Thomas Hobbes’ Victoria is now finally available for purchase on Amazon.
If you have not read Victoria yet, click here to read the first 35 chapters for free.
Most or all of these are not new, but TITWYC is about collecting evidence of all liberal lunacy, not necessarily the most recent happenings. Let’s go.
Parents that choose not to vaccinate their children because they worry about the side effects are harangued while this boy’s parents and his “doctor” are applauded for ruining his life, all in the name of “progress”. Heartbreaking:
Every time I see the “Breadlines” meme, the comment section is always flooded with reactive support for capitalism, usually from Tea Party types. Typically it is something akin to “I support Traditionalism and capitalism!” Anyone that says this is missing the point of the meme and they also have not given capitalism enough thought.
Socialism (at least universalist socialism) is obviously crazy. Taking money and/or goods from society’s producers and handing them to society’s takers for no reason other than that they happen to exist serves only to bring the entire society down to its lowest common denominator.
Capitalism, on the other hand, seems to be something entirely different. On the surface, it appears to be a system where anyone in society—not just the best and brightest—can become as wealthy as their abilities will allow. Producers compete to provide the best product or service for the lowest price, all to the benefit of society’s consumers.
The problem is that it does not actually work out like that. Big corporations compete only when they have to. They actually hate competition and do everything they can to eliminate it. More often than not, the best products are left behind for the cheapest junk. As if sacrificing quality for profits were not enough, labor is outsourced to the other side of the world (with the final product being wastefully shipped back to its destination market) in order to squeeze out a few more percentage points for the board of directors. Big impersonal corporations with no loyalty to place or folk that push out the artisans and creators are no friends of Tradition.
Traditionalism is not an “-ism” in the usual ideological sense, but more of a world view. Rather than deciding what system is best for the economy, Tradition asks how communities can best be served economically. It firstly abhors a culture of consumerism and urges a reevaluation of needs versus wants. Capitalism has told us that we will be happy if we buy stuff—stuff we pay for by working in dimly-lit boxes all day doing the same robotic task until the day we die—but Traditionalism responds that the things that yield a good life are almost always intangible. Traditionalism means preferring the rituals and connections with one’s environment rather than treating everyone and everything as commodities.
To bring this full-circle, we make our bread because it offers us a chance to find reward in working to create something ourselves. It is even better if we work together with family or friends to do it. Sharing your bread means so much more (to say nothing of the quality) when it emerges from your oven and not a plastic sleeve.
And I get it. Not everyone wants to spend time in the kitchen making bread every time a sandwich is made. But that is why Tradition requires a cultural shift. Previous generations made do by staying well-connected with their extended family and by building and maintaining strong communities. If you don’t have bread, your cousin or grandmother may have made some. If you really must buy it, support your community and buy a fresh baked loaf from your baker. He and his family will appreciate it.
If a label is needed, this is called Distributism. The means of production are decentralized, or “distributed”, as much as possible. None of this happens by state action either. It happens by making a conscious cultural shift in favor of family, community, and Tradition and moving away from grotesque international systems of economics.
As the dying brontosaurus we call liberal civilization rapidly moves toward extinction we can take note of the carnival of fools we live in. Looking for bizarre and absurd stories is about as easy as buying groceries at the store. Let’s see what we have this week:
Note: Not long ago, the views expressed on traditionalRIGHT were considered commonplace, taken for granted as true. In fact, this is the case for all of human history until Western civilization went out the window in the 20th century. The following is an article featured in the November 1939 Reader’s Digest written by America First Committee spokesman, aviation pioneer, and American hero, Charles Lindbergh. -Ed.
Aviation has struck a delicately balanced world, a world where stability was already giving way to the pressure of new dynamic forces, a world dominated by a mechanical, materialist, Western European civilization. Aviation is a product of that civilization, borne on the crest of its outlook. Typical also of its strength and its weakness, its vanity and its self-destruction–men flung upward in the face of God, another Icarus to dominate the sky, and in turn, to be dominated by it; for eventually the laws of nature determine the success of human effort and measure the value of human inventions in that divinely complicated, mathematically unpredictable, development of life at which Science has given the name of Evolution.
