Editor’s Note: Above “Left wing parliamentarians dressed in the colours of the rainbow pose in front of the Polish Parliament (Sejm)”
In the New York Times, I think David Brooks has a good summary of the present moment.
“For decades conservatives were happy to live in that paradigm. But as years went by many came to see its limits. It was so comprehensively anti-government that it had no way to use government to solve common problems. It was so focused on cultivating strong individuals that it had no language to cultivate a sense of community and belonging. So, if you were right of center, you leapt. You broke from the Reagan paradigm and tried to create a new, updated conservative paradigm. …
Bannon and Trump got the emotions right. They understood that Republican voters were no longer motivated by a sense of hope and opportunity; they were motivated by a sense of menace, resentment and fear. At base, many Republicans felt they were being purged from their own country — by the educated elite, by multiculturalism, by militant secularism.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump and Bannon discarded the Republican orthodox — entitlement reform, fiscal restraint, free trade, comprehensive immigration reform. They embraced a European-style blood-and-soil conservatism. Close off immigration. Close trade. We have nothing to offer the world and should protect ourselves from its dangers.It would have been interesting if Trump had governed as a big-government populist. But he tossed Bannon out and handed power to Jared Kushner and a bunch of old men locked in the Reagan paradigm. We got bigotry, incompetence and tax cuts for the wealthy. …”
There is zero energy behind Trump in the 2020 election cycle.
In the 2016 election, Trump articulated a new vision that seemed fresh and exciting and it mobilized a swath of voters who do not normally vote for Republican candidates. He rode that wave into office. Once he got there though, he sold out to the donor class, the GOP establishment and empowered Jared Kushner in the White House to pursue an agenda that had nothing to do with the forces that got him elected. The only thing saving Trump now from a total wipeout is that the Left has gone insane.
As for the GOP though, Zombie Reaganism lingers on. It is futile to vote for Republican candidates. It is a complete waste of time to give them power. We know what they are going to do with power. They are going to pursue the same agenda of tax cuts, deregulation, military spending and championing Israel that the donor class purchases from Republican office holders. They will combine their real agenda with their usual performance art of token gestures and giving lip service to other things voters care about.
There is no reason to believe the GOP actually cares about the immigration issue. It has gone absolutely out of its way to block Trump and destroy anyone within the party – Steve King, Jeff Sessions, Kris Kobach – who champions the issue or who wants to push the party in a more nationalist and populist direction. There are only populist outliers in the GOP. The mainstream of the party is committed to Zombie Reaganism. Even though Trump was elected president, he remained an outlier within his own party and could only do so much without the cooperation of Congress and the Supreme Court.
The GOP is committed to its own vision, values and priorities which were set in stone in the 1980s. It is impervious to reform and will destroy anyone who tries to reform it.
“Levin’s thinks the prevailing post-Trump viewpoints define the problem too much in economic terms. The crucial problem, he argues, is not economic; it’s social: alienation. Millions of American don’t feel part of anything they can trust. They feel no one is looking out for them. Trump was a false answer to their desire for social solidarity, but the desire can be a force for good. …”
The millions of Americans who believe this are correct. The definition of Modernism which is the dominant ideology and value set of the American establishment is the liberation and expression of the self, rejection of the past and the celebration of the other. Nothing could be more foreign to a Modernist than the backward notion that they owe anything to anyone else particularly their own ethnic group. Being a Modernist is about rejecting the past, dismantling your own culture and chasing after endless novelties. Social alienation and distrust comes from the accurate perception that the self absorbed elite has abandoned the masses. Modernism inevitably leads to sharp cultural polarization between urban professionals and the rural masses.
In order to grasp this, it is necessary to look back at the previous age and the values of its elite, which were the opposite of the Modernists. The Romantics were nation builders who celebrated the masses and what was particular about each European nation. They celebrated nature and the countryside and disdained the city. They were a creative, not a critical elite. Strangely enough, Romantic nationalism sustained liberalism and was generally seen as a progressive and liberal force in the 19th century. In the 20th century, however, Modernists embraced cosmopolitanism and began the long process of dismantling their nations. The educated and professional classes came to see themselves as at odds with the masses.
In the 1920s, H.L. Mencken railed against the booboisie, which reflected the growing influence of Modernism in his time. A century before, G.F.W. Hegel was celebrating the Volksgeist in his Lectures on the Philosophy of History, which reflected the influence of Romanticism in Europe. The educated and professional classes who once championed the nation have shifted to wanting to destroy it. How do we explain this radical difference? The Zeitgeist changed in the 20th century and became Modernist.
In The American Conservative, Julius Krein describes American conservatism as a federation of unimaginative losers who are incapable of wielding power.
TAC:
“Despite this obsession with theoretical inquiry, however, conservatives have been nearly banished from the academy, prestige media, and cultural institutions. The leading “conservative thinkers” of the last 20 years have influenced hardly anyone beyond the next generation of downwardly mobile graduate students.
As Gladden Pappin, deputy editor of American Affairs, has argued, contemporary conservatism is an attempt to articulate the role of non-state institutions rather than a serious approach to wielding political power. The result is an abundance of platitudinous books on Tocqueville and treacly essays on civility, but little serious study of how today’s economy actually works or how to coordinate diverse interests across complex institutions. Thus, even when conservatives happen to win office, typically all that they can imagine doing is reducing their own capacity to exercise power. Conservative foundations and donors have plowed millions into producing mind-numbing Adam Smith documentaries—last year, they even created a virtual pin factory, along with an absurdist farce featuring the Dalai Lama—but they have shown little interest in, say, planning for economic and technological competition with China or understanding the effects of financialization. In part, this may be owing to the fact that conservatism has become nothing more than an ideological gloss retrospectively applied to the machinations of lobbyists and grifters. Yet on a deeper level it seems that the conservative corpus is simply no longer capable of anything but reflexive spasms.
