stopping anti natal and anti cultural agit prop will be enough. Shoot or hang some people for sedition if they keep it up as necessary.

        The remaining issue is automation. Its is repairable and if lower costs of housing keep don’t work, an automation tax will. If say robot or kiosk costs 10 jobs, tax it at 50. There will be more jobs and thus wages will rise

        This will require an authoritarian state though and an end to the current system. It will may require force and will certainly have to wait a decade or two till the US is no longer capable of intervention

    • Bartolo January 26, 2019 at 15:34

      Very good comment, Johan. One of the two main problems of our “movement” (a movement for survival of *both* our cultures *and* peoples) is that our ideas and the ways we present them scare off normies. My girlfriend, for example, opposes immigration and is, at heart, clearly on our side. But when she sees me reading Greg Johnson’s “The White Nationalist Manifesto” (which was not as uniformly good as I expected, sadly) she says it “sounds creepy”. Thank God she hasn’t heard of “White Sharia”. We have to become better at marketing, really.
      A first step would be to stop calling ourselves (“Alt” or “Dissident”…) RIGHT. We need something that does not put off half of our people from the get-go. I would personally suggest “Identitarians”.
      If you come to Brussels one day, let me know. We are trying to create a nice pan-European network? (or something) IRL.

      • iAmJoking January 26, 2019 at 21:42

        Does she read Jim’s blog?
        What’s her thoughts on an expression such as “the hand of ownership”?
        Does she know she is in dire need of just that?

      • Howard J. Harrison February 9, 2019 at 18:57

        Alt Right is a fine, short name. It’s catchy. It has punch. In the U.S., I will keep this name.

        They say that the name Alt Right, after abuse by Leftists and weak Conservatives, markets poorly. However, in the U.S., the Alt Right attracts and concentrates high-IQ, masculine men with low time preference and self-regulated status drive precisely by not being a marketing campaign. The Alt Right is a vanguard movement. It is that group from which a future cadre can be drawn.

        You mention women. It is true that you cannot use a low-status name to attract a woman of quality, but neither can you very well use a high-status name for this purpose. Social cues matter more than names in this context. Are you healthy, smart, strong, stable and well balanced? Do you have a sense of humor? (I wish that I had a better one.) Do you have some credentials and some money? Are you tough and firm without intractability or excessive pride? Have you earned the visible esteem of local personages of high status? Do you avoid the pole of narcissism while yet projecting self-worth? Few of us shine in all these areas, perhaps. None is the perfect man. One manages as best one can, but to focus on the mere name is in this context a mistake. Alt Righters have sometimes observed that, once married, wives can be red-pilled—not because women were especially malleable (they aren’t) but because red-pilling is a political/social thing that does not strongly touch a woman’s core personality. My own wife of more than 20 years probably started out more red-pilled than I did, so I could not say, but the proposition sounds plausible to me.

        Anyway, the married white woman, once pregnant at a sufficiently young age, her husband meaning to support the family on a single income, is pretty susceptible to the ideas of the Alt Right.

        If the Alt Right someday gathers a mass movement to follow the vanguard, the name will consequently rise in status. Until then, if the status spooks you, then you’re probably not ready to join the vanguard, for this vanguard was never going to be a comfortable post. The name itself, as a name, has merit.

        Pseudonymous, cowardly perhaps, with too much to lose, I am not ready to join the vanguard, but this vanguard has my moral support. Long live the Alt Right!

  28. UlricKerensky January 22, 2019 at 23:19

    While I personally have no love for small or large-L Libertarianism, I believe that their love of capital and the poorly sourced view of English law and society does have one common thread, that they believe that people can dictate policy to a State, be it economic or legal. Since they have absolutely nothing to organize with or any coherent policies to dictate, they (thankfully) lose by default. I mention both parts of that since I think a great many so-called libertarians actually never put the pieces together on what actually they are “struggling” for.

    Democracy has issues in any event, based on the then-Great Powers of Western Europe needing to train their citizenry to operate and attach machine guns and later to work on mechanical assembly lines to supply said forces. I leave it to the HBD theories to say if there was also some of the Germanic tribal structure in the Western European “democratic” tradition. Grafting some of the other parts of the modern State onto a birthright franchise caused a great many issues and feedback loops.