Aviation seems almost a gift from heaven to those Western nations who were already the leaders of their era, strengthening their leadership, their confidence, their dominance over other peoples. It is a tool specially shaped for Western hands, a scientific art which others only copy in a mediocre fashion, another barrier between the teeming millions of Asia and the Grecian inheritance of Europe – one of those priceless
possessions which permit the White race to live at all in a pressing sea of Yellow, Black, and Brown. But aviation, using it symbolically as well as in its own right, brings two great dangers, one peculiar to our modern civilization, the other older than history. Since aviation is dependent on the intricate organization of life and industry, it carries with it the environmental danger of a people too far separated from the soil and from the sea – the danger of that physical decline which so often goes with a high intellectual development, of that spiritual decline which seems invariably to accompany an industrial life, of that racial decline which follows physical and spiritual mediocrity.
A great industrial nation may conquer the world in the span of a single life, but its Achilles’ heel is time. Its children, what of them? The second and third generations, of what numbers and stuff will they be? How long can men thrive between walls of brick, walking on asphalt pavements, breathing the fumes of coal and of oil, growing, working, dying, with hardly a thought of wind, and sky, and fields of grain, seeing only machine-made beauty, the mineral-like quality of life. This is our modern danger–one of the waxen wings of flight. It may cause our civilization to fall unless we act quickly to counteract it, unless we realize that human character is more important than efficiency, that education consists of more than the mere accumulation of knowledge.
But the other great danger is more easily recognized, because it has occurred again and again through history. It is the ember of war, fanned by every new military weapon, flaming today as it has never flamed before. It is the old internal struggle among a dominant people for power; blind, insatiable, suicidal. Western nations are again at war, a war likely to be more prostrating than any in the past, a war in which the White race is bound to lose, and the others bound to gain, a war which may easily lead our civilization through more Dark Ages if it survives at all. In this war, aviation is as important a factor as it has been a cause–a cause due to its effect on the balance of strength between nations, a factor because of the destruction and death it hurls on earth and sea. Air power is new to all our countries. It brings advantages to some and weakens others; it calls for readjustment everywhere.
If only there were some way to measure the changing character of men, some yardstick to reapportion influence among the nations, some way to demonstrate in peace the strength of arms in war. But with all of its dimensions, its clocks, and weights, and figures, science fails us when we ask a measure for the rights of men. They cannot be judged by numbers, by distance, weight, or time; or by counting heads without a thought of what may lie within. Those intangible qualities of character, such as courage, faith, and skill, evade all systems, slip through the bars of every cage. They can be recognized, but not measured. They lie more in a glance between two men than in any formula or mathematics. They form the unseen strength of an army, the genius of a people.
Likewise, in judging aviation, in its effect on modern nations, no satisfactory measurement of strength exists. It is bound to geography, environment, and racial character so closely that an attempt to judge by numbers would be like counting Greeks at Marathon. What advantages will they gain? What new influence can they exert? To judge this, one must look not only at their aviation but at them, at the geography of their country, at their problems of existence, at their habits of life.
Mountains, coastlines, great distances, ground fortifications, all those safeguards of past generations, lose their old significance as man takes to his wings. The English Channel, the snow-capped Alps, the expanses of Russia, are now looked on from a different height. The forces of Hannibal, Drake and Napoleon moved at best with the horses’ gallop or the speed of wind on sail. Now, aviation brings a new concept of time and distance to the affairs of men. It demands adaptability to change, places a premium on quickness of thought and speed of action.
Military strength has become more dynamic and less tangible. A new alignment of power has taken place, and there is no adequate peacetime measure for its effect on the influence of nations. There seems no way to agree on the rights it brings to some and takes from others. The rights of men within a nation are readjusted in each generation by laws of inheritance – land changes hands as decades pass, fortunes are taxed from one generation to the next; ownership is no more permanent than life. But among nations themselves there is no similar provision to reward virility and penalize decay, no way to reapportion the world’s wealth as tides of human character ebb and flow–except by the strength of armies. In the last analysis, military strength is measurable only by its own expenditure, by the prostration of one contender while the other can still stagger on the field–and all about the wolves of lesser stature abide their time to spring on both the warriors.
We, the heirs of European culture, are on the verge of a disastrous war, a war within our own family of nations, a war which will reduce the strength and destroy the treasures of the White race, a war which may even lead to the end of our civilization. And while we stand poised for battle, Oriental guns are turning westward, Asia presses towards us on the Russian border, all foreign races stir restlessly. It is time to turn from our quarrels and to build our White ramparts again. This alliance with foreign races means nothing but death to us. It is our turn to guard our heritage from Mongol and Persian and Moor, before we become engulfed in a limitless foreign sea. Our civilization depends on a united strength among ourselves; on strength too great for foreign armies to challenge; on a Western Wall of race and arms which can hold back either a Genghis Khan or the infiltration of inferior blood; on an English fleet, a German air force, a French army, an American nation, standing together as guardians of our common heritage, sharing strength, dividing influence.
