Until and unless the Kilkenny kats on the right generate an elite, who can resist being coopted by the existing structures of liberalism (which is the big problem) they will continue being powerless. Which is probably why rightists spend more time and effort fighting each other than anything else; activism without an inside the system elite to take advantage is pointless.
Nice shout-out, good to have our lowest expectations of you confirmed yet again. But this again shows your incoherence and lack of thought. You want simultaneously to be unsullied by political participation in the system (to the extent you infamously claimed voting was a sin unless it reflected your racial obsessions, because they're really the most important part of your belief system) and to be in a position to take over the system. You can't simultaneously be in your self-sufficient WN compound in the woods and inside the Beltway.
Which is why you cope by endlessly devolving into fantasies of a violent revolution and the collapse of civilisation, which won't happen until ... going by Spengler's actual theory, about 2,700. Assuming of course that he was 100% correct about everything, which is doubtful at the least.
100% true, but even the dissident right is fundamentally powerless in this way and the dissident right has always had the numbers to be a significant political force (especially if the just so stories of democratic popular sovereignty and civic parliamentary representation actually mattered).
No you don't. The Constitution Party, the closest to the mainstream and nowhere near the toxic insanity of your particular politics, has only ... twenty-six municipal-level seats. This is not hard to understand why; all mainstream right-wing positions are already contained within the GOP, and outside the mainstream ... well, let's just say the cultural memory of what happened the last time eugenics-fixated, race-obsessed socialists with a mystical tinge, an obsession with violent warfare and fantasies about "vitalist barbarism" took power in a Western nation is still strong.
If the dissidents could just stop forming circular firing squads for five minutes and lift a Caudillo upon their shields and swear to honor and obey him and no other save God, things might be different.
I mean, the "dissidents" are in the numbers maybe ... to swing a municipal-level election if they all got together. Because really, nobody wants what they're selling. "If you build it, they will come" ... or if they've any common sense they'll run as fast as they can in the opposite directions.
This can last for generations (typically around five) before a new vitalist barbarism can smash and overthrow the rot and begin anew.
The Roman Empire lasted about 5 to 15
centuries after Augustus took power - 6 to 16 if we count the period immediately after the Punic Wars. So yet again you expose your utter lack of knowledge about whatever it is you think you're talking about. And that was with far more difficult means of communication and movement than exist today. And "vitalist barbarians"? Conan was a fictional character, and R. E. Howard wasn't actually a social scientist. "Vitalist barbarians" today get effortlessly drone-striked. Even with the recent affair in Afghanistan, the Taliban will never be sacking Washington D.C.
The history of the world is a history of "vitalist barbarians" being endlessly, relentlessly pushed into the areas of the planet nobody else wanted (jmountains, jungles and deserts) or assimilating into "civilisation" themselves. If "civilisation" was inferior and doomed as you've endlessly repeated, this wouldn't be the case. And the modern world has far from levelled the playing field - it's tilted it even more obscenely against the barbarians. A random blacksmith can't make the sort of military equipment barbarians need to win against civilised powers as he could when war was a matter of swords and breastplates, and industrial economies don't work on easily-acquirable slave labour taken from conquests and raids, as the Nazis and Soviets discovered. Yes, the Pashtuns and the Chechnyans can hold on to their mountains ... but their mountains are all they're ever going to have these days.
Even in Chechnya, where they had pretty much everything rigged in their favour, a broken wreck of a former superpower with an economy the size of Italy and more roubles stashed outside the country than circulating in it ... easily subdued the barbarians coming out of the mountains. Imagine what would happen to them if they were actually perceived by the Russian govt. as posing a threat to its survival.
No. Or at least, not these alone. These are insufficient. You need a passion for the struggle. You need a raison for the young man to seemly lie, mangled by the bronze spear. Something sacred to defend. Such that a man is ashamed to flee rather than stand and die, with his boots on. Ideals and theories of the soul of the public things can come later, after victory is achieved and we have planted peaceful gardens for our children.
You get this from Marx, don't you? "We don't need to ask about what the post-Revolutionary utopia will look like until the Revolution is won!". But fortunately we already know what your ideals look like.
You want to create out of the USA, or the Western World in general, a totalitarian socialist ethnostate which is centred ideologically around Catholicism-tinged worship of the Leader (you) and a belief in the superiority of the (loosely-defined) "Germanic-Aryan" peoples, with the additions of belief in mystic collective racial souls and Nietzscheanism.
