Curtis Yarvin and his Elves
#1
[Image: dark-elf.png]



I've been playing Yarvin's strongest soldier for a long time now in these circles, but he's stretching me thinner all the time lately. You all may have seen this; "You Can Only Lose the Culture War", in which he repeats some sane social elite theory, but insists on telling us that the currently powerful libtards in America are themselves elites, just corrupted by bad ideas. Or something to that effect. You can read for yourself and make your own sense of this if you please:



https://graymirror.substack.com/p/you-ca...ulture-war



If we could discuss this and Yarvin in general here I think it might be interesting. I still generally like him and try to read him charitably, but again, he's making this harder.
#2
Moldbug conceives of politics as a struggle for power cynically waged via wordcelery/symbol manipulation, where power is tautologically defined as dominance over words and symbolic meanings—writing the mainstream narrative. Elves will always have power because they are the best at symbol manipulation, and they are the best at symbol manipulation because they have the power. He ignores on one hand the material base of power (in the Paradox-game sense of logistical command over economic resources) and on the other cannot take ideologies, both good and bad ones, seriously on their own terms. He is incapable of imagining that you might not be able to afford to Retire All Government Employees by bribing them away from their political positions. There's always enough wealth, status and power to go around and satiate all relevant actors regardless of their ideological motivations, if distributed properly. It's basically the libtard idea that a sufficiently wise and benevolent hegemon can maintain world peace by securing enough free trade applied to the domestic sphere.
#3
Everyone making LOTR analogies is retarded. No exceptions.
Also elves are gay.
#4
I've been reading him on and off since the fucking Obama years (first term, even!). He is one of these people who I truly, completely, just do not fucking understand. And that might be on me, maybe I'm not smart enough. Maybe I'm just not getting something. I don't hate him, and I don't think he's stupid, but what on fucking Earth is this guy driving at?

For example, this cringe-as-fuck elves/hobbits thing: I have yet to meet a so-called "elf" (my alleged betters) that does not fit into one or both of these categories:

1. Someone I could literally beat to death with my bare hands without any trouble at all

2. Someone who triggers the most unquestionable disgust reaction I am capable of

Ah, yes, Mark Zuckerberg, my cultural and genetic superior! How could I forget? Why, just looking at him should make it obvious! Yes, yes, let's all crown him king (literally in the sense Yarvin wants) because he created an online dopamine loop for women. Truly, the work of the elite!
#5
(07-29-2022, 08:25 PM)Coyote Wrote: I've been reading him on and off since the fucking Obama years (first term, even!).  He is one of these people who I truly, completely, just do not fucking understand.  And that might be on me, maybe I'm not smart enough.  Maybe I'm just not getting something.  I don't hate him, and I don't think he's stupid, but what on fucking Earth is this guy driving at?

For example, this cringe-as-fuck elves/hobbits thing: I have yet to meet a so-called "elf" (my alleged betters) that does not fit into one or both of these categories:

1.  Someone I could literally beat to death with my bare hands without any trouble at all

2.  Someone who triggers the most unquestionable disgust reaction I am capable of

Ah, yes, Mark Zuckerberg, my cultural and genetic superior!  How could I forget?  Why, just looking at him should make it obvious!  Yes, yes, let's all crown him king (literally in the sense Yarvin wants) because he created an online dopamine loop for women.  Truly, the work of the elite!

When Yarvin, or most anyone is talking about power or "elite theory", they are not using the word "elite" in the colloquial sense. The usage here is to mean something like "people at the top of society" or maybe "those that rule".
We could complicate this further though by separating the elite into two sub-groups of "ruling elite" and "non-ruling elite". Again, elite here just means "people at the top", whether they are ruling or not would be defined by whether they have power in a de facto sense; they don't necessarily have to be members of the government.

@Coyote you are assuming the "eliteness" is something intrinsic to the person, superior intelligence or genetics; as opposed to something extrinsic, their position in society, for example.
Nothing seems to stop disgenic machiavellians from ruling in liberal democracies.

I found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marble.