In the 1964 anthology What is Conservatism?, Friedrich Hayek contributed an essay titled “Why I Am Not a Conservative.” Almost 60 years later, it is fair to say that Hayek’s neoliberal vision largely triumphed, while the alternatives included in that volume basically failed. For those who genuinely wish to learn from history, then, the only sensible response to the question “What is conservatism?” is, at this point, “Who cares?”
As Krein seems to admit, this isn’t entirely accurate. Conservatives have been fairly successful in politics. The people have given them electoral mandate after electoral mandate and billions of dollars to reverse the decline of America. They currently control the White House, Senate and Supreme Court. They recently had control of the House of Representatives. They are more dominant at the state level too.
The failure of American conservatism isn’t due to voters who have more often than not rewarded them at the ballot box. It is a failure at the level of vision, values and beliefs which are reflected in public policy. As I described above, this is at least partially structural and due to the material interests which are behind mainstream conservatism and determine its agenda, but it is also due to the almost implacable opposition of the professional and educated classes. Conservatives are shut out of the nation’s culture forming institutions which is a point that was recently driven home by the suicide of Mike Adams.
So, to repeat:
1.) Vision – At the level of vision, beliefs and values, the governing philosophy of mainstream conservatism is conservative liberalism. It is about conserving liberalism and free-market capitalism which are utterly destabilizing. When conservatives arrive in office, they see their job as unleashing the animal spirits of capitalism and standing pat and refusing to push a positive “big government” agenda. As a matter of sacred philosophical principle, they are above using government to advance the cultural and economic interests of their base, which they reserve for their donors.
2.) Structure – Even when they run on various popular social causes and voters reward them with electoral mandates like when Donald Trump was elected in 2016, conservatives always pivot in office to their real agenda. They move on the priorities of the donors, lobbyists and most powerful interests. This is why Donald Trump spent his political capital on tax reform and criminal justice reform. In such a polarized political environment, the priorities of voters end up not being served.
3.) Elites – America’s educated and professional classes are in the grips of an idea that is totally opposed to conservatism and marginalize conservatives within culture forming institutions. This is certainly the most important of the three factors. Modernism defines progress as the liberation of the self, the celebration of the other and the rejection of the past which inexorably leads to the solidarity crisis within Western nations between urban elites and the governed. White Nationalists like Andrew Anglin would explain this as a Jewish conspiracy. It is true that Jews practice nepotism and are massively overrepresented among the educated and professional classes, but they are all in the grips of this idea and worldview. It is just as true in other Western countries like Britain or France as it is in the United States.
Even if the vision, beliefs and values of conservative elites were retooled to become more nationalist and populist and the structure of the conservative movement was changed so that the priorities of donor class were served last, the third problem would continue to vex conservatives. The idea that animates the educated and professional classes and forms the elite consensus has to change for conservatism to succeed and that will only happen after a rival is created and our current social order destroys itself.
In Tablet, Zach Goldberg charts the rise of hyper Modernist “Woke” language which has lately conquered the institutions of progressive liberalism.
“In 2011, just 35% of white liberals thought racism in the United States was “a big problem,” according to national polling. By 2015, this figure had ballooned to 61% and further still to 77% in 2017. …
Whatever it used to mean, “white supremacy” is now everywhere and applicable to any context. Consider that until 2015, terms related to “white supremacy” almost never registered at more than 0.001% of all words in a given year in any of the above newspapers. With the exception of The Wall Street Journal, whose upswing was less consistent, this ceiling has been comfortably breached in every year since. By 2019, the Times and Post were respectively using these terms approximately 17 and 18 times more frequently than they were in 2014. Incidentally, white liberal readership of the Times and Post saw marked growth across this same period. …”
What are we looking at here?
Why is there such a huge disconnect between the rise in perceived racism among educated White liberal professionals and lack thereof among non-Whites?
As I have argued, each age of history is dominated by an idea that shapes the elite consensus which determines the values of its culture. This dominant idea in each age of history goes through a natural cycle that ends in an Unraveling era and climaxes in a Crisis era. Romanticism ended in the World Wars between nation-states. The growth of wokeness represents the climax of the idea of the current cycle which is Modernism. Woke people are militant Modernists who want to completely destroy the oppressive past and in doing so precipitate the total collapse of solidarity within their nations.
In National Review, Mathis Bitton attempts to explain where populism comes from and why there is such an enormous divide between the elites and the masses, which he attributes to globalization.
“Naturally, the fears that populism inspires are far from unjustified. In a classical-liberal framework wherein rational discourse underpins the practice of politics, those who sacrifice the civil exchange of ideas on the altar of indignation seem to threaten the established order. In fact, they explicitly do: Populists focus their engagement upon the malfunctions of the status quo, whose architects they promise to punish. To put it simply, they are not for as much as they are against. In this sense, populism as a mode of politics need not be ideological. While most commentators associate the term with nationalist resentment or Jacobin fury, every kind of populist discourse is but an iteration of a wider, malleable, diffuse conception of public life. In fact, the contours of specific populist movements depend upon the elite they aspire to combat: against cosmopolitan liberals, convinced chauvinists; against a disconnected bourgeoisie, enthusiastic socialists. In every case, the frustrations of the moment lay the foundations of the movement — which, without these frustrations, would be meaningless. Ultimately, populism first and foremost characterizes a resentful request for popular representation and recognition, a sense of disenchantment so significant that it distills an often-incoherent set of demands into a single political cry: Enough. …
An electoral map of Europe would reveal this cultural clash with utmost clarity. During the 2017 French presidential elections, the neoliberal Emmanuel Macron won in Paris and other major cities by extraordinary margins, but his nationalist opponent Marine Le Pen captured the rural vote without effort. In other words, while Parisians supported a pro-globalization, pro-gay-marriage, pro-free-trade, and pro-EU candidate, their fellow citizens in rural villages cast their votes in favor of an anti-globalization, anti-gay-marriage, anti-free-trade, and anti-EU candidate. This kind of ideological Grand Canyon has become so common as to be unsurprising, but let us think carefully about the implications of having a country whose inhabitants have very little to share culturally. In the U.S., the autonomy of individual states allows these differences to coexist. But not anywhere else. When the arch-conservative president Andrzej Duda won the Polish elections two weeks ago, his reelection generated a sense of trauma in large Polish towns. Had his liberal opponent been chosen instead, the exact same phenomenon would have been observed in the Polish countryside.
