I'll definitely read Blackstone and thank you for your perspective. I have first been reading Brutus who was the most interesting author mentioned by Moldbug and I thought really understanding the anti-federalist case would be a good start to actually understanding our history from more perspectives.
I definitely think our revolution was a move overall towards freedom and liberty, I just thought we had finished there and that a representative republic ensures the most freedom for the most blah blah blah. I definitely agree on restricting voting rights in some way at least as a start, so I'm curious to see what Blackstones predictions were, as reading Brutus's has seemed rather prophetic.
That's fair, it's been like 5-7 years since I actually read anything at all from /r/theredpill but there's certain claims "they" make that I view as fundamentally correct.
Younger women will push the hyper-sexualization angle but generally it's because they cannot use those tools, and so they seek to punish those who can. The reason why they cannot definitely will vary, but when trying to define an entire genders behavior the only brushes we have are broad ones. It makes complete sense for any woman who isn't at the pinnacle of physical attractiveness to try and stop others from out-competing her in that market by any means necessary.
I don't think this behavior is restricted to left wing women, and the political takes a back seat to the biological here. It definitely makes it easy on them when it all lines up though and they get to be "Empowered bold women offending right wing sensibilities" when younger, and when older, as Scarlett herself put it:
"I’ll be 35 years old and I’m a mom and my life is different. Obviously, 10 years have passed and things have happened and I have a much different, more evolved understanding of myself"
It just so happens that every woman has this same evolution around the age of 30 where she begins to think that perhaps swimming in a sea of cock and being a slut 24/7 isn't the most optimal behavior possible. These slut shaming behaviors from a woman over 30 is one of the dime a dozen theredpill prophecies you can see come to life every stinkin day.
As such, speaking from (not exactly an objective standpoint) but a narrative that rejects the mainstream fabain socialist narrative's tropes, it can sound more objective because it ends up having more nuance and showing all sides in more human ways.
That's a good way of putting it. I've never discussed the topic of the founding of america without a cloud of "And thank god the RIGHT people won because we are champions of democracy" progressive thought in the air and so to even hear say, an actual opinion from a tory in 1700's England without editing, is honestly hard to properly comprehend. The idea that our founding fathers rebelled against people with opinions who wrote them down that I can read myself never properly occurred to me. Even in my best attempts to educate myself I reached for, at best, historical compilations with the stamp of approval from the cathedral.
I was not in anyway trying to say that only ugly old and lesbian women are feminists. I'm saying that young and attractive women will use their assets to the fullest and then turn around and try and stop other women from doing the same things, which is exactly what we see in Emelia Clarke or Scarlett Josansson. They spent their 20's making bank off their bodies and now that they are over the hill it's time for them to shame other younger women for doing the same thing.
What I'm saying is that something biologically happens to women that causes this shift in behavior, typically around 30. This shift will happen in the most radfem dyke feminist, or the most right wing straight laced small town sweetheart.
Are you not familiar with /r/theredpill theory?
She's 34 now which is over the hill. It's completely natural for her to start trying to ruin the careers of other younger attractive females at that age. Just like Johansson is 36, of course she's now beginning to regret her previous actions because she can no longer rely on sex appeal as reliably.
I strongly doubt anyone can find some quotes from these 2 about regretting using their sex-appeal when they were 25. Now that they are over 30, it's probably all we'll hear from them until they die.
I don't know exactly how to describe what you sound like other than you seem to be trying to objectively describe reality and history. Which I do think is similar, but perhaps that's because I'm really just becoming aware that I was still viewing the world through progressive lenses (ie. democratic or whig) and anyone speaking from a perspective truly outside of the cathedral sounds similar to me as it's not the same propaganda I've heard my entire life.
Indeed. He sounds incredibly similar to Moldbug.
A random quote:
you still think that creating a "White country" will prevent Leftism. Even white ethno-states like Sweeden, Scotland, and Ireland embrace Leftism willingly, and you still don't get it.
America basically was founded as a White Country (Because, you know, our founders emigrated from Europe and England specifically), and if one thinks that Moldbug is correct on our history, we didn't even "embrace" leftism, we seem to have always been. The idea that an ethno-state will serve as any sort of bulwark against leftist-ism/progressivism/collectivism does seem rather just flat out wrong historically.
He basically advocates for any royal line to sieze back power or be restored to power, the method doesn't matter too much. He specifically names the princes of Lichtenstein as an unbroken chain of power than has been very successful.
