I think the distinction between being good and being a nice guy is important. Each reflect a different character, with Mr Nice Guy being a projection, a commonplace phenomenon in a narcissistic era.
I think this is good framing for the work needing done. A deeper sense of decency needs to replace the performative bullshit we have been subjected to for too long. Using fake concern for women/foreigners/the differently sexual to attack normality in all its forms has taken its toll, not the least of which is the ever growing competency crisis we find ourselves in. Good people in charge would make a striking change.
I do sense the Nice Guy era is coming to close if for no other reason its exemplars tend to be incompetent and struggle to hide this. Time will tell.
There have been periods in my life, especially when I was much younger, when I was much too meek in my personal interactions with others; and, yes, I was basically a walking punchbag. There's no reason to think the political is any different from the social. In changing myself into a stronger and more assertive person I've had to struggle against a "revenge of the nerds" rage. I have overcome that, I believe; although it took a lot of effort and a long time. If so, then in politics I think it also possible to become more forceful without becoming evil. The good guys must do this if we are to succeed.
I think the crucial question for the farmers is whether they can successfully pitch their case as not being primarily about their own particular interest but rather for the common good, properly understood. After all, it is generally accepted that hardships of various sorts have to be endured by the public for regime-approved causes of the "common good" such as "Klimate (TM)".
Of course, in order to be able to make that argument for the farmers, a wider discussion and frame about national interest has to be set and I am not sure that the farmers are able and willing to do that.
As for the niceness of Donald Trump: There is an alternative, less popular (at least in our circles) explanation for his declared leniency, namely that this is part of a quid pro quo with the powers that be, which wanted him to become President, as AA has - IMHO - convincingly shown.
Part of Trump's enduring appeal is that people think that he *isn't* a nice guy, that he's willing to upset people, take the right decisions, go after corrupt bureaucrats and so on.
He has proved repeatedly that he is too eager to be liked and not laser-focussed enough to make good on that. The smiley reconciliation post was the latest example of that - issued to own the libs, but really just signalling apology for any offence caused, and core continuity in how American power functions.
I guess many are hoping that Musk and co, Project 2025 and so on will inject a bit more anti nice guy energy into American governance but it still remains to be seen.
I think he is a televisual not-nice guy. You're fired!
But a need to be liked or, in his case, admired, is often the fatal flaw of narcissists. They cultivate those who flatter their self-image. I have no doubt he can be ruthless, but he can obviously be manipulated as we saw last time.
If things go well in the coming years that might inspire more "good guy" protagonists in fiction. The "nice guy problem" is why I lost faith in the freeman-on-the-land movement. It assumes our enemy will play within the white lines of the ground he has created and not play foul to attack us. When you realize that our enemy is ruthless and dishonest you see him twisting the law of the land to suit himself. We've seen a lot of that lately! How many people were in jail for non-violent support of protests at the last count? So Trump and other populists, honest people who want to do good, should use the power they have to do good. Yes, Trump should arrest the criminals of the previous regime. If we get a populist PM he should arrest Starmer and his cronies.
I never understood the freeman of the land thing and the people who delve into archaic legal definitions, as if that matters. It's depressingly cynical, but also just reality that Power does what it wants and can, it will absolutely break its own proclaimed ideals.
One of my friends tried to default on council tax with FMOTL, but they still put her in jail. I realized at that point how futile it was to use the government's own system against them. It's like Boromir thinking he can use the One Ring to do good. (So often we use analogies from Tolkien. That writer really touched something deep and universal!)
One Virus to rule them all! - Alternatively - One climate crisis to rule them all! Never have there simultaneously existed so many over-arching pseudo-crises!
Well they can't exactly leave us is peace can they, James? With nothing to fear, or even a bit less, we might start asking why we need these overpaid underworked officious tax-guzzling dullards in Westminster or Washington.
You’ve summed up the difference between the nice guy and the good guy in one sentence. The former thinks one thing privately but says or does another in public, the latter does the right thing regardless of consequence. Eventually nature will out and the nice guys will perish along with the degenerate evil because neither is any good to the survival of the species.
The problem we have is that most normal "right wing " people like us fundamentally decent people but the creatures that rule us are absolutely evil but mask it using the language of human rights. So for example the Democrats in the states let 10 million illegal immigrants in for cares and shares meaning that in the unlikely event that the Trump administration start doing mass deportations then they will be the bad guys, the monsters and the "Nazi's.
Very good point. In our sacred-victim, entitled parasite culture human rights is the mechanism used to capture everybody – both the victims and their designated oppressors. Farmers, being normal white men, by definition cannot be sacred victims. Being a pessimist about modernist liberalism, I see no hope for any individual or group of white men when the state uses its authority to attack them. The only chance is that the modernist regime will one day lose its legitimacy in the eyes of a majority of influential white men in all sectors of the culture.
A common lament. It even occurs in things as mundane as minimum wage legislation. Those who think conservatively embrace the tragic vision; they accept reality, including the unpleasant aspects. The progressives have a vision and real life must be bent out of shape to achieve it. Net Zero is a key example; no amount of hardship is too much as the vision is just too appealing.
Being nice when the other side is shoving a red-hot poker up one's rectum is nothing short of sheer stupidity. The position of the farmers has already been vilianized by the MSM and they only present 2 choices: confirm or bend over. There are no other options. This whole concept of kindness is nothing more than a play for the masses and truly good people don't do that. No, instead, give them the worst option imaginable and show kindness by scaling it back when they finally give. Nothing else will work.
The farmers seem to be a broad coalition. Shit libs like Tim Farron, the usual tory suspects, most dissident right leaning people and now some labour MP's making mutterings.
Not sure if such a coalition can be directed, let alone highly organised.
Some parts of it will go brown trousers if things get pointed.
It's a good point, UK Column highlighted this on their Wednesay show. They claimed the framing would have to be anti-Globalist rather than anti-Labour.
So be it, better discussed away from the Five Eyes but it must be discussed regardless of consequences, it's is Collective fFeedom or Enslavement to Tyrants that is on the table.
Stopping fuel deliveries, especially in the winter, means people in northern climes will die. Fuel is used for far more than just getting an auto from point A to point B. I'm not saying they shouldn't do it I'm just saying that it wouldn't be a victimless act.
Thanks Morgoth, will listen to this tomorrow on my drive to the North of France. Never really rated Farrell as an outstanding actor before, but he is really exceptional in The Penguin.
I'm no expert on the farmer tax situation. From what I heard, it seems like it will severely fuck with a lot of farmers. Those who feel this is a matter of their livelihood have little to lose. Should those Hovis loathes rise to £5, most decent people will turn their anger on the government first, then we'll see.
I think the distinction between being good and being a nice guy is important. Each reflect a different character, with Mr Nice Guy being a projection, a commonplace phenomenon in a narcissistic era.
I think this is good framing for the work needing done. A deeper sense of decency needs to replace the performative bullshit we have been subjected to for too long. Using fake concern for women/foreigners/the differently sexual to attack normality in all its forms has taken its toll, not the least of which is the ever growing competency crisis we find ourselves in. Good people in charge would make a striking change.
I do sense the Nice Guy era is coming to close if for no other reason its exemplars tend to be incompetent and struggle to hide this. Time will tell.
Great analysis Morgoth.
I'm a strong believer in "the Meek don't inherite the Earth, they get crushed"!
There have been periods in my life, especially when I was much younger, when I was much too meek in my personal interactions with others; and, yes, I was basically a walking punchbag. There's no reason to think the political is any different from the social. In changing myself into a stronger and more assertive person I've had to struggle against a "revenge of the nerds" rage. I have overcome that, I believe; although it took a lot of effort and a long time. If so, then in politics I think it also possible to become more forceful without becoming evil. The good guys must do this if we are to succeed.
I think the crucial question for the farmers is whether they can successfully pitch their case as not being primarily about their own particular interest but rather for the common good, properly understood. After all, it is generally accepted that hardships of various sorts have to be endured by the public for regime-approved causes of the "common good" such as "Klimate (TM)".
Of course, in order to be able to make that argument for the farmers, a wider discussion and frame about national interest has to be set and I am not sure that the farmers are able and willing to do that.
As for the niceness of Donald Trump: There is an alternative, less popular (at least in our circles) explanation for his declared leniency, namely that this is part of a quid pro quo with the powers that be, which wanted him to become President, as AA has - IMHO - convincingly shown.
Part of Trump's enduring appeal is that people think that he *isn't* a nice guy, that he's willing to upset people, take the right decisions, go after corrupt bureaucrats and so on.
He has proved repeatedly that he is too eager to be liked and not laser-focussed enough to make good on that. The smiley reconciliation post was the latest example of that - issued to own the libs, but really just signalling apology for any offence caused, and core continuity in how American power functions.
I guess many are hoping that Musk and co, Project 2025 and so on will inject a bit more anti nice guy energy into American governance but it still remains to be seen.
I think he is a televisual not-nice guy. You're fired!
But a need to be liked or, in his case, admired, is often the fatal flaw of narcissists. They cultivate those who flatter their self-image. I have no doubt he can be ruthless, but he can obviously be manipulated as we saw last time.
If things go well in the coming years that might inspire more "good guy" protagonists in fiction. The "nice guy problem" is why I lost faith in the freeman-on-the-land movement. It assumes our enemy will play within the white lines of the ground he has created and not play foul to attack us. When you realize that our enemy is ruthless and dishonest you see him twisting the law of the land to suit himself. We've seen a lot of that lately! How many people were in jail for non-violent support of protests at the last count? So Trump and other populists, honest people who want to do good, should use the power they have to do good. Yes, Trump should arrest the criminals of the previous regime. If we get a populist PM he should arrest Starmer and his cronies.
I never understood the freeman of the land thing and the people who delve into archaic legal definitions, as if that matters. It's depressingly cynical, but also just reality that Power does what it wants and can, it will absolutely break its own proclaimed ideals.
One of my friends tried to default on council tax with FMOTL, but they still put her in jail. I realized at that point how futile it was to use the government's own system against them. It's like Boromir thinking he can use the One Ring to do good. (So often we use analogies from Tolkien. That writer really touched something deep and universal!)
One Virus to rule them all! - Alternatively - One climate crisis to rule them all! Never have there simultaneously existed so many over-arching pseudo-crises!
Well they can't exactly leave us is peace can they, James? With nothing to fear, or even a bit less, we might start asking why we need these overpaid underworked officious tax-guzzling dullards in Westminster or Washington.
You’ve summed up the difference between the nice guy and the good guy in one sentence. The former thinks one thing privately but says or does another in public, the latter does the right thing regardless of consequence. Eventually nature will out and the nice guys will perish along with the degenerate evil because neither is any good to the survival of the species.
Thank you for another excellent article.
The problem we have is that most normal "right wing " people like us fundamentally decent people but the creatures that rule us are absolutely evil but mask it using the language of human rights. So for example the Democrats in the states let 10 million illegal immigrants in for cares and shares meaning that in the unlikely event that the Trump administration start doing mass deportations then they will be the bad guys, the monsters and the "Nazi's.
Very good point. In our sacred-victim, entitled parasite culture human rights is the mechanism used to capture everybody – both the victims and their designated oppressors. Farmers, being normal white men, by definition cannot be sacred victims. Being a pessimist about modernist liberalism, I see no hope for any individual or group of white men when the state uses its authority to attack them. The only chance is that the modernist regime will one day lose its legitimacy in the eyes of a majority of influential white men in all sectors of the culture.
A common lament. It even occurs in things as mundane as minimum wage legislation. Those who think conservatively embrace the tragic vision; they accept reality, including the unpleasant aspects. The progressives have a vision and real life must be bent out of shape to achieve it. Net Zero is a key example; no amount of hardship is too much as the vision is just too appealing.
Their thinking is sentimental, not practical.
Being nice when the other side is shoving a red-hot poker up one's rectum is nothing short of sheer stupidity. The position of the farmers has already been vilianized by the MSM and they only present 2 choices: confirm or bend over. There are no other options. This whole concept of kindness is nothing more than a play for the masses and truly good people don't do that. No, instead, give them the worst option imaginable and show kindness by scaling it back when they finally give. Nothing else will work.
Being a good guy doesn’t mean shirking the pursuit of accountability.
The farmers seem to be a broad coalition. Shit libs like Tim Farron, the usual tory suspects, most dissident right leaning people and now some labour MP's making mutterings.
Not sure if such a coalition can be directed, let alone highly organised.
Some parts of it will go brown trousers if things get pointed.
It's a good point, UK Column highlighted this on their Wednesay show. They claimed the framing would have to be anti-Globalist rather than anti-Labour.
I read your reply shortly after Starmer plead his allegiance to Blackrock this evening.
UK column are on the money.
Fighting for your own means you can't comit Evil, instead of food being targeted maybe stopping fuel deliveries is better.
What fuel deliveries?
Fuel deliveries as in preventing Diesel and Petrol from being taken to petrol stations, then nothing moves at all.
Oh I see.
That seems to imply some highly controversial activity that might be dangerous to discuss.
So be it, better discussed away from the Five Eyes but it must be discussed regardless of consequences, it's is Collective fFeedom or Enslavement to Tyrants that is on the table.
Stopping fuel deliveries, especially in the winter, means people in northern climes will die. Fuel is used for far more than just getting an auto from point A to point B. I'm not saying they shouldn't do it I'm just saying that it wouldn't be a victimless act.
Exercising any form of leverage is going to negatively impact someone else in some way, shape or form.
If it doesn't, you don't have any leverage.
Thanks Morgoth, will listen to this tomorrow on my drive to the North of France. Never really rated Farrell as an outstanding actor before, but he is really exceptional in The Penguin.
Fantastic article, on the Penguin note, I hate all that superhero marvel/DC shite, however I did enjoy the Penguin, watched it all at the weekend.
I'm no expert on the farmer tax situation. From what I heard, it seems like it will severely fuck with a lot of farmers. Those who feel this is a matter of their livelihood have little to lose. Should those Hovis loathes rise to £5, most decent people will turn their anger on the government first, then we'll see.