Sticks vs Carrots

Niccolo Machiavelli argued that a Prince should prefer building loyalty based on fear rather than on love.
Because love is transient whereas fear is persistent. Loving followers can outgrow their love or be bribed.
Fearing followers are more reliable as there is very little reasons for some deeply seeded fear to wane.
And also fear is cheaper to create and maintain.

I guess, he wrote it, because he lived in a prosperous and generally peaceful world.
The world that did not make it his first thought that a fear can be shadowed by a greater fear --
can you imagine living in a world that does not prove you every day that there is no limit to brutality and fear.
But in our homeworld it is always possible to present a larger threat, but not always possible to present a larger bribe.
In our world of perpetual fear the value of fear diminishes... since at least some point between 19th and 20th century.

Stalin learned it the hard way.
He had built the largest and the best equipped (and arguably the most powerful) army in the world.
His army was forged by the tremendous fear of torture, family exile, poverty, hunger.
This entire army vanished with the first shots fired in their general direction.
Disappeared. Dissolved in the woods. Completely.
By the end of the summer 1941 the official army report states the losses of small firearms over 6M items.
(Since russians never bothered to count people accurately, the small firearms represent the best estimate of personnel losses.)
It turned out that being under fire is more scary than threats by commissars -- immediate death vs death threats -- guess who wins.
Eventually the great tidal rout was stopped by machine gun fire from the soviet side. Same lesson second time.

It was a preamble.

There are two kinds of white nationalism:
"you are free to have arbitrary preferences, you are free to associate with people of your race"
and
"you must serve your race, you ungrateful libtard, you owe your nation everything in your life"

Easy to see that the latter is prone to (malicious) substitution of "race" with any power structure, e.g.
govt, party, or nation state -- in this setting it is very easy to become a "race traitor" for criticizing a commissar --
which is already happening with non-white identitarian movements (which are compulsory as hell (and i am not going to speculate why they are)).
But wait, whites ventured this exact path even earlier.
Born in late 19th century millions of perfectly racist white people were sent enthusiastically across the ocean to kill other white people
in the name of "patriotism", which is a compulsory identitarian movement, and turned out to pursue interests of a non-white ethnic minority.
At the time of two world wars every militarily significant patriotism on Earth was also implicitly a white nationalism.
And over time, without any visible "turning point", the generation of proud american patriots who burned Dresden,
raised up a generation of their ideological and biological descendants, the modern proud patriots who are bragging how they fought racism
and are preaching how it is important to wage wars across the ocean in the name of "democracy".

You can argue that those are civnats and they are different, but...
The point is: you can trace an uninterruptible mutation lineage from compulsory identitarians of the past (with initially a reasonably racist platform)
to the perverted civnats of today openly defending interests of a hostile diaspora to the apparent detriment of white people.

Compulsion proves itself surprisingly susceptible to hijacking!
Because "you must" goes by definition against your gut feeling, "you must" is specifically designed (or evolved) to override your "i want".
Then there is very little difference between "you must defend democracy" and "you must defend our best allies" -- both feel wrong.
But you LEARNED to distrust your own understanding of your best interest;
and once you learned it, you learned to prefer "must", then the powerful of this world will change any arbitrary "must X"
to any other "must Y" in tiny increments that you can not perceive as a change of course.
Or even if you perceive the change... you still MUST! you are not supposed to reason.

On the other hand, your "wants" evolved to keep you and your children alive and safe inside a friendly society.
Granted, your "wants" are fine tuned for savanna and are terribly outdated by the lightning fast development of the civilization,
but can't we exercise some moderation in our austerity? Trust your gut feelings sometimes: trust your hunger,
trust your fears, trust your sexual preference, trust your in-group preference? Trust your friends more than you trust a big boss in DC?
Maybe? From time to time? Please?

If you love your kin because YOU WANT IT, then any faux kin (produced in bulk amounts by governments) feels radically different to you --
it feels wrong instead of right -- no govt would be able to divert you from your course.
But the whole point of "wants" is that you can not control them :) You can not force yourself to adopt free association :) That would be a living oxymoron :)
Before anything else, you just need to quit trusting the govt in order to reveal your best interests to yourself.
But this recommendation makes my argument somewhat tautological... doesn't it?

The lesson should be learned: the great catastrophe of the "western values" erosion (slow and gradual as it was)
is not limited to the devolution from "great white ideals" to "fighting racism", the real evil happened earlier,
when your great ideals grew compulsory, when they grew imposed onto the people as opposed to naturally desired --
and perhaps still earlier (!) when the disastrous idea of making everything good compulsory was planted into our civilization by Christianity.


hashtag: anarchy
hashtag: liberty 

P.S. Feel free to consider this a shameless shill for the Dixie because the Dixie identity is perfectly voluntary.
In our present setting it is more than voluntary, it goes directly against the compulsion -- it is being prosecuted by the govt.