152 thoughts on “Truth Versus Justice”

1. Re: 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.

   Continental European left — British socialism owes more to Methodism than it does to Marx.

2. The uniparty looks like a Punch and Judy show with the left and right fighting over the tools in the Alinsky toolbox, unaware of the smell of war in the air.

3. The Left are not inconsistent. They are moral relativists.

   In every situation, their operative question is “What is good for me and mine right this moment?” This is both the logical and principled through-line in nearly all their actions. “What is good for the Jews?” being a commonly known incarnation of this.

   If damning someone as “racist” is good for them and theirs one moment, then being “racist” against a particular group is good for them and theirs the next or even same moment, there is no internal inconsistency for them in both of these actions. Calls of hypocrisy do not affect them because of this, alongside being reprobates.

   It is one more damning indictment of the intellectual right that they have never figured out what a moral relativist looks like in the wild. Although moral cowardice requires that you never understand people who can never belong to an advanced or good civilization.

4. Zman — it would be really nice if the folks interviewing you had an audio file for download. Most interviews would be missing pretty much nothing for most of these.

   You can use ffmpeg to strip the video and just have the audio, easier and faster for download. Very nice for commuters listening in their car, etc.

5. “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.”
   Amen.  I have a recent example from our Easter dinner.  I overheard a heated argument over climate change between my “righteous” conservative friend and a liberal guest.  Of course the conservative went into details about the hockey stick graphs and other facts while the liberal (A-hole) just took the moral ground of saving the planet and the human race.  As I walked by, my frustrated friend asked me opinion about all the facts versus the liberal viewpoint.  I said I didn’t really care much about his facts to which the liberal guest immediately smirked.  I then said to the libtard –  so what you’re saying is that if we give lots of money to politicians, they will change the weather and the climate – now laughing “OK, got it”.  Then I called a few people over, still laughing and said “hey listen to this guy, he said that if we give money to politicians they will change the climate and the weather”.  Embarrassed, the libtard tried to use facts about carbon and water rising to which I kept laughing “and the politicians will change the weather”.  He got so unhinged he left.  Best Easter ever. 

   • Heh. Easter ain’t what it used to be…

   • Give this man a medal! Not arguing policy, just abject ridicule!

6. While Progressive Anti-racist Egalitarianism is not a religion in the traditional sense, the case can be made that it’s very similar.

   Adherents hold to their beliefs with all the fervency and obstinacy of the most devout religious believer. Like the religious believer, they have a tremendous emotional investment in their beliefs being true. Like the religious believer, they strongly identify with their beliefs: question their beliefs, and they react as if you’re attacking them personally; and are as likely as not to attack you back.

   Like the dogmatic variety of religious believer, they see things in black-and-white terms, and see those who disagree with them as not just being mistaken, but as being evil. Where they are in charge, all opportunity for dissent vanishes: like the Catholics of the Inquisition, they’re eager to burn dissenters at the stake, while believing that doing so is a service to their Egalitarian god, and to society.

   Blacks are their supreme sacred objects: saying anything negative about Blacks is their version of heresy: deserving of the harshest of punishments.
   “Anti-racism” is the highest of values, and holding “racist” views the worst possible deviance: being declared a racist is the worst possible epithet.

   While claiming to affirm the scientific method and to be open to its findings, they’re quick to ignore or condemn any research which reveals the distinctly unegalitarian reality of genetically-based human biodiversity, and the inherent racial differences underlying it; and they do their utmost to cancel, banish, and shun anyone with the temerity to pursue it.

   In service to their god of Anti-racist Egalitarianism, they see it as their divine mission to suppress— by any means necessary— any findings— true or not— which have the potential to be construed as supporting a “racist” view of reality.

   But for all that, their self-identified “Progressive Christian” cousins manage to surpass them in hypocrisy: since anyone familiar with the Bible can see that “Liberal Christianity” is a contradiction in terms: as the Bible is anything but progressive.

   Despite claiming to believe that the Bible was inspired by God, people identifying as liberal and progressive Christians treat it like a Chinese menu: they pick the parts they like, and ignore the rest.

   And their interpretation of it is, conveniently enough, exactly in line with politically-correct progressivism! How great is that?

   Ignoring the many passages mandating male headship, they celebrate feminism. Ignoring the many passages condemning homosexuality, they welcome gays and ‘transgenders’.

   It’s a “faith” of convenience: they celebrate and affirm the feel-good passages, while ignoring the problematic ones. But if they really believed that the entire Bible was “from God”, it’s hard to see how they could justify treating it like that.

   Like their secular cousins, the Progressive Anti-racist Egalitarians, they claim to believe in science, but refuse to see how the findings of science conflict with their most treasured beliefs.

   Both are possessed by an emotionally-based, fervent certainty in the rightness and righteousness of their respective faiths, and are immune to any attempts to reason them out of it.
   .

   • Pretty wordy for a guy named Bill. Good overall. But for, “since anyone familiar with the Bible can see that “Liberal Christianity” is a contradiction in terms: as the Bible is anything but progressive.” Can’t let you breezily slip that by. As is plain and much discussed on the D.R. there are many “Progressive” themes running through the bible. That book is a mishmash of swords and fig leaves.

     • I’ll try to be brief in my reply
       : )

       I’m not sure exactly what you’re referring to when you state that there are many “Progressive” themes running through the Bible? An example or two would help.

       Disregarding the Old Testament— which is positively reactionary in its advocacy of slavery, male domination and subjugation of women, genocide against Israel’s opponents, etc.— I’ll agree with you that there are themes in the New Testament which might be seen as being in line with Progressive egalitarianism.

       Certainly the case can be made that Jesus’s treatment of women was progressive for his time. And that his treatment of the poor and outcast reflected a sort of radical-for-his-time social equality which might be compared to Progressive egalitarianism.

       And the OT verses advocating for stewardship of the Earth could be construed to support concern about climate change.

       But I’d still suggest that we find little in the NT that could rightly be seen as providing support for Progressive’s pet causes: the celebration of homosexuality, the celebration of radical feminism and condemnation of ‘oppressive male patriarchy’, the elevation and privileging of ‘minorities’ and ‘people of color’ above everyone else, the welfare state’s enforced redistribution of wealth, the punishment of words and ideas which offend.

       It strikes me that Jesus was advocating that charitable behavior be voluntary— not for the sort of State-enforced standards which Progressives would like to see made into law.

       • “But I’d still suggest that we find little in the NT that could rightly be seen as providing support for Progressive’s pet causes.” Lots of “love” and help the meek or poor simply because they are meek or poor. Those two concepts are enough to give Progs the backing or rhetoric they need. Anyway, appreciate your thoughtful comments, though I don’t always agree.

   • I think this argument is what Z Man was pointing out as useless.
     No.
     Kill their faith in their morality.
     They just like to hurt people.
     All of their policies fail on purpose.
     They kill babies! Nothing is beneath them.
     There is no depravity to which they will recoil.
     The only fun they have is making us say stupid shit.
     See SwissGaurd above.

   • “Blacks are their supreme sacred objects: saying anything negative about Blacks is their version of heresy: deserving of the harshest of punishments.”

     That appears often to be so, but “Black Lives” are also props in a morality play. In any case, the piety needs to be attacked, mocked, and ridiculed to disturb the smug and to set teeth their grinding in anger. Maybe what follows will help:

     [1] Those “Black Lives” have brown skin, not black skin like gorillas.

     [2] Black is not a color but the absence of color. Hence the phrase “Black Lives Matter”, as commonly used, implies that subsaharans aren’t POC, or that their POC-ness is secondary to some other truth.

     [3] Black is a synonym for evil. Hence, “Black Lives Matter” means Evil Lives Matter, which is just what we suspected long before we heard the names Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Armaud Arbery, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Patrisse Cullors, etc.

     I doubt very much that “Both [factions of pests]…are immune to any attempts to reason them out of it.” Other cults have not been so fortunate as to exclude all heresies, and what cultists have in common (human nature) is more important than the particular delusions which distinguish one cult another. Yes, they are very pigheaded, but their thoughts are not unhackable. This brings me to a favorite topic.

     Anyone who doubts that white wing Christians have a very similar character and mentality should try to reach Vizzini and 3g4me with facts and logic about their wannabe mashiach and his religion. A week or two ago I tried to help them to think clearly about the alleged ascensions of Elijah and Jesus to the rakia (firmament), aka shomayim (heaven). For my efforts I was denounced as “Satan”. (The word is a generic noun which means adversary or accuser.)

     Now, some truth about white wing Christians is worth the effort, esp. if it contributes to the cultivation of TEAMWORK against other satans, too. Contrary to the fashion of the times, the Israelites’ faith, which is the foundation of Christianity, requires a literal reading of Gen 1:1-18. An ascended body needs some place to go, or ascension is pointless. The context implies also that a literal interpretation of the passage is appropriate, just as it’s appropriate to interpret literally the claim that Jesus needs to be a patrilineal descendant of David to qualify as mashiach. So where the text reads mayim, it means the chemical compound, H-O-H. Indeed, a literal interpretation of Gen 1:1-18 was the norm for thousands of years, esp. among the rabbis, who usually can read their scriptures without translation. But then, after more than 1,000 years of stagnation in Europe, something amazing happened.

     Greek astronomy and physics reasserted theirselves against Israelite superstition and Christian fear of knowledge. The old sciences were reformed to reduce kinks, error, imprecision, and rank speculation. Geocentrism was soon refuted (again) and replaced with heliocentrism, which was overthrown in turn. By the 1920’s, as Christians count the years, there was no longer any excuse to believe in the rakia, aka shomayim. The structure first mentioned in Gen. 1:6 was exposed as a hoax, an imaginary dome to uphold imaginary waters which Genesis implies remained above the rakia was made. Jesus had no heaven to ascend to, but we can be confident that he actually believed in it, just like any other Israelite fanatic of his day.

     Even if Elijah and Jesus had risen into the sky as claimed and traveled at the speed of light, they would still be no more than a few thousand light-years from Earth. This distance is perhaps 5% of the diameter of our galaxy, and I’m being very charitable about men in sandals and loose garmets flying in a flaming chariot or like Superman through a near vacuum at the speed of light. Again, “the concluding work of redemption” (Hardon, S.J., in “Modern Catholic Dictionary”) never happened. It’s all b.s., just like the victimology of “Black Lives Matter”.

     No doubt the truth has embittered some members of the rabinate toward Europeans, who are largely responsible for refuting the rabbis’ national religion of self-aggrandizement and parasitism. The shattering of their world view cannot be but dangerous to unity among the priestly people (Ex. 19:6). And how could a people so swollen with pride allow the humilitation to stand without retaliation? What remains of their VIP status among humans once they have been exposed as charlatans and common chauvinists? Something had to be done to punish every European “Satan” for defying Israel’s sense of entitlement to be their god’s honored favorites.

     I’ve only hinted so far at Israel’s motive to support nation busting migration into the lands of Europeans. It’s obvious, though, that there’s another motive to consider. Christian ministers are likewise thrown off balance by the refutation of Genesis 1. What are they to do when they find that most people in their midst are abandoning the cult of Jesus for a way of thinking about the cosmos which has no place for the imaginary shomayim? The answer is obvious: They will support the importation of replacement congregants and potential converts, even if the replacements are very stupid, simple people.

     So, on whose team, exactly, is the white wing Christian? Some people are reluctant to answer this question, much less to call attention to it. That would get in the way of the rush to recruit people to the cause, but experience has shown that mistakes and compromises made at the beginning of a movement lead to disaster, sorrow, and pain.

     And “Black Lives Matter” means Evil Lives Matter.

     • Are you speaking in political terms, or do you really think blacks are evil?

       “Christianity requires a literal reading of Gen 1:1-18. An ascended body needs some place to go, or ascension is pointless.” Nice.

       • What exists necessarily in some possible world can’t be evil in a world in which it happens to exist. Nevertheless, I’m confident that there must be other worlds (or universes, if you like) with many fewer subsaharans in them, and some worlds have none. Meanwhile, “Black Lives Matter” is the race warriors’ own slogan. So why not to take their word at face value when they insist that Evil Lives Matter and mediate upon possible solutions?

         As a “Satan” who doubts the Bible, you’ll probably be interersted in the following two linked essays about what the tanakh actually teaches about the world. The first is by a Mormon who was on the faculty of several universities, including BYU. The second is by an Orthodox Jew who was indoctrinated in a Yeshiva where he learned all about the cosmos. Neither guy embraced the truth completely, but we don’t need to let that stand in our way, esp. when contempleting the fantastic drawings.

         THE EARLY HEBREW CONCEPTION
         OF THE UNIVERSE
         By Ralph Vary Chamberlin
         https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Early_Hebrew_Conception_of_the_Universe

         “The Hebrew word which in our Bibles is translated by the Latin firmament is Rakia, a word referring ordinarily and primarily to a metallic plate, to metal beaten out thin or into sheet-like form. The Hebrews applied this term to the sky because they sincerely believed that it was a material vault of metallic character, that it was, in very fact, a firmament. It was this strong metallic vault that, in their idea, kept back the waters of Tehom from the earth and made possible the gathering together of the remnant waters into the seas and the appearance of dry land.” -Chamberlin

         MY ENCOUNTER WITH THE FIRMAMENT
         By Oren Fass, M.D.
         https://www.thetorah.com/article/my-encounter-with-the-firmament

         “The Torah describes God’s fashioning the firmament (רקיע) on the second day of creation. This piece of the universe, however, doesn’t actually exist—a problem obfuscated in my yeshiva education.” -Fass

7. Clarence Thomas is right, however I wish he focused on the lowest hanging fruit first, the credit card processors. Visa and Mastercard (which is a racist name because it’s like the massah’s card) can cut anyone off just because they don’t like them. Or because the ADL doesn’t like them. This is a classic duopoly that’s as hardwired into our system as any government agency. Twitter can go either way as a “utility.” I personally don’t think it is one. A big part of why we’re here is because the FTC hasn’t done its job since they broke up the Bell monopoly in 1983, which is literally the last time they did anything relevant. Don’t tell that to libertarians though. MCI and Sprint should have started THEIR OWN Ma Bell….

   • How about the Boeing / McDonnell Douglas merger 20 years ago. Maybe you can start your own aircraft manufacturing business?

     • Of course! I’ll start with canvas biplanes in a barn.

8. Your welcome.

   .. ….

9. 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.

   • It could have been just a coincidence of course.

10. 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.

    • “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.

      • “There is fundamentally more truth to a ‘rightist’ position because, properly taken, such a position is usually based on reality.”

        Facts vs. Feelings, pointing out Leftist hypocrisy, Progressive ideology degrading classical liberalism, etc… should serve only as a primer for recruiting. Beyond that, tut-tutting is to be viewed as childish and quaint.

        Advanced lessons should naturally evolve into allowing the person to be able to identify the myriad attacks on, and threats against, themselves in every arena: their whiteness, culture, religion, industry, employment, freedom and ultimately their offspring.

