

There’s No Power Without “Downward Distribution”

“Downward distribution” or worse, “socialism,” gets muttered in tones of dread from vanilla conservatives to hard core dissidents. This is a sign they are deeply confused since distribution of resources is what makes a ruler to begin with. In primitive societies, there are big men who work hard to throw the biggest feast and win followers. In early cities, the civic life and religion revolves around distributing grain from the temple granary. It is only in mega-societies of millions where flows of wealth are less transparent that anyone could forget the ruler rules by largesse.
As it is, the roads, the parks, libraries, schools, the military and police, the utilities, the courts, public entertainment, are all forms of downward distribution that establish the legitimacy of a ruling class. If the rulers did not redistribute in ways that provided a net benefit against any alternative, no one would suffer them to rule if they could possibly help it. Even if a local gang is the strongest power, it taxes for protection and its godfather may grant a favor in return for your loyalty on his daughter’s wedding day.

When I see rants about downward distribution on message boards, I understand they are really concerned about the wrong kind of redistribution. Yet these critics are almost unanimously unable to make this critical distinction because they buy into an idea of a mythical independent man who pulls himself up by his own bootstraps. This attitude may not have been wholly delusional in an immature frontier society but in the US the frontier started to close off in the 1890s, helping to trigger a wave of populism then as the pressure release valves suddenly stopped working as well. Now, the frontiers are long gone and there are 330 million mouths to feed in an ungovernable omni-ethnic empire.

Until those with that conservative impulse examine themselves, they are doomed to abject failure. They idolize the lone wolf stronger than all the rest or the elite cadre but all social animals decide affairs by politics, or in other words, alliances rather than individual prowess. This is why an alliance of women and gays can effortlessly push aside the protests of individual men. Even an alpha chimpanzee has to be careful about making too many enemies. Thus we need not dwell on theories of Biological Leninism. If one philosophy encourages individual competition and another encourages collective action, an alliance of children throwing dirt clods triumphs just as easily.

Those who like to call themselves right-wing typically exclude more than they include. Joining their group is supposed to be a hard and selective process. This is the fundamental mistake they make in politics. The right fails to distinguish the ethics of the close-knit tribe from the process of making alliances, even with people and groups they may not like.

The right also lacks any introspection about what kind of group it is. Conservatism, for instance, only really appeals to the white upper working class to the middle of middle class outside of major city centers plus some well-to-do country club types. Nothing they do can broaden that appeal. Neither “natural conservatives” nor Prester John will ride out of nowhere to save the day. Conservatives are the classic case of a static tribe that thinks it is an alliance. Since 2016, reality has caught up with them no matter how they might weep and gnash their teeth. They are but one part of a coalition now, unable to decide elections even on their home ground.

The right wing desires power but it always floats outside their grasp and it will always do so until they recognize that that downward distribution is a tool for sealing alliances that help get them what they want. For decades, their reaction has been to thrash and flail like a drowning man, giving anyone who tries to rescue them a sharp elbow to the face in their panic and paranoia. It is a mathematical law that the party of the 48% loses every election by at least 4%.

First, the faction that wishes to assume power must assess who they want to include and who to exclude from a hierarchical alliance while maintaining strict standards for their core tribe which they intend to occupy the top rung. So the problem lies not in whether or not to redistribute, but in how and how much to redistribute to each included faction. Then, when that is decided, it remains to figure out which enemy factions the alliance should attack first and most intensely.

Lately, the term “incel” has entered into the popular consciousness after possibly a decade of it being common parlance in the manosphere. Incels are men who have nothing to lose in the present system, many of them skilled and educated. They are the very stuff from which a re-alignment in power is made. The cost of their loyalty is very little as a plant kept in the dark loves dearly a single hour in the sunlight. Yet right wingers want only Christian married men with solid careers and successful businesses who can spit tight game when needed. They just don’t get it. The people they want most are those least likely to rock the boat.
The raw material is already abundant. Someone astute just needs to throw a few bones in the right directions.

The core thesis of an alt-center is the golden mean where the interests of a neo-tribal aspiring upper caste and its supporting alliance intersect. Instead of shaming the man who doesn’t get laid, offer him virgins if he’s willing to take big risks against the common enemy.

35 responses to “There’s No Power Without “Downward Distribution”

  1. wiseguy May 17, 2018 at 8:01 pm


    How will this be done? The answer is staring us in the face: religious orders. They are the natural dedicated cores around which normie allies orbit, and they are very okay with celibacy. Some may object that they are not worldly enough to be the kingpins of a political coalition, but that’s a feature not a bug, as real power lays outside the democratic process. If they can gain the cultural, military, and economic clout of, say, the Knights Templar, then political power becomes a fait accompli. Of course, that’s much easier said than done, but that’s also easier and more productive for average Joes to attempt than it would be for them to attempt to lead an electoral voting bloc.

    • Garr May 20, 2018 at 1:06 am

      Scott Alexander commands a developing or gestating or emerging religious order. Being okay with celibacy should be combined with employment of decent-looking shared and personal mistresses, with the shared ones being payed maybe $100,000/yr and the personal ones maybe $50,000/yr over and above basic living-costs, with US government grants covering these costs. Figure one shared mistress per 5 sharers, with probably only about 5% of the order having personal mistresses. (I’m guessing that most of Alexander’s monks would be content with spending only one night per week with their shared mistress, who would thus have a couple of nights to herself.)

  2. Shane Eide May 18, 2018 at 8:58 am


    This also reminds me of the way conservatives talk about ‘big government,’ as if the alternative should be to build a mechanism into the government itself by which it should be simpler to overthrow this same government should it ‘go tyrannical.’ It’s a turtles-all-the-way-down approach to sovereignty which, ironically, ripples back the other direction to reinforce the independent man idea you mentioned. The conservative attitude begs the question: what’s the purpose of fitting a government to the needs of an independent man? What could he possibly need from a government which would voluntarily select him or at least allow room for him? The fact that conservatives are not asking themselves this question would seem to suggest that the independence they are always talking about is more a projection of their own utopian fantasy than anything to do with an affirmation of social order as it operates in real time. Money is never neutral to begin with. The great paradox would seem to be that it is almost as impossible to figure out just what in the world a ‘free market’ could possibly be as it is to properly disentangle socialism from capitalism.

    Anyway, I didn’t mean to get too much away from your original point. You point out something very vital which people on every side of the political spectrum seem to resist – that without sovereignty, there is no economy.


    I’m tickled by this possible advertisement for a neo-tribalist alt-center: ‘It gets right in THIS life what Islam fucks up by inserting it in the next one!’

    Great post.

    • Garr May 23, 2018 at 9:39 am

      In Brooklyn, anyway, Islam’s inserting it quite a bit in this life too. The hijab-girls are chirpy and eager to please, and if Islam takes over America it will be because the Western boys want to convert in order to marry them.

      • Lalit June 1, 2018 at 10:08 pm

        News for you mate. Islam is very much about this life. You need to brush up on your Jim

  3. collegereactionary May 19, 2018 at 5:49 am

    The practical effect of this is that republicans will always lose, because they hate the idea of taking a government check.

    I keep up with local politics. That’s the biggest problem the republican party has. Leftists, even anarchists, are great at building up institutions. They build a social culture around a place, cement it with a fair amount of money, and they have a new stronghold.

    Meanwhile, the republicans can’t even get organized enough for a political attack on leftist strongholds, much less build up their own.

    • A.B. Prosper May 30, 2018 at 1:00 am

      The toxic combination of muh founders minrachy, obsolete anti communist conditioning and neo liberalism leading to an atomized state of consumers without and ethos that makes up the establishment Right

      On those grounds they deserve to lose

      However the dissident right isn’t like this and is slowly building parallel institutions. They aren’t all that good at it as creative work, i.e lying for a living is antithetical to the character of many conservatives but they do get the need.

  4. stonerwithaboner May 21, 2018 at 3:52 am

    UBI, UBI, UBI!!!!

