"That woman got what she deserved. She voted for this."

"That child deserved it. He took candy from a stranger."

Same gross "moral" instinct on display in both above examples.

You attack these stupid women because they won't follow you. But they won't follow you because you're not worthy. Get to work, retard. If you want to fix the world, the first step is to become worthy of leadership.

We often talk about all the jobs lost due to industrialization and the movement of "progress" towards a "better" life. But one such job rarely mentioned is the ice harvester. How many of you were supposed to be out there harvesting ice this time of year but are instead working an office job? Very sad.

They had to get rid of his fur coat. This is the nature of America.

Also important that this sort of stupidity also lets the worst, most antinomian whites destroy their surroundings.

See, for example, the Bostonians in the 1770's, who were so incredibly skilled at tricking, cheating, and lying under oath that they could out-compete and bankrupt Jewish merchants:

This, the Voice of Honesty would have said was favorable & reasonable; but so lost to all Sense of Honor was this Set of Men, that the smuggling Trade went on as usual, untill at last, with other Coincidents, it brought on the present Rebellion. This Business was so notable a School to teach the Art of tricking & foreswearing, that it became proverbial, “that no Jew could get his Bread in Boston,” whereas in most of the other Provinces there were Numbers of those trading Israelites, & in some of them Synagogues of most elegant Structure. But, here, Circumcision availed nothing. The Uncircumcision was all in all; & it was much to be wondered at, that there were no more Apostates from Judaism, since ye. Religion of an Israelite centers in the Acquisition of Gain, in all its Forms. There were two Jews who had settled in Trade for a short Time in Boston, but they were at last obliged to vail to the superior Sagacity of their Neighbours, & turned out Bankrupts.

— Peter Oliver, Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion

The marijuana reclassification thing has me confused. On one hand, obviously marijuana use is evil and ought to be banned. Duh.

But on the other, a) the federal government didn't enforce it as a class i anyways, and so this is a more honest constitution and b) it signals to rightoids that Trump is not a serious leader, and some rightoids need constant reminders about that.

Abraham Lincoln famously challenged Stephen Douglas, claiming that slavery must be recognized as a moral evil and that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." Douglas famously replied, "prohibition doesn't work; even if you ban slavery, people will still find a way to own slaves. They'll just buy them from unregistered, unregulated black markets. They will no longer be able to easily judge the quality of a slave, and won't be able to easily tell if said slave is spliced with more dangerous genetics. Furthermore, if we ban slavery, it will fund organized crime and lead to an overcrowding of the prison system as both slave sellers and owners get locked away, creating permanent criminal records for otherwise law-abiding citizens. Furthermore, this ban would divert police attention and resources from more serious offenses and deprives the states of tax revenue that could go to roads, schools, etc. Still further, banning slavery would pause scientific testing on slaves, which would slow down innovation and make it nearly impossible for scientists to discover potential benefits and therapeutic potentials."

This nigga is acting like Gen Z is, like, really into Joseph de Maistre or something, but is actually talking about their support for Democrat policies from maybe 20 years ago.

Facebook AI slop pages are talking about how America's existence depended on Jewish finance. What a time to be alive.

Also, what do you mean the government rooted in a revolution started by smugglers and other dishonorables wasn't going to pay back what it owed? Surely their refusal to follow the law wasn't a sign of their bad character?!

I open Twitter and I see Charlie Kirk's weird cyborg widow interviewing.... Nicki Minaj (?) at a... Turning Point USA event?

I build my entire understanding of society on the foundational assumption that we live in schizophrenic hyperreality but even so Im starting to get whiplash

Must read passage from Richard Weaver:

Until we have demonstrated that cultural decline is a historical fact—which can be established—and that modern man has about squandered his estate, we cannot combat those who have fallen prey to hysterical optimism.

...

Hysterical optimism will prevail until the world again admits the existence of tragedy, and it cannot admit the existence of tragedy until it again distinguishes between good and evil. Hope of restoration depends upon recovery of the “ceremony of innocence,” of that clearness of vision and knowledge of form which enable us to sense what is alien or destructive, what does not comport with our moral ambition. The time to seek this is now, before we have acquired the perfect insouciance of those who prefer perdition. For, as the course goes on, the movement turns centrifugal; we rejoice in our abandon and are never so full of the sense of accomplishment as when we have struck some bulwark of our culture a deadly blow.

In view of these circumstances, it is no matter for surprise that, when we ask people even to consider the possibility of decadence, we meet incredulity and resentment. We must consider that we are in effect asking for a confession of guilt and an acceptance of sterner obligation; we are making demands in the name of the ideal or the suprapersonal, and we cannot expect a more cordial welcome than disturbers of complacency have received in any other age. On the contrary, our welcome will rather be less today, for a century and a half of bourgeois ascendancy has produced a type of mind highly unreceptive to unsettling thoughts. Added to this is the egotism of modern man, fed by many springs, which will scarcely permit the humility needed for self-criticism.

The apostles of modernism usually begin their retort with catalogues of modern achievement, not realizing that here they bear witness to their immersion in particulars. We must remind them that we cannot begin to enumerate until we have defined what is to be sought or proved. It will not suffice to point out the inventions and processes of our century unless it can be shown that they are something other than a splendid efflorescence of decay. Whoever desires to praise some modern achievement should wait until he has related it to the professed aims of our civilization as rigorously as the Schoolmen related a corollary to their doctrine of the nature of God. All demonstrations lacking this are pointless.

If it can be agreed, however, that we are to talk about ends before means, we may begin by asking some perfectly commonplace questions about the condition of modern man. Let us, first of all, inquire whether he knows more or is, on the whole, wiser than his predecessors.

This is a weighty consideration, and if the claim of the modern to know more is correct, our criticism falls to the ground, for it is hardly to be imagined that a people who have been gaining in knowledge over the centuries have chosen an evil course.

Naturally everything depends on what we mean by knowledge. I shall adhere to the classic proposition that there is no knowledge at the level of sensation, that therefore knowledge is of universals, and that whatever we know as a truth enables us to predict. The process of learning involves interpretation, and the fewer particulars we require in order to arrive at our generalization, the more apt pupils we are in the school of wisdom.

The whole tendency of modern thought, one might say its whole moral impulse, is to keep the individual busy with endless induction. Since the time of Bacon the world has been running away from, rather than toward, first principles, so that, on the verbal level, we see “fact” substituted for “truth,” and on the philosophic level, we witness attack upon abstract ideas and speculative inquiry. The unexpressed assumption of empiricism is that experience will tell us what we are experiencing.