        The final matriculation is when Our People reach the level of core hatred that is currently enjoyed and employed by our foes. When we no longer need to suss out their illogic or hypocrisy. When you’ve incorporated the “Why we fight” to such a degree that it is no longer necessary to review and doubt your actions… then you can graduate to a rarefied place where you are morally free to go to “War to the knife.”

        This is the only way to preserve Our People. The only way to win. It will take time to bring us to that level. It’ll take luck and timing. It’ll take hardened hearts. The mind exercises I mentioned in the elementary phase above as making people notice can give way to the mind being utilized solely for craftiness and the single-minded pursuit of destroying Our enemy.

      • Leftism is nothing if not a series of experiments against reality.

        • Failure to respect reality is not the sole fault of the left. Many religious claims, perhaps most of them, are blatantly at odds with reality — those that can be falisified, which isn’t all of them. Remember the frequent charge (entirely valid) that many of the Leftist beliefs are akin to a religion? Just because you’re a conservative Christian (or a Buddhist in 500 BC, for that matter) doesn’t exempt you from holding fantastic beliefs. It’s called being human.

          — Public Service Announcement —
          To further muddy the waters, I’m currently reading a critic of Nietzsche and he is discussing the various terms used in philosophy. Apparently, “realism” sometimes meant what Platonic realism, something that I’d been calling, perhaps incorrectly, “idealism.” Platonic philosophy considers the mind-created “reality” (Forms) the “true” reality (?) This would be consistent with N. and other anti-religion thinkers: they argue that (e.g.) Christianity asserts unseen world(s) — Heaven, Hell, whatever — and these are the “real” reality that the believer should attend to; by implication or explicitly, the “apparent” (our normal, everyday reality) is the illusion, or at the very least is wicked and sinful. Hence N.’s charge that religion inverted reality. Of course, he offers us a “transvaluation of values” which sounds somewhat the same, woudn’t you think? In any event, I’m hoping this event will show part of the eternal debate: going back to at least Greece of 2400 years ago, top philosophers were calling the mental world the true reality….

          Per this author (or philosophers he discussed) what I’d call the real world, or objective, is apparently called “appearance.” If I’m going to be one of Satan’s shills, I’ll try to find the correct terms. Please forgive any confusion until then.

      • That’s awesome! “Ha, but you never said I was wrong!”

    • 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.

    • 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.”

      • If your not willing to do what it takes then you gotta take what’s coming.
        I’m going to start a construction company as soon as I find a lbgtqxyzpoc to be a face.
        Gonna gets someodat infrastructure bux. Every pothole filled ten million

      • Geez, not much love for Sailer on this site. I maintain that Sailer does good work, a gateway drug if you will to our side. As a very mild mannered likeable personality, he can bring many fence sitters to our side.

        Full disclosure, I very much agree with your comment and find you to be one of the best commenters here.

    • By your argument, I could impose Sharia law on you. Are you sure that’d be good idea?

      • 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.”

      • I’m already having an objectionable ideology imposed on me. What would I be more upset that it’s Sharia than Globohomo?

      • Typical Conservative thinking from the 80’s. Whites are in the fight for their lives both physically and socially. And mostly because we kept ceding our moral ground every time the other side whined and threatened us.

        Now we’re one step away from having pederasty being socially acceptable and our children being educated by sexual degenerates and turned against us.

      • Graduate past the What-Ifs, past the mincing, past the parsing. You know who Our People are. You know what we stand for, our history, achievements. You know the foe is out to destroy us. Humiliate us, mutilate and shame our children. Erase all that Our ancestors built, beautified or won for us.

        Turn your mind to recruiting and rescuing Our People. Building alliances. Focus on how to hurt those that are harming us. Repelling them. Sewing chaos amongst them. Forcing their ugly heads into the understanding their choices are living separately from us or facing annihilation.

        Don’t bicker. Don’t distract yourself with details. Don’t worry over the color of drapes you’d like in a house you don’t own. Focus, figure, and fight.

        • Penitent Man, I love it! Well said!

      • I’d like to thank you for making this comment in earnest. I know you mean well, but it perfectly encapsulates why conservatives lost. Of all the races, Whites are the least racist, the least ethnocentric. So, they are the most susceptible to appeals on principle. But what happens when society is composed of multiple races, say through immigration, and only one side is willing to act on principle while the others aren’t? Well, as the commenter above said, the principled group usually loses.

        To see how this works, consider white Leftists. They once espoused a belief in free speech, but they were never serious about it. “Free speech” was merely a clever rhetorical argument meant to trick principled conservatives into not censoring the left back when they had the power to do so. Free speech benefited the left, so they supported it.

        Back when conservatives had the power to censor the left, the left were for a principle that advantaged them and disadvantaged their opponents. Now that they have gained near complete power, they’ve turned into literal book burners because keeping up pretenses on “freedom of speech” now harms their interests while supporting their opponents’ interests (free speech advantages the minority party more than the established order, which is why so many regimes limit it).