#6
(07-30-2022, 01:06 AM)imperator Wrote:
(07-29-2022, 08:25 PM)Coyote Wrote: I've been reading him on and off since the fucking Obama years (first term, even!).  He is one of these people who I truly, completely, just do not fucking understand.  And that might be on me, maybe I'm not smart enough.  Maybe I'm just not getting something.  I don't hate him, and I don't think he's stupid, but what on fucking Earth is this guy driving at?

For example, this cringe-as-fuck elves/hobbits thing: I have yet to meet a so-called "elf" (my alleged betters) that does not fit into one or both of these categories:

1.  Someone I could literally beat to death with my bare hands without any trouble at all

2.  Someone who triggers the most unquestionable disgust reaction I am capable of

Ah, yes, Mark Zuckerberg, my cultural and genetic superior!  How could I forget?  Why, just looking at him should make it obvious!  Yes, yes, let's all crown him king (literally in the sense Yarvin wants) because he created an online dopamine loop for women.  Truly, the work of the elite!

When Yarvin, or most anyone is talking about power or "elite theory", they are not using the word "elite" in the colloquial sense. The usage here is to mean something like "people at the top of society" or maybe "those that rule".
We could complicate this further though by separating the elite into two sub-groups of "ruling elite" and "non-ruling elite". Again, elite here just means "people at the top", whether they are ruling or not would be defined by whether they have power in a de facto sense; they don't necessarily have to be members of the government.

@Coyote you are assuming the "eliteness" is something intrinsic to the person, superior intelligence or genetics; as opposed to something extrinsic, their position in society, for example.
Nothing seems to stop disgenic machiavellians from ruling in liberal democracies.

A distinction without difference if there ever was one.  

Anyone currently at the top of the hierarchy is completely unworthy of being considered "elite."  Dysgenic systems select for dysgenic "elites."  No matter how you define these "elves" they should be considered democide fodder.
#7
My enjoyment of Yarvin has declined drastically. First it was his constant shilling for COVID lockdowns and his fawning over China's "correct" handling of the virus (that they concocted). Now, as China still locks down entire cities while the rest of the world has realized that COVID is now part of the ecosystem, Yarvin is pitching things like America returning the British monarchy (UnHerd article) and conservatives totally capitulating to the contemporary ruling class.
He's essentially right in that society will always have rulers and the ruled. He is also correct in that intra-elite competition is the only serious vehicle for socio-political change. However, his fawning worship of power is sick and corrosive. The current ruling class in the West is not a real "elite" but rather a bevy middle manager types full of middle class striver energy. Again, my own monarchist sympathies cause me to see this as the result of liberal revolutions and the unchecked power of bourgeois merchants. Yet, Yarvin's monarchism is not my monarchism. His "Dark Elves" analogy is par for the course for a man who has long supported Absolutism, a 17th century perversion of traditional kingship. In his world, rule should be absolute, ham-fisted, and unchecked. This is pure centralized statism, ergo the antithesis of medieval monarchy and the American ethos. The sooner Yarvin is dispatched from his unjust pedestal the better.

Also, his understanding of Christian history is simply pathetic.
#8
He comes from the levers of power, or was always kind of adjacent to it. I have never found him the least bit interesting, aside from being a good interlocutor on podcasts, and not being a total faggot. But what a low bar. With him, everything is some inevitability, some overly theoretical take, and it all happens to not really upset any of his friends, or theirs. He's never been the least bit of a challenge to anything. In a practical sense, it seems that the last thing you'd ever want to do is to just hand it all over to the oligarchy in writing. That's basically what he suggests. So evidently, people will warm up even to this, so long as it's perceivably illiberal.
Photo 
#9
Yarvin is increasingly annoying today because all he ever does is re-iterate, in increasingly long-winded and obtuse fashion, things he already said in plainer language over a decade ago. Nothing in the "Elves" piece was anything new, everything in there he said on UR at some point. Essentially you end up having to wade through ever more words (and he already was wordy even back in his UR days) and tidbits of Jewish ressentiment, with no payoff like one used to get. The screenshot below is quoting from 2009. As Spandrell said on one of his latest blogposts, sometimes you need to know when you've said all you can say. Certainly most the other former NRx guys have had the sense to know their moment is over. https://twitter.com/NRxtemp/status/1547806065915355136
[Image: 2022-08-02.png]
#10
People with high ACT & SAT scores are more valuable than hicks. Sorry. Universities are still the institution for these elite. Although that is increasingly less so.
#11
(08-02-2022, 09:44 PM)BillyONare Wrote: People with high ACT & SAT scores are more valuable than hicks. Sorry. Universities are still the institution for these elite. Although that is increasingly less so.

