Some weeks ago, a ROK piece pointed out that social laxity encouraged misbehaving and extreme individualism. It linked to intelligent articles from a psychologist, Theodore Dalrymple, who showed how the commitment not to judge the others amounted to a refusal to learn from experience and had caused criminal cases of neglect.
Indeed, the turning of a blind eye to crime and criminal character have allowed criminals to kill and rape freely—from the case of a two-year-old children killed by his dark triad father Dalrymple mentions to what happened in Rotherham. These cases could have been easily prevented if only authorities were allowed to do their job and if common sense could prevail without constant leftist interference.
Yet, and although the lack of judgment is a real problem, it is only a side of the wider trend. Leftists do judge a lot. They had no problem slipping from the purported nonjudgmental hippie attitude of the 60s to a harshly coercive behavior.
“Don’t be racist!”
“Don’t be right-wing!”
“Follow the fashion!”
“You’re privileged! Accept everything the professional ‘minority’ groups will throw at you and shut up!”
Behind the hysteria that reeks on “f***ing white males!” is a very judgmental will to enforce a hostile notion of “social justice.” SJWs are willing to judge and shame people. They only feel bad—not remorseful—when they see their tactics fail. The very ones who protest fat shaming have no problem expressing grim judgments against those they label “fascists” or anything like that.
Here I would like to clear a bit of the general mess the nonjudgmental commitment has contributed to create through a kind of philosophical approach.
The basic issues
Philosophy, or at least one manner to do it, consists in formalizing and abstracting general issues. Particular cases always imply a variety of factors and make it easy to remain trapped inside an all too subjective point of view. When a question is considered abstractly and through concepts, and when particular cases are used as examples instead of being at the center, it becomes much easier to ask it seriously and consider possible answers.
In the case of judgment, I would say the questions are:
- What is judged, both positively and negatively?
- Who judges who?
- Is it possible not to judge?
- If it is, is it good or better not to?
The last question is the most composed of all and consequently comes after them in the logical order. It also seems the most common-sensical as it is closer to practice: if I judge that expired food ought not to be consumed, judgment is obviously useful as to protect me from health-threatening consequences.
On the other hand, it could be argued that if I go beyond the judgment, without rejecting it altogether, I could consume expired food in order to experiment its effects, so to see if they are really deleterious, mildly uncomfortable or absolutely negligible.
When expanded to the social sphere, judgment can have a conservative or a “progressive” function, no matter the exact nature of what is to conserve or promote. Edmund Burke urged the philosophers to be respectful of popular wisdom, even if they failed to grasp its reasonableness or its legitimacy in judging. (((Jonah Goldberg))) was hiding behind a Burkean mask when he argued that “character-forming institutions [should] softly coerce (persuade) kids—and remind adults—to revere our open, free, and tolerant culture over others.”
Of course, the same “judgmentalism” one can find in popular wisdom can also be used by social engineers or interest groups to tweak what is usually considered common sense, and what Goldberg upholds as a worthy cultural identity seems more like the absence of actual identity. In all cases shame can be understood as a tool with a particular social use.
Embroiled with the aforementioned issues is a related one: accountability. Can one be at least nominally held responsible for one’s actions or condition, and if so, should one be? Depending on the answer to this question comes the ability to shame or not.
Leftists make a spurious distinction between being a land whale and getting shamed for being a self-wasted blob. They also confuse their own categories with external reality as to engrave the former into the latter: when a libtard says “we have a right to make you feel like you’re a racist if you’re behaving like a racist”, this means “let us lock you down in our anti-white, anthropology-mutilating, reality-denying narrative, and submit to our categories and judgment, you worthless freethinker.”
If you accept the implicit affirmations and shaming behind their use of the r-word as legitimate, you open the way to be judged and shamed according to their narrative and value-judgments—no matter their actual truthfulness or utility. In contrast, if you answer something like “no, whites have a right to exist and you are responsible for shaming self-defence and self-preservation, you manipulative liberal”, you contest the validity of their judgment criterion.
A social mess
“This is perfectly normal, and Muslim bombings are OK, but the far-right is intolerable!”
All this seems pretty straightforward as long as we consider concepts, sentences and simplistic situations. Philosophy allows to gain mastery over fundamental ideas and questions. Doing some allows one to become aware of his own implicit and not-that-obvious beliefs. Anyone who wishes to be decently knowledgeable about life-relevant issues should, I think, better read Aristotle’s Ethics than feed exclusively on personal improvement websites. Still, when you start applying philosophy to the real world, you can see how messy and chaotic it is—and here common sense does quickly what philosophy could tediously half-do.
The red pill per se entails an almost philosophical interrogation when one starts to notice how the “normal” is not normal at all and why it is so. As Plato and later Aristotle would say, philosophy begins with astonishment, when the seemingly normal or common world we live in shows us a strange inconsistency. Before we gathered on the Internet, many of us had red-pilling experiences. Our consciousness drifted from the narrative and we started to see through the taboos, untold rules and all the stuff that structures the narrative—and that normies want to keep taking for granted.
Perhaps the greatest power of all is the ability to impose one’s narrative upon the minds of others. Without coercion, without violence, one epistemologically dominates others through the values and “facts” that they takes for granted. The greatest power is to determine what is “normal.” Cultural struggle is thus one of the highest political struggles. (Source)
We contend with liberals to uphold different versions of normalcy. We know it is not normal in the absolute, non-relative or transient sense, that trannies are celebrated, that criminals are constantly excused, that irresponsible sluts are constantly saved from the consequences of their own behavior, that death threats are celebrated if made by “minority” individuals against whites. The Current Year “normalcy” is a hopeless nightmare, an endless stream of unfairness and ugliness that drowns any trust left and is downright killing whites.
Julius Evola’s Riding the Tiger, making a similar diagnosis during the Freudo-Marxist onslaught of the 60s, advised his readers to withdraw towards their inner citadel. It is good to do so indeed, as long as the withdrawal is temporary and used to gain a critical edge—not when it becomes synonymous with backing down or autism. Just as philosophy existed on public forums before it was taken away by ivory tower academics, a fair, balanced consciousness should be a basis for recasting the mess rather than ignoring it.
The left worked hard to inject “racism” or “xenophobia” into the usual discourse and thinking. It did everything it could to steer people by barring normal ways of thinking. Likewise, we have to turn the mess on itself by deconstructing leftist categories of thought, exposing them or laughing them out, by trolling libtards and everything else.
Even then, what we are doing may seem messy from the analytical point of view of philosophy as well. The Alt-sphere has no rigid system of thought. We act rather through a sense of things and a willingness to make the normal normal again than from exceedingly formal principles. Thus it is hard to suggest ready-made answers to the aforementioned questions: these are more of a support of reflection than an absolute basis, and the answers may seem different from person to person. Diversity of ideas in the Alt-sphere may be our strength as long as internal disagreements remain on the sideways.
Are we more or less judgmental than leftists? The question, which may seem relevant when we criticize their purported commitment not to judge, is actually misplaced. For just as the left judges X more harshly than Y, or abstains altogether from judging Y or having a prejudice against Y, we do the same, albeit with different Xs and Ys.
I think I can rightly say that we want a healthy ability to judge fatties, social parasites of various kinds, welfare abusers, family-destroyers, criminals in general… just as we find unjustified the smearing of wealthy people qua wealthy, or against entrepreneurs, or against masculinity.
When white boomers laugh along with a (((Democrat))) because they find that their peers killing themselves is funny, they judge so to be normal and a laughing matter. We rightly find it scandalous and wish for more solidarity and respect. Everyone judges, all the time. Everyone has to—even considering the most trivial matters such as what possible path is better to go back home after work.
The virtue of fair judgment
As for today, it could be said that red-pilled people must gain the upper hand over shrieking society-destroyers and over the blue-pilled mass in general. In the longer term, traditional distinctions and roles will have to reassert themselves.
Not because of wanting for “supremacy”, as Leftist power cultists want to believe, but because this makes for an equilibrated, stable, healthy, goodness-rewarding world, and because, goddamit! our civilization was basically ours before (((little grey men))) started tearing it apart by turning social categories into hostile groups.
Those who took over had no particular right to do so: they only acted in a “might is right” fashion, albeit more subtly than through the open use of force. Manipulating norms and common sense is no more legitimate per se than hitting your neighbour because you judge his clothes ugly.
Short-term, a good judgment follows the red-pilled awareness, no matter who does it. Long-term, finer and more orderly distinctions will reassert themselves. Just be careful that neomasculinity does not get hijacked, for example, by thugs taking over in the name of their own notion of virility.
Knowing how to judge, when to express one’s judgment, how, what not to judge and to adapt one’s judgment to the particular circumstances one dwell in is a true virtue. It is an ability one hones day after day, occasion after occasion, for years—even decades.
One can be too harsh by, say, over-criticizing or overemphasizing petty details, just as one can be too complacent by ignoring important issues or by complaining about said issues while remaining lukewarm about their causes. I remember a baby-boomer who could ignore bullies—among children he was supposed to care about—but would make fusses about uncleaned breadcrumbs over the common table.
This kind of blatant misjudgment is painful to the child who senses how misplaced, unfair, and hypocritical it is. Fortunately, we are no more children and I know many millennials whose judgment seems much better to me than boomers’.
Aristotle was right about the Golden Mean, the Stoics were right about holding oneself to high standards, those who bestowed unconditional “rights” on whatever crafty crybully were wrong and most if not all the mainstream idols from last century were wrong. Does that sound judgmental? It is. Yet it is no more judgmental than your average SJW’s hamstering, and in contrast with that, it is (on the) right.
Read Next: It’s In Our Nature To Judge Others
Yes, but are traps gay?
You mean like the leather ones with no ass in them or the kind cowboys wear?
No, no, those are chaps. Everyone knows those are gay.
Oh,damn I thought you said chaps.
Some rules for judgment, in my opinion (you might notice some scriptural allusions here):
1. Don’t be a hypocrite. If you’re guilty of the same offense, first pluck the log from thine own eye so that you might remove the mite from your brother’s eye.
2. Judge by a standard, not by feelz.
3. Speak the truth in love, not out of some spiteful or self-righteous judgmentalism. You don’t want to condemn them, but to correct them.
4. Show mercy as you have been shown mercy.
All four of those are hard to do, with three being the hardest.
In my opinion anyway.
If it were easy, it probably wouldn’t be worth doing.
No doubt. Just saying, sometimes it takes a conscious effort to make the right thing happen, doing the wrong thing can be done without thinking.
The word we are looking for here is not “judgement.” It’s “discernment.” Judgement can be any kind of reactionary feeling, impulse, or habit. Discernment is not reactive.
Well distinguished. These are two very different things, indeed, and it is not wise to shun discernment.
I’m not entirely sure I agree about what Judgment is, though. To my thinking, it’s discernment regarding the rightness of actions combined with sentencing. To say, “what you are doing is wrong because…” is discernment, but to then add “and therefore you must die/be beaten/pay reparations/shunned/excommunicated/etc.” is judgment.
But I could well be wrong on that one.
Sounds pretty serviceable.
#s2&3 are shit on continually by all political groups in The West, which is why they gain power but yet lose it…
Not exactly big on 1 and 4, either.
You can judge even if you are a hypocrite. You just have to be honest about it and realize that making the judgement doesn’t mean that you are without sin. If you judge and are dishonestly hypocritical about it then you’ve lost the moral high ground.
A heroin addict father should judge his son’s heroin usage. The son would do well to heed the judgement.
