Normal people look at the public performance of the Left and have the reaction all normal people have to irrationality. First, they will laugh or scoff at whatever the Left is doing, as both reactions come from the same instinct. It is a dismissal of whatever is going on, as too ridiculous to consider. A man in a sundress demanding to be called “they” is absurd. The kinder souls will laugh at it, while the less kind will dismiss it as vulgar degeneracy. Both reactions are justified, of course.
Once we pass the initial rejection, the reaction of normal people to the cultural lunacy we see on display falls into two buckets. One group will continue to dismiss this stuff, as a sign that the Left is just a bunch of crazy, middle-aged white women and their colored assistants, trying to get attention. The cat-lady factor is so strong on the Left it’s hard not to focus on it. Scan the crowd at an Elizabeth Warren event, for example, and it looks like a clearance sale at the wine mart. Spinsters everywhere.
Now, the other camp that forms up after the initial reaction is the people, who suspect there is a deeper motive to what they are seeing. The Left has been in control of the culture for several generations now, so they cannot be all mad. Steve Sailer, for example, thinks these displays are about keeping the Progressive coalition focused on the evil white men so they don’t attack one another. The bad people suspect this is all part of a plot by the nefarious forces to undermine white society.
There is a third option. This insane behavior is not just performance art, but an assault on rationality and order. It is an attack on the very concept of truth. After all, if it is no longer possible to tell boys from girls, then what is true? The very basics of human biology start with the fact that humans come in two sexes. If the very axioms of human reality are now up for debate, then everything is up for debate, even the claims made by the Left. With no truth, nothing is false. The world is narrative of opinion.
Take, for example, the assertion that race is a social construct. This bit of biological denialism is popular with the Left. So much so they are now demanding white historical figures be played by black actors, to prove that race is imaginary. Now, the demand itself contradicts the assertion. If race is not real, then there would be no reason to demand a black guy play Henry VII or Queen Elizabeth. The demand itself is proof that race is very real, so much so the past must be black-washed.
Even if you don’t accept that, let’s take the “race is not real” argument forward and examine the implications. If race is a social construct, then diversity must also be a social construct. In fact, it is irrational, as what would be the point of decorating an organization with things that do not exist? That also means so-called hate speech is a social construct, as it is rooted in the belief in racial and ethnic differences. If those differences are imaginary, then hate speech is imaginary as well.
None of this matters, of course. What matters to the Left is that observable reality cannot be trusted. They can live with their own assertions falling prey to this logic, as their ultimate objective is a world without objective truth. They seek to create the post-modern world, where the only proper response to physical reality is skepticism, because there is no possibility of reliable knowledge. The modern Left is the political implementation of the academic movement called post-modernism.
Post-modernism is the 20th century academic movement popular in philosophy, the grievance studies and the humanities. It denies the existence of a universal, stable reality, insisting everything is arbitrary and subjective. It is a reaction to science and technology that explains reality in objective terms. The post-modernist claims that reality is constructed as the mind tries to understand its own personal circumstances, within the social construct of society and the perceived reality of others.
This is why the Left is now so vehemently anti-science. A generation ago the proper leftists had a Darwin fish on her Volvo. This was supposed to be a signal that the owner was a member of the “reality based community” not a believer is magic, superstition or, of course, a religion. The Left insisted they were the sober minded realists, rooting their opinions in facts and reason. Their opponents were basing their opinion in fear and the irrational belief in nonsense, like tradition and religion.
In reality, the owner of that Volvo was signally a rejection of the very idea of objective or transcendent truth. That is, after all, what religion offers. It is a set of transcendent truths that define the reality of mankind. The point of a religious text, like the Christian Bible, is to have an objective set of rules that are not up to the whims of a cleric or a religious institution. Scripture is God’s rule book and not up to debate by man. The rejection of religion, is the rejection of such an objective set of truths.
Fast forward to the current year and the Left has moved on from rejecting religion and the reality of religion, onto the rejection of science. Genetics and evolution are nature’s rule book. If you prefer, they are the rule book of nature’s god. This biological reality is not only the framework of life, but puts hard limits on human organization. The rejection of science is the rejection of the possibility of reliable knowledge about the natural world and the nature of man. The guy in the sundress calling ximself “they” is the embodiment of this rejection of knowable truth and factual reality.
Of course, the practical benefit of a world unbound from facts and reasons is that the actors in such a world are unbound from the limits of reason. It is the ultimate freedom, as everything is possible and everything can be justified. It’s also why the Left insists their opponents demonstrate that their objections match up with some set of arbitrary standards selected by the Left. If their opponents are bound to reality, while the Left is free to form whatever construct it needs, the outcome is certain.
There can be only one form of post-modernist rule. The rejection of founding truths, the axioms of the human condition, provides not justification for political power, social status or even a social order. The void of nihilism can only be filled by the will to power and the necessary application of force to attain power and impose order. The perpetual revolution of post-modernism, the endless questioning of objective reality, is the only way for radicalism to attain power and maintain it. The on-going insanity of the Left is the necessary precursor to perpetual Progressive rule.
The endless cultural revolution is like rats gnawing at the support ropes. If left unchecked, there can be only one result from such a process. The endpoint of this perpetual social revolution, the institutional skepticism of reality, is a world without any order at all, even that imposed by the strongest. Even the reality of fear falls away and we fall into a world where it is a war of all against all. In this regard, what the Left has become is war on the very nature of man and the reality that shapes him.
This is the logical endpoint of the Enlightenment. Post-modernism did not spring from nothing. It is the continuation of political philosophy starting with Rousseau, through Nietzsche and into the current age. Western liberalism was born of the irrational belief that man comes into the world as a blank slate and can be fashioned into anything through the proper social structures. Ever since, the goal of liberal political philosophy has been to build the right social structure to achieve universal equality.
Since the utopian goal of universal equality is impossible, it leaves only the equality of nihilistic chaos. A world without truth is a world where noting is false. This is the ultimate equality, where everything is opinion and all opinion is equally worthless. While the Left may seem irrational, they are acting on that old Enlightenment impulse to achieve universal equality. If we cannot be equal in the utopian paradise of our own making, we can be equal in the utter and compete destruction of society. After all, the one place where all men are equal is in the cemetery.
For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!
Guess I’m just to old to get the Darwin fish thingie, as far as I know a fish bumper sticker means the driver’s Christian..
Nietzsche is a Counter-Enlightenment figure, not an Enlightenment figure. The only true ‘individual’ is an Ubermensch, something rare (and fleeting) compared to the people of the herd. Still, there would be no Ubermensch if there were not herd for the Ubermensch to emerge from.
I don’t know if this is true, and I imagine that it isn’t, but simply that Z hasn’t stated his position on the subject. It seems as if he understands there will be a societal collapse but he thinks the institutions will continue chugging along for a good while after society has become nonfunctional. I think the opposite is true, and the institutions fail before we get very far down the chaos rabbit hole, and once we start to experience the lower rungs of Maslow’s pyramid all these first world problems disappear, along with the cat ladies that are so vexed by them.
Riffing on Zman’s “negative identity” posts, I think one reason we’ve been flailing about is that America came to be defined as “not Communist.” When the USSR fell we had a national identity crisis. By then our Christian and European heritage had been demonized and removed from public life. Now people glom onto increasingly bizarre identities and nihilistic political movements to fill the void.
It turns out you can’t have a country that makes any sense when it’s been reduced to consumerism and weird butt stuff. KMac calls America a shopping mall, E. Michael Jones “the gay disco.” I don’t see a way out. The good news is if ever this strange experiment goes tango uniform lots of “new Americans” will probably self-deport.
The way of the tribe.
Outstanding. I have known this for years but you explain it very well. I would take one step more: the rejection of objective truth that is the root of the Enlightenment is only a rationalization. Like the hamster in the manosphere. It does not make sense and it is self-refuting because their ultimate goal is not to make sense.
The goal is selfishness, pure and simple. It is doing whatever one wants and the Hell with the world. Since selfishness does not sound well, it is called “freedom”
The impulse behind this is the rebellion of the primitive parts of the brain (the instincts devoted to getting sex, resources and status) against the constraints imposed by society, enforced by the rational parts of the brain.
There is a tension between them. If the primitive parts of the brain win, the rational part becames their slave and start creating rationalizations to follow the instincts.
The third option certainnly strikes me as the one happening. But I think it can be taken even further, which grounds it in human reproductive instincts. I think it is a gargantuan ‘shit test’. And this shit test has certainly left the domain of correction by the ballot and minimum realistic recourse would be Pinochet. I am personally thinking that we are even reaching the far side of what a Pinochet could handle and beyond that are far rougher, civil war, options. Franco and such. But we will see, time will reveal how this mega drama unfolds.
Really solid work, this post.
Mr. Spock nailed our post-modern mess in one of Star Trek’s most telling moments: “Physical reality is consistent with universal laws. Where the laws do not operate, there is no reality.”
2 + 2 = 5 was bad enough, now we have 2 + 2 = whatever
“And the trees were all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw”
Z, always interesting, thank you. Ultimate outcome cares not for equality. Something like 99.999% of every species that has ever lived are now extinct.
Conscious Awareness, God’s Infinite Being likes to refresh species and individuals, (to keep His view on the Creation ever new?). I do not know the when and how, only what will eventually come to every life, also comes to every species.
So find a philosophy that removes the fear of death and the feeling of lack that egos feel. Go out in the back yard and relax into the beauty and marvel of the night sky. At first the cosmos appears random, then later the realization that not a single atom is out of place, all is as He intends.
That’s a way to live a human life, regardless of circumstances.
“It took 500 years for the Turks to remove the Armenians and Greeks from their native lands, but only 50 years of modernity for our displacement. Liberalism is conquest.”
Urbanus ll @UrbanusCrusade
One more:
“My Grandfather had 7 children, and a stay-at-home wife.
He had a high school education.
He put all of his children through private school.
Paid cash for every house he ever had.
Died without debt.
Left money for his family after he died.
He was typical middle class.”
BTW Z folks: IG report on Comey about to drop. One comment: so many bemoan the fact that none of these criminals are getting indicted. It leads me to wonder if people really have no clue what goes into an actual prosecution. WHAT JURY would convict a Clinton or a Comey?? I would say NONE. It’s just a simple fact. Unless it’s pedos/murder/rape, everything is politicized that the LEADING FIGURES on one side or the other are basically immune. Now I’d like to see some low level figures get burned at least, but when everyone complains that Trump is doing nothing with the Deep State traitors, know: 1) it would be their co-workers doing the prosecuting; and 2) no frigging jury in NY or DC, etc., federal jury would convict. These are realities we must face or we look like true autists.
Let’s not be hasty in condemning men like Nietzsche, or even the anti-liberal Left. Nietzsche is a difficult man to pin down (“Tell me what you want, and I’ll supply the Nietzsche quote,” where he seems to affirm the position you wish to argue for). He had some interesting things to say about sex differences, for example. He can also be selectively appropriated, as the Left certainly has (one can appreciate Plato’s or Evola’s views on the political, without accepting Forms or Primordial Tradition, for example). If I had to name a single thinker who’s ideas most closely match this blog, it would be Anthony Ludovici, who was a thoroughgoing Nietzschean:
https://archive.org/details/whoistobemastero00ludo/page/n5
To go further, selectively appropriating the anti-liberal Left I also strongly believe in. Men like Alain de Benoist have certainly done this. Ideas of Marx, Gramsci, Althusser (who’s concept of “ideological state apparatuses” looks interesting, for example), and many other anti-liberal Leftists can be highly revealing, and useful. If liberalism naturally evolves into modernity, into plutocracy, mass cultural and social decay, mass left-liberal indoctrination, then liberalism is to be rejected. Arguments and insights drawn from the anti-liberal Left can help understand this process, and help dissolve liberalism in the minds of men. Appealing to radical Left thinkers and ideas to dissolve modernity’s hold on mens’ minds also confounds both the Left and left-liberals (i.e., the whole of the West’s elite class).
For another example of what I’m talking about, here is what Greg Johnson wrote not long ago:
“What is postmodernism, and how is it inconsistent with a robust politics of identity? There are two senses of postmodernism. The first is postmodern philosophy. When people talk about postmodern philosophy, they mean things like the critique of Cartesianism, atomistic individualism, and other ideas that came out of modern Western philosophy. I have no quarrel with the postmodern attempt to get beyond modern Western philosophy. In fact, I agree with 90% of it.
“The other kind of postmodernism comes out of literary and cultural studies and refers to an attitude toward culture, which is characterized in two ways: by eclecticism and by irony.”
https://www.counter-currents.com/2017/08/postmodernism-vs-identity-2/
I remember Roger Scruton writing in one of his earlier books that Marx’s ‘Das Kapital’ contains valuable insights on the working of society under capitalism. The famous excerpt from the ‘Communist Manifesto’ certainly rings true:
“The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors,’ and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, callous ‘cash payment.’ It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade.”
I highly recommend Kerry Bolton’s long essay in this same vein:
https://arktos.com/2019/05/22/marx-on-globalisation-whigs-free-trade-part-1/
Western liberalism was born of the irrational belief that man comes into the world as a blank slate and can be fashioned into anything through the proper social structures
That’s a religious declaration. Cult is prior to culture, which is prior to politics.
The ultimate entitlement of a spoiled population: reality itself is what you want it to be.
Here is a deranged woman who LARPs as a man complaining about that time of the month:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nonbinary-period-menstruation_n_5b75ac1fe4b0182d49b1c2ed
This is a part of being a young woman, which you are. Wishing it away won’t make it go away.
The poet Horace wrote: “Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque revenit.” You can drive nature out with a pitchfork, she will nevertheless come back.
Absolutely brilliant. Terrific post. Thoughtful, cogent, reasoned and if used correctly, arms for the man. Damn. Made my day.
Re: ” After all, the one place where all men are equal is in the cemetery. ”
You see – this is where we can apply some logic.
Just tell the nihilists and equality mongers that if they TRULY believe in what they claim to believe – they should just kill themselves.
We just need to insert the mental virus that the ultimate goal of their leftism – is their own death.
Preferably as soon as possible.
And by their own hand.
Just to prove how much the “believe”
I don’t have a problem with actors playing characters of a different race. In most cases, I’m suspending disbelief anyway, so what’s one more thing. James Earl Jones played a character in Field of Dreams that was based on a white author – J.D. Salinger. It didn’t matter because race was not central to the character or the story. Of course, the left insists that race is central to everything.
But most drama weaves its spell by being at least quasi-realistic. As the spectator-participant you have to allow some dramatic license, but it depends on how stylized the art form is. Leontyne Price as an Italian queen in an operatic role is not a problem, because her voice (not her appearance) is the “character.”
But there are limits. A blonde Cleopatra or a Negro Trojan in a movie is simply too jarring. I can sympathize with a talented black actor who’s unhappy that there are so few roles in plays about white people that are suitable for him. But everyone has to make their peace with reality.
I’ve done some voice work, but I accept that I’m not going to get many parts reading commercials in Spanish. Seeing an actor of the wrong ethnic type in a movie or play subverts the script: instead of absorbing the lines and story, you’re constantly being reminded that you’re being manipulated for political purposes.
There’s only so many times a black guy can play Othello.
Ptolemy was a Macedonian
We’re not quite there with regards to science. Here in the Bay Area you see virtue signs that say “In this house we believe…”. Along with Black Lives Matter and Women’s Rights Are Human Rights it says Science is Real.
Somewhat related: I’m waiting for a flight at SFO and they’ve stopped selling water in plastic bottles. To save the planet I suppose. Water is now only sold in these clunky metal bottles. Of course sodas are still sold in plastic.
Well that torches my fritters. “In this house” is a direct rip-off of “As to my house, we shall serve the Lord”, and it’s oddly clean, stable, work-worthy families.
(Triggered because I’m seeing ‘this house shall serve’ more and more, on cars all over the country. The people in those cars look simply like decent people. Not a tatoo in sight.)
Around here in the region of the Imperial Capital, our signs say “Hate has no home here.” It is in many front yards.
When I see those signs, that’s all I need to know: pathological altruists.
On the plus side, if you’re a homeless alcoholic, preferably non-white, looking for a place to sleep off a bender, find a house with one of those “all are welcome here” signs and make yourself at home.
Great post. But what’s sad about it is that it even needs to be articulated. It’s like an argument I recently had with a friend about “common decency” – it’s simply NOT common, not even among white folk. Ditto with “common sense.” But if there’s to be an eventual reformation then there needs to be a remnant … in the meantime that remnant need to completely unplug from anything/everything that isn’t true, good, and beautiful. Which also demands that we war against falsehood, perversions, and depravity.
The kinder souls will laugh at it, while the less kind will dismiss it as vulgar degeneracy
Interesting delineation there. I never really thought the people who did the laughing (or hazing) were kinder people than the ones who keep their opinion to themselves.
The very basics of human biology start with the fact that humans come in two sexes. If the very axioms of human reality are now up for debate, then everything is up for debate, even the claims made by the Left. With no truth, nothing is false. The world is narrative of opinion.
The first truth given up in the gender wars was the Universal Truth that sex is primarily for reproduction (Sex Revolution). When we gave up that most basic, biological assertion, we made room for sex (male/female) to be unmoored from biology because the male and female is specifically about our roles in reproduction. The male cannot reproduce with the male. The female cannot reproduce with the female. You need Male and Female. Giving up the sex-reproduction connection was an easy thing to do… easier to do than giving up male/female. But male/female is thoroughly meaningless without the sex-reproduction. SSM just codified what we had already given up on and transgender is really just some of that slippery slope into absurdity logically derived from semi-reasonable assumptions.
“Socially constructed” male-female characteristics like men wear pants and women wear skirts (that change over time and from culture to culture) are about signaling what part of the reproductive game you fill. If a reproductive female can’t tell the reproductive male from a reproductive female from a sterilized “it”, than you can’t form reproducing pair-bonds.
I don’t know if that’s the ultimate goal or not. If I were going to add my religion into this, I’d note that the first command God gave human-kind was to be fruitful and multiply, so maybe this is an undoing of that first command, but it seems thoroughly outside the thought process of the garden variety liberal… or even the most cynical caricature of one, as well. I might say its spiritual warfare, but I know that kind of thing tends to be mocked in post-Christian America.
I say spirit > biology, so heck yes it’s spiritual warfare.
YES, this is absolutely spiritual warfare. The falling away from the basic right/wrong and Natural Law as taught by Christianity, is the basis for all of this.
…because bourgeoisie European and socialite American women had too much free time to think….
I know some on the right don’t like the Enlightenment because it is the root of many egalitarian ideologies, but I hate to see it beaten up as a completely evil bogeyman. I like the Bill of Rights, thanks you very much. It also seems odd to me to both venerate biological truths while dissing the philosophical revolution that made their elucidation possible (the Scientific Revolution being born of the Enlightenment) in the same article.
The Bill of Rights wasn’t the problem – it’s the philosophical foundation for those practical political privileges that opened the door to the much more destructive amendments like the 14th, 19th and 26th – the idea that a particular implementation of policies derived from a legislative sausage-making process could or should be described as “God-given” or “inalienable” rights for instance, and the dangerous conflation of high morals with political policy in general.
One manifestation of what you describe as “the dangerous conflation of high morals with political policy” is the king’s men granting themselves immunity from liability for the commission of acts that would subject a sans-culotte to criminal prosecution or civil liability.
@Libertymike. You needn’t look any further than asset forfeiture without due process.
I don’t see how you can have a politics that doesn’t reflect high morals. Politics is the arbitration of human affairs, how can you do so without a basis of wrong or right? Would you prefer a system without freedom of speech, right to bear arms, freedom of religion? Democracy can be bullshit, I agree. In fact, it is most bullshit, IMO, when it violates these inalienable rights. What philosophical underpinnings would you prefer for these classical liberal values?
Check out Z’s podcasts and posts about civic nationalism, democracy and the Enlightenment. Treating morality as a kind of meta-politics is how we ended up with “nation of immigrants” and “give me your tired…” being “who we are.” It was a neocon/Prog hijacking of the real basis for the American founding – a political rebellion by a distinct people with distinct, non-universal traditions which were suited to a particular race and culture.
If “classical liberal values” are based on “wrong or right,” why is Liberia so wrong and America so right?
I agree that Liberia will always be Liberia, even if it adopted the U.S. Constitution. Lolbertarians are wrong when they believe classical liberalism can be extricated from the people that formed it. But that fact doesn’t soil classical liberal values in my eyes. Rather, I prefer a country of Westerners because it it necessary for a “Bill of Rights” type of society. Cause yeah, I think the Bill of Rights much gel with my Western view of what is “wrong or right.”
For a long time it seemed truly inexplicable that people could come up with something as… autistic as the enlightenment.
But then I looked at what came before the enlightenment and realized that they had partially recovered from something even worse… but only partially.
In a different universe where we quickly realized the errors of the enlightenment and moved on from them, it could be regarded as a positive half step.
Unfortunately we don’t live in that universe.
Where and when “what came before”? Because the bloody French Revolution was a *result* of the enlightenment.
Brundlefly, thanks for smacking Kyle’s defense of the status quo.
I am starting a university. Save 8 years of study. I will be granting Doctorates in Human Understanding which will require only one course, reading and internalizing this Z-Man post. I am not kissing up. This is really an outstanding effort that should be distributed as widely as possible.
Good essay.
Jim of Jim’s blog refers to the ever Leftward march of society as “social entropy”, ever increasing. “Pumping it” out of society requires continued effort. One example is hardened criminals. These people used to be executed throughout Western societies. Now they’re just warehoused in jails and often given non-life sentences. Jails should be thought of as a social bladder holding human waste (or waste humans). It needs to be voided now and then, and not by releasing the waste back into the “bloodstream”.
Oh, if only the deluded radical left would read this with an open mind. Therein lies the problem: that Truth is the enemy because it destroys all that they’ve been taught.
Their minds are closed tight.
A magnificent essay! I’m going to memorize it and recite it at gatherings of badthinkers. And maybe even goodthinkers.
I think today’s posting also builds on yesterday’s. Progressivism seeks to destroy objective reality, and Progressivism is also used as a tool of distraction by our Corporate Overlords to strip mine the citizens. These two processes are like a pincer movement which will, if not checked, destroy Western Civilization.
Having said all this, Z’s last two essays makes me curious as to “what comes next”, as he often writes. Maybe I’ve overlooked or forgotten some earlier posts or podcasts, and, more importantly, I don’t think Z is going to overtly proffer a model of government that will work better. I think he’s going to write a trail of breadcrumbs for us to follow; that’s one of the reasons we keep reading. But “what comes next”? A monarchy? An aristocracy of merit? A loose confederation of regional city-states? In the future being created for us, how do we govern ourselves?
I’m a national monarchist at heart. Well, really an national oligarchicist, since the King can (and will) be replaced if necessary by the peers.
This is one of your best.
This needs to be a video.
Agree, this was out of the park level.
Look at Los Angeles with it’s cases of Medieval diseases – Typhus, Tyhoid, Measles and soon Bubonic Plague all thanks to White liberals running the city who refuse to do anything about the homeless infestation. And every day there are 1-2 to gang related killings.
Same with San Francisco and Seattle. All those cities are rotting.
And on the East Coast it’s even worse thanks to the high population of blacks in their cities.
This is the mid-stage infection of what liberal control does to society. It will only get worse from here.
Whitey isn’t meant for hamster-style urban high-density. While both Greeks and Romans had their metropolises, culturally they celebrated the rustic life. Celts and Teutons lived in villages, not cities. Cities, like the poor, will always be with us, but our heart is in the country and towns where you can know your neighbors. The Dunbar Number’s a big factor in happy human psychology in general, and Whites seem especially sensitive to its limits. Part of our superior empathy and social skills.
Lefty is all-in on urbanization. Which is funny since a previous iteration of lefty, perhaps one rooted in something more real, hated cities. Which goes to show that they’ve got no rooted philosophy, just ‘whatever feels good right now’,
High density urban centers are the human equivalent of anthills or beehives. It spurs to the transition to insect status.
TomA said: ” It spurs to the transition to insect status.”
Or the ” The Mouse Utopia Experiments.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgGLFozNM2o
As the stupids and corrupt keep getting hired to rob, er, run the cities, the sewers will fail.
Cholera has returned to a’ Los, along with the Black Plague.
Heard yesterday the homeless are literally sh*tting on the Boston Commons now, too.
It’s called the Methadone Mile.
Seems only yesterday Boston opened up the first Condom Nation storefront, big glass windows filled with rainbow colored goodies, right there for all the families with kids to see and marvel.
The blacks? Try the main boulevard in Gary, Indiana. It looks like ten years after the apocalypse. Only things still open are the big welfare office and the motorcycle gang clubs.
Everything else is ruins.
And L.A.? Those gypsy RVs are everywhere now, aren’t they.
“acting on that old Enlightenment impulse to achieve universal equality.”
Equality only makes sense if one recognises that the philosophers were European men talking to European peoples.
The same goes for religion, as well, which overreached to the blank slate of “(Our) God created the world, and all of it’s peoples.”
That leads to the question of who God looks like, and thus who’s God is supreme.
*****
Since I see Creation as a force, like gravity, not a face- anthropomorphism or monotheism- I see the gods as an ecology, not a Plan.
Thus I would ferret out the rules of that ecology, rather than try to figure out how to get the God or gods to work for me.
Simply put, the world created the gods, not the other way around. The philosophers of the time simply did not have the science, until that hated Darwin informed and reformed all the natural sciences as a glacially slow process, rather than a feat of magic.
What, then, is the supreme law, the basis of morality?
Why, morality itself. Do ye harm, or do ye heal?
One other comment. This is not new. Trannies, lunatic ramblings, etc., have all been seen prominently in 3 revolutions: 1) French revolution; 2) Weimar Germany; and 3) Bolshevist Russia. The results: 1) inestimable slaughter where finally they just got tired of killing, then Napoleon; 2) Adolf calling out the degeneracy and subversion, then the German people being partially genocided by certain allies of Germany’s internal enemies, wholesale slaughter and war; and 3) unimaginable gulags and death, but here the new leader after Lenin quietly slaughtered the “revolutionaries” restored some form of moral order, and recaptured his country and set it on a different path. Still a homicidal maniac, but he knew the score and whilst he publicly said certain things, in private he handled his business and knew what needed to be done. He restored the church, outlawed abortion and homosexuality and all forms of degeneracy. Still a tyrant, but he put every Trotskyite, so to speak, exactly where they deserve to be. The ice pick was just the “icing” on the cake…
I think Pinochet would be a mentionable, and perhaps better example of such backlash.
Honestly, I’m not as informed about Chile, although from what I know of the broad strokes that seems to be correct. Also Franco in Spain in the ’30s is another example.
Fashed Chileans to this day will Shoah anyone who props Pinochet – he was a corrupt (((stooge))). Salazar’s an interesting lesser known example of benevolent dictatorship.
I think everyone just loves joking about helicopter rides. hahaha. I was just looking at twitter, and to this day am AMAZED at how effective the echoes were!!! A crap ton of lefties use them too. What, from some guys on a podcast to the whole damn internet. I don’t even get it, it literally is having the desired effect and yet a ton of special people voluntarily do it. Fun trivia fact, Napoleon enacted a law that had the same effect, to wit, not hiding by a fake name!!
Pinochet is the mildest historical correction of spiraling, murderous lunacy. That is why he is also the most hated and feared. Anyone can say ‘Hitler this, Hitler that…’. But they never mention Pinochet. He scares them far more, b/c he was competent and didnt let it go to his head.
Disagree. His Azebaijani Muslim gang friends helped him murder the competing leadership- he seized power- but Stalin sent the sadists to rule the locals. He didn’t kill them, but used them to install a sick brutality that crushed all of Eastern Europe.
Not the model we want. His women were Tribe, so he kept their people in power over everyone else. The legacy of their raw sadism and perverted, bloody cruelty in schools, armies, and prisons is the ruin of our kind.
It is not the White Way.
Zman, this is a brilliant exposition and encapsulation of your fundamental heirarchy, which now seems explicitly grounded in the transcendental value of truth: Truth > Biology > Culture > Politics > Economics. You have written a classic that pithily undergirds the theory of Our Thing. This definitely makes the short list of all-time bests. Thanks.
The first term in your hierarchy should be reality as opposed to truth. The concept of truth did not exist before the evolution of Homo sapiens. As it is, truth is simply the accurate perception or conception of reality.
At last! “What is Truth?”
An answer for the ages, TomA.
Perfect post. It’s all the more ironic when they shout “denier! denier!” at climate skeptics. Literally calling them “skeptics”…as opposed to what? Believer? Disciple? They sure son’t like those words in a traditional religious context. Leftism has become its own religion, complete with a fallen man, only in their religion redemption can never be achieved. It’s only an endless litany of reparations as yet unfulfilled. Even reparations to mother earth through carbon credits. If that isn’t leaving bread on the alter of some prehistoric stone idol, I don’t know what is. And that aspect alone touches everything. Right down to the shitty CVT transmissions being put into cars. We stand 200 years into this, not even understanding just how the society around us has been remade in even the smallest parts of our lives. The very thoughts in our heads.
Science is not real until it is, comrade. When you realize what they’re doing, and you know that it is nothing but the will to power, then you get the drift. It’s why Dems R the Real Racists was a joke. A charge of hypocrisy never works, they REVEL in it. To be a hypocrite inherently ASSUMES you abide by a certain set of rules and are violating them. If you abide by no rules, you can never be a hypocrite. And when someone charges you as such, that is when you realize you are dealing with a person who is not a true adversary as they do not realize WHO YOU ARE!!
Skeptical about Climate Change and you are a science denier. Skeptical about racial equality and you are a racist. Back to Z-man’s point, reality is what they say it is. Logic and reason do not exist.
“Reality is what they say it is”. That’s Social Justice in a nutshell. There are three elements to SJ. The first is that truth is a malleable thing—“Your truth is not my truth”. The second is that every act and thing is political—“Picking up after yourself is white privilege in action”. The third is that because truth is a malleable thing, every statement or action is run through a contextual prism. The same action undertaken by one of us that is an exercise in white privilege, done by a protected class of persons is instead “truth to power”. The end game is only the will to power, and SJ is simply a rhetorical hammer. SJ is the point of the spear in hammering home the idea that “reality is what they say it is”.
This is the heart of why the dissident right, as Z Man calls it, has salience. If “your truth isn’t my truth, then my truth isn’t your truth, so your truth has no meaning to me and I can shut it off like a tap.” Compare this to a Jeb Bush type. “Your truth isn’t my truth? Oh. that’s terrible. How can I make my truth more like your truth so we can have some sort of understanding…Please help me understand your truth so I can custom tailor my truth to it.”
Once you go down this road, you reach the classic argument stopper. It’s the Control-Alt-Delete of debate, and hence, as they fear that, they start blocking the argument altogether by advocating for speech regulation, meaning, putting tape over your mouth while they keep talking.
That kicked ass, Dutch.
Spot. Frickin’. On.
Makes “the madness” easy to predict.
More Dutchness- Tucker, quoting Kunstler:
Young men are the problem. Many of our boys are living in what Kunstler describes as an “abyss of missing social relations” with “no communities, no fathers, no mentors, no initiations into personal responsibility, no daily organizing principles, no instruction in useful trades, no productive activities, no opportunities for love and affection, and no way out.”
Alzaebo, that sounds exactly like Jordan Peterson. Are you sure it was Kunstler?
Strongly agree. Dirtnapninja, just above:
“…then the only truth is Power.”
If everything is equal and all opinion is equally worthless, then the only truth is Power.
The “truth” – is what survives – and what works.
Absent the Western world being overrun with POC, the world that survives will not be populated by homosexuals, transsexuals, lesbians, or any of the other assorted detrius that refuse to acknowledge the truth of what their genital’s purpose is.
I’ll take the “assault on rationality and order” for 5000 Alex.
Zman and fellow dissidents, I am curious, have you ever read “The Red Symphony?” It was the first piece of work that really opened my eyes as to what was REALLY going on. And yes, the subject of this article, is EXACTLY the purpose. There is no real set of rules, it is CONSTANT REVOLUTION of everything and anything. If there are no constructs, there is no OPPOSITION. Thus, humanity is simply turned into oxen, while the overlords/oligarchs run and own everything. THIS IS THE GOAL. Darwinian “science” was first the product of Darwin’s freemason grandfather and was “expounded” in a POEM. LOL. Trotsky’s/Braunstein’s writings are a window into who the real power is behind the scenes. It’s why Stalin killed them all and was planning to finish the job before his untimely death after The Doctor’s Plot. Study Stalin, that is the playbook anyone who opposes this ENEMY must follow to succeed.
You elucidate the reason as to why so few alive today know what COMINTERN was and how National Socialism is basically the same as National Communism, which is why USSR and Germany had a non-aggression pact.
But then why was Stalin our ally and what does that make modern China? Oh the webs we weave.
Ask why when the Tsar and Russia were our ally in WWI, we (the USA, Canada, and UK) hastened the travel of Trotsky to destroy Russia. The web goes back much further. Research Bernard Baruch and you will find many answers that have been carefully hidden. And I assure you, Germany and USSR were never “real” allies. Hitler was under the mistaken belief that Russia was still communist. It was not. Stalin was presented with his deal in “The Red Symphony” and he took it. The oligarchs are not all knowing. They were tricked and outmatched by Stalin first, then Hitler almost beat them badly. If he was not such an anglophile, he would have done it.
My ass itches, and I want to scratch it. But I don’t, because asses are a social construct.
-2+2=5
“After all, the one place where all men are equal is in the cemetery.”
Hierarchy, identity, scarcity and impermanence aren’t up for debate. Nature to be commanded must first be obeyed. That’s the “enthymeme” for any good faith discussion of human affairs.
Anyone who doesn’t grant you that premise has declared you fair game for fraud or force. They’re cheating from the first move. The only question that remains is what they will be permitted to get away with before you quit or lash out.
At its core, post-modernism is a vast Talmudic, Jesuitical, dialectic, hermeneutic edifice of reified pseudo-intellectual bullshit crafted to cheat you out of reality without you Noticing. Like all those Lovecraftian warnings about black magic, it’s powerful enough to ensnare weaker-souled dabblers, driving them mad. The sorcerers of sophistry who fail to hold their frame begin to believe their own bullshit.
While distinguishing between bullshit-artistes who’ve maintained frame and fallen True Believers is tactically useful, your rules of engagement remain the same. They’ve cheated. You can’t reason with them and win. They won’t accept it if you do. The only way to win is not to play by their rules, but rather by the real rules of Nature.
What Z has called “bust-out America” is a free-for-all without clearly defined socio-political rules. It’s what Sam Francis called anarcho-tyranny – a façade of process run by gangs who enforce or ignore the Potemkin rules depending on whose side you’re on.
It’s Hobbesian, the Law of the Jungle, the State of Nature, concealed by a big-brained facade of self-serving bullshit served up by the Witch Doctors curtained behind the thrones of competing Attilas.
America for now is functionally divided between the Red Huns and the Blue Huns. The lives of their respective helots are indistinguishable. Think the Republican Guard of the Red Huns are the elite pillagers? Take a look at Blue Team Woke Capital. Sure, Blue Huns are the apex Inquisitors? Don’t try sneaking any anti-Semitisms past the Intellectual Red Web. The Red Huns are better at faking rational argument, the Blue Huns are better at faking compassion, but deny either side shekels or submission and you will feel the hammer just the same.
Once again, there are no rules of intellectual engagement when dealing with avowed anti-rationalists. They’re not arguing in good faith, they’re selling helotry and calling it “liberty” or “justice.” As Z notes, we’re in a “will to power” struggle, not a debate. For now, their gangs hold the social high ground, with legitimized enforcers, and they work in concert to keep others from horning in on Their Thing. We’re at the stage of Noticing how the game is really being played – by Nature’s rules, not muh Rule of Law – and of organizing those who’ve Noticed.
The first step to choosing our side is Noticing that regardless of their different uniforms and slogans, they’re the Other Side, already united against you.
Top shelf comment Exile.
Yes, there are sides. Watching the dimension A/B event horizon shred the few personal bonds that remain is a difficult thing to bear. But a vigilant accounting of such is necessary if we are indeed to “organize those who’ve noticed”
IMO the best and most important Z post of all, with great comments so far.
My own two cents—reality and the rules of nature and biology are widely ignored because the people ignoring them have never been tested. The people running the show have never done anything difficult, a side effect of which is to learn respect for the limits and rules nature and reality have in place for the environment we live in. There is a reason that women, children, and adolescents were not given room to decide things or to share their opinions. That’s because they had not gone through life’s tests which created the framework for a wise understanding of things. Only men who had endured negotiations, conflicts, fights, earning their keep, and owning responsibility for their own lives and those around them were accorded the privilege of directing the thoughts and actions of our culture. Serving in the military, running a business, providing for a household, and disciplining the family members around them gave them the skills and insights. More recently, and aided by the internet in the last few years, the undisciplined and untested have seized the opportunity to run rampant through the halls. Read Lileks’ Bleat today for a horrendous example. Men, too, have abdicated some of their roles, and many have gone through their entire lives without ever throwing (or taking) a punch, never have been responsible for much, never having had to make a life-altering decision, and never have really owned the responsibility for providing and protecting their brood. Even sports or scouts participation while growing up, though trivial, is a start, and most of that is gone, too. Note how there is almost no societal support for the people actually taking responsibility for anything, beyond the “thank you for your service” murmurings in the public forum. The politics of liberalism is to abdicate on everything and cut a check to those who raise their hands. The broad version of the unengaged, divorced father. Trump, and separately, our thing, call some of this into question around the edges, which throws these untethered people into existential rage. Their situation is so fragile, it can brook no sunlight or criticism. Which is additional evidence that the untested rule the roost, and cannot stand to be tested in any trivial way. OK, rant over, I could go on all day.
“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four. If that is granted, all else follows.”
-Winston Smith
Z, this is the best distillation of what is going on in our present political scene. It neatly makes the insane understandable. Kudos.
The beauty in art and architecture lie with the beholder. The only truth it has is what the viewer assigns to it. Fine art prices are fueled by investment frenzy. The price of fine architecture ends at the property line after the build costs are factored in. None the less realists can if they so desire appreciate these things as they see fit. When it come to sports cars motorcycles wine and women you only need to know what you like. De gustibus non est disputandum. That truth holds with just about anything. Leftists, progressives,communists, anti-fascists, democrats, whatever they are or call themselves are dangerous to all people. There is no living in peace and prosperity with them. They are the enemy. What to do? We must control the narrative. The Tree of Liberty needs fed. A purge of the rest sounds more than reasonable. The herd needs culled. My belief is they all plan on rising from the ashes like a Phoenix after the great upheaval. They are idiots. A white homeland is looking better and better. Whatever happens constant vigilance will be needed to keep the dark forces in check.
JMDGT said: “The beauty in art and architecture lie with the beholder. The only truth it has is what the viewer assigns to it.”
I say, that philosophy is a make work project for mutants. None more so than philosophical idealism. ultimately is leads to cynicism, nihilism, critical theory, postmodernism and the post truth world. And I for one have had enough of that crap. Z Mans post is an examination of the end result of three hundred years of western philosophical speculations. The Elightinment prodject is disapering up it’s own asshole. Along with western art, architecture and philosophy. Prepare accordingly.
BT all that said it is still possible to appreciate what you find pleasing. Western is white. Whatever happens to the West happens to us. There is a lot worth salvaging in the West. We will re-form into a better version. Great art architecture and philosophy are timeless. Prepare accordingly. I have never been more ready. Bring it on.
We no longer have a functioning civilization. The estates (castes) that evolved have been so corrupted and turned on their head that chaos rules the day. In an age that worships miasma it is the slime that rises to the top. Parasites who would have been kept in check in a sane age now set the agenda and rule. Yes, they are superior at being manipulative lowlifes in a civilization that idealizes mammon and orgasm. An aristocracy of vermin.
And they are well aware of what they are and that their power is knotted with flimsy propaganda and not deeply rooted natural leadership. This is why they are so terrified by small groups of dissenters.
In the end all power lies with nature and not man’s fantasies. We either build a civilizational order that parallels nature or we build one that chafes against the natural order. One that chafes until it collapses.
The Left has realized something our spergy and debilitated side hasn’t and probably never will.
Power is what matters and power either comes out the barrel of a gun or those who have the gold so to speak,
The Left came on top because of their will to power regardless of the cost. And the Left will build a society based on it’s insane agendas and it will last for some time – look at China and Soviet Union.
As far as a pure Darwinian society goes, most here would be victims of it in short order. Such a society favors the power hungry, the high functioning sociopath and psychopath. The average spergy in such a society would be little more than serfs.
This is a good analysis, but it’s one of several possible critiques, and they don’t necessarily contradict each other, they can co-exist on different planes.
An easy but true one is to say that the disease of the Left is simply the minoritarian will to power — the Jewish will to power, the black will to power, gays, Asians, Latinos, whatever. They see an opening, they see a weakness,and decide to exploit it. Another easy but true one is to note that there is a kind of historical cancer growing in our civilization which manifests as an irrational but very real hatred of White people and Christianity. Nietzsche thought that the source of all political behavior was simply a feeling of resentment, and maybe he was right.
One way I find helpful to view it (again, it’s not the only way), is that the disease of Leftism is a disease of shallowness. In a term popularized by Martin Buber, the Left suffers from an inability to “stand in relation.”
Let’s say for the sake of argument that my father was an insane criminal who died in a gunfight with the police when I was four years old. But just before he died, he carved a swastika into my forehead with a pocket knife, and I’ve had a swastika-shaped scar in my forehead ever since. I’m not a Nazi, this was done to me as a child by a lunatic, I cannot help what my face looks like. But I know that the symbol bothers and frightens most people, so for instance when I go for a job interview I cover it with a hat or a bandanna, and make some excuse about a recent skin cancer treatment or something.
In other words, I stand in relation to other people, I take them into account. The man in the sundress demanding to be called “they” has, no doubt, personal issues stemming from his unusual psychological makeup, and it’s likely he’s suffered emotional damage in the past by being misunderstood, he probably got mocked and beaten up a lot for what he was/is. But much as I sympathize with all that, nevertheless he doesn’t own the English language, he cannot unilaterally dictate its usages, and he seems not to care that a big, hairy man in a sundress bothers and frightens lots of people. He places his own needs at the center of everything. In the end, he hasn’t thought this through very carefully. He’s being shallow.
Multiply all these little snowflake personal difficulties by the tens of millions, and you’ve got the leftist Coalition of the Tearful, the people who don’t understand that, yes, other people have suffered too, but they don’t walk around in public in just a bathrobe, out of consideration for everybody else.
I would highly recommend Thomas Barlow’s A Theory of Nothing, which satirizes this mindset (and academia in general) very well.
“Marcia Ortez, the famed transsexual professor of Sociology at Duke University, and former husband of the deceased, delivered a memorable oration. She placed the blame for Hidecock’s death firmly with the scientific community. “Only where there is no science, is there no injustice,” she said, rivulets of mascara cascading down her cheeks. “Science is the absolute tyrant that obstructs absolute liberty. Its henchmen are the impertinent scientists whose business it is to establish a vast body of laws that require our conformity. Sandra was ashamed of this body of laws. Sadly, she died fighting them.””
Progressivism is fundamentally parasitism, and it grows like a cancer in presence of great affluence. It is not a trifle that can be disdained or dismissed lightly. Nor is it a disease that can be cured by rhetoric or persuasion, no matter how clever the message. It is an existential threat to the species and to the health and well-being of civilization itself. It will not change until either the host is dead (societal collapse) or the environment in which in flourishes is altered to disincentivize parasitism.
Collapse will right things. Our environment of “shared” affluence with parasites has no precedent in history before the Industrial Revolution. One can forgive/understand taking the path of the Welfare State the first time, but never the second time. Assuming we get a second chance.
I am not a defeatist. Analyze and predict. Like the Soviet Union, welfare addiction and parasitism will grow until the Ponzi house of cards collapses. Then tyrants will rise and attempt to enslave the productive population using the jackboot of governmental power. They will pit LEOs against Patriots in order to eliminate the Alphas, then detention camps and ruthless autocracy. This scheme is as old as dirt. What will beat them back? Simple/Secret/Solo/Spontaneous. The elites are cowards and they will run at the first sight of their own blood.
John Gray had a article recently with similar observations;”
The classical liberal economist F.A. Hayek wrote in The Constitution of Liberty (1960): “Progress is movement for movement’s sake, for it is in the process of learning, and in the effects of having learned something new, that man enjoys the gift of his intelligence.” But what is it that is learnt in the course of this purposeless process? Admirable for the clarity and honesty with which it is stated, Hayek’s idea of progress is as much an expression of nihilism as Derrida’s project of deconstruction.”
https://unherd.com/2019/08/why-the-humanities-cant-be-saved/?=sideshare&fbclid=IwAR2PIfiOe8jWp_eCDOnl68bjetFrnNUFMYOByT8emgzeyweI-nU0JLiI7hc
Disagree. Nihilism? No, true humility.
I wish we had good polling of white men. How many, precisely, are race realist. How many think that open borders would lead to a disaster. How many are cognizant of the anti- White hostility of our Elites and entertainment sectors. How many whites understand that they’re headed for minority status, and are willing to express some discomfort at that fact.
Not nearly enough. We’re in a race between getting white people understanding those things and demographic change. Right now, demographic change is winning. We’ve got ground to make up quickly.
Correction. Demographic change has won. Whites will be a minority in the country. We need to move on. It’s separation in one form or another that we need to fight for. The old country is dead.
Not sure there is any point to a survey. I believe that most folk on the Right or Left are unthinking pawns. If the power goes out, or the EBT cards stop working, you may indeed get them out onto the street. But the days of pamphleteering probably began and ended with the Revolution. In the end, the struggle will be among a small segment of believers, the majority will hunker down and wait for the victor to be announced. Has it not always been that way?
Sidvic, that, I think, is the best question ever.
“The point of a religious text, like the Christian Bible, is to have an objective set of rules that are not up to the whims of a cleric or a religious institution. Scripture is God’s rule book and not up to debate by man.”
Except, of course, that the text of the Bible is determined by “a cleric or a religious institution.” And once that’s settled, who determines the what “God says”?
“Until Vatican II, the Catholic Church discouraged lay Bible reading lest it unleash sectarian fanaticism and make every Bible reader his own pope. To the extent that Protestants have avoided this, it is because individual Protestants have been content to stay within the limits set by the interpretive tradition of their pastor or denomination.” –Robert M. Price, The Pre-Nicean New Testatment
I would argue that an institution like the Church was set up to not allow whims to take them. That failed with the schisms, but generally there is a sort of Lewisan ‘mere Christianity’ which still exists.
Indeed. Which, I believe, was the reason Christ didn’t exhort us to pursue debates that most of folks would not have been able to follow even if they had the education for it. I have no answers.
“And once that’s settled, who determines the what “God says”?
Logical reductionism ends up as “turtles all the way down.” Kant and Rand both fell down that rabbit hole.
There’s a point at which we have to stop deconstructing and accept a common premise (today’s geek word – “enthymeme”).
For our purposes, “because we live here” is enough, a kinship/communitarian version of Kant’s “categorical imperative,” if it must be big-brained.
The Territorial Imperative. The God of Nature rules.
Yves, below: “We either build a civilizational order that parallels nature or we build one that chafes against the natural order.” The dissidents are the true civilized environmentalists.
Exile said it earlier, to make a safety net for our own and attack any who threaten it.
I didn’t save the comment, my regret, but that was the gist. I thought, “that right there is the frickin’ ticket”
“Until Vatican II, the Catholic Church discouraged lay Bible reading lest it unleash sectarian fanaticism and make every Bible reader his own pope. To the extent that Protestants have avoided this, it is because individual Protestants have been content to stay within the limits set by the interpretive tradition of their pastor or denomination.
Unfortunately, the first sentence in your quote is flat-out untruth. I was pushed–hard–to read the entire Bible when I was a yout’ in the very early ’50’s and I was not alone.
The rest of your quote? OK, let’s count the number of Protestant denominations. So how many Popes do the Protestants have?
So, Enlightenment bad, because leads to chaos. But, Science good, because rules. But, the Bible is good, because it provides rules. What rules decides what to do when they conflict?
I don’t consider the Enlightenment “bad”, rather it was the beginning of thought later taken to a conclusion not supported by observable/provable reality. There was at that time less knowledge of how to apply/test such thought/theory. I accept that.
The rules that match observable reality are to be preferred. The process for such may change as we grow more knowledgeable and wiser, but the start is always that there is an observable reality which we may discover.
“The rules that match observable reality are to be preferred.”
But observable reality, at least in the narrow sense, is limited to physical and mechanical facts. In their own realm, they are an important aspect of truth. But they are not Truth-With-a-Capital-T, just appearances that don’t begin to explain the nature of things.
The Good, the True, the Beautiful, love, spirituality can only be viewed in their secondary manifestations. Their essence is in a different level of being. (Hat tip: Plato.)
Consciousness is not directly observable; nobody can explain how a thought enables a voluntary action. There is plenty of psychical research, based on honest science, to suggest that consciousness is no mere “epiphenomenon” of the brain, and in fact consciousness continues after the death of the physical body.
Call it observation if you like, but we need to observe more than just materialistic processes.
It’s important to realize that we will never know the TRUTH. Einstein would still be defeated by a 6 year old child in just 5 questions or so.
6yo…..Why is the sky blue
E—-Because light breaks down into a multi-color spectrum
6yo…..Why does light break down into a spectrum
E—-Because light particles/waves have a wavelength
6yo…..Why does light have a wavelength
E—-because that’s the way God wants it
P.S. Yes, I realize that I can’t even go 4 questions deep on that subject.
A lot of modern troubles are due to this kind of logical overreach. The very idea of the “progress” that is supposed to underlie progressivism is a leap of faith that started from a firm enough jumping off place after all. People could clearly see that the steam engine built in 1880 was more efficient, more powerful, better in every way, than one made in 1830. Obviously moral truth and social goods must progress the same way, right? But this is actually far from obvious and it is especially far from obvious that the specific agendas of the proggies represent any kind of real advances. Once science weakened religion though it was probably inevitable that some kind of simple minded scientism would actually become a new religion. If only we could have just stuck with sober minded observation and hypothesis testing and not tried to claim too much ground for science.
Religion had given them the Thirty Years War. (And many others.)
Roman Catholics had murdered every other Christian variant in the West, such as St. Patrick’s Werbergundians, the Syrian Nestorians, and the Arianite “heresy”.
The Abrahamic Muslims tried to murder both Catholic and Orthodox empires. The Protestants burned ten times as many people at the stake as the Inquisitors.
And we wonder why “God’s will” was questioned?
Why do people always attribute the sins of man to religion. Find me one passage in the New Testament that tells you to conduct an inquisition or force convert someone. The problem is that most of the major religions are so observably “good” that we begin to assume that anything called a religion is good.
“If the very axioms of human reality are now up for debate, then everything is up for debate, even the claims made by the Left. With no truth, nothing is false. The world is narrative of opinion.”
Seems like a world perfectly suited to a certain group known for its verbal abilities.
“And the trees were all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw”
“The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.”
― George Orwell
Do lefties read his stuff like instruction manuals?
Yes!
Orwell was a Lefty genius—so smart that eventually he saw through the Leftist facade—hence his most famous work, “1984”. If he wrote training manuals for Lefties, he also wrote training manuals for anti-Leftists.
Similar to how libertarians and objectivists wrote the training manuals for lib-spergs that also showed many of us how to escape their own logic-trap.
Orwell swallowed such a big truth pill that it ended up shattering his former horizons and allowed him to re-frame.
For them, “1984” is not a cautionary tale but a blueprint…
thazman said: ” If we cannot be equal in the utopian paradise of our own making, we can be equal in the utter and compete destruction of society. After all, the one place where all men are equal is in the cemetery.”
Nicolás Gómez Dávila said: “Hierarchies are celestial. In hell all are equal.”
“That also means so-called hate speech is a social construct, as it is rooted in the belief in racial and ethnic differences. If those differences are imaginary, then hate speech is imaginary as well.” I think you have that backwards. Hate speech is produced by hateful haters, who hate imaginary things called races. It’s real, and the Left can consistently denounce that. What they Left can’t do is engage in hate speech ITSELF, such as “I hate being white” or “I hate white men,” etc.
I’d hate this, if this was real and hate existed, which it doesn’t.
How many times do I have to go over this. Race isn’t real, but racism is. Race doesn’t exist except in the minds of white people, who aren’t really a race but just think that they are. Sure we have superficial difference such as skin color but these are so minor as to be laughable.
Unfortunately, whites seem to believe that these superficial differences matter and continue to be racist, either consciously or unconsciously. This results in systemic racism, the proof of which is differing outcomes among people of different colors, colors that are superficial.
If whites would just give up their racism, the world would be wonderful. But they won’t, and it’s literally killing POC. Over the past 50 years, we’ve tried everything to get whites to give up their racism; but they cling to it like they do to their guns. It hasn’t worked, and, frankly, a lot of old-school Democrats – white Democrats, btw – refuse to acknowledge that these gentler methods of getting whites to let go of their racism have failed. Older (white) progressives are part of the problem.
Race isn’t real, but racism is. Racism comes from whites – who aren’t a race but believe that they are. Racism is literally killing POC. Racism must be eliminated by any means necessary.
Racism is whites. Racism must be eliminated. Therefore, . . .
Plan accordingly, friends.
Where do (((fellow white people))) fit in?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
It’s not (just) the Frankfurt School, because this type of thinking is much earlier. For example, the black sociologist E. Franklin Frazier already published an article titled “The Pathology of Race Prejudice” in 1927.
In my opinion, the most important (((fellow white))) connection is the anthropological school of Franz Boas and his disciples.
Academic “consensus” about the race question had been achieved in the early 1930s in several disciplines (anthropology, psychology, sociology), well before the Frankfurt School could have had any influence in the USA.
Wherever they say they do.
That’s chilling. While the left mostly rejects logic, that’s the kind of logic they can get behind and follow through with.
From their perspective, it’s the only logical conclusion.
If you truly believe that there are no meaningful biological differences among people and that white racism causes so much harm in the world, literally to the point of killing people and that white refuse to give up that racism, the only thing to do is either expel them, control them or kill them.
They’re not going to expel us. Controlling us won’t stop group differences. That leaves one final solution.
Yup. Depressing but true.
I can see the nihilistic chaos reflected in people’s faces. Which is why so many people need pills. Opiates or psychotropics.
So many young, so many women I encounter, are medicating over fits of anxiety and depression; the natural signals that there is something very wrong with our lifestyle and the belief system that has come to define it.
I can relate. I can feel it etch away at my own foundation as I ask myself, “why bother…why maintain principles that are so easily turned against me…why try to find so many needles in the growing haystack…why work hard when the social order rewards grift and all other manifestations of the dark triad.”
But in my lucid moments, usually that comes during deep work or physical demands or time in nature, I remind myself that this world is already fallen. Each generation has had to confront their own demons.
So Faith is key. But where the left demands faith in the chaos and the god of the individual on the ever shifting plane of their earthbound reality, actual faith demands humility and a selfless orientation of service toward others in the name of one God.
So much of the leftist religion is at odds with what is natural that it simply cannot help but to poison the mind and the body of those who embrace it. Literally.
The left turns the natural signaling of its toxic ways into justification for turning the dials on anti-reality even more.
It promises that all we need is freedom from other people’s rules. All while it layers on more absurd rules to shore up the reality it unwinds.
What the left fails to acknowledge is that freedom comes from applying discipline into the chaos, not from creating chaos.
Utopia is not freedom from, but rather freedom of; paradise is order cut from chaos thru hard work, discipline, and reasoned thought that attunes man with the laws of the land.
Leftism creates a room full of toddlers without rules and order – or the wherewithal to ask for it.
The terror that comes from their desperate cries for discipline, consistency, and dignity is the only natural thing about it.
Correct. This line of thinking triggered my own conversion to the faith. If you read the bible you will eventually come across the seven deadly sins. Any one of those sins, over indulged, are enough to destroy a man. Liberalism enthusiastically promotes all seven. Queers destroy themselves with pride and lust. The purple faced cat ladies do it with wrath and envy.
I am not trying to be prudish; but much of what they promote is as damaging to themselves as it is to others. With no morals or ethics to redeem themselves with… they turn to drugs or booze or chithouse ideology.
I’d like to hear a natural law argument against Pride as I’m almost sure there isn’t one that’s any good. It’s also curious how arrogance and hubris are always and everywhere conflated with Pride even though they are different words with different meanings.
“Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall” can easily mean that one loses their Pride before they are destroyed; which is what I see in the West, not a surplus of Pride. The worst people I see have an absence of Pride and concomitant deficit of honor. The most humble have the least number of children and the worst genes.
– The best dancing outlaw in all of Appalachia
Faith, family and community are what’s important and the very things destroyed by the Left along with consumerisim, dog eat dog capitalism, convincing women that a corporate career is more valuable than having children.
The opioid epidemic followed on the heels of NAFTA and PNTR with China that gutted the rust belt and mid-West of industry and jobs and leaving the men there with no real future and no ability to be providers for their families and worse no real way for young men to attract a mate when the best job they can find is at Wal Mart because manufacturing was outsourced to China.
Added to is our refusal to cut China off after being caught repeatedly red handed dumping Fentanyl into the U.S. via Mexico. Not to mention companies like Perdue who deliberately flooded the country with x100 amount of Oxycontin needed.
This is one thing the anti-semites miss: The West generally, but especially America, had dealt themselves a mortal wound with liberalism. The man who stabs himself in the heart and is bleeding out on the sidewalk can complain when someone starts picking him over to get his wallet or whatever, but he was going to die anyway so what’s the point?
The West will only be saved when it rejects liberalism. I doubt a return to monarchy will be possible and it may not be desirable, but liberalism is a terminal illness so something has to replace it. Something will replace it, the only question is, will it be 3rd world anarchy or will order be reestablished?
And arguably something already has replaced liberalism since we seem to live in a post liberal order. But if our solution to the post liberal order is to return to liberalism (Sargon of Akkad), well then we might just be better off drinking and drugging ourselves into oblivion to make room for our new 3rd world replacements.
We need something new. We need a revolution. But as we were warned about liberalism not too long ago (1970s): “There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions of the past. It will originate with the individual and with culture, and it will change the political structure only as its final act. It will not require violence to succeed, and it cannot be successfully resisted by violence.”
Can it be successfully resisted by any means? I’m not sure myself….
Irishfarmer said: ” Something will replace it, the only question is, will it be 3rd world anarchy or will order be reestablished?”
Yes.
Unless that “anarchy” is stable. I guess we will see how much arabs and blacks enjoy being bugmen.
Yes, it can be resisted—or rather reordered—with violence. Is this assured, no. Only if we are fortunate enough to find a Pinochet or a Cincinnatus among us.
The endpoint of our present path is anarchy. Anarchy is not the same as entropy. It is not a stable state. Anarchy is an intermediate state—in a progression from old order to new order—as Z-man pointed out. But that new order can never be anarchical as a permanent nature. And, as Z-man has repeatedly taught, the new order is in our hands to shape.
I consider things that are possible, but implausible, to basically be off the table. sure a Pinochet could come, but I dont think Pinochet comes out of a liberal milieu, so it may already be too late for that. We likely need to consider alternatives imo.
The Sackler family, who thinks Whites who’ve died from their opium were addicts who were going to die anyway, is smiling in agreement with you.
Firstly, leaving aside the question of who handed us the knife of liberalism in the first place, the argument “we were going to die anyway so who cares” assumes that we’re going to die.
Don’t count a White man dead until you’ve seen his body.
Who’s in the vanguard of those making it harder for Americans to “reject liberalism?” Who pushes liberalism in media, academia and government?
I wouldnt take the metaphor too far. Whether we survive liberalism and what it has become is a bit more uncertain than the fate of the guy who mortally wounded himself. The point was just to demonstrate that liberalism was a self inflicted wound that opened us up to infection. And the only mainstream solution seems go be taking antibiotics but leaving the gaping chest wound wide open. And so we will just see the cycle repeat until liberalism is finished.
What they don’t miss is who is pushing it harder & faster. What they don’t miss is seeing who viciously attacks those who try to save what we have left and perhaps turn the culture back around to something sustainable.
Z and others can yip-yap about SOME DEEP CAUSES all they want. And they may be right to some extent. But that does not change just _who_ is working hardest for our civilization to succumb.
Many times it sounds like folk try to excuse the damage done–and being done. “Why blame X, Y, and Z people? Sure they say they hate you and want you dead and work toward those ends. But you must cast your ire at SOME DEEP CAUSE and not at those feverishly trying to harm you and yours.”
Bah. I enjoy reason, theory, and the like. But they take back seat to what I see with my own eyes.
I suggest, the seven Noahide laws
By GOD, for gentiles
It’s a legal system, not a religion
There are so many great points in this essay that I hardly know where to begin. First, Z is absolutely right that equality is much easier to achieve by leveling than by elevating. Hence, if you wish to eliminate the educational achievement gap between blacks and whites the easiest way to do it is to make the curriculum so easy that even the most idiotic get good grades. Likewise, if we destroy culture, beauty and civilization, distinctions between savages and sophisticates vanish.
In relation to the above, I have long noted that the AWRs seek to nullify differences between lawful and unlawful, sanity and madness, truth and falsehood, good and evil. Those distinctions, however, are the stays of civilization. Remove them and civilization collapses.
And finally, I would note that postmodernism is simply second-wave cultural Marxism. There is a direct line from Theodor Adorno to Louis Althusser, from Herbert Marcuse to Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Both groups targeted Western culture for destruction; the latter merely refined the methods of the former.
All of the above are already happening, all over the country. San Francisco eliminating the word “felon”, so any distinction between criminal and victim vanishes. In New York City, DeBlasio and his education tsars want to get rid of Gifted and Talented programs. Destroy education, and everybody becomes a genius.
If the gifted and talented programs are “racist”, aren’t the remedial classes also “Racist”?
Everybody’s equal, everything’s equal – every person, every behavior, every idea. The logical end is anarchy, followed by tyranny.
The late Sam Francis once wrote about outlandish leftist ideas that would get pushback from normal people. The problem was that the left would take their crazy proposal 3 steps forward, and the response would push it back, but instead of all the way back, maybe only 2 steps or 1 step back, resulting in the left gaining ground overall. When this process is repeated numerous times, as it is with the left, since they never let up on their assault on the West….well….here we are.
Sometimes I wish I had read Sam Francis earlier…but then I realize, well, I really wasn’t ready to understand him, or accept what he was saying. Now I’m in my seventies. Boy, do we ever get wise too late.
What gives these crazy ideas an extra air of respectability is the high celebrity status of many of their spokesman. Movie stars, dapper newscasters, university PhD ‘s, senators. Looney for sure, but we’ll paid high status loonies. Enough so to make some people wonder if they are missing something and these people are more enlightened than they are.
That has always worried me about the Green New Deal. The Right stumbles all over itself responding when the plan was rediculous on its face, but it flummoxed the Right into challenging the costs and impact of 5 programs, instead of just one, all the while the Democrats will take whatever crumbs survive and then come back with one or more GND components at a later date.
“Perception is reality” for a lot of folks today. I look at the demented souls on the left, and the alternative realities they fabricate for themselves… and I wonder what they get out of it. Those cat ladies are not happy people. The queers still seem compelled to give straights the finger with annual freak shows and pride parades. Feminists describe themselves as “nasty women” and it’s a point of pride for them. None of these idiots seem to know what they want.
And none of them are in the least bit happy. In fact they’re miserable bastards and can’t even stand themselves.
They certain can’t stand one another. The results of another survey, for what it’s worth:
The poll of 1,254 adults aged 18 and older found that 27 percent of millennials have no close friends, 25 percent have no “acquaintances” and 22 percent — or 1 in 5 — have no buddies at all. This compares with only 9 percent of Baby Boomers and 15 percent of Gen Xers who reported having zero chums.
How can you have no acquaintances? Live by yourself on a desert island?
Since they have so clearly demonstrated that their minds are so easily malleable, we need to convince them that what they truly desire deep down in their Id, is their own death.
Maybe then the rest of us can have some peace for a change.
thezman said: “There is a third option. This insane behavior is not just performance art, but an assault on rationality and order. It is an attack on the very concept of truth. After all, if it is no longer possible to tell boys from girls, then what is true?”
I hate to keep repeating myself ( that’s a lie ) but here is a repost of a quote from Theodore Dalrymple on political correctness.
“In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
I don’t think this applies. The leadership in places like the Soviet Union was staffed with capable men who did not believe the party line. They understood that their power and position was justified using the concepts of Marxism and equality. Very few actually believed the lies.
But today in currentyear US, the fanatics and useful idiots are the ones at the upper levels. They are not capable men. Many of them have had their status raised precisely because they are incapable.
Just because people are sniffing their own farts right up to and including the halls of power – doesn’t mean that what Bologna posted isn’t true.
The commies have been trying to undermine Western society for a long time – the problem they had in this country is that it has taken so damn long that the infestation has reached all the way down and all the way up.
Seems to me a little bit like “The Hunt for Red October” – they tried to take out the escaping sub – and torpedoed themselves.
Tars_Tarkusz said: “I don’t think this applies. The leadership in places like the Soviet Union was staffed with capable men who did not believe the party line. They understood that their power and position was justified.”
The majority of the leadership of all communist countries believed completely that the system they had created was the natural progression and end of history. As for their competencies and capabilities. You really do need to read more of their own words. Read about the mountain of bodies they created. the untold misery and destruction they perpetrated was unprecedented in history and remains so too this day. All the while proclaiming a full throated belief that communism was the best of all possible worlds. To think that they where all just a bunce of cynical power mad cut throats is simply wrong. They believed whole-heartedly that what they were doing was the only path to true justice and equality. And if that isn’t f**king nuts, I don’t know what is.
The starvation and mass murder was almost entirely under Stalin (in the USSR). Stalin was not an egalitarian. But, true, he is just one guy.
I suppose they might have been true believers, but they certainly weren’t the types we get. All the blue haired freaks with no talent, the diversity hires and just all the people who are praised for, and got where they are, because of either being a freak or because diversity.
In this way, the various communist systems did not have this race to the bottom built in. In the Soviet system, the Politburo and apparatchiks were men.
I would say America and Europe’s systems are closer to Maoist China than to the Soviets. The 20teens have been far closer to the Cultural Revolution than anything else, though obviously far less destructive and violent.
“Obviously far less destructive and violent”—so far.
No it wasn’t (almost entirely under Stalin)
The commies in Russia started killing people as soon as they took power.
The commies in China killed a lot of people as well – millions is a “lot”.
The commies in Cambodia seemed to think that killing people was the only way to get their “revolution” to work.
The North Korean commies kill people til this day.
Stalin was in power for decades. Are you really ready to reason away commie death camps on the premise that they existed only under certain specific commie leaders?
I don’t know about you – but I’m not willing to wait out 30+ years of some commie a-hole being in power just to see if things get better the next time around.
Lenin and Trotsky were especially bloody, killing millions in the first couple of years. Wasn’t it Trotsky who had the program of culling good-looking Russian Christian youths? He figured the good-looking ones were more likely to also have well-formed minds and it would be better to kill them before they became trouble-making intellectuals. While doing this, they encouraged race mixing. They also killed 4,000 police upon taking power and released the prisoners. Reminds me of the typical California politician: decriminalizing while apologizing to blacks for supposed police brutality while they tax the hell out of whites to support the illegal aliens in a sanctuary state.
I love that Dalrymple quote too, but it applies to more than just “communist” propaganda.
Anyone who’s worked at a large corporation has had the experience of being forced to assent to obvious nonsense. And not just in the HR/Diversity context, where the nonsense is ubiquitous, but in normal business as well. I’m thinking for example of “mandatory” policies that if actually followed would make success impossible, but are put in place simply to deflect any possible liability from management.
Z is right, we are increasingly living in a post-reality world.
Fabian_Forge said: ” I’m thinking for example of “mandatory” policies that if actually followed would make success impossible, but are put in place simply to deflect any possible liability from management.”
What your describing is bureaucracy, which is ubiquitous and immortal. Who knows, it may be one of the Archfiends Powers, Principalities, Thrones and Dominions. ( Sarcasm ).
Z is right, we are increasingly living in a post-reality world.
Reality also gets a vote on that. It will be spectacular, quite the show, when it casts it…
It is VERY useful to remember that Satan is “The Father of Lies.” So I’ll say again: this is, at root, a religious battle disguised as politics.
dad29 said: ” So I’ll say again: this is, at root, a religious battle disguised as politics.”
Wouldn’t it be hilarious if it turned out that civilization was actually a joint effort between humans and Satan? ( It was all just a setup. ) 😂
Romanticism is in its last, decadent phase. And make no mistake: Romanticism, which sprang from the Enlightenment, cascaded from Beethoven to Picasso to whatever you call today’s “art”. It’s finished. The only thing left for radicals is to humiliate us by making us acquiesce to their absurd demands. The more absurd, the better. It is a form of mental rape…like modern “art”.
The cuck conservative reaction to left-wing insanity has always been “we’ll beat them badly in debates using logic and reason and cruise to election victories”. Maybe this has worked on occasion, but now the left has prepped the battlefield with so much insanity it just doesn’t work on people they’ve indoctrinated. (Not that there is a lot of logic in true-cucks like Romney or McCain’s positions)
Now they don’t have to try to defend the economic impact of higher taxes or more welfare – they just scream about fairness at the top of their lungs and recite some barely re-worked quotes from Marx. Acting crazy is easier.
For my liberal relatives and friends, one of the the worst judgments is that you are mean. Most arguments from the right sound mean to them and therefore cannot be true.
This is how pedophilia will be imposed on us. My mother will be angry with me for being mean when I criticize Elton John (or whatever famous gay man) for fVcking a 14 year old boy. She’ll say it is mean of me to disapprove of two people in love.
That’s why I started telling all of my right wing conservative friends – they might as well just be mean.
I mean ACTUALLY MEAN. Like insulting mean. Like combative mean.
You need to overload the circuits.
My cousin said she’s a Democrat because they’re nice. The other reason is because they would let her kill baby she will never have. She’s a fat,unattractive, pathological liar with rage issues. She epitomizes the rage of the left which I believe has its roots in envy
And I accidentally downvoted you sorry!
The word “nice” has its origins in the word “foolish.” So, Whitney, not that any logic would work, but I wanted to share with you, if you ever choose, some info for your cousin.
Reference:
https://www.dictionary.com/e/nice-guys/
Nice, it turns out, began as a negative term derived from the Latin nescius, meaning “unaware, ignorant.” This sense of “ignorant” was carried over into English when the word was first borrowed (via French) in the early 1300s. And for almost a century, nice was used to characterize a “stupid, ignorant, or foolish” person.
Comes from ‘ne scio’ – not to know – In the 1938 Oxford English dictionary the elite were using it to mean ‘wanton and dissolute.’
Pedophilia will not be imposed upon you. If you don’t want to be a pedophile, don’t be one. If you don’t want to be involved with that, don’t be involved. I hadn’t heard that about Elton John, but if two people consent to physical intimacy, it’s no one else’s business, regardless of gender, age, race, or any other factor that someone might disapprove of.
It’s worked consistently for the Left – why stop now?
Because of strategy culmination point. This is common problem in the army that from certain point attack becomes self destructive. Our troops moving deep into enemy territory, support and logistics are far behind, men are tired, ammo is finished, cars are broken and from this point we are not beating enemy anymore, we are digging our own grave. Even with single gun time to time, this problem appears. Front certain shot you are not suppressing enemy anymore but wasting you last ammo. That what the left does right now. Those magic words and moral superiority are their last ammo and they losing impact fast and left forgot to rebuilt their arsenal on time. Strategy culmination point means that certain methods and certain weapons are effective only in certain time. After this point even the dumbest enemy develops the counter measures and fighting with old weapons and tactics become self destructive.
The third world immigrants don’t care about the logic and ideas and tax policy coming from the conservatives. They just vote tribe and free stuff. I wonder, though, what they think about their insane cohorts on the left and their gender and LBGT,etc. nonsense? I suppose that war will begin once they’ve disposed of the right.
Considering the number of Muslims they invited into the anti-west / white coalition, you are correct.
I’m fairly certain that the elite thinks they will be among the few remaining whites and will rule happily over the brown masses. LGBT and gender gibberish is there to encourage the upper middle class but not quite ruling class whites to stay on the path to racial suicide. It’s an easy choice to make since most of them don’t earn enough to afford children – at least not while living the $10 craft beer and $800,000 loft lifestyle. Sure they could move to the suburbs or away from the coasts but that’s just one step away from spending Saturday at the gun range and Sunday at church. Their brainwashing makes them wince at the very thought.
The true elite CAN still afford kids if they want to and will perhaps quietly start having more as soon as more of the white masses are destroyed and replaced by PoC. I see this as analogous to the way certain large corporations will actually push for more government regulation of their own industries. They can afford the burden of regulation, upstart competitors cannot.
I’m not sure exactly how the more decadent ones plan to keep living as degenerates in the People’s Islamic Republic of America. Perhaps they think they will live like 18th century French aristocrats, quietly indulging their vices at Versailles miles from the uptight masses in Paris. As I recall that didn’t end well though.
All cuckservatives (basically most of Conservative Inc.) need to read today’s posting by Z-man. Truly a work of great Insight and wisdom—and I might add—a better synopsis in 5 minutes than Jordan Peterson’s 50 minute YouTube spiels. Unfortunately, most of them will not have the patience nor intellect to get through it—short and concise though it be.
Similarly, the bulk of Leftist progressives will not understand it either, albeit they march to its tune every day. Sigh.
“Useful idiots” surround us on all sides. In that, Lenin was prescient.
I would say they both converge from different perspectives. I prefer Peterson’s take, because he understands the need of updating one’s knowledge. He puts the same diagnosis that radical left is anti-truth. However he rises up further to explore the dynamics of left and right, and why both are needed.
Logic and reason does not sway the illogical and unreasonable.
So the end of history is really the end of Progressivism or the Enlightenment. I guess dictatorial rule is next. Any reading of our founders statements and concerns at the time suggests they knew it wouldn’t last, but hey, a constitutional republic is the best system for a liberty yearning people. We also know what kind of people are needed for such a system.
It is funny that racism is everywhere now, rearing it’s ugly head still after fifty plus years of programs, indoctrinations and massive mind control techniques by our elites. Now getting rid of Trump will fix this massive problem.
I think what’s next is already here. They’ve already field tested fake two-party rule and found it superior to one party rule. Better an ostensibly divided but covertly collaborating dictatorship than an iron boot with only one face.
I often wonder what “The Plan” is for parliamentarian systems such as they have in Europe. It seems that in the US dual party dictatorship is in effect but the Euros still have multiparty systems that even allow crimethink to have a vote. It’s why Europe seems on course to stop the invaders while we’re still wondering when the wall will be built.
Nationalist parties rarely win an outright majority, or any parties in most European countries for that matter.
In the extreme case of Belgium, they outright banned Vlaams Blok, which then had to become a new party Vlaams Belang. Presumably they could arrest and imprison leaders, it looks like Austria will arrest Martin Sellner.
I think it’s important to remember that a perfect people need no government at all. You get the people right and they’ll get the institutions right.
I always suspected that b*stard Darwin was White. As if there are any rules to anything!
One Breed – The Dog Breed!!!!