Of the four major races: Negroid, Australoid, Mongoloid, and Caucusoid, we tend to use the term ‘Caucasian’ to refer to Europeans, because that’s the only choice the government gives us on our surveys. To be accurate it should be northern european (atlantic-germanic) eastern european (slavic), southern european(mediterranean), old european(balkans), anatolian european (greek, sardinian, boot of italy). Iranic, semitic, turkic. and so on. This is more important in america because we have had a civil war over race and we are very close to having another.
Category: Civilization, History, and Anthropology
-
–“Q: Why do people refer to American whites as Caucasian?”—
Of the four major races: Negroid, Australoid, Mongoloid, and Caucusoid, we tend to use the term ‘Caucasian’ to refer to Europeans, because that’s the only choice the government gives us on our surveys. To be accurate it should be northern european (atlantic-germanic) eastern european (slavic), southern european(mediterranean), old european(balkans), anatolian european (greek, sardinian, boot of italy). Iranic, semitic, turkic. and so on. This is more important in america because we have had a civil war over race and we are very close to having another.
-
On Mannerbund
I agree with the ‘sentiment’ of the Mannerbund narrative, but I express it as ‘it all begins with the militia’, and the militia functions on the brotherhood of warriors. I disagree with the Social Matters / Mannerbund in that the fact that our civilization begins there, does not mean it is SUFFICIENT to defeat enemies, or that much can be made of that ‘feeling’ alone. What binds people are incentive to bind with one another. Many of you are seeking the sense of safety and power in the pack and the restoration of our institutions of brotherhood throughout society due to the intentional destruction of them by the deconstructionists in marxism, femininsm, postmodernism, who exploit a ready willingness in our female population to defect by sh-t testing us. But you are making the mistake of an intuitionistic bias that is VERY RARE, instead of providing MAJOR incentives (military, political, economic, personal wealth, agency, status, and a plan to get there you are searching in the dark for emotional support, rallying without resources to do so. Those institutions of brotherhood are the last good we will achieve, not the first. They are a premium achieved for having worked to obtain military, political, economic, wealth, status benefits. Men will REPORT affiliation for sentiments. Men will DEMONSTRATE conviction for material rewards. The feeling of safety of the pack comes only from the shared experience of working as a pack to produce an outcome which provides an alternative to the present, yet promises only chaos because of an ABSENCE OF VISION. I do not operate from your perspective but work backward to achieve that emotion through demonstrated action together by the use of incentives to achieve material success. The answer to our problem is to provide an actionable plan the end result is mannerbund. That actionable plan is a means of altering the status quo such that POSSIBLE demands are met. One does not defeat a fortress by direct attack, but by starving it. One does not threaten potential allies but pays them off. One does not create incentives for defenders of the fortress by promises of suffering, but promising them returns. Once the fortress is won, the holdouts must be flayed and salted and hung from the walls for their crimes. All revolutions are suspect in prospect but deterministic in retrospect. It’s time to win.
-
On Mannerbund
I agree with the ‘sentiment’ of the Mannerbund narrative, but I express it as ‘it all begins with the militia’, and the militia functions on the brotherhood of warriors. I disagree with the Social Matters / Mannerbund in that the fact that our civilization begins there, does not mean it is SUFFICIENT to defeat enemies, or that much can be made of that ‘feeling’ alone. What binds people are incentive to bind with one another. Many of you are seeking the sense of safety and power in the pack and the restoration of our institutions of brotherhood throughout society due to the intentional destruction of them by the deconstructionists in marxism, femininsm, postmodernism, who exploit a ready willingness in our female population to defect by sh-t testing us. But you are making the mistake of an intuitionistic bias that is VERY RARE, instead of providing MAJOR incentives (military, political, economic, personal wealth, agency, status, and a plan to get there you are searching in the dark for emotional support, rallying without resources to do so. Those institutions of brotherhood are the last good we will achieve, not the first. They are a premium achieved for having worked to obtain military, political, economic, wealth, status benefits. Men will REPORT affiliation for sentiments. Men will DEMONSTRATE conviction for material rewards. The feeling of safety of the pack comes only from the shared experience of working as a pack to produce an outcome which provides an alternative to the present, yet promises only chaos because of an ABSENCE OF VISION. I do not operate from your perspective but work backward to achieve that emotion through demonstrated action together by the use of incentives to achieve material success. The answer to our problem is to provide an actionable plan the end result is mannerbund. That actionable plan is a means of altering the status quo such that POSSIBLE demands are met. One does not defeat a fortress by direct attack, but by starving it. One does not threaten potential allies but pays them off. One does not create incentives for defenders of the fortress by promises of suffering, but promising them returns. Once the fortress is won, the holdouts must be flayed and salted and hung from the walls for their crimes. All revolutions are suspect in prospect but deterministic in retrospect. It’s time to win.
