It is impossible to overstate the impact that the concept of equality has had on the Western world, especially in the last century. In the fullness of time, the American experiment may be recast as the radical egalitarian experiment. Like the Covid virus, it escaped the lab and spread around the world. It also has had its greatest impact on the West, which may not survive it.
It is tempting to lay the blame at the feet of Jesus. After all, the great preachers of egalitarianism start with the idea of spiritual or moral equality, even if they explicitly hate the baby Jesus. If all men are equal in the eyes of God, then it must follow that all men should be equal in the eyes of one another. Since they are clearly not equal in reality, there must be something wrong with human society.
This is not true, of course. One does not logically follow the other, but the hallmark of Western thought since the late Middle Ages is the error of assuming that observations about nature or nature’s god lead to rules about human behavior. For most of Church history this was understood, but then philosophers took over from theologians and the virus of egalitarianism escaped the lab.
In our time, egalitarianism has worked like an acid, dissolving all of the organic institutions of society. The churches are overrun by degenerates. Civic organizations are either crippled by laws requiring the inclusion of everyone or they have been transformed into weapons in service to egalitarian ideals. Political opposition has been made into an enabling operation that confirms the prevailing orthodoxy.
That means any genuine opposition to the prevailing order starts with a rejection of the universal equality of man business. Whether one looks to Scripture, biology or some ideological or theological movement, the only real opposition to the prevailing orthodoxy starts with the acceptance of human diversity. People are not equal and therefore groups of people can never be equal to other groups of people.
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. 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 via crypto. 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. Thank you for your support!
Promotions: We have a new addition to the list. Above Time Coffee Roasters are a small, dissident friendly company that makes coffee. They actually roast the beans themselves based on their own secret coffee magic. If you like coffee, buy it from these folks as they are great people who deserve your support.
Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start. If you use this link you get 15% off of your purchase.
Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb. Just email them directly to book at sales@minterandrichterdesigns.com.
This Week’s Show
Contents
- Some Background
- The Egalitarian Challenge
- The Right’s Response
- The Left’s Response
- When You Accept Their Premise
Direct Download, The iTunes, Google Play, iHeart Radio, RSS Feed
Full Show On Spreaker
Full Show On Odysee
I’m a bit late to the comment party just because of how I listen to podcasts. A thought though, you spent a lot of time on the “all men are created equal” and how it obviously isn’t true. I lean towards the spiritual interpretation of this, however. All men are created equal in God’s eyes doesn’t mean they are all equally adept at engineering, at politics, at sports, at teaching, fill in the blank here. But they all have equal worth and value from a spiritual sense. Re-interpeting the phrase to focus on physical accomplishments is where the egalitarian argument collapses and everything you said is true. But anyone at any level (excluding those you mentioned on the margins) can, for example, happily and successfully raise a family if they remember that having stuff is not a sign of true success.
“Is it fit to say to a king, Thou art wicked? and to princes, Ye are ungodly?
How much less to him that accepteth not the persons of princes, nor regardeth the rich more than the poor? for they all are the work of his hands.”
Job 34:18-19
this is off topic, but does anyone think that there are two wings of neocons. I feel you have the first wing which is more concerned with Israel and another which is more concerned with Russia.
Like this link I feel is the “israel” half of the neocons and the ones who I feel have there fingerprints all over the “natcon” thing: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f9/f0/8f/f9f08f09bc7f873cf0ea41f68b7d433a.jpg
A distinction without much difference, as they close ranks almost invariably. The “Anti-Russian” wing is a junior partner, as the Jevvish wing has bones to pick with Russia going back centuries, as well as in more recent times starting with the neutering of the Jevvs in the Communist party under Stalin, and before that with the purge and liquidation of Trotsky (also by Stalin). Yet more recently, their (((homeboys))) among the Oligarchs post the breakup of the Soviet Union largely got shown the door after making their bid to carve up Russia in the 90s. Tribal Business.
The Anti-Russian gentiles are always on the make for throwing up a Deadly Adversary to Truth, Justice, and the Amurican Way, frankly because this project goes hand in glove with furthering the GAEs global dominance.
Makes for an easy sale to the MIC, in posing “compelling reasons” for why they must continue to be extravagently financed on the Full Faith and Credit of the USA, the shuffling golem of the GAE and, in the final analysis, of the Zionist Entity, the support of whose fortunes supercede those of even the GAE.
Things have gotten a bit spicy in Liverpool in response to a 15 year old British girl having recorded, and subsequently posted, her relentless propositioning by a 25 year old “refugee”, despite her telling him after informing him of her age that it was against the law to do so to a minor.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/fiery-uk-anti-refugee-protest-after-minor-girl-records-adult-migrants-proposition
Crowd forms up outside of government-designated and paid for hotel housing these “refugees”, and likely after some police (and maybe antifa – hard to tell the difference these days) provocations, bricks were thrown and a police van was torched. Cries of “Racism” immediately ring out from the usual suspects, AP “reports” the story without mentioning the trigger. Very predictable, no?
Zeleninsky test drives a British plane.
https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ZelPipelineMW.jpg
I’ d be more worried if he was in a Russian plane.
I don’t get why you revere Russia; it’s a dump
Most Russians outside the largest cities don’t have indoor toilets. Looking at social metrics Russia is more degenerate than even America.
Most of their industrial progress in the last century was due to foreign assistance.Russia is also not “based”-they have their own multiculti mythology. “Anyone can be a Russian if they love the motherland!”
“I don’t get why you revere Russia.”
Because they are standing up to enforced acceptance of homos, trannies, and before long, pedophilia. While I’m sure that your observations about Russia’s problems are accurate, Russia is standing up to NATO, the army of Satan. (And I’m not a Christian.)
Better than “Anyone can be an American if they hate America!”
Russia is indeed poor by Western standards, but is that a bad thing? Mindless consumerism of the West and subsequent societal debasement is not in my opinion a great accomplishment. Don’t forget either that it’s been only 30 years since Russia tossed off Communism, and a large part of that time was spent reorganizing after the West gutted what remained of Russia’s wealth and then later on imposed trade sanctions on a resurgent Russia that would no longer cooperate with the West in looting it’s resources.
Don’t really revere Russia, but admire that it appears its leadership cares about the welfare of the Russian people and are satisfied with influencing its immediate environment without wanting to rule the rest of the entire world by force.
“its leadership cares about the welfare of the Russian people ”
Funny how “caring” always seems to end up resulting in massive private overseas bank accounts for those doing the caring.
Anyone else get the feeling something’s up…besides these balloons?
Retaliation for American terrorism – blowing up that pipe line?
Hoover Dam, Super bowl. ???
Expect the unexpected.
Rattle the senile old man till he does something foolish?
Kick that ol’dog. When he bites, shoot him.
Eh, no disrespect here, but if anything like these events were to transpire I would immediately ascribe them to Deep State action; i.e., false flags to stir Joe Normie from his cheese curl and beer stupor to shout, “Save us, ol’ demented Joe!” Neither the Russians nor the Chinese would do anything so utterly stupid. Destroying a hydroelectric facility, however, is right in line with “renewables only”, banning gas stoves, and “15 Minute Towns”; guess who wants those things?
If they really wanted “15 minutes towns” they would mandate remote/work from home.
These Right Wing frameworks are so pervasive today. I can’t engage with any digital media criticizing wokeification of shows because even non political presenting English speakers robotically adhere to a Conservative template for “combating” woke invasion into spaces …. ” I don’t care that they made X character poc”….. “but they did not capture his whimsical smile and charm from the books “…. “they don’t care about the fans'”…… “I have no issue with diverse rural villages based on Europe but the acting is so bad’….. ” they are adults and I have no issue with them doing whatever they want that’s their business”.
The same pig slop regurgitated by all these channels.The unwitting Right wants woke product to be more entertaining, what an alternative.
Since a long time I say equalitarianism is the central reactor of Left Star.
The great left – right divide is equality vs hierarchy
Thus, it’s very important to destroy the “political compass scheme” which pollute every westerner brain since too much time.
This libertarian stupidity is a trap that forbid people to deeply understand what is really left and how to fight it.
Please, please, folks, debunk the compass in every social media
(wrong place for this post below, sorry)
They don’t. The Right and Left agree on all the major issues, since the great post war consensus it has been absolute among elites. They have done an incredible job in trapping the masses in their paradigm. The Right and Left manly differ on how best to arrive to the promise land.
No other alternate ideology in the west has had ANY success advocating for a different vision from the consensus. It has been near a century and going strong as ever.
So, in order to be fair and balanced in assessing this brouhaha with Michael Anton, I’m reading his latest mini-treatise on AG. I get to his third paragraph, and this is what I read (note: he is technically responding to Gottfried):
“The alternatives under discussion are the fundamental alternatives or possibilities regarding human reality or, to be more precise, the alternative possible accounts or explanations and codes for how man should live and why he should live that way. By “explanations” I mean “cosmologies” and metaphysics, comprehensive accounts of the structure, workings and meaning of the universe and man’s place in it. By ‘’codes” I mean either authoritative laws or natural guidelines that inform man of what he should and should not do.”
WTF? Who in the hell writes like that? It’s gibberish.
The thing is I have admired Anton’s writing. He’s rattled by this debate and it is obvious from his replies to both Paul G and Chris Z. He will not leave tha Coninc mothership. Sad.
Done! Finished MA’s disquisition. Turns out it wasn’t Gottfried but you, the Z man, who pissed him off. You called Leo Strauss mediocre! Anton:
“Leo Strauss was “mediocre.” Really? A man who could read, speak, and write Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Arabic, German, French, Italian, and English? And published in three of those languages? A man who wrote 15 books and countless articles and lectures? A man who trained the most influential two or three generations of political scientists and philosophic academics of the 20th century? A man who founded one of the first wholly new philosophic schools in some 400 years? A man who wrote or presented comprehensive interpretations of Thucydides, Socrates, Aristophanes, Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Lucretius. al-Farabi, Maimonides, Marsilius of Padua, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke, Vico, Grotius, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger and so many others. Mediocre? How many of these has Z-Man even read? How many has he even heard of?”
In other words:
“Take that Z man! Who cares what you think, you non-polyglot! We Straussians can peal off (in writing of course) 15 or more names of people from the philosophic dictionary without pausing for breath! We win! Ha ha retard!”
The guy is just another bright schoolboy with no humility or sense of reality.
I don’t see how Gottfried could piss anyone off. He’s one of the nicest guys out there.
You have to understand that you can train a chimp to be a conservative. They only have to repeat a handful of ideas in slightly different ways. If you get one of the spots, you make a lot of money for repeating on command those acceptable opinions. Anyone that threatens that is seen as a mortal threat.
Steve, I searched on the quotes that you gave and didn’t get any hits. Link?
It is disappointing. At best this is intellectual flexing to make a shaky argument, at worse and likeliest it is just National Review redux “I’m not one ot those!” cowardice.
Speaking of National Review, one of their editors posted an attack of BAP in the Daily Beast. https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-bronze-age-pervert-seduced-right-wing-thought-leaders?ref=home
Note the twerp writer warns the Claremont people and Anton in particular about associating with bad people.
Everyone involved with Conservative Inc. is a slimeball.
The NR is an especially virulent strain of Con, Inc. Take note that outing BAP’s identity is a primary concern, which is especially ironic given the efforts of NR, and particularly Jonah Goldberg, also to identify Anton when he anonymously wrote his FLIGHT 93 essay.
That Butler took his Con, Inc., minstrel show to The Daily Beast is particularly rich. That these types ran their grift for more than 60 years is an indictment of us, actually.
Since a long time I say equalitarianism is the central reactor of Left Star.
The great left – right divide is equality vs hierarchy
Thus, it’s very important to destroy the “political compass scheme” which pollute every westerner brain since too much time.
This libertarian stupidity is a trap that forbid people to deeply understand what is really left and how to fight it.
Please, please, folks, debunk the compass in every social media.
I’ve been reading “The Dawn of Everything” by lefties David Graeber and David Wengrow. It’s like “Moby-Dick,” a hunt for the great white whale of the perfect egalitarian society.
Naturally, I agree with your overarching theme of the show, which was excellent by the way. However, I take small issue with your assertion that this acceptance of hierarchy or biological reality means accepting that the offspring of those at the top are likely also to be better and it should be accepted. I’d like to see studies about how many offspring revert to the mean with IQ, or who simply have little motivation or drive because they grew up never wanting anything. There are numerous examples of highly successful and intelligent people spawning buffoons, who then remain at the top because they’re parent having connections or simply inheriting the business or wealth. GWB is probably the most famous example. Though his stupidity is overblown by the left, he certainly has an IQ of 100-110. Many people on this forum have higher IQs, yet he went to Harvard and became president. You see this a lot with legacy sports team owners. Mark Davis, child of Al Davis, and owner of the Las Vegas Raiders, is literally a character from Dumb and Dumber. The egalitarians see these legacy mediocrities at the top and they say, “see IQ doesn’t matter, you can have mediocrities at the top. And meritocracy is a lie”
The answer, of course, is to lean harder into meritocracy. I read an interesting proposal a while ago. The author suggested essentially taxing all inheritance money from people upon death: Land, business, stocks, everything. Do this while making income tax basically zero. His goal was to make society entirely merit based. It certainly has its trade offs, but it’s an interesting thought.
That inheritance tax idea probably leads to government ownership of virtually everything in just one or two generations. If you can get past the moral repugnance of regime confiscation of generational family farms/homes, it puts the regime in the position of needing to liquidate all those assets quickly, or else finding itself as landlord of real estate it isn’t equipped to administrate and owner of lots of businesses it is incapable of running. Lacking generational wealth to draw from, who would be the buyers of all these assets? In a very short time the regime would become majority shareholder of every publicly traded company.
But then you could say it already is, through Blackrock, Vanguard, et al
Substitute Church for government and you have described France shortly before Le Revolution 18th century.
Well the idea would be that it then sells those assets for its tax revenue. Using the example of Mark Davis, he dies and the government runs the auction for the Raiders and gets the proceeds. There will still be numerous bidders, as you’ll have more self made millionaires. Remember, this only works with substantially lower income taxes.
“Lacking generational wealth to draw from, who would be the buyers of all these assets?”
You’re very much underestimating the number of self made billionaires buying assets today, under more restrictive tax policies than what I’m suggesting. Elon Musk didn’t have any generational wealth and he’s the worlds richest man. Under absolute meritocracy, you would have a lot of innovation.
The funny thing about taxes is that unemployed people want 100% income tax, landless peasants want 100% property tax, and folks with penniless parents and grandparents want 100% estate tax.
how about at least some anti-trust enforcement?
The idiocy of elite offspring should take care of itself. If a few generations can coast off the momentum of the founding Pater, that is probably better than trying to have some government intervention to “fix things.” Civilizations rise and fall, dynasties do so as well if they don’t have at least minimally capable enough offspring to keep up. As you say, the Bushies (and likely Clintonistas) are good examples. Gen 3 Bushies have not fared well even in red states, and have my doubts about Chelsea.
Why Z man, you are starting to sound like Nietzsche. Among the may topics he wrote of, Christianity was dominant. This included the ancestors of said religion, which he said were Judaism and St. Paul incorporating Platonism and other current beliefs into the new faith. These are inextricably linked with what Nietzsche called master vs. slave moralities. I won’t go into detail here; that information is readily available for those interested.
Nietzsche would agree that one should NOT lay the blame for all this at the feet of Jesus. He’d give most of the blame to Judaism, Plato and St. Paul who mixed those and popularized it. There are endless ways to spin the equality thing. For example, until the Enlightenment, with the Church dominant, they would argue that yes all men were equal before God, but that clearly there “order of rank” here on Earth.
Nietzsche blames Luther for much. The Reformation partially “democratized” Christianity. Now men were slightly more equal among each other. The ongoing Enlightenment and democratization increased the trend. Suffering, adversity were to be extirpated. The end result of this was a domesticated citizen, a “herd animal.”
Our late descent into disorder can be thought of, by one point of view, as the attempt to bring equity or equality to the remaining unequal. I think Nietzsche used the term”moralic acid.” If I remember rightly, he meant the process of questioning and overturning existing moral values (note that so doing does not imply the new state will be better, only that the old is eroded or removed.)
We can see this dynamic in many social and political movements:
Is the Negro enslaved? Then free him! Is he shunned by Whites? Then forcefully integrate him into work, school and community. Does he fail to meet the common standards? Then lower the bar, or institute a two-tier system for the races. Etc.
Who says that sex is biologically determined? If a person wants to change xer sexual identity, xe should be supported in the quest. Xe must be provided support to that end, even if it requires mutilating xer body. Others who may object must be forced to accommodate xer wishes at whatever the cost.
Endless other examples can be found. If men, er, people are inherently unequal, then attempts to make everyone equal would seem doomed to fail.
But that hasn’t stopped idealists from trying, for thousands of years now.
If we could all agree that ideas aren’t made of matter, and objects aren’t a thought somebody had, it would solve a lot of problems.
“One does not logically follow the other, but the hallmark of Western thought since the late Middle Ages is the error of assuming that observations about nature or nature’s god lead to rules about human behavior.”
It goes back much farther than that, at least to Aristotle and Plato. Is it really an error to develop rules for human behavior from nature? On what else would they be based? Perhaps the most basic observation about nature that leads to rules is that people who don’t reproduce themselves will disappear from the Earth. Another is that the education of the young will play a large role in determining the shape of the future. Plato observed both these things and spent a lot of space in his Republic developing rules concerning both reproduction and education.
Aristotle further observed that the nature of man is such that he only flourishes if he develops virtue, including but not limited to the virtues of courage, self-control, justice and wisdom. A civilization that doesn’t take into account natural facts concerning reproduction, education and virtue isn’t going to last very long. A nation of sterile cowards will soon find itself It on the wrong side of the fitness to which the ZMan often refers.
Now one may disagree with the rules Plato came up with concerning reproduction or Aristotle came up with for the development of virtue. But that doesn’t mean those facts of nature or their implications go away. Yet I don’t hear much on the dissident right about the most elementary rule of fitness, which is reproduction.
Whites aren’t reproducing themselves at anything close to replacement rate. Western Europeans are somewhere around 1.5 babies per woman, and a similar rate applies to whites in the U.S. That’s a demographic catastrophe. Meanwhile, black Africans have an exploding birth rate. It’s all well and good to limit or end immigration. But unless these numbers change, Africans can eventually walk into an empty continent. (And at that point, the last people here will be black or hispanic, as non-hispanic whites have a birth rate lower than either of them.)
It’s often remarked that we can’t vote our way out of the situation we are in. We may not be able to reproduce our way out of it either. But not reproducing and educating the next generation is a guaranteed loser. You want a concrete way to help the future of the historic white people? Get married and have kids. A lot of them. Nothing else matters without it.
How to persuade whites to have more children when their future looks so bleak, that is the dilemma.
Do it for the greater good, for your people? Now that is one a hard sell. Can you promise a brighter future? It’s a much easier sell for our 3rd world replacements.
I agree with all of this, but you still need to address the elephant in the room. The barbarians are inside the gate and gaining momentum, so fucking faster is not going to fix the imminent threat. The root problem is that a large and controlling fraction of our elected leadership has sold out to the barbarians and is actively aiding their overthrow of the country. We are all riding in a train toward a bridge over the gorge that has washed out. The man in the engine compartment not only won’t put on the brakes, but is actually pushing the throttle forward. Its about time for a Flight 93 beverage cart moment.
