I think values are indicative and predictive of abilities over the long term and over different cultural and environmental conditions, myself. So, values are derivative. And, if you don't constantly and loudly wave them around, onlookers can't get a real fix on your abilities. Which is a good thing, given the occasionally violent nature of some of the people type in your classification scheme.
Yes, I've read Murray's book -- gave them out for Christmas presents to family members one year. Murray's pretty much a hammer (or one-trick pony), though -- sees the same nailhead sticking up everywhere, no matter where and when he looks.
"...with victorious leftists at each of these historical stops parlaying their holiness into political gain": very nice turn of phrase.
Your schema of people classification is quite Linnaean and is sufficiently descriptive except (I think) when it ventures outside of urban environments. The 'great unwashed' or 'deplorables' -- in America, anyway -- are much more resilient and tough-minded than your classification scheme permits considering.
Thanks, Larry. I am still absorbing your other comment with links and will respond to it when I've thought about it more. I would consider the 'great unwashed' or 'deplorables' to be non-ideological dissidents, with average IQs that are not quite capable of intellectualizing the (correct) emotional feelings they experience that globohomo hates them and wants them dead.
From my experience, on the average you are wrong about that -- it's not at all that they are dumb, it's more that they just don't talk nearly as much about how they feel as those you consider more intellectually capable. This less vocal tendency to hold their emotional cards close to their chests might have something to do with the relatively high testosterone levels in both the men and women concerned. I also think that the more 'intellectual', more urban types making up 'globohomo' in their heart of hearts suspect that your classification's non-ideological dissidents [in America, at least] are in fact rather fierce and competent. This suspicion, if real, might account for the urbanites' deep-seated fear and unwise verbal abuse of them.
Hi Larry, I don't think non-ideological dissidents are dumb, I think they have average IQs (an average IQ of 100 is based on white bell curve averages). I really don't mean it pejoratively. Have you read the bell curve by Charles Murary? It might interest you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve . Also, as mentioned elsewhere there are different types of intelligence, of which verbal and spatial are just two types, and anyways I don't over-emphasize IQ in general as I think a person's values matter a whole lot.
Oh! So much substack - so little time. I got through Part 2. Two little gems which I had not heard of elsewhere made it worthwhile: (1) So that "wear your mask to your table then take it off" was a big trick from the start - and Fauci had a good laugh about compliance?! - Amazing! I have not been in a restaurant for a couple years (part of going Galt) but I do know it was very strictly enforced in my area. And (2) Hillary has JD from Yale - and thinks 1984 means "trust your leaders" - ha ha ha!.
On to Part 3 - thanks - and I see there is another series up ahead!
> "In a similar vein, blogger Rolo Slavskiy asks why the Christian Ukrainian masses are still fighting against Russia even though they are suffering enormous casualties"
> "The Ukrainians are fighting because they were told to fight. That’s it. That’s how authority works"
This betrays your own NPC-like behaviour.* The Ukraine débâcle is a routine case of inter-ethnic conflict. Sure, it's puppeteered by the Jews and Westerners, and padded by the state power apparatus, but it's not conjured out of thin air. And even more, it has deep roots in the general late-USSR cultural climate (my own view - Russia has failed to create its own culture, forever remaining a dependent periphery of transvestite Christendom, hence its mortal weakness - breeding contempt among the Ukrainians).
And this is not an arbitrary vignette. It applies to the West , too, where what you are calling the "Left" has enjoyed a fertile ground of Christian morality which has only been taken to its logical extreme by the forces of cultural evolution - see Dominion by Tom Holland (2019).
*This statement may appear to conflict with my previous argument, so I'll clarify. Being an NPC is being part of a certain power structure - be it in power state-side, or a smaller cult which nonetheless holds influence over its adherents. Effectively, a religion, a cultural force, or even a physical force for the masses, even though a partaking NPC may be rather intellectual in other walks of life, merely hampered in his reasoning qualities by a psychological dependence or a mental block when a danger to his culture arises.