    Just curious, did you see Logan?

    I think the political message is incredibly subversive and surprised I did not see any complaints from the Alt-Riech/manuresphere…

    • Garr May 23, 2018 at 9:34 am

      Deadpool and the Avengers/Guardians movies reject all traditional order but also all group-identities, Deadpool mockingly/explicitly so, so left-libertarian?

      (Didn’t see Black Panther, but that seems to be an exception on both counts. In the last Avengers movie the big final battle takes place in Wakanda, a weird traditional/tribal place in a weird far-away land apparently at the far edge of the galaxy, kind of like the Ewok-planet.)

      Didn’t see Logan — daughter takes over? Note that in the Nibelungenlied (1200), Tasso, Ariosto, and Spenser (16th Century) there are female superheroes.

      • stonerwithaboner May 24, 2018 at 1:07 am

        I’m actually behind on superhero movies, last one I saw was Suicide Squad. Only caught Logan because it was at the library. (And I wouldn’t actually call it a superhero movie, more dystopian sci-fi.)

        “daughter takes over?” Well, spoilers, not exactly, but she gets to live….

  5. deltahedge May 21, 2018 at 12:56 pm

    Some random thoughts from me on this:

    1. Right-wing doesnt understand how majority thinks: Correct. What helped me understand the democractic process was the MBTI. Basically, predicts the way one would think and argue. Should we make everyone more equal, even at the expense of applying different standards to different peopel? If there is a war in Syria, should we take these people? If yes, how many? If no, should we even help? The individuals answer can be easily inferred from his or her MBTI type. The distribution of MBTI types shows that there will always be a tendency towards more “empathy” and more “socialism”, unless a massive genetic shifts happens, either through internal processes (famine changing mating behaviour) or through external processes (war with another tribe).

    2. Rewarding incels to gain political power: Current political process way too far away to consider such an approach. Its not even overton window, its the lack of intellectual capacity/awareness of current status of people in or near power to even consider such an approach. However this concept helps to understand why ISIS is very attractive in the muslim world. And I am not saying that in a bad or condescending way – if Islam manages to set a process in place where you are guaranteed a virgin for propagating their political system, will become very, very attractive to many men. Right now, no such guaranteed process exists (not counting the 72 virgins in heaven).

    3. Coming from point 1, explains why some form of national socialism is and has to be the answer. If you dont include socialism in your policy, you end up in mercantilism – which means the Jews will ultimately dominate such a society (as in the US today). Germany did very well from 1933-1945, in a form on centralized national socialism. Today is has become a decentralized international socialist system, which doesnt work at all. If socialism, you need nationalism as well. A good example where national socialism is practised today, and that shows that it can work very well, is Denmark – although its a form of decentralized national socialism.

    • Garr May 21, 2018 at 5:22 pm

      British-origin people will dominate any fundamentally libertarian society (as is the case in the USA) with Jews functioning well as their expert-minions, like that Dark Wizard guy who’s always floating alongside Thanos in the last Avengers movie. Right, Stonerwithaboner?

      Any British-origin society is going to be fundamentally libertarian — the Shire. Germanic societies are going to be timocratic (I finished The Nibelungenlied last night; that’s how I know this), and maybe Denmark tends that way although I think I read somewhere that the British libertarian spirit really comes from the Danelaw-region of AngloSaxon England.

      A Jewish society is going to be fundamentally national-theocratic, which will involve socialistic tendencies. You might say, “Yeah, well that tendency gets translated into fanatical Progressivism here in the USA.” Maybe, but since its just the losers that get way into that stuff while the better-quality nonreligious Jews end up as expert-minions working for the British-origin lords, this … fuck it, I don’t know how to finish this sentence.

      Libertarian lords? How is that possible? Well, Ultron and Thanos are perfect examples. They’re really good at doing whatever the fuck they want to do, like Musk and Bezos.

      • Sam J. May 23, 2018 at 10:25 am

        “…British-origin people will dominate any fundamentally libertarian society (as is the case in the USA) with Jews functioning well as their expert-minions…”
        That’s just silly. The Jews run the US and Britain. They own all the media, most of the banks, very, very large parts of the industry. Especially after the bank bail outs. They run the wars that the US is in the Middle East. To say differently is to pay no attention to society.

      • Garr May 24, 2018 at 2:03 am

        Media and banks are exactly the sorts of things that expert-minions would get assigned to. I’m sure that the Dark Wizard — “Ebony Maw” I believe; I just wiki’d the movie — who floats alongside Thanos (or rather in front of him, but somewhat to one side as I recall, in a herald-kind-of-way) runs Thanos’s media and banks.

      • Sam J. May 29, 2018 at 3:10 am

        “…Media and banks are exactly the sorts of things that expert-minions would get assigned to…”

        Please just stop. Nobody believes, except fools, that there will ever be any mutually beneficial relationship between Jews and Whites or Jews and any other race. Jews are too aggressive, too amoral and too mentally fucked up to live in peace and without acting as parasites on any society they go to in large numbers. After all their evil religion is that everyone on the planet will be Jew slaves and the Jews will own everything. How can anyone live with people with such a fucked up religion? You can’t. In the US and Europe they’re burning the society down to the ground just to get their hatred on for Whites. (Could be any peoples. If you were in China they’d be burning down China). Eventually it will be just the same as everywhere else Jews have gone for thousands of years and we will have to throw them all out to limit the damage. Jews can’t live with anyone else without attacking them. It’s not possible for them. Their mental makeup doesn’t allow for it.

      • Garr May 29, 2018 at 11:24 pm

        Sam, I attended Orthodox shuls for years, was strictly observant, regularly attended Talmud-study sessions, conversed at length with lots of Yeshiva-educated guys, read Samson Raphael Hirsch and Joseph Soloveitchik (as well as lots of other relevant stuff Including Maimonides on Noahide law) because I like to learn about things) and never encountered this “everyone on the planet will be Jew slaves and the Jews will own everything” idea, not even as a joke. It’s not in any sources that anyone in the Orthodox Jewish world knows anything about, and people in the Orthodox Jewish world are really into sources.
        Anyway, you’re doing this blog an important service by confirming its authentically truly purely rightist credentials. Just like the kids at AKarlin’s blog who despise the increasingly popular Alternatives fur Deutschland party because its representatives say nice things about Israel. What matters above all, if you want to be authentically truly purely rightist, is to hate The Jews. You purify this blog with your purity! There is no need for you to read Plato or Marcus Aurelius or Spenser or Milton — you already have what it takes to be an authentically truly pure thinking man of the Right — you hate Jews.
        Who else will commend you? Will Apollo? Will Odin? Will Indra? Maybe, maybe not. Surely, though, the Holy Ancient One of Israel, Hashem whose spirit floated above the formless Waters of the Tohu and Bohu and gave them form, looks upon you and commends you for your Authenticity, for your truly pure Jew-hating Rightwardness. When you stand before the Heavenly Throne facing millions of billions of many-armed flaming-eyed angelic beings in tiers upon tiers ascending ever onward, you shall hear the collective song of praise soaring and swelling around and above you: “There he stands — Sam the Jew-hater!” And Hashem will smile down upon you and bless you. He will gesture, and the gate of the Garden will open before you, and you will enter, your soul floating within you, for you will know and feel your own blessedness, the blessedness of one who truly, authentically hates The Jews with an infinitely pure hatred.

      • Sam J. June 2, 2018 at 10:14 am

        “…Orthodox shuls for years, was strictly observant, regularly attended Talmud-study sessions, conversed at length with lots of Yeshiva-educated guy..l.”

        I don’t believe you because of two reasons. The Jews are notorious liars and your actions as a group have been to destroy Whites, and everyone else you live among, in the most horrendous vicious ways in all of your known history. I didn’t forget what you did in Babylon, Spain, Germany, Russia and many other smaller principalities. You’ve done this over and over and over and over. Whenever you’ve had power over peoples lives you’ve always started in in genocide and mass murder. The more control you have the more evil you get. The actions of the Jews are in no way distinguishable from a tribe of psychopaths in large groups.