I agree about the immediate threat that must be addressed, but I think it is related to the natal problem. Why isn’t there a segment of the American public that is big enough to force politicians to take the immigration problem seriously? People with children tend to be future oriented, while people without children tend to be present oriented. Back when we had large American families, we also had strict immigration controls because Americans didn’t want their children to live in a world dominated by foreign elements. Now that people don’t have children, or only have 1 or possibly 2 as personal accessories, the future is little concern to them. It’s the same reason few take the ballooning national debt seriously. They figure that by the time the migrants overrun the country or the debt blows up, they will be gone, so why care about it?
It’s also true that people aren’t going to have more children out of civic mindedness. I didn’t. I have 3 grown children and a grandchild on the way, but that is because when I was a young man I decided to take my Catholic faith seriously, and revised my attitude concerning the future, self-sacrifice and what is important in life. I’m not proselytizing here, just saying that people will start to have more children when they embrace a philosophy of life that makes the necessary sacrifices meaningful and orients them to the future rather than the present. Absent that, it will be difficult to get a politically significant portion of the American public to care about immigration or the debt.
Probably there is no realistic way to address this before a collapse occurs.
“Probably there is no realistic way to address this before a collapse occurs.”
Correct. Asking people to vote harder is the equivalent of asking the passengers of the Titanic to go below and start bailing furiously. And focusing on fixing the macro-problem of societal gullibility and insanity is a fool’s errand. Ain’t gonna happen. Only a collapse changes the environment, and only a change in the environment can alter the basic behaviors and attitudes of the masses. So what to do given these realities?
First, stand aside and let the collapse happen as soon as possible. Don’t try to stop it. Second, improve your robustness so as to survive the collapse and be available to help with the remedy when the time is right. Third, use the interregnum to improve your camouflage and skill set so as to be useful and effective. The time will soon come when hard men will be needed to do hard things.
To convince whites to have more children, you first have to convince them to lower their standard of living. Because kids are expensive nowadays, and only rich people can afford to have a lot of them while maintaining the standard. People who are already poor don’t seem to care as much, they get govt gibs for the kids anyway, live in section 8 housing, or share a house with a dozen other illegal aliens. So what’s another kid? But middle/upper middle class whites (that is, most whites) aren’t willing to live that way.
Yep. The white race conquered the globe in the 19th century in no small part because it reproduced in significant numbers and had lower mortality than the nonwhite races.
You want to know who was the last major national leader to recognize the importance of natality for the future of his nation? Uncle A, who awarded frauen who bore five children a golden swastika for their achievement… while we have five dykes fly jets over the Negro Super Bowl.
The concept of equality as used in mathematics is an abstraction that can be employed, tested, and either verified or disproved. And the rules of mathematics work to make these determinations repeatable and definite.
Applying the concept of equality to human beings is also an abstraction, but rather than being a definitive process, it represents an aspiration that cannot be achieved. No two humans are exactly alike, not even twins. For anyone to suggest otherwise is just advertising one’s stupidity. At best, the aspiration for equality before the law is admirable and somewhat feasible, but in practice almost never achieves this goal. We settle for “good enough” most of the time.
In modern political usage, “equality” is sales slogan designed to solicit votes. The stupid fraction of our electorate interprets this term as meaning “vote for me and I will work to give you free stuff from the government.” Sadly, this fraction may now be a majority. I think we need to find a solution to the problem of misusing language to enable vote bribery. 2x4s are once again becoming plentiful, and when used upside the head can have great efficacy.
Everyone on earth knows some people are stronger, others smarter, others still faster, others more driven, etc., etc. The problem has come with the quest for equal outcomes, which leads to tilting the laws to favor “protected classes.” So equality before the law is out.
For all their modern posturing about diversity and inclusion, companies, and especially tech companies, succeed by hiring the smartest, hardest working people they can get. Period.
Re: your last paragraph. If you think tech companies are hiring the best and brightest, get on the phone with tech support sometime. I recently wasted over an hour of my time with a couple of dingbats at Apple regarding a simple registration issue. These people were obviously AA hires. The acid is eating away at institutions private and public.
That’s because tech support is a low priority. See who they hire to manage short term investments.
Longstreet – The quest for equal outcomes is driven by politicians who enact laws that attempt to force this outcome; which always fails in practice, so they double-down and keep trying new forms of coercion. Why do they do this? Because it “works” in the sense that it gets them sufficient votes to get re-elected (Congressional incumbency is way over 90%). Can persuasion educate the electorate sufficient to solve this problem and put better people in office? Ask Kari Lake if that works better than manufacturing fake ballots.
Totally OT:
New Wagner PMC recruiting video aimed directly at American vets just dropped:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/DARgPTldxc7I/
I call bullshit.
There are no luggage testers or females in the Russian groups.
Clearly they aren’t up for the task…..
Based AF, I hope they get all those special ops guys that wouldn’t take the jab and got booted for it. Mass desertion of the ‘tip of the spear’ hu-whytes with military training to Wagner PMC would be a nice stick in the eye of the (((handlers))) who thought they could just endlessly push.
It is hard to believe that Christianity has forsaken the word of God for the word of man. There used to be a firm biblical moral compass as to right and wrong, truth and lies. Certain men have re-interpreted the word of God to the ultimate detriment of all and it’s going to take strong, unshakable men to set things right and as they should be. It’ll most likely be a long struggle.
Great podcast – listened to it twice.
The idea that equality is somehow mandated by Christianity is a deliberate misinterpretation, a heresy that has infected all denominations.
Equality is not morality…
* Equality is the Original Sin, eat of the fruit and you will be equal with God. It was staring you in the face all along.
* God did not create equality, he created separations and divisions.
* God does not judge everyone equally, He judges everyone CONSISTENTLY.
Have a care with your words, because you’ve imbibed the semantic distortion of the word “equality” inserted there by your wokist enemies. They’ve used conflation fallacies and cause-effect inversions to brainwash you and all the rest of western civilization.
Yet, here we are…
If what you say is true, then why are things as they are? What are you failing to take in to account?
Not sure I get what you mean. Things are as they are because of the heretical (and in many ways blasphemous) interpretation of “equality” by infiltrators. Not the first time an organization has been hijacked. Seems to occur rather regularly. Eventually, one hopes, there are enough defense mechanisms in place to spit them out, but that may take a while.
(cue the civilizational life cycle chart with “you are here” sign arrow pointed at early collapse stage)
Late to this thread, but I think one other factor that undercut the conservative position on the issue of racial equality were the actions of Nazi Germany. The Nazis thought that race existed and that race was important. They also had a hierarchical idea of race (Herrenvolk and Untermensch). The Nazis did some terrible things because of their hierarchical idea of race; the Herrenvolk had the right to conquer and exploit the Untermensch. So any idea of racial inequality and especially of racial hierarchy made one a Nazi. That doesn’t necessarily follow, of course. One can believe in group racial inequalities and even racial hierarchy, but not draw the conclusion that conquest and exploitation are a desirable course of action; a more rational policy might be for the “Herrenvolk” to separate themselves as much as possible from the “Untermensch,” and to trade with them for the resources that they control. I had a professor at the Naval War College (of all places!) who said that he believed the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s was a direct result of the Second World War and the revelation of what the Nazis had done in pursuit of their racial ideas.
Your professor was most likely correct. And the Usual Suspects™ eagerly took advantage of Bolshevik propaganda to pursue their own racial grievance agendas utilizing their newly acquired media control.
Peter Brimelow at VDare calls what you describe “Hitler’s revenge.” Peter suggests that the reason that we can’t enforce immigration laws, for example, is that doing so would remind too many people of that toothbrush moustache.
That was the nickname of the rotary dial telephone system at a major Allied command in Germany in the mid-1980s. Fortunately, I didn’t have to work on that system. 😁 They were still using the World War II German equipment nearly 40 years after we won. The Krauts built very good stuff
Correction: what has been reported as the actions of nazis by their enemies. At this point, taking anything reported by the Anglosphere regarding WW I at face value is asking to be mislead.
Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
When the blank slate becomes an article of faith, the process of equalization becomes a force of cultural immiseration.
The DOI is not a holy text to be taken as gospel. Jefferson appealed to the rhetorical pathos of human equality purely to justify severing the rule of a tyrant king whose authority was undergird with tradition and custom and whose government diverged from the best interests of a distant colony. The manner of his life gives abundant evidence that he believed in neither the divine right of kings nor the equality of men.
The true animating spirit of heritage America was not equality but rather striving to be better, always better than oneself and better than others. And “better” is a moral judgment and a proper subject of cultural debate. As Zman points out, Christianity used to have a significant role in that debate, before it accommodated modernity and and was co-opted by egalitarianism.
Separation and rehomogenization might allow a few cultural oases to thrive; but a widespread restoration of the American project is demographically beyond the point of no return.
Whatever it is they say or think in the abstract is not what they say and do in practice.
I really don’t get how egalitarianism is compatible with anti-White hatred and bigotry. If they really thought everyone was equal, they wouldn’t separate us out for condemnation and derision and oppression. They would not selectively enforce the law against us. They would not pass laws requiring companies and local governments actively discriminate against us. They would not be flooding our countries with hostile foreigners. NOTHING they do makes any sense from an egalitarian worldview.
The truth is, a group of foreign elites who control our money have used that control to take over. They hate us and have convinced White elites to go along with it with their (our) money. Everything is couched in egalitarian language, but it is all to the same end, to the destruction of White peoples in their own nations. They are driven by naked hatred. Every single time they accuse us of hate, it is 100% pure projection.
If we do not get these people out of power and soon, our children or grandchildren will be marched into death camps. They don’t do it now because there are too many of us. That is rapidly changing. When the last of Gen-X dies, White people will be a rather small minority in the US assuming no interruptions to the program.
It’s very quite simple : equalitarianism is TOTALLY compatible with antiwhitism, because, for equalitarians, the central key, the iconic symbol of Inequality is the white man.
Not sure which was more destructive, “all men are equal” or the application of the doctrine of disparate impact. Might have survived an “all are equal” if it just amounted to live and let live (or die). But the notion of disparate impact strangled it in the crib.
Great show! Best in a while! Keep it up!
Great show! Like you gave it up to the muse as in the witch show.
Connecting egalitarianism to the blank state and universalism was a great insight for me and then you can project onto other things like technocratic rulership and own nothing and bugs, etc.
Thanks for the show.
Link to the closing music?
The left’s obsession with equality is a political tactic which allows them to co-opt the votes of losers.
The right is losing because they have conceded the right of definition of political concepts to their political enemies.
Emotional blackmail and verbal bullying are the main tactics that left uses because it works. The faux right cannot say, “No, you can’t do that!” and make it stick because they are really on the same side. Once people figure this out; it should lead to vicious backlash against both parties.
Oh, yeah, how did the patriarchy allow themselves to be stitched up with such vicious, unfair divorce laws? It wasn’t a majority of female repsentatives that voted for these laws.
It was a windfall for the lawyers, though.
Z Man, that is top-notch writing. Not a word can be removed. As bracing as a shot of whiskey in the Arctic cold. Your writing seems to be moving into a different, stronger key since the Anton discussion.
While today’s thread is mainly about equality there is a strong subtext of Christianity and its interpretation or belief in such, so I’m not really changing the subject here . . .
I was patiently and silently waiting in line at the grocery store yesterday while the clerk (whiter hispanic who’s always been pleasant; have no personal animus against her) and the older White lady she was checking out discussed the profound subject of . . . Love. Clerk complimented lady on how peaceful and serene and friendly she always was. White lady said she had no reason to be unhappy or angry and did her best to share love with everyone. Clerk agreed that spreading love is the essence of Christianity and that Jesus is love. Both clerk and lady then reminisced about all the songs that have reached this same, brilliant conclusion (What the World Needs Now, All You Need is Love, etc.).
I said nothing and smiled, waited my turn, paid and departed.
But I witnessed the pure essence of what passes for female ‘thinking’ and philosophy. Love is all and all is love and all we need. God is not justice, or righteousness, or mercy. Good or evil – so passe. The feel good, simplistic solution to complex historical issues distilled to the basest level of emoting.
Many here (myself included) often note how incredibly deleterious to the West women and their supposed ‘rights’ have been. But women have also helped destroy Christianity. When they were limited to organizing jumble sales and raising funds for far-off orphans, their do-gooder impulses and simplistic thinking could be channeled into fairly harmless pursuits. But the push for the 2nd order of women’s rights coincided (and not coincidentally, I would argue) with the watering down of Christianity, removing the stereotypical ‘fire and brimstone’ fear of Hell and instead focusing purely on love and acceptance for all.
Just as fire outside of a fireplace is destructive, women’s unrestricted emotional incontinence destroys civilization.
Indeed. Paul had a point.
1 Corinthians 12
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines
Does not strike me as blank slate or egalitarian. Like other institutions, the left has infiltrated the Church.
Utility and equality are different concepts. For example, an engine and a transmission are equally necessary in a car. They are not interchangeable, in that a car with two engines and zero transmissions will not work as well as a car with one engine and two transmissions.
One of the biggest issues in discussing equality is the tendency to false equivalence. Equality is strictly equality, and is not synonymous with interchangeable, sameness, identicality, equivalence or standardization. Equality is fundamentally a judgement of value, not of use. To say that a prophet doesn’t have the same utility as a teacher is not to say that they don’t have the same value as people.
Single motherhood is producing a grotesquely faulty generation ill-equipped to survive without extreme protection and intervention from the state. They demand everyone else surrender self-defense in order that the state “protect” them, be it from murderers or just mean words. We are really starting to reap the “rewards” of progressive feminism: consequence-free sex, the pill, and easy divorce. It’s extra dysfunctional for blacks. How can the products of broken homes be expected to in turn to raise successful families? Hence all the leftoid chatter about “alternative families”.
“Love, love, love” is the progressive’s only answer for “what will replace the patriarchy?” Contrary to the laws of physics, all human history – not to mention biology – they really do trust that things will function as normal (and even better) in the absence of hierarchy.
I am certainly in agreement with women’s roles in the church however contemporary women fall drastically short of the mark. To be a woman has been redefined many times over the last century+ as the left mutates.
Men have adopted the same simplistic view that God is love too. If I want to find an example I could just head down to the any local evangelical church. However with the advent of wokeism God is evolving – again – and he is also very much about justice now. I spoke with someone attending Dallas Theological Seminary a few years back and he stated that the in his then current class on the minor prophets, the prof taught that they were about social justice. This was early 2020, before BLM’s heyday and it happily lined up perfectly with the political scene of the day.
I suspect that this that this fuzzy warm view of love – like tolerance and equality – is just the opening act of bringing down the western Christian house and with its absence a new order can be created. The church is just desperately attempting to keep itself relevant in this order but it already is a far cry of its former self.
Not a preacher but God primarily wants obedience. Everything else comes after that.
Speaking of which…
https://www.amren.com/videos/2023/02/women-are-the-new-thought-police/
It is hard to blame them since I am sure that is what they have heard all their life. Reminds me of English teachers who would grade your paper with “Awkward sentence structure” but never explain what was awkward or how to correct it.
Too many contemporaries equate love with being nice, kind, etc. (Paul – both the Saint and the musician – bears some responsibility for this). Theological love is “willing the best for the other (the object of the love).” Sometimes that must include “tough love” – justice.
So this is what you got out of this conversation? … Rather than a lovely, pleasant interaction between 2 ladies? Maybe what they said was nothing more than idle chatter at the grocery counter…..Are you always this miserable of a human being?
Will you be the hall monitor Karen in our brave new world after the eventual balkanization of the US?
“When they were limited to organizing jumble sales and raising funds for far-off orphans, their do-gooder impulses and simplistic thinking could be channeled into fairly harmless pursuits.”
No, 3G, the importance of women–before suffrage (!)–cannot be overstated. Toward the end of his life Tocqueville was asked what single thing could could most account for the greatness of America. He took his time thinking but then answered that it was due to the quality of it’s women. What a great loss it is.
Christians complain that Christ is almost universally interpreted as preaching equality.
Conservatives complain that the Founders are almost universally interpreted as preaching equality.
Who made these incorrect interpretations almost universally believed? The media. The schools and the government that follow the media. Who controls the media?
Control of the media is everything because almost everyone lacks the time or ability to think independently. Until we can take that control from them, we can only make preparations for ourselves.
Where I wrote “equality” I meant to write “egalitarianism.”
Paraphrasing Lombardi, media control isn’t everything, it’s the only thing. No one who controls the media can lose. No one who does not control the media can win. My interactions with Civnat G. Normiecon confirm this on the regular. There is nothing I can say, however true, that is as strong as The Man On The TV, however false.
Even for a nation state with the military power to upend the media narrative, such as Russia, the media narrative makes that mission much more difficult.
So true. A fairly intelligent colleague of mine commented on how I was “right” about Nordstream being US sabotage, now that he heard rumblings about it on the “news.” I commented that it was fairly obvious from the get go, but he did not seem convinced. All I could say at that point was “the difference between a conspiracy and the news is about six months.”
In what substantive way do traditional Marxism and equalitarianism differ? None, actually, in how they are put into practice.
Traditional Marxism as it actually was practiced is the same as the radical equalitarianism that has gripped the West in that the loudest proponents exempt themselves from inclusion in the scheme. For example, how can a belief in equalitarianism also allow for standardized tests? Granted, this contradiction has been noted and a move is afoot to eliminate standardized tests; the LSAT and MCAT are gone or going, and the SAT, GRE, and others are not far behind. Yet everyone knows some selective process that inures to the benefit of some will be put in place. The Cloud People would have been the nomenklatura in another age, the Dirts the lumpenproletariat. Hence the Clouds’ pilots will not be randomly selected.
As you write about race–look what people do rather than what they say–applies just as much to equalitarianism as a whole. These contradictions are not sustainable, and today’s totalitarianism is the direct result. If something is observably untrue, force is required to make some people pretend it is untrue.
I love Western culture but the farcical and psychopathic embrace of equalitarianism as an ideal, even though it is not a reality, is its endpoint. The distinctions between today’s Episcopal Church and modern Western government and culture are without a difference, and all lead to decay and death. Separate and prepare.
I get a bit frustrated with those who want to decry our enemies as Marxists.
In principle, our enemies do not advocate that the proletariat own the means of production.
In practice, our enemies want a state with free enterprise under control of the state with a generous social safety net. Under this definition of “Marxism,” then every first world state is Marxist. The only disagreement is how generous the state should be. Unless you are advocating for a minimalist libertarian state, where the unfit die in the street, then you are a Marxist under this definition.
Don’t say “Marxism,” “cultural Marxism,” or “communism.” Say “anti-white.”
Those who prate on about Marxists and commies are stuck in 1963. It’s a different world. Very different.
As rhetoric, I agree that “anti-White” is preferable and far more accurate, to be clear. But as put into practice, both Marxism and PoMo are the same in that the leadership is immune (initially) from the effects. While with PoMo the means of production indeed remain in the hands of those who rightfully guide their foot soldiers, over time that wealth will be taken after minority White elites no longer have the power to keep their assets after their racial counterparts in the lower and middle classes have been strip-mined. In this sense, Marxism was more effective in that it surrendered the means of production (although not the fruits) at the outset.
So I reup as practiced the two are hard to distinguish outside the particulars of ownership. The current goal is feudal Europe but the endpoint is warlordism, and that is the primary difference and the current iteration’s Achilles heel.
I can remember when one had to score in the 90th-percentile on three SAT II exams to have any hope of entering MIT.
Pepperidge Farm also remembers.
And for our beleagured TomA, I think his oft-repeated question of “If not now, when?” is most important; I’m trying to work out a practical application, and I think I may have a more possible approach.
Vigilence has its virtues, because small is beautiful. Yet as the Zman pointed out in his “Dollar” post, we are born in this system and have no viable alternative.
If our enmeshed, interlocked system, built over centuries by millions of hands, should fall, most here will die, most of whom they know might die, and for no improved benefit.
Since we face a sea of enemies, literal millions of them, the place to start may not be at the impregnable top, but at the reachable bottom.
Zman, your comments about the Episcopal church are spot-on. I used to attend one, and watched as it was gradually captured by an LGBT clique, who stuffed *every* important church position with a gay or a lesbian. The bishop was hetero, but made up for it with relentless virtue signaling about climate change and BLM. There were sermons about race and global warming but never about sin. The congregation consisted almost entirely of old ladies with white hair, so the message didn’t seem to be drawing in new members. They still send me appeals for money. I doubt that church will even be around in 20 years.
Shrinking Violet: “The congregation consisted almost entirely of old ladies with white hair… I doubt that church will even be around in 20 years.”
To quote the j00, Mark Stein: “The future belongs to those who show up for it.”
To paraphrase the lunatic Steven King, via the gr0id Morgan Freeman: “You can either get busy making babies, or get busy going extinct.”
=====
Shrinking Violet: “They still send me appeals for money.”
As things now stand right now, you’re gonna keep paying their FICA [SS & Medicare] for another twenty or thirty years.
After which it will be your children’s turn to pay their FICA.
Followed by your children’s children’s turn, and so on and so forth, until the end of time.
Unless someone steps forward, and declares…
“No.”
The egalitarian core of Christianity, which was used to destroy Rome, was held in check by a rigid hierarchical Catholicism in the centuries that followed. A combination of the Gutenberg press allowing anyone to read the Bible plus the earlier reintroduction of Aristotlean reason by the Muslims led directly to the Protestant reformation, which in turn led to what Moldbug correctly identified as crypto-Christianity via the Unitarian takeover of Universities as a memetic evolutionary strategy to outcompete other strains of Christianity. In short, Dolores, yes, the egalitarian race to the bottom is directly a result of Christianity, which in turn was the first successful Jewish bolshevik strategy to upturn and destroy society.
And, as always, the first society to be destroyed was the bolsheviks’ own. They cannot learn.
Rather, those who can are boiled off. They leave, as mine did after the 30 Years War, where we emigrated to the American colonies and converted to Christianity. So completely assimilated are my line that we are indistinguishable from any other white, which was the original goal in the first place.
Yes, Jews are parasites, destroying the societies they enter into. To be clear, the use of the word “bolshevism” in this context is the agitation of the masses against society’s rulers in order for the Jews to attain power. In Rome Jews used spiritual bolshevism (Christianity) to rile up the women, slaves, and underclass against the Roman masters — after all, if a Christian is spiritually equal (or superior!) to the Roman emperor, that is going to have *massive* real world effects regardless of some distracting language like “render unto Caesar’s what is Caesar’s”. You’ll note both that Christianity spread right after the destruction of the second temple, and that while Christianity destroyed all paganism they left Judaism untouched — odd case, very strange.
(The downvotes on my original comment are from Christians who hate being told they got suckered; they bitch and whine about Jews 24/7 yet worship the Jewish God. “oh no, God is actually MAD at the Jews because they rejected Jesus!” Oh is that so? do you think the old testament is holy? do you think the god of the jews is holy? well gee wiz goy, who’s the real sucker here?)
The Jews then used that strategy again in Russia via economic bolshevism and now, in the west, with racial bolshevism.
The strategy is always the same and once you see the pattern it can no longer be ignored.
JR: “Oh is that so? do you think the old testament is holy? do you think the god of the jews is holy?”
Bro.
You need to brush up on your Catharism.
What you’re describing is the Scofield Heresy.
Scofield is the Frankfurt School’s great 20th Century Masterpiece of cultural bolshevism.
Arguably Schofield has caused even greater harm to Amurrikkkuh than did feminism.
I only have the account via Nietzsche so take that for what it’s worth. Christianity did not so much wipe out paganism but incorporate Pagan beliefs into the new faith. St. Paul sought to escape the Law (of Moses) and that was his motivation for creating the new religion.
In support of an earlier comment, this perception of early Christianity is very much in alignment. The new faith was made to be attractive to the commoner, the downtrodden. Note that this is a manifestation of one of his Central themes, the distinction between master and slave moralities.
Although, I can’t say that I’m sorry to see the Roman Empire destroyed. Good riddance to that over-glorified extortion racket.
If anything destroyed Rome: it was the loss of their virtue which led them to lose their social cohesion as they descended in to becoming back-stabbing scoundrels: that is what did them in.
The same process is work in Washington D.C. where no sane American can regard a member of the Democratic Party as a fellow American anymore. They have forfeited that consideration.
While sure there were multiple causes of the decline of Rome, Gibbon himself points his finger squarely at Christianity as a major contributing cause: “As the happiness of a future life is the great object of religion, we may hear without surprise or scandal that the introduction, or at least the abuse of Christianity, had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire. The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of military spirit were buried in the cloister: a large portion of public and private wealth was consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion; and the soldiers’ pay was lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes who could only plead the merits of abstinence and chastity. Faith, zeal, curiosity, and more earthly passions of malice and ambition, kindled the flame of theological discord; the church, and even the state, were distracted by religious factions, whose conflicts were sometimes bloody and always implacable; the attention of the emperors was diverted from camps to synods; the Roman world was oppressed by a new species of tyranny; and the persecuted sects became the secret enemies of their country.”
From my reading of Gibbon, I got the impression that it was the rise of Oriental and Asiatic influences in Roman society that took down Rome.
One was code for homosexuality and the other was referring to a certain “religious” sect that reveres money(shekels).
Everything else is anti-Christian propaganda.
Also, I do not consider the Roman Catholic Church to be a real Christian institution.
Most Dems can’t answer whether or not a woman has a cock, whether from belief or cowardice. Pathetic people.
Wew lad. Christianity has been corrupted by man, as most other human institutions have. Don’t blame Christ or Christianity for the s**tshow it’s become.
It was a force for good against the Roman state (the proto-GAE) and the pagans, and the establishment Jews. I agree it’s, at its core, a largely egalitarian movement, though I mean “egalitarian” as loosely as I would describe Julius Caesar as a left-populist. And there are degrees to egalitarianism, why be all-or-nothing?
Just ignore everything past the year 787.
I will refer back to Nietzsche in response:
“Let’s bring this to a conclusion. The two opposing values “good and bad,” “good and evil” have fought a fearful battle on earth for thousands of years. …The symbol of this battle, written in a script which has remained legible through all human history up to the present, is called “Rome against Judea, Judea against Rome.” To this point there has been no greater event than this war, this posing of a question, this contradiction between deadly enemies. Rome felt that the Jew was like something contrary to nature itself, its monstrous polar opposite, as it were. In Rome the Jew was considered “guilty of hatred against the entire human race.” And that view was correct, to the extent that we are right to link the health and the future of the human race to the unconditional rule of aristocratic values, the Roman values.
By contrast, how did the Jews feel about Rome? We can guess that from a thousand signs, but it is sufficient to treat ourselves again to the Apocalypse of St. John, that wildest of all written outbursts which vengeance has on its conscience…
The Romans were indeed strong and noble men, stronger and nobler than any people who had lived on earth up until then or even than any people who had ever been dreamed up. Everything they left as remains, every inscription, is delightful, provided that we can guess what is doing the writing there. By contrast, the Jews were par excellence that priestly people of ressentiment, who possessed an unparalleled genius for popular morality…
Which of them has proved victorious for the time being, Rome or Judea? Surely there’s not the slightest doubt. Just think of who it is that people bow down to today in Rome itself, as the personification of all the highest values — and not only in Rome, but in almost half the earth, all the places where people have become merely tame or want to become tame — in front of three Jews, as we know, and one Jewess (in front of Jesus of Nazareth, the fisherman Peter, the carpet maker Paul, and the mother of the first-mentioned Jesus, named Mary). This is very remarkable: without doubt Rome has been conquered.”
Greetings, fellow “Immoralist” and “Philosopher of the dangerous ‘perhaps'” 😀
Back story: Nietzsche did flirt with anti-Semitism in his early years (Wagner’s influence). His opinions of Judaism’s contributions in the history of morality and their ingenious religion are by turns admiring and critical. In his contemporary Europe, he seemed hopeful that (European) Jews would fully secularize into society.
To the best of my knowledge, he never opined on the age-old “conspiracy theory” that a secret Jewish cabal that runs the world, that is a staple in DR circles. Which makes his final paragraph JR quotes above, all the more interesting.
I agree. The idea of the perfect God came from the
greek philosophers who misinterpreted the the word God. Perfection and equality are abstract belonging to reason. The God of the Old Testament was a God of life and not reason. A God of life could never be understood is equal, Medieval thinkers reacted against the Greek ideas regarding the Divine and preached that God was beyond perfection.
Why do you lose your time to talking with neopagan/atheist judeomaniacs?
Let them still wanking on their Nietzche/Gibbon and other stupid idols.
I haven’t listened to the podcast yet, but this “equality” should not really be called equalitarianism. What we have is “selective equality” where some people are more equal than others. Nobody really believes in equality, least of all our rulers. “Dirt People” may be our term, but it accurately reflects how they see us. There are no delusions of “equality” of the “Dirt People” and the “Cloud People” We are all equally scum in their eyes. Concepts like “Equality” are reserved for the magical people and the new magical people destroying our country.
Probably dating myself here but equality in the modern form is Borgism. They think the Borg are an ideal and want to create that for us. At least in theory.
I prefer the term “Necromongers”
Might “Negromancy” be a better term? I think the old term “the black arts” had a different meaning, but it’d fit nicely 🙂
If I write “you are not my equal,” that could be a statement of humility, acknowledging your superiority. Or it could be a statement of my superiority, asserting your inferiority. Thus, the saying “all are equal” becomes an equivocal expression of contempt, envy and disgust because we ought properly judge a man’s intentions by his deeds rather than his words. And how TPTB treat us gives the lie to their oily words of equality.
Aww shoot. Under the Inverted value system, the less potential they have to offer, the more they are a nullity, a drain, or a problem to solve, the more they matter.
Monkey Lives Matter!
becomes
Illegaly immigrated, criminally minded, minor attracted, morbidly obese, addicted, deranged, disabled, narcissistic, non-white LGBTQ furrie trans-monkey identified lives matter even more!
Somewhat related to this point, while watching the latest Fetterman episode it occurred to me that in my lifetime, and I’m in my early 50’s, there’s a good chance that we’ll see an actual mong get elected to Congress. It would be such a juicy FU to everyone by TPTB; I really don’t think they can resist.
“Mongo no know. Mongo but pawn, in game of life.”
-Mongo
Senator Mongo will knock Senator Seabiscuit out with one punch of his knotted fist on the floor of the Senate.
On an ever so slightly related note, it was delicious watching Santos’s comeback to Holier than Thou Romney after the SOTU. The lad has spunk and is quick on his feet – I’m starting to like him. In fact the whole peanut gallery antics were rather upbeat and refreshing, especially leftie’s pearl clutching about “respect the office” claptrap.
In reference to Z Man discussing the AG article on Somalia, it is funny to note that in the comment section the highest rated comment points out the problem of Somalia is, well, it’s full of Somalians.
Look, these people in that part of the world are not the smartest tools in the shed. Blaming climate policy or the vestiges of colonialism only masks the biological reality. It is insulting and cruel to continue acting as if these groups will be creating the next breakthrough cancer therapies or starting a space program.
But it doesn’t mean anything. To be pedantic, if things are universally equal, there’s no difference to measure; it’s like saying one cup of water is more or less wet than another.
Further, it’s not on us to describe what they mean by “equal”, it’s on the perps to define it. What do they actually mean, what glorious vision do they intend to acheive; what in he!! do they want when they say “equal”?
Monkey barking. I say its a bark, a hoot or a call whose sound identifies one as a friendly monkey or a stranger monkey, if or not one is from the right tree.
I ain’t going to try to argue with a monkey. I’m just going to try to keep him away from my banana.
The race and sex thing in Scripture lurks in the background, as a given, but I think the early writers thought themselves as progressive and egalitarian, for their time. They certainly weren’t in John Hagee territory, but the very fact that the Theotokos (Virgin Mary) is venerated, along with other women, makes Christianity stand out against other world religions. It was the temple Jews and Pagans that were standing athwart Christianity and yelling “Stop!”
Of course they were wrong, but still…we like pre-Enlightenment Christianity because it seems conservative and traditionalist to us 500 years later, but it was not always so. The Christianity I like…the Christianity before Constantine…was progressive. They venerated women. They absolved sinners and lowlifes. They were against degeneracy and pro-family. They invented the weekend. They were dissidents.
I’m not sure of my point here; just working things out in my head. If someone can correct me I’m all eyes.
Early Christianity was progressive and egalitarianism insofar as it rejected the Jewish self-characterization as “God’s Chosen people” and moreover, it rejected the haughty condescension of the corrupt and arrogant Pharisees.
Matthew 23, where Christ calls them a “pit of vipers,” is really central to understanding Christianity.
I think the most ‘progressive’ thing Jesus did was to make it about the spirit of the law and not the letter. For instance, adultery is merely lusting after a woman. Good and bad to that, I want to opine, but who am I to question?
As for the man/woman stuff, pagans had goddesses, so I imagine venerating Mary probably wasn’t a big adjustment for them. I wouldn’t be surprised if maybe it was an appeal to the gentiles. The notion that she was without sin, however, might’ve been a hard sell for more than the obvious reasons 🤣
The equality spoken about and that the Revolution was fought for was equality of legal standing. They fought for a society where nobody was born into greater legal standing/privilege. They fought for a society with an heirarchy but that was determined by one’s merit as expressed in deed not by right of birth. I suspect that under that desire was another desire – the desire to rule themselves and to conquer for themselves the continent – if anything to preserve and spread equality under the law.
At the same time they realized they had in their midst an alien people and excluded them from the equality under the law legal regime. They lacked the moral courage to deal with the tensions that situation would lead to in time. Jefferson proposed a peaceful feasible solution. It was ignored.
We later not only made everyone equal under the law, we made the non-majority supreme in the eyes of the law. The primary alien people this was intended to benefit, did not look around and rejoice that they could now get ahead on their merits. The looked around and rioted and looted and expropriated because the never bought into the idea of being part of the nation nor did they want equality under the law.
The majority that wants equality under the law has been usurped by insane radicals who want superiority in the name of instituting equality. They are so insane they inflame the non-majority to hate them even while they elevate the non-majority in the hierarchy. At the same time they do everything they can to become a minority and to privilege and further inflame the non-majority to ever greater levels of hatred and entitlement.
It is coming to a head.The majority must fight the saboteurs in their midst and their equality experiment pets. The best hope at a peaceful solution is if the saboteurs get burned by the fire they douse with gasoline in enough numbers sooner than later. They will keep sending the flames higher as long as they can. The best thing would be for the aligned of the majority who hold power but who do nothing and say nothing in order to scrounge around for a token here and there and hope it leads to more votes. It won’t. Will they realize that before the wildfire faction is burned? No matter, we must prepare and organize. Individualism is suicide.
This sophistry relies on the “all men are created equal” from the Declaration…but that meant, equal in the eyes of God, and therefore having the same natural rights…The Marxists have twisted it to meaning that Shaniqua and Richard Feynman are equally good at physics…
The interpretation you describe would rightly put the “pater” back in patriarchy.
Pyrrhus, me ol’ mucker, you obviously haven’t seen that movie about how the three sassy mammies put whitey on the moon.
That movie was funny. So funny I almost puked.
Shortly after that came out, they interviewed one of the three (She’s still alive) and she went out of her way to say that while she appreciated the movie bringing to light the work her and her two co workers did, she didn’t appreciate all of the other examples of racism, which she flatly stated, NEVER happened.
She also said that her team was one of a great number of people that NASA employed and that the film did not reflect that.
Sophistry is the perfect descriptive. Its method is bad faith quackery. They lifted a phrase and in their 3rd grade level anti-scholarship stripped it of all context and the long known and established original intent.
We stand in a valley. On one side are sophists who hold a burning animus who care nothing for the truth and only about winning. At our front are sophists who engage them in good faith who keep marching us all backward.
We know we are right. We know there is no convincing those who don’t want to be convinced. Rather, they understand that every day sitting around trying to convince is another day’s battle they have won.
Once we become bent upon winning and get the cowards at the front out of the way, the tide will turn.
“…the hallmark of Western thought since the late Middle Ages is the error of assuming that observations about nature or nature’s god lead to rules about human behavior. For most of Church history this was understood, but then philosophers took over from theologians and the virus of egalitarianism escaped the lab.”
I’m really not certain what this is supposed to mean. Since the Middle Ages, Aquinas reconciled Christianity with Aristotle (“the philosopher”) who was decidedly inegalitarian. Of course Nietzsche characterized Christianity as “Plato for the masses” in which the clergy are essentially the guardian class, again a rather inegalitarian outlook.
I don’t think that egalitarianism necessarily comes from philosophy; egalitarianism as we know it comes from modernity, in which we use technology and machinery to ameliorate or render moot the natural differences between human beings. A pregnant or nursing woman half the size and strength of a male may indeed have been unfit for combat as a hoplite at Thermopylae, but a female on artificial birth control pushing buttons on an artificial combat machine like an Apache helicopter is considered the equal of a man today.
A Negro with an IQ of 85 would have been unfit to serve as a college professor throughout all of history, but today’s affirmative action hire can Google the information he needs for his lectures on his cell phone and project canned lecture notes on PowerPoint he doesn’t really need to be intelligent.
If egalitarianism is the disease, blame the engineers and the democrats for spreading the virus, not the philosophers.
“ A Negro with an IQ of 85 would have been unfit to serve as a college professor throughout all of history, but today’s affirmative action hire can Google the information he needs for his lectures on his cell phone and project canned lecture notes on PowerPoint he doesn’t really need to be intelligent.”
I followed your logic until this point. No, a Black/anybody with an IQ of 85 *is* and always will be *unfit* to be a college professor and *teach* (any subject worth learning) to others of a college level. College professors—the good ones anyway—teach well because they know their subject matter inside and out. They do not read from a book to an audience. PowerPoint slides are simply a organizational tool to keep the flow of information moving forward. Not sure where or if you went to university, but this is a gross misconception.
Now there are a lot of substandard (AA) faculty in the institution, I readily admit—but they are relegated to pseudo coursework and faux fields of endeavor, like “grievance studies”. But even those folk are not below average in IQ.
I’m not in disagreement… I’m only saying that modern technology creates a false perception of equality and that contemporary social mores are based on that false perception.
The affirmative action professor who is not an expert in his field is merely using technology to be able to parrot and mimic people who are actual experts at best… at worst he is parroting and mimicking sophistry (which is the all-too-frequent reality).
Technology is not responsible for that AA faculty member. Nor is it responsible for the nonsense they teach being accepted.
The weakness of men in instituting AA and in lowering standards and expectations such that it is even permitted oxygen in the form of a department and a faculty is at fault.
What is also at fault is that these are jobs programs. That AA professor should be on that tractor or manning a jackhammer to be productive. This mass of sinecures is an insidious way in which we pay people not to work, not to produce. That squandors the wealth created by the guy on the tractor or hammering on a roof or in a lab inventing and improving the production machinery.
It is enabled by debt financing.
Now that I think about it, this seems like a really obvious and important thing: GenX are the first generation for whom it wasn’t unusual for your college professors to be a *lot* dumber than you. The original ’90s proto-“alt right” (Goad’s ‘zines and first couple books, McInnes-era Vice, etc.) arose from/reacted to that phenomenon. I don’t think anyone before us who was meritocratically allowed into the “best schools” found them full of idiots.
“But even those folk are not below average in IQ.”
To be fair, 85 isn’t below average for blacks ;-).
Correct. I’m always referring to the average IQ—which is from time to time “reset” to the score 100. This creates all sorts of misconceptions, such as we are not getting dumber from decade to decade.
However, X-man’s rejoinder is not without merit—technology *has* helped mask many of the academy’s “mediocrities” and allowed them to parrot their betters in previously unimagined ways.
Good points. However, postmodern theory–or philosophy, if you will–is radically egalitarian inasmuch as it is radically culturally relativistic. And its leading theorists (Foucault, Derrida, Barthes, Lyotard, ad nauseum) led the onslaught against the superior West by derogating and demoting it in comparison to non-western societies. You rightly note the role technology has played in enabling egalitariansm, but there has been a distinct philosophical component to this process, as well. It has been professors of English not engineering, who’ve poisoned and etiolated the minds of their students.
Yes, of course. But there has always been a relationship between philosophy and natural sciences. The Greeks really did not distinguish between “sciences” (e.g., engineering) and social philosophy as we do today. For them, it was all “philo-sophia ” “love of wisdom.”
That’s still sort of true today, social philosophy determines how we employ natural science and technology. (Marx understood this). Yet we persist with this artificial distinction.
My argument was simply in response to Z’s claim that there was a divergence between theology and social philosophy, and I believe the opposite is true. What happened is that there was a divergence between theology, which accepted that nature was fixed and created by God, and natural science, which argued that Nature could be manipulated to render moot the real differences among men that Nature created.
There has ALWAYS been egalitarian social philosophy — Aristotle argued against the unrealistic “equal division of property” advocated by Phaleas of Chalcedon. It was only modern technology, modern industry and the modern welfare state that made such equality and egalitarianism possible. The postmodern philosophers you cite could only make those arguments “after modernity” — after the Industrial Revolution.
You overstate the role played by the natural sciences in relation to postmodernism, and underestimate the irrationalism of the postmodernists. The postmodernists do not argue equality between the Dutch and the Matabele because technology allows the latter to perform tasks as well as the former. They argue for equality because they believe there is no unbiased standard for judging the comparative merits of cultures. They’re not contending sub-Saharans can do western stuff just as well as white people can; they’re claiming negro culture and achievements are equal to western civilization and its accomplishments. Putting a man on the moon is no “better” than sticking a bone through your nose.
but a female on artificial birth control pushing buttons on an artificial combat machine like an Apache helicopter is considered the equal of a man today.
Not even an Apache – some trailer home in the Nevada desert and a drone.
Nietzsche would assent with putting the blame on “democrats” (note the lowercase). He was totally bullshit on democracy in his century. He’d dispute that egalitarianism is modern. He argues it originates in the Slave Morality, which led to the creation of moral systems (religions), first Judaism and later Christianity, which preach equality, not necessarily by our modern notions, but relevant to a certain time and place (and these morals change with the centuries): Equality of all souls before God, to succor the weak and the helpless, and so on.
He was always emphasizing that nature, and man is inherently unequal, that a hierarchy (rank order) always will exist. Thus the master/slave distinction. Anything else is against Nature. Where he champions the “blond beast of prey,” the man who lives by his own code, I find unsettling, but I concede that it is a mirror of how Nature operates. Red in tooth and claw. The strong survive, the weak perish. Civilization can attempt to shield the weak, to impose some vision of equal treatment, but it’s likely at best temporary.
For most of Church history this was understood, but then philosophers took over from theologians and the virus of egalitarianism escaped the lab.
Interesting, my priest (Orthodox) and I were discussing this exact issue just a few days ago while doing some carpentry together. Bring a lunch If you get him started on Aristotle, brought into Western religion by the jewboy (my priest’s words :)) Moses Maimonides and into the Catholic Church by Aquinas.
I want your Priest.
He’s right. The nice thing about Orthodoxy is that it rejects most everything past the seventh ecumenical council, in other words the entire second millennium.
I haven’t listened to today’s Z podcast yet, but I’m really looking forward to it. I have long considered egalitarianism the worst delusion humanity has ever taken seriously.
I suppose Equality Before The Law (EBTL) is a nice concept in theory, though it’s woefully unrealistic in practice. Bill Gates will always be able to afford far more EBTL than I can. But EBTL at least has some nobility. All other forms of equality are crap.
This topic permits me to go off on a tangent about one of the many things that conservatives often do that annoys the hell out of me. Conservatives are fond of saying that they favor “equal opportunity” (EO). It demonstrates how sloppy these folks are with their language. I presume what these conservatives mean when they say that is that they prefer for candidates in school admissions and job openings/promotions to all face EQUAL STANDARDS (ES) — in other words, that there be a meritocracy of sorts, with no favoritism based on race, sex, etc. That’s all well and good. Unfortunately, the word “standards” isn’t nearly as sexy as “opportunity.” However, the standards that apply to people are just one aspect of opportunity which is a far larger phenomenon than mere college admissions or job openings. Opportunity is extremely complex and includes innumerable components many or most of which are beyond the reasonable control of human beings. A police state dictatorship could not perfectly equalize something as complicated as opportunity. Only a species of robots could.
A nitpick such as this probably shouldn’t irritate me to no end, yet it serves as one of the countless reminders that conservatives concede way too much to progressives. I would rather see conservatives reject egalitarianism altogether and counter with two values that are entirely contrary to equality: Freedom and Excellence. Alas, it seems mainstream conservatives mostly just want to find a level of progressivism with which they can be personally comfortable. Hence, why they lose all the time (or one of several reasons why they lose).
Equality of opportunity was always going to morph into equality of outcome. Giving people the chance to do a job or take a university course that they have no chance of passing doesn’t lead to them shrugging their shoulders and trying something more at that level. It makes them angry and want to blame it on the nearest “ism”. Therefore the outcomes have to be changed. That’s why LaShaquira is now buckling her broad behind into the cockpit of your next flight.
80% of problems would be solved if someone just said to little Timmy “You can barely do algebra, no you aren’t going to be and Astronaut, and it’s not anyone’s fault. Luckily, you are awesome in wood shop. Let’s focus on that.”
How many of us, growing up, were patted on the head by some well-meaning dingbat, and told cooingly, “Why, Timmy, you can be anything you want to be! Just follow your dreams!”
The fateful delusion.
The gaslighting was actually more subtle back in the day. I’ve worn corrective lenses for nearsightedness since the age of ten. When I told the Navy recruiter who visited my high school that I wanted to be an aviator; he noted my glasses and proceeded to sell me on how much cooler it was to be the navigator behind the pilot. My earlier dream of being an astronaut had died when my height exceeded 5’11”. An aging Timmy soon learns that life is a series of disappointments punctuated by an occasional success; but it’s best to define those successes on one’s own terms because the other guy rarely has your best interests in mind.
Opportunity is way more complex than merely “giving people the chance to do a job or take a university course.” For one thing, some folks are not even smart enough to successfully show up for the job or university course and their lack of intelligence, which I am convinced is largely inborn, greatly damages their opportunity. LaShaquira’s 80 IQ means that she will NEVER have the same opportunity as someone with an IQ above 120. We can rig the game all we want to try to close that gap, but LaShaquira will end up screwing the pooch on any unearned opportunity she is extended and it will blow up in our faces which is what we deserve for giving it to her in the first place.
The simple truth is that equality of opportunity is ultimately no less absurd than equality of outcome.
Outstanding post, and I was going to post something similar.
“The simple truth is that equality of opportunity is ultimately no less absurd than equality of outcome.”
Exactly right. I cannot agree more with this. Opportunity is created through achievement and ability. It opens doors. This is so incredibly obvious that it amazes me how few people get it. Equity and all of the other bullshit we try to hand to blacks is another failed exercise. This time it is truly endangering the safety of white people. All of this stems from envy. The criminal race is angry because no matter how many handicaps we grant them, they can’t even get to the minimum level.
There are few things of this earth worse than them. I loathe them with every fiber of my being. My sentiments towards them would only be changed if I no longer had to encounter them. Separation to the extreme is the only path forward.
I would advise against harboring too much bitterness toward “the criminal race.” Much of the bullshit we’re expected to tolerate on that race’s behalf is forced on us by a ruling class that mainly consists of Whites and (((fellow Whites))). Black people are, for the most part, just pawns in a game. The object of that game appears to be civilizational sabotage in pursuit of consolidated wealth and power. Got to keep Whitey on the hop because 1) Whites, for the moment, remain the majority population of the West, and 2) Whites are the most freedom-oriented race and therefore the most likely to oppose abuses of power.
This is true. However, it is almost impossible not become overweeningly bitter when these hideous savages are constantly thrown in our faces, and their so-called “culture” is imposed upon us at every turn. Logically, I know that the Hutus are not the crux of the probem, but they most certainly are the manifested emblem of the problem. As such, it is my greatest wish to never have to gaze upon or hear negroes again. In the unlikely event that that wish is granted to me before I commence pushing up daisies, I will know that the problem has been solved.
I respectfully disagree. If they had a shred of dignity or integrity, they would denounce the constant pandering and lowering/removal of standards to cater to them. Instead, they gleefully take all of their advantages, throw them away and then blame us for the consequences. Not to mention, they know exactly what they are doing when they weaponize their preferences.
I’ve never understood why some people get angry when confronted by superior intellect, instead I would pick their brains and use what I learned to try to better myself. Maybe I should have just punched them instead?
‘We can have liberty or equality, but not both. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn makes this clear in his magisterial “Leftism Revisted.”’
Never heard of Erik but please ask him to shorten his name. It’s a bit pretentious.
You can have FREEDOM or equality. Liberty is nothing but a bitch-goddess, who will sell you down the river at first opportunity. Indeed, she already has, as her legions of feminist and prog devotees demon-strate.
The very goddess that the French designer Batholdi and the Jacobins gave you is NAMED Libertas, set upon her grand throne in the harbor of their Great City, to welcome in all the ‘immigrants’ to New Babylon.
She is not your friend, and she assuredly is not the friend of God. She is the enemy.
“Shorten his name” says
Ray.
“Never heard of Erik but please ask him to shorten his name.”
That you haven’t heard of him, or read anything by him, and evince no indication that you should, is disappointing. But not unusual on the American right, which prides itself on intellectual blockheadness and ostentatious obtuseness.
It was a joke, Mr. Sensitive. Speaking of ostentatious.
Let’s face it, the virus of egalitarianism begins and ends with the holy negro. If they had never been delivered to these shores, this would all be a moot point. All the other egal grifters such as wamynz, gays, trannies, injuns (feather & dot) along with other various shades of mud would never have gotten their foot in the door.
Not sure I agree. There’s no reason to believe that Negroes were necessary to the rise of the monstrosity that is Feminism. While Feminism got a significant boost from the Negro civil rights movement, the former could have existed without the latter. Feminism is largely a perversion of Whites and (((fellow Whites))).
It’s true that the suffragette movement (which ultimately morphed into feminism) got going over a hundred years ago, long before most gave a rat’s behind about the lowly negro. However, while I still maintain modern day egalitarianism is totally about blacks first and foremost and nothing much else, feminism has been able to piggyback (or monkeyback) on the trend to a detrimental degree, although as you say, not necessarily totally dependent on the current obeisance to blacks.
Be careful what you wish for, though. The minute “all men are NOT equal” gets into the public consciousness, the most obnoxious Leftists will jump over to “our” side en masse.
The Left is driven by a neurosis — and it really is an-old school, Freudian neurosis — stemming from the tension between their stated beliefs in equality, and the entire way they live their lives. They believe everyone is equal — wild horses couldn’t drag it out of them — but no one is more obsessed with a credential, any credential, to prove how un-equal they are. That demisexual genderfluid barista waving her BA in Art History around truly believes it makes xzhyr a superior person.
They don’t know the phrase “the vanguard of the proletariat,” because they’re woefully ignorant, but they’re sure that’s what they are. As soon as it becomes ok to say “some people deserve to be at the head of the parade,” they’ll all come running. As I always say, “today’s SJW is tomorrow’s obergruppenfuhrer.”
“The Left is driven by a neurosis — and it really is an-old school, Freudian neurosis — stemming from the tension between their stated beliefs in equality, and the entire way they live their lives. They believe everyone is equal — wild horses couldn’t drag it out of them — but no one is more obsessed with a credential, any credential, to prove how un-equal they are. That demisexual genderfluid barista waving her BA in Art History around truly believes it makes xzhyr a superior person.”
Exactly. You quickly notice when you are around leftists (I work in tech so I am surrounded by them), you realize they claim to be all about “fairness” and “equity”, especially when sacred blax are involved. However, as soon as it is applied to them, they don’t like it so much anymore.
“Hey, how come (insert diversity hire here) is getting paid more than I am? He isn’t even good!”
No lie, I have seen this happen with my own eyes. They are an amazing group of people. It is hard to comprehend how someone’s brain could be so broken.
I too had the bad luck to work with leftists and you are spot on. I also find them the most intolerant, bigoted people on the planet.
Arrested development?
“today’s SJW is tomorrow’s obergruppenfuhrer.”
Since equalitarianism is observably false, it takes obergruppenfuhrers to make folks say otherwise and act accordingly. Hence, today’s zeitgeist. There isn’t a tomorrow to it.
Human nature is such that I now instinctively DISTRUST anyone credentialed and anyone in positions of power. It seems mostly liars, fakers, butt kissers, and outright sadists can obtain these things. Free thinkers of inspiration, honesty, and good-will often don’t survive too long in the programs.
I appreciate men of skill, from great surgeon to great janitor. Their skill, knowledge, and character are what make them able to do the job; not their credential. Often, DESPITE their credential. Lots of horrendous drivers have their drivers license.
Hard to argue with the Left on this one. “All are equal but some are more equal than others.” That’s the theory, and in fact the practice.
There is no such thing as equality or egalitarianism in heaven or on Earth. Scripture absolutely does not advocate equality, nor did Christ ever advocate equality, because He knows very well that egalitee is the fundamental doctrine of the Enemy. All things, including angels, exist in hierarchy.
At one point the apostles question Christ about who sits at the place of honor closest to Him. Does that sound like egalite, or hierarchy? At another point the Bible asserts that women are subordinate to men, as men are subordinate to Christ the Son. Does that sound like egalitarianism?
Foolishly the ‘deist’ founders of America included equality language they didn’t believe themselves, because they wanted to get their polity up and running, while rejecting the ‘nobility’ model of hierarchical systems. Problem is, some folks ARE lying scum punks, while other folks ARE noble . . . at least by terran standards. Sucks to be in the first group, so the only solution to that is forced imposition of Equality and Equity — Barack Obama’s favorite topics.
The U.S. and French revolutions were essentially one operation.
Just ask Benny Franklin and his Philadelphian Lodge.
Egalitarianism grew from the vile French Jacobins, and with a birth-mother like that, you just know the baby is gonna be butt ugly as sin.
John Rawls’ “Veil of ignorance” plays a strong role in the moral requirement for equality in the left. The thought experiment essentially says that you want to order society like you knew you were going to be born, but had no idea whether you would be born as male or female, black or white, etc. and had to agree to an ideal society from this ignorance.
Of course, all his conclusions led to having a far left society being the most moral. His fundamental flaw is assuming a person born stupid would want equality with a smart person instead of having a hierarchical society where the smart person would direct him to a god life outcome. It also implicitly assumes that your race, ethnicity, and parents are superfluous, as who you are isn’t your body.
The thought experiment, even when taking it at face value and not rejecting it as invalid on its face, is completely incoherent.
“all men are equal in the eyes of God”
It is almost impossible to overstate the importance of this. If viewed from the point of view of someone from antiquity this would have been, and was, one of the most radical ideas in human history. Sure, all of us members of a particular tribe MIGHT be equal, but the guy on the other side of the mountain or river? Not those people, those people are subhuman, and should be treated as such. You can’t possibly believe you are equal to the Emperor, King, or Tribal Chief, because ideas like that might end with your head in a basket
We ARE tribal. The Han Chinese, the Jews, the Slavs, the Germans, etc. all think, deep down, that they are more equal. Which is silly because everyone knows that the correct answer is…the Scots 😉.
I think what that originally meant was, Truth can be revealed to all if they choose to accept Him. Samaritan, Gentile, Persian, Han Chinese.
Christianity accepts all and as I understand it, ethnicities are a thing but God comes first. I haven’t seen anything that either promotes nor denounces nationalism or ethnic identitarianism. If I’m wrong, please let me know a Bible passage I’ve missed.
Scots should have been denounced, though.
Yes. I heard the Scots eat haggis and play bagpipes
And have no undies.
The Founding Fathers were fighting for liberty not equality. They wanted to be treated equal to, to enjoy the same liberties, as Englishmen. The radical egalitarianism the left currently is pushing on this country is a perversion of America’s founding ideals.
We can have liberty or equality, but not both. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn makes this clear in his magisterial “Leftism Revisted.”
MikeCLT: Were they truly fighting for “liberty,” or rather the traditional and historic “rights of Englishmen?” The perverse idea of universal equality was born from the lofty proclamations of the same men who were also educated, financially upper-middle to upper class, and already solidly established in their social standing. How much this represented their own innate beliefs or rather their effort to obtain the backing of the lingering Puritan faction from those who abjured monarchical England is open to question.
The founding myths of America need to be re-examined along with the rest of the faux history we’ve all been taught.
Excellent point. When you’re talking about throwing off your king, you might have to appeal to God.
Although I’d point out the revolution started in Nee England. Then again, I guess the Puritans thought they were in good with the Boss to begin with lol.
It started with Thomas Morton, who miscegenated about the May Pole with the aboriginal females.
There was a brief reactionary respite with the most righteous & holy Salem Witch Trials.
But then the Unitardians stabbed the Congregationalists in the back, and denounced the Trials, and a Darkness fell upon the land.
And of course there were also the antinomians.
Assachusetts never had a chance.
Too much evil for one lone colony.
Far too much Evil.
“The radical egalitarianism the left currently is pushing on this country is a perversion of America’s founding ideals.”
Correct. Nowhere does the word “equality” appear in any form in the Constitution of 1787.
It is not until the 14th Amendment, ratified by Radical Republicans in 1868 after they killed hundreds of thousands of their fellow white Americans, do we get the “e-word” inserted into the Constitution.
What a genius formulation, that egalitarianism is a virus that escaped containment. Very nice.
Good podcast.
The conservative dilemma is real.
Washington University a prestigious college in St Louis Missouri was recently exposed for its gender transition program, the Attorney General of Missouri and Missouri’s Senator Josh Hawley took up the issue, but within the framework of egalitarianism they might as well be Bull Connor and George Wallace. Just like the 1960’s civil rights movement turned out so will the gender rights movement of today turn out.
Wack a Mole opposition will occur just like the 1960’s but in the end as long as society accepts the eglatarianism morality we will continue down the path to perdition.
Roughly 40 years from passage of CRA until first negro president. One could expect a similar time frame preceding the first transgender president. If the practice of electing presidents survives that long. I kind of doubt it will.
As many have pointed out, the one and only example of democracy in action in the entire Bible is when the crowd voted to crucify Jesus.
And we have Caiphas with the og trolley problem
John 11:51
And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation.
What’s especially fun about scripture is that there are as many “proof texts” for equality as there are for hierarchy (i.e. inequality). That said, there is absolutely no way to honestly read scripture and conclude that equality has any relation to interchangeability.