There will never be a normie uprising, by the very nature of normies. They need leaders to tell them what to do. Either some of us become those leaders IRL or we're just voices on the internet that will become increasingly silo'd and silenced.
You write, "As I wrap this up, a few words. Ultimately I believe that narratives are more persuasive than facts..."
Over the long run, however, facts most strongly control the course of the ongoing post-Paleolithic human mental and physical argument with reality -- and all mistaken portions of any given human narration (model) striving to string these facts together eventually find their correct place down in the jumble of the Babel debris pile. Over the same long run, the most persuasive, enduring narratives (models) are those which not only 'elegantly' tie the basic facts together but those which also best allow humans to elude internal and external threats to life; i.e., the most persuasive, most-enduring narratives are ultimately those which are most predictive. See science -- and the universally-shared aspects and beliefs of the world's religions and philosophies.
What you call "globohomo" itself operates exactly as if narrative is more persuasive than facts. This mode of operation is not, as most of your readers no doubt already recognize, an effective way to elude internal and external threats to life. It is a very effective way to curtail life (and families, businesses, industries, nations, and political parties).
Moral of the story? First, pay close and constant attention to the facts and then be really, really careful and wary in narrative construction, narrative adoption, and narrative modification.
PS: Rand Paul's critical weakness as a VP candidate is that he has no practical, successful prior experience in governance and/or other management. Ditto Vance, Carson. Considering this critical criterion, Flynn would probably work out relatively well as a Trump VP -- as would DeSantis.
Thanks for the comment, Larry. I agree with you that one must have a grounding mechanism for one's narratives -- it's very important, other than one can believe anything. There are at least two main grounding mechanisms: (1) science by repeatable experiments verified by third parties ("science" today has been almost entirely bastardized to mean science by committee consensus), and (2) as you state, making predictions based on one's worldview and if those predictions turn out to be wrong, to update one's worldview in an iterative process.
That being said, people do not live their life by facts but by beliefs -- specifically, their core beliefs. As the Western core belief is egalitarianism ultimately deriving from Christianity, those core beliefs will never be transvalued based on facts -- they will only be transvalued, which the West so desperately needs, by a counter-vailing narrative based ultimately on faith (whether in a Christian or other form). The intent with this 3 part series was to construct a counter-vailing narrative to the establishment's never-ending egalitarian ratcheting where it pushes down anything that is great and beautiful into the dirt...
It's odd, but the last month or so I've been consistently unable to 'like' readers' or author's comments on several substacks. I've read in some substack comments that other people have been having the same problem. Consider your comment above 'liked', however.
(I can get around the above problem by switching browsers and re-logging into my substack account on the new browser, so maybe there's a stray cookie flying around that is causing the problem.)
Anyway, I know from exterior facts and repeated tests of my interior narrative that your comment that "people do not live their lives by facts but by beliefs" only applies currently to some (60-70%?) of people. The remainder minority tests and re-examines -- and modifies as necessary -- at least some of their beliefs as time passes on. It is the 30-40% in the last category which ultimately functions as the original source of the core beliefs of the other 60-70%. Cultural transmission...
As to science requiring verification by third parties -- that is only required in the long run for the benefit of "the other 60-70%" (especially students and other neophytes looking for dependable knowledge). In the short run, new but entirely valid scientific (or religious or philosophical) observations, understandings, and theories can exist with only the mind or minds of one or a few people. Cultural inertia...
It is the simple cultural schema related above that eventually achieves shifts in the core beliefs of the human majority.
PPS: If you've ever watched a know-it-all rich amateur try to take on a technically complex and difficult task with no preparation but a few guiding ideas and unjustified generalized self-confidence, you understand why I dismiss Vance, Carson, and Rand Paul as Trump VP picks. Hopefully, Trump himself no longer is suffering from unjustified generalized self-confidence and is no longer quite such an amateur.
