I don't think there's anything one inidividual can do other than stop believing in the abstract god called human rights; and instead shift to a cultural/spiritual outlook emphasizing privilege, obligation, honor and divine order, in one's personal life.
One needs to throw off the culture of modernity. We in the West are swimming in the sea of the sacred victim, entitled parasite. One needs to stop its access to one's spirit because it has captured everyone from Kneeling Nancy on down.
What made the Greatest Generation great? It was gratitude to a Heavenly Father. They knew that they were privileged to live in a country where inalienable rights, inherently possessed, were recognized by the Founding Fathers. They saw an obligation to defend these unassailable rights, yet here we are at a juncture in time where God-Given Rights are being bastardized into human rights. The abstract god, a false god, enslaves through hate and jealously.
The "Greatest Generation" still believed in a god that, as you point out, required a certain amount of humility – and fear. You honored your parents, God, relics and saints and so forth. So they were still living in a kind of honor culture. Jesus never metioned "rights." He didn't even talk about slavery. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, unto God what is God's" and so forth.
I maybe did a poor job making clear what I meant. My apologies.
I don't believe in any kind of "rights," human, animal or whatever. A right is, by (my) definition, parasitism because you don't have to do anything other than be born. It's privilege without obligation. There is no honor to strive for, or maintain. Like I said, the concept is unnatural, invented by intellectuals in the 18th century.
The concept of "negative rights" is legitimate within Christian thinking. The citizen has a right to pursue virtuous activities, such as raising and supporting a family, exploring the created world in the natural sciences, or creating beautiful art. A state that prohibits virtue and promotes vice is tyrannical in the strict sense of the word - it overrides our natural (i.e. God-given) rights to pursue such virtuous activities, which promote both the good of yhe individual and also the common good.
The problem only arises with the modern invention of "positive rights", wherein the state grants favored citizens a part of the wealth that belongs to other citizens (earned by their own or their ancestors' industry or homesteading). This is the overweening state's usurpation of the virtue of individual and voluntary charitable giving.
Before the advent of the debased notion of positive rights, there was no need for the term "negative rights" since all rights were of the latter sort.
One way I have heard it pithily expressed is that "liberty is not licentiousness; it is not a license for vice, but rather the right to do as you ought."
Sure, but potayto, potawto, you are still stuck with the same problem. The idea one is born into privilege without obligation. There is no feeling, no allowance, for the expression of honor. For instance, honor for a woman means chastity. It’s neither positive nor negative. It’s a state of grace.
For a man, honor means something else entirely. Modern liberalism, with its rights, changes the relationship between eternal, unchanging order and human life.
Mary Wollstonecraft, the mother of Mary Shelly, wrote, A Treatise on the Rights of Women, in 1793. She is considered by feminists their founder. Do you consider her thinking positive or negative? She certainly thought herself virtuous and good for herself and the common good.
I think you're eroding the distinction I tried to draw. Let's see if the following formulation will clarify matters sufficiently for you:
A negative right is like a fence: the state (and other citizens) are not to encroach on your ability to practise virtue, nor may the state try to force you into vice.
A so-called positive right (a modern debasement of the term) is a privilege the state awards to some citizens, enabling them to encroach on the wealth or virtue of other citizens.
Modern feminism is highly destructive of the common good: it undermines the institution of the family, and incites women to murder their own babies. The Christian view of women rules out Islam's oppression and brutality, but also feminism's denial of biological and social reality. Without revisiting Wollstonecraft, I seem to remember that some of what she argued was simply a call for talented women to be allowed to develop their abilities, and there is no necessary conflict with Christianity here. If some of her arguments foreshadow modern feminism, then to that extent, they are bad.
The language of rights in the old, "negative" sense, is not fundamental in traditional ethics, but is only a shorthand - rights "supervene" on the exercise of virtue and the seeking of the common good. If this sounds opaque, I'm afraid you'll need to do a little reading on "natural-law ethics", first drawn up by Aristotle, further developed by Thomas Aquinas, and expanded further until the "Enlightenment" tried to destroy it (it is not an issue that need divide Catholics from Protestants, since there were substantial contributions from Protestant thinkers like Grotius).
“ While Wollstonecraft does call for equality between the sexes in particular areas of life, especially morality, she does not explicitly state that men and women are equal.”
The next generation is the reason to strive to protect what was given to us. It is an obligation only when we accept it to be a force in our life. It is the essence of Gratitude. Try 1 Peter 2:9 and 16. “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.” If this is not an indication of rights, I’m not sure I can help you.
