I worked it out. I see, I'm supposed to understand folk like Michael Anton are just lying:
"Yet in the summer of 2020, our ruling class actively encouraged, through
state-aligned media, the repeated sacking of Manhattan, the very
beating heart of the Davos Archipelago, where our richest and most
powerful overlords live and work."
(Autism: it's not good for you.) In reality they can't be that powerful, now can they? Can't even stop a riot? Indeed they are not. Ref: when BLM tried to burn down CNN all of a sudden cops found their backbone. Anton knows, (you can tell because he's smart enough to tie his own shoes without a minder) but he lies about this because that's just what his in-group does. Those are just his mores. You're supposed to understand that nobody could possibly be this stupid without getting their internet cut off for non-payment.
(P.S. See also: the first night of rioting in NYC was shut down, because the mayor forgot to order the cops to stand down. It's okay, someone made the right phone call by night two. Oops, that was embarrassing! How are Antonites supposed to pretend they're incompetent if they accidentally forget to be incompetent?)
Originally, they thought that "serious" Americans could never possibly take seriously the depths of depravity that Communists normally sink to. The Communist evil was downplayed. Secondly, as hardly needs be said, McCarthy. A half-intensity story would be enough, right? In any case, the less-left is a bunch of surrender monkeys, so failure isn't failure. McCarthy's anemic accusations brought genuine Sovereign wrath, affirming the less-left's commitment to never genuinely oppose it. McCarthy didn't make it in the "real world." Obviously not Kwality-selected like we are, right guys?
By now it's clear that being open about it would A) condemn their forebears as, at best, extremely naive and B) spread "despair," which would, of course, affect revenues such as donation and sold column-inches.
Mores created, mores set. It's customary.
Fascists gonna Fasc, which is isomorphic to Satanists gonna Sate. Worshipping lies is just traditional and Lindy at this point.
P.S. Anton is clearly historically illiterate, as per Fascist and Christian mores. Burn those books, lest we recognize this has all happened before. How are you supposed to repeat your rapine and plunder if your methods are recognized as rapine and plunder? Come now.
P.P.S. If the link breaks again, try this.
12 comments:
Well I admit I had trouble following all your arguments this time so I tried to follow the link but it shows up as not working ...
I won't link directly to the site and I can't make it work in the archive, but the article is on the site newcriterion.com
I read the article and this is my understanding of the argument.
1) Anton pretends to be quote-unquote conservative; writing a long article about how rational it is to be anti-immigrant/critical race theory/ commie whatever, ie, he makes good-think right wing points
2) He blames the elite classes for the decay of the west, stating that ALL this wrong is the desire of the elites furthering his street cred.
3) He implies that ultimately the "elites" are the "barbarians at the gates" of Ancient Rome, sending Antifa/ BLM to destroy everything. Basically, his entire argument comes down to "It's normal for foreigners to destroy everything, but it's NEVER been the case that the GOVERNMENT destroys everything!"
Then we get to what I think Alrenous' main point is:
4) He fails to mention that the destruction is carefully funnelled towards things not of interest to these elites, carefully planned and managed to have a certain appearance. It's not "the sacking of Rome" we're seeing, it's "political pressure placed properly".
Patriot act was an outcome of terror - so, terror means we can add more law and control. You always get what you incentivise and the elites are highly incentivised to set cities on fire.
But of course Anton is lying and well understands that this is why they're doing it.
Link fixed and backed up.
--
It is a bit weird that the Regressive Inquisition is so fond of setting their own cities on fire. Washington is over 50% African-American, which is a lot like having an unquenchable fire. (Ref: Detroit.) Excluding the few real neighbourhoods, such as Georgetown, the city has already returned to jungle.
Maybe they would like to set red cities on fire, but have to stop at posturing? "Soon! Soon we'll be able to set your cities on fire too!"
Maybe they're genuinely that sadistic. Maybe the CIA is genuinely that incompetent, and have to set something on fire lest they set nothing on fire. The new new left aren't the sharpest steak-knives in the travelling salesman's briefcase.
Note there is indeed a large difference between African-American and African from Africa.
"There is a population that we continue to educate but is not educated enough to the extent that they will not be manipulated again."
State Department: "Oof."
Luckily the UN is here to make sure most Africans in Africa get properly Americanized. When they got kicked out of Somalia in 1991, it was extraordinarily embarrassing. "During the last five years of government rule, life expectancy fell by two years but since state collapse, it actually has increased by five years." Haha, oops!
>It is a bit weird that the Regressive Inquisition is so fond of setting their own cities on fire. Washington is over 50% African-American, which is a lot like having an unquenchable fire. (Ref: Detroit.) Excluding the few real neighbourhoods, such as Georgetown, the city has already returned to jungle.
How much additional taxes will we need to extract from the productive when things need to be rebuilt?
Is "they burnt it down, they can pay to rebuild it" an acceptable argument? No. The regressive inquisition can set things on fire and then get their political enemies to fix it on their dime. Work an extra 15 hours a week, bud, you don't want poor inner city children to be HOMELESS do you?
The hilarity of the situation is that the regressive pretends to be on the side of compassion when they literally enslave their political enemies.
>Maybe they would like to set red cities on fire, but have to stop at posturing?
As above, no. This is about maximal gains from the defect-cooperate game. If you attack the red cities, threaten the life/safety of the people you're exploiting, they might actually fight back and then you lose everything.
Think about the careful narratives. It's racist to point out FBI crime statistics and also racist for police to shoot people who statistically are more likely to fire a gun at police. The red cities are filled with people who are politically conservative, ie, if you put into place a social more they will defend it with religious fervour.
The whole "getting rid of CRT" is meant to be panacea for the ego of people noticing that they're being exploited. They think it's a political win, but really, they're still paying to rebuild cities burnt down by ungrateful assholes.
And if you're working to pay to build someone else a house, you don't have a lot of time for noticing or resisting the creep of government overreach.
All the regressives are doing is exploiting the world view/ culture of one (you work, you get a job, you pay for things) against another (anyone with money stole it/ my race keeps me poor), and skimming power and privilege off the top.
A bit of a stretch? It's all funded through inflation anyway. They don't need any additional manoeuvres. The reality is a bunch of left-of-centre proles got their lives ruined, and it won't be rebuilt.
It's true that actually laying seige to red cities is a bad idea. I personally don't think they really would fight back, but it's a plausible threat model. Why rock the boat when it's so clearly working?
Inflation is just another form of wealth transfer/ theft anyway.
"fighting back" could be, literally, refusing to work and dying.
The entire model revolves around keeping the productive people productive and skimming as much wealth off their backs as possible.
I don't think there's a concerted, well designed over-arching strategy, but nonetheless, the people in actual control of the USG still have a great understanding of how to manage humans at population level.
Or, come to think, just being unable to work.
I suspect many of the Regime are basically smart like me, because e.g. they know not to kill the golden goose. This is surprisingly occult knowledge, but they have it down pat.
>I suspect many of the Regime are basically smart like me, because e.g. they know not to kill the golden goose.
Exactly correct. I've had almost this exact conversation with my brother. Difference between you and an "elite" is that you acknowledge slavery to be Satanic and you won't participate. (ie, you accept that a defect-cooperate game eventually leads to defect-defect and then we all die).
Oops, you're wrongthinking, guess you get to go live with the proles and have even lower quality of life than them, since, well, your creative impulses can never be truly realised.
Living with the "elite" is way worse. You're surrounded by arch-narcissists, just for a start. Can you imagine having to talk about nothing but politics? Having to pretend - knowing everyone is also just pretending - to believe in all that crap? Every word out of your mouth is a lie?
I could have got a PhD and got a nice cushy sinecure. Except: I stopped for a moment and visualized having to socialize with multiple Academic professors on a daily basis.
Bonus round: I never have to write a grant proposal.
Double bonus round: I saved thousands of hours on not doing homework in university.
I could go on and on.
>Living with the "elite" is way worse
I agree with you entirely and would prefer to spend my time with people more similar to myself.
However I appreciate the artefacts their culture can potentially generate.
It's different personality types. Like warriors and priests can all be elite, social rulers, but totally different cultures. It's good for them and if we can extract something useful out of it as a culture/ species we should.
I think the hard part comes when they don't appreciate you back. That the soil in which resentment grows. "Look how wonderful what we are doing is, and how useful. And look how useless YOU are compared to ME!!"
I don't feel any resentment towards people with less intelligence than me who can't understand what I might say or think. But the elite are ostensibly on my level mentally, or close, and double whammy, outwardly espouse the need for valuing other cultures.
So, yeah, screw them, they're hypocrites.
>Except: I stopped for a moment and visualized having to socialize with multiple Academic professors on a daily basis.
Which is a shame, because I think that being an Academic in, say, the mid 50's would have been particularly rewarding and enjoyable. (Can you imagine hanging out with someone as radical as BF Skinner? That's a fascinating person there... ) My university experience was varied and most lecturers/ professors were useless know-nothings, but a few (my academic supervisor for my honours thesis in particular) were very enlightening and enjoyable to deal with.
Although, hilariously in line with your prediction on fraud in hard sciences, my thesis was a "hard science" replication of a psychological study. I found a very glaring and obvious reason as to why they got the significant result, which I tried to argue with him about continually. Finally he revealed the game, that he knew that they were full of shit (not directly, obtusely) but that you don't do research by attacking the wrong. Just pile more shit on, and you get to go to conferences in Switzerland.
Pretend the lies are truth and you get rewarded. Attack the lies and get nothing.
>Bonus round: I never have to write a grant proposal
Some people legitimately enjoy that. I really enjoy eating all parts of all types of animals, they probably don't. Who's right or wrong? Neither.
"The charge that universities are directly responsible for almost all the violence in the world today, for example, strikes me as essentially accurate."
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/07/my-navrozov-moments/
"As such it has no more use for independent thought than a dog has for beets."
"It was to show us the clever ways in which the authors had disguised the fact that their work was, while still cool and certainly not inaccurate in any way, utterly useless for any practical purpose."
"My Navrozov moment, of course, was when I approached one of the two—Sacco, I think—and attempted to have an intellectual discussion of this realization. The story is basically the same as Navrozov’s, so it would be boring to repeat, but basically I came away with the feeling that I’d told someone his Sicilian grandmother liked to get drunk and fuck her own goats.
Which, in fact, I had. Because I’d essentially told him his research was fraudulent. The fact that my research was also fraudulent, and that neither of ours was particularly noteworthy in that regard, did not matter. And why should it? Others’ crimes cannot excuse your own."
Post a Comment