        Here’s a better retort to your question, one that isn’t susceptible to manipulation by ethnocentric groups with high verbal IQs: “I oppose Sharia because I’m not Muslim. Sharia has nothing to do with my people or my people’s history. I want to live in a country of my own people living according to our shared values. Sharia isn’t part of that.” No appeal to principles, just pure group identity. It’s easy to understand and excludes groups that might seek to manipulate my group to our detriment because it’s based on emotion and group identity and not amorphous principles.

    • 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/

      • I have to rub my chin thoughtfully on this one. While I support what she’s proposing, are those measures more or less likely to gain traction in the wake of having been proposed by a woman that the cloud people have successfully tarred as toxic. It’s silly, I know, but what if some milquetoast like Little Marco proposes the same thing next week? The Sunday shows will all point out that he’s on the same page as that “kook”, MTG, and they dismiss otherwise moral and rational notions.

        I want to shove things in the left’s face as much as the next guy, but I also want to start scoring some victories. We really need a big-time voice to start advocating for our positions, not flakes like MTG or the My Pillow guy, and not edge-of-the-bed virgins like DJT.

        • Letting the enemy decide who gets to speak for us? Gee, we’ve been doing that for decades. It really works! How about standing up for someone who is being tarred instead? Every single person who speaks up against the enemy will get “destroyed”. So by your rules, we all cower. Again.

          Thanks for nothing.

    • 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.

      • The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority

        https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15

        • If Taleb is right about this, and I think he is, this is all the more reason you don’t want to live in a “global village”. Put enough different tribes together and almost anything you might want to do will offend some nasty, intolerant little group that is part of all that glorious diversity. The upshot is that as diversity goes to infinity, freedom goes to zero.

    • Well, we had one election or one court ruling, once, that said “new liberal piety”, so shut up, rayciss.
      Democracy!

    • The three idiots who downvoted your post are a bigger problem than AOC.

11. Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Truth Versus Justice

12. 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.

    • I just had a revelation. Kamala is the first dindu-hindu veep. A two-fer.

13. 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.

    • 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.

      • My rural, northern, US cousins are as pozzed as you can be. No children.
        It is a death cult.

    • 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.

      • 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.

        • First, “objective” isn’t the same as “material.” The concept of pi as in “the circumference of a circle is pi time the radius squared” is an objective truth, but you can’t identify pi as a real-world thing apart from sentient definition.

          I accept the Biblical definition of morality as declared by the Christian God. You don’t, I assume. I am under no obligation to justify my beliefs to you, or compromise with you. I don’t object to doing so. I think there are a lot of good reasons to accept that definition of morality, but A) It’s beyond the scope of what we can possibly discuss in a comment thread, and B) I don’t have to hedge my beliefs or “prove” their existence to you before acting on them. My belief isn’t contingent on your acceptance of that belief.

          Society will always have moral laws. Proscriptions against murder, etc. We simply have to decide who gets to impose their beliefs. Some societies allow what others would consider murder depending on the status of the individuals in that society. Since I have a documented set of beliefs and morals, and you, on the other hand believe morals are relative, you are the weaker party. My opponent in the fight isn’t moral relativists like you, assuming you really are one. You’re merely the enablers. My fight is against others who have absolute moral beliefs. Most people who tell you they are moral relativists are lying to themselves most of all.

          Leftists also have a set of absolute morals. Radical individualism is a moral belief. Their moral code cannot tolerate my refusal to acknowledge that men running around in dresses claiming to be women is right and true and healthy. Leftists are *not* moral relativists, so they are operating from a stronger position than you.

          If morality is relative, my morality is just as valid as yours, by your belief. You don’t really have any basis for supporting any one set of societal mores over another, or of asserting to others that your particular emotionally-derived morals should be adopted or respected by them. You probably feel that imposing your beliefs on people who believe differently is wrong. I do wonder at what point you reach that limit. For moral relativists, it always seems to fall back to what I reference in my post above “It doesn’t pick my pocket or break my leg.” The non-aggression principle. But what is the non-aggression principle but an arbitrary moral line in the sand? You can make all the Kantian categorical imperative arguments you want, but nobody has any higher obligation to respect your derived moral beliefs, because you yourself admit that “good” and “evil” are imaginary. There are many examples we can discuss where things that would have very negative utility for you would have positive utility for society.

          Leftists are willing to violate the non-aggression principle all the time in the name of social justice. Pretending that societal power can stop at the material and not encompass human belief is obviously a losing proposition. You live on a world with humans. They have beliefs about good and evil. They impose those beliefs.

          Acting as if all of a sudden everyone will stop acting according to beliefs in imaginary good and evil is the sort of autistic thinking characteristic of Utopians everywhere. It’s why libertarians are so ridiculous.

          Leftists sense that you, the moral relativist, don’t have any actual position to stand on if you oppose men pretending to be women and insisting that you pretend along with them. The violation of your conscience is not a moral value to them. So you lose.

          Most on the secular right follow something like the non-aggression principle. So when they are de-platformed, locked out of financial services and lose their jobs for wrong-think, what can they really say? “They’re private companies, man. They don’t really have to do business with you.” They’re engaging in societal shunning of people for wrong beliefs. That’s a very religious type of behavior, isn’t it?

