The endless pendulum cycle of politics in America

NeoRail · 2021-04-26T23:35:57+00:00

American liberals are definitely a strange phenomenon, but American conservatives are also interesting for their inability to actually protect their own assets.

As to California, an unpleasant fact that conservatives won't tell you is that Reagan was the one who started the processes that turned California into a permanent Democrat state. The same thing is happening in Texas right now.

NeoRail · 2021-03-26T20:39:42+00:00

Obviously there are all sorts of factors at play here, but I think globalisation and mass media should definitely be given strong consideration. Looking at the highest institutions of Western society, a white person today would be left with the impression that white people's moral worth is determined by their commitment and dedication to non-racism and anti-racism. The most evil people are the "racists" and the more that you do to distance yourself from those racists and from anything that could ever possibly be considered racist, the better person you are. You have an example for what is considered good and what is considered bad. Consequently, the well socialised white citizen aims to conform to this moral standard - in the previous generations this meant being "colour blind" and with more recent generations it means seeing colour everywhere and "dismantling racist constructs".

It is very important to note that no effort has been made to define the precise parameters of the racist issue. There is no clear-cut, reliable and immutable list of what is and is not considered unacceptable conduct. Instead, the vagueness of the issue is used tactically and polemically against certain parts of the population and the political class. In these circumstances, white people will always feel like they are walking on eggshells when they discuss race. Eventually and over time, this attitude is internalised and becomes influential in the population's way of thinking. At the same time, white people are also the only ones who are scrutinised for the racist issue - no other group is subject to the same polemical attacks and scrutiny. Consequently, other American populations do not develop the same concerns, but to the contrary, become convinced in the value of polemicising against and scrutinising whites in these terms not only for the practical value of doing so, but also because since this one-sided view is left completely unchallenged, it starts to appear true.

I think that last bit is perhaps the worst aspect of recent American discourse on race. We live in a globalised world during the information age, so this issue is no longer geographically confined. The moral reputation of white people has been, in effect, tarred in the eyes of the entire planet. Thanks to the internet, it is possible to speak to people living in the remotest parts of the globe, people who are otherwise completely apolitical and disconnected from what is going on in the Western world, but who earnestly believed that when it comes to racism white people are all basically exaggerated caricatures of the KKK. Western institutions have so strongly tarred the reputation of the Western world that their only claim to power and legitimacy today - both domestically and internationally - can be boiled down to trying to make Western society less racist, which seems to have replaced every other concern of government as an issue of priority.

NeoRail · 2022-04-14T18:02:19+00:00

Seethe.

Russia doesn't see other European countries as independent.

They are not.

NeoRail · 2021-07-11T13:17:53+00:00

I do not understand. How can anyone rationalise this type of thing?

NeoRail · 2021-04-27T12:10:07+00:00

The USA was founded on liberalism, almost all of its political history is liberal with some populist elements occasionally mixed in. In the American political tradition, there is nothing that can be considered authentically right wing.

NeoRail · 2020-12-06T15:26:00+00:00

All of this is just recycled tropes, there is little of substance here. For example, expressing a preference for Islam over Christianity - if the Table Talks are to be taken as a credible source - still does not refer to what he would have considered the optimal situation. Your understanding of the war is also pretty basic. Already in the early days of National Socialism Hitler said it in Mein Kampf that he planned to wage war on the Soviet Union - it's obvious that there are some states between the Soviets and Germany. His intention was to clear the way to Russia and then conquer it for Germany without interfering with Britain or France. This strategy was based on the accurate understanding that Britain and France could not afford to stop Germany from fighting the Soviet Union without imploding - which is what happened historically. Hitler expected this would mean he'd be given a carte blanche to deal with communism. This did not happen and only became clear at the outbreak of the world war. You can say that even attacking the Eastern European states was a bad idea, both morally and practically, but the 1930s were a different time - the nation-state still had a lot to offer as a free actor in world politics and the most powerful faction in Nazi Germany was the Pan-Germanic one, not the Pan-European one. To criticise the Nazis for being insufficiently pro-European is bizarre, especially given that they had the most comprehensive international system (SS volunteers and guest workers).

NeoRail · 2020-08-02T13:59:35+00:00

This is not a criticism of third position ideas from the right, it is a criticism of third position ideas from the first position (liberalism). This is more or less to be expected, because the writer may be an anti-egalitarian, but he's definitely a materialist. Let's look at the noteworthy points in his article:

We know that mainstream conservatives are irritating cucks because they cannot accept that equality is nonsense.

Is this why conservatives are irritating? Most criticism I see of conservatism seems to revolve around its inability to defend its own interests, not its stance on equality. This type of presentation trick is used throughout the entire article.

However, the far-Right has its share of do-nothings who refuse to reject equality, either. They want equality within a race, and forget that nationalism is ethnic in nature, or want socialism, or insist that we have some kind of classless society. All of these are Leftist ideals.

These are all just misrepresentations and outright lies relying on common tropes and rhetoric to shut down critical thinking.

If you are going to bother challenging the current system, you have to rip it out root, leaf, and branch which means that you have to reject its core concept.

Leftism isn't the current system, it is a part of the current system. It has its origin, causes and function within that system, but it is not the system itself.

Leftism is egalitarianism.

No? Egalitarianism is an important concept within leftism. It is not leftism itself.

Egalitarianism is the belief in equality. If you believe in any kind of equality, you are part of the problem.

Every kind of equality is the problem? Why? Where's the proof? This idea may have merit but without any argumentation it's worthless.

That includes racial equality, ethnic equality (joining together all Whites as one, ignoring ethnic differences), socialism (denying class and caste, wanting subsidies like free healthcare, welfare, retirement, and public schooling), unions (reward the bad workers as well as the good), democracy (the vote of an insane moron is the same as that of a morally-lucid genius), sexual equality (gay marriage, sexual liberation, “game,” unchaste men), and of course equality itself, or the idea that we can be a mob without leaders or choosing one clear, simple and achievable platform.

There are many misrepresentations here that are worth addressing.

ethnic equality (joining together all Whites as one, ignoring ethnic differences)

Who does this? People who promote cooperation between ethnic groups do not reject biological reality, they acknowledge political reality. Intersectional criticism applies just as well to Americans as it does to Russians. It's obvious that different ethnic groups are different, otherwise they wouldn't be different ethnic groups. Does that difference also mean they have to be disunited? Furthermore, this point of view is highly materialist. It considers reality in purely biological terms, leaving no room for cultural, political, intellectual, moral and emotional factors. Is any nationalist more attached to the IQ score of his demographic group rather than its history and traditions?

socialism (denying class and caste, wanting subsidies like free healthcare, welfare, retirement, and public schooling), unions (reward the bad workers as well as the good)

19th century liberal thinking. Socialism and trade unionism are products of the capitalist system and its excessive exploitation and abuse of the traditional loyalty owed by the masses to authority. You can't roll history back. You can only go forward and resolve the problems that have created these movements. The only way to fix that is a sense of solidarity that can only exist in a just society where everyone has his needs met.

democracy (the vote of an insane moron is the same as that of a morally-lucid genius),

Later in the article it becomes apparent that the critique of democracy is not a right wing one, but a liberal one instead.