Our civilization depends on peace among Western nations, and therefore on united strength, for Peace is a virgin who dare not show her face without Strength, her father, for protection. We can have peace and security only so long as we band together to preserve that most priceless possession, our inheritance of European blood, only so long as we guard ourselves against attack by foreign armies and dilution by foreign races.
We need peace to let our best men live to work out those more subtle, but equally dangerous, problems brought by this new environment in which we dwell, to give us time to turn this materialistic trend, to stop prostrating ourselves before this modern idol of mechanical efficiency, to find means of combining freedom, spirit, and beauty with industrial life–a peace which will bring character, strength, and security back to Western peoples.
“This is the world you chose” is an excellent rhetorical device used to point out the madness of the post-Enlightenment, liberal order. All you need to do when debating is point to the disgusting state of society, which was all enabled by their poisonous ideology.
In this column we will point out recent insanities from the world of Progress!, and generally point and laugh. Remember: if you are a Liberal–classical or modern–this is the world you chose.
Jack Donovan posted this on his Facebook page on Thursday. What’s sad is how un-shocking this really is. Of course there are now lacy bras made just for men.
If there was any doubt that Western culture was truly dead and it is time to start anew, wait a week or two and look for a new bit of legislated cultural Marxism from either Britain or Sweden. Any time I think we have it bad in the U.S., I look to Europe and realize how much worse it can be. Labour politicians want to teach your five-year-old what a certain group of perverts like to do with their genitals.
I take it back. We really are insane. Think about how much you pay in taxes. If you are an average working American, you give up one-third to one-half of your earnings to the government. All that time and effort is confiscated. And what do they do with that money they pillaged? They spend it on hormone treatments for dirty, confused people that don’t even live here.
Somewhere between ten and twenty years ago, humanity crossed a point of no return. Technology—specifically telecommunications—has dominated the world and utterly transformed how society functions. The implications are vast; the Internet influences geopolitics all the way down to how people buy clothes and groceries. What often gets overlooked, though, is how digital communications have revolutionized how we relate to one another and go about our lives.
Traditionalism starts with personal relationships and communing with the natural world. The obsession modernity has with smartphones, the Internet, and all manner of other video screens ruins both of those things. How much of the outside world is missed by sitting inside on a computer after work instead of taking an evening stroll with a sweetheart? How many men take part in vicarious tribalism in the form of televised sports rather than starting a bonfire and sharing stories with other real-life men? How many precious moments with one’s children are passed up because, “one more minute, I need to finish reading this article on my phone and then check Facebook”? How many urban farms could be started or skills learned or mountains climbed if the 4-to-5 hours outside of work the average Westerner spends per day in front of a screen were traded for time spent living life?
Consider too the health consequences of our technology habits. It almost goes without saying that television and computers introduced sedentary lifestyles and made nearly everyone fat. Now we have “text neck,” a real condition recognized by medical professionals. The radiation from cells phones is linked various kinds of cancers. Attention spans are virtually non-existent. The blue light emitted by every single electronic device with a screen disrupts circadian rhythms, making full, restful sleep impossible if they are used even a few hours before going to bed. That light is also especially harmful to babies and children, whose eyes are still developing and calibrating to the world around them. The technology is killing us.
It must be said that radical Traditionalism and Identitarianism would be nowhere without the Internet. That doesn’t mean we have to spend our whole lives in front of electronic devices though. Allow yourself an hour after work to go online and check the news and read a few articles. But then stop. Build something. Create something. Grow something. Play music. Read, talk, pray, hunt. You have a life—live it!
Men doing things, not talking about doing things on a computer
Editor’s note: This article is a blog post republished from The Times of Israel. This is an important piece, straight from the horse’s mouth, that illustrates Jewish identity as something separate from that of the European.
By Hila Hershkoviz, December 5, 2014
In response to Haaretz article “Jews, white privilege and the fight against racism in America” (by Benjy Cannon 4/12/14) I would like to say loud and clear: Ashkenazi Jews are not white.
Every time I read about a Jew somewhere identifying as a white person, I cringe. As an Israeli Jew, who like most other Israeli Jews, is completely foreign to the concept of Jews being “white” I would like to address this article to my Jewish brothers and sisters in America.
Ashkenazi Jews who identify as “white”, please understand the following:
1. History and identity – As late as 1987 the US legally defined Jews as non-white. To the best of my knowledge, 50 years ago Jews had the same skin color as they do today. I deduce that white is not skin color, it is first and foremost an issue history and identity. The “white people world” is represented by its European (often colonial) history, it’s culture, heroes, it’s Kings, ethos, faith etc. – and Ashkenazi Jews are not part of that world. Their heroes are the Maccabees and not the Vikings or Joan of Arc, their Kings are David King of Israel and Hezekiah King of Judah (both archeologically confirmed historical figures) and not Kings Edward and George.
Secondly, Jews are not a “religion”. While in the Western world identities fall under the categories of religion or race, Middle Eastern people have tribal identities that are based neither the former nor the latter. Jews, similar to Pashtuns (who also often have pale skin and yet would not identify as white people) and other Middle Eastern Tribes, are neither religion nor race but a tribe. Jewish identity since the days of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel had always been a tribal/national peoplehood. While tribal practices and customs (which is often incorrectly referred to as “Judaism”) and a strong biological link between many of the members are certainly present, Israelite identity was never based on either of these. Israelite identity has always been a tribal membership that goes by lineage (being born into the Tribes of Israel) or tribal acceptance (which is incorrectly translated as “conversion”). The identity Ashkenazi Jews have today is identical to that of King David whose great grandmother was a Moabite convert, but was nonetheless a Jew by virtue of being born into the Tribes of Israel by lineage.
You are Jews not because of your “religion” (are you even religious?), but because you were born into a tribe/people called the Nation of Israel. You are not “white people” with a “Jewish religion”, you are Jews – members of a people who origniated in Judea, whether you adhere to the laws of the tribe or not.
Thirdly, Ashkenazi Jews have been the victims of Europeans and Western imperialism for centuries precisely because they were not perceived as part of the “white people world”, beginning with the Roman colonialism of their nation state and ending with 6 million of them being killed precisely because they were non-whites.
2. Culture – Whether it’s the Hebrew calendar, the tefillin they put on at their Bar Mitzvah identical to the ancient second Temple tefillin found in Qumran and across Israel or celebrating the Judean revolt for independence in our historic homeland on Hanukkah – Ashkenazi Jews have kept the entire indigenous culture, customs, traditions, books, and to a high extant language and of their ancestors – Judeans and other Israelites.
3. Biology – Although biology is not the main part of the issue, Ashkenazi Jews are not genetically white either. An extensive number of genetic studies show they originated in the Middle East, that despite European admixture they are genetic brothers of other Jews, Palestinians, Druze and Lebanese Arabs and share a highly significant amount of ancestry with Sephardi Jews to whom they are genetically almost identical.
Lastly, Ashkenazi Jews, whether the world likes it or not (and apparently it does not), are direct descendants of the Tribes of Israel, as we know from history, culture, science and a little something I like to call reality. Those who wish to deny it for political or theological reasons, should try forming an alliance with holocaust deniers because the two are no different.
Jews are not white. People who try to argue otherwise are not only abrogating history and denying our people’s authentic identity, they are in fact (even if unintentionally) also practicing a form of Western imperialism, as nobody has the right to superimpose an artificial Western identity on a people with an ancient Middle Eastern-tribal identity. Nobody has the right to try and make Jews, or any other Middle Eastern people, feel they “need” to fit into the “neat” Western categories of religion and race. Nobody has the right to force Jews into identifying as white people when they are clearly not. As for Jews who identify as white without being forced to do so – please decolonize your identities and understand that the identity your claim to express is a falsification of who you really are.
Hey, she said it. -Ed.
If you have enjoyed reading Victoria and are dying to know what happens next, you can now purchase the ebook at Amazon.com! Click here to go to the product page or follow the link below.
I keep seeing this stupid little infographic being passed around on social media and figured it was about time I addressed it. It made the rounds a few years ago, or possibly some variation on it, but the theme is the same: the Nordic socialist states are little slices of heaven and Americans are knuckle-dragging troglodytes. Allow me to pick it apart.
Here in the Nordic countries, universal access to free higher education is a no-brainer. That’s because we know education is the ultimate investment in the future.
I’ll just start by asking that if everyone has a bachelor’s degree, how does one differentiate himself from the rest of the applicant pool when applying for a job? Is a piece of paper from a state-run college (that any idiot can acquire just by showing up to a classroom for four years and handing in reports) really more valuable than actual learned and earned experience that comes in the form of an apprenticeship? The cult of education (since Science! has replaced God) has virtually eliminated an important Traditional relationship; that of the master and the apprentice.
I will concede that an educated populace can certainly help grow a tech-based economy, which the Nords seem keen on doing. But why then is everyone encouraged to go to college for anything they choose? If education is the ultimate investment in the future (it’s not), then why are they “investing” in philosophy and psychology majors?
Sounds great. Not only is everyone encouraged to get their state-issued credentials, the government will also foot the bill for your booze. I could run down the basic economics of how inflation and pricing structures work, but the Occupy turds that produced this picture are really only concerned with securing four years of zero responsibilities with no bill due at the end.
Of course, that does result in higher taxes.
You don’t say? According to an April 2013 CNN Money article, the Nordic countries have among the highest income tax rates in the world. Denmark is at the very top, with its top rate coming in at a very commie 60.2%. And that top rate begins at incomes of only US$55,000, just barely higher than an average yearly income. So tell me, how is a young person ever really going to get established when the national government automatically takes roughly two-thirds off the top of his paycheck?
But free education reduces social inequality, and benefits both individuals and society in the long run.
Does it? It seems like it gives technocratic elites and fat-cat CEOs a pool of interchangeable drones who can push buttons and make gobs of money for giant corporations who will then show their appreciation for their Equal! workers by handing them the remainder of their paltry paycheck after the government stooges, who were paid off by those corporations in exchange for socialized education, take their cut.
And why is inequality so bad? Nowhere in the world is any person, thing, or creature equal to any other. Some are better than others. Hierarchies form naturally. It’ll really be okay. Let the cream rise to the top.
An educated population equals a strong, stable state, ready for the future. So the investment is well worth it. It’s really simple as that.
Actually, this is pretty accurate. A population that has been fully indoctrinated by the state probably does leave the state pretty strong and stable.
What they mean, though, is that being ready for the future is only possible with college-level education. Perhaps that would be true if the only path to the future is one riddled with an endless stream of new electronics and technologies. Traditionalists know, though, that while some technologies can be useful, the future lies with the old ways. Farmers and craftsmen will find much more utility (not to mention joy and transcendence) in a world gone mad than HR representatives. Consider too, the challengers of the future: IT guys don’t matter much when Islamic hordes and hyperinflation are your primary concerns.
If I may be so direct, just WTF are you Americans thinking? You make your own people go into often crippling debt, just to become educated, and just as they’re trying to get started in life.
I’m not going to reactively defend the crypto-socialist American “system”, but that’s because it is basically no different from the blatantly socialist alternative that the poster presents. The U.S. system makes the individual pay through the nose for artificially-inflated college tuition and the Euro system makes him give up the majority of his paycheck for the rest of his life. Both have strangled the prosperity potential for the common young person. Both are ultimately the result of egalitarianism, too, because we deserve it!
You’ve unleashed 100s of expensive for-profit “schools” to prey upon your own citizens.
So? I don’t know anyone that has ever gone to University of Phoenix, but I do know that no one thinks it’s a real university. They only prey on people who shouldn’t be pursuing college degrees anyway.
You spend more on your prisons than on your students.
That’s pretty messed up. It’s that same dumb-ass egalitarian ideology that gives us mortgage-sized student loans that makes that possible though. If we executed murderers, rapists, and pedophiles, and stopped worrying about how prisoners feel, then perhaps we’d cut down on all the state of the art exercise equipment, free college degrees, and cable TV we give them and save ourselves a few bucks. We’re not all equal, I don’t care about their feelings, and they don’t deserve our compassion.
And among the top 15 countries by military expenditures, you’re number 1…and spend as much as the other 14 combined.
Again, I won’t defend American foreign policy, but it’s pretty easy to point fingers when America also pays for Europe’s defense, and has done so since 1945. Germany, France, and the U.K. are the only nations with what can be considered serious militaries, and even those would struggle if they were faced with a real crisis.
Meanwhile, your rich own most of your politicians, and fool many of your citizens into fighting to keep it that way.
Hate to break it to you, honey, but that’s democracy. Do you honestly think your Nordic paradises are any less corrupt?
It’s all a recipe for a lost generation at best, and a nation hurtling toward a decline and eventual unraveling at worst. So that’s what I’ve been thinking…when is enough going to be enough for you Americans?
I don’t disagree with anything here. The present system is broken beyond repair, but socialism designed for geographic areas the size of single U.S. states is not going to fix our problems. What got me the most, though, is that line at the end, “…you Americans,” so smug and condescending. I have no love for the American government, but that played-out hippie-era hate-America garbage really annoys me.