1,088 words
Chuck Palahniuk’s Adjustment Day is a highly imaginative and entertaining novel that reflects a long and deep immersion in the online world of White Nationalism, from the best of it to the worst and all shades in between.
I don’t have much to add to the reviews of Adjustment Day by Jef Costello and James O’Meara, so I wish to focus here on some of Palahniuk’s thoughts about how an ethnonationalist revolution might occur, and how it might go wrong.
1. Can an Ethnonationalist Revolution be Made by a Multi-Racial Coalition?
In Adjustment Day, the ethnonationalist revolution is created by a coalition of “ethnic” groups — whites, blacks, and gays — that wish to create separate homelands for themselves after the revolution and then go their separate ways. Jews, Asians, race-mixers, and mestizos don’t take part in the revolution and have no ethnostate in the end. Instead, they are forced to flee.
It is a perennial debate in White Nationalist circles whether we should seek alliances with non-white ethnonationalist groups. The trouble with these discussions is that they ignore the nature of alliances, which are generally temporary and made possible by emergencies, i.e., interruptions in the normal order of things. If circumstances arose in which White Nationalists and, say, the Nation of Islam have common concrete interests and can ally to achieve them, I have little doubt that such an alliance could take place. The same is true of any other non-white ethnic group, including Jews. But once the specific circumstances of the alliance have passed, the two groups would go back to normal, i.e., they would return to distrusting and despising one another.
2. The Revolution Could Not Have Happened without Elite Sponsorship.
Walter Baines is a pathetic white drug addict who decides to start his life over by kidnapping an oligarch and forcing him to be his “new old man” — i.e., a mentor and father figure. So he drives to New York City and kidnaps Talbott Reynolds.
Reynolds tells Walter that he has a hidden transmitter beneath his skin, which precipitates a long and gruesome scene in which the junkie practically flays Talbott alive. Such an ordeal would cause the strongest of minds to break. It causes Talbott to create a revolution. Duck-taped to a chair and covered with blood, Talbott dictates the handbook of the revolution, Adjustment Day, to Walter and instructs him on how to publish it, disseminate it, and gather together the leaders of the revolution.
But the revolution needs a crisis to coalesce around, so Talbott calls Senator Holbrook Daniels and orders him to create the National War Resolution, which will start a war in the Middle East to cull millions of restive Millennial males, giving these men a reason to put down their game sticks and pick up rifles. Obviously Talbott must be a very powerful person to give orders like that. Question: Could Talbott Reynolds be the mysteriously vanished President of the United States?
3. No Revolutionary Doctrine or Practice is Better than the Weakest Vessel by Which it is Transmitted.
The fact that Walter Baines, the midwife of the revolution, is a drug-addled loser with an over-heated fantasy life, means that he is not a reliable scribe or organizer. For instance, we learn that the title of Talbott’s book is supposed to be A Judgment Day, but Walter mis-heard it. One wonders how many other mistakes the book contains. Could these mistakes be the cause of the absurd idea of a gay “ethnostate” or the dystopian elements of Caucasia, the white ethnostate?
4. Sharia is Not White.
Palahniuk’s vision of Caucasia is meant to be taken as a satire of White Nationalism by Leftist gatekeepers in publishing and the media. But it is really just a satire of a particular type of White Nationalism, namely the unnuanced anti-intellectual, anti-cultural, anti-urban, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-egalitarian tendency that basically reduces White Nationalism to raising white birthrates and the Renaissance-Fair LARPing that arises from fetishizing “Tradition” (as if all traditions are good fits for white people) and “hierarchy” (as if all hierarchies are just). Pretty much all these tendencies cluster around the “White Sharia” meme, so that is how I will designate it.
Talbott’s case for ethnonationalism is based on the desire for community. But the form of society he creates is essentially anti-communitarian and feudal, because money is created and distributed through the “lineages” of the revolutionary organizers, who form a new aristocracy, while the rest of the population is reduced to peons begging for work on plantations. To survive, people must flatter the new lords into giving them livings. Agriculture and birthing babies become the focus of society. Science, technology, and culture are deemphasized. Objective merit and expertise are deemphasized, replaced by quacks who are practiced at flattering powerful morons. Polygamy arises, which raises the question: What happens to community among men when some have hundreds of wives and hundreds have none? (Perhaps these single men will need to be culled in a war.)
Although Caucasia is decked out in Medieval European garb, the presence of polygamy and the absence of a non-reproductive culture-creating priestly caste actually makes it closer to Islam, hence “White Sharia.” But Islam is not a good fit for white people. It is a profoundly backward and inferior civilization that suffocates the human spirit. Although it is unmatched in its ability to pump out inbred orclets. In Adjustment Day, Caucasia is inferior even to Blacktopia. Question: How can a white ethnostate survive in a hostile world if it turns its back on science and technology?
If white community really is important, then certain egalitarian-populist measures are called for. First, marriage should be monogamous. Second, the freedom of all citizens to speak their own minds and pursue their own destinies should be safeguarded by the broad distribution of private property. Third, instead of letting jumped-up potentates spend newly-created money first, which warps all of society around them, if every adult citizen received a universal basic income, there would be much greater freedom. (Furthermore, broadly distributed freedom from scarcity would create the conditions for the flourishing of science, technology, and the arts.) Fourth, the gross excesses of the powerful could be curbed or eliminated by giving the populace some sort of political power.
In short, virtually all of the dystopian elements of Caucasia could be eliminated simply by replacing its feudal model of government with a classical republican model, which treats widely distributed private property and the enfranchisement of the people as a bulwark against tyranny. What could be more “trad” than Aristotle’s Politics?
45 Comments
“Third, instead of letting jumped-up potentates spend newly-created money first, which warps all of society around them, if every adult citizen received a universal basic income, there would be much greater freedom, and broadly distributed freedom from scarcity would create the conditions for the flourishing of science, technology, and the arts.”
Sorry, but that’s a societal and economic utopia, and full of false conclusions.
Firstly, replacing money creation and control mechanism (whether independent and private central bank, dependent-from-state-or-democratic-parliament central bank) by a universal basic income or the more modern cryptocurrencies fraud, is just a wishful thinking lacking real knowledge of how economy and an individual work.
Secondly, scarcity, even if created artificially, acts like a thermoregulator in a room of finite resources.
Thirdly, science and technology are often employed to alleviate scarcity.
I obviously disagree.
Begin here if you want to have a serious discussion of this matter: https://counter-currents.com/2012/01/money-for-nothing/
From that essay you recommended for reading:
“(..) we will have to begin by addressing four principal evils: dysgenics, economic globalization, racial diversity (including non-white immigration), and finance capitalism.”
I agree.
You gave in the recent past some examples of destruction of native population by globalization and outsourcing of capital, production, research and jobs.
Mega electronic, centralized trading/supply platforms destroying small and medium size businesses and stable livelihood of many people, even with higher education.
Mega social media platforms functioning as de facto mass surveillance platforms, destroying social trust that has sustained democratic institutions of the West for centuries.
They are a result of confluence of corporate managerial class, venture capitalists (mostly globalists), state security agencies, state burocrats, and political representatives (lawmakers).
These economic and social ideas and entities are increasingly becoming a national security risk to individual states or even blocks of states.
They even try to actively undermine/destabilize entire civilizations or races,
even acting maliciously withing its own political/economic/military alliance (wow, that’s cannibalism !).
But you do not have to throw the baby with the bath water out while searching for an alternative universe …
From that essay you recommended for reading:
“What do we call this alternative economic paradigm? Ultimately, I would call it National Socialism. But the little florilegium of economic heresies I have assembled above is drawn primarily from the Social Credit ideas (…).”
God help us !
https://www.google.com/search?q=social+credit+system+china&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b
Social Credit System.
“The Social Credit System is a national reputation system being developed by the Chinese government. By 2020, it is intended to standardise the assessment of citizen’s and business’s economic and social reputation, or ‘credit’.”
There is a reprieve from the sickness that befell the Western world.
It is called a political will.
The WN/Rght political movements in the European West and East and even US record successes (recently Sweden). People wake up and discard their domestic leftist, cultural marxist and foreign subversion agendas !
There are also mechanisms to restrain and mold economic life democratically, e.g. regulation, monopolization, cartelization, accounting standards, civil/corporate/contract law.
To give you an example – classical economics (capitalism) worked very well to support centuries of industrial revolution in the Western world, which resulted in a broad civilizational advantage it enjoyed up to nowdays.
Any civilization (Islam) or political system (communism) became over time dead bodies, unable to serve the needs of states and their people. Defeat ! Period !
What screwed capitalism in the West up is extreme finacialization of capital formation process (uncontrolled money creation, derivatives, use of financial instruments as weapons of mass destruction as a result of confluence of state and finance sector, desire by governments and central bankers to overwrite business cycle, crime and fraud and corruption perpetrated by finacial and economic actors).
