Postmodernist shitbag Richard Rorty thought that there were two versions of the Left that differed in practice but not in principle. There was the reformist Left and the cultural Left. The cultural Left saw America as an empire beyond redemption, and the reformist Left saw it as something that could be used. The plan of action here is clear.
The simple idea is to make a clear separation between the cultural and reformist Left. Then we use the Left’s social intelligence against it by introducing a litmus test for a “respectable liberal” that includes acknowledgement of inequality as an inevitability that will never go away, with which they must work. Once we have that, we can cordon off the radical Left as a bunch of lunatics and drag the “respectable liberals” along with us. We need a better label, of course, one that they can identify with.
The Left’s current tantrum provides a prime breeding ground for this. Take the protests at Berkeley, and other such débâcles, and use them to impose a litmus test on the Left. Do you really think that America is a good idea, lefties? Do you love your conservative friends? Then pick up your cross and follow us. Just as they dragged us left with the introduction of the cuckservative, we can drag them right with the introduction of the respectable liberal.
The key is to make any Leftist who does not agree to this sound stupid. They made us sound immoral, like big meanie-heads. What if we make them sound like clueless college kids? The aim is to convince the best and brightest of the upcoming generation, who will drag the rest with them. Propagate the respectable liberal, and come up with a better term!
And I daresay, if we can take any of the more intelligent ones and turn them to the Right, we have accomplished a great feat. What could be better than redeeming wretched individuals into strong, upright, just and reverent men?
You are the Truth.
We, we Traditionalists, we Radical Right-Wingers, we Alt-Righters – we seek the Truth. We follow the form of the Good, the Beautiful, and the Truth. But the Truth discovers the other two. And all three can be found within you, but you must find the Truth first. You must realize that you are the truth!
- You are the truth – and what is true has a natural tendency to prevail over lies. Even if humanity be taken over by liars, then humanity will fail, because lies cannot succeed.
- You are the truth – and once you realize this, you have something that cannot be taken from you. Knowing the truth is immortality, because the truth is eternal. In every age of man, people have seen it – “There is one truth, but men describe it differently.”
- You are the truth – Nietzsche wrote that this was the oldest and most sensible form of the idea that became Christianity, and that the “true world” must be abolished with the apparent one. But Nietzsche lacked the transcendental viewpoint, so he could not see that this idea did, after all, have something good about it. It had a grain… of truth!
Remember that the truth is bigger than humanity. It’s bigger than the physical universe. That dark mist under your feet is their thundercloud. Once you’ve grasped it, you will laugh the laughter of the heights on their faces. You will confront the hordes of your foes head-on and strike them down. You are the truth!
I willingly admit to being stuck in rehash, although posting excerpts from larger works may not reveal the structure I’m hoping for. Regardless, there are a few things that need to be worked through. This is going to be quite difficult, but I shall give my best swing.
- Technology is getting to the point where we can reverse globalization and re-establish small communities with something resembling high technology without being attached to a larger techno-industrial grid. Don’t ask for a detailed analysis just yet (that takes a book), but suffice to say, we are looking at a likely future where closely-knit communities are possible again. Two things stand in the way: established present institutions and the question of who controls the nukes. Federations may solve the second problem, but the first has to give way before we can do that. Technology that can easily disable nuclear weapons may obviate the need for federations.
- The big slow collapse is to be managed by controlled demolition, which mostly consists of getting out of the way and then securing your position. The survivalist stuff has been covered, but don’t fall for the primitivism bullshit. The worst thing you can do is to put technology on the back burner thinking it will all be gone in 150 years. It won’t be – and, if large-scale institutions collapse, individual technical prowess will be priceless. This ties back into the general attitude, which is to be quick and light. A future in which large-scale institutions have collapsed is one in which each individual part must be as effective as possible, because pieces that have been freed from a larger rigid structure have to suddenly have multiple proficiencies instead of just one. This also dovetails with the quality-over-quantity view.
- The ultimate goal is to get off this rock, but the governments and companies that we’ve used to leave our atmosphere in the past aren’t gonna help. To replicate that on a smaller scale, you need all of the stuff listed in the first two points. More importantly, though, that has to be an overriding goal. It has to work its way into the culture, to the point of being unspoken and tacitly accepted. Part of the ennui that kills meaning at the current stage of humanity is the absence of frontiers. The promise of a new frontier provides vitality that makes the first two points possible.
Each point here is vital to the other two. The past is 1, the present is 2, and the future is 3, but you need to be able to keep them all in balance to make it work. More importantly, each one conditions the other two, and none of them have primacy. Good luck!
The Cartesian method doesn’t work if you just eliminate everything except self-evident axioms. Fortunately, we have access to more than just self-evident axioms. Consider the following short exchange, between two people. It touches on the race/intelligence issue, but it works for many other issues. This is just an instance of a wider phenomenon. You go in with the following assumptions, which provide the important subtext for the discussion:
- Person A believes that there are differences in intelligence between races, while Person B does not.
- Person A and Person B both believe that intelligence is largely genetic.
- Both people each think the other one believes that intelligence is not genetic, and pretend to believe that it is not genetic in public.
- Both people know that there are serious social consequences for the view that intelligence is genetic and for the view that there are racial differences in intelligence.
A: “Intelligence is largely genetic.”
B: “But if that’s true, then different races have different levels of intelligence. Are you racist?”
A: “I don’t believe that there are racial differences in intelligence!”
B: “Then you can’t believe that intelligence is largely genetic.”
Notice that Person B has a choice here. He can either decide that intelligence is not largely genetic and slip further into delusion, or he can decide that there are racial differences in intelligence and pretend to believe something that he doesn’t actually believe, as person A does. Guess which one happens more often? That’s right: the former. We more often slip into delusion because we live in a delusional society. What’s the way out?
The way out is to take the things you know are true, and eliminate those things that contradict them, ruthlessly. Don’t take only one issue, or you turn into, for example, a stupid White Nationalist who only cares about race. The answer is to subtract all value added to judgements based on social cache. That will free you.