This divide is nothing new. In Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace, the narrator laughs at those Russian aristocrats who speak French, dance to Italian music, recite English poetry, and have long forgotten the suffering of their people. In many ways, the aristocracy of the 18th and 19th centuries was already made up of detached “citizens of the world.” When Louis XIV launched the War of the Spanish Succession in 1702, for instance, he knew that his attack would serve the interests of the transnational aristocracy at the expense of the French people — many of whom died in this conflict in which they had no share. He nevertheless chose to go ahead, as would other monarchs who saw the nation-state as an instrument of private power. The problem, of course, is that the populace ultimately responded to the disconnect of this aristocratic elite by launching a series of revolutions all across Europe. And we should not want our civil order to collapse because of ever-expanding cultural gap…”
Something has created the “ideological Grand Canyon.”
It is not as simple as attributing it to race or ethnicity. If race or ethnicity were the cause, why would it exist in a homogeneous country like Poland? Why have countries which were previously fairly homogeneous like the United States made a conscious effort to become heterogeneous? Why is there such a growing divide between White liberals and non-Whites in their perception of racism?
Once again, what is the idea driving the culture?
What is the Zeitgeist of this period of history? It is Modernism.
What might come after Modernism?
“A spectre is haunting the liberal West: the rise of the “civilisation-state”. As America’s political power wanes and its moral authority collapses, the rising challengers of Eurasia have adopted the model of the civilisation-state to distinguish themselves from a paralysed liberal order, which lurches from crisis to crisis without ever quite dying nor yet birthing a viable successor. Summarising the civilisation-state model, the political theorist Adrian Pabst observes that “in China and Russia the ruling classes reject Western liberalism and the expansion of a global market society. They define their countries as distinctive civilisations with their own unique cultural values and political institutions.” From China to India, Russia to Turkey, the great and middling powers of Eurasia are drawing ideological succour from the pre-liberal empires from which they claim descent, remoulding their non-democratic, statist political systems as a source of strength rather than weakness, and upturning the liberal-democratic triumphalism of the late 20th century. …
It is only when we see Macron struggling to rally European civilisation for the coming age of empires, or observe European strongmen like Viktor Orban, hailed by many Anglo-Saxon conservatives as the saviour of Western civilisation, railing against the West with all the passion and fury of an anti-colonial revolutionary, that we see glimpses of a future stranger and more complex than our current political discourse allows. When we see Poland mandating the study of Latin in schools to imbue pupils with an understanding of “the Latin roots of our civilisation,” or the young rising star of the Dutch radical right Thierry Baudet asserting that we are living through a “European spring,” “contradictory to the political spectrum that has dominated the West since the French Revolution,” which will “change the direction that all our countries are going to take in the coming two generations,” we discern, just as we do in the BLM protests or the spread of the American social justice faith in our streets and universities, the political battlegrounds of Europe’s future. …
Indeed, it is striking that Europe’s soi-disant liberal saviour is the most prominent Western adopter of the new language of civilisation-states: no doubt the former Hegel scholar has discerned the Weltgeist. In an overlooked speech last year to a gathering of France’s ambassadors, Macron mused that China, Russia and India were not merely economic rivals but “genuine civilisation states… which have not just disrupted our international order, assumed a key role in the economic order, but have also very forcefully reshaped the political order and the political thinking that goes with it, with a great deal more inspiration than we have.” Macron observed that “they have a lot more political inspiration than Europeans today. They take a logical approach to the world, they have a genuine philosophy, a resourcefulness that we have to a certain extent lost.” “
Russia is following China in becoming a civilization-state. Emmanuel Macron has also been throwing around the idea of Europe becoming a civilization-state.
Modernism is nihilistic and the impulse that animates it which is to tear down all authority and order and reject the past in order to liberate the self and celebrate the other can only climax in self destruction. Much of the world sees the foolishness of the West and is embracing the civilization-state. As always, the West will only come around to this way of thinking after it completely destroys itself.
“That brings us to antiliberalism. If ‘conservatism’ is really a subspecies of liberal theory, antiliberal thought is more a direct antithesis. If Trumpists wish that society could have been forever maintained at a prior moment in the history of post-Enlightenment liberal theory, Oakeshottians wish to preserve the present state of society, and classical liberals wish to preserve for all time the ideological commitments (if not the institutional machinery) of the Enlightenment, antiliberals reject all of the above as the illegitimate children of Enlightenment liberalism. They understand the liberal ideological commitments of the Enlightenment as themselves rotten. Antiliberalism, as I understand it, has a fairly ecumenical basis in western political theory. It owes its origins to ideological traditions which predate liberalism, in primarily Aristotle and Aquinas, but also, arguably, Plato, Cicero, Machiavelli, and others.
