Labels

My politics has a problem; there's no untainted label for it. I sometimes call myself "a paleocon who's been kicked too many times and now has evolved into a looking for a real solution to the problems that a paleocon identifies." The Z-man just posted a Friday show, which I'm listening to now, although I'll probably quit early, where he's talking about labels. He's possessive (and admits to such) about the term dissident right. Labels like the Alt Right were ruined by clowns like Richard Spencer, who made it easy for Establishment liars to paint the movement as one of extremists, weirdos and haters. And sadly, there are too many people who should know better who still listen to these Establishment liars.

Most of the other labels have this same problem; as soon as you come up with a label, liars and grifters either paint the label as something that it's not, or people who crave attention more than any political solutions attach themselves to the label in an effort to get their own fifteen minutes of fame.

For this reason, I tend to avoid being a joiner, or calling myself by any label. My politics haven't really changed, other than that I'm more often and more strongly recognizing that without implementing any solution to the problems that I see, we're in for a world of hurt. Since there is no political will to implement any meaningful solution, maybe I should just call myself the early I Told You So label.

In any case, when Vox Day attempted to define the Alt Right, before it got coopted by malign weirdos and clowns, he wrote a manifesto of sorts. I agree with him on pretty much all of these points, and I copied a slightly modified version of it myself here a number of years ago. I'll do so now, without the totally ruined alt right label being attached to it; regardless of label, this is what I believe politically, socially and culturally, and it's still valid.

1) I am of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not any kind of Right, because they're of the Left. Progressives are not any kind, for the same reason. Liberals are not on the Right. Communists, Marxists, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not on the Right. National Socialists are not any kind of right. By definition, no ideology that accepts the premise of the Left—as all of those listed do, to some degree or other—can be on the Right.

2) My philosophy is an alternative to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles and the intellectual tradition of William Buckley, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.

3) My philosophy is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of restoring what has been lost.  I believe in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.

4) Having a philosophy rooted in Western Civilization, I desire to preserve it and support its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the northern European nations (and their diaspora, including in to the south of Europe and to America and other nations on other continents), and the Graeco-Roman legacy.

5) I am openly and avowedly patriotic and believe patriotism, regardless of your nation, to be a virtue. I support all nations and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and migration.

6) I am anti-globalist. I oppose all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.*

7) I am anti-equalitarian. I reject the idea of equality, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.**

8) I believe in the scientific method. I am skeptical and tentative in accepting the current scientific consensus without review as the scientific industry has proven itself to be untrustworthy and promoting conclusions that are observably out of synch with the data that they gathered to reach them. Even for conclusions that I do accept, I understand that a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that the "science industry" is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on the scientific method, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.

9) I believe that the hierarchy of decision making employed by humans is identity > culture > politics. The number one portion of our identity should be as children of God, and as members of his Church, but it is not the only thing that defines our identity, and the culture and civilization that we belong to is an important part of that as well.

10) I am opposed to the rule or domination of any ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. I am opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.

11) I accept the truth that diversity + proximity = war.

12) I doesn't care what you think of my philosophy. I remain unmoved by emotional appeals or ad hominem attacks or labels. You want to change my mind on one of these details, you better bring your A-game with black and white empirical data, and it better be convincing.***

13) I reject the philosophy of international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.†

14) I believe we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children. If we understand the negative impact of invasive species in the animal kingdom, we should accept the negative impact of invasive populations amongst humanity. Everyone has their own homeland. If you have a problem in yours, fix it, don't invade someone else's. The end result of invasion is the elimination of diversity in the human population, which I do not believe to be in concert with God's will; he has created diversity, in all its beauty, because he values our uniqueness. ‡

15) I do not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, or people. Every race, nation, and people has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.

16) I strongly value peace among the various nations of the world and oppose wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation. The only very rare exception is when God himself judges that a people has become too evil and needs to be smitten, as has happened a relatively few times in the historical record, including to the peoples of the Americans upon the arrival of the English and other Europeans.††

17) A new one that I would add, is that I am skeptical of claims made by authority, as they have proven to be wrong due to incompetence, inefficiency and outright dishonesty too consistently to be trusted. Verify all claims. Upon doing this, you will find that it's not just the news that's fake, but also much of our historical and scientific narratives. 

* Globalism is part of the heresy of Universalism, which is indistinguishable from Trotskyism and is rooted, ultimately, in the same hubris as Babel.  One does not reach God through anything on Earth other than the Atonement of Jesus Christ.  This does not mean that we disavow organizations that are global in scope (for example, the Church)—merely that we do disavow the notion of a One World government or the erosion of national sovereignty, or the imposition of a system of government on any people that is not of their own choice of any kind other than that headed by Christ himself.

** The Parable of the Talents; Matthew 25: "14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.  15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.  16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.  17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.  18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.  19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.  20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.  21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.  22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.  23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.  24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:  25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.  26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:  27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.  28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.  29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.  30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

We are not created equal.  Again; context.  In the Declaration of Independence, it clearly means that we are equal under the law, and in today's world, even that is obviously no longer true.  In any other respect, we are not equal.  We do, however, have equal claim on the rewards of the Lord if we live righteously and make the most of what we are given.  You'll note that the servant who turned two talents into four got exactly the same reward—word for word—as he who started with five, and turned it into ten.  But in no wise are we to suppose that they were equal, because we are, after all, capable of doing math, and we all know that four is not equal to five much less ten.

*** What did God tell Joseph Smith after the 116 pages were lost?  D&C 3: "7 For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—  8 Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble."  Many other examples.  We are not to fear Man, we are to fear only God.

† This is a little bit wonkish, and goes against the grain for the Science of Economics, which is largely libertarian in most respects (when the language of economics isn't being coopted by Marxists, that is.)  But it is, actually, economically and empirically sound—you'll just need to read a bit deeper than most to get the arguments for it.  Steve Keen's Debunking Economics is a good place to start, but you'll probably also need to read beyond that.

‡ Although this sounds like a straightforward and oddly placed phrase, there's actually a long history behind it.  One can readily see, if one cares to pull ones head out of the sand and look, that every people in the world except white people are encouraged to do their thing, whereas we are constantly told that we are the ills of all the world, and that it will be better when we are either bred out or killed off (preferably both—I suspect a lot of men around the world wouldn't mind access to our women without our men being around to get in the way.  Take a look at "Great" Britain, Germany, or Sweden, and the child grooming pedophilia scandals involving migrants, the rape and sexual assault scandals, etc.)  This particular phrase was actually authored by a white supremacist, but that doesn't mean that it isn't correct.  It's worth noting that the rest of that particular manifesto was not carried forward into the 16 Points, precisely because it is wrong.

†† Applies to points 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15 and 16 at least.  But especially 11. Don't go looking around for things to be offended by so you can dismiss that list. You will find it at that site, I guarantee. However, the data is what it is whether you like the location that hosts it or not.  https://heartiste.org/diversity-proximity-war-the-reference-list/

Free speech... but not for Americans

From the Z-man. I saw through Dennis Prager's act years ago when he had another gaffe and said that Israel was a better place to live than America (although he, of course, lives in America, because how else do you pull a con on Americans if you're not here?)

https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=28791

Michael Kinsley famously said that a political gaffe is “when a politician tells the truth – some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.” The important part of that quip is that the truth is obvious but everyone pretends otherwise. The word for it is mokita, which means things we know are true but agree to never discuss. It is not really an agreement, but more of a convention that is enforced from the top down. Every once in a while, someone with power screws up and speak the truth.

That is what you see with this recent Dennis Prager column. He declared that anyone questioning the current facts about the holocaust is evil. He specifically singled out Nick Fuentes, who has been in the news because of the Kanye West business. The two of them have been making the rounds, with West saying uncharitable things about Jewish people and saying nice things about Hitler. Fuentes has been mostly a bit player in the show, as West is the headliner of Ye24.

Why Prager singled out Fuentes would be a good question to pose to him. Kanye West is the guy praising Hitler. Milo Yiannopoulos was instrumental in kicking off this traveling carnival, but Prager did not mention him. Another player in this drama is a hip-hop performer named Sneako. They recently added the weird internet gadfly Ali Alexander to the performance. Fuentes is the only white Christian in the crew and not the main player, yet Prager focuses on him.

Putting aside that bit of mask dropping, Prager has made himself rich selling creedalism to the salt of the earth white people who make up his audience. This is the claim that anyone can be an American as long as they embrace American principles. If you accept the basics of the American creed, then you are as American as a guy whose family came over on the Mayflower. America is an idea, or a collection of ideas, rather than a physical place for a specific people.

Lots of white people are flattered by this, but most people also notice that the people peddling this idea tend to take Saturday off. It is not a coincidence that this new definition of American has no benefit to white Christians but is a huge bonus to mercurial people from outside the European Christian tradition. Prager is one of the leading advocates “America is a set of ideas’ and most people understand why, even if they politely ignore the elephant in the room.

One of those creedal ideas is freedom of expression. In fact, it is one of the most cherished principles of American morality. The right to speak one’s mind without fear of retribution is the cornerstone of the republic. Not only do you get to say what you like, but others get to hear you without fear of retribution. Free speech is established in the first amendment to the Constitution because you cannot petition the government for the redress of grievances if you need permission to speak.

Until the last decade or so, “I may disagree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it!” was a common refrain from leftists. Most right-wing people knew that what lefty really wanted was the right to send porn to your kids, but the civic principle was worth the risk and the lecture. You cannot have self-government and a civil society without the free exchange of ideas. More speech, even stupid or obnoxious speech, is better than less speech.

It was not just sloganeering. In 1978, the ACLU defended a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through a Jewish neighborhood. There was no question that the intent of the neo-Nazi group was to be offensive. They picked the neighborhood for their march because it was full of Jews. The ACLU successfully argued that even though the Nazis picked the neighborhood because it was full of Jews, they still had a right to speak their mind in public and the public had a right to hear them.

Foundational to American morality is that you are free to speak your mind not because you have the right to speak, but because others have the right to hear you. Shouting people down is explicitly un-American. You let the person be heard and then you can be heard in response. This is the exact opposite of what Dennis Prager is doing with regards to people like Nick Fuentes. He wants Nick Fuentes to be silenced, so you cannot hear what he has to say for himself.

Prager is careful to not call for the arrest and execution of Nick Fuentes, but it is clear that he would not be offended by it. After all, Prager declares that questioning the holocaust is the epitome of evil. Those who do this, according to Prager, will spend eternity in Hell. Given his cult’s ambiguity about the existence of Heaven and Hell, this is a curious claim. It means that he wants you to believe that holocaust deniers like Nick Fuentes are outside of your Christian mercy.

That is what makes the Prager column a massive gaffe. He is essentially saying, “That civic nationalism stuff applies to you people, but my people have other priorities and so we get to operate by separate rules.” By elevating his Jewish identity over everything else, he contradicts the entire civic nationalist argument. Again, this was obvious to many people, but it largely went unsaid. By demanding everyone submit to the myths and legends of his people, Prager is saying it out loud.

The column itself is a remarkable example of Kinsley’s quip. The truth is, in a majority-minority society like America, what matters is your tribe. This is the truth that the people in charge are not supposed to say. They get to be in charge as long as the biggest tribe does not decide to tribe up. The minoritism that rules modern America only works if white people buy into the creedalism stuff. Dennis Prager just told his fans that creedalism is nonsense. It is tribe that matters most.

If that's the truest form of evil, it's kinda funny that the most detailed and convincing Holocaust denial that I've ever seen comes from a libertarian Southern California Jewish guy... who gets little pushback from other Jews, curiously. Probably because he IS Jewish. If a white Christian guy said the same thing, he'd be literally destroyed, as he himself alludes to somewhat in this lengthy yet absolutely worth reading every word column.

https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/

From his conclusion:

[A]s an outsider exploring this contentious topic I think it far more likely than not that the standard Holocaust narrative is at least substantially false, and quite possibly, almost entirely so.

Despite this situation, the powerful media focus in support of the Holocaust over the last few decades has elevated it to a central position in Western culture. I wouldn’t be surprised if it currently occupies a larger place in the minds of most ordinary folk than does the Second World War that encompassed it, and therefore possesses greater apparent reality.

However, some forms of shared beliefs may be a mile wide but an inch deep, and the casual assumptions of individuals who have never actually investigated a given subject may rapidly change. Also, the popular strength of doctrines that have long been maintained in place by severe social and economic sanctions, often backed by criminal penalties, may possibly be much weaker than anyone realizes.

Until thirty years ago, Communist rule over the USSR and its Warsaw Pact allies seemed absolutely permanent and unshakeable, but the roots of that belief had totally rotted away, leaving behind nothing more than a hollow facade. Then one day, a gust of wind came along, and the entire gigantic structure collapsed. I wouldn’t be surprised if our current Holocaust narrative eventually suffers that same fate, perhaps with unfortunate consequences for those too closely associated with having maintained it.

I used to find it curious that Daniel (and others) prophesied that every nation on earth would stand against the Jewish people at the last days, thus facilitating the whole Mount of Olives splitting miracle. I used to think that this was not meant to be taken literally, because why would, for example, the Americans have any conflict with Israel? Oh, how little I knew back then.

Isaiah 11:13 clearly implies that until the last days, Ephraim will envy Judah and Judah will vex Ephraim. What I once thought was impossible now seems inevitable. And its also worth pointing out that Prager's column doesn't come from a position of strength, as it first appears. It's defensive and over-the-top because I think that there's a sense at the top that the zeitgeist is changing. As Princess Leia said, the more the evil empire tightens its grip, the more things start to slip through its fingers. The gust of wind that Ron Unz is talking about seems to be (relatively) imminently due any minute now.

And, ironically,  much of that is enabled by the Jewish people of America's insistence that America needs to be stolen from Americans and given to every greedy, entitled, demanding Third World barbarian who comes along with a rough word against white people. Turns out that they're pretty immune to the ridiculous notion of white guilt. Which should hardly be surprising.

UPDATE: Wow, and sometimes, especially when among their own people, they don't even try. This fascinating article in The Times of Israel says that unless you think Jews are better than everyone else, then you're anti-semitic.

I can't imagine a better way of demonstrating that anti-semitism is a hoax. Although individual variation, of course, occurs, it's really amazing to see a people who's entire culture and sense of identity is defined by toxic narcissism. I've said for a long time that modern Judaism has evolved into becoming less of a religion and more of a tribal supremacist cult. More evidence for that claim.

Free association is a basic right

The Z-man, as is often the case, says something more eloquently than I can, even though I already knew this and already agreed with it, his post is better than anything I could say on the subject.

One of the great tricks conservatism plays on normal people is to offer up a set of false choices in response to regime morality. The ruling class comes out with some new thing and conservatives come out with new responses. One choice is something the regime has declared a fatwa against, while the other choice is allowed. The job of the conservatives is to herd their people into the acceptable choice. Often, the acceptable choice is just an extreme version of what the regime offers.

The best example is racism. Way back in the last century, elements of the ruling class invented a new sin called racism. For most of human history, everyone just accepted the fact that people were different and people liked to be around their own. This was so obviously true no one had to think much about it. The exception was when one group of people tried to move into the area of another group of people. Invasions always led to violence, which is why invasions were immoral.

For reasons no one bothered to explain, elements of the ruling class decided that it was immoral for you to want to live around people like you. Further, you were not allowed to notice the differences in people. That was this new thing called racism. For several generations now, conservatives have been trying to prove that the Democrats are the real racists. You see, the greatest conservative principle is opposing racism more than the people conservatives claim to oppose.

This desire to be more of whatever the regime is promoting infects everything nook and cranny of the conservative mind. When the regime decided sodomy was a sacrament, conservatives celebrated sodomy. When the regime decided men in dresses could stalk your children in the playground, conservative suddenly discovered a new sacred principle in favor of crossdressers. To be a conservative is to fully embrace every degenerate moral claim of their alleged opponents.

Here is a good example of how conservatism is just the extreme version of yesterday’s moral claims by their opponents. The Supreme Court is looking at two cases related to freedom of association. Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina challenge the race policies of their respective defendants. In both cases, the schools discriminate based on race.

What the regime has always argued is that white people have dominated the world due to dumb luck and their unique cruelty. Whether it is the exploitation of resources held by nonwhites or simply good fortune, Europeans have unfairly outperformed the rest of the world and this is immoral. Therefore, it is required that current white people be made to suffer in order to balance the scales. This is the moral claim made in all policies under the umbrella of restorative justice.

One way to even the scales is to force whites to accept nonwhites into their lives so that the nonwhites can partake in the good fortune of whites. In education, for example, the underlying assumption is the teachers in white schools do a better job teaching their subjects than the teachers in nonwhite schools. The proof is Asians, who prefer white schools over black schools. Asians do very well, so it must be that special magic that exists in white schools, but not in black schools.

In the middle of the last century, a natural right enjoyed by all humans since the dawn of time was stripped from Americans. You no longer had the right to place your body next to another body without permission from the state. Further, you no longer had the right to deny nonwhites access to your life. Effectively, what was done is the forging of a new right possessed only by certain nonwhites. That right is the right to access white people and the things they create.

The rational opposition to this is that all people, even white people, have a right to make the most of their talents. Therefore, they have the right to work with whomever they think is in their best interest. This is a foundational argument of Western liberalism and the basis for market economics. Since you own you and have the right to use your labor as you see fit, it naturally follows that you have the right to associate, or not associate, with whomever you choose.

