Tabitha Alloway

The mind of an individualist is more oriented toward observed reality than toward the collective. ~From “Redeeming the West”

When people deride “Enlightenment Values,” what are they referring to? Perhaps they do not agree with some Enlightenment thinkers, such as John Locke, who believed that society can be improved based on appeals to universal moral ideals that should be obvious to everyone by reason (especially the concept of individual rights). Or perhaps they do not value “equality” (or, at least, not some version of it). The idea of equality is vague. It can be taken as meaning that people are owed equal legal rights—or that people are owed equal outcomes. Here are a few more things someone could have in mind by “Enlightenment Values”: -Rejection of tradition -Rejection of religion -Rejection of keeping a strongly “local” identity (with loyalty to countrymen or kin being a major factor in one’s value structure) These topics are so widely disparate as to make a blanket discussion of “Enlightenment Values” useless unless we can be more specific. There is a lot of discussion lately (coming entirely from incompetent men) about John Locke and Thomas Jefferson being wrong, especially about what was said in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. Here are some of the main incompetent thinkers worth knowing about: Yoram Hazony, especially “Conservatism: A Rediscovery” RR Reno, especially “The Return of the Strong Gods” Patrick Deneen, especially “Why Liberalism Failed” Stephen Wolfe, especially “The Case for Christian Nationalism” Most of the contributors to “American Reformer” Most of the rest of the “New Right,” “Dissident Right,” and “Post-Liberals”

Many people tolerate evil trends while they last and then shift in another direction once the incentives change. The moral positions held by a mob measure nothing but human gullibility and conceit. Mobs form when people stop thinking independently and start merely accepting and imitating the thoughts of someone else— especially someone who is exaggerating or mispresenting something. Misprepresentation and exaggeration create chaos. People start “just guessing” about what some other person or camp is thinking, saying, meaning, wanting, and doing. The members of the mob start looking to people they already like and trust in order to learn about people they don’t like and trust. They start believing the guesses of the loudest exaggerators in their own tribe. Then the other tribe grabs the exaggeration and publicly dismantles it, proving that they have been sloppily misrepresented. Then someone who is undecided sees this situation. In his eyes, it ends up harming the credibility of the side that committed the exaggeration. Thus lack of precision in words leads to chaos in society. These points help explain why social trends are cyclical. To the extent that people are imitating, rather than thinking, mob patterns form. Eventually, there is a “discernment bubble” similar to a housing price bubble. People realize that everyone was caught up in a pattern of imitation and exaggeration. Then “the bottom falls out.” That is when you see a sudden preference cascade. Some cycles and trends are inevitable, but large and destructive bubbles are not inevitable. They are the result of bad decision-making by specific people. The more that people tolerate baseless claims and exaggerations, the more chaos will occur in a system over the course of time. If chaos affects the movement that is broadly aimed at combatting the danger of radical leftism, this chaos is costly to the total movement. The competing movement (radical leftism) gains an edge. For this reason, we should treat our rivals with objectivity and in the way we would want to be treated if we were the ones committing evil. We should maintain standards of accuracy in order to not scuttle our own cause.

It turns out that none of the leading CNs are even Christians.

Christians Should Not Be Voting For Democrats. Video Below.

