Note: If you missed the livestream of me and Frodi discussing the great Western The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, then you can catch the replay here. It was a very good show, even if you are not a movie buff. It was mostly about ideas that our side should discuss more often. The more views it gets the more credits he accumulates, so check in for a few minutes, even if you are not a big into movies.
In his essay Self-Reliance, Ralph Waldo Emerson famously wrote that “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” Ever since it has been a useful dismissal of the pedant, but it is also a useful way of understanding American politics. One side in the political fight spends all of its time fussing about inconsistencies of the other side, while the winning side is happy to dismiss their own hypocrisies. As Emerson understood, it is the latter who always has the edge over the former.
It is the Right, of course, that spends all of its time fussing about inconsistencies on the Left, while the Left just wins every fight. The American Left, unlike the European Left, grew out of that peculiar form of American Christianity that has informed its worldview since the 19th century. Filled with self-righteous fury over the inequity of the world, the righteous are free to do as they please to right the wrongs of the world. Even their own past statements are no impediment to them.
Of course, in 18th century America, radicalism was still bound by Scripture, if not literally then morally. Those new Prometheans springing up to oppose things like slavery were relying on a moral framework they inherited from the past. Today, free of that moral framework and free of factual reality, those old urges have curdled into petulant and nasty partisanship. The American Left is now just a hysterical tirade against anything or anyone that represents order.
You see this in the reaction of the court taking up a case regarding the power of the tech monopolies to control public discourse. This Slate writer flew into a purple faced rage on Twitter about the alleged inconsistencies of Clarence Thomas in comparing these sites to common carriers. He then followed that up with an amusingly unhinged essay in Slate titled, “Clarence Thomas’ Attack on Social Media Companies Is a Paranoid Marxist Delusion.” That is a man detached from reality.
Not to be outdone, this guy, looking for attention, posted his condemnation of right-wing hypocrisy on Twitter. His claim is that only through giving a handful of corporations absolute control of the public square can we have genuinely free expression. It is an interesting mix of fascism and Orwellian language. It shows how the Left’s response to any effort to rein in these companies, will be whatever they think will work, even if it means condemning their own words from yesterday.
The facts here are important only in that they help us understand the mentality of the people who are closing off the public square. The explicit intent of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 was to curtail censorship. The tech companies argued that they did not want to moderate their forums and that it was practically impossible for them to do so. In order to encourage free expression, Congress carved out a special exception for them in the law.
Now, if you point this out to the Left, they will laugh in your face. After all, they are defending our democracy. They are not going to be bound by the words and intents of people long since gone from the scene. There is that old Emersonian inclination at the core of the American Left. Tradition and custom can never be a restraint on man in his pursuit of justice. For the Left, the law is always whatever it needs to be at the moment, as theirs is an ends justifies the means world view.
On the other hand, the Left is endlessly fussy about the tiniest of inconsistencies in their opponent’s positions. If none exist, they will make some up. You see that in the claim that there is some contradiction between allowing a baker to express his religious convictions, while preventing a trillion dollar company from crushing dissent. There is no contradiction here, but that is not important. The righteous man is free of mere facts, so he is at liberty to find inconsistency where he must.
The Right, of course, responds to this with long recitations of fact, which have no impact whatsoever on the debate. Politics in a democracy are always about morality, which is why the Left is endlessly yapping about it. They see themselves as the fullest expression of democratic morality. Each of them is a finger on the reified hand of the public will, so the more democratic the society the closer it is to achieving that ideal of the public will. They are the instruments of that public will.
You can no more reason with someone who thinks they are the sword of a secular god than you can reason with someone who thinks they are a god. On the other hand, the people will naturally side with those who they see are morally correct. When Ocasio-Cortez famously said being “morally right” is more important than being “factually right”, she was expressing the very essence of liberal democracy. People will go along with the most insane things if they feel their gods demand it.
The other part of the Emerson quote is “With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.” That right there is American politics in a nutshell. One side sits staring at the wall, certain they are right, while the other side speaks hard words in pursuit of justice.
A new year brings new changes. The same is true for this site as we adjust to the reality of managerial authoritarianism. That means embracing crypto for when the inevitable happens and the traditional outlets are closed. Now more than ever it is important to support the voices that support you. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you prefer other ways of donating, look at the donate page. Thank you.
Promotions: We have a new addition to the list. Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start. If you use this link you get 15% off of your purchase.
The good folks at Alaska Chaga are offering a ten percent discount to readers of this site. You just click on the this link and they take care of the rest. About a year ago they sent me some of their stuff. Up until that point, I had never heard of chaga, but I gave a try and it is very good. It is a tea, but it has a mild flavor. It’s autumn here in Lagos, so it is my daily beverage now.
Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb. Just email them directly to book at sales@minterandrichterdesigns.com.
Whitman said something similar: “Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.).” I think the multitudes he contained weren’t the literal multiple personalities of the schizophrenics on the left who insist on using the pronouns “they” and “we,” when talking about themselves, though. The Jewish role in what’s happening is so outsized and obvious that it’s easy to forget these weird currents of leftism that come from the Upper Midwest and New England. They seem innocuous and well-meaning but are psychotic and dangerous, even though ostensibly rooted in Christianity (especially the Sermon on the Mount). We’re supposed to be afraid of low church/charismatic types and evangelicals. I’m more worried about some lesbian “deacon” in Burlington, Vermont. The snake handler’s only drinking his own strychnine while the Calvinist and Puritan are pouring it into our wells.
16
Joey, I thought of Whitman’s quote as well when Z quoted Emerson. Clearly, there was a strong rejection of logical consistency going on with the Transcendentalists in New England. I’d like to know more about that. I would guess it was a variant of “feelings don’t care about your facts.”
Speaking of New England in the 19th century, you are correct to bring up the descendants of the New England Puritans and their utopian impulses. When I get carried away with the idea of building a homogeneous society based upon common ancestry, I confess that I must remind myself that I am genetically very close to the New England Puritans and I don’t want to live with those guys. Life is complex!
1
There’s never been a fact pointed out to a leftard or to the left in general that has made a damn bit of difference in their long term “scheme”of things. Oh sure, they may give lip service now and then for convenience sake, but will get back on track soon enough. The “conservative” right pointing out these obvious hypocrisies is even more tiring than negro fatigue, if that’s possible.
15
Yes and no.
You’re not going to convince the zealot.
But then that’s not really the point of engaging them. The point is to persuade the people that the zealot is trying to persuade, aka the audience. The battle space is something like 5% leftwing nut, 5% right wing opposition and 90% undecided.
4
1
Dino, your ‘90% undecided’ is about as realistic as the fabled ‘silent majority.’ People aren’t undecided, most of them just don’t care. They don’t pay attention to politics or larger issues because they lack the intelligence and foresight to see how it will impact their world or the future of their progeny. That accounts for perhaps 50%, many of whom will not survive the future winnowing.
Add in another 20% who kinda sorta agree with either side depending on the issue, claim they’re ‘unbiased’ or ‘middle of the road.’ These people don’t want to commit to anything, constantly hedging their bets. They’ll possible finally fall on one side or the other depending on circumstance, but they will never be reliable because their first instinct is always to check who their allies are and who is more powerful. A lot of them will choose incorrectly and will pay with their lives (people just don’t seem to realize that ‘your people’ is not who you choose to identify with, but those who choose you as part of them).
That leaves about 30% of people who have some awareness of what’s going on. I’d bet on 15% hard left, 10% hard right, and then 5% possibly turnable to the dissident right. That is not a particularly large pool of potential allies. There is no great mass of people out there waiting to be enlightened.
8
Yeah I have to think it’s less than 5% of white people who actually hold dissident views.
To be dissident, you generally need the following traits:
– high racism
– high ethnocentrism and tribal awareness
– low empathy
– low trust
– willingness to lie/manipulate (aka dark triad)
– low conformity
It’s just not a collection of traits that many white people have. I’ve unfortunately wondered if many whites just aren’t cut out for the modern globalized world. I am highly tribal and really have no issue identifying and dealing with various tribes at work or in life. But 95% of my peers just don’t have that gear.
All I can say is that dissidents need to have alot of kids and raise them well. I do think it’s more likely genetic than environmental. I’m sure we all received the same brainwashing that other whites did yet we became dissidents.
4
“All I can say is that dissidents need to have alot of kids and raise them well. ”
Exactly. Do His work. And educate them yourself.
“I do think it’s more likely genetic than environmental.”
I think so. But I see counter examples even in my own family (siblings). The comfort and hitherto unknown luxury of modern life is a strong inducement to toe any line.
“I’m sure we all received the same brainwashing that other whites did yet we became dissidents.”
This is something I have been thinking about recently. Admittedly, when I was in school (I’m now mid-thirties), the propaganda was less obvious but was still there. My friends and I all survived – we’re all still politically incorrect and have the same concerns; but I think they just cannot break away from The System. Perhaps not dissident material? It is a shame, as back in German class as thirteen year olds, we’d answer questions by raising our hands as if saluting moustache guy. Sometimes we even go the whole hog, applying a thin strip of gaffer tape to our top lips… the full ‘Fuehrer’. Never got into bother.
I’ve long thought that social media companies can and should be treated as common carriers under the law. There’s plenty of precedence there and no reason at all to reinvent the regulatory wheel for the,. Just apply standing laws where they clearly apply. It’s good to see someone (C Thomas) coming to the same conclusion.
9
I’m actually in favor of public accommodation laws. I’m also in favor of private organizations being the alternative. If Twitter positioned itself as a private club, with specific rules for admission, dues and so on, then they can make the rules they see fit. On the other hand, when you declare yourself a pubic service of some sort, like a retail shop, public platform and so on, then you must abide by the laws of the common. Shielding the platform providers from defamation should be conditioned on their role in the common. That was the point of Section 230. These platforms will simply be neutral facilitators, not active participants.
12
Shoulda, coulda, woulda. That ship has sailed and taken with it the idea that social media would be the “soap box” of the 21st century upon which all ideas could be discussed without censorship.
Like our Constitution some ideas are just too full of Freedom to allow to exist.
4
That’s not the point I was making, of course. Whether or not the court will apply the law is a different question.
3
Actually, having a career that spanned the “pre-Internet”, “pre-social media” times with present, I am amazed the platform stayed as open for as long as it has. I remember discussions even in the early 90’s that the government would never allow this mechanism for communication of dissent to remain and even grow. I’d have bet money it would be all over 15 years ago.
4
Twitter and YouTube are the de facto digital public squares due to their enormous mindshare.
They absolutely should be treated as a public good where secret coeteries have no place in deciding who can and cannot speak in the public square.
2
“[The Left] see themselves as the fullest expression of democratic morality…You can no more reason with someone who thinks they are the sword of a secular god than you can reason with someone who thinks they are a god.”
In college I wrote a little essay called “The Explication of Lady Justice” where I provided two interpretations of the icon, an exoteric and esoteric interpretation. The esoteric interpretation was my way of willfully subverting the hermeneutical meaning of the icon. It was really a commentary on our current ideas of “Justice” specifically the trendy social justice of the “woke” SJW stock.
Take a look at our fair Lady:
https://static.b-bro.net/img/600/2/lady-justice-bronze-figurine–cm2.jpg
We are of course told that each object represents a rational concept in itself e.g. the blindfold represents objectivity and impartiality in matters of law etc. Yet I suggested that we take a look at each object in relation to the whole image, and to interpret the icon in a realistic manner. How horrifying! A scantily clad harpy who is blind folded, yielding a heavy sword whilst trying to hold a balance… Oh the absurdity! Just imagine her trying to accomplish anything in a competent manner. How can she yield a sword whilst blindfolded? How could she keep the balance even while trying to enforce blind justice?
THIS is our image of Justice!? ;P
13
I wanted to emphasize the fact that this lady justice was in fact incredibly vulnerable on her own. She must rely on others to carry out “justice” in any meaningful sense, and is therefore extremely exploitable. Justice is only as good as the orders she is taking, the men whispering in her ear, turning her about, and unleashing her on the crowd.
9
Regardless of imagery, the rule of law died in the USA last December when the Supremes took a pass on the overt election fraud criminality. That was the revelation of a tipping point for many. Any pretense of this country being governed by the “rule of law” is now laughably absurd. But the good news is that this revelation is liberating. Anything goes now applies to all things, all the time, everywhere. Yes, there will be differential application of the illusion of law, Progressives will get a free pass and everyone else gets the noose, but that just hastens the inevitable collapse. And the collapse is only possible cure remaining on the menu.
10
Yes Tom A , the last vestiges of hope for the America I grew up in died that day. It was profoundly sad, and yet strangely liberating.
6
Lady J was raped hard that day.
3
That was one thing Trump got right. Never apologize or allow oneself to be put on the defensive. “So what if I had three wives?” “Yeah, I was a 30 something billionaire bachelor so I banged the chicks that threw themselves at me, next question”. Whataboutism is waste of time. The answer to any of these attacks should be “so what?”
32
Andrew Breitbart would often answer the left with “So?” along with a look of befuddlement. It was a great way to reveal the moral base stealing.
23
That’s a masterful shutdown and prompt for the Marxists to keep babbling and grow even more unhinged.
1
Yes, and I have even caught myself doing it with other men of like minded views. Doesn’t the left know New York and even Deleware, the home state of Biden has stricter voting laws than those proposed in Georgia?
I heard myself saying that.
The positive thing is that I caught myself and was able to also reply that the left does not care, only we care about hypocrisy. We are pissing in the wind bringing hypocrisy up so much. It can be a tool to help normies be aware but for us who are around each other and who now think deeper about the left, It’s pointless.
15
Indeed. Listen to any “conservative” talk radio program and within the first 15 minutes, you will hear an expose’ on the latest hypocrisy of the Left. They can’t help themselves. Come to think of it, one might consider judging such “conservative” folk as to whether or not they depend on such (hypocrisy) discussion as integral to their show’s format. If they ignore Leftist hypocrisy or expound on such very little, it is probably indicative of their crossing over to the DR side of our divide—and perhaps an indication that they are worth listening to.
9
Bongino actually laughs hysterically when doing this. And it’s the laugh of a mad scientist celebrating his victory over a problem he presumes he has just solved. In his mind, a snarky put-down of some Leftist lunacy is the virtual equivalent of winning an election.
4
ZMan – Your continual comparisons of the Left with the acolytes of a zealous religion shows, I’m afraid, only that you do not understand what Real religious zeal is like. Given that our Western religion is Christian or nothing, this drum-beat of ‘Leftists are religious’, ‘Leftists worship gods’ etc (despite that Leftists are the most materialist, god-disbelieving, purpose- and meaning-rejecting people in history) just represents a tempo of anti-Christian slurs. I know you don’t intend this, and regard yourself as open and sympathetic to an alliance with Christians, but old habits die hard – and you just sound like an embittered anti-PC Leftist (which, I’m afraid, is precisely what all those who try to be Right without being religious actually are). It is quite simple: in The West there is Christianity or there is the Left – no other alternatives. The fact that church Christianity is both weak and deeply corrupt does not affect that fact – it will be Christianity of Leftist Permanent Revolution leading to *absolute* collapse. On that basis – collapse looks to be extremely likely, almost certain; but that does affect the options.
5
13
“ There is Christianity or there is the left”
Hogwash
Christianity is no more inevitable in our future than communism was in the Soviet Union or National Socialism was in Germany.
And part of our problems is in fact Christianity and the perversion of it.
If what I see before me is the result of Christianity I want no part of it.
And for those who have read my past comments, I am a Christian.
You are setting up a false dichotomy that is not necessarily true in my my opinion.
11
1
I was going to offer a longer reply but then came to grapple with this and found to me it simply made no sense.
” It is quite simple: in The West there is Christianity or there is the Left – no other alternatives. The fact that church Christianity is both weak and deeply corrupt does not affect that fact – it will be Christianity of Leftist Permanent Revolution leading to *absolute* collapse. ”
Christianity as an institution at this stage is both weak, deeply corrupt, and left. How is this not a contradiction then that Christianity is supposed to be in absolute opposition.
6
Bruce, the “leftism is a religion” realization needn’t be anti-faith in understanding or in practice. As you know, Jim Kalb is deeply religious and holds this view. Some of us who are Christians hold this view. Leftists are idolators, pharisees, etc.
9
“The West there is Christianity or there is the Left – no other alternatives.”
Ouch. You may be right. Hope not. Certainly could be.
For those who find that we cannot force ourselves to believe, we must forge a third way (wink, wink).
2
bgc, Perhaps you ought to learn a bit more about the word ‘zealotry.’ And, although he is on everyone’s sh$t list for something or other, Vox Day is on point with his coined term ‘churchian.’ Finally, look into “No true Scotsman.”