          I, on the other hand, believe my morals are right and universal. Muslims do, too. So do leftists. Somebody in a society always gets to impose their moral code. You, as the person who doesn’t believe in moral absolutes, will always lose that fight to people with more conviction than you.

          Your original comment is self contradictory. You call the idea “that moral goods and evils are real, objective things” an illusion, but then you use the term “morality inversion.” You can’t invert that which doesn’t exist. In fact, the idea that “uninverted” morality supports the survival of the species is an argument in favor of the idea that good and evil are real, objective things.

          • Another brilliant riposte, Vizzini. I applaud your patience in dealing with certain individuals, although I’m certain you realize as well as I that your words and logic will have no impact on them. Either way, thank you for your work here today.

          • I hate myself sometimes: “the circumference of a circle is pi time the radius squared”

            Um, “area of a circle.”

          • 3.14159 upvotes for this comment.

          • First, I want to thank you and others for debating these topics with me.

            Here are 3 ideas we both might agree upon:

            1. Each individual has his own morality, conscious or otherwise, which guides his choices.

            2. Groups (family, tribe, nation) may develop a shared morality by which they live. This will be reflected in their customs, traditions, rules, laws.

            3. There will always be differences of opinion. I’m right, you’re wrong. You’re good, I’m evil. (Or vice versa). Judged by a given morality.

            You believe your morals are “morals are right and universal.” You also correctly note that others believe their systems are equally right and universal. Well, on those two statements alone, we can infer:
            Different groups believe their brand of morality the true and universal;
            1. The other groups are wrong, therefore
            2. There is no such thing as a universal morality! (Actually,this is not a strong argument: It is possible that a universal morality does truly exist, but that it hasn’t been discovered yet. But even that presupposes that we could identify such a universal morality if we happened upon it.)

            [Damn, this philosophy stuff is fun! Much like law, I suppose, arguing this stuff is slipperier than an eel in a barrel of snot! 😀 ]

            You are also spot-on to note that typically the group in power will attempt to impose its morality upon others. To the extent they’re successful, this only proves they have the power to impose values. It says nothing about whether those values are good or bad.

            I don’t know if I’m a moral relativist. If by that, you mean that my morals have changed during my life, sure they have. I’d call that “growth” or “wisdom.” I do think “situational ethics” is valid. I haven’t studied it, but it’s just intuitive to me that proper behavior in, say, the battlefield, is quite different from at a cocktail party. But maybe that’s just my opinion.

            Regardless of whether it’s relative, I think as I made in Clam (1), everyone has a personal morality, call it a conscience if you like. You might not like their morality, but the average person, ust in the course of life, makes many choices, some good, some bad, most perhaps indifferent. Everyone, at least, has the option to live by his own morality, and to seek (avoid) others who share (don’t share) similar values. And if you get into a position of power, THEN you can impose!!!

            I think you’ve misquoted my earlier statement. I didn’t use the “inversion” claim in that one, but did in another posting. Re morality, I merely wish to claim that, expanding upon Hume, who says one cannot deduce an “ought” from an “is;” I take this to mean that one cannot infer a moral truth from Nature. I do not deny that the concepts good, bad, righteous, evil, moral and immoral exist, but I argue they exist as mental (Platonic) reality. Consider this analogy: I believe that mathematics exists, for instance, the number “3”, but I defy you to find the pure number “3” in the real world. I think this is what Plato called a Form. In the same way, Nature has no need for the concept of “good”, “evil”, or “last Wednesday” for that matter. Those only have significance from Man’s point of view.

            Re your last paragraph, partially concur. Whether morals and values are “real, objective” things can remain disputed. I definitely agree that morality has (or should have) a survival value. Even Nietzsche agrees. In the introduction to my copy of “The Dawn of Day”,J.M. Kennedy writes:

            “…Aphorism 103 of this book, an aphorism which is almost too well known to need repetition, for it likewise disproves the grotesque though widely circulated supposition that all kinds of immorality would be indulged in under the sway of the ‘immoralistic’ philosopher:”

            [Nietzsche writes] “I should not, of course, deny — unless I were a fool — that many actions which are called immoral should be avoided and resisted; and in the same way that many which are called moral should be performed and encouraged; but I hold that in both cases these actions should be performed from motives other than those which have prevailed up to the present time…”

          • If you speak of objective morality, you do, in fact require an object. Many proponents of objective morality have recognized this problem, and, realizing that there is no evidence of any Good and Evil objects in the physical universe, have claimed that they exist in some kind of a non-physical, spirit world, after the fashion of Christians, who have the same problem with their nonexistent God. What you say about the properties of circles demonstrates that you can’t tell the difference between mathematical models and the real world. The familiar formulas for circumference and area are only true if you accept the underlying assumptions of an idealized model. Those assumptions are seldom exactly true in the real world, although they are a good approximation to the results of measuring “circle” objects in the environment we are used to. If the model corresponded to a fact about the physical universe, however, there could be no such thing as gravitational lensing, of which we can observe many examples, and my measurement of the area of what appeared to me to be a circle would be exactly the same as the measurement of the same object by someone observing me in a spaceship passing by at nearly the speed of light, which it demonstrably is not.

