What about Francisco Franco?
¡Viva Franco! ¡Viva Cristo Rey!
Ask @antidem
Two corrections: In German, nouns are always capitalised; the final word should be spelt with an umlaut -> "Küche". Always happy to help.
Is there a word in German for someone who's overly picky and pedantic?
Liked by:
Nicholas B Stevenson
Christianity tends to result in Leftism, unlike Islam. Perhaps Islam is our last chance to survive?
If it does, then nobody much noticed it for nineteen and a half centuries until basically all of the institutions of the West, including (most of) its churches started to crumble into leftism all at once. That indicates to me that Christianity is no more inherently leftist than, say, universities are. When the landslide starts sweeping down the left side of the mountain, just about everything gets dragged along with it.
Related users
Any opinions on the crises in Greece and the Eurozone?
One currency requires one fiscal crisis. Only that most curious of breed - the utopian bureaucrat - could ever convince themselves otherwise.
Who is your favorite YouTuber?
MillennialWoes, of course:
https://www.youtube.com/user/MillennialWoes/videos
https://www.youtube.com/user/MillennialWoes/videos
Liked by:
Nicholas B Stevenson
It's hopeless. Utterly hopeless. We're doomed.
Hello, Mr. Derbyshire.
Liked by:
Sir Piragon The 3rd
Do you think Russia has a future? On the one hand, abortions, demographic decline, muslims and ex-KGB dudes going crazy. On the other hand, social conservatism is officially promoted over there and the country is kind of in resistance to the Cathedral.
I'd rather be in a country where things are bad but steadily getting better than in one where things are good but steadily getting worse.
How does one avoid masturbation?
Okay, so you know how sometimes you might take your hand, and wrap it around your penis, and then vigorously move it up and down? Don't.
Liked by:
hamlet the dane
Do you read the comments' sections of NRx blogs? Which do you read?
I read the comments sections at Social Matter (because the comments are high-quality and thoughtful) and at TRS (because the comments are gonzo and funny).
"Exit over Voice": Exit is a completely liberal tenet. To be anti-liberal is to be against Choice. Exit is a form of Choice; hence, reaction should be against it. Or are you liberal-minded?
Deciding what to have for breakfast is a form of Choice. Should reaction be against that, and starve like Karen Carpenter because it would be liberal to Choose between scrambled eggs or pancakes?
The autism is strong in this question.
The autism is strong in this question.
Liked by:
Nicholas B Stevenson
What do you think of Che Guevara?
Che, meet Guy:
Why do so many people join ISIS?
Have you *seen* Lana in that tight sweater-dress and thigh boots? I'd join, too!
Do you use the term "Day of the Rope" deliberately for signaling purposes?
Nope. I'm serious as a heart attack. You'll see, eventually.
Liked by:
Preston S. Brooks
Care to comment? http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/07/02/3676538/episcopal-church-votes-fully-embrace-marriage-equality/
Heretics gonna heretic.
What is your opinion of Mormonism?
As heresies go, it's about as good as you're going to do.
Liked by:
Preston S. Brooks
Attack on Titan. Discuss.
Never seen it.
Should college dorms be unisex?
>Implying that women should be in college at all instead of attending to their proper domain: kinder, kirche, kuche.
Liked by:
Clifford Podpolny
Preston S. Brooks
Do you believe that there is a significant value to written constitutions? Does the codification of constitutional law, even if it isn't practically or effectively binding, seem to benefit or harm a civilization?
Constitutions are gentlemens' agreements. As such, they only work between gentlemen. Or put another way, they are artifacts of a high-trust society. Have you ever printed out the Constitution as plain text? It's about twenty pages long - which is really all you need in order to lay down some agreed-upon ground rules between a high-trust group of gentlemen.
But as always, dealing with low-trust people under high-trust rules is a recipe for disaster. Leftism is inherently low-trust because it is a fanatical utopian cult - cult members consider it perfectly acceptable to lie and deceive in the name of the higher calling of bringing about the utopia that the cult believes in. Consider the recent Supreme Court decision on gay "marriage". The decision turns on the idea that Congress actually legalized gay "marriage" in 1868 when it passed the 14th Amendment, and it's just that nobody noticed it for the next 150 years or so. Do you think that, say, Ruth Bader Ginsburg actually believes that? Of course not - the cult decided that it was time for gay "marriage", and as a good member of the cult, she found a way to make it happen. It doesn't matter that it involved what was essentially telling a bald-faced lie. What matters to the cult is not such trifling lies, but the higher truth of the cult's ideals.
This is why treating the Constitution overly reverently is a very bad idea. We lose sight of the fact that a constitution exists to protect a civilization, not the other way around. Low-trust sophists have figured out the cracks in what was only ever intended to be a high-trust gentlemens' agreement in the first place, and have made it say whatever they want it to say (thus why the Supreme Court is so important to them - the unlimited power to "interpret" the Constitution is functionally identical to the unlimited power to rewrite it). Someone once said that Americans are foolish enough that they're willing to see a civilization destroyed for the sake of a constitution, and it appears for now that they are. Of course, that gets things exactly backwards - it's like letting your child bleed out after a car wreck because you don't want to cut through your nice seat belts in order to free him. At best, a constitution is just a tool used in furtherance of the purpose of preserving your civilization, but either we've forgotten that as a people, or worse, as a proposition nation, we never actually had a civilization to preserve in the first place. Gregory Hood's observation that America is not a people or a history, but only a flag and a piece of paper, is a humbling one.
I guess the answer to your question is that at this point, in the hands of its "interpreters", the Constitution has become a stone around our necks, dragging us to the bottom to drown. Seeing this happen with my own eyes has convinced me that constitutions of this sort are too likely to become an object of excessive veneration among the people, and thus are more trouble than they're worth.
But as always, dealing with low-trust people under high-trust rules is a recipe for disaster. Leftism is inherently low-trust because it is a fanatical utopian cult - cult members consider it perfectly acceptable to lie and deceive in the name of the higher calling of bringing about the utopia that the cult believes in. Consider the recent Supreme Court decision on gay "marriage". The decision turns on the idea that Congress actually legalized gay "marriage" in 1868 when it passed the 14th Amendment, and it's just that nobody noticed it for the next 150 years or so. Do you think that, say, Ruth Bader Ginsburg actually believes that? Of course not - the cult decided that it was time for gay "marriage", and as a good member of the cult, she found a way to make it happen. It doesn't matter that it involved what was essentially telling a bald-faced lie. What matters to the cult is not such trifling lies, but the higher truth of the cult's ideals.
This is why treating the Constitution overly reverently is a very bad idea. We lose sight of the fact that a constitution exists to protect a civilization, not the other way around. Low-trust sophists have figured out the cracks in what was only ever intended to be a high-trust gentlemens' agreement in the first place, and have made it say whatever they want it to say (thus why the Supreme Court is so important to them - the unlimited power to "interpret" the Constitution is functionally identical to the unlimited power to rewrite it). Someone once said that Americans are foolish enough that they're willing to see a civilization destroyed for the sake of a constitution, and it appears for now that they are. Of course, that gets things exactly backwards - it's like letting your child bleed out after a car wreck because you don't want to cut through your nice seat belts in order to free him. At best, a constitution is just a tool used in furtherance of the purpose of preserving your civilization, but either we've forgotten that as a people, or worse, as a proposition nation, we never actually had a civilization to preserve in the first place. Gregory Hood's observation that America is not a people or a history, but only a flag and a piece of paper, is a humbling one.
I guess the answer to your question is that at this point, in the hands of its "interpreters", the Constitution has become a stone around our necks, dragging us to the bottom to drown. Seeing this happen with my own eyes has convinced me that constitutions of this sort are too likely to become an object of excessive veneration among the people, and thus are more trouble than they're worth.
If you're really not a brony, what's with all the Sunset Shimmer pictures?
Don't confuse the actual Sunset Shimmer with the Sunset Shimmer of the reactionary mind.
It's kind of like the Guy Fieri of the reactionary mind. From what I can tell, the actual Guy Fieri is a gimmicky TV chef who's best known for using his outside voice whilst inside, and who in politics is something of a shitlib. But the Guy Fieri of the reactionary mind is a hardened, merciless bulwark against the enemies of civilization. Immune to their sophistry, deaf to their pleas of mercy, he stands firm in his fearsome red and black uniform, looking down on them with only contempt. When they try to talk their way out of the physical punishment they so richly deserve, he replies only with these words: "Pop 'em in the oven - 616 degrees!" As their screams rise into the air, he pauses only to note, with a wry smile, that their skin is getting nice and crispy. Such is the Guy Fieri of the reactionary mind - a beacon of hope to the beleaguered defenders of faith and tradition; a scourge to those who would tear it all down in the name if their fanatical egalitarian cult.
Similarly, from what I've seen of My Little Pony, the actual Sunset Shimmer is just a typical Libby who later has a face turn after she feels the eponymous magic of friendship. But the Sunset Shimmer of the reactionary mind is the intellectual tip of the spear of the alternative right. Steeped in high-church Christianity, trained in rhetoric, tempered by debate, and deeply read in reactionary thought from Chrysostom to Carlyle to de Maistre to Pius X to Kuehnelt-Leddihn to Gómez-Dávila to Buchanan to Moldbug, her mind is honed to a fine edge. She is as erudite as E. Michael Jones, as sharp-tongued as Bob Grant, as fearless as Jim Goad, as attuned to bunkum as H. L. Mencken, as intolerant of fools as John Derbyshire, as witty as @jokeocracy, and is able to be as plain-spoken as Fred Reed or as obscure as Nick Land without losing an ounce of meaning. Tirelessly she prays, and studies, and meditates, and fasts, and writes, in order to become the perfect reactionary intellectual - as much at home writing a 4000-word essay for The Future Primaeval as she is recording a parody song for The Daily Shoah. Such is the Sunset Shimmer of the reactionary mind - the rapier's edge of rightist thought and theory.
That's the Sunset Shimmer whose pictures I post.
It's kind of like the Guy Fieri of the reactionary mind. From what I can tell, the actual Guy Fieri is a gimmicky TV chef who's best known for using his outside voice whilst inside, and who in politics is something of a shitlib. But the Guy Fieri of the reactionary mind is a hardened, merciless bulwark against the enemies of civilization. Immune to their sophistry, deaf to their pleas of mercy, he stands firm in his fearsome red and black uniform, looking down on them with only contempt. When they try to talk their way out of the physical punishment they so richly deserve, he replies only with these words: "Pop 'em in the oven - 616 degrees!" As their screams rise into the air, he pauses only to note, with a wry smile, that their skin is getting nice and crispy. Such is the Guy Fieri of the reactionary mind - a beacon of hope to the beleaguered defenders of faith and tradition; a scourge to those who would tear it all down in the name if their fanatical egalitarian cult.
Similarly, from what I've seen of My Little Pony, the actual Sunset Shimmer is just a typical Libby who later has a face turn after she feels the eponymous magic of friendship. But the Sunset Shimmer of the reactionary mind is the intellectual tip of the spear of the alternative right. Steeped in high-church Christianity, trained in rhetoric, tempered by debate, and deeply read in reactionary thought from Chrysostom to Carlyle to de Maistre to Pius X to Kuehnelt-Leddihn to Gómez-Dávila to Buchanan to Moldbug, her mind is honed to a fine edge. She is as erudite as E. Michael Jones, as sharp-tongued as Bob Grant, as fearless as Jim Goad, as attuned to bunkum as H. L. Mencken, as intolerant of fools as John Derbyshire, as witty as @jokeocracy, and is able to be as plain-spoken as Fred Reed or as obscure as Nick Land without losing an ounce of meaning. Tirelessly she prays, and studies, and meditates, and fasts, and writes, in order to become the perfect reactionary intellectual - as much at home writing a 4000-word essay for The Future Primaeval as she is recording a parody song for The Daily Shoah. Such is the Sunset Shimmer of the reactionary mind - the rapier's edge of rightist thought and theory.
That's the Sunset Shimmer whose pictures I post.
Liked by:
Nicholas B Stevenson
Count Nothingface
Ian
NRx is a radical critique of Whites, and NRx is Jewish to the core. You're following the same pattern as other Jewish movements. "It's all Whitey's fault." Why are you so easy to absolve Jews of their despicability?
Where whites need to be criticized, I criticize them. And where blacks need to be criticized, I criticize them. And where Latinos, Asians, Jews, Muslims, Indians, Eskimos, and Gurkhas need to be criticized, I criticize them, as well. If you want a safe space where nobody will ever tell you that your people have screwed up sometimes too, then go back to your hugbox on Stormfront.
Liked by:
Nicholas B Stevenson
Count Nothingface
Did you ever commit war crimes?
All my crimes are crimes of luv.
What causes you righteous anger?
These days? Just about everything.
Liked by:
Nicholas B Stevenson
Is being gay a choice?
The most likely answer is, of course, not the Totalist one. I'd say that the answer is there's probably some natural predilection to it that can be pushed one way or another by outside forces including upbringing and societal/cultural pressures. Kinsey's Scale probably does have some real validity to it - it comports neatly with what we know of pre-Christian (and here I mostly mean Greco-Roman) sexuality. It also comports neatly with the fact that it is difficult to find an outright homosexual who didn't have an epically lousy childhood which resulted in serious lingering issues with one or both of their parents. So the answer is: sort of, to some degree.
But the other answer, and a just as important one, is: it doesn't matter if it is a choice or not. Open homosexuality is bad for society - it is degenerate and corrosive to public morals. Thus society has the right to ban it. I've said repeatedly that my position is that homosexuality should be technically illegal, but that the prohibition against it is virtually unenforceable when it is practiced discreetly and behind closed doors, and that it should in fact remain virtually unenforced. The law should be there primarily as a hedge against troublemakers - a public admission of homosexual activity will be a public confession of a crime, and thus will be enough to allow for punishment of those who refuse to just go discreetly about their business. Enforcement of public morals is a key function of government, and one that we've neglected, with predictably awful results.
But the other answer, and a just as important one, is: it doesn't matter if it is a choice or not. Open homosexuality is bad for society - it is degenerate and corrosive to public morals. Thus society has the right to ban it. I've said repeatedly that my position is that homosexuality should be technically illegal, but that the prohibition against it is virtually unenforceable when it is practiced discreetly and behind closed doors, and that it should in fact remain virtually unenforced. The law should be there primarily as a hedge against troublemakers - a public admission of homosexual activity will be a public confession of a crime, and thus will be enough to allow for punishment of those who refuse to just go discreetly about their business. Enforcement of public morals is a key function of government, and one that we've neglected, with predictably awful results.
I had a question that didn't fit into the ask.fm box, so I put in into a paste: http://privatepaste.com/22d163d32e
I'm not sure you're quite appreciating just how large the numbers are when speaking of the present government's attempts to bribe the people into keeping quiescent and voting the way it wants them to vote. Roughly half the population of the United States is on some form or another of welfare (euphemisms aside, let's call it what it is). That works out to approximately 150 million people.
Now, let's take our king right out to his Dunbar limit of (coincidentally - this will help us with math) 150 people. So, let's say that the king decides to make everybody within his Dunbar circle a billionaire. That's 150 billion dollars. If we take the same 150 billion dollars and, instead of dividing it among 150 people, we divide it among 150 million people, how much will each person get? Even my bad math tells me that they get a thousand dollars each. Do you think that the average person taking welfare in this country gets only a thousand dollars worth of benefits each year? Certainly nothing close, especially considering that we have to count the overhead of the enormous welfare bureaucracy in the total cost of getting them their benefits (the king, presumably, would merely need to hand each of his 150 friends a check).
In short, it's pretty much mathematically impossible for a king to spend as much money making every friend he could possibly have fabulously wealthy as it is for a democracy to spend as much as it will need to in order to effectively bribe its voters. It's not about the size of the slice, it's about the size of the pie.
Now, let's take our king right out to his Dunbar limit of (coincidentally - this will help us with math) 150 people. So, let's say that the king decides to make everybody within his Dunbar circle a billionaire. That's 150 billion dollars. If we take the same 150 billion dollars and, instead of dividing it among 150 people, we divide it among 150 million people, how much will each person get? Even my bad math tells me that they get a thousand dollars each. Do you think that the average person taking welfare in this country gets only a thousand dollars worth of benefits each year? Certainly nothing close, especially considering that we have to count the overhead of the enormous welfare bureaucracy in the total cost of getting them their benefits (the king, presumably, would merely need to hand each of his 150 friends a check).
In short, it's pretty much mathematically impossible for a king to spend as much money making every friend he could possibly have fabulously wealthy as it is for a democracy to spend as much as it will need to in order to effectively bribe its voters. It's not about the size of the slice, it's about the size of the pie.
http://ask.fm/antidem/answer/130824482497 >best waifu >not Satsuki Waito piggu go home
Next