Conservatives do not make that argument. As you see in that post, their argument is that you have no rights whatsoever. You are not even allowed to notice that people are different and posses different qualities. Instead, in order to be even more berserk about race than the most berserk member of the new religion, you have to poke out your eyes and rip off your ears. The conservative principle with regards to the human condition is to be to the extreme left of the new religion.

Of course, the moral position here is that Harvard, a private college, can discriminate however it pleases with regards to admissions. If they want a freshman class of left-handed Korean midgets, they can only admit those people. On the other hand, North Carolina is a public university and as such must admit students according to a set of rules applicable to all American citizens. That would also bar them from favoring legacies and potential sports stars in admissions.

You see, while we human beings and citizens enjoy the absolute right of free association, our government does not have that right. Otherwise, it is not our government and is instead an occupying force. Foundational to liberal society is free association and that means we collectively own the state. As equal partners in the state, the state cannot favor one group over another. Again, equality before the law is a bedrock item in a moral society.

The writer of that post is probably a decent sort. He wants to do the right thing, but he has been conditioned by conservatism to think the right thing is always the most extreme version of whatever the liberals are peddling. It is so ingrained in the conservative mind that they do not notice it. If the liberals suddenly favored wearing colorful jock straps on their heads, conservatives would be boasting about how their new headgear is the best ever.

The result of this madness is the courts will now decide if the state has a right to discriminate against white people or no one has a right to discriminate against anyone for any reason at all. Given the makeup of the courts, the most likely result will be to ban the most basic right of free association. In effect, the new rule will render citizens as prisoners in a permission state. Conservatism will have made otherwise free people into servants of the managerial state.

Let me be clear again. I am not a conservative. I'm sympathetic to conservatives, as not being at least crazy and hateful like liberals are. However, conservatives are dumb as a box of rocks and have naively destroyed a functional and peaceful society because they were too stupid to defend it against insane and berserk attacks from Marxism. They failed in the second most important of all tasks as a generation; to pass on a successful and thriving society to the next generation.

Morality is the key

I quote the Z-man a lot, and I like much of what he says as well as how he says it. I do, however, disagree with him on many things too. Here's some of his analysis on the recent Supreme Court victories against the Lunatic Left. Truncated and edited for a handful of spelling errors.

In war, men will die for their cause. They will not die for a paycheck or the promise of war booty after the battle. They will die for a cause because they are motivated by a sense of righteousness in the cause. When an army believes it is fighting for what is right, it is willing to do whatever is necessary to win. An army fighting with a bayonet at its back or because it is paid to fight is risk averse. It will do only that which is advantageous to it because that is what reason dictates.

It is important to note that the only two issues the Right has had any success in America are guns and abortion. The gun people had the advantage of the second amendment but they never relied upon it. Only a few gun cases have made it to the courts and they have only nibbled around the issue. Instead, the gun people launched a crusade against the gun grabbers in every state and locality. Their task has always been to anathematize gun grabbing and the gun grabbers.

The lesson here for those engaging in politics is that like war, politics is about morality, not facts and reason. The soldier fights for his love of country, often expressed as love of his brothers in arms. He fights for a cause bigger than himself. In politics, the winners are those who frame the issue in moral terms, seizing the moral high ground and demanding opponents justify their actions in the face of morality. The losers are those who settle for facts and reason.

This is why the American Left has won every battle against the so-called conservatives over the last century. The Left makes moral claims while the co-called conservatives force opposition into rational claims. The exception has been the two issues where professional conservatism has had little role, abortion and guns. It is important to note that professional conservatism has opposed the NRA over the years and they opposed Trump, who promised to fill the court with pro-life judges.

It is why conservatives oppose the term “antiwhite.” They know that this is a morally charged term that offers no opportunity for them to negotiate away the interests of the people they claim to represent. It makes a clear moral distinction between us and them, which is the enemy of the sorts of people working in conservatism. The same is true of the word “groomer” which is not only factually accurate, but it also lays bare the moral implications of the sexual revolution.

In the end, the lesson of the abortion movement for dissidents is that the way to defeat the moral framework of the Left is with an alternative moral framework. You cannot defeat moral arguments with facts and reason. People will sacrifice for a just cause, but not for a logical explanation. It turns out that Ben Shapiro’s line about facts not caring about your feelings is just another trick to prevent a moral people from standing on their morals to oppose the moral framework of the Left.

Personally, I think that Ben Shapiro's line works just fine as long as you don't try to misuse it. Facts don't care about your feelings, and the insane trans sexual movement is a perfect example of facts standing in stark contrast to the fevered, hysterical imaginations and feelings of crazy people. But the Z-man likes to take swipes at Ben Shapiro gratuitously, even if he kind of oversteps sometimes. I can't really blame him.

Conservative Inc. is also struggling with this one. Their whole model is based on losing gracefully, so they are unprepared for an actual victory. Crisis counselors have been called to American Enterprise and Heritage to help the staff cope with something they were told could never happen. For professional conservatives, Dobbs is like seeing Bigfoot riding a unicorn. They are questioning their sanity.

What makes this even more difficult for Conservative Inc. is the fact that Dobbs was made possible by their archnemesis, Donald Trump. In his debate with Hillary Clinton, Trump made clear that abortion would be a litmus test issue for him when it came time to select judges for the court. His matter-of-fact explanation for how he would roll back Roe was mocked at the time, but it turned out to be correct.

Ben Shapiro attacked Trump and Trump supporters for thinking that it was possible to stack the court with judges who would follow through on their claims. Shapiro was sure that Trump was not only lying, but too stupid to understand how the court worked and how the nomination process worked. He also claimed that Trump lacked the stones to stand up to the left when it came to judges.

Unsurprisingly, Shapiro was wrong on all counts.

Of course, this should inform the ongoing debate about the future of conservatism that is happening in various quarters. Although they probably do not see it, the Dobbs decision cuts the legs out from under the New Right just as it does Conservative Inc. Both sides of this debate claim that how things are done is what matters. In reality, it is who, not how. Who decides is what matters in the law and in social policy. If a society has the right people in charge, people with a natural attachment to society, they will make decisions in the public interest.

This is why the most unhinged opposition to Trump came from the neocons. They have always been the brains of Conservative Inc., and they correctly saw what the Trump phenomenon represented to them. Trump was not running to promote a process but on the promise that he and he alone could make the required changes. His campaign was an explicit appeal to the who rather than the how.

The real impact of Dobbs is in reminding the white remnant that what matters is who decides, not how they decide. For generations they have been told by their betters that process is their greatest virtue. It took a billionaire bumpkin from beyond the pale to prove that process is a tool. In the hands of good men, it results in good ends. In the hands of alien rulers, the best process leads to bad ends.

As John Adams, of Founding Fathers fame, once said: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other." That should be a powerful lesson to those on the Right who overly worship the Constitution. I do believe that the Constitution was raised up, inspired by, and supported by Divine Providence, as the Book of Mormon strongly suggests, but it is insufficient to work as a bulwark against the loss of morality of our society.  Which, I believe, is another way of saying the same thing.

There's an interesting article in the September 1977 Ensign or Liahona as it's now called, which discusses the chief judges of the Nephites. Let me quote a portion of that article. 

The Nephite republic lasted only 120 years. The history of its life and death is an inspired guide to judging the progress of our own civilization. Understanding why it lived and why it died is imperative if we today are to retain our own freedom. It lived because four dedicated missionaries were willing to sacrifice fourteen years of their lives and their right to royalty to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to their bitterest enemies. It died through temporal greed and the loss of brotherly love and concern. It lived because a wise monarch envisioned the sacred foundations of proper government and wrote an inspired charter of liberty for his nation. It died through the accumulated unrighteousness of internal secret combinations and monarchial conspiracies, drained by the wounds of its own political divisiveness. It lived because men such as Helaman and Lachoneus were so committed to principles of the law and the gospel that they served their fellowmen at great risk and personal danger. It died through those who, rather than face social ostracism and threatened violence, chose the false security of subservience by giving up the proper procedures and practices of this government.

It lived because men such as Nephihah and Pahoran were resolute in their defense of freedom under law, and remained humble in the possession of great governmental power. It died in official arrogance and political tyranny. It lived because of Alma and Nephi, “men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do” (1 Chr. 12:32), and who were actively in but “not of the world” (John 17:14). It died when good men did too little, when a confused and troubled nation failed to turn to the light of the gospel and chose instead to walk in the darkness of its own worldly learning and criminal conceit.

There is a critical time in the lives of men and nations when they must make an ultimate decision: to exercise their free agency righteously, or set in motion a spiraling sequence of spiritual suicide. For 120 years under the Nephite judges, national allegiance wavered between the bright hope of prophetic progress and the stagnation of compounded apostasy. In the end, the Nephites chose the “other gospel” (Gal. 1:8) and reaped the judgments Mosiah had prophesied.

And what of the judges? They went down with the ship of state, but they never stopped bailing. When the tides of national adversity were running the highest, they met them head on, “idealists without illusions” who counted the costs and were content with the contest. The lesson is clear. The choice is ours.

The lesson of both the Ensign article and the Z-man post is the same; it matters who is at the reigns of government. Donald Trump may not have been a Captain Moroni or even a Pahoran, but if we use Christ's own admonition that by their fruits we may know them, Trump was the greatest President the US has had since Calvin Coolidge, and the impact of his Presidency was starkly manifest in the last week with Supreme Court decisions on the Second Amendment and abortion. Righteous leaders and righteous, moral people are much more important than a process document such as the Constitution, which was good in the sense that it tried to limit the ability of the unrighteous to hijack the reigns of government. But, as we saw during the Nephite times, and as we've seen in our own age, when morality is lost or significantly diluted, when our leaders are corrupted and wicked, the Constitution is not sufficient to save us. 

“Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.” (2 Nephi 1:7)

“And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity. for behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off. And this cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God—that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fulness come, that ye may not bring down the fulness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done. Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written.” (Ether 2:9-12).

Annotation

A post from the Z-man, with annotations.

A cause that has any hope of surviving past the novelty phase will demand from its followers a sacrifice to show commitment. Criminal organizations are the simplest and easiest examples of this phenomenon. A street gang will require all of the members to get a tattoo, for example, to show their commitment. More mature criminal organizations will require new members to commit crimes in front of other members to prove their willingness to sacrifice for the gang.

In more sophisticated movements, the adherents will perform rituals or make symbolic sacrifices to show their commitment to the cause. It has not been unusual for cultural movements to adopt a style of dress. The macaroni style, for example, was an extreme expression of commitment to a cultural and social class. In this age, the sexual subcultures often embrace clothing styles like the “lesbian kit” to set themselves apart and show commitment to the subculture.

Whether it is getting the gang symbols tattooed on your face, wearing an unofficial uniform or committing yourself to a way of life, every cause requires something from the members as a payment. This sacrifice is not only a signal to the other members, showing their shared commitment to the cause, it is also a form of advertising to potential members of the cause. More important, it adds a sense of value to membership in the cause. The members feel committed.

The people displaying their pronouns in their e-mail signature and social media profile are signaling their commitment by sacrificing some portion of their dignity. There is a noticeable discomfort in these people then they say “I go by they/them” because they know what they are doing is foolish. It is as ridiculous as wearing a flowerpot on their head, but that is the point of the ritual. They are making a fool of themselves in public as a way to show their commitment to this cause.

The same thing is at play when white people take to the stage and begin hectoring their fellow white people about racism. It is patently absurd for a white person to stand up and condemn their ancestors for being white or for the crime of having created a culture that is now called white supremacy. Some of what drives this is mental illness, for sure, and some is the “my fellow white people” act. Much of it, however, is the need for the adherent to show their faith by committing an act of lunacy.

For example, look at this post from a gym teacher about the racists power structures at the local swimming hole. His profile makes clear that he is a fully enculturated bug man, but as a white male, he is at the bottom of the woke subculture. His post about how the man is conspiring to keep black people from swimming is a sacrifice of whatever dignity he retains as a man. The point is not to change minds, but to show others in the subculture that he is fully committed to the cause.

A key part of the cult ritual is the irrationality of it. The systemic racism claims are just modern magic. There is no rational or empirical argument behind these claims, but that is what makes them appealing. You just have to accept them on faith. That is the sole appeal of the trans business. One has to strip themselves of all sense of self in order to claim that humans are assigned sex at birth. The ridiculousness of the claim does not allow for even a shred of dignity.

This is why we are being flooded with a wave of public testimonies about how the trans community is ignored in some way. In this post, we learn that the guitar makers have ignored transgenders and women. The fact that the sex of the performer has no bearing on the instrument or that there is no such thing as transgender is central to the sense of sacrifice the writer feels when posting this. In another age, he would have been writing about elves and sprites with the same conviction.

Part of this self-degrading ritual within the identity subculture is the attention these humiliation rituals gain the adherent. It is why we have gone from publicly tolerating homosexuals to take your child to a drag show events. Each step has been more bizarre and degrading than the next. Post-Marx culturalism has been a weird race to the sea that has finally led to mothers offering up their children to predators. The believers seek the ultimate sacrifice they can make to the cause.

How much the shot callers on what we now call the Left understand the forces they are manipulating is hard to know. It is not particularly clear that the trend setters in this cult understand the intellectual history behind their movement. They have simply embraced the primary modes of thought and let nature take its course. Robin DiAngelo could simply be a fame seeking huckster who landed on the right cause at the right time to make money from a movement desperate for a purpose.

Despite this cult’s efforts to tart up their thing with jargon from the sciences, what drives it is a need to vanish into a cause. The appeal to the adherent is the need to sluff off the identity of the adherent and take on the identity of the group. Self-loathing has always been at the heart of mass movements. Christianity explicitly embraced this reality with the concept of sin. To be a Christian is to not only accept the teachings of the particular sect, but to accept and embrace your sinfulness.

I like the Z-man, and think he says a lot of things that need to be said in a very articulate yet almost folksy way that resonates. But this right here is monumentally stupid, and is that stereotypical moving the needle across the vinyl jerk-stop moment. It feels like a monumentally cheap, opportunistic dig thrown in for no good reason, that turns out with even a quick glance to have been a facile and inaccurate one to boot. Christianity doesn't encourage self-loathing, it tells you that you are literal Sons and Daughters of God, the apple of his eye, and destined to become like him if you can purge yourself of all of the natural man tendencies, through the Atonement of Christ and our own striving to repent and be better, that keep you separate from him. There's no higher form of esteem-building, self-affirming doctrine anywhere else in the world than in Christianity. Especially because it does so without narcissistically lying to yourself about how good you are without putting any effort into being so. It doesn't build fragile arrogance, it builds honest self-esteem, because it also focuses you on the things that you need to be doing better, and encourages you to do so. There's nothing that counters self-loathing more than self-improvement.

Not that I didn't know this, but he hangs out in different online communities, if you will, then I do, but my oldest son also commented on this phenomena. The so-called "dissident right" who have eschewed the mainstream "right" because it's obviously insane and stupid, have become bifurcated into two camps; one of which is almost militantly, authoritarian Christian, and one of which is bitterly anti-Christian. I can kind of understand the appeal of both sides, but both are also dead wrong. The former will have no room for the true Church of Jesus Christ, because it will be too militant in trying to force the dogma of man down the throats of everyone and anyone, and won't tolerate any dissent from its dogma. This is nothing like the conflict between Christians and kingmen in the Book of Mormon, because mainstream Christianity in the background of American Heritage isn't correct Christianity; it's Christianity that resembles it in many ways, but was always corrupted. Meanwhile, the anti-Christians I can get, because seeing the damage done by corrupted Christian churches to America and the West overall is not at all difficult, but the corruption of already incorrect Christianity hardly means throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Western Civilization requires three founding legs: 1) Christianity, 2) the Classical Greco-Roman tradition, and 3) the Germanic peoples of Northern Europe and their cultural and Hajnal Line genetic heritage. Take away any of these three legs, and you don't get Western Civilization. You might get something that's relatively nice: the Nephites seem to have had a nice civilization (at times) with only Christianity, for example, of those three (although they had better and more pure Christianity than that on which Western Civilization was built), but it won't be Western Civilization. Frankly, I have no interest in anything that attempts to subvert any of the pillars of Western Civilization, even if they're claiming to try and save Western Civilization. No, that's not how that works. 

And these right wing pagans are have missed the mark so far that you can't even put them on the same map anymore. I honestly have no idea what that's all about other than swallowing yourself up in an identity because of self-loathing. And I kind of understand that, I suppose. But a pre-Christian, pre-Western Civilization benchmark, that lacks legs 1 and 2 of Western Civilization isn't even something that these weirdos would want to belong to, I don't think. They just haven't the wit to understand how formative the other two legs are to the environment in which they live.

In any case, while I like the Z-man and highly recommend reading him on a regular basis, he does have two massive blind spots, and his rejection of and passive-aggressive digs at Christianity is his biggest and most important failing that you need to recognize before starting. Go in with your eyes wide-opened. Even though he's both a good and important read, nobody is perfect, and even with him, caveat emptor.

These modern identity cults are less sophisticated, feeding on a population desperate for immediate gratification and lacking the intellectual capacity for high culture organizational structures like mainstream Christianity. This is why the rituals are so primitive and crude. The barrier for entry is low, so the people flooding into this scene tend to reflect that standard. It is also no surprise that they have arrived at the cusp of child sacrifice. Spilling innocent blood appeals to the savage mind.

Counterintuitively, these spasms of ritualized self-degradation may be a positive sign that the culture is finally ready to free itself. For generations, American culture has been locked into cultural norms so ingrained in the land that the present culture has not been able to evolve to fit the times. The energy of each generation is channeled into civic nationalism, which is throwing seeds among the stones. American culture has been a zombie shuffling along with no real purpose.

Oswald Spengler used the term pseudomorphosis to describe “an older alien Culture lies so massively over the land that a young Culture, born in this land, cannot get its breath and fails not only to achieve pure and specific expression-forms, but even to develop fully its own self-consciousness.” This is most obvious in the obsession with the Founders you see on the Right. All of the energy of youth for building something new is channeled into ideas from men who wore powdered wigs.

And almost on queue, he brings up the second massive blind spot that he has; his contempt for the Founding Fathers and the fact that most on the Right still recognize that they were on the right track about almost everything. Sure, there were cracks in the founding documents that have been exploited to put us in a precarious situation. But mostly, if the intent of the Founding Fathers were following more strictly, we'd fix most of our problems almost immediately even today. The problem is isn't the Constitution or the Founding Fathers, it's the lies that have been told since then that have become so ingrained in our psyche that we have them as base-line assumptions rather than things that can and ought to be challenged. The Founding Fathers, for instance, recognized that universal suffrage would be a disaster, yet even Constitutional originalists now accept the false-hood that universal suffrage is as American as it gets. 

Of course the only people who should have a say in the way a community works, i.e., its government, are going to be members of the community, for instance. This is very obvious, and yet we reject this and rush to give foreigners voting rights long before they establish themselves as actual members of the community who have its best collective interest at heart. The concept of skin in the game is not a new one, and yet we generally reject that as an icon of "racism" or "sexism" on the part of the Founding Fathers. It was nothing of the kind; it was an absolutely necessary precaution to avoid us getting to exactly where we are now. Of course people who's living comes from the government in any way have a conflict of interest and should be recused from voting. And the most difficult to accept, because it requires doing some research into understanding reality that most people have no knowledge of, and it requires undoing tons of emotional brainwashing, of course women have no business worrying about political issues, and their involvement in them has been a disaster from the get-go. One vote, per head of household, for households that do not 1) work for the government, 2) work for privatized government contractors, or 3) get paid by the government via any form of welfare, all three of which should be excluded from being able to vote. And foreigners, even those living among us, are not natural born citizens, and shouldn't have citizenship or voting rights. They are welcome guests (well, assuming that their rationale for being here passes muster and isn't fraudulent in some way) but guests do not tell the host how to run his household.

All of that digression is to show that the Z-man is wrong, again, although for this post, only in an off-hand passive-aggressive dig. There's nothing wrong with the Founding Fathers, what's wrong is those who have built on the Founding Fathers by subtraction, and assuming incorrectly that the Founding Fathers were sufficiently flawed that their vision needs to be reworked in light of progressive lies that even most conservatives believe nowadays.

What left-wing identity politics is signaling is the old culture finally losing its grip on the present, which is why these maladapted mutants can easily organize in public and attack the symbols of the old culture. The subculture is not a replacement for the old culture or a genuine culture in itself. Instead, it is a cancer on the old culture, slowly eating away at its organs. Coinciding with it is the swelling hatred by the young culture ready to break free from the old body.

There is the other part of Spengler’s concept. At some point, after enough pseudomorphs have been created, the next flowering of cultural energy is fueled by a hatred for the old forms. In the present age, it is those asking how useful is that old civic nationalism rooted on the culture of the Founders when it has led to suburban mothers sacrificing their children to groomers? Perhaps it is now time to shed the old forms and think about creating a new model appropriate to this age.

Again; the old culture is losing its grip on the present because the old culture isn't the old culture. It's a caricature, worn by the very people who killed the old culture as a skin-suit. The old culture is literally a wolf in sheep's clothing. But the true old culture, the sheep that was killed for the wolf to wear, was fine.

Then again, as James Madison himself said, the Constitution is wholly inadequate for governing any other than a righteous people. Perhaps there is no going back to it until there's a Great Repentance. Which, according to my reading of prophecies of the Last Days, won't happen. What's more likely is that something will be built on the ashes of the old, but not until most of the old has been swept away in an orgy of fire and bloodshed. We're just too wicked as a people now to handle righteous government. Which, he also says in his conclusion.

Of course, everything comes to an end. The current spasms of degeneracy could simply be the death throws of a dying West. What comes next may not be a new West, but a return to the barbarism that has been the standard for humanity. What gets left behind is a reminder that a people once thrived and reached for the heavens. Like all prior civilizations, this one will end in rubble. What will remain is the high achievements along with the mystery as to why it failed.

Waging war on Americans

I've taken this post from Karl Denninger's blog, and edited for the bad words, mostly, but a few other brevity-related edits. Also, I don't like his 1993 html-looking formatting, so I've presented it in a more traditional look. The most important part, I have italicized below.

There are several ways to wage war on a people.  We have a current year example of overt war between Russia and Ukraine.  There was the Bolshevik revolution which eventually led to mass starvation.  There was the Cold War between Russia in America where an entire generation of kids learned to protect themselves against nuclear attack by hiding under a desk. 

There’s another long term and diffuse war happening on American soil now.  As I stated [in another post], Satan owns the world.  He loses eventually, but we know neither the day nor the hour that will come to pass.  Satan has been alive a very long time and hates humanity.  His pawns wreak destruction until they are discarded, yet the damage they do is not interred with their bones.

The past 2+ years have been an example of evil's influence increasing.  Or more accurately, the past two years have made evil obvious to more people. 

This war goes by several names. Vox Day refers to it as the war against the good, the beautiful and true. I call it the War on America, but we are not the only country targeted.  Widespread clown world is proof of that.  

The purebloods lost the Coof War decisively.  The War on America accelerated because of that defeat.  Many of us are demoralized which makes victory harder this time. There are fewer soldiers available, the stakes are higher, and it involves the rest of the world. I don't know if it can be won without a legitimate leader arising.  If one doesn’t, there could be civil unrest in the United States that makes previous summers’ riot seasons look like vacations.

Satanic minions are sabotaging America from within.  We know who they are, no need to belabor that point here.  Instead, I want to provide a roadmap for the next battlefield: Manufactured Crisis 2022 – 2023.  My goal is not to be right.  It is to provide tools so you know what to watch for and prepare yourselves as best you can.

The War on America’s battle plan has three milestones:

• Negate America’s purchasing power
• Remove things they can buy
• Eliminate Americans themselves.  This is also a victory condition.

How can such a nasty, complicated operation be broken down into three goals?

We are all broke now

Purchasing power eroded steadily over time and accelerated these past two years.  Rent, groceries, and fuel are all pounding people’s wallets. As long as diesel remains high, so will every good in America.

The Russian sanctions are exacerbating the situation.  Every other foreign company sees that and will demand payment in their local currency.  All those US dollars sequestered overseas will flow back into the American money supply, deflating our purchasing power more.

Milestone number one is accomplished.  If an individual hasn’t experienced yet, it’s only a matter of time.

You can’t 3D print baby formula

Food, water, and shelter are essential to human life. Housing costs were already covered.  Milestone two’s tactics removes food and water.

Supply chain issues are the mere tip of the iceberg.  There are several potential shortages in the works.  Some of them are incidental to geopolitical events, and some are deliberate acts of war by our own government. Some of our current problems are partially, but not completely, by design.

Farming difficulties are an example of an incidental side effect.  Crops are not being planted this year.   Every few years, the weather is bad enough to produce lower yields.  Lower, but nowhere near a true shortage.  This year combines a cold dry spring and clown world.  Harvests will be down.

Two fertilizer ingredients are more expensive this year. The Russia/Ukraine conflict stopped the trade of potash and natural gas’s price increased.  Smaller farms aren’t planting or using less fertilizer.  Cereal grains will be pricier this fall and America will export less to Africa and Central America.  

Is claiming food shortages are due to sabotage tin or a spoiler alert?  Time will tell.  For what it’s worth, I hope this stays post-apocalyptic fiction fodder instead of headline news.

What happened recently that points to sabotage?  Here is a list of tactics from recent headlines to accomplish milestone two:

• Food factories and warehouses fires
• Abbott baby formula factory closed for months
• Bird flu
• A widespread recall on a cheap, nutritious source of calories (Smuckers peanut butter)
• Exporting diesel to Europe
• Denying drilling leases
• Releasing our strategic petroleum reserve and not replacing it

The bird flu could be an act of nature, or the government could be lying about the whole thing.  Everything else was helped along by government meddling.  All were designed to disrupt enemy supply lines. In this case, we are the enemy!

What further tactics would deprive Americans of goods we currently take for granted? What is the simplest action that will have the broadest negative effects?