            When we speak of the reality of morality as suggested by Darwin and elaborated by Westermarck, we are speaking of facts, and those facts don’t imply any “ought” whatsoever. They don’t imply that everything “ought” to be permitted, nor do they imply that one cannot have and enforce an absolute version of morality and punish anyone who violates that moral code. They don’t imply that one version of morality is just as “good” as another version, for the simple reason that the category “good” does not exist. One version of morality may be thought to be better than another but, as Westermarck pointed out, the notion that such a claim corresponds to objective fact is simply an illusion, albeit a very powerful one that happens to exist by virtue of natural selection. As I pointed out, the illusion has now occasionally become “dysfunctional” when creatures with large brains such as ourselves try to figure out what the relevant emotions are trying to tell them in an environment radically different from the one in which those innate emotions evolved.

            As you note in your response, there is no reason you “ought” to explain your version of morality to me or anyone else for the obvious reason that there is no such thing as an objective “ought.” You could also claim that the sun doesn’t shine because of fusion reactions, but because it is a huge burning lump of coal. Similarly, you would be under no moral obligation to explain yourself, but the facts about the nature of the sun would remain true regardless. You might also claim that the results of believing that the sun is not a burning lump of coal would be “bad,” but that belief would have no effect on the sun whatsoever. The fusion reactions in its core would go on just as before.

            So it is with morality. As Westermarck pointed out long ago, things can be thought to be good or evil, but such claims are never objectively true. That is simply a fact, and whether you think it is a “good” fact or a “bad” fact is entirely beside the point. It will continue to be true entirely regardless of your disapproval.

    • Westermarck’s anti-religion and moral relativism are closer to the causes of the present troubles than the solution.

14. 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?

    • 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.

      • Wild Geese – That’s why we need White communities. Don’t advertise a job opening, tell your White neighbors or employees you’re looking for someone. We need to build up our own ethnic network for jobs, housing, and everything else. A de-monetized, private, and local White economy.

        • Thank you, finally a thinker here.

          I have a long term plan of owning multiple properties. I will rent out my non-primary residences to white families at below market rent.

          There are soo many white people (particularly boomers) with money or multiple properties who are so greedy and place profit extraction as their #1 goal, rather than the general welfare of their own people

          • Speaking from experience the worst tenants I’ve had were the trashy white people. Best ones were Mexicans married with kids. Although these were Mexicans that came over here a long time ago when it was just for jobs and no gibs.

            Never rented to vibrants, because well duh.

          • I have a couple rental properties and you couldn’t pay me to rent them someone with brown skin, particularly Mexicans. I’ve seen the way they live.

          • I’m not taking about renting to trashy white drug addicts. You realize middle class whites have just as much trouble affording housing + kids in the new diverse America?

          • Doesn’t take them being drug addicts, just a couple large dogs for a deposit’s worth of repairs.

15. 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.

    • “Schopenhauer once said he’d rather be ruled by a lion than a pack of rats.” Who’d disagree with THAT? LOL. Schop is usually better than that.

      • Who would disagree? Anybody who worships democracy. That’s who.

16. “Rein in”, not “reign in.”

17. 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.

    • 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.

      • “I’ve said many times that they don’t operate on the same plane as we do.” Maybe on the same veldt or savannah, hundreds of thousands of years ago*. You’re probably not the only one who’s said it before. A famous philosopher (not Nietzsche for a change!) says:

        “…it may be said that if their understanding is not of a different nature from ours, it is at least greatly inferior. They are not capable of any great application or association of ideas, and seem formed neither for the advantages nor abuses of our philosophy.”
        — Voltaire, Philosphical Letters, “The Negro” (c. 1778)

        *Q: Why in prehistory, was there a migration out of Africa, into what is now Europe?
        A: A tribe found out they were living in a Black neighborhood.

        • even AIDS couldn’t wait to get out of Africa

          and that’s saying something

18. 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

19. 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.

    • 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.”

      • 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.

        • 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.

          • I have a similar mnemonic device for principle principal. The principle is your ple. never mind.

        • and why God made proofreaders

      • ^^
        “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!

      • You are incorrect. Rein in means to take an action to control something.
        It a referral to horses not kingdoms.
        Reign in more of a state of being rather than a specific action.

        • Reign also has a verb form:

          reign verb
          reigned; reigning; reigns
          Definition of reign (Entry 2 of 2)
          intransitive verb

          1a: to possess or exercise sovereign power : RULE
          b: to hold office as chief of state although possessing little governing power
          in England the sovereign reigns but does not rule
          2: to exercise authority in the manner of a monarch
          3: to be predominant or prevalent
          chaos reigned in the classroom

    • 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.

      • 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 🙂

      • Watch the language, Ben: this a family site. I’m not for any kind of plasms, plantids or neolisms.

    • Gee, thanks grandma, knit us all Enlightment sweaters.

20. 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.

    • Yep that’s the way the Left needs be treated. You create a loud stink and make everyone notice those Gestapo thugs. Those cops and health worker were used to dealing with whites who just rolled over like whipped dogs. And when one man stood up to them they backed off real fast.

21. 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.

