Are Proles The Useful Idiots Of A Two Centuries Old Elite Plan?

Our parents were taught at school that the world split up between capitalism and communism. For some, capitalism was to be equated with freedom and Western civilization—and it ominously slipped towards Big Corp and tax cuts for billionaires—whereas communism was an absolute threat. For others, communism was cool, generous, and one had to be a Leftist to be a good guy because being on the Right meant to be either a greedy abuser or a pathetic hillbilly.

When faced with such a worldview, especially when one realizes how it fails to address many issues, one can ask: is there a third way? The official answer has been rather nefarious: no, there is only one way, capitalism and communism have fused into the end of history, global governance, and “social liberalism” or social democracy. Under the guise of overcoming contradictions and negativity, this “end of history”, as Francis Fukuyama had said, was a direct denial of autonomy and free-will. In the end, we can be grateful that the wannabe global managers’ mask has slipped, revealing raw lust for power and hysteria.

Actually, there has been a third way all along. It appeared recurrently in the margins of the mainstream and was more or less subtly, but always harshly, repressed by the System. Sometimes it has been allegedly endorsed by individuals such as Hakim Bey, who marketed himself as an anarchist and sold many books by babbling about “autonomous zones”, which in practice amounted to smoking pot in abandoned buildings while endorsing globalism. In truth, the third way has been embodied by defenders of middle class capitalism, such as those who were purged from the Republicans or either recuperated or evilized by the Left.

The dualist, capitalism-versus-communism, then social-democracy-versus-neoconservatism choice, is merely a pick between two strands of globalistic managerialism. The former leans more towards public bureaucracy, the latter is more in tune with private shareholders—although both are— and this makes absolutely no difference for the average downsized. Both destroy the citizens’ ability to self-determination, and if you look closely, the managerial “dream” has constantly used proletarians while pushing the independent producers aside.

Independent farmers and dependent proles

Capitalism and communism, just as social democracy and neoconservatism, all have one thing in common: they are urban ideologies, made and spread in towns among town-dwellers. We are oblivious to this fact because living in an urban environment looks too obvious, too ordinary, for us to notice. Yet consider the following: from immemorial times, the wide majority of people have been peasants. Traditional civilizations, including medieval Europe, were mostly made of husbandmen, able to grow crops, make tools and raise animals. Those who did this work were either gentry and independent farmers or serfs, reflecting the traditional caste division between Vaishya—free makers, tradesmen—and Shudra—dependent individuals who couldn’t manage themselves and could only serve the higher castes.

Only a few towns existed, and compared with today, they were quite small:

In the year 1800 Europe was still overwhelmingly rural, the vast majority of its inhabitants (thus numbering only 150.000.000) living in the country. This was even true of those nations today most thoroughly urbanized. In England and Wales, for example, where four-fifths of the population are now townsfolk, five-sixths of the population then lived in the country. In the year 1800 only two [European] cities, London and Paris, contained more than 500.000 inhabitants, while Berlin had fewer than 200.000. (Lothrop Stoddard, Social Classes in Post-War Europe, 1925, pp.6-7)

These towns were on the path of trading routes, between business and political power.

Then came the industrial revolution. As the steam engine was mastered and perfected, mass transport became available and cheap. Big banks invested in industrial projects, huge factories were built close to the cities. As all these machines needed arms to work on them, the population grew enormously, massive amounts of goods were mass-produced, and Europe imported lots of food from the whole world to feed these workers.

This situation had (almost?) no historical precedent. The cities turned into production centers, each connected with other ones through transportation means of enormous capacities. Most importantly, the majority of the new city-dwellers did not own their means of production, and more often than not their homes as well: they were proletarians, forced to sell their manual abilities to make a living. Far from nature, depending from a complex system they did not own and often did not understand, proles were very different from the self-owned, independent, food-producing peasants.

More numerous than Middle Ages serfs, more gregarious and prone to group identitarianism, the proletarians soon clashed with the peasants. Indeed, the proletarians’ interests coincided with the wealthy merchants’. When free trade began to soar, farmers knew that importing food from all continents would mean a lot of competition and the need for them to produce more while earning less: at the beginning of the nineteenth century, they were influential enough to push for regulation. But later, as the cities—proles and bourgeois—gained power, the power equilibrium was disrupted, and in Great Britain a motivated lobby managed to repeal the regulating Corn Laws in 1846.

The effects were disastrous to the peasants and gentry alike, as well as to national autonomy:

In 1877 the price of British-grown wheat averaged 56 shillings and 9 pence a quarter and for the rest of the nineteenth century it never reached within 10 shillings of that figure. In 1878 the price fell to 46 shillings and 5 pence. In 1886 the wheat price decreased to 31 shillings a quarter. By 1885 wheat-growing land declined by a million acres (4,000 km²) (28½%) and the barley area had dwindled greatly also. Britain’s dependence on imported grain during the 1830s was 2%; during the 1860s it was 24%; during the 1880s it was 45%, (for wheat alone during the 1880s it was 65%.) (Source)

The split did not run between capitalists and communists, or between owners and non-owners, but between the urban and the countrymen. Proletarians did not care about independence, as they had already lost even the sense of it. They only cared about having cheaper food, improved material life conditions, and work—and all this was favoured by “free” global trade.

The First World War and the Red international

On the beginning of the twentieth century, the countryside had lost much of its weight and significance. The metropolis mastered market prices through importation and exportation of mass quantities. At the side of blue collars were the intellectuals, who more often than not perceived the urban life, fashions and “progress” as much cooler than toiling the land. Congested cities were full of men who had lost the sense of nature, who were often dependent from a tight elite of wealthy bankers, and it made the autonomous farmers miserable.