This happened due to overly political and economic fraternization between state and money centers (e.g. US government and Wall Street). It will never work when there is a revolving door between US gov and Goldman Sachs employees, for example. It is like asking a fox to be a guard of a chicken farm. It is that simple !
All revolutions start with the corruption of economic life, disregard of or double standards in regard to law enforcement, and many other aspects of life.
These things do not develop linearly, they progress according to cycles, like four seasons. Those who try to overwrite the natural cyclicality with fixes (marxism, communism, socialism, fascism, etc) are intelectual frauds. History has showed that to us so many times, that it is almost comical that we still argue about it and try to revive these dead horses.
Social Credit is an economic system originated by C. H. Douglas. Google it.
First of all, there haven’t been any “centuries” of industrial revolution. The industrial revolution didn’t really get going until the second half of the nineteenth century. Growth rates during the first century of industrial revolution (1750-1850) were painfully slow – and put to shame by 20th century communist growth rates. And 20th century ‘mixed economy’ capitalism has both matched (and, at times, exceeded) the very best of the late 19th century classical growth rates and done so more stably and equitably. I don’t see much of a glory era to look back fondly to in the industrial revolution.
That said, I can’t really agree with Greg’s economic ideas. He’s entitled to his views, but I think it would be a great mistake to link them too closely to his racial project.
‘What screwed capitalism in the West is the extreme financialization of capital formation..’
Well.. the process of creating new money through the issuance of interest bearing loans has nearly always been a defining feature of what I’d call capitalism. Saying that capitalism would be ok except for it is a bit like saying the surf’s nice today – except for the water.
And while I sincerely agree that this system of money creation is flawed, I think it’s biggest problem is the fact that it takes the profit associated with creating new money (seigniorage) and gifts it to private – and often foreign – owned banking corporations.
The main reason capitalism’s screwed is that employees real wages have flatlined and the labour share of GDP has been crashing and burning since about 1980. Trade unions are decimated and no longer fight the hard battle to increase workers spending power. Henry Ford understood that you need to pay your workers enough to buy your product. Modern capitalism hopes to pay workers a pittance and sell products to the ‘newly emerging wealthy class’ in China and elsewhere.
.
Henry Ford understood that you need to pay your workers enough to buy your product.
He may have believed that (though I doubt it), but he certainly didn’t ‘understand’ it – because it’s simply not true. Does Boeing have to pay its workers enough to afford its products? Will it go broke if it doesn’t? If so, there’s no sign of it based on Boeing’s net profits over the last fifty years.
Astonishingly, I found the above balderdash constantly repeated as though it were sober economic fact at university. It was one of the factors that finally made me rage-quit the humanities – and that is even though I felt (and still do) that leftist historical interpretations of the European past were largely correct.
Boeing certainly needs to pay its employees enough to take the occasional airplane trip.
If you dialed back your rhetoric and indignation, you might think more clearly.
Boeing certainly needs to pay its employees enough to take the occasional airplane trip.
Strictly speaking, that is not true. As long as wages elsewhere in the economy are high enough to support an airline industry, it’s utterly inconsequential whether Boeing’s workers, specifically, are able to afford airplane trips or not.
In any case, Boeing’s workers are able to afford the occasional airplane trip (unless one wants to quibble about the definition of ‘occasional’). That is not a result of any direct economic necessity on Boeing’s part – ie, if its workers couldn’t afford plane trips, Boeing would fail – rather it’s that their productivity is great enough to justify those wages.
If Boeing could get the same productivity at a cheaper price (ie lower wage), it surely would. It would be strange to claim that, in doing so, Boeing would be shooting itself in the foot. If Boeing really thought that the getting the same productivity for a cheaper price would hurt rather than help its economic prospects, it wouldn’t do it. After all, I think it’s fair to say an insider like Boeing is better acquainted with the realities of market demand for airplanes and air travel than outsiders like leftist historians are.
That said, it may well be that economic behavior which benefits one firm does not necessarily benefit the economy as a whole, or specific dimensions of the economy – such as income equality, say. If that is so, then the case should be made directly, rather than concocting an fictitious economic necessity for individual firms.
The Henry Ford story is meant to be understood in a general sense, rather than a specific one I think. The company which produces the magnetic floating bed (retail price $1.6 million) probably doesn’t pay it’s workers enough to buy themselves one. And that company might still do OK.
But if – in general – wages are flatlined or falling in real terms, either consumption will fall or consumers will make up the difference with credit.
When the credit card’s maxed out, there’s no more spending.
As automation replaces or devalues labour more quickly, governments will be forced to look at ways of maintaining a decent way of life for their citizens. The social credit response is a step in the right direction, but I think it’s delivery can be improved if the money is spent into circulation on useful public institutions and infrastructure, rather than simply bring gifted to all adult citizens.
.
One simply needs to regulate money creation so it matches the amount of goods and services available. Also, one could make old currency expire if it is unspent. So the money supply could be kept basically constant.
Isn’t it easier to just stick with a market system and simply compensate for its deficiencies with minimal, context depended regulations? UBI just isn’t realistic, at least not if you want your society to be more dynamic than a troupe of apes.
Giving anybody (of any race even) free money and expecting them to be productive is just naive.
A market system needs a medium of exchange. The only real question is whether money will be created and given to politically connected and economically privileged insiders to spend first, or to loan out at interest, or if it is given directly to each and every consumer.
A fourth option might be that the central bank creates the new money required to keep the economy running smoothly (and no more) and gives it to the elected government of the day to spend into circulation as it sees fit. Free-market leaning governments might use the money to reduce the tax burden. Socialist governments might spend it on public works. Huber and Robertson describe this option in some detail in their Creating New Money which can be downloaded for free..
http://www.jamesrobertson.com/book/creatingnewmoney.pdf
You mention inflation yourself, but write it off because banks do that too. But banks don’t exactly print money. Sure, the money they loan from negative accounts gets spent, and value is artificially created momenttarily. Eventually. the homeowner pays back his loan. That’s value he provided to his employer, that then disappears into the loan (plus interest of course).
The way actual inflation happens now is governments pay of bonds with printed money. Needless to say, I agree: it would be preferable if the government sold bonds, and what money they print off just came as checks in our mail. But if they tried to print enough as a sustainable income for everybody, it would would be hyperinflation within months.
And no, printing expiration dates on money doesn’t fix the problem. What will happen is, Each cycle of bills will become worthless before they do. Why should I accept July 2020 bills for the same price as September 2020 bills? Halfway through every month, people will scramble to get rid of their old bills so they can have tangible goods that won’t expire. Do you see how a business owner of today would be left with billions of useless bills every month? After all, everybody would want to use their oldest bills while they have any value, whereas whatever he’s producing has intrinsic value. Suddenly, businesses will want to deny accepting older currency. What is the point of currency that people don’t accept it universally?
The dollar is stable because everybody accepts it. Even if it gets devalued by inflation by the day, you can be damn sure a dollar can buy something any day of the week. Inflation is, in a way, a better incentive for people to spend money than money expiring. Why hold onto money indefinitely that is slowly losing value? It just does it in the right way. GregBux would just create a system where people hoard goods instead of money, which is equally bad to those where people hoard money. I don’t know the implications of this inflation on stock markets or investing, but I can’t imagine it would be good. And how do taxes play into this?
Finally, I don’t understand your assertion that deflationary currency is worse than inflationary. If gold starts being hoarded and the value shoots up, people won’t hold for dear life like cryptocurrencies. People like having stuff. If my gold is worth twice as much as normal, I will go spend some.
Jonathan, I agree that expiration-dated money is a flawed idea and that it would be counterproductive to insist on it as central to WN. There is still some value in proposing it for discussion, however. Lamentably, some of the most idealistic and politically energized young whites today (and for a long time before) are leftists who are relentlessly driven to challenge the unreasonable rigidity they perceive in the capitalist economic order. It’s the last remaining rightwing obstacle in their path – but the most important, and by far the best defended. By being willing to at least propose and discuss economic alternatives, there is a reasonable hope that WN can siphon off some of that leftist energy and, by causing it to ponder cultural and racial alternatives, give it a new direction.
Secondly, I think what moves Greg to make such radical economic proposals – I think he once criticized the ‘founding fathers’ for having failed to demand income limits! – is his desire that life become about much more than a chase for filthy lucre; that life adopt a cultural rather than an economic focus. I guess it’s symptomatic of our present condition that I find it hard to envision how that would look in the near future. I have to imagine a far sci-fi future to do it; as in various groups of humans decided to depart the solar system in mammoth ‘generation ships’ – self-contained miniature worlds rather than transports, really, on which many generations of ‘passengers’ will live and die before the ship reaches its destination. In this scenario, it would be disturbing to think that people’s activities are still centered around their attempts to raise their economic status. So I guess there is merit in thinking beyond economics, even if we’re not at a point where we can safely dispense with economic realism just yet.
