So does Marxism. So does Freudianism. So does feminism. So does every single religion. They can all explain everything, no matter what the outcome is, as fitting their theories.
So does "cyclical" whatever. A country is broken up from within? Cyclical! It is broken up because of outside attacks? Cyclical! It actually goes on for many centuries, even a thousand years? Also cyclical, since time limits would get in the way of the theory.
"The theory closely fits what we actually observe"
So says every ideology and religion.
What actually gives the West problems right now is mass immigration of people with a lower IQ and enormous crime rates. They are imported because of the non-White tribe that controls Hollywood and the media and brags about it. There's no need to fit that into something else.
blaming a group of people for everything based on oversimplistic reasoning is the easiest, simplest, and most emotionally satisfying way to avoid coming to terms with the hard truths of the failures of modernism.
It's literally the jews, we have thousands of quotes and they are saying it's demanded of them from the Babylonian Talmud, that's the origin of Communism.
People have no problem blaming the Italian mafia, or Mexican mafia without fearing they are implicating all Italians or Mexicans. Same with attacking Islam without worrying about offending all Muslims. There's just one group we aren't supposed to mention, and need to ask ourselves why that is.
You know how many Jewish converts to Christianity I have confirming this? Plus guys like Bobby Fischer laid the entire thing out. They also pushed Dispensationalism to trick Evangelicals into supporting them as "Israel" when the Bible clearly says Israel is whoever puts their faith in God, OT and NT. David was Israel, the jews who were persecuting him were not of God, they were of the devil, regardless of their race.
“First of all, we have to understand what communism is. I mean, to me, real communism, the Soviet communism, is basically a mask for Bolshevism, which is a mask for Judaism.”
—Bobby Fischer, Jewish-American World Chess Champion
"People have no problem blaming the Italian mafia, or Mexican mafia without fearing they are implicating all Italians or Mexicans."
Indeed, which is why its incredibly odd that you say "It's literally the jews," instead of qualifying that statement like we do with EVERY OTHER GROUP IN EXISTENCE.
"Same with attacking Islam without worrying about offending all Muslims."
It is incredibly goofy (not to mention historically ignorant) to think that the Muslims wouldn't be doing the exact same thing if they could. Thats the problem with thinking all your problems are the result of one group attacking you; you're going to be utterly astonished when the next group attacks you because you failed to defend yourself against an attack.
The issue is that the society we built was vulnerable to subversion, and will always be vulnerable in such a way until we build a society that is not vulnerable to subversion. The subversives attacking us are a fact of life. The solution is to build a society that can't be subverted.
The mass movement is a function of global economic integration. The free mobility of labour complements freedom of capital, freedom of trade and the establishment of supply chains across national borders. If the US closed its borders it would either have to tolerate the complete reversal of its preferred model for economic development across Latin America and the Caribbean or face revolutions in Mexico etc. Mass immigration is simply the least disruptive alternative from the perspective of Washington.
Migration to the US was a safety valve for the regimes of Europe in the 19thc. Today the US serves that function in relation to its own imperial assets.
The long-term decline of US industry results from the fact that US multinational firms do not prioritise the development of the US over alternatives overseas. The extraordinary success Washington had in suppressing radical movements in the 20th c enabled this complacency. The neglect/mismanagement of education over generations (above all the effects of forced integration and dumbing down the curriculum) has de-skilled the workforce, making skilled immigration desirable for key industries.
This period is slowly coming to an end, but too late to preserve the country from a generation or two of escalating ethnic conflict. This is simply the deferred cost of the choices generations of conservatives and progressives made. Sad but true. Hollywood and the media are ultimately bit-players.
This is the classical libertarian response. Open borders is in the California libertarian platform every year. We don't want to tax and spend to prevent people from doing what they would naturally do. The economy is maximized when all mutually beneficial trades are exhausted. We don't want our borders to prevent people from moving to their preferred place in the economy. A border is a strap on an economy. CA already has a thriving alternative economy, and it's Mexican. So many Mexicans make so much money under the table in CA it's inconceivable. CA already has an alternative police force...the Mexican Mafia. That's why I don't expect total chaos in CA. Mexicans in CA have the most decentralized food production ever. It would be impossible to starve them. They can just go outside and pick fruit. And chickens and goats and hogs--and fishing and hunting. The State of CA could go belly up and most of Mexican CA wouldn't feel it, except for the free medicine, and Mexicans are increasingly shunning it anyway. The state of CA literally does nothing for anyone and all it does is tax the shit out of super-rich white Californians. California used to be Mexico and while it may not become Mexico again, it will always be Mexican.
"The mass movement is a function of global economic integration."
So THAT explains why it's leftist media and leftist parties in the West that open the borders for mass immigration. When "conservative" Angela Merkel, a devoted communist in her youth, declared that she'd ignore EU rules to allow in millions of Arabs - it was actually a Function of Global Economic Integration!
Must be convenient hiding from reality so you don't have to confront the Left. Always easier to blame "capitalism," thereby staying within the Left's paradigm. "The capitalists want lower wages!" we hear. So why is it only the West bringing in mass immigration? Why isn't it Egypt, for example, or Turkey, Iran, Japan, Russia, Thailand? When the Left controls politics, thanks to mass immigration, they enforce higher wages. Which brings mass unemployment which is paid with far too high welfare, which businesses and high-income earners have to pay for proportionally more than others. So no, there's no capitalism involved. It's the Left. The Left controls the schools, the universities, and the media, and they do that because Jews came to dominate U.S. top media and Hollywood.
But for "neoreactionaries" that's forbidden thinking. Go listen to Jew Mendacious Moldbug instead, bury your head.
