This does seem to settle one aspect of your debate with Auron and Haywood, clearly the regime is not capable of pragmatism and self-discipline anymore. This was an easy win teed up for them and they blew it.
Hitchens correctly identifies Starmer as a Eurocommunist. His worldview is a product of Martin Jacques editorials in Marxism Today, plus the judicial activism of Michael Mansfield, Helena Kennedy and Charter 88. Whichever leftist cell he belongs to, Starmer lacks that x-factor which Blair had in spades - the mystique of power. In France, Jean-Luc Mélenchon is more left wing than Starmer, but he has palpable charisma. He’s a skilled orator, he’s media savvy, he’s a genuine left-populist - a rabble rouser, even. Starmer is an identikit Apparatchik; loyal to the Party, bureaucratic, safely lacking in initiative. But he’s wound up over-promoted because the last leader was too flaky. He’s the UK’s answer to Leonid Brezhnev, and he’s four years older than Застойщик was when he took power in the USSR.
David Starkey has pointed out that Starmer (the “satanic solicitor”) chose to specialise in an area of law where cases were always decided by a judge, not a jury. He never had to convince twelve ordinary citizens to agree with him, only a posh judge with a well-stocked wine cellar. That’s more like having to persuade your tutor at Oxford to give you a good mark for your essay than having to persuade the volk to follow you.
There is a certain irony, that even with the Tone wing saying he would destroy the party, and doing everything to undermine him, more people voted for Corbyn in 2017, then did for Adults Back in the Room Keir ( the Labour vote only went up 0.5% from the 2019GE, and that was even with The Sun endorsement.)
It is baffling how much the Starmer government resembles the Scholz cabinet in Germany thus far. Scholz too snuck into office despite a poor electoral showing because his opponents self-combusted, while Scholz had a reputation of being boring but reasonable. After a supposed conspiratorial meeting of right wingers in Potsdam (nothingburger) the state apparatus conjured mass protests against the right and throughout all of this, the minister of the interior, Nancy Faeser, is hamfisted and unhinged.
What you've set out chimes with my experience of living through this peculiar episode; the hyperreality aspect put me in mind of the COVID event - at first the unusual and rather exciting "something is happening!" feeling, then the quick (much quicker this time) realisation that this is yet another manufactured pseudo-event, in which an underlying flesh and blood reality is edited and spun and magnified into a media spectacle, another engrossing episode in the ongoing soap opera that we are all compulsively addicted to and can't stop talking about. (And I'm doing just that here, adding my two pennorth to the endless conversation, albeit in a knowingly meta fashion).
For the regime this was, of course, all about "far-right thuggery", the (completely fabricated) enemy within of knuckle-dragging gammony organised fascist militia being heroically "faced down" by the tolerant, kind, rainbow coalition of diverse goodness. While in the dissident space a stirring tale was told of resurgent ethnic nationalism; King Arthur returning and Kipling poems and Frodo freeing the Shire from Saruman and the noble prophet Enoch Powell. Neither of these stories accurately reflected what really took place, but they certainly kept us all entertained.
Okay, it's easy and ultimately rather tedious to always take the "it's all kayfabe" stance, and sometimes the blood is very real and the punches aren't fake, but I'm inclined to agree that the revolution won't be televised. When something actually happens things will suddenly feel very real indeed.
Always interesting, always contrary, always consistent (to apophactially call it 'on brand' would be unkind).
The criticism you make of rw commentators is justified in some cases. Truly some of them wrongly interpret poorly-focused outrage episodes as expressions of suppressed rw energy at last bubbling over. Truly some are wont to get carried away with tough talk and excitably predict the imminent end of the regime at the hands of 'secretly based natives', only for things to return to somnolence again and again. But, despite your criticisms, I think you make essentially the same mistake here as they do--and more cautious commentators like Noah Carl.
Those protesting don't have to have read evola or the Italian elite theorists or lynn or to agree with Powell or even to watch GB news or vote reform. Just as ideology < power among the elite, so ideology < outrage among the commoners.
