Just a bunch of racists who meet each other on-line?

How is that supposed to be of significance in the up-coming US election? — Mongrel

Progressives - like all leftist groups having a tendency towards totalitarianism and decadence - must always create this "Other" who is a false image of the real threat - their own projection, which is aimed at nothing but maintaining their ignorance. That's what the Alt-Right is. Of course, they will paint this other exactly according to their own worldview - in this case - sexually frustrated, white, minority, etc. But this is nothing other than a big red-herring to mobilise the stupid masses and drive them against people who actually hold a very different world-view, and thus perceive and interact with the world through a different set of glasses.



You will find very little information online or in Western Academia about the real enemy of progressives. Everything becomes a fog that is just a projection, a vilification which seeks to eliminate alternatives, and force those who disagree - through a self-fulfilling mechanism - to become the enemy whom the progressives order them to become. Then they can be marginalised, mentally destroyed, and brought to submission - once they agree to play the progressive's game, starting from progressive principles, of course they will end up with progressive conclusions, seeing themselves as monsters. Psychology and psychiatry have already been corrupted to serve these ends. Men and women for example - are told continuously by the controlling liberal elite that unless they wear their sexuality proudly in public, they are not fulfilling their potential. They are told that unless they have others sexually attracted to them, something is wrong. Their whole set of values is constructed and imposed - BY FORCE - very important! - on them. It is hilarious, an absolute joke, when you see a married woman refusing to get an operation because she fears MEN will no longer be sexually attracted to her. This goes to show that this has been ingrained as a priority in her brain. There is no question of morality - her whole worldview is corrupt. And she cannot find out because wherever she turns, there the progressive ideologue is whispering in her ear.

This liberal cancer is a betrayal of real Western culture and civilisation - freedom has never, until the last 200 years, been understood as the ability to do whatever you want. On the contrary - the real Western idea of freedom was the man who held all his impulses in check - the free man was identical to the good man, and to the man free from the bondage of desire - NOT the one who yielded to whatever desires were found inside of him. Starting around the time of the French Revolution this originally ARISTOCRATIC understanding of freedom started to be corrupted, and a disgusting idea of freedom - the idea of freedom held by the spiritually weakest pace Nietzsche triumphed. What was worst in civilisation started to become acceptable. Little by little - to the point where today, even what is good is judged by the standards of evil: such that a desire for love, is judged to be a desire for sex. Such that love is found to be compatible with this disgusting idea of servitude to one's own ego and one's own desires. Such that society dissolves in an ocean of small separate islands. The real problem with things that progressives are obsessed with, like feminazism, equality, sex, etc. is that they destroy society, and as man is a social animal, it makes it impossible for any degree of happiness to be achieved. How do they destroy society? By destroying the MORAL and CULTURAL bonds between people. For example - a married couple is held together by the moral bond that exists between the two. What is beautiful in love is not just sex or what results from it. In fact - even for the progressive, it's not the pleasure of orgasm that drives him towards promiscuity (otherwise they would just be compulsive masturbators :) ). But rather - it is an evil and pernicious spiritual desire which is found in their heart - the desire for power and domination over the other (notice also how sex has become a matter of "social status" for them). That's why they want others to be attracted to them, and so forth. A person with a natural constitution, untouched by this progressive madness, has little interest in such matters. Yes - they do desire love - but they don't desire generalised sexual attraction towards their person. They just desire ONE person to be sexually attracted to them.

But if you change their mindset, such that in their brain, they perceive the world through the progressive categories, they will never understand why their marriages fail, they will never understand why they children are growing up crooked, they will never understand why they can't find love. The problem is themselves. How can you find love when you are interested in others being sexually attracted to you? One cannot serve both God and Mammon. One cannot want love - that which is an eternal and exclusivist feeling (hence why lovers feel "special" to one another) - and at the same time want sexual attraction which contains in itself the contradictory desire to love - love's undoing.

"Reproductive wealth gap" listen to this. As if love is some business dealing, and we must organise society such that we have an equitable distribution of the currency of sex . That will surely solve our problems, because the missing ingredient was certainly the asymmetrical distribution of sex. Trust me - if you organised, successfully, an equal distribution of sex then progressivism would end - because everyone would see through the deception, that it has never been sex that was the missing ingredient, but rather the fact that love has become impossible. Love is only possible in a society which preserves the cultural and moral bonds between people. Love requires loyalty, denial of self (which is never going to be congruent with desire for sexual attraction), courage, and faith. Love does not occur on Tinder. But of course - you keep creating the alter-egos, and the smoke and mirrors. Maybe you will keep fooling people. But the real threat to progressivism isn't these idiotic totalitarian Alt-Right neo-fascists. The real threat is those people who KNOW the historical traditions of the West, and who understand how progressives have stolen everyone's freedom, and imposed chains, by ideological force on everyone. Those people who know that progressives have stolen the possibility of happiness from the common man. Those people are the real threat, and let me tell you something about those people - you can't buy them out with sex, or with money, or with anything of this sort. Because what they are interested in, is not bought and sold like some dirty currency... what they are interested in cannot and will never be bought and sold because it is part of those perennial things - as T.S. Eliot called them. You can offer them all the sex you imagine - such people will refuse, because they know that your offer is actually your request for them to give up their faith, their morality, and their belief in love.

Emptiness, and feelings of meaninglessness - they are only possible in modernity, because only in modernity the perennial things have been dissolved. That's why the historical record does not have complaints of meaninglessness - life, in itself, untainted by progressive madness - is already so rich and meaningful. The progressives max out on drugs, sex and debauchery to run away from their own inner emptiness. The common man goes from party to party - but s/he will never find happiness - it will always elude him, because what happiness demands is rendered impossible by current Western society. This anger that you find building up in the unconsciousness of mankind is exactly the result of this: LOVE FRUSTRATION. Love for God, love for husband/wife, love. Real love, by the way, NOT the mockery of progressive love on Tinder, or the progressive mockery of traditional marriage and their deception of women that marriage is a misogynist institution from its conception, or their imposition on the young of a culture of "rap and drugs".

Progressives - like all leftist groups having a tendency towards totalitarianism and decadence - must always create this "Other" who is a false image of the real threat - their own projection, which is aimed at nothing but maintaining their ignorance. — Agustino

Typical, only the opposition has extremist that would impose totalitarianism.
In fact a great many alt right "intellectuals" believe democracy should be done away.

This liberal cancer is a betrayal of real Western culture and civilisation — Agustino

Extremist believe that social values are a zero sum game.
You basically argue that if someon does not share your values then they have no values at all.

Values are values. Not my values and your values. Me and you, we can assume things to be values, we don't decide what they are.

I am against the alt-right as well. It's produced by progressives.

But the real threat to progressivism isn't these idiotic totalitarian Alt-Right neo-fascists. — Agustino

Values are values. Not my values and your values. Me and you, we can assume things to be values, we don't decide what they are. — Agustino

I guess you have never heard of the is/ought problem?

It is very much not a fact that "values are values."

I guess you have never heard of the is/ought problem?

It is very much not a fact that "values are values." — m-theory

The is/ought distinction is founded on a category error. Values don't exist in the sense of the way a chair exists, somewhere to be found and touched in the real world. They are transcendental, above and beyond the world. A mere analysis of the physics of the world will not yield you any values. And yet, that is not to say values don't exist. Only that they don't exist in the same way as atoms do. To expect the same kind of being with regards to values as in regards to atoms is to misunderstand the nature/essence of each.

The is/ought distinction is founded on a category error. Values don't exist in the sense of the way a chair exists, somewhere to be found and touched in the real world. They are transcendental, above and beyond the world. A mere analysis of the physics of the world will not yield you any values. And yet, that is not to say values don't exist. Only that they don't exist in the same way as atoms do. To expect the same kind of being with regards to values as in regards to atoms is to misunderstand the nature of each. — Agustino

We could say the same thing about any values.
Your particular values are not a special case.

Anybody with any values can claim the same thing and it does not prove truth in any way.

Yes, and the color-blind I suppose should also say the same about the existence of colors they cannot see, that they don't exist, and their sight is perfectly fine, everyone else is wrong. But they don't, because they're smart enough to open a text-book and read about the subject. Perhaps you too should have a look at your tradition and see, maybe you'll learn something. It's not all about what a man can see with his tiny mind. We have the intelligence of the species on our side through tradition. Our tiny minds are nothing without the help of tradition.

My claim is rather simple - just like we have a sense to see chairs in the world, we have a sense to see values, which are transcendental. Some of us do this more clearly than the others (just like some have better vision, while others require glasses), but all of us live our spiritual lives bounded and governed by the existence of these same values, whether we recognise them or not. Hence our happiness depends on and is determined by those eternal values, and if we struggle to see what they are, then that's what tradition is for... tradition is equivalent to the glasses, which help fix our vision.

Yes, and the color-blind I suppose should also say the same about the existence of colors they cannot see, that they don't exist, and their sight is perfectly fine, everyone else is wrong. — Agustino

Except nobody can see the transcendental.
We are all color blind.
Even those in our traditions.

Except nobody can see the transcendental.
We are all color blind.
Even those in our traditions. — m-theory

That is your belief sir and you may hold it if you wish - I know it to be otherwise, and I hold it to be self-evidently true, as if it weren't, I wouldn't even be able to talk of values (as no such idea could form in my head without the necessary underlying experience). But if this doesn't convince you, fair enough, I can do no better! :)

I'd define it at its most basic with a core lack of sympathy for basic, foundational liberal impulses among a tech-savvy and disenfranchised youth. — The Great Whatever

Right on the button, here. The alt-right's rejection of political liberalism is so radical that most progressives fail to understand the movement fully; it is simply outside of their horizon of thought.

lol
I have beliefs but you have knowledge.

Except you can't prove your knowledge.

lol
I have beliefs but you have knowledge.

Except you can't prove your knowledge. — m-theory

But you sir, I suppose you can prove that nobody "sees" (ie, experiences) the transcendental...

Anybody can claim to see or experience the transcendental.

So? How is that proof for or against?

Claiming you know something from a transcendental experience does not prove anything.

Claiming you know something from a transcendental experience does not prove anything. — m-theory

This is just another statement sir. Where is the proof?

Ok show me your transcendental proof then?

To show you a proof sir, first you must elucidate for me what such a proof would consist in, so that I can deliver to you what you're asking for.

I am asking you to prove you know something transcendentally.

Yes sir, I can see that already. But I'm not quite sure what would count as proof for you. Because you see, as Aristotle has taught us, proof is different according to the different subjects that we study, and it would be an error to consider proof in biology, what is considered proof in physics. For example, in physics we consider a certain experience, namely measuring the mean-square distance of a polen particle suspended in water undergoing Brownian Motion under a microscope over a fixed time interval and then finding this to be equivalent with what we predict based on the assumption of elastic collisions, transfer of momentum, and conservation of kinetic energy (which are a priori accepted as true) in a theoretical frame-work based on the assumption that water is formed of small ball-like particles called atoms as proof for the existence of atoms. So before anything is done, we must determine what counts as proof. So please, let me know what would count as proof of a transcendental experience sir. If we are interested to advance a certain science, then we must choose the methods which advance it, and not those which keep us stuck.

By definition you will not be able to show empirical evidence in support of your claim.
So you tell me what sort of proof that will leave?

By definition you will not be able to show empirical evidence in support of your claim.
So you tell me what sort of proof that will leave? — m-theory

Well sir, I am asking you this question. What would you be willing to consider as proof? I've already explained what proof looks like in physics, and you seem to agree. So before I bring about a proof of a transcendental experience for you, please let me know what such a proof would look like. What would it take to convince you? Because without knowing this, we're like blind men looking for a black cat in a dark house :)

I have answered several times what I am willing to accept as proof.
The transcendental.

What does "the transcendental" mean? What does this word refer to?

You are the one that claims to know transcendentally.
Not me.

You are the one that claims to know transcendentally.
Not me. — m-theory

Well sir, if you do not know what "the transcendental" refers to, how will you recognise it when I say it to you?

Will you trust me? If you won't, then please provide me with a vague notion of what the transcendental means for you. Define it. Then I may be able to point you to an experience of the transcendental.

How do you know I won't know it is transcendentally true and what is not?

Well if you will know whether something is transcendentally true or not my friend, then clearly you must have an idea what the transcendental is. Otherwise how will you recognise it?

I know transcendentally that you do not have any transcendental proof or knowledge of your claims.