All the previous foods follow a pattern: they affect WIC.  This could be a coincidence.  Or it could be deliberate because there’s nothing evil hates more than children, the ultimate acts of human creation.  Satan demands child sacrifice.

WIC eligible foods are “infant cereal, iron-fortified adult cereal, vitamin C-rich fruit or vegetable juice, eggs, milk, cheese, peanut butter, dried and canned beans/peas, and canned fish. Soy-based beverages, tofu, fruits and vegetables, baby foods, whole-wheat bread, and other whole-grain options were recently added to better meet the nutritional needs of WIC participants…For women who do not fully breastfeed, WIC provides iron-fortified infant formula.”

This is where the tin comes in:  the WIC foods could be specifically targeted.  More likely, their shortages will be incidental to clown world.  Expect more food disruptions in the future. Starvation is a tried and true method of mass killings.  

One future tactic to watch for is exporting enough food to the Third World to ensure we are hungry. 

How can some malicious retard bureaucrat make things worse?  What is the worst regulation they could pass?

I mentioned water earlier.  How secure is your supply of fresh, potable water?  If the treatment plant can’t get chemicals or replacement parts, where will you get safe water?

The questions and your answers are not meant to fill you with dread.  They are meant to give you hope. If you came up with a doomsday scenario, dial it back until you reach something manageable.  Concentrating on an improbable worst-case will only stress you out and waste mental energy.   If you see what is coming, you can mitigate the results. Prioritize your actions based on what will have the greatest impact for the least money.  Some examples are canned food, bottled water, and a Sawyer filter, but make your own list.

No country for Americans

If you were born in America and are over 35, this is not the country you grew up in.  You might as well moved overseas.  Many words have been spent discussing our open borders policy for welfare trash, critical race theory, and other demoralizing public humiliation rituals.  These all contribute to alienating Americans.

But something even more poignant is the real reason we have no country.  We’ve stopped having babies.  Only Americans can create other Americans.  In fact, the justification for paying wetbacks to pump out six anchor babies is declining American birthrates.

Right now there are no incentives for useful citizens to have babies because they believe in paying their own way through life. Medical costs are prohibitive.  Women who want to stay home with their kids often have to choose between living in the ghetto and working.  This is not true in every locale yet, but swaths of America are too expensive for one worker to support a family.

A lot of young people don’t want their kid born into financial slavery and that’s if they can find someone to have one with.  The under 35 dating pool is atrocious, filled with land whales and soy boys.  Some purebloods only want another pureblood.  

I can’t argue with any of that. Things were bad before, the past two and a half years made them worse.  And we haven’t even gotten into fertility problems caused by the vax.  Even young people who want to have kids aren’t able to.  This is a demographic disaster and it’s been building for a long time.

Americans expect certain things to “just work.”  We have the work ethic and the knowledge to make it so.  Third World scountries do not, hence the moniker.  If you look at primary school demographics, America is already the Third World, we are currently coasting on civilization fumes.  As people retire or check out of the workforce, less qualified and stupider people will replace them.  Eventually, all the people who make things “just work” won’t exist.

This should scare the ever loving crud out of you, and the only people that can fix it are the same bunch we’ve saddled with massive student loan debt and impossible to afford housing.  For that, we all deserve the catastrophe that’s coming over the next decades.  Not only do these kids need jobs, they need a stable society that encourages family formation.  Large family formation.

I don’t like writing about or acknowledging American demographics, but it is dishonest to ignore the 900 pound elephant in the room.  

Which brings us back to what can we do about aspects we can directly control?  As individuals, protect ourselves and our families by making reasonable preparations for the future. 

Let them all starve

The current food shortages are political problems.  They were not caused by natural disasters, but human stupidity and evil.  Without a leader arising, America will let them all starve.  

To protect our families we must determine future tactics of the enemy so we can prepare and defeat them. Ask and answer the questions above to create your battle plan. Good luck, and good hunting.

Each nation for itself

I'm having a hard time verifying the provenance of this article, so I have to admit that it might be Fake News. Regardless of whether or not the Dalai Lama actually said these things or not, however, it's 100% correct, and aligns quite well with our own scriptures. I'll note that:

—Even when the Nephites accepted the Ammonites, they gave them their own land to inherit for their own people; they didn't just intermix with the Nephites. They had friendly relations and traveled back and forth between each others' lands because they were friendly, but the Ammonites didn't become Nephites or vice versa.

—Members of the church love to point out the offhand reference Mormon makes in 4th Nephi about there not being any manner of -ites following the ministry of Christ among them, but they conveniently ignore just a few verses later when they split off again into Nephites and Lamanites because in spite of even the presence of a Zion-like state, they simply were different people, with different cultures, and needed to be separate so that they could practice their various differences in peace. Because they were all intermingled, and because the Lamanite base state was one of wickedness, even three generations of Zion-like behavior didn't remove those behavior patterns from their genetic matrix.

—One of the most powerful underlying messages of the Old Testament is that at righteous nation needs to have boundaries between itself and less-righteous nations if it is to maintain itself. The Children of Israel fall into unrighteousness over and over again because of exposure to nations around them that do not practice their cultural and religious values. Not to suggest that this is the only way in which nations dwindle in unbelief, of course, but it is consistently the problem that they had in the Old Testament.

—Isaiah prophesied for the last days (13:14; it's repeated by Nephi as well) that every man would flee unto his own people and back to his own land. Regardless of how it makes you feel, diversity will come to an end as we know it today. It is inevitable. It's been prophesied by legitimate prophets of God and placed in two bodies of scripture.

Loving your neighbor does not mean becoming your neighbor, or rolling over to let your neighbor take over your country and the inheritance of your children. Anyway, to the Dalai Lama's supposed quote:

The Dalai Lama has sparked controversy after he once again defended White nationalism. The elderly monk agreed with the statement that, “white people have a right to exist in their own countries.” Explaining himself, he stated, “I do not think a world without white people would be complete. We should celebrate the whole world’s diversity and that of course means nations being their own. I do not think a France without the French would be a good thing, but completely the opposite. I love all people.”

Going on, he stated that, “I can understand the sadness and despair of Europeans and Americans who worry about losing their countries. Immigrants should return to their own countries, especially those who are from safe places. When I travel to Berlin, I wonder, where are the Germans? I weep for what they have lost.”

“People should, of course, be in friendship and harmony, but there is a saying. Good neighborhoods have good fencing. I think there would be much less hatred on Earth if we respected each other’s nations much more. I have become much more convinced of this as I grow older. I do not think that mixing is always a good thing. We can learn from each other without becoming one another.”

When asked if he thought immigrants should be expelled, the Dalai Lama explained that, in his view, “They should go home on their own accord because it is a good thing to do, if your country is safe. However, if they refuse to leave, I would understand if there was some compulsion.”

UPDATE: Curious situation. I still can't confirm that this is a real article. HOWEVER, I can confirm that the Dalai Lama has said all of these same things—paraphrased differently—in the last few years. I.e., even if this report of an interview is Fake News, ironically it's also Real News, because this does reflect the Dalai Lama's opinion quite well, and that's easy to verify. 

Christianity and realignment in America

As members of the Church, we're not evangelicals nor even Protestants, although the cultural heritage of America is overwhelmingly Protestant, and therefore the fortunes and tides of Christianity in America and our cultural perception of it are therefore closely tied. While it may take a while for you to see how this is relevant to us, I think that there's a lot of good information in it that is parallel to what's happening in our Church.

While our leadership is led by inspiration, of course, I don't discount the possibility of occasional inspiration of other good men outside of the Church to bring about as much good as possible to people outside of the Church, and of course the general sway of these big movements Renn describes applies quite well to the general membership of the Church and maybe offers some predictions on who will struggle with what as the ongoing sifting of sheep and the goats; the wheat and the tares continues among the membership. I recommend the patience to read the whole article and the thoughtfulness to see how it applies to us rather than dismiss it as being all about some other Christian denominations and therefore irrelevant to us. I don't think that it is, although the conclusions will necessarily be a little different.

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2022/02/the-three-worlds-of-evangelicalism

Eric Hoffer and the True Believer

I've recently become aware of Eric Hoffer's work. It's a shame; it was quite well known in generations before me. His first book was published in 1951, and he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom on 1983. And yet, today his work is largely deliberately forgotten, or at least I've never heard of it, even though it should be exactly the kind of work that's right up my alley, and would explain a great deal of the problems that we see in the world politically and socially. I expect that the reason for this is that his work is largely a condemnation of leftism as its become, and since Leftism holds the reins at every academic institution, they've focused more on works that attempt to validate them rather than condemn them.

