I mean, if you asked a normal personal if societies should be run by byzantine mountains of bureaucratic rules or by personal relationships, I think a lot of people would choose personal relationships. I just didn't realize that the reason we don't do it, is because we call such personal relations "corruption".
For instance, I talked to some Singaporeans about why their shared infrastructure projects with Malaysia kept fizzling out -- it was corruption. The Singaporean government kept their word, but the Malay leaders kept embezzling the money and giving it to their friends. It was systemic. Such a people become very hard to work with effectively. Things don't get done.
I'm all for Parallel Society, building businesses together, taking over a town -- but I worry that this "actually corruption is based" notion goes too far
I don't entirely disagree with you. It's true that in a corrupt environment, it becomes a lot harder to do major infrastructure projects. Just look at the California Homelessness crisis, or the Somalis in Minnesota, or the high-speed rail in California. In a highly corrupt environment, major infrastructure projects fizzle out frequently.
With that said: we already live in a corrupt environment. We already live in a country where billions and billions of dollars disappear into a bureaucratic maze. The money gets funneled into anti-White or anti-American NGOs. It gets funneled into non-profits that hate the American people. It gets funneled into client populations that vote for corrupt politicians. If we already live in an environment where corruption is the standard, we can't fix it by simply throwing more money at the problem. The culture has shifted. Integrating into American society means utilizing the tools of corruption, or being run over by people who do.
If someone is going to benefit from these systems, it should be us, our friends, and our families. Like I said, the only way you're ever going to get a good job as a White guy is to know the right person. Your skills, abilities, and certifications are second to your friends and your network.
Hiring someone you know isn't necessarily corrupt. Resumes and interviews aren't great proxies for the most important employee virtues: attitude, responsibility, and clue. Knowing someone well reveals those things.
I get a vague sense of feudalism from the descriptions. Not wrong... just not a good feeling. It otherwise feels like many rural cultures, where you largely can trust people to cooperate informally and ad hoc. Without contravening any explicit rules or systems, ofc.
The real trouble, is taken to it's logical conclusion, this goes off the rails pretty hard. Countering corruption is necessary for an efficient and reliable state. Corrupt states can't abduct foreign dictators without a single casualty.
I agree with you. For an efficient and reliable state, corruption must be stymied. At the same time, there aren't really any Western states that are reliable or efficient at this point. Combining freedom of association with resources inherently results in systems that would be described as "corrupt" in a Milton Friedman capitalist utopia. But there don't exist any truly classically liberal systems. Every person in a position of power utilizes that power to enrich his friends and allies at the expense of the body politic. Historically, we lived in towns and villages where most people would associate with the interests of their own community. Supporting the interests of your own community is a normal thing.
"Corruption" is when "bad" people enrich themselves at the expense of your community. "Community involvement" and "friends and family" are when you do it at the expense of their community. This is the result of having lost a single macroculture (see my microcultures article) and having lost a single moral operating ethos (see my article on why Christians are just psychos on a leash). Without those, we return to tribal warfare, just as humans always have.
I agree that corruption is the only way forward in regaining agency for non-elite natives, but there is tremendous danger in it. Corruption will make relationships transactional and narrow people's horizons so much that wider cooperation will be impossible. It will remake men in such a profound way that they may never change again; third-worldize america for centuries. The video by the russian tells it all, and such a society is not one i want to live in. That said, i cant really see how it can be avoided. Maybe enclaves can be built where a high trust society still exists despite the outside world's corruption.
Cooperation is already virtually impossible between competing groups now. Left and Right, White and Anti-White, Male and Female. Formalizing institutional low-level corruptive relationships will probably improve things significantly.
It may not be a society you want to live in, but for most of us, it's a society we already live in. We want a piece of the pie before others finish scraping the pan clean for themselves. We have a name for high-trust enclaves that look after each other at the expense of the broader body politic: corruption.
The world you describe is also attributable to large parts of the West, before technology and bureaucrats began flexing their muscles in the 1980s - I have a close friend who started his own business that way.
I feel for you because what you're facing in the result of 40 years or so globalising, bureaucratic neoliberalism which over time has expended much effort to close down personal relationships and create hate and distrust between people, while at the same capturing institutions at all levels of society to control the structures of people's lives. I have watched it evolve in real time to become the managerial, technocratic state you describe.
Power to you in fighting back against the machine. People the other side of the pond are trying it to but procuring grants or bypassing the bureaucrats is not easy: they have arbitrary power and are also controlled centrally.
I think in the end you will have to be more radical to claim your life back. Again power to you and the younger men who are increasingly coalescing in the West to do this.
Thousands of Bomalians aren't figuring out shit. This was handed to them by the terrorists in government. The same terrorists who will deny your applications, and will find any excuse to block you and diminish your efforts. It's the same strategy where they bail out scamming millionaire bankers and investors, while prosecuting citizens for $600 transactions.
Corruption isn't doing favors for friends. Corruption is stealing from others. And good people can't do that. It's not in our nature, and nothing will change that.
The only solution is getting rid of these terrorists and their lackeys. You know what is in our nature? Crusades and Inquisitions.
For most of us, a favor for a friend isn't at the expense of society. The problem isn't the favor. It's the stealing millions and billions of dollars from everyone, and the stealing tens of thousands of jobs.
Yes, and I ran into the Ruski video before your article, too. Bribing officials isn't the same as helping out a friend. Your short oops-clicked-on-the-wrong-npc replies aren't claryfing anything.
I mean, if you asked a normal personal if societies should be run by byzantine mountains of bureaucratic rules or by personal relationships, I think a lot of people would choose personal relationships. I just didn't realize that the reason we don't do it, is because we call such personal relations "corruption".
Isn't it inherently White to be into the fair and free market, rather than this model which you see in the Global South?: https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/the-white-man-has-no-friends
For instance, I talked to some Singaporeans about why their shared infrastructure projects with Malaysia kept fizzling out -- it was corruption. The Singaporean government kept their word, but the Malay leaders kept embezzling the money and giving it to their friends. It was systemic. Such a people become very hard to work with effectively. Things don't get done.
I'm all for Parallel Society, building businesses together, taking over a town -- but I worry that this "actually corruption is based" notion goes too far
I don't entirely disagree with you. It's true that in a corrupt environment, it becomes a lot harder to do major infrastructure projects. Just look at the California Homelessness crisis, or the Somalis in Minnesota, or the high-speed rail in California. In a highly corrupt environment, major infrastructure projects fizzle out frequently.
With that said: we already live in a corrupt environment. We already live in a country where billions and billions of dollars disappear into a bureaucratic maze. The money gets funneled into anti-White or anti-American NGOs. It gets funneled into non-profits that hate the American people. It gets funneled into client populations that vote for corrupt politicians. If we already live in an environment where corruption is the standard, we can't fix it by simply throwing more money at the problem. The culture has shifted. Integrating into American society means utilizing the tools of corruption, or being run over by people who do.
If someone is going to benefit from these systems, it should be us, our friends, and our families. Like I said, the only way you're ever going to get a good job as a White guy is to know the right person. Your skills, abilities, and certifications are second to your friends and your network.
Meta Prime would concur: https://metaprime.substack.com/p/the-job-market-is-fucked-but-you
Well put. It's the same throughout the West. We have been captured. Power to you in the fightback.
Hiring someone you know isn't necessarily corrupt. Resumes and interviews aren't great proxies for the most important employee virtues: attitude, responsibility, and clue. Knowing someone well reveals those things.
Also true.
A nice surprise at the end. Thank you, Copernican. Best of luck navigating these troubled times, and finding meaningful paid work.
Meaningful or paid, seems these days you can only pick one.
I get a vague sense of feudalism from the descriptions. Not wrong... just not a good feeling. It otherwise feels like many rural cultures, where you largely can trust people to cooperate informally and ad hoc. Without contravening any explicit rules or systems, ofc.
The real trouble, is taken to it's logical conclusion, this goes off the rails pretty hard. Countering corruption is necessary for an efficient and reliable state. Corrupt states can't abduct foreign dictators without a single casualty.
I agree with you. For an efficient and reliable state, corruption must be stymied. At the same time, there aren't really any Western states that are reliable or efficient at this point. Combining freedom of association with resources inherently results in systems that would be described as "corrupt" in a Milton Friedman capitalist utopia. But there don't exist any truly classically liberal systems. Every person in a position of power utilizes that power to enrich his friends and allies at the expense of the body politic. Historically, we lived in towns and villages where most people would associate with the interests of their own community. Supporting the interests of your own community is a normal thing.
"Corruption" is when "bad" people enrich themselves at the expense of your community. "Community involvement" and "friends and family" are when you do it at the expense of their community. This is the result of having lost a single macroculture (see my microcultures article) and having lost a single moral operating ethos (see my article on why Christians are just psychos on a leash). Without those, we return to tribal warfare, just as humans always have.
I agree that corruption is the only way forward in regaining agency for non-elite natives, but there is tremendous danger in it. Corruption will make relationships transactional and narrow people's horizons so much that wider cooperation will be impossible. It will remake men in such a profound way that they may never change again; third-worldize america for centuries. The video by the russian tells it all, and such a society is not one i want to live in. That said, i cant really see how it can be avoided. Maybe enclaves can be built where a high trust society still exists despite the outside world's corruption.
Cooperation is already virtually impossible between competing groups now. Left and Right, White and Anti-White, Male and Female. Formalizing institutional low-level corruptive relationships will probably improve things significantly.
It may not be a society you want to live in, but for most of us, it's a society we already live in. We want a piece of the pie before others finish scraping the pan clean for themselves. We have a name for high-trust enclaves that look after each other at the expense of the broader body politic: corruption.
Thanks for this optimistic piece.
The world you describe is also attributable to large parts of the West, before technology and bureaucrats began flexing their muscles in the 1980s - I have a close friend who started his own business that way.
I feel for you because what you're facing in the result of 40 years or so globalising, bureaucratic neoliberalism which over time has expended much effort to close down personal relationships and create hate and distrust between people, while at the same capturing institutions at all levels of society to control the structures of people's lives. I have watched it evolve in real time to become the managerial, technocratic state you describe.
Power to you in fighting back against the machine. People the other side of the pond are trying it to but procuring grants or bypassing the bureaucrats is not easy: they have arbitrary power and are also controlled centrally.
I think in the end you will have to be more radical to claim your life back. Again power to you and the younger men who are increasingly coalescing in the West to do this.
This is basically the antithesis of meritocracy. If this is where we’re going we need to stop teaching children meritocracy is a thing.
We haven't lived in a meritocracy since at least the turn of the millennium.
Latin America also figured this out. There’s a reason why fifty percent of Mexico’s income is in the informal sector.
Thousands of Bomalians aren't figuring out shit. This was handed to them by the terrorists in government. The same terrorists who will deny your applications, and will find any excuse to block you and diminish your efforts. It's the same strategy where they bail out scamming millionaire bankers and investors, while prosecuting citizens for $600 transactions.
Corruption isn't doing favors for friends. Corruption is stealing from others. And good people can't do that. It's not in our nature, and nothing will change that.
The only solution is getting rid of these terrorists and their lackeys. You know what is in our nature? Crusades and Inquisitions.
Doing favors for your friends at the expense of the body politic is what?
For most of us, a favor for a friend isn't at the expense of society. The problem isn't the favor. It's the stealing millions and billions of dollars from everyone, and the stealing tens of thousands of jobs.
The article specifically talks about bottom-up, not top-down.
Yes, and I ran into the Ruski video before your article, too. Bribing officials isn't the same as helping out a friend. Your short oops-clicked-on-the-wrong-npc replies aren't claryfing anything.