Is your SAT score going to keep me from busting your teeth out of your head?
#12
(08-02-2022, 09:44 PM)BillyONare Wrote: People with high ACT & SAT scores are more valuable than hicks. Sorry. Universities are still the institution for these elite. Although that is increasingly less so.
Undoubtedly true. A high ACT/SAT score continues to be of key importance for getting into a good university; getting into a good university is still the most surefire way of guaranteeing yourself a fancy job at a top company, which is the best way to gain money, and hence power. As you say this could change, companies could begin offering their own sort of courses that amount to a mix of job training and aptitude tests. Obviously, you don't need the vast majority of what you learn in college unless you're a STEM major, and even then, you're going to specialize and use a subset of those skills in your actual job. That would be better on meritocratic grounds, but as it stands Companies don't have a massive incentive to do that (yet). They can just pluck from the already existing educational infrastructure instead of wasting resources to build their own, at least until colleges can no longer provide any useful employees.

 
(08-02-2022, 09:54 PM)Coyote Wrote: Is your SAT score going to keep me from busting your teeth out of your head?
Bit of a nigger response. Obviously it's not going to stop you, and you're free to go bust Jeff Bezos' or Mark Zuckerberg's teeth out. But you won't. And even if you did you'd probably get a much worse beating from whatever bodyguards they have and you're going to end up in jail. So as dysgenic as these people might be, they have vastly more power than you do, and they were able to work their way up the ladder better than you did as well. To go back to BillyONare's point, this is why Yarvin's elites are more valuable than hicks. It doesn't matter if some rural bluecollar worker could beat Bezos' brains in, he's so low on the hierarchy ladder he quite literally doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. He's not even a slave to Bezos, he's a slave to people multiple rungs below Bezos. 

My issue with Yarvin is he consistently seems blind to the degree to which those Institutions he lauds so highly (The Ivies, NYT) have gone down the drain in terms of the people they enroll and higher, respectively. In some sense, I disagree entirely with his view that there are even "High Elves" and "Dark Elves" as two different sets of elites that are fighting things out above the rest of the worlds heads. I'd instead argue that the entire notion of an 'Elite' is dead. There are no elves at all, they're something of the past era, all dead or in retirement on some mystical island. There has (in my mind) been a steady degeneration away from any semblance of 'Elites' or 'Aristocrats' for more than a century, at least since the onset of the Democratic Age, and we've just about reached the telos of this process in the past few decades. So long as 'equality' and 'universal privilege' are the rule of the day, there can be no True Elites. Of course, we can still refer to people at the top of the ladder by this term, but we should note these are just people who happen to have the most money. They're better than the average person because they're in general more intelligent, and go through a number of high quality institutions that leave their mark on them, but they're not qualitatively different than the people one or two rungs below them, who may be way more skilled and intelligent, have more creative minds, etc. These are the kinds of Elites that were able to gain power in the Late Roman Empire, who obviously lacked the skills of their predecessors who had led Rome to its initial greatness. 

Jouvenel has a good excerpt on Aristocratic Degeneration.
#13
Agreed with everything. Elites are a joke now due to not taking seriously:

1. Mate selection
2. Childrearing & education
3. Finances

These three things are necessary to optimize the status, intellect, and power of your bloodline, but NO ONE, not even elites think about these things with the "seriousness" (@anthony ) that they deserve #1 is particularly ironic because elites in the past took class, pedigree, and lineage very seriously without knowing how genes work. I know the fundamentals of these three things which make me a unique specimen, but unfortunately my parents were complacent and degenerate so I ended up very low class. Understanding these things requires only an IQ of over 130-145, but it can only be attained by a clarity of thinking that is rare today, found only in members of this forum, Insomnia, and some NRx men. Perhaps this clarity of thinking is lacking because we live in a Baudrillardian hyperreality, maybe it is because it requires both an intellect and character that suits one to work 70 hours per week as an architect or aerospace engineer but also the enormous leisure time of a criminal or NEET to discover the secrets of the world. Maybe it is because communism and overtaxation are so rampant that it is less economically viable to live as a dilettante aristocrat. I think Bitcoin will fix this.

