New link.

I found out about an online blog/mag, Thermidor, via Social Matter's podcast Ascending the Tower. It doesn't label itself alt-right, but it's definitely not "progressive." Like Social Matter it can find itself naval gazing but overall the writing is quality and, unlike some triggered cradle trad Catholic who showed some embarrassing signs of leftist tactics, has some interesting thinker that probably think more than the average person who fanboys over X public persona.

The boogey-man that is the alt-right.

A Catholic blogger Haley who runs the Catholic blog called Carrots for Michealmas posted her thoughts on the alt-ight this past October. I have some issues with it, and much more with the comments that followed. It was the typical normie talk when it came to politics, believing the media and normie politic chatter that white supremacy is a growing issue in America. Here's what she had to say.

The title of the post: "Why Catholics Should Be Aware of (and Denounce) the White Supremacist Ideology of the Alt-Right." Okay, not a bad start. I would agree with this. Haley saw a drawing by an artist named Jinjer Zilla that pictured a family - white one. But it wasn't the color of the family that made her feel uncomfortable. She writes -

The other day I was scrolling through Facebook when I saw an image of a family. The caption added by my Catholic Facebook friend was the beautiful quote by Pope St John Paul II “As the family goes, so goes the nation and so goes the whole world in which we live.” This particular quote communicates a beautiful Catholic view of family, but the image accompanying it immediately made me hesitate.

It was a drawing featuring a dad, pregnant mom, and young children with a banner stating: “This Is How We Save the West” I felt that something was off immediately.

“This Is How We Save the West….This isn’t usually the way a Catholic describes the blessing of large families and openness to life,” I thought to myself.  “Where have I heard that rhetoric before?” Something in the wording made me uneasy. What is meant by “the west?” Are we talking about Christian Culture as preserved in the Catholic Church? I knew in the pit of my stomach that this was not the case. This isn’t an image in support of big Catholic families, I realized, this is about white supremacy.

That's quite the jump. As a non-white I will say that I will agree with the initial meaning of Zilla's picture - families are a key in "saving" the West. I'll even say that saving the West is vitally important to the world. But given how any alt-right or any meme not championing multiculturalism is deemed as ethnocentric if not racist, Haley's senses understandable if not wrong. She searched for his twitter account and concluded -

It was steeped in the most vile alt-right rhetoric and the thread with the image I saw was a string of his followers applauding the “white baby challenge,” bemoaning the existence of minorities, and speaking fearfully of the rate at which Africans are procreating and what should be done about it.

 I've searched for his twitter too and it seems he does hold views that are not necessarily mainstream conservative e.g. post about Obama and his supposed birth in Kenya not Hawaii, but then again I'm not sure how the Catholic friend reposting the artist's picture supports the artist's other political stances. Zilla's website and twitter says he's a patriot, well, maybe the Catholic friend is one as well so their interests align.

Now I do think Haley misses the point the artist's and those reposting with concern of minority babies outnumbering whites. Haley shows pictures of replies citing birth rates of minorities but she ignores what this means demographically, culturally and politically. In fact, every single post in agreement with Haley does not mention anything about it; they just talk about loving our neighbor (true).

The problem with the image is not that it’s a depiction of a white family. Images that don’t include people of color are not somehow automatically racist. My family is white. Do I have to be suspicious of the photographs on our home’s walls of my family? Obviously not. A drawing of a white family featuring Pope St. John Paul II’s quote supporting passing our faith on to the next generation isn’t problematic. But THIS image was because of what the artist intended to communicate.

Church teaching on sexuality sometimes leads Catholic families to be bigger than contemporary cultural norms, but that’s not the same message at the heart of white nationalism that promotes large families in an effort to preserve the white race as a form of conquest. There’s a gigantic difference between the Catholic view of family and vocation and this image advertising for large white families to “save the West.”

Here’s an example of another image of a happy family with the text “Healthy Parents, Healthy Children.”