  29. Bartolo January 23, 2019 at 02:18

    Karlin, intriguingly (and empirically), on what *really* makes people have kids – in response to the Spandrell’s MOPRA-priority (Make Our People Reproduce Again!) and the musings by some commenters:
    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/where-do-babies-come-from/
    Karlin is indispensable for the Dissident Right because of his ruthless empiricism. Not the kind to avert his eyes or engage in wishful thinking.
    MOPRA!

    • Alex January 30, 2019 at 21:48

      He’s interesting but I’m not that big of a fan when he engages in ambitious speculation. I like his descriptive and history posts more.

  30. MBlanc46 January 23, 2019 at 04:15

    “Because free markets.” Capitalists hate free markets. Read Adam Smith. See what he had to say about capitalists conspiring to fix prices.

  31. eternal anglo January 23, 2019 at 11:07

    Capital today is perhaps the biggest force of the Left. They’re the biggest enemy.

    Really? More so than the media or the education system?

    Sure, social media companies are with less than total success trying to shut down counter-left discourse on their platforms, and sure, corporations are paying for conspicuous displays of leftist piety such as rainbow flags, hymns of hatred disguised as razor ads, etc. I don’t think this is the elephant in the room. Who’s forcing white men to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to waste 20 years of their lives in leftist seminaries learning lies and self-hatred if they want any remote chance at a decent job and a family? Not Woke Capital.

    • iPrivileged January 23, 2019 at 14:52

      Now the media aren’t part of capital.

    • spandrell January 23, 2019 at 15:42

      Woke Capital picks up where the school system ends, and now deprives you of a job and a livelihood if you don’t obey the Left.

      • Carlylean Restorationist January 27, 2019 at 02:56

        Actually not just ‘woke’ capital: the profit motive alone, divorced from any ideology, as libertarians would wish capital to be, will ALSO deprive you of a job and a livelihood if you don’t obey whoever happens to control the consensus opinion, and if the universities and newspapers have moulded that consensus opinion into a hard left shape, ‘unwoke’ capital will rationally shun anyone likely to be a poor fit with that consensus opinion.

        There’s only one way to divorce capital from politics and that’s to establish permanent guilds, one and only one per industry, to which entry depends on being useful to the reputation and wealth of the existing members: far from competition being the pro-social structuring force for commerce, competition is anti-social while fully protected state-endorsed monopoly is pro-social (in the sense that we want).

  32. Dividualist January 23, 2019 at 11:59

    >No, that means that every single alcoholic in France or Italy who couldn’t hold their liquor died

    Ancient Greeks believed that drinking wine undiluted can kill you and that Brennus committed suicide this way. Which supports this, but also that it was not only biological but also cultural adaptation, towards moderateness, like diluting wine.

    On a general note, there is this problem with HBD-only explanations. A relatively intelligent population, when seeing drinking kills people left and right, won’t just shrug and do it anyway until enough are killed to develop resistance. They will change their cultural practices. It is absolutely true that human evolution sped up at the beginning of civilization, but the point is, it cannot be the only thing that happened, but there must be a complicated interplay between human evolution and cultural choices.

    Like if get diarrhea from drinking milk because you lack adult lactase, you know it and keep only a small number of dairy animals around for the kids, and organize your agriculture differently. Which means there won’t even be enough milk around to give any advantage to people who randomly get the genes for adult lactase. Why are you drinking the kids milk, Lee? Because I can. Fuck off, Lee, we need it for the kids. Meanwhile, the whiter populations who got the adult lactase gene widespread got it because there was something in the cultural or environmental background that helped it. My guess: the mutation happened at a time of extreme famine, population bottleneck. If it happens during a period of advanced agriculture and relative plenty, it does not get widespread. So then the few surviving milk-drinkers noticed they survived, noticed how they did it, then made a conscious cultural choice to breed cows or other animals for milk and dairy. I am just speculating of course. Just saying yes human evolution sped up, but people didn’t just bumble through it randomly like animals but made choices too.

  33. Pingback: Five Friday Reads – 1/25/2019 – The American Sun

  34. ERTZ January 25, 2019 at 20:38

    I think you have it the wrong way around.
    >Capital is now Woke, if the Left has successfully captured the capitalists

    I see it exactly reversed:
    The capitalists have captured the left!

    What I see is happening:
    The losers and weirdos want high social status, too.
    High status 1st class is corporate/rich/career. Shiny business suits, fancy name tags, important
    professional people.
    In the past the deviants were shut out from corporate world. Fags and transsexuals and all the other defectives had too look elsewhere for their social status/power – and the left, communism, socialism, offered it to them. By rejecting the deviants and losers, the corporate world has DRIVEN them into the arms of the leftists, who were low status, but offered a glimpse of hope in revolution and then a little bit higher (promised) social status. But even after the revolution, those status gains are meager.
    Full communism provides less (apparent) status than being “corporate” with real nice big wages.
    The deviants never wanted to be socialists – it was always only their 2nd-best option, after getting rich and corporate the “normal” way.
    And the corporate elites have realized this – and embraced the losers, feminists and weirdos – by rolling out the red carpet for them, diversity quotas, women’s quotas, gay welcomes, all the “woke” stuff you can see everywhere to a degree it feels sickening.

    Now what are the real effects from this?
    1.
    The corporate world draws legions of potential leftist recruits away from the real leftists.
    The weirdos and losers are not only explicitly welcome in the corporate system, they are outright sucked in aggressively. Thus, they identify themselves as corporate members, have careers and nice wages and fancy name tags – they get their social status now from being corporate.
    They may still wear furry suits and are heavily tattooed and deviants, but they now have changed tribe – their real loyalty is with where the money and status comes from, and they even can keep their gay pride and furry suits.
    THIS IS GAME OVER FOR THE LEFT: Their personnel, their recruits are only superficially leftist anymore, actually they now are “Google Engineers” and whatnot, real, live, incorporated business drones. They do not attend readings of Marx’ Capital anymore or attend hard-left demonstrations – they are now concerned with shareholder value, because they got shares and options and wage bonuses for reaching business goals!
    They have been ripped from the bloody claws of the real hard left, and have become de-facto soldiers of the corporate army, pay taxes, enjoy having lots of disposable income.
    This is GAME OVER for the real leftists. Their recruits have been taken over by the other side.

    2.
    Mot weirdos can work, they may be sexually or mentally defective, but even transsexual autistic queer persons are technically perfectly able to be software engineers making 6-figure wages.
    It is unreasonable to care for the private and superficial appearances of human profit sources – if they work, if they can make a profit for their employer, it matters not if they are sexually strictly into gay dogs and wear furry suits.
    Weirdos were in the past excluded from normal corporate functions.
    That was doubly wrong; it limited potential profits and pushed those rejects right in the arms of the left.

    3.
    Feminism today is nothing else than a trick to get females into work.
    This trick is needed: Women do not want and do not need to work hard. Why should they? They have the vaginal superpower, and can always find men to pay for their lives, or become full-time (single) mothers. WOMEN CANNOT BE FORCED TO WORK IF THEY DO NOT WANT TO.
    Their sexual power over thirsty men and motherhood (welfare-financed) are too powerful.
    And women do not care if they are work/money-wise low status – because- and this is critical – WOMEN DO NOT COMPETE WITH MEN. If they would, nobody could win: In women-male competition a winning woman gains nothing she values, and if she loses she loses nothing she values; men on the other hand always lose if they start to seriously compete with women: If the female wins, the man is embarrassed by having lost against a woman and his status falls,
    and if he wins, he has only won against a woman, which is seen as embarrassingly as winning against a child. Men can be motivated to work by making them compete with other men (ultimately for women/sexual access) by showing them that the richer guy with the fancy car etc. gets the sexy girls. But women winning over men do not get sexy men, and women losing against men do not lose access to sexy men.
    To make women work (and thus counter to their instincts start to compete with men) is to exploit the single competitive drive women do have – against other women, competing for high-status men.
    The whole propaganda complex of current feminism is carrying the message:
    Professionally working, successful women are better (richer) women than other women who do not work, and therefore get not only fancy bling (to make other women envious), but also the high-status men.
    Further, women are tricked into working by reverse psychology:
    The narrative is that the evil patriarchy prevented women in the past from working, therefore preventing them from gaining money/bling/social status, evil men keeping the women down by monopolizing all the wonderful work and jobs! Not so today! The great joys of work are now to be had for women, too! Women are made to believe that working is not something one suffers because one has to, but a fancy privilege and revolutionary act! Empowering!!

    4.
    All this not only results in greater social order – under the control and command of the corporate world – but also higher profits and higher GENERAL wealth.
    Ask yourself:
    Why would you care where your profits come from?
    Say, you get 10k$ per month in capital income, but you need to pretend to be “woke”. Would you reject this if it’s feminists and transsexuals making this money for you? Of course not.
    Women and deviants, even the Negros now become black workers and slick office employees, we’re all so wonderful “woke”. And it works.
    There are more profits, more social order (from more general wealth from more organized work in regular jobs and taxes as well as from removing the potential recruits from leftists and other shady or criminal organisations).

    5.
    Corporate elites/upper class/the owners have NOT suddenly become leftists.
    They are coldly calculating as always.
    And they have figured out a way to both increase profits/”Labor Force Participation Rate” by integrating deviants into their corporate profit-machinery, but at the same time paralyzing the real left.

    6.
    Real leftism has been outright neutered by this strategy.
    Real hard leftists are only very low in numbers anymore, lacking social power.
    Their potential followers are now under corporate command – and they love it, not only do they like the income and status that comes with it – they also love to be “understood” for their deviancy:
    The new corporate rules make clear that deviants are to be respected, to be taken serious, and they are given social status. SUDDENLY IT’S NOT ONLY THE LEFTISTS WHO OFFER SUPPORT FOR AND WELCOME THE DEVIANTS – THE CORPORATE ELITES WELCOME THEM, TOO! And the latter also have the fancy real status, name tags, careers and real money in wages – so the deviants look at what leftists and corporate world have to offer, and clearly can see that the offer of the latter is much, much better than what the leftists have to offer (not much status, even after the questionable revolution, no money, no career, and only the acceptance for being “oppressed” deviants which the corporate world now offers, too).

    Embracing the deviants and thus stealing them away from leftists by pretending to appreciate them and by integrating them into the work force is a genius strategy by the Western ruling class, as is the feminism complex that tricks women into working hard.
    The net result is game over for real leftists, victory for capitalist elites over commies, and increased general welfare for everybody because more actual work is done.

    To gain and keep that victory all that is necessary for the ruling class is to pretend to be “woke”.
    As long as these women and converted potential lefties work productively, produce profits, and behave (stay away from supporting real commies/socialists) – they can have their pussy hat parades and all the silly BUT HARMLESS merely superficially left-signaling idiocy (which media even can sell profitably in the outrage-mill). But their real interests is now in their wages and careers, in pleasing and enriching the owning class. They have been assimilated functionally, while being allowed to keep their otherwise (sexually, culturally, …) deviant ways.

    And we should applaud that secretly.
    The left has been defeated, despite the harmless leftism-like retarded child games that are now medially more visible than ever. This is not real, hard, dangerous leftism, merely hollow, empty shapes of leftism, no real revolutionary intent, harmless, merely show business.

    You can safely ignore it all. But the money is real, the GDP increase is real, the outright wrecking of the real left is real.
    Just go on with your lives, make many children and live richer and safer.
    The colorful ex-lefty clowns, the gay parades and all the other disgusting stuff will go on, but
    you can avoid it, just move someplace else – deviants tend to aggregate, just avoid those areas.
    The media garbage can be ignored, too.
    Just shut it out and off like your TV.
    These people are nothing important, have no power; if you ignore them and keep your distance, just like it already works with staying away from ghetto-drug-dealers and celebrity news.
    Just like you are keeping clean by staying away from dirt, you keep away from the worst people and influences from the “woke” world. There are sane places to live, sane schools for your kids, sane cultural products available, the ruling class makes sure of it (of course they privately live “un-woke”).

    What would the alternative be? What otherwise do with millions and millions of deviants?
    Put them into reeducation camps? Or ghettos? Make them (relatively poor) welfare-recipients? This will only drive them back into the hands of the real left, giving it real power again.
    The current solution may not be perfect, but it works very well, cripples the real left, and is very profitable.
    So, pretend to be woke if necessary – even if you shudder, it’s easy if you never forget that this wokeness cripples and wrecks the left, without them even realizing what is going on.

