Hey, I’m back! And I hope this one will generate some buzz as well. The last article I wrote was reposted on Revolver News and we got an influx of newcomers that are busy digging around the archives and catching up to speed. Welcome! We talk a lot about Populism and strongmen here and it’s about time we talked about the characteristics of a successful populist - that is, the proper approach that a populist must perfect in his dealings with the people. The perfect word for this is “снисходительность” but it doesn’t translate well to Anglo. I guess “magnanimity” comes close as it deals with greatness of spirit in relation to others. But the Russian word has a more politico-religious connotation and it describes the proper behavior for a ruler or a higher-up to display vis a vis his subjects. There may also be cultural differences in what different ethnes look for in their populist strongmen and so tweaks have to be made based on the collective psychology of the people we are dealing with.
Good to see you back,this new series is headed in a sober straightforward direction and I'm all for it.The idea that there's a specific way that the rulers should behave to maintain societal equilibrium is so simple and obvious yet it remains hopelessly beyond the grasp of anyone that is caught in the grasp of ''A'' influences (to borrow Mouravieff's phrasing).Which means only one thing - it's time has come.
The term we use for this comes from the French, "noblesse oblige". It entered English parlance with the Norman conquest. Nobles are obligated to steward their people and be generous to those below them.
A couple of days ago I saw a brief video online showing a big Shepard-looking fog laying on a tombstone with hyperventilating sobs and a woman comforting the dog, repeating in a sympathetic tone as she stroked it, “yes, we miss her too, we miss her too.” The tombstone had a woman’s name and a little Star of David that the dog’s head was right next to. I was struck by the realization that the dog had not the slightest ability to comprehend the concept of any conflict of ideologies between Jews and the Goyim. Yet it was completely capable of being utterly immersed in the dimension of Love, in the giving and receiving of it fully without measurement or calculation. So often ideas of inferiority/superiority are measured merely by intellectual talents for using information skillfully, whereas there are other, and I would say, more profound dimensions to reality. People are loved and honored when they use “their” strengths, (which of course are only temporarily “theirs”) to bless and support those less “gifted.” People fundamentally respond to ecstacy, to ex stasis or standing outside the self, because they recognize intuititively that that is happiness.
"Do not fall into the trap of pretending that these people are the same as you though. And do not take their opinions too seriously or try to act more like them. Focus on raising yourself above them in some way, instead. Attain positions of authority, develop skills, etc. And then, from the heights of the summit that you have reached, turn around, look down and remember the phrase “benign condescension” before you give in to your natural urge to spit a loogie."
You've outlined in detail the same strategy used by the Left over the past 50 years in academia, media, local and national government, the judiciary, corporate boardrooms and ESG advertising to seize top-down control of American culture.
> Do not ascribe agency to them, do not assign higher mental or emotional faculties to them and do not assume that they even have the same soul caliber as you. [...]
Do not fall into the trap of pretending that these people are the same as you though. And do not take their opinions too seriously or try to act more like them. Focus on raising yourself above them in some way, instead.
Here you hit the heart of the matter. You are not supposed to feel better than anyone else in pretty much all cultures. Jante's law:
-You're not to think you are anything special.
-You're not to think you are as good as we are.
-You're not to think you are smarter than we are.
-You're not to imagine yourself better than we are.
-You're not to think you know more than we do.
-You're not to think you are more important than we are.
-You're not to think you are good at anything.
-You're not to laugh at us.
-You're not to think anyone cares about you.
-You're not to think you can teach us anything.
-... Perhaps you don't think we know a few things about you?
This is situational, as the 'we/us' issuing the diktats above are the members of your social class. So basically you should kick down and kiss up the social hierarchy, from where you currently are placed in it.
This is done because upstarts undermine social cohesion. "Upstart" is defined relatively to your starting position.
What if you belong to the lower classes and yet you acquire the knowledge outlined in this post, that is, what if you tear apart the veil of Maya?
The Americans had a good system in place, whereby kids were made to take IQ tests in the early grades. The smart ones get to join 'gifted student' classes, and from then on it's theirs to lose. With affirmative action, unfortunately, I don't think that's the case anymore. The way it was, the system bestows you with the credentials of being better, so your higher status was official. It shouldn't be difficult to practice benevolent condescension from there.
That ship has sailed. If you now by chance tear the veil of Maya you either (a) keep it to yourself, or (b) let slip that you harbour some ambition, that you think yourself gifted with some <i>non-credentialed</i> rare talent, and see all hell break loose on you, you arrogant heretic.
Hey bro, I've found your writing extremely valuable in wrapping my head around the logistics of the clown world, also cathartic, and you've inspired a couple dozen literal LOLs out of me, and you've made me think about some metaphys concepts I hadn't considered. I messaged you already stating something similar but wanted to write a comment as well. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us/me. Very much looking forward to reading your paid stuff as soon as Substack switches my subscription to the right account (I signed up under test@gmail.com accidentally). Found you originally due to your talk with Montalk (which was a banger). Goodbye
> The perfect word for this is "(?) sniskoditelnost (?)" but it doesn’t translate well to Anglo. I guess “magnanimity” comes close as it deals with greatness of spirit in relation to others.
"Magna anima" in Latin (from which magnanimity, magnanimous), "Mahatma" in Sanskrit, they clearly originate from the same calque. Indo-European is a real thing. Meaning "Noble soul".
Good to see you back,this new series is headed in a sober straightforward direction and I'm all for it.The idea that there's a specific way that the rulers should behave to maintain societal equilibrium is so simple and obvious yet it remains hopelessly beyond the grasp of anyone that is caught in the grasp of ''A'' influences (to borrow Mouravieff's phrasing).Which means only one thing - it's time has come.
Well written. Bravo.
The term we use for this comes from the French, "noblesse oblige". It entered English parlance with the Norman conquest. Nobles are obligated to steward their people and be generous to those below them.
A couple of days ago I saw a brief video online showing a big Shepard-looking fog laying on a tombstone with hyperventilating sobs and a woman comforting the dog, repeating in a sympathetic tone as she stroked it, “yes, we miss her too, we miss her too.” The tombstone had a woman’s name and a little Star of David that the dog’s head was right next to. I was struck by the realization that the dog had not the slightest ability to comprehend the concept of any conflict of ideologies between Jews and the Goyim. Yet it was completely capable of being utterly immersed in the dimension of Love, in the giving and receiving of it fully without measurement or calculation. So often ideas of inferiority/superiority are measured merely by intellectual talents for using information skillfully, whereas there are other, and I would say, more profound dimensions to reality. People are loved and honored when they use “their” strengths, (which of course are only temporarily “theirs”) to bless and support those less “gifted.” People fundamentally respond to ecstacy, to ex stasis or standing outside the self, because they recognize intuititively that that is happiness.
"Do not fall into the trap of pretending that these people are the same as you though. And do not take their opinions too seriously or try to act more like them. Focus on raising yourself above them in some way, instead. Attain positions of authority, develop skills, etc. And then, from the heights of the summit that you have reached, turn around, look down and remember the phrase “benign condescension” before you give in to your natural urge to spit a loogie."
You've outlined in detail the same strategy used by the Left over the past 50 years in academia, media, local and national government, the judiciary, corporate boardrooms and ESG advertising to seize top-down control of American culture.
We know one thing for certain - it works.
> Do not ascribe agency to them, do not assign higher mental or emotional faculties to them and do not assume that they even have the same soul caliber as you. [...]
Do not fall into the trap of pretending that these people are the same as you though. And do not take their opinions too seriously or try to act more like them. Focus on raising yourself above them in some way, instead.
Here you hit the heart of the matter. You are not supposed to feel better than anyone else in pretty much all cultures. Jante's law:
-You're not to think you are anything special.
-You're not to think you are as good as we are.
-You're not to think you are smarter than we are.
-You're not to imagine yourself better than we are.
-You're not to think you know more than we do.
-You're not to think you are more important than we are.
-You're not to think you are good at anything.
-You're not to laugh at us.
-You're not to think anyone cares about you.
-You're not to think you can teach us anything.
-... Perhaps you don't think we know a few things about you?
This is situational, as the 'we/us' issuing the diktats above are the members of your social class. So basically you should kick down and kiss up the social hierarchy, from where you currently are placed in it.
This is done because upstarts undermine social cohesion. "Upstart" is defined relatively to your starting position.
What if you belong to the lower classes and yet you acquire the knowledge outlined in this post, that is, what if you tear apart the veil of Maya?
The Americans had a good system in place, whereby kids were made to take IQ tests in the early grades. The smart ones get to join 'gifted student' classes, and from then on it's theirs to lose. With affirmative action, unfortunately, I don't think that's the case anymore. The way it was, the system bestows you with the credentials of being better, so your higher status was official. It shouldn't be difficult to practice benevolent condescension from there.
That ship has sailed. If you now by chance tear the veil of Maya you either (a) keep it to yourself, or (b) let slip that you harbour some ambition, that you think yourself gifted with some <i>non-credentialed</i> rare talent, and see all hell break loose on you, you arrogant heretic.
Hey bro, I've found your writing extremely valuable in wrapping my head around the logistics of the clown world, also cathartic, and you've inspired a couple dozen literal LOLs out of me, and you've made me think about some metaphys concepts I hadn't considered. I messaged you already stating something similar but wanted to write a comment as well. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us/me. Very much looking forward to reading your paid stuff as soon as Substack switches my subscription to the right account (I signed up under test@gmail.com accidentally). Found you originally due to your talk with Montalk (which was a banger). Goodbye
> The perfect word for this is "(?) sniskoditelnost (?)" but it doesn’t translate well to Anglo. I guess “magnanimity” comes close as it deals with greatness of spirit in relation to others.
"Magna anima" in Latin (from which magnanimity, magnanimous), "Mahatma" in Sanskrit, they clearly originate from the same calque. Indo-European is a real thing. Meaning "Noble soul".
If, on your way to power, the masses block your progress. How would you say to behave towards them at that moment in time?