 Haley continues -

Certainly no one is against smiling families or wellness! But a closer look at the fine print reveals an exhortation to comply with sterilization laws to prevent non-ideal offspring. This is an image created with the intention to promote eugenics: large, healthy Aryan families are the goal. You probably knew right away that this is WWII Nazi propaganda and could discern its REAL message without even knowing what the text says.  We have the cultural context to recognize it for what it is. But the language used by the modern alt-right may not be as familiar–hence why the image of the white family saving the west may not immediately be a red flag.

Whoa whoa whoa! This is the same lazy thinking of those who said Trump was literally Hitler because they compared his style of rhetoric and with Hitler finding similarities, hence Trump is Hitler. I don't know what Zilla's thoughts are about abortion, its types and if he is Margaret Sanger sympathizer, but Haley just drove off the curve a bit here.

My Facebook friend certainly didn’t know that the image he posted was created to communicate a white supremacist message and took it down immediately when I explained the artists ideology–something he wanted nothing to do with.

 Phew! Right? Not really.

But I was perplexed. Do intelligent, faithful Catholics not know about the alt-right? I sent the image to a few Catholic friends and asked, “would you have known right away that there was something wrong with this image?” Some said yes, but many said no. It wouldn’t have even crossed their minds that the image was anything more than support for openness to life.

 So your friend is just guilty by association and somehow is being subtly brainwashed into #WhiteCulture.  I don't believe not knowing the artist is a #WhiteCulture type renders intelligent Catholics not knowing what the "tricks" of the alt-right. I have sure Haley knows no more about the alt-right than Ben Shapiro (who think the alt-right is mostly about white supremacy) and the MSM (who really have no clue what the alt-right is).

What’s tricky is that the terms get crossed. My friends probably interpreted “the west” as “western Christianity.” They weren’t aware that the people who created the image were selling an ideology about the superiority of white people–what the alt-right means by “the West.” 

No, "the West" means Western civilization and western culture. 

But aren’t those white supremacists people just a few crazies shooting their mouths off in the cesspool of Twitter? No. I think it’s very easy for your average white person to be unaware of the prevalence of white nationalism today in the insidious subculture of the alt-right. But, my friends, I’m telling you about it right now. If you’re not aware, it’s time to become aware. I’m begging you to hear me out with an open heart.

The alt-right is often dismissed out of hand as a small group of fringe extremists rather than a growing and terrifying ideology. The neo-Nazis marching with torchs are dismissed as just a few nutcases rather than representatives of a real movement. And it’s not just the neo-nazis, the alt-right has many defenders and is creeping into more mainstream demographics.

  This sounds like fear mongering which is the product of a unsound understanding of what the alt-right is and sad lack of perspective of all things socially political.

Being aware of the warped and disgusting ideology of contemporary white supremacy would help you know that this image wasn’t advocating for intact families, or even large families, it was advocating for white families which for white nationalism are the only families worth having around.  It’s the context of the ideologies currently gaining traction that should make us skeptical of the twisted alt-right rhetoric.

Look, I don't support the alt-right white nationalists but it's not a concern of mine. Your suspicions are your own fear acting up. 

A lot of this is hard to see and the rhetoric is so subtle that it’s easy to miss, hence the confused response many of my friends had to this image and how easily it was accepted as promoting something good. Isn’t that the way evil works? Taking something that’s good and warping and perverting it? It’s nuanced. No one’s coming out and saying, “Look we hate the Jews and people of color.” Even the Nazi propaganda image I shared is speaking in positives: “healthy families!” Who can argue with that? The alt-right is far more subtle and dependent on predominantly true statements and good things slowly twisted into something incredibly dangerous and damaging. I find the idea that this could seep into Catholic culture positively terrifying. 

This is some paranoia taking. 

One reason some people are perhaps susceptible to this imagery is that it wears the veneer of “tradition.” A fetishization of 1950s white culture espoused by the alt-right overlaps somewhat with perfectly innocuous or positive things: prioritizing family life, cooking at home, and other things that my rather traditional Catholic family also practices. A perfect example might be some of the social media celebrities of the “tradlife” movement. If you take a look at @apurposefulwife on Twitter, for example, you’ll see a woman’s feed lauding 50s fashion, carving pumpkins with your kids, enjoying being a stay-at-home mom and…..white supremacy.