It's also worth mentioning what was left out from the list of "egalitarianism that has to be rejected". For example, universal taxation, the equal right to engage in commerce, amongst other privileges established by liberals in order to destroy the aristocracy. In other words, the intention here is to reject every form of equality that doesn't explicitly benefit the rich.

For too long the far-Right audience has favored anyone who praises all Whites as equal, both among ethnic groups and between social classes, without noticing obvious hatefacts like some “white” ethnic groups being actually highly mixed with Other, and lower classes being dumber than upper classes. Too much of the far-Right is caught up in the Revolutionary narrative of “the rich people are the bad elites and they are our problem.”

Here again there's this conflation of political unity and "egalitarianism". Every ethnic group is different. This is obvious to everyone, including leftists and liberals. This does not mean that cooperation and unity is impossible. It seems to me that the author of this article just wants more useless IQ nationalism whining. If people from Normandy can be politically united with people from Toulouse as Bavarians can be with Brandenburgers, then why should Frenchmen and Germans be in strict opposition?

At the same time, the correlation between low IQ and working class status is 0.49, which is a weak correlation. If you are working class, it's actually slightly more likely that you're "too smart" for your class rather than not.

Are rich people "bad"? As an anti-egalitarian, the author of the article should know that the upper classes always hold the power. Who, then, ushered in this period of political turbulence and cultural and economic decline? Why did they do that? Is Jeff Bezos the model American?

White votards elected the people who did this and then failed to repeal it. White votards adopted Leftism to get more people into their shops and businesses. White votards continue to virtue signal for Black Lives Matter and Antifa despite having no idea what they are talking about.

This is where the critique of democracy becomes obviously liberal - it criticises the voters, democracy and mass participation of politics by blaming everything on those factors, completely ignoring the structure of the US electoral system which has been blocking almost every serious attempt for reform over the past two centuries. You don't have to be a democrat to acknowledge that if it had been left up to popular opinion, the USA would never have ended up the way it has. Something like Hart-Cellar is possible only in a "representative" liberal system like the American one. There's also blame placed on the electorate for thoughtlessly falling for propaganda, but never any blame directed towards the powerful interests which promote and produce that propaganda.

You people are like mainstream conservatives. You are just conservative-flavored Leftists. No matter how many grossly “racist” things you say, or taboos you break, you still want the current system with its flaws intact, and that will rapidly encounter the same problems. You will defeat yourselves, but you will also defeat the Right, opening the door for the final Leftist takeover.

This is the worst and most ironic example of projection I've seen in my entire life.

We do not need more analysis; we know what the situation is and how to fix it, which is to adopt gradually more Right-wing leaders, starting with Trump.

If you want to know what type of mindset leads to the creation of articles like this - here you go. This is it. "We don't need more analysis."

We take baby steps so that at each step, we prove that our plans are working better than crazy Leftism, and then we push further Right. That works

Really? How?

We need a simple plan, and here it is: push Right. Get involved, and push those organizations further Right. Always vote for the furthest Right candidate you can find.

For an anti-egalitarian and anti-democrat this "strategy" of subverting the GOP against the will of its elites and sponsors is both egalitarian and democratic. I am sure the author is completely unaware of the inherent cognitive dissonance.

NeoRail · 2022-02-27T11:18:45+00:00

I can't remember ever seeing Spencer do anything besides take a contrarian position on any issue. Now he seems to be claiming that conflict with Russia will transform woke leftists into warlike, identitarian Nietzschean Overmen? Does he really believe that? Frankly, I think Spencer is an intellectual narcissist who would much rather hold unique opinions than correct ones.

NeoRail · 2022-02-27T22:21:22+00:00

It's like we're watching two different wars. There's the ghost of Kiev, the snake island spartans, the Il-78s full of 100s of paratroopers being shot down, Russia losing 20 aircraft and 700 APCs...its insane.

In my opinion, the biggest contrast can be seen in how Western media pitch this as some sort of Soviet Union-style people's war in which the whole nation is rising up to fight the invaders, whereas Russian sources claim that the arming of civilians has resulted in pure chaos, looting, murder and even friendly fire between the army and the citizens due to the lack of training and coordination. These are two radically contradictory accounts. It's obvious that there is some form of extensive, deliberate disinformation.

NeoRail · 2022-02-26T19:59:36+00:00

Rumour has it if you deposit a loaf of bread into a Western bank and wait long enough, another loaf will appear as interest.

NeoRail · 2022-01-11T05:57:47+00:00

Most of those left wing YouTuber folks are so smug, obnoxious, ignorant, mean spirited and dishonest that I really can't stomach watching their content for more than a few seconds at a time. I am not exaggerating. It's the main reason why I stopped keeping track of radlib and anarchist discourse. They are just completely intolerable to listen to.

NeoRail · 2021-10-07T03:16:14+00:00

That's one thing I dislike about these "alternative" websites, they can end up going down at any time. I am not too attached to saidit as a platform, but it would be a pity to lose access to some of the posts here.

Not sure what to say about backups. I think that the point of backup subreddits back on Reddit was to allow a community to reorganise and go back to producing content and influencing the platform. I don't think these considerations even apply to saidit. If this place shut down, I'd just try to see if I can find the interesting posters again, but DAR as a sub is completely unrecognisable from its Reddit days. I appreciate the news links and the occasional discussion threads here, but the sub no longer serves any real purpose.

NeoRail · 2021-08-30T15:10:45+00:00

Very impressive, although it remains to be seen to what extent this decision is enforceable.

NeoRail · 2021-04-02T22:22:28+00:00

I think the issue with this "neofeudalist" terminology is that historically feudalism includes the concept of "noblesse oblige", whereas today there is no such equivalent. Feudal economies are organic and mutually beneficial - all participants stand to gain from the prosperity of all. To today's oligarchs, it's all the same if their workforce is homeless, atomised and starving so long as their profits keep growing.

NeoRail · 2021-03-20T00:01:34+00:00

The entire article essentially boils down to "Napoleon is literally Hitler", so you are not missing much.

NeoRail · 2021-01-30T02:55:47+00:00

I just browse Twitter every now and again. 90% of the interesting guys I used to know on various platform got banned and I can't find them anymore. It's too much of a bother to look for good posters all the time only to see them get banned, so now I read more books instead. I don't know if others have reacted in the same way.

With many people, especially more mainstream conservatives, I assume that they stick to their real life groups rather than deal with online research. Your average Trump supporter probably gets his politics at church.

