Salient points to ponder. One could say the early fraternities and “lodges” worked to establish the type of elite preferences needed once again. To use the language of “revolution” is tricky but alas that is what’s needed. 1776 part deux
Great organisations are always born from a kernel of ruthless, capable men, of brothers with a mission. Apostles, Corleones, startup founders, generals… clean and noble radical men, aristocrats of the souls.
That’s always the core from everything stems and greatness comes, and then entitlement and putrefaction and finally a new rising.
Like with the samurai mentioned, there is always a double set of laws: one for the general public and one for my friends and family.
The deep, esoteric origins of the Yakuza and the Triads were in fact the warrior outlaws of the post-feudal Far East. They were the dispossessed samurai mercs who couldn’t find their place in a new, modern, ghey bugman-centric society. So, they formed their own boys’ clubs.
I really feel like there needs to be clarification in regards to the type of strength and ‘aristocratic’ spirit you speak of.
Lee Kuan Yew is admirable, yes, but he is not the same type person as Diomedes or Achilles. To be blunt he is just as much a bureaucrat and administrator as anyone in the WEF.
In a modern context what does it mean to be a warrior or nietzschean or aristocratic? Is it merely social Darwinism and a belief in eugenics? Is it merely willpower and strong work ethic?
We’re not ruled by the strong…we’re ruled by the fragile. And fragile power demands compliance because it can’t handle dissent. It’s not some Nietzschean elite, it’s a bloated managerial class held up by moral posturing and institutional control. Think weak men with strong HR departments…
I was expecting a "why" those refutations (in the paragraph of the tautology, Borges, etc) isn't a good refutation. It's a question that still can't really answer. Why current elites aren't the "mighty"
Do you remember when this meme was popular? Supposedly wolves are more kind, caring and compassionate, more humane than humans. We should aspire to be more like them. And less selfish, less savage. Than a wild wolf:
The meme was false, debunked at the time. By both a 'factcheck' and common sense of anyone who's spent time in the wilderness. Which means the meme is a form of psychological priming. To make people believe a falsehood they wish to be true:
The social engineers are always up to no good. Trying to separate us from our natural instincts that protect us. The weak but clever do this to gain power over the strong. And clever predators/competitors trying to weaken their prey/competition for the kill.
More than just one meme. Cross-societal. When you know what to look for it gets easy to see. Those connected to the natural world see through the deceptions of man. I explored the wolfpack meme more in this Stack I shared a few years ago:
Tfw reading this somewhat drunk and coming to the conclusion that I may actually be 90 IQ. I don't know anything, about anything, etc. Much to think about....
This is an excellent article. Many good points. Another modern phenomenon, mandarin like, is that old social psychology subject of conformity. Today we see clearly the role of wimmin in getting young male spirits of potential rebellion to conform ( doesn't your mother start that process)- we see at all levels of society and its institutions, from university to government (longhouse) in the modern world (not such a problem for the ancients). The femael persuasion to conform does not come as a direct challenge to men in physical or even intellectual form (they can't) but by their mere physical presence and subtle sexual emotional power that men naturally react to - men naturally drop their guard in female presence - this is at root their strength as inflooencers, persuaders, so in their presence you respond to their conservative appeal for settlement and order, a neutering of your natural instinct to creative chaos and the fight takes place, you start to reign in and conform.. There are types of conformity - compliance to a weak elite has been mentioned above - but its not mere compliance, it goes deeper, what psychologists have called identification - here the self serving but natural, instinctive femael narrative (equality, inclusion, the protection of the meek and downtrodden, piety etc) - is not just complied with by the responding male- but is internalised as a way of thinking ( sure some skepticism may remain but dormant) . To break this type of deep conformity is the one struggle we strong ones need to focus all our effort on. Our slogan. Do not conform, rebel.
A talented young man born in a crappy political situation, where he is told his ancestors were evil, that the highest activity is serving the underprivleged, and so on. What will you say to to him? What if he hears that all these moral commands placed upon him are made by people trying to take advantage of him and to render him harmless to their interests. What would you say to that?
"an aristocratic supremacist ideology that manifests itself as “Neoliberalism,”"
It appears that the exact way it works is
- an initial ideology is built by (more or less) normal people - capitalism, communism
- an infiltration / hijack process starts, concealed, in the background, by a different agenda (you express it as "an aristocratic supremacist ideology")
- the content of the initial ideology is slowly twisted and modified - nobody sees this, it's complex and words and things are substituted with the ones of "the new ideology"
- take over once it's heavy enough, but, preservation of the initial name of the initial ideology
And the thing is, that what you have been expressing as being "an aristocratic supremacist ideology" is the very same exact one, which has been attacking ALL the idologies we know of: communism, maoism, even nazism, capitalism, socialism etc etc
There seems to be a funnel towards the very same "stuff", while the starting ground vary; the "stuff" is adaptible and can attack whatseover.
This has been described as a "pathocracy" if it would be of interest to you. The very same stuff has been hijacking ideologies, along the centuries - and it's ALL the time the very same agenda.
This is why a Jewish totalitarism is as possible than an anti-Jewish totalitarist situation. Antifa, Zionism, etc etc - you just name it the stuff is just interested in grafting itself on juicy associations.
Some quotes:
"
If, in order to designate a pathological phenomenon, we accept the name furnished by the ideology of a social movement which succumbed to degenerative processes, we lose any ability to understand or evaluate that ideology and its original contents or to effect proper classification of the phenomenon, per se.
This error is not semantic; it is the keystone of all other comprehension errors regarding such phenomena, rendering us intellectually helpless, and depriving us of our capacity for purposeful, practical action.
Identifying these phenomena through history and properly qualifying them according to their true nature and contents, not according to the ideology in question, which succumbed to the characteristic process of caricaturization, is a job for historians.
"
So when you look at how a seemingly "aristocratic stuff" gets a grip and YIELDS some neoliberal mess, you are perfectly right and very on track:
"using the ideological name of the movement in order to understand its essence becomes a keystone of mistakes"
That's because you are starting to look at things in different terms than the firm absolutes of "ideological names" and things. There exists a whole different motion taking place, and the ideological names constitute a block for the study of it.
Salient points to ponder. One could say the early fraternities and “lodges” worked to establish the type of elite preferences needed once again. To use the language of “revolution” is tricky but alas that is what’s needed. 1776 part deux
Yes!
Great organisations are always born from a kernel of ruthless, capable men, of brothers with a mission. Apostles, Corleones, startup founders, generals… clean and noble radical men, aristocrats of the souls.
That’s always the core from everything stems and greatness comes, and then entitlement and putrefaction and finally a new rising.
Like with the samurai mentioned, there is always a double set of laws: one for the general public and one for my friends and family.
As we say in Spain:
“A mis enemigos, por el culo.
Por mis amigos, el culo.
Y al indiferente, el código vigente.”
The deep, esoteric origins of the Yakuza and the Triads were in fact the warrior outlaws of the post-feudal Far East. They were the dispossessed samurai mercs who couldn’t find their place in a new, modern, ghey bugman-centric society. So, they formed their own boys’ clubs.
Something important in this, I think.
Send to Nick Land. A believer that we need to respect Christianity because “it won”
Yes very true but it was a shame this wasn't addressed face to face he literally had him making these points at the podcast
I really feel like there needs to be clarification in regards to the type of strength and ‘aristocratic’ spirit you speak of.
Lee Kuan Yew is admirable, yes, but he is not the same type person as Diomedes or Achilles. To be blunt he is just as much a bureaucrat and administrator as anyone in the WEF.
In a modern context what does it mean to be a warrior or nietzschean or aristocratic? Is it merely social Darwinism and a belief in eugenics? Is it merely willpower and strong work ethic?
You raise a very good question though and I get what you're saying.
Lee was however ruthlessly pragmatic, realist and based and focused upon results.
We’re not ruled by the strong…we’re ruled by the fragile. And fragile power demands compliance because it can’t handle dissent. It’s not some Nietzschean elite, it’s a bloated managerial class held up by moral posturing and institutional control. Think weak men with strong HR departments…
I was expecting a "why" those refutations (in the paragraph of the tautology, Borges, etc) isn't a good refutation. It's a question that still can't really answer. Why current elites aren't the "mighty"
Do you remember when this meme was popular? Supposedly wolves are more kind, caring and compassionate, more humane than humans. We should aspire to be more like them. And less selfish, less savage. Than a wild wolf:
https://factcheck.afp.com/sick-wolves-dont-lead-pack-and-leader-isnt-last-line
The meme was false, debunked at the time. By both a 'factcheck' and common sense of anyone who's spent time in the wilderness. Which means the meme is a form of psychological priming. To make people believe a falsehood they wish to be true:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/priming
The social engineers are always up to no good. Trying to separate us from our natural instincts that protect us. The weak but clever do this to gain power over the strong. And clever predators/competitors trying to weaken their prey/competition for the kill.
More than just one meme. Cross-societal. When you know what to look for it gets easy to see. Those connected to the natural world see through the deceptions of man. I explored the wolfpack meme more in this Stack I shared a few years ago:
https://freedomfox.substack.com/p/foxes-know-wolves
Tfw reading this somewhat drunk and coming to the conclusion that I may actually be 90 IQ. I don't know anything, about anything, etc. Much to think about....
Hello fellow retard!
This is an excellent article. Many good points. Another modern phenomenon, mandarin like, is that old social psychology subject of conformity. Today we see clearly the role of wimmin in getting young male spirits of potential rebellion to conform ( doesn't your mother start that process)- we see at all levels of society and its institutions, from university to government (longhouse) in the modern world (not such a problem for the ancients). The femael persuasion to conform does not come as a direct challenge to men in physical or even intellectual form (they can't) but by their mere physical presence and subtle sexual emotional power that men naturally react to - men naturally drop their guard in female presence - this is at root their strength as inflooencers, persuaders, so in their presence you respond to their conservative appeal for settlement and order, a neutering of your natural instinct to creative chaos and the fight takes place, you start to reign in and conform.. There are types of conformity - compliance to a weak elite has been mentioned above - but its not mere compliance, it goes deeper, what psychologists have called identification - here the self serving but natural, instinctive femael narrative (equality, inclusion, the protection of the meek and downtrodden, piety etc) - is not just complied with by the responding male- but is internalised as a way of thinking ( sure some skepticism may remain but dormant) . To break this type of deep conformity is the one struggle we strong ones need to focus all our effort on. Our slogan. Do not conform, rebel.
Greetings:
S Subscribed.
(Free for the moment.)
Would appreciate same.
Value your work.
Thank you.
Open boarders and soft on crime is how we unleash the superior man.
If “the weak” were able to successfully deprive “the strong” of their “natural right”, then they weren't really “the strong” then, were they?
This is a common objection...
A talented young man born in a crappy political situation, where he is told his ancestors were evil, that the highest activity is serving the underprivleged, and so on. What will you say to to him? What if he hears that all these moral commands placed upon him are made by people trying to take advantage of him and to render him harmless to their interests. What would you say to that?
bap you have to stop using ai. it makes the articles look immature
Cannot find the Lee Kuan Yew video. Anyone has it?
"an aristocratic supremacist ideology that manifests itself as “Neoliberalism,”"
It appears that the exact way it works is
- an initial ideology is built by (more or less) normal people - capitalism, communism
- an infiltration / hijack process starts, concealed, in the background, by a different agenda (you express it as "an aristocratic supremacist ideology")
- the content of the initial ideology is slowly twisted and modified - nobody sees this, it's complex and words and things are substituted with the ones of "the new ideology"
- take over once it's heavy enough, but, preservation of the initial name of the initial ideology
And the thing is, that what you have been expressing as being "an aristocratic supremacist ideology" is the very same exact one, which has been attacking ALL the idologies we know of: communism, maoism, even nazism, capitalism, socialism etc etc
There seems to be a funnel towards the very same "stuff", while the starting ground vary; the "stuff" is adaptible and can attack whatseover.
This has been described as a "pathocracy" if it would be of interest to you. The very same stuff has been hijacking ideologies, along the centuries - and it's ALL the time the very same agenda.
This is why a Jewish totalitarism is as possible than an anti-Jewish totalitarist situation. Antifa, Zionism, etc etc - you just name it the stuff is just interested in grafting itself on juicy associations.
Some quotes:
"
If, in order to designate a pathological phenomenon, we accept the name furnished by the ideology of a social movement which succumbed to degenerative processes, we lose any ability to understand or evaluate that ideology and its original contents or to effect proper classification of the phenomenon, per se.
This error is not semantic; it is the keystone of all other comprehension errors regarding such phenomena, rendering us intellectually helpless, and depriving us of our capacity for purposeful, practical action.
Identifying these phenomena through history and properly qualifying them according to their true nature and contents, not according to the ideology in question, which succumbed to the characteristic process of caricaturization, is a job for historians.
"
So when you look at how a seemingly "aristocratic stuff" gets a grip and YIELDS some neoliberal mess, you are perfectly right and very on track:
"using the ideological name of the movement in order to understand its essence becomes a keystone of mistakes"
That's because you are starting to look at things in different terms than the firm absolutes of "ideological names" and things. There exists a whole different motion taking place, and the ideological names constitute a block for the study of it.
Good job