Let’s just have everyone print their own money. I want to buy all the goods and services I can. Let me just print money for the rest of my life and I’ll have the added benefit of never having to work for money. Sarcasm aside I’ve moved on from Libertarianism except when it come to economics, specifically the gold standard and 100% reserve banking.
The gold standard is a terrible idea. Gold is deflationary as currency, and deflation is far more destructive than inflation.
Finally, someone who gets it. The obsession with the gold standard quite escapes me.
As Greg says, the gold standard is lunacy.
Full reserve banking for privately owned banks could work, but the key questions to be asked are (1) how is new money created and spent into circulation, and (2) who profits?
If these questions are properly resolved, then banks like the customer owned Swedish JAK Bank (100% reserves, no interest) can flourish. Under current conditions, banks operating on this model are starved of capital.
If white community really is important, then certain egalitarian-populist measures are called for. First, marriage should be monogamous.
LOL. Polygamy is what we’ve got plenty of, and have had for some generations now. It exists through extreme, widespread sexual promiscuity; and equally popular serial marriage. Not happy with the little lady or the old man? Don’t you fret – just get a divorce, then go out and marry someone else. I have a couple of acquaintances who are on #3 and #4 and they are not all that old. I know more people on Spouse #2 than those still married to Spouse #1. I’m not talking about people who’ve been widowed.
How would the overseers of your new, rebuilt society enforce true monogamy? (Serious question; not being snooty.)
If people want to strengthen marriage and decrease promiscuity, we need to do several things:
1. End no-fault divorce
2. End the presumption that women get custody of children in divorce
3. Criminalize adultery
4. Criminalize alienation of affections
5. End child support for unwed mothers
6. Establish a legal presumption that unwed mothers are unfit mothers, so that giving up illegitimate children for adoption is the norm
#1 and #2 are fair. The rest are way over the top.
Adultery and alienation of affections are actually against the law in many US jurisdictions. But these laws are no longer enforced. They should be.
Culture is artificial selection. Race is the result.
Adjustment Day makes a travesty of Wilmot Robertson’s notion of “The Ethnostate”, but the real travesty is the pretense that humans are not responsible for the evolutionary consequences of their cultural choices. In this respect, virtually all statecraft, including racialist statecraft, denies responsibility for evolutionary direction. The error is actually visible in the word “state” as contrasted with “process”.
Certainly, the word “state” is adequately descriptive of what white nationalists set out to do, which is “preserve the white race”. Preservation is static, so “state” fits.
But we are mere animals if we fail to consciously create in accord with our moral aspirations. Those moral aspirations construct culture, and differ from preservation in the same sense that velocity differs from position.
So Adjustment Day’s primary contribution is to give white nationalists a kick in the rear — to get serious about discussing what “white culture”, and indeed what “culture”, is. It achieved this by mocking white nationalists with a caricature of their lack of seriousness.
The result is already visible in the above responses as they start to grapple with “statecraft”.
What white nationalists who become adequately serious will eventually realize is that white culture is “fair evolution” — artificial selection that is “fair” with all the moral content of that word, devoid of any Marxist overlays of pseudo-morality.
Such moral content of culture, put into practice as artificial selection, inevitably entails faith — decisions made in the absence of complete information and without perfect reason. This is the essence of the human condition. Failure of existing institutions to recognize this is the reason I incorporated The Fair Church.
I wholeheartedly support the right of people to prohibit anything they like* in their local jurisdictions** — and I mean _anything_ — so long as they recognize the right of _anyone_ to practically emigrate. Likewise, I also wholeheartedly support the right of people to _permit_ anything within their local jurisdictions under the same condition of free and practical emigration. Of course, this means immigration needs to be highly restricted in the vast majority of jurisdictions, but it also eliminates prisons and slavery.
Children, not having reached the age of independent reproduction, are not organically apart from their parents, so they cannot reasonably be seen as exercising the independent right to emigrate. The parent is sovereign. The children go with their sovereign if their sovereign emigrates. If given up for adoption, sovereignty is transferred.
The sovereign has the de facto power of life and death.
This means society has no _direct_ say in the treatment of children from the moment of conception to the age of consent. It is only by sovereign consent that society has any say in the treatment of children. If the sovereign consents to a “no spanking” jurisdiction, then they may only spank by either changing the jurisdiction’s laws or by emigrating to a “spanking allowed” jurisdiction. Likewise, if a sovereign wants to prohibit abortion or even infanticide, it is up to the sovereign to live in such jurisdictions.
The relationship between a child and sovereign precedes society, just as does the relationship between God and His Children precede society.
People had better get this kind of “tolerance” of “diversity” straight, including tolerance of jurisdictions that exclude immigrants for reasons that are considered “immoral” or we’re going to see human suffering on a scale that will make the 20th Century’s wars and purges look like child’s play.
*Chuck Palahniuk wouldn’t dare touch such a permissive assortation in novel form. It doesn’t fit well into his mockery of “separatists”.
**Jurisdictions imply allocation of land for territory. Unless we are going to specify individual combat of some sort, it is essential that the procedure for land allocation precede any further specification of social order. For instance, “To the most effective military goes the land allocation.” is such a procedure. Another is, “To the most effective political group goes the land allocation.” Either way, all other order is founded, literally as well as metaphorically, on land. Land precedes human society so it is reasonable that its treatment precede more specific order in the same sense as a constitution precedes more specific law. Perhaps the most urgent issue facing those of us interested in a nor order of things is agreement on the fair contest that allocates land to various jurisdictions. Other laws follow, specific to each jurisdiction.
“Duck-taped to a chair”
Shouldn’t that be duct-taped?
Thanks. I didn’t want to nit-pick but I’m not aware of a tape made from duck. Good pick up.
img src=”https://www.amazon.com/Duck-1303158-Metallic-Chrome-Inches/dp/B002TOL44Q” alt=””
I stand corrected.
There WILL Be Warlords After the Mighty Evil Empire
But how will these warlords even form regional empires once the Empire’s carrying capacity collapses?
I’m an Old-Right Christian-Identity Klan type who came into the [bowel] Movement through the Militia Movement after Waco. Back then your militia groups were small and lead by veterans with a Christian-Identity / Klan background and were survivalist groups. At least this was the situation within the Ozarks, which has the largest portion of Identity Christians within ZOG/Babylon. So there certainly were a large portion of radicalized White Men with a penchant for quiet violence and training to carry it out. However, being survivalists, I had a number of their leaders back out from their agreements to join one of my militias on April 21, 1995 because of concerns that there was nothing to be gained by them upon ZOG collapse. They were right and I pulled the plugs on my militia groups by 1997. Since then I think that there are easily three or four times the number of survivalists / preppers / doomers than 25 years ago and they are waiting for Collapse.
There is quite a bit of post-Apocalypse fiction and even more themes. This Chuck Palahniuk came out as being homosexual years ago and this fiction of his taints his recent and past work. But like yourself I find the sheer chaos and satire of his works interesting and shall probably order my own copy. This even though I read your review of this book which was about Mattoid Chaimbach and Dickie Spencer which became irrelevant two days after I received it in mid-March of this year. By the way. I’m telling Mattoid Parrott that his route back to the bowel Movement is through blogging and to leave the Chaimbach be.
Be it Zombie Apocalypse or Electro-Magnetic Pulse or simply Matt Bracken’s post EBT-card economic meltdown the future predicted usually involves warlords over scattered survivors in groups. In none of these novels are there Whites going back to 1890’s Amish style sustainable agriculture. Their cars are still operating on gasoline after years. But none of them know how to run a combine, not that there will be industrial agribusiness of GMO corn and soybeans from Maryland to eastern Kansas. Thus the 1890s agriculture can feed at max 120 million, but there will probably be only 20-30 million ex-whiggers left.
So the future I see upon collapse of the carrying capacity to 50 million and the inevitability of there only being half of that, is local warlordism in which most of the police, lawyers, judges, politicians are the very first ones killed and ruled over by Ten Thousand Warlords whose fiefdoms will be less than that of a county and less than 10,000 survivors. All wars will be fought on foot or on horse, without food or organization for those wars to go further.
This has happened before in history. The Old Kingdom was moribund for 150 years until a warlord named Amenahet I (a contemporary of Abraham circa 2000 BC) reunited the warlords of the Lower and Upper Egypt. His 12th Dynasty faded out when the Amorite Hyksos followed into Goshen and enslaved the Hebrews and Moses’ slave revolt was actually against the Canaanite Hyksos Pharoah,, not the Theban Kamose/Ahmose 17th Dynasty. :Likewise there was a Bronze Age Collapse and 400 years of warlordism until the Iron Age in 800 BC.
So the protagonists in Adjustment Day are far-fetched. Yes, it is a worthy successor to Fight Club, but as future history it is useless.
What I see in this Collapse are white survivors lead by warlords who will run military dictatorships followed by their sons, who will then be kings, just like North Korea. There will be technology, but based upon coal which can be turned into diesel, but nothing like in WW2 or Vietnam. And yes,the great men will be polygmous like Trump, but every White child will have a place and there will be limited social mobility.
And if there is room for blacks, they will be on reservations, just like Indians in my home state of South Dakota. But how we get there from here will be violent.
And these warlords will not be part of our bowel Movement even though they shall be radicalized by circumstances in which they have no choice but to kill or be killed. What a warlord’s domain will be like in the former Vermont shall be different than in Illinois or Texas or California. If there are local Gaytopias it will survive from those cast off from warlordcies in Alabama or Missouri or Pennsylvania who see a point in banishment and exchange of white populations as opposed to wasteful execution or repression more than necessary for their civil order.
But I do appreciate Counter-Currents because neither you or your notions apply to me or my kind and in a world of stupidity I do appreciate cleverness.
Hail Victory !!!
Pastor Martin Luther Dzerzhinsky Lindstedt
Church of Jesus Christ Christian / Aryan Nations of Missouri
Write-In Candidte for US Senate, 10K Warlords PAC
After thinking about some of the details of the book revealed in Jef Costello’s review and now this article, it has become clear to me that Palahniuk’s book isn’t quite what I thought it was. If I had to guess, I’d say Palahniuk spent too much time lurking 4chan and not enough time on Counter-Currents.
I am curious, though, since the plot doesn’t seem to include a multiracial state (outside of the homosexual one) and your reviews didn’t touch on it: how does the author deal with interracial (hetero) couples and their children? Many have pointed out that if America were to split along ethnic lines, there would need to be a multiracial state reflecting the current status quo for them as well as the other people that were simply repatriated in the story.
Mixed race people flee. Some pretend to be gay and move to Gaysia.
“multiracial state reflecting the current status quo”
That would actually necessitate him giving the same treatment to the neoliberal status quo, or to whatever society some of its champions want to build, that he gave to its opponents.
Whether he avoided it out of caution, or whether that reflects his own current stance, it certainly raises some warning flags for me. (which doesn’t necessarily mean that this books shouldn’t and won’t be used by our side, but yeah)
Palahniuk is right about at least one thing: a revolution is often precipitated by a crisis which divides the ruling class and shakes the great middle out of their usual torpor. But you also need an apparatus which is prepared to exploit the situation with both an organization and the right tactics. Yes, this is facilitated by a sector of the elite which breaks with the System and provides the money, mentorship and media to make la revolucion.
First and second rules of Crisis Club: You do talk about tactics. Now I suppose we’ll all have to read the book!
V. Good. But your #6 implies seizure of the child, which is a crime against humanity and nature. There is no difference (from the standpoint of universal order) between seizing (or strongly encouraging the surrender of) a bastard child and doing the same to a child born to decent married parents. Mother and child should never, ever, be forcibly separated permanently by the state or anyone acting in its supposed interests.
I simply do not know an adopted person who is not royally fkuced up. And that of course also applies to a woman talked into giving up her child. With one exception: a white woman I know both of whose parents died when she was young and who was then adopted by her aunt & uncle. She is a fine, well adjusted, normal woman, married with kids. Because blood is everything and blood knows. I can’t recall which country it is (not a western one) but in that place the tradition is to place the orphan with blood relatives. As it happens, too-smart-by-half white people don’t know everything.
Inducements to a single woman with a baby to give it up is a crime I would punish severely if I had any say in the matter. You are creating two lost souls in this manner. And why the hell should barren people and virtue-signallers be catered to in the first place? In the western countries, that is what “adoption” has really been all about rather than the finding of a good home for a child. This pandering to the sick, inferior and maladjusted is one of the central aspects of this hell hole we are mired in. It is far worse than the sight of an unmarried girl and baby.
If a girl really wants to hand the baby over, well, so be it, that is a different situation. Unmarried motherhood can be discouraged without us becoming bigger criminals than the woman who had thoughtless sex with a man even stupider than herself. There are other ways to discourage single parenthood (your suggestion #5) but you will never eliminate it unless you want to go full-bore Sharia.
Somewhere along the line I thought that developing a country/nation for and by whites would also include some deep changes in culture/tradition based on what is right and not what is easy, violent and leaves more victims than ever. Thank you.
Even if the results of such a policy would be as heart-wrenching as you claim, that would simply make it an even stronger incentive against having children out of wedlock.
Most young women are a little dumb and lacking in life experience. They don’t realize how horrible it would be to have your child taken away and therefore, laws that threaten to do so have little effect on them. They pay no attention. And the guys that can’t keep their fly zipped up are even more oblivious.
All I know is this: that the attempts to reunite made by both adoptees and their biological mothers (these outright seizures or “voluntary” handovers occurring mostly in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s) is an ongoing industry. The trauma is arguably worse for the mothers. This is not some kind of simple curiosity to see how your kid turned out, it is a desperate need for cessation of lifelong aching heartbreak.
You want to see an end to unmarried motherhood? Me, too. But I don’t want to sacrifice even one person to any attempted utopian redesign of society. By the way, I worked for a man who was stationed in Saudi Arabia in the 1980s where he witnessed a man having his hand publicly chopped off for theft. It still happens. So much for deterrence.
But while I’m here, just so you can get an idea of the mentality of barren couples: they never stop whining about the fact that widespread abortion makes babies unavailable for them to adopt. No concern from them about the inherent trauma and vileness of abortion – no, it’s all about their desire to have children and the duty of pregnant girls to relinquish their own flesh and blood so that the properly married couple can have their nice complete little family. I know all too many adopting parents and they are mostly shit, so pleased with themselves are they.
Can we please have sensible solutions instead of a merciless, slash & burn cure for what ails us?
There is no such thing as a single parent. A child always has a mother and a father. Unless the parent is dead, he should pay his share. If a man wants to make sure he doesn’t become a father against his will, there are surgical solutions for that.
Curt Doolittle has promised chat with me about his “propertarian” and my “fair ecclesium” approach to, what may as well be called “A Judgement Day”. I’m waiting for him to set forth his concise, incisive and comprehensive body of “propertarian” law to match that which I’ve already set forth for “Berkana Ecclesia”.
If anyone can provide me with Doolittle’s proposed body of law, I’d appreciate a cite/link.
Universal basic income and all forms of welfare and social “security” are dysgenic. This is a major factor that got us into our current situation. Let the weak, the stupid and the unmotivated fall by the wayside. Once we, as a people, have control of our own destiny, our own nations and “what’s good for our people” is the highest moral value, within that milieu, we can totally privatise and deregulate everything and do away with this mawkish, moribund and sentimental abrahamic mind f*** that has been short-circuiting our people’s self-preservation instincts for the past century. Welfare is truly one of the great curses of our time, it demotivates hard-working people and those with initiative and creativity, leading to generations of low grade rabble (among all races). Absence of a welfare “safety net” will not lead to neo-feudalism, welfare is neo-feudalism. A small, impoverished lower class keeps everyone “above” them on their toes and acts as a sort of natural, organic eugenics program where the smartest, hardiest and most creative of the less fortunate can still rise. This may seem cruel and cynical, but these were the conditions of pre-1800 Europe which helped lay the foundations that gave rise to so many of the great men and women of the 19th and 20th centuries.
If someone is worried about the “poor huddled masses”, they can start a charity. While superficially, to some, this seems to lack compassion and may be mistaken for being detrimental to the greater good of society, the abolition of welfare and removal of restrictions on our initiative will, in reality, be a great, if not the greatest, service we could do for ourselves and future generations of our people. Within half a generation our people will have the potential to become the global conquerors we once were during the 16th to 19th centuries. Once again we will be the cleverest, most aggressive and most inventive civilisation on the planet. Within a generation we will be running this world again. In another generation, interstellar explorers. Within a further generation, planet conquers and colonists (either terraforming barren worlds and/or if there are other civilisations out there, having a jolly good blast being interstellar conquistadores and redcoats) and another generation or two after that, galactic emperors.
“But dad, I don’t wanna be galactic emperor”. Well then, alternatively, we can all go on UBI, pretend to do all these wonderful, exciting and amazing things by plugging ourselves into virtual reality, get fatter, dumber and uglier and disappear from the face of the earth. Leaving our degenerate scum enemy to rule over their beige human livestock, acting out their every depraved plan until they turn the whole planet into a polluted, resource depleted radio-active Gaza Strip.
Let’s remove manhole covers and child proof caps on poison bottles while we are at it.
There’s no need to go that far, although removing manhole covers would encourage people to watch where they are going instead of walking around staring at their phones.
Once something resembling traditional values, a sense of communtiy and the idea of folk return, hopefully people will start to re-develop some life skills and learn to look after their own, instead of existing as lone consumer/producer units expecting handouts with instructions from the state.
I caught Chuck’s interview on The Joe Rogan podcast I about fell out of my chair when he mentioned he liked anglin
I caught Chuck’s interview on The Joe Rogan podcast about fell out of my chair when he mentioned he like the Anglin and the daily Stormer