Five minutes of hate news

[LordDemiurge]

That is not how modern Western elites think.

Ehh, maybe the current caste of childless pseudo-eunuchs. But not the 'elites.'

I'd say they do very much have kids and concern themselves with making sure their kids hold more power and privilege than they did before.

 

[Yinko]

Ehh, maybe the current caste of childless pseudo-eunuchs. But not the 'elites.'

I'd say they very do very much have kids and concern themselves with making sure their kids hold more power and privilege than they did before.

In 2003 the heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune (Jamie Johnson) made a film called "Born Rich", in which he does interviews and candid shots with his friends and family. It's possibly the single greatest insight into how the American elite (I think there was a European one too) actually think you will ever see. It received a huge amount of hate from them after the fact.

 

[LordsFire]

Then explain to me how the situation in the West is so messed up. Because from where I’m standing, the various ‘conservative’ political groups and organizations could have done a hell of a lot more.

Because Conservatives entered a cultural war in a position where they were not only already losing, but the leftists/progressives already controlled most of the institutions.

It's not the conservatives have been 'conserving progressivism,' it's that progressives have defeated conservatives a lot of the time.

It's still discouraging, but it's a hell of a difference from 'conservatives are supporting the left's ideology.'

 

[mrttao]

Because Conservatives entered a cultural war in a position where they were not only already losing, but the leftists/progressives already controlled most of the institutions.

It's not the conservatives have been 'conserving progressivism,' it's that progressives have defeated conservatives a lot of the time.

It's still discouraging, but it's a hell of a difference from 'conservatives are supporting the left's ideology.'

Except... for all of the conservatives explicitly supporting leftist ideology.

 

[LordsFire]

Except... for all of the conservatives explicitly supporting leftist ideology.

Then they definitionally are not conservatives.

Rush Limbaugh coined the term something like 35 years ago. 'Republicans In Name Only,' or 'RINOS.' That's party-specific, but the basic concept applies.

If they say they're conservative, but support abortion, gun-control, and big government, they're not conservative.

 

[Blasterbot]

Second link. Don't be that guy. Don't impregnate a THOT (or THOY). He took care of her kids from other men, yet she killed his. That's just stone cold. Sadly, everything about this guy screamed he was a weak. The crying and pleading. Dude, if you're doing that its already over. such things repulse women and will only ensure she destroys your genetic legacy. I feel bad for him. No one should suffer like that. But my feeling bad for him is muted by the fact he clearly choose the wrong kind of woman. That sounds cold, but that's just life.

Unfortunately that guy got lied to. he listened to people who told him that was what women wanted. a sensitive man who will express himself. who is not strong or intimidating. who will be there for her regardless of her decisions or history. hopefully he learns from that. this was an expensive lesson for him. it cost him his child after all.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

This legitimately terrifies me a little. Where I live there are the occasional scuffle at the shops, usually just a single person off their meds or greedy kleptomaniac.
But gangs, PACKS of ferals running around just taking stuff off the shelves and walking out without any issues? Unheard of, nobody here could even think of such a thing happening.
Worse is that as I understand it, the other side of the country is starting to become more like this video, I hope it doesn't reach my little town.

 

[Yinko]

This legitimately terrifies me a little. Where I live there are the occasional scuffle at the shops, usually just a single person off their meds or greedy kleptomaniac.
But gangs, PACKS of ferals running around just taking stuff off the shelves and walking out without any issues? Unheard of, nobody here could even think of such a thing happening.
Worse is that as I understand it, the other side of the country is starting to become more like this video, I hope it doesn't reach my little town.

You remember the old movies where people would walk into the general store, and all the goods were behind the counter, the customer had to ask for what they wanted and then pay for them before they were handed over? I suspect that we will be returning to tradition! soon enough.

 

[mrttao]

Then they definitionally are not conservatives.

Rush Limbaugh coined the term something like 35 years ago. 'Republicans In Name Only,' or 'RINOS.' That's party-specific, but the basic concept applies.

If they say they're conservative, but support abortion, gun-control, and big government, they're not conservative.

How do you explain 99% of the republican party being republicans in name only?

 

[Yinko]

How do you explain 99% of the republican party being republicans in name only?

