h/t WRSA

As a child I was taught not to respond to ad hominem attacks. The old, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” We need to stop worrying about being called names and speak out loudly while we still may.

There is no freedom of speech without speaking.

Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of U.S. National Intelligence, has left her position. She was the last person on Trump’s team who still remained faithful to the ideals and principles upon which Trump’s second presidential term had begun. She opposed the war in Ukraine and also opposed war with Iran.

This had been predicted for a long time. Now it has happened. After Thomas Massie’s defeat in the Kentucky primaries, there is effectively nobody left in the Republican Party from the original MAGA team.

The triumph of the Deep State and the Epstein network over American politics has become total. Tulsi Gabbard’s resignation is the final straw. Every hope that had been attached to Trump has now completely evaporated.

The Republicans are guaranteed to lose the midterm elections, yet the Democrats represent exactly the same Deep State and the same Epstein class. Moreover, the Democrats hate Russia and the multipolar world even more. This marks the inglorious end of the American people’s attempt to cast out the Satanic elite.

Continue reading Alexander Dugin …

The larger layer of identity that is the nation depends on the more foundational layers in order to function without resorting to coercion. We could look at this another way, in terms of legitimacy. No doubt a polity can hold together by top-down force, but this is inefficient and therefore maladaptive. So much energy (whether spiritual, economic, or indeed ultimately even caloric energy) is spent managing ephemeral problems that the society loses the adaptive advantage of acting as a nation. Legitimacy is an inverse friction coefficient: the more legitimacy a form of life has, the more people will accept it voluntarily.

The legitimacy of a form of life is largely a function of feeling like it is ours. When something is “right full stop”, universally and in the abstract, it lacks natural force, and must be continually reinforced by inculturation. When something is ours, not only is it right, but the moral calculus reverses: ours is not seen in terms of right, right is judged in terms of for us. This—what we will call ours-ness—gives us a powerful tool to explain what seem like totally incommensurable ideas of the nation: ethnic vs. civic nationalism.

Ethnic nationalism is the least abstract form of nationalism, defining the nation primarily through the pre-political identities beneath it: family, clan, tribe, and folk. Ethnic nationalism says: the nation is an extended people. This means it does not have to invent belonging primarily through the state. The state may protect or organize the people, but the people exists prior to the state. Civic nationalism is the most abstract form, defining the nation mainly through thinner identities beyond the level of the pre-political, in terms of citizenship, law, and creed. Civic nationalism in its modern liberal form says: the nation is a community of shared values. If the nation is defined by values, why should it remain a distinct nation at all? If the values are universal, then anyone who accepts them can belong. And if anyone can belong, then the nation ceases to be a people and devolves to a proposition.

We can look at ethnic vs. civic nationalism also in terms of ours-ness. In ethnic nationalism, ours-ness comes from being of the same people: this is ours because it belongs to our inherited people. In civic nationalism, ours-ness comes from state membership or public creed: this is ours because we are citizens under the same institutions and profess the same political principles. The irony is that civic nationalism may work when it draws upon an already-existing ethnic nation, but when it tries to stand alone, it cannot hold a population together without coercion. Civic nationalism only survives by borrowing emotional force from ethnic nationalism while denying that it needs it.

Ethnic nationalism is least likely to undermine the roots of nationalism, because it stays closest to those roots. Civic nationalism is the form most likely to undermine nationalism because it detaches the nation from the pre-political identities that make nations thick. Put another way, the more civic the nationalism, the more the state must create the nation out of thin air. The healthy order is that a people makes up a nation, and the nation produces a state instrument. The civic nationalist formulation is that a state produces the category of citizenship, through which the state manufactures a nation. This is why civic nationalism is more costly, more fragile, and more coercive than ethnic nationalism.

Continue reading …

My Reaction

The United States of America has evolved from an ethnic nation to a civic nation, if nation it can be described, at all. It is more a state; a collection of diverse races, cultures, religions kept together under one polity by the coercion of the state and ruled by oligarchs.

Which is worse: getting alpha gal so you can’t eat red meat or not being able to afford red meat due to inflation?

Looks like meat is not back on the menu, boys.

I have a dream: