Declaration Deep Dive

The Declaration of Independence is one of the most influential documents in human history, right up there with the Magna Carta and the Communist Manifesto. The main reason for this is it stands as the mission statement of the American empire, so its influence is imposed on the world. The same can probably be said for the Magna Carta, which we know about because of the British Empire and by extension, the Anglosphere which dominates the modern world.

The power of the Declaration lies in the opening sentence of the second paragraph, which is the legitimizing authority for the American empire. If an action or position can be couched in terms of equality or the defense of unalienable rights, it is justified. It is one of the deadliest sentences ever written, right up there with Rousseau’s “Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.”

Despite the massive abuse that has flowed from that unfortunate bit of rhetorical flourish, the document itself is an amazing expression of European political morality that should be at the center of dissident thought. Within it lies the moral framework that binds a people to their ruler, but also the moral imperative of breaking that bond when the ruler is corrupt or tyrannical. In this age of liberal tyranny, it is a highly useful starting point for the moral opposition to liberal democracy.

A central question of this age is can you have a peaceful and prosperous society without a well-defined people? If the answer is no, which surely seems to be the case, then the obvious question is can a people exist without a ruler committed to the preservation of the people? In this age, the rulers are committed to abdicating their responsibilities to the people on the grounds that there is no such thing as a people, at least there is no such thing as our people.

Since self-preservation is the primary duty of all life, the first duty of a human group with a common identity is the preservation of the group. Logically, a ruler that violates his duty to that prime directive, putting the very existence of the people into question, is a lethal threat to the people. Just as it is the duty of a life forms to do what they must to preserve their existence, it follows that it is the duty of a people to use any means necessary to preserve itself. It is self-evident.

The real value in the Declaration today is in its radicalism. In the 18th century the claim that a ruler has a duty to his people was not radical. It was assumed. The claim of natural rights could be viewed as radical for the age, but these ideas were in wide circulation at the time. Today, however they are radical. In fact, we are rapidly approaching a point where uttering these ideas in public will lead agents of the state to put you on a secret list. We are in a dark age now.

This week I have the usual variety of items in the now standard format. Spreaker has the full show. I am up on Google Play now, so the Android commies can take me along when out disrespecting the country. I am on iTunes, which means the Apple Nazis can listen to me on their Hitler phones. The anarchists can catch me on iHeart Radio. I am now on Deezer, for our European haters and Stitcher for the weirdos. YouTube also has the full podcast. Of course, there is a download link below.

For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!

Promotions: The good folks at Alaska Chaga are offering a 15-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 like a tea, but it has a milder flavor. It’s hot here in Lagos, so I’ve been drinking it cold. It is a great summer beverage.

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

This Week’s Show


  • 00:00: Opening
  • 02:00: Me Talking A Lot

Direct DownloadThe iTunesGoogle PlayiHeart Radio, RSS Feed, Amazon

Full Show On Spreaker

Full Show On YouTube

216 thoughts on “Declaration Deep Dive

  1. There are three nested domains of sovereignty that matter when discussing the concept of rights – God & Nature, the State Sovereign, and the Individual.

    These nested domains are like walled gardens where the walls mark out divisions, duties, laws, limits, obligations and so on. The space within the walls represents the domains of freedom necessary to both flourish and allow any sub domain of sovereignty to properly perform their duties and obligations, and so the sovereign at each level must respect those domains of freedom regardless of whether he approves of their use by the people living within those boundaries. A simple axis between freedom and tyranny misses that you need both freedom and boundaries to mark out the landscape of a properly functioning and healthy nation.

    Positive Rights fail to acknowledge the sovereign domain of God & Nature that the State Sovereign must bow to. Negative Rights are formulated with their purpose not properly defined. Freedom of speech is a crude attempt to acknowledge that the Individual has a duty to speak the truth in service of all, even the State Sovereign. Freedom of religion is a crude and failed attempt to acknowledge that the Individual has duties and obligations to God & Nature that supersedes the sovereign domain of the State.

    Failing to properly define negative rights leads to childish notions of the right to untrammeled freedom and the discovery of increasingly absurd “rights” to goods and services. It also leads to the State Sovereign easily justifying their transgression of those rights.

    The right to bear arms is a necessary extension of numerous duties and obligations an Individual has to himself and God & Nature. One of those duties is to remove a State Sovereign that defies God & Nature. This particular duty requires that the collective Individual, the Nation proper, also has the right to withdraw their consent to be governed by the current State Sovereign. Barring the use of that right, the Individual is obligated to fulfill his proper and healthy duties to the State Sovereign, including service in war.

    To extend this discussion a bit, the State Sovereign has to be fixed on a very powerful executive position in order to fulfill his duties to both God & Nature and the Individual, collective and singular. It is not hard to come up with reasons why that is true.

    A King does not fulfill that powerful executive position because the definition of a King defies his obligations and duties to God & Nature while entirely destroying the sovereign domain of the Individual. Monarchists are simps to the wholly Luciferian notion that humanity exists to be slaves of whomever dares declare himself god. Modern Monarchists mix that with a negative identity built around anti-Democracy, and being a negative identity, their thinking is slaved to the idiocy of democratic principles. I am increasingly convinced that the anti-thesis of stupid tends to be stupid, and that the synthesis of stupid and stupid is still stupid. Otherwise known as a false dichotomy with the worthless centrist taking a NAP in between.

    Given their many failings, Monarchists will never accept the possibility that the Magna Carta was an inflection point that helped separate Europe from the rest of human history, or that the two World Wars were the death throes of the old order whose much vaunted “stability” can largely be measured out in fratricide, poverty and war. Christian Monarchists are the sad souls who can never understand that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is the ultimate expression of the consent of the governed, or make the simple observation that much of the Old Testament is spent detailing exactly how the Monarchy system of government destroys a nation every single time.

  2. My understanding of the “all men are created equal…” line was that it was primarily a statement against aristocracy and royalty. Of course, chattel slavery would always be problematic when juxtaposed to it, and salvery was surely on its way out of the west, with or without the Northern War of Agression, but the Declaration of Independence was a statement about how Englishmen in the colonies should be governed, not about how the black and brown masses of the world should be treated, either here or in the rest of the world…

    • Truth. It would be over a century before women’s suffrage was granted. What a fail!

      Another truth is that virtually anything conceivable in any culture’s lexicon can be appropriated and inverted into its antithesis. Words have pedigree (etymology) just like organic life. From a linguistic perspective, words derive meaning from their ability to quantify an idea to communicate that idea to an other.

      Tividar Schwartz and his ilk were esperantists and they knew what they were doing formulating esperanto.

    • “All men are created equal” was used as rhetoric against nobility, but against democracy too when you think about it. Nobles are those born into power, while oligarchs are those hungry for power. Those born into power are far more likely to be just like ordinary people than those hungry for power, who might as well be reptiles or aliens at this point. Monarchy and democracy go together just like oligarchy and republicanism.

      And when you see that the American oligarchs mostly didn’t have a problem with owning slaves, you can see how far they are willing to take the oligarchic drive, all the way up to regicide and owning other humans, with no quarter offered to traditional society.

      For some reason conservatives look up to these monsters.

  3. Not entirely off topic: Ramzpaul and Scott Greer did a debate on succession early last week and I can’t find it. It’s not on youtube.

    If you have a link to the debate, help a brother out.

  4. The thing to realize about the Declaration is that it, like Lincoln and Churchill’s best speeches, is war rhetoric. In war, words, especially words that influence neutrals and even the enemy, are weapons. Churchill’s 1940 speeches are unapologetically addressed to the US, and especially FDR, far more than they are to the British people. The Declaration is intended to court opposition opinion where? In Britain no less. War rhetoric should not be taken at face value, it is a sales pitch, asking for your blood and treasure to help someone else.

  5. The Z-postulate is:

    A government that outgrows the population size of its people will be unjust.

    • It’s a nation within a nation, instead of a representative body, operating like a distinct social class.

    • One might learn from the Swiss example. Stronger cantons, weaker central government. Hell, three distinct languages, but the country remains together.

      • Extremely strict and limited immigration. I know an attractive white woman in her 40s who was deported from Switzerland in her 20s, and banned from ever returning under threat of a very long prison sentence, after being outed as an illegal by a jaded lover. Her Swiss tenure lasted about six years, iirc.

    • Republicanism doesn’t scale up. Merit based rulership starts out as electing those with the most talent, and ends electing those who are best at cheating the impossibly high standards of being an imperial elite. Just compare the 5th century Athens to the Hellenistic decline and that is the most famous example of this in history.

      But someone born into power is always simply born into power. Monarchy scales up as far as needed. The problem is, by the time people realize this their civilization has usually gone so deep down the republican hole that they never make it back out the same.

  6. nailheadtom: You list all sorts of clubs or groups, and ignore what underlies DR belief: genetics. One can change one’s religion or club affiliation or hobbies. But, Rachel Dolezal notwithstanding, one cannot change one’s race. It is cell-deep.

  7. Color blind civnats are far worse for us than liberals.

    Civnat = “assimilation” (in theory) = race mixing = white race no longer exists.

    What proportion of non whites raised in 90% white areas race mix compared to those raised in ethnic enclaves? Probably alot more.

    Candace Owens is race mixing with a white. Their offspring will be hateful mixed bloods. Ghetto, unassimilated inner city thugs, will never race mix (contrary to porn).

    • It’s painfully depressing to go out and notice how many of our people are simply tossing out their heritage, the way one would toss out some dryer lint or a pizza box.

      • The behavior you describe is sadly indicative of our “live for today” attitude. We have no transcendent meaning to our lives, hence we do “what feels good” for the moment. Thank the hippies of the 60’s, but at least most of them grew up. Unfortunately the poison was drunk.

    • What is really bad about CivNats is that they embrace the police state and war on bad whites with the same enthusiasm as the Woke.

      They really cannot see the demographic destruction of the U.S. and the imposition of a full on dictatorship by the uniparty in DC,

      I recently talked to one CivNat who is my friend and she could not believe the extent of voter fraud in the country. She asked where was the GOP on this. I told her they don’t care hence why they have done nothing. All she say is “I’m going to watch Levin, he’ll know what to do”

      These people don’t see that the country they knew is dead.

      • “The 5 stages of grief are: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.” Ross

        Can’t help but think of this psychologist’s analysis. Denial is the hardest to overcome when death is certain (as in a terminal diagnosis). Everyone is said to pass through all stages, but at different rates.

        So where are folks here? At least anger.

    • When Owens first tried to join politics as a wokeness enforcer, the then-known-as-SJWs rejected her because they didn’t know “who sent her,” as old Chicagoans say, and she’s not observant enough to act like a self-made leftist. They smelled her out instantly.

      Conservatives don’t know how she got here, either, and she’s not smart enough to imitate them convincingly, but they don’t mind. WWJD? Get scammed and call you a racist.

      • Look, she’s Black, easy on he eyes, and mouth’s sweet lies. A CivNat “conservative’s” wet dream. No more needs to be said. I grow weary of these tokens myself. They are the equivalent of junk food. But they serve a purpose. If your “fellow travelers” tout her commentary, then you know you’ve got your work cut out for you. 😉

      • I think like a lot of today’s camera-faces, she thrashed around until she found a paying gig, and didn’t particularly care which side it was for, but now she’s obligated to dance with them that brung her.

  8. The Founders established laws for who could become citizens, but had no way to prevent anyone from coming here. In the19th century barely half of those who were eligible for citizenship sought it. It declined further when, in 1906, the English language rule came into play. By then, the Ports-of-Entry which had been established more than a decade earlier were screening for health, family, job potential, and anarchism. Too late. What city’s government even pays lip service to the Constitution or the rule of law?

  9. Tyranny in a democracy is special, because the people are the sovereign. No matter that this is an illusion. An oligarch or a king can be hated, but the people do not wish to hate themselves. Much greater damage is free to be done under cover of a sovereign people, where the ruling oligarchs must be more clever than under rulers with no pretentions.

    Every day I see the opinions of normal people farther divorced from reality, and they hold onto those opinions with zeal.

    • James Wilson: the people do not wish to hate themselves

      You misunderestimate the unitardians & quakers & wesleyans & jesuits [et al] at your own peril.

      • Speaking of misunderestimating the enemy, a Karen just stabbed Melania & the Donald squarely in the back.

        Search for “Stephanie Grisham”.

        That’s why our ancestors needed the Salem Witch Trials.

        For the Karenz.

        • Translation: this Grisham bimbo tried to seduce Trump, got rebuffed, and is now getting her revenge.

          • I like what she has to say about Kushner though. The rest just sounds like sour grapes, spiteful gossip, and pettiness. Typical women stuff.

  10. As to the thorny question of who is White, venerable Subotai Bahadur, an active Tea Party organizer back when, refers to the Satan League as TWANLOC: those who are no longer our countrymen.

  11. Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Declaration Deep Dive

  12. Good stuff.

    Who are my people isn’t that hard a question to me. White Conservative and Right Leaning Moderate Americans who probably are not GOP Establishment (they are mostly on Team Satan)

    Countrymen ,a broader and more inclusive group include a few White Liberal Americans who are sane or harmless and not Leftists as well as Conservative Americans who share the same value set, the later being other races.

    Real life simply works by prison rules, other groups aren’t in the cart and when it comes to throw down won’t. Therefore they aren’t mine.

    The last two groups are of questionable loyalty and therefore not my people but they are friendlies and enemies of the system and therefore countrymen.

    Our problem is less identity, its obviously building otherwise every word out of the establishment mouth wouldn’t be White Supremacist but ideology.

    We are so terrified about going Austrian Painter or something equally stupid we refuse to have any ideology beyond leave me alone with a ticket on the fail train. Best case scenario you collapse into chaos.

    if we want a highly ordered society and we may not than it has to have an organizing principle. Our Constitution and Deceleration were meant to be such a thing and they worked alright for a short while (15 if you count the Whiskey Rebellion, 85 or so if not which is roughly as long as the Soviet Union lasted) but is clearly no longer fit for purpose.

    If we can take a deep dive to borrow our hosts phrase into ideology, man up and say “this is how we want society to work” something Afghan Taliban have managed quite well I’ll note ,we can have it if we sacrifice.

    Well more accurately our kids or grand kids will for a few decades . However if the decadence and property have enervated us so badly, we can’t or won’t. We die as a culture and honestly deserve too.

    • Z: can a people exist without a ruler committed to the preservation of the people?

      A.B. Prosper: our kids or grand kids

      FYI, Gavin Newsom just announced that ALL children, K-12, in California skrewls, both public & private, will be REQUIRED to be v@xxed.

      This is Newsom declaring he’s making his move to become the Philosopher King of the Georgia Guidestones.

      In particular, if an hypothetical A.B. Prosper & his hypothetical school-aged children were in California, and if those children were not being hidden away deep in un-publicized home schools, flying beneath the radar & far from the prying eyes of the Karens in the edumukashun bureaucracy, then there ain’t gonna be any A.B. Prosper grandkids.

      Newsom is going for broke here.

      Welcome to the Georgia Guidestones prophesy.

      Z might as well ask, “Can a people exist with a ruler committed to the annihilation & extinction of the people?”

      • Newsom is an idiot who thinks these vaccines are safe and useful, the former is unproven and the later outright false. he’s not intentionally causing harm. Its still bad but we have an onerous vaccine schedule in this state already.

        Now as it happens IRL I’m leaving California since living here under these conditions makes it impossible to find a wife to start a family with anyway.

        In that regard its kind of moot, this state is rapidly aging out and despite formerly high fertility, becoming a retirement state . Taxes get much higher, economy much worse we’ll be Maine.

        In your scenario you home school. Its not that hard in the state. No decent parent puts kids into public schools anyway, allows any I mean any access to social media or unrestricted Internet access.

        Friends come to visit, phones in the box except for a cleared phone that can call home or 9-11

        If you are serious about raising kids, go rural and control or eliminate the Internet from your life. Ideally you live somewhere there is no Internet

        This does mean economics sacrifices galore but so be it. The choice is stark, you raise kids or they do.

        Also if you want top actually change things, work on a community and a positive belief system.

        Its not about resisting though its important as anything, its about replacing. People will not fight without gains and I don’t mean material ones. We can’t beat clown world there and frankly an entire focus on economic systems just makes you a Commie or a tool of the Elite anyway.

        What matters is heart and passion. We are mostly logical people but its about feels for most.

        What it means gut level to be an American in Our Thing.

        Master the rhetoric.

        A last bit of advice anyone mentions more freedom or economics outside the one day we set aside gets a probably metaphorical cattle prod in the nuts .

        Its obviously not a totalitarian socialist movement so concentrate on what it is,

        • It sounds like you and I are cut from the same cloth.

          The only thing I’d strongly disagree with would be your assertion that “[Gavin Newsom]’s not intentionally causing harm”.

          There I think you’re badly misunderestimating the potential for intentionality in our “fellow” human beings.

          Beyond the question of intentionality, I’d be very interested as to what Gavin Newsom will do with his own children [Wikipedia says he has four of them]:

          1) Homeschool them unv@xxinated in the Governor’s Mansion?

          2) Give the children fake saline-solution v@xxinations and forge fake v@xxination certificates for them?

          3) Create a system of ultra-secret ultra-elitist private schools which simply ignore the v@xxination mandate altogether?

          4) Offer up his children for ackshual v@xxinations at the altar of the cult of moloch?

          • I don’t believe men like Newsome have the same paternal love and protective instincts that a God-fearing man has. He’ll gladly inject them with the clot shot.

          • KGB, Newsom has 4 kids.

            FWIW I don’t think he’s overtly evil or knowingly on Team Satan and it is possible for decent people to come to different conclusions.

            He’s very much establishment distantly related to Nancy Pelosi with a few fingers in Hollywood and connections with Trump and this will color his views on everything.

            Well off , privileged and a bit of insulated by the bubble

            He’s also got a lot of that follower catholic mentality so he’s liable to trust authority whereas these days more sensible people are “trust no one keep your blaster handy.”

            I voted to recall of course

          • So he’s got 4 kids. What of it? I’d wager that some time ago he made peace with the idea of abdicating the nobler aspects of his role as father and protector.

          • KGB. This is why one must view Newsom’s actions from a higher abstraction. Forget evil intent vs honest belief in shots.

            Newsom is a collectivist and believes we all sacrifice for each other for the “greater good”—under the guidance (of course) of enlightened folk such as himself.

            Concentrate on that and all the evil that follows become easily identified. And it’s definitely much more than “clot” shots.

      • You home school to avoid the jab for your kids. Secondly the school jab will mostly impact Mexican and Black kids who now constitute the majority of kids in public school BTW if their kids start dying from the jab I would not want to be Newsom or a school crony given the gang connections among Mexicans.

        Understand that the Mexicans already ethnically cleanse blacks from their neighbor hoods. So they won’t hesitate to cleanse a bunch of white liberal pols who murder their children.

        I wish I could say the same about white American males but I can’t. Their idea of resisting is buying a farm and hiding out and making their kids do the fighting. God what craven cowards.

        • They can’t see the gain in it and so won’t fight. No ideology means no action.

          Fix that and they’ll fight.

