I’ve encountered many along my path towards the right, who despite making freedom, taxes and tyranny their main talking points, are liberals down to the core. They can usually be brought out of hiding with a few leading questions if they don’t show their true colors by accident. These types are the most pernicious because they flirt with dangerous ideas, yet when confronted by a libtard with accusations of cold-heartedness, they meekly respond with diatribes about how the minimum wage hurts the poor, more blacks are in jail because of welfare and that violence itself is the root cause of all human problems. The progressive, the most commonly encountered opposition will enter a face-off where they will compete with the self-styled conservative, libertarian or ‘classical liberal’  for the cleanest bill of moral hygiene. My policies are fairer to ‘People of Color’ (how this is less racist than ‘coloreds’ I’ll never understand), my ideas empower women or LGBBQWTFs or cats more than yours.

These ‘liberals at heart’ think they could beat them at their own game since they are using facts and logic in their argument while the progressive’s case is an elaborate rationalization for ‘gimme dat’. But for the fellow ex/conservatives/libertarians out there, ask yourself, how many times have your researched conclusions convinced anyone of anything? I’d wager zero. The reason is that these people are left wing by orientation. They may pay lip service to ideas of markets or freedom of speech, but only when it suits their specific set of circumstances. All of the tears from the left about Bush’s wars and the Patriot Act dried up when it was their ‘magical negro‘ doing the bombing and spying. You can’t defeat using argument an unprincipled ideology that won’t abide by rules or commonsense.

I know because I used to behave like of these misguided idiots (I blame it on being trained in debating) – and found only frustration at every turn. What I failed to grasp is I’m not ‘liberal at heart’. I don’t share the slave morality that elevates the poor, the weak and the feeble as mascots of virtue. What I refer to something that is deep, that is inherent, that we are most likely born with. Although one’s self-identification may shift through adolescence and into adulthood between different ideologies, the radix, the soul does not. You tend to become who you are.

I don’t have to twist and squirm to come up convoluted theories to justify guns, borders and war.  I also don’t buffoonishly cheer on ‘our troops’ who fight ‘over there’ so they don’t have to ‘over here’. I don’t have to engage in PC-Judo to prove that my ideas are the most benevolent, charitable and virtuous. The freedom that this entails is illuminating. Most thinking conservatives already know that the left simply co-opts these designated victim groups to push its own agenda, and they also know that although many of these ‘victim groups’ would be better off in the long run if they voted Republican, this is more of a ‘side effect’ of scaling down socialism rather than the purpose itself. Try as they may, their attempts will always be derided as ‘trickle down’, and will never have the enduring appeal of ‘incessantly work(ing) minorities into a froth by telling them how oppressed they are’, in the words of this anti-democracy advocate.

I don’t abhor violence. I don’t have to play the game. I don’t believe in equality.

I am for tradition. In the modern world, that is the most radical position one can take. Rather than attempting to paint myself as simply ‘more reasonable’, I wholly reject the pathological altruism inherent in modernism. The state was created by disciplined groups of men who are initiated to become warriors and priests. The Männerbund, not the family, is the original basis of political life.

Jack Donovan: “..we are conscious beings and we can choose virtues. Some people want all virtues to be utilitarian, a way to make life easier. That’s decadent thinking. That’s what is implied by saying things like “strength and courage and honor are no longer necessary.” Following that line of thinking, lying and swindling would be virtues, because lying and swindling make it easier to get what you want in the modern world in the same way that being strong and aggressive would have helped an ancient hunter. Should we call lying and swindling virtues? Is that how we want to live? It’s a choice. Wall Street bankers are certainly more effective in today’s world than I am. I have no desire to do what they do or live their lives or have what they have.

Human beings are very old, and the modern world is very new. We didn’t evolve to sit and stare at computer screens all day, but we can, and many of us do. I think it would be better to choose to live a life more in harmony with our natures — even if that is at odds with what is called “progress.” It’s not that we can’t continue to adapt to the modern world. The question is whether or not we want to.

Honor is important to men because it is really about their worth to each other. Men look for the esteem of other men. It’s part of how we evolved, and this is one of the main themes in The Way of Men. Just as women seek security and emotional affirmation, men seek the esteem of male peers — either directly or in some abstract form. We’re less connected to other men, and have less access to opportunities to do the kinds of things that men value. There are fewer opportunities to show courage, in particular. Men feel the absence of that, and some have scoffed at the idea of redesigning the world — even making it more violent to make men feel better and more present and more invested and valued — ultimately they are just redesigning the world the way women want it. Humans, men and women alike, are more emotional than they are rational. What we call reason is usually a pretense for a strategy to convince someone to do something we already wanted emotionally.

I’d rather live in a world dominated by the interests of men. So much of mainstream culture today is designed to cater to the interests of women and greedy, cowardly men that it feels emasculating and dishonorable to even participate[…]what are you going to do about it?

Read the full text here.

 

Gustav