Victory is to be won in ourselves and families, then out to our local communities; while recognizing DC to be a lost cause and becoming independent of the feds as much as possible.
"United" States I believe is over, balkanization hopefully works out with a weakened federal government that basically leaves our area's alone from lack of funds through some sort of federal soft collapse.
True! There is way too many racial groups in the U.S who have set up shop politically and financially, and all are trying to impose their will and self-determination from within. Any real change like you said, will have to occur on a local level. My image of the U.S is that of a rotting corpse, with all these foreign and invasive ants and maggots eating away any remnants for themselves.
Massie’s option 3 is most likely. Which is why you are correct that we must preserve what we can within our families. Boethius kept Aristotle alive through the collapse of Western Rome, we will keep Julius Evola alive through the collapse of the GAE.
You'd think it'd be interesting, but would it actually change anything?
Is anyone who sat through the steal 4 years ago going to suddenly grow a pair? Is there anyone who took it up the butt for two years of straight COVID lockdown going to start a ruckus?
The regime has no reason to fortify Kamala so I don't think they will, but I also don't see the hypothetical as regime suicide. Just another click on the continuous tightening of the ratchet.
The reason it has to fortify kamala is because it is full of fanatics who see even one tiny step back as a huge loss. Otherwise there never been would have been such a backlash to trump in the first place.
It's impossible to argue against all which has been outlined above. Clearly, the regime is in survival mode, and yet more clearly, the regime sees that the Woke "rogue" leftists who have enjoyed power and status over these last handful of years have had their day in the sun, and that it's time for them to be moved on and confined to the fringes of the political mainstream. It won't happen overnight, but you will be able to tell how much Wokeism has been dialled down on a year-by-year basis.
With all that in mind, Dr, what I can't abide is why you seem so resigned to Blair and his minions getting their way. Surely, having diagnosed the problem, were you a man of principle, you would provide and champion solutions, would you not?
As I argue in my writings, it's time to dispense with democracy in all its aspects: no longer should we indulge in party politics, in elections, in endorsing/criticising Candidate A or B or whatever; we need to bring about real change by not participating in this system, and instead creating a new one. It will take men of great courage and relentless desire to do so, as well as outstanding ability, and I grant that men such as these aren't easy to come by. But you, Dr, could be such a man; you could be a light in the darkness - which is why it's such a pity to hear your borderline endorsements of Blair et al.
The empire cannot be saved because what matters is resources and good allies, and we have neither. We do not have the industrial base to sustain competition, and neither do our allies. We also don’t have the right technologies. If the regime knew how to stop the corruption and build good ships, planes, and artillery in sufficient numbers, they would do so.
I agree with Gottfried that there actually is a substantive difference between right and left. Even as regards our favourite tribe, there is a radical difference whether we take the netanyahu or the soros path. On trump, the future of the west depends on whether it can turn around a structure based upon open borders and radical liberalism. If he can restore national economics, with a genuine cycle of value and where money is earned rather than printed, he can turn around the west. The big issue is open borders which drives woke racial ideology... can he reverse this? Not small matters and it is clear that kamala will do the exact opposite. It is a real difference...
Worldwide White Reconquista or else we will be destroyed/miscegenated (already well under way in the managerial class). It is too dangerous for the enemy to “let us be”
AA you acknowledge this idea when there are radical elements introduced into the government using AOC as the example, they are utterly disciplined into falling in line, or two-a-penny Democrat. In contrast you worry about the lack of gatekeeping on the MAGA side of things. You have genuine concerns for this obsession with having a colorful representation as more white people will be less represented and other glaring problems. If I am recalling from article correctly, Trump brings his own element into the party, but you worry about his almost-always liberal preferences on who he selects. I want to see if you at least agree with regards to the people like moving from California to Texas who bring their terrible ideas with them. With the prospect that yes they may be bringing some elements into the MAGA movement if they decide to side with us, is it not also true that the influence of MAGA will discipline these liberals on some level and thus bring more "stability" to the structure as a whole? I am not denying the possible nature of some uniparty, or people who simply have power that want to keep it, but perhaps ideology itself is playing a more larger role than it sounds?
I am not a diligent fact checker, so I cannot throw any statistics at you on what I think or see because I don't know what to think or where to look. I cannot even tell what is in any of their hearts. But it appears that there are some positive prospects of potentially disciplining those that were rejected by the Democrat party for the better. Is that assumption too out of touch with reality or is could there really something changing in people? And should that matter? Power structures aside.
Regarding links or no links: You could leave them out if you prefer but then you will need to have footnotes (endnotes, what have you) - these at least will remind both you and I of the academic tweed-jacket culture from which we both came (tho really that tweed-jacketed culture died out at least a generation before either of us but well this descriptor is better than using one that is more apt for our time).
Frankly the embedded links are more convenient than footnoted ones, but in the way you describe it the decision is an aesthetic preference rather than a practical one and it is your site. I come from a setting where Lawrence Auster would hand curate comments and edit them instead of just let any yahoo post whatever and then have moderators. (This is an analogy because it was also a personal preference of Auster's, like no-links are for you, and I will say it did give AmNation's site a distinct vibe. Distinctions are important).
I know exactly what you mean when you say you hate links, but I do need to admit many of said links made me read invaluable articles. I, once a prolific tab-closer, now have 9 opened, waiting to be read. Maybe put the links at the end of the articles? I don't know.
Hyperlinks are good for us autists.
We do enjoy some good hyperlinks
I follow a lot of commentary, being extremely online, and I used to dismiss AA because back in the day he seemed far too libertarian for my tastes.
That has changed substantially. I now listen to most of AA's (though often on 1.5 speed) and pretty much agree with his analysis.
Facts are facts after all. And this article is full of them.
The realist clearpill—there is no victory even when Trump wins. Leave kayfabe behind and accept your status as fellaheen peasant!
The links are useful—I also cringe a bit, but they encourage your readers to be good scholars.
Victory is to be won in ourselves and families, then out to our local communities; while recognizing DC to be a lost cause and becoming independent of the feds as much as possible.
"United" States I believe is over, balkanization hopefully works out with a weakened federal government that basically leaves our area's alone from lack of funds through some sort of federal soft collapse.
Thomas Massie - 3 places this ends up - https://files.catbox.moe/8z38rr.png
“Today the individual must gradually reconstruct inside himself the civilized universe that is disappearing around him.” -- Nicolás Gómez Dávila
True! There is way too many racial groups in the U.S who have set up shop politically and financially, and all are trying to impose their will and self-determination from within. Any real change like you said, will have to occur on a local level. My image of the U.S is that of a rotting corpse, with all these foreign and invasive ants and maggots eating away any remnants for themselves.
Massie’s option 3 is most likely. Which is why you are correct that we must preserve what we can within our families. Boethius kept Aristotle alive through the collapse of Western Rome, we will keep Julius Evola alive through the collapse of the GAE.
A Harris win would be the most interesting outcome since both Haywood and AA would be wrong.
You'd think it'd be interesting, but would it actually change anything?
Is anyone who sat through the steal 4 years ago going to suddenly grow a pair? Is there anyone who took it up the butt for two years of straight COVID lockdown going to start a ruckus?
The regime has no reason to fortify Kamala so I don't think they will, but I also don't see the hypothetical as regime suicide. Just another click on the continuous tightening of the ratchet.
Jeb! We need you
Dark Jeb! rising?
The reason it has to fortify kamala is because it is full of fanatics who see even one tiny step back as a huge loss. Otherwise there never been would have been such a backlash to trump in the first place.
I'm in favor of the time honored tradition of making someone the leader who doesn't want to be.
A Harris win would certainly be more interesting. I almost want it out of morbid curiosity.
In my darker Accelerationist-adjacent moments, I think the same.
It's impossible to argue against all which has been outlined above. Clearly, the regime is in survival mode, and yet more clearly, the regime sees that the Woke "rogue" leftists who have enjoyed power and status over these last handful of years have had their day in the sun, and that it's time for them to be moved on and confined to the fringes of the political mainstream. It won't happen overnight, but you will be able to tell how much Wokeism has been dialled down on a year-by-year basis.