Also, re: VP, I guess it depends on what you mean by critical weakness. Kamala was a Senator for 4 years and AG of CA before that; while Pence was a governor for 4 years, Biden had served as a Senator for 30+ years before becoming VP. Cheney had some management experience as White House Chief of Staff under Ford and as Secretary of Defense, but Al Gore was just a Senator before becoming VP. So the level of experience is all over the place...
Yes, but it is inarguable, that all else being equal, a person who has already had some demonstrably able experience in the future tasks they will be faced with will do better than one without that experience. Assuming Trump gets in again, has learned and thought about some things in the interim, starts to get some beneficial traction the second time around, it'd be good for him to have some reliable help like a much more than usually competent VP. And a reliable and competent VP could sustain possible 2024-2028 improvements going and growing for another 8 years. Working experience in Californian government, the US Senate, and the Ford administration aren't exactly the equivalents of demonstrated competence and fitness for executive office. Don't know what to say about Pence, except to observe he -- unlike Reagan -- evidently didn't like working as a governor -- 4 years is not much tenure.
Sure, all else being equal someone with relevant governing experience is preferable over someone with less. I had listed three factors that I thought were important for VP consideration in one of the footnotes -- loyalty, ideological commonality and boost to odds of winning the election -- I agree with you that relevant governing experience should be a fourth one. But even if you give DeSantis that checkmarked box, he isn't loyal to Trump, his ideological commonality is questionable (his primary financial backers for his run were never-Trump types), and Florida is already going to Trump by a substantial margin...
Not just relevant empty suit governing experience -- demonstrably competent filled suit experience. And, I'd say there's substantial ideological overlap between the two men. Loyalty to Trump is one thing, but ideological loyalty is much more important if the governing intent is to work towards an improved nation. Got to keep in mind, after all, that the ostensible goal of Trump himself and his supporters is MAGA, not MTGA (make Trump great again). And, where else would have DeSantis gotten funding for a primary run if not from never-Trumpers? Trump had already cornered the ever-Trumper financing market.
My understanding is that DeSantis's networth was close to zero even after becoming governor so he had to play ball with these types of backers. But what does it say about his ideological commitments when he had to give substantial backroom promises to people like this?
Same question you ask about DeSantis could -- as you comment above regarding the move of the US embassy in Israel -- could be put to Trump. So, in some ways, getting a functional toe hold in politics is apparently like some of the mind- and body-wracking stuff that a newly beginning, talented entrepreneur has to do to get his business first started. Nascent politics and nascent entrepreneurism could both be like making sausage; i.e., don't look too closely at what goes into it if you hope to later stomach getting needed nourishment from the stuff.
If it's true that Trump caved on things like the Assange pardon due to threat of impeachment, then he is not the reformer or swamp drainer he claims to be or needs to be. A real one would call their bluff. Which I believe it is. We have differed on this before, but I don't believe McConnell can corral sufficient red state votes to impeach him. And the tale of the tape of two unsuccessful impeachments supports my view. If those self serving red staters were at all willing or desiring to vote to convict, they certainly had their chances. But they are more concerned with the perpetuation of their own "careers," which voting to convict Trump would jeopardize.
Hi Martin, it is Sundance’s view that McConnell controls outright about a third of the Republican Senate, and he follows their machinations closely. I looked at the voting record of Republicans in the Senate fairly closely awhile back and it’s pretty dreadful overall. The post was here:
Regardless, I agree with you that Trump has not met the hopes and expectations of those who voted for him in 2015/2016 and who wanted much more radical action…
Revolutionary War hero Alexander Hamilton was correct in wanting a monarchy instead of a republic. The Jacobins fighting in the American Revolution wanted to put a Stewart king on the American throne. Democracy was always a lie, it was "vote who we want, or we will overthrow." Remember Guatemala and Iran in 1953? Many years ago I figured if they would do it to Iran, they would do it in the USA. Same institutions did the overthrowing of the democrats.
Hi Ziggy, I have mixed and unsettled theories and feelings about the American Revolution. Regarding Hamilton specifically, I've had a sour opinion about him because of his pushing for the first national bank, which led to allegations that he was a Rothschild agent, but I'm open to learning more about the period...I agree with you, there's no reason why our institutions using tactics to control and overthrow foreign countries would not turn those same tactics inwards...
Here is a clip from the movie Cromwell and I would highly suggest people watch it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efmiutIr97c The English Civil War was fought for "Freedom" and "Democracy" and what they ended up with was a dictatorship less free than than the Stuart King. The founding fathers blamed Cromwell and not the parliament.
Being that the English Civil War was slightly fought in America, it was Part 1 of the American Revolution. Any discussion of fake democracy needs a knowledge of the Cromwell and the English Civil War.
Great analysis. One quibble- you say, re the Jan 6 event, "most of those did not die on the day, and the one that did..." In fact, I believe the one death that they tried to pin on the protestors(Sicklin) occurred a day or two after Jan 6.
Brian Sicknick, I think probably vaccine injury as the covax was made available to 1st responders prior to J6. I should note also in the meantime I know multiple military personnel who have had strokes (Sicknick's cause of death) 20s-40s (Sicknick was early 40s). I do some analysis of this in one of my early articles: https://radicalamerican.substack.com/p/why-the-establishment-loves-j6
"Ultimately, Trump may have simply come too late."
This seems like a whitewash; he was in on the covid1984 scam from the very beginning, he was a zionist shill from the very beginning, he was a narcissistic buffoon from the very beginning.
What would he have done differently is he was president in 2001?
Hi Wizard, for 2001 specifically Trump perhaps could have kept China out of WTO which resulted in their ascension to manufacturing powerhouse and avoided the 2003 Iraq war, but that’s a pretty late date.
The modern era was set in motion in 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve followed by the outcomes of World War 1 and World War 2. A man of Trump’s temperament would almost certainly not have become president in earlier eras so it’s a silly hypo I suppose, but he started no new foreign wars during his presidency and wound down the war in Afghanistan; as such I think he would have been on the side of Lindbergh & America First to keep America isolationist and avoid the perils of empire. He’s also been somewhat resistant to open borders and high immigration rates as seen by Miller & Bannon’s policies, so perhaps he could have resisted the 1965 Immigration Act or things like Reagan’s amnesty (1986) which ultimately resulted in the demographic transformation of the country.
Great series. How appropriate to finish with the Tower card. The Tower trump is card 16. Donald Trump being famous for his Trump Towers. He announced his candidacy for the 2016 presidential election on June 16, and exactly one year later won the Republican party nomination, and then wins the presidency. When his term was over, what we once knew as America lay in ruin around us.
I find myself benumbed at this point. Nothing makes much sense any more in terms of where major Western nations are headed. I'm turning more towards family and local dynamics.
Thanks Random. I agree with you - the plethora of "fake news", bot activity on the internet, AI images and video, rampant censorship, corrupt authority figures including in science, etc. leads to a fundamental question about what data can be accepted as true. To an extent the answer may be: only what you see with your own eyes...
I think it's quite clear that it's time for radical change. It's time white men start becoming militant and organized. Reach out to other white men in your community and start forming militias. Build communities of support and start developing parallel economies. Stay focused and vigilant.
There will never be a normie uprising, by the very nature of normies. They need leaders to tell them what to do. Either some of us become those leaders IRL or we're just voices on the internet that will become increasingly silo'd and silenced.
So less polemicizing online, more talking irl.
You write, "As I wrap this up, a few words. Ultimately I believe that narratives are more persuasive than facts..."
Over the long run, however, facts most strongly control the course of the ongoing post-Paleolithic human mental and physical argument with reality -- and all mistaken portions of any given human narration (model) striving to string these facts together eventually find their correct place down in the jumble of the Babel debris pile. Over the same long run, the most persuasive, enduring narratives (models) are those which not only 'elegantly' tie the basic facts together but those which also best allow humans to elude internal and external threats to life; i.e., the most persuasive, most-enduring narratives are ultimately those which are most predictive. See science -- and the universally-shared aspects and beliefs of the world's religions and philosophies.
