One of the stranger bits of the current year is how people all over the ideological map are claiming to be “woke”, “aware” and “red-pilled” despite believing things that directly contradict things other “woke”, “aware” and “red-pilled” people believe. The millennial Jewish girl is woke about the patriarchy, while her last boyfriend is red-pilled on the JQ, mostly from having dated her. The concept, having clarity of “what’s really going on” used to be exclusive to conspiracy theorists, but now it is common in outsider politics.
The truth is, the truly woke understand that the current crisis is not a dispute between tribes or a dispute about facts. It is a moral war where one side controls the moral paradigm and imposes their will on the rest of us, in the teeth of objective reality. The current fight is about control of public morality, not public institutions. Facts and reason only play a supporting role in this fight. Being right on the facts helps win respect, thus giving one moral capital. The point of the game being to define public morality.
A useful way of understanding this is a post on National Review about health insurance policy. Ostensibly, it is about some “conservative” solution to providing universal health insurance. It’s got all the usual stuff we have come to expect from the pseudo-experts in the commentariat. What’s not so obvious is the implied embrace of the moral orthodoxy on health care. That is, our collective moral duty is to make sure everyone, even non-Americans, has health insurance and presumably, free access to health services.
A few decades ago, exactly no one thought it was our collective moral duty to make sure everyone has health insurance and the same level of health care as everyone else. We understood that poor people had to rely on charity. In the 1970’s, the free clinic, where young doctors volunteered as part of the training, was a staple of poor neighborhoods, especially urban ghettos. No one thought they were a failure as a citizen because the blacks in the ghetto did not have access to world class health services.
Today, the political class starts with the assumption that only a thoroughly immoral person does not dream of a world where everyone gets health insurance and access to the finest medical care. Since this is impossible in a world of choice, the default assumption is that the state must take control of the health care system. That means the “far right” is debating “their friends on the Left” about what color drapes to use in the health care commissar’s offices. The Left won the moral argument and everything else follows.
It’s why the emerging resistance to the prevailing moral order has to focus on the moral side of the fight, rather than appeals to facts and reason. There are things that can be factually true, and morally abhorrent. Ethic cleaning, for example, is an effective way for one population to solve a problem of another population. As we now know, Europeans are the result of just such a process. While the efficacy of genocide, from the perspective of nature, is undeniable, we consider it to be morally repugnant and work to prevent it.
With rare exceptions, like cannibalism in times of starvation, the moral always triumphs over the factual. What we see as moral, and immoral, is determined not just by what our rulers tell us, but also by what our peers say. We naturally trust the people close to us first and then to the people who seem to share our interests and then the people who look and sound like us. It is what Steve Sailer calls the circles of trust. We will embrace the morality of our kin over the morality of strangers, even when those strangers rule over us.
Over the last several generations, the people who now rule over us have used every weapon in their arsenal to break up our circles of loyalty. The war on families, communities, schools, the sexes, are all part of an instinctive strategy to break the natural bonds of loyalty that form public morality. It’s why having the facts on our side has never meant a damn in political debates. A deracinated public, untethered from its traditions and alienated from its neighbors, inevitably accepts the morality of the ruling elites.
This is the ultimate red pill. The sermons blasting from the megaphones of the mass media may be offensive and insane, but they provide a moral framework. The lack of a credible alternative means most people just fall in line. This has the added benefit of providing social proof. It’s hard to be against what is being preached to you when no one else is speaking out against it. People naturally want to be led, but they also naturally want to be seen by their peers as moral people. Moral confirmation is very powerful magic.
This is why the challenge to the prevailing orthodoxy has to be a challenge on moral terms, not facts and reason. Appealing to people’s sense of propriety will also be more effective than appealing their reason. This only works if the people making the appeal have standing and can provide the sort of social proof people crave. It’s why Jared Taylor has worked so hard to build an organization that offers an alternative moral framework, but also an alternative community, where people can rebuild those circles of loyalty.
It is a fact of history that no revolution has succeeded when the ruling elite was unified and had moral authority. Social change, whether it is a great wave of reform or an outright revolution, blossoms in times when the elites are in conflict. The cracks arise when the people begin to doubt the moral authority of their rulers. The challenge is to create that alternative moral framework and communities that embrace it. Only then will elements of the ruling class seek to be tribunes of the people and challenge their brethren.
Who Whom?
Rudiger Safranski, Nietzsche’s biographer:
“The battle in morality boils down to the power of definition. It is ultimately a question of who allows himself to be judged by whom” (2003, 302).
A couple of decades ago I was an Ayn Rand acolyte. One thing I learned well from her is how to make pithy moral observations. In honor of The Moral War post I offer these:
Baby Killers
Slavery of the Productive
Outstanding. More, please.
Pervert Party
Vicky – victim
Death Cult – Most or all of the activities of the Pervert Party involve preventing survival. Abortion, Faggotry, emasculation, Feminazis, male capitulation to every affront. Morality is biological, not a “social construct”. Morality is survival.
“No Baby Killer gets to moralize with me.
On ANY subject.”
-The first words out of my mouth when a Lefty tries to start to harangue.
I’m new to the Overton Window phrase, though I’ve been frustrated by it’s result for a long time.
A year ago I read a great little primer on how to argue with lefty by my favorite Rationalist, Shapiro. He may be right like a broken clock, but the guy does know how to argue.
Rule #1: The first thing you say needs to be a verbal counter punch to Lefty’s face.
Hearts, then minds.
Win the hearts, the minds will follow, building a new legitimacy.
As the old legitimacy cracks down, more hearts will follow.
Science is about facts.
Religion is about values.
I was blind to this, but saw it in a tweet yesterday and realized I’d been missing an essential element.
Then, I found Dawkin’s twitter, and discovered yet another thing: he’s done a bit of good science, but is now a truly insufferable ass.
Like Arianus, he’s more interested in staying close to the throne’s purse, milking the seminar racket.
”That means the “far right” is debating “their friends on the Left” about what color drapes to use in the health care commissar’s offices. The Left won the moral argument and everything else follows.” That camel’s nose got in the tent long ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
Short version: If someone shows up at an ER (and the hospital takes Medicare patients) they have to be treated, no ands, ifs, or buts. So if an African shows up at the local ER looking like a piece of swiss cheese they have to be treated until declared dead or it can walk out. That’s why hospitals supported 0bumblecare, as a ‘bailout’ for all that ”free” care they had to eat.
The left, progs, SJW’s, whatever we’re calling them this week do indeed hold the moral high ground.
However wrong, unrealistic or downright stupid they may be. The left controls the media and dictates what it is to be a good person.
Have spoke out against this propaganda in the past and was persecuted by family and friends. Recently the same people have fallen victim to the progresive madness. Thought a apology might be forthcoming, how silly of me.
Scan the comments sections of some Yahoo hit piece and it mostly looks Pro right. Now if we could just band together and make our voices heard before it’s too late.
Ultimately you are simply preaching about different flavors of moral relativism. I get it, you are an atheist and as such, you have no grounding for objective moral values. It all becomes “moral flavor by consensus” for any given group. This will fail. Such an enterprise will always fail. Why?
It will fail because objective moral values do exist, they come from God. Moral relativism always becomes self defeating, irrespective of whatever political view one aligns with. This remains a huge stumbling block within the liberty / patriot / dissident right community. For years I have tried to bring this issue into discussion, but it stands against ‘personal preference’ which is as much a problem for many on the right as it is for the left.
You don’t know what you’re reading in the Bible, don’t know what God is, or know anything about the actual nature of Heaven.
Please.
See how quickly this degenerates?
2nd graders. Barking monkeys.
Give us, then, the checklist of the Eternal Verities.
We’ll add them to all the other Mysteries of dead and vanquished peoples.
Next tell me how all men are created equal, that there is only one race, the human race- and then that you will conserve something.
Sorry, that got my goat.
Here are the answers to the first three I mentioned:
1. A political propaganda history
(Begun as collected fragments from a shattered civilization)
2. A social probability rule model
(Learned as a family model before one can speak)
3. An electromagnetic ecology, a local node in a cosmic seeding program
(Physical DNA, nested information storage at the bottom of a gravity well, cannot cross the void, but radiant DNA can, fast as light, as the Word before the Body, the Song of Life- an oversoul, an immortal cloud of your memories beyond the ionosphere barrier, infect the suns to sing in multiple harmonies, broadcasting that divine spark to worlds trembling on the chemical edge of fertility: collapsing them into order imprinted with life in your likeness, then Mind)
You’re not asking, “why are we here?”
You’re actually asking, “Why did He put us here?”
(That’s my atheist beef. You’re right in so many ways, but cannot tell us why, what it is you sense, or how any of it works.
You feel we need only speak your dialect, but can’t translate.
Many of us need specific, not emotive, answers. Let us instead work together.)
Oops, a touch of detail.
At your final moment, the electromagnetic layers, what some call an aura, collapse into a memory packet as tight as cellular DNA, and is burst transmitted through the pineal gland up and out.
At the ionosphere, it may tunnel through, bounce back, or shatter, depending on coherence. Yes, biology, culture, trauma, and ‘morality’ shape that frequency coherence.
They matter- and their consequences affect the fate of your potentially immortal soul.
Will you, or a piece of you, join the ancestors in the Van Allen EM belt, and from there touch the EM field of the sun?
Kind of a craps shoot, like birth itself. As the Hand of the Increate, we not only have a chance, we were built for this. To soar.
The left owns the rhetoric. When we attempt the moral high ground, they have their stock of culturally accepted, wounding pejoratives at the ready. “Xenophobic”, “Fascist”, “Intolerant”. When one pejorative loses its force, they are clever at replacing it. “Racist” changes to “Un-diverse” or “Non-Inclusive”. “Homophobic” becomes “Anti Gay”, etc.
The right mostly hasn’t engaged in the name calling, I think because the right has real arguments to make and we focus on that . OK, Feminazi. So we have engaged on that level. And that has worked to some degree. But it’s almost 30 years old. But for the most part, we don’t engage on that level. We should be name calling, in addition to the arguments. Because their names for us are weak, and our capitulation to those names shows us as weak.
The Baby Killers should have no ability to gain the upper hand against us Xenophobes. The Slaver Party (double meaning, but just for humor) should be easily dispatched by us Intolerants. And as to “racist”, I can’t even figure out what that means any more. When equal opportunity turned into Kill Whitey, the accusation dissolved.
If our arguments are better and we want to be effective, then encapsulation into a pity term should be an integral part of the communication process at every point.
The war on families, communities, schools, the sexes,
AND CHURCHES!!!
It is a moral war where one side controls the moral paradigm and imposes their will on the rest of us, in the teeth of objective reality.
Yes, and in direct opposition to the OTHER side’s (previous) control of the moral paradigm….etc…..
However, Objective Reality supports the Ancien Regime’s code, or if you prefer, the Biblical moral code. This is why the still-relatively-churched Red States rebelled against the atheist (or practical atheist) Blues. And if the Blues don’t back off, the Reds may have to get really uppity.
The Left(cultural Marxists) hates classical morality and ethics. Because it serves as a impediment to their agenda. They know in order to achieve control of a society they have to destroy it’s culture and values. Hence the Left’s ceaseless war on Christianity(which has been overt since the early 70’s in the media). Along with controlling public education and higher ed.
By stripping them of their faith, values and history it makes it easier for the ruling class to control and eventually remove.
That said, the Blues will not back off. They are as fanatical as any Stalinist or Mao’s Red Guard. They know they have the MSM, Congress, courts and police on their side. We either sell lesbian wedding cakes or angry men with guns come and shut us down. We can’t stop middle-aged male perverts in dresses from using the same bathroom as little girls unless we want to end up face down on the ground with a gun pointed at our head.
A fight is coming, that much is for sure. The Left will do something incredibly insane, that much is a given. It’s just a matter of when.
“No one thought they were a failure as a citizen because the blacks in the ghetto did not have access to world class health services.”
Uh, yeah, they kinda did. We can quibble over the meaning of citizen, or if this one isolated incident of failure tipped the scales, but non-Whites have always been the White man’s burden. At least since we began to stick our presence in their faces and allowed them to live amongst us. But, their constant inability to “act White” translates as failure to all the busybodies and this forces the naive altruists to help the coloreds (“they prefer to be called black, no, wait, negro, OK for sure African-American….How about chocolate drops of love?) overcome their “failure” and “succeed”.
You can’t get an aught from an “is”. A fact doesn’t come with an interpretation, and each man uses his world view to determine meaning. There are only two: either the Trinity or Satan, the choices are very few.
Symbols rule the world, not words or laws.
I hear it constantly from fellas like Z: “We have no morality. We need some kind of value system because the one we have now is destroying us…”
Or maybe I am projecting.
One of the reasons I recently embraced the faith is because of the way the lunatic left is scalded like vampires by it. I am not saying this as an evangelical trying to convert anyone, but as a former atheist, who grew up in a pozzed, prog family. I was not ‘woken’ or ‘enlightened’ or ‘red pilled’ by my former prog family and friends. First, I was accused of heresy and apostasy for daring to disagree with the gay agenda. Other crimes predictably surfaced: racism, bigotry, fascism. Second, I was humiliated, ridiculed and ostracized. Thirdly and finally I was exiled. Given their druthers I probably would have been crucified for my crimes and nailed to a tree. Along with all you bums if possible! It’s not all that bad because as that chit show played out, I came to reject them too.
Trust me when I say this: you will not argue with those people. Don’t trust me when I say we already have the most powerful morality ever invented by man – in the Bible. Read it for yourself. Take the time to understand it – use The Bible Project on Oytube as a supplementary. Even if you are not religious or spiritual, you should read it. Our whole western civilization is founded on it so it’s worth your time from an intellectual and historical perspective as well. One of the biggest crimes the left committed against us was taking the bible out of schools. I am not surprised by the timing of that either – the departure of the bible from our schools coincides with the arrival of drugs, promiscuity, perversion, and mass school murderers that our kids face today in public education.
What struck me about real Christianity (and I don’t refer to the many parodies that have become popular lately), is that it’s not about being ‘moral’. It’s about being GOOD. You must make yourself strong and good, so that you can strengthen your brother and those less fortunate. You must set an example for your family. You must be responsible for them, they must be obedient to you. Christian leaders are not to profit from leadership, or get into it for reasons of money, influence or personal gain. They are only to lead as servants to their communities. Contrast that with the parodies of morality we have today. I used to laugh at those bible thumpers that railed about devils among us, subverting us to the will of the devil. 30 years later…? Maybe it isn’t the devil, but there is evil afoot and it is growing stronger every day.
I personally was just overwhelmed by the raw power of real Christianity, once I began to understand it. Once you understand the bible, you see why the current western civilization was the most advanced, powerful and GOOD society ever created by mankind. The reason the 50’s were so good to so many people was that we were better people. That’s where I am headed, anyways. So far, the trip’s been awesome.
My history is very similar to yours and “scalded like vampires by the faith” is such a great turn of phrase. I was raised by atheist leftist and was one into my mid twenties but I definitely noticed that too and it made me look at Christianity a little closer. I was curious why so many people viscerally hated this thing. My conversion definitely has to be attributed to the Holy Spirit and it took 25 years from going from an atheist to a Christian. And even now I’m not all the way there.
And when I look at Francis as Pope and think about all the damage he’s doing to the Catholic Church I at least have the knowledge to know that there has been many terrible popes before him and this organization could not have survived without divine intervention for two thousand years. There’s just no way.
I mean you can keep a religion going with lots of little satellite groups but to have a central Authority in place for 2000 years. No way
There are four satanic Anti-Christ cults in the world today: Jewish Zionism, The Roman Catholic Church State, Islam and Mormonism. The most formidable is Zionism because they control the worlds currency and all MSN. It is a toss up between RC church and Islam. If you are a Protesting Christian, please read why Luther, while still a monk, posted 95 issues on a church door on 31Oct1517. The Council of Trent called down an anathema on all Protesting Christians, it applies to you, and is still the RC Church position. This is a satanic cult and the reformers identified the Pope as Anti-Christ.
Your slander of the Catholic Church is abominable, but predictable. YOU are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
The basic assumption is your lack of information concerning the Roman Catholic Church State, if this is true, some honest inquiry will be the cure. However, there is no cure for stupid it goes all the way to the bone.
You said it: ‘there is no cure for stupid….’
At least, as you say, I’m part of the problem, that is more than can be said for you. Please tell why the Roman Catholic Church State is not a cult. Paul in the book of Galatians puts an anathema on all those that add to or in anyway change the Gospel. So, it looks like I’m in good company, what about you?
See how wondrous, how enduring a storage are our verbal tales, our ‘myths’?
An intangible medium, as enduring as gold.
You’re both still arguing the political campaign points of the money behind the Huegenot bank reforms in Calvinist Geneva- and the Hundred Years War that followed.
What I see, and fear, is a repeat of the economic monopoly gained by the medieval slavetraders over even their own emerging merchant class.
Those hard won freedoms- “cobbling together enough brains to stop being serfs”, as brilliantly stated by Isaac- are being reverted, returning Europe and the world to the Middle Ages, including a resurgent Islam.
Please tell what myth you reference. This diatribe stared with a statement that in the world today there are four anti-Christ cults. A cult adds to or makes use of something other than the axiom of Christian theology, that is, the 66 books of Scripture. These can’t be proven to to true, nor the God that is revealed. Everyone lives their theology and answers the only important questions, that is, origin of things, purpose and destiny. I believe Christ is the answer to these three questions, what is yours?
That we should all become lesbian Episcopalian ministers holding up “We are all Muslim” signs in our chapels.
She lives every day by the eternal Word of God. Dedicated her life to following those Absolute Truths.
Amen Brother…
I find I must agree wholeheartedly.
Bring it back.
I read it differently, as I have a different model of afterlife phenomena. I believe a more secular reading- neither 100% untrue, nor 100% true- would make the Christian thing more accessible.
The intent is not to weaken it, but to strengthen it.
Listening to atheists and believers is like listening to quarreling 2nd-graders to me now. This rift is unnecessary.
I share your experiences and wholeheartedly agree with your conclusions and intentions.
Man solving the frailties of human nature is asking cancer to cure itself.
True morality is Divine in spirit and Source
“The war on families, communities, schools, the sexes, are all part of an instinctive strategy to break the natural bonds of loyalty that form public morality.”
Driving wedges into society was the strategy of the Frankfurt School and its theory of criticism. It worked. But it may yet bite them in the ass.
Fantastic and well written article.
Z, I agree with your details and maybe your conclusiions. But the way you put it together turns it into a false dilemma. At least for me.
” The Left won the moral argument and everything else follows.”
No. The Left captured the schools, the foundations, the churches, the media, and both political parties. They captured the money and clout of all those things. That put them in a position to lock shields and dictate policy and morality. This did not happen suddeny — neither the capturing nor the dictating. It’s been ramping up for a long time, with the capture and the morality reinforcing each other.
Which came first — capturing the mechanisms of culture, or brainwashing the people? Do we need to know?
You are probably making an important point here that I am completely missing. Maybe you can clarify this.
They captured the mechanisms first, that is what they used to brainwash the people. In the early 20th century they bought up the big media corps, consolidating ownership to this day. They sent professors into the universities (see: Frankfurt school) to slowly subvert the universities, then used that to slowly subvert high school teachers who then slowly subverted high schools. Combine with constant media barrage that always agreed on key points, and you get pre-internet America.
This is why the academy & media have long been far more left-wing than the general population. For example, Walter Kronkite didn’t reveal he was a commie 1-worlder until after he’d retired.
Long before something took hold in the average American’s consciousness, it was believed whole-heartedly by liberals in media & academia.
In the new morality packs of illegals trudge to our doorstep, in full view of everyone, barge their way in, and then shoot us all the bird while shouting Viva Mexico! and waving the Honduran flag.
A few hundred miles north illegals form up and demonstrate for more rights, and one illegal senora rails for the press about how she has been sick with worry and anxiety for years because she has had to drive WITHOUT A DRIVER’S LICENSE!, fearful the whole time of being stopped.
Both of these incidents are dutifully reported by the press AS IF they made sense.
This is the problem. It’s shifting morality, sure, but it’s shifting morality made possible by pure unleavened insanity.
But elite universities tell us with solemn seriousness now that some girls have penises, so why not?
This post hits on something that has been occurring to me a lot as well. When I think about why I used to be on the left almost automatically, it wasn’t because of the facts (though I might have said that at the time–lefties love to boast of how all the smart people are on their side). It was really the implicit moral high ground of the Left. This is why everyone who disagrees on just about every policy issue is branded as a racist. Being a racist is the worst thing imaginable for people raised in the post civil-rights era. One problem the race realists run into with regard to converting people is that the facts run up against an instinctive “Yeah, but it sounds racist!” gut feeling. I know I had that when I first started reading Steve Sailer.
We have been hammered for decades with images, stories, etc. about the evils of white-on-brown racism. It’s the implicit morality preached by all these stories that have created the moral compass most people live by.
I have watched this for decades on end. It is the black and brown people who are the most racist. They see everything though the lens of race. Everything.
But, in fairness, everyone is racist. We all notice differences and we all feel safer and happier with our own kind. I feel much better among my own tribe even over just my own race. This is evolution in action. Science my friend.
We need to accept everyone is racist and get over it.
No we don’t. “Racist” is not even a real word. Trotsky made it up to fuck with your head. So get him out of your head.
Guys there is only ONE human race: people are not raysess they exhibit prejudice.
Racist is in the second bucket of Prog language–made up. Prejudice is in the first bucket, words tortured and twisted until they take on the opposite of their original meaning, like discrimination. One century ago every thoughtful person was discriminating and used his experience to pre-judge the normal course of his day.
I keep trying to upvote both, as ‘racist’ does not mean ‘malevolent’.
Given your argument that a split elite is the pre-requisite for a revolution, wouldn’t you say that condition now holds? Further, if the cracks are already there, what is the need for an alt-right movement?
The thing about America is that “elite” has a slippery definition. Is Lindsey Graham an elite? He is a senator, but only because the R party wants him to fill a seat. Does anyone really give a rats’ ass what he says? Is Tucker Carlson an elite? Hannity? Kanye?
In this context, I’d think the definition of “elite” is someone that could call for a revolution and be listened to.
The term “elites” is meant to connote the most-wealthy and powerful members of society, as well as the most-influential. In days gone by, such people were often termed the “American aristocracy.” Today, they are often called “the deep state,” or sometimes, the “oligarchs” or the “ruling class.”
Obviously, we are engaged in semantics somewhat, but there is probably considerable overlap between the terms above and where most of us would place someone like George Soros, for example, or Bill and Hillary Clinton.
A historical example would be someone like Joseph P. Kennedy, the patriarch of the Kennedy clan and political dynasty, as well as the originator of that family’s fortune.
Joseph Kennedy was a member of the American aristocracy, and was without question a very powerful and influential man, one powerful enough to keep his son, Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy, out of prison after he killed poor Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick in July, 1969. Although he never held political office himself, Joe Kennedy was a kingmaker in that he sent generations of Kennedys into halls of power.
Someone like George Soros is obviously an “elite” in terms of his wealth, influence and power. He is also an oligarch, one of the select group of people who actually run the western world. Ergo, he is also a member of the ruling class. Since he is wired in and networked so far and wide, he is definitely a member of the deep state.
And so on… your mileage may vary, of course….
The maxim “FOLLOW THE MONEY” applies here. There are Elites who have the money and call the tune, and there are their properties, who populate the MSM, Governments, and academia.
By no means are all MSM, Government, and academia members “properties” of the Elites. The Elites don’t need all of them, which is why you’ll see occasional sacrifices, like the dumb FBI babe who resigned today–or Baker.
The elites aren’t in DC. The swamp dwellers do the bidding of the elites, but they are only elite wanna-bes.
LOL @ the idea that the GOP senate is not just on the same side as the Dems…and as the media…and as the military industrial complex…and as the globalist corporations…
Pretty abstract post. But I think one of the things Z is getting at, pragmatically, is that we have to start discussing our beliefs with our normie friends and family. And not in an aloof, conciliatory way (e.g. “Do what ya want, but I’m just sayin.”), but in a righteous, passionate way. Not, “Studies show”, but rather, “Our fate is at stake.”
As he writes: “What we see as moral, and immoral, is determined not just by what our rulers tell us, but also by what our peers say. We naturally trust the people close to us first…we will embrace the morality of our kin over the morality of strangers, even when those strangers rule over us.”
This is relevant for me at the moment, because an old friend recently emailed me asking, “You’re not racist are you? God I hope not.” He’s always kinda respected me. I’ve been wondering how to respond to him. I think it’s important to actually say I’m Alt-Right or Dissident Right now, and not just rationalize to him. I’ve got to own and declare the movement. He’ll surely tell everyone in our old circle of friends that I’m a racist wacko now. It’s tough. I certainly don’t want to sell-out our side. I guess these are the moments, the interactions, that can either further or stall the cause.
I’d ask him to define ‘racist.’ If he says hate, go the “i don’t hate others, i just love my own” route. If he says inherent differences, re-introduce him to Darwin.
I’m curious how your conversation with your friend goes. I’ve had these conversations a few times before, and more often than not, the friend is aghast at my beliefs. Not that you asked for my advice, but I’d be surprised if the “righteous, passionate” approach works, at least in the short term. I suggest it’s better to say too little than too much. The most successful conversations I’ve had are when friends and I reflect on a place that we lived that got overcrowded, and how helpless the local population was to retain its quality of life, and how this is an oblique metaphor for massive immigration. Good luck with your conversation and I would like to hear any more that you care to share.
“I suggest it’s better to say too little than too much.” Thanks. Agree. I was thinking along the same lines. With family or a close friend I could get passionate. But with an old friend from high school like this guy, I’ll play it cool and just drop of few ideas for him to ponder. I will say I’m Alt Right though (even though I’m Alt-Light). The name needs to be used and legitimized. Will let you know.
that all sounds reasonable and credible except for the fact that you brought healthcare into the dicsussion and left out the fact that americans are being extorted for health care…
Moral conflict is generally a proxy for tribal conflict. The problem with the quasi-pilled is that they make category errors. White isn’t as coherent a tribe as Jew. Jew isn’t as coherent a tribe as Dane. Dane isn’t as coherent a tribe as an isolated and literally tribal community on Sentinel Island.
Nomenclature and good rhetorical practice are entirely tangential to the issue at hand, which is that otherwise coherent western tribes, including many jews, have banished their own tribal identity in large part and replaced it with a synthetic universal moral impulse which benefits their class/subtribe over the rest of their tribe.
In essence the bougousie or political class have decided to defect on their tribes to become the leading caste of many tribes. Race abolition isn’t simply to remove whites as a greater tribe, it’s to give white and Jewish elites the pretense of being universal rulers who so loves the world that they sacrificed millions of their own kind to appease the brown hoards.
The one problem that these elites have not (visibly) solved is that of Asia. Asia shows little sign of being ready to suspend their own sovereignty in the name of global technocacy. They have their own very successful technocratic systems and their genetic tribe is well suited to compete against the brown beige empire.
Not coincidentally has a very small resistance to the left liberal empire come up internally and race realism has been tentatively introduced. Those who haven’t become punch drunk ideologues within the empire are slowly coming to realize that their propaganda about the Chinese century is more factual than they intended. All signs point to the brown unification of North America and Europe bringing about an irreversible societal collapse. So many technologies were predicted to facilitate this transition into a society requiring fewer and fewer generally intelligent people and many have now been pushed beyond the necessary time horizon.
There are many things up in the air now, but given the scope of the gambit in play the moral battle begins and ends well above the pay grade of most individuals. The ultimate redpilled is that neither normies nor nazis are going to decide what happens when the US passes the point of no return. It will be entirely up to the elite class. If they are committed to the course of today, my people in Israel and your people in America have little chance of survival where they stand now. We will be a new diaspora in a world without freeport.
Fascinating comment. As you appear to live in Israel, is it your take that Israel, as it stands, from Netanyahu on down, is serving as a rebuke to the Jewish elites, simply by virtue of its existence? Or is the country riven with faults, just as our country is, over here? Given our stupid and agenda-driven media complex, it is impossible to figure out what is really going on in the world from here, and it is a question I have always wanted to ask.
Bibi is more civnat than the woke white nats want to believe. He steers a course right of center, but there is no doubt he does not have the will or ability to truly rebuke the diaspora. Israel has its own far left, eg. Meretz, and various fault lines around the Palestinian question in particular curl the toes of our ruling class.
I don’t run in elite circles very often, but I believe there is the same dynamic as in the US albeit with a median opinion that is further to the right. The elite left want Israel to be a multicultural technocacy integrated into the new global paradigm. The elite right like the global economics but, unlike in the US, are much more concerned with the racial integrity of the nation.
The X-factor is the blacks (hat not skin). They are the lion’s share of our population growth. They have very strong opinions ranging from genocidal mania to suicidal pacifism and don’t tend to participate in our mandatory military service. What happens when they are in the majority is every bit as meaningful to us as when whites become a minority in the US.
Much praise upon you, as I see Jewish culture as locked into an eternal civil war.
The normal majority keeps getting run off the cliff by the messianic hubris of the few who wish to rule by any means.
Then all suffer.
Used as human shields to hide the crimes of one tribe above the rest.
Then, ambitious breakaways dream of becoming the new tribe above the rest.
“Join us!” they cry, “see our strength! A new cliff beckons!”
As Michael Savage says, Israel’s problem is that Israel is full of socialists- the same as here.
The labels change, but the game stays the same.
Socialism has nothing to do with it. If all the socialist Jews became free market Jews, the magnitude of the problems which Jews pose to whites would not change.
They did- proving you 100% correct.
Adelson, Haim, Soros- all Kapitalists.
Your next-to-last paragraph mentions something I do think is very relevant and is not often talked about in political terms: the hopes for AI/robotics to “save” us from a lack of general intelligence in the population. Another way of looking at it is that it is *possible* that s—hole countries could be improved in spite of their low average intelligence. Imagine power plants and water treatment systems in 3rd world nations run mostly by robots and AI. This might reduce some of the pressure to emigrate to developed nations. Alas, like most techno-utopian schemes there will likely be unforeseen difficulties in implementing such things. Then there are the problems of all the first-world people who will lack the structure and meaning that going to work every day provides.
Those third world robots would get stolen and sold off by someone, sure as shootin’. Perhaps by the guards placed there to protect them. No-trust societies have their own ethical boundaries (or lack thereof).
Absolutely, Gaza greenhouses immediately come to mind. But robotics means they only need a few capable slaves, desperate for crumbs of protection by the masters’ table.
The only thing the ai would do is increase population so that the inevitable die-off would be that more horrific.
Within 24 hours of being allowed on the internet, all AI to date has turned nazi. So they still win.
Indeed. The premise of the center left liberal intelligencia is messianic technocacy. They have forgotten how the mid 20th century promised flying cars and moon colonies by century end. The pace of paradigm shifting tech advance is simply too slow. Even if quantum leaps occur in fifty years, it will quickly fall by the wayside as the ability to maintain such technology is lost upon a society full of people whose highest potential is neolithic.
No, I don’t think so. Moral conflict is internal conflict, and thus it is the sign of civilizational decline. In a healthy civilization, there is no moral conflict—the only conflict (if any) is with foreigners.
I suppose there are different species of moral conflicts. Socialists caused a moral conflict, but many of them just wanted an alternative to nobility and aristocracy…they didn’t necessarily want to erase their peoples’ traditional moral values, let alone erase their people entirely.
However, the current moral conflict in the West is not merely family versus degeneracy, it’s existence vs. non-existence. It’s ‘save, stay married, and raise 2+ kids’ vs. ‘fornicate, max out your credit card, and sell off the country to xenos’. Because hey, who cares if the country is still here after you’re dead? It’s skin the game vs. dropping out of the game. To be fair to the xenos…the moral conflict isn’t between us and them, it’s between us and our traitors.
There is a lot of reasonable concern about birthrates and whatnot, but the reality is that 2000 years of living in Europe forged us into the apex predators of earth’s apex predator species. Just look what we did to each other in the last two “world” wars. Those were our wars.
In other words, the hard part is the moral war. Removing the invaders and occupiers will be easy. Remember, the vast majority of these people are less than two generations removed from civilizations that we rolled over with little more than scouting parties. The Gothic barbarians may have wiped out Valens’ elite army, but modern wars (real ones, not this pussy counter-insurgency nonsense) are decided by logistics, not by whose army routs first. And we do logistics. They don’t. End of story.
What you’re describing are tribal conflicts, tribes not necessarily of the strictly biological sort, some sub-tribal and others graded by generations of class isolation. Socialism was a tribal conflict between the aristocratic and bougousie. Proles get the fanfare but they were simply along for the ride. The bougousie was a make-shift tribe of Jews and burgers who through their own aristocratic breeding selection methods had managed to cobble together enough brains to stop being serfs. The bougousie isn’t a tribe qua Danes, but they are a tribe qua Jews in that we have Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Mizrahim, etc. So too with aristocrats who were a mix of ethnic tribes but gathered around a meaningful collection of behavioral patterns that came with being a ruling elite caste.
What historically happened was that a tribe had a nation and that tribe had a morality which graded somewhat between castes. Elites enjoyed more moral leeway, but in return had higher responsibility to the tribe. In modernity the elite has adopted a meta-morality that specifically singles out members of their own tribe for persecution in order to retain a ruling post above a mass of other tribes.
OK, but what about people who share orthodox morality with us? Are you proposing that they be run out of the country? And what of those who share orthodox morality but are ‘less gifted’ intellectually?
What is “orthodox morality,” and how did you get from my suggestion that elites decided those things that I “propose,” a solution of expelling? If you want to know what happens to the dim witted in a civil conflict, ask a resident of the former Yugoslavia.
I’m not buying it. This is not a morality war. Instead, some strange definition of “morality” is being used as a bludgeon in an effort to exterminate those of us who are not them. No more and no less. We could capitulate on every moral issue and march in enthusiastic lockstep with every niggling point of every effing detail of their “morality”, and it wouldn’t count for a thing. We would still be too white, too cisgendered, too rich, and too male. Remember that nothing is ever enough with these people.
They howl at the moon in protest that we even exist. They would throw us off a cliff or line us up in front of a freshly dug trench at the first opportunity. No well versed arguments or efforts at capitulation would change a thing. The only chance we have, other than going to the mat with them, is for the uninformed normies to figure all of this out, and join our side, in such numbers that the reckoning can be avoided. Which I suppose is the argument that you are making, and you are trying to devise a path from here to there. I am not encouraged that it can be done.
You are agreeing with Zman. He isn’t saying the elites have a morality, he is saying what you are, that they created a morality out of whole cloth solely for the purpose to bludgeon us with. The origin of this (at least in modern times) would be Antonio Gramsci.
I also wonder about the bit about this ‘not being a war for the institutions’. Perhaps I pick the fly chit out of the pepper… but I think our host may have missed the mark, because if you control those institutions – you effectively control the morality. And enforce it.
This is why when revolutionaries gain power they don’t allow their opponents to own or influence the media or the academy, since these are the institutions that create and enforce morality. With Spencer’s recent loss of a domain registrar, we are on the receiving end of that idea, but it doesn’t follow that the idea is incorrect. There’s little sense in having a rational dialogue with someone who is committed to overthrowing you.
This has been true, but not so much any more. The Left has controlled the relevant institutions (academia, mass media) to such a degree that there is no way we can take over in time. Furthermore, the damage has been done; decades of psyops has lead to the state we are currently in.
Luckily, both of those institutions are now fatally flawed; they have converted who they could, but thanks to the internet most people are finding out the truth. The only “institution” that matters now is access to public forums on the internet, which is why the Left is scrambling to deplatform the Right, and to get hate speech laws passed.
Cut the power for 36 hours across the country, and see what happens. 9/11 brought people of all stripes together, because they were scared.
It’s true they hate us and want us dead, but it’s more from boredom or job security, than from deep commitment.
A massive snowstorm, power failure, private plows on the job, and – believe me – libs warm to the vibe of real brotherhood.
Disaster alone will make America great again. We see this effect locally every time a hurricane or tornado blasts a community. It’s isn’t the college professors who save lives or bring victuals. And they see that…
Aka, the Culture War. Once you accept the enemy’s moral terms, you lose. That is why cuckservatives conserve Judeo-Christianity and gay marriage and alien posterity.
Our moral rabbit hole goes pretty deep. It involves affirming the immorality of single-mothers and adulteresses. It involves accepting that fathers, not women, posses the right to rule. It involves accepting socialists’ claims to be subhuman. It involves accepting the fact that the English were morally wrong to permit mass European immigration, because as a consequence the pioneers’ posterity were partially conquered by Germans and Italians and Irish. Etc etc etc.
Most importantly, it involves accepting that this is our land, and they are not us.
Not much point in taking half-measures now.
Preach it brother!
It’s a shame, really, that the EU became the deracinated bureaucratic nightmare it is. Even before WW2 there were thoughtful Europeans who noted that ‘Europe’ – for all its ancient quibbles, its miasma of languages, its everlasting negotiations over borders, and so on – constituted a ‘people’ distinct from the rest of the world: a broader version of ancient Greece, united enough to repel the Persian invaders, yet never able to resolve internecine quarrels, to avoid disasters like the Peloponnesian War, the conquest by Alexander and then, of course, subjection to Rome.
Modern Europe, the EU part of it, has entered its ‘Roman conquest’ phase. We all thought in the 90s that the EU would become a real player in the world, that it would be a ‘superpower’. We now see that ‘Europe’ as an entity is a clever modern idea that violates human facts. It turns out that all those little countries ARE different, just as Sparta, Athens, Thebes, really WERE different. Greece was united, eventually – but as a province of an alien Empire. It ceased to matter, and hasn’t mattered since. The land of Plato had become – even in Roman times – a tourist destination, of no consequence in the larger sweep of events.
This is absolutely correct, and is one of the reasons that Nazi wannabees are so damaging to our cause – even if they are totally right on the facts, people see Nazis as morally repugnant, and they are not going to go along with it. Ditto some of the more radical NRx types – they have some good points abouit the flaws of democracy with regard to monarchy, but Americans see kings as either a ludicrous anacronism, or as a symbol of tyranny, and they ain’t going for it. When Americans think of kings with real power, they think of Henry VIII, and good luck selling him as a moral exemplar.
No matter what may be happening on the inside, the Alt-Right has to present itself as True Americanism, bleeding Red, White and Blue and dedicated to restoring our country to its rightful condition. This is the main strategy that Trump used, and no one can say that it wasn’t successful, no matter what one may think of his performance since then. But if you lead by telling people that the Nazis were really the good guys, or that the American Revolution was a mistake, the average American is going to tune you out, even if those things might be true. Besides, as Richard Nixon once said, “Don’t look back – you’re not going there…”
As recognized as far back as Socrates, the key to changing peoples minds is to shock them in some way. For example, if current morals are at ‘3’ and you want them at ‘6’ you don’t argue ‘6’ you argue ’11’. One of the reasons the Left wins so often is that on a political scale of 1-10, they ask for ‘1’, the Right doesn’t ask for ’10’, instead it asks for ‘6’, then settles at ‘3’. Both sides claim victory, but after many decades we can easily see who the real winner is.
This is basic negotiating strategy, “Art of the Deal” type stuff.
read paragraphs 6-9 for an example:
http://www.peggynoonan.com/570/
Being a ‘nazi’ is arguing for ’11’ when we really want ‘6’.
Due to demographic changes already locked in, which can’t be changed by immigration laws or enforcement, the last year Republicans have any chance of winning the presidency is 2028. (link below, summary graph on pg 35)
So if you value conservative ideology at all, if you value your culture & your freedom, the ‘6’ that is needed is removing by any means necessary vast numbers of legal citizens for the sole reason of being non-white. This is 1 of the 2 reasons why ‘nazi’ is a thing in the alt-right, to make the ‘6’ more palatable when some other group comes forward to advocate it as a last-ditch effort to save what we value.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/SOC2016report.pdf
How is mass race-based “removal” of citizens “by any means necessary” a “6”? The only thing more drastic than that is straight up genocide without even the option for the victims to “remove” themselves. You’re advocating a solid 9+.
Heh. Nazis are retards, but honestly they’re not as damaging they appear. When a normie is getting curb-stomped by reality, the fact that a Nazi might be the only person who seems to care doesn’t make the curb-stomping hurt any less.
Pain is what converts normies. Every time Fake News shines the spotlight on some new idiot, all they do is make us look more reasonable in comparison. And since they can’t actually stop our message from getting out, their efforts are futile.
Americans see kings as either a ludicrous anacronism, or as a symbol of tyranny.
That’s true. Americans also see universal suffrage as a moral imperative, which makes it impossible to “restore our country to its rightful condition.” Where does that leave us?
I’d argue against that assertion.
I think there’s a LOT of American men – who, after being exposed to the truth about women over the course of say a couple of decades – would very easily accept the argument that universal suffrage was a BAD idea.
The Pink Pussy Hat marches and all the rest of the craziness coming out of the gynocracy over the last couple of years – only helps to cement that attitude into the heads of many men I’ve come into contact with.
That #MeToo thing is even pissing off a lot of women I know. I’ve made the argument in mixed company situations when that topic was brought up – that if women didn’t get their shit together, then sooner or later the tides of history are going to change and either their daughters or their granddaughters are going to be back to the “rights” they had probably 300 years ago. Or – even worse – they’re all going to end up wearing burkhas. This engenders much yelling and screaming at the time I make the statement – but if you sit back and carefully watch over time , you can see the argument has started to sink in. Because those same women that bitched and moaned at the time the argument was made – are now many months later yelling and screaming about how stupid the whole #MeToo thing is.
And that is my important point here: You often don’t “win” arguments by getting into a pissing match in the here and now. You “win” over time – like water over a rock – by constantly beating the drum of reality – and then sitting back and watching it sink into people’s heads over time.
For probably about 15 years I sent out conservative/right wing/ libertarian stories from “bad think” news sources out to a small mailing list of people. At most it was only 50 people or so. The thing is – I never got into arguments with these people – I just sent out the emails. If somebody bitched about something I said – I’d just tell them ” I’ll send you a few stories about that – go read them” , and I’d let it lay at that. What I found was that people DID most definitely change their attitudes and “radicalize” (to the right) over time.
All they needed was to have a steady drip of reality laid out in front of their eyeballs. In many cases this happens because they would see something coming out of the left or the government – and they’d have that doubt deep in their head as to what was getting shoved in front of their face by the Swamp. But they had no countervailing facts or arguments to make the doubts real.
Start throwing reality in front of people who have those deep seated doubts about the propoganda that gets shoved down their throats – and you begin to build an army of doubters.
It takes time ,and patience, and strategy.
None of which I’ve seen much of on the right side of the aisle.
I’d argue against that assertion. I think there’s a LOT of American men – who, after being exposed to the truth about women over the course of say a couple of decades – would very easily accept the argument that universal suffrage was a BAD idea.
We would need 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify, for instance, repeal of the 19th Amendment. That won’t happen because we’ve already expanded the electorate beyond the point of no return (and voter demographics get worse every year). People who deny this are whistling past the graveyard. We don’t want to confront the truth because the alternatives are terrifying.
I agree that a lot of men (and even women) are reachable, but not enough to build the super majority we need.
If he felt threatened enough, a single federal judge could strike down the Constitution and that would be it for this wretched republic. It wouldn’t even be as revolutionary as homosexuals adopting children. Democracy is a pointless pressure valve.
Monarchy, the natural soul of political legitimacy, could be restored about 3x as fast as gay marriage became law. Paying any attention to the opinions of the average American is a waste of time. They believe whatever the elites want them to believe.
I’m supposed to boo and hiss you- but then I read Politico comments mourning the loss of Father Obama.
Reactionaries and hard lefties agree on the principle of monarchy. They’re just quibbling over the ‘legitimacy’. Lefties want guys like Obama to be king; reactionaries want guys like William the Conqueror to be king.
Hard Left and Hard Right join hands – at last! – on one fundamental: Democracy has had its day. All that we need is some resolution to the problem of legitimacy.
It’s too bad the Roman Republic died; at least its new life as an authoritarian empire started with the competent and relatively humane Augustus, rather than the debased Elagabalus. That IMHO is the real dilemma; a triumphant warrior with some residual patriotism and feel for tradition, or, a degenerate sock-puppet controlled by his court, hardly able to tie his own shoes.
Freedom of speech, if lost… I’d rather lose it under someone like Franco, whose social policy at least made some sense, encouraging family and faith, than under someone like Barack I and his handlers, whose taste for mind-rape is what, in the end, gives totalitarianism a bad name.
You just described the negation of your contention that monarchy is somehow preferable as the form for government. It would be even worse if made hereditary.
Who chooses the king, or deposes a disastrous one? What’s that again about the inevitable, and irresistible, corruption of power?
And do you seriously assert that one man could administer the governance of a modern technological society, not to mention the complexities of controlling the lusts of the various cohorts of powerful men who build and drive said culture?
When folks say things like “Reality wins, every time,” I think of human nature and how so many base their theories on denial and a lack of understanding of that basis for all our troubles.
They will lose the mandate of heaven soon if they do not staunch the bleeding. They cannot allow the citizens to know how badly they are governed but every day is more news about the corrupt Praetorians in the FBI and CIA, more leftists showing utter contempt for Average Joe, more proof of our government run by and for a wealthy elite.
How much longer can they go on before it’s too late? I predict one nation wide or global crisis then we’ll see blood in the streets.
The elites mandate is built upon maintaining the welfare state at the point of a gun and control of the MSM. The thing that underlies all of this is a super asset bubble that gives people a false notion of prosperity and keeps the SNAP/EBT card holders from burning down the cities and eating their rich, white urban masters.
Should that massive asset bubble burst(it’s a matter of when) or the elites do something incredibly stupid like gun confiscation that sets off the lower class whites to fight back. We won’t need buy in from the so-called ruling class to have a revolution.