Three kids were murdered and many thousands before them raped; urban areas are unlivable because 'community relations' and so forth. People don't have to be rw to identify these things as problems, to want them solved and, efficaciously or not, even to take things into their own hands from time to time.
Seen from this perspective, the fact that the elite played smoke and mirrors with events over the last week, or raised the veil only to reveal foxish ineptness in wielding naked force, or (which seems to especially preoccupy Noah Carl) that Reform got 'only' 16 per cent of the GE vote, is neither here nor there. The protests really happened, they were the first of their kind in nearly 25 years, and most people involved were probably not rw by conviction. All that is to me encouraging.
The Noah Carl piece (and follow up) was absurd. Nothing more contemptible than the rational empiricist who cleverly embellishes his own opinions with ‘clinical’ charts, polls, and stats.
My friend, you've become an increasingly difficult person to follow. It's not that you are "speaking hard truths" and "we live in denial or unreality", but this openly hostile attitude towards everyone on the right reeks of some kind of attempt to monopolize the viewer/reader into a cult following. At this point you disagree with Basically EVERYONE. Are you the messiah? Christ Risen? do you take pleasure in being spiteful? There is a paragraph where you mock people who counter signal your articles, asking "who (for what purpose)". Well i have an answer for that: People like to write to please themselves, not just to make cult followings (monetizing those), and when they criticize you, you must not take it so personally, because you are the one with a larger platform spitting everyone else.
Personally, i have no stake in this fight, i'm not British, i don't depend on selling courses, so whatever. We may have the same background in Evola and i may have enjoyed a lot of what you produced, but this "phase" you're going tru begs a wake up call.
Its not about the article, its about the "filler" parts where you mock others who you say live in "fantasy land" and "wishful thinking" for not agreeing with your very particular vision. There is a fine line between being bold and being arrogant.
Auron is right. The regime cannot put the woke away as they cannot help themselves. They are comparable to a girlfriend with borderline personality disorder, and couldn't do the right thing except maybe by accident (but I am not even sure then). God speed to my cousins overseas.
Its actually pretty common for girlfriends to insist on abusive men. Im not jesting its just to ilustrate that Auron's idea was the normal on and AA was gambling on something which has no factual basis. There is no secret hyper-competent hyper-intelligent ominipotent cabal pulling the strings. As much as it shocks some people, our pathetic excuses for rulers are not lizards but dumb ass humans.
If they were as stupid as all that they would have been overthrown by now. Either we are witnessing the pride before the fall or things are not being managed as incompetently as we imagine.
Even as they fail to solve any of the nation’s problems, Starmer’s Labour will scramble every remaining institution of the state into maximal higher order dysfunction. This means that any replacement government of the right will have to come to power with a revolutionary programme. Even returning the UK to the condition it was under John Major will take a massive root-and-branch institutional purge. My only hope is that this will become so obvious, even many Labour, Lib Dem and Wet Tory supporters will secretly long for such a purge to happen.
The Starmer regime will plough relentlessly on. The lid of the multi-culti pressure cooker will be screwed down more tightly, mass immigration in the hundreds of thousands will continue and the husk of the uk ponzi-economy will stagger along until the next crisis afflicts the dying dollar. Meanwhile within this Septic Isle ,this increasingly obscene & unpleasant land, the last vestiges of our claim to be a developed nation are atrophying & dying.
Port Talbot, our last major steel plant is closing. Large scale petro-chemical fertiliser production ceased last year. Large areas of farmland are due to be covered with solar panels or houses.
When the bread is rationed and the circuses have to close because of power cuts,when the final containments & distractions lie in shattered fragments,then the real sectarian slaughter, the Spenglarian blood against (zionist/globalist) money wars begin.
After their choreographed fake "we stopped a boat!" stunt on (literally?) Day 1, I thought we might see a Blair-style "tough on immigration, tough on the causes of immigration". Instead we saw that Kier Stalin is 0.1% the operator that Blair was - even with the Dark Lord himself at the end of the phone.
The narrative on Aug. 8th, which, “would have made the editors of Pravda blush,” wouldn’t have made the editors of the Xinhua News bat an eyelash. This is the political equivalent of what in the manufacturing sector would have once been labeled globalization. Forty years ago, exposure to free markets and capitalism was going to democratize China. Rather, the equation has been factored in the other direction, with all the progress being chalked up by the dynasty established with the goal of “destroying the Western Powers.” Their success in this matter may be hard to measure, but you seem to have taken the measure of it here. At times you seem to be cheering on the conquest, referring in conversation with J. Burden to the “mandate of heaven” as an appropriate rubric to aspire to for practical governance.
One can't help but admire the fact that in the last 2,000 years China has had an insanely competent centralized government (safe for a few civil wars which happened quickly) which explains why it gets AA's pants wet. However it always was a hyper totalitarian nightmare, and yes, since the Qin Dynastic and its "Legalism". Brutal and efficient, thats the oriental man.
I disagree. Once you remove your modernity lenses China becomes extremely predictable. Since their first dynasty in 50 B.C it has had long term centralized governments who DO NOT EXPAND past their borders, utilize the most brutal and totalitarian measures to keep their own homogenous population in check and usually prioritize trade as means of exerting influence over other polities. The exceptions were the civil wars. "Oh but the CCP is not a monarchy". Yes, but it is a dynasty nonetheless, with its on elected for life leader, and the rules of the game don't change.
I quite agree that the current government in China is most accurately viewed as a dynasty, which we can refer to as the one which succeeded the Manchu one. Certainly China thinks of itself as having a dynasty. We can also refer to it as the dynasty Mao founded. Some of the particulars about how this particular dynasty operates have changed from the way past dynasties operated, but that's the way of dynasties. Mao was assiduous about studying the records of past dynasties to discover truths which were relatively eternal, and which could guide him in the establishment of this one.
I don't know how you can look at the history of Chinese dynasties and not view them as expansionist. They do nothing but expand. Well, they contract, as in the case of the Southern Song, but then they expand again. How do you account for the Qing's conquests into Burma? As soon as the Qing fell, the strong sense of Han chauvinistic revenge set about pillaging the historic Manchu and Jurchen territories. Lattimore's book, Manchuria: Cradle of Conflict, is a good source on this.
Looking over the diplomatic histories of various Chinese dynasties and their neighbors, I also don't know how you can come to the conclusion that they prioritized trade as a means of exerting influence. Rather to the contrary, the exchange of gifts -- which we would view through our current anachronistic lens as "trade" -- was permitted only after another proximate polity had acknowledged that dynasty's hegemony. But even that was subject to negotiation and occurred within a Confucian or Literary Sinitic framework. Korean dynasties, for example, invented their own transmission of Confucian principles which theoretically trumped the virtues of the Chinese ones, allowing them to relate or compete on relatively equal footing. Other polities were not so inventive and lucky, but the Chinese dynasties wiped out all records of their histories, which is what allows you to view them retrospectively as homogeneous.
"If those young men who were at Normandy in 1945 could of seen Britain today, they wouldn't of gone 40 yards up those beaches".
~ David Irvine
Can confirm. My great uncle was an engineer in the second wave. "I was very lonely with 40 pounds of explosive strapped to my back"
From Arthur in 2001
"I am not sure it was worth it. The French never forgave us for liberating them, and we've squandered our nation. What was it for?"
Go on zoomer historian ytube channel listen to excerpts from a book from those very characters written in the early 00s it's heart wrenching
You do realize AA openly mocks the british for going to war against germany, right??
Not the soldiers just fat pig Churchill
*1944
David Stoat*
This does seem to settle one aspect of your debate with Auron and Haywood, clearly the regime is not capable of pragmatism and self-discipline anymore. This was an easy win teed up for them and they blew it.
Hitchens correctly identifies Starmer as a Eurocommunist. His worldview is a product of Martin Jacques editorials in Marxism Today, plus the judicial activism of Michael Mansfield, Helena Kennedy and Charter 88. Whichever leftist cell he belongs to, Starmer lacks that x-factor which Blair had in spades - the mystique of power. In France, Jean-Luc Mélenchon is more left wing than Starmer, but he has palpable charisma. He’s a skilled orator, he’s media savvy, he’s a genuine left-populist - a rabble rouser, even. Starmer is an identikit Apparatchik; loyal to the Party, bureaucratic, safely lacking in initiative. But he’s wound up over-promoted because the last leader was too flaky. He’s the UK’s answer to Leonid Brezhnev, and he’s four years older than Застойщик was when he took power in the USSR.
David Starkey has pointed out that Starmer (the “satanic solicitor”) chose to specialise in an area of law where cases were always decided by a judge, not a jury. He never had to convince twelve ordinary citizens to agree with him, only a posh judge with a well-stocked wine cellar. That’s more like having to persuade your tutor at Oxford to give you a good mark for your essay than having to persuade the volk to follow you.
There is a certain irony, that even with the Tone wing saying he would destroy the party, and doing everything to undermine him, more people voted for Corbyn in 2017, then did for Adults Back in the Room Keir ( the Labour vote only went up 0.5% from the 2019GE, and that was even with The Sun endorsement.)
It is baffling how much the Starmer government resembles the Scholz cabinet in Germany thus far. Scholz too snuck into office despite a poor electoral showing because his opponents self-combusted, while Scholz had a reputation of being boring but reasonable. After a supposed conspiratorial meeting of right wingers in Potsdam (nothingburger) the state apparatus conjured mass protests against the right and throughout all of this, the minister of the interior, Nancy Faeser, is hamfisted and unhinged.
What you've set out chimes with my experience of living through this peculiar episode; the hyperreality aspect put me in mind of the COVID event - at first the unusual and rather exciting "something is happening!" feeling, then the quick (much quicker this time) realisation that this is yet another manufactured pseudo-event, in which an underlying flesh and blood reality is edited and spun and magnified into a media spectacle, another engrossing episode in the ongoing soap opera that we are all compulsively addicted to and can't stop talking about. (And I'm doing just that here, adding my two pennorth to the endless conversation, albeit in a knowingly meta fashion).
For the regime this was, of course, all about "far-right thuggery", the (completely fabricated) enemy within of knuckle-dragging gammony organised fascist militia being heroically "faced down" by the tolerant, kind, rainbow coalition of diverse goodness. While in the dissident space a stirring tale was told of resurgent ethnic nationalism; King Arthur returning and Kipling poems and Frodo freeing the Shire from Saruman and the noble prophet Enoch Powell. Neither of these stories accurately reflected what really took place, but they certainly kept us all entertained.
Okay, it's easy and ultimately rather tedious to always take the "it's all kayfabe" stance, and sometimes the blood is very real and the punches aren't fake, but I'm inclined to agree that the revolution won't be televised. When something actually happens things will suddenly feel very real indeed.
Always interesting, always contrary, always consistent (to apophactially call it 'on brand' would be unkind).
The criticism you make of rw commentators is justified in some cases. Truly some of them wrongly interpret poorly-focused outrage episodes as expressions of suppressed rw energy at last bubbling over. Truly some are wont to get carried away with tough talk and excitably predict the imminent end of the regime at the hands of 'secretly based natives', only for things to return to somnolence again and again. But, despite your criticisms, I think you make essentially the same mistake here as they do--and more cautious commentators like Noah Carl.
Those protesting don't have to have read evola or the Italian elite theorists or lynn or to agree with Powell or even to watch GB news or vote reform. Just as ideology < power among the elite, so ideology < outrage among the commoners.
Three kids were murdered and many thousands before them raped; urban areas are unlivable because 'community relations' and so forth. People don't have to be rw to identify these things as problems, to want them solved and, efficaciously or not, even to take things into their own hands from time to time.
Seen from this perspective, the fact that the elite played smoke and mirrors with events over the last week, or raised the veil only to reveal foxish ineptness in wielding naked force, or (which seems to especially preoccupy Noah Carl) that Reform got 'only' 16 per cent of the GE vote, is neither here nor there. The protests really happened, they were the first of their kind in nearly 25 years, and most people involved were probably not rw by conviction. All that is to me encouraging.
Edit: 'apophaStically' yes serves me right
The Noah Carl piece (and follow up) was absurd. Nothing more contemptible than the rational empiricist who cleverly embellishes his own opinions with ‘clinical’ charts, polls, and stats.
Yeah his takes on the disturbances are way off
My friend, you've become an increasingly difficult person to follow. It's not that you are "speaking hard truths" and "we live in denial or unreality", but this openly hostile attitude towards everyone on the right reeks of some kind of attempt to monopolize the viewer/reader into a cult following. At this point you disagree with Basically EVERYONE. Are you the messiah? Christ Risen? do you take pleasure in being spiteful? There is a paragraph where you mock people who counter signal your articles, asking "who (for what purpose)". Well i have an answer for that: People like to write to please themselves, not just to make cult followings (monetizing those), and when they criticize you, you must not take it so personally, because you are the one with a larger platform spitting everyone else.
Personally, i have no stake in this fight, i'm not British, i don't depend on selling courses, so whatever. We may have the same background in Evola and i may have enjoyed a lot of what you produced, but this "phase" you're going tru begs a wake up call.
Weird takeaway from this article but okay
Its not about the article, its about the "filler" parts where you mock others who you say live in "fantasy land" and "wishful thinking" for not agreeing with your very particular vision. There is a fine line between being bold and being arrogant.
But it is wishful thinking, the facts are what they are
Now you invoke Ben Shapiro? I thought you had no love for the tribe.
jokes aside, your opinions are not facts. And since i have the opportunity, bring Apostolic Majesty to Unpopular Opinions. Love that guy.
What the people arrested said and where they live are, in fact, facts and not opinions.
Auron is right. The regime cannot put the woke away as they cannot help themselves. They are comparable to a girlfriend with borderline personality disorder, and couldn't do the right thing except maybe by accident (but I am not even sure then). God speed to my cousins overseas.
Its actually pretty common for girlfriends to insist on abusive men. Im not jesting its just to ilustrate that Auron's idea was the normal on and AA was gambling on something which has no factual basis. There is no secret hyper-competent hyper-intelligent ominipotent cabal pulling the strings. As much as it shocks some people, our pathetic excuses for rulers are not lizards but dumb ass humans.
If they were as stupid as all that they would have been overthrown by now. Either we are witnessing the pride before the fall or things are not being managed as incompetently as we imagine.
Even as they fail to solve any of the nation’s problems, Starmer’s Labour will scramble every remaining institution of the state into maximal higher order dysfunction. This means that any replacement government of the right will have to come to power with a revolutionary programme. Even returning the UK to the condition it was under John Major will take a massive root-and-branch institutional purge. My only hope is that this will become so obvious, even many Labour, Lib Dem and Wet Tory supporters will secretly long for such a purge to happen.
So you were taken in. How do you know Blair isn't on board with Starmer's civilization destroying mission?
The Starmer regime will plough relentlessly on. The lid of the multi-culti pressure cooker will be screwed down more tightly, mass immigration in the hundreds of thousands will continue and the husk of the uk ponzi-economy will stagger along until the next crisis afflicts the dying dollar. Meanwhile within this Septic Isle ,this increasingly obscene & unpleasant land, the last vestiges of our claim to be a developed nation are atrophying & dying.
Port Talbot, our last major steel plant is closing. Large scale petro-chemical fertiliser production ceased last year. Large areas of farmland are due to be covered with solar panels or houses.
When the bread is rationed and the circuses have to close because of power cuts,when the final containments & distractions lie in shattered fragments,then the real sectarian slaughter, the Spenglarian blood against (zionist/globalist) money wars begin.
August. Not July.
I corrected that hours ago, so how come it's not showing up?
I was likely reading it on the original email, so corrections wouldn't have appeared.
After their choreographed fake "we stopped a boat!" stunt on (literally?) Day 1, I thought we might see a Blair-style "tough on immigration, tough on the causes of immigration". Instead we saw that Kier Stalin is 0.1% the operator that Blair was - even with the Dark Lord himself at the end of the phone.
The narrative on Aug. 8th, which, “would have made the editors of Pravda blush,” wouldn’t have made the editors of the Xinhua News bat an eyelash. This is the political equivalent of what in the manufacturing sector would have once been labeled globalization. Forty years ago, exposure to free markets and capitalism was going to democratize China. Rather, the equation has been factored in the other direction, with all the progress being chalked up by the dynasty established with the goal of “destroying the Western Powers.” Their success in this matter may be hard to measure, but you seem to have taken the measure of it here. At times you seem to be cheering on the conquest, referring in conversation with J. Burden to the “mandate of heaven” as an appropriate rubric to aspire to for practical governance.
One can't help but admire the fact that in the last 2,000 years China has had an insanely competent centralized government (safe for a few civil wars which happened quickly) which explains why it gets AA's pants wet. However it always was a hyper totalitarian nightmare, and yes, since the Qin Dynastic and its "Legalism". Brutal and efficient, thats the oriental man.
Well, China is not a fixed entity, it's a growing concern, and the new dynasty has been expelling barbarians at a fast clip.
I disagree. Once you remove your modernity lenses China becomes extremely predictable. Since their first dynasty in 50 B.C it has had long term centralized governments who DO NOT EXPAND past their borders, utilize the most brutal and totalitarian measures to keep their own homogenous population in check and usually prioritize trade as means of exerting influence over other polities. The exceptions were the civil wars. "Oh but the CCP is not a monarchy". Yes, but it is a dynasty nonetheless, with its on elected for life leader, and the rules of the game don't change.
I quite agree that the current government in China is most accurately viewed as a dynasty, which we can refer to as the one which succeeded the Manchu one. Certainly China thinks of itself as having a dynasty. We can also refer to it as the dynasty Mao founded. Some of the particulars about how this particular dynasty operates have changed from the way past dynasties operated, but that's the way of dynasties. Mao was assiduous about studying the records of past dynasties to discover truths which were relatively eternal, and which could guide him in the establishment of this one.
I don't know how you can look at the history of Chinese dynasties and not view them as expansionist. They do nothing but expand. Well, they contract, as in the case of the Southern Song, but then they expand again. How do you account for the Qing's conquests into Burma? As soon as the Qing fell, the strong sense of Han chauvinistic revenge set about pillaging the historic Manchu and Jurchen territories. Lattimore's book, Manchuria: Cradle of Conflict, is a good source on this.
Looking over the diplomatic histories of various Chinese dynasties and their neighbors, I also don't know how you can come to the conclusion that they prioritized trade as a means of exerting influence. Rather to the contrary, the exchange of gifts -- which we would view through our current anachronistic lens as "trade" -- was permitted only after another proximate polity had acknowledged that dynasty's hegemony. But even that was subject to negotiation and occurred within a Confucian or Literary Sinitic framework. Korean dynasties, for example, invented their own transmission of Confucian principles which theoretically trumped the virtues of the Chinese ones, allowing them to relate or compete on relatively equal footing. Other polities were not so inventive and lucky, but the Chinese dynasties wiped out all records of their histories, which is what allows you to view them retrospectively as homogeneous.
While one can quibble with it here and there, a good in-a-nutshell history of China can be found on this Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bHfaxiNFTw
Flappr
It's 3rd and 4th August, not July.
Delegitimising the MSM should be the main goal & is occurring