"the fact that US multinational firms do not prioritise the development of the US over alternatives overseas"
More bullshiht. You listen to lies from leftists who turn against immigration but can't accept that it's leftists who caused it. The real fact is that business owners have ALWAYS been the most nationalist, while workers were the ones who votes for the internationalist left. It was ALWAYS business owners who wanted tariffs to keep out outside competition, since the domestic market was the most important. It was the Left that you cover for that demanded tariffs be abolished, all racialism in politics be destroyed, so that there'd be outsourcing to non-White countries, which they praised. You don't know that because no one is telling you. When that happened businesses that didn't outsource were ruined in the competition. In the boardrooms for decades they knew that the leftist media would target any "racism," and businesses have been ruined time and again by law suits, as Revolver News covered well some time ago. The Left targeted them more than any other and favored businesses who allied with them, until they had changed the boardrooms to their liking.
Then we hear you: "Look, businesspeople who support immigration and outsourcing! See, they are the ones to blame!"
Never mind the workers carrying the anti-White, anti-borders socialist parties for generations, against the wishes of business owners in Europe and elsewhere. No, they must never be blamed for anything.
Business owners were the ones who supported nationalist movements in Europe, which were all right-wing, like the NSDAP. As George Orwell said, "for all their talk about the workers, the fascist parties earn most of their support from the higher classes". As Hitler said, "No CONCESSION is too great to bring the workers to our side." Unfortunately all the attempts to praise and bring the traitorous workers to nationalism gives space to liars who claim it's "da capitalists" who are the reason for mass immigration. Same as when the GOP tries to take voters from the Left by accepting Affirmative Action, knowing that those on the Right have nowhere else to go anyway. Your logic: "See? The GOP are the ones who support AA!"
If you are too afraid to see what socialist Jews controlling the media have done, even after they write articles bragging about it themselves, then maybe you should be quiet.
The political preferences of business are variable. When it suits them, they will cheerfully support the Left and frequently do. As for business supporting nationalists, the only elements of business that ever do this are those that are not in trade-exposed industries. In Europe today business is overwhelmingly and vehemently anti-nationalist, none more so than big business. And it was big business across Europe that demanded mass migration in the first place. In the UK it was British mill-owners who insisted on non-white immigration from Pakistan in the 50s and 60s and it was Conservative politicians who recruited Caribbean immigrants to fill vacancies in the hospital system. The Left simply jumped on the band-wagon and made it their own.
In the US business insisted on tariffs from the time of the civil war until the 80s, when support for free-trade became an obsession in business circles. And business are extremely keen on open borders, which is why so many members of the elite finance Left-wing immigration activists.
Much of the serious thinking for global economic integration was done by German government economists of the 1920s and 30s. They called it grossraumwissenschaften. The integration of labour markets on a post-national basis has been on the drawing board for a century and at every step of the way big business invariably expresses its support for cheap labour. Left/Right does not come close to explaining anything.
Historically ignorant. I have already told you that business owners and the Right were the ones who supported nationalist parties, the leftists opposed them. Business owners have been hammered by the socialists you cover for, who promote their own. Then you point to them and say "see, it's businesses who want mass immigration!"
Only an idioht can claim mass immigration isn't caused by the Left and by Jew-dominated media and Hollywood in the U.S., as well as in Britain and other countries. And all across the West people have watched Hollywood's fake worldview for hours every day, for generations.
I just posted about how Labour promoted mass immigration in Britain. Go read that and learn real history.
Ignorant? An idiot? Perhaps. We will have to agree to disagree. At most I will grant you that ruinous mass migration has been, and is, enabled by Left-wing politicians and the media, but certainly not 'caused' by either. The principal, substantive, cause of mass migration is the demand for labour in the West and the de-prioritisation of domestic social peace and the long-term well-being of ordinary people by a corrupt and self-serving oligarchy that is loyally served by Left and Right alike.
When teasing out the multiple causes behind epochal changes in public policy across more than one jurisdiction over a century it pays to avoid both generalisations and claims in the media. It also helps to look into structural economic factors and inter-governmental agreement on trade, migration, refugee settlement and labour mobility.
I think my first real political awakening came in the mid-90s, when I realized that the editors of the leading left and right journals were agitating for essentially the same "sunny uplands" on trade and dark-grey labor, transcending anything like the interests of a national polity. I was for the first time able to perceive the same voice, emitted from opposite ends of the same mouth. My vision has only grown clearer over time, and so has theirs.
The difference between Peter Turchin’s structural-demographic theory and other ”Grand theories” is that it’s actually based on math and statistics, not just the idle musings of an autist like Marx with too much free time. It’s an actual scientific theory in the truest sense.
It’s essentially the same kind of cyclical pattern you can see in for example wild animal populations. Read Secular Cycles man, it will blow your god damn mind, 100%.
You people are living in a fantasy if you think collapse is likely, or anything more than a tiny outside possibility. First off, there are virtually no examples in history where a society collapsed into anarchy which allowed the locals to rebuild society as they wished. The were almost always a devolution to some degree.
Rome didn't collapse, it broke up into pieces, with the pieces being ruled by the current administrator. Most Euro titles of inherited nobility are actually Roman titles of appointed administrators: Count = county administrator; Duke = provincial military commander, etc.
The USSR didn't collapse, it shed a few ethnic republicans, changed a few titles and those in charge swapped a few seats.
The only example I have been able to come up with for total collapse into anarchy was the Late Bronze Age Collapse, which happened due to outside raiders, and some states such as Egypt still weathered the storm. The other states went into mad max cannibal mode, and were made so weak that they eventually ended up as part of some other tyrannical state, and were glad to do so.
Do you trust your state party apparatus to initiate Far Right Utopia? Do you trust your governor as a dictator?
At no point in history has a total break down in order lead to us peasants wandering through the ruins debating which system of government we should adopt to usher us into a utopian age of justice and prosperity. If you disagree, name some examples.
TC, a very fine piece. Balanced and realistic. IMO I suspect that the collapse in North America is likely to look like Italy in the 70s or Ulster during the Troubles: state-sponsored violence under the cover of controlled movements, supplemented by low-intensity conflict between rival communities. The ethnic cleansing of large metropolitan cities is already under way.
