one always risks sounding a fool attempting to forecast what the 'next paradigm' will be, because one simply cannot know w/ any specificity. but one CAN see when the current paradigm is structurally doomed to failure.

jews have never gotten this 'deep' into the Goy redzone before, held this much dictatorial power over whites. and as brilliant as they are at the subversion game, they are historically proportionately awful at wielding power outright, blatantly. the idea that the white race will go quietly to its oblivion because 'muh mexican voting majorities' will loyally 'vote' to keep a stridently white-genocidal ZOG entrenched in perpetuity just doesn't seem likely. but predicting the actual particulars of how the paradigm will collapse is not currently possible.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399041)

they have, but not here. look at what they did with bolshevism in russia.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399044)

It's wild how disingenuous (((you))) are about this stuff, (((Consuela))). Putting aside the huge numbers of Jews who got purged during the Stalin years, here in reality Jews were literally one "fortuitous sudden mysterious death" away from getting *systematically* annihilated in the USSR in 1953.

https://www.jta.org/archive/behind-the-headlines-how-stalins-plan-to-annihilate-ussr-jews-was-thwarted

Of course the easy and facile answer is to smirk like the literal Jew that you are and say, "Oh well I guess Jews will always be one fortuitous sudden mysterious death away from that." If that's a gamble you really want to take, then sure, roll the dice on that, Moishe. But in that case, you guys had better plan on winning that dangerous bet 100% of the time -- and historically speaking, you haven't even come close to hitting that average across different eras and cultures. But this time is probably totally different for reasons, surely you won't push too far and too hard and overplay your hand and trigger a huge pushback (which we already see starting to develop)...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399577)

Even if Stalin wanted to send Jews into Siberia, one can note the curious timing of his death -- quite likely murdered by Jews for this plan, which is in favor of my point and not against it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399588)

*Doesn't even attempt to address Stalin's well-documented plan to holocaust the Jews which was slated to begin literally the day after his "oops fortuitous stroke hehe" death*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399596)

Yep, they got Stalin and won that gamble.

How did they do with Hitler on that gamble? How have they done historically with these gambles ("109 and counting...")?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399604)

The Rothschilds and their allies won the war, crushed whites and Christians and have taken over the world. They don't really care about the Jewish masses, as one can see in how brutal they were enforcing the Jewish heart attack jab in Israel (the strictest measures in the world along with Australia).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399613)

"European Jewry fared great in WWII, actually, you idiot. Read a book sometime." -- (((Consuela)))

Amazing stuff! Right up there with the brilliant observation that ackkkkkkkshually, Hitler was a Jewish psyop.

Also I love the attempted transmogrification of "Jews are the problem" to "Ackkkkshually, a tiny cabal of ultrarich Jews at the very top are the problem (and btw they don't care about the masses of Jews underneath them either, subtext don't be so mad at the rest of those poor Jews getting fucked over just like you)."

A truly surprising position for a middle-class Jewish man (such as yourself) to take in this day of rising righteous antisemitism. Seems like it's a totally good faith and non-self-serving position as well, IMO.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399631)

Thanks FLW, Pumos and Jews (like you) agree that this seems to happen to me in basically every single thread. Damn. Oh well.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399657)

Lol FLW just lol

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399673)

But it requires savvy, organization, discipline, killer instinct, self funding, will to power

Not isolated campaigns for individual candidates but a political machine with a winning message that attracts talent, rewards friends, crushes enemies

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399227)

Also “white power” isn’t a winning message.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399256)

"Right-wing populists cannot reverse the development, like all reactionaries and despite their (implicit) hopes. Among the liberally constituted nations, the Visegrad states or other Eastern European countries outside of the EU act as the most powerful brakes. Yet they 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."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399243)

The problem isn't that "Orbanism" is too small minded and provincial. It's that Hungary is a small country without much power.

A large powerful country like the USA could absolutely promote and broadcast traditional ideals if it wanted to. It doesn't need a brand new totalizing ideology. It needs a change in power -- political and metapolitical -- and the ideology will follow.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399397)

imo the radical push for egalitarianism is embedded within christianity itself, which was held in check by a rigid hierarchical catholicism until protestantism let loose the crazy egalitarian energies, which via unitarianism took over the university system, then dropped the belief in god to get around the separation of church and state to become modern day "(fake) secular" shitliberalism and outcompete their religious rivals

unless you are willing to transvalue this i think it only ends in a complete leveling of society, white genocide, and then rubble

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399404)

negrolatry was something born of white x-tianity, and was pretty well an organic white phenomenon that predates jewish media control, etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399420)

shitliberalism is just the natural next step of christianity. that's all it is

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399439)

the communist liquidation of white middle-class Germany and Russia which Jews attempted in the early 20th c was not something that would have 'arisen' from x-tianity without intensive Jewish intervention.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399456)

i don't really want to argue about this though, it's just splitting hairs. the important point is that christianity itself is a big part of our current problems, and we cannot look to some kind of christian revival or christian moral re-alignment to fix our problems. people who are barking up that tree are gravely mistaken at best and sinister actors at worst

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399484)

CR the REAL problem is white Christian goys. If we just did away with THEM for good, everything else would resolve itself.

Thanks for explaining this, Avi!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399609)

I don't see the causal chain from Christian universities to secular universities to white genocide.

The causal chain from Jewish control of central banks and media, then to government and universities and corporations and NGOs -- and *then* to white genocide, seems much clearer.

Maybe a good right wing populist example is Franco. Did Spain ultimately fall to liberalism? Sure. Is that fall due to Christianity unfolding toward its inevitable end? Debatable, to say the least!

And in the near term, irrelevant. Franco succeeded at preventing the communists from taking over. That is what mattered at the time.

All that matters at this time is removing from power those who wield it. Mass immigration doesn't magically become policy because of a Hegelian progression of ideas playing out historically. It becomes policy because the policy makers say so. Remove them and the issue is solved.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399466)

Here's the argument tracing the development of Christianity into modern day secular shitliberalism: https://neofeudalism.substack.com/p/deeper-societal-trends-predating-fad

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399483)

But if the Falangists had taken over Spain then globohomo would have invaded and overthrown them.

Spain's chance was with Germany in WW2; they stayed neutral and the result was inevitable.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399557)

If we want different results, we need different rulers. It is as simple as that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399668)

the problem, as always, is what comes next as a replacement. German paganism, atheism?

x-tianity has a track record of (at least intermittently) 'working' -- to iron out some of the shittiest impulses of the populace, to keep women in check, to keep families together. it's a proven quantity, and even Hitler did not try to toss it out or challenge it directly in his lifetime.

can you really democratize some kind if Nietschean 'will to power' ethos in the same way? do you want that? every prole amped up on sociopathy? it would be very Roman, i guess. brutal.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399537)

the romans didn't democratize nietzsche. the roman elites believed in hierarchy and were willing to operate on that basis without qualms; those lower in the hierarchy still had to subsume their desires to their superiors. i agree it was brutal, though. Historian Tom Holland argues this point in his book Dominion, which tracks how Christianity remade the world:

“The more years I spent immersed in the study of classical antiquity, so the more alien I increasingly found it. The values of Leonidas, whose people had practiced a particularly murderous form of eugenics and trained their young to kill uppity Untermenschen by night, were nothing that I recognized as my own; nor were those of Caesar, who was reported to have killed a million Gauls, and enslaved a million more. It was not just the extremes of callousness that unsettled me, but the complete lack of any sense that the poor or the weak might have the slightest intrinsic value. Why did I find this disturbing? Because, in my morals and ethics, I was not a Spartan or a Roman at all. That my belief in God had faded over the course of my teenage years did not mean that I had ceased to be Christian. For a millennium and more, the civilization into which I had been born was Christendom. Assumptions that I had grown up with - about how a society should properly be organized, and the principles that it should uphold - were not bred of classical antiquity, still less of ‘human nature’, but very distinctively of that civilization’s Christian past. So profound has been the impact of Christianity on the development of Western civilization that it has come to be hidden from view. It is the incomplete revolutions which are remembered; the fate of those whose triumph is to be taken for granted.”

my hope is that there is a partial transvaluation of values, not a full one from priestly to warrior energies; society operates best in a balance of values, not one lopsidedly in control. how that would look like and under what circumstances i don't know, but having the conversation is the first step

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399553)

There are two known methods to effect a transvaluation of values: 1) kill everyone who disagrees, 2) be God and change people supernaturally. Therefore IMO the discussion is off the table.

The supposed logical chain from Thomas Aquinas to drag queen story hour is absurd, and the people promoting this view are uniformly Jewish.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399567)

That isn't true. The original transvaluation of values from Roman warrior to Christian priestly values occurred over a multi-hundred year period and did not involve any genocide. See here for how it spread:

https://youtu.be/sPudO9NjdBE

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399578)

It is not meekness for its own sake. It says slave obey your master, and master be good to your slave. Wife obey your husband, and husband love your wife.

It is a power dynamic both realistic and beautiful.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399610)

there's no magic recipe for changing a society's values. you just get power and influence and promote new values and then the masses follow you. not any more complicated than that. i mean we recently went from normies being repulsed by gay marriage to the population overwhelmingly supporting it in just a few years

steering western society away from christian-shitliberalism-egalitarianism is totally doable. but we'd have to go all-in on it. not this incoherent halfway nonsense. i'm talking state-mandated eugenics and population control while funneling massive amounts of resources into technologies like AI and fusion to gradually replace low human capital proles with machine servants, and re-defining our societal values and goals toward creation and expansion into space colonies. stuff like that

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399606)

But this implies that what matters is the power to shape values. Want new values? Clear out those in power. That is my political philosophy. Clear them out.