A real test to the individual's free-thinking capabilities would be a scenario of a variety of competing ideologies - something that happens in Russia, with liberals, Putinists, monarchists and communists all vying for people's headspace. Even then, people may make their choice based on aesthetics, hearsay, family experience, online accounts, etc. And it's not like reason alone may answer the vital questions of existence - it will necessarily relegate a lot of its faculties to belief, perhaps made less blind and more grounded for the more sophisticated individuals.
Until the future judges our merit, we will forever be locked in the good old cultural struggle of pen and sword.
Hi Adunai, Re: Ukraine, in the 2010 Ukrainian presidential elections, pro-Russian Yanukovych won 49% of the vote and pro-west Tymoshenko won 45% -- a country divided, especially along geographic and ethnic lines (the western half of the country being pro-western, and the eastern half being pro-Russian).
The native language of 30% of the Ukrainian population is Russian, although a much higher percentage regularly speak it. Much of the population believes in the Russian Orthodox Church. Ukraine's breakaway Donbass population is a small percentage of the total Ukrainian support for Russia support, yet the sociopathic liberals in charge of Ukraine have done a good job of muzzling this major support and sending endless waves slavs to die, many of whom are at least nominally pro-Russian.
I agree with you that Russia's soft power is very weak, to the point that other historically pro-Russian satellites are in danger of falling to the west (Kazakhstan and Armenia, especially: see this post by Rolo for more information: https://roloslavskiy.substack.com/p/the-absolute-state-of-this-war-v ).
Hearing Western accounts of the situation in my country is fascinating. First of all, the Ukrainian ethnicity was created in the 1920s by the Bolsheviks in a mad attempt to weaken Russia, as they were at the forefront of Christian cuckoldry back then. This is vital to remember. So sure, now it's an ethnicity, yet it's born out of the early Bolshevik designs and out of late Soviet weakness.
Moreover, any respect for authority and old-style high culture in the Ukraine collapsed in the 1980s when Moscow surrendered without a shot fired (to its puppet-masters in Washington). The current Ukrainian nationalism is a Galician-inspired shit-test - a shit-test that the Russians have utterly failed.
Why, you may ask? Because the Russian identity in the Ukraine died in 2014, with Putin's betrayal of the Novorussian insurrection. In 2022, the support of Russia in the Ukraine was non-existent. And the subsequent events have proved them right, with Russia's catastrophic defeats that year.
Russia manages to show its true European colours in failing as spectacularly to kill its enemies and be respected as America did in Afghanistan - with a minuscule percentage of America's power, to an even more horrific result.
Thank you for your response. Some of the following will be repeated in subsequent posts, but I'll respond to you now.
As a curious outsider, Russia currently seems to suffer from two glaring problems:
1) First, Putin and the Russian oligarchs seem to care about the continuation of their grift much more than they care about the long-term success of the country as a whole. Russian nationalists are seen as a threat to their continued rule, and in addition to Putin's betrayal of the Novorussian insurrection as you point out, Russia was likely behind many of the assassinations of the pro-Russian nationalist leaders in the Donbass in the years to follow, and the head of Wagner has publicly said recently that the Ministry of Defense was actively sabotaging war efforts. Really nasty stuff.
These oligarchs seem to believe that they have a seat at the table of world leaders, and who knows what backroom deals have been worked out behind the scenes in the lead-up to and during this war. After all, Putin is a WEF young leader (per Klaus Schwab), he was fully on board with the COVID and vaccination agendas, along with with the upcoming CBDC agenda, and who could forget he renominated pro-globohomo Elvira Nabiullina to continue to lead the Russian central bank after she sent $300-400 billion of Russian funds abroad to be seized. The whole thing is ludicrous.
One of the interesting questions to me is whether globohomo decides to betray whatever backroom deals were agreed upon and go in for the kill. The west has been sponsoring conferences detailing how Russia could be split up to exploit its vast mineral and energy wealth, such as here: https://www.csce.gov/international-impact/events/decolonizing-russia . Additionally, top U.S. officials like Victoria Nuland seem to have a bloodthirstiness bordering on madness that could risk a nuclear response if Putin and the oligarchs come to realize belatedly they were betrayed. Hopefully this isn't the case.
2) Even if Putin ultimately decides to turn populist in an effort to save himself, as you stated above "Russia has failed to create its own culture." Modern populism in general is weak and doomed to failure, as the European blogger Kynosarges points out, and I think you will likely appreciate his take:
"[Right wing populists] have no concept of how to actively solve the problems of late modernity or liberalism. They offer no counter-culture that goes beyond reactionary ideas. They become almost apolitical when they merely retreat into their nation-state bunkers (typical for Poland or Slovakia). They lack a dynamic counter-ideal, and they are not at all equipped to propagate such an ideal to the furthest corners of the West (and beyond), as the chief enemy is (still) capable of doing. ...
No Western constitution has a decidedly identitarian foundation, nor is there any trend in that direction. Anyway such a foundation would be incompatible with the self-concept of liberalism (universalism, egalitarianism, individualism) – the left is correct on that point! But right-wing populists believe that liberalism would only need a “right-wing” orientation to solve the problem, thanks to insufficient analysis."
A reasonable write-up. In my view, the answer to the West is simple - hatred. Human sacrifices. In the current predicament, the new culture may be being forged on the front lines (with the calls against both Kiev and Moscow). It's just that it's too little, too impotent, easily subverted by the immense colossus of America.
For all intents and purposes, Putin has no subjectivity. It is naïve to think them so incompetent. In the best case, they are unable to change the structure leading them to a disaster. In the worst, they are outright puppets.
Europe will not revive itself until America keels over and dies. It was my hope that the Slavs could sit back and modify their course after spectating the West, but they have demonstrated no agency. The only hope now is a Deus ex machina such as a dollar collapse.
If I were to go a relatively schizo road, I would say that the Judaeo-Masonic élite in Washington has decided to nuke the landmass between the Elbe and the Wolga as having the highest potential for a Hitlerian rebirth. And now the only hope is that nuking will actually help us.
It's all rather hopeless. Even Hitler was a politician, whereas Kim Il Sung waged a war in Manchuria. It is as if our race is indeed spent. The future belongs to Korea, China and Türkiye.
How can you call the Hitlerians and Communists of the Weimar era "normie NPCs" if they were fighting against the status quo, thus being contrarians and the opposite thereof? Doesn't make sense. What you could argue for is that the NSDAP and KPD had similar programmes, hence sharing their electorate (as Hitler himself long stated his admiration for the common worker).
Hi Adunai, thanks for your question, it's a good one. Under the presented typology the general masses are always either system NPCs or non-ideological dissidents (or lumpenproles, but they are irrelevant), irrespective of time or place, for they are easily swayed by media and strong personalities and they are surface level thinkers. Most of these types look at politics as a sports match where one has one's team and roots for it no matter what (unless they decide to switch teams).
You are correct that centrists were officially in power in Weimar Germany, but it was clear to those on the ground that change was coming; the NSDAP received only 3% of the vote in 1928, Communists 10% but when Weimar was unable to respond effectively to the Great Depression, the NSDAP surged to 37% and the Communist party 14% only 4 years later. In other words, the established system was weak, and so system-oriented NPCs were cast about in the wind and easily swayed into other directions.
Thanks for the response! See, I disagree with you in the importance of state power. Case in point - the USSR which had the renowned coercive apparatus, and which came to naught in the 1980s, leading to a surrender without a shot fired in 1991, to a bunch of Latvian protesters. What does it hint at? My view is - culture is paramount.
Returning to Germany, the real tide of mass culture there was the völkisch movement, a pagan revival, a racist, genocidal hatred of the Slavs, and the messianic furthering of the Aryan culture of Europe (as opposed to the liberalism of the Anglo-French). In this model, the Weimar Republic was an aberration, and even the Communists might have been closer aligned with the anti-Christian spirit of that day than the liberals. Case in point - the NSDAP policy in Russia had had a precursor in the Wilhelmine Brest-Litovsk, and of course Hitler tapped into the German-Prussian militarism when he started a second world war in 20 years.
So yeah, I wrote my original comment somewhat carelessly. The point about normie=state is true about the neo-Christian empire in America, but only because state power is tautological to the heart of the Christian faith there - again, there is zero state coercion in people supporting the LGBT agenda, it is a case of the state being utterly united with the people.
The most illustrious episodes of history are such - just as Juche Korea has made the impossible, so does the American is doing the miracle. It's not easy to survive a famine when your wealthy neighbour is ready to attack, and it would be unimaginable to kill a billion-strong fair race without that race's cooperation.
Re: "even the Communists might have been closer aligned with the anti-Christian spirit of that day than the liberals", yes, Francis Parker Yockey spent his life trying to form an alliance between the far left and the far right based on a similar read of their political leanings -- it didn't go anywhere, though.
Have you read the 2005 book "Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich" by Guido Giacomo Preparta? If not, I think it might give you some insights into your perspective that might get you to see things in a slightly different way.
The thesis of the book is that Britain and globalist bankers deliberately funded and supported the Bolsheviks in Russia to create an anti-western European ideology, and deliberately funded and supported Hitler in Germany to create an anti-Slavic ideology, so that they would destroy each other and allow England to control the continent, after arranging a similar dynamic in World War 1. To England, the worst nightmare would have been a German/Russian alliance to control the continent which would have relegated England to a secondary power. This also explains why England (and the U.S.) have worked so hard to dynamite deepening German/Russian ties by blowing up the Nordstream 2 pipeline in the present.
I will be going into this more in Part 4 and a future appendix, but essentially the globalist bankers not only supported Hitler and the Bolsheviks on their respective rises, but, via the President of the Reichbank, Hjalmar Schacht, Schacht transferred confidential information regarding all Germany's economic developments, which he had been deviously giving without interruption to Montagu Norman, a fellow mason and Governor of the Bank of England. This gave the central bank owners the economic calculations they needed to be confident in the war's outcome before its initiation - the overall economic production of what would become the Allies dramatically outpaced what would become the Axis by anywhere from a 3:1 to a 10:1 ratio depending on category, from oil to air and naval forces to manpower to tank production to munitions, which was then proven accurate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#Production_summaries_1939%E2%80%931945
1. Of course, the USSR had a choice - either to remain a periphery of Christendom, or to forge its own path. It chose the former and lost sovereignty, but the latter was not necessarily Yockey but eccentric individuals such as Lev Gumilev, who naturally came to racism and anti-Semitism. The post-Brezhnevian USSR could have grown brown just the way the modern Ukraine has adopted some paraphernalia - and the Ukraine is in the gutter (I'm here the only Nazi, but many thoughts are thinkable).
2. Germany had waged war on Russia in WW1, long before the Bolsheviks. And as I stated, they even already had the Lebensraum idea (albeit with more political independence for the Slavs, something that Hitler would specifically abhor later on because Germany starved in WW1).
3. The idea that the capitalists grew Hitler against Russia is a Stalinist cope (in reality, the capitalists are equally correct in Stalin growing Germany, both under Seeckt and Ribbentrop).
4. There are a myriad different schizo theories. A contemporary Russian schizo Galkovsky sees all the powers of the world as a fight between the English and the Americans (nevermind that the English committed suicide in WW2 to stick it to the Germans).
5. Such risky plans are impossible. Saying that the English started WW2 is as ridiculous as that the Russians have given Juche Koreans nuclear weapons (something I have heard from my local idiotic Ukrainians) - it's simply too risky, and for no discernible reason. Again, the British Empire disintegrated in WW2.
These articles tie key observations together into a coherent whole. Worth studying!
I think values are indicative and predictive of abilities over the long term and over different cultural and environmental conditions, myself. So, values are derivative. And, if you don't constantly and loudly wave them around, onlookers can't get a real fix on your abilities. Which is a good thing, given the occasionally violent nature of some of the people type in your classification scheme.
Yes, I've read Murray's book -- gave them out for Christmas presents to family members one year. Murray's pretty much a hammer (or one-trick pony), though -- sees the same nailhead sticking up everywhere, no matter where and when he looks.
"...with victorious leftists at each of these historical stops parlaying their holiness into political gain": very nice turn of phrase.
Your schema of people classification is quite Linnaean and is sufficiently descriptive except (I think) when it ventures outside of urban environments. The 'great unwashed' or 'deplorables' -- in America, anyway -- are much more resilient and tough-minded than your classification scheme permits considering.
Thanks, Larry. I am still absorbing your other comment with links and will respond to it when I've thought about it more. I would consider the 'great unwashed' or 'deplorables' to be non-ideological dissidents, with average IQs that are not quite capable of intellectualizing the (correct) emotional feelings they experience that globohomo hates them and wants them dead.
From my experience, on the average you are wrong about that -- it's not at all that they are dumb, it's more that they just don't talk nearly as much about how they feel as those you consider more intellectually capable. This less vocal tendency to hold their emotional cards close to their chests might have something to do with the relatively high testosterone levels in both the men and women concerned. I also think that the more 'intellectual', more urban types making up 'globohomo' in their heart of hearts suspect that your classification's non-ideological dissidents [in America, at least] are in fact rather fierce and competent. This suspicion, if real, might account for the urbanites' deep-seated fear and unwise verbal abuse of them.
Hi Larry, I don't think non-ideological dissidents are dumb, I think they have average IQs (an average IQ of 100 is based on white bell curve averages). I really don't mean it pejoratively. Have you read the bell curve by Charles Murary? It might interest you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve . Also, as mentioned elsewhere there are different types of intelligence, of which verbal and spatial are just two types, and anyways I don't over-emphasize IQ in general as I think a person's values matter a whole lot.
Oh! So much substack - so little time. I got through Part 2. Two little gems which I had not heard of elsewhere made it worthwhile: (1) So that "wear your mask to your table then take it off" was a big trick from the start - and Fauci had a good laugh about compliance?! - Amazing! I have not been in a restaurant for a couple years (part of going Galt) but I do know it was very strictly enforced in my area. And (2) Hillary has JD from Yale - and thinks 1984 means "trust your leaders" - ha ha ha!.
On to Part 3 - thanks - and I see there is another series up ahead!
> "In a similar vein, blogger Rolo Slavskiy asks why the Christian Ukrainian masses are still fighting against Russia even though they are suffering enormous casualties"
> "The Ukrainians are fighting because they were told to fight. That’s it. That’s how authority works"
This betrays your own NPC-like behaviour.* The Ukraine débâcle is a routine case of inter-ethnic conflict. Sure, it's puppeteered by the Jews and Westerners, and padded by the state power apparatus, but it's not conjured out of thin air. And even more, it has deep roots in the general late-USSR cultural climate (my own view - Russia has failed to create its own culture, forever remaining a dependent periphery of transvestite Christendom, hence its mortal weakness - breeding contempt among the Ukrainians).
And this is not an arbitrary vignette. It applies to the West , too, where what you are calling the "Left" has enjoyed a fertile ground of Christian morality which has only been taken to its logical extreme by the forces of cultural evolution - see Dominion by Tom Holland (2019).
*This statement may appear to conflict with my previous argument, so I'll clarify. Being an NPC is being part of a certain power structure - be it in power state-side, or a smaller cult which nonetheless holds influence over its adherents. Effectively, a religion, a cultural force, or even a physical force for the masses, even though a partaking NPC may be rather intellectual in other walks of life, merely hampered in his reasoning qualities by a psychological dependence or a mental block when a danger to his culture arises.
A real test to the individual's free-thinking capabilities would be a scenario of a variety of competing ideologies - something that happens in Russia, with liberals, Putinists, monarchists and communists all vying for people's headspace. Even then, people may make their choice based on aesthetics, hearsay, family experience, online accounts, etc. And it's not like reason alone may answer the vital questions of existence - it will necessarily relegate a lot of its faculties to belief, perhaps made less blind and more grounded for the more sophisticated individuals.
Until the future judges our merit, we will forever be locked in the good old cultural struggle of pen and sword.
Hi Adunai, Re: Ukraine, in the 2010 Ukrainian presidential elections, pro-Russian Yanukovych won 49% of the vote and pro-west Tymoshenko won 45% -- a country divided, especially along geographic and ethnic lines (the western half of the country being pro-western, and the eastern half being pro-Russian).
The native language of 30% of the Ukrainian population is Russian, although a much higher percentage regularly speak it. Much of the population believes in the Russian Orthodox Church. Ukraine's breakaway Donbass population is a small percentage of the total Ukrainian support for Russia support, yet the sociopathic liberals in charge of Ukraine have done a good job of muzzling this major support and sending endless waves slavs to die, many of whom are at least nominally pro-Russian.
I agree with you that Russia's soft power is very weak, to the point that other historically pro-Russian satellites are in danger of falling to the west (Kazakhstan and Armenia, especially: see this post by Rolo for more information: https://roloslavskiy.substack.com/p/the-absolute-state-of-this-war-v ).
Hearing Western accounts of the situation in my country is fascinating. First of all, the Ukrainian ethnicity was created in the 1920s by the Bolsheviks in a mad attempt to weaken Russia, as they were at the forefront of Christian cuckoldry back then. This is vital to remember. So sure, now it's an ethnicity, yet it's born out of the early Bolshevik designs and out of late Soviet weakness.
Moreover, any respect for authority and old-style high culture in the Ukraine collapsed in the 1980s when Moscow surrendered without a shot fired (to its puppet-masters in Washington). The current Ukrainian nationalism is a Galician-inspired shit-test - a shit-test that the Russians have utterly failed.
Why, you may ask? Because the Russian identity in the Ukraine died in 2014, with Putin's betrayal of the Novorussian insurrection. In 2022, the support of Russia in the Ukraine was non-existent. And the subsequent events have proved them right, with Russia's catastrophic defeats that year.
Russia manages to show its true European colours in failing as spectacularly to kill its enemies and be respected as America did in Afghanistan - with a minuscule percentage of America's power, to an even more horrific result.
Thank you for your response. Some of the following will be repeated in subsequent posts, but I'll respond to you now.
As a curious outsider, Russia currently seems to suffer from two glaring problems:
1) First, Putin and the Russian oligarchs seem to care about the continuation of their grift much more than they care about the long-term success of the country as a whole. Russian nationalists are seen as a threat to their continued rule, and in addition to Putin's betrayal of the Novorussian insurrection as you point out, Russia was likely behind many of the assassinations of the pro-Russian nationalist leaders in the Donbass in the years to follow, and the head of Wagner has publicly said recently that the Ministry of Defense was actively sabotaging war efforts. Really nasty stuff.
These oligarchs seem to believe that they have a seat at the table of world leaders, and who knows what backroom deals have been worked out behind the scenes in the lead-up to and during this war. After all, Putin is a WEF young leader (per Klaus Schwab), he was fully on board with the COVID and vaccination agendas, along with with the upcoming CBDC agenda, and who could forget he renominated pro-globohomo Elvira Nabiullina to continue to lead the Russian central bank after she sent $300-400 billion of Russian funds abroad to be seized. The whole thing is ludicrous.