They have the same rights we have. Unfortunately, they demand special rights, to become privileged beyond the rest of society. I quoted scripture to answer the question of whether or not unalienable rights were real. Our country was founded upon Christian values and because of it, they saw rights as essential to society. Even atheists see how important it is for society to have laws based on rights that are protected by a Constitution. I would suggest you read Russel Kirk’s “Concise Guide to Conservatism.” It is a quick read that explains key political concepts necessary for a civil society. Good luck on your search for truth.
There is a deliberate, pan-institutional effort that is so evil that we have trouble believing that it is happening. We must face it squarely, negotiation and compromise will have no effect on the torture and extermination planned for us by our implacable enemies, underway now for over a century, starting with the NKVD in the USSR. Put aside any hope of reasoning away their hatred, there can be no outcome other than the complete destruction of one side or the other.
A recent note of mine:
NGOs, clinics deliberately infect South African children with HIV via dirty needles. White kids 2x Blacks, White parents! https://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/brody1/ BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, Volume 110: Pages 450-452,May 2003 Age 2-14 HIV rate was 5.6% (131/2348) overall (almost all Black), while for Whites it was 11% (16/145).
A commenter writes:
"No one cares about far away strangers, still less about far away strangers very different from themselves. Claims to do so are lies or self deception.
People near one are always the big threat. So if one wants to destroy everyone near one, one justifies it by piously announcing love for those far away. … Are most do gooders planning democide?
Empirically, actions taken to benefit far away strangers very different from oneself are usually performed terrifyingly poorly, perhaps always performed terrifying poorly. For example African AIDS turns out not to be heterosexual AIDS, but do gooder AIDS. It is spread by clinics, which have financial incentive to use contaminated needles, in that the more of their clients they make sick, the more money they get.
….
Observe the total non reaction among do gooders to the ongoing AIDS scandal in Africa. This behavior fits the assumption that all do-gooders, as near all of them as makes no difference, are aiming at war against near, and contradicts the assumption that many of them or most of them intend to benefit far.
If status competition was driving the purported caring about far, we would expect to see more monitoring of each other’s performance “Hey, your caring for far is producing horribly bad outcomes, which I, your holier and more moral superior will now correct.” So, the data compelling fits the theory that concern for far away people of other races is a lie driven primarily by monstrous and horrifying goals, and fails to fit even the relatively innocent explanation of competition to be holier than thou."
Over Mugabe’s long career he was bestowed with their glowing tributes and collected 50 honorary degrees. At the 1990 Michigan State ceremony at which the honorary degree was conferred, then-President John Angelo DiBiaggio said Mugabe was “a man who stands here on this stage before us, but he is also a man, I can tell you, who stands with us.” DiBiaggio, a dentist before becoming MSU’s President, would be better remembered if his career summit had ended with molar extractions and root canals.
“It took decades and piles of dead bodies before Robert Mugabe lost luster in the eyes of the American mainstream media.”[2] Those in the smart set were astonishingly slow learners. For a study in how pinning your “make the world better” hopes on a black conman turns out: In 2008, Michigan State University trustees, contemplating Mugabe’s success in dismantling “white privilege,” finally figured out that President DiBiaggio must have been hallucinating back in 1990.
I’ve never seen so many sources cited. I’ve always said Western Europe is a snapshot into what we will become. Maybe I’ll start saying South Africa. Admittedly I haven’t looked into them much until a week ago.
White Americans are a weak and pathetic race of people that will go to their doom willingly and help it to be done. There’s only one solution for this. Everybody knows what it is. All the platitudes and all the advice and all the empathy and the pathetic apathy that White Americans have damned this country. Only a few will stand up and fight. And the rest of the White people will try and stop them from fighting because it goes against their emotional compassion towards people of Color because after all white people are the only racists on the planet. I call it bullshit.
I don't think there's anything one inidividual can do other than stop believing in the abstract god called human rights; and instead shift to a cultural/spiritual outlook emphasizing privilege, obligation, honor and divine order, in one's personal life.
One needs to throw off the culture of modernity. We in the West are swimming in the sea of the sacred victim, entitled parasite. One needs to stop its access to one's spirit because it has captured everyone from Kneeling Nancy on down.