The "transvaluation of values" argument is a distraction from the practical project of defeating one's enemy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399627)

how you liking it?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399442)

Again, very curious that you seem to be forgetting a few, uh, prominent 20th Century data points here. Oh well I guess those were probably just fake and gay Jewish psyops anyway, haha yeah ;)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399602)

He's the most obvious example, but not the only example. Pinochet it another one. Honestly, Dutarte -- a retarded homosexual brown man -- is a third, in his own way.

The big difference comes down to willingness to use sustained and brutal force against your ideological enemies. The Left has that in spades. The Right often does not; but when they do, they usually win.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399626)

https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/lee-kuan-yew-and-singapore-a-knife

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399635)

Yes, that's "the point." I'm rejecting your "attempted transvaluation of of values is the critical feature of a successful right wing populist movement" argument as bullshit, because although that's a great idea and it isn't attempted nearly as often as it should be, history teaches that actually that's not the critical feature. You can succeed in very meaningful ways for a long period of time without doing that (and at the end of the day, change is the only constant in history so nothing lasts forever to start with so aiming for some sort of "permanent" change that will endure for centuries is wildly unrealistic). Thanks for noticing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399649)

"History is Cthulu forever swimming leftwards"

This is just the gayest and most retarded Reddit-tier comment, right down to the Cthulu element. Sad. Nothing further to say.

Anyway, let me know when you start being honest (again) about the fact that you're literally a Jewish man married to a brown woman with half brown / half kike kids. Kind of hard to take your pontification seriously when you won't even admit that. Even fucking Dupa admits who he is.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399674)

i don't even understand what point you are trying to make

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399726)

Yes of course I do, are you a retard?

"Uh, link?! Source?!"

Uhhhh, hmmm, well gee let's start by comparing the infamously shitlibbed faggotry of the Roman state at the height of its bloated power and degenerate decadence vs the intense and highly reactionary social conservatism that quickly set in and then defined the European Middle Ages for hundreds of years after the collapse of the Western Empire, right up until the early modern period.

This isn't even up for any sort of reasonable debate, the mere fact that you asked this question and thought it was a "gotcha" shows that you're a fucking idiot who needs to crack open a history book sometime.

HTH.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46400640)

what you're describing is a totally real and true phenomenon, don't get me wrong. i'm not really sure what term to use instead. maybe something like "nativist populism?" what actually defines the populist "right" in america is that it's nativist (anti-immigration, anti-war, focuses on domestic issues), broadly christian in morals (christianity has always been the native religion of the USA), anti-corporate globalism and big government (again nativist focused). of course there's the implicitly White racial angle too, but there are non-whites who are genuinely part of this cohort, and "nativism" captures that facet anyway

i think that it's worth making this distinction because like you point out in the article, there really is no "right wing" in american politics at all. there's the fast-roll shitliberalism of the democrats, and the slow-roll shitliberalism of the republicans. and the "nativist populism" of the dissident "right" is really not much different than these. the proles who make up this group are totally pro-re-distributive government handouts and pro-egalitarianism, they just want it done in a sensible way that benefits them and doesn't literally implode the country (open borders welfare state? lol)

there's a complete lack of actual right wing sentiment in the current populist dissident segment of the US. if you told the average trump-loving prole that the state should be implementing pro-eugenic policies and segregating kids in schools by ability, or take away women's right to vote, they'd look at you horrified and confused. these people are never going to get behind any kind of transformative change and are really just reactionaries against the egregiously insane shitlib overreach in our society

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399421)

the thing is, the nazi vision and system is specifically german. no non-germans could ever do something like that. it was the quintessentially german essence: society as a familial organic unit, with the father as the head of state, and the people as his children. no "checks and balances," no "marketplace of ideas," none of that. it would be getting into the weeds to explain in detail, but i'm pretty sure you and the other guys in this thread are already familiar with and understand what i'm talking about

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399525)

"To be honest, I don't know much about the famous 20th Century dictator who literally invented modern 'fascism,' but anyway here read my long dissertation on the REAL nature of right wing populism."

Ah, XO!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399670)

"right-wing" sentiment is just the natural hierarchy: power and virtue flow top-down. "populism" is a bottom-up phenomenon where regular people attempt to exert political power over the elite

no offense but your post just doesn't make any sense. i can't even really parse it. the left invented the "lie" that the right promotes top-down hierarchy? what? lol

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399675)

you need to understand what actual right-wing beliefs are, first. nietzsche is stop #1. really though, there's a huge comment chain above in this same thread that discusses this topic. you should read it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46400193)

if i didn't know which poaster you were i would think i was getting trolled. good to have you on "our" side i guess, fellow "right wing" guy who thinks that philosophical and moral differences between human beings spontaneously began in the 19th century

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46400262)

He's the retard who just "pwned" me above by conveniently forgetting about the entirety of the European Middle Ages. Really smart guy, IMO.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46400647)

https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/trump-vs-desantis-the-tale-of-the

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46399643)

"And then one day, suddenly, and for absolutely no reason at all,..."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46400644)

That will fix America/“the West”/insert increasingly melanized goyslave farm here!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5351742&forum_id=2#46400292)