22. 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.

    • 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.

      • Yep – my comment was 100% sarcasm.

        • Wow flew right over my head

          Tired today lol

    • The surging demographic groups do not care about facts. They care about their racial group dominating.

23. 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.

    • Learning to fight the left and learning to fight like the left are two different things.

24. 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.

    • Corporate front men like Shapiro and the talk radio crowd are responsible for keeping most Whites in the dark for decades as their country was stolen from them.

      They conflated what is good for the super rich is what is good for America and rammed it down our throats for 40 years. They actually convinced a bunch of sod busters that the plight of billionaires was worth worrying about, even as they were headed into penury.

      That said, yes these cretins need to be dealt with at some point along with their paymasters.

      And yes there is no point debating the Left, that lot is irredeemably evil to the core.

25. 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.

    • Conservative carping about hypocrisy also serves as a clear signal to the cultural Marxists they have been effective.

26. 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”.

    • Interviewing 8-year olds probably isn’t much different from Interviewing leftists. More fun though.

27. 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.

28. 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.

    • “ 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.

      • Christianity is the grandmother of Bolshevism–Spengler

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • “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).

    • 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.”

    • Feh, Leftism is indeed a religion. A evil one. And if given the opportunity will kill everyone in opposition to them. That is their history.

      As for Christianity today. it is weak and corrupt. It does not produce men of martial strength like Charles Martel, Richard the Lionheart and those who held the Saracen at bay for a 1000 years. Instead today it produces men who foot wash criminals and crybabies who just want to sit back and let Jeebus fix everything.

      Gab is full of these disgusting miscreants.

      • White Christians are the ones having white babies. White atheists and pagans aren’t having babies. I think Richard Spencer had one child (a girl?) and is now divorced I believe. I have eight Northern European children (yes, all my own with one woman) and my wife wants more.

        My white Christian wife has twice as many babies as her two sisters and her sister in law (all secular) combined.

    • I agree that sometimes battle lines (metaphoric for time being at least) must sometimes be drawn. Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong. Young people speaking their minds…. wait, sorry, got sidetracked.

      But I’m dismayed by the all-too-common “us or them” mentality here (and many other places.) Nobody is going to tick all the boxes. For example, yes I’m an unbeliever. You won’t find me in your church except for a wedding, a funeral or possibly a spaghetti dinner. But if you knew me, you’d probably find 80-90% congruence on DR issues. OK, toss out the hard worker and family part, call it 65% 🙂

      It’s the wolf in sheep’s clothing you need to watch out for, certainly more so than the wolf, least of all me, the sheep in sheep’s clothing 😀

      Sometimes, someone you would otherwise detest might be the best man for a job. For example, a highly-qualified headmaster whose only defect was that he was a flaming homosexual might be the ideal choice for a girl’s school.

29. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

30. 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?”

    • 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.

      • That’s a masterful shutdown and prompt for the Marxists to keep babbling and grow even more unhinged.

      • eh if you’re still quoting breitbart – you’re still in finklethink

31. “[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

    • 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.

      • Excellent points. As if the sense of sight is the only thing that can lead to wrong conclusions. One can even argue that it is the most dependable of senses, and the statue should be one with open eyes, and earplugs as in I don’t care for your propaganda, I will believe what I see.

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • Lady J was raped hard that day.

      • Could not agree more, well said.
        Speculation on how much & how long blood will spill.
        Get out of cities while you can.

32. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

        • That’s not the point I was making, of course. Whether or not the court will apply the law is a different question.

          • 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.

      • 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.

      • I’ve come to see “social media” in general and “twitter” in particular as very much net negative factors in society. That should be minimized and ideally destroyed – sort of like drugs or prostitution. There’s obviously some point where fighting their evil becomes a larger evil – but that doesn’t mean that they should just be embraced and fully commercialized.

        In the case of social media – outlawing their collection and selling their users data would be the stake through the heart – whatever succeeded them would be a non anonymous subscription service – limiting their destructiveness.

        • Can’t disagree with that. What very little benefit they provide to society is more than offset by an avalanche of downsides. Instead of talking about how to reconfigure them or rein in their more pernicious effects, we should be talking about completely eradicating them.

33. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

          • “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 don’t exactly disagree, but all those people don’t naturally support the left wing nut jobs either.

          They’re just going to take the path of least resistance. So if there’s a lefty nut job screaming and everyone tucks tail and runs, they will too. If there’s a fight, they’ll back whoever looks to win. These are the people that OBL was refering to as following a strong horse.

          Strong horses don’t flee the field of combat.

          All of which doesn’t mean that they’ll be won over with logic and facts, although some will. Some will be won over by making the nuts look like laughable nuts. Others with a stronger emotional counterattack. But none of them will be won over by refusing to engage.

34. 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.

    • 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!

      • Yes Lineman, as many have said here perhaps our greatest enemy are our cousins the goodwhites. As “pogo” said, “i have seen the enemy and they are us”.

        • Sorry line in the sand, confused you with that other thoughtful fellow. To refer back to others talking about% of population we might count on, we seem to be a rather small outpost deep in enemy territory.

Comments are closed.