In keeping with the thrust of my articles over the past several weeks, let’s have a bit of fun. Tally up how many of the following 39 statements you agree with, and think about why. I’d love to hear your results in the comments. I’ll share more about the list and my thoughts, at the end.
1. All forms of racial segregation and discrimination are wrong.
2. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion.
3. Everyone has a right to free, public education.
4. Political, economic or social discrimination based on religious belief is wrong.
5. In political or military conflict it is wrong to use methods of torture and physical terror.
6. A popular movement or revolt against a tyranny or dictatorship is right, and deserves approval.
7. The government has a duty to provide for the ill, aged, unemployed and poor if they cannot take care of themselves.
8. Progressive income and inheritance taxes are the fairest form of taxation.
9. If reasonable compensation is made, the government of a nation has the legal and moral right to expropriate private property within its borders, whether owned by citizens or foreigners.
10. We have a duty to mankind; that is, to men in general.
11. The United Nations, even if limited in accomplishment, is a step in the right direction.
12. Any interference with free speech and free assembly, except for cases of immediate public danger or juvenile corruption, is wrong.
13. Wealthy nations, like the United States, have a duty to aid the less privileged portions of mankind.
14. Colonialism and imperialism are wrong.
15. Hotels, motels, stores and restaurants in southern United States ought to be obliged by law to allow blacks to use all of their facilities on the same basis as whites.
16. The chief sources of delinquency and crime are ignorance, discrimination, poverty and exploitation.
17. Communists have a right to express their opinions.
18. We should always be ready to negotiate with the Soviet Union and other communist nations.
19. Corporal punishment, except possibly for small children, is wrong.
20. All nations and peoples, including the nations and peoples of Asia and Africa, have a right to political independence when a majority of the population wants it.
21. We always ought to respect the religious beliefs of others.
22. The primary goal of international policy in the nuclear age ought to be peace.
23. Except in cases of a clear threat to national security or, possibly, to juvenile morals, censorship is wrong.
24. Congressional investigating committees are dangerous institutions, and need to be watched and curbed if they are not to become a serious threat to freedom.
25. The money amount of school and university scholarships ought to be decided primarily by need.
26. Qualified teachers, at least at the university level, are entitled to academic freedom: that is, the right to express their own beliefs and opinions, in or out of the classroom, without interference from administrators, trustees, parents or public bodies.
27. In determining who is to be admitted to schools and universities, quota systems based on color, religion, family or similar factors are wrong.
28. The national government should guarantee that all adult citizens, except for criminals and the insane, should have the right to vote.
29. Joseph McCarthy was probably the most dangerous man in American public life during the fifteen years following the Second World War.
30. There are no significant differences in intellectual, moral or civilizing capacity among human races and ethnic types.
31. Steps toward world disarmament would be a good thing.
32. Everyone is entitled to political and social rights without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
33. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and expression.
34. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
35. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.
36. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security.
37. Everyone has the right to equal pay for equal work.
38. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions.
39. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
The 39 sentences were written by James Burnham, in his book The Suicide of the West. Burnham recognized that Liberalism was a “syndrome,” producing incoherent attitudes and unprincipled exceptions in Western civilization to the detriment of its inherited, Classical and Christian Tradition. These articles illustrating post-revolutionary thought, can expose how effectively the solvent of Liberalism has acted upon Western minds, obliterating all trace of the old order.
Many who think of themselves as men of the “right,” nowadays, would agree with many of the points. A solid man of the right will disagree with all or nearly all of them, however. I ran into these articles on another man’s blogs some time ago, and I’ll share the comments I had at that time, here. I’ll go somewhere further with this, in upcoming articles.
My tally:
Agree – 2; Agree w/Qualification – 2; Disagree – 30; Disagree Vehemently – 5.
This is the key difference between a partisan of the Left’s Revolution, and a Reactionary: the partisans of the Revolution believe in “rights” irrespective of what is Right (i.e., you have “rights” to do things that may in many cases be morally wrong or irrational), whereas a Reactionary holds to the only logically coherent view, substantively present in Pagan philosophy and enshrined in the Holy Tradition of the Church: “error has no rights.” This is because a right is a claim based on justice, and there is no just claim for a blanket permission to engage in behaviours irrespective of their moral or rational quality.
Nevertheless, it will in many cases still be right to tolerate things that fall short of perfect justice, because this serves the greater good more effectively than an attempt to ferret out all imperfection in society. This is not only common sense, but is the teaching of all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. But once you enshrine the idea that people have a right or entitlement to engage in behaviours that should at most be tolerated in some instances (and punished in others), you have exposed every good and decent thing to the corrosive influence of incoherent, Modernist, Liberal thought.
Take #34 (free speech), for example. Nobody is entitled by right to think or say, let alone do, whatever they please, irrespective of its content and quality, however much this is or should be tolerated in certain circumstances. Yet, we can truly say that our tradition strongly prefers that everyone have his say (I won’t say “her say”), in many cases. There is a difference between saying there cannot be a right to a wrong, and saying that wrongs must be outlawed; it is often praiseworthy to tolerate wrongs, but this must not lead us to accord rights to what is wrong.
In a sane society, there is no “right” for sodomites to publicly celebrate rectal abuse, or for socialists to demand that we should all be robbed and disinherited by the state, or for feminists to disobey their husbands and argue for their independence from male authority. They certainly have no right to speak so; indeed, it is we who would have the right, on our side, to compel their silence—even with force, in certain circumstances. Though, we may in certain cases do better to tolerate them (increasingly big emphasis on “may”).
What did I agree with? I agreed with the proposition that torture is wrong (if “torture” is a deliberate and calculated affair; beating the crap out of a detainee because you need the code to disarm the nuke that’s about to go off is not “torture,” it’s the only morally decent thing to do). I also agreed that, at present, Congressional Investigative Committees are likely to be dangerous, and require oversight.
I expressed qualified agreement with the notion (#6) that folk may revolt against tyranny – provided that the tyranny is actually immoral, and provided that one abides by the guidelines of Reason and the Church (esp. as articulated by St. Thomas), which discourage pointless bloodshed if there is little chance that armed conflict will succeed in its aims of abolishing the tyranny. I also feel a qualified agreement with #13 (that wealthy nations have a duty to the less fortunate), provided we understand that the duty is one of charity, not one of strict, legal obligation.
I disagreed with the rest.
I vehemently disagreed with notions #15 (compulsory desegregation) #28 (the state must ensure universal suffrage) #29 (allowing teachers to overrule even parents in the name of “academic freedom”) #35 (the will of the people shall be the source of the state’s authority) and #39 (people are owed a living). It seems to me that the common factor in my especially righteous indignation at these notions, is due to the fact that, in addition to having no rational basis (as with most of the other notions), they also go on to call for proactive violence against the reasonable view. I.e., it is already irrational to assert a “right” to free speech and “academic freedom” irrespective of objective morality; but it goes a step further to actually use these erroneous concepts as a weapon against parental rights, which actually do exist and are morally sound.
I used to think segregation served no purpose but giving vent to racism; reviewing crime statistics and recent events, and coming to realize that property rights and the right of free association are morally sound, I now see that business owners both have legitimate interests, and a positive right, for excluding anyone they wish from their property. Justice isn’t about utopian ideals; it is about finding the equilibrium where no actual right is violated, however far this may fall from a moral ideal, in a very imperfect world. Or, as to #35, it should be obvious that all authority is vested in truth and exercised from above, so rooting it in the whims of authority’s rightful subjects is itself the essence of stupidity and self-contradiction.
Let me know your thoughts, and we’ll go from there next week.
Read More: It’s Becoming Too Dangerous For College Males To Date Girls On Campus
40. Women should have the right “to choose”
Laundry or kitchen right?
Dude don’t be an asshole. Women should absolutely have the right to chose. When it comes to swiffer or traditional broom, interfering with a woman’s choice is a huge mistake
You forgot the choice of the vacuum cleaner as well, you oppressive shitlord.
That’s ok for them to chose too. I’m a modern thinking man. Bounty? Scott? It’s a woman’s right to chose
Spit/swallow?
Internal/External?
Undies/Commando?
Cook/Clean? then Clean/Cook?
Strapped/Strapless?
Bit gag/Ball gag?
Leather/Lace?
Spanking/Spanking?
No, no, no, both, no
Q. Your wife is banging on the front door and your dog is barking at the back door. Which door do you open first?
A. The back door because your dog will shut up after you let him in.
That probably makes sense if you have any idea what it’s like to have a wife
1-5 no
6 maybe
7-13 no
14 yes
15-21 no
22 yes
23-25 no
26-27 yes
28-32 no
33-34 yes
35-37 no
38 yes
39 no
Just curious why yes on 38?
same principle as the right to join a militia, secret society, or other group.
it’s a right not granted by the government to associate with those you want, or to accomplish a common goal with that group.
I don’t agree with your reasoning because of a small technicality, but that’s a nice reasoning!
The technicality being: some people or religious people are always trouble and should have no right for free association.
Agreed (with qualifications) with seven of them. Disagreed without hesitation with the rest.
Interesting article/experiment. I consider myself to be extremely right wing, so I guess it just goes to show how much you can be corrupted by your peers and your surroundings if you’re not super vigilant.
A lot of these statements are usually traps set by the ingenuous. See the porn=basic right example.
It’s an interesting test. I overwhelmingly disagreed with the majority of the points, but there were a few I would definitely qualify:
– We should be ready to negotiate with anyone, ally or enemy. However, we should also be ready to walk away from negotiations, engage in hostilities, and any other action which is in the interests of our nation.
– Completely free speech is a problem – the “fire in the theater” issue stands out. However, it is extremely dangerous to regulate speech, because governments have always been composed of irrational (and too often malicious) people. So, ideally, there would be a very small set of regulations that do not inhibit the flow of ideas but do inhibit dangerous behaviors. (In a non-ideal sense, it seems to me preferable to have no regulation over allowing regulators to control all narratives).
– Trade unions are double-edged swords. For every benefit there is a downside, and we too often ignore them. While everyone should have the right to form and join such unions, the power of said unions should always be kept in check.
– Die gedanken sind frei. However, when it comes to expressing ideas, there will always eventually be conflict. I’d go with the argument that everyone should be allowed to express themselves, but no one should be compelled to listen or provide platform for said expression. I don’t want to see “Piss Christ” or that series of fecal paintings, and nobody should be able to compel me to see such things.
– Peace should be our goal. But I believe in peace through strength, where our nation is at peace because no one wants to tangle with anyone who fights as savagely and overwhelmingly as we.
“- Completely free speech is a problem – the “fire in the theater” issue stands out. However, it is extremely dangerous to regulate speech, because governments have always been composed of irrational (and too often malicious) people. So, ideally, there would be a very small set of regulations that do not inhibit the flow of ideas but do inhibit dangerous behaviors. (In a non-ideal sense, it seems to me preferable to have no regulation over allowing regulators to control all narratives).” I also would like to point out that websites such as ROK are the ones who are in threat of being banned. Not stupid shit like Buzzfeed.
Homerun AM
I disagree with many of these and the ones I don’t I really don’t understand. I really am totally blind to politics and avoid where possible.
I did wonder about free education. That is a big issue to me.
I am a believer that everyone is entitled to a free primary education. It is to my benefit to live in a society where people can read and write and do basic mathematics. I don’t mind ponying up some taxes to make that happen.
Further, I think university should be free though not to all people. Universities should be for the absolute top 20% of students, should be palaces of learning, be incredibly competitive, pay the highest salaries to the best faculty and be utterly free to the students.
That said: it simply isn’t for everyone.
So yes I am for a free education for all people if we are talking about a) primary education and b) a place where the cream will be noticed and passed on to consideration for university studies and yes I am for free university for the absolute best students but without these qualifiers then no.
I would favor a more traditional system, closer along the lines proposed by Montessori (who believed education should be focused on the individual instead of the averages of society).
1) Primary education should be provided primarily the elderly and the parents. Part of this idea derives from the Chinese word for teacher, which basically translates to “the Elder’s Job”. This would encourage the development of the excellent, allow for maximum attention to the slow, and eliminate the restrictive nature of modern education systems.
2) Education degrees should be abolished. There’s no reason a person should spend 16 years in school to teach the ABCs to toddlers. Instead, teaching should always be done by those who have mastered skills.
3) Apprenticeships should be encouraged in greater ranges of fields. For example, a child with an engineer’s mind should be apprenticed out to other engineers, to both learn the basic skills and glean the benefits of decades of work. These apprenticeships should be of greater availability to both the young (teenagers) and the older (adults)
4) Universities should be replaced with something akin to an Academy. I’m thinking publicly-supported institutions where anyone can teach, anyone can attend, and there are exchanges of ideas without accreditation.
EDIT: I’m backing away from the “publicly supported” Academy a bit. While I think it prudent to publicly support the structure of the Academy, it makes most sense for people to pay their Academy teachers directly. That improves the selection rate – bad teachers will leave because no one wants to pay them, and good teachers will thrive.
What about Secondary Education? What about people who can’t fucking teach for shit?
The benefit of this system is decentralization of teaching. There are many university professors who, having taught the same basic material for decades, still cannot teach for shit.
Secondary Education (assuming this means the education of teens, not college) is all but worthless to most people. Instead, apprenticeships would allow people to develop valuable skills and start to produce meaningful work more quickly.
As for teaching the Liberal Arts, that’s what the Academy would largely exist for. Between that, books, and the Internet, there are many sources for people to learn.
“There are many university professors who, having taught the same basic material for decades, still cannot teach for shit.” This is why people should teach on teaching ability, not field ability, as you propose.
“Secondary Education (assuming this means the education of teens, not college) is all but worthless to most people. Instead, apprenticeships would allow people to develop valuable skills and start to produce meaningful work more quickly.” lol okay. Not all education is work based… What about learning musical instruments? What about gun safety? What about science? What about history? Philosophy? etc.
Gun use, musical skills, and the like are all based primarily on individual labor under a tutor. Rarely are such things taught in the education system to any appreciable degree.
History, philosophy, and the other liberal arts can be learned through books or taught by teachers. The Academy system would wean out weak teachers because they will not have students (and thus, no income from the Academy).
Science, math, etc. can be understood at a basic level by most people. There’s no reason I can find why most Elementary education in these fields cannot be run by a combination of parents and “elders.” For more advanced aspects, most people either don’t need to know or would acquire such skills through a form of Apprenticeship system.
Most recipients of Education degrees have extremely average IQ’s, and many are extremely poor teachers with weak grasps of their subjects. It is clear that the current system does a poor job screening for quality.
“and the like are all based primarily on individual labor under a tutor.” A tutor? You mean, A TEACHER! Well yep, you are back at square one…
“History, philosophy, and the other liberal arts can be learned through books or taught by teachers. The Academy system would wean out weak teachers because they will not have students (and thus, no income from the Academy).” So then you really aren’t against secondary education. You just want it reformed. Well I can agree with you on that…
“Science, math, etc. can be understood at a basic level by most people.” No way… Most people would think dihydrogen monoxide is a deadly chemical if they were told so…
“Most recipients of Education degrees have extremely average IQ’s, and many are extremely poor teachers with weak grasps of their subjects. It is clear that the current system does a poor job screening for quality.” Well look to Finland, they found a solution to this…
A tutor is distinct from a teacher in that they operate outside the establishment of education.
A tutor doesn’t need a degree or a certification to teach a skill, though many do seek out such. I learned gun safety and use from my father and uncles; I learned to sing from a church choir director; I learned to play guitar from an old Jazz guy.
I would like a system that encourages tutoring (by those with the skills and ability to teach) and discourages an establishment pipeline.
“A tutor is distinct from a teacher in that they operate outside the establishment of education.” Soo basically this was just a big fancy way for you to say you don’t want to pay for private education. Okay, good day…
How so?
Because what does it matter if this tutor is private or part of the public system? Why would you care?
I find little value to the public system, where everyone pays for someone with a magic sheet of paper to try to teach every kid in the same way. However, your assertion that I don’t want to pay for education does not seem to effectively derive from my arguments.
The Academy would pay teachers. Individuals would pay tutors. Apprentices would provide labor.
Such a system would surely require everyone to reply to their natural incentives, I would think.
I would love to continue this discussion, it’s one I feel strongly on, but I need to prepare for a night where, if lucky, I will sodomize someone whose name I don’t yet know.
That said. Everything about the system right now is fucked. But that doesn’t mean that public education (basic witting, reading, mathematics, social studies, history, a foreign language, how to play an instrument and physical education) is a bad thing. Just that it is being done incorrectly.
Step one: demolish the teachers union
“if lucky, I will sodomize someone whose name I don’t yet know.” Don’t get teh Aids…
“That said. Everything about the system right now is fucked. But that doesn’t mean that public education (basic witting, reading, mathematics, social studies, history, a foreign language, how to play an instrument and physical education) is a bad thing. Just that it is being done incorrectly.” Agreed. We should be looking at countries that do have good education and using there systems….
I can’t get aids I’m white and straight and don’t use drugs.
I’m not dead set against this with the exception of number four. Allowing anyone to teach and an exchange of ideas is a bad idea I think.
I want to be taught chemistry by a chemist who is very well paid causing a super competition for that spot. There are people who dedicate their lives to literature and philosophy and are very good at it and I want to learn from them.
As for parents teaching the kids I’m on the fence. Maybe if they get some kind of certificate course in how to do it. But even then, it takes the element of socialization out of play. I have always get homeschooling was a huge mistake
You’re thinking along the lines of the current system, where children spend the majority of their waking hours in the education establishment. By limiting education to fewer hours a day (or as many, depending on how the “elders” evaluate a child’s progress), children get more opportunities to communicate and play with less regulation. It’s more like how the Amish teach their kids – they learn up through eighth grade in the afternoon/evening (most of them master basic calculus by the end) and work or play in the mornings.
Chemists, et al, would be permitted to teach in the Academy at will or to train new chemists through an Apprenticeship system. It puts a greater onus on the individual to pick their teachers, learn outside the system, and apply skills in a meaningful way.
No doubt current system needs to be scrapped and something new (or rather old) replacing it.
I will say that while I am sure some homeschooled kids do alright I have zero faith in homeschooling as a whole and as an employer would never hire someone if I knew they were homeschooled
Also hours really depend on education. Yes primary needs fewer. However, particle phycisist needs more. I’d like my cadeologists to spend a fuck load of time learning that shit
Doctors already apprentice, but only after spending years absorbing knowledge that is only tangentially related to their field. I cannot find a good reason for a cardiologist to master Organic Chemistry when their practice rarely requires such knowledge, for example.
Imagine this: a student spends a few years as an apprentice Physicist, grinding through practical problems with guidance and streamlining a degree of the work of their masters. After that apprenticeship is done, the same student apprentices himself to a Particle Physicist to learn the particulars of that field. In the end, he receives about the same amount of education with fewer extraneous materials, while providing meaningful work (eventually – for a year they’d likely be more of a hindrance than a boon), in fewer years.
I can accept that.
I was not homeschooled, myself, but my cousins who were appear virtually indistinguishable from the average child – they have the same hobbies and similar abilities to converse and emote, but they spend less time in school.
Then again, I have seen some weird homeschooled kids. While I’m not convinced there are more weirdos who learn at home than there are in schools, the data is unclear.
Essentially what bothers me about home schooling is that 80% of the people I’ve met in my life are so fucking stupid I am shocked they can eat cereal without drowning. However 100% of parents I’ve met think that their kid is great. Something doesn’t jive. Kids need hurdles given to them without a biological imperative to think that the kid has some kind of value.
I am also a big fan of learn to socialize, even with asshole, and learning how to stand up for yourself while still respecting authority.
We can do a whole hell of a lot better than what we have, I just don’t believe homeschooling is the solution
Yes, as well they should (about doctors). I wasn’t saying they don’t, but that im glad they do.
What about the case of a theoretical physicist? A theologian? A philosopher? A sociologist? A poet or novelist?
There are good ones. They deserve the chance, time and freedom it takes to open open those trains of thought.
I’ve thought about this problem myself. I have a pet theory that if we took all the money we spend on education which is about 10+k per child and gave it to the parents with the condition they had to spend it on their kids education only, then 10 or so parents could band together and hire a university professor to be their kids tutor. The kids could basically get the best of both worlds then….. So long as they lived in a perfect world I suppose.
This is possible, though it takes out the aspect of socialization I think. you would need to make damn sure your kid was in team sports too. Also, there is a certain thing that comes with learning to deal with peers at that age that, i think, can’t be replaced.
Yes, of course it’s not as if other tutors and their pupils will not interact with each other, rather I think this would be the norm. Examples of this would be fields trips, mueseam visits, hikes, ect. Which would be much more frequent. Socialization will be different, but I think it would definitely be there and perhaps even more prominent than what takes places in government schools as groups of ten or so are more able to form tribal like bonds. And sports are definitely a must I took this for granted and did not mention it.
The Greek Academy of antiquity mandated wrestling, training, and related sports to all its pupils, in addition to their studies. Clearly they knew the value of competition and team sports to developing children.
The tribal tutoring concept you propose is intriguing. It’s not at all unlike how I envision my proposed modifications, but likely easier for most people to conceive. Very nice.
I would prefer to phrase it, “it is of benefit for them to have the chance…”, but point well taken.
I cannot speak to theoretical physicists (because the very few I’ve personally known proposed theories that seemed internally inconsistent), but the rest tend to self-select and, to a substantial degree, self-educate.
Theologians in our day have access to cheaply-printed Bibles, hordes of scholarly works, and the Internet. Using these, even a layman like myself who has chosen to forgo seminary can study and explain the Scriptures and the mysteries therein. The same is true of philosophy and sociology.
(As a semi-tangential topic, I find the seminary-educated pastors tend to understand the Scriptures less well than many of their congregations. The Frankfurt School has a pretty firm grip on their institutions, as it does on philosophical education.)