There are only two parties, if you aren't a Dem you're a Republican almost by default, unless you want to go Libertarian or abstain your vote. Just like how most people who vote Democrat don't actually believe the shit they do, don't even know about it in most cases.

 

[mrttao]

There are only two parties, if you aren't a Dem you're a Republican almost by default, unless you want to go Libertarian or abstain your vote. Just like how most people who vote Democrat don't actually believe the shit they do, don't even know about it in most cases.

You are talking voters.
I am talking party members.

The senate and the house are full of rinos. so called "non rino conservatives" are a vanishingly small minority of the republican party.

I understand the idea behind the rino.
but it is rather ridiculous for a tiny minority to go "we are the only true conservatives. the rest are rinos". This is like the "no true communism was ever attempted" claim.

Aside from that. a lot of self proclaimed non rino true conservatives still have a bunch of examples where they are trying to conserve their parent's liberalism

 

[Yinko]

You are talking voters.
I am talking party members.

The senate and the house are full of rinos. so called "non rino conservatives" are a vanishingly small minority of the republican party.

Majority of voters are wishy-washy, reps want to be elected, so either those elected are wishy-washy or they are forced to become so in order to maintain their place on the hill. The state of conservative politicians is a direct result of a disinterested voter base. If the voters cared then there would be no rinos in office, either because they would be voted out or (more likely) they would wise up and change their tune.

 

[mrttao]

Majority of voters are wishy-washy, reps want to be elected, so either those elected are wishy-washy or they are forced to become so in order to maintain their place on the hill. The state of conservative politicians is a direct result of a disinterested voter base. If the voters cared then there would be no rinos in office, either because they would be voted out or (more likely) they would wise up and change their tune.

all that more undermining the theory of the "true conservative" that lordsfire is promoting

 

[Yinko]

all that more undermining the theory of the "true conservative" that lordsfire is promoting

Maybe. At best it's 80/20 principle. The majority adherents of any set of beliefs can't even state what their beliefs are, they have more of a vague sense. Perceptions without principles are easily manipulated by public consensus, like how the gay marriage approval rating flipped on their head in a ten year period.

In other words, most conservatives don't know what the term means, just like how most liberals don't know, or most Christians don't know. Are you going to say that because most Christians don't even know the articles of faith that this undermines the concept of a "true Christian"?

 

[mrttao]

Maybe. At best it's 80/20 principle. The majority adherents of any set of beliefs can't even state what their beliefs are, they have more of a vague sense. Perceptions without principles are easily manipulated by public consensus, like how the gay marriage approval rating flipped on their head in a ten year period.

In other words, most conservatives don't know what the term means, just like how most liberals don't know, or most Christians don't know. Are you going to say that because most Christians don't even know the articles of faith that this undermines the concept of a "true Christian"?

You raise interesting points. Much that is agreeable.

As for "true christian" thing... why wouldn't I consider the majority of christians true christians? just because they didn't read their holy book?

Yea, 80% to 90% of Christians believe things that are not in their holy book, or explicitly counter to what their holy book says. As the overwhelming majority of Christians it is they who decide what a True Christian is. Not the 10% who actually read the bible in depth and understood it.

But... hold on a second. It just occurred to me that I am being a hypocrite. As it conflicts with my view that I am a True Atheist. And that 90% of so called atheists out there are deeply religious people who, having not been raised with a proper religion, instead turned into worship of false idols like communism, wokeism, and so on.

I need some time to think to resolve this contradiction.

Aside from that though... where is the holy book of conservatism?
You can say that "only 10% of Christians truly read and understood the bible"
But conservatives do not have a holy book.

 

[Yinko]

As for "true christian" thing... why wouldn't I consider the majority of christians true christians? just because they didn't read their holy book?

People are defined as believers in a thing because they follow the thing. If they change what they believe but keep the same term then that is not a change in the what it means to be that thing, but a mis-attribution in terms.

Julius Evola wanted to fuck with people, so he redefined what it meant to be a racist, saying that there were races of the spirit that did not conform to races of the body, so that he could call himself a better racist than people who were racists against jews and the like. Just because these are the same term does not mean that this is a change in belief but rather an added and separate line in the definition of the term.

Aside from that though... where is the holy book of conservatism?
You can say that "only 10% of Christians truly read and understood the bible"
But conservatives do not have a holy book.