With all that in mind, Dr, what I can't abide is why you seem so resigned to Blair and his minions getting their way. Surely, having diagnosed the problem, were you a man of principle, you would provide and champion solutions, would you not?
As I argue in my writings, it's time to dispense with democracy in all its aspects: no longer should we indulge in party politics, in elections, in endorsing/criticising Candidate A or B or whatever; we need to bring about real change by not participating in this system, and instead creating a new one. It will take men of great courage and relentless desire to do so, as well as outstanding ability, and I grant that men such as these aren't easy to come by. But you, Dr, could be such a man; you could be a light in the darkness - which is why it's such a pity to hear your borderline endorsements of Blair et al.
The empire cannot be saved because what matters is resources and good allies, and we have neither. We do not have the industrial base to sustain competition, and neither do our allies. We also don’t have the right technologies. If the regime knew how to stop the corruption and build good ships, planes, and artillery in sufficient numbers, they would do so.
Can I agree with both you and Paul, AA? You both are persuasive.
I agree with Gottfried that there actually is a substantive difference between right and left. Even as regards our favourite tribe, there is a radical difference whether we take the netanyahu or the soros path. On trump, the future of the west depends on whether it can turn around a structure based upon open borders and radical liberalism. If he can restore national economics, with a genuine cycle of value and where money is earned rather than printed, he can turn around the west. The big issue is open borders which drives woke racial ideology... can he reverse this? Not small matters and it is clear that kamala will do the exact opposite. It is a real difference...
Worldwide White Reconquista or else we will be destroyed/miscegenated (already well under way in the managerial class). It is too dangerous for the enemy to “let us be”
Excellent article. An accurate summary of where we are. Thanks.
AA you acknowledge this idea when there are radical elements introduced into the government using AOC as the example, they are utterly disciplined into falling in line, or two-a-penny Democrat. In contrast you worry about the lack of gatekeeping on the MAGA side of things. You have genuine concerns for this obsession with having a colorful representation as more white people will be less represented and other glaring problems. If I am recalling from article correctly, Trump brings his own element into the party, but you worry about his almost-always liberal preferences on who he selects. I want to see if you at least agree with regards to the people like moving from California to Texas who bring their terrible ideas with them. With the prospect that yes they may be bringing some elements into the MAGA movement if they decide to side with us, is it not also true that the influence of MAGA will discipline these liberals on some level and thus bring more "stability" to the structure as a whole? I am not denying the possible nature of some uniparty, or people who simply have power that want to keep it, but perhaps ideology itself is playing a more larger role than it sounds?
I am not a diligent fact checker, so I cannot throw any statistics at you on what I think or see because I don't know what to think or where to look. I cannot even tell what is in any of their hearts. But it appears that there are some positive prospects of potentially disciplining those that were rejected by the Democrat party for the better. Is that assumption too out of touch with reality or is could there really something changing in people? And should that matter? Power structures aside.
Regarding links or no links: You could leave them out if you prefer but then you will need to have footnotes (endnotes, what have you) - these at least will remind both you and I of the academic tweed-jacket culture from which we both came (tho really that tweed-jacketed culture died out at least a generation before either of us but well this descriptor is better than using one that is more apt for our time).
Frankly the embedded links are more convenient than footnoted ones, but in the way you describe it the decision is an aesthetic preference rather than a practical one and it is your site. I come from a setting where Lawrence Auster would hand curate comments and edit them instead of just let any yahoo post whatever and then have moderators. (This is an analogy because it was also a personal preference of Auster's, like no-links are for you, and I will say it did give AmNation's site a distinct vibe. Distinctions are important).
Dunking on degenerate zoomers and their fetishes has done more for the right than 100 articles splitting hairs like this.
I know exactly what you mean when you say you hate links, but I do need to admit many of said links made me read invaluable articles. I, once a prolific tab-closer, now have 9 opened, waiting to be read. Maybe put the links at the end of the articles? I don't know.