-
No. Rome Had No ‘priests’ as We Understand It
1) “Priests” had no doctrine only obligatory rituals (the japanese ritual model). The monarchy originally performed the rituals, then appointed patricians, but the duty was separated under the republic because of scale. All that I know of were a variation on sacrifice (contract). 2) To equate “the performance of ritual”, when it was not required they even understand the words they spoke, only that they performed the ritual precisely, with ‘priesthood’ as ‘a competitor to the state’ or means of state sponsored deception, is more than a mischaracterization. 3) A professional priesthood in the sense I use it (education in doctrine under pretense of divine authority) as a competitor to the state (see Huntington’s history mesopotamia) rather than archetypes and anthropomorphic instantiations of nature, was an import. 4) Alexander should be heralded for his techniques and cursed for his introduction of semitism and supernaturalism to old europe. Thankfully the romans were as skeptical of those religions as they were of greek sophisms. 5) once you start looking at history as the battle between western truth and law for aristocracy and it’s domestication of animal man, and semitic occultism and sophism for the expansion of production by the underclasses, the cycles of history are much more obvious. 6) Masculine western truth, duty, reciprocity, and empirical law, eastern masculine hierarchical and empirical bureaucracy, and semitic feminine fictional rule of flood river production. Everything comes back to geography, climate, means of production, and degree of neoteny.
-
No. Rome Had No ‘priests’ as We Understand It
1) “Priests” had no doctrine only obligatory rituals (the japanese ritual model). The monarchy originally performed the rituals, then appointed patricians, but the duty was separated under the republic because of scale. All that I know of were a variation on sacrifice (contract). 2) To equate “the performance of ritual”, when it was not required they even understand the words they spoke, only that they performed the ritual precisely, with ‘priesthood’ as ‘a competitor to the state’ or means of state sponsored deception, is more than a mischaracterization. 3) A professional priesthood in the sense I use it (education in doctrine under pretense of divine authority) as a competitor to the state (see Huntington’s history mesopotamia) rather than archetypes and anthropomorphic instantiations of nature, was an import. 4) Alexander should be heralded for his techniques and cursed for his introduction of semitism and supernaturalism to old europe. Thankfully the romans were as skeptical of those religions as they were of greek sophisms. 5) once you start looking at history as the battle between western truth and law for aristocracy and it’s domestication of animal man, and semitic occultism and sophism for the expansion of production by the underclasses, the cycles of history are much more obvious. 6) Masculine western truth, duty, reciprocity, and empirical law, eastern masculine hierarchical and empirical bureaucracy, and semitic feminine fictional rule of flood river production. Everything comes back to geography, climate, means of production, and degree of neoteny.
-
It’s Because We CAN Produce Commons and Reduce Individual Costs
Whites CAN create commons so they prefer to create commons and live off them. Commons are difficult to produce but they are cheap given the returns. Producing a high trust civic polity does not require high income. it just requires truth, duty, trust, and reciprocity. Quality of life is not expensive. It just requires choice of commons rather than choice of material consumption.
-
It’s Because We CAN Produce Commons and Reduce Individual Costs
Whites CAN create commons so they prefer to create commons and live off them. Commons are difficult to produce but they are cheap given the returns. Producing a high trust civic polity does not require high income. it just requires truth, duty, trust, and reciprocity. Quality of life is not expensive. It just requires choice of commons rather than choice of material consumption.
-
Collapse: A Synchronicity of Accumulated Bubbles
by Martin Štěpán I understand the cycle of civilizations is that the decadence/decline phase is characterized by inflating various bubbles such as misandry bubble (feminism), underclass bubble (subsidy of the reproduction of the unemployed), immigration bubble and so on and due to their interconnectedness, they all pop at the same time which is when civilization ends. This could be avoided if we manage to pay the costs upfront (such as letting the unemployed die out and giving up potential economic benefits of immigration).
-
Collapse: A Synchronicity of Accumulated Bubbles
by Martin Štěpán I understand the cycle of civilizations is that the decadence/decline phase is characterized by inflating various bubbles such as misandry bubble (feminism), underclass bubble (subsidy of the reproduction of the unemployed), immigration bubble and so on and due to their interconnectedness, they all pop at the same time which is when civilization ends. This could be avoided if we manage to pay the costs upfront (such as letting the unemployed die out and giving up potential economic benefits of immigration).