Together or Separately


The legacy media propaganda machine is currently mobilizing for a two minutes hate against Dr. Jordan Peterson. Apparently the good doctor went on the Beeb to point out some basic facts about economics and human psychology that your average high school student used to take for granted.

The journo they sent in to trap him ended up turning herself into a living example of Peterson's points. That's not surprising, because the anti-intellectual cult the Left is beholden to requires them to take it on faith that anyone outside the cult is either stupid, insane, evil, or all three.

I didn't watch the debate itself. Though I've sampled my share of "must-watch" Jordan Peterson videos, I've never heard him say anything particularly interesting. His specialty is doling out what used to be called common sense to young adults whose society has utterly failed them on every level.

That's not a knock against Peterson. We've had a couple of generations raised without fathers in deed or in fact, and he fulfills the vital role of imparting useful life skills and counteracting media and academia-inflicted brainwashing. Which is why the media has to destroy him.

As others have pointed out, the press is geared up to run the MILO script on Peterson. They know that further debate is useless--not that they ever meant to beat him in a good-faith contest of ideas; rather they tried and failed to trip him up. So they're trotting out the tactic that's been their go-to gambit since #GamerGate: make vague, unsubstantiated claims of harassment, blame Peterson's fans, and smear him by association. His continued presence is a painful reminder of their humiliation, so the game now is to get him de-platformed and disemployed.

I hate to break it to the hacks in the press penning their hit pieces as we speak, but it won't work this time. Peterson has two things that past conservative victims of the hate mob lacked: tenure and his own massive platform that doesn't rely on old media.

That's good for Peterson, but what about past and future casualties of SJW shriek swarms who lack the same protections? As I've noted before, they're pretty much screwed. After all, the Left wouldn't bother trying to disemploy and de-platform hatefact purveyors on the Right if Conservatives didn't indulge them.

It's been said before, and it bears saying again: Conservatives' main weakness is their critical lack of solidarity. It comes from the nasty individualist streak in their capitalist and Liberal influences. I've seen right-leaning business owners flatly refuse employment to like-minded friends because the job-seekers' unemployment exceeded an arbitrary 18 month limit. Even an otherwise solid guy like Stefan Molyneux, who speaks passionately about the need to put winning first, says he won't hire people who've "lost momentum".

One big advantage of being on the Left is that, if you check the right boxes and recite the proper credal formulas, the cult looks out for you. Note the curious phenomenon of lefties in media and business "failing upward". SJW editors from protected groups who bankrupt venerable sci-fi magazines don't have to apply at Target. They're given cushy writing assignments at Marvel Comics. When their unreadable books are inevitably cancelled, there'll be junior college associate professorships waiting to break the fall.

Conservatives who publicly speak uncomfortable truths are in for a rougher ride. First, the bow tie-bedecked moderates can be counted on to show up and virtue signal at the victim's expense. "Sure, he denounced the harassment," they'll say, "but if he meant it, he'd disavow his unruly followers who're causing all the trouble." Always conveniently forgotten is the fact that it's the Left who are stirring up fake outrage to distract from their loss.

After that, the employer will decide it's best to discontinue their working relationship with the victim because nothing says "sound, long-term business planning" like sacrificing a productive employee who reliably adds value to the company for the sake of dispersing an angry mob that would've lost interest and gone away on its own if management had just ignored them.

The abandoned ex-employee whose name is now mud in the industry where he was a twenty-year veteran is then told to apply for a minimum-wage job so he can at least "re-enter the workforce". At that point, one of two things happens:
  1. He finds that all available entry-level jobs have already been filled by women, minorities, and illegal aliens thanks to affirmative action laws that Conservatives were too spineless to repeal and immigration laws they were too lazy to enforce. (And capitalist employers love them because they're cheaper!)
  2. He gets the minimum-wage job, earning less than he did on unemployment and food stamps. The aforementioned factors keep him from getting promoted, and he's right back in the unemployment line in a few months when the almost certainly temporary job ends.
But at least the disemployed hate mob victim is doing his best to avoid relying on collectivism and pull himself up by his bootstraps!

Individualism is poison. It was introduced into right-wing thought by the enemy, and they count on it to keep their opposition atomized, cut off from support, and vulnerable to their Alinsky tactics. 

Don't play along. Are you a business owner or manager who knows someone who's been disemployed by SJWs? GIVE HIM A FUCKING JOB.

But what if he's been unemployed for two years?

It doesn't matter.

But what if he drinks?

Doesn't matter.

But what if he stole from his last company to buy meth?

Who gives a shit?

If you're hiding behind any of these excuses, you clearly don't understand that this is bigger than him, you, or your precious little company. Culture warriors need something to fight for and resources to fight with. Yes, the ideal is planting oak trees we'll never live to nap under. We still need a reliable support structure to have our backs while we're digging.

Standing up for the truth at grave personal risk is heroic. But imagine if it didn't have to be. Heroes are always a tiny percentage of the population. The easier you make it for ordinary guys to speak plain, obvious truth, the more soldiers we'll have on our side. 

Still don't feel comfortable offering Frank an internal position now that he's been out of the game for a while? Come up with a make-work position and give it to him on a contract basis. Let him know it's temporary, and he'd better leave any bad habits he's picked up at the door because you're doing him a massive favor. Unless he's a total screw-up, he'll get the hint. That way, Frank can fill the employment gap on his resume with a job that's technically in the industry. He can use the time and money you're giving him to hone his skills on the job or get more training. If he puts in any effort at all, he'll be able to get a real job in his field before the contract runs out.

Or you can throw Frank to the wolves and hope they don't come back for you next time.

With this final novel, Mr. Niemeier has created a work of art and beauty that I believe will stand the test of time.


  1. I agree. I've long said that its high time conservatives circle in and start looking out for each other. Instead you so often see them become a hate mob themselves when one of them falls from grace in some way. "OMG, he said WHAT? WE MUST DENOUNCE!!!"
    No. Fuck that.

    I used to be Asatruar. Aside from growing up and no longer believing in fairytales, one of the things I hated about other heathens were just how fucking quick they were attack any other person. Anyone who tried to do something grand or on a large scale, there were other little viking wannabees with their axes, just chipping away what the person was trying to do, like termites.

    And the same happens with conservatives all too often. I think it was Lauren Southern who when other people found out she was pro-choice, OMG, LYNCH HER!!!!
    Really? Attacking people because of their personal views? So much for freedom of association.
    All too often conservatives do not practice what they preach.

    1. Except, well, we do sometimes have to be willing to denounce people. The idea that "personal views" cannot be attacked is a SYMPTOM of excessive individualism, not a remedy to it. And unrepentant support of baby-murder (if indeed the case) is not an unreasonable place to draw the line.

      Besides, not being willing to denounce anybody just makes it that much easier for us to be infiltrated. And while the slippery slope argument is commonly derided these days, the fact of the matter is that most conservatives are just liberals who fell behind the cutting edge without having ever actually repented of their liberal commitments. The danger of becoming what we fight, if not worse, is very real, as post-"enlightenment" history demonstrates very effectively. The problem is less denunciations, and more that these denunciations all too often denounce things at best frivolous and at worst actually good.

      Over and above that, often enough conservatives DO practice what they preach, except they're all preaching different things.

      So we need a way to denounce what ought to be denounced while still being able to take care of our own and maintain cohesion.

      I think it is worth quoting from a brief article by Kristor over at the Orthosphere:

      "The proliferation of sects is a natural result of the disestablishment of the absolute mundane authority over spiritual and moral affairs of a highly ordered and lawful sacerdotal hierarchy. It results from an honest and untrammeled distributed search for the bounds of a solution space via unconstrained competitive holiness spirals. As an arms race – this, even within the cranium of a single believer – that is focused on discovering, implementing and propagating the truths exemplified in an infinite purely formal configuration space, the competition inevitably gives rise to doctrinal innovations, some of which are bound to conflict with some other doctrines (or, to be just wrong: which is to say, heretical).

      So you get schisms multiplying, and sooner or later fighting.

      This is why we cannot expect cultural peace – not lack of violence, but true harmony, krasis, justice (which under the orbit of the moon in this Fallen world simply requires at least a bit of violence) – until there is again an established religion with a sacerdotal hierarchy, whose ukases have in principle ultimate authority and sway over all moral and spiritual matters – and thus, implicitly, political matters, including those that pertain to the secular sovereign."

      But even if we had such an authority, when we've created a society of rebels, well:

      "Leadership is like any other human activity; which is to say, it is subject to all of the flaws associated with human beings. It isn’t always true that “you get what you pay for.” Being good followers doesn’t guarantee good leadership.

      But being bad followers does guarantee bad leadership."

      The first step, then, is being willing to obey legitimate authorities - priests, fathers, property owners, etc. - within their proper spheres, especially when they can't really enforce it and we really don't like it. An unwillingness to denounce anybody who claims the title of conservative is hardly better, arguably worse, than denouncing everybody.

    2. Troll grade: A-

      Well done. Next time avoid obvious tells like "fairy tales" and "pro-choice", and you might convince some of us to bludgeon each other with our own principles.

    3. So wait, I agree with you, but here you are doing the EXACT same thing you blame others of doing? Is the idea of an Atheist conservative so alien to you that THAT is where YOU draw the line?

      But someone stealing from their last company to buy meth, that's okay?

    4. I'm not a conservative. A recurring theme of this blog is how conservatives are prone to being manipulated by their so-called principles.

      If you're an atheist and support baby murder, you most certainly do not agree with me.

    5. Ok dude, just completely contradict EVERYTHING you stated in your OP and prove yourself a hypocrite.

    6. Repent and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

  2. In addition to Brian's familiar rejoinder of 'don't give money to people who hate you," I think another piece of practical advice would be 'don't take moral advice from anti-Christs".

    I cannot for the life of me understand why 'conservatives' continue to let 'progressives' dictate their principles. Why on earth would you rely on the moral authority of a people who: Advocate murdering humans in the womb, demand that tax payer dollars pay for said murder and dismemberment, sue and harass religious people who oppose that, put breaking up the nuclear family and destroying very idea of male and female on their mission statements, teach communism and socialism to grade schoolers, give extra credit to students who attend the rallies of domestic terrorist organizations, forbid all forms of christianity in schools yet force field trips to mosques, etc, etc, etc.

    Why? Why would you listen to a liberal who tells you the Good Samaritan allegory was about letting in fighting age strangers who just happen to believe in genital mutilation and murdering people for religious purposes into your home, but you shouldn't extend mercy and forgiveness to a brother who lost their job?

    I would suggest that virtual signalling zealots searching for staunch principles to defend crack open a copy of the bible, and stop getting their definitions from those who openly hate them and want to destroy them.

    1. "I cannot for the life of me understand why 'conservatives' continue to let 'progressives' dictate their principles."

      Because Conservatives *are* progressives, just less consistent.

      Classical Liberalism was a mistake. The Enlightenment was a mistake. We need to go back--all the way back.

    2. "Because Conservatives *are* progressives, just less consistent."

      This needs to disseminated into the culture. So many conservatives don't get this, that they are Progressives, just lagging behind by about 4-5 election cycles.

      We presently lack an official opposition party that is not Progressive/Communist.

  3. "But what if he drinks?
    Doesn't matter.
    But what if he stole from his last company to buy meth?
    Who gives a shit?"

    Drinking matters if it interferes with job performance.
    I figure that the stealing and meth is hyperbole, but I "give a shit" as stealing from the last company means he'll probably steal from mine, and meth use will likely interfere with job performance.

    1. If you think it was hyperbole, you completely fail to understand what's at stake.

      When your pool of prospective employees consists solely of barbarians with no concept of personal or property rights, you can take comfort in knowing that you prevented an American worker from misappropriating some petty cash.

    2. Of course the persin who stole from their last employer also has problems with personal or property rights since...well..they stole.

  4. "But what if he drinks?

    Doesn't matter.

    But what if he stole from his last company to buy meth?

    Who gives a shit?"

    This is horrible advice.

    1. Our host isn't saying give him the keys to the treasury. Just give him a job.

      Sure, an awful lot depends on circumstances. Maybe he's not willing to be penitent, maybe you really can't afford it, or maybe you don't have any positions where the risk of temptation isn't too great. Nobody's saying you've got to kill your business over this. But even a temporary part-time make-work job at minimum wage someplace he can't do much damage is better than nothing, and you've gotta take care of your people.

      Besides, everybody screws up, and remember that no sin is so bad as the heresy that says sin is good. No theft or gluttony is as bad as the profession that theft or gluttony - or sodomy or baby-murder or sedition - is okay. And if you're not even willing to give a member of your own tribe a second (or third or fourth or seventy times seventh) chance when they repent, then what hope can there possibly be for you?

    2. It's necessary advice.

      I run businesses, plural, and I'm willing to do this myself.

    3. The problem is that the claim here is that holding the correct political views outweighs factors that would absolutely disqualify someone from a position otherwise.

      That's the definition of convergence. It doesn't magically become better because the person in question hold right-wing rather than left-wing views.

      Hiring someone who was a good employee is one thing - and good. Hiring the embezzling meth addict? That guy needs help, and hiring him in that state isn't help, and it runs an extreme risk to you and anyone else in your employ.

      But to each his own.

    4. A current meth addict needs help other than a job, sure. But what about a formerly embezzling recovering meth addict? In a lot of places he'd have trouble even getting a job at a gas station. Is he more or less likely to fall back into sin if he despairs of ever getting a job?

    5. Though I suppose another option would be to put them in the charge of a monastery; prayer, work, and discipline is probably about the best thing they could get. I know there's a couple around that act as halfway houses or something like that in Europe, but perhaps similar but informal might be possible here as well.

    6. How many "Right Wingers" are thieves, meth heads, drunks, etc.? People with life crippling issues are 99.99% likely to be your typical loser liberal because the commie utopia is the pallative utopic lie that promises that they won't be a loser in the new flattened status hierarchy of humanity.

      Conservatives tend to be conservative because they have their sh*t together. Quit sperging out with the dumb hypotheticals.

  5. Part of the problem is that one of the most truthful criticisms we've always had about the left, especially its leaders, is that it has no principles which will not be sacrificed as necessary for the sake of power. In other words, to not become what we rightly condemn in our enemies, there have to be at least some occasions when we will judge and expel our failures ourselves, and there have to be at least some conflicts where we are willing to accept losing by the rules rather than breaking or changing those rules in order to win. (The Left's remarkable genius is to always find a way to cast upholding any given rule as appearing to break another, so they can always make their opponents seem plausibly "unjust" first and thus justify whatever means they use to "strike back" against it.)

    The mistake of many of the virtue-signaling moderates being denounced is that they publicly uphold their principles not to look better for their fellow traditionalists, but in an attempt to bridge a gap with the radicals and somehow mend fences; and in itself even this would not be such a bad impulse, if it were not tragically prone to being wasted on those who have already rejected every outreach offered them, or who accepted it only as a preliminary to demanding even more. If we were really honouring our principles over the Left's, there should logically be at least some people we reject whom the Left didn't denounce first.

    I would suggest that the great obstacle is not so much individualism, per se, as an obsession with achieving philosophical perfection (which is a natural overreaction to the Left's open philosophical laziness and pragmatism). Real tolerance requires accepting what you disagree with in others and working with them anyway, which is an art the Right used to be better at and the Left is rapidly becoming much worse at. One of the reason the Left is currently undergoing so much internal turmoil is that its younger, up-and-coming members feel that they have accomplished enough that they can now start chasing such perfection themselves, which is why it is getting easier and easier for even well-known Leftist creatives to offend one radical subsect or another. (For all the racial diversity and strong female presence in the upcoming Wrinkle in Time movie, I don't doubt that it will come in for furious criticism sooner or later for not having enough explicitly LGBT characters in it.)

    1. "Don't do evil that good may come of it." It's really no harder than that. The problem with the moderates is that they conflate matters of style they find distasteful with grave, intrinsic evil.

      Don't worry about what they think, and certainly don't worry about what the Left thinks. The only one you should try to please is Jesus.

      As for self-policing, it's definitional. If you believe A, B, and C, you are X. The other members of X are responsible for calling their fellows out when lines are crossed.

      Which they should do in private. After we win.

    2. "Don't do evil that good may come of it."

      Of course; but the trick is finding the defining boundary between that and, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

      Lots of moderates may mistake stuff they merely find distasteful for intrinsic evils. But it's just as much an error to dismiss condemnation of an intrinsic evil as a mere expression of a milquetoast moderate's distaste. And sometimes pleasing Christ means displeasing even your closest allies.

      (Though then again, *claiming* to be pleasing Christ as an excuse to trumpet one's moral superiority is in turn its own deadly sin, let alone a political weakness.)

    3. BN: "The problem with the moderates is that they conflate matters of style they find distasteful with grave, intrinsic evil."

      My take is that most "conservatives" replaced Catholic morals for the ones they learned from watching Star Wars. Hence the constant whining from them that crowd that "we can't do what the crazy Left does because then we'd be just like them/turn into monsters ourselves!" They can't separate an act from its intention (important when dealing with sin and virtue) just as they can't separate tactics and strategy from moral stances.

      I say the blame lies on bad catechesis and Star Wars filling in the space with its insane moral system that to kill the Emperor in anger would immediately cause Luke to seize the throne and become a maniacal evil Emperor himself. Hence, good guys can't kill the bad guy even when he's killing the good guy's friends.

    4. "I say the blame lies on bad catechesis and Star Wars filling in the space with its insane moral system..."

      Bad catechesis, most definitely. And Star Wars' moral system is almost as bat guano crazy as its magic system.

  6. "Individualism is poison' - It's good to read someone on the right admit as much. I've come to think of individualism as crack for Libertarians and modernist conservatives. It rots their minds and leads them to defend and support abominations like abortion and sodomy.

    Husband (wife), mother (father), neighbor and citizen; everything we are called upon to become as adults draws us out of ourselves and orients us toward the other(s). Individualism's atomizing effect would seem to stymie maturity.

    You claim individualism was introduced by the right's enemies. That I didn't know. Could you mention by whom or how?


    1. "Individualism's atomizing effect would seem to stymie maturity."
      Correct. The basic unit of civilization is the family, not the individual.

      "You claim individualism was introduced by the right's enemies. That I didn't know. Could you mention by whom or how?"

      By Liberals during the Enlightenment.

    2. In Catholic seminary, I had to read a lot of St. Augustine. I can't remember where he says it, but Augustine makes the remark that the individual cannot know his identity outside from the community because they are inseparable (paraphrase from a passage I think is in Confessions). The wisdom here has been known for a very long time, and yet, it had to go because neophilia and the false notion that us moderns are wiser than our ancestors and predecessors.

  7. Suicidally xenophilic white ethnomasochists of all kinds–from avowed liberals to pitiful cuckservatives–will be jarred out their burning fantasy of being eternally gang-raped by Paco, Jamal, and Abdul as the ultimate form of virtue-signaling only by getting real–REALLY real–about what this really entails. Thus I always recommend that cucks–whether they be avowed liberals or pitiful, pitiful cuckservatives–read Alexander Hart’s Vdare essay entitled “Cuckservatism: The Cuckoo in the Conservative Movement’s Nest” and that they especially read the essay linked within that essay; that is, the priceless essay by Jared Taylor entitled “An Open Letter to Cuckservatives.” I recommend they read this latter essay 1,000 times, so steeped are cucks of every kind–from avowed liberals to pitiful cuckservatives to cowardly CatholiCucks–in the propaganda of suicidally xenophilic white ethnomasochist oikophobia. They have to read it 1,000 times to possibly–but probably not–really absorb it, to get past–possibly, but probably not–their Pavlovian impulse to cry RAAAAAAACCCCCIIISSSST and to get real–really real. Alas, their conditioning likely runs too deep at this point to overcome it without actually experiencing the horrific reign of the feculent Paco, Jamal, and Abdul. Indeed, only the fool MUST learn through experience. Such, I fear, are cucks.

    1. The cucks are now irrelevant. They'll eventually fall in behind the strong horse.

  8. Yeah, Jordan is telling everybody common sense. You know what we also used to call it? "Fatherly advice."

    Hmm... I wonder why a sudden large segment of a generation would be hungry for a father figure to tell them wisdom.

    You don't have to go outside long to notice that common sense has become rare indeed.

    But that's just his life advice classes. Have you watched any of his stuff on stories or the Bible?

  9. Jordan Peterson's popularity is a curious thing. I know it has rubbed Jim/Mister Metokur the wrong way because he doesn't understand why someone who gives obvious advice should be lauded for it.

    Common sense is dead. It's been gone for decades. Just the fact that they're hearing someone telling them to clean behind their ears and do their homework is more instruction than they've ever been given.

    This is why Gen Z is not going to be like the older generations. They've lived the failure of modernism and have never known anything else--and they like this newfangled stuff.

    I look at individualism like I look at modernism (redundant, I know). Most individualists simply want to be hedonists and have freedom from the consequences of their choices. It's that simple. The inherent nihilism is the Sword of Damocles just as postmodernism hangs over modernism.

    About a year ago I tried reading a book I was suggested called "Explaining Postmodernism" or some such, and I couldn't make it through a chapter of it. The author's cognitive dissonance was just plain goofy. Postmodernism is the logical endpoint of modernism. There is nothing built into modernism, no god or word of law, that prevents anyone from jumping to the goofy conclusions that one can come to with their "enlightened" premises.

    This is what bothers me about so many skeptics or "enlightened" thinkers. Tell me WHY one is absurd and the other is not. Give me a reason. Just one. But they never do.

    But this is all about creating a world where we breed bad thoughts out of existence, have orgies all day, and get drunk and do heroin without getting ODed. There's never been anything behind it except justifying that.

    Every single problem we have today did not drop out of the sky, and for "rationalists" to say it did is the height of hilarity.

    1. I posted almost the exact same thing yesterday but don't see it now. Dunno if it got spammed or deleted.

      But right on. Yeah when you remove fathers from the home, then duh people are going to start lacking common sense. (or as it also called "fatherly advice")

      But yeah, that was a low point for Mister Metokur I lost a bit of respect for him that somebody couldn't figure out why a generation raised without father figures would be so hungry and eager for a father figure in their life.

      It's why I christen Jordan as "based dad."

    2. "I know it has rubbed Jim/Mister Metokur the wrong way because he doesn't understand why someone who gives obvious advice should be lauded for it."

      That, and it irked him that Peterson was willing to disinvite Faith Goldy from a free speech symposium because she's too controversial. Life comes at you fast.

      But on the whole, I don't begrudge Peterson his success for helping neglected people fill in life skill gaps. It's part of his job as a mental healthcare provider.

      As for Gen Z, the old Modern and Postmodern canards have no effect on them, and it's a sight to behold. They are the disillusioned generation in every sense of the word.

    3. Brian
      And the big elephant in the room is abortion. They live because moms did abort them. So they realize that everything is subjectively relative. It's all about feelz and oppressed whatever do jour.
      The smarter gen z want some stability and want a civilization that truly loves them and not some pawns for Moloch or other false gods that always demand blood sacrifices but never bring happiness.
      I won't be surprised that as they rebuild western civ we see the inquisition return. A handmaiden tale society will finally come to pass for ideas not sex


    4. Xavier, is your second sentence missing a "not"? As to the subjectivists, those are the Millenials, the first fully Post-Modern generation. Generation Z/Zyklon is the generation after the millenials who are in jr and sr high school now.

      Gen Zyklon is strongly conservative/reactionary (as are some of us Gen Y who also come from a disenchanted generation) because they have figured out that much of their society is a giant lie, so they are angry at it. Simple supply and demand here, in a world of Lies, Truth commands a premium. Gen Z will be the first generation in a long while (pre-"Greatest generation") to care about Truth. Just look at Catholic Churches that do the older form of the Mass (Extraordinary Form/Tridentine/Missal of 1962). Plenty of Gen Y's with their children attend them, meanwhile the mainstream is filled with grey haired Baby Boomers (or as I call them, the Locust Generation).

      They are also angry at the loss of their patrimony of the West/Christendom. Several generations now of parents who failed to transmit or teach the heritage owed to the younger generations. They never taught their sons and daughters their history, their culture, their faith, their values. Nothing, just threw us into the wind of current milieu (and to the TV for us growing up in the latchkey days) and allowed commies to take over the institutions so they could lie to us 24/7 about everything! So much knowledge squandered and forgotton. So much appreciation for our past ground under a false cloud of shame and self-condemnation. A deep faith twisted into a feminine, sentimental concert of syrupy music about how the self feels about itself reflecting on God.

      We want our civilization back. We want our culture and history back. And we want to see the traitors who committed this atrocity hung (hey, BB's murdered 1/3 of their children because it was inconvenient...I say end Welfare for the Locusts because it's inconvenient for us survivors to have pay for their Ponzi scheme). And we want the anti-Western foreigners out of our country. Good fences make good neighbors, same goes for borders. We can be friends through a fence.

      So yeah, I hope an Inquisition shows up eventually, just as I hope for a Reconquista and perhaps if we are lucky, a Great Crusade (the West is still missing a 1/3 of itself - make N. Africa and Anatolia Great Again!)

      There is a lot of rightful and justified anger. I just pray it is tempered by virtue, wisdom, and faith.

  10. Great post, Brian.

    “A hand out is what you get from the government, a hand up is what you get from a friend.” -- Clint Eastwood, Any Which Way You Can, 1980

    We should *always* look for those who are our brothers and offer them a hand up when needed.

  11. Excellent post Brian!

    As you said, Conservatives are Progressives, just less consistent in their disordered thinking. I don't think we'll ever convince Conservatives to ditch the radical and insane Individualism they cling too until a new and better vision and platform is presented. I think said platform will have to present a different form of government though, as modern Democracy is inherently Progressive. What's your thinking on this?

    1. Yes, we need a system based on objective truth instead of compromise. I frankly think that some form of monarchy is next in the cycle of anacyclosis.

    2. I’ve been thinking along similar lines. I’ve been trying to figure out a system where you have a virtuous, self-sacrificing, meritocratic aristocracy/nobility that is tied to the people they rule and seeks what is best for them. The blue blood issue causing nations to have rulers of other nationalities in charge (along with creating nobles who seek their in group interest over the peoples’) along with the genetic losers that pop up here and there in lineages needs solving. Also need to find a way to freeze the rules governing the nobles so that they can’t relax them in more sentimental generations.

  12. From where I'm sitting, ignoring the scolds on both sides and seriously supporting an unpopular fighter for our cause is probably the most individualistic action you can take.
    I'm old enough to remember when James O'Keefe was passing a collection basket for his legal bills at a Tea Party rubber chicken dinner in his honor because "good" conservatives at the time wouldn't touch him. I don't even remember what he did to fall out of their good graces, but it's too easy to end up in an out-group even with conservatives. Honestly too many use "individualism" or "principles" as an excuse to do nothing, esp. for a person they don't find likable, when in reality they're being neither independent nor principled. Just cowardly.