        “…if you want to be authentically truly purely rightist, is to hate The Jews…”

        Blah, blah, blah, you reap what you sow. You people have been thrown out of every single country where you’ve ever gone to in any numbers. History condemns you. The reason is your behavior and unwillingness to ever look at yourself critically. It’s always someone else fault. Jews will never reform in any meaningful way. They will never stop lying. They never stop blaming everyone else. They never stop hating everyone on the planet. I surmise it’s genetic. Until it’s bred out of you you will always be the same. The best we can do is separate you from us. Peacefully if we can get it but by any means possible.


        Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

      • Sam J. July 16, 2018 at 10:59 pm


        Confirmation from Unz…but I already knew. A great deal of my frustration with Jews is their constant swarmy lies. Lies, lies, lies all the time. I assume everything they say is a lie or some sort of twerk to the truth to mislead.

  6. Sam J. May 23, 2018 at 10:39 am

    This article is right on. I think that at some point there needs to be a national base salary. Those that do nothing will have enough to live off of but not much more. For those that just like to bum around it wouldn’t be bad. You would have to move to a less desirable area where cost were cheap. To the working poor this would raise their level of wealth a lot. They would get the base salary plus whatever they make now. I think it would be best if everybody got the same whether they needed it or not. Of course the more wealthy would have their share taxed away in practice but making it the same for all would make it uniform. It would also not help those traditional welfare clients at first. All the welfare State could be reduced a great deal. It would screw up a lot of kids whose parents are completely incapable of living in society where we now take care of a the kids little. I don’t know what to do about that without building the whole welfare State and it’s apparatus all over again. Over time the basic salary would greatly improve the “quality” of the lower class citizens of the US. Why? Girls now have the State to take care of them. Sure the basic salary would have some of this but it would be a low level existence and human wants are infinite. Especially Women’s. Over time Women will realize they want more than a basic salary and the only way they get that is to find a guy who isn’t a total shithead and can bring in some income. These guys will naturally be much more likely to not be ghetto dickheads and the quality of children they will raise will subsequently rise.

    • Sam J. May 23, 2018 at 7:17 am

      We also could include low cost housing as a public utility.. A lot of the lost cost apartment housing complexes came out of a form of architecture to provide cheap apartments with a lot of green space between. This is of course a decent idea. That Dindus made a mess of it doesn’t change the basic idea. I’m look at this stuff every now and then. Part of the basic income could be an apartment or you could buy your own home. There’s a architecture called Brutalist that I think is interesting. Basically you mass produce as much as possible and there’s very little attention paid to aesthetics.

      Now most of this looks shitty and is not so pleasant to live in but some that really look at how people live in spaces is fantastic. There’s a Japanese guy that built these pods to live in. I really like his ideas. It of course didn’t work out as he ran out of money and they found asbestos was bad right after he built with a lot of the stuff. Note that allowable space many years ago in Japan was far less than most are used to.

      Now this is my favorite. It shows you the possibilities of what can be done. It has lots of light and outdoor space for every resident. The architect was strongly influenced by the capsule tower and brutalism. Living in something like this would be way better than a box type building. It hasn’t been totally realized yet but massive cost savings could come about by building these boxes and stacking them into high rise buildings with careful planning. The link below was supposed to be low cost housing but people like them so much the price has risen to be higher than the poor afford.

      • Oscar C. May 24, 2018 at 8:37 pm

        Thanks for the references, Sam. Personally I have always liked the massive type of buildings “artistic” people tend to despise, e.g. Soviet skyscrapers, or Neo-Herrerian buildings in Spain (google ‘Ministerio del Aire, Madrid’ to see what it is), etc. The Japanese building you include does only appeal to me as a sort of secondary house, one to go to for a quick nap or on very busy working weeks when there is no time to commute. Habitat 67 however looks fantastic, but it should be built a bit away from any historical city centre.

      • Sam J. May 28, 2018 at 10:26 pm

        “…Soviet skyscrapers…”

        All this is directly 100% from a guy named Le Corbusier and as I understand it it the nomenclature evolved into being called Brutalism. Before it was just called modern. The Soviets were totally 100% taken in by and worshiped this stuff. He was a HUGE influence there. Low cost housing was the mantra for these guys. My looking into Soviet low cost housing led me to Le Corbusier. People like to bash Soviet housing but a lot of people were living in factories or sheds before this stuff was built. It was a vast improvement. A lot of the building were set up to be temporary and were designed to last 30 years or so until better could be built. If they had not spent so much on the cold war they were rapidly moving towards an apartment for everyone.

        Here’s some newer versions of this sort of thing but they are moving a lot of greenery and open spaces into the building. I really like this approach of making the building somewhat park and suburban like, people prefer this I believe, as I do. Here’s one link showing some ideas. I like Penda’s Timber Tower design.

        I think these could be low cost if you could design it with just a few boxes that can be molded and stacked. The concrete could be autoclaved concrete.

        If you autoclave concrete it makes a thick wall with lots of air spaces so your building structure is the insulation, sound proofing, interior and exterior all in one. Germans build these. I’ve seen the buildings being constructed. One of the problems is they don’t have the electrical or the plumbing built into the walls so you have to build an extra wall. A kludge. There’s no reason the whole wall structure with all the electrical, mechanical can not be built into the structure itself.

        I have an idea about this. Make the wall, two walls, with a 6 in. , or whatever space, between them and joined in between the walls with pillars. Every meter or so on the whole wall surface you have a square cut out on the inside wall. If you needed some sort of mechanical or electrical appliance you go through the square hole. The ones not used you block with wood blocks mechanically wedged in. The wood wedges could be used to screw on material for wall coverings if desired. So if you wanted sheet rock or cloth or any sort of wall covering it would be attached to the blocks of wood. Let’s say you buy an apartment it would come bare with a concrete interior finish, electrical, plumbing and air/heat, all routed through the square holes in the block. All the rest would be plugged. All this could be done in a factory. The square holes would also allow you to connect the blocks together with adapters. People could customize after they bought the apartment, or to order. The idea being to lower the basic cost of the structure. Government builds government housing now. If they invested in planning and low cost material selection they could massively lower the cost. Everything the government does is not bad. Cost can be contained if the system is designed to into the system you create to handle this.

        “…Japanese building you include does only appeal to me as a sort of secondary house…”

        You must understand the context. This was post war Japan with salary Man staying in apartment in mind. It was not designed for families. They had huge housing surfeit and this was cheap. If there was a little money in it or several iterations of design it could have been refined. The asbestos really killed the whole project because the ventilation system was designed into the structure and had to be shut off after asbestos being found to be dangerous. This means added air/heat pumps added. Updated version.

        I think it possible some version of basic living could be done by the government. It wouldn’t be stylish or fancy but basic. Obama phone=Gov. phone=gov. house=gov. van=gov. road=etc. The basic idea is Liberty ships in WWII. People would groan about the uniformity but for a lot of people a basic roof over their heads and basic travel without sweating it would allow you to improve your life in other ways or you could just read and bum around. Whatever suits you. It’s likely those that marry would try to move up, wives being infinitely wanting of more. Do whatever you want but the basics would be there. “Soft communism” or “public choice communism”. If you want more, by all means work away for it. If not live with the basics.

    • Garr May 24, 2018 at 2:08 am

      How would child support work, though, once they divorce us? Does that come out of the Basic Income? Maybe it would be like welfare to help divorced dads pay child support? That would be the basic function of Basic Income — child support to the women after they divorce us.

      • Sam J. May 29, 2018 at 2:53 am

        “…How would child support work, though, once they divorce us? Does that come out of the Basic Income?…”

        Absolutely not. The basic income could not in any way, form or fashion at any time be given to anyone nor mortgaged at all unless you were in jail and there would be some time frame, say a couple of months before you get out, that it would still be paid.