2
There’s a group of secular Puritans in my unincorporated neighborhood who, for at least the last 10 years, have been trying to cajole the other inhabitants into becoming a town (with them as the ruling body, naturally). They’ve been unsuccessful mainly because their only argument is it will be easier to ensure compliance with zoning regulations. In their zeal they don’t seem to understand the average person resents these impositions and isn’t keen to give busybodies the means to sniff out and punish even the most trivial violations. I’m surprised they haven’t tried the moral angle since one of these control freaks no doubt is schooled in this gambit. Maybe in some fortunate cases, like this one, there really isn’t one. Although I suppose the ability to more easily rat out your neighbor is fast becoming a moral imperative in Carny World.
10
It was necessary to interview a few 8 year olds, but that research provided me with what seems to be the most logical, comprehensible response to the arguments of The Left:
“I’m rubber and you’re glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you”.
8
Interviewing 8-year olds probably isn’t much different from Interviewing leftists. More fun though.
10
Hypocrisy is a feature, not a bug. It’s a flex on you, on us. “Yeah we are hypocrites. What are you gonna do about it, whitey?”
Most conservative memes / talk shows are all about the hypocrisy. That just shows their power over conservatives lol.
18
Conservative carping about hypocrisy also serves as a clear signal to the cultural Marxists they have been effective.
3
Somehow this reminds me of the tangential point that righties need to focus on the enemy in their own ranks first. The left fights to win while the right strives too uphold reality and truth. There’s no point in debating the left, we have to smash them. But first we have to deal with guys like Ben Shapiro and his cadre of tsk-tsking finger waggers.
12
The Left continues to punch below the belt while the Right sticks to Queensbury Rules. Every time the Right takes one to the groin, they cry foul to the Referee. Unfortunately, the Referee could care less and the Right still hasn’t figured out he’s not there to enforce the rules.
Until the Right learns to fight the way the Left does, it will continue to loose.
21
If we just keep pointing out the facts – well we’ll manage to get enough of those fence sitters on our side to cobble together 50.000001%. BLM and Saint George Floyd disabused me of the notion that facts matter.
6
No you won’t ever.
First of all it’s demographically impossible to get a 50.1% majority for our side with non whites as a majority.
Secondly they will just manufacture enough votes to get that majority if they don’t exist, as we saw in the election.
The old way of democracy is dead. Better think up something new, and fast.
6
Yep – my comment was 100% sarcasm.
The surging demographic groups do not care about facts. They care about their racial group dominating.
3
A New Tomorrow (cont)
Only solo is truly secure.
Yes, the Deep State is using it’s prying eyes to measure everyone’s dick size, and also employing AI to data mine everyone’s social media and private communications in order to ascertain you pre-crime inclinations. But all is not lost. You can still fool most of the tyrants most of the time. It’s not easy, but it is doable. First & foremost, use your social camouflage to become as benign & invisible as feasible. Learn to communicate lots of misdirection in your social media (if you still use it) and also in routine emails & texts. Be creative & have some fun with your new online “self.” Most importantly however is to conduct all your serious thinking & planning solely within the confines of your cranium. Yes, the eggheads are trying to pierce this veil too, but it’s still your best bet to remain private in your thoughts & future deeds.
6
1
Check out the video on Powerline (Sunday past) of Canadian pastor colliding verbally with female health inspector and police officers sent to roust their Easter service. Now this guy —from Poland — knows how to meet the LEFTIST / totalitarians. And of course, the immediate PD statement on this was …. inaccurate. Commenter there says Calgary mayor id Moslem.
5
Alright, grammar sperg alert. I try hard not to be a grammar notsee, and I’ve given up on people understanding the distinction between its and it’s, but there are two things every fairly intelligent White man should know. The first is the meaning and use of the words there and their and they’re, and the second is the difference between rein and reign (most already know rain). A ‘rein’ is used on a horse to control its movements, and thus to control a government or out of control individual – i.e. ‘reined in.’ Reign means the rule of of someone, such as a king or pretend president. So control versus rule/power. Okay, sperg out. Now back to reading the post.
5
1
Being a horseman, I’m very familiar with the proper usage of the term “rein in,” but of all the common malapropisms, that’s the one I can forgive most easily, because I can understand the through process that leads some to thing “reign in” in the sense of “to rule or exercise control over.”
2
I always mix up rein and reign. I never remember how to spell bourgeois. These are not things that cause me to lose sleep. Is anyone is baffled by what is meant by “reign in” versus “rein in”? I doubt it. If they are, it may be an indication of some sort of brain abnormality. The reader that is certain that the writer is morally bound by the reader’s standards of grammar is probably not learning much from his reading. Grammar is always a means to an end, not an end in itself.
9
No one is ‘bound’ by my standards of grammar, and I definitely make my own errors. I’m simply noting (and in so doing, noting I’m being a sperg about it) something that I find jarring amidst your readable and thoughtful and excellent prose. Fwiw, perhaps a mnemonic assist for reign and rein – the one with the ‘g’ works for a king, and the other doesn’t. Either way, enjoyed the post as usual.
1
^^
“thought process”
“think” (not “thing”)
And how much of typical blogging grammar error is just because we don’t give things a proper once-over.
I don’t know how much is autocorrect (I can’t even remember if I made that post on my phone), and how much is because I am a touch typist and sometimes my fingers just go off and type a word that is close on their own accord!
1
Off topic. But I didn’t thank you the other day for the ‘Off Grid Hospital’ link. It’s very helpful; the book recommends were all decent too – I’d been looking for a good run down of standard medical texts.
1
Glad to be of help. My reading ranges widely, if not always usefully.
You have just given us a pleonasm, which is generally superior to a neoplasm 🙂
1
Let us say frankly to our opponent that we do not share his ideas because we understand them and that he does not share ours because he does not understand them. –Davila
5
50.1% now decides the country’s morality and thus the definition of laws.
Whites will soon be a minority.
Buckle up, campers. Will will soon be at the mercy of groups that despise us. If they push it, the situation won’t hold. They’d be smart to just keep us in a low simmer, but history says that’s not how it will play out.
14
They can’t help themselves. If africans/mestizos had future time orientation, their countries wouldn’t be shit holes and they wouldn’t be desperately fleeing.
I’ve said many times that they don’t operate on the same plane as we do. The average black iq is, generously, 84. Outside the talented tenth, their thoughts are not much more complex than “ooga booga”, “muh dick”, and “gibsmedat”. Throw in some (((whispering))) (more like screaming) that whitey bad and soon you have very violent and angry blacks.
Other non white groups are slightly smarter, and they are assimilating perfectly. Anyone from Latinos to indians to chinese is brainwashed in school to hate america and hate whites. They have no frame of reference or connection to our nations so they believe every word. They also have identity crises (foreign “back home” and in america) and this provides them a perfect identity. Asian and indian men hate white men because we are more handsome and desirable than them. It makes them crazy. The puerto rican barmaid believes everything she says.
Interestingly only muslims are smart enough to play the long game in europe, other than a few incidents here and there. The mix of (((fellow whites))), insane good whites, extremely violent blacks, and brainwashed + assimilated various non whites will prove to be too explosive and hateful to resist leaving us alone.
14
“Rein in”, not “reign in.”
2
Schopenhauer once said he’d rather be ruled by a lion than a pack of rats. Increasingly, I’m inclined to agree. But there are no more lions. Only rats.
9
The other side are cowards.
We so far are worse; we submit to cowards.
It is true that words mean and accomplish nothing, one wonders why more words?
5
I’m not sure I totally agree.
Look at how effectively the other has weaponized language.
What are the real-world factors preventing this side from doing the same?
I would argue that the enormous safety net/support system is the largest real-word difference between the sides.
Their side has an endless array of comfy, well-paid sinecures for any of their fallen culture warriors. This side has next to nothing.
1
If you accept the fact that Darwin was right about morality in Chapter IV of his “The Descent of Man,” it’s not so hard to understand the behavior of the modern Left. They suffer from the common human illusion, described brilliantly by Westermarck, that moral goods and evils are real, objective things. This illusion has become “dysfunctional” in an environment radically different from the one in which the relevant emotionally driven behavior evolved. The result is a “morality inversion.” Instead of promoting the survival and reproduction of the relevant genes, the behavior inspired by these emotions now accomplishes precisely the opposite. In short, the Left is on the path to extinction, and they are doing their best to drag the rest of us along with them.
4
1
People would be shocked to see the intra-white fertility data. I ran some census data between ultra white rural ontario and the whitest areas in Toronto and other liberal cities (namely Ottawa). (Too much time on my hands during the never ending lockdown).
The ratio between adults of childbearing age (I said 25-39) from the average chunk of territory in urban toronto and rural boonies (chunks of 100,000 people) is usually about 2:1. Sometimes 3:1. The most extreme case is 8:1. However, the number of children (age 0-19) is more like 1:1 per chunk, or even 1:1.3. it is incredible.
Even among the urban areas they’re still 25%-40% non white. And there are conservative whites living there, even if not many. The conclusion is that within one or two generations “bad whites” will have completely outbred “good whites”. Low fertility is almost a completely liberal and urban phenomenon among whites.
Even more reason that you need to be very careful about what your kids learn in school. They reproduce through the education system, not the womb.
12
You’re half right. If you think moral good and evil are not real, objective things, then you are unarmed for the fight in which you are engaged.
4
I guess I’m unarmed. Show me where good, evil, moral and immoral exist as things in themselves, unreferenced to human beliefs, then I will believe you.
1
Westermarck’s anti-religion and moral relativism are closer to the causes of the present troubles than the solution.
4
Cohen and Stern…. How peculiar….
Words like cuck, dindu, NPC and other effective rhetoric is banned on most social media platforms. None of THEIR effective rhetoric (racist/fascist/misogynist etc) is banned, just ours.
Our larger side (not just DR but the whole right) needs to learn that in the public square, nothing is more important than effective rhetoric. You can call them hypocrites till the cows come home and they just do not care. But call them an NPC and the howling and shrieking begins.
They absolutely HATE ridicule. Showing you have nothing but contempt for them is debilitating for them. That is why they ban our effective rhetoric and why most of our effective rhetoric is mocking.
They need to be mocked, laughed at and made to feel foolish in front of as many people as possible. This affects them more than anything else. Arguing with a tranny about the validity of pronouns is where they want you to be. Calling them a weirdo and mocking their appearance and calling them a “man in a sundress” is where they do not want to be. They know it’s true and it hurts. They fear nothing more than being the target of mockery.
Even if the cucks pass legislation of some sort protecting the public sphere, it’s not going to help. What they will likely do is require photo-ID for a “verified account” and ditch handles. Given the real life damage these people can do, everyone will be just as hobbled as if their account was taken away. No matter how PC you do it, expressing forbidden thoughts will expose you to SJW attacks on your real identity.
11
It’s funny how often I go to the Z Blog and find a post about something that I was just considering myself.
I was listening to a couple egalitarian civnats on a YouTube video ranting about the left (it’s not important who. It was your conventional criticisms.), and it became very obvious how conservatism and classical liberalism have set themselves up to lose.
Under the typical mainstream conservatism viewpoint, everything is always up for debate.
“What? You believe in a different sexual morality, or social order than I do? Well, friend, let’s just have an open debate about it, and we’ll get to the bottom of it. Surely there’s some compromise that will allow us all to live together in harmony, right?”
However, one of the speakers also make the point, “The left doesn’t want to allow you to exist.” Quite true.
Now put on your game theory hat and try to figure out what happens when you put two groups together, one that operates in a spirit of compromise and open debate, and the other that wants to implement its vision at any costs (never mind that the vision is inconsistent and self-contradictory).
The answer is that the party willing to compromise loses in the end. Every time.
Classical liberalism means you’re always willing to give your opponent another shot at you.
But look at the left. With each social victory, it has burned the bridges behind it. You will never be allowed to discuss whether blacks are inferior, homosexuality is a mental illness, or whether a decent society should be allowed to promote or even impose Biblical morality on the population from any respected position of power.
And yet I still see mainstream conservatives tut-tutting against that pesky left — “Oh, they just need to understand that open discourse and respect for other peoples’ opinions is the best way!” You mean the way they respect Christianity? Or traditional monogamous, lifetime marriage? Yeah, that’s going to happen….
The mainstream right is afraid of being right. They’re terrified of being called intolerant. And they’ve disarmed themselves. I was trying to figure out how that started, and as far as I can tell, it goes all the way back to the enlightenment and its proponents among the early founders of the US.
Thomas Jefferson said, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
And in that statement, he restricted discussions of injury to the material — picked pockets and broken legs; financial or physical harm, and disallowed the concept of injury by moral harm. So right from the outset, the ability to make social and moral arguments was undercut. The lolbertarian “What do you care, man? It’s not hurting you!” became the mantra of the loser on the right.
I think it’s not hard to find examples where even the concept of physical and material harm have been abandoned as valid measures of injury: “Business burned down? It’s just property, man. It was insured, right?” But it’s the inability to argue social and moral harm that was the most severely injurious.
Fornication between two consenting adults? “Not your business, man. It’s not harming you.” But it is. It’s undermining the morality of the society I live in. It’s going to result in children out of wedlock, children of divorce, broken homes, broken marriages, and unhappy, hardened people who can’t bond or commit. The harm is massive. And it only gets greater with each additional perversion: abortion, porn, sodomy, transsexuals and so on.
“Well, that’s just your primitive Christian morality, man.”
And, at that point, the mainstream conservative feels compelled to make an argument for Christianity or its moral framework. He admits that his base morality is open for discussion and argument.
And thus he loses. Because the gay, atheist, communist, transsexual creature that’s teaching his kid social studies absolutely does not regard its morality as “open for discussion.”
I got “criticized” the other day with the line that “People who are so damn sure they are right aren’t all that different from Antifa.” As if I was supposed to be ashamed of that. Antifa is sure it is right. That’s true. And if it is sure, and you are full of doubt of your own rightness, you will lose. End of lesson.
18
1
“The mainstream right is afraid of being right.”
Succinct and true. I no longer really attempt to debate wokeists, but at some point, after saying something that offended them and being called a ‘X-ist’, I’d simply reply “You never said I was wrong, though.”. It was very effective, and after I had deployed it a few more times it came to my attention that yes, often, Rightists were on the side of truth.
There is fundamentally more truth to a ‘rightist’ position because, properly taken, such a position is usually based on reality.
5
Vizzini: very well stated – to say the very least.
Written long ago, but somehow quite relevant today: Sin is crouching at the door and it’s desire is for you, but you must master it.
4
Brilliant comment. I, too, often get criticized for being too dead set in my belief or position. But if one does not hold to certain absolutes, if everything is up for negotiation, then nothing ultimately matters. Truth is not up for debate. Morality is not relative. Even beauty is not merely in the eye of the beholder (symmetry and physical manifestations of youth and health and fertility are real).
Moral harm to society is something generally ignored. That’s purposeful, just as the campaign against moral opposition (mocking of Christianity, mocking of social sobriety and sexual modesty) has been purposeful and planned. Those funding the pillaging of the West have been quite open about their beliefs and goals. When they say they want you dead and your children raped (or sexually mutilated) and your history erased, take them at their word. This endless overthinking or debate about the enemy’s motives is what leads to sites like Sailer having hundreds of comments, typical sound and fury signifying nothing.
Stand your ground. Defend your people and your beliefs. “Because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.”
5
By your argument, I could impose Sharia law on you. Are you sure that’d be good idea?
1
1
There are countries with Sharia law all over the world. It doesn’t matter if “it’s a good idea.” It’s the way the world works. If you want your particular world, you have to fight for it, not sit down with the leader of CAIR and say, “Yeah, Muslims are great. Let’s have more of them in our country. Maybe we can find ways to accommodate your Sharia.”
3
I’m already having an objectionable ideology imposed on me. What would I be more upset that it’s Sharia than Globohomo?
2
MTG may be a Q-Anon loon, but she knows how to fight fire with fire, by introducing the, “Fire Fauci Act:”
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-introduces-the-fire-fauci-act-will-slash-the-salary-of-dr-always-wrong-to-0-and-the-we-will-not-comply-act-will-ban-vaccine-passports-prevent-discrimination-aga/
1
THats the Catholic,ic argument too. The happy end of man is the purpose of the state, the end of man is the beatific vision. The state must promote and be wedded to, the true religion, the Catholic religion. Therefore the state must be Catholic.
Thats why Vatican ii is heretical. It says the state must promote religious freedom. This was condemned by Pius ix.
Oh well…
Nicholas Nassim Taleb (the “Black Swan” guy) has developed a theory of the “Intolerant Minority” which I think you’d enjoy. It treats the dynamic you outline above pretty thoroughly.
Of course, the intolerant minority here in the US gradual became a force to be reckoned with, if not an outright majority.
Couldn’t help but notice a common thread between the two twitter commenters you linked to. They’re always the ones who fly into “purple-faced rages” far as I can tell.
2
It could have been just a coincidence of course.
Your welcome.
.. ….