This doesn't mean that I think Hoffer's work is perfect, of course. Hoffer had an interesting life, and probably wasn't best person in the world. He describes life in his 20s and 30s during the Great Depression as one where he almost committed suicide, but then dividing his time "between the books and the brothels" where he became a writer and philosopher and extremely well-read individual who also had a blue-collar, working man's approach. He called himself an atheist who had sympathetic views towards religion, but he seems to have been poor at picking out genuine conversion from fanaticism, in the cause of Paul the Apostle, for example, which he uses as an example of a fanatic. Incorrectly, of course, because he doesn't believe in the possibility that Saul's Road to Damascus conversion into Paul was anything other than another example of fanaticism, the main subject of his writing. He also buys into the false narrative that fascism and communism were polar opposites of sorts, so his conclusion that the object of fanatic's fanaticism is interchangeable. That may or may not be true, to some degree, but his example doesn't do a good job of demonstrating it, since communism and fascism partly appealed to the exact people because they were only subtle variations on the same ideology anyway.) A point Heber J. Grant and David O. McKay, among others, certainly did not miss. Actually, prior to the US going to war against Germany and deciding that the Soviets were our allies, pretty much everyone in America knew that fascism, Nazism, socialism, communism, peronism, francoism, or any other variant you can think of, were all basically the same movement with only minor variations on them.) And his assertion that Saul transferred his fanaticism for Judaism to a fanaticism for Christianity upon his conversion into Paul is silly. Hoffer also assumed that Lincoln, Churchill and FDR (among a few others) were different somehow, although they used the same processes and methods. Grant and McKay were not so fooled, and wrote directly to Roosevelt's administration in condemnation.

Of course, now that I've picked apart (or at least highlighted) areas of disagreement with his work, at an extremely high level, I should probably get to the meat of his work, which I think absolutely does describe the current wave of socio-political movement, as well as a warning for the future. First, let me quote a little bit (once again) of the Z-man.

The Opposite Rule of Liberalism states that whatever the Left is saying about its political opponents, assume the opposite and you will get close to the truth. [...] The classic example of this is ten years ago when the Tea Party was a thing. This purely grassroots movement in reaction to the radicalism of the Obama administration was called “AstroTurf” by the Left. The Left claimed their activism was organic while the Right was manufacturing activism. The Tea Party was a creation of the Republican Party and their corporate masters. The reality was the opposite. Left-wing activism was controlled by the party and financed by corporate America.

The opposite rule can also work as a warning. In fact, this is the best application of the rule as it helps prepare for left-wing shenanigans. The way this works is that once you hear warnings from left-wing people about some threat, you can assume they are planning it or they are actively engaged in it. The last bit is the way to bet when the Left is overly excited about the claim. In other words, they have a habit of accusing their opponents of crimes the are committing. [...]

This behavior of the Left, where they accuse their enemies of what they are plotting or doing, is used by conservatives as proof of the Left’s cynicism. For conservatives, hypocrisy is the most powerful abracadabra word. Despite all the evidence, they are sure that uttering this word will destroy their enemies. When the Left accuses their enemies of something they are doing, the conservatives scream about hypocrisy, believing is does something magical for them.

This never has the desired effect because being accused of hypocrisy only works if you care about factual accuracy. For conservatives, being factual correct is important, so they would rather lose than be accused of contradiction. This is mostly why they lose every fight. They like losing while being right. For the Left, advancing their goals is what matters, so they can live with contradiction. For them, facts are just another tool that can be used as a weapon against the opposition. [ed. There's a popular expression among conservatives: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" known as Hanlon's Razor, because Robert Hanlon is to whom it is usually attributed. Goethe seems to have expressed it as early as 1774, however. However, this is a red herring for most conservatives, who should practice a bit of the opposite: stop attributing to stupidity (or ignorance) that which is better explained by malice.]

It also helps that left-wing politics attracts a specific type. Eric Hoffer observed that people often join mass movements out of self-loathing. They wish to swap their hated sense of self with the identity of the group, which they view positively. This is almost always true with left-wing politics. The people in it are looking for a form of salvation, where they are saved from thinking about their hated sense of self. Instead, they get to focus on an enemy they can enthusiastically hate.

Of course, hating an enemy that has the qualities you hate about yourself is pretty much the ideal enemy for this sort of person. Their self-loathing is transformed into a virtue while they express their hatred for qualities they fear they possess. Collectively, this transforms the Left into a mob driven by what looks like moral indignation and a desire to purge the world of corruption. This is what makes a relatively small number of people into a powerful force in American society.

This shameless ability to project onto others the sins of the Left has been the primary reason the Left has denominated American politics. They claim the moral high ground, accuse anyone that resists of doing something bad and then they do that bad thing to the people they are accusing. After all, they have created the justification for the bad thing they are doing. Conservatives spent the last half century trying to prove they are not the villains while the Left marched from triumph to triumph.

The opposite rule has been so effective, in fact, that there is no longer an effective opposition to the Left in America. Conservatism has collapsed and the political divide in America is the Cloud People, who populate and control the managerial class, and the Dirt People, who suffer under the rule of the managerial class. The Cloud People now accuse the Dirt People are various things, like the insurrection business, which is used to justify heavy handed tactics against the Dirt People. [...]

This is where that opposite rule becomes so effective. The need to accuse an outsider of the worst crimes the Left can imagine becomes a justification for committing those crimes against the alleged enemy. It is how America so quickly moved from defending the liberal order and individual rights to celebrating corporate censorship and the persecution of political prisoners. The bad guys get worse, so the means to defeat them must get worse as well. This is the terror escalator.

This is a parasitic and corrosive ruling ethos. The sharp decline in the quality of life for most Americans over the last generation is one result. The collapse in social trust is another consequence. Like the desperate person eating the seed corn, what we call liberal democracy is consuming the social capital of society in order to fuel the hate-machine that props up the managerial class. At some point, maybe soon, they run out of things to burn and the system becomes unstable.

Next, some quotes from Infogalactic about Hoffer's work:

Hoffer came to public attention with the 1951 publication of his first book, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. Concerned about the rise of totalitarian governments, especially those of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, he tried to find the roots of these "madhouses" in human psychology.

Hoffer argued that fanatical and extremist cultural movements, whether religious or political, arose under predictable circumstances: when large numbers of people come to believe that their individual lives are worthless and ruined, that the modern world is irreparably corrupt, and that hope lies only in joining a larger group that demands radical changes. Hoffer believed that self-esteem and a sense of satisfaction with one's life was of central importance to psychological well-being. He thus focused on what he viewed as the consequences of a lack of self-esteem. For example, Hoffer noted that leaders of mass movements were often frustrated intellectuals, from Adolf Hitler in 20th Century Europe to Hong Xiuquan's failure to advance in the Chinese bureaucracy of the 19th Century.

A core principle in the book is Hoffer's assertion that mass movements are interchangeable: in the Germany of the 1920s and '30s the Communists and Nazis were ostensibly enemies but routinely swapped members as they competed for the same kind of marginalized, angry people and fanatical Communists became Nazis and vice versa. [...] For the "true believer," Hoffer argued that substance of any particular group is less important than being part of an energized movement. [ed. This does, at least, partly explain the nonsense which conservatives have bemusedly noted for decades, but never been able to utilize effectively against Leftists; that they will often take literally the exact opposite position that they just had a few weeks ago, and will pursue both with equal fanaticism.]

Hoffer also claimed that a passionate obsession with the outside world or the private lives of others was an attempt to compensate for a lack of meaning in one's own life. [...]

The "New Poor" are the most likely source of converts for mass movements, for they recall their former wealth with resentment and blame others for their current misfortune. Examples include the mass evictions of relatively prosperous tenants during the English Civil War of the 1600s; or the middle- and working-classes in Germany who passionately supported Hitler in the 1930s after suffering years of economic hardship. In contrast, the "abjectly poor" on the verge of starvation make unlikely true believers as their daily struggle for existence takes preeminence over any other concern. [...] [ed. This may have been true for the Bolshevik, Fascist and Soviet movements, but it is not true for the current crop of cultural Marxist movements at all, where the relatively affluent and well-educated are the most prominent members. There, the lack of self-esteem and presence of self-loathing seems to be the driving factor, and therefore the driving factor for the present. However, it's a notable warning for the future. Because the current crop of social and political policies are rapidly creating a vast class of disenfranchized "New Poor" in America, there's likely to be a very, very bad backlash to the current regime once it reaches critical mass. Which, sadly, looks to be on track to happen much more quickly and soon than I had ever anticipated in the past.]

Racial and religious minorities, particularly those only partly assimilated into mainstream culture, are also found in mass movements. Those who live traditionalist lifestyles tend to be content, but the partially assimilated feel alienated from both their forbearers and the mainstream culture. (E.g., "The orthodox Jew is less frustrated than the emancipated Jew".)