This is not hypocrisy, necessarily. To say, “Stop the heroin, because my experience shows it will ruin your health and become difficult to stop,” is not judgment but rather discernment. To receive this is not to receive judgment from a loser, but to receive a call to wisdom (that is, to learn from the experiences of others).
It might seem a distinction without a difference, but I think it’s not. To say, “what you are doing is wrong, and I am ashamed that I do it as well,” does not seem to me a hypocritical statement.
Of course, the best thing is for the son to call his father out on his own heroin. The father should then do the manly thing, pack his son in the car, and find support to put them both on the straight and narrow.
Agreed.
Judgement is more reserved for the morality
discernment is perhaps for the ethics.
Really fine points. 3 and 4, in particular, drive the virtue of humility home, something that I lacked most of my life. Not any more.
Did anybody besides me have to read some of that more than once?
I avoided having to read it twice by not reading it in the first place.
It’s actually pretty interesting, just hard to take in all at once.
This was a really poorly written article.
I assume that Monsieur du Pôle is not a native speaker of English and he likely thinks in French and then translates into English. That may account for his writings not flowing as smoothly as we would like. It almost reminds me of reading a translation of Immanuel Kant. But don’t forget, Monsieur du Pôle is on our side. The Leftists have had an international network for many decades; it is time we on the Right have the same.
It does read that way, now that you mention it. If English isn’t his first language, he did a masterful job.
That would explain why he’s a little hard for me to keep up with.
Love the RIOT GRRL cartoon !
Imagine the backlash if a Senate candidate said that about any demographic group other than white males.
Fantastic article. It really lays out what I’ve been thinking about this issue for years, and in a logical, objective way.
It’s easy to say you’re ‘non-judgemental’ when discussing something you don’t care about. Why would I be judgemental about my neighbor’s choice in dishware? It’s completely irrelevant to my life. Why would I care whether it’s a man or a woman delivering my mail? I’ve never given it a moment’s thought and I doubt I ever will. Leftists do this a lot and try to claim the moral high ground. Hence the famous G.K. Chesteron quote: “Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions.”
It is also easy to be ‘non-judgemental’ when you see standards being removed or corrupted when the trend happens to be in a direction to which you are supportive. For instance, feminists pretend they are being open-minded when they support opening up infantry or special forces units to women. How is that being open-minded? Would they be equally supportive if men started hijacking traditionally female roles or institutions (midwifery, the Girl Scouts, all-female colleges)? Of course not. The cognitive dissonance required to believe that gender doesn’t matter, yet we’re going to study gender obsessively and even name our movement after our gender is absolutely mind-blowing to any rational person. And yet there you have it. Not only does it allow them to continue on their path of cultural destruction, it even grants them the ability to claim the moral high ground while doing so!
I’ll wrap up my rant with one quick personal anecdote. A year or so ago there was a two-minute hate going on in the news and social media, when a white person eating at a restaurant in Minneapolis smacked some Somali woman across the face with his beer glass. Everybody freaked out and had a healthy moment of decrying this person for being so horrible as to get into a fight with someone over speaking a foreign language (or we can assume that’s what caused it). I had a ‘friend’ on facebook state that the attacker should be held down and beaten to death. I have no problem with capital punishment. But the idea that someone should be executed for the crime of being prejudiced against someone of another culture makes absolutely no sense.
What an excellent quote.
Sounds a bit disproportionate to me. If a man beats another man in unreasoning anger, no legal code of which I am aware has ever required him to be punished beyond the damage he dealt (e.g. an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth). To call for any greater punishment is inherently unjust.
spot on man
“I had a ‘friend’ on facebook state that the attacker should be held down and beaten to death.”
Just look at the ‘pro-rape’ outcry over Roosh and the weaponized unwashed, cocked and ready to fire on us should the media give the word.
And this is why I cringe when people on here say we just need to man up or ignore our TV’s and it will all go away.