So a handful that use #tradlife also support white supremacy. Oh dear. I searched for #tradlife on twitter and, yes, the mentioned twitter account is the one that mostly uses it but so do others who give no mention or signs of white supremacy.

Her feed seems mostly harmless and silly until you see the posts that reference “our people” and conclude with bizarre racial claims promoting white nationalism. You’d think she’s just some crazy woman on the internet, but she had over 30,000 rabid fans following her bizarre tweets.

 Rabid fans? So you call her followers "rabid" because you strongly disagree with her views. It's sorta like Hillary Clinton calling Trump supporters deplorable because they don't follow the "enlightened" view. 30K is small compared to public figures who have millions of followers that hang onto their word. I'm on twitter and follow people who could be deemed racist by the left but it doesn't mean I agree with what they say.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with appreciating a 50s aesthetic. However, we must recognize that this time period was chosen as the ideal age for white nationalists for a reason. It was a period of strong economic growth in this country but also a time when minorities were not yet appearing in advertisements.

And it was the time when traditional value and concepts were more accepted and respected.

White supremacists want to sell you their movement and what better way than the ready-made, whites-only advertisements of the 50s? We have to be careful not to idolize a 50s aesthetic if it’s warping into a toxic ideology. (As well as acknowledge that the 50s was no golden age for many Americans.)

See my statement above. Italicized my emphasis: speaking of "heard it before", I've heard this before from people who are prone to falling for the multicultural is grand rhetoric and who tend to be politically naive. No offense, Haley.

So if you love eating meatloaf as a family (hand raised), or covet Betty Draper’s wardrobe (hand raised again), be loud and proud about it! But be aware of how the alt-right is co-opting the rhetoric of traditionalism and worshipping the negative facets of 50s cultural mores (such as rampant racial inequality) that have no place in Catholic culture.

True. Finally you've said something that emotes reason.

Be skeptical of language that calls for the salvation of “western civilization.” Recognize that when these people are talking about saving “the West,” what they mean is preserving white power. We need to understand that when these people idolize large intact families, it’s not because they have really taken Pope St. John Paul II’s teaching to heart, it’s merely because big white families produce lots of white babies. And we must be aware in order to keep Catholic culture from becoming muddied with this toxic and dangerous anti-Gospel ideology in any way.

Given the birth rate in America is barely enough to sustain it in the next generation, as well as many European countries falling below replacement rates, I think the white supremacists have a very good point on having more babies in order to save the West, because let's face it, if there's one thing multiculturalism (the bad kind) has proven is that it has failed massively. If a given ideal ethnically diverse neighborhood has peace it's mostly likely because many members of the community have the safe values and are within the same economic bracket.

Equip yourself to know it right away and to reject any ideology that diminishes the dignity of each human being. When you hear someone talking about immigrants ask yourself is this is the same message the bishops are offering.

Depends on what they say. I'm  under no obligation to follow what the bishops say, especially if they support open borders, amnesty and sanctuary cities. 

When you hear someone talk about “the west” ask yourself if they want to preserve the Book of Kells or if they want to perpetuate oppression toward people of color and the perverse gospel of eugenics.

 Better than the previous quote at least.

The same people urging white women not to abort their babies may be the same people pushing for sterilization of minorities, because it’s not the right to life that concerns them but the power of whites in the global sphere. Be aware and be wary.

 Where on earth do you even get this from?

After that very disheartening day that the white supremacist image crossed my path, I saw another image on Facebook. It was a beautiful image. A large family was gathered together praying the Rosary with that same quote from Pope Saint John Paul II. It was created by artist Rebecca Fuentes to represent her own interracial family. The juxtaposition was powerful.

 Oh puh-lease.

"Oh my, an interracial family! Isn't that just wonderful!"
"So what about an Asian family who prays around the rosary?"

May God grant that our brothers and sisters of every race and culture are cherished and given the dignity that God has endowed them with by making them in his own image. And let us not be taken in by lies that twist and pervert what is beautiful and true. The alt-right has no place in Catholic culture.

Given that Catholicism is pretty counterculture compared to embracing modern concepts and beliefs and actions, it's pretty alt-right to me.

Apparently the alt-right scares the living sh*t outa The Left.

 This is not something new I've realized.

I belong to a facebook group for the INTJ personality. Today one member posted a question (in a rather confrontational manner) wanting "members" of the alt-right to explain how the ethnostate vaunted by the alt-right will come to fruition without violence. The member who asked this was a black  man.

My reply? I asked if he knew what the alt-right was and that some statements - like calling Trump's administration a "regime" - was embarrassing. The poster replied back saying I was "cucky" to which I said he wasn't eve using "cuck" correctly.

I don't believe I'll be responding any further due to the fact that A) I barely, if ever (until now) ever post anything political on facebook, and doing just seems strange; and B) ever since I re-engaged in facebook two months ago after a five year absence, I have already grown irritated and tired of all the leftist political bullshit (mainly coming from a single leftist).

I also want to note that anti-Trump is the new anti-Bush/Palin syndrome. The member who posted the question has a background picture that shows a Trojan horse with Trump's head, unleashing Russian soldiers within America (Statue of Liberty is in the background). All of a sudden The Left is gravely concerned about America's liberties. How, um, cute.

Trump had denounced the white nationalist alt-right sect.

Now I don't think Trump has a good grasp on what the alt-right actually is and what it entails, the good and the bad.

Regardless, it's a good thing he has done this because ethno-nationalists like Richard Spencer, and all the anti-Semites have been given a clear message: thanks for the support, glad you voted for me, but we gotta cut the cord.

I'll admit, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the whole white identity thing, understanding their realization that America is being flooded with immigrants with academia and the media smiling quietly as it happens. After VP Biden said that whites being the minority is a good thing, seeing multiculturalism as a peak of progressiveness, I understand their feelings of betrayal. In some way The Left created the white nationalism sect of the alt-right.

With that said, Spencer totally fucked up when he included "Hail Trump!" As one youtube comment puts it - "Alt-right is over for a white identity group because of a bunch of stupid LARPing autistic retards doing the Nazi salute while the media is filming." The fact that the whole white identity branch is rather cringeworthy to begin with it never was going to pick up real steam anyways.

I just find it a little funny, this whole event. White nationalists like Spencer were so excited about Trump's election only to shoot themselves in the foot 13 days later.

"I guess Trump wasn't our guy after all....." one white nationalist puts it after learning about the President-Elect's dismissal of them. He never was.

Blocking my posts.

Neo-neocon decided to block my posts on one of her articles concerning discussion of Stephen Bannan and the alt-right. I simply just posted my thoughts on the racist, white supremacist, white identity sect of the alt-right. Generalizing the alt-right as racist and anti-Semitic is unfair.

Neo-neocon is a smart lady, but she keeps pushing the belief that the alt-right is indeed racist. Other posters have noted that Breitbart.com has let the unsavory part of the alt-right to rule the comment box, which is true. She still thinks the alt-right is racist and anti-Semitic (neo-neocon is a secular, ethnic Jew). 

She probably thought my posts weren't adding anything to the discussion and, as she said in another article of hers, "I know you're trying to help" when I suggested to not care when she expressed worry for some of her close friends and family members deciding to move to Canada after Trump's historic election win. I think my comment greatly miffed her.

It's not like I felt she took my thoughts with any seriousness or respect in the first place. Then again I don't think most of the sites I visit and comment on see me as a person whose opinions should be taken seriously.

Such is politics and debate.  Such is life. As for this blog, I just write to get my thoughts out in order to make sense of what I'm experiencing. There's no doubt I annoyed the handful of visitors that I'm able to attract, probably making them think that their time here isn't worth spending.