A variety of what Hoffer terms "misfits" are also found in mass movements. Examples include "chronically bored"; the physically disabled or perpetually ill; the talentless; and criminals or "sinners". In all cases, Hoffer argues, these people feel as if their individual lives are meaningless and worthless.

Hoffer argues that the relatively low number of mass movements in America is attributable to a culture that blurred traditionally rigid boundaries between nationalist, racial and religious groups, and which allowed greater opportunities for individual accomplishment. [...]

Mass movements demand a "total surrender of a distinct self". One identifies first and foremost as “a member of a certain tribe or family", be it religious, political, revolutionary, or nationalist. Every important part of the true believer’s persona and life must ultimately come from her identification with the larger community; even when alone she must never feel isolated and unwatched. [...]

While mass movements [may] idealize the past and glorify the future, the present-day world is denigrated. "The radical and the reactionary loath the present". Thus, by regarding the modern world as vile and worthless, mass movements inspire a perpetual battle against the present. Mass movements aggressively promote the use of Doctrines that elevate faith over reason and serve as "fact-proof screens between the faithful and the realities of the world". The Doctrine of the mass movement must not be questioned under any circumstances. [...] Successful mass movements need not believe in a god, but they must believe in a devil. Hatred unifies the true believers, and "the ideal devil is a foreigner" attributed with nearly supernatural powers of evil. [...][ed. Look at the rampant and incessant hatred of whiteness, including white culture, white legal tradition, white intellectual tradition and Christianity today. Americans have become the focus of hatred in America, which is a little odd. In Nazi Germany, Hitler turned the majority against a minority; in America, the cultural Marxists have turned the minority against the majority. The only reason that they've been able to be as successful as they have is because our majority is naïve, nice, and bends over backwards to give everyone else the benefit  the doubt. Not sure how well that will work in the future when we've finally had enough, because I can't think of an example where that's been successfully done before. Certainly, there are loads of clues all around us that the momentum of the hate machine is running out; people are sick and tired of CRT, and child groomers, and propaganda disguised as entertainment, etc.] The hatred of a true believer is actually a disguised self-loathing, as with the condemnation of capitalism by socialists while Russia under the Bolsheviks saw more intensive monopolization of the economy than any other nation in history. Without a devil to hate, mass movements often falter (e.g., Chiang Kai-shek effectively led millions of Chinese during the Japanese occupation of the 1930s and '40s, but quickly fell out of favor once the Japanese were defeated).

Fanaticism is encouraged in mass movements. Hoffer argues that "the fanatic is perpetually incomplete and insecure" and thus uses uncompromising action and personal sacrifice to give meaning to his life. [...]

Mass movements begin with "men of words" or "fault-finding intellectuals" such as clergy, journalists, academics, and students who condemn the established social order (e.g., Gandhi, Trotsky, Mohammed, Lenin). These men of words feel unjustly excluded from, or mocked and oppressed by, the existing powers in society, and relentlessly criticize or denigrate present-day institutions. While invariably speaking out in the name of disadvantaged commoners, the man of words is actually motivated by a deep personal grievance. The man of words relentlessly attempts to "discredit the prevailing creeds" and creates a "hunger for faith" which is then fed by "doctrines and slogans of the new faith".[19] A cadre of devotees gradually develops around the man of words, leading to the next stage in a mass movement.

Eventually, the fanatic takes over leadership of the mass movement from the man of words. While the "creative man of words" finds satisfaction is his literature, philosophy or art, the "noncreative man of words" feels unrecognized or stifled and thus veers into an extremism against the social order. Though the man of words and the fanatic share a discontent with the world, the fanatic is distinguished by his viciousness and urge to destroy. The fanatic feels fulfilled only in a perpetual struggle for power and change. Examples include Jean-Paul Marat, Maximilien de Robespierre, Benito Mussolini, and Adolf Hitler.

In any case, while this was written long before cultural Marxism and wokeness was a thing, one can hopefully see the obvious way in which they fit the structure that he outlined by looking more at communism and fascism. Leftism is fundamentally the same now as it was in the Bolshevik and Nazi age, and it is fundamentally led and propogated by people who are emotionally stunted. Here's some more; his discussion of Asia in the 1950s sounds very much like America in the 2000s:

For centuries, Hoffer notes that Asia had “submitted to one conqueror after another." Throughout these centuries, Asia had “been misruled, looted, and bled by both foreign and native oppressors without” so much as “a peep” from the general population. Though not without negative effect, corrupt governments and the legacy of European imperialism represented nothing new under the sun. Indeed, the European colonial authorities had been “fairly beneficent” in Asia.

To be sure, communism exerted an appeal of sorts. For the Asian “pseudo-intellectual” it promised elite status and the phony complexities of “doctrinaire double talk." For the ordinary Asian, it promised partnership with the seemingly emergent Soviet Union in a “tremendous, unprecedented undertaking” to build a better tomorrow.

According to Hoffer, however, communism in Asia was dwarfed by the desire for pride. To satisfy such desire, Asians would willingly and irrationally not only sacrifice their economic well-being, but their lives as well.

Unintentionally, the West had created this appetite, causing “revolutionary unrest” in Asia. The West had done so by eroding traditional communal bonds, bonds that once had woven the individual to the patriarchal family, clan, tribe, “cohesive rural or urban unit,” and “religious or political body." Without the security and spiritual meaning produced by such bonds, Asians had been liberated from tradition only to find themselves now atomized, isolated, exposed, and abandoned, “left orphaned and empty in a cold world."

Certainly, Europe had undergone a similar destruction of tradition, but it had occurred centuries earlier at the end of the Medieval period and produced better results thanks to different circumstances.

For the Asians of the 1950s, the circumstances differed markedly. Most were illiterate and impoverished, living in a world that included no expansive physical or intellectual vistas. Dangerously, the “articulate minority” amongst the Asian population inevitably disconnected themselves from the ordinary people, thereby failing to acquire “a sense of usefulness and of worth” that came by “taking part in the world’s work." As a result, they were “condemned to the life of chattering posturing pseudo-intellectuals,” who coveted “the illusion of weight and importance."

Most significantly, Hoffer asserts that the disruptive awakening of Asia came about as a result of an unbearable sense of weakness. Indeed, Hoffer discusses the problem of weakness, asserting that while “power corrupts the few.. . weakness corrupts the many.”

Hoffer notes that “the resentment of the weak does not spring from any injustice done [to] them but from the sense of their [own] inadequacy and impotence.” In short, the weak “hate not wickedness” but hate themselves for being weak. Consequently, self-loathing produces explosive effects that cannot be mitigated through social engineering schemes, such as programs of wealth redistribution. In fact, American “generosity” is counterproductive, perceived in Asia simply as an example of Western “oppression." [...]

Hoffer believed that rapid change is not necessarily a positive thing for a society, and too rapid change can cause a regression in maturity for those who were brought up in a different society. He noted that in America in the 1960s, many young adults were still living in extended adolescence. Seeking to explain the attraction of the New Left protest movements, he characterized them as the result of widespread affluence, which, in his words, "is robbing a modern society of whatever it has left of puberty rites to routinize the attainment of manhood." He saw these puberty rites as essential for self-esteem, and noted that mass movements and juvenile mindsets tend to go together, to the point that anyone, no matter what age, who joins a mass movement immediately begins to exhibit juvenile behavior.

Hoffer further noted that the reason why working-class Americans did not, by and large, join protest movements and subcultures was that they had entry into meaningful labor as an effective rite of passage out of adolescence, while both the very poor who lived on welfare and the affluent were, in his words, "prevented from having a share in the world's work, and of proving their manhood by doing a man's work and getting a man's pay," and thus remained in a state of extended adolescence, lacking in necessary self-esteem, and prone to joining mass movements as a form of compensation. Hoffer suggested that this need for meaningful work as a rite of passage into adulthood could be fulfilled with a two-year civilian national service program (not unlike programs during the Great Depression such as the Civilian Conservation Corps). He wrote: "The routinization of the passage from boyhood to manhood would contribute to the solution of many of our pressing problems. I cannot think of any other undertaking that would dovetail so many of our present difficulties into opportunities for growth." 

Which is an observation that is obviously no longer true today.

Anyway, this is largely a rambly post of quotes and selections from other works. But I found it remarkably insightful in both understanding the personality of Satan himself, and those who follow him, and why these fanatical movement that that which currently motivates the Left (and which has motivated the Left ever since its definition during the French Revolution).

Sadly, it suggests that without major structural changes to fix society, there's no good solution. What will most likely happen is a violent collapse in which the Cloud People elites are set upon en masse by the Dirt People, and the vast hordes of foreigners will either purge Americans from America or be purged from America because the main reason that they are here is the malice of the elites against the American people.

And let me be clear, again. I'm not suggesting that I endorse that result. Merely that I predict that it is inevitable regardless of what you, I, or anyone else thinks about it.