PS Brian "Norwood" Armstrong recently said on the Lex Fridman podcast that many companies (not his) are issuing their own standardized tests as a filter rather than looking at degrees since degrees have become much more detached from the quality filter of standardized tests. Yes, the bald cuckold actually said this. I was shocked at his boldness. If anyone knows which companies he is referring to, please let us know about it. I am very curious.
#14
Basically what's happened is the bar for being elite has never been lower. Having money used to not be enough. That's basically all gone out the window now. Moldbug is not elite by the old standards or new so i don't get what he's intending to propose. I'll be honest, I don't really "get" nrx. Is it just dissident right with the racism dialed back and the anti Semitism removed?
#15
I think Yarvin is interesting from a historical perspective; you can see in his blog archives the shift from racist libertarianism to racist illiberalism over the course of 08-13 in a searchable format. Yarvin himself has a great deal of tolerance and low disgust reaction, which makes him tolerant of gays, furries, racists, and his BDSM dominatrix wife. He is stuck on our end of the political spectrum because he is racist and disagreeable enough to mention it in public; his other beliefs are not upsetting to the broader Democratic Party. It was interesting to read Unqualified Reservations during the time it was being published, especially for a person who was bored, stuck in under/un-employment. I can't imagine someone reading his work for pleasure today, as most people in this sphere should be able to write it themselves by now. 

What inspired his series of elf-analogies was the Dobbs decision. In general, you use an analogy to describe a hypothetical situation with a concrete one. Plato compares the training of men to the training of horses, Paul analogizes the self-domination of appetites to an athlete preparing for a race, so on so forth. However, in his latest articles he is comparing a concrete situation with a hypothetical one, and then immediately abandons the rules of the setting he has chosen to compare it to. Elves do not rule in Middle Earth, they are a dying breed of an earlier form of humanity being replaced due to the weight of time wearing them out.  Hobbits actually do rule in the Shire, they have a fully independent government. And the role Moldbug himself plays is similar to wizard; a traveler held in some contempt but seen as an amusing peddler of distractions. And the Lord of the Rings actually ends with the Shire being usurped by a wizard, until the Hobbits themselves lose patience with his behavior and expel him, with Saruman being murdered in some forgotten ditch by his servant. Needless to say, that brings up all sorts of uncomfortable connotations for Yarvin!

Moldbug decides to talk about a fantasy realm of his own personal invention rather than either Middle Earth or just plain Earth because the reality of the political process that went into overturning Roe v. Wade is the opposite of what he had prepared for. His argument suggests that it was overturned by a movement of upset Middle Americans, that the pro-life movement finally secured enough hysterical hobbits to enact a constitutional amendment banning abortion. This was actually how the process was framed by mainstream republicans 1980-2013, that proceduralism needed to be followed even if the original precedent was illegitimate. This is not what occurred. It was overturned by the Supreme Court after a multi-decade campaign to infiltrate elite legal circles through networking, mentorship, and a more seductive theory of jurisprudence. The few arguments he does make for not overturning Roe v Wade (when he is not contemplating the amazing elvish ability to govern) are about how this depletes conservative power, that the hobbits should have instead enacted a constitutional amendment granting more permanent power to deserving "dark" elves. Such as Curtis and his weirdo friends. (As another aside, "dark elves" do exist in Tolkien's' framework; they are orcs.) All of the creation of his own private version of a fantasy universe was to attempt to slip this point past the reader.  This is all backwards, the Dobbs decision was able to be created precisely because legal power had already been won and stabilized in an emerging new elite. Publicly using this power doesn't deplete it; quite the opposite, it makes it more attractive to strivers and grinds; everyone prefers the strong horse to the weak horse.

This transparently makes Yarvin look like a jackass who is suggesting Alito is a hobbit and Sotomayor is an elf. So in his second essay, he tries to redefine elves and hobbits to not mean natures, races, or classes, but roles. At this point, he manages to confuse even himself with his analogy, which may have been his motivating concern in the first place. To him, elves are defined by the fact they are the ruling class; therefore, it is simply impossible to be ruled by anyone but elves. What an amazing insight Moldbug! So why again shouldn't we start throwing your San Francisco friends in prison again? I suspect his third attempt to persuade the religious segment of new right to not use the power they have acquired will be about how the current Supreme Court majority is a fluke of presidential nominations and unlucky mortality among leftist judges, and so they shouldn't press their luck less the pendulum swing back and they reap the whirlwind. This fundamentally misunderstands the process by which these vacancies are filled through clerkships, prestigious jobs, universities, etc. Then making certain once you actually get the conservative on the court he stays right due to having a more seductive legal ideology. Republicans put a lot of judges on the court who ended up being persuaded by their colleagues and DC environment to veer left like Anthony Kennedy or O'Connor. Moldbug had imagined a return to the status quo of the 90s, in which evangelicals provided votes and coasties got to determine policy. Despite his approval of DeMaistre or Schmitt or whatever, he is deeply disturbed by the possibility of his own cultural group being put in the passenger seat.
#16
(08-04-2022, 11:48 AM)Nathan J Robinson Wrote: Moldbug decides to talk about a fantasy realm of his own personal invention rather than either Middle Earth or just plain Earth because the reality of the political process that went into overturning Roe v. Wade is the opposite of what he had prepared for. His argument suggests that it was overturned by a movement of upset Middle Americans, that the pro-life movement finally secured enough hysterical hobbits to enact a constitutional amendment banning abortion. This was actually how the process was framed by mainstream republicans 1980-2013, that proceduralism needed to be followed even if the original precedent was illegitimate. This is not what occurred. It was overturned by the Supreme Court after a multi-decade campaign to infiltrate elite legal circles through networking, mentorship, and a more seductive theory of jurisprudence. The few arguments he does make for not overturning Roe v Wade (when he is not contemplating the amazing elvish ability to govern) are about how this depletes conservative power, that the hobbits should have instead enacted a constitutional amendment granting more permanent power to deserving "dark" elves. Such as Curtis and his weirdo friends. (As another aside, "dark elves" do exist in Tolkien's' framework; they are orcs.) All of the creation of his own private version of a fantasy universe was to attempt to slip this point past the reader.  This is all backwards, the Dobbs decision was able to be created precisely because legal power had already been won and stabilized in an emerging new elite. Publicly using this power doesn't deplete it; quite the opposite, it makes it more attractive to strivers and grinds; everyone prefers the strong horse to the weak horse.

This transparently makes Yarvin look like a jackass who is suggesting Alito is a hobbit and Sotomayor is an elf. So in his second essay, he tries to redefine elves and hobbits to not mean natures, races, or classes, but roles. At this point, he manages to confuse even himself with his analogy, which may have been his motivating concern in the first place. To him, elves are defined by the fact they are the ruling class; therefore, it is simply impossible to be ruled by anyone but elves. What an amazing insight Moldbug! So why again shouldn't we start throwing your San Francisco friends in prison again? I suspect his third attempt to persuade the religious segment of new right to not use the power they have acquired will be about how the current Supreme Court majority is a fluke of presidential nominations and unlucky mortality among leftist judges, and so they shouldn't press their luck less the pendulum swing back and they reap the whirlwind. This fundamentally misunderstands the process by which these vacancies are filled through clerkships, prestigious jobs, universities, etc. Then making certain once you actually get the conservative on the court he stays right due to having a more seductive legal ideology. Republicans put a lot of judges on the court who ended up being persuaded by their colleagues and DC environment to veer left like Anthony Kennedy or O'Connor. Moldbug had imagined a return to the status quo of the 90s, in which evangelicals provided votes and coasties got to determine policy. Despite his approval of DeMaistre or Schmitt or whatever, he is deeply disturbed by the possibility of his own cultural group being put in the passenger seat.

Exactly.

Since 2007 he's been saying the same thing he says in this Gray Mirror post that apparently blindsided some Twitter psuedons:

Quote:Paleoconservatism, in my opinion, is a tactical dead end in the struggle against Idealist rule. It seems promising, because it seems to offer a large body of supporters—traditionalist Christians—who are relatively uncontaminated by Idealist propaganda, and many of whom are hopping up and down with rage at the various insanities, absurdities and atrocities they see perpetrated with such blithe self-confidence by the Idealist fanatics who run the world. But the actual power of this power base has been diminishing for the last 250 years, and no one has managed to do anything useful with it for at least the last 100. Ought is not the same as is...

To me, the best scenario for getting rid of Idealism is one in which, as has happened many times in history both distant and recent, smart young people realize that their elders are pumping them full of premasticated tripe. I think the West needs an Orange Revolution. Therefore, the cultural trend I find most hopeful is the appearance of youth-oriented and thoroughly fashionable outlets, such as VICE and the eXile, which seem to have less of an investment in Idealism than, say, Vanity Fair.

Perhaps someone can correct me, but I have no hesitation at all in saying that VICE is hipper than Vanity Fair. Vanity Fair, however, is definitely hipper than VDare (which so far as I know has never published any “Whore-R Stories”). Thus my reasoning on tactics. If any paleos care to correct my misconceptions, the comments section is open.

In a stellar coincidence, guess who finally successfully smuggled a gaggle of very cool post-VICE "ain't I a stinker?" Thiel contractors into Vanity Fair just three and a half months ago? Yup, our boy Yarvin.

But -- uh-oh! -- those gosh-darn traditionalist Christians and their Federalist Society tribunes have gone and done something that is definitely uncool. Perhaps the proles are indeed in the driver's seat after all, and Yarvin's "don't try to be the strong horse, it's a trap" philosophy has approximately the clout of a thumb in the shape on an L on your forehead. For G-d's sake, they've even got the Red Scare girls talking about states' rights!

What is Yarvin to do? Just as he's finally achieving a level of successful notoriety he could only have dreamed of when signing up for Blogger 15 years ago, the Hobbits have actualized their own long-term goal and aborted Roe. All he can do is scramble to claim that actually, what looks like "doing something useful with" power is the exact opposite.
#17
(08-02-2022, 11:01 PM)Leverkühn Wrote:
(08-02-2022, 09:44 PM)BillyONare Wrote: People with high ACT & SAT scores are more valuable than hicks. Sorry. Universities are still the institution for these elite. Although that is increasingly less so.
Undoubtedly true. A high ACT/SAT score continues to be of key importance for getting into a good university; getting into a good university is still the most surefire way of guaranteeing yourself a fancy job at a top company, which is the best way to gain money, and hence power. As you say this could change, companies could begin offering their own sort of courses that amount to a mix of job training and aptitude tests. Obviously, you don't need the vast majority of what you learn in college unless you're a STEM major, and even then, you're going to specialize and use a subset of those skills in your actual job. That would be better on meritocratic grounds, but as it stands Companies don't have a massive incentive to do that (yet). They can just pluck from the already existing educational infrastructure instead of wasting resources to build their own, at least until colleges can no longer provide any useful employees.

 
(08-02-2022, 09:54 PM)Coyote Wrote: Is your SAT score going to keep me from busting your teeth out of your head?
Bit of a nigger response. Obviously it's not going to stop you, and you're free to go bust Jeff Bezos' or Mark Zuckerberg's teeth out. But you won't. And even if you did you'd probably get a much worse beating from whatever bodyguards they have and you're going to end up in jail. So as dysgenic as these people might be, they have vastly more power than you do, and they were able to work their way up the ladder better than you did as well. To go back to BillyONare's point, this is why Yarvin's elites are more valuable than hicks. It doesn't matter if some rural bluecollar worker could beat Bezos' brains in, he's so low on the hierarchy ladder he quite literally doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. He's not even a slave to Bezos, he's a slave to people multiple rungs below Bezos. 

Do you have the capacity to think beyond individual action? Serious question.

I don't even know where to even being with this mess of a "response" you have here. First off, my reply was directed at Billy, a literal tranny loving faggot, directly. I'm sick of his, and everyone like him, and their sassy internet ramblings. He wants to think himself better than "some hick" because he has an email job? Fine, but the reality is something else. I'm not here to "argue" with anyone. I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. As I said before, this isn't twitter. You want to act like a tough guy, calling me a "nigger" well, I will give you every reasonable opportunity to prove how tough you are for real. Real life violence or shut the fuck up, choice is yours, sperg.

Getting back to the substance of the matter; so tell me, how many wars have been won by 21st century technocrats and their personal bodyguards? How many have been won by heavily armed men fighting for their race? Do you get what I'm driving at here? Not exactly much good their bodyguards or money are going to do them when millions of angry "rednecks" are storming their mansions to cut off their family's heads.
#18
(08-06-2022, 02:29 PM)Coyote Wrote: Getting back to the substance of the matter; so tell me, how many wars have been won by 21st century technocrats and their personal bodyguards? How many have been won by heavily armed men fighting for their race?

Zero, and zero, so far. I guess it'll be a fair question to ask when this century will be nearing its end.

(08-06-2022, 02:29 PM)Coyote Wrote: Not exactly much good their bodyguards or money are going to do them when millions of angry "rednecks" are storming their mansions to cut off their family's heads.

I understand and support the sentiment, but the 'rednecks' don't exist as an organized force, and thus are easy to divide and conquer. So what if a redneck is willing to take action, if his tranny son on SSRI-s is going to report him to the feds? You might as well be wishing for a zombie apocalypse; that'd show them for sure.
#19
Rednecks and/or typical conservatives are not particularly based. They are all all aggro jackasses that slavishly worship Fox News, abuse their children, drive pick up trucks for no reason, struggle with algebra, have sick violence fantasies about killing guys that have sex with 17 year olds and/or the Future Baptist Goverment of America slaughtering homos, have no ambitions or curiosity besides joining the goyim military, and love MLK and Dave Chapelle (if they have even heard of these people). If they care about politics at all they will be just as hostile to you telling the truth about race and other scientific affairs as any libtard. When you are that psychotic and brain damaged there is no possibility for organized large scale violence because there is no capacity for rational thought or engagement with intelligent people that could command armies, strategize, and consult in important matters. The real battle for the human race is a relatively small number of high IQ free agents and their wards vs a vast mob of communists and resentful subhumans.

My personal observation as well as that of a few other people is that the most based people grew up in the suburbs (see Nick Fuentes) and that there is a flippening of libtard parents having based sons and rednecks having vile provincial Vaushish translings. There is something about conservatives that makes them fucking terrible parents, possibly some sort of faux tough guy masculinity, while libtards are merely bad parents. There also might be agricultural pollutants like atrazine at play in rural areas.

Another theory I have is that people in the countryside are not genetically more based; they are simply coerced less due to having less prospects and less proximity to people to oversocialize and threaten them.
#20
(08-06-2022, 02:29 PM)Coyote Wrote: I'm sick of his, and everyone like him, and their sassy internet ramblings. He wants to think himself better than "some hick" because he has an email job? Fine, but the reality is something else.
I don't see why this claim would offend you. When have rural hicks ever been the driving forces in history? When have they ever been at the forefront of culture or society? Rural hicks, like the masses in general, have most often just been a force to be manipulated by richer and more powerful people. This is simply the truth, and there's thousands of years of history to back it up. Not to say a few geniuses can't come out of the sticks, it happens, and then they promptly leave for better pastures. The masses have their role in society as everyone does on the Great Chain, but there's no reason to think so highly of these people. They're largely less healthy, less educated, poorer, and in general less intelligent. That's the "reality" of the situation and any stats bear it out, not whatever shit you have floating up in your head.

Quote:You want to act like a tough guy, calling me a "nigger" well, I will give you every reasonable opportunity to prove how tough you are for real. Real life violence or shut the fuck up, choice is yours, sperg.
Also this is rather comical. You're the one sperging out and invoking 'VIOLENCE' because someone called you low-iq.



[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)