True. There is a kind of unspoken core belief, as I understand it. Liberalism is based upon the assumption of a materialistic world-view, and all else descends from that assumption. Conservatism then is based on the assumption of a world where there is something metaphysical which justifies right-action, whatever that means.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Second link. Don't be that guy. Don't impregnate a THOT (or THOY). He took care of her kids from other men, yet she killed his. That's just stone cold. Sadly, everything about this guy screamed he was a weak. The crying and pleading. Dude, if you're doing that its already over. such things repulse women and will only ensure she destroys your genetic legacy. I feel bad for him. No one should suffer like that. But my feeling bad for him is muted by the fact he clearly choose the wrong kind of woman. That sounds cold, but that's just life.

Pretty much, people forget most of our early cave dwelling ancestors were ruled by clan mothers. And the rate of infant murder was astronomical and possibly as great as 35% of every newborn. a woman's instinct to be genetic quality control might be all twisted on itself now a days but it's still there and still as bloodthirsty.

 

[Aldarion]

Ehh, maybe the current caste of childless pseudo-eunuchs. But not the 'elites.'

I'd say they do very much have kids and concern themselves with making sure their kids hold more power and privilege than they did before.

Elites as well. Keep in mind that these are moneyed elites, and money, today, is global. So they don't really care what happens to any single country. Yes, they care about holding more power, and perhaps about leaving money to kids - but that's it. How often will you see elites sacrificing their own wealth to defend their country, the way people like John Hunyadi, Petar Berislavić and others did?

Remember how Rowling advocated for mass immigration into the UK? I still don't know if she put her money where her mouth was:

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/petition-jk-rowling-should-give-her-18-spare-rooms-to-refugees/news-story/7eb2c0781deee1c5b9b8b348f82b63b1

I suspect not.

>his children
Yes, his children. Not his subjects. The less convenient fact for this odd neo-monarchist promotion to the right is that monarchs don't need to give a damn who their subjects are, the more the merrier, and whether they like it there, just whether they are in a position to rebel.
Which in turn is not so different from the clown world elites at all, except without even need to pretend otherwise.
In practical example of where this conclusion leads, you have Saudi Arabia and North Korea, where the ruler definitely wants to leave something to his children, but on the other hand it's also not something one would like to live in, but that's not a problem for them, that's a problem for the subjects.

Explain like 90% of historical monarchs, then?

Again: I have seen a lot of incompetent monarchs, historically. But very few who were actively malicious the way modern Western elites are. And even for those that were, in many cases there are signs it was just propaganda by the nobility.

Franz Joseph I. was a victim of unfortunate circumstances, but he tried to do well even for small ethnicities of Austria-Hungary. Reason A-H had issues? Democratic elements, specifically the Austrian and Hungarian parliaments who didn't want to even hear of the federalization of the monarchy because they would lose their power that way. Funny how situation was far better when monarchy was treated as essentially the personal property of the monarch than when it began modernizing. Even Hungarians complained that revolutions of 1848. made the situation worse.

People like Sigismund of Luxembourg and Matthias Corvinus were some of the best things that had happened to Croatia during entirety of our history.

So again, if the fact that state is monarch's personal property, and the fact that the state is inherited, does not matter - why the above?

Capitalism doesn't work so well at all without competition. There is competition in modern democracy, at least there's supposed to be, the worst functioning modern democracies have their competition mechanisms failing.
Meanwhile, in monarchy there is no competition written into the system, at all. Yeah, a monarch can be overthrown or assassinated, but that's an extreme solution outside the system, and applies to democracies as any other system too.

Where, exactly, is there supposed to be competition in modern democracy? You have people who vote openly, and then interest groups that work in shadows. But the fact that state is considered a "property of the people" means that it is nobody's property. I'm not sure you have noticed, but most people don't give a shit about their own country enough to even inform themselves as to what is going on, let alone do something about it. And politicians themselves don't give a shit beyond their own paychecks - they have their four-year terms to get rich, and after that, it can be end of the world as far as they care.

So again, where is the competition? Beyond a bunch of international magnates competing to destroy every single country they can and divide the scraps, that is.

That's an argument against having huge established bureaucracies more than anything else.
Those have historically caused plenty enough problems in all sorts of systems though.

