2 replies »

  1. How would uniting with a bunch of retards change this?
    We don’t actually agree, in terms of ends or means, and while I don’t care if Gary North has his Calvinist Taliban and the AnComs all commit suicide in some retarded impersonation of an economy I also don’t have any substantive objectives in common with them. Defeating the USA basically comes down to demographics and disobedience, neither of which are really susceptible to control by any of us. Activism is a total waste of time, unless you’re some kind of social butterfly who gets off on talking to stupid people. I find it frustrating and ultimately pointless. I have no faith whatsoever in human beings, and if I thought they were going to be roughly like modern anthropoids forever I would probably just as soon see them get nuked as replicate any more. There are already many-too-many people, ‘surplus to requirement’, etc. Population growth needs to stop and population improvement needs to replace it. Not because I think the world is ‘overpopulated’, which is a crankish non-issue, but because only fucking idiots or religious nuts have more than 1-2 kids. It would be different if we were talking population growth from the harems of the elite and the forcibly diversity that barbarian invasions give us, but population growth from welfare proles and Malthusian brown anti-civilization is not a thing worth having.

  2. Specifically, as the leftist and egalitarian anarchism present a social malaise at least as deadly and probably worse than actual political violence (political violence is problematic for legal reasons, but not necessarily damning to the culture that inflicts it or absorbs it). To quote an old counter-current article:

    “In whichever form right-wing anarchism appears, it is always driven by a feeling of decadence, by a distaste for the age of masses and for intellectual conformism. The relation to the political is not uniform; however, not rarely does the aloofness revolve into activism. Any further unity is negated already by the highly desired individualism of right-wing anarchists.”

    Now maybe this is just me (and some other very pessimistic people), but I think treating the soft-left and Christian right with anything other than contempt is almost a betrayal of principle (which is absolutely necessary for a nihilist, as we have no reflexive mores to fall back upon). That old liberal meme ‘be the change you want to see’ has a lot of truth, especially for people who are willfully elitist and individualistic; to my mind the greatest problem in Western civilization is not fiat currency or the police (both of which are an abomination), but the willingness to say anything to survive, to go along to get along, to treat people as allies who don’t even qualify as useful tools.

    It’s Puritanical, but I would rather see Aryans on horseback taking Baghdad by fire and sword than to see a world where a tribal anarcho-communism actually succeeded. I am by inclination very fond of capitalism and civilization, but almost solely for its Faustian elements. And even if one conceded that the Apollonian is required (i.e. people who actually care about menial jobs, do their work efficiently without overmuch thinking about why) modern society is so hypertrophic in its feminitity and Apollonian elements that it needs an equally over-the-top masculinity and even warlike demeanor to possibly correct itself. I don’t consider myself too much of a badass, much less a candidate for actual aristocracy, but I can tell you 10/10 I would get along better with Heinz Guderian than I would with Kevin Carson, despite the fact that I actually agree with the latter over the former on almost any aspect of political economy you care to name.

    It’s one thing to talk about tactical alliances, but the reality is that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact fell apart for a reason.

Leave a Reply