Expel The Tradthot Among You!

This week Roosh V did the Dissident Right a huge service by initiating the Tradthot War of 2017 against a host of laydees who hopped onto the Alt. Right bandwagon once they realized there was, like the libertarian movement, a huge market of thirsty beta males looking for “the girl next door who just happens to share my views.”

Having pursued many of the responses from various members of the Dissident Right, I think Roosh’s point was somewhat missed. I aim to elaborate and ideally explain the larger context of what prompted Roosh to stir up the hornet’s nest.

First, I want to state here and now how dangerous a man’s belief in traditionalist idealism is, if not checked by a healthy dose of realism about the world he lives in as opposed to the world he wants to live in. I can tell you now if not checked, it will blind him to the obvious threats around him, and he will be nothing more than a modern-day Don Quixote mistaking prostitutes for sweet maidens. The analogy is strikingly appropriate.

As others have said before me, men are romantics pretending to be realists, and women are realists pretending to be romantics.

Matt Forney got it right in a recent interview with Davis Aurini, when he said that much of the Alt. Right completely bypassed the manosphere and the Red Pill concerning gender relations on their road to mainstream awareness– just as libertarianism did. (Forney did a follow-up article for Return of Kings that made similar points).

We saw this a while back when many white nationalists piled on Roosh during the backlash over his proposed happy hour meetups using feminist talking points – the same talking points used against him by many of these so-called trad gals.

Having simultaneously watched both movements develop and then discover one another, I can tell you that there is much both sides can learn from one another, but in this instance the Dissident Right is the student.

The unpleasant realities of modern Western women is something real Red Pill men understand and accept, and one which the Dissident Right would do well to heed.

Aaron Clarey a.k.a. Captain Capitalism covered this years ago in a video attacking rightwing obsession with airhead blondes repeating basic bitch conservative lines (I LIKE RONALD REAGAN! TWEET!) in favor of actual thinkers of the male persuasion, all out of a subconscious desire for sexual access to those girls.

To use a sports analogy, if your team is taking orders from the cheerleaders in the hopes that doing so will enable them to get inside their skirts, rather than heeding the counsel of their the cantankerous veteran coach with a room full of national championship trophies to his credit, you can’t expect to pull off a whole lot of wins on the field.

However, it bears repeating in our current context so that men grasp the importance of what’s going on.

Make no mistake; it is no coincidence that so many of these tradthots have buried more bones than a gravedigger during the Black Death. If you’re a thot but want to automatically up the amount of attention you receive from men without much rivalry, look no further than the group of men who advertise very loudly their desire for traditional women – which is basically for all intents and purposes and extinct species.

Add to that the unsuspecting nature of many of these Dissident Right men, many of whom are in their early twenties – all that makes them an easy target for girls who perhaps had trouble competing in the normal sexual marketplace full of laydees equally as attractive (and just as promiscuous).

Simply put, there is an enormous dearth of women in the movement. It’s all economics; huge demand, low supply creates high value. Any woman in the group will immediately be regarded as important and special in terms of contribution.

But if that’s a problem now, it’s only going to get far, far worse in the near future.

Here’s why:

Anyone who has visited Dalrock’s site knows the number of never married white women is piling up to the point where there will be massive panic once they collectively reach the apex of the epiphany phase, i.e. when they realize their capacity to sexually compete with younger women is weakening and they need to lock in a reliable, dependable man for long-term security and provisioning before her value fully expires in the eyes of a man she finds attractive enough.

It is my belief that a national or global economic crisis will trigger this stampede to the altar, once the government no longer has the capacity to pay for so much of women’s provisioning that was once the responsibility of a husband, and when many of their make-work jobs cannot be funded.

In short, they will get married when they need men.

However, there’s just one problem – there may not be enough bachelors to go around, on top of bachelors who have been working like women because there’s been no incentive to work harder in order to provide for a family.

As Dalrock explains (bold emphasis added):

As these changes become evident, it is very likely that we will see a power shift in the “marriage market” as the husband shortage for marriage delayers becomes obvious.  The psychology of markets tends to revolve around fear and greed.

For the last 40 years, the marriage market has been characterized by greed on the part of would be brides and fear on the part of would be grooms.  This is why women have felt so comfortable making marriage a last priority, behind education, career, and casual sex.

The recent history of the marriage market can accurately be summed up as 40 years of ultimatums by women, with men backing down in the face of each new ultimatum.

The nonchalance by women towards marriage has been misinterpreted by many as a lack of interest in marriage, but I believe that it is reflective of an assumption that marriage will be theirs for the taking, so what is the rush?

The statistics above tend to bear out the logic of this position.

Young women look at their late 30s and early 40s aunts and see that all but a handful managed to marry.  But the same stats which explain their current level of comfort show why that comfort will soon be coming to an end.  At some point as more and more thirty-something women find themselves unable to marry the mood of the marriage delayers will turn from greed to fear.  

Instead of looking for reasons to reject men, they will focus more on holding on to the men they can get.  This will be a change on the margins, but it will be enough to be noticeable.  This will have the follow on impact of changing the prevailing mood of late 20s and thirty-something men from fear to greed, as they notice a sudden embarrassment in SMP options.

I promise you, the number one anxiety among these women will be whether or not Western men realize it’s a buyer’s market, i.e. men are now in the driver’s seat. The highest priority will be keeping men ignorant of their true value long enough so that women can lock them down into marriage which, thanks to no-fault divorce and our lopsided family courts, ensures that the man can’t and won’t leave if ever finds out that he purchased an overpriced product sold under false advertising.

So after years renouncing monogamy and riding the carousel as befitting a YOLO lifestyle, where  do you think many – not all, not a lot, but many – of these thots are going to go in their hunt for a hubbie who will be the least likely to question her sexual past, least likely to be fully aware of their own true value in the eyes of women, and the most eager to put a ring on it?

What better prospects could a woman in her thirties get than a man blinded by his own idealism and bemoaning the loss of traditional marriage, a man just waiting for the chance to wife some gal up and make babies?

Suddenly, every gal and their (unmarried) aunt will transform into a traditional woman blurting out simplistic pro-natalist slogans, even as they quietly pop their daily birth control pill and maintain a social media presence to ensure the maximum amount of attention is achieved.

What makes this so evil is that they will intentionally deceive and lie to men about who and what they are. It’s one thing to say “I was tricked by feminism, made poor choices based on the advice of older women around me, and fully bought into leftist dogma. Because of that, I deliberately didn’t get married. In doing so I made mistakes I painfully regret, and I’m trying to make things. If I meet a man willing to overlook them I will ensure my daughter does not repeat my errors.”

Compare that now to the same woman presenting herself as the ideal housewife who never got married and maintained her innocence and purity despite all the temptations in the world, because she was “just looking for a good man” and never found Mr. Right – until now.

As a relative of mine is fond of saying, if it sounds too good to be true, it always is. No exceptions.

Consider this, too. This massive fraud devalues the worth of the even rarer, genuinely traditional women that actually made good life choices, never accepted feminism and leftist dogma to begin with, and instead took the harder path by doing the right thing even though it cost them male attention and social status. It’s selling a copy of a painting as the authentic article for the same price. Tradthots make it even harder for traditional men to marry traditional women by polluting the waters. 

As I stated before, the pile-up of never marrieds, as Dalrock explained, is driven by greed and arrogance on the part of these women, not a lack of eligible bachelors.

When the marriage market bubble burst, their strategy will succeed or fail in this regard based on who is acting as the guide and mentor of the Dissident Right movement.

What do you think will happen if the general consensus is made up by media tradthots with Norman Bates-level skeletons in their basement and who are also looking to settle down?

As Rollo Tomassi explained in his essay Male Space, women enter a male-only group once it’s been established for the purpose of obtaining special status as the first woman in the group. Once enough have entered, they then take over the reins, indirectly or not, of the group and, officially or not, change its purpose to that of befitting the feminine imperative.

Tomassi writes (bold emphasis added):

The second purpose in the goal of female inclusion into male space is really a policing of the thought dynamics and attitudes of the men in that space. When women are allowed access to the locker room the dynamic of the locker room changes. The locker room can take many different shapes: the workplace environment, the sports team, the group of all-male coders, the primarily male scientific community, the ‘boys club’, the group of gamer nerds at the local game store, even strip clubs and the sanctuary you think your ‘man cave’ is – the context is one of women inserting themselves into male space in order to enforce the dictates of feminine social primacy.

When the influence of feminine-primacy is introduced into social settings made up mainly by men and male-interests, the dynamics and purpose of that group changes. The purpose becomes less about the endeavor itself and more about adherence to the feminine-inclusionary aspect of that endeavor. It starts to become less about being the best or most passionate at what they do, and more about being acceptable to the influence of the Feminine Imperative while attempting maintaining the former level of interest in the endeavor.

Which brings me to the main point.

This isn’t about whether women are welcome in the Dissident Right; it’s about keeping out opportunistic women that don’t actually believe in any of it. It’s about preventing them from exploiting desperate men and in the process creating create internal division and strife before moving onto the next male-only group once total destruction is complete, to revamp their sexual marketplace value.

It’s about ensuring the integrity of the movement and its chief objectives are protected. It’s far easier to do this when you’re dealing with men that are a dime a dozen and have incentives to fight feminism and our current culture. It’s harder when there are few females to be had, you’re anxious to change the group’s outward perception, and those women have little to no incentive to change a society in which assurances of their entire sexual strategy is codified into norms at every level and their degree of personal freedom devoid of consequences is unmatched in any other period of world history.

However, if tradthots are left unchecked, the Dissident Right will eventually just be an ideal, safe, nonthreatening place for women passing out of their hookup phase to find and settle down with a supplicating, submissive beta provider whose initial call for traditional values will have been by then translated into offering her lifelong commitment with no questions asked about her perceived value or past and the implications that has for his family and children. It will become a trove of beta bucks for women wishing to capitalize on it.

Men have to make it clear that they are leading and they are in charge, and while help, comfort, and support is appreciated, they’re not taking marching orders or looking for counsel or opinions from the women in their ranks about how they as men should act, and any attempts to take advantage of their work or organizations by attention-whores or fake trad gals will be met with intense shaming and online/social ostracization.

Here’s the unvarnished truth; men are meant to lead, women to help and support. Any political entity or movement that deviates from this maxim will fall apart and fail.

The choice is clear: expel the tradthots among you!

Advertisements
Posted in Culture, general political thoughts, nationalism, politics, society | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Everything Or Nothing

Everything Or Nothing

I have long thought about writing this post. A part of what restrained me was that I couldn’t find an appropriate topic or news event to demonstrate my point.

At this point, I don’t think that’s necessary.

I see online and in real life people talk about their principles, beliefs, convictions, and what not. However, when push comes to shove and their enemies threaten political violence, they buckle and cave. They yield and submit.

This is practically the history of the relationship between Mainstream Conservatism Inc. and the Left. The Left attacks something “valued” by conservatives. Conservatives bellow and wail and cry bloody murder, but once the Left escalates to the point of violence, whether it’s Antifa, state law enforcement, or the courts, conservatives concede, then redrawn the line in the sand, and pretend they never gave in.

Dalrock has documented this on his website for years, how tradcons have to engage in profound denial in order to believe that anything has fundamentally changed since the Sexual Revolution.

Aside from perhaps Trump and superficial election victories, the Left hasn’t the foggiest concept of defeat. Putting aside the standoff at the Bundy Ranch, they don’t know what it’s like to have to back off in the face of escalation from the Right that could turn out badly for them.

The only thing that will arouse conservatives to talk of outright armed rebellion is the Second Amendment. I think this is purely psychological; as Americans, it’s been ingrained into our minds that gun rights are the last stop to a dictatorship. Talk of restriction guns immediately triggers something in their hind-brain that makes it unacceptable.

Had they shown that kind of backbone on just about every other issue they claim to care about, imagine how different things might be. It shows the power of an “all-in” mentality. All or nothing.

Which brings me to the history lesson for today taken from two similar incidents in two separate Crusades involving a siege of the same city (Jerusalem), with completely different results for the defenders who had adopted opposing mindsets.

During the First Crusade, it was the Europeans besieging Jerusalem. The traditional rules of warfare at that time dictated that if a city opened its doors to an attacking force, the inhabitants would be spared. But if they did not, they would be put to the sword.

And that is exactly what happened when the Crusaders breached the walls on the third day.

Atrocities committed against the inhabitants of cities taken by storm after a siege were the norm in ancient and medieval warfare. The Crusaders had already done so at Antioch, and Fatimids had done so themselves at Taormina, at Rometta, and at Tyre. However, the massacre of the inhabitants of Jerusalem may have exceeded even these standards. Historian Michael Hull has suggested this was a matter of deliberate policy rather than simple bloodlust, to remove the “contamination of pagan superstition” (quoting Fulcher of Chartres) and to reform Jerusalem as a strictly Latin Christian city.

Almost a century later, it was Saladin besieging the Crusade defenders inside Jerusalem. After nearly a week, a section of the wall was destroyed. However, the defenders fought so savagely Saladin’s forces withdrew.

Still, the situation for the defenses was grim:

The crusaders were unable to push Saladin’s troops back from the breach, but at the same time the Muslims could not gain entrance to the city. Soon there were only a few dozen knights and a handful of remaining men-at-arms capable of bearing arms and defending the wall; no more men could be found even for the promise of an enormous fee.

A knight named Balian was leader of the defense force. He met with Saladin and offered to surrender the city. Saladin wanted it to be unconditional, which meant no terms could be demanded or agreed upon.

What was the response?

Balian threatened that the defenders would destroy the city along with the holy places, slaughter their own families and the 5000 Muslim slaves, and burn all the wealth and treasures of the Crusaders.”

In other words, he went all in. Everything or nothing.

Consider his circumstances. His army was reduced to a few. His position was totally untenable. The loss of the city was guaranteed. And yet he would not yield. And it made sense. If they couldn’t walk free, what was the point of leaving the city behind for their enemies to take?

Moreover, it gave him a bargaining tool that the previous defenders did not have. The outright destruction of the city was something the Crusaders invading it before did not have to worry about.

Saladin did. And that’s why he caved.

Saladin, who wanted to take the city with as little bloodshed as possible, insisted that the Crusaders were to unconditionally surrender but could leave by paying a ransom of ten dinars for men, five for women and two for children; those who couldn’t pay would be enslaved.

Balian told him that there were 20,000 in the city who could never pay that amount. Saladin proposed a total of 100,000 dinars to free all the 20,000 Crusaders who were unable to pay. Balian complained that the Christian authorities could never raise such a sum. He proposed that 7,000 of them would be freed for a sum of 30,000 dinars, and Saladin agreed.

The 2005 film Kingdom of Heaven starring Orlando Bloom and Eva Green was historically inaccurate in many ways, but this one scene did a commendable job of showcasing the resolve of the Christians within Jerusalem’s walls. Whatever we may have to say about their moral character, contextualized within the norms of Medieval warfare, cowards they were not.

So unlike the defenders a century before, Balian walked out alive and free, as did thousands of Crusaders, because he was willing to go all the way.

The moral of the story, and the history lesson is clear: if someone escalates beyond the point of no return, if they cross a line for you, you either go all in or you shouldn’t bother in the first place.

If your enemies know in advance that, should they attack you, you will meet their action with greater action and continue until either you are destroyed or they are defeated, they will choose their battles carefully, or find another person to harass.