Re organisation, my guess is that people are fast learners and we may safely assume that there are plenty of people on the dissident/dissenting spectrum who have twigged to the dangers posed by the feds. One hopes that some, maybe many, of these people are organising discretely and successfully in para-masonic fashion in all manner of ways.
The weakening dollar presents disincentives in the economy generally, and I would expect collapse first in certain sectors. Public education, law enforcement, and other government jobs. Shipping and supply chains are going to be strained by fuel and labor costs. The professions: medical, legal, financial (insurance) may completely collapse. Global shipping is out, local supply chains including manufacturing (cottage industry) is in. Even high tech manufacturing could be done in a home business setting with the proliferation of postscript 3D printing. We're not all farmers...some of us will be herders and ranchers. We will need millers, bakers, brewers, distillers, smiths, and tanners...that's why they call it a reset. A lot of people who have a very specialized profession will have to learn another trade. It's not going to be easy for those people who have been getting rich from a good position in an exploitative system. Many will have to relearn survival skills. Many will just go down and die with the old system because they can't imagine themselves outside that system.
We can expect mass pauperisation. Deaths of despair will skyrocket. Self-funded retirees exposed to unsound investment funds will lose much, if not everything. Much of the remaining middle class will become downwardly mobile. The black and grey economies will expand. Occupations dependent on state-administered credentials will become exposed to intense competition from the unlicensed. Finance will not collapse, but it will contract...banks with serious holdings of bullion will use this as the basis for fractional-reserve lending and bullion-deposit facilities will become essential for major players. Education will be transformed as concrete skills take priority over ideological subjects. Pod school and private tutoring will boom.
On the bright side, local figures with backbone and initiative will provide leadership. People will value well-made and properly engineered products made to last. Canals and water-routes (Great Lakes and the Mississippi) will become heavily utilised. Commerce and trade will be restructured around trust-based networks.
Culturally, the bullshit will be reserved for whatever oases there may be for the misfits and freaks wedded to clown-world, but everyone else will refocus on the renewal of local cultures. DIY movies and music. No more dollars for inner-city 'artists'.
Nero brought back a transvestite from Greece to marry in front of the senate. I'd say this was peak decline, peak decadence for the times, and look at how long it took Rome to fall. We may be waiting for a long time.
I find little to disagree with here. I confess I am not familiar with Turchin's work but I believe it slots in neatly into the Spenglerian/civilizational life cycle view, which seems to be more and more vindicated by the day.
Out here on the periphery of the GAE, signs of imperial decline are VERY evident, both when viewing the US and its constellation of imperial subjects in Europe. Life goes on as usual for the little people.
Food/shelter is getting more expensive, more and more people have to make difficult choices about what to do with a shrinking pool of money. Globalization worked a little too well, and now we are seeing its impact firsthand to our detriment.
"the unwillingness of many on the broad “urbanite” Right Wing to accept that collapse is coming and that they won't be able to wiggle their way out of it using Dark Elf magick."
I like to think of this as "Thunderdome dilemma." What is Master without his Blaster? Just another warm body, shoveling pig shit in the slave pits.
It is the source of the deepest anxiety for the urbane dissident, the stuff of nightmares. If their silver-tongued magic fails, the Yarvins of the world know they may whisper into their gray mirrors all night long, but in the morning it will be back to the pits for them.
I expect that at least some of the dissident crowd will end up in the well-heeled gated communities of the better run bantustans/cantonments...perhaps working as tutors, computer programmers etc. There won't be much of a market for gurus or op-ed writers anymore than there will be for yoga instructors or pet psychiatrists. Whatever happens, I hope things work out OK for Curtis Y...he is not one of the villains. The real shock will come when post-collapse organised crime relieves people of what little they own. In some spots the gangsters will become the founders of the next wave of feudal aristocracy but it will take a few generations before 'noblesse oblige' kicks in. Until then life in the slave pits is going to be tough.
When I speak of blacks as “vessels” for Jewish revolutionary mischief, what I mean is that Jews, who always couch their revolutionary urges in the rhetoric of do-goodism, need a group they can claim to be fighting for—a helpless, hapless group, whose plight will never, can never, improve, thus giving permanent revolutionaries the permanent losers through whom to wage their permanent war.
Jews are not placated by their own success. If only they were mollified by material success. But no, there’s an impulse not satisfied by mere prosperity. They need the struggle, and if they’re no longer the ones struggling, they need a proxy who is.
Darren Beattie at Revolver News knows the truth about the media owners, and their brethren like George Soros, which shows when he writes his own articles for the site. He dealt with this "ackshually, it's the CAPITALISTS!" claim:
Post-liberalism is a boutique radicalism for those who want to appear to be striking sacred cows, but without suffering the penalty of actually doing so. They wrap themselves in platitudes and buzzwords about capitalism and other safe subjects and pretend the powers that be quiver at their words. In reality, structural liberalism doesn’t care about their radicalism so long as it affirms liberal racial dogmas.
...
Post-liberals prefer to blame “neo-liberalism” to make themselves more respectable in the eyes of the mainstream media.
The Right’s attacks on liberalism — in the classical sense — distracts from the real issues. The mom protesting her second grader being told to apologize for his white privilege isn’t animated by economic motives. She isn’t being tricked by Fox News or Douglas Murray into thinking that’s the real issue. She doesn’t want to read about how John Locke is responsible for all this. She wants the anti-white racism that her family directly experiences to end. She doesn’t want to live in a country where she becomes a second class citizen due to her skin color.
That’s not a distraction. That’s the fundamental issue of our time. And it’s certainly more important than unionizing DoorDash drivers.
When the French Left in 1968 burned and looted in Paris they were led by a communist Jew calling himself "David the pirate". They wanted open borders to Algeria and Tunisia. Then as every year after that, they and their media attacked any "racism" in politics, any closing of borders, for the economy or for people. When social democrats in Sweden, Germany, Britain, advocated trade with Asia, Africa and East Europe on terms that favor them, not Western Whites, it's not "capitalism" or "cycles" that motivates them. It's the fact that Hollywood has been pushing an anti-White, anti-"racist" message for generations, seen for several hours per night in every household. And the most pro-immigration European country, Sweden - check out who dominate media ownership. The socialist government, and their leftist Jewish allies, above all in the Bonnier family. Which severely hurts the economy, for businesses and everyone else.
