Tag Archives: Politics

The Strong Horse

Legionnaire has a post up on acting progressive to subvert the progressive machine. While I think has strategy has merit, I think it is not the correct path.

The first objection is simply the lefter-than-thou complex of the Jacobins. The Jacobins will happily cannabilize their own and their allies the instant they show any sign of impure thoughts.

You may be able to succeed in infiltration for a while, but eventually something you say will be outside the warren’s acceptable limits and you will be ejected. The strategy will simply not work long-term on an individual level.

But, far more important is that it will be counter-productive in the long-term.

****

The Jacobins succeeded by being utopian and nice, then slowly expanding the definition of nice. The original Jacobin revolution ended rapidly after they began the Terrors. The more moderate Gramscian Joacobins succeeded by inches. They positied one small change as “nice”, “fair”, “equal” and this didn’t seem so bad, so people went along with it. (ie: a small pension so the nearly dead don’t spend their last couple years in miserable poverty). Each little “nice” thing added up until we came to our current cruel, inhuman behemoth. (ie: A pension system where rich 65 year-olds play golf on their non-existent, unemployed grandchildren’s dime).

Reaction can not win that way. It is not nice and never will be. Reality in this fallen world is harsh and ugly; those who are putting forth reality will be putting forth something harsh and ugly, not something nice.

Violent restoration is near impossible and even if it succeeded, what we’d end up with in the end would hardly be what the reaction desires. I’m sure the Jacobins neither desired nor foresaw their revolution would end with a Corsican dictator and a Europe-wide war.

So we have to restore gradually, but we can not restore in the same manner the Jacobins ushered in their gradual revolution.

****

If we look at the current state of the Jacobins, we can see they keep their power mainly by control of the cultural institutions and by barely hidden aggression (such as that used on Watson, Richwine, Card, etc.). Neither of these can be defeated through Legionnaire’s form of subversion. It only plays into the Jacobites power.

By acting progressive you are further cementing the Jacobin’s apparent control over the cultural institutions. Know this, the apparent control is far weaker than it seems on the surface. A number of times in univerity after I made some right-wing (but not yet reactionary) point I was told after the fact that the person agreed with me but didn’t want to say anything. Others currently in the system have told me that people in the university system are not as left-wing as it seems, as its mostly a few really loud people and others simply going along to get along. The illusion of the Jacobin’s control is what builds the Jacobin’s control. By acting progressive you are furthering that illusion. By being open, you are shattering that illusion of consensus and control.

We will here go to Asch’s conformity experiments, which demonstrate that most people will conform to the group even when the group is objectively wrong in an easily verifiable way. Think about what kind of conformity can be manufactured for something as amorphous and hard to verify as politics.

But the more interesting part of the experiment was when the subject received a partner. The addition of a single confederate confirming the truth dropped the incidence of conformity by 80%.

If the Jacobins can force the illusion of progressive conformity, this will simply build the conformity, but if one person simply stands, the illusion is shattered.

As for the punishment, it is primarily social and economic. They can not use naked violent force, for that would shatter the “nice” stereotype they’ve built for themselves, so they weild social pressure instead. If reactionaries show an unwillingness to bow to this pressure and willingly accept the consequences they show the weakness of the actual threats (such as in Vox’s McRapey saga).  This cripples the threatening power of the punishment.

I made numerous crimethink in university. My favourite was when I stated, regarding affirmative action, “why should I be punished because my ancestors were better than others’ ancestors?”. One young women’s mouth, literally, fell wide open in speechless shock. Other than some minor attempts at shaming, I never received any punishments for my crimethink. My grades didn’t suffer, my friends remained my friends, my classmates mostly remained friendly. There were no real negative consequences apart from some easily ignorable shaming. If others see this, the threats will be robbed of their nonexistent power.

In addition, if reactionaries stand with those being punished, then suddenly the social and economic consequences aren’t so bad. If, for example, the right goes to see Card’s Ender’s Game in theatres en masse, this will further rob the Jacobin’s threats of their seriousness.

Reactionaries need to stand strong as individuals to destroy the illusion of control the progressivists have.

Reaction is the ideology of reality and of strength. If we look unconfident of our views, we will lose before the battle begins. If we show weakness we are dead. Hiding the reaction, even with the intent of subversion, will fail, because it will paint us as the weak horse.

Reaction need to be the strong horse.

Look to Islam; the West, especially the Jacobins, falls on its knees mouth wide open before the Islamicists, when what the Islamicists desire for our society is far more contrary and repugnant to the Jacobin’s stated beliefs than even the most extreme reactionaries. Yet the Jacobins bite the pillow and present themselves.

Why? Because Islam is strong. The Islamacists do not quaver, they do not worry about social ostracism, they do not worry about their jobs. They simply fight.

What we must realize is that the modern Jacobin is a spineless, emasculated sham of a man, and he knows it. He allows his women to control him, he licks the boot of his strongest enemies, and he worships those who would do him harm. He beats on conservatives because he knows they will play by his rules and fold in the face of his cultural power. Refuse to play by his rules, refuse to fold, and he will kneel. He knows he can do no other when facing his superiors.

The modern Jacobin women longs to submit to a real man. She is so disgusted with the eunuchs around her that she often chooses her career, or to be alone, rather than marry one. Lead and, even if she won’t follow, you will have respect, which is more than she will give the eunuch, even if she does marry (and divorce) him.

If reactionaries want to win, they must become strong, like the Islamicists, so the men kneel and the women respect.

Anti-Gun Neurotics

I came across this piece about a neurotic woman who buys a gun. (h/t: Tam) Just read these choice excerpts:

Walking into the kitchen to refresh our drinks, I noticed my purse with the 9mm Glock still inside it. I’d forgotten to lock it up! Panic set in as I realized my teen son was playing videogames just 10 feet away. What if he’d decided to get the socks I’d bought him from my purse while I was out on the deck? Thoughts raced through my mind and I pondered how I’d just straddled the fine line between being a responsible gun owner and an irresponsible idiot whose 15-year-old just accidentally shot himself or someone else with my gun.
…
Now all I think about are the sounds I hear at night. I lie awake thinking: “Is someone breaking in? How fast can I get to the gun? Will they hear me? How much time do I have before they get to my bedroom? What if they go to my son’s room first? Will I shoot them in the face or heart or stomach?” And then I think: “How in the world would I live with myself knowing I took a life?”

Sometimes the thoughts intensify and I can’t sleep at all. Mostly, the gun in my house causes me an anxiousness and fear that’s draining. And it leads to some questions that have no easy answers.
…
Another question: How accessible should the gun be when I’m home? A few nights ago, my son came home late, forgot his key, and knocked on the door. My first thought was, “Should I go get the gun?” I didn’t know who was on the other side of the door, and I was scared to find out as adrenaline surged through my body. I’m glad I didn’t get the gun because when I opened the door, I would have been a nervous, untrained mom pointing a gun at my son. The wrong split-second decision on my side would have been deadly.
…
Since having the gun I’ve had two repairmen, a carpet cleaner, and a salesmen in my home. If the gun’s for self-protection, it’s not going to do any good in the safe, but it’s not really practical to have the gun pointing at them as they work. How else would I eliminate the element of surprise if I were attacked? Suspiciousness and fear of people is new to me, and I don’t like it.
…
When I got to the second floor I became nervous, and the Oprah episode where a man attacks a woman alone in a situation just like this played in my head. I thought about the 9mm in my purse as I clumsily continued down the stairs in my skirt and heels. He followed me. I looked back at him so he knew I knew he was there (like Oprah’s expert suggested.) I thought: “Should I pull the gun out? Should I point it at him?” I realized the gun wouldn’t do me any good because he was behind me. My heart racing, we finally got to the lobby door where the man simply passed by me. I’d grown paranoid. He wasn’t the bad guy I perceived him to be, and the gun did not make me safe.
…
An untrained permit holder like me shouldn’t be allowed to carry a concealed gun in states that at least require training and safety classes. <b>I was actually relieved to have a break from the gun and the constant thought, attention, and worry it required of me.

This is absolutely insane. Her neurotic paranoia is astonishing to behold. She repeatedly blames it on the gun (in bold), ie. she believes a chunk of inert metal has power to control her emotional state, but its obvious to anyone with two working brain cells that her mental problems (assuming they aren’t just made up for the story) go a lot deeper than that.

What kind of extreme emotional instabilities does someone have to have to even briefly consider pointing their gun at a professional repairman they invited into their home on the almost non-existent chance he might start violence. This kind of paranoid insanity boggles the mind.

I thought the gun would make me feel more powerful, more confident, and less fearful. I was wrong. All I felt was fear. Physically taking the gun out of the safe and putting it in a holster on my hip literally reminded me that I was going out into a big bad scary unsafe world. There were days when I put the gun back in the safe and stayed home because it simply took too much energy to be scared. It was easier to be at home without the worry and responsibility of being “the good guy with the gun.” My awareness of looming tragedy was abundant. If I had to pull the trigger, my life, the person I shot, both of our families, and all who witnessed it would be changed forever.

This women lives in fear, but it has nothing to do with the gun. The gun only focused her fear on a single issue. Her fear is a base part of her mental make-up, it defines her, but she normally manages to disperse her fear into a generalized low-level paranoia by avoiding situations where she would have any ability to respond to it. The gun gave her the ability to be responsible and to respond, focusing her general pervavise fears onto a single object.

Which brings me to my point: maybe the anti-gun nuts are right, in a way.

Maybe the reason anti-freedom advocates hate firearms and hate freedom is because they are neurotic, paranoid, and incompetent and they know it. The freedom-haters know they would be grossly irresponsible if they owned a gun due to their mental insufficiencies.

Maybe many of the freedom-haters hate freedom because they know they would make horrible choices if they were free. They then project their own inabilities on the rest of the world and assume everybody is as thoroughly inadequate as them.

If I was as crazy as this woman, there is no way I would let myself near a gun. If I thought everybody else was as mind-meltingly unbalanced as her I would seriously reconsider my position on gun freedoms. Thank goodness most of us are more mentally stable than this.

I hypothesize that anti-freedom advocates are simply mentally unbalanced people who project their instabilities on others. In that kind of bizarro world of insane people, gun control would only make rational sense.

It seems like another case of leftists fearing themselves more than anything.

I think the last paragraph is the most telling part of the piece:

I felt a huge sense of relief the day I got rid of the gun. I no longer had to worry that my teenagers or their friends would use my gun when I wasn’t home. I didn’t have to worry that I would be in a situation where I would make a choice about taking another life. I didn’t have to worry that my gun would be stolen out of my car and then used to murder someone. And I didn’t have to worry that one day I would get a diagnosis or have a personal crisis and have a gun on hand to turn on myself.

This woman hates choice, she fears choice, she fears consequences.

This woman is a child afraid of the world who wants a father-figure (in this case the government) to make the big scary world and its cruel choices to go away. She is the very definition of a natural slave.

Read that again and think on it: “I didn’t have to worry that I would be in a situation where I would make a choice about taking another life.”

This women would rather suffer robbery, rape, or death than be forced to make a choice and live with the consequences of that choice. She would rather have death than responsibility.

Maybe I was wrong earlier on in this post. Maybe, the primary drive behind gun-hating is not a gun-hater’s self-awareness of incompetence, but rather fear of responsibility.

Maybe the freedom-haters fear responsibility so much, they would rather live and die as cowering slaves than have to make choices themselves.

Maybe natural slaves are just born natural slaves.

****

Other thoughts tangential to the main point:

In a way, her post supports expanded gun freedoms. If someone as thoroughly neurotic as her can own a gun for a month with no one getting hurt, maybe guns aren’t all that dangerous.

I noticed my purse with the 9mm Glock still inside it. I’d forgotten to lock it up! Panic set in as I realized my teen son was playing videogames just 10 feet away. What if he’d decided to get the socks I’d bought him from my purse while I was out on the deck? Thoughts raced through my mind and I pondered how I’d just straddled the fine line between being a responsible gun owner and an irresponsible idiot whose 15-year-old just accidentally shot himself or someone else with my gun.

I know I already posted this quote above, but I would like to highlight that she thinks her 15-year-old is irresponsible enough to blow himself away should he happen to come across a firearm.

I don’t know how she raised this kid, but sweet mother of Hades, is she really such an incompetent parent that her 15-year-old doesn’t have the basic commonsense to not immediately shoot himself if he stumbles across a gun? Given this article, it might be a possibility, but wow.

Maybe, instead of being a paranoid nut, she should teach her kid (and herself) proper firearm care and use (not to mention basic responsibility and commonsense). It might be more effective.

I learned that some gun owners aren’t very nice when you write something they don’t like. After my first post appeared on the Ms. Magazine site, I was called an “idiot,” “stupid,” “immoral,” “clueless,” “a coward,” and “dangerous.” One woman suggested I put the gun in my mouth and pull the trigger—and several tried to reveal my home address on the moderated comments section.

An incompetent, paranoid woman runs a smear campaign against normal, law abiding people, painting them as violent, dangerous, and incompentent, then she’s surprised when the same people she’s smearing react negatively. The nerve of them.

She ends with this:

My experiment was 30 days of my personal experience. I’m just a mom who wanted to see what it felt like. Now I know.

She has no idea what a regular gun owner feels like, because most of us are not incompetent and paranoid. I know I have never thought about shooting the repair man for repairing my furnace.

As well, most gun owners actually try to learn how to use their weapon before carrying it.

The Real Meaning of Zimmerman

There is a subtext to the Zimmerman controversy that I have yet to see fully explored, but is probably the most important aspect of the trial.

Steve Roney (h/t: SDA) almost touches upon it, but it gets lost in his larger argument that Zimmerman was a working-class man acting uppity:

Of course, this is more or less what the police would do; and it is obviously not a hanging offence when they do it. The problem is that Zimmerman, though in fact legally entitled to do this, was not formally qualified. He was acting above his station, in the minds of the professional elite, including “professional” journalists.

One can see how this would ring all kinds of bells, if subconsciously, in the typical newsroom. What professional group is more threatened by citizen volunteerism these days than the media? Zimmerman and those like him are to them an existential threat. It was in their vital interests to take him down by whatever means necessary.

While Rebel University touches upon the fringes of the issue:

By suing the HOA and winning this settlement, Martin’s parents have helped ensure that the crime rates go up in their own community, since other HOAs will learn from this and determine that having a neighborhood watch is an unaffordable risk. Having a neighborhood watch guarantees that there will be confrontation between the watchers and the “suspicious people”.  That creates the possibility that the watchers will be attacked by the “suspicious people” and that creates the possibility that some of the watchers will defend themselves with lethal force.  It is unavoidable.  The HOA lawyers will determine that having any sort of neighborhood watch is unaffordable.

If you’ve been following the Zimmerman trial even slightly, you’ve probably seen the accusation that he was acting like a ‘wannabe rent-a-cop’ or something similar a number of times, due to his involvement in his local neighbourhood watch. As The Crimson Reach stated, the entire premise of the moral outrage against Zimmerman was due to the fact that “Zimmerman found Martin suspicious, followed him in his car, called it in, got out of his car.”

This is what the left finds offensive. This is what the Cathedral finds offensive. This kind of behaviour is what the Cathedral is trying to eliminate through Zimmerman’s show trial.

They do not want you to get out of the car.

Zimmerman did.

****

If we look at the history of Zimmerman, he was a model citizen with a minor black mark or two from his youth:

At the time of the shooting, Zimmerman was employed as an insurance underwriter and was in his final semester at Seminole State College for an associate degree in Criminal Justice. In one of his interviews with police he stated his goal was to become a judge.

In early 2011, Zimmerman participated in a citizen forum at the Sanford City Hall, to protest the beating of a black homeless man by the son of a white Sanford police officer. During the meeting, Zimmerman called the behavior of officers on duty “disgusting” and detailed officers napping while on duty and refusing to take on difficult assignments.
…
From January 1, 2011 through February 26, 2012, police were called to The Retreat at Twin Lakes 402 times. During the 18 months preceding the February 26 shooting, Zimmerman called the non-emergency police line seven times. On five of those calls, Zimmerman reported suspicious looking men in the area, but never offered the men’s race without first being asked by the dispatcher. Crimes committed at The Retreat in the year prior to Martin’s death included eight burglaries, nine thefts, and one shooting. Twin Lakes residents said there were dozens of reports of attempted break-ins, which had created an atmosphere of fear in their neighborhood.

In September 2011, the Twin Lakes residents held an organizational meeting to create a neighborhood watch program. Zimmerman was selected by neighbors as the program’s coordinator, according to Wendy Dorival, Neighborhood Watch organizer for the Sanford Police Department.

Zimmerman was a normal person who cared about his community and acted to protect it. He voluntarily took on the mantle to watch his neighbourhood for suspicious activity and to stand up against police corruption.

George Zimmerman worked to build organic community. Any normal person would be thrilled to have a neighbour like Zimmerman keeping an eye out on things.

That is why he was made an example of.

****

In this particular case, he saw this suspicious-looking individual in his neighbourhood after a period of break-ins and other crimes. Like a concerned citizen who cared about his community, he reported the incident to police, then followed to keep a look out on the suspicious individual.

That was his crime. He cared about his community enough to try to keep it safe. He got out of the car.

And that is the whole point of this fiasco. It is the whole reason they rage against “stand your ground”. It’s the whole reason they fight gun freedom.

The Cathedral does not want you to get out of the car. The Cathedral does not want you to protect yourself or your community. The Cathedral does not want you to be able to trust your neighbours.

If you see Kitty Genovese, the Cathedral wants you to walk past. If you see a crime being committed against someone else, the Cathedral wants you to ignore it. If you see a suspicious person in your neighbourhood, the Cathedral wants you to ignore him.

Why?

So your neigbourhood loses social capital. So you can not trust your neighbours to watch out for you and your home. So you are forced to rely on the police and the state for safety rather than your neighbours.

They want you to destroy your trust in your neighbours and your local community so you become dependent on the state for security.

The Cathedral can not simply outlaw organic community-building and looking-out for your neighbours because that would enrage too many and would show their hand, which depends, in a large way, on being subtle. But someone died in this case in a possibly questionable manner, so the Cathedral had an opportunity to make an example. Zimmerman was the example.

Zimmerman was persecuted by the state for the purpose of making you think twice about helping your neighbour.

If I see someone suspicious in my neighbourhood and think of keeping an eye out on him? I remember Zimmerman: maybe I shouldn’t, it could escalate and I could become the next 2-minute hate target.

I hear what might be a cry for distress? Not my problem, it’s probably nothing and even if I intervene I could become the next Zimmerman.

I see someone rooting around in my neighbour’s backyard? If I intervene I could be the next Zimmerman.

Then, once everyone’s to afraid to intervene, out come the Kitty Genovese stories. I cried for help, why did nobody came to my aid? Someone robbed my house in broad daylight, why did no one intervene? A dozen people saw me being mugged, why did no one help me? Crime and drugs are rampant in my neighbourhood, why is nothing being done? This is the tenth time my garage has been tagged and my garbage overturned, why are my neighbours doing this to me?

The inevitable conclusion, I can’t trust my neighbours. I’m not safe in my neighbourhood.

Whatever the useful idiots might parrot, that is the whole purpose of this farce.

They want you to question yourself when you hear someone in trouble. Eventually, when enough people question themselves and do not intervene because they do not want to go risk a year-long trial, death threats, and public opprobrium, community trust collapses, because nobody is intervening to keep neighbourhoods safe.

Eventually, organic community dies, and the police and the state can step in.

The long march progresses.

“You can’t trust your neighbours, but you can trust us. We’re from the government and we’re here to help you.”

The Effects of the Red Pill

I don’t listen to the radio anymore, the only TV I have is Netflix, and I don’t read newspapers anymore except when linked to from some blog, so I’m fairly disconnected from the standard news. This weekend I was on a cart trip with some friends and we were listening to the CBC (the state-run broadcaster) and I realized exactly how deep the red pill has sunk into my thinking. Three particular items stood out.

The first was some news story about the protests in Turkey. The CBC was very much in favour of the protestors. The story was all about how oppressed the environmentalists, gays, and democrats protesting the regime were and how controlling the regime was for oppressing the greens and gays. They never got the side of the government or the majority of Turks who supported the government. Rather than supporting the protestors, I remarked how one-sided and biased the story was to my friends and found myself supporting the regime, simply based on how biased the CBC was on the issue. A few years ago I would hardly have noticed.

A little later a “debate” occurred concerning women’s declining fertility with age and when women should get married. One guest was against women marrying young so they could experience the world and be happy, the other was for women marrying young so they could find somebody and be happy. My friend remarked, ‘see, they cover both sides’. Then, red pill knowledge firmly in place, I told him how it didn’t both were the same liberal side concerned with happiness being the sole goal of marriage. Not a person addressed duty to family, God, or the nation, no one even mentioned are below-replacement reproductive rates, no one mentioned the health of the family or the country, no one mentioned the religious or societal foundations of marriage. Both women had the exact same argument: women should marry to be happy and no one should judge them for that, the only difference was at what age marriage would be the happiest. My friend then told me, they were never going to have that kind of debate on the radio; I told him that was exactly my point about the one-sidedness of it all.

Finally, a story about Nelson Mandela’s failing health came on. I was amazed by the almost painful cognitive dissonance of it. The whole story was about two things: 1) Nelson Mandela has been a foundational symbol of post-apartheid South Africa and his loss will greatly hurt the country, and 2) South Africa is in horrible shape, corruption is out of control, and it has been continually getting worse with people agitating to undo land reforms, etc., which is why the nation needs the symbolism of Mandela to hold itself together. The fact that this continual decline was a result of the regime Mandela helped put into place was enver even remarked on, even thought the entire story screamed this fact between the lines.

A few years ago, I wouldn’t have noticed any of this. The red pill is a strong drug.

MGTOW, MRA, and the Long March

I’ve written on the long march before and how the progressivists goal is to have us dependent on the state, how the alt-right, manosphere, and their issues are all related and at war with progressive unreality, and how we can fight the progressivists, or at least protect a remnant to rebuild when state-backed unreality is no longer sustainable.

The goal of the long march is to get us dependent on the state. The most effective way to do this is by destroying the community ties that bind us and create civil society. These voluntary, local ties to the individuals around us allow us to live free and independent from the state.

The strongest of these social ties are marriage and the nuclear family, so these are the ones attacked the most by the anti-civilization forces.

One tool in destroying the family is destroying male-female relationships, so that they never join together to become families in the first place. So, you end up with men writing things like this. Through feminism making modern marriage inhospitable to modern man, man stops caring about and for women and preemptively removes himself from the family.

But feminism is not the end goal of the state-worshippers, it is but one step in the process. The next step is the adoption of Men’s Rights and/or MGTOW. As No Ma’am outlines:

So, what’s next? What were the original goals of this Cultural Marxist plan? Well, in regard to the ladies, it was to achieve “true equality” by putting women back into the public work force, thereby destroying the entire concept of the family. In order to do this, women must be relieved of their biology as mothers, which is why V.I. Lenin instituted such things as no-fault divorce, easy abortion, community kitchens, sewing centers, housekeeping services, and state-run daycares. The goal of this, however, was not to “empower” women. That’s just what was said. Quite frankly, if you want to argue that Lenin was altruistically helping women be all they could be, you would be sorely mistaken. The goal was to take children away from their parents and bring them under the control of the state, instead of parents. Families, say Marx, Engels, Lenin and Feminists, are the founding cornerstone of Capitalism, and therefore all discrimination and oppression ultimately stems from the family.

But, no matter how much women hate men today, and no matter how much money they make shuffling papers around mindlessly in their cubicles, do you think that women would ever willingly give up their own children?

I think not!

The way to remove children from their mothers, via Marxist techniques, would be to abandon the cause of women and take up the cause of men. It can easily be pointed out now that it is men who are not treated equally, and dialectically speaking, it is quite easy to see how disenfranchised fathers could be manipulated into thinking shared-parenting (or, marriage 3.0) is in everyone’s best interests, and thereby empower the government to take custody of children away from mothers and place them in the custody of the State –  who will then decide a baby-sitting schedule for the sperm and egg donors. It is also not a stretch for oversight committees to be erected to ensure the “ongoing best interests of the child.” Heck, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s thesis compared children in the family to the corruption Indians experienced on the reserve. That wingnut Marxist believes that the government should create a new bureaucracy to represent children separately from their parents. In other words, each child ought to have a legal-aid lawyer representing them, so that their parents don’t abuse their power over them.
…
The idea of government taking custody of children today, however, is much greater than in the past. As the Bull Market in Anti-Feminism develops, more and more fathers are going to demand the government grants shared-parenting, which is quite obviously the foundation for government taking custody of children. Is it such a stretch of the imagination to see courts appointing government representatives – an unelected bureaucracy – instead of parents, who will decide what is “in the best interests of the child?”

Just because a backlash is developing against feminism does not mean it is a good thing, nor that it can only benefit men and society. Many of the things the MRM are requesting is in line with feminism – DV shelters for men is one example, and would only serve to increase government power in the home, not decrease it.

I can’t bear the thought of men being manipulated into becoming Useful Idiots who further feminist and Marxist goals.

Can you?

We have no great love for MRA’s here. While we do agree with some of their goals, fighting progressivism with greater progressivism (excepting in the case of well-executed black-knighting) is a fruitless endeavour. It will simply further drive another nail into the coffin of Western civilization.

MRA’s are not the solution, they are a distraction.

As well, going your own way is not the solution. With MGTOW, the family is even further destroyed. By removing himself from society, the MGTOW only further helps lessen the importance of family.

Same with PUA’s who are only the other side of the self-destructive hook-up culture.

As a man, you are meant for more than burning yourself out on the hedonic treadmill to feed the tyranny of the state.

****

Now, I am not encouraging you to ‘man up and marry that slut’. In fact, do not marry a slut or a women with baby rabies; a destructive marriage ending in divorce is worse for society than no marriage at all.

Find a good wife if you can.

In fact, I’m not telling you not to be a PUA, an MRA, or a MGTOW. You are free man, do what you want. Besides, there are probably not enough good wives out there for every man, so many will have to find an alternative.

All I want, is for you to think about it. To know that by fighting progressivism with more progressivism or by simply stopping caring, you are not helping the problem and are probably hurting yourself in the long run.

If you decide trying to fight the system is too much of a pain and want to be a MGTOW, I won’t condemn you, in fact I sympathize. If you decide that fucking sluts is too much fun, that is your perogative, but will you think the same a decade from now when every pussy feels the same and the mechanical sex is little better than emotionlessly masturbating into a very realistic sex doll?

Make an informed choice that is all.

Then again, maybe the system is doomed, and the PUA’s, MRA’s and MGTOW’s are simply hastening its inevitable collapse and hopeful rebirth. In which case, maybe they are doing civilization a service.

The First King – Reaction in the Bible

We here at Free Northerner (the royal we) are monarchists, possibly anarcho-monarchists. Becoming more reactionary by the day, we are probably now Jacobites. All hail the Stuarts.

In point of fact, we have made spirited defences of restoring the Stuarts in real life among both friends and strangers, to little effect, but still the effort was made.

Yet, labels do not fit us well, for we are also culturalists, subsidiaritists, and tribalists, and tribal English anarcho-monarchic localism, doesn’t really roll off the tongue.*

But, we are also Christian. In fact, our Christian identity should supersede our other identities (at least philosophically, if not always in practice).

So today, we will examine the neoreaction by the Bible (or at least part of it). For what is more reactionary than following the natural laws dictated by God thousands of years ago and sustained by tradition over millennia.

So, what does the Bible say of monarchy:

So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking for a king from him. He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.” (1 Samuel 8:10-18)

That’s kind of harsh towards monarchs.

But notice, a tenth. The king only takes a tenth. Our blessed, generous democratic government takes four-tenths, more if you dare provide good service to your fellow citizens.

Even God himself only asked for one-tenth, yet the democrat asks for many times that.

The king thinks himself the equal of God; the democrat thinks government to be greater than God, if not God itself.

If one-tenth was tyranny, what is four-tenths?

Anyway, it should come as no surprise to anyone reading this that the masses desired more tyranny, so God gave them their king.

So, a monarch may take less than the democrat, but God and his servant clearly believe that is tyranny compared to what came before, even if the mob demanded tyranny. So, what came before?

And the Lord said to Samuel, “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, wbut they have rejected me from being king over them. According to all the deeds that they have done, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you. Now then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them xand show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.” (1 Samuel 8:7-9)

Prior to the monarch God ruled directly. More accurately, the people constantly rebelled against the True King, got themselves in trouble in their rebellion, and then God rescued them through a judge, only to be abandoned once again.

And the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord and served the Baals. And they abandoned the Lord, the God of their fathers, who had brought them out of the land of Egypt. They went after other gods, from among the gods of the peoples who were around them, and bowed down to them. And they provoked the Lord to anger. They abandoned the Lord xand served the Baals and the Ashtaroth. So the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he gave them over to plunderers, who plundered them. And he sold them into the hand of their surrounding enemies, so that they could no longer withstand their enemies. Whenever they marched out, the hand of the Lord was against them for harm, as the Lord had warned, and as the Lord had sworn to them. And they were in terrible distress.

Then the Lord raised up judges, who saved them out of the hand of those who plundered them. Yet they did not listen to their judges, for they whored after other gods and bowed down to them. They soon turned aside from the way in which their fathers had walked, who had obeyed the commandments of the Lord, and they did not do so. Whenever the Lord raised up judges for them, the Lord was with the judge, and he saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge. For the Lord was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who afflicted and oppressed them. But whenever the judge died, they turned back and were more corrupt than their fathers, going after other gods, serving them and bowing down to them. They did not drop any of their practices or their stubborn ways. So the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he said, “Because this people have transgressed my covenant that I commanded their fathers and have not obeyed my voice,I will no longer drive out before them any of the nations that Joshua left when he died, in order to test Israel by them, whether they will take care to walk in the way of the Lord as their fathers did, or not.” So the Lord left those nations, not driving them out quickly, and he did not give them into the hand of Joshua. (Judges 2:11-23)

The entire book of Judges is simply an endless repeat of variations on the same story. If we go even earlier in the Bible, we can see that the ruling of these judges was a part of the law of God:

“The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen— just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’ And the Lord said to me, ‘They are right in what they have spoken. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. (Deutoronomy 18:15-19)

This tells us about leadership during crises but how about political leadership in everyday life? To that we can go to the law on how leaders were chosen:

“You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns that the Lord your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality, hand you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous. Justice, and only justice, you shall follow, that you may live and inherit the land that the Lord your God is giving you.(Deutoronomy 16:18-20)

“If any case arises requiring decision between one kind of homicide and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another, any case within your towns that is too difficult for you, then you shall arise and go up to the place that the Lord your God will choose. And you shall come to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision. Then you shall do according to what they declare to you from that place that the Lord will choose. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they direct you. According to the instructions that they give you, and according to the decision which they pronounce to you, you shall do. You shall not turn aside from the verdict that they declare to you, either to the right hand or to the left. The man who acts presumptuously by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So syou shall purge the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear and fear and not act presumptuously again. (Deutoronomy 17:8-13)

Before the monarch, Israel was a series of tribes, 12 tribes to be exact, who more or less ran themselves locally with the help of the priestly tribe. In times of trouble, a leader appointed by God would save their stubborn asses. Law and politics was handled by locally appointed judges and priests.

Theocratic tribalism was the order of the day in Israel.

The priestly tribe, although given much political and legal power, was set apart:

“The Levitical priests, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion or inheritance with Israel. They shall eat the Lord’s food offerings as their inheritance. They shall have no inheritance among their brothers; the Lord is their inheritance, as he promised them. And this shall be the priests’ due from the people, from those offering a sacrifice, whether an ox or a sheep: they shall give to the priest the shoulder and the two cheeks and the stomach. The firstfruits of your grain, of your wine and of your oil, and the first fleece of your sheep, you shall give him. For the Lord your God has chosen him out of all your tribes to stand and minister in the name of the Lord, him and his sons for all time. (Deutoronomy 18:1-5)

It’s almost platonic in nature. A tribe of philosopher-kings (theologist-kings?) running the show, but who are not allowed to accumulate wealth or land.

God did allow for “political evolution” though.

“When you come to the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,’ you may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again.’ And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.

“And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel. (Deutoronomy 17:14-20)

Despite his warnings of the corruption of kings later on, God did allow for Israel to appoint a king. Allowance does not mean it’s for the better though.

It’s almost as if monarchy itself were the first progress. This raises the question: is monarchism reactionary or are monarchists simply not dark enough? At the risk of trying to be darker than thou, should theocratic tribalism be what reactionaries, Christian ones at least, be working towards?

I don’t think it’s too important, either would be better than rule by the ignorant and apathetic and both were allowable and recommended by Old Testament law. Just something to think about.

Also, note how important the rule of law was under both tribalism and monarchism. It’s fairly obvious that the rule of law was more important to God than the specific ruler or method of ruling.

Who exercises power is less important than that there be law and the law be upheld justly.

****

From these readings we can tell the natural political order blessed by God is theocratic tribalism, although monarchism is allowable, even if it has its downsides (10% tax! The tyranny!). The rule of law is more important than either of these forms though.

At some point, I plan to look to the New Testament to see if there is a Christian political order apart from the Israelite order.

****

* Note for those who may be stupid: These are not code words. We are not white nationalists, white supremacists, nor white [insert label here], as whiteness is far too diverse and amorphous to base a community around (what have I to do with a Spaniard and what has he to do with me?). Neither are we racists, by any reasonable definition of said term. By culturalist and tribalist, we mean that people prefer to associate with people similar to them; either as close kith and kin (local tribalism) or by shared cultural understandings (culturalism). These are the two things one can build a cohesive society around: family or shared culture. For English nations, We advocate a return to a society based around the family, local community, and English culture. For non-English folk in English countries, we advocate them either accepting English culture and becoming English, or emigrating/separating to build their own societies however they please.

The Cathedral Footsoldiers

The Karamazov Idea has gone down and just a week or so after I added him to my blogroll. It seems he pissed off the feminists (this link is the second highest Google result for Karamazov Idea) and was threatened with being doxed. (Before he went he made this good post examining empirically the types of women who get tattoos. Check it out on this archived page.)

You may also remember that earlier this year CDM-N went down in a similar situation. A similar thing could have happened when Lindy West of Jezebel attacked Victor Pride, but Victor Pride fought back and he’s now given up his anonymity. Numerous other blogs in our little corner of the internet have had trouble with being doxed, outed, or real life attacks.

In larger culture, this has also happened to public individuals like John Derbyshire, James Watson, and, recently, Jason Richwine. It doesn’t matter how small or big you are, they will try to shut you down. Even in national politics we can see this, such as the recent IRS case.

Now, this is a common tactic of the left, using their bullying power to shut down people whose ideas they don’t like. The religion of the Cathedral is Truth and heretics must be stamped out. Thankfully, they haven’t gotten to burning people at the stake, yet, they simply try to take away your livelihood and economic future.

The left, supposed “free-thinkers” who love “critical thinking”, will try to remove your livelihood from you simply for expressing an opinion, or in Richwine’s case, simply presenting facts. But of course, we all know the left doesn’t like actual free-thought or critical thinking, these are simply code-words for intellectual stultifying conformity.

Eventually, unless something changes, these kinds of witchhunts will simply result in shooting. At some point, the right is going to get sick of fearing constantly for their jobs and their family’s food simply because of their political opinions. This will result in them realizing we have all the guns and the cowards at Jezebel, Gawker, et al. have purposefully disarmed themselves. The ‘fight’ at this point will be rather one-sided, maybe enough so to simply be a ‘cleansing’.

But that’s for the future. Right now, for us here in the manosphere/alt-right, this means we have to be aware of their tactics. There are three ways to deal with this: either need to have nothing to lose, such as Victor Pride who works for himself, or we must be willing to accept the costs of being the leftists’ enemies, such as Vox Day who has said before that he has lost work because of his writings (but I can’t find the link), or we must simply be anonymous, then back out when the threats come and let someone else takeover, such as with CDM-N and Karamazov. (There’s also the possibility of just being a fun guy like Danny, who no one seems to take offense to).

For myself, for now, I choose anonymity, it’s easier, but as a single man with no family to support and in a unionized government job, I’m not overly worried about being doxed.

Remember, be aware of the risks, but don’t let them stifle you. Leftists may be controlling, close-minded, tyrannical assholes, but they are not omnipotent.

****

Martel remarked at SSM’s:

In regards to blogs shutting down and the like, I though WE were the supposed oppressors. If we’re so damn oppressive, then how is it so easy for the oppressed to completely wreck our lives?

There are countless oppressors like Rollo and Roissy who have to blog anonymously (even me, although I’m not in their league yet), but victims of oppression like Amanda Marcotte and Jessica Wakeman use their real names. It’s like the oppressors are afraid of something but the oppressed aren’t.

However much the left might pretend they’re “fighting the power” or how oppressed they are, they’re lying to gain ideological points. The left has a firm grip on the levers of power.

The power differential is easy to see; leftists do not have to worry about being fired or having their anonymity slip because there are no repercussions for being a leftist. Rightests have to steel themselves and prepare, because being a heretic can end your career and economic livelihood.

****

Now having said that, I just want to examine that blog post about Karamazov’s post and its comments a bit.

The title of the blog post attacked Karamazov, “Karamazov Idea” Says Tattoos Make You A Slut. Of course, IIRC he argued that sluts where tattoos, not that tattoos caused sluttiness; the writer failed to distinguish cause from effect, but then again logic and feminists tend to have an adversarial relationship.

Now, one thing that will surprise no one, is that despite being against judging people on sexual history (the quip about “slut assignment” being case in point) they do seem to be a sexually judgmental lot. Some quotes from sluts who are opposed to sexual judgmentalism:

I have a $100 wager running that if this guy ever sees a naked woman in real life, he curls into a fetal position and vomits on himself.

I’m thinking that Christian Mingle wouldn’t even fuck him.

Sounds like someone was rejected by a woman with tattoos!

He’s totally a virgin.

Frustrated virgin dud really hates women who’re giving it up to everyone but him.

You’ll get laid someday little buddy.

Seething Dude w/ mommy-issues compounded by can’t-get-laid issues is seething.

Something tells me this guy has been rejected by too many tattooed women.

Pretty sure this is a sixteen year old boy who is super sad that he’s never seen pair of boobs in person.

That guy is a fucking douche. Majority of the female population has some kind of ink. So therefore no pussy for him. And he’s mad. I can read the anger through his little bitch boy post (s). He needs a high five to the face by a fierce tattooed up chick.

The only response I have for “Realism” [ed: one of the few sane people in the comments] is “HELLLOOOOO VIRGIN!” and this:

They are infuriating at first until you realize that they are just the new generation of guys who play Magik the Gathering and hold resentment that their moms made them zip up their jacket in front of girls.

Dude, you’re a 23 year old “man” with obvious mother issues. Sort yourself out before you die alone.

mommy issues… right???

Come hither, young Karamazov. I want to show you something fun you can do with your penis. No, it doesn’t involve sticking it in me. But it will be fun, and probably the closest thing you will experience to actual sex with a woman.

Here’s some of these people who are against discriminating against people based on their body:

Agreed… this guy has a teeny tiny little penis.

What this guy looks like in my mind. [image of fat, ugly man]

If only you had an echo chamber to console your tiny, lonely penis.

He does – it’s called his right hand. [ed. following prior comment]

He reminds of the dudes in grad school who used “intellectualism” and an interested in Christian theology as an excuse to say nasty things about women.

FWIW- those dudes were unattractive, socially awkward and didn’t get into their top choice PhD programs (or any).

Now, it should come as no surprise to most by now, but feminists are hypocritical when it comes to judgment. Men can not judge the sexual history of women, but at the same time those same women will happily judge a man’s presumed sexual history. “Slut-shaming” is evil sexism, but “virgin-shaming” is great. Shaming fatties and tattooed sluts who chose to deface their bodies is wrong, shaming a man through libelous accusations of having a small penis is thoroughly acceptable.

Remember, for the Jezebel and Feministing types, modern feminism has little to do with logic or principles and is simply the ideological wrapping-paper for the selfish entitlement complexes of sluts. Hypocrisy and illogic are all you can expect.

I wonder how these people would react if Karamazov called someone a cunt:

WOW I HOPE YOU NEVER GET LAID YOU MAN CUNT. ;D

Here’s a bit of irony:

Does any woman really care what this asshole or any man, for that matter, thinks?

This is being asked while 9 pages of women bitch and act offended by what he said. I know logic isn’t the feminists’ strong suit, but if any feminist reads this: [Protip]: not caring is the opposite of spending 9 pages bitching and being offended. Also, it’s kind of hard to argue no woman cares, when at least one spent enough effort to track him down in real life and threaten to ruin his anonimity. One woman even cared enough to start their own blog solely because of this post.

It seems women care a hell of a lot when someone points out that maybe making stupid choices in life is not the wisest move.

The best quote though, is this one:

I’ve been seriously toying with the idea of getting a tattoo for quite some time now but have been on the fence. Now, thanks to the Karamazov Idea… I know I definitely want one! So thanks a bunch douche bag!

You can really see the high level of decision-making skills in these gals: “Imma gonna permenently deface myself to spite some random guy on the internet I’ve never met and I think is a loser.” Fantastic.

****

Anyway, the point of this post: feminists are often hypocritical, but they have have the cultural power to hurt you, so be aware of that.

Or maybe they’re not hypocrites, but are just inferior beings who hold others to higher standards than they hold themselves.

The White Conservative Male

I recently watched Django Unchained, a movie I thoroughly enjoyed. At one point, slave-owning Leonardo asks concerning the blacks, “why don’t they just rise up?” The Last Psychiatrist already addressed this better than I could:

Anyway, perfectly ordinary slaveowner DiCaprio asks a rhetorical question, a fundamental question, that has occurred to every 7th grade white boy and about 10% of 7th grade white girls, and the profound question he asked was: “Why don’t they just rise up?”

Kneel down, Quentin Tarantino is a genius.  That question should properly come from the mouth of the German dentist: this isn’t his country, he doesn’t really have an instinctive feel for the system, so it’s completely legitimate for a guy who doesn’t know the score to ask this question, which is why 7th grade boys ask it; they themselves haven’t yet felt the crushing weight of the system, so immediately you should ask, how early have girls been crushed that they don’t think to ask this?   But Tarantino puts this question in the mouth of the power, it is spoken by the very lips of that system; because of course the reason they don’t rise up is that he– that system– taught them not to.  When the system tells you what to do, you have no choice but to obey.

If “the system tells you what to do” doesn’t seem very compelling, remember that the movie you are watching is Django UNCHAINED.   Why did Django rise up?  He went from whipped slave to stylish gunman in 15 minutes.  How come Django was so quickly freed not just from physical slavery, but from the 40 years of repeated psychological oppression that still keeps every other slave in self-check?  Did he swallow the Red Pill? How did he suddenly acquire the emotional courage to kill white people?

“The dentist freed him.”  So?  Lots of free blacks in the South, no uprisings.  “He’s ‘one in ten thousand’?”  Everybody is 1 in 10000, check a chart.  “He got a gun?”  Doesn’t help, even today there are gun owners all over America who feel that they aren’t free.  No.  You should read this next sentence, get yourself a drink, and consider your own slavery: the system told Django that he was allowed to.   He was given a document that said he was a bounty hunter, and as an agent of the system, he was allowed to kill white people.  That his new job happened to coincide with the trappings of power is 100% an accident, the system decided what he was worth and what he could do with his life.  His powers were on loan, he wasn’t even a vassal, he was a tool.

This is not to minimize the individual accomplishment of a Django becoming a free man.  But for the other slaves, what is the significance?

Of course Tarantino knew that the evil slaveowner’s question has a hidden, repressed dark side:  DiCaprio is a third generation slave owner, he doesn’t own slaves because he hates blacks, he owns them because that’s the system; so powerful is that system that he spends his free time not on coke or hookers but on researching scientific justifications for the slavery– trying to rationalize what he is doing.   That is not the behavior of a man at peace with himself, regardless of how much he thinks he likes white cake, it is the behavior of a man in conflict, who suspects he is not free; who realizes, somehow, that the fact that his job happens to coincide with the trappings of power is 100% an accident… do you see?   “Why don’t they just rise up?” is revealed to be a symptom of the question that has been repressed: “why do the whites own slaves?  Why don’t they just… stop?”  And it never occurs to 7th graders to ask this question because they are too young, yet every adult thinks if he lived back then, he would have been the exception.  1 in 10000, I guess.  And here we see how repression always leaves behind a signal of what’s been repressed– how else do you explain the modern need to add the qualifier “evil” to “slaveowner” if not for the deeply buried suspicion that, in fact, you would have been a slaveowner back then?  “But at least I wouldn’t be evil.”  Keep telling yourself that.  And if some guy in a Tardis showed up and asked, what’s up with you and all the slaves, seems like a lot?  You’d say what everybody says, “look wildman, don’t ask me, that’s just the system.  Can’t change it.  Want to rape a black chick?”

Then I read this. According to the statistics given about one in four women suffers violence/rape at the hands of men, although, I have read elsewhere that this number is exaggerated and one in eight would be more accurate. But either way, tThe original giver of these numbers seems shocked that these numbers are so high.

I think the better question is why are these numbers so low?

When men are dominant over women in absolutely every area of power: physical strength, political strength, economic strength, capacity for violence, etc., and these same women hold control over the one base desire to rule them all, why isn’t there more use of force by men to take what they desire?

Women have what men desire and there is little they can do to stop men from taking it. Yet, only a small minority do.

Why isn’t there more violence and rape?

Then I read this: white men are scary. The title says it all. Down in the comments Vanessa stated this:

White men gained power, not because of violence, but because of innovative technology and organization

That’s precisely what makes them scary. They’re not just violent, but clinically focused and horrendously efficient.

I’m German, you know. People think German men are cowards, but they’re not. They’re just very slow to anger, and thank God for that. It is as if the white men of the world have been asleep, and they’re starting to wake up. It’s going to get very scary very fast.

I’ve written about this before. The human male is the apex predator; the single greatest biological killing machine God and/or evolution ever brought forth. White men have brought this violence to levels of horrificness and efficiency previously unknown (except possibly Ghengis Khan).

And yet the question remains, as Vanessa points out:

I think the idea of “white male privilege” is the ultimate Frechheit. It’s not that white males privilege themselves, you ingrates, it’s that they privilege everybody else. They go out of their way to give help everyone else to the same standard of living that they have.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

I don’t know if this is ignorance, or their hate talking, but it makes them sound like clueless idiots.

I’ve written about this before as well. The white man created the greatest civilization in the history of the world and he has the unrivaled power to dominate any who oppose him and take anything he desires. Yet, instead of using this power for absolute domination and enslaving those who aren’t the white man, he allows others to become a part of his civilization.

Why is this? With this unrivaled power, Why does the white man not take more than a few nebulous “privileges”?

Then, we come to another roadblock: even among white men, there is a power differential, an ideological one.

Simply put, almost the entire capacity for violence among the white man rests in one ideological tribe, which, for simplicity’s sake, we’ll label conservatives. The military is conservative, the police are conservative, gun owners are primarily conservative, white males. This ideological tribe controls every level of violence in society.

Yet, in white society, these conservatives are the outer party. Almost the entirety of the government, the media, the education system, etc. rests in the hands of the conservatives’ rival tribe, which, for simplicity’s sake, we’ll call liberals.

This seems odd. The white, conservative male controls the hard power of society by a large amount, but invites others to share in his civilizational inheritance and allows the other white tribe to control the soft power.

Why doesn’t the white male, armed and capable of violence, take control of institutional soft power from the type of people who believe a moral lecture is “hardball”?

What is it about the white, conservative male that causes him to not use the power he has to dominate others?

Why doesn’t he rise up?

Following that: what happens if the white, conservative male sees he controls hard power and has the capabilities to completely dominate others? What happens if he decides to use it?

What happens when the white, conservative male realizes how the system is set up, and decides fuck this?

The system may seem invincible now, but as Vanessa said:

I think you are underestimating how angry young white men are and how little some of them have left to lose. They used to feel like they were the good guys, and they wanted to protect their reputation, but now they know everybody hates them.

From the Mailbox

Today, two things from the mailbox.

From Europia, one of my readers who wishes to remain anonymous believes that the tide will turn, but not in his lifetime:

You may find the following gem of some interest. The Anti-Family/Child Abuse PONZI Scheme Agenda will eventually cause TOTAL Social Collapse as some people have predicted. This will mean the END of the Cradle-to-Grave Western Social Welfare system. In the LONG-TERM Total Social Breakdown, which will make the Economic Mess TODAY look like a toddlers’ playschool tiff, will benefit Society, especially children. This will mean that a GOOD man of 40 – 50 years of age can marry a lady half his age and father 9 children. The young lady of 23 will have NO PROBLEM marrying a man of 35 years of age and having 8 children as HE will have a house & an income to make a family lifestyle practical. On the other hand a woman older than 35 will have great difficulties becoming a mother. We will see a return of LARGE families of 6 – 10 children as people will NEED the children to support the parents in old age. To a certain extent this return of LARGE families has started in Europe. In Portugal a new Pensions’ Law has linked a person’s pension to the number of children that a person had. So the BIGGER the family, the BIGGER the pension you get. I have NO ILLUSIONS that I might see this day. I reckon that Victory is about 40 years away of not firther away. But WHEN Victory comes and come it will, all the TOXIC PARASITES the “Family Court” judges, Legal Aid lawyers, psychotherapists, mediators, counsellors, social workers, etc WILL have to get a job as opposed to profiting from child abuse. We will also see, possibly QUITE soon, people grow their own food as people will be hungry as opposed to any sentimental reasons.

I found the part about the Pension’s Law interesting. I asked the reader about it, but he had only seen it on TV with no other information. If anyone else has more information or a link, that’d be great.

Second, comes a video sent courtesy of former manosphere blogger Will. It’s a video on how conservatism is a myth and a delusion. It’s pretty good:

Everything he say, more or less applies to Canadian conservatism as well.

The Problem of Natural Slaves

The problem with libertarianism is that most people don’t care about freedom. In fact, I would go farther: most people aren’t just apathetic about freedom but actively hate and/or fear it.

Freedom is naturally frightening. It is inherently risky and a free man’s actions will have consequences. The freedom to choose is the freedom to choose poorly.

A free man will face this fear, accept the risk, and live with those consequences, for good or ill.

Libertarianism and English liberalism are based around the concept of the free man and made for the free man.

Even right-wing ideologies that eschew freedom and abhor libertarianism still require the free man. Personal responsibility is an aspect of every right-wing ideology and only the man free to act, can be responsible for those actions. Organic community can only grow through free interactions, it can not be forced by the state. Even will-to-power fascism and related ideologies require free men, in the form of Nietzchian ubermensch and Platonic philosopher-kings, at the top to lead the natural slaves.

The free man is whom right-wing ideology is geared towards.

On the other hand, many, if not most, people are natural slaves. A natural slave is not capable of freedom, in fact, the natural slave loathes freedom.

Aristotle was the first to write on the natural slave in his Politics:

For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.
…
For the words slavery and slave are used in two senses. There is a slave or slavery by law as well as by nature. The law of which I speak is a sort of convention- the law by which whatever is taken in war is supposed to belong to the victors.
…
for it must be admitted that some are slaves everywhere, others nowhere.
…
We see then that there is some foundation for this difference of opinion, and that all are not either slaves by nature or freemen by nature, and also that there is in some cases a marked distinction between the two classes, rendering it expedient and right for the one to be slaves and the others to be masters: the one practicing obedience, the others exercising the authority and lordship which nature intended them to have. The abuse of this authority is injurious to both; for the interests of part and whole, of body and soul, are the same, and the slave is a part of the master, a living but separated part of his bodily frame. Hence, where the relation of master and slave between them is natural they are friends and have a common interest, but where it rests merely on law and force the reverse is true.
…
For there is one rule exercised over subjects who are by nature free, another over subjects who are by nature slaves. The rule of a household is a monarchy, for every house is under one head: whereas constitutional rule is a government of freemen and equals. The master is not called a master because he has science, but because he is of a certain character, and the same remark applies to the slave and the freeman.

Essentially, some are slaves of circumstance but not of soul, while others born to subjection and will be slaves no matter the circumstance. The latter are called natural slaves, the former we will refer to as circumstantial slaves.

What makes a slave?

For that which can foresee by the exercise of mind is by nature intended to be lord and master, and that which can with its body give effect to such foresight is a subject, and by nature a slave; hence master and slave have the same interest.
…
Hence we see what is the nature and office of a slave; he who is by nature not his own but another’s man, is by nature a slave; and he may be said to be another’s man who, being a human being, is also a possession. And a possession may be defined as an instrument of action, separable from the possessor.

Some are so afraid of acting self-destructively or choosing poorly as they are incapable or unwilling of choosing that they would rather have someone exercise their mind and foresight for them than to have to exercise their own mind in freedom. These people are naturally another man’s as they are incapable or unwilling to be their own man.

These are the natural slaves.

****

In Western society, direct slavery is mostly extinct (barring some illegal sex slavery) and even when it did exist it was slavery by law and by war, circumstantial slavery, rather than natural slavery.

Natural slavery on the other hand is a dominant political thought-stream throughout the west.

The natural slaves continually beg for their own disarmament. They plead for themselves to be left at the mercy of predators and their masters.

Half of the US population is on government benefits while the government controls 41% of the economy, and still the natural slaves demand more government and more dependence. While the US is self-destructing, the natural slaves debate frivolities. Most of the rest of the West is as bad or worse.

Feminists, and women in general, get on their knees begging for the state to control their bodies and provide them with choice at the expense of freedom. They believe themselves entitled to the enslaved labour of men.

We already see the end result of the natural slavery mindset in Black Americans. A group that whole-heartedly supports the political party that dedicated itself to their slavery. The party that continues to purposely force dependence and weakness on them, enslaving them through the welfare state.

White society is following rapidly behind.

Westerners are becoming so afraid of freedom, that they are willingly and purposely selling themselves into dependence and slavery.

****

Now, admittedly, many modern people with servile minds may not be natural born slaves. The state indoctrination system has had a large hand in training modern society to a mind state of servility, and so many of the people who may appear natural slaves, may simply be circumstantial slaves who have been trained that way. But having been indoctrinated so thoroughly in the servile mindset, I fear many, if not most of them, will not become free men any time soon, so I will, for the purposes of this post, count them as natural slaves.

****

The problem is, how should a free society do with natural slaves?

The will-to-power right-wing ideologies can answer this question easily, have the ubermensch be their masters.

But freedom-oriented right-wing ideologies have a conundrum: how can the natural slave be integrated into a society created for free men?

It is cruel to oppress free men with a slave society, but is it not also cruel to impose a free society on those whose very natures revolt against against it?

How can a society oriented around exercising freedom be anything but oppressive for those incapable of exercising freedom?

Even if the natural slaves are integrated into a free society, given sufficient time, won’t their natural hostility to freedom assert itself, leading to the decline of freedom in that society, as is currently occurring throughout the English-speaking nations?

I don’t really have answers to this.

The existence of natural slaves poses the probably the greatest ideological conundrum for the libertarian.

****

That’s not to say I don’t have any ideas, but I’m not sure if any will suffice as an answer.

Could children are educated as free men from an early age, could we not make circumstantial free men, just as a slave-mentality oriented education produces circumstantial slaves? Is that possible? I don’t know, but it seemed to work, somewhat, for English-speaking countries prior to the mid-1900’s.

We could create a voluntary program, where natural slaves can contract away their freedom to the government or to other individuals in exchange for the protection and provision of the government. It’s a possibility, but it seems prima facie unworkable and impractical.

The best bet is probably subsidiarity; we could concentrate power locally. This way natural slaves and free men could self-segregate. Free men could live in municipalities and states/provinces where freedom was valued, while natural slaves could live in municipalities which took freedom away in exchange for comfort. The US and Canadian federal systems could, with some tweaking, provides a good backbone for this sort of system. but how long could this last until the natural slaves envy and hatred of free men and their masters’ lust for power led them to try to re-assert centralized authority?

Maybe free men could simply create their own country and refuse natural slaves entrance? But how would you test for natural slaves and keep them from the country? Who’s to say they wouldn’t invade out of their hatred for freedom?

I’m not sure what the proper response to natural slaves it. What do you think of the problem posed by the natural slave?