Woke: “Sympathetic to Marxist analysis.” Specifically, a woke idea is one that draws from the Critical Race Theory and Diversity-Equity-Inclusion frameworks. Wokeness means accepting and teaching the same message that we lately have observed the media, school system, and state uniting to push onto the people—a message that unequal outcomes in a society are proof of an injustice. On this model, justice requires egalitarian outcomes. If you do not have egalitarian outcomes, you are a victim of injustice (or you are a perpetrator of injustice, or you are a complicit participant in injustice). Egalitarianism is the key moral concept in the woke movement. Distinguish equality under the law from egalitarianism. Ayn Rand wrote: “‘Equality,’ in a human context, is a political term: it means equality before the law, the equality of fundamental, inalienable rights which every man possesses by virtue of his birth as a human being, and which may not be infringed or abrogated by man-made institutions, such as titles of nobility or the division of men into castes established by law, with special privileges granted to some and denied to others.” The egalitarians, writes Rand, are seeking, “not political, but metaphysical equality—the equality of personal attributes and virtues, regardless of natural endowment or individual choice, performance and character. It is not man-made institutions, but nature, i.e., reality, that they propose to fight—by means of man-made institutions. Since nature does not endow all men with equal beauty or equal intelligence, and the faculty of volition leads men to make different choices, the egalitarians propose to abolish the ‘unfairness’ of nature and of volition, and to establish universal equality in fact—in defiance of facts.” Wokeness is the spirit of the age. The main goal of the woke (or the leftists, the socialists, the social justice warriors, and so on) is to use the government to create equal *outcomes* for all people by policies that explicitly treat one person *differently* than another. This “woke” spirit is identical to the vision for society advanced in the book “A Theory of Justice” by John Rawls. It also bears strong semblance to the ideas of Karl Marx. Marx used egalitarianism as a key idea in creating his philosophy. For that reason, wokeism can be understood as a form of Neo-Marxism. While there are differences in all these terms, they are ways of talking about the same constellation of claims, all amounting in the final analysis to a morally indignant claim of: “Gib me dat for free.”

"Quem poupa o lobo, sacrifica a ovelha." - Victor Hugo Vocês sabem que isso acontece em MAIS DE UMA MANEIRA, não sabem? [Essa é a thread mais importante que já escrevi. Por favor leia com atenção até o final]: Aviso: A thread não é sobre lobos e ovelhas.

Why do we care about individualism and individual rights? We care about following God’s calling on our lives to achieve and produce. We care about human life and the conditions it requires. We care about the world that we will leave to our children. And we care about the freedom of the church to carry out its mission in preaching the gospel and sharing it with all nations. ~From “Redeeming the West”

We aim to live as orthodox Christians who treasure God’s glory, who treasure the gospel, and who hold God’s Word and all of his truth as authoritative. It is for those reasons that we have become passionate about defending the philosophical foundations on which the sanctity of truth logically depends. ~From “Redeeming the West”

We do not think that the Bible is a corrective or buffer against reason, which is what many evangelical Christians seem to think. They imagine a Bible vs. reason dichotomy. But the Bible does not seek to put reason “in its place.” Reason is our sole method of discovering truth, and that is its proper place. ~From “Redeeming the West”

How do you respond to purported Christians who say Jesus was not conservative or liberal, and we as Christians should not be taking clear stands on political and cultural issues, and instead we should be “peacemakers”? I’d ask: What is a disciple? A disciple will attempt to personally obey the teaching of the Bible. Also, he will speak prophetically to others about what righteousness and justice mean. He will call other people to recognize the truth. A disciple follows Jesus in these ways. Decide if you want to become a follower of Jesus. When someone tries to set up a false moral equivalence between the political left and right, you can tell them the following: It is hard to judge people, but we can judge policies and especially basic policies. Let’s discuss what the Bible says about justice. When we know what that is, we should tell people about it. If that is going to get us classified as being part of the “right,”that is not a big deal. What *is* a big deal is that we speak the truth and not be passive and cowardly.

This describes just about every thought leader in the world right now, and especially those who claim to be religious.

A government that initiates force against its own people (for social programs, for education, for helping, or regulating) is an inversion of justice. It eventually becomes the greatest threat to human flourishing. ~From “Redeeming the West”

“It is the Communists’ aim to discourage all personal effort and to drive men into a hopeless, dispirited, gray herd of robots who have lost all personal ambition, who are easy to rule, willing to obey and willing to exist in selfless servitude to the State.” -Ayn Rand, 1947

Our book Redeeming the West presents a complete understanding of these topics. If you want to turn our society around, it’s important that you read this book and tell people about it. Find it on Amazon.