System goes well beyond the bureaucracy however, and has basically no competition as state has become its own extension.

Some in North Africa certainly work no worse than that, especially after correcting for the oil money.

Yeah. And then you have Libya...

 

[TheRejectionist]

As far as I know not even Italy justice system so rotten.

 

[Marduk]

Elites as well. Keep in mind that these are moneyed elites, and money, today, is global. So they don't really care what happens to any single country. Yes, they care about holding more power, and perhaps about leaving money to kids - but that's it. How often will you see elites sacrificing their own wealth to defend their country, the way people like John Hunyadi, Petar Berislavić and others did?

Ukrainian oligarchs in wartime

Russia’s military invasion has contributed to a major decline in the role of oligarchs in Ukraine. This is largely due to the fact that domestic political rivalry both in the media and in parliament has ceased, which in turn has reduced the role played by those spheres of life in which their...

www.osw.waw.pl

This has more to do with the internal culture of the elites involved, be they elected, economic or hereditary.
I don't think the likes of King Charles and many other European monarchs would suddenly experience enlightenment and become aggressive defenders of national self interest above all the virtue signalling and grifts they support now alongside the non-royal elites if only they were given the powers of absolute monarchy. More likely, you would get climate lockdowns and fully open borders.

Remember how Rowling advocated for mass immigration into the UK? I still don't know if she put her money where her mouth was:

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/petition-jk-rowling-should-give-her-18-spare-rooms-to-refugees/news-story/7eb2c0781deee1c5b9b8b348f82b63b1

I suspect not.

Explain like 90% of historical monarchs, then?

Again: I have seen a lot of incompetent monarchs, historically. But very few who were actively malicious the way modern Western elites are. And even for those that were, in many cases there are signs it was just propaganda by the nobility.

Franz Joseph I. was a victim of unfortunate circumstances, but he tried to do well even for small ethnicities of Austria-Hungary. Reason A-H had issues? Democratic elements, specifically the Austrian and Hungarian parliaments who didn't want to even hear of the federalization of the monarchy because they would lose their power that way. Funny how situation was far better when monarchy was treated as essentially the personal property of the monarch than when it began modernizing. Even Hungarians complained that revolutions of 1848. made the situation worse.

Yet it is how it works in many third world countries now... And it's not working well for the subjects.
It may have a lot to do with the... financial systems and economics of the world. Back in the golden days of monarchy, there was hardly a better way to store (nevermind store with interest) a large amount of wealth than owning land, even sitting on a giant pile of gold was iffy for someone not resembling a dragon for obvious reasons.
But now? All these monarchs and dictators know that farming is no longer the core of economy, and they also absolutely can and do own large stock portfolios, or a bank account in Switzerland or Barbados, which doesn't involve dealing with annoying peasants and their demands nor is very likely to get invaded.

People like Sigismund of Luxembourg and Matthias Corvinus were some of the best things that had happened to Croatia during entirety of our history.

So again, if the fact that state is monarch's personal property, and the fact that the state is inherited, does not matter - why the above?

Where, exactly, is there supposed to be competition in modern democracy? You have people who vote openly, and then interest groups that work in shadows. But the fact that state is considered a "property of the people" means that it is nobody's property. I'm not sure you have noticed, but most people don't give a shit about their own country enough to even inform themselves as to what is going on, let alone do something about it. And politicians themselves don't give a shit beyond their own paychecks - they have their four-year terms to get rich, and after that, it can be end of the world as far as they care.

So again, where is the competition? Beyond a bunch of international magnates competing to destroy every single country they can and divide the scraps, that is.

System goes well beyond the bureaucracy however, and has basically no competition as state has become its own extension.

The competition is in the existence of different political parties, with different agendas, sometimes dramatically so, which the hopefully civically minded citizenry chooses between.

However, both in democracy and monarchy, if the state owns too much property, that is a problem, as that means the subjects are bound to be poor, while the leadership, be it royal family or politicians, will focus on easy and convenient ways to milk that property for money, like resource exports and real estate rent, than try build highly complex to manage and easy to fuck up high value added economic chains, which are what economic and military powers of today are built on.

Yeah. And then you have Libya...

Of course anarchy is a mess.