If somebody knows destroying your life will result in destruction of their own life in the process, they’ll be hesitant to do so.

There are people in this world all around us who thrive on taking advantage of those who they know won’t go as low as they, fight as long as they, and risk as much as they. They fear those who will take it all the way.

It’s why people tend to not mess with the poor low-life drunk with no money, terrible credit, and who lives in an RV, but they’ll be more than happy to mess around with the respectable upper middle class man with a spotless driving/criminal record, high-status career, a small nest egg, and a house paid off. The first guy has nothing to lose, so he’ll take it all the way even if it lands him in jail; he’ll suffer, but so will his enemy.

The second guy won’t, fearful of losing what he has; what he doesn’t realize is his unwillingness to do so makes vulnerable to the very loss he fears.

If you’re all bark and no bite, you might as well have no bite at all.

As a former IRA member (border campaign veteran) remarked in an interview with BBC forty years after the conflict had ended, “in a war you either give it all you got or you should get out of the game, really.”

Posted in doom and gloom, general political thoughts | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Egalitarianism: As Advertised Versus Actual Product

How egalitarians say it works…..

24174373_10103316940616508_5796463117461248489_n

How egalitarianism actually works….24232952_10103317132457058_917299532565832029_n

As I wrote in egalitarian elitism, the only way to make everyone equal is to bring everyone down to the lowest level possible. If you want to improve “height equity” or reduce “height inequality,” the only way to do that is to cut off the legs of the taller ones.

That, or you could do what Napoleon did when he placed the tallest men in France in the front ranks to intimidate their enemies, and consequently over time the average height in France dropped.

I’m sure the shorter men appreciated that, but it didn’t make them any taller.

The point is that when you want greater equity, it means someone with more is the guaranteed loser, and the loser is still a loser.

As the Brothers Grimm recounted two centuries ago, the true equalizer is Death.

Syndrome remarked in The Incredibles that when everyone is special, no one will be. When everyone is dead, everyone will be truly equal.

Posted in cultural marxism, Culture, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

No Country For Old White Men

In the past I’ve written on my ardent anti-war sentiment. Anyone who cares to read it can access those posts in the archives.

I have a new reason to hate war; those who fight in them are treated like leftover dinner being thrown into the garbage disposal by people who never deserved it, as they draw their final breaths.

A hidden video from 2014 showed nurses laughing as a World War II veteran repeatedly called for help and died while in their care.

The family of James Dempsey, 89, of Woodstock, Ga., hid a camera in the late veteran’s room in the Northeast Atlanta Health and Rehabilitation Center which captured the night he died.

The video showed the decorated WWII veteran repeatedly calling for help, saying he could not breathe. It also showed the nurses failing to take life-saving measures and laughing as they tried to start an oxygen machine.

Imagine fighting in one of the bloodiest wars in human history, risking life and limb for what you thought was a worthy cause, only to spend your final moments on this planet begging for help as you hear the people paid to care for you laugh. It’s the kind of sounds that POWs in hellhole camps listened to as they were tortured or starved to death.

Heartiste has it right: Why would anyone self-respecting white man fight for the USA anymore, even if the war was legitimately intended to protect it from invasion? Are we really to think the Russians would cause more harm than what the current invading hordes are doing? I’d rather rot in a military prison and take the public ridicule that comes with it than endure the horrors of war and have it repaid in the twilight of my life by perishing under the care of those with less dignity than the average soldier I’d be coerced into killing.

The USA is neither united, nor states, nor American. And chances are, the thanks you’ll get after your service will be mockery by the people you unwittingly brought into this country by bombing their homelands overseas.

Let the bastards who want to invite the world invade the world themselves.

Posted in War | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

The “Let ‘Em Burn” Doctrine

I was initially uncertain of whether to publish this, until I saw a recent post by Boxer in which he made an observation within the context of our post-modern feminism culture, that explains much of what I’ve wanted to say regarding the current political situation:

At this stage of our historical development, we should be working alone and in small groups, rather than trying to take political power for ourselves. In time, the tides of history will shift, the weltgeist will take a new shape, and we can come together and reclaim what’s ours. Until then, my boys, you are partisans. Your job is not to show yourselves in the open. Your job is not to do big stuff. Your job is to do small things, which will prepare the way for those who will come later. (bold emphasis added).

This is sound advice, and the reason why should be evident to anyone watching the Hollywood sexual harassment scandal and #metoo campaign unfold.

In years past, I’ve engaged in some real life political activism and attended a few rallies, but I never held great fondness for them. The main reason had to do with practicality. Having personally witnessed the birth and fall of the Tea Party movement, I understand the futility of grass roots activism that ultimately centers on winning elections. I’ve also found them somewhat emasculating; unless these rallies lead to direct action, much of it feels like grandstanding.

Now, some might argue that they serve a useful purpose in allowing people to meet and network in real life rather than talk pointlessly online. Fair enough.

However, I also believe these rallies and protests give the enemy ideal opportunity to cause trouble, and place participants in potentially dangerous scenarios. It’s where leftists can engage in a bait-and-switch tactic most frequently used by Antifa in which they try to goad you into attacking them while remaining close enough to get a sucker punch in if the opportunity arises before they quickly vanish into their crowd of fellow basement dwellers.

As Charlottesville proved, activism puts a bull’s eye on your chest and provides an excuse for persecution. As General Gates learned in The Patriot and Eamon De Valera in Michael Collins, you don’t openly confront a stronger, superior force and expect to triumph.

With this in mind, consider what is taking place within Hollywood (and spreading swiftly into other venues). It wasn’t an alternative media source that triggered this; it was the New York Times, the epitome of mainstream media, running a piece on Harvey Weinstein. The destruction of the careers of numerous actors, directors, producers, and other bigwigs were carried out mainly by their peers.

In other words, Hollywood is collapsing due to its own unstable, corrupt nature by elements all within the post-feminist ideology.

It is a similar situation with many other institutions in the country. Whether it’s the national debt, the student loan bubble, the mass importation of immigrants that consume more than they produce, marriage 2.0, trillions in unfunded liabilities, an aging national infrastructure, their current trajectories are not sustainable.

Sooner or later, they will collapse on their own, whether there is anyone there “opposing” them or not.

This makes a strong case for individual and local activity among those such as myself, and in many ways that is what I have been doing for a while. I’ve been focused on wholly nonpolitical interests and hobbies. I’ve placed myself in an environment so that if bad things happen, they’re happening elsewhere.

There is nothing to gain by sticking one’s head above the trench to get it blown off by a sniper if you know that the enemy line will eventually break due to poor morale and internal squabbling.

I certainly have my opinions still intact, but I don’t concern myself with what is going on unless it affects me directly and there is something I can do to avoid the damage.

At some point this same sort of institutional collapse will occur with other entities, whether it’s higher education, the U.S. economy or even the military and the federal government. They don’t need my involvement for that to happen.

The Reckoning is already set in stone; the only question to be answered is when it will occur, and nobody can know that for certain.

With that in mind, perhaps it’s wise to keep a low profile and avoid attracting attention and, if possible, let the political battle be fought by others who either won’t or are unable to withdraw.

The fire has been kindled. Things fall apart. The center cannot hold.

But don’t shoot. Let ’em burn.

 

 

Posted in civil war, communism, conservativism, Culture, doom and gloom, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

The Death of Civic Nationalism

Jeff Deist comes out with the hammer on why the Democrats won in Virginia.

National Review seems to think the recent election in Virginia was about Trump, when in fact it was entirely about demographics…..Northern Virginia is also full of immigrants from Central America, South America, and Asia….and while immigrants and their children may have little in common with the patent attorney living just a mile or two away, in the vast majority of cases both lean heavily Democrat. Immigrant non-citizens may not be able to vote, but their children certainly will.”