Then came the Great War. Then many people realized that towns do not grow food. As the war raged, the international transportation system mostly stopped working; all importations were cut down, and the urban population found itself deprived of nourishment. The governments reacted by rationing food, but even then, a black market formed and many farmers were able to sell some of their harvest at a huge price. Alas, the artificial cosmopolitan system was rocking to its foundations! And the nature-despising, “progressive” town-dwellers were forced to acknowledge at least tacitly that “the town cannot live without the country, but the country can live without the town” (Stoddard, Social Classes…, p.40).

In 1918, the farmers who had survived the war had become important and powerful again. Some who had turned poor used their profits to buy up the land they were working. Shrewd and realistic, the farmers knew that factory workers did not give a damn about them and favoured a world where international trade would be restricted, so that their relative autonomy could be maintained, and never shattered by the international merchants.

In spite of the war, farmers from all Europe, mostly on the East, managed to network with each other. In 1921, four political parties, then seventeen joined to create the International Agrarian Bureau or first Green International, a confederation of self-owned middle classers willing to fight for their independence.

Bolshevism were raging, and communists tried to recuperate the movement. In 1923, they created the Red Peasant International. In vain:

The peasant had one simple, tangible objective—the land. Once possessed of the land, he desired to settle down and enjoy it for his own individual profit. He realized the value of his produce, and he expected the townsman—capitalist, bourgeois, or proletarian—to pay him his price… Why should [the farmer] socialize his land?… What was [collectivization] but a new form of urban predominance—a predominance no less hateful to the peasant because exercised by factory workers instead of by aristocrats and bourgeois, as in former days? (Stoddard, Social Classes…, pp.18-9)

This is a key point. During the nineteenth century, urban proles were OK with gauging farmers or forcing them into a cutting throat competition so that they could eat for a cheaper price. Later, when the same proles had converted to Communism, they would ask for seizing the land and having it cultivated by proletarized farmers. No one would be allowed to remain independent or self-owned, the wealthy global elite aside. Later again, the factory workers would see no problem in the “modernization” plan destroying independent farmers and tradesmen by building State-funded large-scale estates along with hypermarkets, both reducing prices thanks to scale economies: as long as they could keep masturbating on the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, these masses actually supported the proletarization of the whole world.

Once again, the fault line does not stand between capitalists and communists. It stands between a third caste of farmers, craftsmen, shopkeepers who struggles to remain self-owned—middle class—and a conglomerate of town-dwellers who push for everyone to be under the sway of almighty managers. The private or public status of said managers is irrelevant: a civil servant and a Big Corp CEO think alike, especially if the latter is deemed “too big to fail.” It will be worthwhile to notice that defenders of an independent third caste, such as Pierre Poujade, have been constantly demonized and expelled from mainstream politics: they are a real opposition to a managerialism that wants to crush any opposition it does not control.

How the Green International got crushed

During the 20s, when Bolsheviks attempted coups in European countries, the free armies—Freikorps—who defeated them and saved civilization were mostly composed of countrymen and middle classes. It briefly looked like the Green International could win. Unfortunately, the globalists showed a malignancy no farmer wisdom could foresee: “Russian” Bolsheviks preferred mass starvation to any hint of a powerful country side, and this is how millions of peasants were wilfully starved.

On the West, things underwent a subtler but identical course of dispossession. The European Union pushed for intensive farming and large, mechanized estates, so that the small farmer would have no choice but to sell his land and become a factory prole. (This happened to my grandfather.) The same happened to shopkeepers who competed with low-price supermarkets. On the one hand, all these dispossessed were incited to go the cities and become blue- or white-collars, thus turning dependent and fragile.

On the other hand, those who attempted to defend local autonomy were quickly repressed: after Soviet-funded Communists failed to recuperate Pierre Poujade, they called him “Poujadolf”, hinting that any criticism of mass proletarization would be tagged “nazi.” And once again we can see Communists working in synergy with “capitalistic” globalists to support Big Corp and destroy people’s ability to self-determination.

Also, after the Green international was driven in exile by USSR takeover in Eastern Europe and failed to prevent the rise of Big Corp, its name was stolen by urban bourgeois bohemians. The “Green” parties of various Western countries confiscated a genuine country movement, turning it into a pretext for globalist influence trafficking—from the juicy “green energies” contracts to the equally lucrative business of “rights to pollute”—and despising hunters, fishermen, i.e. those who really lived within nature. Even now, siding with the truly “green” may have you tagged a “fascist” and a hillbilly, because problem glasses-wearing babbling about “sustainable development” in an air-conditioned office know more about nature than those who harvest and care for animals, y’know.

What now?

Global governance actors wear many outfits, yet they are easy to recognize when you look at who funds them and what they promote. Big Corp, Big State, transnational bureaucratic monstrosities such as the European Union, para-public NGOs and NPOs, think-tanks, deep State… are all connected together through revolving doors. Under a thousand “causes” and pretexts, they all aim at excluding most people from self-ownership. How can you create a business when every sector has been taken over by the State or Monsanto—and when any successful startup gets bought off or sank through an array of offensive methods?