As for poets and novelists, most of the best do not have degrees in English, Literature, etc. They read, and as a result of their readings they come to appreciate and understand what makes those prior works great. This informs their work.
I was homeschooled and the misconceptions about it are pretty widespread. Socialization was easily achieved through Scouts, Church choir and youth group, sports (plenty of nonschool sports for high school aged people, martial arts, rowing, fencing,etc.). The quality of my education was superior to anything the local public school could offer (when I took the SAT I got a perfect verbal and missed one math question).
That being said…my father was an engineer from an elite school and mother was a professional artist with a bachelors degree. They were uniquely positioned to do it right. I’ve also met many other homeschoolers in the same boat. It really isn’t for everyone though.
I did say that I think it can be done, just that it is very easy to fuck Up and a lot of things have to be going for you. It seems like you had everything on point and that is great.
My mother was sweet but as dumb as a bag of doorknobs and my father was no better in the brains department and he wasn’t sweet to say the least. We were very poor and if not for a public education I would be a total waste.
I am sure there is a way to do homeschooling well, but it will take a confluence of situations that is simply not very common
4) is a very interesting take
free education is fine in an ethnically homogenous state, but not in a melting pot.
I don’t understand what ethnically homogenous state has to do with anything. A meritocracy would allow for the cream to rise. I simply don’t see this having anything to do with ethnicity and, if it did, in a real meritocracy it would show itself. The fear of competition with other races is unbecoming a man.
A public school should be an expression of a nation’s culture, not a liberal indoctrination camp that promotes multiculturalism, or DIEversity. Plus, inferior races tend to have an r reproduction strategy. They breed more children, whom have much lower average intelligence. That creates an unfair and unnecessary burden for white communities who have less children and whose children tend to do much better in school.
Why should blacks live in white countries? They offer nothing of value. When you mix shit with ice cream, it’s good for the shit, bad for the ice cream. Do you really want to waste your tax dollars sending Takeesha’s 8 ungodly negro children to school?
Plus, keep in mind, whites will always do better than blacks, so there will always be an element of black envy which means that blacks will vote for any politician that promises them goodies at the expense of whites.
It shouldn’t be an expression of culture or an indoctrination camp. Those are equally stupid things for a school. It ought simply be a place to learn, to interact socially and to get some basic musical and athletic experience.
Your example of mixing shit with ice cream is a good one in a way. I agree that it is good for the shit and bad for the ice cream. But by the same token, why should I want to mix myself with other whites — especially ones who resort to cultural identity in lieu of personal achievement — as I am much better in every conceivable metric.
Simply, and not to put too fine a point on it, to me you too are a nigger. Just another person I had no use for who wants to feed off of my success. That has nothing to do with color.
You can get down from your high horse. Nobody is feeding off of your success, or most likely lack thereof.
The bottom line is that having a mix of blacks and whites in the same country provides no benefit to whites, and a plethora of benefits to blacks. I’d like to have a system based on meritocracy, yet you cannot have that when you have a group of lesser, envious beings that are constantly used as pawns on the political chessboard.
A public school will always be an extension of a nation’s culture. There is nothing wrong with having a collective culture, so long as it promotes disciplined and productive values.
Sorry, but I like my high horse and there are a multitude of people feeding off of my success, not the least of which white people who think that being white makes them special because they are in the same group as me.
I find it odd to hear you say that having a mix of blacks and whites in the same country provides no benefits to whites whereas I think that having a mix of stupid, weak and ineffectual whites and intelligent, successful and strong whites serves no purpose to the latter — well, come to think of it…
I never understand why whites who are so against blacks are always so surprised when more successful whites don’t see a point to having them around.
Actually, in-group inequality is something to embrace. Not everyone can be or should be a doctor or engineer. We need tradesmen, factory workers, and alike. A normally distributed intelligence bell curve is perfect for a country, not a left or right skewed one, which is what you get when you have too many blacks.
I really doubt very many whites look to you and say “see, I’m like this guy, because I’m white!” Strong people tend not to boast their perceived self importance on internet forums so much. I think you have a severe case of narcissism.
I just don’t see the difference between low functioning blacks and low functioning whites. I know plenty of high functioning black people who we are much better served having than any number of the dipshits on, say, WN websites like daily stormer which just sounds like a bunch of menstruating women complaining about shit they are, in the end, afraid of.
The difference is that a far greater percentage of blacks are low functioning, which tips the bell curve terribly unfavorably.
I just don’t see it buck. I see a bunch of idiot hillbillys trying to latch on to their ancestors or their race to puff themselves up and make themselves seem, to themselves and others, more than they are….just low functioning morons who are weak, afraid and effeminate.
I guess we will just have to leave this disagreement on the table. Good luck with the whole race war thing. Stock up on canned goods.
You are unable to argue the facts, so you resort to straw man arguments and ad hominems. Also, judging by all this pathetic, pseudo-Alpha chest beating, I think you may be spending a little too much time on ROK. It’s best to take it in doses. Just food for thought.
Do yo know what “ad hominem means” ah never mind.
You seem to want to equate quality with race. I want to equate quality with quality. You are looking for patters which emerge with absolutely nothing other than your own preconceived notion of which way things really are before hand.
Like I said, you are no different than the savage black in my eyes. You are all filthy niggers.
I am sure you couldn’t dream of competing with high functioning blacks just like low functioning blacks couldn’t compete with high functioning whites. You want so badly to have just been born special…like harry potter?…and the truth is..you ain’t shit until you have done something. Being white confers nothing of any value on you.
and anyone who’s observed and honestly evaluated the world we live in has also equated quality with race. Almost nobody would choose to live in the best black country if they could live in the worst white country. Must all just be a coincidence.
you are still missing the point that I am not saying blacks are good I am saying that shit brains come in all colors and that your lineage and your race do not make you a special snow flake
It is a simple fact of history that any time differing races and cultures mix in close proximity, the end result is always violence and acrimony.
We don’t live in a perfect world, and as much as we may wish that everyone was a forward-thinking bien-pensant, deracinated from his visceral links to his own culture, always civil and getting along with everyone, the fact is that there are many average and sub-average people that would make this impossible in any case… and, even in the case of the above-average folk, something precious is lost when culture disappears amidst the flattening effect of multiculturalism.
Ethnically homogenous states are good not because other races are bad, but because the integrity of the local population’s sense of identity and culture is an intrinsic good, which never survives the mixing of races and cultures in any significant quantity.
The only thing that can truly unite men under one banner is the blood of Christ (thereby undoing the curse at the Tower of Babel); nothing else short of a semi-autocracy (Singapore is a good example, and even they have problems) will truly do it.
Yes; the Truth will set you free. Western Civilization used to be based upon Truth, and so it developed the most advanced system of true Freedom. When the West apostatized, its highly advanced system of Freedom, now in the hands of the reprobate, became the most advanced system of “freedom” – i.e., tyranny.
A more succinct formulation (from Heartiste? I think): “Diversity + proximity = war.”
So you would value a smart stranger over a less-intelligent family member?
Depends on what I am valuing them for. I have family members that add nothing to my life so I have cut them totally out.
The larger point is that I value myself and my individual accomplishments without reference to others
Too true; I never know if I can take it for granted that the men here would read Heartiste. They should, since he often proves that brevity is indeed the soul of wit.
A major point I want to drive home, is:
There is a difference between should and must, and a difference between a worthy toleration and a right.
For example, I agree that we should teach most kids the three r’s, and I agree that there should usually be a wide tolerance for Free Speech in an healthy society under normal circumstances.
But, I do not believe that kids *must* be taught the three r’s as a matter of absolute obligation of right, nor do I think there is an absolute right to Free Speech. The attempt to make these generally desirable things into absolutely mandatory things, is the source of many problems.
I started going to this site not because it was on the conservative right, but because it was simply off the political radar: a place for discourse on subjects and ideas often considered unspeakable. I still do not consider myself on the right, or part of a political party or orientation that demands conformity of thought and action. I am not a robot or sheep. I am a man on the Earth.
I am 100% pure SHITLORD
Right. Many here, righteously disturbed by the West’s Cultural Marxist rot of late, seem to embrace and conform to this regressive theocratic monarchism and pigheadedly reject everything else as “of the left” and synonymous with Carl the Cuck and Big Red.
One does not have to favor flat or regressive taxation, dominionism, or libertarianism in order to oppose our degenerate, gynocratic social trends. There are other, post-medieval solutions.
Case in point, whether you’re a fan of them or not:
https://i.sli.mg/t0zoKx.jpg
https://i.sli.mg/YYwITv.jpg
A lot of poor whites in the hyper-Protestant white culture of America
must also understand that what is good for the rich is not necessarily
good for workmen like them. Your boss is not your friend. The relation between worker and employer, like all relations in business, is in fact adversarial.
Oh, and James Burnham was (as the dominionists would say) a “damned atheist” for most of his life, opting for the “presto-change-o deathbed repentance” to cop out in the end.
Oh yes, and to the libertarian ancraps, here is your candiate:
I agree with you in many ways. In general, I find most ideology and isms to be antithetical to independent thought. There always seems to be a demand for “linkage” of one issue to a completely unrelated issue. Let me give you a simple example. I ardently believe that conservation of the environment and the resources we extract from it is essential, and I am willing to make some economic sacrifices in order to ensure future generations can utilize these resources. Because of these beliefs, people will assume I am also I pro-choice. In other words, they think that because I am willing to sacrifice my own comfort for future generations, I believe women should have the right to obliterate that future generation in their womb. They make this assumption without any sense of irony. The Democrats told them that the issues are practicably interchangeable, and so in their minds they must be.
What is “independent thought?” All thought is dependent upon other data. I am not interested in “independent” thought, so much as in rigorous, clear, correct and fecund thought.
The high culture of the West is itself the product of millennia of profound, clear, rigorous thought by the world’s greatest minds. One could certainly subscribe to it without owning it or appreciating it properly.
But, I am convinced, it is actually the highest and most correct thought ever to have existed on the planet, and for that reason, many great minds subscribe to it more or less wholesale, not because they are followers, but because they are fine minds and think alike.
Hitler was modernist. Whether we like it or not. He would have despised pre-18th century Europe.
Usury based capitalism and communism are two sides of the same coin. Read Gottfried Feder’s manifesto. National Socialism had nothing to do with the common concept of socialism/communism/Marxism. It was all about destroying bankerdom/interest slavery.
This is why libertarianism appeals. I only want to be liable for debt that I enter in to willingly as an individual. “Taxing the unborn” as Stefan Milyneux refers to it seems clearly wrong to me.
Shrink the state and you het rid of unvoluntary usury. Which has got to be most of it.
The problem is that charging any interest on a loan makes for an impossible and unsustainable long run scenario, which is something libcucktarians will never tell you. The only way for the borrower to pay the lender back the principal plus the interest is to make someone else poorer, as there is no more money in the world (unless the interest rate perfectly matches the increased supply of money, which is pointless). There is no way to monetize such a system, it’s the world’s oldest scam and the most powerful and dangerous weapon. It’s what creates oligarchs. It’s what turns society into haves and have-nots. The lender’s wealth grows exponentially without having to contribute any labor himself. It matters not if the government is the one doing it or not.
Too much individualism will make us vulnerable to being conquered by the ruthless blood tyrants which have created the atmosphere that force men to congregate in places like ROK in the first place.
I agree with you, but too much conformity will create an atmosphere that is as repulsive as well.
Did you read the 39 points? They are very much off of today’s political radar, since most of the points are things that even Republicans would agree with. They are not “Conservative” in the American sense, but in a radical sense which alone can confront the political errors of modernity.
22 no’s vs. 17 yes’s im red pill as there is
Everyone has the right to free education and health care for all citizens. Yes, the State and general taxpayers money should ensure this for every citizen.
On which basis do you derive these rights? I’m always eager to learn.
As a natural right of citizenship. An educated and healthy populace is worth spending the State’s monies on.
The first sentence is tautological to your first comment. The second, though, is valid and interesting.
However, it’s not a “right” in that case. What that statement implies is that, so long as general health and education is beneficial, the state benefits from provision. In any case where it does not benefit the State, though, the “right” would naturally have to disappear.
No, an educated populace is a pipe dream, a fugazi, its a wazi its a woozy, its fairy dust. Lets consider who is doing the teaching and what they are being “taught”. As for health care, survival of the fittest my man, If they aren’t holding their own to the point of being productive enough to afford insurance, what is wrong with letting nature take care of their useless asses?
If a government is in total control of education and health they can bend it to their needs. It rigs the system to a point that it very well may become diluted and therefore useless.
“No, an educated populace is a pipe dream, a fugazi, its a wazi its a woozy, its fairy dust.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Finland
:As for health care, survival of the fittest my man, If they aren’t holding their own to the point of being productive enough to afford insurance, what is wrong with letting nature take care of their useless asses?” Because Socialized Healthcare makes healthcare cheaper overall. The UK only spends as much on health care FOR EVERYONE, as we spend on medicare and medicaid, and they still have better health results. Can you imagine that? Wouldn’t you like to have healthcare, without insurance, and without a tax raise?
Then why do all countries with universal healthcare have better health outcomes than the US?
The fuck are you talking about? Why to people from all over the world who have cancer and other major diseases fly to the US for treatment?
Healthcare costs have gone up since we instituted universal healthcare and the coverage’s have gone down.. try again
“Healthcare costs have gone up since we instituted universal healthcare” We? Who is we? Assuming you are an American, you are full of shit, the US never had and probably never will adopt Universal Health care… Anyways, health care has gone up EVERYWHERE, weather Universal Or Non Universal, and that is due to increasing complexity of medicine and increasing average age. But, health care costs have gone up in non universal countries more than Universal Countries…
“the coverage’s have gone down” Universal Health care means by nature no one is not covered. A health care system where everyone isn’t covered isn’t Universal. I am now 100% sure you are American…
You are confusing a well schooled populace with educated. What advantage to finish people have over Americans for instance? What is their average income? how do they differentiate between who is more qualified for a job? They are all the same right? I enjoy earning my money and my rights to do things that others less motivated than me cannot. If God wanted everyone to be healthy and live as long as possible he wouldn’t have given us the naturally weak and vulnerable body to live with in which it is up to us to keep up and strengthen.
Im not 100% sure you have a working brain so I guess we can agree to disagree huh?
1) Those people are mostly from undeveloped countries, people like that are from Nigeria, not Sweden. 2) Those people choose to go to the US because we have a free market system, this allows foreigners to come use our services. Countries like Norway aren’t going to let foreigners come suck up healthcare resources payed for by the public.
P.S. Cancer isn’t the only thing that needs to be calculated. The US has way higher death rates from Heart Disease than every European country, it has a lower life expectancy that every Western European country and almost every developed nation on earth, and the highest infant mortality rate of any developed nation and even higher than some undeveloped nations. That is a pretty shitty health outcome for spending 120% MORE THAN THE UK!
lol, you just admitted you are full of shit. What country are you from? Unless you are not American, you don’t have Universal Healthcare… Also unlike you, I have bloody sources: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective
“What advantage to finish people have over Americans for instance?” Well, Finland has a literacy rate of 100%, compared with the US rate of 86%. Finland consistently ranks as having the highest rate of scientific literacy of any country using the PISA, and in the off years it is always in the top 3. (Though the other high countries are Asian, which I do not trust)…
Finland spends about 1/5 of what the US spends on Education, I am sure you wouldn’t dislike that.
The World Economic Forum ranked finish tertiary education as the best in the world.
Those are just some examples, I don’t have time to do a comprehensive paper…
“What is their average income?” There are WAY more factors that effect this than education. One being that they have no resources besides timber and fish… But if you want want to know anyways, the average annual salary for a four person family with one working parent is 42,909.72 euros.
“how do they differentiate between who is more qualified for a job?” I am not sure the exact qualification system, but it is quite competitive and hard. Requires a masters degree and only 10% of applicants get a job.
“I enjoy earning my money and my rights to do things that others less motivated than me cannot.” As I said, they only spend ONE FIFTH what the US spends…
“If God wanted everyone to be healthy and live as long as possible he wouldn’t have given us the naturally weak and vulnerable body to live with in which it is up to us to keep up and strengthen.” fuck it… Let’s get rid of all healthcare!
One word. Obesity. Its not a heath care issue as to our death rate or heart disease. As far as Life expectancy, US pop lives on ace to be 80, as opposed to I think Monaco or Japan at 88. What is the quality of life at 80-88.. That’s debatable whether its advantageous to burden your family for 8 extra years. Our infant mortality rate is among the lowest in the world.
Sooo, what good is this 100% literacy and all these super cool rankings? This is not a country that functions on the levels in society that The US does. Its like saying people in Portland are have a higher literacy rate than those in Detroit. Finland doesn’t have the same factors to warrant a comparison. This is apples to oranges if I’ve ever seen it.
US life expectancy is 78. Anyways though, if you die of natural causes, it’s could be anywhere from 75-100+. It’s not that the those countries are preventing natural death, it’s that those countries are treating other things such as disease and physical complications better.
Like I said what country are you calling we? The UK? US? France? Who is this “we”?
“Sooo, what good is this 100% literacy and all these super cool rankings?” More people who can work in more jobs. Do you really think that higher literacy isn’t a good thing in it’s own though? It’s fucking literacy, you don’t need a reason for it to be good…
“This is not a country that functions on the levels in society that The US does. Its like saying people in Portland are have a higher literacy rate than those in Detroit. Finland doesn’t have the same factors to warrant a comparison. This is apples to oranges if I’ve ever seen it.” Oh, okay, so what variables are you speaking off?! Why did you fail to actually give any?
Its 79.86 actually and does it mean that? or does it mean we have more rock stars dying of drug over doses at 26 and 5 year olds dying in drive by shootings or maybe its black on black crime, normally taking the lives of under people under 40 years old. May its our top 15 murder rate, or the high amount of prison inmates. There is also the millions of illegal immigrants that probably factor into the mortality rate since they likely die in US hospitals and hence contribute tot the death count. The US is a different animal. You cant compare it to Finland or even Canada. Its not that cut and dry. It just isn’t.
“or does it mean we have more rock stars dying” No, in fact Finland is in the top 3 for heavy metal bands per capita, right next to Sweden and Norway.
“5 year olds dying in drive by shootings or maybe its black on black crime” Homicide represents a very insignificant number of deaths actually.
“May its our top 15 murder rate” Top 15? The US is like 70th in murder, nowhere near the top 15…
Here, just look at this. The Numbers are accurate as of when I looked at it btw… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventable_causes_of_death#Leading_causes_in_the_United_States
The point being, way more people die of PREVENTABLE complications in the US. Even if Universal Health care doesn’t solve all of those, it will still make healthcare cheaper…
We are actually 14th and 12-14k murders is quite a lot. id bet most of these murders are not of 80 year olds some even of 1 and 2 year olds.. that definitely can skew the mortality rate over all. As can suicides, also not normally an elderly issue. Since when was it anyone’s job to make sure someone lived other than their own or their families? Being able to not die of certain things is a privilege. Not a right. We have over 1M people migrating her per year!. why do you think that is? Because they want to get fat? lose 8 years off their life expectancy? Meet a Kardashian? Get shitty health treatment? what?
If it’s a “natural right of citizenship” it’s a state created “right.” Good luck keeping a lid on that.
“what is wrong with letting nature take care of their useless asses?” Because who decide who the asses are ?
A physically healthy society has huge economic and social benefits.
On average, I would agree, but perhaps this is not true at the margins.
What value does the State derive from keeping the elderly alive, for example? When the calculus determines that the State will spend more on someone than they will receive back, what reason does the State have to spend that money?
A “right” which can be given and taken away at a whim is not a right.
You’re missing the point. Society and community are not just some type of system where people are classified as “useful” economic units. It’s about more than that, but, Americans are blinded by your utilitarian pragmatism that classifies people in terms of their usefulness only. Using this basis you can justify mass genocide and abortion because they may be economically beneficial, the rub of course depends upon those whom define usefulness in the first place.
The case with elderly point is a good one as often they pass on wisdom and experience to younger people after they’re no longer strictly useful in the cold economic sense you mean.
It’s no different than the Rights of Man as stated by Thomas Paine. Rights are meant as natural when they represent a minimum benchmark in common civility.
“We are actually 14th and 12-14k murders is quite a lot.” You are doing total homicides, that is a horribly useless number because not all countries have the same population. The US ranks 62nd in murders. A rate of 4.8 per 100,000 people.
“Being able to not die of certain things is a privilege. Not a right.” Okay, I am done arguing with your, your shitty, broken English and the fact that you refuse to answer any of my questions is enough, but this has crossed the line…
What makes them minimum benchmarks? By which line of reasoning do we arrive at that conclusion?
Ad Fontes. I would guess the “common civility” is derived to some degree from the Christian tradition, but if not that needs to be established. Whatever the basis for the idea of universal minimal rights, it must be known.
When you build on a foundation, it’s harder to tunnel in and collapse the building.
I’m not saying it’s my belief. I’m a Christian, and I believe in a set of rights derived from the law of God, as most of the Founders explicitly asserted.
But I’m not in charge of the State, either.
The “social contract” is the basis for the establishment of a democratic or republican union, but it is not an inherent principle of government. There comes a time when rulers can start to see their people as “the other,” and in this time they can do any number of things we would personally consider unconscionable.
What is it about these rights that protects them from the rulers? Because, if they are created by the rulers, they can be destroyed by the rulers. (In a truly democratic society as opposed to a republican one, such rights are created and destroyed by the will of a majority, as they are the rulers).
Rights come from an admixture of culture influences and Christianity would be a central tenet in formulating our rights. Christianity ascribes a certain dignity to man’s place in the world and so our natural civic rights must emulate in some manner the basic metaphysical assumptions in the Christan credo.
Well, no democratic nations have send old people off to the gas chambers for not being “useful” thus far, so that’s our point of reference and measure, and that’s a very important observation to put on the record.
The problem you state more pertains to a demagogue who becomes leader in a democratic nation and starts to describe certain groups like the elderly as “others”. This is precisely where natural rights formed from our Christan heritage make all the difference between becoming savages or civilized human beings.
What I hear, and please correct me if I’m wrong, is “It’s a right because we think it’s a right.” If so, there’s one thing worth considering.
When we view all people as equal, we ascribe to them equal rights. In the Christian philosophical sense, we are all equal in Christ, so it is part of our received wisdom that we should have equal rights.
Where this becomes a danger is when the rulers decide they’re a class apart. In that case, “rights for me but none for thee” is all but inevitable (as when Congress ruled itself exempt from many of the Healthcare regulations). In this case, what prevents them from removing our right to healthcare or education save their own selfish interests?
” In this case, what prevents them from removing our right to healthcare or education save their own selfish interests” The democratic will of the voters who elected them in the first place.
All rulers in a whatever system you have always think they’re a world apart, however, the democratic system is still the only one where we can vote them out if they don’t deliver or get too removed from the citizens whom they make laws for.
Not necessarily, but we have seen other atrocities in democracy. For example, Athens wielded their voting power over the Delian League to make Athens the head of an empire. By extension, the Athenian people and culture were superior to the others in their democracy.
On further reflection, I think I see part of our disagreement. I see government-sponsored and government-regulated industries as privileges, which are given and taken away by the State. You see them as rights which could be ignored by evil men, but never taken away.
I’m not convinced a right can exist to something that is not intrinsic. You have a right to seek to preserve and improve your health, but you do not have a right to a doctor. You have a right to the fruits of your labor and the wealth of your house, but you do not have a right to have wealth given to you.
I hope that makes things a bit more clear. I always wonder the degree to which people talk around each other when we disagree on philosophical concepts.
I hope you’re right on this one. While I disagree that healthcare and education are rights, I really don’t want those rights I do perceive to be stripped from me.
I also agree with the minimum benchmark, except that mine is relative to who we are talking about.
I wouldn’t go and institute an universal one.
Who gets to define civility? What are the guarantees that the next political “leader” won’t agitate the masses to redefine civility?
Nature does, if you aren’t fit to take care of yourself or have built relationships with other humans or family to take care of you, then by all accounts if you are dying, its your time.
that’s what happens with animals, that’s why we have communities and societies that have values above those of mere animals- if you want to reduce all of humanity to mere animal status then your picture would be accurate. Fortunately we’ve never had societies that exist by the “pure” laws of nature.
We have certainly lived by survival of the fittest. In many past societies on many levels. Don’t over simplify my statement just to have a reply.
Thats murder rate sir. Im talking total murders which is a more relevant stat. 14th
Crossed the line huh? Who drew the line? You? Im glad you are done. Your argument is bullshit anyhow. “Rights” to health and education. What a fucking joke.
How would that be more relevant?
You are literally advocating letting people die. I don’t have to argue why that is bad. It would be highly ironic if you are against physician assisted suicide…
socialism = celebrating mediocrity
Notice anything about the demographics of Finland that might be relevant?
Yes, we all do. But still, I think there are some great things we can take away from their education system.
2, 8, 12, 17, 20-23, 27, 33, 34 – yes
6, 10, 24, 26, 28, 38 – maybe, with certain qualifiers
The rest are “no” or “don’t care.
Today’s conservatives are nothing more than liberals who have been ill-treated by democracy.
Conservatives (which includes most of the “alt right”) are people who complain and suffer from modernity yet cannot abandon it since they still have a stake or loyalty to the system. It’s like a battered housewife who lashes out against anyone who would stop her abuser. The abused bitches of progressivism.
That’s a great analogy….I’m stealing it.
The litmus test for real vs fake right is multiculturalism
Multiculturalism is failing in the US and Europe because the “forward thinking liberals” didn’t think hard enough and invited people to share their proposed ShangRiLa who want their culture to be either dominant or the ONLY culture.
The normies of Europe are very quickly realizing their land is being overrun by violent, stone age vermin and are finally doing something about it. The ultimate happy ending is going to be these countries, one after the other, electing right wing nationalists governments to deal with the stone age, violent rodent people that want to stone our daughters to death for wearing a bikini.
Death to Traitors, Freedom for Whites.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K63PN2bxAXE
For a given value of multiculturalism. The British Empire was the most culturally diverse joint in world history, but it only worked because when it came down to brass tacks, British law backed by big British guns reigned supreme.
Used to be the Middle East and North Africa had some nice places to be, Beirut, Cairo, Algiers, etc., because when the British and the French ran the place the locals knew that a literal interpretation of jihad was mostly a great way to get shot in the face.
ave imperator, morituri te salutant!
I agree. There are tons of republicans that still espouse marxist ideas like being ‘pro israel’ etc.
Israel is an ethnonationalist state, it makes absolutely no sense for people who want something similar here to oppose it there. Real Marxists – unless they are being selective nationalists – oppose Zionism and support the idea of a single secular Palestinian state.
I’ve always like Cassius’ variant of the phrase, “te salutamus.” Seems more impactful to me.
We are products of our environment whether we like it or not. Choices we make are limited by what we can discover. Only since God is in charge do I have hope.
But walking to the truth is a hard process.
“I’m not a product of my environment, my environment is a product of me”(The Departed movie”…this is the level I’m trying to reach!
Worthy goal. While one may inevitably be a product of our time we do have control over how much of a product of our time we are and forge a true path informed by the wisdom of ages.
counting on God/Jesus to swoop from the heavens and save our sorry asses is the same mistake the Russians made leading up to the Bolshevik revolution.
Don’t seem to be my point that you are addressing.
Trust in God, but use the smarts he gave us!
Walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
That’s actually true.
<< my room mate Lori Is getting paid on the internet $98/hr”…..!tr613n:
two days ago grey McLaren. P1 I bought after earning 18,512 Dollars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over hourly. 87 Dollars…Learn. More right Here
!tr613n:
➽:➽:.
➽.➽.➽.➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsBetterGetPay$98Hour…..
★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹:★✹::::::!tr613n….,.
The word conservative is relative. Go back 25 years ago. If you were a Russian & clamored for the days of the old Soviet system, you’d be called a conservative. Then go back 200 years further. Your a colonist living in New England. You despise the British monarchy & all the bullshit it has brought upon you. You rebel & join the revolution. You’re are liberal in the pragmatic definition of the word. That should put things in perspective with such terminology.
The only definition of conservative I’ve ever heard that gives the term real meaning is that a conservative views tradition as a source of truth.
Short version, if something has arisen naturally, there’s an excellent chance it was there for a good reason.
Every other definition of conservatism I’ve ever heard is purely relative (conserving what in relation to what) or more of an instinct (which may very well be right in many cases, but isn’t really a system of thought).
I agree.
I don’t necessarily consider myself “conservative” per se, but the basic idea seems to be that some things in this world are worth conserving, and even treasuring.
And endure for a long time. If something arises and is not sustainable then its disqualified.
A lot of deprogramming need to be done.
Welp, here I go:
1) Don’t agree with this statement
2) Because there is no reason to believe my opinion is any better than your opinion than though my own intuition. Also, because democracy leads to better government results, less corruption, and higher citizen happiness.
3) This question is very complicated and it depends on how far you want to go. Free Primary? Free Primary and Secondary? Free Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary? Well everyone should get primary and secondary free because it’s required to work, the whole teach a man to fish thing. Very few people actually lack the capability to learn. The mentally retarded should still be given basic education because it will keep them out of trouble…
4) As long as this isn’t serous discrimination (genocide, rape, etc.) I really don’t have a problem. If you don’t want to do business with the Muslims, don’t.
5) Because Torture is ineffective and terror is for societies that don’t have the ability to wage actual war…
6) Too situational, give more detail…
7) This is way to big a question, break it down.
8) I don’t care about poor people being poor, all I care about is their children. People shouldn’t have to have a shitty life because of shitty parents…
9) Certainly. We need roads, we need rail tracks, we need power stations, etc.
10) I am not sure what this statement means…
11) The UN isn’t a step in the right direction, the UN itself is an effective program.
12) Same answer as number tow.
13) They don’t. However, it does have benefits for those rich countries…
14) Those are both very big words…
15) I don’t care.
16) I disagree with this statement.
17) Communists have a lot of different views. Who defines what communism is? What if they just start using a different name instead of communism? Communists aren’t a significant group in rich nations, only in poorer nations, if you want to stop communism, then ill refer you back to 13.
18) I don’t see why shouldn’t negotiate with them. Most communist countries pose no threat to the US. Not Cuba, not North Korea, not anywhere that still exists at least…
19) It’s not very effect, it just pisses people off. Countries who have low crime rates all have something in common, they don’t have corporal punishment…
20) Why shouldn’t they? Why should we invade them is a better question…
21) I really don’t give a bloody flying fuck about your religion… Why does this matter to you?
22) The primary goal in ANY era is peace. Peace means economic growth. Why would you want war? Sherlock, why and who do we need to go to war with?
23) Disagree with this statement.
24) lol do people actually think this?
25) Not really. I think we should have limited university only for those who are smart (say, roughly the top 30%), and then it should be free to all of them. We don’t need more than those people to go to university.
26) Inside the classroom there should be no bias.
27) Because nepotism is bad for wealth. It doesn’t help anyone, just retards with connections…
28) Well what do you think the qualification should be?
29) lol no…
30) I don’t know, but it’s within good plausibility that there could be a casual relationship…
31) Tell me why this wouldn’t…
32) What “rights” are you talking about?
33) How do you ban thoughts?
34) Same as 33…
35) Well, because it is! Government is a socially constructed contract between a bunch of people to agree on a set of rules…
36) Define Social security…
37) God you must be a retard to not agree with that…
38) Why would you dislike trade unions? What do you have against them?
39) Because I don’t want people to die…
I disagree with all of those statements.There are exceptions for most things according to circumstance, but in general they are all “no.”
1.Con
2. Con with caveat that people do have free will
3. Con Government education is bad
4.Con
5. Pro
6. Pro rulers derive their power from God if they are rebellious towards God they must be disposed.
7. Con with caveat for emergencies
8.Con
9. Con with public works caveat
10. Pro we have a duty to proselytize as many as possible get to heaven
11. Con one world gov is bad
12. Con
13. Pro- with caveat that charity be given freely and willingly by individual citizens. Friendship and trade with nations and military pacts with none should be what we strive for.
14. Con-they were by and large good
15. Con- private property ownership principle
16.Con
17. Con- evil does not have rights
18. Con- we don’t have to negotiate with anyone- self determination principle
19. Con- SJW/Cuckerberg principle
20. Con- ownership principle, Divine right principle
21. Con we don’t have an obligation to respect error
22.Pro- peace is usually prefferable with obvious exceptions
23.Con-obscenity, propagation of error
24. Con-with Caveat that congress refers to a congress of Joe McCarthy rather than any congress after that time
25. Con
26.Con- ownership principle, teachers have an obligation to teach truth
27. Pro with caveat that local/ ingroup preferences are acceptable
28. Con -voting is about electing the best representatives/ policies not about feel good participation
29. Con Joe McCarthy was An American Hero perhaps he had a drinking problem, but if you had to deal with that much communist BS wouldn’t you?
30. Con
31. Con
32. Con – women should not vote! Other exclusions logically follow
33. Con with caveat that everyone has free will even if exercising it leads you to hell
34.con SJW principle
35. Con divine right principle
36. Con Get your hands off my money!
37. Con
38. Con- violates ownership principle with Caveat that unions can be benificial in unfree markets (from my experience working construction in bay area)
39. Con
40. Cell phones make great digital writing platforms – CON
“Error has no rights.” If you do not agree with this quote, then you are merely a conservative right-liberal or libertarian useful idiot. The problem with much of the readership at ROK is that they are defending the values of the enlightenment which they falsely believe to be the definition of “western civilization.” Things such as freedom of speech, free market capitalism, separation of church and state, feminism, (MRA’s and anti feminists are feminists since they still believe in equality) human rights, rationalism, “free thinking”, and individualism is merely the older version of liberalism replaced by the contemporary SJW/progressives that everyone here hates.
Defending “western values” such as sodomite marriages against muslim savages doesn’t make you part of the right or a reactionary, it makes you a useful idiot conservative who cannot choose between tradition or revolution, and attempts to “balance” the two elements together. The history of conservatism failing is proof of this.
You cannot go halfway, you either deny progress or you don’t.
Stop your stupid ass false dilemma…
i would like to hear your arguments….
I first off I don’t believe in Ideologies, they are useless labels. The right wing is the worst and stupidest of any ideology. It’s only basis is that a certain policy was used in the past, and therefor it’s good. It refuses to accept the failings of the past, and it refuses to accept that policies are situation, and that situations change. Labels are for trendy idiots who like to virtue signal.
So accept the failings of the past but consider situations? What’s to say that the failings of the past weren’t situational and the reason they don’t consider them is because the situation changed…. Give examples
I am arguing against dogmas… We need too look at every create new policy this way: 1) find a problem. 2) find a solution. 3) see if this has been used in the past. 4) Figure out if it worked. 5) If it did fail, then figure out why and how it can be mitigated.
The right wing is dogma, and like all dogmas, is completely full of shit…
…he said, dogmatically.
You know what I mean…
Well first of all, finding problems and solutions is pretty tough since we have women so engrained in our societal infrastructure. All they do is find problems and the men you are more abt to find solutions, aren’t allowed to because it will hurt someone’s feelings. There needs to be a complete flip in the way this country is run and how everything works down to all govt agencies, elected officials need to be held accountable and do their jobs rather than Sit-ins etc and chilling as a Rep or senator for 30 years etc etc etc. What you are wanting to happen is pie in the sky. A plethora of things nee dot happen before it can even be considered.
I understand the need to question dogma – as Erasmus of Rotterdam directed, we need to return to the sources of all our commonly-held ideas (“Ad Fontes”). Dogma – the assertion of an absolute truth without the reasoning by which it is obtained – is the same way.
However, to say all dogma is inherently “full of shit” is to presuppose that there are no absolute truths, which is an inherently paradoxical statement. Scientific Laws, for example, appear to be absolutely true, and are often asserted without their reasons for being true.
To give a crude example, the Laws of Motion are usually taught as dogma. While many learn the evidences and reasons for those laws, many take them on faith as presented.
What I currently think might be the best system is something like Singapore, but really the simplest solution is right in front of you, and came out of your own words: Get women out of politics. It doesn’t even have to be though taking away the right to vote, it can simply be a cultural change.
“However, to say all dogma is inherently “full of shit” is to presuppose that there are no absolute truths, which is an inherently paradoxical statement.” I mean political dogma. And by that I mean policy dogma. To say that GOVERNMENT ALWAYS FAILS is an example of this kind of Dogma, and it’s been shown to not be true. The opposite of would be that government can do everything a market can do but better. This has also been shown to not be true. This is why I cannot stand the left or the right, they are both have dogmatic positions on policies, and lousy ones at best. Both of them are also subjective to the region. A leftist in America is different than one in Europe which is different than one in Japan. Same with Rightists.
So Simple, Yet So Complicated. Am I right?
What you say about political and policy dogma could very well be true.
On the other hand, who says that government always fails? Libertarians? And who does take it seriously?
This is also an interesting point.
I often wonder how many “dogmas” are actually strawmen in disguise. Long exposure has demonstrated that what we understand as Feminist and Globalist dogma is consistent with their actual beliefs, but this is not always the case.
When I say “it could very well be true,” I mean to express that I do not have sufficient evidence to produce a truth claim. While many such claims are false, it would be irresponsible of me to assert a universal without sufficient reason or evidence.
Something simple can still be hard…
Very correct those who are conservatives but believe in abstract rights are simply swimming against a river. Better to come out of the water to get grounded in virtue and morality! Because arguing that someone can’t engage in a behavior and then admitting they have an absolute right to do so is incoherent.
You conflate state power with social power. The state cannot stop two people from getting married. It cannot discriminate. The only thing it can do is abandon it’s sanctioning of marriage. This does not mean that the dominant culture has to accept gay marriage. It can choose to reject homosexuality altogether. This only becomes a problem in times of transition when legislation lags behind societal changes.
I think you are confusing rights with illegal and criminal code: one does not necessitate the other.
Edit: I’m sorry I misread your comment
However it does logically follow that if certain behaviors do not have rights then laws can be passed regarding them.
Of course I can have a pseudo-marriage with my table but the state would not recognize it and would not be official in any legal documents. The state today recognizes homosexual marriages, which means that it has chosen to legitimize it. If a person were to interrupt and attempt to halt the process of two homosexuals marrying, the state will take action via the police to stop the person and to allow the marriage to be fulfilled. The idea that the state cannot discriminate and is a “neutral” judge for the people is just the modernist conception of the likes of Locke and Hobbes that Liberal Democracies are based off of. The idea that morality should not and cannot be legislated and that it only serves to protect individuals from harming one another is a modernist conception. The original conception of state is that it is subordinate to the church and it has no right to violate the morality taught by it, and that it conforms its sovereignty to the divine truth. The idea of a “neutral” state is a silly lie.
You’re free to go live somewhere that doesn’t practice that silly lie, but you won’t, because you’re an internet talking head, and they would kill you. The truth is you enjoy the West and it’s values just fine, even if you don’t understand, or like them.
Well the secular west has imported its values to basically every country, it just does things in a soft manner as opposed to a hard totalitarian way so people in a sense kill themselves with pleasure as opposed to a bullet to your brain. 1984 or Brave New World.
If I or the people here in truth enjoy the west and its values just fine, then this website wouldn’t exist, we would be content on buzzfeed or mtv enjoying it like everyone else.
That’s what dominant cultures do. That’s what Islam is doing right now. You’re very confused. You want to be free of Western influence, but then argue that the concept of freedom is a silly lie.
You Catholic monks who want to take us back to the Dark Ages can go fuck yourselves. And it’s certainly bad for Roosh’s free speech book sales when you idiots are attacking Enlightenment values on ROK
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Has it ever occurred to you that all the modern females that you guys spend the majority of your existance lamentating on are exactly the byproducts of enlightenment western values? Has it ever occurred to you that those traditional non western feminine women that you guys seem to hold in such such regard haven’t been exposed to enlightenment values such as solipsism, rebelliousness, professional careerism, and eat pray love divorce? But you guys want absolute Liberalism for males only while criticizing the females that do the same forgetting that you both wake up and sleep in the same bed. Fighting nihilism with nihilism isn’t saving the west, it’s kicking a can further down the road. Your anger has no righteousness to it, just lashing out in a paryxyosm of impotence.
I happen to like the current slut-rich environment, as I prefer to enjoy the decline. In my opinion, the constant whining about women on this site is not alpha behavior, and much of it is outright neurotic.
Otherwise, this site is currently promoting free speech and nationalism, so you really do need to bugger off back to the Dark Ages, with your faith-based anti-American beliefs
Well, then enjoy the decline because nationalism and free speech will not stop it. They are part of modern errors as Daring Danny pointed out. I am inclined to believe that our age once will be called Dark Ages and rightly so. There can be rarely found more murderous and wicked period in history.
Someone’s triggered…
My comment triggered you, eh? Deal with it.
And that’s why you were unable to address any of the facts and logic in his post, but were reduced to throwing a tantrum? Uh huh…
1. All forms of racial segregation and discrimination are wrong.
No.
2. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion.
Yes, even those who are wrong are entitled to their opinions.
3. Everyone has a right to free, public education.
No.
4. Political, economic or social discrimination based on religious belief is wrong.
No.
5. In political or military conflict it is wrong to use methods of torture and physical terror.
No. I want to win, if that means cities burn, and babies cry, so be it.
6. A popular movement or revolt against a tyranny or dictatorship is right, and deserves approval.
Depends on the movement’s stated goals.
7. The government has a duty to provide for the ill, aged, unemployed and poor if they cannot take care of themselves.
I have no problem with that. Keeping your own kind safe is the mark of a group that wants to survive.
8. Progressive income and inheritance taxes are the fairest form of taxation.
No. A soft regressive tax system, that takes into account savings, is what I would prefer, it would stimulate more people to work harder, and save more money.
9. If reasonable compensation is made, the government of a nation has the legal and moral right to expropriate private property within its borders, whether owned by citizens or foreigners.
Yes, within strictly defined limits..
10. We have a duty to mankind; that is, to men in general.
Yes, but our nation should come first.
11. The United Nations, even if limited in accomplishment, is a step in the right direction.
In theory, yes. In practice, no.
12. Any interference with free speech and free assembly, except for cases of immediate public danger or juvenile corruption, is wrong.
Yes. People should be free to express whatever opinions they like.
13. Wealthy nations, like the United States, have a duty to aid the less privileged portions of mankind.
No, we do not.
14. Colonialism and imperialism are wrong.
No, they were right, and we should reinstitute them immediately for their own good.
15. Hotels, motels, stores and restaurants in southern United States ought to be obliged by law to allow blacks to use all of their facilities on the same basis as whites.
No. Freedom of Association is absolute.
16. The chief sources of delinquency and crime are ignorance, discrimination, poverty and exploitation.
No, bad moral upbringing is.
17. Communists have a right to express their opinions.
Yes they do, no matter how wrong they are.
18. We should always be ready to negotiate with the Soviet Union and other communist nations.
Yes we should. Peace first, war last. But in war, everything is second to victory.
19. Corporal punishment, except possibly for small children, is wrong.
Not necessarily. But if you’re going to use it, don’t be surprised if the person you’re using it turns around and hits you.
20. All nations and peoples, including the nations and peoples of Asia and Africa, have a right to political independence when a majority of the population wants it.
Yes. Until the inevitably collapse.
21. We always ought to respect the religious beliefs of others.
No. Respect is earned. I tolerate other beliefs to a point.
22. The primary goal of international policy in the nuclear age ought to be peace.
Yes.
23. Except in cases of a clear threat to national security or, possibly, to juvenile morals, censorship is wrong.
Yes, censorship is wrong in all cases. People should be free to have all information to make a decision.
24. Congressional investigating committees are dangerous institutions, and need to be watched and curbed if they are not to become a serious threat to freedom.
No.
25. The money amount of school and university scholarships ought to be decided primarily by need.
Yes.
26. Qualified teachers, at least at the university level, are entitled to academic freedom: that is, the right to express their own beliefs and opinions, in or out of the classroom, without interference from administrators, trustees, parents or public bodies.
Yes.
27. In determining who is to be admitted to schools and universities, quota systems based on color, religion, family or similar factors are wrong.
Yes, it is wrong. If you can’t make the cut, you don’t get in.
28. The national government should guarantee that all adult citizens, except for criminals and the insane, should have the right to vote.
No.
29. Joseph McCarthy was probably the most dangerous man in American public life during the fifteen years following the Second World War.
No. He was right in many cases.
30. There are no significant differences in intellectual, moral or civilizing capacity among human races and ethnic types.
No, this is observably false.
31. Steps toward world disarmament would be a good thing.
Yes, depending on the steps. Project Orion for instance would be a great way to disarm America of nuclear weapons.
32. Everyone is entitled to political and social rights without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Yes.
33. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and expression.
Yes.
34. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
Yes.
35. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.
Yes, to certain points.
36. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security.
No.
37. Everyone has the right to equal pay for equal work.
Yes.
38. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions.
Yes, except for government employees.
39. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
No.
Seems like a rather tedious way of determining what the reader is already convinced of.
I have a less complicated criterion :
– Do you systematically try to find justifications for the bad deeds of the wealthy and those who are in a position of power? Congrats, you’re a “true man of the Right”.
– Do you systematically try to find justifications for the bad deeds of the poor and the oppressed? Congrats, you’re a true man of the Left.
I think it’s important to separate what the government can, and can’t do vs. what the dominant culture can and can’t do. A government cannot discriminate. It’s a step toward tyranny if they do, but that does not mean that social pressure cannot be brought to bear against certain groups who violate the established social norms. Legislation is down stream from culture.
This post was an interesting way to expose the crossroads the Right has arrived at. I believe it is not really a crossroads though, rather the true positions are beginning take shape from the unholy “Right” alliance that was represented by parties like the Republicans in the US and the Tories in the UK.
With the advent of the alt-right, we are beginning to see whether or not folks are Right-Leaning Capitalist/Libertarian (Cuckservative) or genuine Traditionalist (similar split on the left with Left-Leaning Capitalist or Marxist). This has been festering for a while but this primary season has revealed it in dramatic fashion.
This test conveniently shows that the “Right-Leaning Capitalists”/Libertarian (Cuckservative) camp is probably generally more in agreement with their “Left-Leaning Capitalist” camp than they are with the Traditionalists. I.E. the former camp is really not “Right-Wing” at all, but a form of the Left Wing (Liberalism in general).
Part of the problem is that our view is so myopic because most of education and politics focuses only on everything post French Revolution, insinuating that all forms of leadership before that are too objectionable to even consider. Exciting times ahead.
When it all comes down to drawing the line in the sand, the conservatives/libertarian bitchboys will team up with their progressive masters to fight the traditionalist right. To them, its just another form of “extremism.”
Yes we are all against higher taxation, sodomite marriages, and socialism but we will fight you to the death if you try to make these things illegal!
That seems contradictory but it’s not. The government cannot be allowed to do those things. It opens the door to tyranny, but the culture can dislike homosexuality all it cares to, and don’t be confused, the culture is the real power. Gay marriage is legal in Europe, but let’s see a gay couple hold hands and walk through muslim enclaves in any European city. Let the gay couple tell the Muslims how homosexuality is legal as they get beat to death.
What is the role of government then?
Yet your idea of having culture act as the enforcer of morals is equally tyrannical.
If certain behaviors are wrong then it follows you can pass laws against them. On what basis do you separate say murder from lying? Or Statutory rape from the age of consent?
No behavior is wrong, in the universal sense, since wrong is defined by the culture. In democracy, or representative democracy government is a reflection of that culture. Murder is wrong because most people believe it’s wrong, the culture believes it’s wrong.
*I’ve got to take off, but when I get back I’ll write a longer reply.
Look forward to it. It looks like battle lines will be drawn between relativism and objectivism.
It’s an ancient fight. Parmenides and Heraclitus threw Ancient Greece into philosophical turmoil over the same debate:
“Whatever is, is.”
“You can never step in the same river twice.”
I was “discussing” differing opinions on homosexuality tonight and inevitably, it comes to relativism and objectivity.
exactly!
The angle we’re coming at this from is wrong. You’re arguing assuming that there is some universal state of rightness, that if we just thought about it a little harder we could achieve. We are flawed and everything we produce will be equally flawed. You will never escape tyranny. All you can hope for is to reduce it to acceptable levels. I’ll trust an educated, and moral culture above all else to achieve that goal. That is why I trust Traditional Western Civilization more than I trust the IRS.
That duality isn’t enough to explain the world. There are the laws of the natural world. They are basic and they are brutal. The fittest survive. You can own something only as long as you have the ability to defend it. Those are the laws of nature. Society is our attempt to paper over that reality, and make it easier for ourselves and our kin. We stretch our societies across that gaping pit of brutality as a safety net, and as long as we put enough energy and effort into it we can suspend those rules. However, nature is always waiting to take us back into the fold.
Western Civilization is built upon universal truths take those away and it disappears in a generation, so even from your relativist viewpoint objective truth is necessary. Flawed men do not necessarily have to produce flawed things, though this is extremely likely if they are not grounded in truth, for instance flawed men build material things like damns and cars because they are built in accordance with physical laws. Likewise men can structure society to, while not perfect, be far from flawed if they follow the precepts of natural law and revealed truths. I don’t think the idea is really thinking harder, rather it is bringing ourselves to be in accordance with truth. If someone does not have truth then what laws and structures he builds in government will be as as flawed as he is in discord with truth. Just like if someone does not understand aerodynamics will be building very flawed airplanes.
As for your other post I don’t think you can argue that majority, or cultural, will makes decides things are right or wrong without using objective principles! In any case it is flawed because as you said we are very flawed people therefore however flawed the majority is their will will be at least equally flawed. In which case it can neither likely to be bettor than any other form of government as government is governed by men. It is however far more likely to be worse because there are no safeguards to the depths of depravity to which it can go. For instance if we can say that a majority decide what is right then a person can legitimately ask himself why cannot he do whatever is right in his own eyes since this is the base authority of majority rule. This is why cultures all have objective principles and seek to impose laws based on such.
The duality of objective morality vs subjective morality doesn’t need to explain the world, just humanity’s place in it. Moral relativism is easy – as you said, there is only one “law” – survival. Which is an objective truth of its own. I would agree with Chiro, there are moral laws which transcend survival.
Why not just make your true argument, instead of dancing around it. Say our rights are assured by God, since only a higher power that transcends the laws of nature can create the universal truths you talk about.
I do believe that. I don’t necessarily believe that you must ascent to God to believe in universal truths.
The laws of nature are the only universal truths that don’t require a God, but anything you would call a truth or a right that violates those rules of nature requires a higher power.
I am not opposed to objectivism to an extent, since it does tend to lead society and culture in a more moral society. However, as I’ve said that is a religious argument, ultimately, and as such may very well be untrue, but truth really doesn’t matter. Faith matters. Faith is what creates a strong society with a vibrant culture.
This is why I choose to support Western Culture even though it is based on a theological perspective that I don’t believe in. It’s practice, especially in America with it’s constitutional assurance of religious freedom, supports that theological aspect that creates morality, but at the same time controls it by ensuring no single religious aspect gains the upper hand.
Exactly. Human nature is inherently flawed. So whatever system we create, be it capitalism, communism, socialism, or nazism, will always be flawed. There will always be those who use and abuse the system, no matter what system it is.
Yes any system we create will be flawed, but they will not be equally flawed. Some will still be better than others.
I think there are some truths that can be observed, some that can be reasoned, and some that must be revealed. All of them come from God, even the laws of nature.
Yes, but only the laws of nature don’t require a higher power, and are readily apparent. However, that doesn’t mean that others might not exist. I certainly hope they do, but doubt it.
See, I don’t agree with that at all. Absolutely those things should be outlawed.
You have the right to believe they should be outlawed. You don’t have the right to act on your right to make what you believe to be right law. Unless you believe in things that are not rights are rights then you have the right to make those rights laws. “I disagree with what you say, but will defend to death your right to say it even if you are the one putting me to death” -Motto’s of the American Cuckservant lol
yeah, some “conservatives” are pro stablishment.
as for the libertarians, they are the sabotage team working for the NWO. every single one of them would fight against the alt-right.
Locke had the largest impact on US founding philosophy. He refined the ideas of Hobbes, who laid out the basic progressive idee fix: life was poor, nasty, brutish, and short, and then from atomized, materially motivated individuals arose a contractual institution that liberated people from themselves and their environment. Progress!
Locke accepted this premise apart from a quantitative difference concerning the power of the state. He was thus just a progressive with brakes moderately applied. Which is what the cuckservatives are today.
Exactly.
Calling libertarians cuckservatives is a false equivalency.
No, libertarians and liberals (to use US terminology) are all branches of the same ideological tree. It would be fallacious to say they are the same branch, but not that they stem from a common genesis. Sir Ivor Berin explored this point in his treatment of positive and negative freedom. Note that that is a difference over form, not object.
Classical liberalism, sure. Not marxism which is modern day liberalism
i’ve been there, done that. Used to be a randroid. I think it had something to do with going through puberty. Then I followed the Paul fools.
Social democrats and the like are not Marxists since they don’t abolish private property, believe in democracy, and treat the empowerment of the individual (not the collective) as the goal of their ideology. to argue otherwise is a false equivalency.
Actually they do believe/don’t believe in all those things, but they are very modernist about it.
the libertarian agitprop that Bernie Sanders is a marxist etc is nowhere taken seriously except in libertarian circles. Much of it has to do with the anti-communist propaganda of the cold war
Well sure, I don’t know enough about him anyways. But do SD believe in private property as an absolute right? Is democracy just a mechanism for oligarchy control? Is the individual really just a euphemism for increased liscentousness and an abrogation of duty?
A totalitarian/police state, regardless of whether it flies a sickle and hammer or not, is what social democracy inevitably leads to. Social Democracy is just the long, slow, time-release pill version of full fledged Marxism.
not everything is a slippery slope.
Remove the speech codes and immigrants from Norway, and you have a nice place to live.
You have exactly captured my message, here: we who are waking up from the lies of Feminism, etc., need to realize how thoroughly the Left has dominated Western thought, to the point where the natural, rational manner of living and organizing a civilization, is now unthinkable. We need to make it thinkable, again.
A list of mostly disagreeable things that sound nice. Yep, mostly for liberals.
In America, the conservatives are merely those who have curated the progressive arguments ranging from 250 to 20 years ago to deploy against the progressive arguments of #TheCurrentYear. In short, the caboose follows the engine.
In Europe, conservatives are the party that is the slightly more enthusiastic whore of plutocratic neoliberals.
The Conservatives are the shadow of the Left. They follow along, and they may sometimes appear large and intimidating, but they completely fail to stop the Left.
As Sam Francis said, the right became a collection of history’s losers.
The right didn’t become that, the right is by definition that. The world has problems, the left proposes solutions (albeit, not always good solutions), and then instead of proposing counter solutions, the right sits there with it’s thumb up it’s ass complaining about how the liberal solutions don’t work…
Well idk if you’re right, left, or libertarian; but the reason they can’t is they have lost their comparative advantage. They no longer stand for the tradition of pre ‘enlightenment’ civilization.
Proposing solutions is easy. Coming up with good ones is something the Left has yet to achieve.
Any programmer can solve a problem, but very few can prevent the creation of many more problems resulting from their solutions.
The Left has an “action” bias – they want to do something now. The danger in this is that the result will inevitably produce further problems that will require solution.
Case in point: the recent US administration wanted to make universal healthcare happen now, so they passed a bill that would take effect within a few years. They have had to push those deadlines back numerous times because they did not foresee the issues that would arise, such as the online system being completely insufficient to handle the number of users mandated to employ it.
example of left wing solutions:
Problem: labour shortage
Solution: push women out into the work force
Result: depression of wages, fatter people because of less home cooking, less grounded communities, lower birth rates.
Problem: labour shortage (women out working = lower birthrates)
Solution: import kebab
Result: riots, rapes, ghettos, balkanization
Problem: social conflict (from mass third world immigration)
Solution: draconian anti-discrimination laws
Result: suppressed political sentiments erupting violently
Problem: etc etc
Then like I said, the right needs to pull their thumbs out of their arses… The right has yet to come up with a low cost healthcare system, they have yet to find a solution to our overpriced education system, they have yet to find a solution to anything…
you’re equating the ‘libertarian right’ so called with what we on this Emerging Right movement are very sceptical about. I come from a country with universal healthcare. I probably would leave it as is under my right wing administration.
I’ve heard a few, though not always from the GOP mainstays (who are “right” in name, but not in practice):
Healthcare: reduce regulations to decrease cost of developing medications, reduce time required to educate certain forms of doctor (GP’s, etc), open charity clinics
Education: vouchers, decreased regulation of the system to reduce overhead, arming teachers to reduce the number of security measures required post-Columbine, charter schooling
So it’s not always that the ideas aren’t proposed. Often enough, it’s that the Left ridicules the ideas into submission because the Right isn’t willing to fight as hard as they.
gun rights are the one thing that the GOP does manage to soundly drub the left on
Are you being serious? The Left owns the education system.
Healthcare systems are for chumps. It’s not a gvt responsibility to provide citizens (taxpaying or not) healthcare.
The NRA, at least, has some cojones. I know many lifetime members and a few former board members, and they’re all proponents of what we now call the Alt-Right.
“Well idk if you’re right, left, or libertarian” None, I am against all political labels. I define myself by the policies I support, not by being “progressive” nor by supporting policies that were progressive 15 years ago…
“but the reason they can’t is they have lost their comparative advantage.” The reason they can’t is that they by definition can’t. The right wing is anti-intellectual, the only policies it supports are the policies already in place. Why do you think rightest have yet to propose a replacement for the ACA, because they can’t…
“They no longer stand for the tradition of pre ‘enlightenment’ civilization.” pe Enlightenment? Just like saying left or right, that means nothing to me…
“Are you being serious? The Left owns the education system.” And until rightists pull their thumbs out of their arses, the left will control the the education system forever…
“Healthcare systems are for chumps.” Yeah, health care is for chumps, we don’t need that, just let nature decide when we die. A private healthcare system is still a system…
“It’s not a gvt responsibility to provide citizens (taxpaying or not) healthcare.” Why not. Where do you base this criterion? I support universal healthcare because it has better outcomes with cheaper costs. I don’t see why people like you would dislike that… I mean, the UK spends FOURTY PERCENT of what we spend in the US on healthcare, but has a longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate, and nobody needs insurance. Do you like to spend an extra 5000 dollars a year for no reason?
People like me? Knock yourself out dude.
Some of the infant mortality rate may be the result of the standard immunization schedules, which are different between the States and the UK. Further study might be required.
Insurance is a store of money into which many people pool their money against the off-chance they have an issue. Our idea of the system dates back to the Greek sailors, who established the system against ship loss. When a sailor seemed to consistently drain the pool, he was kicked out to deal with it on its own.
Insurance should never have been employed as anything else. Why should I pay the Insurance company so I can pay less for regular expenses like drugs and checkups? Here is the greatest problem with our insurance system, and the first thing we should attempt to fix.
No, we understand the rifle is the last means to defend ourselves against tyranny. The democrats know in their hearts what they truly are and the hate the fact that freemen recognize them and act approriately. Slaves and their masters hate the NRA as it represents an organization of men who will not submit.
“Healthcare: reduce regulations to decrease cost of developing medications” That is not the problem. The problem is that medications cost too much to buy, not that they cost to much to develop.
“reduce time required to educate certain forms of doctor (GP’s, etc), open charity clinics” That is going to do barely anything. Most hospitals already non profit.
“you’re equating the ‘libertarian right’ so called with what we on this Emerging Right movement are very sceptical about.” This is a good point. But conservatism is relative to regions. In the US the Libertarianistic/Ultra small government version of conservationism is completely dominant in the right wing realm and has been in that position for the past 40 years or so.
“I come from a country with universal healthcare. I probably would leave it as is under my right wing administration.” And that is one point I always make. US conservatives will hate Universal Healthcare right up until they actually experience it.
Universal Healthcare paid for through general taxation should be obligatory in every civilized nation. The American deviation from this principle is bizarre.
I wish I had a million upvotes. The point of the rifle isn’t sport or self defense (in a personal sense), it’s to raise the prospective cost of the government taking what does not by right belong to them.
The odds of a “popular revolt” defeating a trained army that isn’t being hamstrung is about zero, but you can raise the cost to the point where the powers that be know that they can’t really swing it.
“Some of the infant mortality rate may be the result of the standard immunization schedules, which are different between the States and the UK. Further study might be required.” the rate for adverse reactions varies anywhere from 1 case in 1,000 vaccinations too 1 in 1,000,000. That is all adverse reactions, and so it wouldn’t be nearly enough to have a significant effect even if there weren’t any adverse reactions in other developed countries.
“Here is the greatest problem with our insurance system, and the first thing we should attempt to fix…” Again, as a rightist, you have failed to give an actual solution. Here are basically your four options:
The Beveridge Model – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMNuxPByEW0
The National Health Insurance Model – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TPr3h-UDA0
The Bismark Model – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yF69KVbUaQ
and then finally the different Singapore system – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtuXrrEZsAg
The United States is an odd mix of these, and this system happens to be horribly inefficient. I believe the best option to be the path of Beveridge model – because it’s cheap and best allows for a parallel free market system. Do you have a criticism of this system? Which one do you support?
Plus it really doesn’t have better outcomes. I grew up in the UK for years, and if we hadn’t had access to private healthcare, I’m fair certain my mother would have died. It was a heart defect, so it would have been “natural causes”, but superior medical care provided by a private physician on Harley street and then later moving to Houston, home of the world’s largest (and private) medical center saved her life.
No system is perfect, but everyone who has a choice gets private health care and that should tell you something.
I know I replied earlier in the thread, but…
Everyone who has a choice gets private medical care. It’s easier to get your cat treated in Canada than your child.
The bizarreness of the American deviation is that we have a bastard hybrid of private and socialized medicine that has only gotten worse. With Obamacare we’ve managed to create a system that has the worst of both systems and none of the advantages.
Why are you bringing programmers into this? We didn’t start the fire.
I’m a sucker for analogy.
People like me what? What are you addressing?
“Plus it really doesn’t have better outcomes.” Better life expectancy…
“but everyone who has a choice gets private health care and that should tell you something.” In the UK, the NHS only spends as much per person as Medicare/Medicaid and all other American Healthcare spending. I don’t intend that everyone will be using the public healthcare, it’s just as a fallback. If we can close the insurance gap without raising taxes, why shouldn’t we? For most things, regular checkups, basic medications, the NHS is enough, insurance can still exist, it would just be for the rarer stuff…
Yes, but philosophical definitions are independent of geography. A discernible connection between theory and practice has been absent for some time, especially in the US.
LOL. For some, your analogy is more true than analogous.
If we could do something like that it would be great, but we can’t. Every program is the US at least is sold as a safety net before it turns into a vote buying price fixing rat king.
Far better to just deregulate the business side of medicine entirely and let private charity fund the rest as was the pattern throughout most of the world before the rise of socialism.
But that system runs like shit, even worse than the Beveridge system.
The definition of right wing is literally: The reactionary section of a political party or system.
The definition of Reactionary is: Opposing political or social reform.
Citation: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/right-wing?q=right+wing
As you can see, even with definitions being independent of geography, doctrine, policy, and dogmas still are…
We can also call the left wing narrative of progress a reaction against the older model of continuity etc. But of course ‘reaction’ merely describes a political demarche. The real question is *why* the reaction. The left try to present their program as a fait accompli, a forgone conclusion when it is in fact grounded upon deep metapolitical, but nonetheless ideological changes, within their societies – for example, and emphasis on ‘becoming’ rather than ‘unfolding’.
In short, reactionary is a snarl world that is useful for psy-ops but not academic description.
The pre ‘enlightenment’ civilization is Christian civilization.
All societies had problems but you don’t seem to understand that leftist at first redefined reality, then ‘discovered’ the social ‘issues’ and then started to ‘resolve’ them. That’s why the political labels are important. They point to political philosophies and their underlying worldviews. For example your resistence to political labels and focus on the so called practical matters point to basically nominalist worldview which is foundation of many modern errors.
Christianity is a perverted religion invented by Jews to pacify the goyim. Both the testaments are a patchwork of plagiarism taken from ancient Pagan philosophies, myths, and traditions.
No, the actual right has the only working model.
The Left came and smashed it and filled the world with a bunch of damned nonsense. But because the mass man is easily led by the nose to believe the nonsense, because it appeals to the passions, it is very difficult to subdue the problem of Leftism and to replace it with the working model again – especially in technologically advanced countries/ages. The Left has no solutions to anything; but, to be fair, the Republicans, UKIP, Front National, etc., are all Left-wing organizations. So, if one feels that they are not offering solutions – well, one is right.
As Nigel Farage said: the Left poisons the wells and then comes around posing as the Water Commission.
“No, the actual right has the only working model.” Which right? The American Right? The British Right? The Continental European Right?
“the Republicans, UKIP, Front National, etc., are all Left-wing organizations.” What do you define as rightist? I assume you are using the original and literal definition, the right wing were the (French) nobles. This still isn’t advocating any policy, like I said, rightists again and again fail to actually propose anything. Again, the right isn’t a philosophy, it is just a zeitgeist.
“So, if one feels that they are not offering solutions – well, one is right.” I don’t mean they don’t offer any good solutions, I mean they literally are incapable of presenting any new policies. How can you make any changes if your opinion is “change is bad, mkay…”?
Now, as I final question, I must ask, what is appealing about the right? Why not just have your policies, why do you need a box to fit them into?
You illustrate the problem perfectly.
The Right is simply the natural and rational organization of society. Precisely because that is its character, it is not neatly summarized as an ideological system. Rather, it is the result of centuries of tradition and accrued experience, a vast treasure-house of civilizational wisdom that cannot easily be systematically exposited. It adheres to the Natural Law, something open innately to man’s understanding, but which, to understand well, one would have to study very extensively – the writings of Aristotle, Plato, Ss. Thomas Aquinas and Albertus Magnus, and many others, besides. The systems which evolved to give expression to it, such as the English Common Law (once more broadly European), limited representational systems (yes, under Monarchies), the conventions of domestic life, the systems of guilds, etc., are not “an ideology” or a set of “policies,” so much as a vast, complex, delicate, organic flourishing of a profound, multifaceted and almost uncircumscribable truth.
Precisely the reason that the Left is so destructive, unnatural and anti-human, is because it is a set of policies systematized as an ideology – an incoherent ideology, whose incoherence manifests itself ever more clearly in a vast sea of unprincipled exceptions. The Leftist says the Right isn’t offering any “solutions,” nor proposing anything positive, simply because he isn’t putting forward a poorly conceived, unnatural, affected, ideological quagmire. What the Rightist is proposing is this: the attempt to engineer an artificial society must be stopped; the profound and complex civilizational apparatuses of tradition must be restored and allowed to flourish without the interference of theories rooted in utopian, incoherent and anti-rational ideologies. Then, the centuries-long process of producing civilizational mechanisms as subtle, as humorous, as glorious, as sober and as merry, as tragic and as complicated as the human experience they reflect, can proceed in a manner that is less inimical to the life of man.
For a start, here would be a concrete proposal: restore the Church to her proper position in society, and let her put forth the full complexity of the Tradition, contact with which imparts a profundity and wisdom even to common persons, if they avail themselves of it; restore the principle of subsidiarity in society and embrace the natural hierarchy that arises from it; restore the appreciation for Common Law (while rejecting all the “precedents” set since affected, social engineering began in our society – ca. 1600), restore the instinctive hatred for most of what happens under statutory law, and punish those who advocate against, or otherwise seek to undermine the West’s tradition of Natural and Common Law, with exile or death.
“The systems which evolved to give expression to it, such as the English Common Law (once more broadly European)” Well which law system is better? English Common or Roman Civil? Both are “conservative” standpoints depending on where you are, but only one can truly be superior.
“while rejecting all the “precedents” set since affected” Uhhh… That it’s self is a rejection of common law…
“restore the instinctive hatred for most of what happens under statutory law” What? How is it instinctive to hate statutory law?
“the West’s tradition of Natural and Common Law” You mean the ENGLISH tradition of common law…
You act as though rightists want to use what is proven to work, yet rightist reject things that actually are proven to work, and your entire argument can be summarized as “It ought to be because it is.”
brilliant.
Perhaps this would help to illustrate the basic problem with leftists:
G.K. Chesterton and “Chesterton’s Fence?”
The parable, or analogy, first appeared in his 1929 book The Thing:
“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
“This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.”
Put very simply: “natural conservatives” are reluctant to destroy longstanding social or political structures that have stood the test of time, allowed society to function, and likely were not created (or evolved) at random. Progressives instinctively feel that the latest fad just MUST be better because reasons. It is simply hubris to think that human reason can account for all of the variables that go into organizing a functional society, and can artificially change multiple aspects of a stable society simultaneously, without producing a cascade of unanticipated negative side effects.
The Khmer Rouge and their “Year Zero” approach illustrate the extreme version of this approach, but all leftists adopt it to some extent.
“pre Enlightenment? Just like saying left or right, that means nothing to me…”
Typical leftist ignorance of even the basics of history.
You do realize their are hundreds, thousands, of cultures that existed before the enlightenment, right? Which one are you advocating for?
Okay? Again, I don’t consider myself a leftist, I don’t support many leftists (or rightist) ideas. Your comment isn’t addressing any of my statements. I really don’t understand what you are trying to criticize of my ideas. Do you even know what institutions I am against? Which institution do I want to “destroy” that shouldn’t be destroyed?
Conservatives are the products of their time. And seek to preserve what they perceive to be old fashioned values.
I’m not sure if I find this article ironic or something else on this site. A previous one was on how to “bang” in as many countries as possible. I find myself desiring a restoration of Christendom (or at least a Deism that accepts all the behaviors required), and that requires chastity on the part of men (and women – and chastity within marriage is monogamy).
Yet go through the last month on this site and I think there are a similar number of articles, and one can compare if they agree or disagree similarly – “How to fornicate”. I haven’t looked if there are any for heterosexual sodomy but I would not be surprised.
But to the above list, a platitude is not a principle. Censorship? It is a deep and complex subject – Many articles on this site would have been censored 40 or more years ago. A clear distinction is between belief, opinion, and objective truth and action – so questions about religion, politics, etc. depend. There must be freedom of conscience and tolerance for all opinion, but not for all expression in public, and not for all actions deriving from belief.
This will cause an internecine war in the Alt-Right if not resolved earlier. The split might be described as between enjoy the post-apocalypse and live out civilization in microcosm.
Even the banging is petty, as CS Lewis described in “Screwtape Proposes A Toast” (they cook and eat the souls of the damned)
Then there was the lukewarm Casserole of Adulterers. Could you find in
it any trace of a fully inflamed, defiant, rebellious, insatiable lust? I
couldn’t. They all tasted to me like undersexed morons who had
blundered or trickled into the wrong beds in automatic response to sexy
advertisements, or to make themselves feel modern and emancipated, or to
reassure themselves about their virility or their “normalcy,” or even
because they had nothing else to do. Frankly, to me who have tasted
Messalina and Cassanova, they were nauseating.
The nice tunes today are Muzak to the earlier Mozart.
The poems are guttural to Goethe.
The screenwriting is silly and simple compared to Shakespeare.
And even the pick-up artistry is crude in comparison to Cassanova. We don’t even do an excellent, magnificent job when damning our souls.
The lesson has not been learned – that the mirror only creates the opposite excess of the golden mean of virtue. For all the apparent difference between MSNBC and FoxNews (noting Fox has the usual soft porn corrosive dreck on its network) , they are both shallow, pandering, talking point dispensers. Parodies of each other. Spinning furiously, only one is diesel and the other withershins.
This is the temptation to failure of the alt-right. Aiming too low – literally. Learning to be effective below the waist will not restore the chest in the man who does not have one, less be able to clear the head from the dotage and stupor.
That said, we forget the red-pill lets you see truth, the real world. In the Matrix, it was the traitor that knew and still preferred the pleasures of the Matrix. The real world is hard, it only rewards virtue, and only then sometimes. It isn’t pretty or pleasant. But it is true and real. And is not all there is. Heaven – or hell – lies beyond.
https://screwtapeblogs.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/screwtape-proposes-a-toast/
alt-right/neoreactionariansim is quite a diffuse movement. There’s no rigid canon.
Then one ought not to fire off the cannon without much circumspection. Perhaps hope it is so diffused that is de-fused.
As for a war with the alt right remember Gengis Khan went to war with the Mongol tribes and later conquered much of the world. A war with the alt right is not bad if it is a war for unification.
It is not so much a war WITH the alt-right, but internecine. A civil war.
It will be better in any case if the Alt Right shatters their common enemies, but I worry about the rightwing equivalent of a Stalinist purge.
I think we have bigger fish to fry than to purge our ranks. In any case I think it is legitimate that we argue what type of society should replace leftism
The fundamental problem is in order to replace Leftism, it will need to be replaced with something, both now, and in the next generation.
On the Christos-Rey side, they are creating and forming the next generation.
On the PUA side, there will be no “alt-right” next generation as that is the one thing in common as something to avoid.
You don’t see that by quite literally not creating the next generation that it is being effectively purged.
Lewis in “Abolition of Man” notes contraception gives some men power over other men, specifically this generation power over the next. If RooshV has – at best – no sons or daughters, what will happen to his words in a generation? If he has only bastards, will they not be leftists, and not merely leftists, but ones with an honest, just, and proper accusation? The final case is RooshV has a “come to Jesus” moment and has a family.
It is difficult enough for philosophy to pass from Father to Son. It is all but impossible for it to pass from some generic teaching or even a good teacher to a student.
And that assumes the philosophy is pure and directed, not corrupted and compromised.
“Make sure you flush the condom down the toilet, lest the woman give you offspring”.
Well this is why I advocate for a return to tradition Christianity. Perhaps I miswrote earlier.
Confession time, and only because you asked…
Vehemently agreed with 2 (nothing mentioned about stating his opinion), and just shy of vehemently agreed with 17. The rest I disagreed or vehemently disagreed with because it is communist crapola. I am not a communist.
That said, it would be impossible, even for me, to live in a society that forbid everything I disagreed or vehemently disagreed with… worse than being under ISIS rule. I recognize that, and that makes me a tolerant liberal.
#15 compulsory segregation for the south, and allowing blacks to use all facilities. How about we just let the market decide. Isn’t that how a true capitalistic society works? If a business owner wants to discriminate, that is his right. He owns the business. But if you are a businessman in the south you would be an idiot to discriminate on skin color. Have you been to the south? Its about 50% black. Go ahead and self segregate, but you will be going out of business. How about not discriminate, but be discerning. Profiling, whatever. You think every other race doesn’t do this? So don’t be so overt about your suspicians. Hold you cards close to your chest. Take the money where you can, but protect yourself. It’s like the gypsy code
If they go out of business, lesson learned. Let them have the freedom to segregate. No need to advise them otherwise. They can learn through Action and Consequence. Its Simple No on 15. They can self regulate upon failure or near failure.
No, I’m pretty sure legal segregation would increase business for whites & Asians where blacks frequent their establishments. I grew up in the ghetto and feared shopping often.
See that was something I’ve always wondered about. A government that doesn’t discriminate on a variety of factors for government positions makes sense, it’s there, ideally to serve it’s natural consistency and that is everyone within their borders.
A private business though, what business is it of mine who they do business with?
Blacks spend less than whites in most stores, and cost far more to service due to security risks. There are different classes of Blacks, though — your typical hoodrat “youth” has a totally different risk and spending profile from the overpaid female city government worker.
It’s also a commercial kiss of death when a shopping area gets over about 20% non-elite Black. Within no time it goes 95%+ Black, the same is almost as true for any low-class group. Then the place gets grungy, shoplifting goes through the roof, the stores stop displaying nice stuff, there are fights in the food court, car break-ins in the parking lot — and no Whites and damn few elite Blacks will even think of taking their kids to the “Mall of Mogadishu”.
No, it’s not 50% black here. Mississippi is the blackest state, and it’s 37.3% black.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_African-American_population
I flat out agreed with several. Perhaps ten I thought of as “good ideals, but with caveats” as they are not universal, but “nice” – getting along with neighbors, related to freedom of association, etc.
The rest – from no to hell no
I’ve said it many times: Self-declared conservatives are typically just individuals who are tempermentally predisposed to conserve the status quo, and the status quo is currently liberal.
There’s no way that I could accept 80-90 IQ morons having the same say as me in the direction of my society. I’m insulted that people I view as beneath me have the same political power I supposedly do.
That’s definitely not a society that represents me and my people
The older I get the farther out I wish to be from the machinations of the “civilized” The depravity of our civilization is something I recently wrote about here http://thesavagelifestyle.com/depravity-civilized/
“There’s no way that I could accept 80-90 IQ morons having the same say as me in the direction of my society” Interestingly, in Athenian democracy the polis of those who could vote and decide on important public issues. Only men of a certain age and education were allowed to vote.
The Roman legion, for a long time, was composed only of those landowning Roman men of a certain age. The idea was that such soldiers had much more to lose should the legion fail, and thus would fight harder and resist attempts to convert them to the enemy cause.
I would happily restrict the right to vote to those who are net taxpayers. These are the people who spend money to keep our system running, and these are the people who have the most to lose from poor government decisions.
The idea is simple: every citizen gets one vote by default on tax day. When a citizen collects government money, he loses that vote until he becomes a net taxpayer again. At the same time, a person can buy that citizen’s vote by voluntarily contributing sufficient tax money to cover that welfare expense.
This system would prevent the poor from voting my money into their pockets. It would prevent students from voting their debts away. It would ensure that people learn to value their votes, and as such that people would become better-informed in their voting decisions.
Thoughts?
EDIT: as a side benefit, people like Soros would no longer be able to manipulate the poor’s vote for free. In order to enforce their whims, it’ll require them to cover the costs of all those whose votes they employ. Win-win.
Sounds interesting. I definitely agree that only taxpayers (preferably male only) should vote. People who receive government handouts should not be eligible to vote.
I’d expand the definition of ‘government handouts’ to include bureaucrats and politicians (and perhaps federal contractors).
Citizen soldier. All republics are based on that. You serve, you vote.
March of the Hoplites!
Totally agreed. Then all citizen’s would be trained to fight and when they returned home to their work and lives, they’d be more prepared to defend themselves, their families, communities and nations.
I love it.
Minor revision: net taxpayer making an annual salary above the poverty line.
A) Put some shame back into being an underachiever.
B) One day’s paycheck at Wendy’s plus not collecting welfare does not prompt voting eligibility.
Why not ? If someone works (especially at a subsistence level) and doesn’t collect any welfare at all they’re a lot more entitled to have a say than some schlub at GM or ING whose job wouldn’t exist without corporate welfare. Everybody isn’t cut out to be some kind of baller and personally I’m ok with that.
Current poverty guideline for 1 person is $11,880 a year.
I hardly call that baller.
If someone works and doesn’t get welfare then they should have a vote.
The level I suggested would mean that at a minimum someone would have to work at minimum wage at roughly half time for a year.
Any less than that and someone is either a bum, working off the books (which I have no problem with but is, in fact, illegal) or they’re engaging in a black market living.
Edit: That is, if they are managing to survive without social assistance below that level.
Absolutely correct. As long as someone isn’t taking government assistance then they should have the right to vote.
Well what Im saying is, they should also prove they’re contributing to the system.
If they live off of someone else’s work (manbeard in parents’ basement) or make a living pushing crack, or as a tranny prostitute then no I think they shouldn’t vote.
In the US we could make a strong case that you shouldn’t vote for the House if you don’t pay taxes. They’re the body in charge of the money and if you’re not putting anything in the pot, why should you get a choice on how it’s spent?
I’d be all for something like that. Without a homogenous society with a people who have a shared identity it isn’t possible
At the beginning of Trump’s campaign, I got into a discussion with my co-workers (none of whom are dunces – well maybe one) about who should and should not be allowed to vote.
We came up with this:
1) Property owners. Real property. Property in equity would need to reach a certain level.
2) Young men in military service – regardless of age.
3) The voting age should be raised to 30 or 35.
In order to vote, a person should meet at least two of the three qualifications.
I would add that women should not be allowed to vote.
We also considered that anyone who pays net taxes should have a vote. I disagreed with this, separating the obligation to pay for government from the ability and alleged right to have a say in government. Government in a very real sense is a service we pay for and even though I pay for goods and services, I have no right to tell the business owner how to run the business.
The outrage at my idea that “democracy” is a very, very, bad thing was humorous.
To run with your ‘only net contributors should get a say’ theme, how about giving the vote to corporate persons? After all, the average business – even the smaller-than-average business – probably pays far more in taxes than the average ‘natural’ person. Perhaps add the proviso that any corporate person applying for the vote be subject to an audit. Businesses who claim that the majority of their revenue is earned in the Cayman Islands need not apply.
Interesting thought. The only reason I’d resist that is that I have difficulty seeing a corporation as a person. I know that’s the legal understanding, but it doesn’t make sense in my head.
Plus the fact that they pay far less taxes than your average small business owner, outsource as much as possible and enjoy far greater tax protection than the average voter.
Maybe it would help to make sense in your head if I gave you an example from my life/business? In general, giving the vote to corporate persons would more or less bring about the same result as giving CEOs 2 votes. However, there are times when that won’t necessarily be the case. For example:
As a natural person, I am in favour of relaxing the Sunday Trading Laws so that I can go buy stuff anywhere I want on a Sunday.
However, as a corporate person, I am against the relaxing of the Sunday Trading Laws; my business is small enough that it’s classified as exempt from those laws – keeping the laws in place means less competition for me on a Sunday.
Business’s and corporations are not people, despite courts and the legislature treating them as such. The people that make up corporations are people and in the end already get their vote.
All “Citizens” should get a right to vote. It’s just that citizen needs to be defined as a male property owner whom has served in the armed forces. I like the idea that they need to be a net tax payer and that any year they take more money in from the government than they give back, they give up their right to vote in or for that government.
All citizens should get only one vote as well. I haven’t seen it suggested yet on here that the rich should get more than one vote. I’m glad I haven’t seen that suggestion. The likes of Soros would be back in charge.
Shorten the idea to a meme.
We fought the Revolutionary War over No Taxation Without Representation. Now we need to flip it:
No Representation Without Taxation
Yes, let me tell you about the one and only time I voted.
I spent many hours going through the websites of all the candidates, seeing where they stood on all the issues. I did this for even the most local and “unimportant” positions. I read carefully all the ballot propositions and watched hours of debates on them from local news sources. I actually read through at least three different decisions for every judge who was up for retention (some of the real rotters could be spotted in just two or three decisions).
A few days after the election, I learned that my mother’s vote had completely nullified my own; she also said “I always just vote to retain all the judges.” I asked her why she would vote on ballot propositions, judges, etc., if she admitted she knew nothing about them. “We have the right to vote, so we should exercise it” was her reply.
How had she arrived at her decisions? Her Socialist friend simply told her how to vote, and she voted as she recommended. All of my mother’s ideas are absorbed from Oprah and CSI Whatevercity (and her Socialist friend).
Democracy is a disaster almost inevitably; but it is especially stupid when democracies think that “expanding the franchise” is some sort of noble expansion of human rights. What it really is, is extending the vote to an ever-widening circle of more perfectly incompetent persons. If one must have a democracy, at least restrict the vote to married men over 30 with an IQ of 125 or higher, who own land. Women, children (people under 30 are essentially children, I’ve come to see), hostile minorities and socially autonomous persons, have no business steering the ship of state.
Yes, this means that I would not have the vote; I would love to disenfranchise myself, if it meant disenfranchising all those other rubes, too.
Go Brexit !
Yes, glory to God!
So to be a “true man of the right” means that the coloreds have to return to living in the back once again? Is that really where we’re going?
I’m all for freedom of association. But if someone has the money to buy a product or service why should he be turned down because of his race? That just seems very petty to me.
As for colonialism, perhaps if it hadn’t happened we wouldn’t be in this situation in the first place, regardless of whether it was good, bad or neutral. We are not obliged to provide aid to other countries however. If they simply can’t maintain a government, let natural selection take its course.
So you think in other words that anyone who is a merchant or a seller of wares should be forced under gunpoint to sell his items to anyone who wants to buy them? He is not allowed to choose?
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Petty or not, you are not morally allowed to regulate that shit with the threat of violence for fucks sake.
Think before you speak.
I suppose technically if one is viewing it from a completely libertarian perspective, no, the government should not require one by law to serve anybody. Doesn’t make it any less petty if someone turns someone away simply because of his race.
I’m of the opinion that any criteria is more or less the same and all should be allowed.
If you think about it carefully it’s no different than turning down some fat ugly broad you don’t want to fuck.
Choice is choice, the criteria used is irrelevant.
If I have a shop I should be able to refuse to sell to who ever for any arbitrary reason I choose, such as “you look funny” or “I only sell to women I would fuck” or “your face is too black”.
This is very important, without freedom or choice and criteria there is no freedom at all.
I think you’re taking it to an extreme place. Again, technically, I suppose the state should not be forcing anyone to serve anyone he does not want to serve, regardless of criteria. But isn’t it a bit ridiculous if, say, a black man has been traveling through the south nonstop for 24 hours, he’s exhausted, comes upon a hotel and has the money to rent a room, and is turned down simply because he’s black?
How about a white guy who looks too scruffy being turned down at the same point?
You are talking about a non issue to me. There is no way you will convince me that the hotel owner has to accept any guy because he is black, which is the only thing you can, at this point, be pushing for.
I didn’t marry a girl from my country, should the girls of my country be allowed to sue me for discrimination?
Come the fuck on man.
Dude, why do you always blow up when you hear a point of view which differs from yours? Clearly we do not see eye to eye on this subject, so let’s agree to disagree. But calm the fuck down man.
Because there is only one flavour of freedom. Anyone who claims otherwise is a fucking fraud.
Any time you want to promote one group over another and/or legislate preferential treatment you are destroying freedom both for everyone else AND for that selected group.
Affirmative action has brought more racism than any single other government action. Because it’s racist. Black lives matters is just as racist.
This is true. AA has done nothing to help the people it was *supposed* to help, and has only succeeded in stirring racial tensions. And BLM is just a fucking joke.
In many cases, I agree it can be petty. But, the government’s job is not to eliminate private, petty incidents. Nor is it, really, to correct “social injustices” (as some measure it) via a process that inflicts actual, legal injustice upon private property owners. A great deal of Leftist thought, involves denying people the right to have private property, or to administer their private property as they see fit.
And, sadly, we must say that in many cases there may be very good reasons for denying certain classes of people access to goods and services. For example, the government could import all the Saudis and Afghanis it wants against the will of the people, but if none of them could get a job, go grocery shopping or walk into a gun store (because the people of the country didn’t want them here, as I think is appropriate), well, problem solved. They’ll stay in Saudi Arabia. I am against the idea that a few decent Saudis or Afghanis morally obligate us to accept the far greater number of morally fraught Saudis and Afghanis.
After seeing how huge swathes of the black community behave in certain areas of the country, I can also see that a business owner would have a legitimate interest in saying, “sorry, but you guys vandalize and shoplift an extraordinary amount, so I don’t even want to see you on my property.”
Or, imagine how much better off we would be if, as in India, “independent women” were incapable of doing anything. There are very good reasons, in most cases, why private business owners make the decisions they do about their own business. They don’t want to lose money, so there’s probably a compelling social or moral reason for their decision to only do business in certain ways. When the State disrupts that process through the violation of their rights, nothing good comes of it, on the whole.
Being a “true man of the right” doesn’t necessarily mean the coloreds have to go to the back again…
It means that, whether they are at the front or the back will not be the result of a governmental mandate.
I’m from Quebec. The Church, prior to our own liberal revolution, offered freed education and health. I fail to see how those things are against Christian right-wing beliefs. People should have access to health. Christ, in fact, commands us to do so.
Joseph de Maistre comes across as a stooge and a brown-noser for the upper class. Despite many of his more substantiated claims about the French revolution (i.e the areligious aspect of it), he really just was defending a system where one received privilege based on birth, something that the Christianity he was defending makes no comment for or against. Though some aspects of democracy are awful (i.e the possibility of the legalization of immoral acts that are against natural law), the fact opportunity in the French Ancien Regime was based solely on one’s station rather than one’s ability is revolting, even to a person that abides by the laws of the church.
The aristocracy slaughtered each other for more land for over a milennia, leading to famine, lawlessness and death. If you’ve read St Augustine on the issue, he realizes that most wars are where the upper class seeks to increase its own power at the expense of lives lost. This was the case.
As for the laws on racial segregation, one must realize that that is the result of the sin of racial partiality, of which God disapproves of. Anyone who makes unfounded bigoted judgements based on something that God created (he created black skin) is in a state of sin. Plain and simple. However, you can’t force people to do it, hence why my support for free market capitalism has dwindled recently.
I’m more inclined to support a theocracy where those that rule are pious, rational men of God who do what is best for those around them, tending to their material and spiritual needs. They do not seek to go to war to rob another man of his land, as was the case through the medieval and early modern period. Think of the prince-abbots of the old Holy Roman Empire. Having taken a vow of poverty, these men will not seek to enrich themselves, rather seeking to fulfill the material needs of others through shrewd economics and spiritual needs through their duties as clergy.
St Augustine on the issue, he realizes that most wars are where the upper class seeks to increase its own power at the expense of lives lost. This was the case.
Tell me how that stopped to be the case today? An oligarchy always rules. You either know about as in the Middle Ages or not as today. Their rule is either good or bad. I wouldn’t say the rule of mediaeval princes was necessarily worse as the Enlightenment and its descendants want to have it.
Also the Middle Ages weren’t as dark as one usually thinks nowadays. It was a process of civilizing barbarians by the Church. Quite successful process.
The Church reserved some authority for herself over secular princes in spiritual affairs but they were meant to rule over society in temporal affairs. Theocracy is not the goal of our Church.
Christ nowhere says that the State should rob people to pay for the needs of others. The State upholds the peace, by defending the nation militarily, providing police force, and enforcing just laws aimed at furthering the common good without infringing upon legitimate rights, and minimizing the intrusion upon sound freedoms. This means that robbing Peter to pay Paul is right out. The duties of piety and charity are duties of the citizens primarily, not of the governmental institutions.
Aristocracy is not perfect; no system is, including Democracy. The question, is: which is more natural? More conducive to the common good, given the circumstances? Democracy is the least stable and the most historically wicked form of governance. It is almost never the answer.
The problem that provoked the French Revolution, was in fact that social mobility was too high. Many vulgar persons had been admitted into the ranks of the aristocracy (even if not the hereditary aristocracy) by the common practice of selling certain offices that automatically invested the holder with nobility for life. It was these nouveau-riche “nobles” that became the driving force of the bourgeoisie revolt.
The Church gave services out of its own generosity, using the many donations it received from good god-fearing Catholics.
The aristocracy was always corrupt to a certain degree, largely because it was comprised of people that valued warmongering over peaceful rulership. The history of the Middle Ages is largely the story of how nobles constantly warred, married and intrigued to increase their power. If all of that work would have been dedicated to doing good deeds and pursuing the interest of Christ, imagine what would happen.
As for social mobility, many Popes and great men of God started as parish priests or theology teachers, so it is not a bad thing. It is when one lets people arise due to wealth (as you say) that it becomes bad.
As for the French Revolution, it was largely the widespread famine caused by the eruption of Iceland’s volcano system that unleashed the desire for reform due to man’s carnal needs not being met. Bread and games as they say.
I won’t deny that corruption existed in the aristocracy. Corruption also existed in the founding fathers of the USA, the current leadership of every Western nation, the EU, etc., etc.
Corruption exists, and always will.
The solution is not to throw out the aristocracy on the ambition of organizing society along a utopian and impossible principle of equality. They would have done better to unite with the hereditary aristocracy against the bourgeoisie, culling the incompetent and corrupt from the ranks of the aristocracy and replacing them with better folk.
Many popes, especially in the Middle Ages, were from noble families. Saintly popes, even. Even the really bad Borgia pope, had a brother who became a Saint (Francis Borgia). Many of the saints were also of noble families, as one finds when he regularly reads hagiography or prays the daily Office; there, one constantly finds that the noble families of Europe were indeed producing sons of immense learning and sanctity, or daughters who would abandon their high stations to serve as nursemaids to the sick and dying. It’s quite extraordinary how noble many of those families were, even though, of course, there was also often quarreling between noble houses. But to imagine what things would be like “if only” all the sinners devoted their time to sanctity, is a futile imagining. It’s never going to happen!
The aristocracy is just as sinful as any other man.
Why should only a few families rule? Why not have ecclesiastic rule by the Church who’s prelates are chosen based on merit and not family connection?
You also have quite a lot more aristocrats playing king of the castle against each, causing famine and strife towards innocent farmers who got caught in the middle. It’s this that deeply worries me.
You see Aurelius, it’s this kind of brown-nosing and upper-class stoogery that makes people not want to side with monarchists. Joseph de Maistre was notorious for talking about how great aristocrats were and how much better they were than all the sinful little paupers that wallow in sin and debauchery.
Aristocrats are just as sinful as any other family.
One should not be granted one’s position by birth, but by righteousness and competence, regardless of who one is associated with.
How will we go about doing that? Simple. Theocracy. Bring back the prince-bishoprics and prince-abbeys of Charlemagne’s era and have the church appoint men who are competent and righteous regardless of family connection. Make them take vows of poverty so they won’t seek to enrich themselves personally.
One of the most loathsome things anyone can say is “have a right”.
No such things as rights.
You either have free speech or your government takes it away.
You are able to defend yourself or you are not.
No one has the right to take anything away from anyone. Whether it being tax money or speech or self defense.
No. #2. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion.
Opinions are like assholes, everyone’s got one!
I said the same thing, somewhere else on the thread. 😉
As a monk I’m sure you know that some of the statements on this list would be supported in a qualified and very specific way by the Church’s social thought but not in the way commonly understood today.
Yes. It’s only practical on this forum to deal with the “gist” of what is expressed; but, of course, there are always the fine points to moral questions.
Some of them are flatly and unambiguously wrong, however, such as all points that claim a right abstracted from the norms of objective morality.
Im not grasping why you disagree with 33 and 34.
In the US these are expressly guaranteed by the First Amendment — likely the only reason the thought police don’t currently have you in shackles awaiting the iron maiden.
Because a right is a claim based on justice, and there is no just claim to think or express irrational or immoral thoughts. This doesn’t mean I think the State should monitor, police and punish opinions in all cases (though it’s appropriate in some cases); but it does mean that people should stop thinking of themselves as entitled, by right, to accept or express even wrong and wicked ideas.
And by the interpretation of prophecy by fallible men, we are to assume that the teachings of the Church are entirely infallible and should dictate which ideas and behaviours are inherently wicked? Even so in a land whose constitution upholds a secular state?
Did not il Papa just call for Catholics to apologize to the gay community?
1) There is always an authority, comprised of fallible men, dictating which ideas and deeds are inherently wicked. So, bitching that the churchmen do it is frivolous; if churchmen don’t do it, somebody else will. Yourself, for example.
2) The Church’s Tradition is itself Infallible, however fallible the men may be. Which brings us to…
3) “Il Papa” is, first off, not the Papa because he is not a Catholic; second off, even if he were, il Papa can be wrong as a private person.
1) Statesmen do make the rules where I live and they say expression should not be limited, for we have seen the wickedness that is made manifest so easily in the absence of such protections. If you are to suggest that such protections are incorrect, then surely you must argue directly against such authority and consign its power to God, whose word is delivered through men.
2-3) I am speaking of Pope Francis. Recently lauded and applauded for insisting that catholics apologize to gays for past transgressions.
1) And on what authority do those statesmen make the rules? Are they actually morally obligatory? Or are they merely useful and pleasant by someone’s subjective metric?
2) Yes, I was also speaking of Francis. He is what one calls an anti-pope; this is not yet officially recognized, but it certainly will be in the not too distant future.
Ill admit readily to relying on my own opinion in asserting this specific argument, but will then point to the very birth of my nation and the boom of prosperity that followed as justification for this opinion. Did the heathens of the east create what we did? Did not so very many authoritarian regimes inflict untold horrors upon their subjects at will? Is not the freedom of expression so expressly tied to the freedom to worship how one pleases? Was the Anglican Church not oppressive of Catholics?
The problem, in my most humble opinion, is not the expression of incorrect ideas, but the lack of will in good men to supercede them and cast them back into the pits where they belong. If the Lord made us in his own image above all other creatures and imbued us with reason enough to choose between salvation and rot, why should one not be allowed to say what he thinks? Are we believers in predetermination?
But on a lighter note toward your latter point:
Who gets to decree blasphemy in such a situation?
And on a more serious note, do you think a change in policy will come about to correct the wayward trajectory of this ‘kinder, gentler’ Church?
Oh, yes; this “kinder, gentler church” is so much straw, destined very soon for the furnace. The Church is indomitable; this current crisis, known as “the Passion of the Church,” has long been prophesied; it will end in due time (quite soon, I think), and, God willing, I intend to work on the front lines of the restoration. I depart soon to begin that work, in fact. The thing operating in Rome at present is not the Church, and this can be shown easily from the doctrines of the Church herself. It is the anti-Church, also long spoken of, and its ruin will be great.
The greatness of the West is not the product of “Free Speech;” in fact, manifestly “Free Speech” now has a deleterious and civilization-stopping effect in the West. “Freedom,” as we now think of it (i.e., false freedom, or license, deracinated and abstracted from Natural Law) in fact unleashes the passions and vices in society, eventually eroding civilization to the point where the people are no longer virtuous enough to maintain their Liberty, because they have handed themselves over to corruption, ignorance and vice on the pretext of being at “liberty” to do so. People thus corrupted and vitiated, immediately begin voting and advocating for things that will destroy every last vestige of actual freedom in a society. As we see clearly, here and now.
The greatness of the West is due to a few things: 1) the presence of supernatural grace in all levels of our society for over a millennium, through the Sacraments and blessings administered by the very Church Christ founded; 2) the valuation of discriminating, rigorous thought and careful, truthful speech over “free,” or indiscriminate, thought and speech; 3) the innate genius of Western peoples through their genetic gifts and cultural patrimony.
The decline of the West began with the decline of these three things: 1) the loss of the Catholic Faith and the rejection of Christ’s Church; 2) the promotion of “freedom” in order to destroy freedom and the virtues necessary for freedom (and every institution that stood for those virtues); 3) the murder of the greater part of our civilization’s men of nobler blood and spirit through five centuries of a war of extermination against all supporters of the ancien régime, followed in more modern times by the intermarrying of the remnants of the European stock with other peoples, and the way in which they have relegated their cultural patrimony to oblivion.
In my opinion, “Free Speech” has aided this decline immeasurably more than it has hindered it. If evil and grievously wrong ideas belong in the pit, as you say, and men should cast them back into the pit, well, that begins with not according them the right to free action and propagation in society! How can you cast something out of society while endowing it with the rights to move and increase freely in society? It is strange, this irrational paralysis we now experience…
The last thing you asked (“Who decides?”), gets right at the nub of the problem: because the West has despaired of knowing the Truth, the only thing it cares about now, is not allowing another person’s “truth” to get the upper hand over my “truth.” That is where all this incoherence originates, by which we demand that evil must have its “rights,” while telling ourselves the lie that there yet remains any means of resistance against evil so protected under color of official rights. But in the end, not allowing any “truth” to gain the upper hand, guarantees that the actual never gets the upper hand, either. And if “the Truth will set you free,” then the civilizational conspiracy to prevent Truth from prevailing in society, in favor of the “rights” of other “truths,” is a sure-fired way to ensure that none of us will be free ever again. If you want to be free, if you want the Truth, if you want rights, you must be willing to mercilessly dispatch license, lies and errors when necessary. If, instead, you honor and protect these threats, investing them with “rights,” well, how on earth do you think you will ever mount a serious resistance?
The hordes of people who watch Oprah and vote for free shit are not impressed by your ideals. You can either punish the hordes of people who watch Oprah and vote for free shit, and inform them that they will not be consulted on any decision of importance to free men, or you can invest them with the rights to behave like people who watch Oprah and vote for free shit, put their opinions on an equal level of legal right and protection as yours, and carry Western civilization into your grave with you. For my part, I assert that we have the right to stop those people and silence their views, with extreme prejudice. Until we find the mettle to do this, there will be no end to the freak show.
Brace yourself Aurelius, the passion of the Church is still in the ”Garden of Olives” stage. However, the closer we get to the Golgotha, the closer we also get to the glory of the Resurrection. Hopefully, the apostles these days will have the faith and the courage to accompany God on this path instead of hiding out in fear. Ponce Pilate ? The Sanhedrin ? Phew… with all the modern culture that we have been exposed to, everybody knows that it can not get any worse than Ramsey Bolton or the White Walkers, and we are damn ready to kick ass.
#13. Who helped us get to where we are? So a third world country is going to offer what? Ask Sweden how that shit is working out.
Here I go…
1. All forms of racial segregation and discrimination are wrong.
No, it’s only wrong when it’s forced by the state.
2. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion.
Yes.
3. Everyone has a right to free, public education.
No.
4. Political, economic or social discrimination based on religious belief is wrong.
On the political level yes (at least in some circumstances). Otherwise no.
5. In political or military conflict it is wrong to use methods of torture and physical terror.
Yes, up to a point. It would be preferable to torture a terrorist than to potentially have many die for example.
6. A popular movement or revolt against a tyranny or dictatorship is right, and deserves approval.
Yes. (except for dictatorships that are not tyrannies)
7. The government has a duty to provide for the ill, aged, unemployed and poor if they cannot take care of themselves.
No.
8. Progressive income and inheritance taxes are the fairest form of taxation.
No.
9. If reasonable compensation is made, the government of a nation has the legal and moral right to expropriate private property within its borders, whether owned by citizens or foreigners.
Yes. As long as it’s within strict limits
10. We have a duty to mankind; that is, to men in general.
No. Nations have a duty to their own people first and foremost.
11. The United Nations, even if limited in accomplishment, is a step in the right direction.
No.
12. Any interference with free speech and free assembly, except for cases of immediate public danger or juvenile corruption, is wrong.
Yes.
13. Wealthy nations, like the United States, have a duty to aid the less privileged portions of mankind.
Yes, only if it’s done on a voluntary basis through charity.
14. Colonialism and imperialism are wrong.
No. (It depends on the case)
15. Hotels, motels, stores and restaurants in southern United States ought to be obliged by law to allow blacks to use all of their facilities on the same basis as whites.
No.
16. The chief sources of delinquency and crime are ignorance, discrimination, poverty and exploitation.
No.
17. Communists have a right to express their opinions.
Yes.
18. We should always be ready to negotiate with the Soviet Union and other communist nations.
Yes.
19. Corporal punishment, except possibly for small children, is wrong.
No.
20. All nations and peoples, including the nations and peoples of Asia and Africa, have a right to political independence when a majority of the population wants it.
Maybe.
21. We always ought to respect the religious beliefs of others.
No. While we should (for the most part) allow people to have their own religious beliefs, it doesn’t mean that others should ‘ought’ to respect theirs.
22. The primary goal of international policy in the nuclear age ought to be peace.
Yes. (as much as it is possible anyway)
23. Except in cases of a clear threat to national security or, possibly, to juvenile morals, censorship is wrong.
Yes
24. Congressional investigating committees are dangerous institutions, and need to be watched and curbed if they are not to become a serious threat to freedom.
Yes.
25. The money amount of school and university scholarships ought to be decided primarily by need.
No.
26. Qualified teachers, at least at the university level, are entitled to academic freedom: that is, the right to express their own beliefs and opinions, in or out of the classroom, without interference from administrators, trustees, parents or public bodies.
Yes. (in public universities at least)
27. In determining who is to be admitted to schools and universities, quota systems based on color, religion, family or similar factors are wrong.
Yes.
28. The national government should guarantee that all adult citizens, except for criminals and the insane, should have the right to vote.
No. Universal suffrage is pure insanity.
29. Joseph McCarthy was probably the most dangerous man in American public life during the fifteen years following the Second World War.
No. He was mostly right.
30. There are no significant differences in intellectual, moral or civilizing capacity among human races and ethnic types.
No. This is by measures false.
31. Steps toward world disarmament would be a good thing.
Theoretically yes, in practice no.
32. Everyone is entitled to political and social rights without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Yes. Some distinctions are necessary however.
33. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and expression.
Yes.
34. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
Yes.
35. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.
No.
36. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security.
No.
37. Everyone has the right to equal pay for equal work.
No.
38. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions.
Yes.
39. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
No.
The different races and ethnic groups are like great families. Families stick together and work to ensure their survival and welfare. Thus it is only natural that these groups have vied for control of the resources and territory they need to prosper. It has always been this way, and will always be this way. No family will sacrifice it’s children so that the children of the next family will prosper instead. That is human nature, and it would be futile and immoral to try to change it.
From this we understand that wherever two ethnic groups coexist in the same space, there will eventually be a struggle for the limited resources within that space. The only way to ensure that there is no ethnic conflict is to separate the groups into their own territory. Conversely, one sure-fire way to instigate ethnic conflict is to force disparate groups into the same geographical space or political jurisdiction.
This is why the only viable political system is ethnic nationalism. For a country to function smoothly, it must be united into a single family of people, not a rag tag gang of ethnic groups who distrust each other and compete for favors from the government. It is fundamentally immoral for a government controlled by one ethnic group to govern a different competing ethnic group.
People will not betray their blood or their family based on abstract ideals. Vague “ideals” have no power to break ethnic loyalties that divide any multicultural society. We’re supposed to have a society based on ideals today. And anyone with half a brain can see that it’s not working – only the whites seem to be even trying, while all the other groups are knee deep in ethnic politics. You want us to continue this obsessive fixation with the “proposition nation” until everything is taken away from us?
The world is not becoming multi-ethnic. White countries are becoming multi-ethnic, and nowhere but white countries. And the average white person is intelligent enough to know that they are being displaced by these immigrants. Only degenerate weaklings would embrace that and “get used to it”.
Normal, well adjusted people can easily recognize others of their own race, and they will naturally gather together. Just like oil and water which naturally separate when left alone, we will naturally separate into homogeneous groups without need of any kind of sorting. The only thing preventing this normal and healthy process is the policy of forced integration imposed on us by liberal social reformers – to disastrous effect.
Tricky = depends.
1. All forms of racial segregation and discrimination are wrong.
Discrimination is necessary!
2. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion.
Tricky…
3. Everyone has a right to free, public education.
No!
4. Political, economic or social discrimination based on religious belief is wrong.
I discriminate against Islam, so no!
5. In political or military conflict it is wrong to use methods of torture and physical terror.
tricky…
6. A popular movement or revolt against a tyranny or dictatorship is right, and deserves approval.
No!
7. The government has a duty to provide for the ill, aged, unemployed and poor if they cannot take care of themselves.
Tricky…
8. Progressive income and inheritance taxes are the fairest form of taxation.
No!
9. If reasonable compensation is made, the government of a nation has the legal and moral right to expropriate private property within its borders, whether owned by citizens or foreigners.
If a government don’t do that, how will roads be built?
Perhaps not moral, but depending on the situation, and the individual that the right is being infringed upon, there is no other reasonable option. For example: If we are talking about a citizen of little nobility of heart, I don’t see why we should respect him so much.
10. We have a duty to mankind; that is, to men in general.
No! We have a duty to the noble men.
11. The United Nations, even if limited in accomplishment, is a step in the right direction.
No! A Union of Nations may be a step in the right direction, but what we have is fundamentally wrong.
12. Any interference with free speech and free assembly, except for cases of immediate public danger or juvenile corruption, is wrong.
No! In order for a nation to be healthy, it must censor any dangerous speech, such as vindication for bad behavior and depravity as well as speech that demoralize the nobles and/or the Ruler.
13. Wealthy nations, like the United States, have a duty to aid the less privileged portions of mankind.
Tricky.
If we are talking an economic aid, then no!
But every righteous man and nation have a duty to the righteous, and therefore, wealthy and righteous nations have a duty to rescue and re-instablish righteous and bright men from other nations into their own.
14. Colonialism and imperialism are wrong.
No!
15. Hotels, motels, stores and restaurants in southern United States ought to be obliged by law to allow blacks to use all of their facilities on the same basis as whites.
Tricky, It is much simpler to establish segregation and solve this problem.
But no!
16. The chief sources of delinquency and crime are ignorance, discrimination, poverty and exploitation.
No! The chief sources of bad behavior is innate quality of the individual in question, education (or whatever) would not solve it.
17. Communists have a right to express their opinions.
No! Not in the open, not for women, or for youngsters or for the simple minded.
18. We should always be ready to negotiate with the Soviet Union and other communist nations.
Tricky. It is inherently immoral to establish deals with immoral nations, but the reality of the moment might not agree.
19. Corporal punishment, except possibly for small children, is wrong.
No!
20. All nations and peoples, including the nations and peoples of Asia and Africa, have a right to political independence when a majority of the population wants it.
No! Democracy is inherently wrong and immoral.
21. We always ought to respect the religious beliefs of others.
No! But we ought to respect respectable beliefs/religions. (That would exclude Islam, satanism and others inherently bad religions).
22. The primary goal of international policy in the nuclear age ought to be peace.
Blah Blah, I have no idea what nº. 22 even means.
23. Except in cases of a clear threat to national security or, possibly, to juvenile morals, censorship is wrong.
No!
24. Congressional investigating committees are dangerous institutions, and need to be watched and curbed if they are not to become a serious threat to freedom.
Well, I am an absolutist Monarchist, so congress as I know makes no sense for me.
25. The money amount of school and university scholarships ought to be decided primarily by need.
No!
26. Qualified teachers, at least at the university level, are entitled to academic freedom: that is, the right to express their own beliefs and opinions, in or out of the classroom, without interference from administrators, trustees, parents or public bodies.
No!
27. In determining who is to be admitted to schools and universities, quota systems based on color, religion, family or similar factors are wrong.
Tricky, establishing quotas for blacks is wrong, banning muslims is not.
28. The national government should guarantee that all adult citizens, except for criminals and the insane, should have the right to vote.
Absolutist Monarchist here…
29. Joseph McCarthy was probably the most dangerous man in American public life during the fifteen years following the Second World War.
IDK
30. There are no significant differences in intellectual, moral or civilizing capacity among human races and ethnic types.
No! There are huge differences in innate capacities and nobility. But there are also people of the same race who are stupid and genious, and that is why some people deserve more rights and judicial protections than others, based on their innate qualities.
31. Steps toward world disarmament would be a good thing.
Tricky: Good Nations should be armed to the teeth, bad nations should be allowed to have only swords and shields.
32. Everyone is entitled to political and social rights without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
No! read my answer to 30.
33. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and expression.
No! -> 30
34. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
No! -> 30
35. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.
Absolutist Monarchist here.
36. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security.
No! -> 30
37. Everyone has the right to equal pay for equal work.
No! -> 30
38. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions.
No!
39. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
No! -> 30
I guess thats it… how do I qualify for a man of the right?
What does it mean to have a duty?
I mean a moral duty.
As someone that lives in a hell-hole, I learned that the hard way.
I grew up wishing someone would rescue me, and when I got adult, I understood it was the moral duty of wealthy nations to rescue intelligent citizens from other nations and make their own (giving that those citizens have the potential to learn to love their new country, which would exclude muslims).
I would also like to remember that US used to have something like that.
I understand the wish, but does a wish obligate others to fulfill it? A decision like that should not be purely based on feelings of indebtedness, but on considerations that are more practical as well. I would agree if you said that s nation can profit from bringing smart folk home. But a moral duty? I don’t see that.
Well, let me put it this way:
Say that, in a lawless land, there is a giant and deep sink-hole and there are plenty of people trapped in there.
Some of them are a bunch of stupid people who usually creates the situation they are in, but a few are brighter and more sensible.
Say that it would cost you a lot to rescue and provide for recover and to give them a life in your feud.
In my view, you have a moral duty to rescue the brighter ones. (the profit is more like a side-effect, which doesn’t necessarily have to be economical)
But if the profit is merely a side-effect, why rescue the bright ones and not just a random bunch of people? Because they are less likely to get into problens again? But that is, again, a form of cost-benefit analysis, no?
yes, you are right, it is a cost-benefit analysis, but isn’t morality an absolute code that gives us prosperity to the nation that follow it?
That being said, I wouldn’t go as far as only rescuing those that the cost-benefit are obvious, but everyone that proves to be of a noble soul + good women.
Edit: If dependable on me, every other nation on the planet would have only stupid people, because I would suck the brains and honorable people out of them.
I’d say you are one!
I just read the first 10 and do not agree with any of them. But neither do I agree with their negation. I think they propose false dychotomies. ‘Right’ and ‘wrong’ are overly simplified, I want to say childlike, patterns of organizing ideas. Take a proposition, consider the consequences as best as you can, then decide whether to support it. Also, do this in every instance anew, since one proposition is never the same as another before, even if similar. Also think outside the box – can the proposition be modified in a way that you would support? Consider the details: The context, the country, the people, your own values at the time, and everything that plays into the consequences arising from the proposition. A proposition may make sense for one community, but not for another. Do not make the decision about ideological wars, like seeing everything through the lens of left vs right or Capitalism vs. Socialism. It blinds you to the peculiarities of the situation at hand.
Just my two cents on that.
hum… nice one!
I agree to a large extent, and that was the kind of commentary I was hoping to see from some men, here; why did they think things were right/wrong? How would they change the statements? Etc.
For example, I think Free Speech is a very valuable toleration accorded to free persons in an healthy society. But when there is a revolutionary ideology aimed at uprooting your civilization, I don’t at all agree that people have a “right” to advocate for class warfare, racial tensions, the robbing and disinheriting of people by the State, etc., etc.
And that’s also largely the point: these are the 39 articles of a new religion; despite being incoherent in many points, they argue that they are universal truths. Your recognition that in many cases they would be harmful or nonsensical, is a testament to the unworkability of the Liberal faith.
Glad you agree. I was unable to deduce from your writing whether you actually wanted simple yes/no answers or whether you were aware of their overarching simplicity. Way to go.
As for free speech, I read a little about the history. When it was introduced, it was a rather unimportant side note in a federal law that many did not even care to respect because they preferred to have state laws above it. It was in the 20th century that the bipartisan system brought it into fruition. The opposition supported the Amendment in order to be able to publicly criticize the establishment.
Disallowing it in certain cases is another discussion altogether. Truth is, it actually is restricted, at least here in Germany. You are not allowed to be politically active with the intent to end democracy, for instance. Which I think sucks, because democracy sucks in some aspects. But yeah, it is a delicate matter of looking at any aspect of it and as it is, it ends up being a judges responsibility in any case to weigh the arguments of either side.
Despite selfishly advocating free speech – because I don’t like people telling me what to do – I do see how it has led America to where it is today. Whether that is good or bad is a matter of further analysis, but yes, there are clearly problematic aspects to it.
1. This is in direct defiance of nature, so no.
2. Nothing is more dangerous than empowered idiots; no.
3. Justifying reeducation camps under a veneer of bullshit; no.
4. If religion makes no moral judgments, it is nothing more than heathenistic ego masturbation; no.
5. It’s them or you; no.
6. The most corruptable form of government is direct democracy, so this statement is backwards and does not acknowlege any of the many benevolent dictators throughout history. Also rebuilding countries leads to massive revolts and nothing gained. Huge no.
7. The government has no fucking business replacing families. Giant no.
8. Punishing success is a great way to ensure it ceases to exist; no.
9. No property means no home. No home means the country itself is an illusion. No.
10. We have a duty to ourselves; no.
11. The United Nations is little more than a globalist power grab that distracts the mob with pet issues while stabbing them in the back. No.
12. Communists must be killed before they start race wars and kill the economy forever. No.
13. Bullshit, our fathers sacrificed to give us a better life, not some squatters whose forefathers failed miserably. No.
14. Colonialism and imperialism vastly improve the lives of foreigners while producing profits. Typical liberal doublethink to discount the former truth, no.
15. The government must be given no authority to legislate morality, it is little more than a smokescreen to rob everyone of free will. No.
16. The chief sources of delinquency is single motherhood. No.
17. Communists have a right to helicopter rides. No.
18. Legitamize communists long enough and eventually they will have the weapons to use diplomatic force and remove this choice from us. Like terrorists. You don’t negotiate with people who want you destroyed. No.
19. Corporal punishment is the most effective method of correcting bad behavior; no.
20. If their independence presents a danger to our citizens, such as through producing militants, they should never have it. No.
21. I will not respect treacherous thieves and goat fuckers. No.
22. The primary goal of international policy in the nuclear age should be the same as it always has been; to maximize our benefit. No.
23. Fag pornography is normal now. Huge no.
24. A comittee made of elected representatives investigating on behalf of citizens is dangerous? I suppose lobbyists are ok then, haha, no.
25. The money amount of school and university scholarships ought to be decided primarily by merit. No.
26. Qualified teachers, at least at the university level, are entitled to do their fucking job and nothing else. No.
27. Schools have a right to choose who they want to admit, and they are also entitled to the consequences of their choices. Poor excuse to justify government control of (what should be) private institutions. No.
28. The national government should guarantee that all adult land owners have the right to vote. No skin in the game makes starting fires less expensive. No.
29. Joseph McCarthy was a prophet. No.
30. There are no significant differences in intellectual, moral or civilizing capacity among human races and ethnic types.
31. Steps toward enemy/rival disarmament would be a good thing. No.
32. What incentive is their for men to produce if not for their children alone? No.
33. Citizens only. Everything else is noise. No.
34. See 33. Pedestalizing our enemies, the insane and the worthless has terrible consequences. Karl Marx was a loser who wrote about dismantling society while living on the alms of his friends’ wealthy father. His reaction to his internalized guilt only killed 100 million+. No.
35. The basis of government shall be restricted to the public only, and then this is true. This statement completely omits the first part, assuming the government has a right to control private institutions and holdings if the ‘will of the people’ is behind it. Looting kills incentive. No.
36. Government does not replace families or financial responsibility. No.
37. Everyone has the right to pay based on their production. No.
38. So the scumbags can intimidate those with drive and vision into accepting their sloth and degeneracy? No.
39. Refer to 36. No.
Honestly, this is all bullshit that someone who has deluded themselves into thinking that reality is of the same composition as the bubble of prosperity they enjoy would believe. You tell these people that they are going to go extinct and they may even think that’s great, since ‘we’re overpopulated’. They have no clue that that will probably involve them starving and then getting violently murdered by the people they were ‘nice’ too. Losers don’t realize they are losing until they have already lost, and then try to justify it by saying they enjoy it. Being a cuck is little more than an institutionalized attitude to constantly failing in everything that matters.
I disagree with you on a point here or there, but for the most part I think you succinctly penetrate to the reason (or an illustrative example of the reason) why the given principle is wrong. Though, people who have not yet been deprogrammed, of course, would not begin to see it.
Many of these are just covert attempts to replace the family with the state and blatantly go against the laws of nature, which are god’s laws since he created them. These messages are disseminated because it all works out very profitably for most of the power brokers involved.
That is exactly correct.
Too many people in the world have sold their souls to the false god of democracy, and his whore, equality.
Democracy is mob rule, pure and simple. It drags down a country to the point of no return. It empowers the looters to steal from the productive. It gives the irrational power over the rational. How has giving women the right to vote worked out?
Equality is a foolish and silly notion. No one is equal. We all have our own talents and shortcomings. How can you be equal to the man standing next to you? Equal under the law? Would you give the same sentence to desperate and starving man who steals a candy bar as you would someone who robs a bank? Of course not.
These false gods need to perish.
As St. Thomas Aquinas said, it is quite right to treat unequal things, unequally.
The State exists to uphold the Right; it does not exist to uphold equality, still less to accord equal rights to error.
I agree with three:
“7. The government has a duty to provide for the ill, aged, unemployed and poor if they cannot take care of themselves.” = because what is the purpose of a government, if not to serve it’s people?
“9. If reasonable compensation is made, the government of a nation has the legal and moral right to expropriate private property within its borders, whether owned by citizens or foreigners.” = because the definition of government is an entity that expropriates private property, so of course it has that “right”
“18. We should always be ready to negotiate with the Soviet Union and other communist nations.” = because we should always be ready to negotiate with any nation, regardless of their affiliation
The whole reason back in the 60’s and 70’s intellectuals did not want to negotiate with the Soviet Union is that every time we did, we lost. Up until Reagan, the US had a “bend over and take it in the arse” policy when it came to the USSR. Given a blank slate any nation state should be willing to at least engage in diplomacy with another nation state.
On number 7 I feel like it is the duty of a nation state, duly compromised of similarly situated people, to not allow your fellow citizen to die in the street. That is, at least if it is a Republic or Democracy. If you were some other form of authoritarian government then you have only a duty to those that rule and not to your subjects other then ensuring they can make sure the ruling elite can continue performing their role as such.
it’s more like “Up until Gorbachev” rather than Reagan.
The only real responsibility of the US Federal government is to regulate commerce and provide for a common defense.
7. The states, communities and churches used to provide this before FDR and Johnson.
9. Only in cases of an obvious public good, like roads, ports, etc.
18. True, but always from a position of strength.
7) I agree that the government exists to serve its people. But, only the genuine good of the people and only in the capacity proper to it. For example, I want an hamburger with bacon and sautéed mushrooms, right now: why won’t my government serve me?
Government doesn’t owe me an hamburger, and it doesn’t owe old ladies a living; that’s what family, Churches and charities are for.
9) I would disagree that the definition of a government is “an entity that expropriates private property.”
18) It seems to me that there are times when one can recognize that a plea for negotiation is little more than a tactic, a political feint, made by an enemy which is intent upon one’s destruction, but which is also desperate to regroup in order to finish the job later. There are times when it is appropriate to crush the enemy and deny him any hope of recovery.
I think my count was about half qualified yes and half qualified no (ok some more hardly qualified then the others about three or four on each side). I found with many me saying in my mind “well if someone like me was in charge I would (agree) or (disagree)”. That is the problem with individual rights in general. They work great if that right is working for you or being equally applied. They don’t really work though if the side you don’t agree with is using them as a shield or roadblock against your agenda. That is the danger of a government based upon the concept of limited authority and God given rights to its citizens. Those limits on authority must be respect and the rights granted must be equally applied. As America has demonstrated that is very difficult to do.
yeah, censorship is right in the hands of the righteous, but wrong in the hands of evil…
everything else is like that.
That is the problem with individual rights. You are opening up Pandora’s box and unless you have a civilization dedicated to applying those rights equally they just become another arena to try to forward an agenda. The most recent example being the Fisher affirmative action case. The 14th Amendment basically says racial categorizations (at least as understood since the 1950’s are abhorrent) but failing to applying them in higher education is just fine.
First you have to define what is higher education. A typical women’s studies or sociology drone will walk about campus looking for injustice and inequality, hogging the sidewalk as stem students pass by. The stem world is invisible to the sjw majors. The sjw’s eyes glaze over as the beta mule stems shuffle by. They expect the stems to look at the ground and not speak, not approach, just pull their duty to maintain the infrastructure like an ox and to engineer and maintain a comfort level for entitled useless eaters no matter the cost or the quantity of resources required to do so. The pedestalized masses/classes demand a blank check that dips into every last reserve and resource to guarantee and maintain their entitled but functionless position. It’s all in perceptions.
In a true natural heirarchy the male facets of the ‘architect’ and the builder/engineer are on par with the warrior. Actually the ‘architect’ is at the top of the natural pyramid in a civilization. The philosopher/king who designs the master plan is waaay the hell above every woman’s studies or sjw related ‘false’ discipline. It’s a misnomer to term ‘woman’s studies’ as an academic discipline. It was borne of rebellion to natural order. It is ‘UN-disciplining’ of natural civilized patriarchal order.
As a conservative I sadly agree with some but disagree with others.
Sometimes I feel like the conservatives have forgotten their heart.
I personally don’t believe that the truth would be contradictory to our sensibilities.
So the NRA was right all along!
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/hawaii-becomes-first-us-state-to-place-gun-owners-on-fbi-database/ar-AAhBtsP?ocid=spartandhp&pfr=1
I like the use of the picture of the French Revolution. Down with Boney and long live the Bourbons.
5)Yes because there is no theoretical manner by which you can design a hierarchy which engages in torture to be accountable. Torture also attempts to manipulate the most base desires of the enemy rather than what is best in them. There use to be a time in this world where two warriors could stare each other in the eye but still agree there are things in life more important than winning….like honor.
12)Yes except when you have cultures of people that are theoretically enemy combatants. (Example: virtually every Muslim ever)
17)Yes. All speech no matter how nonsensical must be allowed to be expressed as long as it isn’t criminal in nature (example: threats of murder, assault or vandalism)
18)Yes, for example it is WAR CRIME to not allow an enemy that is about to lose or get annihilated (whenever there is a temporary break in combat) a chance to surrender.
19)Totally backwards. Corporal punishment for children is wrong. Corporal punishment for adults is 100% acceptable in fact corporal punishment ought to replace prison. Prison is immoral in literally every single way imaginable. It’s one of the great evils nobody talks about.
23)Freedom of speech is the only safeguard against tyranny.
24)This is a bit incoherent. Not sure what you mean by “Congressional investigating communities.”
27)Yes because there is no valid reason for the government to regulate education.
32)I believe that all men’s SOULS should be judged equally. Not sure what you mean by “political rights” (civil rights or natural rights?)
33)Yes. The only safeguard against tyranny is freedom of thought.
34)Same as above.
28/39 Rightwing
Corporal punishment for children is ok. The earlier you start the less necessary is to beat the adults.
Which race is more criminal? Blacks or whites
Blacks obviously now who engages in more corporal punishment? Blacks or Whites? Blacks do.
So there is no empirical evidence that corporal punishment on children reduces criminality later in life.
Also, when we allow parents to hit their children we are assuming they are actually going to do it in a just manner. This has nothing to do with reality. The reality is most parents will hit their children for even the most trivial of bad behaviors. Not just violent behaviors. Also, hitting children doesn’t teach them to pursue virtue for its own sake. It teaches them to avoid vice because it allows them to avoid pain. That is a corrupt message to be sending to children which a)means they need a big government to be managed later in life and b)they will think a big government is necessary to manage other people.
You couldn’t be more wrong sir.
These are misplaced comparisons. Of course, beating is not a panacea and not the only means of teaching children good manners. Have you ever heard of whip and sugar? It works on humans the same way as on animals. It worked on my grandfather, my father and me. What else empirical evidence do I need?
It is simple. The parent is in a position of authority and as such he must be able to apply force. An authority without force is at best an incomplete authority. If a child doesn’t have reason yet then force is still something the child understands.
I am wondering if you are aware the contradiction in your thought. You need a big government to prevent beating children by parents. I don’t because I would just let them do what they do naturally.
What do you mean by “it works”? What is your standard for working and not working? What is your standard for right and wrong?
If you do have a standard for right and wrong then do you have a rational basis for it? If you do then why would you need to force it on children? Children are infinitely more negotiable than adults. Adults are full of confidence and bigotries. Children are not so if you have a rational basis for acting good then you don’t need to use coercion against them. Children are like clay. Adults are like rocks falling down a hill.
There is no logical connection between the fact that a parent is in the position of strength and wisdom that they must be able to inflict violence on children. No logical connection whatsoever. Rather the only reason an adult would need to apply force to a child is if they are NOT in the position of strength and wisdom!
How many parents are low-IQ? How many parents do you think are truly reasonable? How many parents do you think have the intellectual matters of life settled? How many parents do you think actually know what they are doing in life? Let’s say a parent wants a child to do X. How many parents do you think actually know WHY they want what they want and can explain in a non-arbitrary fashion why a child should do what they want them to do? Very few would you agree? Most scenarios where the parent claims the child is too young to understand something is merely the inadequacy of the parent.
Also, I never said corporal punishment on children should be illegal. I think its evil, but not everything that’s evil deserves to be met with violence. Deception is evil, but deception should not be illegal. Adultery is evil, but adultery isn’t illegal. Being rude is a vice, but being rude is not illegal.
Also, if society ever were to reach the point where corporal punishment was universally condemned as evil (for the right reasons of course) then you wouldn’t need the government to make it illegal because society would be more high-IQ and they would be able to reason people out of hitting their children. You only need the government to govern criminals. Not the ethical.
“It works” means it is efficient, it gives desired results. You overthink it.
Yes, children are more “plastic” but it only means they learn more easily. It does not mean they are always open to do what you ask, that they don’t have their own head, that they are not stuck, willfully resisting and can’t be reasoned with. Sometimes you simply need to put them back in line with force. Children are very selfish. Simply and openly, but very selfish. Also children quite naturally test you so you need to show your claws sometimes. You can’t be in a position of strength and never use it. It does not work that way.
I don’t care how many parents are high or low IQ. It doesn’t matter. Teaching children is not a rocket science. You just need to know what good manners are and then you teach it your children. They need to feel your love and your strength, sometimes literally. People did it for millenia and did it quite well until recently.
When society reaches a point where corporal punishment will be universally condemned as evil it will be a sign that modern insanity reached its peak and not that we have evolved to “more hight-IQ” society.
“Getting desired results” has ZERO moral significance. Quite frankly there is no point in talking politics with you if you’re this shallow when it comes to moral philosophy.
Children are only open to do what you ask to the degree that your preferences make sense in the first place. If you have a bunch of reasonable preferences that you can justify with reason then your will have an easy time with kids. If you have a bunch of arbitrary preferences then you are going to think kids are selfish and undisciplined and you will panic and conclude that you need to use force on them. Children test parents because most parents are logical imbeciles. They may have good manners and do what society expects of them but they don’t actually know why they do what they do.
It’s not enough to just know what good manners are. You have to know why good manners are good in the first place and good manners are not good because they “give desired results”. Self-interest has nothing to do with morality.
Corporal punishment is not immoral as you admit yourself. So I do not discuss morality of it. This discussion started when I disagreed with you on when to start with corporal punishment which is rather a question of efficiency.
Kids simply are selfish and undisciplined, period. That’s why they need to be taught how to behave (among other things) and where are the limits. Also I meant they often test their parents if they really mean what they say. Do you really consider children to be smarter than adults? Do you really think you just explain your case to them and they
just nod their heads and do what you want them to do? It’s rarely the case.
While there is nothing wrong with knowing the ‘why’ about good manners it is not strictly necessary. I, as a father, don’t have to justify
every action I take or every decision I make. Father’s authority does not presuppose ‘consent of the governed’.
You seem to be fixated on IQ and reasoning but it’s more important to practice morality rather then think about it. Once the morality of something is established (and you don’t have to be the one who does the reasoning) you just need to behave accordingly. You don’t have to do Thomas Aquinas everytime someone ask why. That’s why tradition is so important. It tells you what to do without constantly figuring everything out. We also have a conscience which tells us when we do something right or wrong. So we do not depend on reason alone which is good because it was our unaided reason that brought all this ‘liberalism’ thing upon us.
Corporal punishment on adults is not the same as corporal punishment on children. There is a critical stage in development where empathy is created and if you don’t create empathy in that stage of life you have next to no chance of instilling it later in life. The point giving adults harsher penalties than children is because children are still capable of developing empathy awhile adults once they pass that critical stage of development of empathy are not going to learn empathy. Thus, you need to subject them to more physical coercion than children.
“Kids simply are selfish and undisciplined, period.”
Wrong. Most adults are just full of crap and don’t actually know why traditions are traditions in the first place. Traditions without reasons are just slave regulations from a child’s point of view. Keep that in mind the next time you want to dismiss all children as selfish and undisciplined.
Children are not as smart as adults are but children are less corrupt and less full of propaganda.
“I, as a father, don’t have to justify
every action I take or every decision I make. Father’s authority does not presuppose ‘consent of the governed’.”
No, but your authority is premised on your relative strength and wisdom. A father with wisdom does not need to use coercion against children. A father who is ignorant and full of crap does.
“So we do not depend on reason alone which is good because it was our
unaided reason that brought all this ‘liberalism’ thing upon us.”
Liberalism is the result of a corruptible Leviathan. Has nothing to do with reason. (what does “reason” even mean in this context?)
I don’t see how the empathy development is connected to the corporal punishment. Does the latter prevent the former? Sounds like an unfounded claim. Anyway, it has nothing to do with my claim that corporal punishment is natural part of raising a decent human being.
The problem is that most people don’t need to know why traditions are traditions. That’t why traditions exist. If everyone were capable of rationalizing his traditions the traditions would be pointless. A minor point: I do not dismiss children. Their selfishness is natural. It just needs to be redirected.
An adult might be wise but his children are not. A conflict is sooner or later inevitable. Unless you think that wisdom is a kind of meekness allowing children do everything they want.
I am not sure what you mean by Leviathan in this context. Reason means intellect.
What do you think I was trying to say? My point is that it isn’t! If you want to teach kids empathy you don’t use violence on them. We don’t even allow people to use violence on their pets yet we allow violence against children? Wow. I guess dogs and cats have more legal protection than children.
If it were really true that corporal punishment leads to more civilized behavior then there would be evidence that parents who used harsh discipline would get more behaved children than less harsh parents. This is exactly the opposite of the truth. The reality is parents who use harsh discipline tend to get more of the violent behaviors that they are trying to prevent. This can even be observed along racial lines. Whites use less harsh discipline on their kids. Blacks use harsher discipline on their kids. Whites are less criminal and blacks are more criminal. If what you said was true then the opposite would occur.
Children are selfish
People don’t need to know why traditions are traditions
Children are selfish
People don’t need to know why traditions are traditions
That is complete contradiction bro. You can’t have it both ways. If children are selfish then that is all the more reason why you can’t impose on them arbitrary traditions and expect them to follow them in the long-run.
The Leviathan is a religious metaphor for the state. And no…. reason does NOT mean mere “intellect”. Reason is both thinking/acting on the basis that truth is the highest value. Are you saying that people holding the truth to be the highest value leads to liberalism? Total NONsense. Liberalism comes from people who think life is about fulfilling their self-interest. They only care about the truth to the extent that it serves their self-interest. That’s not actual reason. That’s pseudo-reason.
You’ve got very weird idea of what corporal punishment is. From your words one would conclude that the parents just beat their children and nothing else. Far from truth. Justice and proportionality are the keywords here. Btw. occasionally I beat my dog too. You wouldn’t believe how effective it is. I don’t want an empathic animal I want an animal that obeys its master.
Empathy is fine but not the only virtue parents want to instill to their children (if it is virtue at all). Again the goal here is to use beating when appropriate. Empathy and beating are not mutually exclusive.
The comparison with blacks is inappropriate for variety of reasons as I pointed out before. Whites had been beating their children (and wives btw.) for ages until recently when our culture became pussified. Another point is that corporal punishment does not necessarily mean harsh punishment. And another one is that harshness of punishment is hardly the only difference between blacks and whites so the comparison tells us exactly nothing.
No, it isn’t a contradiction. These are too claims about completely different things. Btw. many cultures imposed seemingly arbitrary traditions on their members and it worked out for millenia. Of course, there had to be an alignment with reality otherwise that particular tradition would fail. However, the people often had no idea or named entirely false reasons why there is such a tradition or why it works. It’s sufficient if the tradition is ’empirically’ tested which also means it is not completely arbitrary.
I used the words ‘unaided reason’ which also have religious background and mean reason unguided by divine influence, corrupted by Original sin and, therefore, prone to error. Rationalism, the error that human reason is the absolute arbiter of everything stands in opposition to this view and naturally leads to liberalism, the political theory which has freedom as its primary goal. That was more or less my line of thought in that paragraph.
I think the only one I say yes to is that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Without this, in my opinion, freedom or a sense of it cannot exist.
The rest is just increasingly statist and leftist so hell no. Fuck that shit.
I’m of the opinion that ideally we wouldn’t have any kind of government at all, let alone one that redistributes wealth in any way.
I agree that everyone has their opinion, just like everyone has a rectal aperture.
The question, is whether it is actually morally right for people to hold any opinion, no matter how bad it is, and no matter how sloppy the thought process behind it is.
I would say, obviously people are not morally entitled to be lazy morons by right. I’m not arguing that the State needs to monitor every man’s opinions and punish him for them; I’m just saying that people should drop the sense of entitlement to be a lazy moron. Many people now think that their opinions have intrinsic value just because they are opinions and they FEEL them so strongly. I don’t think I’m going to stop people from FEELING their opinions so strongly; but I’d love to see broader social recognition of the fact that opinions are only as good as they are, and people should be embarrassed, rather than proud, to have any old opinion they please.
Hehehe, you are using a fancied up version of the phrase I used to recruits during their first week at barracks for the most. I used to be the first face recruits had barking commands at them at my base lol.
This I agree with 100% except the only opinions that are protected these days are the far out weird genderbender stuff that I honestly don’t even understand or care to.
I agreed with 6, disagreed with the rest. Commies, as much as I detest them, should have a right to express their views without prosecution; should they make their way into our government, however, that is another story. The issue of Social Security is kind of a gray area; an ideal government wouldn’t take 6.2% out of everyone’s paycheck, but so long as they are going to do so, those who work hard consistently should be entitled to get back that which was taken from them when they retire. The majority of points, I can agree with, however.
Not very coherent I’m going to have to say.
But I disagree, commies should not have a protected right to express their views.
Try spouting commie shit within earshot of me and see what happens. They can have their opinions, but they better fucking keep them to themselves because otherwise I will make them shut the fuck up.
Social security is the spawn of the devil of government already, fundamentally speaking government should never have the power to tax at all. Period.
So the question already is silly.
I definitely agree with you that commies deserve whatever crap they get from people they express their views to; I simply don’t agree with a government-sponsored censorship of their speech. I also agree that SS shouldn’t exist in the first place, BUT as long as full-time workers are going to have a good portion of their income regularly taken from their paychecks for its purpose, whether or not they agree with it, they should be able to take advantage of the program when they reach the age of retirement. That’s just my opinion for those issues.
Just because something is not a right does not mean that it automatically becomes illegal. However with communism I personally would make it illegal because of the danger it poses.
I guess I’m what you’d call an extremist then, the only one I said yes to was people being entitled to their own opinion.
Almost all the other questions are rooted in government existence which I’m against in principle.
The government should not have any power, the only useful purpose I can see for a government is protecting borders which they can finance using customs payments.
I didn’t address the free speech part.
To me freedom of speech is a bit of a tough one, I don’t believe the government should regulate it neither in a positive or negative sense.
I do in other words not believe the government should censor speech, but I definitely don’t believe it should protect the rights of idiots spouting bullshit either.
I also don’t think the media should be left to lye with impunity, they should have repercussions from doing so. Freedom of the press as we have it now is a net negative, because it has become freedom from facts and accountability.
Exile is the proper punishment for people who merely advocate robbing and disinheriting you.
Death is the proper punishment for those who take proactive steps to do this on a civilization-wide scale.
Social security shouldn’t be forced on anyone who doesn’t want it. I’ve never wanted it. Also on taxation I propose the IRS be abolished and replaced with a giant lottery bureau. Trump scratch-offs and the Trump-ball lottery game would raise more revenue than the current IRS which collects at gunpoint, steals property and kidnaps citizens/children.
LOTTERY IS VOLUNTARY if you notice and also notice how many people go into a quickie mart to buy a soda and chips for two bucks and then they spend ten bucks on scratch offs.
NO ONE would voluntarily pay a 500% sales tax would they?? Right, but they would gladly pay $10 on a $2 purchase if it’s lottery and they have the chance at least to win big. People do it all the time. Then you can save your spent scratch offs and keep them bundled in a big rubber band to show at the end of the year that you bought your share.
LOTTERY and no IRS. Everyone is happy and the revenue pumps like crazy. I’m starting to re evaluate Trump. He just may be a genius.
the fact that you talk about the soviet union like it still exists says it all realy
Read the whole thing, genius.
i did einstein
Then you know that the list is from a book written when the Soviet Union still existed and there’s analysis after that. No one thinks the USSR is still around, dumbass.
so then you know its both outdated, irrelevant and full of Americanized cold war tripe…..dumb cunt
K, princess
good,you’d nothing to offer,thanks for playing xxxxxx
KK, princess
🙂 xxxxxx no problem honey bunny
Kkk, 👸
3. Everyone has a right to free, public education. (Brainwashing is the sole aim of public education…which explains why so many people know so very little about reality.)
It’s bizarre when you’re one of the few millennials who doesn’t follow the sheep off the cliff. I can’t really explain why I didn’t follow the herd, but I’m one of the few I know.
The purity spiral of an amateur thinker hits ROK. Touching….. look how he´s doing his attempts in thinking, isn´t it ever so cute!
ROK has really gone off the deep end. Free speech is what allows you to post drivel like this. You honestly think that, if given absolute authority over speech, King Obama would allow you to say this shit? That pesky First Amendment, and its counterpart the 2nd, are the only things keeping you from the gulags, friend. You see, this is the biggest failure of authoritarian thought. You don’t have the foresight to recognize that the power you seek to give to Trump will eventually be turned over to another Obama or Clinton. That’s not a road I’d like to go down. Call me a cuck all you want, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to be the government’s bitch. I thought we were supposed to beat the left, not become them.
How the fuck you extract Obama vs Trump and giving Trump some extra power out of this article must be some seriously interesting and bizarre process.
I’m thinking you’re the one whose gone off the deep end, from what I’ve made of Moners writings here and elsewhere he isn’t a statist, unlike what you seem to be.
You aren’t much different from the lefty whackjobs if you assume that one article by one author has something to do with another article by another writer.
So, how did people say anything, before “Free Speech” existed?
Everyone has always been able to say whatever they wished. The only thing that changes, are the legal and social consequences.
Why do you imagine that I support Trump, or that this has anything to do with what I’m saying. I support Trump over Hillary, of course, but I don’t have anything like the high hopes for him that many other fellas seem to have.
Historically, in old European societies without free speech there were no gulags. Mostly your writing became banned or you got kicked out to some faraway place where you could have only insignificant influence.
How can you, one who claims to follow the Lord, agree that revolting against tyranny is a good thing, even if only in few circumstances? Do you not read the Bible? And how God sets up all rulers, and that revolting against them is revolting against Him?
Romans 13:1-7
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
1 Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
Think about what you say, and the leaven that has corrupted your mind. It is better to God that we suffer for doing well, than if we do the worst evil and kill a king. Do you not remember how David would not kill Saul, the Lord’s anointed? And how when the man came to David hoping for approval by telling him that he had killed Saul, that David killed him? Even though Saul was his enemy?
You claim to be of the right, and the right is just as bad as the left. Follow the Lord.
“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.”
Yes, the context tells us what St. Paul means, and what he regards as a power and a ruler. A ruler is not just any man who claims to hold legitimate power. Surely you are not arguing that the man with the most firepower in a region is the legitimate ruler, set up by God? If I proclaim myself King of Arizona tomorrow, am I one of the powers, set up by God? Why is the State of Arizona the legitimate power? Simply because they have the effective rule? Well, when the Communist Revolutionaries became the powers that be in the USSR, did that mean that the revolutionaries who resisted the power established by God, became the power established by God? If it were so simple, your argument leads us to conclude that one becomes the power established by God, by warring against the power established by God.
No. The context is clear, about whom St. Paul regards as a ruler: “not [one who is] a terror to good works, but [one who is a terror] to the evil.” A ruler who is a terror to the good, and not to the evil, is the opposite of a legitimate ruler. Even the Roman Empire, by and large, was a state that upheld Natural Law and kept the peace. Our modern states are based upon the rejection of everything natural and true. It is right to resist them under certain circumstances.
We have to be careful in the use of the terms Left/Right. In example, the Libertarians consider themselves ‘right’ and consider Nationalsocialism ‘left’. In no possible universe the NS is a left wing movement…..
Now, I’m going to quote a very clear article about it:
“The true Right, in both its Old and New versions, is founded on the rejection of human equality as a fact and as a norm. The true right embraces the idea that mankind is and ought to be unequal, i.e., differentiated. Men are different from women. Adults are different from children. The wise are different from the foolish, the smart from the stupid, the strong from the weak, the beautiful from the ugly. We are differentiated by race, history, language, religion, nation, tribe, and culture. These differences matter, and because they matter, all of life is governed by real hierarchies of fact and value, not by the chimera of equality.”
http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/05/new-right-vs-old-right/
Again from the same article “The true right has three species: traditional society, the Old Right, and the New Right.” An example of traditional society is the Roman Empire, an example of the Old Right is Nationalsocialism, and an example of New Right is the french Nouvelle Droite (Alain de Benoist).
There are, as many have mentioned before, a fake right: today’s ‘conservatives’, the neocon movement, the libertarians, etc. Of this group, the most decent are the libertarians, because they can be oriented towards a real Right relatively easy (to change from Ayn Rand to Friedrich Nietzsche).
Ok let me explain it for you. The left/right in most libertarians view is basically collectivist/individualist and thus statist/libertarian.
And since the word ‘socialism’ apparently wasn’t a good enough clue for you, how about the original name of the party being National Socialist German Workers Party?
If you know a bit about the socialist and communist movements you will be familiar with the “workers party” moniker.
And if that isn’t enough I’ll throw in that collectivistic ideals are inherently left, so are worshippers of state whether it be national or international.
The only real right is about total freedom from government and from the implementation of stupid people’s ideals, including national socialism.
You are such an intelligent and politically educated person!! please teach me more…..I know I’m not worthy of your wisdom but I can be a loyal and faithful disciple.
Please allow me to enter the path of libertarianism!!
And I beg you to teach me how National Socialism is equal to socialism…
Ah yes, the strength and truth of your arguments are astounding. Not.
Do you have any actual arguments? I can only assume you don’t if you respond like this.
National socialism obviously is socialism with a tweak to limit it to a nation. In practice in Germany it was not very different from what is going on in Russia right now so if that’s your ideal system move to Russia.
For me, anyone arguing for one political system over another is still a statist arguing over how the government should use power. That’s not an argument I would enter into because to me the government should have no power and there would be nothing to argue about.
I agree that National Socialism was mostly a leftist movement because it is a child of liberalism and liberalism is a leftist political philosophy. It has nothing to do with individualist vs collectivist. That’s a false dichotomy anyway.
Im not discussing with you; you are wrong, I am not.
“We choose dialectics when we have no other means. . . . Nothing is more easily wiped away than the effect of a dialectician: that is proved by the experience of every assembly where speeches are made. It can only be a last defence in the hands of such as have no other weapon left. ”
Friedrich Nietzsche.
Hahaha I’m going to print this out as the most stupid attempt at a rebuttal ever.
You do realize that saying “you are wrong, I am right because I say so” and then quoting dead guys writings you barely understand is the most obvious sign of a weak mind I at least right now can think of.
Nietzsche himself would laugh his ass off at your feeble attempts to convert what he said into something relevant to what I said.
I don’t need to quote dead guys to make a point, especially not dead guys who would puke at my use of their quotes. How about you grow a pair of debate capable balls and come back again some time with some less weak sauce shit? Huh?
No, “individualist/collectivist” has nothing at all to do with the Left/Right divide, in its historic sense (i.e., the difference between the parties that set on the Left and the Right of the General Assembly in France).
Socialism and Libertarianism are both movements of the Left. The Left is about abstract rights, and the nullification of the hierarchy of society and of the Good.
Interesting take, but since you didn’t share your definition of the right, I would have to go by what I know from your writings.
I would have to side with a society where merit outweighs birthright, so in that sense I guess I’m not that traditionally minded. But I think that you did make me just realize that merit alone is no measure of character. Neither is it of moral fiber.
Interesting, just writing this comment after reading what you wrote to me made me realize something new, and for that I am grateful.
It’s something I always appreciate about the productive exchange of ideas; at the end, one either understands his own position better, or has learned to appreciate another thought more clearly.
“The rejection of human equality” comes close to defining the old right, but is not quite complete.
The more complete way of putting it, would be to say that the old right believed in hierarchy; while this hierarchy is rooted in the fact of inequality, it is also sometimes the case that a lesser man may wind up commanding a greater man. The man of the right understands that the principle of hierarchy and the norms of society require toleration of this imperfection, and does not reject it simply because some men on the lower rungs may be better than men on the higher rungs. The quest to eliminate this imperfection smacks of Leftist utopianism; untethering each rung of the ladder from the one above it, is the essence of Leftism.
Socialism is Leftist because it abolishes legitimate rights and hierarchy especially through the Nationalization of what ought to be private property. It flattens whole sections of the social pyramid to attain this. While it does retain the Right’s recognition of inequality is a fact, it then makes idols of the inequalities, expecting them to give meaning to people’s lives in place of the natural hierarchy of goods and truths, of which they are but the particular manifestations.
National Socialism is:
– Race realism/racialism.
– Nationalism.
– Community/solidarity between the members of the race.
– Eugenics.
– Unique economic doctrine (who respects the private property of the members of the race).
– Opposition to liberal democracy.
– Opposition to communisn.
– Opposition to the jews and various phenomena associated with Jews (liberalism, decadence, porn, etc).
I dont see how this is leftism.
It is leftism because it shares the same goals with liberalism. Only the target group is different. It fights for political freedom. It stands for equality within the nation. Everybody who stands in the way of its political goals i.e. freedom is an untermensch or not-yet-man and needs to be annihilated.
National Socialism is certainly not as far left as a Judaized, Liberal Kleptocracy. But, I would argue that it does not, in fact, respect private property adequately, and it seeks to nationalize things which are not properly nationalized. Moreover, usually its nationalism is not rooted in the transcendent principles which must underlie an authentic nationalism, causing it to be morally relativistic. While it rejects egalitarianism ad extra, it often applies it ad intra. These phenomena situate it on the left side of the spectrum, historically speaking, though, as I say, the West is now so far to the Left that national socialism looks to most people like a far-right ideology.
Before long, you’ll be asking by us to take a quiz as if this were Cosmo. Next!
Only error has rights , because our knowledge is necessarily imperfect and uncertain. We have only two types of knowledge – things we know are wrong, and things we don’t know are wrong, yet. But, more importantly, even if it were true that error has not rights, it is true that people do. Among the most important right is the right to be wrong. The most valuable thing we can own is our errors, because that is how we learn.
To know that something is wrong, you must know something else for certain. Your view is incoherent, but surprisingly widespread; until this error is abandoned, people will continue to wallow in the mire of modernity.
Not at all. Knowledge advances by conjecture and refutation. We advance a conjecture, and we define a confirming event which, if it does not refute the conjecture, is reason to still retain it. The classic example is Einsteins predict that gravity causes the path of light to bend. The first full eclipse of the sun afte r WW1 provided that opportunity.. His prediction was not refuted. And, we still accept. Neither was Newton refuted, rather he was shown to be a special case in General Relativity. We have similar processes of conjecture and refutation in other discipline. In Law, Due Process and the Jury System. In Economics, the liberal market economy. In politics, democratic republicanism and constitutions. I can list more, but that is unnecessary – I think I have given enough to explain my argument.
You are over-thinking it.
If you know that something is wrong, it is because some principle(s), of which you are certain, can reveal that fact. Otherwise, you could not know whether anything was right or wrong.
This doesn’t mean that you always know what is right; you may know, for example, x is not the cause of y, without knowing what IS the cause of y. But even to know that x is not its cause, requires you to know something else, certainly.
1. Yes discrimination and segregation of race is wrong. This goes for any race even whites and asians. I would even go far for it being wrong to discriminate on short men and other physical traits that people cannot change
2. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. You have no right to punish and imprison people that say something you don’t like. Liberals are trying to punish people with free speech by trying to make hate speech a crime