Funny SJW nightmare, conservatism is the counter culture, the left is in panic mode for that, they still believe that they are the cool kids going agaisnt the man, when in fact they becomes “The man” they have the support of government, politicians from both sides, MSM, Hollywood, celebrities, institutions, education. And yet they feel oppressed from the imaginary white privilege/racism/sexim. More and more kids from the Z generation are turning to the right. Kids know how to use google since 4yo, A simple google search and you debunk 90% of left BS, Young people ignore MSM. That´s why the left is a hurry to legislate a way to censor the internet, they are losing and losing big, they know it, and the proof is that women are changing sides. Women are only loyal to the winners, more women are identifying as conservatives and rejecting 50 years of feminism. Kids since young age are very good to identify double standards, that´s why if you tell them that Lying is wrong but he see you lying all the time he quickly will realize that you are full of BS and will hate you when the kid hit puberty, Imagine a feminist teacher telling a kid men and women are equal then they wonder why he is also required to put women on pedestals, kids are asking WHY MOM AND DAD, WHY. and the retard millennial parent are giving unfulfilling answers, so they look elsewhere. And the left hate it, that´s why they are doubling down on the censorship and indoctrination, education and MSM are in full force they are losing the minds of the kids.
Nicely stated. I can attest to this as I have younger cousins who are unashamed Conservatives who are sickened by what they see and legitimately concerned about the dystopia the fascistoid Leftists have created.
That’s why the left hate the youtuber pewdipie, kids love him he have no shame being not PC
Good post. Not only will millennial parents be unable to shove the pre-internet potpourri of social marxist doctrine down their internet savvy kid’s throats, millennial teachers in schools are at a loss as well. A primary school kid can pull up a hundred results to refute any lefty propaganda cheating done by any teacher.
Two big internet related fatalities of the lefty platform are feminism and race realism, especially in the refugee flood zones. No establishment cover up is sound any more on the web. Culprits and schuysters are all exposed naked.
And yes there’s lots of naked porn on the web too – and it’s right next to pages with articles on WHO produces the porn and WHAT the intent is behind disseminating the imagery, whether it be gay porn, mudshark or monkeydogsport. They can’t pass it all off as authentic undoctored natural behaviour anymore.
And then on sites like here, there’s more and more on game, masculinity, feminism and culture. There are coverups in the real world, but they don’t keep their cover for long. They are uncovered quickly by the realist nature of the internet.
Judge everyday, all day.
Too much Bureaucracy not enough action.
The only people I judge are the pink haired fucks who “fight nazis” while living off my taxes. They don’t work , only do these “anti-nazi” demonstrations and get their welfare check from the government at the of the month , while putting on airs as some sort of first class citizens who are making a difference. Needless to say they ruin my day everytime I come across them. I bumped into them today and was disgusted by the barely dressed male freaks dancing around. They had built this hanging place where there was written smth among the lines “a nazi should be hanged here”. I wanted to skin them all alive. And I don’t even like Nazis or anything. But these fuckers act as if they have the power of life and death upon the rest of us.
Other than them I judge nobody. Not even an African refugee. It’s the government’s fault that he is here , not his. And he probably had a tough life too , and is trying to profit from the Westerners foolishness , but that’s fair enough.
“They had built this hanging place” You mean a gallows with a hanging (rope) noose? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6c71a0ba9d58ed2599719889bba793758b36b5e9373b5c9127b25538747add53.jpg
Surely it would be illegal to even have just a noose in a public place in every civilised country in the world.
It was symbolic man. I briefly saw it , but this shit was painted and the words were written on it.
Well, maybe you can take comfort in the fact that they lacked the conviction and skill to make a real one.
It’s what I expect from people who support, and have a penchant for buggery.
I only have one rule for judging people
Judge by actions and intent.
That’s it.
Should you judge other people?
I’ve probably said this before here, and I’ll probably say it again.
One day long ago I was having a smoke break with my boss at work. A good guy. I don’t remember what we were talking about but I said “Well you know, it’s not my place to judge…”
Right there the boss cut me off & blew my mind. He said: “No. That’s not true. It IS your place to judge. It’s just NOT your place to condemn.”
I’ll never ever forget that statement bc it’s such a perfect little crystal of masculine wisdom. Like this piece says, it is definitely our right – & our responsibility – to make value judgments about things & people in the external world. But we don’t get to decide the fate of that which we individually find good or bad. All we get to do is learn, and adjust our behaviors & ideas accordingly, and to teach others (preferably by example) what the right way is, and why.
We made a gross mistake in the English language when we let “judgment” take on the same meaning as “discernment.” A judge does not only discern, but also sentences (condemns).
It happens with other languages too, even if eventually with a weaker association.
This comes from days when most people were illiterate and/or had no time for “discernment”. Power usually came BEFORE instruction and a good judgement (intellect). Those who could condemn, could judge. Those who couldn’t, would better shut up, they were irrelevant. Democracy brought an effect to worthless judgement (judgement by those who are powerless), something rather unique in human history. Arguably, it also brought some discernment to those who wouldn’t be expected to have that skill (the common man). In a way, both the biggest virtue and the heinous sin of our time.
Excellent.
Thanks for posting this, I was able to learn something today, thanks to you.
People who lecture others telling them not to judge do so because they know they’re doing something wrong.
– Like the landwhale who says not to judge because they know they’re morbidly obese and lack the will or discipline to diet.
– Like the fudge packer who says not to judge because he knows that anal sex with another man is disgusting and degenerate.
– Like the green/blue/pink/purple haired and shrapnel faced SJW who says not to judge because they know they’re losers in life.
– Like the woman who treats having an abortion as no big deal who says not to judge because she knows she’s a slut who doesn’t value the human life growing inside her.
– Like the non-binary, [email protected]# trannie who says not to judge because they know they have a mental disorder and expect everyone to enable it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenien
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenien
Think about the Xenomorph (HR Giger)
Think about the Engineers (Prometheus)
Rewatch the movie and take this key.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Goethe%2C_Farbenkreis_zur_Symbolisierung_des_menschlichen_Geistes-_und_Seelenlebens%2C_1809.jpg
Works pretty well while watching Breaking Bad.
“Vom Weg abkommen” in German.
Discernment – determining right from wrong – requires judgement. If we are to be men of substance, then we need to be accountable. This requires judgement. Judgement does not mean consequence, just recognition. From a religious standpoint, only God gets to determine our fate; but we have to make judgements to keep ourselves and those we care about in line.
You should judge people, but a lot of time the way you judge other people has more to do with the way you judge yourself. So be aware of that.
“Judge Not” is taken out of context in our bumper sticker culture. It’s a warning against judging with hypocrisy. But it’s impossible for any moral teaching to exist without judgment, and indeed the Bible instructs us on HOW to judge:
“Judge not according to appearance, but judge ye with righteous judgment” – John 7:24
Thumbs up on this comment. “Bumper Sticker Wisdom” is just the worst
Also, and I’ve mentioned it on this site before, judge not lest you be judged, to at least, has less to do with not judging and more to do with looking inward and deciding if you are ready for judgment.
If I judge a their immoral because stealing is wrong I stand and say, feel free to judge me on this criteria for I am no thief
The bible does teach that we will be judged by the same measure we use to judge others.
This is something the religious reich might want to consider.
On the right track.
I judge other people who:
1. judge me
2. try to harm me
3. try to intimidate or threaten me
4. try to victimize someone I care
5. think they know more things than I do (but act stupid)
I’ll follow the words of my lord and savior – judge, but judge righteously.
For those who preach against us for being judgemental just remember this. You have just judged us to be judgemental so by your very own platitudes you are a hypocrite.
Maybe you should read a lot more on what the bible has to say about being judgemental before you go off half cocked about our judgementalism.
You should judge others because they will certainly judge you. Thanks Machiavelli.