          • I tend to view inaction on our part as hesitancy to be first! And of course leadership.

            Think of what we see in mass assemblies/protests/riots. Large crowds milling about, lots of phones taking videos, people yelling/cheering—it’s a “happening”, but nothing really violent.

            Then someone steps forth, throws a rock through a window, then another does the same, then another dives into the store to grab merchandise, someone has a firebomb and steps forth…and so forth.

            The kindling is the crowd and the building atmosphere the crowd and anonymity creates. Then the spark and all hell breaks loose. Yeah, it’s never 100% of the crowd, but it is enough to have great effect.

            The kindling is building up. I simply await the spark. And no, I won’t be a spectator—but I won’t volunteer be a useless martyr either.

      • SpringerLink
        Published: 30 September 2021

        Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States

        S. V. Subramanian & Akhil Kumar

        European Journal of Epidemiology

        link DOT springer DOT com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7

        link DOT springer DOT com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7.pdf

  13. The wealthy industrialists had their issues, but they also did a lot to improve society, like starting libraries. Now contrast them with Bill Gates. Bill Gates does almost all of his alleged philanthropy outside of the US. He sucked a bunch of wealth, largely illegally or immorally and now gives it to Africa and other third world people. Other lesser elites with less money will destroy an entire town to save a few bucks and avoid regulation by closing up shop and shipping entire production lines to Asia. Nobody personifies this more than Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney spent his private life destroying productive companies to suck the wealth out of them for his own benefit. He is a truly evil man. He has zero sense of duty to America or Americans.

    They are evil and they are certainly unworthy of ruling us. There is little difference between what they do now and what they would do if their explicit goal was to destroy our nation. They go out of their way to gin up hatred and resentment of us in the invaders they brought here against our wishes. The system is hopelessly corrupt and absolutely beyond reform. Even if we could tear down the corrupt institutions, they could not be built again, because it’s the people who are corrupt. They have corrupted the institutions because they themselves are corrupt. Anyone who could theoretically replace them have gone through the same corrupting influence as the persons they would be replacing.

    This is the beauty of corruption of higher education. If the schools were not so corrupt, this would be a fixable problem. But the schools are corrupt and have been for a very long time. The whole culture is corrupt. Feminism and “anti-racism” is so deeply rooted in people that most cannot be talked out of it. Most people will begin responding extremely emotionally the second you try breaching the narrative in the slightest way.
    Colin Flaherty used to get a kick out of finding victims of black criminals who, from the hospital bed would start tweeting or FB posting about how racist it is to notice the people beating them for no reason on video and screaming anti-white epithets at them were black. This is common. BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) stopped posting video of crime on the train because in their words, it would give people a false idea that most of the crime on BART trains was perpetrated by blacks. Or the father of the girl who was murdered by an illegal alien feeling the need to virtue signal about how wonderful mestizos are.
    We now live in a world where white children are randomly thrown off balconies or shot in the face or taken out of their crib to be murdered by men ginned up on an oppression narrative where we are the bad guys.

    • I was talking to our safety manager yesterday and he asked me if I’d heard about the “First Nations” (know your place in the pecking order, whitey!) scandal going on in Canada, referring to the schools that were used decades ago to instruct them out of their native habits. He sounded horrified about it. I pointed out that today, nearly every school in America is charged with beating the whiteness out of our kids and it’s celebrated by our rulers.

      That ended that conversation. Hopefully the bug was planted.

      • If they weren’t forced to go to school, today we would be hearing about how evil Europeans segregated them and prevented them from being educated.

        As usual: it’s never about them. It’s about exploiting white guilt.

    • Tars: Does a people who have lost their sense of self even deserve rulers who care for them as a people? As you note, there are dozens of examples I could cite of people whose loved ones were raped and/or murdered by blacks or mestizos, and they rush to profess their love of the other before their loved ones are even cold in their graves. It’s sickening and perverse.

      You blame much of this on the education system. I believe the ed system is merely a symptom. Sure, it was targeted, along with every other cultural institution, by the Frankfurt School and various leftists etc., but the main goal was far more basic: The structure of the White family. Mothers (who are busy working and self actualizing) now boast of their daughters who dress like whores and date blacks. Fathers speak pridefully of their ‘princesses’ and send them off to college without a word of racial caution or guidance re sexual reputation.

      Every cultural or religious or historical tradition that provided structure and guidance to White people’s lives has been deliberately targeted and destroyed. To the point that any rebuilding truly means from the ground up – to wit, rebuilding White people’s character. To force people to go gold turkey from worshipping blacks and listening to their noise on the radio, or girls sending naked selfies when they’re barely into puberty. We don’t have the numbers or time to wait generations for the cultural rot to fade naturally. This will require not less government, at least to start, but rather an authoritarian one with a clear emphasis on morals and culture and pride.

      • I couldn’t agree more. I posted in a different thread that the institutions are corrupt beyond reform because the people are corrupt. I don’t know if it is fear or if it is genuine, but I also don’t know which would be worse.

  14. “It is one of the deadliest sentences ever written…”

    Yes. It is also one of the most beautiful. Old love can turn to less charitable emotions but it never quite dies. It is my old civ nat, by now almost gone, who’s speaking here. The problem with all the enlightenment ideas is that they promise a mirage, something very beautiful but terribly impossible. ‘All men are created equal’ speaks to the romantic sucker in me, the soft but other-worldly desire for a just world.

    If we were the reflected image of a perfect being instead of innovative and competitive mammals, Jefferson’s rhetorical home run would have been a good starting point. Sadly, we exist under the iron hand of evolution, not under divine laws of justice and freedom. Selection does not reward those two latter aspirations. Just look at the ppl running society if in doubt.

    • “Since self-preservation is the primary duty of all life, the first duty of a human group with a common identity is the preservation of the group.”

      We totally agree. I was just drawing a long sigh and indulging in a bit of that fantasy world called ‘idealism.’ These ideals are killing us. No poison is more dangerous than the sweet poison.

      • At this point, we are existing under the iron hand of devolution.

        Not from the point of view of the Georgia Guidestones crowd; from their point of view, globoh0m0 & the Great Reset & the V@xxines of Death represent an hyper-accelerated evolution designed to liquidate 15 out of every 16 hominids on the face of the earth.

          • How have I never heard of the Georgia Guidestones?
            Rabbit Hole here I come! LOL!

            They have their very own Wikipedia page, replete with photographs of the satanic tablets themselves.

            In all seriousness, serious people mustn’t thrust their heads in the sand when an outfit moves to town with an open declaration of an intent to liquidate 15/16ths of the world’s hominid population.

            Serious people need to take that challenge seriously.

            Go to any search engine on the internet, and search on a string like “bill gates population control”, and see whether you don’t get upwards of a million hits.

  15. Excellent podcast. I’ve written this before, but this may be your best. I really enjoyed the analogies you drew between the list of grievances then and the list of grievances now.

    Now to seemingly contradict myself.

    This period is not really analogous to pre-Revolution America for two primary reasons.

    First, George III was not engaged in genocide against the colonists and was not importing outsiders and then fomenting those groups to engage in state-sanctioned terror. Yes, Jefferson did claim the king was stirring up the Indians, and this did happen during the Revolution. There also were promises made to free slaves who aided the Crown. But the Crown had spent an outrageous fortune during the French-Indian wars to thwart foreign conquest and invasion. The loss of this investment was a legitimate grievance against the revolutionaries. Slavery was never an issue with the Crown prior to the Revolution. The Spanish were pushed back at times, the French at other times, because they were not Our People. Contrast this with the aforementioned genocide currently underway and the government policy to physically replace Heritage America.

    As to the state-sanctioned terror against Heritage America which is the hallmark of the current totalitarian United States, there was absolutely nothing remotely similar back then. The Boston Massacre, for example, would now be a typical federal response to any confrontation with any rowdy dissident group. It is likely there would have been hundreds if not thousands murdered January 6 if that had not been a planned operation to discredit Trump and by extension Heritage America. Prior restraint is now almost universal due to technological advances. The legal system at the federal level is a total sham; the colonists had actual redress. George III was mildly authoritarian and this thing that rules us is at best monstrous and as bad if not worse than Stalin or Hitler. This is not a matter of degree, either, but the difference between benevolent authoritarianism and a genocidal totalitarian police state.

    You are absolutely correct that reform is impossible at this stage. An American Gorbachev (who also failed) would be assassinated in a nanosecond. Direct confrontation is not an option, at least not yet or under present circumstances, because the police state apparatus would in turn murder just enough citizens to chill further uprisings. Look to the Czechs, to cite one example, as to the proper response. Live as if you are free. Discredit the system in every possible way that doesn’t result in arrest or murder. Support widespread strikes. Boycott voting. Take anything you can from the system and give it nothing. Turn on, tune in, drop out. It took a long time to get here, and it will take a long time to get out of here, and this totalitarian state is worse than anything the 20th century produced let alone George III. I think ultimately Our People will prevail, but it will be far worse and harder than anything in the past.

    • “George III was mildly authoritarian and this thing that rules us is at best monstrous”

      When I see the faces of Kamala, Mayorkas, Yellen, Garland (Garfinkel), AOC, Austin, Sotomayor… current TPTB et al, etc…

      I can’t help but think poor ol’ George III was at least of My People.

      So I’ll fix the above quote.

      “…that rules us is at a minimum alien, hostile, and monstrous.”

      There. That’s fixed.

    • You tend to assume most people have an understanding of Jaffa. An explanation of such would have more impact. Otherwise the posting is little more than an inside joke.

      • Exactly. I’m fairly well;educated in all things Right and have no idea what that means.

  16. This is why my favorite question/screen for people is simply, “Who are your people?”

    Try it sometime. I pull it out every once in a while with Steve Sailer commentators or colorblind CivNats on Gab. It’s fascinating. They can’t answer the question, or they give some convoluted answer that is laughable on its face. Indeed, you can almost feel their embarrassment when I repeat it.

    Who are your people?

    Simple question which should have a simple answer. My answer is simple: American Europeans. They share my ancestry, culture, morals and language. I feel at home with them.

    Sailer commentators will go on and on about people who share their ideals (and, of course, are superduper smart like they are). When I tell them that what they describe is a club and not a people, they have no answer other than, “Who would you rather have as your neighbor Thomas Sowell or a dumb white redneck,” as though that’s an answer. (Btw, conservatives, especially HBD-aware CivNats, love them some Sowell. He’s there answer to everything.)

    Who are your people?

    Never trust someone who can’t answer than question.

    • “Btw, conservatives, especially HBD-aware CivNats, love them some Sowell. He’s there answer to everything.”

      What will they do when he dies?* Will he become a messianic figure with the CivNats preparing for his return to Earth to establish his civic nationalist kingdom?

      *I certainly don’t have any ill will towards Thomas Sowell. He seems like a good guy. But he is getting very old and no one lives forever.

      • I have no problem with Thomas Sowell. If fact I admire and respect him. When the vast majority of his people are like him I will reconsider my positions on race. Until then, I remain a White guy, an American, a Christian and as such, along with a family here for 12 generations since 1752, I demand my rights as a Heritage American. And no “vaccine” wielding* communist/fascist is taking that away from me.**

        * I have been vaxxed since April and currently have the Wuhan/Demofascist flu.
        **While I’m alive

        • If he were representative of blacks, there wouldn’t be a racial problem and inter-racial marriage would probably be far more common. That would have problematic implications for the desire to preserve the genes whites carry around, they would be diluted, possibly out of existence. But blacks would be ‘adults’ if they were all like Sowell.

          • Moran ya Simba: That’s your idealist romantic speaking again. Seriously, even if the average black was like Sowell (statistically impossible, just as the average of any race is not a particularly deep philosophical thinker or writer) this would still not alter my racialist beliefs.

            Blacks are, by any definition, a different and distinct sub-species. Their evolutionary history is different. Their muscles and bones and brains are different. Give them all an extra 20 IQ points and that changes nothing else about them that sets them apart from Whites. And all this is without even mentioning their vastly different appearance.

            Whites today are the result of thousands of years of survival and innovation and assortative mating. Today they arbitrarily throw all that history and genetics away to mate with various racial aliens – utterly ignorant of what made them look and think and live they way they are.

            Thomas Sowell may be a decent man and a fairly bright one, regardless of race, but he will never be White. There is no single alteration one could make in other races that would suddenly make them part of your people – that’s the distinction your comment is missing.

          • 3g4me, I admit there would be problems for our genetic continuity so yes it is. This problem exists in real life; East Asians. That’s what a race of non-white Sowell like types looks like.

      • Sounds like Sowell is their Obama. All whites except dissidents cannot live without their numinous negro.

      • They’ll find another magical black person. They have to. Sowell is a way for them to hide from reality. They’re not going to give that up.

          • The Greek: Ah, but she’s already married a Brit and produced a mulatto son. She has her eyes on the prize of improving her genetic line. Sowell’s second wife is White, but his first and mother of his children was black. Which is why he’s a civnat and will never, ever accept genetic racial reality – because this would, in his mind, damn his own children to unalterable racial inferiority. So he blames everything on Scots-Irish culture, which the poor black slaves breathed in with the air in America.

      • Federalist. Spoken like a person who does not know Sowell from his body of works, nor understand HBD science.

        It is an oxymoron to claim true HBD supporters can be CivNats, I maintain they can’t be truly one and truly the other. As stated, great thinking and great ideas can come from anyone or any race—that is completely accepted/predicted by HBD science. Therefore, there is no contradiction in a White race realist appreciating Sowell. However, also as pointed out, importing other races—regardless of the selection criteria (e.g. a budding Sowell II) will not necessarily produce a race of descendants of such caliper. Hence the contradiction of a true HBD believer and a true CivNat.

        • ” However, also as pointed out, importing other races—regardless of the selection criteria (e.g. a budding Sowell II) will not necessarily produce a race of descendants of such caliper. ”

          I’d tap the brakes on that one…

    • “When I tell them that what they describe is a club and not a people, they have no answer…”


    • My people are those who share my values, not my skin color. Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson, but they are probably too discriminating to want me, or the silly citizen of a country, living next door to them.

      • They may be, in fact probably are, good people, but they are not and never can be your people.

        • Bingo. To extend such, they will be your neighbors and good people, but will never breed people “like” you. Even worse, they will through miscegenation, eliminate your race. Whether this is an improvement, a wash, or a devolution is for ou to decide.

      • Once again, what you are describing is a club, not a people.

        Thomas Sowell seems like a damn fine fellow, but the Japanese would never allow him to become a Japanese citizen nor would the Israelis.

        Why do you think that is? Are the Japanese and the Jews stupid or immoral?

        No. The Japanese and the Jews understand the hard realities of life and history. They understand that to preserve a people, you must exclude those who are not a part of your people. They look beyond today and seek to help their people – their extended family – generations from now.

        Only women and children don’t understand this.

        You have no people, or, more likely, don’t believe in the concept of a “people.” That’s fine, but don’t fool yourself by thinking that your people are those who share your values. That is not a people.

        Btw, in a tribal world where others do believe that they are part of a race/ethnicity and work to promote their co-ethnics, how does your oh so very moral colorblind civic nationalism work?

          • Rdz: That is one reason (albeit not the only reason) some of us stay here. To help educate – at times with harsh truths – all the Joe Normals who, through one means or another, find their way here to Zman and the DR. There are millions of you, and you all begin with the same color-blind civnat fantasies and imaginary peaceful world full of people of every race and tribe – but with similar “principles.”

            We’re here to force you to face reality, however difficult you find it and however much it contradicts the lies you were told all your life – by the schools, the books, and your own parents. It’s a long, hard process, and you will unwittingly fall back on some of the safe, old fallacies you were raised with. Always judge something on whether it helps your people. Not “America,” not “people who share my relgious beliefs,” but your people, who share your history and blood and genetics.

          • Anyone reading ‘Joe Normal’ wondering “are they talking about me?” should understand that everyone here was ‘Joe or Jane Normal’ at one time. The European way is the trail of truth. Follow it wherever it goes and the day most of us are no longer ‘normal’ is the day our people will have a future again.

        • Unfortunately, what you say about Israel is untrue. Israel allows Ethiopian “Jews” to immigrate there, and with predictably dire results.

        • Jews aren’t a great example. After all, they let in a bunch of Ethiopian Jews claiming to be a lost tribe of Israel.

          How would you reply to whites that reply that their people is their ethnicity? Discounting the Civnats that claim their people hold certain ideals, many whites will say “Italian, Greek, etc.” Your last point is probably the most powerful though. We’re living in a world where all the other tribes/races vote and act in the best interest of their race as their primary objective. Whites are the only ones that do not. This creates a suicidal paradox for civnats. It’s similar to another paradox I draw for civnats: if we believe absolutely in freedom of religion, does that mean we believe in tolerating a religion that desires conquering all other religions?

        • I really like your line about women and children.

          The modern West is both effeminate and childish, and that is why we see its institutions constantly striving to deny reality.

          • Didn’t mean this as a “well, actually”, but the sad reminder that times have changed.

      • What you fail to recognize is that very few people who don’t share your skin color share your values. Race, to a very large degree, determines values. Different races, different values.

      • Civic Nationalism is a sweet lie.

        . Such folks can be your countrymen but never your people.

        You skin color, your shared biological heritage and history make someone your people not ideology. This applies to everyone.

        We certainly can share space or a nation with those folks or Sheriff Clark or the Candace Owens or my Mexican MAGA and OAN neighbors but they aren’t our people unless you are Black or Latino obviously.

        That said Leftists especially Communists aren’t really people and as such aren’t ours or anyone else’s.

        • A.B. Prosper: Oh, leftist Whites are people – they’re just traitors and deserve the fate that traitors have historically received.

        • You wouldn’t happen to be thinking of this would you?

          In 1967, Polish mercenary Rafal Ganowicz was asked what it felt like to take human life, “I wouldn’t know, I’ve only ever killed Communists.”

          • I was actually. A fellow Pole and hero of mine.

            Its a good way to be actually . If it comes to violence you’ll sleep better at night

    • I used to have occasion to drink a beer or two with a twice-bankrupt rancher some two hours east of reno who could segue from laugh out loud tales of 2AM irrigation mishaps (“you don’t get to choose when your water comes”) into a monologue on “these truths” in a simple English so callused with first-hand experience that his words seemed to etch themselves into the landscape like those unalienable rights themselves.

      He talked a lot about the dereliction of duty. To our people, each other, and to those truths about our Nation. It was personal to him. Which is very un-academic, but at the same time revealed that it was personal because he saw things through the lens of his people.

      The whole Sowell thing is a goathead in my craw. Like some civnat retreat, a cozy redoubt when the mind of a civnat gets a little too close to the wire of who we are. Those guys will circle their wagons around his “wisdom” and thrust open the gate to let in all who can parrot his takes as to avoid having to look themselves in the mirror for what they have squandered.

      So I’ll take my redneck scholars version any day. And as a neighbor as well.

      “Never trust someone who can’t answer than question.” Indeed. What those guys fail to see is that without a people they become just a person, who then becomes just as fungible and empty as their misguided notion that all is blank, to be filled with faith in those hollowed lines on the parchment, subject to the whims and interpretations of time and circumstance.

        • Um, you’re not too bright, are you.

          You do know that a people are also tied by religion, right?

          • Din C. was employing satire, wink wink.

            Some nice illustrations of perfectly obedient civnattery there, Nuttin.

            It kills me to say that that sounds like dang near everybody in the mid-South. I was shocked to see just how many Okie families had African children in tow, even in tiny Frog Balls, OK.

          • Guess I’m not too bright. Here, I thought blacks elevated crime propensity was a problem, but not THE problem. THE problem seems to me to be white European Marxists you all are so proud of.

        • Din C. Nuttin: You deserve a head part for trying so terribly hard, sugar britches, but . . . well, bless your little civnat heart. Try Unz in general or Sailer in particular – or Ace or Breitbart. They all luv them civnattery and Magic Principles. But here – your attempt to moral police everyone just rings so hollow, and so sour, and so . . fake and so gay. And you know what? There is a shitton of things wrong with that, and you. Begone, wayward child.

          • It is sad that some have accomplished so little with their lives that their self esteem can only be salvaged by denigrating others, collectively (Civnats?) or individually.

      • The “nice black neighbor” argument is simply a way to hide from reality. It’s right up there with libertarianism.

        And every year that goes by as more and more other openly ethnocentric races enter the United States and organize politically and economically around their ethnicity, the cowardice of colorblind civnats – especially the HBD-aware colorblind civnat – grows.

      • A goathead in the craw–ouch! That should dissuade all and sundry from grazing upon civ-nat thistles.

    • Who are my people? It is not the CivNats. They will happily put a bullet in the noggins of any DR/AR type who gets uppity against the status quo.

      Normies? Nope. They are stuck thinking it is 1985 and think Levin and Hannity have the answers – which is vote harder.

      MAGApedes? The smart ones have already repudiated Trump and walked away from the clown. The others are hopeless. They are sheep waiting to be led. BTW has anyone else noticed how silent Trump has been on the Southern invasion and Abbot’s refusal to do anything?

      And that leaves me with Alt Right/DR types who are very few.

      • “Who are my people? It is not the CivNats.”

        True. The trick is patience with this one though. It’s easy to want to flush the whole lot.

        We must remember that is our recruiting pool though. Almost everyone here started their journey to Whitopia from Civnatia or Libertarialand.

        • Agreed. I started from a nationalist viewpoint, although I couldn’t describe it as such then. We win by Normie having Come To Jesus moments. Many did over the election and what happened to Trump. Our enemies are stupid and rash in many regards, and one of those was not coopting these people. We seem down for the count, but that knowledge makes you realize the wind is at our back.

          I saw a poll today–take that for what it’s worth–and a majority of Trump voters and, most importantly, a plurality of Biden voters are ready to dissolve the United States. Again, we are on the actual right side of history.

      • The Heinleins, that tiny minority hated by all right-thinking people.

        Gotta start somewhere. Biblical examples spring to mind.

        • What was that beautiful phrase,
          “He never sat a throne, never held an office, never had an army…”

    • I usually state that the fact that the best example they have is an 80+ year old black man that should tell them something.

      • Let me phrase this so even a citizen can understand. The blacks are obviously not helping – but it isn’t blacks, or browns, or yellows, screwing up the country. It is whites with screwed up values. Also, FJB.

        • Din C. Nuttin: Values are fleeting and easily changed with circumstance. Cellular genetics and tens of generations of microevolution, not so much. Those who purportedly share your values and principles will side with their racial kin when times are hard. But since for someone like you it’s always the eternal now, you shouldn’t have to worry your little head about that, sugar britches. Plus, you’ve specifically told us that White people aren’t your kin – we’ll take you at your word. And we won’t forget.

    • I would rather have the dumb White redneck for a neighbor. Because if I need a favor, or have a problem (hurt back, need something moved) the dumb White redneck being my people will be far more likely to help me than super smart Sowell who will not. Because he is black and I am not.

  17. Somewhat off-topic. Today’s example of surreal news reportage. UCLA professor was suspended after he refused to grade blacks’ work more leniently, [he] “said he would not discriminate based on color of skin,” was called a “racist” as a result. So, now it’s “racist” to insist everybody hold to the same standards? Clown world we live in, indeed.

    • Ben – What is worse (to me on the DR) is that said professor was ‘hurt’ by being called racist. He’s not someone trying to hold blacks accountable for their failure; he’s a color-blind civnat who truly believes blacks would prefer an honest assessment of their work and abilities. He’s just as blind – and just as much our enemy – as any leftist.

      • Bingo. CivNats are natural allies of the Left when push comes to shove. Being color blind he would be no friend of HBD and DR types and in fact would rat them out to the authorities as racists and White extremists.

    • Because “standards” are a White thing. Same when I was in school. Eubonics was the rage. We were to consider it in every way the equivalent of “standard” English. Hell, there were even “scholars” teaching it as one would Latin or Greek. The argument in those days by those still thinking logically, is that a minority who can’t speak standard English is as handicapped as a foreigner who immigrates from another country and can’t speak English.

      As they “add” points to admissions criteria scoring for minorities, faculty are demanded to add points to minorities who perform poorly on course testing. One way we “solved” that problem was to move to group work and scoring. One minority only to a group. 😉

      • And the ubiquitous “group work” is one big reason I jerked my children out of the public and private schools and home schooled them. Never has there been a more vicious and concentrated assault on the independent and entrepreneurial spirit that made this country great at one time. It was a big part of turning younger Americans into a generation of bedwetters, sending the message that you are helpless on your own, so go be a good little corporate drone who doesn’t have one independent thought in your head. And by the way, always wear your masks and take your shots.

        • My entire primary school education was marked by one constant: I f’n hated school, and not a little bit. Modern Ed is geared towards girls and is little more than a prison for boys. For as much as I hated that, “group exercises” found a way to make it even worse, it was like getting kids ready for every worthless meeting that they’d ever attend in their lives.

        • That started back about the same time as mainstreaming the Special Ed kids into regular classrooms and getting rid of tracking/levelling.

          • I was just thinking about that this morning. I grew up in a small town where all 6 grades were combined in the high school. Starting at 7th grade kids were divided into 7 sections. 7-1 and 7-2 were for the academically inclined (they had already done the IQ testing in elementary school and took them seriously), 7-3 to 7-5 was the middle of the bell curve. Wisely their educational program was geared more towards practical skills (typing, shorthand, and “beautician” skills for the girls, metal shop and carpentry for the guys), and 7-6 and 7-7, well, they did what they could with this group. Everyone knew what the designations meant and nobody made any bones about it. This is a system that worked for everyone but, of course, was way back when people where actually honest about the differences in ability even among people of the same race. This was a 100% all White town. It’s almost inconceivable how far from reality we’ve strayed in such a short time.

  18. The “all men are created equal” and “unalienable rights” bits are usually taken completely out of context. The very next line says that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights. Considering the mentions of the Creator, Nature, Nature’s God, etc., it is clear that “government” and men being governed is a condition almost required by God or nature. This government should not be changed for “light and transient causes” but only when a people are being reduced to absolutely despotic rule.

    Much of the Declaration is a long list of grievances against George III intended to show that he was no longer fit to govern the colonies. It even says that he “abdicated government here” (in the colonies). If a king abdicates, he no longer has any right to govern.

    So, nature almost requires government. And government means hierarchy. The equality of man and his rights do not exist in a vacuum, but only in the context of a hierarchical government. Regardless of the mention of equality, the Declaration did not even suggest that monarchy was illegitimate and you can’t get much more unequal than a king and his subjects. The point was that George III was illegitimate and that he had made himself illegitimate by breaching his duties.

    The Declaration did not posit some kind of utopian vision of equality even in the colonies. And it dealt with a “people” dissolving and re-forming government for that people. So, there was certainly no charge to spread freedom across the Earth or whatever.

  19. The Declaration of Independence is a statement of revolution. If it represents the American ethos, then America is a revolution. Hence the nation of ideas, the second founding, which are lies and absurdities.

    Im fairness to Jefferson, he goes on to describe the process of separation and the founding of a new nation, so he obviously wasn’t for permanent revolution, even if everybody forgets that. Imo that’s why the American Revolution was ‘good’ and the French Revolution, ‘bad’. The French revolutionaries’ aim really was permanent revolution.

    This goes to the idea I have that America is an adolescent nation. I can see us as, say, a 22 year old wearing black, tatted and pierced, angry, low self-esteem, who fell under the influence of the bad kids and got stuck in his teenage rebellion.

    Time to figure out who we are and grow up.

    • Except that youth has become a lesbian trans mullato with body modifications and a wrecked immune system with ADE. Not sure how you grow up out of that.

      • We keep implying that this is a phase we (America) will pass through until we reach adulthood. Comparing such to rebellious youth. But that’s not the case. 100 years and more ago, we had none of these “problems”. We as a people handled affairs pretty well, youth grew up and took their place in society as was expected. The problems of today are quite unique and should not be treated (ignored) as a passing phase.

      • You decide to grow out of it, or it’s not a passing phase. Taking responsibility is arguably the biggest part of being an adult. Plenty of people never do.

        Of course, there’s government and corporations telling us they’ll take care of us because they love us. Not unlike fake friends would in the metaphor. I can’t imagine most people believe that line, but they don’t think they deserve or can do better.

  20. Musings over high-minded ideology is a wonderful pastime while quaffing a pint at the local pub, but when the guy next to you at the bar wants to throw down in disagreement, pragmatic reality cannot be ignored. And such is the reality that faces us in our current societal unravelling. There are still a great many Caucasian males employed in government service whose paycheck & pension depend upon following orders, and they won’t hesitate to crack skulls and erect gallows in defense of the status quo. Yes, it’s comforting to have a moral justification for resistance to tyranny, but most people entering the fray are ill prepared for the tangible realities of insurrection. Jan 6th is a classic example of what can go wrong when you send raw recruits into battle.

    At some point, the DR must address this deficiency. Training on how best to fight back in this modern digital era is a fast approaching an existential imperative. Like anything else, it takes hard work, practice, and dedication. The future is not a gentleman’s argument at the bar, it’s going to a bare-knuckled fist fight, or worse.

    • TomA: I do not disagree, but consider that Zman even sees the need to cogitate and post on morals and theories that, to many of us, are blatantly self evident. That is just how utterly ‘unprepared’ most White males are – even many who find their way over to our side. They actually need to be told, to be reassured, that self-preservation is a moral good and a natural imperative.

      I was reading at Counter Currents the other day and Greg Johnson argued that claiming land by right of conquest is “philosophically indefensible” – i.e. he did not believe in condemnation for those dead and gone and would not take their ‘sins’ upon himself, but he considered that “conquest is just murder and theft.” Perhaps I am projecting, but I believe most of us here would understand the aphorism “Might makes right” to mean that land ultimately belongs to those that conquer and defend it. Totally aside from White people’s moral right to self preservation, there also exists a need for White people to defend the land they’ve claimed. And if they refuse to do so – indeed many of them welcome and become consanguineous with their conquerors – then they have willingly given up the ‘right’ to said land.

      tl;dr: Yes, we need to face up to and prepare for what is coming. But far too many aren’t yet ready to face up to who they are – a distinct people – and accept their right to exist and duty to preserve their progeny and patrimony.

      • Indeed. We need now to realize that violence, appropriately dished out, is absolutely defensible. Especially when a people are oppressed or under attack.

        But to many comfort obsessed people, this is rightly terrifying. It’s terrifying to me, but I’ve accepted it. So have all here, I’d imagine.

      • How can one look at one’s grandchildren and not be ready to die to make sure they have at least a chance to enjoy the same world we did in the mid-twentieth century? It was a financial sham built on fiat money, especially from the end of Bretton Woods on. Big Brainwash was underway in the media and schools, but we could at least still speak our minds and feel safe in our communities.

      • 3g4me – At the root, my concern is that Biden will continue to turn the screws until he get his Civil War 2.0 and many patriotic Americans will turn to tangible resistance as a response. And the risk is that most of these efforts will become like Jan 6th, Waco, or Ruby Ridge. A lot of our guys love to play army in the woods as part of militia formation, but that is really just LARPing and will likely get you arrested or killed. We need to start educating people on what actually “works” when it comes to fighting back.

        • Curtis Lemay: you do enough of them and they stop fighting.

          I think we’re just early adopters. Now Biden has outright declared Holodomor on the kulaks, and they’re coming for the kids and moms as well.

        • TomA: Utterly agree. Open, armed ‘rebellion’ against current ‘authorities’ is suicidal. I would prefer the DR focus on what does work. However, from what various sites post and what I’ve read in so many comments, it seems too many on the DR consider it their ‘duty’ to convince Joe Normal he has a right to exist as part of a distinct people. And they think that doing this convincing, one misguided and brainwashed soul at a time, will constitute ‘winning.’ Obviously I disagree, which is why my comments are often so sharply worded. But I will make no army of one.

        • I think the Great Resignation is already having an deleterious effect.

          There are plenty of places that are so short on staff that managers are required to fill in and do the actual work, from bars to the manufacturing plant I work in.

          You just love to see it.

        • TomA. Again you beg the question of “what does work”. You (and others) seem to know what doesn’t work—so by process of elimination—must know what does work.

          So I ask, “what does work”. All I heard from you is basically “gray man” recommendations along the line of mental and physical preparation, Well, here I am, but nothing in my life has improved wrt DR values. Indeed, from a political viewpoint, I’m less better off that ever.

          LARPing comments from you and others would seem particularly insulting in light of your failure to recommend any other tangible alternative—and wrt to an understanding of potential resistance, faulty as well.

          So an understanding of the use of force and tactics is not productive, but being a quiet gray man is?

          • Compsci – I’ve answered this objection or yours numerous times, but I will try once again in the hope that clarity will eventually emerge.

            First, the Stasi & HLS monitor this site intensely (and all other DR blogs as well), so there is a limit to what can be written. Second, what you call gray man is simply a tactic for staying off the radar as much as feasible and hopefully not becoming first-in-line for the detention camps. Third, last year I wrote numerous postings elaborating specific tactics for how to train & position yourself for tangible action when the time is right. Fourth, the future conflict will not be patty-cake. I will be life-or-death, and you had better take it seriously. Fifth, the optimum time to act is economic post-collapse, when the fog of chaos and general mayhem seriously tie up LEO resources across the country. Sixth, the “effective” way to do harm to the tyranny is via the back door, infiltration, and focusing on important nodes that the sustain the beast. The infrastructure that keeps the national engine running is so vast & complex, it cannot be guarded adequately; especially when the men that may it work are the one’s that make it not work. Do this, and the house of cards in DC collapses in hyperspeed.

          • I’ve never called for initiating violence—ever. Nor do I imagine I ever will. I only addressed the outright rejection and mocking of preparation for such should one be forced into defensive action through a breakdown of law and order.

            What we see daily are White people who are attacked with impunity simply because they are White and who are either reluctant or incapable of defending themselves. We readily acknowledge the feminization and infantilization of White people, yet mock the logical behavioral alternative to such passivity.

            Hell, I could care what color you are if such violence happens. You have a right and duty to defend yourself against unwarranted attack.

            You claim the future is not going to be “patty cake”. Well, then you imply struggle—and most likely violent struggle. Yet, recommend no knowledge of the art of violence?

            Do you really think that the nefarious “STASI” monitoring this group will come for me, and not you? If it comes to such, all will be gathered and the end point will be apparent. Preparation requires skills in all areas—martial arts as well. What to do, how, when is up to the other side.

      • Perhaps it isn’t defensible in some academic moral framework. However, every human grouping in all of history has practiced it with it’s handmaiden genocide to make sure the land stays theirs. Ignoring reality is just a form of slow suicide.

        This is the part people have a hard time understanding, yes they really are trying to cull you from the gene pool for their own ends. Which happens to be related to race. Surprise!

        • Allen: Agreed. I didn’t respond to Greg Johnson (these were comments he made at someone else’s post at Counter Currents) first because I wanted to think through the issue, and then because I decided I disagreed with him not just emotionally, but also philosophically. His website, his views, and I’m not trying to either curry favor or unnecessarily pick fights among the DR.

    • Cold, hard truth. When you cannot run, you must stand and fight. There are no Marquess of Queensbury Rules; you fight until your opponent is down and out. Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight. Be mentally and morally prepared both to die and to kill in self-defense. You have a right to preserve your life, but are not vouchsafed that you will do so.
      Still, the wise man lets the fight come to him. I see no shame in being a gray man. Those who seek out the fight, whether from a sense of duty or fired up by righteous anger, tempt TPTB to use overwhelming force or respond with a stealthy drone strike, against which there is little that training can do to prevail. Remember, the ultimate goal isn’t to fight, it’s to live as a free man.

      • Maus: I was an early admirer of that Patton quote that “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.”

        • 3g4me. That Patton quote was never meant to affirm passive resistance, but rather smart use of *violence*. Obviously, Patton was a military man and was knee deep in blood during the war. Indeed, his general philosophy was that the best defense is a good offense. He was never hesitant to push his men into action—repeatedly—with the belief that in the long run the casualties would be less.

          Nor is his quote really indicative of his aversion to excess bloodshed. Patton was involved in the continued production of the Sherman tank for the Normandy invasion. There were new, larger and heavier model tanks being produced back home. He visited the contractors and was told he’d not get the supplies he wanted if they switched over. So he demanded the Sherman production continue. The Sherman tank was under armored, and under gunned against the heavy German Panzers. Estimates I’ve seen are 7-8 Sherman’s lost for each Panzer taken out.

          He was probably correct. He was certainly effective. But he traded lives for victory as was his prerogative as an army general.

          Patton is not the person you should wish to quote if you don’t think the DR should ever consider violent action. Indeed, I’d tend to quote him to support my beliefs.

          • Compsci: I apologize if my comment was unclear or easily misconstrued – or if I misunderstood the Patton quote or Maus’ comment.

            In short, while I understand and agree, for the most part, with the ‘grey man’ approach, that is because A) I don’t trust other people to have my back and B) Direct and open confrontation with the State right now is suicidal.

            I understood Maus’ comment to support the ultimate need to stand and fight – and to do so brutally and with finality. It was in that spirit I quoted Patton – i.e. we don’t help our cause by dying for it (at least not at present) but ultimately the only way we can prevail is to kill off as many as possible of those who oppose us. And we must be prepared, morally and emotionally, to commit savage violence if we desire to ever live in peace with one another.

    • ” . . . still a great many Caucasian males employed in government service whose paycheck & pension depend upon following orders . . . ”

      This is the problem across the board. To hell with the conditions one’s grandhcildren might have to endure. Paycheck and pension uber alles. Those guys barefoot at Valley Forge didn’t have those things to cling to like the last chopper out of Saigon. Although I must say I am cheered by all these medical professionals telling Big Pharma to go pound sand as they quit their jobs because my body, my choice. Shouldn’t Planned Parenthood be supportive of people who don’t want the gene therapy? Will it be filing amicus curiae briefs to support those who don’t get the shot in these various lawsuits?

  21. I think any argument to be made against the federal government should start with defining a citizen and citizenship. I mean the real definition, not the “these poor MS-13 beaners are more American that you” definition.

    What is the definition of a citizen of the United States? What does it mean to be a citizen? What rights, privileges, and obligations does being a citizen confer on a people?

    What obligations does a government have to its citizens? Is the government living up to these obligations? How does it promote the general welfare of its citizens?

    I would say, at best, the current federal government is indifferent to the general welfare of its citizens. At worst, it is actively hostile to the general welfare of its citizens. Either is a starting case for restructuring, removing, and or replacing said federal government.

  22. Proud boys leader “clearly a fed”. Is this off the cuff? Whatever the case I would be loath to join and organization that has Boys in the name.

    • It’s not a secret. They burned the main guy in the press after the 6th to rub the fakeness of the event (and all events) in the losers’ faces.

      The Boys say yeah but he’s /ourfed/ and continue dancing for master.

    • Yes. The police state apparatus worked directly with the “Biden” campaign to set up the Proud Boys as the hobgoblin. If you recall, when asked during a debate to name a rightwing hate group, Biden answered “the Proud Boys.” This was an op long in the making with cooperation from both parties and the instrumentalities of government. Take note how reluctant the so-called federal defense attorneys are to dig into what really happened. They, too, are instrumentalities of the police state.

      • In a better world, these “defense” attorneys would have their licenses yanked. They are probably mostly public defenders, and, believe me, their political agenda is sometimes their priority.

    • SidVic: Not to mention they’re proudly multi-racial and vibrant. So they are multicultural boys, when we need White men.

  23. Pondering — The questions still remain: What do we do? And how do we do it?

    We know who and what the problem is.

    We also know now (watching Australia as the example of the West’s descent) that they will not tolerate us just moving quietly and unobtrusively, in our own way, through what they impose.

  24. Since self-preservation is the primary duty of all life, the first duty of a human group with a common identity is the preservation of the group.

    What determines a “human group”? Is a human group people with some sort of Anglo-Saxon genetic background? Is it residents/citizens of a specific national entity? Could it be members of a certain religion? Would it be humans with singular types of physical characteristics? Are season ticket holders for Boston Red Sox games members of a “human group”?

    In fact, most modern humans are members of multiple groups. A professor at Princeton University, for instance, might be a member of that faculty, academia in general, the Stanford alumni, MENSA, the Modern Language Association, the American Automobile Association, and many others. That person is invested in the preservation of each one of those groups, albeit it in a hierarchy determined by that individual.

    • Indeed. But I always had a rough idea of what I meant by those in my group (The English):

      Must be white and not guilty of this fact
      Must be born here.
      Must be one hundred percent loyal to her.

      Note, I haven’t even asked for the much tighter restriction of ‘Must be descended from those Angles and Saxons that sullied our shores over a 1000 years ago.’ Although, for those with such lineage my statements above would be insulting.

      I get your point; we have many groups. Many, many groups. But if a man is waving a flag of St George and doesn’t run to the police if I tell a joke about Pakis, then he’s pretty much in my group: unapologetic white man. It need not matter that he likes football and I rugby. That he has a Samsung phone and I an Apple. That he wears brown shoes and I trainers. And so forth…

      Most of us here recognise someone ‘like us’ pretty quickly. There is no need for an over the top analysis of the details. And here’s thing: out of all the groups humans could belong to, cultural and racial ones are those that inspire the most loyalty.

      Not if Malcolm be a member of MENSA and Jane a member of DUMBA.

      • out of all the groups humans could belong to, cultural and racial ones are those that inspire the most loyalty.

        That didn’t seem to be the case in the American revolution or its reappearance in the War Between the States. Don’t forget Shay’s Rebellion. During WWII ethnic German US citizens were interned, evidently because their loyalties may have been misdistributed.

    • So, so many different kinds of red. Magenta and blue-reds and orange-reds and brownish-reds, not to mention light- and dark-reds. Golly, maybe red doesn’t even exist.

    • Group? Easy. Who are they attacking? Now you know who is hostile and who is defense. The other distinctions don’t matter because there’s not a problem.

    • nailheadtom: You list all sorts of clubs or groups, and ignore what underlies DR belief: genetics. One can change one’s religion or club affiliation or hobbies. But, Rachel Dolezal notwithstanding, one cannot change one’s race. It is cell-deep.

    • Tom, some group commitments of an individual are more compelling than others. How do you know which commitments are the deepest? Watch behavior and patterns emerge.

      Think of the black conservatives who rejoiced when OJ was acquitted or who voted for Obama.

      In almost all cases, except for white liberals, race is the deepest loyalty.

  25. I tend to discard the Jaffa interpretation of the DoI, as at the time as it was written there was no “country”, there were 13 independent colonies. At the time it wasn’t even clear there would be a United States, the Articles or Confederation and the Constitution came later. The notion that the DoI was intended to found a nation would have required the authors to be clairvoyant. There was a strong possibility that the states would have remained distinct countries in their own right.

      • Yes, and there was a strong possibility they would have remained independent from each other after gaining independence from Britain. In fact, under the Articles of Confederation they largely maintained that independence. There was nothing in the DoI which established any union whatsoever.

        • And yet they formed a Federal Government. FFS people, can we just stop w/ the revisionism? Read the 10th Amendment.

    • “. . . That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States . . . and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”

      Yes. The Declaration talks about the colonies (or former colonies from their point of view) as independent political entities, each having the powers and rights of a nation-state.

      The Constitution was largely about the “free and independent states” ceding certain powers to a national government. The most obvious example is with respect to foreign policy. The states ceded their powers to federal government to “levy war, conclude peace, and contract alliances” etc.

    • The pre-Revolutionary relationship between the thirteen colonies is an interesting issue. The initial sentence of the D of I refers to the “unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.” At the time, the capitalization of nouns but not adjectives was normative English grammar; but there is some sense — emphasized by the references to unanimity and the number “thirteen” (representing both separateness and totality) — that this unity was of a moral rather than political nature. Yet it is significant that no one of the thirteen colonies became a holdout or haven for aggregating the significant Loyalist population that was dispersed among them. Most of the avid Loyalists relocated to Canada or elsewhere, but some no doubt remained and kept their disappointment sufficiently tacit. If I had to speculate, I’d guess that it was the fact of fighting and suffering together in the actual war for independence that forged the eventual political unity. As the passage of time attenuated that bond, the philosophical differences over slavery, agriculture versus manufacturing, monetary policy (i.e. a national bank), religious sentiment (Puritan versus Anglican vs Presbyterian etc.) and other issues reasserted themselves as a driver of States rights over against federal centralization. The Civil War was thus a more intentional redux of overcoming factionalism by using conflict to reforge the political unity. Eerily, that is why another civil war seems imminent in our own season of moral and cultural factionalism. War has been the preferred American go-to solution for creating unity throughout our history as a nation.

  26. IMO. The influence of the Declaration of Independence on American thought is an example of the commitment and consistency phenomenon described by Cialdini in his book Influence

    Specifically, the rightsof man stuff in the Declaration of Independence was little more than a self serving specious argument supporting the rebellion directed at French and English intellectuals to get their support for the effort. The founding rebels certainly didn’t believe the bullshit before during or after “the revolution”. A fact that should be obvious as many were slave holders and all of them considered the native Americans outside of their thing.

    And then the rebellion was successful. Consistnecy led them to claiming that it was more than just a fight over who would be ruling locally. So over time the the inalienable rights of man became ever more central to the founding mythology.

    • Alasdair Macintyre in “After virtue” had a great takedown of the natural rights of man, noticing that every philosophers had no justification for such rights outside of “trust me bro”, though usually they use the word “intuition”.

      He goes on to say, correctly, that one only has rights when one becomes a member of a community, usually with specified duties to the community with which you pay for such rights. The idea of having unalienable rights just because you are a human being is laughable.

      Natural rights is also a cornerstone of Enlightenment philosophy our republic is largely built off if, which is why it is hard as dissidents to create an ethos based on the Declaration and Constitution. And yes, I believe the founders really believed what they were writing. The poison is baked into the cake of our founding.

      • I’ve not read Macintyre, but I’m 100% in agreement with you. I’m most recently influenced by Nietzsche and he’s probably similar. I’m not sure what the “official” definition of “natural rights” may be, but he (and likely many others) would argue that rights, like law, justice, virtue, morality and so on, are entirely human concepts. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist nor have value. Of course they do. But being strictly human creations, they are only as valuable as one human, or a group, in upholding them. Stated another way, a “right” has value only to the extent that you or another will redeem it. Someone said that no rights can be asserted against Nature. For example, many people would argue that one should have a “right” to life, to food, clothing, shelter, medical care and so on. But if you found yourself, Robinson Crusoe like, on a deserted isle, of what avail would all those “rights” be? Nature could care less. Even among men, your “right” to life or property are not of much use if you are confronted with one or more people intent on depriving you of either.

        • Natural rights are the right to *try*.

          An animal will try to defend itself and its offspring, try to find food or a safe den, try to find relief from pain or tedium.

          You aren’t going to argue them out of the attempt, either.

          Gag orders? How the fudge did we ever go along with that? I’d look straight at the judge and tell him, “No, you shut right the fuq up, dickwad.”

      • Chet: Agreed. Instead of eternal prattling about ‘rights,’ I believe in a natural and social hierarchy and reciprocal duties and responsibilities. Christ himself condemned neither kingship nor slavery, but rather focused on the mutual duties owed between servant and master.

  27. Small note. Southrons aren’t exactly a seafaring people. The actual slave trade was conducted out of Providence, Rhode Island and Boston, Massachusetts. Seeing as how they were home to the finest sea captains and merchants in the country.

    That line about transporting slaves to another hemisphere was talking about them.

    • Aaron Lopez (1731–1782) was a Portuguese Jewish merchant. Slave Importer. The wealthiest person in Newport, Rhode Island, in British America.

      Issac and Jacob Monsanto. Plantation owners

      Judah Benjamin. Plantation Owner.

      Alexander Hamilton from Haiti went to a Jewish School, came to America to found national bank.

      And the British East India Company..

  28. Alas, the American Experiment was flawed from inception. A republic wrests on precarious checks and balances. Its power base is necessarily plutocratic. This means it’s extremely susceptible to (((corruption))) by (((them))).

    They buy their politicians and turn the political discourse into a clown show. Before you know it you have a demoncratic (((circus))) instead of what used to be a sane and orderly system.

    Only monarchy endures. Everything else collapses into tyranny and chaos ere long.

    • The normiecons that make a point about the US being a republic and not a democracy are really missing the point.

      The definition of a republic (as opposed to the modern equivalence with democracy) is a form of government that mixes democratic and aristocratic elements, ie includes structures under popular control and structures outside of popular control.

      In the US the elements that are beyond popular control are the judiciary, the bureaucracy and the media.

      All of which have embraced NRO-Marxism and anti white racism. And we have very little influence o er those elements as the frequently ignore their own internal procedures and precedents at will.

      Frankly, we would be a lot better off if the US was much more democratic.

      As someone recently said: We won’t vote out way out of this because we didn’t vote for this. All because we’re a republic.

      • That’s an interesting take I hadn’t heard before. I’ve always heard a republic defined as a popular government limited by rule of law and in our case a constitution. Of course ours has developed into what you describe.

        It seems to me the only thing with real explanatory power is elite theory. There’s always an elite and that elite can use various devices to maintain itself and ward off contenders. For the masses the best thing for them is to have strong jurisdicial rights, whoever the elite is and whatever the system of rule is. I would add that elite must operate in the interests of the biomass it rules over in light of Zman’s blurb today.

      • Many of the autocratic parts of the Constitution–two senators per state, the electoral college, enumerated rights such as freedom of association–actually were a benefit and a bulwark against the ills of democracy. But, as you pointed out, those autocratic parts that could oppress us have been advanced while those that support us either have been eliminated, curtailed or are under assault.

        Interesting point, though, and one to ponder.

      • I often wonder what Mencken would make of the booboisie turning out to be the heroes in the 2016 election, electing his fellow American of German ancestry to fight the corporate aristocracy. Would he become less contemptuous? Or would his contempt be borne out by the knuckling under to masks and ill-advised gene therapy?

      • Republic = Res Publica.
        Res = thing.

        Something that is publicly owned / operated.

        How it is operated is a different variable.

      • RE: “anti white racism”

        It is better to use “antiwhite.”

        By using the word “racism,” one is giving “racism” credibility as a bad thing.

        Accusing anitwhites of being antiwhite shifts the battle ground to a more favorable terrain. They are now on defense.

    • Everything collapses. Even monarchies. Plato saw different regimes as having life cycles and naturally devolving to the next lowest form, which I find largely true. Aristocracy devolves to timocracy, which devolves to oligarchy, then democracy, lastly to tyranny.

      • Yes, everything collapses even monarchies.

        But the time frame of monarchies is simply altogether different from that of republics. If you look at history, you will see monarchies lasting centuries, sometimes even millennia whereas republics don’t.

        This is because the power base of monarchies is aristocracy while that of a republic is plutocracy. Aristocratic systems are honor based and consequently far less susceptible than plutocratic systems.

        Plutocratic systems are driven by money and profit. This makes them prone to corruption by (((them))). Aristocratic systems are far better equipped to resist (((their))) machinations.

        In the end nothing endures of course. But republics, always, fail fast. The US is not even 250 years old and has already failed. The Roman republic failed after 300 years and only Augustus was able to temporarily arrest its fall through *monarchy*.

        Res ipsa locquitor.

  29. Since pretty much all modern political philosophy comes from thinkers trying to use Hobbes’s premises and methods — while desperately avoiding his conclusions — a quote from him seems appropriate: The power of the mighty hath no foundation, but in the opinion and belief of the people.

    That’s from “Behemoth,” in which he argues that over educated religious fanatics destroyed society by making their absurd doctrinal spats a matter of public policy. So, no parallel at all to The Current Year, obviously.

  30. The point of reference should be metaphysical and NOT historical.

    Truth is above freedom (whatever that means).

    The White Race should exist because as other human races on the face of the earth it is also one of the manifestations of the Almighty. … END OF DISCUSSION.

    “O mankind, We have created you male and female and appointed you RACES and TRIBES, that you may KNOW one another. Surely the noblest among you in the sight of God is the most godfearing of you. God is All-knowing, All-aware.” [Quran 49:13]

  31. I saw a poll awhile back that showed that something like fifty-percent of Americans thought that the line, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” was in the Declaration of Independence. I suppose that with our current influx of immigrants coming from the southern hemisphere, soon we’ll look back on fondness to the days where anyone could even read that quote from the Communist Manifesto to misattribute it.

    But that right there shows why the rulers who yawned while BLM burnt cities decided to throw normies in the Bastille when they saw white people walking peacefully through the Capitol Building with their flags. Those normies have their little laminated 3-packs of America’s founding documents, and it’s fun for the cynics and dissidents to mock them, but the truth is their ability to remember America’s actual intent, its ideals and even its basic rules, is a consistent thorn in the side of the rulers. Our rulers hate those normies because the rulers like to think of themselves as fair and just, and those normal white people are a constant reminder of their great betrayal. “White rage” and “white fragility” and “white privilege” and the rest is how they try to rationalize away the justified anger of their non-elite cohort at being betrayed. Bringing in black and brown people desperate merely to eat, with no concern for their rights, makes them feel benevolent, rather than guilty.

    • Once those normies realize the documents they carry are long dead, the pendulum will swing rather swiftly. Our enemies are not rational, fortunately, otherwise they would have coopted those types.

  32. I’m suspicious of any modern term like, “rights”. I don’t think the world is progressing the way people think, getting better and better, and that it took 17 centuries to discover “rights.”

    I think we need to re-think the word, rights. I think a better word to replace it, which would start the wheels turning is, “good”.

    Since God created everything out of nothing, how could we say we have rights? We are in fact, made of nothing. Does nothing have rights?

    • BTW, I didn’t listen to the pod yet, but I felt I still have the right to comment on it for some reason….

      • I haven’t either, but fyi that’s exactly what Hobbes was trying to get to with his “State of nature” thought experiment. Are there any rights we have just by virtue if being human? If so, what are they?

        All political theory that isn’t just footnotes to Aristotle is just footnotes to Hobbes.

        • “Are there any rights we have just by virtue if being human?”

          No. From whence they cometh? Power makes rights. Does a tree, a chimp, a dog have rights?

          Only a God has the power to distribute rights, and you violate them at your peril.

        • The right to life is one, and the right to preserve that life and the means of maintaining it. So, for example, if someone wants to force a poisonous medical experiment on me either directly or by removing my ability to work and trade then I have a quite fundamental right to answer them.

          I do believe that white man, at least Anglo man, wants to be free in his person and property. Maybe it’s just my conditioning but the Bill of Rights seems pretty ideal to me!

          • It’s a jungle out there and life is nasty, brutal and short. Until a group of like minded people agree to form a civil society together and give you rights, you have no rights. Capital punishment, infanticide, an eye for an eye, monogamy, polygamy? It’s whatever the people in that civil society decide will be your rights.

          • My right to preserve my life is written into the very nature of being a creature with karate chopping hands and jump kicking legs. If God had given me laser eyes I’d use those too, but he did endow my forefathers to create some useful weapons.

        • Hobbes and Aristotle are still on my “to read” list. However, I reiterate a point I often make here (and it’s not original, in fact it sounds like Hobbes might endorse it.)

          Regardless of whether you believe a loving God created Man in His image and cares for him, or whether you believe he’s an accident of the cosmos, or some other origin, pray tell:

          Just how is Man going to claim any “rights” against the universe? A man can borrow from, or owe, an hour of labor, a bushel of wheat, or a cow, to his neighbor, but just how is such a credit or debit to be reckoned against an uncaring, indifferent natural world? By what means will the contract be enforced? By what court of law? Does being “human” grant us any special privilege?

          • Note to Severian: how ’bout the quick summary on Hobbes, Locke, Burke, Aristotle, etc?

            Too many books, too many other needs, and I wouldn’t be able to digest them into a coherent summary anyways.

            And, why should I try to duplicate your lifetime of study, anyways?
            That is an unjust taking.

            Really. I’d love to see some single pages on each, that we might all come to a common understanding.

    • Hi-Ya!, you’re definitely correct. The world is not getting better, at least not spiritually. And seeing that the spirit guides the cultural aspect of it, things are getting bad indeed.

      Whenever people talk about ‘society getting better’ this usually relates to technology and medicine. But, as with other bloated professionalized fields, I suspect even these are stagnating now.

    • I’ll just note that white men are the only group who has ever conceived of natural rights. No other group is persuaded by this kind of talk.

      I agree that talk of natural rights stirs the heart of the white man, but if this kind of talk had any broader appeal, then we’d be living in a libertarian world. QED.

      Even if natural rights exist, they may as well not exist, because most people cannot perceive them.

      • That Natural Rights are a White man’s thing is fine. I’m not writing to convince any other race of their “obligations” to myself or to morally justify myself or my race to others outside the race. These others can morally organize themselves as seems best to them, and I expect the same courtesy from them.

Comments are closed.