The core of antiliberalism, I think, is the notion that the atomistic individualism of liberal theory is pernicious: Human beings, as both Aristotle and de Maistre put at the central of their political thought, are social creatures, who can live fully ‘human’ lives only in a society. Social institutions are not to be selected from a menu of options at will. Individuals are inculcated from early childhood into the norms and traditions of a society. A society’s job is not to accept all forms of individual difference and work around it, but to actively work at reshaping individuals into productive and content members of the society they inhabit. There’s a clear connection to virtue ethics and perfectionism in moral philosophy, as the inculcation of virtue is seen as one of the core jobs of social institutions.
Morality is not something to be deduced from first principles, but to be drawn from the experience of living together harmoniously with others in a society, a matter of experience which is largely contingent to the particular society an individual inhabits. (And since different societies have different norms and institutions, membership in a society, contra the liberal tradition, is not something to taken up or abandoned haphazardly; individuals are educated to be productive members of a particular set of social institutions, to be citizens of this society and not others.)
A key feature of many important modern antiliberal thinkers is also decisionism: While liberal rationalism places faith in the idea that individuals can be governed by moral and legal principles which can be applied by anyone with decently functioning rational faculties, Antiliberals understand that moral, political, and legal conflict is unavoidable for people with different interests, backgrounds, and points of view, and that no set of neutral principles can dispositively settle these conflicts based on the workings of pure reason. …”
Worth reading in light of the above.
In the new age of moral clarity in American journalism in which “black trans” liberation is the edge of social progress, liberalism in its Modernist phase is approaching its climax. It has created a wide variety of new social problems which must be the starting point of conservatism. What happens after the social order has been razed to the ground, social solidarity has been completely destroyed, the roots of society have been poisoned and everything with two legs under the sun has been liberated from “white supremacy”?
Trumpism would attempt to return to the 1950s through the sheer power of nostalgia. Oakeshottian conservatism would conserve the status quo out of fear of unintended consequences. Conservative liberalism would attempt to return to a highly distorted understanding of the 1790s.
Poland made a deal with the devil. They believe they can beg to be occupied by the USA while still maintaining some traditional Polish culture, which is not the case. Becoming America’s vassal means having your nation torn apart by international capital, your culture replaced with globohomo, and opening of your borders to mass immigration. Poland will become the new Ireland in a few years. Ireland was also “based trad Catholic” not all that long ago, until they decided to make their country into a tax haven for American corporations. At that point their fate was sealed and Ireland became just another cultureless dumping ground for Africans.
@Dart…
“Poland made a deal with the devil.”
Some Poles see it your way, most do not.
Why?
Because Poland has had tremendous heart-rending difficulties with it’s neighbours over the last 2 centuries – principally, though not exclusively, Germany and Russia.
It is not unreasonable for Poland to think that they can maintain their culture against U.S. influence, for I know many Poles, living in the United States, and most of them have done just that.
Moreover, Poland is never going to agree to import non-Whites.
On the other hand, Poland is aware that is has no barrier to a physical invasion, and so they feel very vulnerable on that score.
Too, in case you do not know, Poland feels very well served by it’s friendship with the United States, for many reasons, but, principally because their piano-virtuoso president Ignace Paderewski got Woodrow Wilson to redraw the European map in favour of Poland, and, as well, when Poland was grappling with Soviet Occupation, after WWII, one of the voices that was with it all the way was our president, Ronald Reagan.
To be clear, I cannot refute what you say, only to suggest that I think you have been a bit too cocksure in your assurances that a new alliance with America would be longterm Polish doom.
Poland has long been dear friends with Hungary, and they see how Viktor Orban’s alliance with Israel has brought benefits, without problems that those who are critical of Jews insist must, as a matter of course, come about..
Poland is doing extremely well for itself – from it’s Law & Justice Party taking domestic law in a new pro-Catholic and pro-Nationalist way, to it’s building of a strong alliance of the Visegrad 4, to Mateusz Duda’s architecting of a strong new economy.
At this point, Poland, with God’s quiet blessing, is on a win streak, and, thus, stands ready to make this century the first Polish century since the 16th, when they were last a formidable power.
Poland has very good leadership and a very very good people.
In fact, I know of no better White race than Poles, and i can think of only one that is in such good collective psychic health.
Yes, to those who think that Chryst can play no part in the blessings of a nation, only has to look to the most Catholic nation in the world – Poland, and see how it is surmounting enormous difficulties, whilst other nations, walking away from Chryst, are fast going downhill.
At any rate – be well!
Hello Ivan;
You have rightly praised Poland but I have to add Poland’s (and the West’s) great hero, Jan Sobieski III, King of Poland, commander of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth armies who led the army that relieved the Siege of Vienna in 1683. The Turks had been on the march against Europe in an explicitly anti-Christian crusade to destroy European civilisation based upon Christianity. This clash with Islam, centuries old reached the gates of Vienna in a decisive battle in Sept. 1683.
The Polish army arrived in the woods outside of Vienna on Sept. 11th, 1683, skirmishing against the Ottoman Turks, the beginning of the Battle of Vienna. The Turks were decisively defeated the next day, Sept. 12th, 1683 outside the walls of Vienna, relieving its siege. It was one of the decisive battles of history along with the naval Battle of Lepanto in 1571 that ended the advance of Islam on sea. After 1683 Islam was in retreat although as a negative moral force Islam remains alive and vigorous to the present day.
Poland’s contribution to Christian culture is understated in history but were it not for Jan Sobieski III, King of Poland and leader of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth forces, Islam would have triumphed in Europe. Russia also deserves mention for its contributions over centuries, driving back Islam. On Orthodox churches in Russia the cross at the top of the dome is placed upon an inverted crescent, the symbol of Islam, to symbolize the defeat of Islam by Orthodox Christian forces. Although the crescent as a religious symbol predates this use Ivan the Terrible ordered this type of cross after the fall of Kazan in 1552 and it has come to be associated with the defeat of Islam.
It has been assumed that Sept. 11th was chosen by the hijackers in 2001 because of the decisive defeat of Islam beginning on that day in history. Unfortunately, most people in the U.S. have never heard of the Battle of Vienna or know its importance. It certainly doesn’t comport well with our modern, enlightened, vibrant, diverse, false new “history”.
@12AX7…
Thank you so much for your kind words and your excellent augmentation to my bare-bones appraisal of Poland.
You know, it has been my privilege to have good Polish friends from Katowice, Poznan, Warszawa, Wroclaw, and Osterode, and, thereby I have had an excellent opportunity to choke on Polish words, laugh with Polish humour, and enjoy the fact that they are a very faithful people.
Even though I had already studied The Czech language, I have to say that Polish is the most difficult European language – if not in script, then in pronunciation. Combinations of szcz and czsz are quite devilish for the tongue.
As most Americans are oblivious to Poland, there are a few things I would add for those interested…
Perhaps 1/3, perhaps a bit more, of rural Poles are very fascistic, or, if you will,extremely tribal. Of course, 100 years ago this would be no big thing, but, that they have managed to preserve this in the face of modernity is really quite something.
Though Poles will not necessarily come out and tell you, many many of them are Polish Supremacists.
One thing that fascinates me about the Polish nation is how antithetical they are towards the notion of a separation between state and church, for I can think of no nation where the two are so united in the sense of the nation.
By the way, Polish women are absolutely amazing – as a lot beautiful, bright, faithful, hard-working, and incredible mothers.
In fact, the strongest group of women i have ever known are Polish ladies, and, so strong are they, that I have often joked to my Polish friends that, if The Polish government had sent their women out to fight in 1939, WWII never would have occurred, for the Wehrmacht would have been stopped dead in it’s tracks!
If The EU ever gets out of line, and sends it’s fledgling army to any country of The Visegrad alliance, there are going to get one hell of a reception, and, that, in large part, will be due to ruddy-complected, hard-headed blonde-haired and blue-eyed Polish good-ole-boys.
God bless them all!
Poland is already allowing non-white immigration. And Orban’s alliance with Israel hasn’t done anything for them.
I hate to break this to you, but polish ladies are liberal whores who worship the west and want to become just like the UK. Poland has one of the lowest birth rates in the entire world because of this.
Hungary and Poland will just continue to be integrated with the EU and subjected to mass immigration and liberalization whether their populace wants it or not. The only way they could avoid this fate is by turning away from the EU and from America, or through the sheer luck of American power diminishing enough.
@Dart…
On the surface your comments are thoughtful and articulate.
Below the surface is nothing but negative – everyone a miserable failure of a duped sellout, every nation just as equally on the way to doom.
I very respectfully disagree – there are many fine upstanding people in this world, of which I have known many Poles, of both genders, to be.
Yes, I personally have known plenty of good, truly good and fine Polish ladies who do not act as you indicate, nor have they ever.
Moreover, Hungary has benefitted considerably from it’s alliance with Israel, and, in particular, Nationalist Jews, and, because of the bravery and leadership of The Visegrad 4, most notably Poland and Hungary, The Western World will come through this period of trials better than it has been in a very long time.
But, of course, as you note, we do have serious festering problems, failures which can, if not carefully counterbalanced by contact with real people in real countries, can seem to be overawing.
In any case, be well!
Jews cannot be European nationalists because Jews like you are not European, Ivan. You’re middle eastern. You are no more European than roma gypsies or syrian refugees are. Your middle eastern ancestors squatting in Europe for a few hundred years doesn’t make you European or racially White. Of course you would believe Hungary has benefitted from its suicidal death pact with zionism and americanism, since you are yourself a Jewish interloper. But in reality, Hungary ultimately is trading its sovereignty in exchange for comforting faux-christian sentimentalism. Poland does the same, while they get all of the same social problems and your co-ethnic “Jew nationalist” allies attempt to steal Polish land right now.
It’s not liberalism or modernism. The causes of the world’s decadence are not ideological or cultural, they are material (ideology is merely a superficial manifestation). Once a society becomes wealthy and stays wealthy for a generation or two, decadence and decay always follow, Ireland went from conservative to totally liberal within a generation (1980-2010) because it got rich, whereas historically it was conservative because it was poor. The same is happening to Poland and many countries in East Europe and Latin America, even Asia.
Once you have enough cars on the road, smartphones and shopping malls, conservative thought loses its appeal. Declining fertility rates, divorce rates and single motherhood go hand in hand with improving life expectancy and median wages.
You should read Marx’s theory of “base and superstructure”. Unlike today’s “Marxists” which are a bunch of clowns, Marx actually had a few intersting things to say.
That’s not really true, though. You can look at Islamic countries for counter examples. Saudi Arabia has been rich for several generations and had none of these social issues, because they kept their women in line and did not allow liberal countries to dictate their policies. Only in the past few years has Saudi Arabia been liberalizing and allowing feminism to grow, because of their traitor puppet leader MBS giving in to threats from Washington.
The idea that liberalization necessarily follows from wealth and economic development is a western lie. An authoritarian government can prevent all of these social problems easily. And Marx was wrong about economics being the “base.” Governance is the base, and economic structure emerges from that, obviously. Marx believed this because held on to many presumptions taken from liberals like Locke, which are fundamentally anarchistic, and these led him to false conclusions (like his nonsensical idea of the state withering away).
In Poland they laugh that first Duda victory was Stalingrad for the commies and this one was Kursk.
As most people know, Stalingrad was considered workplace accident. For Kursk, Germany had time to prepare, Germany shoot everything they had on Soviets and got nothing. Entire planet saw that there is nobody in Germany who knows how to win a war. Kursk was the end on Germany.
