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.