Liberal/Conservative: Left/Right and American Politics

From a psychological perceptive.............

I base my hypothesis on my definition of positive and negative:

Positive: that which requires energy, effort, to emerge and to continue.
The length of time, in space, its duration, determining its positivist quality, and the energy/effort it requires the sacrifices needed to bring it about.

Negative: that which requires no energy/effort, to emerge and to continue.
We can relate this notion with linear time, as this inevitable towards-chaos...requiring no effort/energy, but persisting despite the "positive" efforts/energies arresting or slowing down its progress.
Ergo, light, heat, consciousness, life, order, are all declining in a linear direction towards chaos, randomness, darkness, no energy, no order.
Linear because life can only emerge as a (re)action to this increase, whereas any other towards does not apply; life can ever emerge in those temporal directions.  



Right/Left
Right, a human metaphor looking back towards absolute order, or increasing order.
Left, a human metaphor looking away from absolute order, or increasing order - looking towards increasing disorder, randomness, expanding space, space being another way of saying possibilities.

I think the distinguishing factor can be found in the human brain and its two hemispheres controlling different aspects of the human psyche.
The human brain could only emerge as a dualistic thinker, as its morphology indicates, because of the dualities of on/off, reflecting the neural mechanism of "flow/no-flow" - a neural pulse passing through a neuron (neuron cluster) or not passing through it.
The human brain emerges as a simple ordering tool, later evolving more complexities among a small percentage of the human population.
The vast majority remain trapped in its binary methods.
Art is the brain evolution beyond this dualism method...language being an art-form    

The left is more artistic, open to possibilities, and so it wishes a state of increasing possibilities, which is the antithesis of order...order is a restriction of possibilities, and an increase in probabilities, veering towards the absolute, or the singular, the total probable ONE.
The artistic mind wishes to disconnect from anything that restricts its possibilities, veering towards absolute randomness, CHAOS.  
The left is also where emotions come from, and so artistry is forever corrupted by emotional factors. The same side of the brain that offers the potential to go beyond dualities is often dominated by emotion, sensation.

Conservative: Those who wish to conserve a point in space/time where they feel their own interests are best served.
Predictable, stringent/strict, steadfast, reliable, loyal, seeking precision...
Conservatives differ in their estimation of which point in space time they which to preserve or to return to, in other words which order, which social or natural hierarchy they wish to maintain.
The conservative wishes to conserve a particular socioeconomic status quo, usually the present, dominant one. He rejects anything from the past that contradicts it.
The conservative is less artistic, more mathematical, more binary.
He is often entrenched in dualistic thinking.
The right is the masculine side of the brain...the ordering, Apollonian side.        

Liberal: Those liberal with their emotional investments, wanting to remain open to possibilities because nothing in the past proved to be satisfactory.
Unpredictable, constantly changing their minds, undecided, non-committal, unreliable, easily sways to change alliances, imprecise...
The liberals different in how much of the past they wish to deny, forget, dismiss as irrelevant, or too inhibiting.
The liberal dreams of a better future, because nothing in the past, nor the present (more immediate past), is to his liking.
The left is the feminine side of the brain...the emoting, creative, Dionysian side.        

Both conservatives/liberals in this duality reject the past, selectively or entirely.
Both exist in the most immediate present, as the future is always a yet-to-be and so it is either/or...either a threat to the immediate past hierarchy, the present status quo, or a possible better tomorrow.
The past, beyond a certain point, is always disturbing, something to be rejected or reinterpreted to serve immediate goals.  
The conservative uses liberal naivete to preserve the status quo; the liberal uses the conservative to find an identity, which he has given up, as a victim of the past, and a dreamer of an open to infinite possibilities, most of which are positive, future.
The liberal must imagine time/space as either being benevolent or governed by some karmic balance, where positive/negative are relative, or interchangeable, or in perfect harmony.
The liberal also believes in a "higher" order, because without it his suffering will be without purpose, and the future would not be a 50/50 proposition, he being the deciding factor as to what tips the balances in his favour.
The determining power of the past is denied importance. Man is either born a tabula rasa or he can erase and rewrite himself at will...he is on both accounts limitless in potential.
God/Humanity (LOVE, ONENESS) now immanent...as the coming future: Salvation into Paradise or Utopia.

See, both liberals and conservatives agree on the absolute end of ONEness.
They are nihilistic in this: two sides of the came coin.  
For one it is a thing in the past, for the other it is the coming, perhaps a second coming.  

Because the conservative, from the liberal's perspective of looking forward to...is always in the past, the liberal confuses realists for conservatives, because realists want to preserve the continuity of time, and attach the past to the future, whereas the liberals want to detach from it as it imposes a limit on their hopes and fantasies - their possibilities.

For the pessimist anything exhibiting a positive acceptance is naive...for an optimist anything negative below its own positivity is pessimistic, cynical.

The realist wishes to know as much of the past as possible, not to preserve it but to use it to project more accurately a preferred future.
For the conservative the realist is an idealist...for the liberal he is a fascist.

The most perfect balance can only be found in a brain where the right dominates but does not overpower, does not stifle, the left, and the left has enough power to impose itself upon the right's need to order.
Masculine, Feminine in harmony...where the masculine dominates.

If the feminine dominates we have flights of fancy, fantasies detached from reality, from perceptions, from the world...an ever increasing disillusionment.  
If the masculine dominates in a stifling way we have stagnation, an increasing disparity between perception and reality as the mind recedes, falls back, into the past without taking into account unstoppable change.

The Divide
What is called the Left is an r-type and the Right a k-type strategy within the r/k selection model. In America, this dichotomy is played out in the interests of Judaism. That is, an inner Judaic battle. In America, the r-type Judaism (globalism) supports governmental enforced LCD-equality and the k-type Judaism (nationalism/Israel) supports liberal-equality. Christians are divided in the same way, but have little consciousness of the Judaic influence upon their society. The Jewish "movers" behind the sides can be considered as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. The division taking place in the Right today is of differing k-type interests, with Trump representing Christian Europeans and the rest of the party behind Judaism. The Left and Right unite against Trump, as they see ethnic cooperation of Europeans as a threat to both their Judaic interests.

War and Immigration
When Bush came into office, he started war with Islam in order to help protect Judaic nationalist interests (defending Israel and empire building).
Obama came in and started enacting Judaic r-type interests, pushing for the Islamazation of Europe and the USA in order to decrease support for Israel and blur ethnic lines.
The Left has no qualms about continuing war in the Middle East as a means of mongrelizing Europe by forcing refugee allocation. (Europe does not seem to have a k-type neoconservative element. Most of it is r-type Leftist) It knows the Right cannot complain about war and "regime toppling" without being hypocrites - so the Right is doing a lot of handwaving as its host nation destroys itself. The Left does not care if the West is destroyed, as the point is to kill nationalism everywhere.
The American Right supports the integration of Mexican immigrants into the USA because they are Catholic, Judaic. The Right still remembers the Holocaust so it has little problem with destroying a European nation's ethnic purity. It only cares about Israel's interests.

Net Neutrality
The Left wishes to maintain an open Internet because it enables communication across nations. It is a double edged sword, but to close the internet to profit purposes only because of hate speech would be hypocritical. They would prefer to ban the speech and arrest the person who says it than potentially allow private corporations to utilize it for their own ends (which generally aligns with their enemy, the Right). The Right wishes to have the Internet subject to a more capitalist interest, it seems only out of principle.