Yes, I quite agree with that mindset shift, which is why I focus on the Old World so much. It is certainly a much more effective version of localism
What made the Greatest Generation great? It was gratitude to a Heavenly Father. They knew that they were privileged to live in a country where inalienable rights, inherently possessed, were recognized by the Founding Fathers. They saw an obligation to defend these unassailable rights, yet here we are at a juncture in time where God-Given Rights are being bastardized into human rights. The abstract god, a false god, enslaves through hate and jealously.
Thanks for your comment.
The "Greatest Generation" still believed in a god that, as you point out, required a certain amount of humility – and fear. You honored your parents, God, relics and saints and so forth. So they were still living in a kind of honor culture. Jesus never metioned "rights." He didn't even talk about slavery. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, unto God what is God's" and so forth.
I maybe did a poor job making clear what I meant. My apologies.
I don't believe in any kind of "rights," human, animal or whatever. A right is, by (my) definition, parasitism because you don't have to do anything other than be born. It's privilege without obligation. There is no honor to strive for, or maintain. Like I said, the concept is unnatural, invented by intellectuals in the 18th century.
The concept of "negative rights" is legitimate within Christian thinking. The citizen has a right to pursue virtuous activities, such as raising and supporting a family, exploring the created world in the natural sciences, or creating beautiful art. A state that prohibits virtue and promotes vice is tyrannical in the strict sense of the word - it overrides our natural (i.e. God-given) rights to pursue such virtuous activities, which promote both the good of yhe individual and also the common good.
The problem only arises with the modern invention of "positive rights", wherein the state grants favored citizens a part of the wealth that belongs to other citizens (earned by their own or their ancestors' industry or homesteading). This is the overweening state's usurpation of the virtue of individual and voluntary charitable giving.
Before the advent of the debased notion of positive rights, there was no need for the term "negative rights" since all rights were of the latter sort.
Very well put, thank you
One way I have heard it pithily expressed is that "liberty is not licentiousness; it is not a license for vice, but rather the right to do as you ought."
Sure, but potayto, potawto, you are still stuck with the same problem. The idea one is born into privilege without obligation. There is no feeling, no allowance, for the expression of honor. For instance, honor for a woman means chastity. It’s neither positive nor negative. It’s a state of grace.
For a man, honor means something else entirely. Modern liberalism, with its rights, changes the relationship between eternal, unchanging order and human life.
Mary Wollstonecraft, the mother of Mary Shelly, wrote, A Treatise on the Rights of Women, in 1793. She is considered by feminists their founder. Do you consider her thinking positive or negative? She certainly thought herself virtuous and good for herself and the common good.
I think you're eroding the distinction I tried to draw. Let's see if the following formulation will clarify matters sufficiently for you:
A negative right is like a fence: the state (and other citizens) are not to encroach on your ability to practise virtue, nor may the state try to force you into vice.
A so-called positive right (a modern debasement of the term) is a privilege the state awards to some citizens, enabling them to encroach on the wealth or virtue of other citizens.
Modern feminism is highly destructive of the common good: it undermines the institution of the family, and incites women to murder their own babies. The Christian view of women rules out Islam's oppression and brutality, but also feminism's denial of biological and social reality. Without revisiting Wollstonecraft, I seem to remember that some of what she argued was simply a call for talented women to be allowed to develop their abilities, and there is no necessary conflict with Christianity here. If some of her arguments foreshadow modern feminism, then to that extent, they are bad.
The language of rights in the old, "negative" sense, is not fundamental in traditional ethics, but is only a shorthand - rights "supervene" on the exercise of virtue and the seeking of the common good. If this sounds opaque, I'm afraid you'll need to do a little reading on "natural-law ethics", first drawn up by Aristotle, further developed by Thomas Aquinas, and expanded further until the "Enlightenment" tried to destroy it (it is not an issue that need divide Catholics from Protestants, since there were substantial contributions from Protestant thinkers like Grotius).
“ While Wollstonecraft does call for equality between the sexes in particular areas of life, especially morality, she does not explicitly state that men and women are equal.”
Is the idea of “equality” positive or negative?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Vindication_of_the_Rights_of_Woman
The next generation is the reason to strive to protect what was given to us. It is an obligation only when we accept it to be a force in our life. It is the essence of Gratitude. Try 1 Peter 2:9 and 16. “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.” If this is not an indication of rights, I’m not sure I can help you.
But, Mr. Anderson, the people who demand their rights these days don't believe in the Christian god. So, quoting scripture means nothing to them.
They have the same rights we have. Unfortunately, they demand special rights, to become privileged beyond the rest of society. I quoted scripture to answer the question of whether or not unalienable rights were real. Our country was founded upon Christian values and because of it, they saw rights as essential to society. Even atheists see how important it is for society to have laws based on rights that are protected by a Constitution. I would suggest you read Russel Kirk’s “Concise Guide to Conservatism.” It is a quick read that explains key political concepts necessary for a civil society. Good luck on your search for truth.
“ Unfortunately, they demand special rights, to become privileged beyond the rest of society.”
Indeed.
Great work as always. Well cited. Thanks for the tag.
Thank you very much! That quote of his about juries is so good
There is a deliberate, pan-institutional effort that is so evil that we have trouble believing that it is happening. We must face it squarely, negotiation and compromise will have no effect on the torture and extermination planned for us by our implacable enemies, underway now for over a century, starting with the NKVD in the USSR. Put aside any hope of reasoning away their hatred, there can be no outcome other than the complete destruction of one side or the other.
A recent note of mine:
NGOs, clinics deliberately infect South African children with HIV via dirty needles. White kids 2x Blacks, White parents! https://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/brody1/ BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, Volume 110: Pages 450-452,May 2003 Age 2-14 HIV rate was 5.6% (131/2348) overall (almost all Black), while for Whites it was 11% (16/145).
A commenter writes:
"No one cares about far away strangers, still less about far away strangers very different from themselves. Claims to do so are lies or self deception.
People near one are always the big threat. So if one wants to destroy everyone near one, one justifies it by piously announcing love for those far away. … Are most do gooders planning democide?
Empirically, actions taken to benefit far away strangers very different from oneself are usually performed terrifyingly poorly, perhaps always performed terrifying poorly. For example African AIDS turns out not to be heterosexual AIDS, but do gooder AIDS. It is spread by clinics, which have financial incentive to use contaminated needles, in that the more of their clients they make sick, the more money they get.
….
Observe the total non reaction among do gooders to the ongoing AIDS scandal in Africa. This behavior fits the assumption that all do-gooders, as near all of them as makes no difference, are aiming at war against near, and contradicts the assumption that many of them or most of them intend to benefit far.
If status competition was driving the purported caring about far, we would expect to see more monitoring of each other’s performance “Hey, your caring for far is producing horribly bad outcomes, which I, your holier and more moral superior will now correct.” So, the data compelling fits the theory that concern for far away people of other races is a lie driven primarily by monstrous and horrifying goals, and fails to fit even the relatively innocent explanation of competition to be holier than thou."
Over Mugabe’s long career he was bestowed with their glowing tributes and collected 50 honorary degrees. At the 1990 Michigan State ceremony at which the honorary degree was conferred, then-President John Angelo DiBiaggio said Mugabe was “a man who stands here on this stage before us, but he is also a man, I can tell you, who stands with us.” DiBiaggio, a dentist before becoming MSU’s President, would be better remembered if his career summit had ended with molar extractions and root canals.
“It took decades and piles of dead bodies before Robert Mugabe lost luster in the eyes of the American mainstream media.”[2] Those in the smart set were astonishingly slow learners. For a study in how pinning your “make the world better” hopes on a black conman turns out: In 2008, Michigan State University trustees, contemplating Mugabe’s success in dismantling “white privilege,” finally figured out that President DiBiaggio must have been hallucinating back in 1990.
https://counter-currents.com/2021/12/slouching-toward-zimbabwe/
Im glad we're all still talking about it. We all know how powerful words at stopping a genocide.
It’s so true it’s a shock
And I’m South African
Chilling
I’ve never seen so many sources cited. I’ve always said Western Europe is a snapshot into what we will become. Maybe I’ll start saying South Africa. Admittedly I haven’t looked into them much until a week ago.
Oh boy, welcome down the rabbit hole. I have a bunch of articles up on South Africa and Rhodesia, you might find them interesting and insightful
🫡
White Americans are a weak and pathetic race of people that will go to their doom willingly and help it to be done. There’s only one solution for this. Everybody knows what it is. All the platitudes and all the advice and all the empathy and the pathetic apathy that White Americans have damned this country. Only a few will stand up and fight. And the rest of the White people will try and stop them from fighting because it goes against their emotional compassion towards people of Color because after all white people are the only racists on the planet. I call it bullshit.
Kill yourself, whiny geek.
Geek?!🤣😂
That will only lead to either a revolution, or a race war. Either way, white men will win. With prejudice.
Charlie always said there'd be a race war. I'm beginning to think he was right.
All it took during the Revolution was 3% of the population to kick the British ass.