NeoRail · 2020-11-15T15:22:10+00:00

Not even close lol. The peak of neoliberalism was the 90s. It's been a long way down since then and it's got a long way down to go still. Reviewing neoliberal strategy on its own terms, it's been a total failure, there isn't one single area where they've been successful. Neoliberals are far more tyrannical today than they were before, sure, but that's a sign of weakness, not a sign of strength. They feel a necessity to act tyrannical precisely because they know that the neoliberal myth is incapable of providing any legitimacy or mobilising people, it's a farce. Even the bizarre radlib ideology that's in vogue today is more effective in that sense.

NeoRail · 2022-09-23T17:05:19+00:00

>tfw you can't locate a quarter of the globe on the map

NeoRail · 2022-04-14T18:12:34+00:00

Nothing you said has any bearing on the fact that none of the European states are independent.

NeoRail · 2022-01-16T17:13:26+00:00

Is sociology really that bad? I have been seeing anti-sociology memes for years, but I am still not sure how much of it is just memes and how much of it is genuine, justified hatred. I would assume that sociology students are taught at least something of value.

NeoRail · 2022-09-27T02:46:55+00:00

In the first place, "liberal democracy" is an oxymoron. Liberalism is rule by the rich and democracy is - at least in theory - rule by everyone. Serious liberals have never liked democracy and only really grudgingly accept it, precisely on the terms you describe - democracy is when liberals get their way, and the more liberals get their way, the more democratic it is.

NeoRail · 2022-05-30T20:06:43+00:00

According to mainstream economic thinking, they would be equal, yes. Even in terms of actual purchasing power they would be equal - hence why the farce economies of Western countries today still permit Western governments to have massive militaries and exercise a lot of soft power. The problem is that economies using the model of country A would be completely helpless and rapidly collapse without free trade - since they produce no useful goods, they need to purchase all of these from the outside, so trade barriers would be crippling. This partly explains why Western sanctions on Russia have largely failed and have even acted to the detriment of the West - Russian imports simply play too crucial a role in economic life, and are hard to replace. A shortage of instagram posts is easily survivable, but a shortage of food and oil isn't.

NeoRail · 2022-04-05T03:36:31+00:00

I don't see this as a problem. The core posters are just the same two dozen guys anyway. If anything, the sub needs higher quality content rather than more users.

NeoRail · 2022-03-15T13:08:46+00:00

Every loss suffered by America is a loss for woke neoliberalism, or so the argument goes.

NeoRail · 2022-02-28T09:20:44+00:00

You are beyond parody.

NeoRail · 2022-02-27T19:58:55+00:00

How wise it would be of Mr. Zelensky to join such useless allies, you decide. It will take VERY long time and MANY human lives til these sanctions take effect, if they take any effect at all.

It's okay because these people's goal is not at all the geostrategic security of Ukraine, it's the advancement of liberal globalism.

NeoRail · 2021-10-18T18:24:32+00:00

In America more so than anywhere else when people talk about politics they are actually talking about money, which means that the insane social politics are completely glossed over. The "right" is defined as the side which helps rich ghouls destroy the country for profit and the "left" is presumably made up of the glorious Marxist people's revolutionary front of grifters. Traditional right wing politics do not figure at all into this worldview.

NeoRail · 2021-05-08T21:09:41+00:00

I believe the French government does not take statistics of this kind. It's a legal thing. Do you know if Macron introduced conscription as he wanted to? If he did, then that could be skewing the numbers, although even with conscription I doubt you would be getting figures that high.

NeoRail · 2021-05-01T03:03:36+00:00

Mark Brahmin believes that the ultimate teleological purpose of art and religion is to get men and women to have sex. His project is not even remotely religious, it is an aesthetic larp designed to give his ideas a mystical coat of paint and appropriate some of the legitimacy of ancient spirituality for his own materialist ideology. I still can not see what "Apolloism" actually consists in, other than perhaps Mark Brahmin's own method of interpreting mythology, which in my opinion is not worth much. Those with a genuine interest in spirituality would be much better served by looking into Evola's works.

NeoRail · 2021-04-24T10:40:34+00:00

I think the source of your confusion is improper definition of terms. Let us take a look at this, for example:

If every single ethnic group is a mix of other ethnic groups, how can they be considered only one ethnic group instead of a mixture?

What does this mean? Your question itself is incoherent, because if every single ethnic group is a mix of other ethnic groups, then the category "ethnic group" must necessarily refer to no content at all. It would be a label that does not refer to anything. We would not be able to speak of a "mixture", as there is nothing to mix, since all "ethnic groups" (something that would not exist according to your phrasing) constitute each other. Your definition of "ethnic group" here is self-referential and consists of nothing else other than that self-reference. The fact that the term "ethnic group" exists and carries specific meaning that we all understand already demonstrates that this is not the case. If you go to Europe and look at individuals with Caucasian features, then go to the opposite end of Eurasia and look at Chinese people with Chinese features, it will be very easy for you to tell that you are dealing with two separate groups that have their own separate features. The term "ethnic group" refers to what distinguishes these two groups from each other. If these two groups were indistinguishable, you would not be speaking of a "mixture", but rather would not be speaking of ethnicity at all.

And if everyone is a mixture, how does it make sense to claim someone is mixed now (e.g. "half-white, half black")?

This is also something worth addressing. Let us take White Americans as an example. White Americans are a mixture of various European ethnicities. Would you say that, since they are a mixture of various ethnicities, they are the same or at least indistinguishable from someone who is "half white, half black"? I do not think you would, even though that would be technically correct in absolute terms so long as you are looking at those very specific criteria. This type of observation is useless, though. It does not account for relative difference or context at all and is therefore a lot more nonsensical than the alternative.

NeoRail · 2021-04-02T21:41:31+00:00

High IQ discourse.

NeoRail · 2021-03-21T04:42:50+00:00

5000+ year old culture

Modern Egypt has nothing to do with Ancient Egypt.

NeoRail · 2020-11-09T03:32:42+00:00

It's only rational. One of the oldest tricks in the liberal book has been to claim the moral high ground, justifying any and all repression in the name of the greater good. The Terror of the French Revolution was justified more or less exactly in these terms. The abandonment of "compassion" does not actually mean abandoning compassion as a value - it means abandoning compassion for "the enemy" in favour of ruthless and merciless repression, unrestrained by any principle that would be considered normal or primary to a liberal or leftist morality. The abandonment of civility is not a concession of the moral high ground, but the opposite - an usurpation of every right to freedom of thought, belief and action. "We are good and you are evil, therefore hesitation and compassion for you is also evil." This is more or less the idea behind it. There's no "rebellion" there at all, no scorn for the powerful - it is a demand for absolute power.