        The whole single mother thing is the biggest wrench in the system. If girls got paid per child, as they do now, we would soon be overrun with Dindus and other assorted vileness. I don’t have a good answer for that that doesn’t place a burden on unwed kids. I suspect we would have to place a burden on the mother and kids. She wants kids she must pay for them or find someone who will. Free birth control would be part of the package. If we did this over time the quality of the poor would improve but you will always have people making bad decisions. I don’t know how to fix stupid and I doubt anyone else does either without some fairly rigid society that we’re not allow in the US anyways.

  7. Oscar C. May 24, 2018 at 8:36 pm



      [this post is duplicated, it can be deleted. Thanks]

    • Sam J. June 2, 2018 at 10:25 am

      I saw the Ministerio del Aire, Madrid. Nice but not exactly what I had in mind. I fully admit that some of the buildings that followed the “Le Corbusier” were ugly and so are some of the Brutalist styles ugly also I think with some thinking they could become beautiful with the addition of plants. I’m thinking suburban-urban. The key to keeping cost down is mass production and hanging the structures off of common supports. Like a tree with big leaves. The spaces between the leaves(house) could be walkways and open. This may sound costly until you look at the massive amounts of concrete curbs, roads, sewage drains, on and on, in your average suburban housing project. You could vastly lower the cost with pod type housing. The pod could be a start. With places to attach additions for decoration people could add ornaments to the outdoor of the house as they want. It could get very hippified or they could keep it uniform within certain bounds.

  8. Garr May 27, 2018 at 12:56 am

    Response to your tweet “Also fewer people married means more older men are competing for women indefinitely.” —
    The view from NYC:
    (1) Because women don’t need men for survival-related stuff anymore, older men cannot compete successfully with younger men.
    (2) Because dykes are higher-status than men, cute girls increasingly prefer to have dykes sucking their pusses to having to deal with males, so the pool of girls interested in men is shrinking.
    (3) (Reinforcing #2) Dykes are better at tough-guy “game” than the toughest men are because women are bullshitters for whom language is purely a manipulative tool; cute girls respond to dyke-tough-guy “game” because women can’t tell the difference between bullshit and reality.

    • Garr May 27, 2018 at 1:04 am

      (actually, what’s really happening on an astonishingly large scale is that a couple of cute girls pair up, pretending to be dykes, and thereby attain the highest possible status while presumably taking turns sucking each others’ pusses, which is apparently all that female human beings really want beyond the provision of survival-related stuff that they don’t need men for anymore.)

  9. A.B. Prosper May 30, 2018 at 1:08 am

    As an aside, a lot of people on the Right don’t understand that the more complex a society becomes the more distribution is needed to keep it working

    You cannot rely on the private sector so “muh profit” and you can’t cheap out on paying for things or it will stop working

    This doesn’t go well with the traditional American value of chiseling pay for workers? Hell no. I’d rather have slavery pay taxes to england for security ? I’d rather have a civil war and so on.

    Fill a nation with people who are carpetbaggers , left their home countries as surplus or because they won’t cooperate and you get exactly what you’d expect.

    The rare confluence of events that allowed the post war boom is not repeatable and as long as the current polity remains intact I suspect it will just gradually shrivel. People with an uncertain economy and a poison culture aren’t going to have many kids so its 1.7 forever

    The elite of course don’t give a crap and won’t till they have to suffer consequences but that’s the way its always been

    • Giovanni Dannato June 2, 2018 at 8:25 pm

      Yes, the more complex, the less you can leave to chance. That’s why state capitalism seems to be the most successful model in the 21st century, especially in the most populous and ancient societies. Democracies are losing ground to any polity that has the slightest sense of purpose, however corrupt and dysfunctional it may be.

      Most of the right still worships the enlightenment concept of the rational individual who exists separate from society and clan. This keeps them trapped in the same maelstrom that consumes the rest.

      You are right to observe America has always been a nation of ruthless hucksters. I figure all Americans’ ancestors fled here for a reason and it was in many was a genetic migration. An entire neurological breed of disagreeable rejects left Europe behind.
      While there’s abundant resources and an open frontier, they can get ahead of a Europe that has been populated to saturation for thousands of years. But that temporary advantage has been steadily fading since the end of WW2.

      I get the impression the Americans are bigger risk-takers and more creative than Europeans but are also far more trashy, violent, and sociopathic just as we would predict.
      Also, I’ve never met an Australian who didn’t seem like they weren’t bred for a frat or sorority. Someone who had been to Australia once showed me a picture they took in a corner store. Sure enough there was premixed Jack and Coke that comes in a can. Yep.
      You have charismatic beautiful people, actors, and surfers when there’s a whole new continent to expand into but back in merry old England and Ireland, they would have been ugly peasants with 5 kids by age 30 and dead before 40. In a few generations, the system is back at Malthusian equilibirum.

      Great comment, AB

      • Sam J. June 6, 2018 at 7:26 am

        “…. An entire neurological breed of disagreeable rejects left Europe behind…”

        Point taken but in a lot of ways we were populated just like the Australians. I went to elementary school in Georgia and they forthrightly had in the history books that Georgia was populated by convicts under James Oglethorpe as Governor. You know the majority of Whites that came to American in the beginning were slaves. They called them servants but less than 50% lived out their contracts. You didn’t have to commit a crime to be deported. They would take people off the streets and throw them on a ship and sell them off in the new world. They worked them HARD as they didn’t plan on keeping them around. I think most Whites by population were in these straits until the revolution. I think it declined somewhat after that. Many ran off to the Indians. The Indians frequently took on these people as one of the tribe. They had massive losses from disease and in their culture this was one way they replenished their tribes by taking in the young boys and girls. A LOT of the chiefs of the Indian tribes were Whites. That’s why so many East coast Indians look exactly like Whites…they are. James LaFond writes a lot about this and has books on it.

      • Giovanni Dannato June 7, 2018 at 1:45 am

        I see the Australians and Americans as related breeds. Your example with Americans reinforces the point, they have always been hucksters willing to build their fortunes on the backs of imported slaves if it’s cheaper with no thought for long-term consequences. That essential character has been consistent since the 16th century. Also, you have to ask this: What kind of person left everyone and everything they knew behind(or got kicked out) to travel thousands of miles to an alien land…in an age when most people never walked more than 20 miles from home in their whole lives?
        I was aware of Whites defecting to the Indians, a cause of distress for men as prominent as Ben Franklin. I wrote a few years ago how Anglo society has always been an economic and sexual pressure cooker, contributing greatly to its neurotic and expansionist tendencies. Since it’s kind of a crappy high-stress way of life, their society depends on a lack of alternatives. So it was embarrassing to them when Whites consistently tried to escape past the Berlin Wall of overwork and picky women. I bet it was one more reason the Indians had to be crushed.

    • Sam J. June 4, 2018 at 2:01 am

      I agree with AB and of course Giovanni. I think one of the weaknesses of any State sponsored system to redistribute is they want to right all wrongs and they pour excess resources into those that are just a total pain on the ass to civilization. Too many resources to the violent.

      At the same time the Capitalistic take over the supposed socialist system and start monopolizing and raping the citizen. One of the best ways to do this is to make excessive regulations to drown start up. So that only those with massive capital can compete. In a normal system with no restraint Capitalistic are always struggling to keep their heads above water from competition.

      If we could have some sort of basic system like public roads but it would be housing, internet, cell phone, maybe transportation then the rest would be left for people to decide on their own. The great unemployment robot crisis is right over the hill. It’s coming fast and will be brutal. The present stem will grind the poor and the average right into the ground. It’s likely that being smart will not save you either. The only way to survive, given our present system, is to be ruthless. If there was some money spread around then mass production of the basics could make it a paradise for many. Negating status points because status is expensive but those who are not as concerned with this can be totally happy.


Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: