Too many people in the Dissident Right still have a boner for bigger government and more government power, but what they don’t understand is that larger government inevitably facilitates the deep state.

Hey, anyone remember Sri Lanka and what I said would happen? “No hapa, they are protesting so hard, so many people, we could learn a thing or two from them. They are takin’ back their government for real unlike you lazy yanks! They didn’t need any guns!”

Well well, I was right yet again. They might as well have no protested at all. Protesting and “taking over” state buildings changes nothing. There is no such thing as a bloodless revolution.

“Activists involved in the protest movement have been arrested, but allies of the former president are back in Parliament.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/03/world/asia/sri-lanka-protest-crackdown.html

What the Sri Lankans should have done is raided armories (for guns obviously), locked up the entire political class and put them all on trial, with many facing execution. But since Sri Lankans didn’t do that or couldn’t do that, nothing changed for them. They didn’t “get their government back,” instead it’s back to business with the same people in power minus one guy, the former president, their establishment’s token scapegoat.

https://news.1rj.ru/str/hapaperspective/7292

Duginism is grievance studies for bolsheviks.

It’s as if Knut Hamsun is basically describing the conditions for Caesarism: weak men putting their faith in another man.

https://news.1rj.ru/str/hvitgardr3/5463

"OMFG SO BASED!!"

People often wrongfully accuse me of being a Libertarian for merely supporting the 2A as well as my natural distrust of government. And now it seems “Libertarian” means anyone that doesn’t subscribe to the idea of the state having unlimited, unchecked, god like authority over every facet of your existence — as if the state automatically has a mandate from heaven. I’ve seen people here being accused of being Libertarians for merely wanting Covid lockdowns to end, or believing that individuals have any rights at all. If that’s not retarded, I don’t know what is.

Before half of the Dissident Right unanimously put Libertarianism in their crosshairs, I almost never heard anyone mention actual Libertarians, Libertarianism nor the actual Libertarian party — it was just a fringe, niche political group full of nerds that most boomer conservatives didn’t know about or ignored, and the few conservatives that knew about it laughed at it. Libertarianism now has more attention and credibility as an actual movement partly because the DR has been heavily infiltrated by FEDs that want goyim like you to forfeit your own rights and your own freedom; and Libertarianism serves as the easy strawman to indirectly gaslight many of our people into attacking any notion that the government shouldn’t own them and control their existence — it’s all way too convenient for this establishment that wants to enslave us.

What’s particularly odd is that the accusation of being a “Libertarian” is more of an affront than being called an Anarchist, and no here accuses anyone of being an Anarchist. Perhaps claiming to be an Anarcho-Nationalist in response to being accused of being a Libertarian is the way to go, but in truth I’m no Anarchist either.

My argument as a pro-individual-rights kind of guy is that we’re so far removed from power, and it’s not likely that we’ll have government power we can trust anytime soon, and that limitations on government is our greatest hope for survival.

The only hope the dissident right has of getting its hands on government power is through the greater normie conservative movement, but the vitriolic hatred our movement has toward boomer conservatives and “lolbertarians” has become so aggressively destructive and isolationist, that I don’t see that happening soon enough to matter, if at all. So individual rights against government is really the only thing that we have.

Medieval rebels, noble and peasant alike, resisting the power of the king and central government would probably be denounced as silly liberals.

The idea that the great mass of men should passively conform to the will of a single man, or single clique of a few men, is on its face weak, effeminate, and slavish. It's easy enough for 'influencers' to advocate it and not automatically feel disgusted because they imagine themselves at the top of the pyramid. What's more odd is that there are millions of men who subscribe to this idea and don't feel ashamed, though they are the slavish followers.

We can't all be leaders, most shall be followers, but leadership is conferred by the free consent of the followers. "I follow suchandsuch because I have confidence in his abilities". Confidence should never be given unconditionally, and followers should be prepared to scrutinise and judge the abilities of their leader.

When that confidence is lost, then the follower must be allowed to stop following. Faced with the possibility of loss of support the leader must constantly strive to earn and re-earn the confidence of his followers by producing actual results for them.

A leader attempting to inculcate his followers with the idea that there is no true measure of his performance, that they should follow him no matter what, and that there is no absolute standard of correct interpersonal behaviour (law and rights), is a desperate move to insulate himself from that pressure of having to actually do something good for anyone but himself.

This doesn't just apply to embryonic social movements confined to the internet, it applies to virtually any sphere of social activity. How much better the world would be if people were more critical of the institutions they serve, and the people who hold the reins, whether it's the government, or a bank, or a charity, or a corporation.

If that's libertarian then I'm a libertarian.

This is incredible to watch. You can tell that the director of the FBI is lying, struggling to pretend that he doesn’t even know what’s going on, like a captain pretending that he doesn’t know his own ship. Of course he’s just feigning ignorance to avoid having to explicitly deny that his agency has been weaponized against heritage America. This just epitomizes how corrupt our government is.

https://youtu.be/-EQOD4GsFKA

“How power should be exercised and what sort of hierarchy we should have is a complex discussion and our current assessment needs to be informed by our current context.

First and foremost, the elite caste of our society is full of evil criminals, practically without exception. For that reason, it literally doesn’t matter to me if their laws or policies seem wise or good in isolation, and I’m not interested in any kind of ‘nuanced discussion’ about which of their policies are good or bad; whether or not they should do this or that… I’m only interested in bringing these criminals to justice— it trumps any and all issues. It’s akin to if someone murdered my child, there are no words to adequately describe how little I would care about a debate on whether or not any of their other actions are good or bad… nothing would matter to me besides bringing them to justice for their crime.

So any discourse about laws or hierarchy is meaningful to me only in a hypothetical world where this elite caste is removed from power. But most people don’t fully grasp how profound the effects would be if we actually removed this elite caste. They control so unbelievably much; practically all politics, industry, finance, media, etc. is under their direction, and they have literally been bred for it for generations. Replacing them and continuing the status quo would be practically impossible… we would have to figure out how society would look in the absence of our malevolent technocrats.
Not all of the techno-industrial system would vanish, but I personally think things would return to something much less industrial, much more local, much more agrarian, more ‘yeomanish’ after a period of unparalleled chaos and destruction.

What does our political theory look like in that world? That’s way more interesting to me than the dandy-intellectual self-indulgent musings of many DR influencers that see themselves as the current elite’s replacement candidates.”

— Apollonian Germ.

For those that don’t understand, Wray is the current director of the FBI. The Whitmer kidnapping involved a fake militia full of FBI informants/agents that planned to kidnap Whitmer, the governor of Michigan; the Detroit FBI field office is in Michigan (for those that don’t know). After the fake militia in Michigan was busted, the director of that FBI field office in Michigan was transferred and promoted to Director of the Washington DC FBI field office, just before J6. This is significant because it gives credence to the claim that the riot in the capitol likely involved FBI agents setting it up, just as they did in Michigan with the fake militia plotting to kidnap Whitmer. Both the fake kidnapping plot in Michigan and J6 have “unindicted co-conspirators,” that means people directly involved with the alleged crime that were let off the hook for “reasons...” Both events happened under the same FBI director doing the same thing.

TL;DR: The FBI is responsible for the riot in the Capitol.

Defining "American" as a civic identity only serves to reinforce the arguments and worldview of anti-white extremists who hate us and want us dead.

If you would refrain from defining the South African identity in terms of civics out of respect for Boers, why wouldn't you do the same for the American identity out of respect for the descendants of its British settlers?

I mostly agree with Howe, however I think the label “American” should include other NW European ethnicities that were similar enough to the generally Anglo founding stock that helped settle and build this country after its divorce from the British Empire, not just the descendants of the very first settlers (of which I’m descended from ironically). What about the varieties of Whites that came later to tame the Wild West, are they not American too? Obviously they are. The founding fathers intended to keep this country open to mostly North Western Europeans, and it was broadly that variety of White ethnic groups (especially from around the North Sea) that had been mixing with each other even before America was discovered by Columbus; that’s what makes up the racial DNA of the founding/settler stock that we call Heritage Americans, or just real Americans.

https://news.1rj.ru/str/realjaredhowe/5917

Every “schizo” post should be punctuated with something like “of course we all know that Zionist power is really behind all of this”. In the same manner Muslims do whenever they mention Muhammad “peace be upon him” or Cato the Elder did with “Carthage must be destroyed”.

This is a great way to troll the Roasties Because if they wish to challenge you, they either have to defend zionists from the charge or explain zionists’ lack of omnipotence in whatever area the post is concerned with.

Judge from Alex Jones' trial, Maya Guerra Gamble. They hit him with the Democrap's strongest soldier: A fat Mexican (potentially Sephardi) feminist vaxhead. No way it's gonna be fair.

“The ZOG regime will try inasmuch as possible to depict this conflict as being one of democracy versus authoritarianism, and liberty versus despotism. We must, however, deconstruct that narrative and impose our own. White vs. Yellow. Aristocratic egalitarianism vs. Oriental despotism. Smiling, heroic Aryan warriors vs. faceless Asiatic hordes. This will not only delegitimize the regime by exposing its hypocrisy, but also awaken people in the West as to the fundamentally racial and ethnic nature of conflict — not just this conflict, but every conflict on the planet.

Above all, dissidents must not allow themselves to be suckered into carrying water for either side of this conflict.”

https://counter-currents.com/2022/08/the-china-question/

Spirit of kaczynski