If it was "ackshually the CAPITALISTS!" who caused mass immigration, there'd be zero Affirmative Action. They gain nothing from promoting unqualified people in a business at the expense of the more qualified. Businesses are pushed to bring in hordes of non-Whites they don't want to hire. They are forced to pay for the welfare of Blacks and immigrants.
If it was "capitalists" who were behind immigration, domestic Blacks wouldn't be coddled. They'd be shoved aside as any non-Black immigrants are better workers. Instead, Blacks are praised and given privileges like Affirmative Action, and Blacks writing anti-White and anti-business books are given prime time.
If "capitalists" were in control the LA race riots, Whites being attacked for the media line about Trayvor Martin, and BurnLootMurder, would never happen. It could happen because the media bosses praised it, and anyone resisting was targeted. BLM burned and looted businesses and beat and killed people who protected the businesses, and the media said nothing. The political establishment said nothing, and the BLM leaders are now rich. The Jew George Soros financed BLM. I guess it's because he's a "capitalist" who somehow did it to promote businesses, not a leftist Jew who loved seeing White-owned businesses and White neighborhoods be attacked.
Any business owner who says something "racist" will be destroyed by the media, and the politicized courts will give money to the Blacks who sue him, with the politicians applauding. But if he advocated for tariffs between nations, that wouldn't even be a headline. If it's DA CAPITALISTS who are in control and who are behind immigration for lower wages, that wouldn't be the case. The reality is that it's the Left that controls schools, universities and the media, and push mass immigration that hurts businesses and everyone else.
Labour in the 1970s onward tried to freeze the economy by making it impossible to fire, and thereby to hire. That's why Margaret Thatcher won big three times in a row, beating Jeremy Corbyn's idol Michael Foot and saving the economy. Labour then focused on Cultural Marxism and immigration, with Smiling Tony as the new leader. He made sure almost half the population would go to the university, for leftist brainwashing by openly Marxist teachers.
(In British and U.S. universities, "sociology" textbooks have forewords naming Karl Marx as the founder of sociology, followed by fellow Jew Sigmund Freud and in third place people like Jewish communist Herbert Marcuse. These textbooks are translated and used all over Europe.)
Labour even wrote down the plan to bring in immigrants for votes. When Tony Blair was out of office, his aide Andrew Neather bragged about immigration being a tool for leftist policies:
Blair adviser Andrew Neather admitted that their real objective had been "to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date," as the London Telegraph reported in 2009.
I have personally talked to a former leftist politician who admitted they said this in the party in our town: They had lost Whites, who became increasingly educated and well-off, so they were bringing in immigrant voters, giving them financial benefits.
----------------------------------------
Who were behind mass immigration and anti-Whiteness in Britain, leftist Jews or "capitalists who want lower wages"? Let's see.
Labour in 1968 started British legislation against “race and sex discrimination,” creating the Jew-written Race Relations Act.
Labour’s Jewish Home Secretary *Frank Soskice was succeeded by Roy Jenkins in 1965, with Jewish *Anthony Lester behind him.
*Anthony Lester wrote Home Secretary Jenkins’ important race speech. He was the leading race campaigner in the Society of Labour Party Lawyers, and on the Society’s Race Relations Committee. He dictated to the extreme socialist Roy Jenkins how to write race laws.
In 1975 *Anthony Lester wrote Labour’s principles for new race legislation, in White Paper on Racial Discrimination.
At this time, and especially after ruining the economy and losing to Margaret Thatcher three times in a row, Labour planned mass importation of new voters.
The head of the five top Jewish lobby groups in Europe, *Moshe Kantor created the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation, for writing “tolerance” laws. It was first headed by Polish Social Democrat Aleksander Kwasniewski, and since then by Labour’s Tony Blair.
The work at the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation rests on *Moshe Kantor and *Yoram Dinstein – an Israeli who among other things has worked at the extremely socialist Amnesty International, in every European country staffed by Marxists and Social Democrats. In Britain Amnesty is almost completely filled by Labour members.
When Brexit happened, *Ari Paul, who writes for pro-Labour The Guardian and the extremely socialist Jacobin in the U.S., connected Brexit and national governance to The Holocaust.
Brexit was of course hated by the socialists and promoted by people on the Right for nationalist reasons. But a dishonest mind can always find fake-Right leaders, point to them and say, "See? They're the ones behind this, they want the EU and mass immigration for lower wages!"
Hey Theophilus, I really enjoyed your article and so included it in a little round-up I write. I'm not sure that it will translate to much by way of traffic, but nevertheless, I thought you might get a kick out of it.
Collapse is blatantly imminent without any historical gauge. Calling it merely a part of a cycle, however, belies the peculiar and particular nature of the situation we find ourselves in
Hahaha. Yarvin isn't ever going to live this down, is he?
No, no he is not!
Right on!
/ filthy hobbit
"a great deal of explanatory power."
So does Marxism. So does Freudianism. So does feminism. So does every single religion. They can all explain everything, no matter what the outcome is, as fitting their theories.
So does "cyclical" whatever. A country is broken up from within? Cyclical! It is broken up because of outside attacks? Cyclical! It actually goes on for many centuries, even a thousand years? Also cyclical, since time limits would get in the way of the theory.
"The theory closely fits what we actually observe"
So says every ideology and religion.
What actually gives the West problems right now is mass immigration of people with a lower IQ and enormous crime rates. They are imported because of the non-White tribe that controls Hollywood and the media and brags about it. There's no need to fit that into something else.
blaming a group of people for everything based on oversimplistic reasoning is the easiest, simplest, and most emotionally satisfying way to avoid coming to terms with the hard truths of the failures of modernism.
It's literally the jews, we have thousands of quotes and they are saying it's demanded of them from the Babylonian Talmud, that's the origin of Communism.
People have no problem blaming the Italian mafia, or Mexican mafia without fearing they are implicating all Italians or Mexicans. Same with attacking Islam without worrying about offending all Muslims. There's just one group we aren't supposed to mention, and need to ask ourselves why that is.
"You will own nothing, and you will be happy" - https://i.imgur.com/jUxm8w0.jpg
You know how many Jewish converts to Christianity I have confirming this? Plus guys like Bobby Fischer laid the entire thing out. They also pushed Dispensationalism to trick Evangelicals into supporting them as "Israel" when the Bible clearly says Israel is whoever puts their faith in God, OT and NT. David was Israel, the jews who were persecuting him were not of God, they were of the devil, regardless of their race.
“First of all, we have to understand what communism is. I mean, to me, real communism, the Soviet communism, is basically a mask for Bolshevism, which is a mask for Judaism.”
—Bobby Fischer, Jewish-American World Chess Champion
"People have no problem blaming the Italian mafia, or Mexican mafia without fearing they are implicating all Italians or Mexicans."
Indeed, which is why its incredibly odd that you say "It's literally the jews," instead of qualifying that statement like we do with EVERY OTHER GROUP IN EXISTENCE.
"Same with attacking Islam without worrying about offending all Muslims."
It is incredibly goofy (not to mention historically ignorant) to think that the Muslims wouldn't be doing the exact same thing if they could. Thats the problem with thinking all your problems are the result of one group attacking you; you're going to be utterly astonished when the next group attacks you because you failed to defend yourself against an attack.
The issue is that the society we built was vulnerable to subversion, and will always be vulnerable in such a way until we build a society that is not vulnerable to subversion. The subversives attacking us are a fact of life. The solution is to build a society that can't be subverted.
The mass movement is a function of global economic integration. The free mobility of labour complements freedom of capital, freedom of trade and the establishment of supply chains across national borders. If the US closed its borders it would either have to tolerate the complete reversal of its preferred model for economic development across Latin America and the Caribbean or face revolutions in Mexico etc. Mass immigration is simply the least disruptive alternative from the perspective of Washington.
Migration to the US was a safety valve for the regimes of Europe in the 19thc. Today the US serves that function in relation to its own imperial assets.
The long-term decline of US industry results from the fact that US multinational firms do not prioritise the development of the US over alternatives overseas. The extraordinary success Washington had in suppressing radical movements in the 20th c enabled this complacency. The neglect/mismanagement of education over generations (above all the effects of forced integration and dumbing down the curriculum) has de-skilled the workforce, making skilled immigration desirable for key industries.
This period is slowly coming to an end, but too late to preserve the country from a generation or two of escalating ethnic conflict. This is simply the deferred cost of the choices generations of conservatives and progressives made. Sad but true. Hollywood and the media are ultimately bit-players.
This is the classical libertarian response. Open borders is in the California libertarian platform every year. We don't want to tax and spend to prevent people from doing what they would naturally do. The economy is maximized when all mutually beneficial trades are exhausted. We don't want our borders to prevent people from moving to their preferred place in the economy. A border is a strap on an economy. CA already has a thriving alternative economy, and it's Mexican. So many Mexicans make so much money under the table in CA it's inconceivable. CA already has an alternative police force...the Mexican Mafia. That's why I don't expect total chaos in CA. Mexicans in CA have the most decentralized food production ever. It would be impossible to starve them. They can just go outside and pick fruit. And chickens and goats and hogs--and fishing and hunting. The State of CA could go belly up and most of Mexican CA wouldn't feel it, except for the free medicine, and Mexicans are increasingly shunning it anyway. The state of CA literally does nothing for anyone and all it does is tax the shit out of super-rich white Californians. California used to be Mexico and while it may not become Mexico again, it will always be Mexican.
"The mass movement is a function of global economic integration."
So THAT explains why it's leftist media and leftist parties in the West that open the borders for mass immigration. When "conservative" Angela Merkel, a devoted communist in her youth, declared that she'd ignore EU rules to allow in millions of Arabs - it was actually a Function of Global Economic Integration!
Must be convenient hiding from reality so you don't have to confront the Left. Always easier to blame "capitalism," thereby staying within the Left's paradigm. "The capitalists want lower wages!" we hear. So why is it only the West bringing in mass immigration? Why isn't it Egypt, for example, or Turkey, Iran, Japan, Russia, Thailand? When the Left controls politics, thanks to mass immigration, they enforce higher wages. Which brings mass unemployment which is paid with far too high welfare, which businesses and high-income earners have to pay for proportionally more than others. So no, there's no capitalism involved. It's the Left. The Left controls the schools, the universities, and the media, and they do that because Jews came to dominate U.S. top media and Hollywood.
But for "neoreactionaries" that's forbidden thinking. Go listen to Jew Mendacious Moldbug instead, bury your head.
"the fact that US multinational firms do not prioritise the development of the US over alternatives overseas"
More bullshiht. You listen to lies from leftists who turn against immigration but can't accept that it's leftists who caused it. The real fact is that business owners have ALWAYS been the most nationalist, while workers were the ones who votes for the internationalist left. It was ALWAYS business owners who wanted tariffs to keep out outside competition, since the domestic market was the most important. It was the Left that you cover for that demanded tariffs be abolished, all racialism in politics be destroyed, so that there'd be outsourcing to non-White countries, which they praised. You don't know that because no one is telling you. When that happened businesses that didn't outsource were ruined in the competition. In the boardrooms for decades they knew that the leftist media would target any "racism," and businesses have been ruined time and again by law suits, as Revolver News covered well some time ago. The Left targeted them more than any other and favored businesses who allied with them, until they had changed the boardrooms to their liking.
Then we hear you: "Look, businesspeople who support immigration and outsourcing! See, they are the ones to blame!"
Never mind the workers carrying the anti-White, anti-borders socialist parties for generations, against the wishes of business owners in Europe and elsewhere. No, they must never be blamed for anything.
Business owners were the ones who supported nationalist movements in Europe, which were all right-wing, like the NSDAP. As George Orwell said, "for all their talk about the workers, the fascist parties earn most of their support from the higher classes". As Hitler said, "No CONCESSION is too great to bring the workers to our side." Unfortunately all the attempts to praise and bring the traitorous workers to nationalism gives space to liars who claim it's "da capitalists" who are the reason for mass immigration. Same as when the GOP tries to take voters from the Left by accepting Affirmative Action, knowing that those on the Right have nowhere else to go anyway. Your logic: "See? The GOP are the ones who support AA!"
If you are too afraid to see what socialist Jews controlling the media have done, even after they write articles bragging about it themselves, then maybe you should be quiet.
The political preferences of business are variable. When it suits them, they will cheerfully support the Left and frequently do. As for business supporting nationalists, the only elements of business that ever do this are those that are not in trade-exposed industries. In Europe today business is overwhelmingly and vehemently anti-nationalist, none more so than big business. And it was big business across Europe that demanded mass migration in the first place. In the UK it was British mill-owners who insisted on non-white immigration from Pakistan in the 50s and 60s and it was Conservative politicians who recruited Caribbean immigrants to fill vacancies in the hospital system. The Left simply jumped on the band-wagon and made it their own.
In the US business insisted on tariffs from the time of the civil war until the 80s, when support for free-trade became an obsession in business circles. And business are extremely keen on open borders, which is why so many members of the elite finance Left-wing immigration activists.
Much of the serious thinking for global economic integration was done by German government economists of the 1920s and 30s. They called it grossraumwissenschaften. The integration of labour markets on a post-national basis has been on the drawing board for a century and at every step of the way big business invariably expresses its support for cheap labour. Left/Right does not come close to explaining anything.
Historically ignorant. I have already told you that business owners and the Right were the ones who supported nationalist parties, the leftists opposed them. Business owners have been hammered by the socialists you cover for, who promote their own. Then you point to them and say "see, it's businesses who want mass immigration!"
Only an idioht can claim mass immigration isn't caused by the Left and by Jew-dominated media and Hollywood in the U.S., as well as in Britain and other countries. And all across the West people have watched Hollywood's fake worldview for hours every day, for generations.
I just posted about how Labour promoted mass immigration in Britain. Go read that and learn real history.
Ignorant? An idiot? Perhaps. We will have to agree to disagree. At most I will grant you that ruinous mass migration has been, and is, enabled by Left-wing politicians and the media, but certainly not 'caused' by either. The principal, substantive, cause of mass migration is the demand for labour in the West and the de-prioritisation of domestic social peace and the long-term well-being of ordinary people by a corrupt and self-serving oligarchy that is loyally served by Left and Right alike.
When teasing out the multiple causes behind epochal changes in public policy across more than one jurisdiction over a century it pays to avoid both generalisations and claims in the media. It also helps to look into structural economic factors and inter-governmental agreement on trade, migration, refugee settlement and labour mobility.
I think my first real political awakening came in the mid-90s, when I realized that the editors of the leading left and right journals were agitating for essentially the same "sunny uplands" on trade and dark-grey labor, transcending anything like the interests of a national polity. I was for the first time able to perceive the same voice, emitted from opposite ends of the same mouth. My vision has only grown clearer over time, and so has theirs.
The difference between Peter Turchin’s structural-demographic theory and other ”Grand theories” is that it’s actually based on math and statistics, not just the idle musings of an autist like Marx with too much free time. It’s an actual scientific theory in the truest sense.
It’s essentially the same kind of cyclical pattern you can see in for example wild animal populations. Read Secular Cycles man, it will blow your god damn mind, 100%.
You people are living in a fantasy if you think collapse is likely, or anything more than a tiny outside possibility. First off, there are virtually no examples in history where a society collapsed into anarchy which allowed the locals to rebuild society as they wished. The were almost always a devolution to some degree.
Rome didn't collapse, it broke up into pieces, with the pieces being ruled by the current administrator. Most Euro titles of inherited nobility are actually Roman titles of appointed administrators: Count = county administrator; Duke = provincial military commander, etc.
The USSR didn't collapse, it shed a few ethnic republicans, changed a few titles and those in charge swapped a few seats.
The only example I have been able to come up with for total collapse into anarchy was the Late Bronze Age Collapse, which happened due to outside raiders, and some states such as Egypt still weathered the storm. The other states went into mad max cannibal mode, and were made so weak that they eventually ended up as part of some other tyrannical state, and were glad to do so.
Do you trust your state party apparatus to initiate Far Right Utopia? Do you trust your governor as a dictator?
At no point in history has a total break down in order lead to us peasants wandering through the ruins debating which system of government we should adopt to usher us into a utopian age of justice and prosperity. If you disagree, name some examples.
Outstanding essay.
Here are a couple of others I just read today that will reinforce many of the author's points:
'You'll Own Nothing'—and Like It. Or Will You?
David Solway • 05 Aug, 2022
https://the-pipeline.org/youll-own-nothing-and-like-it-or-will-you/
This time next year you’ll be living in ‘China’
6TH AUGUST 2022 by Dr. Veronon Coleman
https://vernoncoleman.org/articles/time-next-year-youll-be-living-china
TC, a very fine piece. Balanced and realistic. IMO I suspect that the collapse in North America is likely to look like Italy in the 70s or Ulster during the Troubles: state-sponsored violence under the cover of controlled movements, supplemented by low-intensity conflict between rival communities. The ethnic cleansing of large metropolitan cities is already under way.
Re organisation, my guess is that people are fast learners and we may safely assume that there are plenty of people on the dissident/dissenting spectrum who have twigged to the dangers posed by the feds. One hopes that some, maybe many, of these people are organising discretely and successfully in para-masonic fashion in all manner of ways.
The weakening dollar presents disincentives in the economy generally, and I would expect collapse first in certain sectors. Public education, law enforcement, and other government jobs. Shipping and supply chains are going to be strained by fuel and labor costs. The professions: medical, legal, financial (insurance) may completely collapse. Global shipping is out, local supply chains including manufacturing (cottage industry) is in. Even high tech manufacturing could be done in a home business setting with the proliferation of postscript 3D printing. We're not all farmers...some of us will be herders and ranchers. We will need millers, bakers, brewers, distillers, smiths, and tanners...that's why they call it a reset. A lot of people who have a very specialized profession will have to learn another trade. It's not going to be easy for those people who have been getting rich from a good position in an exploitative system. Many will have to relearn survival skills. Many will just go down and die with the old system because they can't imagine themselves outside that system.
We can expect mass pauperisation. Deaths of despair will skyrocket. Self-funded retirees exposed to unsound investment funds will lose much, if not everything. Much of the remaining middle class will become downwardly mobile. The black and grey economies will expand. Occupations dependent on state-administered credentials will become exposed to intense competition from the unlicensed. Finance will not collapse, but it will contract...banks with serious holdings of bullion will use this as the basis for fractional-reserve lending and bullion-deposit facilities will become essential for major players. Education will be transformed as concrete skills take priority over ideological subjects. Pod school and private tutoring will boom.
On the bright side, local figures with backbone and initiative will provide leadership. People will value well-made and properly engineered products made to last. Canals and water-routes (Great Lakes and the Mississippi) will become heavily utilised. Commerce and trade will be restructured around trust-based networks.
Culturally, the bullshit will be reserved for whatever oases there may be for the misfits and freaks wedded to clown-world, but everyone else will refocus on the renewal of local cultures. DIY movies and music. No more dollars for inner-city 'artists'.
Nero brought back a transvestite from Greece to marry in front of the senate. I'd say this was peak decline, peak decadence for the times, and look at how long it took Rome to fall. We may be waiting for a long time.
I find little to disagree with here. I confess I am not familiar with Turchin's work but I believe it slots in neatly into the Spenglerian/civilizational life cycle view, which seems to be more and more vindicated by the day.
Out here on the periphery of the GAE, signs of imperial decline are VERY evident, both when viewing the US and its constellation of imperial subjects in Europe. Life goes on as usual for the little people.
Food/shelter is getting more expensive, more and more people have to make difficult choices about what to do with a shrinking pool of money. Globalization worked a little too well, and now we are seeing its impact firsthand to our detriment.
"the unwillingness of many on the broad “urbanite” Right Wing to accept that collapse is coming and that they won't be able to wiggle their way out of it using Dark Elf magick."
I like to think of this as "Thunderdome dilemma." What is Master without his Blaster? Just another warm body, shoveling pig shit in the slave pits.
It is the source of the deepest anxiety for the urbane dissident, the stuff of nightmares. If their silver-tongued magic fails, the Yarvins of the world know they may whisper into their gray mirrors all night long, but in the morning it will be back to the pits for them.
I expect that at least some of the dissident crowd will end up in the well-heeled gated communities of the better run bantustans/cantonments...perhaps working as tutors, computer programmers etc. There won't be much of a market for gurus or op-ed writers anymore than there will be for yoga instructors or pet psychiatrists. Whatever happens, I hope things work out OK for Curtis Y...he is not one of the villains. The real shock will come when post-collapse organised crime relieves people of what little they own. In some spots the gangsters will become the founders of the next wave of feudal aristocracy but it will take a few generations before 'noblesse oblige' kicks in. Until then life in the slave pits is going to be tough.
David Cole, who comes from a long line of radical Jews but turned against them, has often exposed what they are doing.
https://www.takimag.com/article/the-dysgenic-duo/
When I speak of blacks as “vessels” for Jewish revolutionary mischief, what I mean is that Jews, who always couch their revolutionary urges in the rhetoric of do-goodism, need a group they can claim to be fighting for—a helpless, hapless group, whose plight will never, can never, improve, thus giving permanent revolutionaries the permanent losers through whom to wage their permanent war.
Jews are not placated by their own success. If only they were mollified by material success. But no, there’s an impulse not satisfied by mere prosperity. They need the struggle, and if they’re no longer the ones struggling, they need a proxy who is.
-------------------------------------------------------
Darren Beattie at Revolver News knows the truth about the media owners, and their brethren like George Soros, which shows when he writes his own articles for the site. He dealt with this "ackshually, it's the CAPITALISTS!" claim:
https://www.revolver.news/2022/07/identity-politics-economic-issues-and-respectable-conservatives-scott-greer/
Post-liberalism is a boutique radicalism for those who want to appear to be striking sacred cows, but without suffering the penalty of actually doing so. They wrap themselves in platitudes and buzzwords about capitalism and other safe subjects and pretend the powers that be quiver at their words. In reality, structural liberalism doesn’t care about their radicalism so long as it affirms liberal racial dogmas.
...
Post-liberals prefer to blame “neo-liberalism” to make themselves more respectable in the eyes of the mainstream media.
The Right’s attacks on liberalism — in the classical sense — distracts from the real issues. The mom protesting her second grader being told to apologize for his white privilege isn’t animated by economic motives. She isn’t being tricked by Fox News or Douglas Murray into thinking that’s the real issue. She doesn’t want to read about how John Locke is responsible for all this. She wants the anti-white racism that her family directly experiences to end. She doesn’t want to live in a country where she becomes a second class citizen due to her skin color.
That’s not a distraction. That’s the fundamental issue of our time. And it’s certainly more important than unionizing DoorDash drivers.