UPDATE:

12.14.16 Another post of mine was published but later deleted by neo-neocon. I've come to the conclusion that my posts are only valid on certain non-political threads, say, like art or ballet. I suppose I'm not adding anything to her political posts hence their deletion.

The annoying bits of the alt-right.

By Reader on Social Matter -

 “Richard John Neuhaus, the founder of First Things magazine, was a thoroughgoing Murrayite Catholic. A dyed in the wool conservative…”

Do you know anything about the history of American conservatism?

John Neuhaus was originally part of the Rockford Institute but left and, with a bunch of ((( neocon ))) funding, started First Things. First Things has always been a major neocon publication.

More recently, First Things has become even worse, often advocating for the Third World immigration invasion of the West.

But I guess that is not out of character for Catholics, since Pope Frankie also supports the Third World invasion of the West. Second to Jews, The Catholic Church more than any other religion advocates for the 3rd world invasion of the West.

To hell with these people. I was Catholic but left when I saw how anti-Western the Church has become. If you look at long-term demographic trends, within 50 years the Catholic Church will almost exclusively be a jungle religion.

. . . .

Here’s a NY Times piece on the Neuhaus/neocons vs paleocons dispute:
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/16/us/magazine-dispute-reflects-rift-on-us-right.html

Eventually Neuhaus and the neocons went around to every major donor and asked them to stop funding paleocon publications. Neuhaus told them that the paleocons were all xenophobes / racists / anti-semites.

Just looked at First Things website again — hadn’t looked it in a while — and it is so cucked. I feel like I have an STD from even visiting the site.

There's that word again "cuck." I don't mind the word being used just that's been overused and by people like Reader who are more "shallow right" who treat their faith as if it's "just another institution" of the world. It's not. People have their reasons for "leaving" the Church but for the most part I have found them with  good dose ridiculousness.

More clues that Reader is more political than he is a faithful Catholic, if he ever was one and not just a "Catholic-because-my-dad-was-one" - "Pope Frankie." Yea, I think Pope Francis a poor leader, vague in his rhetoric, but one man does not make the Church and the Catholic Church's stance (#2 should go before #1, or at least have some sort of an amendment to #1) on immigration - on paper - is not entirely to my liking.

 I have faint memory of any controversial piece on First Things about immigration, but it seems like there's a variety of thoughts on the subject matter.

And, again, to highlight -

If you look at long-term demographic trends, within 50 years the Catholic Church will almost exclusively be a jungle religion.

I'm not entirely sure what he means by "jungle religion" but if it means the demise of the Catholic Church then I bet Reader will be one of those bitter people who are like ex-city dwellers that moved to a more suburban area and relish in the city's decay (they mostly complain about the taxes). Strange folks. The pathology is an interesting one.

Newsflash to Reader: The Catholic Church can't read your mind on more political issues that are outside its realm of expertise. Then again the Church might be off without the likes of you; you never wanted it succeed and do not think it's transcendent.

Even more telling the mention of Neuhaus was just a few paragraphs in the entire article, focusing on the man's liberalism. So-called Catholics like Reader tend to have the same stripe: cherry-picking a part and using it as a therapeutic session.

The obnoxious over at Social Matter

Social Matter is one of my favorite sites, but sometimes it can be bogged down with history (some contributors are pagans and it shows; their writing, while interesting, is generally boring -- sometimes they appear to be try-hards when talking about ancient Western civilization) and sometimes gets too "I wish we were knights" and other shit like that.

Occasionally you get people in the comment box who rant and rant and ... Rant.  Take for example poster "'Reality' Doug." Notice that he calls Christian religions "Abrahamic religions," which, in my experience are people who are secularists. No Christian that I encounter calls their religion such. It's as if a homosexual who tries to pose as a straight says, "I'm a heterosexual." Those who are straight say, "I'm straight." There are two kinds of people who put their worldview in their handle: atheists and SJWs. Doug is most definitely the former. His post reads like a brick.

Then there's "G. Mayre" who's the quintessential bitter alt-right fellow.

