anon_xibo said in #5631 22h ago:
The ongoing breakdown of the Yookay state has produced some new kino: Jacob Reese-Mogg dressed up in traditional English attire calling the English "non-Aryan" mongrels while asking them die in a war. Besides the polemical nonsense caption, much of what he says in the video is technically correct but garbled in message because what he's arguing for is the opposite of what he's appealing to.
What he appeals to is a forward-looking counter-entropic ideal of race: that the English came together out of distinct groups and have through shared history, constructed identity, and rigorous discipline have come to be a single people defined by a particular and demanding cultural type, which is among the greatest peoples in the world. All well and good. Who doesn't love and aspire to that version of the Anglo?
But with typical modern sleight of hand he denies that this has any basis or result in ancestry or genetics, effectively denies that the English or British even exist in those terms, conflates being the product of this historical process with merely having a British passport or serving in British institutions. He argues for civic nationalism, putting on a show of bravado demanding that non-english Yookay citizens like Zia Rousseff, "Chinese-British", and "Pakistani-British" call themselves "English".
What he is actually arguing for is *dilution* (mix some primates in a pot, melt down all distinction, dress them in tweed, and call them "English"), where what he appealed to was *purification* (a thousand years of shared discipline and breeding). He chose this line of attack, incoherent as it is, because the nationalist right is also incoherent in a different way on this subject.
The average nationalist sees the racial ideal only as a historically real but now threatened pure folk, which must be defended from mixture, degeneracy, and subversion at all costs. This is not an accurate view of race as it sees only the dilution side of the equation, and is therefore also a doomed and demoralized view of race. Entropy always wins. This false racial idea is what the system takes great pleasure in mocking, deconstructing, triumphing over, demoralizing with micegenation and mass immigration etc. Incidentally, the system also believes it in increasingly radicalized ways, just from the opposite perspective: it just sees race chaos, degeneracy, downward levelling, and other entropic processes as good, with predictably destructive results.
Reality also includes the counter-entropic side, very well illustrated by English history and even JRM's own arguments: to have race has a genetic and historical basis that should not be treated flippantly at the passport printer, but is primarily a process of ongoing selection and formation towards an ideal type through the application of cultural discipline and a harsh selective environment. In entropic terms, living things maintain themselves against entropy not only by the defense of their borders but by a rigorous process of internal discipline that removes the entropy that got inside. Think of it also as wealth and a family business: we have racial "wealth" as a consequence of historical effort, but the primary and important thing is the ongoing effort applied to the functional business of wealth-creation. If you have that, setbacks can be "stepped over", if you don't have it, you're doomed no matter how "pure".
But if you treat the existing racial wealth as nothing and easily replaceable as JRM does, you miss the point as well. Blow it all on bad investments in foreigners who aren't going to bring England closer to the English ideal but instead are going to be a hostile separate sub-population, and you've squandered and sabotaged the core business.
You need both. You need both a defense of existing racial wealth (the actually existing English people), and a racial ideal (JRM's aspirational Englishness as a breeding standard). Only with both do you actually have a living nation with a future.
What he appeals to is a forward-looking counter-entropic ideal of race: that the English came together out of distinct groups and have through shared history, constructed identity, and rigorous discipline have come to be a single people defined by a particular and demanding cultural type, which is among the greatest peoples in the world. All well and good. Who doesn't love and aspire to that version of the Anglo?
But with typical modern sleight of hand he denies that this has any basis or result in ancestry or genetics, effectively denies that the English or British even exist in those terms, conflates being the product of this historical process with merely having a British passport or serving in British institutions. He argues for civic nationalism, putting on a show of bravado demanding that non-english Yookay citizens like Zia Rousseff, "Chinese-British", and "Pakistani-British" call themselves "English".
What he is actually arguing for is *dilution* (mix some primates in a pot, melt down all distinction, dress them in tweed, and call them "English"), where what he appealed to was *purification* (a thousand years of shared discipline and breeding). He chose this line of attack, incoherent as it is, because the nationalist right is also incoherent in a different way on this subject.
The average nationalist sees the racial ideal only as a historically real but now threatened pure folk, which must be defended from mixture, degeneracy, and subversion at all costs. This is not an accurate view of race as it sees only the dilution side of the equation, and is therefore also a doomed and demoralized view of race. Entropy always wins. This false racial idea is what the system takes great pleasure in mocking, deconstructing, triumphing over, demoralizing with micegenation and mass immigration etc. Incidentally, the system also believes it in increasingly radicalized ways, just from the opposite perspective: it just sees race chaos, degeneracy, downward levelling, and other entropic processes as good, with predictably destructive results.
Reality also includes the counter-entropic side, very well illustrated by English history and even JRM's own arguments: to have race has a genetic and historical basis that should not be treated flippantly at the passport printer, but is primarily a process of ongoing selection and formation towards an ideal type through the application of cultural discipline and a harsh selective environment. In entropic terms, living things maintain themselves against entropy not only by the defense of their borders but by a rigorous process of internal discipline that removes the entropy that got inside. Think of it also as wealth and a family business: we have racial "wealth" as a consequence of historical effort, but the primary and important thing is the ongoing effort applied to the functional business of wealth-creation. If you have that, setbacks can be "stepped over", if you don't have it, you're doomed no matter how "pure".
But if you treat the existing racial wealth as nothing and easily replaceable as JRM does, you miss the point as well. Blow it all on bad investments in foreigners who aren't going to bring England closer to the English ideal but instead are going to be a hostile separate sub-population, and you've squandered and sabotaged the core business.
You need both. You need both a defense of existing racial wealth (the actually existing English people), and a racial ideal (JRM's aspirational Englishness as a breeding standard). Only with both do you actually have a living nation with a future.
The ongoing breakdow