On Immigration, honour, duty, and betrayal.
Or why we should do the opposite of what the deep state wants us to do.
But in reflecting on those photos, one thought kept repeating…
You know, we don’t actually have to live like this. Nothing beyond our own fanatical masochism forces us to endure being robbed, raped, assaulted, and parasitized. There is no moral mandate from Earth or heaven that we abase ourselves before feral aliens who despise and harm us. We could live normal lives.
Normal in both body and mind. We really don’t have to poke needles in our eyes whenever they see something others demand they not. Nothing makes us censor our own thoughts and scrutinize every word for an ever-expanding catalogue of contrived ‘isms. We could–we should–be able to observe our environment freely, and freely discuss what we observe.
There is no nobility in being browbeaten and brutalized. Being enlightened doesn’t mean barring your neck. And if it does, there will soon enough be no enlightened men. Lying supine in the soil as foreigners stamp tread marks on our face makes us less human, not more. Rather than another fragile tribe of man, we have come to see ourselves as vessels of virtue and our finite habitat as baptismal font–into which the world may be poured. If there is a God, he surely didn’t mean for us to presume his role.
That role includes offering others food and fecundity in lieu of our own family needs.
Suffice to say here, the current governing arrangement of the United States is rule by a transnational managerial class in conjunction with the administrative state. To the extent that the parties are adversarial at the national level, it is merely to determine who gets to run the administrative state for four years. Challenging the administrative state is out of the question. The Democrats are united on this point. The Republicans are at least nominally divided. But those nominally opposed (to the extent that they even understand the problem, which is: not much) are unwilling or unable to actually do anything about it. Are challenges to the administrative state allowed only if they are guaranteed to be ineffectual? If so, the current conservative movement is tailor-made for the task. Meanwhile, the much stronger Ryan wing of the Party actively abets the administrative state and works to further the managerial class agenda.
Trump is the first candidate since Reagan to threaten this arrangement. To again oversimplify Marini (and Aristotle), the question here is: who rules? The many or the few? The people or the oligarchs? Our Constitution says: the people are sovereign, and their rule is mediated through representative institutions, limited by written Constitutional norms. The administrative state says: experts must rule because various advances (the march of history) have made governing too complicated for public deliberation, and besides, the unwise people often lack knowledge of their own best interests even on rudimentary matters. When the people want something that they shouldn’t want or mustn’t have, the administrative state prevents it, no matter what the people vote for. When the people don’t want something that the administrative state sees as salutary or necessary, it is simply imposed by fiat.
Don’t want more immigration? Too bad, we know what’s best. Think bathrooms should be reserved for the two biological sexes? Too bad, we rule. And so on and on.
The trouble is that the administrative state has no feedback. It will manage, comfortably, cheerfully and confidently, entire nations into destruction. This is best seen in the EU, and in the functional rebellion of nations from the current immigration project.
One of the poignant scenes I recall–from what conflict I do not–involved an officer in an ultimately defeated army. While considering his unit’s first combat losses after much initial success, a colleague mentions the possibility of their losing all the territory previously gained. This being speculation to which the officer reacts in horror and disbelief saying: “I pray I never live to see it.” A few weeks later his prayer was answered.
I think many Europeans can probably relate. No matter how obvious the outcome of this consciously engineered dispossession, it must still seem impossible that everything could actually be lost. It is not impossible at all.
And like the unfortunates in Paris, Brussels, and Nice, many will never live to see it. But those who do are going to have to draw deep from their well of liberalism to avoid bitter despair. For without prompt corrective action, Europe is going to become a distinctly smaller place. Some of her states will continue to advance their ancient legacy, while others will become indistinguishable from Djibouti. The sorting of who will be which is at the heart of politics today.
The Visegrad states of Poland, Czech Rep, Hungary, and Slovakia have made their selection fairly plain. Hungary may even come to rival Israel in quality fencemanship by the end of the decade. And as Mad Merkel’s neighbors grow increasingly frustrated at Germany’s search for a tailpipe to suck, it will be fascinating to watch the formation of diversity factions.
As Visegrad already has begun, states will increasingly coalesce around fundamental national questions. And no question is more fundamental than for whom? It should be no surprise to see this eastern-bloc form the core of for us. I doubt they will ultimately lack for allies.
Slovenia, Austria, and Switzerland have all shown varying interest in remaining outside the Ummah. These states would form a functional contiguity with their four eastern cousins. And overtures may whisper toward the north as well. Reportedly, Denmark is locking every door to immigrants.
It is not as if the |||administrators||| — as part of the cathedral are winning. They are losing because
- The narrative is a series of lies that are demonstrably false
- The Alt Right can use memes better than they can
- They cannot remove platforms from a man who is rich enough to build new platforms
Memes? For those who don’t understand the tactic, Mark Citadel has a tutorial.
And the three lines ||| is one. It refers to the cathedral, the inner party. Mistrust them.
Memes are not intended to convince intellectuals of anything, nor are they really a debating tactic per se, but rather they are negation propaganda. They communicate ideas contrary to the prevailing narrative in a memorable way. In some senses, Liberals have been using a similar kind of tool when they shut down the opposition using charges of ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’ etc. but contrary to right wing memes, these appeal less to reality, and more to emotional points of contact or the preset bedrocks of Liberalism itself. Once so-called ‘equality’ has been established as a given, appeals to ‘fairness’, while not developed in any intellectual sense, become effective easy-bake information weapons.
The offensive meme is the right wing response to this. In seeing the AltRight’s meme culture as something that is caustic to the established ideals, we must be careful not to set up a false conflict between the ‘chaos’ of right wing memes vs. the ‘logos’ of left wing memes. There is nothing particularly logical about contemporary Liberal discourse, it is almost entirely emotive. What we have found however, is that the logos of good argumentation is not a winning tactic against the emotive culture that the left has developed over successive decades if not centuries. The AltRight has, sensibly in my view, adopted a chaotic form of information war that has allowed it to blow apart the rotting edifice of American Conservatism/Constitutionalism, and its momentum has now carried it through to torment the Cathedral’s ‘inner party’.
As I said years ago, the fourth turning will be to the right. Because the left is rotten, destroys, and is dying. Young people would rather be around health, and life.
Be First to Comment