How to argue with everyone else; without revealing your true power level
Including some arguments you need to navigate the collapse of the West
[Below I’ve collected a series of previously-published “notes”. In the present context, their purpose is to help Traditionalists argue with popular opinion (and opposing Right-Wing factions) without necessarily endangering their reputation. Sometimes, it is most advantageous to simply avoid unnecessary conflict. These notes offer a means of doing so.]
How to tell normies you’re riding the tiger:
You do not need to accept the normalization of interracial marriages to become “a better person”. The proper and sensical moral stance is to simply tolerate and carry on.
Do not engage in violence, but also make it plain that you hold your own principles, your own worldview.
Liberals and leftists would have us jumping joyously, embracing and celebrating diversity…this is not desirable nor realistic.
The lesson I’m learning is accepting change and disagreement [in the inevitable collapse of Western Civilization], while making it plain to the other that “I accept you, but I still don’t fucking like it!”
Tolerate, but hold your ground. That is stoic, and honorable.
I have an innate love for my own people, and a natural indifference towards others.
Plain and simple—Nietzschean vitalism best explains my aesthetic favoring of the white race.
Some clarifications regarding “vitalism”:
There are actually very few people (here) who wholeheartedly call themselves “vitalists”, and if they do, it is for the sake of convenience rather than out of any deep affiliation with the term and its implications.
For the most part, it is their direct ideological opponents on the Right (i.e. fundamentalist Christians) who use the term to stoke the fires of an ongoing debate between “Christians v. Vitalists”.
Vitalist—rather than “vitalism”—is a convenient adjective to declare that one upholds a generally Nietzschean approach to metaphysics, morality, and discipline. Some are quite atheistic or materialistic, while others adhere to an ethos that embodies a worldview rooted in ancient, non-abrahamic cultures.
For those who only use “vitalist” when describing their political views, it evokes an ethos somewhere between Ayn Rand, Nietzsche, and non-abrahamic ethics.
I myself never employ the term—I am an Evolian Traditionalist. I am not a Nietzschean—I simply happen to align myself with Nietzsche only insofar as he echoed Traditionalist values in his writings (for similar reasons that Julius Evola praised and criticized Nietzsche’s philosophy in Ride the Tiger).
Vitalism or “vitality” only presents one aspect of the Traditional World—the primordial energy, the etheric or odic force. It still needs to be directed by a greater will “from above”.
Some—actually, most—self-proclaimed Vitalists are just “fedora tipping” atheists/secularists who are involved in “gender wars”, are pro-natalist solely for the sake of demographics, and are the career-politician pundits of the Dissident Right.
Abortion is a last resort.
A society that has frequent recourse to abortion as “contraception”, medical intervention, and crime (terminating a pregnancy resulting from rape) has failed to carry out prior measures under an overarching Eugenic policy.
Any society that promotes a disciplined sexual ethic, enforces strict marriage/relationship laws, and inspires a desire for greatness through aesthetics, will behave in a manner where the cases necessitating abortion are fewer. People will act in ways that reduce the circumstances leading to abortion as the only possible solution.
Instead of debating whether abortion is ethical or not, and whether it should be allowed or not, maybe think in terms of higher goals, and rearrange society accordingly.
It is difficult to discuss practical Traditionalism (or any “right-wing” politics) when popular rhetoric instantly identifies Eugenics/Elitism and Ethnonationalism with “Nazis”, and blindly-assumes that all sympathy towards such values will always reproduce a Third Reich scenario.
Let’s forget, for the sake of the argument, that history is just All-lies propaganda. Before we can even start discerning the good from the bad, and weigh pro and con, we must understand the general public attitude towards the topic.
We must realize that public discourse is purely emotional, irrational, and ideologically motivated. Nowhere are the fundamentals of Western philosophy observed.
If we take the public general opinion as a starting point—and try to empathize—we should frame the debate in the following manner, reintroducing basic philosophy in the process:
Plato and Aristotle are rightfully-considered the founding fathers of philosophical method. Reason and observation. A Platonist would probably argue that Hitler deviated from the perfect form of Tradition/Empire while still embodying some of its basic characteristics. Thus, there is a “ideal version” of Nationalism and we must figure out what it is. An Aristotelian would insist that one must observe several functioning ethnostates to decide if Nationalism always produces Third Reich results.
In other words, neither reason nor observation could convince us with absolute certainty that “all right-wing politics leads to Nazi atrocities/tyranny/whatever”.
Of course, to condense this post to its fundamental argument, I have used certain terms interchangeably only to give them full representation—of course there are differences, but public debate does not currently recognize them anyway.
Not everyone is destined for the same kind of motherhood or fatherhood. I mean that certain types of people like artists, intellectuals, and innovators are not suited for biological parenthood, but they fulfill this parenting instinct in other ways.
Traditionally, a schoolteacher was not allowed to be married, because it was understood that preferential treatment towards her own children would interfere with her providing quality education to the children of the village. These children already have a father and mother, so the Teacher is meant to “nurture” in another, equally important manner. She embodies the “village” and its collective knowledge, wisdom, and structure. Likewise, political leaders or rulers represent the Patriarch—the “father” of a nation, tribe, or folk.
Thus, we have personal, domestic parenthood and a collective, social parenthood. Both are equally important to a prospering community; but since they are so demanding they require singular and exclusive commitment.
Nature distributes her gifts in a way that each community will have its fair share of domestic and communal fathers and mothers—there is no need to insist on some “trad-life” or “pro-natalism”…which would pressure the Priestesses, Artists, Rulers, and Hierophants into relinquishing their true vocation.
We are all fathers and mothers at heart, but not in the same way.
Human biodiversity (HBD) is just milquetoast Racialism. Words like Folk, Kin, Blood, and Race carry great poetic force; the sanitized jargon of the New Right lacks this power. Worse, the inclusion of IQ, agency, dopamine, demographics, and other “scientisms” effectively desacralizes primordial truths.