The vast majority of mankind are too ignorant of the technical vocabulary to have a valid opinion.
Yes, yes, we're all stupider than you and should bow to the opinion of somebody who thinks his ooga-booga GLORIOUS GERMANICS conquered Alexandria during the fall of the Roman Empire and literally thinks we will soon be too stupid to maintain or build nuclear weapons as we slide into dysgenic apocalypse (wonder what you've planned to solve that problem once you inevitably take power? We know what the last bunch of people to be obsessively concerned with that did. Another reason why you'll never be let into power).
And this is why we fail. Yes, there's going to be conflict on the other side. Accept that. Embrace it. But if you purity spiral here and now you will not build a coalition capable of winning. This is actually really simple. When in a war, your actions should either expand or empower your own coalition or reduce or weaken his coalition. Ideally, both at the same time. The end.
And any coalition capable of gaining power and holding on to it won't include people like you, because frankly ... you're on the fringe even of the "dissident right".
Do you really think the professional black block like and respect the rainbow block? The only thing keeping any of the Sinister factions from coming to blows and exploding the entire coalition is the acknowledged supremacy of the elite financeers and the shared hatred of us.
Look, we know what you mean by "elite financiers", "occultist elites", "plutocrats" et al now, since you admitted it in the other thread. You believe that all of history since the end of the Middle Ages has been determined by a Jewish conspiracy designed to destroy the "Germanic race". There really isn't any reasoning with such nonsense.
And it's hilarious to see you complaining about purity spiralling, given your definition for "right-wing" is "extreme ethnonat and follows my weird personal religion consisting of Indo-European pagan/Catholic syncretism".
Bioleninism. The hatred and jealousy of the mutant and inferior for the healthy and superior.
Ah, I remember when you said you were just about "natural in-group preference". Well, I guess that explains why one of your first posts here was bitching that you couldn't say the N-word, which you then later followed up on by saying that such
purely social limitations were so unendurably terrible that it justified you rising up to try and make yourself king. But what are you really doing with this but summarising Nietzsche? This is just a paraphrase of him bitching about his "slave revolt in morals". And we know what he blamed for it:
It was the Jews who, with frightening consistency, dared to invert the aristocratic value equations good = noble = powerful = beautiful = happy = favored-of-the-gods [gottgeliebt] and maintain, with the furious hatred of the underprivileged and impotent, that "only the poor, the powerless, are good; only the suffering, sick, and ugly, truly blessed. But you noble and mighty ones of the earth will be, to all eternity, the evil, the cruel, the avaricious, the godless, and thus the cursed and damned!" ... We know who has fallen heir to this Jewish inversion of values.... In reference to the grand and unspeakably disastrous initiative which the Jews have launched by this most radical of all declarations of war, I wish to repeat a statement I made in a different context (Beyond Good and Evil), to wit, that it was the Jews who started the slave revolt in morals [daß nämlich mit den Juden der Sklaven-aufstand in der Moral beginnt]; a revolt with two millennia of history behind it, which we have lost sight of today simply because it has triumphed so competely. [
...
Jesus of Nazareth, the gospel of love made flesh, the "redeemer," who brought blessing and victory to the poor, the sick, the sinner -- what was he but temptation in its most sinister and irresistible form, bringing men by a roundabout way to precisely those Jewish values and renovations of the ideal? Has not Israel, precisely by the detour of this "redeemer," this seeming antagonist and destroyer of Israel, reached the final goal of its sublime vindictiveness [seiner sublimen Rachsucht]? Was it not a necessary feature of a truly brilliant politics of vengeance, a farsighted, subterranean, slowly and carefully planned vengeance, that Israel had to deny its true instrument publicly and nail him to the cross like a mortal enemy, so that "the whole world" (meaning all the enemies of Israel) might naïvely swallow the bait? And could one, by straining every resource, hit upon a bait more dangerous than this? What could equal in debilitating narcotic power the symbol of the "holy cross," the ghastly paradox of a crucified god, the unspeakably cruel mystery of God's self-crucifixion for the benefit of mankind?
We know you share at least one of his, shall we say, "strong dislikes" now, and if you were consistent you'd share the other.