Millenial Woes - Milleniyule

911

Peacock
Gold Member
rotekz said:
Elmore said:
Remaining schedule can be found here :
https://www.millennialwoes.com/millenniyule

A lot of names I am not familiar with. Are any of his guests Christian? Is the Alt-Right still a pagan/atheist love-in?

JF is not, like 95%+ of French Canadians. Quebec is plagued with the worst of both worlds, American materialism and lack of tradition on one hand, and hardcore French secularism on the other. On the plus side, it is still a very tribal culture, the population having grown from a very small nucleus of French settlers, so there is an instinctive tribal identity that has prevailed despite of the above.

JF is also morally suspect, having been funded by Epstein.
 

Teedub

Crow
Gold Member
Roosh said:
I can forgive and forget his previous attacks against me, but unless I'm mistaken, he's a homosexual.

He had a homosexua experience roughly 20 years ago, I believe. But not since, and has had several heterosexual relationships since he stopped (was forced to by the MSM) living like a hermit. I've conversed with him on email, he was very friendly and generous with his time.
 

Elmore

Kingfisher
Roosh said:
I can forgive and forget his previous attacks against me, but unless I'm mistaken, he's a homosexual.

I believe he was 'confused' whilst in art college. He strikes me as a man of integrity and almost painful honesty and he says he has not gone down that path, or had a man go down his path, since then. I absolutely believe him, for what it's worth.

He's a decent guy fundamentally, i'm sure of it.
 
MW attacked Roosh not cos he was banging Euro girls but cos he attacked LS as a THOT and managed to turn many in the movement against her and other thots. MW was just white knighting for his friend (crush) LS and other low-level thots.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
911 said:
ilostabet said:
On the 'non-native' point, the time argument is very important, but for other reasons: even what we know of European paganism was imported via the indo-aryan invasion of Europe, from which most of our genetics come from as well. This is why this 'regressionism' fails. It's not possible to go back far enough to our roots, since our roots are many. Clearly there is a unifying continuum in Europeans, but even that unity is foreign in a sense. So it's a bad argument to make against Christianity. It comes from basically the same area as the indo-aryans.

With regards to Christianity, it was thoroughly Europeanized so to speak and primarily through Greek. I don't think it's a coincidence that Christianity found fertile ground in Europe, nor that it retained many things from pagan cultures all over (not just in Europe but elsewhere as well - if you visit some ancient African churches you will find still some of their ancestral art in there). St. Paul famously rebuked Peter for imposing jewish customs on gentiles, because the point of Christianity wasn't to abolish and homogenize other cultures, but to elevate them in their uniqueness, taking from them what was good and adding a supreme context to it. When St. Paul went to preach to the Greeks, he didn't start by saying their ways were all wrong and that he was bringing something new. He saw a plaque saying 'to an unknown God' and told them he was come to make that God known to them, that is, Jesus Christ.

This simultaneous unity and multiplicity is the uniqueness of Christianity, and it's why while Europe was Christian we had both unity and a diverse continuum of languages and cultures (most of which were homogenized after the 'enlightenment' and especially after the industrial revolution and are now dead forever). Some of them were among the highest hubs of culture, such as Occitania. Italy had dozens of languages and so did most of the homogenized countries of today. Ironically, it was nationalism that killed them. Which is why the pagan worldview will not save Europe.

The nation-state is the best framework for preserving nations. You can still have regional diversity within it, as we do in Spain, France or Italy, but you need a national currency, a national army and national industrial policy and national borders in order to preserve the culture and heritage of its citizens. "Occitania" is folklore, the region has had its own thriving traditions, own cuisine, own accents, own artists and pwn lifestyle within a national framework.

A Europe of regions is the globalists' aim, because regions don't have a say in any of the above, no borders, no army, no foreign policy, no currency, no immigration controls, no economic policy etc. This is where we are headed with the EU, the dismemberment of nation-states has been one of its top goals.

Nationalism cannot preserve what you want because it wasn't made to preserve, but to destroy. The only reason it exists, and you need a national currency, a national army and a national industrial policy is because you have destroyed both the multiplicity and the unity of the previous era.

Globalism is but the later stage of Nationalism, it is Nationalism 2.0. Nationalism is not a natural development, but a required homogenization necessitated by technical development. Just like 'gender' ideology is the 2.0 of sexual liberation, which was originally within heterosexual boundaries - nationalism is the setting of artificial boundaries and the severing of natural ones. It is the logical corollary of an ideology which from the start was dictated by technical necessity.

The connection between current 'gender' ideology and early sexual liberation is easier to see because it is closer chronologically and its advances (due to current technical possibilities) were quite rapid, but the transformation from nationalism into globalism follows and results from the same pressures. You remove procreation from sex and you get all kinds of perverted results; you remove production and consumption from the local community and you get artificial boundaries. You see this clearly in the towns near borders in Italy, Germany, Poland and everywhere else - where the culture still retains some of its previous influence from a now foreign country. It is, thus, completely artificial. But it too shall be erased - and is already for the most part.

It was technical necessity that made strict national borders in Europe, as well as homogenization of languages through public education, a requirement. Some countries still retain some level of regional diversity, but not only have they lost the majority of those distinctions but the pressure mounts every day for more integration and for those identities to disappear. In some places they exist in name only, and only artificial efforts to maintain them make it so they haven't died already. This is not how the diversity of Europe existed - it existed as an embedded reality, a necessity. Now it exists in many places only as governmental efforts to maintain something that wouldn't survive otherwise in a world organized in the way it is now.

And this has nothing to do with politics - politics follow technical necessity. Under the gigantic Austrian-Hungarian empire, like under the Catholic Church, a myriad of nationalities thrived while under strict nationalism not only they couldn't thrive, they didn't survive. Of course, under current circumstances nationalism sounds an awful lot better, just as early sexual liberation sounds better than 'gender' ideology, but that's only because it's an early phase of the problem. Early HIV sounds better than full blown AIDS (assuming the link is true, which is a contentious point). But the metaphor remains useful. Both Nationalism and Globalism are different phases of the rationalization of all aspects of life to technical necessity and economic development.

The reason you couldn't have all those regional languages in France was because you were mobilizing populations from all over the artificial national borders to work in industrial centers, and they had to understand each other. The same pressure exists now with globalism. It is a one size fits all - but now it really is for all, across the globe.

All political arrangement are a rationalization of technical necessity and capability. Tribalism is the rational arrangement for oral cultures of hunter gatherers: they have to rely on the wisdom of the elders for setting disputes and the strength of chieftains to keep the peace. Feudalism arises when there are independent productive units across vast expanses, on which a king must rely to control regional settlements. Once he has a homogenized population with the same language he can subjugate directly without relying on regional aristocracy, so you get absolute monarchy. But because you now have the capacity to have homogeneous armies through conscription, which itself is just an expansion of industrial conscription mentioned previously, soon the pressure for representation from the bottom shows, out of which you start the journey toward universal democracy.

This is what those who are always railing against the 'elites' do not get: they don't appear out of nowhere, they don't fall from the sky: they are what is necessary for a certain stage of technical development and economic organization. Whereas once you had chieftains, then feudal lords, then absolute monarchs, then banking and industrial oligarchs, now you start to see the transition into oligarchs from the digital industries, because that is what controls the world now - you can confirm this evolution in recent decades by checking the invitee list for Bilderberg, for example.

Going back to a world of nationalism which was made to serve the technical necessity of early industrialism is not only impossible, but it would, if possible, simply bring us back to the same point we are in eventually - and probably faster, because the technical requirements have changed.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
Personally I follow your premise but I don't agree with it.

In fact I think there are strong arguments for a return to monarchy, and doing so wouldn't cause the sky to fall. Moreover while many niche ethnicities may have been fed into the grinder in the past I don't think that invalidates a broader kind of ethnonationlism being a viable vehicle for moving a nation forward.

Nation states have been serving the world well enough when managed reasonably and I don't personally think that globalism is inevitable beyond them, even if that's the next theoretical evolution.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
I wouldn't mind returning to a few historical arrangements, for different reasons - but I would be fooling myself if I said it was possible. I don't believe it is.

All those historical arrangements had specific circumstances that made them not only possible, but necessary. Those circumstances are gone. I think it's a particularly foolish waste of time to try and have 'nationalist politics' as if that can exist in a globalized world - how many more examples do we need? All the governments that are trying it are doomed to failure and the signs are clear - even in ethnically homogeneous places in the East, the globohomo values seep in and will conquer the countries fully in a generation or two - because the necessity of that system so dictates. Poland has a proto-nationalist government for now, but because they have a modern economy they rely on a usurious monetary system, they participate in the global market, they have their news through media outlets with foreign owners or foreign shareholders, they allow foreign companies and their foreign ideologies, they have most of the population with gadgets and consuming the same global culture. Soon enough, those things change the people. And they always change them in one direction. We all know this. It's obvious unless you cling emotionally to the fantasy that there is some easy way to fix this mess through political means. But politics, as I was trying to say in the previous post, follows the technical and economic shape of society, not the other way around.

Nationalist politics is a unicorn, unless the system collapses. And if it does, then you won't need (or be able to have) nationalism, but depending on population you will need something somewhere between tribalism and feudalism.

I would rather warn my fellow men (and especially the men who congregate on this forum, because we share 90% of the same values) about this impossibility, and have them focus on things that really matter, like community building, self sufficiency and preaching the Gospel (not just with words, but in your life). Ultimately, and given how interconnected the system is and how deep its tentacles go, either it collapses in all its parts or it will enslave the whole of humanity in every little detail. If I thought total enslavement was inevitable, then obviously the only rational thing is to enjoy the little things while we can and damn any preparation and sacrifice for the future (so, basically, hedonism). But that is what the oligarchs want you to do anyway, so I think based on that, collapse is actually more likely than they want us to believe. So I will work on that assumption to try to survive it and prepare my family for it. I am not certain which way it will go, but clearly one of the options is better, because it is the moral thing to do.

What I am certain of is that voting for party X or party Y, or supporting a coup d'etat by general Z, without changing any of the underlying economic and technical premises will do exactly zero to change the game. We'll be back where we are now in no time, because that's just what the system requires to survive.
 

Teedub

Crow
Gold Member
Collet one was really good. He's got that clean cut, 'boring' vibe of a mainstream politician which is good to get normies. Shame he has so much baggage.

He can pass off the stuff from 2002 as him being young and stupid and not believing in that stuff anymore (even if he does privately)... but how can he pass off the swastika tattooed girlfriend from only 3 years ago?
 

Elmore

Kingfisher
Teedub said:
Collet one was really good. He's got that clean cut, 'boring' vibe of a mainstream politician which is good to get normies. Shame he has so much baggage.

He can pass off the stuff from 2002 as him being young and stupid and not believing in that stuff anymore (even if he does privately)... but how can he pass off the swastika tattooed girlfriend from only 3 years ago?

Fuck know the relationship there. If it's just some crank at a conference, then he can say 'i dont know her, what do you want me to do be rude'. But i have no idea what the backstory is.

Either way, its largely irrelevant what he says about it, the image is just fucking awful optics for what he's trying to achieve.

He was very good on M/Yule though.

That's the thing with Collett, once you get past his slightly spergy tone of voice & somewhat un-charismatic persona, his content is actually very good. He has invaluable real world political nous, in working with parties, campaigning, doorstepping etc etc etc

I'm just not sure if he's charismatic or baggage free enough for the role he craves.

Would be better off as a key advisor in a non front facing role IMHO. But still, definitely his and Patriotic Alternative's time is now. Be interesting to watch over next twelve months.

iu
 

Teedub

Crow
Gold Member
They were 100% in a relationship. There's other images of them too. I don't think the charisma is an issue, just the awful optics. But yeah I agree on all your plus points about what he offers. I imagine he's probably more 'charismatic', friendly etc in real life, and you saw glimpses of that side in this year's milleniyule. Can't see Colin being mates IRL with someone dull.

Anyway - merry xmas to all, hope you have a lovely day.
 

Elmore

Kingfisher
Roosh said:
I can forgive and forget his previous attacks against me, but unless I'm mistaken, he's a homosexual.

He is asked a question about you at 1:23:00 here. He expresses regret at not having invited you on this year.

 

Teedub

Crow
Gold Member
Woes is being a bit spergy there as I honestly dont think Roosh looks any different to lots of people he would regard as white. I mean, if I saw him walking down the street I'd subconsciously put him in the white box, at least when he hasn't got the jihadi beard ha.

And so did lots of the leftists during the Canada debacle and why they panicked a bit when the heard his real name was 'ethnic'. And that's why the "I'm a Muslim" misdirection speech was a hilarious troll, using their intersectional identity politics against them.

Moreover, Roosh has done more to speak up for white interests than Sargon or Dankula - who MW considers to be friends.

But yeah, hopefully it happens next year or earlier on one of Collett's streams perhaps.
 

Elmore

Kingfisher
Yeah, but he's saying that is what his issue with him was. He is someone who would no doubt acknowledge he has had a tendency to drifter into the arena of the autistic in the past, let's face it.

Roosh is half Armenian isn't he? What is the other half? Armenians are an Aryan people, descended from the same horse-lords that swept into Europe from the Southern Steppes, just that one group went west, one south through the Caucusus.

25,000 fought for the Germans in WW2, having being classified as Aryan by Hitler's chief anthropological autist (forget the name). Hitler described them as being 'dangerous & unpredictable', but absolutely a European people of antiquity.
 

Roosh

Cardinal
Orthodox
Roosh said:
I can forgive and forget his previous attacks against me, but unless I'm mistaken, he's a homosexual.

It appears I was mistaken about his sexual orientation. I will refrain from calling him gay from this point on.
 
ilostabet said:
If I remember correctly MW was accusing Roosh of pushing European men and women on the right against each other, and he clearly didn't like the fact Roosh pulled many women of European descent, so he said something like 'our ancestors used to know how to deal with foreigners that took our women', suggesting that in earlier times he would have been physically punished. Clearly a beta male white knight response which takes any responsibility from the women - in a sense he was taking the feminist route of saying Roosh was a rapist. It wasn't his best moment. Funnily enough, Roosh sees now the error of his ways so would probably agree that it was a bad thing to do - although not from the race angle.

I like the guy and enjoy his points of view more often than not, so also would like to see him convert and change his view of Roosh.

Woes is the worst possible person to talk about dating and the mechanics of it.

It's not as if Roosh has "taken" any women - I don't see him living with 40 Slavic girls in some castle. And even if he married one girl, then I think it would be a net gain for Europeans anyway.

MW personal life or dating perception is closer to nil. His views on nationalism however is far better.

And it seems that the bloke was molested as a kid and recently mentioned that he attempts to have a normal relationship with a woman, have maybe children. We shall see.

I don't think that the views of Roosh are greatly apart from MW. Sure - Roosh is more religious now. Mark Collett certainly got along well with Roosh and congratulated him on his personal journey.

And I wish Woes a way to battle against his personal demons, he is an interesting chap.

I liked his talk with Sargon who seems to have even accepted more positions of the right by now:

 

Teedub

Crow
Gold Member
Just watched the Dangerfield one. What a great chat, very amusing and lots of non-politics stuff discussed. Chris is like a semi-based Russell Brand, super sharp wit and vocabulary but without the progressivism.

I laughed out loud on two occasions.
 
< It's amazing what kind of guys finally get attracted towards real nationalism. Dangerfield is a former progressive far-left ex-massive heavy-drug-user who then moved to the Philippines where he continues to live. He is a smart bloke and living in Asia made him aware of the reality of things, Red Pilled him on many subjects. Mark Collett had him on and Dangerfield instantly said that he is likely more an example of the Antifa lifestyle, but he does not make claims of being a role-model, just being a voice of sanity after his own years of leftie indoctrination. Also he clearly said that years of drug abuse even of weed over the years can cost you many life paths.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
I'm not that familiar with MW, but I really like Keith Woods who is his latest
guest, on for two hours:


Keith Woods
is a really solid young lad. He has a great perspective, very smart and well-read, in combination with strong ethics rooted in his Irish culture. He is an essayist that provides introspective, personal and profound philosophical insights along the lines of a Devon Stack (aka Blackpilled) on politics, culture and modern social issues.

Very impressed with him, I invite you guys to check him out, his number of subs is very small relative to the quality of his output, though that is mostly because he's only started recently.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGe8kzr_18FIOzjkmzGzzuA

A lot of his videos were pulled out, some of them are mirrored here:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5Xd0fNmANsaLsVN0lv6_3OYy1G2iS8az
 
Top