Libertarians can talk all they want that it’s “ultimately” about culture, not race, but this is like saying it ultimately doesn’t matter whether your child is biologically yours, as long as the kid behaves the way you want them to.

As is the case with Ronald Reagan Jr. and Michael Reagan, sometimes a stepchild does in fact emulate their adopted parents better than the biological child.

But this is an exception, not the rule. A family that has been in America since the Pilgrims will see the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as an extension of their ethnic heritage and consequently have a greater stake in preserving them. A family from the Horn of Africa looks at the Founding Fathers and sees a bunch of foreign men writing about stuff that is utterly alien to their native culture.

Making policy or philosophical theories based on the outlying margins is a fool’s errand.

One of the problems with libertarians is they often tend to think individualistically on everything, and so accurate generalizations and bell curve discussions bother them. They want to take the micro and apply it at a macro level. It means they will ignore trends and clear patterns of behavior.

You may think race doesn’t matter or affect politics, but sadly that makes your view irrelevant to the discussion. Not only is it not true, but those involved don’t believe it, either.

If it weren’t the case, those who love Big Government wouldn’t be so obsessed with the ethnic breakdown of immigration trends and ensuring certain races are given preferential treatment over others for entering the country.

Our current immigration policy does not prioritize single Nordic beauties in their early twenties, and were they to form a mass migration wave headed towards this nation, you can bet your bottom dollar that all those today screeching to keep our borders as wide open as a hooker’s legs would eagerly sacrifice their first-born gender-neutral child as mortar for the Great Wall built to keep those lasses out.

Also, note that nowhere has civic nationalism, i.e. “culture matters” crowd, proven their point through the electorate. There are no examples of “natural conservatives” maintaining the legacy of the original American people. With every new immigration wave, America’s government has grown larger and larger. This isn’t to say they are solely responsible for the situation, but it shows that a culture devoid of the race that created it, is doomed.

One of the reasons America is dying is because the ethnic stock that once comprised a majority of the nation is dwindling.

Culture and race are separate, but they’re intertwined. Don’t tell me Japan would remain as culturally “Japanese” as it is today, if ethnic Japanese became minorities and whites were an equal percentage of the population.

So don’t be surprised when America isn’t American when all the real Americans are replaced with foreigners who seek to replace its Anglo-Saxon Protestant heritage with magic dirty proposition nation drivel that forms a modern godless civic religion.

Posted in borders, Central Government, conservativism, constitution, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Egalitarian Elitism

A New Elitism

When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big-league ball players and the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. That’s why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. The very thought of losing is hateful to Americans.

Patton said this eighty years ago. It perhaps represented the values of America during his time.

To the modern ear, they are deeply offensive and immoral. Say it in the wrong setting, and you can get a visit from the HR lady.

We truly live in Bizarre world.

A common saying is that your group is only as strong as your weakest member. The spirit of this adage is that a group should raise the weak, through strength. The top elite had a moral duty to improve the overall health of their organization.

For the aristocracy, this was known as nobles obliges. They had a responsibility to set an example in their own life for their social inferiors, born of inferior circumstances, and then enforce those rules.

It wasn’t a perfect system, and it had its flaws, but in principle it was sound. The strong take care of the weak, but nobody wants to be weak. The intelligent assist the dumb, yet nobody desires to be the imbecile.

Today, in the West, we believe the opposite. We’re only as weak as our strongest member. Elitism that admired the best, the greatest man could achieve, is considered a great evil.

Egalitarianism is one of many religions we are forced to obey, even if we don’t believe in it, and it is the basis for the new elitism. However, since it is impossible to make everyone as equally great as the best, we bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator. It’s Harrison Bergeron writ large. The cronies of the Handicapper General are everywhere.

Summarized appropriately, its battle cry is “you ain’t no gooder than me!”

What this means is that all the traditional traits of a healthy, functioning society – strength, dominance, competence, intelligence, and drive – have been replaced with new civic virtues; weakness, stupidity, foolishness, ineptness, dependency, and laziness.

The losers are the heroes of our system. The hideous both physically and within their soul are touted. Those who can’t provide for themselves, who’ve made terrible choices, who rely on others to survive – they are the champions, my friends.

Our society celebrates the ugly as beautiful, corrupt as pure, the deranged as the new normal, and the dysfunction as the future.

In backwoods rural America, schoolroom teachers once demanded their students speak and pronounce English properly. Look at any historic school textbook or rules.

Slowly, the standards were dumbed down and finally replaced with ideology. Do I have to tell you what would happen if they did this in an elite private school?

This decline in excellence and quality can be seen nearly everywhere. Compare modern art and architecture to, say, art deco in the 1930s and 1940s. Or, go back to the Baroque period. When have you ever looked at a new building and marveled at its majestic appearance?

Buildings were once designed for more than their literal intent. They were works of art meant to inspire and celebrate culture. Victor Hugo may have exaggerated when he said the printing press killed architecture, which prior to mass literary was used to tell stories and educate, but in retrospect his apprehensions were well-grounded.

Today, we build soulless boxes as simplistic in their aesthetics as a caveman’s dwelling and call it “progress.”

Books have suffered, too. It may shock you to know that Shakespeare’s plays were written and performed for the illiterate working-class rabble of London, the lowest stratum of the society. Today, only English majors or the more cultured read them, let alone understand them or know more than a handful of titles by name. The rest of Westerners have their eyes glued to 50 Shades of It’s-Not-Rape-If-He’s-Really-Rich-And-Hawt, while full grown adults shamelessly consume and quote Harry Potter, a children’s book series that masks petty juvenile school drama behind a shroud of magic and left-wing politics.

Or, they don’t read at all.

The stupidity can be seen in the public’s inability to grasp blatant irony or satire. Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal called for the Irish to eat their own babies to survive the Potato Famine. The average British subject understood his point, because they had a level of sophistication we do not.

A few years back, Roosh V wrote a similarly ironic essay titled “How to stop rape,” in which he advocated legalizing rape on private property as a way to encourage women to be more careful about whom they associated with.

Rather than critique the point made, that women bear some responsibility for their own safety, the mass media and shrieking pearl-clutchers insisted the article was serious. Our clickbait-driven media interpreted piece literally, and most people accepted that narrative no matter how absurd it sounded.

It’s also why modern philosophical writes such as Quintus Curtius continually have privileged elite brats nipping at their heel. Through his examination of classical history, Quintus advocates character and virtue. Self-improvement like that is intolerable among those who lack the capacity or the will to better themselves and who see everyone as equal, regardless of effort or merit.

Nowhere is the promotion of loserdom as a virtue more self-evident than in the anti-Western propaganda inundating educational institutions. When it comes to achievements, the West stands alone in terms of sheer volume, from scientific discoveries to military innovation, literature and poetry, as well as inventions that have raised living standards for not only Western nations, but the entire world.

So how does an anti-Westerner confront this? By arguing that failure is a moral good.

This is an actual quote from an article citing an actual book (h/t Tom Woods)

In The Queer Art of Failure, Judith Halberstam argues that “Under certain circumstances failing, losing, forgetting, unmaking, undoing, unbecoming, not knowing may in fact offer more creative, more cooperative, more surprising ways of being in the world.” I draw on this idea to propose a queer science of failure that is focused on the ways that failing, unmaking, undoing, and not knowing science may lead to a more just world.

Needless to say, this assault on reality will prove deadly. The natural law dictates it. The best armies conquer, not the most diverse and inclusive.Electrical engineering and plumbing don’t care about ideology. Buildings relies on engineers who accept math and physics, who acknowledge the idea of structural integrity. Those who do not will build ones doomed to collapse. Gravity will not be mocked.

The same could be said for our political, cultural, religious, and social institutions that ignore similar truths about their own nature.

Posted in cultural marxism, Culture, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments