Yes, I will lead by example and... Do... What? At the very least I speak the truth and stand for what is right in my own little circle of life, which is more than many of my fellow race. There's nothing that can be done. Germany lost. It's over. It's going to be centuries before anything good can possibly come out of society for mankind. There's a difference between blackpilled and right. If it's checkmate, it's checkmate and no amount of denial will change anything. We have to wait for something unexpected to happen to shift the board around and that's likely in neither of our lifetimes.
Be a man. Be Stoic and Successful to the point that your friends and family can rely on you socially, emotionally, professionally, and financially. Let them see that you are not ideologically captive to a hyper-reality meta-narrative, and that you want them to succeed as you have, by letting them walk to the truth and take advantage of it.
I'd fucking condemn you for your racialism, but your fucking black-pilling might be even more disgusting and requires more of my attention.
No people have ever been checkmate. Not even people who have been forcibly culled or re-located by the Ottomans, the Mongols, or the Caliphates. Even the Germans themselves have culled multiple peoples before, and all of those peoples still remain.
Germany deserved to lose the war, but the National Socialists (like all Socialists) never represented the people they claimed ownership of. The Germans and the German diaspora both within and beyond Germany, don't need Socialism to preserve their heritage. They certainly didn't need any sort of half-assed Aryan Wakanda purity spiraling, either. The national character of the Germans themselves is more than enough:
... Half a century later, there were still distinctive communities of Volga Germans in Argentina with their own Asociacion Argentina de los Alemanes del Volga. A visitor to a rural village in Argentina in 1967 described the scene:
I entered the church and heard something I did not remotely expect in this distant place - Traditional German hymns of Holy Week, sung in typical Volga German style in which each voice remains distinct. I looked around; men, women and children were in their Sunday dress. Some of the women wore scarves. Beneath them were faces like those of the country people in Germany. In front of the nave the minister was preaching in common German to the parishioners. It was difficult to believe that I was in Latin America, that the ancestors of these people had Left Germany for Russia 200 years ago.
While this was an extreme example of the persistence of German culture, through centuries of living in very different surrounding societies, nevertheless it was indicative of a pattern that existed more widely in the Western Hemisphere and elsewhere. With Germans, as with other immigrants, the nature of the surrounding society affected the degree to which they wished to assimilate, although Germans were often especially slow to adopt the language or the outward cultural patterns of the countries in which they settled. Even after they did so, they still remained distinctive in the particular skills they brought and in their patterns of hard work, thrift, and law-abiding behavior.
Migrations And Cultures, Chapter 2: Germans Around The World, Page 70-71, Thomas Sowell
The national character of the Germans has always been well understood around the world. If you are a man who wants to live up to the German character, it's very clear what that entails: discipline, stoicism, hard work, persistence, industriousness, and integrity.
Black pills and defeatism are unbecoming of a German.
Into this world of stone and petrifaction flock ever-growing crowds of peasant folk uprooted from the land, the "masses" in the terrifying sense, formless human sand from which artificial and therefore fleeting figures can be kneaded:
If that were true, the US wouldn't have been so dead set on property rights and not needing to increase population density. He's talking about the Progressive Era's period of Human Commodification, not Liberalism as a philosophy.
but in fact it is the mere non- existence of a conscious responsible authority, a government – that is, a true State.
He's reaching more into the idea that a state can only work with an Aristocracy, which Liberalism does seek to remove. However, this is because the aristocracy simply can't be trusted to be responsible, and literally never are. The European Liberal admission is that responsible governance can only be preserved in the state by local accountability, while the American Liberal position is that the government is almost impossible to be held accountable and must instead be held in ferocious check by local forces.
The point that Liberalism is hitting is: states aren't fucking responsible, and shouldn't be trusted to be as such.
I agree. They are weapons, and should be treated as such. No state, and no weapon, is your care-taker. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar pointing a weapon at you. Guns don't shoot "healing bullets".