From the start, the factory workers have been the footsoldiers of a one, single overriding aim: the destruction of most of the third caste or true middle class through forced proletarization. Walmart and Carrefour succeeded where the reds failed. This explains how the pseudo-opposing trends of Leftist “counterculture” and entrepreneurship could fuse into hipsterism and bobo culture: both agreed in scorning the “stupid” countryman, the “idiotic” shopkeeper… and as the proles stopped doing their bidding, they were promptly despised as well, to the benefit of “minorities” who would take on the anti-autonomy, anti-civilization cause.

Farmers of yesterday knew how to grow every plant, raise animals, build and fix houses, understand the markets and sometimes even spoke various languages if only to communicate with customers. They had enough wisdom to see degeneracy and lust for power behind the “progressive” pretensions of their various foes, in contrast with the rootless factory proles who fell for demagoguery. May the red pilled turn more and more like these autonomous agrarian, who would really deserve a rehabilitation in mainstream culture.

Read Next: How To Be More Dominant In The Bedroom

100 thoughts on “Are Proles The Useful Idiots Of A Two Centuries Old Elite Plan?”

  1. Last paragraph, mmmmmm, no.
    It would be nice if ROK articles on politics and history would include more citations and sources on the claims. Just saying.
    As an anti-progressive myself, I also glorify and idealize a past that I did not live, but there are some statements which should be taken care of.

      1. “understand the markets and sometimes even spoke various languages if only to communicate with customers. They had enough wisdom to see degeneracy and lust for power behind the “progressive” pretensions of their various foes, in contrast with the rootless factory proles who fell for demagoguery.”

        1. By definition, successful farmers had to understand at least their place in the market. Its possible at various points in time that farmers were bi-lingual (such as when they took cattle from highland areas to sell in the lowlands or when ethnic groups monopolised parts of the agricultural market like the Visigoths in Iberia). The last section is bold but fairly self-evident; which demographic has voted most reliably than the urban working class for totalitarian, socialist and progressivist movements/parties etc?

        2. Your justification for that paragraph includes Visigoths and urban working class. Just 1100 years of difference.

    1. Not sure if farmers could speak various languages (highly unlikely imo) but the rest of it seems correct or at least believable.

    2. The last sentence needs proof-reading (as do some other paragraphs) but otherwise it’s a sound coda in a solidly argued piece.
      Agree that there more citations would be helpful.

  2. The sick dream of my generation … invent something and sell it to google or facebook

    1. For most it remains a dream.
      But I’m keepin my invention all to myself. Frankly it isn’t google/facebook’s thing. Maybe as a sponsor…

    2. I sometimes think about how when the Allies conquered Germany in WW2, they raced to snap up the amazing and useful new technology. If we were conquered tomorrow, would there be anything worth ‘snapping up’?

  3. Capitalism and Socialism are bit players in a larger debate, and paradoxically capitalists and socialists may agree on certain issues facing us in the 21st century.
    The key battle (to borrow from David Goodhart) is anywheres v somewheres.
    The former see the world as a valueless global hotel; the latter as a place that still has meaning.
    The funny part is that elements of the old capitalists and communists are on either side. The paradigms of the debate have shifted so that old communists in some circumstances have more in common with the alt right than leftists in general.
    These are broad strokes, but I see it as petty much this
    Team 1
    Alt Right
    A lot of old socialists
    Religious right
    Classic liberals from enlightenment tradition
    One nation libertarians
    Team 2:
    New left
    Hippy 60 left
    Neo liberal right
    Internationalist Marxists
    Post modernists
    Fundamental atheists/centralists

  4. Urban dwelling men must first yoke and harness their women before a return to autonomy can be precipitated.
    Mules and oxen aside, the human shebeast untamed defines modern living. There is nothing civilized about the wildest of mammalian beasts running feral in civilization. Urbania is a jungle of wild females.
    For the MAN to declare autonomy and plant your flag in your own soil, the urban women must first be contained and conscripted to doing the gardening, planting seeds and bulbs and servicing their master’s balls.
    The leash comes off gradually as she requires less corrective effort. ‘Arrest’ of a woman is sudden like having the cuffs slapped on you. Reculturing the urban women thereafter takes time.
    This isn’t what a gardening shovel is for you western egg squandering nubes of the female persuasion
    (two young frustrated and unwed Ohio teen girls yardfighting)
    The American ‘Shovel girl’ went viral in the UK for some unknown reason. Girl fighting, lesbianism and rape hysteria are all bundled up into one culture corrupting package being dealt to young UK as well as American females. These Midwestern American girls weren’t dykes or SJWs luckily. They were typical rural heartland crowd.

    Both 14, they were fighting over the same ‘boy’. It was a play fight at first that went bonkers – over some ‘boy’. No immature ‘boy’ could possibly control either of those two budding white western breeders. Plus it’s a little hard to afford diapers for an infant when ‘daddy’ is busy playing Nintendo at a friend’s house. Those girls need a ‘MANFRIEND’, not a boyriend. If only some ‘man’ could lay down his rod of discipline. But jailbait hysteria and rape hysteria are hand in hand, blasting from the media machines to leave all of the young western females be and let them scrap themselves throughout their prime.
    ‘Shovel girl’ hails from Miami County Ohio, pop 100k and 90% rural. It borders Amish country. I’m also assuming those girls dads have been stripped of their authority and custody by the jewfem divorce rape cabal which has perfect continuity across the land, save a few pockets of Amish country or other religious separatist cults.
    Even in the midwest, the family thread has been ravaged by institutionalized women’s advocacy legal tribunals in every county seat. This on top of the many local traitor government and ‘religious’ organization plants with their lists of rural communities slated for globalist sanctuary designation makes the ‘yellow shovel’ miss the target by far. This generation of good ol’ white farm kids is in a more precarious demographic margin than they’re aware.
    But they got slight fame and stirred the media heads and shrink shows to be their new daddy.

    Isn’t there a man around that place?

      1. Ordinarily, I’d agree with you here. But between distrust of the media at all time highs and that we managed to elect Trump… All I’m saying is I wouldn’t bet against it. Not right now, today, as things stand.

  5. For those that know the books of Moses, any thoughts on the economic system of ancient Israel and the concept of the Jubilee year? For those that don’t know, it would be an ‘anathema’ to the Red Shield family.

    1. are you talking about the debt forgiveness of the Shemita (every 7 years) or specifically the jubilee? There was a book on the Shemita by Jonathan Kahn that was quite prominent in the autumn of last year. It was a damp squib though

      1. Also no planting crops either as to let the ground rest. I wish more churches touched on Torah.

        1. “This fiftieth year is sacred—it is a time of freedom and of celebration when everyone will receive back their original property, and slaves will return home to their families.”  Leviticus 25:10
          I wish the banks / central bankers would heed it. There is an issue though I think whether the shemitah / jubilee applies only to the jews in israel or whether it applies to everyone, including those outside israel. Debt forgiveness shouldn’t just be an internal jewish affair.

        2. No it applies to all believers, that’s why when Israel received the Torah it applied to all the foreigners among them within their borders. As believers we are to follow Torah since we are grafted in to Israel. Most churches teach replacement theology and act as if gentiles are now better and don’t need Torah but that’s wrong. They’ll say the mosaic law was abolished but if that’s the case then there wouldn’t be sin anymore since sin is defined in the Bible as breaking the mosaic law. We should try to live by it wether it be the festivals, sabbath, or dietary laws. At least that’s my interpretations.

        3. Well that’s an interpretation. Saying that when Israel received the torah it applied to all peoples is to say no more than that some Jews, the lubavitchers for example believe that the noahide laws apply to all peoples. That doesn’t mean they are equal in every other sense. The universality of torah is a controversial issue since there is always the issue of whether there is an in group and an out group. Dipensationalist Christians tend to believe they are part of the in-group or at least that they partake of a universalist creed. But do you think the lubavitchers who insist the noahide laws apply to all would agree? In / out group boundaries are easily disputed and manipulated

        4. My mortgage company DiTech are a bunch of shylocks. I paid 1/2 monthly payment every two weeks. I was told the payment was applied immediately. Turns out, having not heeded my mother’s advice, after two years, DiTech only applied the payment once per month, despite what they said. At least I got one extra payment per year. Still, I would have been ahead giving an extra $50 toward principal each month. Even then, demand an amortization sheet. Make those bastards work.

        5. I cannot remember if it was in Paul’s letters or in Acts, but the law was ended with Christ’s death and resurrection. Recall that Peter would not eat ‘unclean’ foods (pork, shellfish) and he was told to stop calling such things unclean during a vision.

        6. No the penalty of the law ended with christ’s death not the law itself, he was clear on that. The vision of Acts didn’t refer to food but to gentiles recieving the gospel starting with the roman centurion Cornelius. The book of Acts takes place 9 to 10 years after the resurrection and Peter is still following the dietary laws and refuses God 3x on eating unclean foods because he doesn’t understand the vision was about gentiles. Peter is the father of the church and he still lives as though the dietary laws are still in place. God called swine an abomination and God doesn’t change so i don’t see why he would on that.

        7. Well every covenant adds on or changes a previous one but seeing that Christ lived according to the law and we are told to live as Christ did it makes sense. Also consider the Bible mentions that in the millennial kingdom everyone will be following Torah and that even the ones outside the kingdom must celebrate the Lord’s holy days or he will withhold rain from their land. I just don’t see a point in God picking the Jews to be his example of being righteous in his eyes by giving them the Torah but everyone else being able to do as they please until the millennial kingdom and then have to live that way.

        8. well there’s that consideration. Out of interest are you a user of the Scofield bible or similar. I’m not big on the old testament

        9. An observant Christian neither has to keep kosher dietary laws nor observe the Law of Moses. That said, there are some principles that carry over from before Christ: prohibitions against murder, adultery, theft, idolatry, etc. You are absolutely correct on the part of the vision about Gentiles. That was my omission, as my focus was narrowed to food.

        10. I’m going to try and double down each month and pay the principal amount from the end of the amortization. In theory, each extr payment should diminish and I could pay the mortgage down in half the time.
          I was absolutely adamant when I signed the initial paperwork that there were no pre-payment penalties. Such penalties rank highly in the scumbag factor.

        11. I believe we do, back when the Jews first got the law they had the oral law with it that explained it but it became a burden cause of the Pharisees, Jesus came and walked out the law according to how it was meant and is our example. That’s why he explained in Matthew 5:17″Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

        12. just record all communications. If they mislead you even in verbal form and you can prove it it will be worth your while

    2. 2008 was the jubilee year; the year jewish financiers got bailed out. The jubilee is for the jews, the rest of us are commanded to give our pound of flesh to the Shylocks (Merchant of Venice reference).

  6. What did the sentry say when the seagull tried to poop on his wrist – “Not on MY watch…”

  7. this is an excellent thought-provoking article – even if as BetterRed points out it needs some proof-reading. That’s an important point as it’s article like these that should be doing the rounds, getting shared on social media, and raising awareness of the progressive, globalist, collectivist con. One can argue to the cows come home as to whether it’s a centuries old conspiracy (may be but it may depend on your definition – weren’t the Internationals conspiracies even in themselves) – but ultimately demonstrating that may take one down blind alleys. One might perhaps settle on demonstrating a de facto conspiracy. We know there was a conspiracy of commies against the agrarian class (in russia, and this article argues even in the UK on account of the corn law repeal) and it is hardly difficult to demonstrate that commie or otherwise, there is similarly a de facto ‘conspiracy’ against the independent middle classes, nations, savers, families, business owners and shop-keepers (just look at how small businesses are taxed out of business to prevent them from competing with the shitting conglomerates pulling the politician’s strings).
    The town versus country thesis is an interesting one, not least because it was always said to be an anomaly that agragrian russia fell first to communism rather than industrialised britain or germany : by this reading in a sense it makes perfect sense: if revolution is understood as war leading to collectivisation it makes perfect sense to target what needs collectivising rather than what is already half-way there. Given that Britain and german were already run by the banks and big money players if it was the case that big corporate government dominated “state capitalism” and communism were always already compatible (not interchangable but easily toggled as alternative collectivist forms of ‘managerial’ government then there was simply no need for a revolution in britain in particular.
    the green movement revisionism is particularly interesting (consider for instance that David de Rothschild is a prominent green environmentalist today, and that in many places the ‘green’ parties are thin disguises for hard left or even communist politics). The industrial / agrarian division of course ultimately boils down individualist freedom loving versus collectivist and totalitarian politics. In that regard all of us should be at least passingly familiar by now with the works or rather the basic message of Anthony Sutton, the academic who demonstrated that state communism and state capitalism are two alternative expressions of the collectivist centralising impulse.
    This is a message which must be repeated until everybody understands the argument, even if they disagree. It’s a message that, if it is packaged in the right format would almost certainly be well-received by all those in britain who favour brexit, or for that matter in europe who oppose the bureaucratic EU, or in the US who voted for America first. It doesn’t matter if Trump is compromised, or for that matter Theresa May (we know they both are at least to some extent). The same may be true of the dissident European leaders. None of that matters if the message continues to get through, that progressive, globalist, collectivist politics is a sham, a con, designed to create division in order to enable globalism to take over all our lives and a totalitarian world to arise. The proof of this of course is in the ever greater theft of the world’s wealth, property and resources, by the 1% and the world’s banks as money is printed without end, debt universalised, and property effectively expropriated through stealth. Another word for that of course is communism

    1. I’m not going to complain too much. I have never paid for this website, and I love its contents, so I will not be demanding. My main concern here, is if we want ROK to grow outside of strict manosphere-PUA-MGTOW roosh friendly environment, articles about history and politics need to have their claims more justified and referenced. Otherwise, we cannot expand the message of ROK beyond its current borders.

      1. Completely agree. The articles on ROK have come a long way in terms of quality from what they were a couple of years ago. There are some excellent writers on here, and one encounters badly written articles far less frequently than once upon a time. That said, you still get a lot of basic proof-reading errors quite a lot. I think this is a quite important article in a lot of ways. If the author and / or an editor had tightened it up a little it’s the kind of thing that one really ought to share or link to, but as it stands it’s a tad sloppy. Even ten minutes of editing would have done the trick.
        As for referencing etc. it’s not an academic journal nor should it be but there are some authors who include some further reading at the end and I kind of agree that it should at least be clear if the argument being advanced is original or originates elsewhere. Usually some clear links to other articles but we’ve got to the point perhaps when “manosphere” theories etc are becoming quite well developed, and need to be firmly grounded so they can be built upon. Linking to previous articles may not be entirely enough if that theory is to start being taken seriously outside of the already converted

  8. Speaking of farming, anybody start their gardens yet? We’re still collecting birch sap up here, but I’ll probably plant my starts this weekend for a memorial day planting. Trying cabbage, carrots, cukes, pumpkin, kale, and a good herb selection this year. Between local farmer’s markets, the garden, two caribou, birds, and fish, 90% of my food should be sourced within a few hundred miles of me.

      1. Corn and fruit has to be from elsewhere. Veggies grow anywhere w greenhouses, even tomatoes. I’d revise my estimate to 75%. .

        1. Do you grow rubarb? Rubarb is a hardy fruit,my mother used to grow it in the garden. Do you can and preserve fruit and vegetables?

    1. I still buy raw honey locally but if I ever find myself living way off the prolie grid somewhere, I’d be wise to bring a beehive.

    2. The greenhouse is already planted. Kale goes in today, along with tomatoes and a whole bunch of other stuff. We had thirteen lambs born this spring. Cutting down the chicken flock from a high of 74 birds to about 25 (had so many eggs we couldn’t give them away). We know an Amish family that will slaughter and process the older birds for 50% of the meat (I take them 20 and get back 10 ready for the deep freeze. Trust me, it’s good deal if I don’t have to pluck them). And I have no idea how many rabbits we have right now, but I know some of them will going on the grill soon. We give the neighbour eggs and he brings us Crappie filets. It’s a lot of work, but we know where most of our food comes from and ’tis a good feeling indeed.

      1. “Trust me, it’s good deal if I don’t have to pluck them). ..”
        Yep that’s a messy business and rarely done well if you’re not doing it a fair bit!

        1. Oh I do it well because I don’t like feathers in my dinner. But it takes a lot of time. I built an external rotary drum plucker that gets the majority of the feathers off, but you still have to scald and burn off the hair afterwards. I plan on building a tub style plucker which really speeds things up. The problem is finding the time. We intend to raise some meat chickens next year so I’ll try to get that done this winter.

    3. “We’re still collecting birch sap up here,..”
      Where is this and what do you do with it?
      Still too early for my tomatoes etc..

  9. Nobody wants to live on a farm, too far from the big cities and all the action. Heck, a lot of farms can’t even get internet. Work is also too hard and unceasing from before dawn to after dusk. It’s great for a homestay holiday, but not all year.
    WW1 for an example, most of the UK male farmers were keen to join the army and risk being killed on the front lines, for a bit of adventure, rather than stay home on the farm.
    As for farmers being able to grow and fix everything, one must wonder why they nearly all lost their land.

    1. Not trying to be blunt but, you haven’t the slightest idea about modern mechanized agriculture.

      1. Tell that to the Amish.
        I live on a prepper farm (you could call it a commune), part of the year, we only use what we think will be available after the zombie apocalypse. I suspect the writer of this story wasn’t imagining a 10,000 acre farm with $10,000,000 of equipment either and only 1 product.
        Today, I’m drying apples.

        1. The hard way is the ONLY sane way. The dependency on technology you do not control is another drainpipe of the globalists.

        2. That’s part of the reason – that they like doing things the hard way. But this vid states a reason why the Amish are weary of technology. It is because they believe that technology is harmful to the family structure. They have aversion to anything adverse to family, as the narrator states here:

          This is from the Beeville, Tx Amish community, the southenmost of all Amish settlements. It is less than 100 mi from the Mexican border. It is a newer community (10-15 yrs old) and was started by 9 families.
          This begs the question then “Why can’t I start my own community of separatists with like minded red pill friends and get the same legal exemptions as the Amish which are second only to the perks and federal exclusions that the Native Indians get? Well it’s because the Amish are grandfathered somewhat. They homeschool without harassment and didn’t face the blitzkrieg against homeschoolers that common citizens faced throughout the 80s and early 90s.
          So I’m going to grow a beard and get a hat and change my name to Yoder. I want land use exclusions and tax free inheritance too. Randy Weaver’s family was isolated but was doing nothing more than a typical Amish family does. Even though he paid his tiny amount of property taxes, his family was butchered by federal wogs because he didn’t change his name to Yoder and get a big black hat.

        3. It’s more cost effective to have a big family, and use them as free labour than to pay for expensive machinery. The machinery is just not sustainable outside factory farming, and will be gone as soon as the crash happens.

  10. Soooo…the decline of American Manufacturing is actually good thing? I’ve been arguing this for years: Unions and blue collar workers kinda suck because they vote Democrat, are basically labor cartels, and are the flipside of the same coin (which has corrupt business leaders on the other).
    However, I would still like to see a stronger causal link between urbanization and the left. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation. While this theory of how left wing crap evolved is not without merit, it has a missing link: why are cities filled with idiot leftists?
    The idea that the blue-collar union shitheads had common ground with the robber barons is a bit far fetched: they spent a lot of time murdering each other. Although both sides essentially did want the business to exist (the unions wanted higher wages), I’d like to see a stronger causal link between urbanization and leftism.

  11. There are two big political/economic issues that no political philosophy or political party want to address. One is utilization of earth’s limited natural resources, the other is human population control.
    Communism and Capitalism both put a group of elites(Communist party leaders or Corporate leaders) in charge of all natural resources that they monopolize. Neither want to control the quantity or quality of the population because they both want cheap labor and ignorant consumers that serve their needs. So they both encourage mass immigration and single motherhood. They both want you to consume what they think you need and try to outlaw a DIY economy.
    I think every man needs to be given a share of the land. Having children without a patriarch capable of taking care of the family should be outlawed. If there was such a political movement I would support. But what we have now is a choice between dweedle dee or dweedle dum.

    1. “One is utilization of earth’s limited natural resources, the other is human population control.”
      Neither is important, the resources are effectively unlimited, and population control is unnecessary if you don’t provide for the useless. If you can’t produce enough to feed yourself, die.

      1. “population control is unnecessary if you don’t provide for the useless.”
        Well I have to say, I agree with you there.
        Best bumper sticker I have ever seen?
        “Can’t feed’em? Don’t breed’em!”

    2. The so-called elite in the USA began their company town utopia building in the 19th century very much wanting to micro manage the lives of employees. When it failed as a private effort they started using the state, the government, to achieve it. And achieve it on a greater scale. They have been working towards it for over a century now.

    3. The choice between dweedle de and dweedle dum is exactly what the “managers” have ordered. It is now impossible to change the system now that society has been “successfully” re-engineered. The only solution is to detach and live within frugal means, or die chasing the mirage that they have created for you.

  12. I ran away from communism almost 30 years ago and here I am still talking about communism.
    This is not what I signed up for. Fucking shit!

  13. Just a couple of thoughts here about country living. Many small towns have been dying a slow death for years, not because rural living is inherently bad but because there’s no need anymore for all those people out here. 60 plus years ago a 500 acre farm in this area could support 10 men plus their families. A logging crew would have had 40-50 people working on it. Now with feller bunchers, skidders and loaders three men can do that work and be home in time for the 5 o’clock news. I know a guy who farms 750 acres of peanuts and cotton by himself with no help and doesn’t have to work very hard to do it.Not that long ago it would have taken dozens of people to do that work and that would be working from daylight to dark most all year. Just something to consider.

    1. You’re quite right. Modern technology and force multiplying equipment have done away with much of the back breaking labour the lumberjack, the miner, the yeoman farmer and the like provided in yesteryear. But even though one man can farm several hundred acres, the cost of entry into modern large scale farming is incredibly high. Unless you are born into it or have a tremendous amount of capital to invest, the days of a young man starting up his own farm are effectively over. Here in the US we have been able to achieve the communist dream of collective farming, not through violent revolution and social reform, but through corporate consolidation and government regulation. Guys like me, that husband a few animals and raise some garden vegetables can run under the radar, but you won’t get rich doing it. And I’d bet if the likes of Monsanto, Wal-Mart and big-gov had their way, we’d all be living in tiny “sustainable” concrete boxes in town, completely disarmed and totally dependent on their food supply, water supply and “healthcare system.”

      1. “And I’d bet if the likes of Monsanto, Wal-Mart and big-gov had their way, we’d all be living in tiny “sustainable” concrete boxes in town, completely disarmed and totally dependent on their food supply, water supply and “healthcare system.”
        This! Add in legalization of pot to make them docile then the retards still think their free..meanwhile they have not the wherewithal to take interest on what their masters do with them..

        1. Honestly, I’m in favor of the total legalization of pot, coca and opium poppies. If it grows naturally, the gun-vermin have no business sticking their noses in it for the benefit of big pharma and the medical-industrial complex et al. Just legalizing those three plants would all but eliminate the the drug cartel / CIA* black ops money stream over night. That’s one key reason why the establishment will fight to keep the War On Drugs™ going as long as possible. It’s just like alcohol prohibition. Drinking and crime went up due to the high reward to risk ratio creating an almost incomprehensibly large black market for booze along with the desire for forbidden fruit. Even with drug prohibition, there’s been no decrease in recreational drug consumption. If anything, especially with regard to Heroin, there been a significant increase in addiction coincidental to the US occupation of Afghanistan (source of 80% of the world’s opium supply). Plus allowing unfettered access to recreational drugs would certainly weed out those members of “society” with a weak self preservation instinct and poor self control. Let natural selection put a little chlorine in the gene pool so to speak. It’s kind of like eliminating motorcycle helmet laws. If you choose to ride without a brain bucket, more power to you. I won’t do it myself, but who am I to stop the less intelligent from cleaning up the species a tad bit. 😉

        2. But you’ll be able to buy Wally World watered-down ammo!
          I’ve noticed many products have bar codes unique to WM and happen to be of lesser quality. I don’t have a chrono, but I suspect the Winchester white box ammo has less powder.

        3. I’d be with if you we went full proper libertarian and didn’t have public resources, like methadone, treatment, welfare and housing free for drug addicts!
          That shit is costing taxpayers a bundle..
          If we simply rounded up our crackheads massacred them all in my province we could probably free up a lot of housing, healthcare and other program money for those in need and maybe even run in the black..

        4. I didn’t know this. Makes sense though, given WM’s huge buying power. A few years ago, WM staff would ask you what you wanted the ammo for when you went there to buy it.

      2. Modern farming on a large scale is a scam for the most part. I know some farmers in Kansas that do beef, Monsanto corn and soy. The amount of debt they are in is unbelievable. Just a modern combine is over $350k easy. He told me with crop insurance he’ll actually make the most money if he loses 70% of his crops in a year, and that insurance money really comes from the government who took it from us. We grow so much food just to sustain the cattle industry. I really don’t see how that type of farming can continue to sustain itself cause he said all the farmers there are in the same boat with debt.

        1. I don’t eat beef unless it is organic, and, preferably grass-fed. I don’t want a diet of GMO corn & soy, along with Synovex C estrogens in my diet.

      3. I have to agree, for someone to start farming on his own would take a very dertermined person.
        Vertical integration eliminated most small livestock producers a long time ago. The only reason it hasn’t taken out crop farmers yet is because large companies can’t move fast enough

        1. Back before I moved west an old family friend and lifelong farmer was still raising hogs. But only for family consumption. He said the big corporate hog farms could sell the hogs for less than he could feed them for. I think the only reason we still see fairly small scale beef production is because they can graze them. Grass is still fairly cheap and grass fed beef is very desirable. But if the small guy was trying to compete with the commercial feed lots, he’d never make it.

        2. This area had hundreds of independent pork producers until the 80s now, there are none anywhere around that I know of, there’s not even a livestock auction to sell them at now .
          We still have independent cow/calf producers however all the calves go to commercial feedlots as there are no other markets for them. No independent slaughterhouses left that I’m aware of. All the jobs those industries supported ( (feeds mills, trucking, slaughter, storage,farmers growing feed crops)are gone and probably will never return.

        3. In the UK, small farmers found a niche market with ‘heritage’ breeds of pigs, something agribusiness just didn’t do. Breeds like Tamworth and Gloucester Old Spot became popular with foodies and breeders could make a decent living. Other farmers went down the same road with cider and cheese makers doing the same thing. These guys are few and far between still because people want cheap food and thus they are at the mercy of the economy more so than the big players.

    2. Indeed. There are also many small towns where the principal employer was a mill or a plant. (Graphically demonstrated in the Southeast, for example.) If that industry dies out or moves to another part of the globe, that’s the end of sustaining the population.

      1. Oh man, after GATT and NAFTA around here we went from having a sewing plant or two in every town for miles around to ZERO in 5-6 years. Many of those were good paying jobs too.