In Poland, Global Elite spent enormous money and hit Duda with everything they had. World Jewry worked years to grab one major country back from Nazis. And they lost.
What happened in Poland, defamation and fear mongering was horrific. Lot of people were put to think that with Duda, there will be similar apocalyptic collapse in economy like 1991.
Second important factor was that in EU, lot of people working directly or indirectly for Government and those people are afraid for their jobs. In EU, there is almost no market left, EU and Governments are almost in every business.
So there is very little social split in Poland. There are as much genetic white liberals as everywhere else, ca 2-4%. Very visible, very noisy but very little. And as every last Eastern European country, we also counting on the brave white Americans, who probably will incapacitate the Empite in November 3 so we can finally start the much awaited Great Commie Hunt.
Commies of course know this and fight as fiercely as Germany did in 1944. This was the reason, why Poland election was so close. Nothing to panic. German front in the 1944 on the Tannenberg line was also holding but everybody knew that those are last gasps and end is near. Entire Jew media, money, lies and international pressure was useless against young white Duda volunteers.
I’ve never before seen the battle of Stalingrad referred to as a “workplace accident.” As you said “most people know” this, I feel like I’ve missed out on something. But as 1.1 million Soviet soldiers were killed, went missing or were wounded at Stalingrad, that’s more than a rash of paper cuts and chemical burns.
I believe he was essentially trying to say that it was a foolish mistake made by the Germans. If the place had retained it’s original name of Volgograd, it’s possible that Hitler might not have made that foolish mistake. At least not “doubled down” on it at the cost of losing an entire Army.
@Powell…
Even if Stalingrad could have been taken by The Germans at the cost of not a single life, Dear Powell – The War in The East had already been decided by October 11, 1941, when God brought the most vicious snowstorms down on The Wehrmacht – and a month earlier than snowfall normally begins in Russia, particularly in the South of it – all this as the Soviet Industry was successfully evaluated to The Urals.
Yes, it was so, for, not long after that The Germans failed to take Moscow, they commencet to slowly began to sink into a logistical abyss from which they, even though they tyrannically impresst millions of White European Races into their slow death/labour camps to compensate, could never recover.
For all our loves of tales of soldierly heroism, war, in the end, particularly in Modern Times, is about logistics, logistics, and more logistics.
Credit to Albert Speer, too, for it was his indefatigable organizational genius which extended the German war effort as long as it did, when, in fact, anyone lesser at the head of The German Arnaments Industry would have meant a German collapse at least a year earlier – under such great munitional pressure were they.
No, Sir, by December 1941, the writing was on the wall, though it would take almost another two years, with the enormously costly failures at Kursk in the summer of ’43, for that to become clearly visible.
Stalingrad was merely the visible marking of the end of the capacity of The Wehrmacht to make offensive war against Russia, beyond some brilliant patchwork counterattacks brought off by that peerless tactical chess player Feld-Marschall Von Manstein and the suicidal bravery of the men of the SS Panzer Corps.
Before Kursk, German Army was considered a winning army. Sometimes shit happens. Formula 1 champions driving out of road for example time to time . This does not make them bad drivers. Some accidents happen even with best .
But there is big difference, Are you winner with some shit happening time to time . Or you lost ability to win and you will written off.
Kursk battle demonstrated that Germany lost their ability to win. And this was huge. For example German allies and lot of people quit unconditional support and started to prepare possible German loss. Soldiers lost their soul. Nobody want to die for a lost cause. Nobody even does want to contribute for a lost cause. Why the hell should anybody spend his time and resources for a thing what is gone anyway ? By military standards, Kursk was not big deal. 1943 Germany was strong enough to deal with material and human losses.
But psychological damage was horrific. German allies and also lot of Germans jumped the ship and quit contributing. Many people consider this main cause of German destruction. With allies on board, Germany probably would cause such a damage to advancing Soviet Army that Soviets would bleed to death before reaching Berlin. Soviet human resources were big but not endless and few million deaths more probably collapsed the Soviet Army. In Berlin Soviets were at the end of their supply of fighting age males.
Now in Poland, 4% of election loss was also nothingburger like German military losses in Stalingrad or Kursk. But how many sellouts, corrupt filth careerists are now convinced that Jewry can`t win anymore, they are on the wrong side of history and jumping ship. This is important.
We must also increase psychological warfare and tell everybody that it is not good to be anti white few years before Nuremberg II where white genocide will be harshly punished. Lot of people must understand that, when they are like Nazi collaborates, they will be treated like Nazi collaborates and it is time to jump the anti white ship. Now there are hard times for Jewry and few sellouts and traitors maybe everything we need to break the Jewry.
In the US, there is also Kursk moment. You are not winning yet but you are also not losing anymore. Trump has not build the wall but he has not lost his job either.
James Fields was repressed but lot on pro whites are not repressed It means that lot of bureaucrats already thinking, is it good to participate in such things. Being anti white is not red carpet covered road to power anymore. In can also bring traitor to Nuremberg II.
The Soviets knew the Kursk offensive was going to happen thanks to their spy, Richard Sorge, and were completely ready for it. They had prepared a defensive belt that was up to 300km deep. It’s amazing the Germans got as far and inflicted as many losses as they did. But the Soviets could replace their losses in men and materiel much quicker than the Germans. The Germans were basically building Tigers by hand like expensive sports cars, while the Allies were mass producing tens of thousands of tanks.
I did read a book on intelligence operations through the ages by Colonel John Hughes-Wilson entitled The Secret State. Wilson concurs that Kursk was lost via Communist infiltration at the highest level of the Reich. He believes the spy to have been Martin Borman. I always thought it was Admiral Canaris. Regardless I highly recommend this book. It has a excellent chapter on Clinton and Mossad and the USS Liberty.