The political Bohemia of Western Europe
Conflating Liberalism and Leftism again. They are utterly incompatible.
They have been replaced by formless parliamentarism, a dust-heap of what was once authority, art of governing and wisdom of State. And on it the parties, those hordes of business-politicians, scramble for the booty. Dynastic sovereignty has been replaced by election that each time brings new hordes of the unfit into State affairs.
Again, he's a slave seeking a master and lamenting that he can't find a sovereign for which to boss him around. Yes, politics is ugly. At least it's ugly in our face. The lie of authoritarianism is the fake credibility and fake stability inside of a horrific shifting morass of all the same people and problems he's complaining about in """Liberalism""".
for this is a Liberal form of the fight against high society, of class war since 1770
Meanwhile, actual Liberals like Lafayette who explicitly did not want a class war, and repeatedly showed mercy to captured aristocrats by: not harming them and letting them keep their property, was summoned to Paris for execution by the Leftists.
Again: Leftism isn't Liberalism.
for the herd against the master.
Again, slave mentality. Desperate for a master to be his god. #SAD!
Yet we're at the point where capitalists are buying out entire neighborhoods and renting them out to people. Fun that. oh, right "socialism."
Yes, follow the money.
liberalism does away with the state as it should exist, and replaces it with managerialism where in the jesters serve $$$.
Authoritarianism creates a managerial state run by criminals and cowards. Liberalism actually tries to remove bureaucracy by limiting the power of the state entirely.
The fundamental issue is that everything since has only been worse, not better,
You don't know what you're talking about because you don't understand why the Thirty Years War caused the Age of Enlightenment, follies and all. If you did know, you wouldn't make such a silly argument.
That anything opposing it is evil, and that only solution is dictatorship of bourgeois with mass-scale manipulation, exploitation, and suffering of populace, mental and otherwise.
Rousseau is explicitly illiberal.
That's because you're a lib and thus a leftist
Liberalism literally pre-dates Leftism.
egoism and liberalism go hand in hand.
Opposing slavery is not Egoism.
Being able to watch the political theater and being told you have influence over it doesn't actually manifest in influence over it.
Yes, yes, Italian Elite Theory. In reality, people do have power over incentives and pressures. A republican system that guarantees property rights conflicts with that state power to force political forces to account. Even under shit Democratic systems, the mob still has to be placated. Under an authoritarian regime, they would never have any influence at all, so you and Spangler are just asserting the conclusion and working backwards to justify your premise. Under the world that Spangler is arguing for, the elites would never have any kind of accountability mechanism at all, nor should they. The state is the God of the people and the state must be immune from the consequences of their decisions because that makes the state responsible.
The whole argument behind a Sovereign falls flat because it is hardly ever true that any Sovereign perceives his people as subjects to be cared for. Instead, they are typically just as ruthless, uncaring, and cynical as any Leftist. It's why the King of England had to be executed: treason against his own people. That's what happens when you invade your own country with a foreign army and burn your own subjects homes.
None the less, Spangler is so desperate for his slavery that he would prefer being burned alive in his farm house by foreigners so long as there was a guy with a crown ordering it.
Then stop throwing your countrymen under the fucking bus, calling them pathetic, and actually lead by example.
You know what Germany doesn't need? Black-pilled bitches.
Yes, I will lead by example and... Do... What? At the very least I speak the truth and stand for what is right in my own little circle of life, which is more than many of my fellow race. There's nothing that can be done. Germany lost. It's over. It's going to be centuries before anything good can possibly come out of society for mankind. There's a difference between blackpilled and right. If it's checkmate, it's checkmate and no amount of denial will change anything. We have to wait for something unexpected to happen to shift the board around and that's likely in neither of our lifetimes.
Be a man. Be Stoic and Successful to the point that your friends and family can rely on you socially, emotionally, professionally, and financially. Let them see that you are not ideologically captive to a hyper-reality meta-narrative, and that you want them to succeed as you have, by letting them walk to the truth and take advantage of it.