    • i* January 25, 2019 at 21:52

      I smiled and nodded in agreement as I read item 3).
      The smile turned into a grin when I reminded myself the detail that no woman sees the scam for what it is.

      I recall a psychology paper talking of the possibility to induce self-harming behaviour by exploitation of the drive to imitate.
      They would introduce a remote-controlled facsimile into the group and send it to doom: the living group members would easily follow and be doomed.
      The psychology paper shared with many others the pretence that the study be not about humans and had no implications on humans. As if it weren’t observation of humans to provide the ideas for experimentation and studies on other species ☺.

    • Carlylean Restorationist January 27, 2019 at 02:51

      Reference item five:

      “Corporate elites/upper class/the owners … are coldly calculating as always.”

      Indeed, they’ve been leftists all along: we just didn’t perceive it correctly.

      They’ve been calling for the eradication of barriers to trade all along, it’s just when it took the form of frictionless trade and removal of state regulations on goods, it looked healthy, especially viewed through the lens of economics and the supposed human right to property.
      Today the eradication of barriers to trade takes the form of frictionless recruitment and removal of state regulations on the trade in labour. Suddenly it looks awfully left-wing, but the truth is it was left-wing before.

      18th century Tories knew this but 21st century conservatives do not.

      Of course the truly anti-libertarian insight is that open borders don’t just deregulate recruitment and the supply of labour: they also facilitate a greater availability of consumers, and if that comes at the expense of tax/borrowing-funded welfare schemes, that’s of no concern to the capitalists because the cost’s shared between sellers and buyers of finished goods and services, while the benefits accrue only to the sellers.

      Once you start to see the world through THAT lens, it all makes sense: white traditionalist patriarchal families make for rotten consumers, compared to self-indulgent nihilist individuals, especially if they’re on the dole. Sure each individual dole-scrounger has only a small income, but he spends 110% of it and has no long-term large personal investments to distract him from daily purchases of the latest ‘stuff’.

      Capitalism’s poison and now that the left’s abandoned its former hostility towards it, it’s easy for us to take on the anti-capitalist mantle. We just have to let go of our affection for the Bill Of Rights, which you’d think would be easy for reactionaries….. not always.

    • Howard J. Harrison February 9, 2019 at 19:38

      @ERTZ Are you mad? Your six-part essay is brilliant. Mad, but brilliant. I had never thought of it remotely this way.

      What disturbs me is that I am suddenly only 90 percent sure that you are wrong.

  35. Carlylean Restorationist January 27, 2019 at 02:33

    Just wanted to publicly endorse this article.

    Once the penny drops that egalitarianism is bad, that’s game over for left-wing social and economic goals, but what rightists sometimes fail to grasp is that it’s game over for free markets too. In fact the whole notion of sovereign consumers making rational choices to create Bastiat’s ‘dual inequality of exchange value’ collapses. There are good choices and there are bad choices, and a healthy society takes active steps to incentivise the good and prohibit the bad. That doesn’t look at all like a libertarian socio-economic order, no matter what ‘copes’ people like HHH come up with.

    • Dividualist January 28, 2019 at 16:18

      You are focusing too much on end-consumers. They are the last step in the chain and the market does not only consist of end-consumers making choices but also businesses in choosing their vendors and investors choosing businesses to invest in. This is more important, hopefully more rational, and in these things we do not know what are good or bad choices.

      End-consumers are less important because they are mostly buying lifestyle packages anyway. That is is, there are various groups of people organized by social class and some other axes who make more or less exactly the same consumer choices. People who try to customized their lifestyle packages often hit difficulties. Like, imagine you are middle class, you want to spend a lot of money on food but very little on clothes, you will find that looking like a scarecrow you are not allowed in the best restaurants. Or if you want to spend a lot on clothes and very little on food, you will find in the dingy immigrant kebab shop you keep getting ketchup and grease on your $5000 suit. So eventually people learn they should buy middle-class clothes and food, because this is how they fit together.

      So don’t focus too much on end-consumer choice. I will probably mostly just buy the same toys for my daughter that the neighbors bought. It is part of a lifestyle package. Pink stuff of the mid-level price range from Toys’R’Us. There is not much brainwork going into it and really instead of getting a pay I would get ration cards to the same goods making up the lifestyle package, the difference would be limited.

      But what kind of plastic will the toymaker buy? Now that is the really important “consumer” i.e. purchasing choice on the market, and this is where your way of thinking does not work.

      • i February 4, 2019 at 11:10

        Consumer choice belongs in the same bucket with women onlije profiles’ #independent #happy #lovetotravel. Smoke screens.

        Ten years ago I read an important automotive world exec say in an interview: white is going to be the fashion in car colours in the coming years. As ineducated in human psychology as I was I thought to myself that could not happen: who could forecast people’s tastes and choices?
        Now everybody who rates north of minimally cool drives a white-painted heap.

        Even with no Bioleninism and status-mazimizing organic machines and the NYT and WaPo and CNN and FED in play, the equation doesn’t change. The powers that drive any business sit a table, find out what will best serve their interests, knead from it fashion and marketing guidelines, and there is nothing the Choosing Consumer is more eager to do than oblige. All it takes is not to make them feel they are obliging.

  36. Pingback: Cantandum in Ezkaton 27/01/19 | Liberae Sunt Nostrae Cogitatiores

  37. SV January 28, 2019 at 07:10

    Hypothesis: the left’s final move in capturing capital was to alleviate the guilt over rising inequality and being upper class, by letting them make symbolic sacrifices and routing a fraction of the wealth down to the right pseudoclerics. Cos they sure don’t practice what they preach.

    • iDon't January 31, 2019 at 23:24

      Oh well.
      Philanthropy. Haven’t we all noticed a surge in the usage of the word, specially on sites of operations based in Washington 👍.
      We donate.
      We care.
      We foster.
      We love (#luv in the Philippines, but anyway) you (all).
      We progress.
      We deliver (anything save for babies).

      It’s all great, and will be greater still tomorrow, folks. As long as we get obeyed.

  38. james January 29, 2019 at 01:08

    An encouraging sign in the evolution of the right.

  39. Oliver Cromwell January 29, 2019 at 04:51

    “Tucker then goes on explaining why he places the focus on government in the economy, not in cultural values per se. He says that the reason why young people can’t get married and have kids early is because of economic reasons, not cultural values, as the Right has been saying for decades. This is an important point. This is the most important point. This is everything. ”

    It’s also an incorrect point.

    Why is everyone in the cities? The cities are full of women because every woman wants to chase the same fifty billionaires/sportsmen/celebrities and they go where those people are. The provinces are left devoid of women so the men who have the talent to do so follow the women to the cities. The women compete for the billionaires/sportsmen/celebrities until they’re 25-30 and then the losers (as close to all of them as makes no difference) start settling for those ordinary men who followed. By the time they’re 35 and getting infertile most of the women are married. Some are used to this pattern of life or still hoping to divorce hubby and remarry a billionaire in the future; those women might have one child to stay in the city whereas those who move to the suburbs or to a cheaper city might have two. That’s what economics is – a tiny perturbation to the basic problem.

    Will the proposed remedies even help? Mostly no. Maybe tariffs and so forth will raise salaries for middle ability men in flyover country somewhat and that’s great but it won’t make the women stay. They want to play their lottery ticket for an extraordinary man, not settle for an ordinary man who is just slightly better than the one they already rejected. They are already rejecting ordinary men in the cities who earn way more than any guy back home.

    What is our problem? Lack of enforceable marriage. Women will marry ordinary guys young when the ultra-desirable men are legally off-limits already and the penalty for playing the lottery ticket is a large chance of ending up with nothing at all. Families will move for a $30k salary that buys a $60k lifestyle rather than sticking with a $60k salary that buys a $30k lifestyle in NYC when men have their wives at 25 and are heads of household who can just move the household without their wives’ momentary consent. Maybe Tucker knows all that and is trying to edge the discourse closer to the real point while preserving his job and influence. Maybe he doesn’t know much at all. He’s a normie commentator with a TV show; his thinking is impressively on-point given that fact. It isn’t impressively on-point in any other sense.

    Talking about economics as the reason for the lack of family formation rather than marriage laws is like objecting to immigration on the grounds that a vanishingly small number of immigrants commit murders. The reason immigration is bad that the vast majority of good family men among the racially inferior incomers will inevitably mongrelise our race to a similar level as them perfectly peacefully and legally. It’s OK to use dishonest arguments when the real one is too scary or too illegal, but it’s not the actual reason and making our plans on that basis is a recipe for defeat.

    • Alex January 30, 2019 at 21:44

      “Talking about economics as the reason for the lack of family formation rather than marriage laws is like objecting to immigration on the grounds that a vanishingly small number of immigrants commit murders. The reason immigration is bad that the vast majority of good family men among the racially inferior incomers will inevitably mongrelise our race to a similar level as them perfectly peacefully and legally. It’s OK to use dishonest arguments when the real one is too scary or too illegal, but it’s not the actual reason and making our plans on that basis is a recipe for defeat.”

      Wow, that was a sledgehammer. I do think that the murders and the general impact on societal trust and living quality are an important point as well. It is imprudent to bring such people, but you are right.

    • iDon't January 31, 2019 at 23:30

      Under democracy, marriage is going to grow yet less enforceable than it is.
      You have to break the chokepoint of democracy open to rearrange marriage.

      I don’t care either way, since the only option in human affairs is between different ilks of dishonesty.

  40. Zhengyang Wu January 31, 2019 at 22:54

    Thank you for your excellent article! I found your site through the channel Asian Capitalist at Youtube today.

    Since you are a sinologist, you probably have heard about the ideal society of Confucianism: 内无怨妇外无旷夫 (there is no single man or woman without spouse). I think that the ideal society Tucker Carlson described here is not so far from that. What do you think?

    • spandrell February 1, 2019 at 12:59

      I think Mencius was crazy, but yes, it’s a very similar idea. In a way Christian and Confucian ethics were fairly similar, and a Japanese historian argued that the complete collapse of Confucianism in post-Qing China happened because Western ideology of democracy and human rights was very easy to adopt for people grown on a diet of 仁义 as the ideal of governance.

      • Candide III February 1, 2019 at 16:16

        This reminds me of Fukuzawa’s argument that at least in the Edo period samurai, while nominally (neo-)Confucian, interpreted much of it in ways totally foreign to Confucian doctrine.

        • spandrell February 2, 2019 at 06:47

          The way that guy put it, the Kokugaku guys studied a Chinese-supremacist doctrine to interpret it as Japan being superior to China. Once they found the West was superior to both, they switched in 24 hours.

          • Candide III February 2, 2019 at 09:46

            Yeah, that’s a separate point – kokugaku and neo-Confucian scholars weren’t the same set, were they? All largish Chinese-culture states, e.g. Annam besides Japan, interpreted Chinese supremacy doctrine in this manner and tended to think of other countries (except China) like China thought about them and other barbarians or semi-barbarians. This is described in the first chapter of 三谷博’s 維新史再考 which is about as far as I’d gotten into it yet.

            • Spandrell February 2, 2019 at 10:57

              The way I understood it is that Japanese neoconfucianism evolved into Kokugaku as nobody wanted to accept Chinese supremacy. It’s a blurry line, but ways of denying Chinese superiority started to appear in the 17th century.

      • Howard J. Harrison February 9, 2019 at 16:44

        The blog’s subtitle, “Don’t call it a spade,” is fine but, if for some reason you tired of it,

        I think Mencius was crazy, but

        might accurately summarize the blog.

  41. iDon't January 31, 2019 at 23:35

    I know this is off-topic, but I just got finished with reading Chandler’s The Little Sister, and if all of Chandler’s novels are works of lofty quality with a focus on the feminine, this one tops the whole of them.
    It’s insanely good and subtle (I think I’ll re-read it to taste it better) and I thought I’d recommend it here.

  42. Pingback: xenoeconomics 4: capitalism and monstrosity – Antinomia Imediata

  43. Pingback: Tucker Carlson vs The Establishment | The Red Moon Journal

  44. Pingback: [ARTÍCULO PRESTADO]: La guerra contra el Woke Capitalism — el espíritu anticapitalista de la nueva derecha. – Feminidad Disidente

  45. CW February 3, 2019 at 22:52

    As “Jim” points out capitalists are by and large /ourguys ideologically but generally terrified of the government. Trump mostly donated to Democrats when in NYC, it obviously was not reflective of any genuinely left wing views on his part.

    • spandrell February 4, 2019 at 11:30

      I don’t think you can say the same of Google or so many other companies.

      • CW February 5, 2019 at 00:49

        Google’s top managers and shareholders are genuine leftists but google is also genuinely (I think but cannot prove) an arm of the CIA at this point.

        Zuckerberg’s recent troubles IMHO stem from him not wanting to become an arm of the CIA.

        • spandrell February 5, 2019 at 18:49

          Sure, but the average Google today is noticeably to the left of your average CIA agent.

          And Facebook is just as leftist, even though Zuck’s healthy desire for control leads him to actually want to own his company. His employees are increasingly a bunch of trannies and blue-hairs.

          • ERTZ February 7, 2019 at 05:09

            “His employees are increasingly a bunch of trannies and blue-hairs.”
            And so it is all over industries and companies.
            You seem to me missing the important part: Who serves whom? Who has been conquered by whom? Who is slave, who is master?
            The capitalists/owning class/ruling class in my opinion does not care for who and what their slaves are, as long as they are productive and profitable slaves.
            Ideology before rationality and opportunism seems to me being a mental disease;
            I, for example, would not care the least if I’d employ leftists, rightwingers, pedophiles, gays or whomever, as long as they serve, remain under control, and shovel profits in my pocket.
            If I cannot change them, cannot exterminate them, I at least want them to be under my control, ideally as profitable slaves. And in my view this has been has been achieved by the ruling class.

            I still feel you have it the wrong way around: Our rulers have not become leftists, but the leftists have been assimilated into the capitalistic machine. If the owners have to pretend to share some leftist values, while not changing anything fundamental in their system of keeping power and control, they happily do it – and that is all they do. Talk is cheap, as are rainbow flags to hang in the office.
            In some ways (empathy with losers, “wokeness”, pretended fairness, tolerance, antiracism, anti-whiteness, antimasculinity, feminism etc.) they even pretend to overtake the left, even parts of the extremist left, leaving leftists suddenly with empty hands, without the arguments and political tools communists and socialists could win over people in the past.
            The anger-driven leftist revolutionary impulse has been redirected into anger-driven desire for corporate careers (for women, for blacks, for cripples, for gays … who only now have gotten, “won” the “privilege” to be “equal” with the white patriarchy in the chance to get jobs – to work hard and prove themselves … as workers and employees enriching the ruling class).

            Am I am really the only one who sees it this way?

            Off-topic – I came upon this quote, and found it share-worthy:
            “Unfortunately, insincere ideas can become official orthodoxies, with very real consequences. The Muslims of this country are hardly to blame if they do not realise that the posturings of our intellectuals are just that, posturings, not intended to be taken literally. When the intellectuals of this country express no admiration for or appreciation of the cultural achievements of their civilisation’s past, when only denigration and iconoclasm appear to advance an intellectual’s career, when moral stature is measured by the vehemence of denunciation of past or present abuses, real or imagined, it is hardly surprising that Muslims conclude that the West is eminently hateful; it must be, because it hates itself. They haven’t heard of Marie Antoinette playing shepherdess.”
            ― Theodore Dalrymple

            • Steve Johnson February 7, 2019 at 08:34

              Am I am really the only one who sees it this way?

              No, you have plenty of company in the communists who believe that the capitalists are always pulling the strings.

  46. iWonder February 10, 2019 at 02:41

    Gucci has been marketing an $890 black knitted top whose neck you can roll halfway up to your face, where is has an opening for your mouth, the opening featuring a red knitted surround that looks like big lips. This has caused outrage. [Gucci ‘deeply apologizes’ and removes from the shelves its $890 balaclava knit top after thousands on Twitter branded it ‘blackface for millennials’, Daily Mail, February 7, 2019] Gucci’s withdrawn the item and issued gushing apologies, affirming that— if I can get through the quote without throwing up all over my microphone —”We are fully committed to increasing diversity throughout our organization and turning this incident into a powerful learning moment for the Gucci team and beyond.”
    Adidas brought out a new line of sneakers expressly in celebration of Black History Month. Unfortunately the sneakers are totally white. Twitterstorm! Adidas has now withdrawn the sneakers.

    Humans are so mechanical. When you look at their virtue spirals (or lying spirals) you realize they would never stop of themselves; they’d go on, a step further everytime, to no end. Very mechanical.

    I wonder if one day their majority will grow into something hard to summarize by a couple simple math functions.

Please comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s