Where “Modernism” seems to have died already (this is good):
“95% of Russia’s population now supports conservative-patriotic, communist and nationalist ideas. That means that liberal ideas are barely surviving among a measly 5% of the population. And that’s your fault, my Western friends. It was you who pushed us into ‘Russians never surrender’ mode. I’ve been telling you for a long time to find normal advisers on Russia. Sack all those [Neocon warmongering] parasites. With their short-sighted sanctions, heartless humiliation of our athletes (including athletes with disabilities ), with their “skripals” and ostentatious disregard of the most basic liberal values, like a presumption of innocence, that they manage to hypocritically combine with forcible imposition of ultra-liberal ideas in their own countries, their epileptic mass hysteria, causing in a healthy person a sigh of relief that he lives in Russia, and not in Hollywood, with their post-electoral mess in the United States, in Germany, and in the Brexit-zone; with their attacks on RT, which they cannot forgive for taking advantage of the freedom of speech and showing to the world how to use it, and it turned out that the freedom of speech never was intended to be used for good, but was invented as an object of beauty, like some sort of crystal mop that shines from afar, but is not suitable to clean your stables, with all your injustice and cruelty, inquisitorial hypocrisy and lies you forced us to stop respecting you. You and your so called ‘values.’ We don’t want to live like you live, anymore. For fifty years, secretly and openly, we wanted to live like you, but not any longer. We have no more respect for you, and for those amongst us that you support”: https://www.greanvillepost.com/2020/08/05/why-we-dont-respect-the-west-anymore-must-read/ Original: https://ria.ru/20180319/1516767644.html
@Juri…
“In Poland, Global Elite spent enormous money and hit Duda with everything they had. World Jewry worked years to grab one major country back from Nazis. And they lost. ”
Yes, Dear Juri – most Americans are completely unaware how The Polish Nation has just taken everything World Jewry had to throw at it, and it triumphed, all this in the middle of a pandemic perfectly designed to take it down, just as it was designed to take Trump down.
At this point, Poland and Hungary are 2 White Nations that, after being overrun throughout much of the 20th century, are uniquely qualified to triumph against heinous devilry of the 21st.
Unlike practically everywhere else in The West, their peoples and leaders are in a harmonious nationalist and Christian sync.
Good article, it downplays the Jewish angle a bit, but otherwise well written.
I do think the elites are correct to some extent in turning their noses up against the people. Your average White Liberal is willing to go out and riot for their systemic racism conspiracy theory and your average White Conservative is willing to go out and protest their anti-mask conspiracy theory. That is the struggle in the streets these days.
If large swathes of society could be controlled by fairies in the garden vs leprechauns in the woodshed, I’d have contempt for the population I rule over too. Very black pilling times we live in.
The above essay is yet another reason why you need to compile your better pieces into a book, HW.
A thread running through descriptions of the elites is their constant rejection of their own culture and people. “Progress” means going towards an international consensus of the managerial classes, the peasantry be damned. The majority of the populace, on the other hand, tends to want a steady order that sticks with the unchanging nature of human nature, but with a degree of comfort. As we aren’t presented with a political option that offers both the economic AND cultural stability most crave, most take the promise of getting more goodies from the gov’t. Even if that goes after their long-term interests.
We need to find and promote the ambitious local elites wanting to take back their indigenous societies from the internationalists. I’d rather that we could turn things around on our own, but that takes resources and organizational abilities we in the lower tiers don’t seem to possess. Which is why I focus on the notion of doing things within localities with the like-minded. But that’s a defensive reaction against the way society at large is run. It would be better and faster to be able to bring the majority in, and that could be done by making the historically-successful populist appeal no current pol currently gives.
God, that sure is an ugly looking line up of sows.
Perhaps a degree off topic, readers of OD maybe interested to know that a new edition is out of Igor Shafavitch;s classic The Socialist Phenomenon.” Solzhenitsyn in his forward writes something relevant to a previous discussion: Socialism “does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them — all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis.”
Socialism “does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them — all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis.”
William,
That’s a far better criticism of Capitalism, which takes a laissez-faire approach to problems as opposed to Socialism which tries to deal with all social problems. Capitalists in the 21st century are so intellectually lazy these days. At least the old “Socialism doesn’t deal with problems as effectively as the private sector does!” argument can be applied situationally. The idea that Socialism ignores arguments, is irrational, and averse to science is dumb to the point of retardation. Socialism is forward thinking, tries to address all problems and in doing so, maybe bites off more than it can chew depending on who runs it.
Capitalism relies on an irrational market, selling and marketing a product to both investors and consumers that may be scientifically averse, and ignores major social problems due a belief that “the market will solve it”.
Welcome to the 21st century Solzhenitsyn.
To me the Republicans always have this snotty clipped mustache playing golf down at the country club air about them. They never seem to be interested in anything except capital gains tax cuts and foreign policy. They have inherited a lot of working class voters over the last 40 to 45 years, but the party never seems to change. They always seem to be stuck somewhere in the 1980’s. I would say that about most of the country, they want to go on living like it was 1964, only with computers, cell phones and robots. Elvis left the building a long time ago, and he’s not coming back. The beatles haven’t played to together in fifty years. .
The Republican Party is really the party of the Chamber of Commerce and has been since 1876. The Republicans are whores, for sale to the highest bidder: the Usual Suspects on foreign policy, big bidness domestically. They don’t give a damn about “civil rights”, the environment, abortion, free speech, Christianity, gay marriage or anything else except as it pertains to profits and losses. Their slogan should be: ” . . . For the love of money is the root of all evil . . .” (1 Timothy 6:10 KJV) and we can never get enough of it.
