G.L.Piggy [at] gmail.com
Recent Comments
- Steve Sailer on Gatsby’s Sunglasses
- Steve Sailer on Gatsby’s Sunglasses
- vlad on Camille Paglia flogs the academy
- Dante's Inferno on Trayvon Martin wanted a gun
- PA on Trayvon Martin wanted a gun
- nikcrit on Trayvon Martin wanted a gun
GLP Approved
- Captain Capitalism
- Dalrock
- Dennis Mangan
- Econ Log
- Elusive Wapiti
- Foseti
- Hawaiian Libertarian
- HBD Bibliography
- Heartiste
- Lion of the Blogosphere
- Marginal Revolution
- Matt Forney
- Randall Parker
- Razib Khan
- Reihan Salam
- Roosh V
- Simon Grey
- SOBL
- Steve Sailer
- The Last Psychiatrist
- The Spearhead
- Thrasymachus
- Ulysses
- Vox Day
Tweet Tweet
Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
This makes sense. As latinos move up the social ladder, if they have any socially conservative views, they will have to be jettisoned in order to fit in with the prevailing liberal social order.
Maybe they feel they have to overcompensate to impress white liberals? Minority professionals I know are liberal to the point of comedy.
No. Half Sigma is a fool and a moderate. Rich negros aren’t republican. They side with their own, which is democrat. Spics do the same.
All this flim flam and avoidance. America is white people. You cannot vote your way out of it. You have no negro or spic friends, not really. The white liberals are already dead. You need to chose what you want – to live, or to die? Should be easy, at least for me it is.
The reason, Chuck, is that the liberal/progressive party/movement is the “alpha” or *winning* movement in the US, and the conservative one is the “beta” or *losing* movement. Not just in 2012, and not even when they are nominally winning elections. If you look at the wide angle picture of political history in the US, it moves in one direction only: leftward. That is, the left is where the *power* is, in terms of the power to determine the direction of things. Conservatives only slow things down, they never reverse things — that is not power at all, it is simply a weak form of protest which periodically wins an election and can then slow things down a bit more than it can when it is in the opposition. But in both cases, the grand sweep of history is liberal/progressive/left.
So, an up and coming former immigrant or child of immigrants who wants to assimilate into the ruling power structures is going to go socially liberal as they gain access to these structures through personal wealth — because that’s where the *power* is. That *is* the establishment in the US currently, and it has been for years and years. The Repubs are the outsiders/dissenters/losers/misfits, and have been since the time of FDR. Sure, some Hispanics will become richer and become conservative because they are personally socially conservative due to religion or conviction or what have you — but the general trend will of course be away from that and more towards assimilation into the liberal/progressive ruling elite — the one that controls all of our instruments of power projection inside the US in terms of forming opinion, which in our system equates to political power — something which is very enticing to an up and coming Hispanic immigrant.
This is why the idea that going for amnesty and increased immigration is nothing more than a death sentence for the Repubs, but being the beta party, they’re too stupid or out of it to see that, and instead are trying to “ape the alpha” party.
They won’t get the girl in this case, however.
Whatever the stupidity or betatude of the Republican party, as an organization the GOP is fiscally sound, so nine of that matters to them. To their leadership — this is important to understand — ideals and even winning are of minor importance. What matters to them is the continuing solvency of the party, and with it their personal bank accounts. As long as that’s good to go, they’ll be more than happy to play the beta to the alpha. The Republican party is a business enterprise.
If the GOP cared about ideals or long-term strategy, they’d have taken Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo, or Ron Paul seriously. To some extent, in any case. They’d not have just unceremoniously discarded them, because cultivating passionate advocates, even if they are something of a loose cannon, keeps energy and passions fresh.
But Buchanan et al compromised the brand and chagrined the big donors, the so they were not embraced.
The GOP shows up for the elections, but winning is optional. Did anyone for a moment actually think that Bob Dole can beat Bill Clinton?
I think assimilation of Hispanics would occur pretty naturally if not for overt state prevention of this (bilingual everything, identity politics, etc.). Hispanics who have been here over a century are far better adjusted than blacks. No comparison.
Mexicans who come to the US are about 40% white on average. That is not ideal, but at least that is something to work with. Hispanic-white intermarriage, which is happening a lot, would produce 70% white = white offspring. That’s the best we can hope for.
But the Southwest is turning blue at a speedy rate. Not a rate of decades or even half-decades, but years.
Brendan is right. Leftism is triumphant, and immigrants of every stripe can sniff it out of the air. (Hey, it’s not that hard. The stench is everywhere.) Asians, Latinos and wise Latinas, Euros, you name it. If you land in the Land of the Free (har!), it takes about a week to understand that being a Liberal means social acceptance and entree to all the things that count. Being Conservative means marginalization, mockery and scorn. It’s not any more complicated than that.
Sample: If you just landed in America, would you — in polite company — claim to be a fan of Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton? Michelle Malkin or Rachel Maddow?
Status, status, status, status and status. There’s your election for you (that, and massive fraud).
… it takes about a week to understand that being a Liberal means social acceptance and entree to all the things that count. … Sample: If you just landed in America, would you — in polite company — claim to be a fan of Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton? Michelle Malkin or Rachel Maddow?
You and Brendan are right about this, of course. It’s a given.
But really dig in, really get granular, and how does it operate like this, exactly? Sure, the good-looking movie stars crank out their pro-Obama tweets (among a gazillion such examples), and all the low-information young dimwits see the writing on the wall and act accordingly. But where are those good-looking celebs getting their cues from? Where’s the ground-zero guy who is establishing that progressivism = cool in the first place?
In pop culture and fashion, there’s a specialized, boutique and very lucrative field called trend-hunting. These are the folks who meticulously dial down to street level, identifying the emergence of new styles, memes and other cultural phenomena. The jargon escapes me at the moment, but they have some term for the relative handful of movers and shakers in street-level social settings — certain guys in high schools, certain chicks on the scene — whose singular embrace of a particular music style or skirt length ultimately reverberates, concentrically, to become mainstream culture.
So who is this person when it comes to politics? Who is this ground-zero character, deciding that leftism is The Shit, eventually leading to lemming Lena Dunham videos and kneejerk tweets from Jane Twentysomething giggling about Big Bird and cussing out Applebee’s?
I’m not asking why leftism prevails in the academy and media — that’s an intellectual phenomenon. I’m getting at why leftism is “cool,” why it has a pop-culture sheen, why it’s the high-status mode. Being an intellectual phenomenon isn’t the answer — that could just as easily be dismissed as the province of wonky eggheads. There’s something else at work, and it’s weirdly fascinating.
Nothing that makes American Jewry feel uncomfortable will ever be pushed by any mainstream party.
I don’t think that the Republicans don’t care about winning, but they know they can’t win without money and they can’t get money if they displease their paymasters.
A Republican party that reflected the views of Pat Buchanan would probably be working with less than half the budget they have now (much of which would flow to their opposition), which is more damaging to their prospects of victory than running with their rogue’s gallery of uninspired globalist technocrats ready to sell us all up a river.
Leftism is “cool” primarily because it prevails in the academy and media. The media encompasses not only television news, but also Hollywood. Why does it prevail in Hollywood? Most likely because of the strong Jewish influence there, and the fact that you are effectively blacklisted for espousing conservative beliefs.
If you want to follow that line of reasoning further, why are the Jews who run Hollywood so invested in leftist thought? That’s a good question. I personally don’t know the answer. To me, I used to be a libertarian and so was socially liberal on things like gay marriage, abortion, etc. However I always respected the past, and I believe the past has a lot that it can teach us. People in the past weren’t stupid, they weren’t any more irrational than people today, and in some ways they were *a lot* more educated. So when you hear about how prejudiced people were, “against” women, blacks, and so on, you have to ask yourself if these people were just huge dicks for no reason, or was there something there?
If you follow science/HBD then you discover, “Hey! Morton’s skull measurements weren’t just some racist fantasy!” There really is something there. And we can look at the social policies of feminism and say, “Hey, how come our policies of being compassionate towards the downtrodden resulted in more social ills?” Welfare and destigmatization of single motherhood literally destroyed black american culture and turned them into a dependent class. These social ills are also proving quite adept at destroying white culture too, if at a slower pace.
Liberalism is all about looking at society and saying, “It sucks that . Lets fix it.” But Liberalism is not about understanding why that bad thing happens in the first place. Their best guesses are Racism/Sexism/Homophobia. And Liberalism is definitely not about considering the consequences of changes required to “fix” social ills. Even the smartest human beings are not smart enough to be able to predict long term consequences of changes to social structures. But Liberals are quick to dismiss the hard-won lessons of history and assume that because our current cultural affairs seem different from the past that we can ignore everything our ancestors learned over thousands of years. We’re in the long process of learning that’s not true.
But understanding that requires a higher order of thinking that is difficult to easily convey, and difficult for unintelligent people to understand.
I’m not asking why leftism prevails in the academy and media — that’s an intellectual phenomenon. I’m getting at why leftism is “cool,” why it has a pop-culture sheen, why it’s the high-status mode. Being an intellectual phenomenon isn’t the answer — that could just as easily be dismissed as the province of wonky eggheads. There’s something else at work, and it’s weirdly fascinating.
There’s a de facto Gleichschaltung among the media, the universities, and the cultural producers, based on the unstated understanding that they are de facto in power, culturally, and this is what sets the memes. Walter Lippman’s writings are instructive in this respect, when it comes to the “manufacture of opinion”. That production line involves the universities as “experts”, the journalists as the “disseminators of expert opinion” in a very real sense, the other informal connections between the government and the university “experts” in terms of policy formation, and the ultimate alignment of culture producers (tv, films, literature) with the same university-based intelligentsia as the journalists have. This applies even to “low-brow” culture like pop icons and so on, because the broader cultural opinions have already been formed.
So, for example, what the fuck does some egghead at Harvard or Columbia have to do with the popularity of Britney Spears among the lumpenproletariat? The answer is that said eggheads contributed greatly to the formation of government policy and public opinion through the mainstream media decades earlier in favor of female expression, sexual license and the like, and this “messaging” ultimately finds its way into the non-elite culture like fashion trends tend to do (from high to low culture after a time), thus creating a market for sleazy sexual music acts like Spears. There is no conspiracy at play. Everyone is acting in their own power interest — from the university professors entranced by their ability to steer public policy, to the media entranced by its ability to shape public opinion, to the producer entranced by his ability to make money, to the “consumer” entranced by her own sexual “empowerment”. It is a power loop, like a “power circuit” — that is how it works.
Asians get hit hard by affirmative action, harder then whites. And white liberals hate them. Yet they voted Obama bigger then ever before. Individual Asians can tell what will advance their individual interests and that is leftist status whoring.
And as for how it is “fashionable” for the non-lumpen, that’s even easier to answer: power.
The left is power, full stop. Personal power. Appropriation of power to oneself. Giving oneself power. Aligning oneself with the movement that gives you this power. Because it gives you power, and because it is the powerful movement among everyone else who is like you. It is the bloodstream of anyone who is anyone in the country, unless you actively resist it (and if you do, you will pay a personal price — believe me, I have done so myself, having lived and worked with these people my whole professional life).
And, to wrap it up more neatly, that power which you are appropriating, taking, and sharing with others like you, is a moral good. You are doing good, what the culture approves of as good. You are the “good guys”. “History is on our side” (not wrong, it is — doesn’t mean it’s right, but it certainly feels good and right to be in sync with historical trends), and we are doing good, being compassionate and so on and empowering ourselves and others in the process.
That is the seduction.
Brendan,
You sum it up quite nicely. I’m glad I’m getting farther away from these people in two weeks. I’m just finishing the worst year of my life (professionally at least).
If you don’t already know him I suggest Bruce Charlton for a good look at the religious implications of leftism. In his “though prison” piece he correctly diagnoses that the only rational for resisting leftism is the religious one. There is no material reward for resisting leftism. Not just on an individual level, but it is also foolish to belief your sacrifice will change the material world or “save society”. There is one reason and one reason only to resist leftism, because it is evil and it damages the soul.
This is why secular right movements like libertarianism fail. They are at best liberalism light. They offer no coherent argument not to become a leftist and in the real world have always failed to do so.
http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.com/
Why don’t you convert to political correctness?
Since you can’t do anything about political correctness, why not just make the best of it?
Why not exploit the situation instead of moaning about it?
Do what is expedient – why not?
*
Why not make a successful career out of PC – like so many others?
Why not surrender your private mind to PC, in the same way as you have already surrendered your public behavior?
By having any reservations at all, you are making yourself miserable – why not simply cast-aside those reservations?
Just say an inner yes to what you will, anyway, be forced to do…
*
Since you necessarily inhabit the thought prison that is political correctness – then why not, at least, become one of the ‘trustys’ among the inmates – to assist with the smooth running of the gaol, and get yourself a few privileges.
Why not, indeed, strive to become one of the guards? Somebody has to do the job? Maybe you could temper the severity of the regime?
And herein lies the particular temptation for the intellectual elite – a temptation few resist.
That (literally) soul-destroying pragmatism by which (for eminently sensible reasons) we quietly, by gradual degrees, change sides in the spiritual battle of the world: that unseen warfare between The Good and that which opposes The Good.
*
Well why not?
There is no earthly reason why not.
In a world of pervasive and powerful PC, there is really only one compelling reason for holding back and resisting in any way, shape or form – which is that embracing political correctness will shrink your soul.
*
If you do not believe in the soul, this reason will carry no force at all: so by your own calculations you are stupid to resist PC.
Or, if you believe the soul is inviolable, and that nothing you think or do can affect the soul: then also, by your own calculations, you are stupid to resist PC.
If you do not believe in Natural Law (innate knowledge of The Good), and that breaking Natural Law harms the soul: then logically you should learn to love PC.
*
If you do not believe in the reality of transcendental good – then you might as well go with the flow, allow yourself to be re-programmed: to learn, by regular practice, to re-label lies as truth, ugliness as beauty, evil as virtue; until PC has entered into your heart and soul, as well as pouring into your ears and out-from your mouth.
*
But political correctness is nihilism; therefore it is not merely political: it is also existential.
To fight against political correctness is therefore ultimately an existential act: a battle to preserve the eternal soul.
*
But if you do not believe that political correctness will harm your eternal soul: then you would be well-advised to suck it up.
Why not?…
ASDF –
I agree with Bruce on many points and disagree on a few others. He’s insightful, without question.
FWIW I think it is silly to claim that the only rationale for resisting leftism is religion. The reason for resisting leftism is science and pursuit of the truth.
As long as the resisters against leftism divide between atheist and religious, we are fucked up the ass seven ways till sunday. I agree with Bruce, but for goodness sake, we can ally with each other against leftism while disagreeing about religion, I think (and without us having to convert you, or you having to convert us).
The alternative is to default to the left, which is overwhelmingly dominant among non-believers, because of our divisions.
I don’t really see BGC as anything other but a more eloquent Pat Robertson. Modern Christianity is overwhelmingly traitorous and left-leaning. From what I can tell the primary purpose of the religion is supporting secular Jewish nationalists in their continued ability to expectorate on Christian tourists and making sure Africans breed at prodigious and unprecedented rates.
I’m sure BGC as some clever retort to that argument about who is and is not a “real” Christian, but whatever. As it stands I don’t see how doctrinaire Christianity is at all compatible with a traditionalist right-wing view. The Christianity of medieval Europe relied on the authority of the Church, so the only thing that would make Christianity ‘conservative’ is for the Church to have temporal conservative leaders, which still leaves you with the fundamental problem of supposed immortal, divine laws being subjected to the prevailing opinions of the society that spawned these infallible priests and their oft-revised opinions on immortal, divine laws.
All of the best Christians of yore are the ones almost definitely deemed to be in Hell by modern Christians, and all the more shameful is that modern Christians are probably objectively more Christ-like than their ignorant, bigoted, murderous, quasi-pagan Christian ancestors.
An Altar and Throne revival of Christianity is a joke unless you are proposing a coup of the Church itself, for the purpose of implementing more or less secular goals, which is totally ass backward and I’m sure is not what BGC is preaching anyway. I’d like to hear what exactly Christianity has to offer me and my posterity other than 10 billion Africans and the salvation of their worthless souls that aren’t worth a drop of my blood or a bead of my sweat.
It is very simple. Accept MY religion or burn in Hell. Islam destroys itself in Syria, and Political Correctness is intertwined with it. So Political Correctness destroys itself in Syria.
Kyle: I suppose if you believe that the evil Jooos are behind everything wrong with the world, you could make a case that the Evangelical churches are allied with him. As far as the mainline denominations go, they’ve thoroughly imbibed leftist pro-Palestinian anti-Zionism,
Berkley, CA. Cat avatar. What are the chances I’m replying to an effeminate libfag?
Anyway, thanks for informing me of the alternative offered by fat unitarian dykes cheering on the slightly browner faction of repugnant desert cultists, although their doing it merely because they are slightly browner doesn’t encourage me to like them very much either.
Brendan,
Ally with who? Secular atheists are a tiny minority. They offer no coherent refutation of leftism and they nearly all become leftists in time. Their political platform, libertarianism, is a complete failure. The only areas its gotten any traction are areas in which it promotes leftism (such as open borders advocacy). Ultimately its just another philosphy pushing fundamentally leftist first principles with some minor disagreements over method.
K(yle)
Bruce would agree with you about modern Christianity. It is largely fallen into heresy. He views leftism as a post-Christian heresy that takes certain aspects of Christianity to the extreme while ignoring others and taking a bath in pride.
“I’d like to hear what exactly Christianity has to offer me”
Eternal paradise. I mean its right there in the Bible. No earthly reason is ever provided, that was never what Christianity is selling.
“Secular atheists” should read “secular rightists”
“No earthly reason is ever provided”
Maybe another way to ask Kyle’s question is “what part of Christianity acts as a check on Christians working toward the creation (through charity) and importation of five billion Africans into my country.”
And a more general question is, by what mechanism is pure Christianity not a suicide cult.
My church has nothing at all to say about immigration or suicide cults or anything of the sort. It’s very true that mainline Protestantism is left-wing, and has been a major problem in the development of these policies, both in its “religious” sense and its today more common desacralized “progressivism” sense (here I agree with Moldbug that progressivism is a kind of desacralized American protestantism). But throwing away Christianity because there are Christian heretics who teach things like that, whether of the Protestant or, at times, Catholic variety, is like throwing away politics because some political people have whacko ideas.
But even more fundamentally, trying to have any sort of Western Traditionalism without Christianity is like trying to drive a car without wheels — it won’t go anywhere, because a key piece of what the Western Tradition *is* would be missing and, in this case, deliberately discarded. If you are going to discard Christianity because some Christian heresies led to progressivism, and some other Christians are plain stupid, you should also discard the philosophical tradition of the West as well for much the same reason. Neither would make any sense.
Mainline Protestantism is very left wing. I think I once saw a picture of Obama in my Pastor’s office. A big part of it is their desire to take care of the downtrodden in society. I can understand the appeal of that. However, there aren’t many Mainline Protestants left and we have diminished power in society. We probably aren’t going to be capable of taking care of other people much longer.
Well, I think Kyle’s point was that a society that follows pure Christianity gets itself overrun, and what prevented that from happening in pre-liberal Europe was a kind of Realpolitik of its rulers that curbed some of Christianity’s more self-destructively charitable tendencies.
I’m a Christian, but I disagree that Christianity is THE essential component of Western Civ. Is say its A key component (along with Classical and pagan traditions). If there is one essential “wheels of the car” part of being a Weterner, it’s bring of the white/European race. The hardware, if you will; with intellectual and spiritual traditions being the software that is not scalably compatible with all hardware types.
I want to throw in here since Protestants, Catholics, and Jews are being discussed within the context of immigration…..Catholics don’t get enough criticism from anti-immigration folks. It is the most diverse faith in the world. Catholic charities throughout the country provide aid to immigrants. They provide professional advice and suggest attorneys for immigrants who seek green cards and such. The first waves of Catholics were whites, of course. But after that well was completely tapped, we started allowing in Catholics of other races and ethnicities which everyone now believes do not properly assimilate. But it is Protestants – evangelicals mostly – that provide most of the opposition to immigration. They may send out missionaries to other nations and such, but white explorers brought Catholicism to North and South America and it is now often used to excuse various waves of immigrants.
Jews also get blamed for their support of multiethnicity, but what about Catholics who actively promote it and whose very existence is dependent on a huge Middle and South American flock?
“..Catholics don’t get enough criticism from anti-immigration folks”
I agree, and that is why I no longer give money in church. Funny story about that… a few years ago I attended Mass in an ethnic parish up in the Midwest, and the priest announced a second collection. As men’s hands were reflexively reaching for their wallets, the priest added “this collection is for Americans of African descent.” (it was not an English-language mass). As he said that, a soft but unmistakable collective groan was heard and most people put their wallets back in their pockets.
Oh, and I got banned from a Catholic blog by noting that the Catholic Church surrendered to liberalism on every issue except sexual morality.
Don’t forget Lutheran lady pastors up north and their enamorment with Somalians.
C.R.
Yes, the Catholic church is very corrupt on immigration. This is because Hispanics are Catholic and the church naively judges its “success” based on butts in pews.
Their stance on traditional sexual morality is a strong point for though. There are other areas of theology where they have remained pretty strong.
If you buy into the idea you should go to church, you’ve got to choose one. They are all going to be imperfect. You still have to decide.
“Christianity’s more self-destructively charitable tendencies.”
Extreme self sacrifice at the expense of other Christian virtues is one of the things Bruce rails against as heresies of the modern church. Taken to the extreme liberals will deny God himself and do evil acts in order to fulfill this perverted form of “charity”.
The Catholic Church imports Hispanics, who vote Democrat, first out of poverty, then out of liberal conviction. Democrats keep abortion legal. So the Catholic stance on migration keeps abortion legal. Ironic, isn’t it?
Basically. Today we’ve got Jews and Muslims in Christendom, and Christians do nothing. The Pope himself preaches interfaith dialogue. In Altar and Throne Europe you had the 1st Christian Emperor of Christendom going into pagan lands and giving pagans the opportunity to either accept the God of Christ or take it up with God personally and immediately.
Even the current “conservative” Pople that these Democrat American Catholics rage over isn’t anywhere close to being representative of Christendom (when it wasn’t corrupted and subverted anyway). He won’t even publicly realtalk about how Muslims and Jews are wicked and hellbound for rejecting Christ, much less go Charlemagne on them.
The most atavistic, far-right wacko Catholic or Christian is too far left to be of any worth in discussing some kind of restoration. That ship has completely sailed.
Those wheels aren’t on the Christian cart any more though, so trying to haul it anywhere is futile. Especially because all of the shit that it says in the Bible is antithetical to the “wheels” of traditional Christian practices.
Charlemagne is a saint for putting his political enemies to the sword, and converting pagans by force to consolidate his political power, and Jesus Christ and those that follow his teachings are heretics. What made Christianity good and right has nothing to do with Christianity and and modern Christianity has a lot to do with it. I get BGC’s argument (which is heretical btw) that modern Christians go overboard, but the problem is that they are even in the ballpark in the first place.
The only resurrection of the Church that is of any use would require a modern Pope to start burning the witches that have infiltrated nunneries and calling Crusades to cull the schismatic pagan death cultists in Mexico. What are the chances that this will ever, ever be Christianity again? The last Christian leader of Europe that actually did anything reminiscent of what made Christendom great and worthwhile was Adolf Hitler.
The last Church to condemn heretics and pagans to die in gruesome ways, and absolved Christians for murdering heretics and pagans was the last Church and everything since then has been heretical, degenerate and weak.
I’m not itching for widescale holy war and I’m not even a believer, but being that it is demonstrably true that not virtually no Christians would actually come when called shows me that Christianity is on cinder blocks, and has no wheels to offer.
I’d revise my opinion if the Pope summoned a few of these heretical American nuns to the Vatican and then had them executed, but I’m not going to hold my breath on that one.
Unsurprisingly a lot of the upper echelons of the Church is filled with conversos too. A truly hilarious anecdote is when the Cardinal of Colleges condemned antisemitism and European nationalism after WWII only to see many of its’ most prominent members go back to being Rabbis in the next few decades.
Torquemada where art though. Oh wait, he’s another great Christian of yesteryear that is almost certainly burning in hell according to Christianity of today, probably including the hierarchy of the Church itself.
College of Cardinals rather, but you know what I meant.
The point is not that the history of Christianity is beyond criticism. The point is that the anti-Christian alt right people assume pretty much the same stance toward Christianity as the progressive maggots do, which at the end of the day feeds them. It’s like “Oh, the Church made a lot of mistakes, so let’s delete the Church and yet still be partisans of the Western Tradition”. You can’t do that. It’s a category error. I agree with PA that there are the three main strands that comprise Western Tradition, but deleting one collapses the entire building. Criticism of the Church and Christianity is fine, but deleting it and then cross-dressing as a Western Tradition backer is worse than laughable.
Look, if you’re going to be de-sacralized, and there is no God and Church and what have you, then it’s best to be a progressive. That’s one point where I enthusiastically disagree with Moldbug. If there is no God, progressivism makes the most sense to me, because at least progressivism (which I agree with Moldbug is a kind of eccentric, heretical Christianity) aspires on the surface to being moral, while getting it quite wrong. A desacralized non-progressive secular state is a very, very, very frightening thing, whether run by whites or anyone else.
If there is no God, progressivism makes the most sense to me, because at least progressivism (which I agree with Moldbug is a kind of eccentric, heretical Christianity) aspires on the surface to being moral
Maybe REAL progressivism with unpleasant things like state-mandated eugenics that favor intelligence and beauty. At least there you do in fact get an omelette when you break eggs. Today’s so-called proressivism is regressive, in fact.
A desacralized non-progressive secular state is a very, very, very frightening thing, whether run by whites or anyone else.
That perfectly describes America today.
That perfectly describes America today.
It also describes what most of the atheist/non-Christian alt-right wants, other than the faction that wants us to be in the Thor and Loki bunch. Please.
Christianity smashed what came before it, and isn’t resistant to being smashed today. The end result is that it will continue to degenerate and bifurcate instead of being smashed with anything resembling any vigor.
My point isn’t that Christianity in the past has flaws. It’s that Christianity in the past was great but didn’t actually resemble much in the way of actual Christian doctrine. That the Christians in the past didn’t actually follow the teachings of Jesus and that the Church in the past fused Roman institutions, cold-hearted semitic zealotry and Germanic might and social cohesion into a single effective force.
Actually following the shit it says in the Bible actually undermines those traits. As soon as Christians became literate and started reading that thing, things.
This argument from Christian tradition is like the ‘moderate’ Muslims that have no rebuttal to their reactionary Salafist brethren. They can’t say that the Salafist is wrong because theologically he is right most of the time.
The Bible and modern Church can’t really justify the Crusades, the Inquisition, or Christendom spreading by sword and fire by European warchiefs hitching their wagon to it for temporal political gains. All those were good and necessary things though. Things that Christianity can’t countenance.
I’m not criticizing the past of Christianity, which isn’t something modern Christians do. Wherever Christians in the past followed their dogma to thought crime such as persecuting those practicing Jewry modern Christians will shy away and declare these bad things and mistakes of a less civilized people. Wherever Christians in the past didn’t follow their dogma for more temporal pursuits that were ultimately beneficial for their people modern Christians will be quick to condemn them.
It doesn’t even matter when Christians are actually privately believing in Thought Crime which their dogma leads them to, because you know they won’t voice it. If these literal immortals are too afraid to speak the truth revealed to them by an Almighty God I don’t have much use for them.
There is still the larger problem that when they do follow their Christian dogma it still leads to negative ends regardless of anything else they might mix up with it.
I don’t see where Progressivism aspires to being moral more than anything else. It seeks to redefine an ever shifting category of things that are viewed as immoral as moral which isn’t the same thing as aspiring to morality. You’d have to define “morality” as some kind of utilitarian/pragmatic universalism, which only highlights how deep this hole goes.
Nearly all ideologies seek morality, and like progressivism most seek to define those things that benefit the group promoting that ideology as moral. Anything else is probably Asperger’s.
I’m considerably more naked in my political viewpoint. I’m pro-things that benefit me, my ethny, and our posterity, and any abstraction to obfuscate this end game can go rot.
Pingback: Complete Grey Jigsaw Wide Angle