As to the practical side of it, you can see for yourself what a poor fit for its proponents it really is. Essentially, it boils down to a bunch of spoilt rich kids larping as an exaggerated caricature of what they believe to be "the common people"; as a sort of hoodlums. Everything about these people is fake. I doubt they have a feeling for vulgarity or even much exposure to it, they are just a bunch of overgrown kids that are still trying to rebel against the clean, comfortable and secure environment daddy worked so hard to give them. There's a long tradition of this on the American left, especially since the so-called 60s counterculture. If you read up on the backgrounds, lifestyles and stories of some of these people, it's almost unbelievable.

In regards to how effective this will be, it remains to be seen. I think it's a huge mistake for the left to abandon their "high optics" style. Since its inception, liberalism has been a form of moral tyranny that disallows every alternative because it is "evil". The masses have been internalising this message for a long time. Maybe the social situation in the West has declined so much by now that the left can afford this ridiculous and unprecedented overreach, but I think it's extremely risky for them to be attempting this right now, when it seems like liberalism is in crisis on all fronts - demographic, economic, popular, political, geostrategic and so on. If they can successfully pull this off, they may end up establishing something very similar to a perpetual Maoist cultural revolution, except liberal in character. Personally though, I think the much more likely scenario is that they will instead destroy whatever is left of political normalcy and alongside that the entire Overton window. In the end, it will probably come down to how gullible the last two generations will prove to be and how strong an advantage leftist propaganda will have. If the Left gains a total and absolute monopoly on all information flow and the masses end up defaulting to conformism over realism in every scenario, then a zealous and intolerant left will probably succeed in destroying the last vestiges of democracy in favour of some sort of woke, moralist neoliberalism.

NeoRail · 2022-09-04T07:02:36+00:00

The Confederacy is not a nation, it is a state, and to be more specific it is the only state in the history of the world to belong to the Dixie people. Dixies did not suddenly come into existence for the American Civil War and then disappear right after. They've been living on their land for centuries.

NeoRail · 2022-08-03T13:01:29+00:00

I have seen some people claim that the Chinese lost to America or that they have been outshined by Russia as a beacon of resistance against NATO. I don't necessarily agree. The Chinese just have a brain. Who would benefit from a US-China war? Maybe the US elite, if they can win. China on the other hand has time on its side, and it is better for it to keep its commercial links to the rest of the world and continue growing its economy and military. China will only grow stronger and the US will only grow weaker. There is no reason to force a conflict now. Besides, US officials explicitly confirmed that they are not attempting to undermine the One China policy, so objectively speaking, there is nothing for China to lose. I think the sober, intelligent thing to do was not escalate the situation, and for the most part this is precisely the course the Chinese pursued. Russia did not have this privilege because of the nature and importance of its relationship with Ukraine, but China simply has nothing to gain from fighting a war with the US now.

NeoRail · 2022-04-14T18:18:21+00:00

The funny part is that if this is really your definition of independence, then even the US it not independent because they don't control their borders, there is no official language and even the child of illegal immigrants can run for president.

NeoRail · 2021-09-12T18:31:44+00:00

This fake drama is nauseating. A slight, opportunistic change in rhetoric does not mean that the neoliberal EU is on its way to becoming some sort of fascist superstate. All of this delusional nonsense is written for the sake of one thing and one thing only, to allow middle class white liberals to self-flagellate and self-radicalise themselves even more.

NeoRail · 2021-08-29T16:01:52+00:00

Well, that is a very expansive topic. I think one thing worth mentioning at the start is that many scholars today no longer even believe in the value of the term "feudalism", because it is used to refer to a great variety of systems and arrangements all over Europe and over a centuries long period of time, to boot. If we include other societies like premodern China, Japan, India etc. the use of the term becomes even more problematic.

When I use the word "feudalism", I use it in the same sense Evola does, in order to refer to an ideal type of government where the organic principle prevails. Feudal societies were based on the concept of mutual obligations and mutual interest, on self-sufficiency, differentiation (farmers, artisan guilds, warriors etc), as well as local and familial ties. Incidentally, all of these things curtail the exercise of money power, and were consequently opposed and destroyed by liberals to clear the way for a bourgeois regime.

The problem I have with the "neo-feudalism" frame is that it links modern neoliberalism with feudalism, consequently making liberalism proper appear as some sort of high point sandwiched between those two eras, even though the two systems are absolutely nothing alike.

I think a much more accurate comparison could be made with early liberalism, since it eliminated the strong social links and institutions that helped sustain communities in order to atomise and standardise various groups of people into "workers", who would work any job they could get, no matter how dangerous, poorly paid and unfulfilling, with no obligations on behalf of the employer whatsoever other than providing these workers with "the priviledge of work". Additionally, by eliminating the political priviledges of the aristocracy, not only was control of the state opened up to just anyone with money, but the aristocrats themselves, left with nothing to do and no option other than to compete with merchants, would go into moneymaking themselves, which transformed them from a caste with a function into a mere class of rich people, de facto merchants. Land monopolies (held to a large extent by the remnants of the aristocracy) and capital monopolies (held by bankers, merchants and to a lesser extent industrialists) formed the basis of this early form of liberalism and are the chief reason why the ideology of "free trade" and "free markets" was as powerful as it was. Despite many ethical and political challenges, it took the massive stress of the world wars to force an end to this system and usher in a more social consensus and the era of the welfare state. Even that, of course, was done at the cost of the poorer sections of the upper classes, not at the cost of big capital. That is a bit of a digression, though. The point is that this pre-war liberalism, with its monopolies, brutal exploitation, completely anti-social character, plutocracy, and moneymaking rationale, is a much clearer match for the neoliberalism of today. This same issue of massive wealth and even more massive wealth inequality coinciding has already been seen at various times during the past two hundred years. Rather than a hypothetical regression to feudalism, it is a true regression to monopolistic liberalism, only woke and paired with a Netflix subscription this time.

NeoRail · 2021-08-29T11:54:07+00:00

I really dislike this "neo-feudalist" terminology. The current system has absolutely nothing to do with feudalism. If we want to make comparisons, then we can say that the current system resembles pre-war liberalism far more than anything else.

NeoRail · 2021-05-07T02:54:30+00:00

This was already discussed here.

I am still not sure what "Apolloism" actually is, but it is not a religion. In fact, I am not sure I would even call it a method of analysis, since there is nothing interesting or impressive about Mark Brahmin's approach to mythology. If anything, "Apolloism" seems to refer to Mark Brahmin's own personal perspective on mythology and little else.

NeoRail · 2021-04-27T11:37:40+00:00

It's just a catchier term for deregulation, really. When was the last time conservatives actually downsized a governmental institution that worked against their interests or the interests of their voters?

NeoRail · 2022-02-27T22:48:15+00:00

It is honestly a bit surprising to me how apparently genuine Ukrainian nationalists like the Klitschkos can go along with this. There are a lot of genuine people involved in the Ukrainian regime, but for some reason they don't seem to realise or care that this is not a war that can be won, and that protracting and radicalising it can only make things worse.