This is partially why I'm not alt-right. In general they're way too bitter and I don't subscribe to the PUA game. I mean, what on earth do the likes of 'Reality' Doug and G. Mayre do when they try to talk to women?

"Hey, I know a lot about ancient Western civilization. I'm approaching my 40s. Single. Never had kids. I'm a MGTOW. I'm noble pagan."

Yea, that'll get the women in bed with them.

I think such people are losers despite them wearing their MGTOW badge on their arm sleeve. I'll say it: The alt-right are mostly losers and I'm not impressed with their weird fetish with ancient Western civilization. I don't think it ever made them money; I don't think they even have degrees in such a discipline.

I don’t wish to trump your subtle point, but we see that the historic official death of the Roman Republic is apropos to what is in store for us as the very next change whether today or years from now. I don’t remember anything about Cicero. However, going by Durant’s The Story of Civilization, Sulla is someone I would put into the bad guy category. The Senate deserved worse than simply loosing power. (I see you have a related post that argues for Sulla’s virtue, but I am not going to study it. Things to do with my life in my present that I can actually influence.) Typically, it takes a virtuous strongman, a seeming impossibility but as you recount there are Roman exemplars, to found something civilized. Except for the First Bank of the United States, childless and probably impotent George Washington was largely that. Good men who are not vicious about defending their sovereignty are not good on this earth (and elsewhere is a fairy tale). After the way the Roman unwashed betrayed the Gracchi, if we believe Aristotle that the policy of government matters and not the form, then it must be that no general population within the Roman Empire deserved or could support civilization. No sense in making a purse from a sow’s ear. Waste of one’s life to try.
And so it is today. Reform without a change in population membership is doomed to fail. No population of moochers will allow reform against their hopes of mooching. We get the government we deserve. WNs are correct as far as focusing on the we as the critical political input. Hitler was not all wrong because half of national socialism is correct enough, though I would prefer a federation with a loose cultural (and democratically violent) sense of nationhood like Sumer, Hellas, late Holy Roman Empire that birthed institutional Germany, the early Dutch Republic (in this case I know only to a degree), the early United States (in this case I know only to a degree).
At this point in our time the fruitful question is not what is the correct color commentary on the political circus but what to do for personal power (call it empowerment if it makes you feel better) in certain decline. I never wanted control over others, just over myself. Turns out husbandry of sheeple is a prerequisite to that. He who controls human stupidity controls the world. That is our struggle. Evolution dies not need your permission or moral authority. Universal morality is bullshit.
If the first Octavius-esque figure is an evil destroyer of Club Beltway, that is a good I will celebrate privately. Regardless, the question facing each of us is how to thrive in a Principate. That is what we are now socially. If you (any dear reader) understand female nature and it’s employment by the Frankfurt School, if you understand the theocratic imperatives of the Jewish nation against the rest of humanity lumped together as ‘Gentiles’ (and I note the other two Abrahamic religions are offshoots with similar globalist utility), as members of a single ‘nation’ because non-Jewish distinctions matter not, then maybe it will dawn on whomsoever you are that players win in decline. Sheeple define the game for the rest of our lives and beyond. Can’t change the game without winning it. What his preeminent flip-over will do or can do for ‘the people’, who knows? Civilization happens not because there is no concentration of power but because that concentration of power is used at a higher order of cooperation (and ‘love’) for even more absolute power of humanity. Down with sheeple. Down with accumulations of relative power at the expense of absolute power. Aspire for power and the practical love to wield it wisely but constructively. If you want a virtuous strongman done right, do it yourself. PUA is the way. Be strong in your social life.
Until you understand that women are simple, you will never understand humans and therefore politics. I challenge the intellects at this blog to stop doing passive commentary that won’t make a tinker’s damn and start some sort of subculture or subculture philosophy that can win. Maybe that is best done offline. Your time and vitality are not renewable. Make it count. I visit for lack of better options. Decline makes losers. There is no intelligent life in my real life. That of course is a fundamental that I am addressing the best I can. At least when someone else states the intellectual obvious (e.g. OP) it somehow help me be less insane or more sane in a world of primitives, same thing except for the metadata of one’s identity. Now back to my fight for my power among the vermin. It has nothing to do with politics as defined for the foolish consumer. I have no representative fighting for me. Charm is mightier than the sword. Knowing that, you do what?
- See more at: http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/02/29/the-fall-of-the-roman-republic/#sthash.6m79QHCO.dpuf

