The Path to Ultimate Power: How Do We Win?

[rockies]

I'm not on board with many Yarvinite assessments of power, they're just plainly wrong. This concept of getting close to Caesar might be good however, but that would require the ability to determine WHO the rightful Caesar is. Managing to eke out funding may not be as important as material gifts from the prior civilization, but it's the same principle- imagine, a working group of Los Angeles and Ohio-class subs, for example, but the idea of funding in general is still a good one.

Much of modern industry and information can still be used right now, if one is willing to hide and obfuscate one's true dealings. The idea of starting a power-company, especially a nuclear one, is a very interesting idea, but it's impossible on purpose to develop new nuclear reactor concepts in the U.S.A. NERC has not approved a new reactor design in 40 years, and getting the approvals required for a new reactor is immensely costly. Selling access to the units, therefore, is a non-starter, but that isn't the only crucial industry that requires a lot of power which is falling apart. Consider a flotilla of nuclear-powered floating desalinators, set up and down the coast of California, pumping a couple million gallons inland every day. There's not much of a reason that one couldn't claim they use a superior "gas turbine" design, which uses Space Age Materials for Crazy Efficiencies, which justifies the low cost of fuel purchased. One could purchase fuel, and then resell it thru shell corps to third parties to fortify profit, while relying exclusively on nuclear for the true work. Since these desalination plants aren't on leased land, and instead simply parked outside of shipping lanes, cutting-and-running is very easy. So long as an industry is boring and crucial enough, only the most mechanically obsessive will care about how it actually works. Capital, political legitimacy can both be mined from this arrangement.

Typically, I don't enjoy getting too far into "sci-fi" when discussing power, but talk is thankfully cheap, and it's an enjoyable passtime at least. All of this requires, however, a State axiomatically. I have one in mind which I consider perfect, but I don't have all of the kinks in that plan worked out yet, and I sense that there are a lot of pieces missing.

[Guest]

Why the resistance to "homesteading?" I am seeing frequently on Twitter the repeated sentiment that leaving the city, and raising your family off of the land is an impotent, ignoble way to live your life. This relates to the primary topic of the thread, because much of the criticism of "trad-posters" is entirely theoretical, with feeble appeals to historical men/people of power (who lived under very different circumstances to us), or claims that it is somehow "running away" from the problem.

I can think of many ways how removing yourself from the city and becoming more self-sufficient is a "path to power," but somehow investing in a plot of land and allotting some amount of personal agency to yourself is somehow a submission to base human needs, or some such thing.

If city-dwellers want to make such claims, they need to start providing at least a semi-legible retort, and provide proof as to how maintaining their status quo of complete and utter dependency on the state that abhors them is a more tenable and advantageous position than becoming a homesteader. I see also the criticism of "the state will still come for you even if you're out in the woods," and if it comes to that, maybe so, but they'd get to you, first. This particular topic needs to be expanded upon more.

[Guest]

Why the resistance to "homesteading?" I am seeing frequently on Twitter the repeated sentiment that leaving the city, and raising your family off of the land is an impotent, ignoble way to live your life. This relates to the primary topic of the thread, because much of the criticism of "trad-posters" is entirely theoretical, with feeble appeals to historical men/people of power (who lived under very different circumstances to us), or claims that it is somehow "running away" from the problem.

I can think of many ways how removing yourself from the city and becoming more self-sufficient is a "path to power," but somehow investing in a plot of land and allotting some amount of personal agency to yourself is somehow a submission to base human needs, or some such thing.

If city-dwellers want to make such claims, they need to start providing at least a semi-legible retort, and provide proof as to how maintaining their status quo of complete and utter dependency on the state that abhors them is a more tenable and advantageous position than becoming a homesteader. I see also the criticism of "the state will still come for you even if you're out in the woods," and if it comes to that, maybe so, but they'd get to you, first. This particular topic needs to be expanded upon more.

The resistance you have seen on twatter is simply the following:
People propose it as a political act and political strategy.
It is not a useful political act or political strategy to cede key territory to your opposition.

This is essentially what the disagreement is born from. It develops into insults and so on afterwards. Some people don't understand this and simply join the fight for purposes of entertainment.

As for it as a "path to power", I suppose it depends "where" you are doing said homesteading. In US, Western European countries, and so on, we have seen what happens to rural groups that attempt to gain power. They are put down immediately and washed as "evil this and that." But in a small country, perhaps, I don't know.

Also: Not everyone has the instinct towards power. Nor should they. Nor could they! Some people will always settle into that default of having family, or children one way or another, as the end goal. It is simply not a political act or strategy.

---

Sorry, I am double-posting now.
Consider the cost of a family. The cost of a wife! Not financial. But emotional. Having that thing you love and care for, that you feel responsible for care-taking.
And now consider that for children. It is an even greater cost in this sense.
I anticipate, and agree, with your next point: Such things can be a source of power, great motivators.
But we are not in that sort of world. Every path to power that currently exists has its cost as your life and everyone close to you if the other party is vindictive. Every path to power requires an honest assessment...that you might need move great distances of space to get to where the path requires you to be. Every path to power also has that other cost...Can you sacrifice what is commonly called "humanity?" Will you be evil to do good? You might say such a thing would never occur. Or that power is in Righteousness. Perhaps you are right. But this is a time of rotting structures that must fall before anything is properly built. It is a time for devils to do their work.

What many call "evil" in the current regimes is not evil. Evil has yet to be seen. And it is evil that will deliver a future that is living.

[Guest]

>It is not a useful political act or political strategy to cede key territory to your opposition.
What territory is being ceded, exactly? The cities are already entirely under the purview of the enemy. The territory is already ceded. If you believe that simply because you live in the city that it belongs to you, then man, I have a bridge to sell you.

This also implies that having a relatively close geographical proximity to city-centres is the absolute most important thing when considering a resistance, when that is simply one consideration of many. As positive of an advantage that may be, it nets you twice as many negatives. Never mind the fact that humans are more independently mobile than they have ever been throughout history, so it's a moot point, really.

[anthony]

Mikka just wrote a big free substack post. Very serious looking work. Title: The Plan.

https://jaccusepaper.substack.com/p/the-plan

Everyone seriously interested in questions of practical power should give this a look. For stimulation's sake if nothing else. Wonder if we can get Mikka back here.

I'm not going to comment or even criticise for the moment. I'd just like this read. I'll post the first few paragraphs here to get you rolling.

This week has seen some discussion of a 'National Divorce' in America; everyone agrees it is stupid but nobody has a different plan. What are Americans to do when they are in advanced stages of demographic replacement and held hostage by the world's greatest police state? Several years ago, on the substack I had before this one, I outlined a scheme whereby nationalist European countries will join the U.S as states and force a repeal of the constitution; in its place, a new country would be founded on an explicitly eugenic, meritocratic basis for saving the Children of Ymir. When I, in particular, am accused of not having a 'practical plan' to compete with the Serious and Measured proposals of electing Katie Price's son President if he says the enwerd, I reflect sadly on how unheeded my many plans do go; let this article bring my proposals again to the remembrance of critics and loyalists alike.

It goes without saying, I am not an American but a European: people from the Eurasian steppe, who settled around the North Sea and intermarried with another group of people who carried Neanderthal DNA. The civilisation they created, which is euphemistically called 'Christendom' or 'the West' or 'Faustian', is the only interest I advance; many Americans belong to this cause. I do not have the interests of the U.S as a particular culture in mind but the wider schemes of Destiny.

The Coming European Reconquista

Since 2019, I have predicted a wave of revolution sweeping across Europe; this prediction was originally received with the habitual generosity reciprocated between the republic of letters and myself but increasingly people have become more willing to entertain it. Europe is facing declining living standards and sustained economic recession as the growth model of the E.U collapses; people there will see benefits and pensions cut while jobs disappear and their culture is erased. It is reasonable to expect discontent in such circumstances and the discontent will be revolutionary because European states in crude, material, hard power terms are very weak. The British state has had to rely on the army to help it out of crises as mundane as fuel protests. France has been in a state of emergency since 2015, both its mainstream political parties have collapsed, a formerly Fascist party is the main opposistion to the transient charismatic authority of a random banker. Germany has seen an increasing number of foiled coup d'etats and large swathes of its administrative state are disillusioned with the trajectory of the country. Normal, boring Nordic social-democracies such as Denmark must pass intensely restrictive immigration law to remain stable.

In Europe, it really is a case of 'we only need to win once, they need to win every time', the moment one 'normal' European state elects a revolutionary government the benefits will become obvious to the middle classes everywhere: they will see that Fascism is not something that only happens in dismal Ruritanias East of the Elbe. What does the timeline in which Europe remains left-wing look like? It looks like European governments suddenly being able to deliver rapid economic growth to alleviate demographic change, this cannot happen organically due to the economic structure of the E.U: Tyler Cowan and Dom Cummings are right that economic growth in near future is going to be dominated by Learning Models ("AI") which Europe currently sucks at building. Europe's inorganic economic growth in the latter 20th century was down to conditions which are rapidly disappearing and will not happen again. We are asked, instead, to imagine European governments spending massive amounts of money on psychological warfare and physical repression directed against both their own citizens and immigrants who are, basically, ambivalent about their new homelands. Is it realistic to imagine this situation continuing indefinitely? No.

In countries with a robust democratic tradition, like Italy, increasingly right-wing parties will be elected and implement peaceful course correction. In backwards, masonic police states such as the United Kingdom and Sweden, we will likely see some sort of actual, man the barricades, collapse of state authority and a wholly new regime. In Germany, dissenting elements of the 'deep state' will orchestrate a course correction in secret. In France a mixture of 2 and 3 will happen. It does not matter if these parties are controlled by secret donors, once they are in power they will radicalise because radicalism is the rational thing to do. At the end of the day, there is no reason for 1 in 2 Germans under 50 to be Arabs, or for Sweden to host millions of Somalis. You have to actively struggle to ignore this fact, people already primed for it by the aesthetics they adopt (even for deception) *cannot* ignore it.

By the 2040s I expect most of Western Europe will be under a system of de facto Apartheid, its immigrant populations may still live there but they will be stripped of all voting rights and welfare state benefits. Whether or not the European Union itself continues is not clear, what is obvious is that the violations of human rights law by revolutionary governments will transform it from a transnational sovereign body into a conventional trade bloc as a matter of course.

The American Problem

In Europe, I am an optimist, I've been less vocal about the fact I do not extend my optimism to America. The fundamental fact about the United States is that it waged a successful war of extermination in the 19th century and as a result has all the resources it needs within its own borders. There was nothing inevitable about this happy event, if a properly united Mexico had settled everywhere north of the Rio Grande with Germans we'd today see the Rockies as an inoperable geographic tumour delineating two 'spheres of influence'. Whatever foreign policy America adopts is moral by necessity; Britain will always have to care about the rest of the world because its the natural largest economy in Europe and an island, meaning it depends on trade. America could adopt, with some difficulty but eventual success, an economic policy making the rest of the world superfluous. The essential fact of American life is surplus. America will not face a natural decline towards crisis which European countries must. Even with huge amounts of dysgenics and its government collapsing to fulfil ceremonial functions, the U.S will have enough resources and attract enough Indian codemonkeys to be economically dominant up until the 2120s.

It continues for quite a bit after this. I strongly recommend you read the whole thing.

[NuclearAbsolutist]

Why the resistance to "homesteading?

Because the main advocates of it are touched in the head. The other Guest brought up the "serious" disagreement but the overwhelming reason for counter signaling is the people who propose homesteading are prisoners who when set down, in their new cell think how they can make it cozy or how it is already cozy not escape. Adding onto that they idealize all the evil aspects of rural life masterfully depicted in the first half of David Lynch's Twin Peaks:Fire Walk With Me(1992).

[anthony]

Update on the mikka situation. He paywalled the piece, my above copy paste is all you can read for free. Sorry, I've always found copypasting articles into forums distasteful and didn't want to set a precedent. You can ask me about it, or pay for it of course.

[rockies]

I may pay for it instead. Mikka has typically put out interesting work, at least.

[Guest]

>It is not a useful political act or political strategy to cede key territory to your opposition.
What territory is being ceded, exactly? The cities are already entirely under the purview of the enemy. The territory is already ceded. If you believe that simply because you live in the city that it belongs to you, then man, I have a bridge to sell you.

This also implies that having a relatively close geographical proximity to city-centres is the absolute most important thing when considering a resistance, when that is simply one consideration of many. As positive of an advantage that may be, it nets you twice as many negatives. Never mind the fact that humans are more independently mobile than they have ever been throughout history, so it's a moot point, really.

The territory that holds access to ports and main thorough-fares for all resources. The territory that holds key infrastructure for the function of the country, state, etc. I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you live in an agrarian country, I do not. As for "already", what is the point of your resistance? Is it to retreat or to take? Do you understand? 

Those independently mobile workers can be made non-workers in an instant. Unless you are one of the very, very, very few who has contributed and is a part of the alternative economy. I don't live in a city myself. Hopefully this clears up the other position more. If you have a bone to pick, then pick it with the ones who are bothering you directly in the future...not with a friendly Guest who is simply trying to answer your question.

[Guest]

>Hopefully this clears up the other position more.
It did not.

[JohnnyRomero]

Mikka just wrote a big free substack post. Very serious looking work. Title: The Plan.

https://jaccusepaper.substack.com/p/the-plan

Everyone seriously interested in questions of practical power should give this a look. For stimulation's sake if nothing else. Wonder if we can get Mikka back here.

I'm not going to comment or even criticise for the moment. I'd just like this read. I'll post the first few paragraphs here to get you rolling.

[snip]

It continues for quite a bit after this. I strongly recommend you read the whole thing.

Wonderfully written, I may just pay for it. Mikka is very, very sharply insightful, even if he does seem to occasionally fall into simple contrarianism. I truly and deeply hope that he is right here, but I am very cynical regarding Europe. I feel as though Hitler was correct and that all the good Europeans died in the War, leaving only the weak and unworthy to work as American economic serfs in the hollow and soulless ruins of the Civilization that Was. But I will be visiting Europe myself soon, so I will have to assess for myself.

[anthony]

Europeans are still the most beautiful people on the planet and are worth preserving solely on those grounds. I'm not budging on this.

[JohnnyRomero]

Europeans are still the most beautiful people on the planet and are worth preserving solely on those grounds. I'm not budging on this.

Very true. I suppose it is easy to become cynical when comparing current Europeans to their ancestors, but even easier to become motivated when comparing current Europeans to anyone else around today.

[Guest]

Mikka just wrote a big free substack post. Very serious looking work. Title: The Plan.

https://jaccusepaper.substack.com/p/the-plan

Everyone seriously interested in questions of practical power should give this a look. For stimulation's sake if nothing else. Wonder if we can get Mikka back here.

I'm not going to comment or even criticise for the moment. I'd just like this read. I'll post the first few paragraphs here to get you rolling.

Here's the complete post [Sorry guys, but I'm not letting this happen here - Anthony]

[Datacop]

Thank you guest, glad we have some users who aren't as "honorable" as Anthony

[BillyONare]

Word of caution re: countersignaling anthony's honor...

[anthony]

Guys this isn't the new york times. Give Mikka eight pounds or find the writing elsewhere. I'm not going to encourage taking from our own people when they think they've put something together that's worth money. I've removed the archive link to the piece from Guest's post. Guest, I get that you're trying to be helpful and I'm not really bothered. But I think if Mikka takes his writing seriously we should respect that.

[asdf1234]

The plan already assumes control over the House and the Senate, and a non-opposed president. In a sense entirely constrained to the question of U.S. law formality, the accession plan is pointless - if you already control the Senate, even just the Senate (EDIT: on closer reading, you actually need to control Congress+the Presidency), you could always pack the Supreme Court and declare your enemies' continued existence, as well as everything which you dislike even remotely, unconstitutional, and the security forces would be formally obligated to enforce everything you desire. The real problem is ensuring the loyalty of the U.S. security forces, who would rightly see it as a coup.

Then, the important part is the question of a united European force preventing the U.S. security forces from successfully interfering, but this is also the part discussed in least detail in the article. It made a brief reference to a hypothetical conflict between pro-plan and anti-plan U.S. forces. However, if we've already arrived at an actual conflict, as opposed to the U.S. security forces standing still while the packed Supreme Court makes its long pronouncements (or the accession plan is being voted for), then, by virtue of logistical considerations, the conflict will almost certainly be determined entirely by events, the participants in which have been long-embedded in the actual U.S. security forces, and in the case of prolonged conflict, also by those embedded in manufacturing. The question is how, exactly, to successfully perform this embedding. In his postulated future, the U.S. would still be incredibly rich, so just buying off individuals, as some say is the case with the current-day Russian command, is unlikely to work.

[Guest]

The system is well entrenched.the only way is by destroying from the outside which requires allyng with Russia and China and destroying america and causing a societal collapse.

[Datacop]

The system is well entrenched.the only way is by destroying from the outside which requires allyng with Russia and China and destroying america and causing a societal collapse.

If one has to align themselves with Oriental Communists to dismantle the American Empire, of what use was it to dismantle the American Empire?