NeoRail · 2022-02-24T05:18:57+00:00

I am fairly confident that this narrative is meant for domestic consumption, and not for the West. There is a lot of focus on World War 2 in Russia, and Putin's government is at the centre of that.

NeoRail · 2022-01-25T00:49:44+00:00

"Checks and balances" is a liberal meme designed to cripple politics in favour of money power. The separation of powers prevents any political element from exercising sovereignty while at the same time allowing the rich to buy out all of the political institutions and control them from behind the scenes.

NeoRail · 2022-01-20T21:32:24+00:00

I can't imagine how anyone could consider Macron a "strongman" in any way.

NeoRail · 2021-04-27T00:32:35+00:00

Some of the principles examined in this article are very interesting. I think that the section on Ordinal vs Cardinal utility offers a pretty good explanation on how despite their overwhelming financial resources, "mainstream" parties often become hostage to determined radicals. Entryism as a political strategy was designed precisely with this truth in mind.

There are, however, some incorrect and strange ideas too. I think one of the problems of the article is that its analysis is shallow and lazy. At one point, the author mentions a women's march against Trump that brought out four million people. Were all these people highly dedicated, highly informed and highly political citizens? Most of them probably just heard that Trump is a fascist on the news and thought they'd go "do their part" and show off the photos to their friends after they are done. People like this, especially in such large crowds, can be useful political tools to others, but typically lack political knowledge or ability themselves. Control of the large institutions that these people take their political cues from - such as the media - can go a long way in organising and controlling crowds like this. At the same time, another question worth considering is the potential cost of attending a march against Trump in contrast to the potential cost of attending a pro-Trump rally. Public protest has always been more costly and therefore less worthwhile for right-wingers. After all, what does protest amount to? This four million march didn't have any political conseqences either, so why would another group try to do something like that if it might actually cost it something?

The strangest part for me was the quoted segment. The idea that uncontrolled oligarchic domination of institutions and the fragmentation of public life is "natural and organic", but state-run media is not, seems very hard to comprehend.

NeoRail · 2021-03-18T23:36:33+00:00

He doesn't worship Apollo, it's all a cynical larp and entirely aesthetic. His Twitter bio is all you need to know about his views on spirituality. If you have a genuine interest in the topic examined through a Rightist perspective, just read Evola.

NeoRail · 2021-03-17T18:02:12+00:00

It's unfortunate that Twitter is going to lose the Russian perspective though. Not to say that it was very prevalent to begin with. Almost every interesting Russian account on that platform has already been banned.

NeoRail · 2020-12-06T15:17:34+00:00

You seem way more sensitive about discussing Nazism than any of the mods I am aware of.

NeoRail · 2022-09-24T22:41:01+00:00

I trust that you are up to the industry standard. A subscription grants access to recycled fitness programmes/PUA theory, "business advice", an essay collection on the topic of seed oils, and a rambling book that has never been proofread, correct? If we are talking DIY Chaddism coaching, you ought to provide the full package.

NeoRail · 2022-09-22T02:25:34+00:00

You are too focused on the problems and are not being fair. Think of it this way. Fixing the world is not your job. That is the job of the ruling elite. That they have been making a mess of it for decades and continue to make a mess of it now is their problem, not yours. If you volunteer your political efforts to help address the problems of modernity, that is out of your good will - no one could ask for more, and you are certainly not under obligation to do anything. As for the ruling elites, their decadence, disunity, malice and utter incompetence mean that they simply cannot win. It is not possible. I do not know who will win, but the current status quo is unsustainable and will inevitably end before long. At that point, there will be new opportunities, new people, new movements and new actors. The important part now is to prepare the preconditions for the future. Nothing can bear fruit unless the preconditions are met, and if they are met, then when the time for change comes, they will make a difference. Retaining composure, patience and a sense of measure is one of those preconditions on the individual level. Bettering the world is not something that can be done in one day, or done alone.

Consider also that an era without virtues is a great testing ground for what men of character can build, no less so than the time of Romulus. Don't get too caught up in the tragic and global elements of our time. This is our era as well, after all. Enjoy it, and the possibilities it offers, for what they are. As for the future, we do not yet know what it will bring, but whatever it is, it will be influenced by how we live in the present.

Perhaps I overdid it a bit with this post, but you get my point.

NeoRail · 2022-08-03T13:28:09+00:00

To my knowledge, the chief officials did not threaten war. It was mostly journalists and other insignificant figures who were blustering. I think the minister of defence said that the army is "ready to fight", but he did not directly call for war either. My impression is that the Chinese wanted to bluff America into admitting its feebleness and inability to act by having them voluntarily give up on something as basic as a visit to a foreign state. Given that America has been losing on almost every front for a very long time now, I think that strategy was worth a shot. If successful, it would have perhaps completely discredited the very idea of an American world order. It didn't work this time, mainly because the American regime approaches foreign politics with invincible arrogance and carelessness. Still, I think that in the long term this will probably inconvenience America more than it inconvenienced China, because China has not really lost anything, but will certainly remember the insult.

NeoRail · 2022-07-06T20:51:42+00:00

Now that's a real horror story told in just a few words.

NeoRail · 2022-04-14T18:31:43+00:00

In just two sentences, you swap your requirements for what constitutes an independent state from a state that upholds a specific culture, to a state that upholds its own borders and has an official language. By the former criterion, which you set for Israel and Japan, there really are not independent states in Europe, except perhaps for Hungary, and maybe Russia.

NeoRail · 2022-04-14T18:29:15+00:00

But going back to Poland, they have a unique identity and they resist another foreign power (i.e Russia) from swallowing them up.

That doesn't contradict my first statement at all.

NeoRail · 2022-03-02T10:49:25+00:00

I always find posts like this to be disingenuous because it's obvious to see that your argument is not consistent with your values. I think it's clear that if the Nazis had won you would not be posting stuff like this or complaining about this or that - instead, you would be blaming all the tragedies of the war on their opponents for getting in the way of Hitler's racialist state. It is pretty clear that you are just rationalising in order to justify taking an easier road with your politics. This is not to say that there are no valid critiques of Nazism. I have seen some good ones already, but coincidentally none of them have involved a polemical presentation of war crimes or casualties. I think if you are interested in charting an intelligent and effective way forward, you should be thinking about ideas, and the conditions of the 21st century, rather than engaging in historical polemics. Franco wasn't a fascist by the way. Neither was Salazar.

As to the issue of nationalism, since we are already discussing that in another thread, I will not be addressing that here.

NeoRail · 2021-10-06T00:31:19+00:00

Your core argument seems very reasonable, but the title is misleading. Your post makes it very clear that Britain had a choice. You are also ignoring the context which lead up to that situation in the first place. Britain did not have to go to war at all. In fact, Mosley himself articulated some very realistic alternatives. A reorganised British empire would have been perfectly able to preserve and increase its power through isolationism.

It was all one tragic farce. It would've been best had the war never started. If Hitler had never invaded Poland. The assassination of Ferdinand in 1914 started the death slide of Western civilization, Hitler's invasion of Poland cemented it.

The claims in this entire paragraph are completely arbitrary.

NeoRail · 2021-05-13T15:39:29+00:00

The word "Gothic" still refers to a historical people, an architectural style, etc.
The media didn't invent Goth subculture.
Goths have never been popular with the media, so if anything has overwritten the old meaning of the word "Goth", it would not be the media.
The title you have chosen for your post is especially boomerish given the content of the post.

NeoRail · 2021-05-02T23:39:33+00:00

If you are treating the people you are speaking to as "opponents", then neither emotional appeals nor logic will bear any fruit. I also disagree with this supposed logic-emotion dichotomy. Reason has its appropriate place in every persuasive argument, as does "emotion" or rather more accurately, values, attachments and ideals.

NeoRail · 2021-05-01T01:14:12+00:00

There are too few people. There are also no people to debate, which makes things difficult for a debate sub. Additionally, there seems to be a content drought. This sub is mostly just people discussing news articles and sharing some related bits of information in the comments. Occasionally, people post some videos here, but I think those are rarely watched and typically there isn't much to say about them, as they are often video commentaries in the first place.

NeoRail · 2021-01-29T10:33:22+00:00

"Yes, the ideas of my Party no longer divide the world into communists, fascists, left & right."

This is called "not being an idiot", rather than "Duginism". Where does Matteo Salvini promote an ethnopluralist, post-fascist Eurasian empire? How is he a "Duginist", whatever you think that means? Point to the evidence, because if Salvini is actually a Duginist then that means he is a lot more revolutionary than he presents himself to be right now. Also, please take it easy with the Duginist panic. Duginism is never going to be a thing - it's not even a "Russian ideology", but rather an ideology created to suit the present circumstances of Russia. Putin doesn't even like Dugin so his directly political ideas are basically worthless. He's worth reading for some of his theory and more interesting observations, but that's it.

NeoRail · 2023-06-29T21:43:24+00:00

You can't expect the average citizen to have a thorough political education and a character suited for politics. This will never happen, and can never happen. It has never been the case. And the same applies even for what we could call "the political vanguard". Most right wingers you see are still human beings who are just trying their best. And it should be noted that the right has faced a century of marginalisation and harsh suppression. I am impressed that right wingers today can even get anything done at all, and they are doing things despite the extraordinarily difficult circumstances. As for the comparison with leftists, the radicalism of leftists, particularly American leftists, is owed to them being psychologically unstable and often times straight up criminal individuals. They are forced to be radical because they are incapable of moderation, political or even mental or emotional. I would think that it is a good thing to differ from leftists in this regard. Not to mention that leftists have been completely ineffective in achieving any of their goals besides annoying right wingers and getting in the way of more effective and organic political forces. Electorally and on the streets, the left is a failure. They are good at being lapdogs for the liberals and little else. Look at what happened to the Sanders campaign, to the Antifa autonomous zone, to basically any leftist endeavour. It's all come to nothing, always. Are you really sure that these are the people you want to emulate?

If we are going to talk history, then let us at least be consistent - do you think that the Bolshevik revolution was not itself the result of unique, unrepeatable historical conditions? Here's a few vital preconditions without which the Bolshevik revolution would not have come to be: the events of 1905, the imperial government's response in the years following 1905, the unprecedented experience of the First World War and the February Revolution. A Bolshevik Revolution type of scenario is never going to happen in the modern West. The Bolsheviks relied especially on their hardened and well-entrenched power base in the cities of Moscow and St Petersburg. The major cities and the capitals today, on the other hand, are where the right wing movements are weakest. These are the strongholds of leftists and liberals. So, clearly, a Bolshevik-style strategy is completely impossible.

NeoRail · 2022-11-08T12:30:59+00:00

I am still around, I just don't have much to say. The vast majority of things that happen in mainstream politics don't really interest me anymore because I don't think mainstream politics has anything to do with my interests at all, and besides, I have never felt that engaging with leftists or their talking points is particularly pleasant or intriguing either. This means I don't really have much to say about current events. The stuff I am currently reading about isn't immediately political either, and I don't feel that there would be much point in me reading more political texts now, because I believe I have already arrived at sound ideas about principles and about political practice. Reading political texts would be useful if there was any specific task to solve, but currently the only task is to organise - policy on the other hand is up to the liberals, because they are in control.

I am not really concerned about activity and clicks - I agree with Mark that this type of stuff hasn't really mattered since we got deplatformed. I do hope that the regular posters stay here for at least another couple of years, though. There are many intelligent, knowledgeable people here, and it would be hard to find something like this anywhere else. It would be good to maintain this place. It's already a great pity that I have lost contact with a number of really smart and interesting guys throughout the years - particularly on Reddit, I remember an American NazBol, an American heterodox Trotskyist, that one DAR reactionary who used to have "Archaic Liberal" in his flair - I think we would have been able to have great conversations if we could speak today - among others, too. While we are on the topic of inactivity, I hope /u/Rakean93 is still around too - I do not want to lose contact with him as well, or with any of the other regulars.

NeoRail · 2022-10-19T15:51:41+00:00

They are not really trying to justify anything, it is just a cynical tactic.

NeoRail · 2022-09-24T22:31:32+00:00

Your constant whining about the rich has almost made me like them, which is quite the achievement.

NeoRail · 2022-04-25T08:42:11+00:00

Please do not attempt to psychoanalyse your fellow posters.

NeoRail · 2022-03-26T17:26:02+00:00

It's not like it's the first time USA treats an ally in such a way.

Other than South Korea, I actually cannot think of a single US "ally" that the US did not abandon or screw over in the past century. Even in the case of South Korea, if another poster here is to be believed, the Americans transformed the country into a prostitution state. If I recall correctly, in the immediate aftermath of the Korean war, up to 30% of the South Korean GDP was revenue from the prostitution industry servicing American troops.

NeoRail · 2022-02-28T00:13:10+00:00

I don't think the material cost would be too great to either America or Russia, but a protracted conflict could cost quite a lot of Ukrainian lives, and I would rather that not happen. It would be meaningless and wasteful.

NeoRail · 2022-02-27T00:28:08+00:00

I am honestly not sure what Western governments are thinking closing their airspace to Russia. Obviously, Russia closing its own air space in retaliation is much more impactful and a far bigger problem, given how massive Russia is.

NeoRail · 2022-01-10T13:09:42+00:00

The culture industry is a very complicated issue. The main political advantage of advanced entertainment media is that they are a very powerful tool for social conditioning. People today spend their entire lives surrounded by media content, overwhelmingly of the same liberal character. The vast majority of people also interact with media in an uncritical or mostly uncritical way - most people lack the varied life experience and background knowledge to really distinguish consuming "entertainment for entertainment's sake" from an entertainment product that has certain ideological presuppositions or messages masked in its content. Not to mention that most people also consume media as a form of relaxation, meaning that even if they could examine media critically, most would probably not want to bother going through that effort. As a consequence, a group or an institution with the capacity to loosely control the general narrative themes of media in sufficiently large volume over a sufficiently long period of time would be able to enact large scale social engineering and manage the discourse on specific topics.

In principle, this system is neutral. It can benefit a variety of different worldviews and ideologies, depending on who controls it. The culture industry could be used to push constructive social engineering just as well as it could push destructive social engineering. The costs of this system, however, remain unchanged in all cases - the national body becomes conditioned to find comfort in passive consumerism and to waste its time with entertaining, but ultimately personally useless and unreal distractions. In other words, a based version of Netflix would be capable of endearing binge watchers to heroic narratives, but it would be no better for helping them live heroic lives than the current liberal Netflix. The culture industry relies on mass scale, high volume escapism for its existence and its profits - by nature it distracts and prevents people from living their own lives well. The system may be useful for mass control, as well as the standardisation and pacification of people, but it is difficult for me to see it as anything other than incompatible with an ambitious and virtuous people.

NeoRail · 2021-11-22T03:18:19+00:00

What they all have in common is that eventually the people boot the foreign overlords out, either by military means, or by taking advantage of the political turmoil in the capital.

That's not really true, in many cases what happens instead is an external force invades or destabilises the country, like what happened in India for example. However it's important to note that "eventually" is not a very useful category to work with. According to this same logic, all monoethnic societies "eventually" collapse. It's technically true, but it's not a very useful observation.

NeoRail · 2021-10-05T00:07:28+00:00

No - the different sides already existed before the debate, and before the democracy. One can find common ground in debates and in democracies, as has happened quite often.

Your first statement is technically correct, but that's precisely what makes my argument strong and yours weak. Democracy absolutises "the debate" with its different sides, its contradictions and its oppositions. On the other hand, an authoritarian system provides a superior unity which stands above any debates and any disagreements. In other words, it provides what some reactionary thinkers refer to as the "centre". Whatever disagreements there may be "democratically", on the horizontal plane, in the end of the day the entirety of society remains loyal to the vertical centre. If you remove that centre, then naturally the diverging horizontal forces will eventually rip the polity apart.

Your second statement is just wrong. What is sometimes, and only sometimes, reached in democracies, is compromise, not common ground. In the democratic system, plutocratic elements rule with impunity until their excesses provoke a massive and threatening reaction from below. In such cases, a "compromise" is reached as a way to secure the future of the plutocracy. This compromise is unilaterally defined and implemented by the elite, who address or ignore popular concerns at their leisure. It is in this light that reforms like the New Deal, the welfare state etc are to be understood.

No - because a true democracy can limit their power. This is civics 101.

Really? Who are the true democrats, then, the anarchists? In theory, the plutocratic elite could decide to follow the principles they espouse and demolish their own power. Of course, this will never happen, because liberal democracy is a completely cynical system by design.

You do not have a good argument for the benefits of the authoritarian regime, and you'd be miserable in one. If you want someone to dictate all of your choices, there are places where you can get that kind of lifestyle. But generally, no one who wants the 'common good' wants a dictatorship.

Liberal democrats are already trying to dictate everyone's life choices, often with the specific intention of spreading misery and demoralisation. It is on them to give "good arguments" for the existence of their self-annihilating system, since I am yet to see any.

Read On Revolution by Hannah Arendt if you are curious, and perhaps her book, The Human Condition.

You probably could not name a person I consider to be farther from my thinking and from what I consider to be the truth than Hannah Arendt.

NeoRail · 2021-10-04T21:25:28+00:00

Because when you put up something for debate, by definition you are creating different sides. Over time, this leads to increasing diversity of opinions and interests, until a state of absolute and total fragmentation is reached. The Western world has already advanced very far along this line of development. Even in the 1940s, you can read plenty of material describing how British leftist intellectuals were cheering at every defeat Nazi Germany would inflict upon their country, because even though they desperately wanted to see fascism defeated, they wanted the Soviet Union to do that, not their homeland.

Individualist democracies endlessly divide the nation. This makes them the most convenient form of government for plutocrats and tyrants who rely on the weakness of others rather than on their own strength. By playing off different factions against each other, the rule of money remains intact. Properly authoritarian regimes embody the opposite principle, where every disparate element is united in authority, by authority, for the common good.

NeoRail · 2021-09-27T19:01:54+00:00

More valid would be lashing out at 'powerless people' for mal or poor function.

From their perspective, it is the same thing.

NeoRail · 2021-08-25T00:07:05+00:00

An additional thing worth noting is that nothing in the quoted section actually relates to the OP. The quote in no way claims that poor whites are not truly white, that the interests of poor whites should be ignored, or anything at all about poor whites, as a matter of fact. The term "welfare class" by no means refers to the working class or the poor more generally. It seems to me that the author is referring to people exclusively reliant on welfare who have no intention to ever work and live for themselves. This is a phenomenon that is certainly exclusive to liberal democratic regimes which did not exist either under fascist or communist governments.

NeoRail · 2021-06-06T11:27:54+00:00

Indo-Europeans have been living in North Africa for thousands of years, this type of thing is entirely dependent on ancestry.

NeoRail · 2021-04-24T14:46:16+00:00

I thought your reply was needlessly aggressive at first, but I went to check the original poster's post history and it seems that you are correct. He has deleted all his previous posts. Moreover, he seems to ask similarly bizarre questions in other subreddits. Maybe he is doing research for some think-tank, who knows.

NeoRail · 2021-03-20T00:07:16+00:00

It's always ironic to see the old liberal slogans turned on the ones who first created them. Napoleon is the greatest and perhaps even the only martial hero of liberalism, yet he too is not woke enough and has to be cancelled. Nothing about this is surprising to me, since I have already seen a lot of people "cancelling" the Bolsheviks themselves for being far right evil racist imperialist colonisers and so on. It is still amusing to see leftists turn on their own history, though.

NeoRail · 2021-03-19T15:11:43+00:00

European history did not begin with Christianity. It is true that as the Christian faith has declined, so has the West, but it's far more debateable if this decline was the product of the decline of Christianity or the decline of religiosity more generally. Additionally, it is worth asking why this decline occurred at all. Personally, I believe that there was nothing the Church could have done to prevent this decline, chiefly because the problem was rooted in its doctrines. Up until recently, the clergy played their part well, but Christian doctrine itself is simply too poorly suited to Europeans in order to rein in certain parts of the population.

I don't think there is any benefit to attacking Christianity, but at the same time there's also nothing to expect from it. If any Christians take a stand for the Right today, it will be in spite of their Christian faith, not because of it.

NeoRail · 2021-02-13T00:06:24+00:00

What sort of question is that? The Soviet Union was one of two superpowers - it innovated in every conceivable sphere of life. This is entirely besides the point anyway, public funding has played the same role in the history of every major power - France, Britain, the USA, imperial Russia, you name it. The construction of roads, railroads, research, public administration, the establishment of legal and economic condition suitable for private business, all of this and more depends on the state. Google, Tesla, all these behemoths of "private" industry received extensive federal funding which allowed them to grow into the immense, grotesque mega corporations that we have today.

NeoRail · 2021-02-04T16:32:32+00:00

Unlike the Tories, Labour is actually incapable of doing something like this. They have been playing the intersectional game for far too long, if they tried to pull such a sharp turn, even if only cynically, their youth groups and grifters like Momentum etc. would kick up a huge storm. If your party apparatus is ran by "post-colonial" radlib grifters, you can't just pull the tactical patriotism card. I would like to see them try, though.

NeoRail · 2021-01-24T22:58:47+00:00

Putin is an effective politician, but he is in all likelihood, very corrupt. I doubt he is corrupt enough to steal billions from his own country, though. A mansion or two or even three for him and a few of his cronies would be nowhere near that expensive. It is impossible to steal that much without introducing financial difficulties, especially given the precarious situation of the Russian state right now. As far as I can tell, he is a corrupt politician, but his corruption is exaggerated by his opponents who don't even care about it all that much and just want power for themselves. It's important to keep the liberal track record in mind, especially in the Russian case. If there is any difference between Putin and the liberals, it is that Putin does more for his country and takes less. Just over ten years ago, Boris Yeltsin, that veritable colossus of Russian liberalism, had reduced the country to unimaginable poverty and anarchy. The politicians themselves benefited from this by cutting deals with the mafia and NATO in order to prolong this state of affairs for as long as possible. Putin was the first person who tried to change things. It's easy to understand how corruption is unavoidable when you are dealing with a mess like that, even for the most idealistic people, much more so for someone like Putin whom I could hardly describe as an idealist. I doubt Putin is a good guy, but he is a good statesman. People like Navalny are neither. There is a reason why hostile states want them in power. For what it's worth, they are very unlikely to actually succeed - Russian liberalism has an unrivalled history of total failure in every respect. If there is a liberalism that can survive in Russian conditions, it looks far more like "Putinism" than whatever it is Navalny wants to do.

NeoRail · 2021-01-18T19:42:44+00:00

And then normies cheer them on for "owning Karen", suddenly becoming pro-police and pro-force/authority.

That's not normies, that's libtards or bugmen.

NeoRail · 2020-12-23T02:48:09+00:00

I dislike his type of dry and rigid rationalism. He was a very significant and influential writer who made a great impact on German philosophy, but I don't think he's written anything that is either relevant today or with enduring value.

NeoRail · 2020-12-12T23:00:00+00:00

This is the thing about alt tech - no matter how "alt" it is, so long as it is run for profit, they'll try to rebrand into something more reputable as soon as they think they are big enough. Then the discourse on the platform stagnates and new alt tech may pop up to replace it, but the disruption to communication caused by this cycle is real. That's why I am pessimistic about any "build your own internet" initiatives. The only examples of working alternative communications that I am aware of would be things that are being run for ideology first and profit second - something like the Arktos publishing house, for instance. I still have some expectations for the internet, but alternative communications in the future will probably be peer to peer rather than anything forum-like - recent innovations seem to be making video sharing very easy and simple even without support infrastructure.

NeoRail · 2020-12-11T16:12:55+00:00

It's because the legitimacy of the entire postwar order rests on cheap consumer goods and not being the Nazis, so the deeper the crisis of legitimacy grows, the more screeching you'll hear about "Nazis" and "Nazism" as if it's 1930.

NeoRail · 2020-12-07T01:39:00+00:00

I generally think it's productive to challenge the left on their home turf, the more the better, but IMO some of his "we are the real anti-colonialists" takes go a bit too far. It's a risky tactic, because if anyone challenges him on it he will have to commit resources to "anti-colonial causes" on principle rather than as a matter of pragmatism. This is all understandable if you are familiar with the background of the Irish nationalist current, but personally I am of the opinion that that current goes way too far left. At times it's difficult for me to understand how he can reconcile some of his opinions with his professed admiration for Traditionalism.

NeoRail · 2020-11-24T17:25:34+00:00

What exactly did he say that is incompatible with ethnonationalism?

NeoRail · 2020-11-17T11:32:55+00:00

I don't believe there are any notable, contemporary Nordicist organisations, publications or movements. If you are looking for commentaries or criticisms of older Nordicist works, you could find some of those, but since no new material is being examined there is little reason to prioritise new commentaries over old ones. Keep in mind, also, that recognising differences between Europeans is not exclusively a Nordicist position - Nordicists simply assign particular political importance to those differences.

NeoRail · 2020-11-10T00:35:31+00:00

You need to differentiate between the "Trump cult" and tactical support for Trump. Look at the Left - a lot of them hated Biden but many of those same people sided with him because they still wanted to exercise their power, however limited. I don't think promoting a truckers strike online is costly or in any way a heavy sacrifice made in the name of Trump's personal success - just getting people to go on strike over their politics is a major success. Trump benefiting from this or not is irrelevant if you are looking at the condition and attitude of the conservative voter bloc.

NeoRail · 2020-11-09T04:33:02+00:00

If you're trying to express your political beliefs politically, you are already at a disadvantage. The average person would love to discuss politics with you if you stick to concepts and discuss things without reference to political labels and language. This can be difficult to do if you've mostly absorbed your political views from rhetoric without spending much time to refine them, but if you have a coherent worldview it's not hard to discuss politics in a "nonpartisan" way, so to speak. People are much more open minded and willing to listen if they get the feeling that you are trying to have a conversation with them rather than forcefully persuade them to this or that position. Dialogue also makes what you say a lot more effective in comparison to rhetoric. It's also worth noting that discussing politics is nowhere near as troublesome as you would be led to believe - people are typically willing to listen to anything, so long as you express it calmly and reasonably. Asking others how they feel about this or that aspect of US politics can also be a great way to start, especially if you can tactfully make them feel reassured that you will listen to them honestly and without judgement.

Of course, the average person has little to do with the average psychotic ideologue, who may react with moral indignation to the very idea of discussing something that falls slightly outside the leftist Overton range. In that case it might be worth probing how those people think. If they know lots of leftist terminology, get their political news at Chapocel House or signal a leftist ideologue background in some other way, you are probably better off not bothering with them. Alternatively, if you don't give a shit you can just try to talk politics with them anyway and then downplay the importance of the conversation if they react badly.

Your environment also matters. If you're working at a university or some other progressive, middle class environment, it will be difficult to find people who aren't already extremely opinionated. In any case, it's preferable to remain professional and impartial in most workplace situations. It's difficult to bring up politics in a group discussion without it devolving into a shouting match anyway, so there's not much point in that over a more personal approach.

NeoRail