One of the interesting questions to me is whether globohomo decides to betray whatever backroom deals were agreed upon and go in for the kill. The west has been sponsoring conferences detailing how Russia could be split up to exploit its vast mineral and energy wealth, such as here: https://www.csce.gov/international-impact/events/decolonizing-russia . Additionally, top U.S. officials like Victoria Nuland seem to have a bloodthirstiness bordering on madness that could risk a nuclear response if Putin and the oligarchs come to realize belatedly they were betrayed. Hopefully this isn't the case.
2) Even if Putin ultimately decides to turn populist in an effort to save himself, as you stated above "Russia has failed to create its own culture." Modern populism in general is weak and doomed to failure, as the European blogger Kynosarges points out, and I think you will likely appreciate his take:
"[Right wing populists] have no concept of how to actively solve the problems of late modernity or liberalism. They offer no counter-culture that goes beyond reactionary ideas. They become almost apolitical when they merely retreat into their nation-state bunkers (typical for Poland or Slovakia). They lack a dynamic counter-ideal, and they are not at all equipped to propagate such an ideal to the furthest corners of the West (and beyond), as the chief enemy is (still) capable of doing. ...
No Western constitution has a decidedly identitarian foundation, nor is there any trend in that direction. Anyway such a foundation would be incompatible with the self-concept of liberalism (universalism, egalitarianism, individualism) – the left is correct on that point! But right-wing populists believe that liberalism would only need a “right-wing” orientation to solve the problem, thanks to insufficient analysis."
You can read the whole thing here: https://news.kynosarges.org/full-speed-into-the-void/
A reasonable write-up. In my view, the answer to the West is simple - hatred. Human sacrifices. In the current predicament, the new culture may be being forged on the front lines (with the calls against both Kiev and Moscow). It's just that it's too little, too impotent, easily subverted by the immense colossus of America.
For all intents and purposes, Putin has no subjectivity. It is naïve to think them so incompetent. In the best case, they are unable to change the structure leading them to a disaster. In the worst, they are outright puppets.
Europe will not revive itself until America keels over and dies. It was my hope that the Slavs could sit back and modify their course after spectating the West, but they have demonstrated no agency. The only hope now is a Deus ex machina such as a dollar collapse.
If I were to go a relatively schizo road, I would say that the Judaeo-Masonic élite in Washington has decided to nuke the landmass between the Elbe and the Wolga as having the highest potential for a Hitlerian rebirth. And now the only hope is that nuking will actually help us.
It's all rather hopeless. Even Hitler was a politician, whereas Kim Il Sung waged a war in Manchuria. It is as if our race is indeed spent. The future belongs to Korea, China and Türkiye.
How can you call the Hitlerians and Communists of the Weimar era "normie NPCs" if they were fighting against the status quo, thus being contrarians and the opposite thereof? Doesn't make sense. What you could argue for is that the NSDAP and KPD had similar programmes, hence sharing their electorate (as Hitler himself long stated his admiration for the common worker).
Hi Adunai, thanks for your question, it's a good one. Under the presented typology the general masses are always either system NPCs or non-ideological dissidents (or lumpenproles, but they are irrelevant), irrespective of time or place, for they are easily swayed by media and strong personalities and they are surface level thinkers. Most of these types look at politics as a sports match where one has one's team and roots for it no matter what (unless they decide to switch teams).
You are correct that centrists were officially in power in Weimar Germany, but it was clear to those on the ground that change was coming; the NSDAP received only 3% of the vote in 1928, Communists 10% but when Weimar was unable to respond effectively to the Great Depression, the NSDAP surged to 37% and the Communist party 14% only 4 years later. In other words, the established system was weak, and so system-oriented NPCs were cast about in the wind and easily swayed into other directions.
Thanks for the response! See, I disagree with you in the importance of state power. Case in point - the USSR which had the renowned coercive apparatus, and which came to naught in the 1980s, leading to a surrender without a shot fired in 1991, to a bunch of Latvian protesters. What does it hint at? My view is - culture is paramount.
Returning to Germany, the real tide of mass culture there was the völkisch movement, a pagan revival, a racist, genocidal hatred of the Slavs, and the messianic furthering of the Aryan culture of Europe (as opposed to the liberalism of the Anglo-French). In this model, the Weimar Republic was an aberration, and even the Communists might have been closer aligned with the anti-Christian spirit of that day than the liberals. Case in point - the NSDAP policy in Russia had had a precursor in the Wilhelmine Brest-Litovsk, and of course Hitler tapped into the German-Prussian militarism when he started a second world war in 20 years.
So yeah, I wrote my original comment somewhat carelessly. The point about normie=state is true about the neo-Christian empire in America, but only because state power is tautological to the heart of the Christian faith there - again, there is zero state coercion in people supporting the LGBT agenda, it is a case of the state being utterly united with the people.
The most illustrious episodes of history are such - just as Juche Korea has made the impossible, so does the American is doing the miracle. It's not easy to survive a famine when your wealthy neighbour is ready to attack, and it would be unimaginable to kill a billion-strong fair race without that race's cooperation.
Re: "even the Communists might have been closer aligned with the anti-Christian spirit of that day than the liberals", yes, Francis Parker Yockey spent his life trying to form an alliance between the far left and the far right based on a similar read of their political leanings -- it didn't go anywhere, though.
Have you read the 2005 book "Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich" by Guido Giacomo Preparta? If not, I think it might give you some insights into your perspective that might get you to see things in a slightly different way.
The thesis of the book is that Britain and globalist bankers deliberately funded and supported the Bolsheviks in Russia to create an anti-western European ideology, and deliberately funded and supported Hitler in Germany to create an anti-Slavic ideology, so that they would destroy each other and allow England to control the continent, after arranging a similar dynamic in World War 1. To England, the worst nightmare would have been a German/Russian alliance to control the continent which would have relegated England to a secondary power. This also explains why England (and the U.S.) have worked so hard to dynamite deepening German/Russian ties by blowing up the Nordstream 2 pipeline in the present.
I will be going into this more in Part 4 and a future appendix, but essentially the globalist bankers not only supported Hitler and the Bolsheviks on their respective rises, but, via the President of the Reichbank, Hjalmar Schacht, Schacht transferred confidential information regarding all Germany's economic developments, which he had been deviously giving without interruption to Montagu Norman, a fellow mason and Governor of the Bank of England. This gave the central bank owners the economic calculations they needed to be confident in the war's outcome before its initiation - the overall economic production of what would become the Allies dramatically outpaced what would become the Axis by anywhere from a 3:1 to a 10:1 ratio depending on category, from oil to air and naval forces to manpower to tank production to munitions, which was then proven accurate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#Production_summaries_1939%E2%80%931945
1. Of course, the USSR had a choice - either to remain a periphery of Christendom, or to forge its own path. It chose the former and lost sovereignty, but the latter was not necessarily Yockey but eccentric individuals such as Lev Gumilev, who naturally came to racism and anti-Semitism. The post-Brezhnevian USSR could have grown brown just the way the modern Ukraine has adopted some paraphernalia - and the Ukraine is in the gutter (I'm here the only Nazi, but many thoughts are thinkable).
2. Germany had waged war on Russia in WW1, long before the Bolsheviks. And as I stated, they even already had the Lebensraum idea (albeit with more political independence for the Slavs, something that Hitler would specifically abhor later on because Germany starved in WW1).
3. The idea that the capitalists grew Hitler against Russia is a Stalinist cope (in reality, the capitalists are equally correct in Stalin growing Germany, both under Seeckt and Ribbentrop).
4. There are a myriad different schizo theories. A contemporary Russian schizo Galkovsky sees all the powers of the world as a fight between the English and the Americans (nevermind that the English committed suicide in WW2 to stick it to the Germans).
5. Such risky plans are impossible. Saying that the English started WW2 is as ridiculous as that the Russians have given Juche Koreans nuclear weapons (something I have heard from my local idiotic Ukrainians) - it's simply too risky, and for no discernible reason. Again, the British Empire disintegrated in WW2.