I'd fucking condemn you for your racialism, but your fucking black-pilling might be even more disgusting and requires more of my attention.
No people have ever been checkmate. Not even people who have been forcibly culled or re-located by the Ottomans, the Mongols, or the Caliphates. Even the Germans themselves have culled multiple peoples before, and all of those peoples still remain.
Germany deserved to lose the war, but the National Socialists (like all Socialists) never represented the people they claimed ownership of. The Germans and the German diaspora both within and beyond Germany, don't need Socialism to preserve their heritage. They certainly didn't need any sort of half-assed Aryan Wakanda purity spiraling, either. The national character of the Germans themselves is more than enough:
The national character of the Germans has always been well understood around the world. If you are a man who wants to live up to the German character, it's very clear what that entails: discipline, stoicism, hard work, persistence, industriousness, and integrity.
Black pills and defeatism are unbecoming of a German.
If that were true, the US wouldn't have been so dead set on property rights and not needing to increase population density. He's talking about the Progressive Era's period of Human Commodification, not Liberalism as a philosophy.
He's reaching more into the idea that a state can only work with an Aristocracy, which Liberalism does seek to remove. However, this is because the aristocracy simply can't be trusted to be responsible, and literally never are. The European Liberal admission is that responsible governance can only be preserved in the state by local accountability, while the American Liberal position is that the government is almost impossible to be held accountable and must instead be held in ferocious check by local forces.
The point that Liberalism is hitting is: states aren't fucking responsible, and shouldn't be trusted to be as such.
I agree. They are weapons, and should be treated as such. No state, and no weapon, is your care-taker. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar pointing a weapon at you. Guns don't shoot "healing bullets".
Conflating Liberalism and Leftism again. They are utterly incompatible.
Again, he's a slave seeking a master and lamenting that he can't find a sovereign for which to boss him around. Yes, politics is ugly. At least it's ugly in our face. The lie of authoritarianism is the fake credibility and fake stability inside of a horrific shifting morass of all the same people and problems he's complaining about in """Liberalism""".
Meanwhile, actual Liberals like Lafayette who explicitly did not want a class war, and repeatedly showed mercy to captured aristocrats by: not harming them and letting them keep their property, was summoned to Paris for execution by the Leftists.
Again: Leftism isn't Liberalism.
Again, slave mentality. Desperate for a master to be his god. #SAD!
Yes, follow the money.
Authoritarianism creates a managerial state run by criminals and cowards. Liberalism actually tries to remove bureaucracy by limiting the power of the state entirely.
You don't know what you're talking about because you don't understand why the Thirty Years War caused the Age of Enlightenment, follies and all. If you did know, you wouldn't make such a silly argument.
Rousseau is explicitly illiberal.
Liberalism literally pre-dates Leftism.
Opposing slavery is not Egoism.
Yes, yes, Italian Elite Theory. In reality, people do have power over incentives and pressures. A republican system that guarantees property rights conflicts with that state power to force political forces to account. Even under shit Democratic systems, the mob still has to be placated. Under an authoritarian regime, they would never have any influence at all, so you and Spangler are just asserting the conclusion and working backwards to justify your premise. Under the world that Spangler is arguing for, the elites would never have any kind of accountability mechanism at all, nor should they. The state is the God of the people and the state must be immune from the consequences of their decisions because that makes the state responsible.
The whole argument behind a Sovereign falls flat because it is hardly ever true that any Sovereign perceives his people as subjects to be cared for. Instead, they are typically just as ruthless, uncaring, and cynical as any Leftist. It's why the King of England had to be executed: treason against his own people. That's what happens when you invade your own country with a foreign army and burn your own subjects homes.
None the less, Spangler is so desperate for his slavery that he would prefer being burned alive in his farm house by foreigners so long as there was a guy with a crown ordering it.