-------------------------------------------------------
When the French Left in 1968 burned and looted in Paris they were led by a communist Jew calling himself "David the pirate". They wanted open borders to Algeria and Tunisia. Then as every year after that, they and their media attacked any "racism" in politics, any closing of borders, for the economy or for people. When social democrats in Sweden, Germany, Britain, advocated trade with Asia, Africa and East Europe on terms that favor them, not Western Whites, it's not "capitalism" or "cycles" that motivates them. It's the fact that Hollywood has been pushing an anti-White, anti-"racist" message for generations, seen for several hours per night in every household. And the most pro-immigration European country, Sweden - check out who dominate media ownership. The socialist government, and their leftist Jewish allies, above all in the Bonnier family. Which severely hurts the economy, for businesses and everyone else.
If it was "ackshually the CAPITALISTS!" who caused mass immigration, there'd be zero Affirmative Action. They gain nothing from promoting unqualified people in a business at the expense of the more qualified. Businesses are pushed to bring in hordes of non-Whites they don't want to hire. They are forced to pay for the welfare of Blacks and immigrants.
If it was "capitalists" who were behind immigration, domestic Blacks wouldn't be coddled. They'd be shoved aside as any non-Black immigrants are better workers. Instead, Blacks are praised and given privileges like Affirmative Action, and Blacks writing anti-White and anti-business books are given prime time.
If "capitalists" were in control the LA race riots, Whites being attacked for the media line about Trayvor Martin, and BurnLootMurder, would never happen. It could happen because the media bosses praised it, and anyone resisting was targeted. BLM burned and looted businesses and beat and killed people who protected the businesses, and the media said nothing. The political establishment said nothing, and the BLM leaders are now rich. The Jew George Soros financed BLM. I guess it's because he's a "capitalist" who somehow did it to promote businesses, not a leftist Jew who loved seeing White-owned businesses and White neighborhoods be attacked.
Any business owner who says something "racist" will be destroyed by the media, and the politicized courts will give money to the Blacks who sue him, with the politicians applauding. But if he advocated for tariffs between nations, that wouldn't even be a headline. If it's DA CAPITALISTS who are in control and who are behind immigration for lower wages, that wouldn't be the case. The reality is that it's the Left that controls schools, universities and the media, and push mass immigration that hurts businesses and everyone else.
Britain deserves a special mention.
Labour in the 1970s onward tried to freeze the economy by making it impossible to fire, and thereby to hire. That's why Margaret Thatcher won big three times in a row, beating Jeremy Corbyn's idol Michael Foot and saving the economy. Labour then focused on Cultural Marxism and immigration, with Smiling Tony as the new leader. He made sure almost half the population would go to the university, for leftist brainwashing by openly Marxist teachers.
(In British and U.S. universities, "sociology" textbooks have forewords naming Karl Marx as the founder of sociology, followed by fellow Jew Sigmund Freud and in third place people like Jewish communist Herbert Marcuse. These textbooks are translated and used all over Europe.)
Labour even wrote down the plan to bring in immigrants for votes. When Tony Blair was out of office, his aide Andrew Neather bragged about immigration being a tool for leftist policies:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
Blair adviser Andrew Neather admitted that their real objective had been "to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date," as the London Telegraph reported in 2009.
I have personally talked to a former leftist politician who admitted they said this in the party in our town: They had lost Whites, who became increasingly educated and well-off, so they were bringing in immigrant voters, giving them financial benefits.
----------------------------------------
Who were behind mass immigration and anti-Whiteness in Britain, leftist Jews or "capitalists who want lower wages"? Let's see.
https://www.unz.com/article/secure-tolerance-the-jewish-plan-to-permanently-silence-the-west/#comment-4045938
Labour in 1968 started British legislation against “race and sex discrimination,” creating the Jew-written Race Relations Act.
Labour’s Jewish Home Secretary *Frank Soskice was succeeded by Roy Jenkins in 1965, with Jewish *Anthony Lester behind him.
*Anthony Lester wrote Home Secretary Jenkins’ important race speech. He was the leading race campaigner in the Society of Labour Party Lawyers, and on the Society’s Race Relations Committee. He dictated to the extreme socialist Roy Jenkins how to write race laws.
In 1975 *Anthony Lester wrote Labour’s principles for new race legislation, in White Paper on Racial Discrimination.
At this time, and especially after ruining the economy and losing to Margaret Thatcher three times in a row, Labour planned mass importation of new voters.
The head of the five top Jewish lobby groups in Europe, *Moshe Kantor created the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation, for writing “tolerance” laws. It was first headed by Polish Social Democrat Aleksander Kwasniewski, and since then by Labour’s Tony Blair.
The work at the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation rests on *Moshe Kantor and *Yoram Dinstein – an Israeli who among other things has worked at the extremely socialist Amnesty International, in every European country staffed by Marxists and Social Democrats. In Britain Amnesty is almost completely filled by Labour members.
When Brexit happened, *Ari Paul, who writes for pro-Labour The Guardian and the extremely socialist Jacobin in the U.S., connected Brexit and national governance to The Holocaust.
Brexit was of course hated by the socialists and promoted by people on the Right for nationalist reasons. But a dishonest mind can always find fake-Right leaders, point to them and say, "See? They're the ones behind this, they want the EU and mass immigration for lower wages!"
The USA will be 250 years old in 2026. Stick a fork in it, it’s dead.
Liquidate its assets. It's bankrupt again. Pay off bond holders in ammo and claymore mines.
Hey Theophilus, I really enjoyed your article and so included it in a little round-up I write. I'm not sure that it will translate to much by way of traffic, but nevertheless, I thought you might get a kick out of it.
https://carsonmcauley.substack.com/p/some-stuff-i-think-you-might-like-afe
One who takes collapse seriously, and wishes to emerge from it, becomes a Templist.
He and it are coming soon
Question – isn’t the resistant to a collapse narrative & continual focus on institution capture adaptive?
Like wouldn’t it be selected for since the best thing to do in a collapse is keep fighting?
You end up in the best position that way||
If you could delete my comment asking the same on the main blog, I'd appreciate it.
Collapse is blatantly imminent without any historical gauge. Calling it merely a part of a cycle, however, belies the peculiar and particular nature of the situation we find ourselves in