What you call "globohomo" itself operates exactly as if narrative is more persuasive than facts. This mode of operation is not, as most of your readers no doubt already recognize, an effective way to elude internal and external threats to life. It is a very effective way to curtail life (and families, businesses, industries, nations, and political parties).
Moral of the story? First, pay close and constant attention to the facts and then be really, really careful and wary in narrative construction, narrative adoption, and narrative modification.
PS: Rand Paul's critical weakness as a VP candidate is that he has no practical, successful prior experience in governance and/or other management. Ditto Vance, Carson. Considering this critical criterion, Flynn would probably work out relatively well as a Trump VP -- as would DeSantis.
Thanks for the comment, Larry. I agree with you that one must have a grounding mechanism for one's narratives -- it's very important, other than one can believe anything. There are at least two main grounding mechanisms: (1) science by repeatable experiments verified by third parties ("science" today has been almost entirely bastardized to mean science by committee consensus), and (2) as you state, making predictions based on one's worldview and if those predictions turn out to be wrong, to update one's worldview in an iterative process.
That being said, people do not live their life by facts but by beliefs -- specifically, their core beliefs. As the Western core belief is egalitarianism ultimately deriving from Christianity, those core beliefs will never be transvalued based on facts -- they will only be transvalued, which the West so desperately needs, by a counter-vailing narrative based ultimately on faith (whether in a Christian or other form). The intent with this 3 part series was to construct a counter-vailing narrative to the establishment's never-ending egalitarian ratcheting where it pushes down anything that is great and beautiful into the dirt...
It's odd, but the last month or so I've been consistently unable to 'like' readers' or author's comments on several substacks. I've read in some substack comments that other people have been having the same problem. Consider your comment above 'liked', however.
(I can get around the above problem by switching browsers and re-logging into my substack account on the new browser, so maybe there's a stray cookie flying around that is causing the problem.)
Anyway, I know from exterior facts and repeated tests of my interior narrative that your comment that "people do not live their lives by facts but by beliefs" only applies currently to some (60-70%?) of people. The remainder minority tests and re-examines -- and modifies as necessary -- at least some of their beliefs as time passes on. It is the 30-40% in the last category which ultimately functions as the original source of the core beliefs of the other 60-70%. Cultural transmission...
As to science requiring verification by third parties -- that is only required in the long run for the benefit of "the other 60-70%" (especially students and other neophytes looking for dependable knowledge). In the short run, new but entirely valid scientific (or religious or philosophical) observations, understandings, and theories can exist with only the mind or minds of one or a few people. Cultural inertia...
It is the simple cultural schema related above that eventually achieves shifts in the core beliefs of the human majority.
PPS: If you've ever watched a know-it-all rich amateur try to take on a technically complex and difficult task with no preparation but a few guiding ideas and unjustified generalized self-confidence, you understand why I dismiss Vance, Carson, and Rand Paul as Trump VP picks. Hopefully, Trump himself no longer is suffering from unjustified generalized self-confidence and is no longer quite such an amateur.
Also, re: VP, I guess it depends on what you mean by critical weakness. Kamala was a Senator for 4 years and AG of CA before that; while Pence was a governor for 4 years, Biden had served as a Senator for 30+ years before becoming VP. Cheney had some management experience as White House Chief of Staff under Ford and as Secretary of Defense, but Al Gore was just a Senator before becoming VP. So the level of experience is all over the place...
Yes, but it is inarguable, that all else being equal, a person who has already had some demonstrably able experience in the future tasks they will be faced with will do better than one without that experience. Assuming Trump gets in again, has learned and thought about some things in the interim, starts to get some beneficial traction the second time around, it'd be good for him to have some reliable help like a much more than usually competent VP. And a reliable and competent VP could sustain possible 2024-2028 improvements going and growing for another 8 years. Working experience in Californian government, the US Senate, and the Ford administration aren't exactly the equivalents of demonstrated competence and fitness for executive office. Don't know what to say about Pence, except to observe he -- unlike Reagan -- evidently didn't like working as a governor -- 4 years is not much tenure.
Sure, all else being equal someone with relevant governing experience is preferable over someone with less. I had listed three factors that I thought were important for VP consideration in one of the footnotes -- loyalty, ideological commonality and boost to odds of winning the election -- I agree with you that relevant governing experience should be a fourth one. But even if you give DeSantis that checkmarked box, he isn't loyal to Trump, his ideological commonality is questionable (his primary financial backers for his run were never-Trump types), and Florida is already going to Trump by a substantial margin...
Not just relevant empty suit governing experience -- demonstrably competent filled suit experience. And, I'd say there's substantial ideological overlap between the two men. Loyalty to Trump is one thing, but ideological loyalty is much more important if the governing intent is to work towards an improved nation. Got to keep in mind, after all, that the ostensible goal of Trump himself and his supporters is MAGA, not MTGA (make Trump great again). And, where else would have DeSantis gotten funding for a primary run if not from never-Trumpers? Trump had already cornered the ever-Trumper financing market.
The problem with relying on never-Trump financiers is these financiers are not supporting a candidate with no expectation of return; they want very specific things in return for their support. For example, Trump relied on Sheldon Adelson for support and he had to provide a return on investment by moving the U.S. capital to Jerusalem -- and that's even with Trump being a billionaire with huge numbers of small donors... In the same way, never-Trump GOP megadonor Ken Griffin expected DeSantis to crush Republican populism as explained here: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/11/06/desantis-megadonor-billionaire-head-of-citadel-investments-ken-griffin-explains-why-he-purchased-ron-desantis-for-2024-and-what-he-expects-from-his-investment/
My understanding is that DeSantis's networth was close to zero even after becoming governor so he had to play ball with these types of backers. But what does it say about his ideological commitments when he had to give substantial backroom promises to people like this?
Same question you ask about DeSantis could -- as you comment above regarding the move of the US embassy in Israel -- could be put to Trump. So, in some ways, getting a functional toe hold in politics is apparently like some of the mind- and body-wracking stuff that a newly beginning, talented entrepreneur has to do to get his business first started. Nascent politics and nascent entrepreneurism could both be like making sausage; i.e., don't look too closely at what goes into it if you hope to later stomach getting needed nourishment from the stuff.
If it's true that Trump caved on things like the Assange pardon due to threat of impeachment, then he is not the reformer or swamp drainer he claims to be or needs to be. A real one would call their bluff. Which I believe it is. We have differed on this before, but I don't believe McConnell can corral sufficient red state votes to impeach him. And the tale of the tape of two unsuccessful impeachments supports my view. If those self serving red staters were at all willing or desiring to vote to convict, they certainly had their chances. But they are more concerned with the perpetuation of their own "careers," which voting to convict Trump would jeopardize.
Hi Martin, it is Sundance’s view that McConnell controls outright about a third of the Republican Senate, and he follows their machinations closely. I looked at the voting record of Republicans in the Senate fairly closely awhile back and it’s pretty dreadful overall. The post was here:
https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/the-lack-of-representation-for-right
Regardless, I agree with you that Trump has not met the hopes and expectations of those who voted for him in 2015/2016 and who wanted much more radical action…
Revolutionary War hero Alexander Hamilton was correct in wanting a monarchy instead of a republic. The Jacobins fighting in the American Revolution wanted to put a Stewart king on the American throne. Democracy was always a lie, it was "vote who we want, or we will overthrow." Remember Guatemala and Iran in 1953? Many years ago I figured if they would do it to Iran, they would do it in the USA. Same institutions did the overthrowing of the democrats.