Maybe more soon...

They're communitarians, all. All the supposed agendas and ideals come down to 'you' being a resource, a bit, a piece, a cog, used by the politburo as 'it' sees fit.

'From each according to ability, to each according to need.'

You know things are in the toilet when even the hard Right references everything against the standard of 'we'.

Line on the same playing field
Liberals/Leftists want to impose social conventions to cover inherited deficiencies, equalizing the playing field so as to make social performance overrule anything determined that offers an advantage.
Conservatives/Right want to restrict restrictions but only to the degree that they will not inhibit their potential to accumulate the means of overruling, inherited factors; they want access to the means for compensating for genetic deficiencies; free-market.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


^ Hollywood, the media and government are cozy together.

There was a recent leak of a staged car bombing for propaganda purposes in some M.E. country. Some doubt shed on the authenticity of ISIS videos because of their production values, because of their inexplicable competence. Then, footage of school shootings that appear suspicious, like the people who are escaping are actually running in circles, making it appear like there's a lot of activity.

The realization actually struck me hardest when I was watching Batman vs. Superman, where Anderson Cooper and Neil deGrasse Tyson acted for it.

I enjoy it when celebrities decide to make the poor decision and insert themselves into the political sphere and current affairs and put their real minds on display. Believing that their fame and wealth automatically translates into common sense or insightful wisdom.  

Like when Oprah Winfrey, that grossly overrated media whore who has made a billion dollar career out of preying on the insecurities and fears of pathetic disenfranchised American women, exhorted that people do not have to like Hillary Clinton to vote for her. In other words, no thinking is relevant, just do it.

Their usage of profanity and comical sexual crudeness as well...implying that they do not put on airs and are 'honest' and also a way to appeal to the average American shithead that they are "real people'.

What this election has exposed, more than anything else, is the collusion between governments, donors, journalists and cultural vectors like actors; they're all one organism, even the supposed opposition parties like Reps and Dems will unite together in condemnation of an actual outsider.
Trump has done a lot to disillusion people with the establishment's false dichotomy of conservative-liberal, which aren't actually in opposition to eachother but are just 2 wings of the same party (if that).

apaosha wrote:

What this election has exposed, more than anything else, is the collusion between governments, donors, journalists and cultural vectors like actors; they're all one organism, even the supposed opposition parties like Reps and Dems will unite together in condemnation of an actual outsider.
Trump has done a lot to disillusion people with the establishment's false dichotomy of conservative-liberal, which aren't actually in opposition to eachother but are just 2 wings of the same party (if that).

On what basis do you contend that Trump is in any factual way an 'outsider'?? He is a billionaire tv personality who wants to bomb the middle east and sustain Israel. He was a great friend of the Clinton family before the election and even got mentioned in the Epstein scandal like both Bill and Hil. When you have a fiat currency funny money system the guys at the financial pinnacle are all compromised.

People do not get to vote on things which actually matter. Fact. Either candidate will be a simple figurehead/spokesperson for the system which will not change one iota regardless of who wins. This election is a masterclass in fostering resentment and division amongst a population too stupid to realize they are being played.

Riastradh wrote:

On what basis do you contend that Trump is in any factual way an 'outsider'??

'Worst' case scenario is that Trump doesn't deliver on border control and sending the illegals back, not to a meaningful extent anyway.
Still, before Trump, border control and sending illegals back was not in the room of thought or discussion, politically. It wasn't even up for debate.

So why did Trump do what he did? Because he saw the discontent and it was a way for him to beat Jeb! and the others? What does the rest of the elite think about this? Are they okay with him forcing the media to reach new lows in their trust rating among the public? Because having to demonise Trump did lower their credibility even more and among more people than before. A lot more and a lot lower.

The political discourse has already shifted substantially because of Trump, no matter whether he wins or whether or not he keeps his promises.

Is it all just an elaborate plan by the elite to release some pressure? So far I think it hasn't released steam but it has actually made people more aware of their replacement and their dispossession as a people in the current system. It has radicalised them more and it has focused them on objectives which are unashamed about being in favour of themselves.
Now, maybe the objectives are actually not good for them (I think they are) but even if not, what has been broken is the shaming for being selfish. The shaming of a nation doing what is good for the majority of its people and not having to put minorities, actual criminals and disruptive elements in general, first.

In this system, if you want to make lots of money then you have to play the game that is set up.
The question would be - Is it possible and probable that someone who plays the game well wants to change the game?
Reminds me of Jews who are also partly on top because they know how to play the game well and yet who also want to change the game and society to their liking. Why not have someone else who wants it to change in another direction. I don't find it that improbable.

He's an outsider to the extent that it is possible to be while still having a chance at getting elected. It's not a binary thing, it's a matter of degree.
A border wall, a halt on muslim immigration, or stopping TPP or whatever would not have been even discussed by someone like Jeb.
The entire establishment of the republican party opposed his nomination. The media is running propaganda against him constantly. So he represents a contradiction to establishment objectives at least.

Without Trump, there would be no discussion of uncontrolled immigration, or of globalism. The conservative-liberal divide is over non-issues, they both have the same political goals of dismantling borders of western countries, replacing their populations and stripping them of their economic independence.
The Republican party exists to funnel white political activism into dead ends until their demographics reach the point where they are politically impotent. This is the basis of every "conservative" political party: it "conserves" nothing other than the social changes enacted by the preceding progressive's term of office. "Progressive" in this case being the Left appropriating a word which implies advancement, improvement and forward movement and associating it with their ideology; in contrast their opposition is only "conservative", ie holding onto a past that has disappeared, behind the times, regressive. It's in this way that the political environment is defined by one side while their "opposition" is unable even to rationalize why it opposes them or what it's objectives are.
Real "progress" is stopping and reversing the immigration into our countries that is destroying our gene pool, our culture and our identity. It's suppressing the social and cultural decline represented by (f)Art or LGBT degeneracy, it's getting a certain tribe out of any position of power or influence in our countries. That would be a start, anyway, towards a real progressive revolutionary movement. I don't want any of -this- conserved. A revaluation of political terminology such that the Right is the revolutionary force, rather than the Left, has already occurred in the last few years. Now it just needs to grow.

Aside from that, to be electable in any way is an insider by your definition. From Trump you go further. There isn't a way for a better candidate to get elected.
He's vulgar, and he's surrounded by that certain tribe, yes, but do you really want 8 years of Hillary, who will dismantle the border, give amnesty to tens of millions of mexicans and other 3rd world trash and maybe start a nuclear war with Putin? An insider republican would not be substantially different to Hillary on these policies.
If you want someone who is a greater outsider than Trump, then you will have to wait for Trump to get elected and disrupt the political climate to the extent that that's possible because it isn't at the moment.

Riastradh wrote:

On what basis do you contend that Trump is in any factual way an 'outsider'?? He is a billionaire tv personality who wants to bomb the middle east and sustain Israel. He was a great friend of the Clinton family before the election and even got mentioned in the Epstein scandal like both Bill and Hil. When you have a fiat currency funny money system the guys at the financial pinnacle are all compromised.

People do not get to vote on things which actually matter. Fact. Either candidate will be a simple figurehead/spokesperson for the system which will not change one iota regardless of who wins. This election is a masterclass in fostering resentment and division amongst a population too stupid to realize they are being played.

Being a prestigious Big Business mogul like he has been, demands political compromises and endorsements.

Everyone wants a piece of the pie and i doubt he would have been as monetarily successful as he is without some degree of political cozening up and back scratching. As far as the warmongering is concerned, his VP Mike Pence seems more to me a neocon that would favor middle eastern warfare.

He's no genius, but he is the first presidential candidate in US history to attack the politically correct system itself. That's unheard of. But it comes down to alternatives at this point. Compared to Hillary, anyone else would be a better choice.

Riastradh wrote:

apaosha wrote:

What this election has exposed, more than anything else, is the collusion between governments, donors, journalists and cultural vectors like actors; they're all one organism, even the supposed opposition parties like Reps and Dems will unite together in condemnation of an actual outsider.
Trump has done a lot to disillusion people with the establishment's false dichotomy of conservative-liberal, which aren't actually in opposition to eachother but are just 2 wings of the same party (if that).

On what basis do you contend that Trump is in any factual way an 'outsider'?? He is a billionaire tv personality who wants to bomb the middle east and sustain Israel. He was a great friend of the Clinton family before the election and even got mentioned in the Epstein scandal like both Bill and Hil. When you have a fiat currency funny money system the guys at the financial pinnacle are all compromised.

People do not get to vote on things which actually matter. Fact. Either candidate will be a simple figurehead/spokesperson for the system which will not change one iota regardless of who wins. This election is a masterclass in fostering resentment and division amongst a population too stupid to realize they are being played.

It depends whether you look at Islam's crude terror as a last vestigial 'masculinity' in a western world going feminized,, or you see their need to survive/expand as a piece of crude stupidity and barbarism. Israeli domination would be more porn into the world in every form and writing-over of information, and Islamic domination would be the literal physical destruction of all historical sites. Stabilization of the Mid.E. for the geo-political control of its resources, will just breed another wave of islamic cells maybe,, but with nulling this mindless violence, maybe Real Wars can then begin between the other two, and maybe in that war, some pagans may awake to distinguish themselves from Xts.
Islam is an artificial outcrop that emerged from the other two, and Xt., another artificial outcrop that emerged from the prv. one; the greater one can subdue and push back artificiality, better breathing space to concentrate on real wars.

Trump closing off borders to potential terrorists, on the other hand, actually means, we may see more infiltration into Europe, and drugs from Mexico moving south and even into Japan, maybe. So the US on the whole can be starting and quelling wars and regimes in the ME., while closing the gates on those who flee, is trapping both the bad and the innocent, both of whom are going to have "adapt or die", or find alternate ways.

Back to the Hollywood issue, Trump has prob. invested there himself, and it will be funny to see how this industry reacts in case he wins. It seems you cant talk about problematic common-sense problems, without this one-sided propaganda in Hollywood. Leaving aside Trump's Xt., its a "hatred" right away if you do not surrender to a sympathetic look into the roots of terror of other cultures, and the 'humanity' factor in everything.

I think this election will show how "independent" Wikileaks is, actually. If it is to remain being so, I wouldn't be surprised if in the future years, there'll be something to expose on Trump as well. You cant maintain an impartial image if you do not offer dirt on both sides…  there is the factor of the right timing.

Baudrillard was a post-modern who thought the American either/or, left/right Pre-manufacturing of choices was a simulation of freedom. There is a pro and con to all. Having a two-party system means independent views have to compromise and toe the line and a machiavellian real-politik becomes inevitable and real voices will never get represented. While having a 'real' demicrazy means multiple-party systems, where the views of any retard-section will have same validity to the same platform as the rest and artificial choices can proliferate and we might have a whole lobby for LGBT agendas and pedophiles and gets worse and worse. So the pro- of the two-party system is 'simplifying' to the imp. core issues and forcing all to work within the pressure to a common resolve, 'rolling with the punches',,, while the pro- of the multiple-party system is all voices get to be heard, and good things stand a chance to be put out there, and uncompromising new agendas have a space to grow. Each country will have to decide what's best for it, if it wants to appear democratic, i.e. 'progressive'.

The talk of who owns the 'holy homeland' is now just a matter of statistic and record, than ego even. Doesnt matter if its Israel or Palestine, who takes nationalism seriously anymore?, when they are all eventually settling down all over the world…
Its a Nihilistic question of making come-true Whose God was Right, Whose Truth prevailed in the end…
What a mindless waste of everything.

A "war like no other".

Anfang wrote:

'Worst' case scenario is that Trump doesn't deliver on border control and sending the illegals back, not to a meaningful extent anyway.

Surely the worst case scenario is that all of the obviously corrupt establishments in the swamp he promised to drain make it impossible for him to do anything meaningful at all? But then that relies upon the idea that he is an actual outsider and also that the role of POTUS is a role which actually bestows upon the person all of the powers of the US infrastructure, which it clearly does not in reality.

Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote:

“Presidents are selected, not elected.”

Quote :

Still, before Trump, border control and sending illegals back was not in the room of thought or discussion, politically. It wasn't even up for debate.

Not sure what that means in an environment where most people are morons with the attention spans of goldfish with ADHD. A few years back some people in the media actually gave (limited) airtime to a guy who purportedly wanted to audit the Federal Reserve, so you can see how quickly issues of seemingly urgent importance fade into total obscurity. And besides, Romney was somewhat talking about it in 2012. In fact the conversation always comes up on the campaign trail in response to Democrats who always flirt with mass amnesty for illegals.

Quote :

So why did Trump do what he did? Because he saw the discontent and it was a way for him to beat Jeb! and the others? What does the rest of the elite think about this? Are they okay with him forcing the media to reach new lows in their trust rating among the public? Because having to demonise Trump did lower their credibility even more and among more people than before. A lot more and a lot lower.

This is factually not true at all. The perception of the media has been in the toilet for at least a decade to anyone who has any common sense whatsoever, thus the mortal decline of mainstream newspaper outlets, even those that transitioned to an online platform. That is despite well established Government subsidies, direct and otherwise, being in effect for decades. For the majority of people however, common sense is entirely lacking, so they are spoon-fed whatever drivel emerges from their go-to channel on the idiot-box and regurgitate it almost word for word. Most consider sarcastic metropolitan faggots like John Oliver and Jon 'Stewart' to be news sources. The rest, probably the majority, are apathetic, or too busy playing fantasy football and jerking off. A tiny minority of statistically insignificant people are relatively aware of reality and to wildly varying degrees. Even most of these people just find a few websites that pander to their ideological disposition and stock-pile facts that support their opinions.

Quote :

The political discourse has already shifted substantially because of Trump, no matter whether he wins or whether or not he keeps his promises.

Yes, and it will switch back at a moments notice when the television prompts it to. Remember Obama, who ran as the lefts anti-establishment candidate, hope and change, who ended up [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] He didn't even shut down Gitmo. If Trump gets in he will have a sudden shift towards the same compromised pragmatism that dilutes every strongly spoken ideal that the campaign trail produces in every fucking election cycle. He will be no different in any meaningful way.

Quote :

Is it all just an elaborate plan by the elite to release some pressure? So far I think it hasn't released steam but it has actually made people more aware of their replacement and their dispossession as a people in the current system. It has radicalised them more and it has focused them on objectives which are unashamed about being in favour of themselves.

Yes it sort of is. Trump is Ron Paul on steroids. But more importantly than releasing steam it actually fosters the sort of division that prevents any constructive conversation or dispassionate appreciation of the facts from ever taking place. Look at the supporters of the two candidates. On the one hand we have Hilary and her bleeding heart right brained communards ushering in the new age with positive words and good wishes and a total lack of logic, and the other is the Trump autism wagon filled with guys like Milo who drag any neo-conservative shoots into vulgarity and crass obscenity. Divide, Conquer, repeat.

Quote :

Now, maybe the objectives are actually not good for them (I think they are) but even if not, what has been broken is the shaming for being selfish. The shaming of a nation doing what is good for the majority of its people and not having to put minorities, actual criminals and disruptive elements in general, first.

Trump is just Reagan for 2016. Nothing authentically conservative at all. His rendition of conservatism is almost exclusively about money. And as for the law and order element, he is just the literal inverse of the Soros-funded Black Lives Matter group who would oppose them by giving the low-IQ highly-corrupt police and state forces even more control than they already have.

Quote :

In this system, if you want to make lots of money then you have to play the game that is set up.
The question would be - Is it possible and probable that someone who plays the game well wants to change the game?
Reminds me of Jews who are also partly on top because they know how to play the game well and yet who also want to change the game and society to their liking. Why not have someone else who wants it to change in another direction. I don't find it that improbable.

I find it so improbable as to be impossible. If you want to make a very good living, up to a net worth of a few million dollars, I think you can do it with the right strategy and some good fortune. If you however want to have net-worth in the tens or hundreds of millions you have begun to approach the sort of wealth that can shape the world around you in significant ways. This cannot be ignored by the incumbent elite. You have to begin to pay your dues correctly and show the appropriate deference to the relevant sections of society. You have to compromise yourself, no real doubt about it.

But if you want to turn a small business loan of 1 million into a multi-billion dollar empire, claiming that you are somehow outside of the existent power structure cannot be anything other than a flat out lie. Especially if you are all over the television decade after decade almost universally painted in a positive light (before he ran for ofice). Someone of that class running for president is not ruffling any feathers in reality, at least, not any of the ones that count.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Nice ring.

apaosha wrote:

He's an outsider to the extent that it is possible to be while still having a chance at getting elected. It's not a binary thing, it's a matter of degree.

This is almost exactly my point. More like a matter of degrees.

Quote :

A border wall, a halt on muslim immigration, or stopping TPP or whatever would not have been even discussed by someone like Jeb.

Campaign trail promises are universally broken. Look at the current POTUS.

Quote :

The entire establishment of the republican party opposed his nomination. The media is running propaganda against him constantly. So he represents a contradiction to establishment objectives at least.

And that made him super-edgy but there was no discussion of shifting demographics, of black crime (outside of blaming Democrats for poor decisions in the black communities in which they are always elected) and a promise to the boys at AIPAC that Israel and America have an unbreakable bond. If he wanted to talk about bad deals in any meaningful context Israel would have been his main focus. And more to the point, the establishment wants divided constituents more than anything. Trump has caused plenty of that.

Quote :

Without Trump, there would be no discussion of uncontrolled immigration, or of globalism. The conservative-liberal divide is over non-issues, they both have the same political goals of dismantling borders of western countries, replacing their populations and stripping them of their economic independence.
The Republican party exists to funnel white political activism into dead ends until their demographics reach the point where they are politically impotent. This is the basis of every "conservative" political party: it "conserves" nothing other than the social changes enacted by the preceding progressive's term of office. "Progressive" in this case being the Left appropriating a word which implies advancement, improvement and forward movement and associating it with their ideology; in contrast their opposition is only "conservative", ie holding onto a past that has disappeared, behind the times, regressive. It's in this way that the political environment is defined by one side while their "opposition" is unable even to rationalize why it opposes them or what it's objectives are.
Real "progress" is stopping and reversing the immigration into our countries that is destroying our gene pool, our culture and our identity. It's suppressing the social and cultural decline represented by (f)Art or LGBT degeneracy, it's getting a certain tribe out of any position of power or influence in our countries. That would be a start, anyway, towards a real progressive revolutionary movement. I don't want any of -this- conserved. A revaluation of political terminology such that the Right is the revolutionary force, rather than the Left, has already occurred in the last few years. Now it just needs to grow.

But Trump has only promised to reduce illegal immigration. Fact is, whites everywhere are producing so few children that without immigration society would implode. Things have been that bad for that many years. Trump is doing nothing to remove the tribe from positions of power. I am not sure how his brand of bombastic neo-Reaganism could even begin to address that issue, ergo, no real change at all on that front. As for the Right being the revolutionary force is this a good thing? Right and Left seem very much to me to be schizophrenic by-products of a slave society. Let us not forget that the legitimacy of the original left was inspired by the degenerate aristocratic and ecclesiastical autocracies i.e. the original Globalists. Worse still is that all of the truly conservative discussions are still off the table aren't they?

Quote :

Aside from that, to be electable in any way is an insider by your definition.

Bingo. But isn't that the observable and demonstrable fact? I thought that pretty much everyone here would be on the same page on this issue. Not sure how a decadent society can democratically elect someone who isn't just going to give them more of the same...

Quote :

From Trump you go further. There isn't a way for a better candidate to get elected.

Exactly. Apart from maybe a local election here or there, your vote counts for precisely zero in reality and always has. The parliamentary process has always been a tool of the elite. And besides, not only will Trump fail to deliver and immediately revert to pragmatism, but in four or eight years you won't tread further into the 'Right', it will just swing back left like it always does. History teaches this lesson very clearly.

Quote :

He's vulgar, and he's surrounded by that certain tribe, yes, but do you really want 8 years of Hillary, who will dismantle the border, give amnesty to tens of millions of mexicans and other 3rd world trash and maybe start a nuclear war with Putin? An insider republican would not be substantially different to Hillary on these policies.
If you want someone who is a greater outsider than Trump, then you will have to wait for Trump to get elected and disrupt the political climate to the extent that that's possible because it isn't at the moment.

I don't consider any part of this system to be capable of producing anything healthy or virile. It is the literal epitome of decay. Elections are provably not the solution to this problem in the long run.

Kvasir wrote:

Compared to Hillary, anyone else would be a better choice.

Aside from all of the clearly impossible to fulfil promises he made on the campaign trail , including getting Meheeco to build a wall that benefits the US, this is literally Trumps only appeal. That and the idea of sending a big FU to the establishment.

Riastradh wrote:

On the one hand we have Hilary and her bleeding heart right brained communards ushering in the new age with positive words and good wishes and a total lack of logic, and the other is the Trump autism wagon filled with guys like Milo who drag any neo-conservative shoots into vulgarity and crass obscenity. Divide, Conquer, repeat.

While that's true, I don't think its so proportional, you cant make an objective rank of it.

A Xt. Trump pronouncing his Xt. is "superior" or making the US "great again" for whatever motives is still validating the objectivity of ranks, irrespective of content. With Hillary, the facade of equality only deepens - "we all have to work together" hive-mind…

Things are so bad, one has to select from nitty-gritties like that.
Nothing more nihilistic than the myth of equality.

You're overly pessimistic. The fact is, like was said, Trump has shifted the acceptable political conversation in a better direction and will continue to do so if elected. The Left uses social taboos and pathologizes certain ideas in order to quell dissent. The more of these taboos that are broken publicly and in high profile the better. If the president of the US is talking about borders and immigration and nationalism then this will have an effect: it will inspire and embolden. This is desperately needed in Europe. If Clinton wins she will prop up Merkel, or someone else who will continue Merkel's policies, which will completely destroy Germany. The same will happen everywhere else.
There's no need to be invested in him personally, or to believe he is perfect or to have delusions about him, it's only about using him to have an actual effect on the real world.
Because from what I can see you don't like him because he's not Hitler. Or some Evolian aristocrat or something. Anything positive about him you interpret as duplicity, which is unreasonable. He's made the promises he has made, he continues to make them, if he disappoints his supporters by not carrying them out then his administration will completely collapse, because his original enemies won't have gone away and he'll be left alone.
If any promise he has made was made with the express intent of breaking it, then you assume that he's a plant and that the system is so well-organized and capable that it can manufacture his campaign, plus the near total censure he has received worldwide. In which case it can't be resisted because it's omnipotent. Again you're pessimistic, even masochistic.
If any interaction with the system whatsoever constitutes being an insider, and this disqualifies them from you considering them, then you have left yourself no options because everyone is your enemy, which is retarded. The system is a global system, anyone in a position to challenge it has interacted with it, they and you are insiders by your own definition. The fact is, Trump opposes uncontrolled immigration and globalism. That is good enough considering the alternatives and the situation as it is now.
But Hitler is not electable in the USA, this is a fact that cannot be argued with. Nor is Hitler going to get even a fraction of popular white support for a possible armed revolution or guerrilla war or whatever the alternative would be that you're suggesting, if you even are suggesting an alternative. (David Duke I think got 5%? Just enough to qualify to enter a debate.) If you want to live in the real world then you are forced to use the tools that are available. Trump offers possibilities because he is popular among whites and offers a civic nationalist message, as opposed to a deracinated globalist one; limited possibilities. He has already done much to expose elite collusion, but it hasn't been all him. The past 8 years of Obama have created that and it has latched onto Trump as it's candidate, but it's not really about him and it won't go away if he loses or breaks his promises... because then the reason that it appeared in the first place will have intensified and it will be angrier and more intense than before.
Idealism is a vision for an end goal, but when it makes you turn away from every possibility because it is not a perfect personification of your ideal then you just paralyze yourself. Reality is not ideality. Trump is not perfect, but in the window offered by this election he is useful as a vehicle to carry a message and to motivate people to actually work towards the ideal of an ethnostate, or a philosopher king, or a warrior aristocracy or timocracy or whatever, instead of getting distracted by day dreaming.
It may not be possible to usurp the existing system through Trump, but it is definitely possible to use him as the white male candidate in the white male party to open the eyes of people and get them to deinvest themselves in this system in order to create the eventual situation where this is possible. And this will definitely happen if he loses, because american whites will see that even if the majority of them vote for a particular candidate, the result can still be stolen from them because there is a sizable enough demographic of non-whites to outvote them. This will motivate and wake up many people. So either way: it's Trump for 4-8 years now, or white nationalism in the future.
If you think that our situation is hopeless then I disagree and would urge you to cut your dick off because you are defeatist and a genetic dead end.

Quote :

I don't consider any part of this system to be capable of producing anything healthy or virile. It is the literal epitome of decay. Elections are provably not the solution to this problem in the long run.

I'm not defending this system, nor do I think it is salvageable, or that Trump will save it. But how are you going to fight it or lead a coup without popular support?
You are roleplaying some fantasy here. The use I would find in Trump is as a way of motivating people to see themselves as a cohesive racial group and to start acting in their own self interest, to actually revalue it to the point where whites can do this - whether he wins or loses. Because he has become the focal point of it and it hinges on his success or failure. He himself doesn't matter, it's more that his election, along with Brexit, was a referendum about globalism: Will white people vote to go extinct in their own homelands or not. Trump isn't even the issue here, but his involvement has forced the question, which no other candidate would have, because he explicitly based his campaign on immigration.

Riastradh wrote:

If Trump gets in he will have a sudden shift towards the same compromised pragmatism that dilutes every strongly spoken ideal that the campaign trail produces in every fucking election cycle. He will be no different in any meaningful way.

There is now an undeniable seismic convulsion of collective awareness that is occurring, spearheaded by Trump. THAT'S THE POINT. This galvanized ethos is coalescing into an intellectual force prompting critical thinking on larger scale and alacrity on a smaller one.

Trump embraces and advocates many of the liberal values, such as racial equality and women's rights, because he has to. Those values are what the modern system is based on and any modern political figure must support the idealistic consensus. Many pretenses must be assented to especially in American politics. But, he is also learning as he goes, which explains alot of his disorganization.

apaosha wrote:

Idealism is a vision for an end goal, but when it makes you turn away from every possibility because it is not a perfect personification of your ideal then you just paralyze yourself. Reality is not ideality. Trump is not perfect, but in the window offered by this election he is useful as a vehicle to carry a message and to motivate people to actually work towards the ideal of an ethnostate, or a philosopher king, or a warrior aristocracy or timocracy or whatever, instead of getting distracted by day dreaming.

We have come to this point, because we have continued to make concessions for the lesser evil in the hopes that a counterattack would coalesce and no such thing has happened but continued decline.

Its not a matter of desiring aristocracy, but about devoting our energies towards independence from the state so that when this sand castle does fade away we will be there to plant the seeds for the new forest.

Perhaps my lack of care is influenced by my youth but i cant help but feel bored towards current events.

I would say that even if Trump was only pandering and pretending, still, he has already become bound to something which is gaining momentum.
What I also see is that people are open about being critical with the Donald, critical from the right side. If he eases up on immigration control, people don't like it and they express this.
They are not as starstruck as the media portrays them to be.
This is also why I see him to be quite different than Obama. With the mulatto president it was about his supposed blackness for his voters. And when we look at Jeb, it's true what the shitlibs say, lol, it shouldn't be about the color of your skin, or let's say, the color is not enough. It's in the opposite direction, more discerning.

As for the media landscape, it has changed again quite a lot. Fox News is now being seen more and more critically, not from the left-side, but now also from the right-side for their cucking.

Bottomline is, does somebody think that the difference between Hillary and The Donald is so marginal that it's not worth the effort to cast a vote.

The only other argument I can think of would be - "Well, things have to get worse to really wake people up. So Hillary is actually better."
Which doesn't work that way because resisting leads to more resisting. Actions of a certain kind leads to thinking in a certain way, leads to more actions of a certain kind and so forth...
Either you do something or you let the pressure evaporate into thin air.

Sure, there are limits eventually but the appetite comes along with the eating. When we eat tasty things our appetite grows. When we have a break in eating, satiation sets in more quickly and appetite disappears.
Same with bloodlust.
Defeats or inaction doesn't make us hungry for victories and actions. If anything, we adapt to being content with less.

What Trump will do and what Trump will be let to do remains to be seen, but in the Principle of things,
speaking of greater and lesser evil, ortho. Xt. will get you more of this rot,

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

and Islam will get you madrassas and terror schools and legalizing child rape and rape in general - forced open miscegenation [while J.-Xt. has legalized pedophilia and en-forcing miscegenation in some countries], and overall a purely religious theocrazy that beheads non-believers, while J.-XT. pc machinary sends you to prison if the dominant myths of history are challenged…
Islam's dominant myth however, happens to be obedience to Allah itself…

There is a "will to Truth" that is embodied within Xt. that keeps undoing its own power, while Islam lacks this internal introspection.

The illusion of belief in free-will produced Xt. science and a Newton,, while the illusion of belief in abs. determinism has produced what? 'love'-poets like Rumi and Hafiz at the most…

All that oil and resources for so many years, and the only use it made of that was to fund more wars…

Outward policing [Islam] prevents the development of an inward policing - called 'conscience' or 'will-to-truth' [orth. Xt.] that leads to negating its own self, and a science born of that undoing and internal debris, while Islam remains regressive, a retained-retardation…
Enlightenment science has no doubt its own problems, but there is at least a science.

What has come off the Ottoman/Turkey and Persia, or Pakistan?

Its *because* I think, what IS 'heroism' in its very definition if it doesn't display itself Precisely in the worst disadvantage, that one needs to first chip away expending energy in artificial hybrids like Islam taking root…

Judaism - 1st Degree Nihilism: Inversion of good and bad

Xt. - 2nd Degree Nihilism: Inversion of reality and appearance

Islam - 3rd Degree Nihilism: Inversion of sacred and profane
[the sacrifice of Christ is made into a sanction of murder as sacred/holy war. Note the hybridity of how jihad/terrorism as sacred follows from the first jewish inversion of war as bad because they were slaves in egypt deprived of a warrior caste. By the time Islamic militancy comes to compensate this deprivation, it is already a 3rd degree nihilism born within the solpsistic premise…]

In this time, where pagans are Nazis and even if a whole nation could turn pagan, it stands the chance of fully being branded as a Nazi state and nuclear weaponry aimed at it like Iran and N.Korea,, then the fight has to begin where the resources of war have been assimilated the most, by first undoing the concerted criminality of equating,

1. pagan = nazi
2. nazi = evil
3. evil = harmful to jewish self-preservation
4. jew = good
5. good = being/what doesn't change


Fourth degree Nihilism is Transhumanism and the Inversion of life and death...

Its a war on the phenomenon of life itself, while previously, it was on a certain quality of life.

'Trump is Hitler!'
-> Hm, those assholes call him Hitler, he can't be that bad then, I like this guy.

'Trump is just like Clinton!'
-> Hm, what if he is, should I get out to vote? I don't know, it's all the same anyway.

Can’t respond individually to all of you. Hopefully I address the points you have made.

Trump has not changed the discourse. What was different was his approach. He was unapologetic and refused to be subdued by lazy accusations. He had some balls and wouldn’t back down, a quality people found appealing given the atrocious candidate that opposed him. In so far as his policies go, none of them are original much less feasible. Romney pledged to build a fence along the entire southern perimeter and employ people to patrol it. He talks vaguely about diminishing regulations, as all candidates on the ‘right’ have done in recent history. HRC was literally the filthiest candidate in the entire race by a very wide margin and has been embroiled in scandal for years. She still won the popular vote, narrowly, meaning that there are more Americans who voted for her than for Trump, a not insignificant point. Trump is only the fourth president to have won enough electoral colleges to become POTUS despite losing the popular vote.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] It makes very sad and sobering reading for anyone who erroneously believed that Trump represented a sea-change in the American political landscape. Voter turnout went down from 58% to below 56%. Romney secured 60m+ votes in 2012 compared to Obama’s 65m+, with 58% of the white vote. Trump did less with only 59m+ votes which was about 500,000 less than Hilary and secured 59% of the white vote. We can be absolutely clear now that we are looking at the implosion of the Democratic party and not some rising of white self-interest. Trump probably secured slightly less white votes than Romney did. Case closed. More confounding are the other demographic indicators. Women and men are once more diametrically opposed in terms of voting patterns. Trump secured 37% of the 18-29 years old demographic which is the exact same proportion as Romney. HRC got 55% of the youth vote, less compared with Obama in 2012 who got 60%. More youth voted independent this election or just did not vote. How one can expect to create a popular movement of the old with the young in opposition escapes me. Seems like self-delusion more than anything. The real Trump stronghold was the older groups( 45-64=R53% D44%, 65+=53% D45%). These are largely people worried about the security of their pensions, general social disorder and maybe, maybe, a few voting with white identity in mind. As the Donald is alleged to have put it, time to ‘Get Reeeaaaal’ ( [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]).

To summarize, HRC caused the Democratic vote to collapse. Trump secured less votes than Romney. Whites and youths voted in almost the exact same proportions in 2012 as in 2016. No sea change. Some of you, frankly, had your ego stroked by a guy that seemed to not give a shit about the political morals of the day. It was delicious watching him speak unapologetic truths to a serial liar and correctly assess that the system is rigged and it’s participants pathologically dishonest. It was the EXACT same thing with Farage was it not? Petty as their ‘truths’ may have been they stated them boldly, against the grain, and seemingly refused to play the game of politics how we have seen it played for so many years.

But scratch a little deeper.

Before Brexit Farage said that his biggest achievement is politics was destroying the British National Party. You should see some of the things BNP leader Nick Griffin said in the EU parliament, then you might get a taste of what is really going on. Trump too simply flirted with the hopes and dreams of right-leaning individuals without saying one single thing that represented their cause in reality. Never once mentioned white people the whole campaign. Never talked about demographics. Said we need to build a wall [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] because USA loves immigration, so long as it is legal (which also shows what part of the world these immigrants will be coming from...). He spoke against political correctness but only because [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. He talked about limiting muslim immigration but 3.3million muslims already live in America and all of the muslim terrorist attacks in recent American history were from US citizens, except of course 9/11 ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]).

Listening to the alt-Right mouthpieces may have given you the impression that some sort of seismic shift was occurring but this has all been by design.

Clinton was the only candidate that Trump could have possibly beaten. Funny that Bernie Sanders was fucked over by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Yet the show rolled on. Not saying that Trump had or needed help because I don’t know, but either voting is the will of the people expressed in unadulterated democratic elections or it is not. Can’t have it both ways. What makes me more than a little suspicious is that just like the UK general election in 2015 and Brexit, the pollsters ALL got it TOTALLY wrong. Likewise, Trump won the colleges by a huge margin in the end but Hillary was said to have an 85% chance of winning beforehand. At a certain point we have to calculate the odds that these are sincere efforts at predicting polling and doing so does not make Trump look like the self-declared outsider some of you seem to think he is. By massively ignoring HRC’s scandals and focusing on the minutiae of Trump’s, by declaring she won handily won debates when he obviously mopped the floor with her and by stating that she was the overwhelming favourite, can you not see that the media, who have absolutely zero credibility even amongst average voters, were pushing the vote towards Trump? They were literally describing the opposite of reality all the way through. And the only other narrative that the media consistently pushed, and which happened to be absolutely true, was how hated and despicable both candidates were, so a low voter turnout and massive apathetic sections of the population appear to be the obvious (and desired) consequence. Given that we are 100 years post Freud, 90 years after Bernays, 50+ years after the CIA were force feeding people as young as 12 LSD until their bodies gave out, 30+ years since operation mockingbird was exposed and 15 years after the most obviously planned synthetic-terror event of ll time I am inclined to think it naïve to presume that public opinion is not very predictable and rather easy to manipulate at this point. In fact all I can see are a web of inter-related issues and repeated scenarios masquerading as organic when they are utterly contrived.


The betting odds:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Brexit is more than a mess at this point. Boris Johnson was the overwhelming favourite to replace Cameron but then he dropped out with absolutely no explanation whatsoever to assume an inferior position in the cabinet (the people of course said and did absolutely nothing, as they are known to do...). We ended up with Teresa May, who nobody elected PM. She campaigned to remain. Her chancellor of the exchequer Hammond, was on the Brexit side, and they are apparently at loggerheads. Labour, a total farce, are  a party that overwhelmingly wanted to remain, but have a leader, in Corbyn (a totally unelectable joke) who was obviously anti-EU but couldn't say it. Now you have the legal ruling in the courts that, despite the people expressing their will in a referendum, a referendum that MP's already in a 6-1 vote agreed should take place, we should now have the minutiae of the deal debated in the commons, where the overwhelming number of MP's are pro-remain. This is fostering division and resentment as I believe was the plan all along. Let's be clear, the Brexit debate was chocked full of meaningless rhetoric and of course the immigration issue became 'we just want to have the freedom for non-white immigrants to come here too, that's all guys' virtue signalling nonsense. The pattern of the day is towards total social division which will ultimately lead to unrest which will, of course, lead to further diminishing liberties.

In the US, the Republicans have both houses and the Presidency, so ostensibly Trump can make decisions and have them executed. Problem is a) most people voted Hilary and the young angry left will make much more trouble than the old annoyed right would have if HRC had won b) Trump has never actually spoken about the truly important issues, not even once c) even huge swathes of his own party rejected him and he has no political experience making it entirely possible that he will be much less effective than his jubilant fans expect and hope d) he has made bizarre claims that he is going to destroy bad trade deals as though the country is not $19 trillion in debt. All in all I can only see this heading the same way as Europe and the rest of the world: increased political division, civil unrest, contracting economy, globalism sold and repackaged under a different name with a different ideological inflection.

I also find it funny that 8 years after the banking crisis, for which only Madoff was hung out to dry, people have literally voted in a narcissistic billionaire who lives in a skyscraper with his name emblazoned in Gold upon it. Sort of like Nigel Farage with his city of London banking ties talking about the EU's profligate waste. Just hypocrisy stacked upon short-attentions spans stacked upon media-politcal husbandry.

As for Hitler, who I have never seen as any sort of a hero, and Evola, who wrote very well at times, but crippled himself thinking he was impervious to shrapnel and bombs like a demented imbecile, neither of those guys could reverse the decline. The change comes when power is seized simple as that. Everything else is just subjecting yourself to deserved ridicule in my opinion. Outsiders do not get in at high levels, regardless of bank balance. I guess we will see what Trump does or does not do.

George Carlin wrote:

I don’t really, honestly, deep down believe in political action. I think the system contracts and expands as it wants to. It accommodates these changes. I think the civil rights movement was an accommodation on the part of those who own the country. I think they see where their self-interest lies; they see a certain amount of freedom seems good -an illusion of liberty- give these people a voting day every year so that they will have the illusion of meaningless choice. Meaningless choice- that we go, like slaves and say “Oh, I Voted.”
The limits of debate in this country are established before the debate even begins and everyone else is marginalized and made to seem either to be communist or some sort of disloyal person- a “kook- there’s a word… and now it’s “conspiracy”. See- they made that something that should not be even entertained for a minute: that powerful people might get together and have a plan! Doesn’t happen! You’re a “kook”! You’re a “conspiracy buff”!

Wait, who said anything about Evola here? How does that come up?

Haven't jewish lobbies always funded both sides, is this a surprising discovery wrt. Brexit? No one here at least has been under any illusion than the urgent need to stop ME. muslim supplantation into Britain, and the need to scrap the whole EU and reform it on principles other than "solely" economic. The latter is unlikely to occur if ever,, so what does one do in the meantime? Let it become another neutral Sweden? Atleast this fiasco IS exposing all the double-standards, and that's a war.

With reg. to Trump, it seems, its you who is more absorbed by the person himself than the prospects of his calling a spade a spade to the extent possible, opens up…
He's an orth. Xt. anti-semite and I dont think his going against International finance is empty rhetoric. But even if he's unable to do anything, or is simply a liar, it doesn't matter. Getting the world to look at the self-resourcing loop of creating and funding and fighting terrorists circus-act IS acknowledgement on a world-wide stage of the accompanying forced miscegentation that is openly occurring.

This IS a new discourse, because you never had such concerted agenda of a forced ripple ripping through your country. This is not the same as the "unintended" blowback of some action taken by prv. US powers.

Lyssa wrote:

Wait, who said anything about Evola here? How does that come up?

Haven't jewish lobbies always funded both sides, is this a surprising discovery wrt. Brexit? No one here at least has been under any illusion than the urgent need to stop ME. muslim supplantation into Britain, and the need to scrap the whole EU and reform it on principles other than "solely" economic. The latter is unlikely to occur if ever,, so what does one do in the meantime? Let it become another neutral Sweden? Atleast this fiasco IS exposing all the double-standards, and that's a war.

With reg. to Trump, it seems, its you who is more absorbed by the person himself than the prospects of his calling a spade a spade to the extent possible, opens up…
He's an orth. Xt. anti-semite and I dont think his going against International finance is empty rhetoric. But even if he's unable to do anything, or is simply a liar, it doesn't matter. Getting the world to look at the self-resourcing loop of creating and funding and fighting terrorists circus-act IS acknowledgement on a world-wide stage of the accompanying forced miscegentation that is openly occurring.

This IS a new discourse, because you never had such concerted agenda of a forced ripple ripping through your country. This is not the same as the "unintended" blowback of some action taken by prv. US powers.

I was judged to be comparing Trump to some sort of idealist 'Evolean Aristocrat'.

Nobody cared to define what Brexit was before the referendum even took place. Just bombastic exaggerations from Farage et al and morally superior avoidance of all legitimate criticism from the usual culprits on the left. Now UKIP are conveniently leaderless and fractured and disgraced, whilst Farage goes and helps Trump master the same style. Just like Labour, the working mans party with unelectable Corbyn spearheading the super progressive Momentum group. And of course the farce of the SNP having an absurd number of seats relative to Scottish population, with Brexit now forced to go through Parliament. Sturgeon is saying it has to be approved by all of the home nations. Not to mention the house of Lords which has a ridiculous number of Liberal Democrat peers despite them being obliterated in the Commons. And Teresa May might even call a snap election in the very near future quite possibly putting the slender victory of Brexit into question anyway. Meanwhile nothing changes. What Brexit? Little people have no say in real conversations. That is the rule. And what does it all mean anyway when the medical professionals are telling the British public it is unconscionable to do dental checks on refugees, despite supposed child refugees who were so destitute and forlorn in war torn France(?!) appearing to be well over thirty years old in photographs? University students here are overwhelmingly anti-Brexit too. So are the MP's themselves. So are the 90% female body of primary educators. So are most of the big business interest. The banks will be fine and the city are not panicking about a thing, either way. When you contextualise it properly, without being unduly pessimistic, I still don't see a meaningful opening, do you? Just an increasingly polarized and confused population waiting to be told which issues to talk endlessly in circles about. 'The single market', 'Human Rights', 'Australian style points system' take your fucking pick. They already said it could take 20 years of negotiations. I wont hold my breath.

And all of that still doesn't lower or raise the relevant birth rates or legal migration anyway. And the African migration crisis doesn't even really get talked about anymore unless a boat full of unfortunates topples over. Ones that reach the shore don't make the news at all...

In regards to Trump it is his personality that is not at all absorbing. He is just a stylist, a man-of-the-moment like Barry O, there to be the personality that defined the time. What matters is the machinery behind him and his commitment to revealing or concealing it. Partitioning Syria has been a stated objective in Israeli policy for more than three decades. Now Western backed suicidal types and opportunists in the form of ISIS (and AL-Nusra) do exactly that and Trump says 'we should nuke that area. we have an unbreakable bond with Israel' and the like. Not sure how further migration is prevented with that rhetoric and approach, if so how? Seems like more of the same no? Obama came to power riding a wave of resentment about the 2008 crisis and did precisely fuck all in regards the Banks, except feather pockets. Trump hasn't even pressed that issue has he? Why would he kick that hornets nest when the public aren't even asking him to? Just seems like wishful thinking. And as for the 'rippling force' I provided the polling demographic above. He got less votes than Romney, he lost the popular votes, the youth are massively against him. And how many of his voters were just the anti-Hilary force? Plus he never once overtly mentioned any issues about race other than to criticise Soros funded Black Lives Matter. And of course he did, he is the law and order candidate, he sides with cops, period. Again, take his character out of the equation and he is just a traditional candidate on so many issues that I cannot see where this potential for change even emerges. Just because he exposed some small factoids about US foreign policy to be negative about Hilary doesn't mean he is shining a light on shit. Did you hear his sincere thanks to her for her incredible public service in the victory speech? Real traditional magnanimity. Presidential. Will he ever call her crooked again? Doubt it.

Here's what I think: Until stresses produce more direct pressure things will remain as they are. It might take trauma for things to change in any real way. People have been very comfortable for quite a long time. The population is sleek and fat and distracted. Perhaps I have more faith than you about what smaller groups of excellent people have historically done and how resourceful Europeans have proven to be. I don't consider other races to even be hostile to Europeans. I just see them as infiltrating the space that Europeans have negated for far too long. Their behaviour is natural and justifiable. Europeans have lost their naturalness and only friction can see it return as far as I can see. It could never come from the ballot box. Not even in increments.

Consider that Brexit and Trump really might have been desired states of affairs. Not to everybody, but to the people that really pull strings and makes moves.

Riastradh wrote:

I was judged to be comparing Trump to some sort of idealist 'Evolean Aristocrat'.

I missed Apaosha's remark at you.

By "rippling" I meant the swarm of criminals along with the refugees who tore into europe and Turkey making new deals of exchange, trying to change the whole demographic.
This swarming was not just a "blowback" of intervention in the ME., but what I believe is a delibrate displacement of a geo-cultural landscape.

If you want to present yourself as the only one who is bothered and concerned abt. the lack of anyone globally voicing their uncompromising stance on starting a real movement, then do so. But I'll tell you, that's funny to me, because its I who has been speaking against Putin and Orban, and quoting Pierce and others on this total hedonism and lack of heart, sinking in stupefying comfort.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I think your anger should really be at the columnists of the websites you are quoting. You should be commenting there on "white traitors". I remember taking Satyr's WLNO to Counter Currents and Arktos and BFP and VDare and so many others, and no one would get back.

I dont find that baffling either. Which pagan network has the funds to donate to these publishers? Odin brotherhood is recent and am not sure if its even exclusively pagan or if its even an organization and not just a reactive response to hooligans. When the majority are still Xts., and pagans, so clueless and disorganized, Xt. networks will join across pan-europe and "White" and "European" identity will get usurped as a Xt. movement.

Those on this forum have done what they could to keep this space clean from all semitic and non-I.E. influence. Others have to take this forward, and lend more and more voice on various media, slowly but steadily.

The term "White" ought not to be discredited even if now it comes to stand for orth. Xts. and whiggers, etc. These are racial markers and imprints of evolving from unique env. pressures and forces of selection. The task has to be to spread awareness.

I have repeated this often; you cant do this without building temples or even just sanctifying an existing open grove - which is the likely possibility in PC times, that generate and gather a common value and world-outlook on a mass level. History of Sparta has the temple as the locus from which the city as such began, than the other way of building one after a city was founded... Things have to solidify into a tradition, and not just remain a "movement". Community projects like that have to start now. Greece and Iceland are slowly reverting to pagan forms of living tradition. Independent publishing houses could start. It has be lived out and become part of everyday.

All your concerns which I think we all share here, should be voiced on those publishing forums.

In the meantime, hope you can assess the damage caused by both radicals and who you think are "not hostile" migrants. Either there will be more physical destruction, or the assimilation requiring more and more tolerance and changes in codes and rules and regulations - a whole LCD.

Do you not get that Islam is adding an unnecessary complication? No one is suggesting to fall at the feet of Xts., even if the fact is hard to acknowledge that it is they standing on the lines, when it should be us…

What do you suggest?

Yes, I heard Trump saying that about Hillary - maybe its his realization that he jumped into it doing nothing, while she dedicated her years into service. What she served is another matter, but its a fact. Even in round 2 of the debate, at the very end, when she complemented on his having nice chldren, he said he admired her resilience, even then. So I dont see anything inconsistent here. Ivanka converted to Jewish faith upon marriage,, so is anyone pretending here he's spotless? Or atleast I am not.

Look at the protestors right now with their slogan of "My Body, My Wish".
His winning without any appeals to the victim industry is a real change.

Pagans could band like that for days and months together and bring down a govt. It could happen.
And meanwhile, what?

It is I who has been endlessly saying, in my war against hedonism, a heart beyond cost/benefit.
Everyone needs to do their best.

Riastradh wrote:

In the US, the Republicans have both houses and the Presidency, so ostensibly Trump can make decisions and have them executed. Problem is a) most people voted Hilary and the young angry left will make much more trouble than the old annoyed right would have if HRC had won b) Trump has never actually spoken about the truly important issues, not even once c) even huge swathes of his own party rejected him and he has no political experience making it entirely possible that he will be much less effective than his jubilant fans expect and hope d) he has made bizarre claims that he is going to destroy bad trade deals as though the country is not $19 trillion in debt. All in all I can only see this heading the same way as Europe and the rest of the world: increased political division, civil unrest, contracting economy, globalism sold and repackaged under a different name with a different ideological inflection.

Maybe he will water it down. Your concerns are shared by many.
But up till now, if he really were the god emperor, what should he have done differently? If the objective was to get into power and change things as much as possible without resorting to an overt coup.
He needed those votes from the cucky Republicans and for that he had to wear two faces.

So what I am saying is that there is always the danger that he will falter and disappoint his initial base but so far I don't see what he should have done differently if part of the plan was to win the election.

And it's good that people are concerned about him faltering, so that they can react accordingly when/if he betrays them.