Obviously Lichtenstein is like 50 people or whatever, so scale definitely plays a factor there as to why they are still monarchist. This also was a 2008 essay and I have not read any more of his work. This is not what I find interesting though. It's his diagnosis, not his prescription, that lights my mind afire.
Really, I would describe him as right of the alt-right. A true reactionary who wants to roll back every progressive victory which is quite the statement when he's also positing that America beating England was a success of the progressives. It's hard to refute that though when you look into exactly who the "Dissenters" were and what their religion and ideology was. You look over the list of sects of who they were and it's a list of the original settlers of America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Dissenters
When you read what a Tory from the 1700's had to say about the Dissenters, it's basically the same thing you would hear from conservatives about progressives today if perhaps even more violent.
https://books.google.com/books?id=yCoLAAAAIAAJ&printsec=titlepage&client=safari&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=How%20just%20will%20such%20&f=false (PG. 142-143 gives a good enough picture)
You can call these ideas idiocy if you want, but to me it seems to be an accurate description of the political and religious factions which fought in the American Revolutionary War that I had a very whitewashed understanding of. Really, I was under the impression that most of early americans were hyper-capitalistic hyper-religious libertarians of some sort, but only the religious part seems to hold up when contrasted with historical documents. Every one of his sources that I've cracked open, I've found that he wasn't distorting their words. I haven't read all his sources, as they are many, but every single one I checked to make sure he wasn't bullshitting me was just literal and direct quotations.
Really, just read pg142-143 and tell me if you think if it is a conservative ranting about progressives destroying his country and faith. To me this is a very persuasive argument for why we view progressives as religious, because they always have been. It simply seems to add up that advocating for a religion outside of the church of england and for the destruction of the monarchy would probably be the definition of progressivism in 1700's England.
Oh absolutely. I didn't even mention the cathedral as I just assume that is an accurate description of reality and not really up for debate as KiA really started out as a rebellion against the cathedrals propaganda being inserted into video games.
I don't see how he hasn't had a massive cultural impact already. We use his words and some of the lenses he uses to view the world are already widely adopted on the right. I've parroted plenty of his thoughts without knowing that they came from him. I think the internet is just about the only place his ideas could have spread, as telling republicans that our country was founded by the progressives of that time, I would expect to generally fall on deaf ears. I don't think leftists would have listened either as telling them that their ideas are rooted in Protestantism is like slapping them in the face.
Do you think democracy is a failure? In a way I already did before reading him, as I think pure democracy is just the madness of the crowds. I already thought that service guarantees citizenship is a far more preferable system to universal suffrage, as our direction we're headed (I think) towards mob rule is terrifying.
Either they have the corpse of the person they beat the keys out of in a basement somewhere, or they are blantly lying.
It's the Government so if you ask me what's more likely, that the Government would murder someone or that they would lie, I refuse to answer such a rigged question.
Thanks for actually linking something substantive. I've read quite a few threads with some claims but zero evidence or investigation.
You're claiming that KiA2 ended up exactly the same as KiA1 and thus it was all wasted effort?
I rarely read something where I disagree with every single word that is strung together, so I wanna make sure I didn't misunderstand at all.
The fact that it's energy intensive is a good thing because it imbues it with natural value. You can look at the creation of a bitcoin as using literal energy to power math and the sum of those two things can equal a bitcoin.
It's easy man.
Do you murder another human being who did nothing, because someone was raped? If you think about it, the answer should be fairly fucking obvious.
Babies (actual newborn little babies) are in such demand to be adopted it's INSANE. Most couples are very willing to adopt immediately post-birth, but that desire dries up when the kid is already 5 and been getting kicked out of foster homes.
I had about 150 foster "siblings" during the time that my parents were serving as a foster care home and only 1 was a newborn baby, and that small baby was ridiculously abused and has a list of medical conditions that make Epsteins rap sheet look small (Who we later adopted) because if She was at all normal, She wouldn't have ever even hit the Foster system. The "Brad and Angelinas" of the world would have already grabbed her way way way before that.
Suffice it to say that there is literally a never ending list of married couples looking to adopt an unwanted newborn.
Is this supposed to be scary? I don't agree with his opinion, but I've heard shit like that my whole life and I really don't care.
The idea that I need to agree with someone 100% before admiring some of their actions is just fucking stupid.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/TH2HAmTp40xq/
Skip to 2:20:20 if you wanna just hear them discuss what potential issues and why they could happen. I'd suggest listening to the entire thing even if Steve is tiring at points.