Big bidness endorses BLM and globohomo corporatism as a form of extortion. It keeps BLM off their backs and it increases sacred profits by increasing market access. The Republicans represent the American chapter of the rootless, capitalist, amoral cosmopolitans of the world.
The Republican Party should change their name to the Scumbag Party; truth in advertising.
All of this is far over the heads of rural Americans. Movements and ideologies are alien to them. Philosophies are strange and make no sense anyway. You just go to work, come home and mow your grass, and give your kids a severe whipping frequently (lack of whippings is what produced anti fa and blm supporters). This is what produces a strong country full of good people. If you are ambitious, you work towards building bigger garages, more acreage and maybe an inground swimming pool. Everything was ok until Obama caused all these problems.
The most interesting discussion on physics I ever had was with a Wisconsin dairy farmer. He read physics textbooks for enjoyment. We were talking in a little town with two bars and one of everything else, in one of the taverns. I’ve met other people in small towns of both sexes with interests far beyond what’s on TV, including a classical music scholar. Farmers have to know about everything related to the job, from motors to bookkeeping to animal husbandry. I don’t look down on, or underestimate, rural people at all.
These are outliers. I myself read physics textbooks and have many interests such as you mention. Few people are even remotely interested in talking about these subjects.
What about those fifty-dollar-an-hour light bulb changers, Brutus? The spirit of Usury permeates all of the U.S., including rural (semi-rural) remnants.
WHY is critical, historical and scientific thinking “far over the heads of rural Americans”? Where ARE their “heads”?
Marjorie Greene of Georgia’s 14th district is their typical dream candidate, who is so worried about protecting the National Football League, the NRA, and NASCAR; and opposes the wearing of protective face masks in a pandemic and other common sense public health measures; and believes in QAnon; and supports the U.S. imperialist military and all its wars enthusiastically, as well as the police state universal surveillance and mass incarceration system; and applauds the “Bible-prophesied” Zionist conquest of Palestine and genocide of indigenous Palestinian “animals.” . .
No, you’re simply a vicious, disgusting, useless sadist who wants to torture kids.
The creation of Antifa and BLM isn’t due to lack of being tortured as children by pukes like you, it’s due to non-stop indoctrination for generations because cuckservatives are too greedy to take care of their children, and instead handed them over to a Marxist school system so that they could pursue their Dollars and their Social Climbing while neglecting their offspring.
You can raise kids with positive reinforcement, never have to hit them, and have them turn out as upstanding, patriotic, honorable people. You just have to give them attention. Whacking them around is attention of a sort, but it’s another cop-out compared to actually engaging them as part of the family and raising them in a civilized way. And it creates anger and resentment and likely crappy behavior later. You can raise well-adjusted kids without ever indulging in your sadism without hitting them.
And also, Obama is just an annoying blip in a long, long process, which began in the 19th century with admission of the jews to equal rights in multiple countries and their buying up of first newspapers, then radio, then movies and television, to create a colossal propaganda machine which was finalized and cemented in control after their victory over nationalists in World War II.
(And arguably long before that, when Europeans abdicated ‘usury’ to a hostile alien tribe from the Middle East, thus, over centuries, making that tribe unspeakably rich with its Welsers and its Fuggers, and providing the fortunes eventually used to take over business, politics, media, and education, to our desolation.)
I agree woman out in public in bright colors is an abomination.
mouth guards are ok as long as nothing can be heard.
and woman should never be telling Men whats up!. evar.!
Trump knew how to talk to us the first really.since george wallace after having our testicles removed for 8 years ie.. Obama we were desperate for anything any one to lead us to protect us we were looking for a champion trump is trump he is alpha male no one can deny that we. Had too vote for him if we hadnt and jezebael had been appointed we would probaly glowing hot ashes by now v putin had as much use for her as he does g.soros there is a whole lot more going on that we dont see.if he was to lose this election.let me just say our govenor whitimer has give us here in michigan a taste of what is to come.
It is a fact that Jews control Western society. Talking about percentages of this or that is irrelevant. The Jews control western society, so whatever comes out of their toilet brain is what flushed into the sewers of the schools and the media and all the nonsense garbage about modern art or self-important writers like Mencken is just a waste of breath. Nothing is going to reverse what is happening without Jewish control being broken. It’s a very simple problem, Richard Nixon and Billy Graham discussed it a long time ago.
The money going bad will take care of that problem.
This is precisely it. The jews control media, education, and entertainment, the three pulpits of the modern world. The modern brain is drenched in a non-stop tsunami of their monomaniacal propaganda, and has been for generations.
You can see their influence from of old: there is literally a short animated cartoon from the 1920s or maybe early 1930s, one of the earliest made, and it shows a bunch of happy, cheerful Negros singing and making music, and a random evil White man walking by their house is annoyed by their happiness and music and attacks them with a whip. And the name of cartoon’s creator was something like Israel Cohen. Wish I could find it specifically, it’s so absolutely typical of the zhyd’s corrosiveness.
Mencken gets a few things right, but he mostly just babbles out tosh.
While a pro-Aryan, pro-normality cultural program is essential, the primary necessity is prying the hands of our genetic (((enemies))), who are busily engaged in destroying us, their competitors, off the levers of culture and mass indoctrination that they are using all too effectively. And the White elites are simply going along with the dictates of their (((paymasters))), they have no ideology beyond their pocketbooks.
Hunter, you are a rising intellectual of the future. This is yet another impressive essay well worth the time committed to reading it in its entirety which I sadly say is not often to be found in this forsaken modern world of excess verbiage. It strikes me that you have gotten a firm grasp on the situation. I think the next exploration is to consider that the undergirding of the crisis is spiritual. Then, I am hopeful you will take the completing step. Your posting of the Russian Orthodox video suggests to me that you are understanding what is necessary.