Hi Ziggy, I have mixed and unsettled theories and feelings about the American Revolution. Regarding Hamilton specifically, I've had a sour opinion about him because of his pushing for the first national bank, which led to allegations that he was a Rothschild agent, but I'm open to learning more about the period...I agree with you, there's no reason why our institutions using tactics to control and overthrow foreign countries would not turn those same tactics inwards...
Here is a clip from the movie Cromwell and I would highly suggest people watch it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efmiutIr97c The English Civil War was fought for "Freedom" and "Democracy" and what they ended up with was a dictatorship less free than than the Stuart King. The founding fathers blamed Cromwell and not the parliament.
Being that the English Civil War was slightly fought in America, it was Part 1 of the American Revolution. Any discussion of fake democracy needs a knowledge of the Cromwell and the English Civil War.
Great analysis. One quibble- you say, re the Jan 6 event, "most of those did not die on the day, and the one that did..." In fact, I believe the one death that they tried to pin on the protestors(Sicklin) occurred a day or two after Jan 6.
Good point, will update, thanks Marko.
Brian Sicknick, I think probably vaccine injury as the covax was made available to 1st responders prior to J6. I should note also in the meantime I know multiple military personnel who have had strokes (Sicknick's cause of death) 20s-40s (Sicknick was early 40s). I do some analysis of this in one of my early articles: https://radicalamerican.substack.com/p/why-the-establishment-loves-j6
Also, a woman was trampled under foot by a melee caused by police. The man who tried to save her has been in jail most of the time since.
"Ultimately, Trump may have simply come too late."
This seems like a whitewash; he was in on the covid1984 scam from the very beginning, he was a zionist shill from the very beginning, he was a narcissistic buffoon from the very beginning.
What would he have done differently is he was president in 2001?
Hi Wizard, for 2001 specifically Trump perhaps could have kept China out of WTO which resulted in their ascension to manufacturing powerhouse and avoided the 2003 Iraq war, but that’s a pretty late date.
The modern era was set in motion in 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve followed by the outcomes of World War 1 and World War 2. A man of Trump’s temperament would almost certainly not have become president in earlier eras so it’s a silly hypo I suppose, but he started no new foreign wars during his presidency and wound down the war in Afghanistan; as such I think he would have been on the side of Lindbergh & America First to keep America isolationist and avoid the perils of empire. He’s also been somewhat resistant to open borders and high immigration rates as seen by Miller & Bannon’s policies, so perhaps he could have resisted the 1965 Immigration Act or things like Reagan’s amnesty (1986) which ultimately resulted in the demographic transformation of the country.
But who knows…
Great series. How appropriate to finish with the Tower card. The Tower trump is card 16. Donald Trump being famous for his Trump Towers. He announced his candidacy for the 2016 presidential election on June 16, and exactly one year later won the Republican party nomination, and then wins the presidency. When his term was over, what we once knew as America lay in ruin around us.
Thanks for the feedback, Mike. Your comments on the Tower card and its relation to Trump are both perceptive and astute...
Great piece, great series, thanks.
I find myself benumbed at this point. Nothing makes much sense any more in terms of where major Western nations are headed. I'm turning more towards family and local dynamics.
Thanks Random. I agree with you - the plethora of "fake news", bot activity on the internet, AI images and video, rampant censorship, corrupt authority figures including in science, etc. leads to a fundamental question about what data can be accepted as true. To an extent the answer may be: only what you see with your own eyes...
There is no virus to begin with…zero scientific proof of claim…it’s black and white. I’m available to discuss further.
"A shared vision far outside that of existing power structures and establishment morality", one can hope.
As for now, dissedents seem to be on the endangered species list as well as on other "lists".
Great article as usual.
Thanks Wheel, I appreciate it.
I think it's quite clear that it's time for radical change. It's time white men start becoming militant and organized. Reach out to other white men in your community and start forming militias. Build communities of support and start developing parallel economies. Stay focused and vigilant.
Our people will have no peace until the small hats are wiped off the face of this planet