  14. Through central banking the so-called elite buy up productive assets and land with money made from thin air that they have access to. Especially in the last 8-9 years since they get it for nothing or close to nothing.
    The goal is dependence and the government schools they created turn people out as fungible human resources. A modified version of the Prussian school system. The goal for agenda 21 / 2030 is to have people easily moved from urban center to urban center. The corporate system wants people who are rootless and able to be moved as they need them to be moved. I’ve encountered this in my career. My desire not to go where ever a 5% raise was for me has been considered weird. Younger adults are playing right into this.
    Capitalism that we have isn’t anything close to textbook. Instead we get centralized cronyism. Real capitalism like real socialism are decentralized voluntary systems. The former being the individual proprietors and entrepreneurial companies and the later being co-ops and such. People operating independent of the state and its managers. Instead both that we get are centrally managed and planned systems of dependence and debt serfdom.

    1. We live under a monetarist system, not capitalist…yet the antifa crowd make no mention of the financier oligarchs as the enemy. They think factory owners are the oppressor. Incidently the destruction of the Western manufacturing industry was by central bankers cutting off capital flows to industry by hiking rates to 14% in the early 90s, forcing them to relocate to China, and yet the left never pointed this out, showing the left is a branch of the monerarists.

  15. What we’re simply witnessing is the total monopolization of capital in the hands of a small American clique that is ruling the world due to nuclear blackmail and is only therefore international or “global.”
    This monopolization of capital goes hand in hand with the “monopolization” of imperialism, i.e. with US monoimperialism after the fall of the Soviet Union.
    Today, all remainders of non-American mini-capital and all countries that are not completely forced into line yet, are about to be destroyed; this is why American capital now wants to destroy Russia, later China and Iran, the same way the destroyed Iraq and now Syria. (This would be the very first time in human history that power would be completely monopolized, and that there would be NO single place left on earth where competition and resistance could grow around non-American capital.)
    A “globalist” alliance against US monoimperialism (what Aleksandr Dugin wants) would actually be a GOOD things.
    As long as the Soviet Union existed, US mega-capital still had to pretend that it cared about dignity, culture and a high living-standard for everyone. Especially Western Germany was meant as a “window to the west”, this is why the living standard there was so high. Imagine people in the East had looked over to this “window to the west” and see poor, feminist, Islamic Merkel Germany of today!
    The craftsmen’s and farmers’ idyll that existed during certain periods of the Middle Ages in Western Europe or the pioneering days of Northern America were beautiful, of course. At that time, it was no exception and still possible to be the owner of one’s means of production. But, alas, such structures have not been competitive for quite some time now, as they were based upon a very low technical standard. Furthermore, it requires owning land which is also (becoming) unaffordable for the average person.
    Going “innawoods” simply is an unrealistic fantasy, just as the idea that “capitalism without Jews” would usher a new utopia is a silly fantasy, or that the Satanic US empire is oh-so sweet and INNOCENT if it weren’t for (((them)))…

    1. “The craftsmen’s and farmers’ idyll that existed during certain periods of the Middle Ages in Western Europe or the pioneering days of Northern America were beautiful, of course.”
      I would describe their life as ‘hard, brutal, and short’ rather than ‘beautiful’.
      You should give farming a go before you glorify it as a way of life.

      1. This wasn’t mainly because of their way of life but because of the state of technology and medicine back then. Louis XIV also had his jaw broken by his doctor when he removed every single teeth of his because the Sorbonne back then taught that you should pull teeth as long as they are healthy.

  16. Very well written researched article.
    Regardless of how they play the system will very soon crush from within. The main reason is because people today are all … sick. When I say sick, I don’t mean that they all display obvious symptoms but sick as in not functioning even close to 50% let alone reaching their full potential. Most people today have slowed metabolism, their bodies are either deficient of vital minerals and out of balance. We are all full of toxins and even babies are born with high toxicity as it gets passed from their mother.
    People do feel that something is not right, as most are exhausted most of the time and it created the current boom of fad diets which unfortunately make their conditions worse as most are very calories restrictive.

    1. good reference –
      >> “The point of the ten-house cell was to marshal peer pressure against private dissenters – i.e., to encyst them within a chorus of Communist orthodoxy that would force the dissenter to choose between conformity and isolation. (Really stubborn dissenters, of course, were taken out back and shot.)” >>
      That’s an accurate description of how gaslighting/peer pressure is used to enforce conformity and orthodoxy in both SJW camps and prolie work crews. Even web blogs of lefty simpletons begin banhammering and swatting at dissenting voices like flies. They lose composure and can’t think when faced with logic.
      Prolie work communities/factory housing projects also live at a low brainwave state and at mental capacity, intolerant of any suggestion of autonomy. The workers come home too buzzed to think and are all too quick to call a swat crew on a neighbor for noise or nonconformity. The neighbors police their own with browbeating the orthodoxy of company herd conformity/management. The men of the house are but bitch women to the company but atomized to their nature/tribe. Like the mega church, another self regulating, self policing snitch society under unnatural and artificially imposed hegemony.

  17. Back in high school, during the 80s, we were being taught about the oncoming majority of corporate farms in the midwest. It was merely accepted as a coming factual event. I don’t see much of that currently, but the brokerages who manage the prices of crops in a similar fashion as corporate stocks are unchallenged. That must change. My father was the president of the local CO-OP during the 70s and its power has been gone for at least two decades. The government controls the buying power of local farmers, for fuel, fertilizer and banking, so it seems unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. It will take a global economic collapse to trigger such massive change.

  18. Anti-fa are exactly this. Pro big govt/Corp state. They are the real fascists

  19. Lots of interesting points, however, you do not mention technology (biological of mechanical) and the real revolutions are these.
    The beloved country and farmer were always going to change.

Comments are closed.