I don’t wish to trump your subtle point, but we see that the historic official death of the Roman Republic is apropos to what is in store for us as the very next change whether today or years from now. I don’t remember anything about Cicero. However, going by Durant’s The Story of Civilization, Sulla is someone I would put into the bad guy category. The Senate deserved worse than simply loosing power. (I see you have a related post that argues for Sulla’s virtue, but I am not going to study it. Things to do with my life in my present that I can actually influence.) Typically, it takes a virtuous strongman, a seeming impossibility but as you recount there are Roman exemplars, to found something civilized. Except for the First Bank of the United States, childless and probably impotent George Washington was largely that. Good men who are not vicious about defending their sovereignty are not good on this earth (and elsewhere is a fairy tale). After the way the Roman unwashed betrayed the Gracchi, if we believe Aristotle that the policy of government matters and not the form, then it must be that no general population within the Roman Empire deserved or could support civilization. No sense in making a purse from a sow’s ear. Waste of one’s life to try.
And so it is today. Reform without a change in population membership is doomed to fail. No population of moochers will allow reform against their hopes of mooching. We get the government we deserve. WNs are correct as far as focusing on the we as the critical political input. Hitler was not all wrong because half of national socialism is correct enough, though I would prefer a federation with a loose cultural (and democratically violent) sense of nationhood like Sumer, Hellas, late Holy Roman Empire that birthed institutional Germany, the early Dutch Republic (in this case I know only to a degree), the early United States (in this case I know only to a degree).
At this point in our time the fruitful question is not what is the correct color commentary on the political circus but what to do for personal power (call it empowerment if it makes you feel better) in certain decline. I never wanted control over others, just over myself. Turns out husbandry of sheeple is a prerequisite to that. He who controls human stupidity controls the world. That is our struggle. Evolution dies not need your permission or moral authority. Universal morality is bullshit.
If the first Octavius-esque figure is an evil destroyer of Club Beltway, that is a good I will celebrate privately. Regardless, the question facing each of us is how to thrive in a Principate. That is what we are now socially. If you (any dear reader) understand female nature and it’s employment by the Frankfurt School, if you understand the theocratic imperatives of the Jewish nation against the rest of humanity lumped together as ‘Gentiles’ (and I note the other two Abrahamic religions are offshoots with similar globalist utility), as members of a single ‘nation’ because non-Jewish distinctions matter not, then maybe it will dawn on whomsoever you are that players win in decline. Sheeple define the game for the rest of our lives and beyond. Can’t change the game without winning it. What his preeminent flip-over will do or can do for ‘the people’, who knows? Civilization happens not because there is no concentration of power but because that concentration of power is used at a higher order of cooperation (and ‘love’) for even more absolute power of humanity. Down with sheeple. Down with accumulations of relative power at the expense of absolute power. Aspire for power and the practical love to wield it wisely but constructively. If you want a virtuous strongman done right, do it yourself. PUA is the way. Be strong in your social life.
Until you understand that women are simple, you will never understand humans and therefore politics. I challenge the intellects at this blog to stop doing passive commentary that won’t make a tinker’s damn and start some sort of subculture or subculture philosophy that can win. Maybe that is best done offline. Your time and vitality are not renewable. Make it count. I visit for lack of better options. Decline makes losers. There is no intelligent life in my real life. That of course is a fundamental that I am addressing the best I can. At least when someone else states the intellectual obvious (e.g. OP) it somehow help me be less insane or more sane in a world of primitives, same thing except for the metadata of one’s identity. Now back to my fight for my power among the vermin. It has nothing to do with politics as defined for the foolish consumer. I have no representative fighting for me. Charm is mightier than the sword. Knowing that, you do what?
- See more at: http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/02/29/the-fall-of-the-roman-republic/#sthash.6m79QHCO.dpuf

I don’t wish to trump your subtle point, but we see that the historic official death of the Roman Republic is apropos to what is in store for us as the very next change whether today or years from now. I don’t remember anything about Cicero. However, going by Durant’s The Story of Civilization, Sulla is someone I would put into the bad guy category. The Senate deserved worse than simply loosing power. (I see you have a related post that argues for Sulla’s virtue, but I am not going to study it. Things to do with my life in my present that I can actually influence.) Typically, it takes a virtuous strongman, a seeming impossibility but as you recount there are Roman exemplars, to found something civilized. Except for the First Bank of the United States, childless and probably impotent George Washington was largely that. Good men who are not vicious about defending their sovereignty are not good on this earth (and elsewhere is a fairy tale). After the way the Roman unwashed betrayed the Gracchi, if we believe Aristotle that the policy of government matters and not the form, then it must be that no general population within the Roman Empire deserved or could support civilization. No sense in making a purse from a sow’s ear. Waste of one’s life to try.
And so it is today. Reform without a change in population membership is doomed to fail. No population of moochers will allow reform against their hopes of mooching. We get the government we deserve. WNs are correct as far as focusing on the we as the critical political input. Hitler was not all wrong because half of national socialism is correct enough, though I would prefer a federation with a loose cultural (and democratically violent) sense of nationhood like Sumer, Hellas, late Holy Roman Empire that birthed institutional Germany, the early Dutch Republic (in this case I know only to a degree), the early United States (in this case I know only to a degree).
At this point in our time the fruitful question is not what is the correct color commentary on the political circus but what to do for personal power (call it empowerment if it makes you feel better) in certain decline. I never wanted control over others, just over myself. Turns out husbandry of sheeple is a prerequisite to that. He who controls human stupidity controls the world. That is our struggle. Evolution dies not need your permission or moral authority. Universal morality is bullshit.
If the first Octavius-esque figure is an evil destroyer of Club Beltway, that is a good I will celebrate privately. Regardless, the question facing each of us is how to thrive in a Principate. That is what we are now socially. If you (any dear reader) understand female nature and it’s employment by the Frankfurt School, if you understand the theocratic imperatives of the Jewish nation against the rest of humanity lumped together as ‘Gentiles’ (and I note the other two Abrahamic religions are offshoots with similar globalist utility), as members of a single ‘nation’ because non-Jewish distinctions matter not, then maybe it will dawn on whomsoever you are that players win in decline. Sheeple define the game for the rest of our lives and beyond. Can’t change the game without winning it. What his preeminent flip-over will do or can do for ‘the people’, who knows? Civilization happens not because there is no concentration of power but because that concentration of power is used at a higher order of cooperation (and ‘love’) for even more absolute power of humanity. Down with sheeple. Down with accumulations of relative power at the expense of absolute power. Aspire for power and the practical love to wield it wisely but constructively. If you want a virtuous strongman done right, do it yourself. PUA is the way. Be strong in your social life.
Until you understand that women are simple, you will never understand humans and therefore politics. I challenge the intellects at this blog to stop doing passive commentary that won’t make a tinker’s damn and start some sort of subculture or subculture philosophy that can win. Maybe that is best done offline. Your time and vitality are not renewable. Make it count. I visit for lack of better options. Decline makes losers. There is no intelligent life in my real life. That of course is a fundamental that I am addressing the best I can. At least when someone else states the intellectual obvious (e.g. OP) it somehow help me be less insane or more sane in a world of primitives, same thing except for the metadata of one’s identity. Now back to my fight for my power among the vermin. It has nothing to do with politics as defined for the foolish consumer. I have no representative fighting for me. Charm is mightier than the sword. Knowing that, you do what?
- See more at: http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/02/29/the-fall-of-the-roman-republic/#sthash.6m79QHCO.dpuf