Against Pushing Fear.
I am using a bit of OPSEC today with the photos: I am not showing where we are staying but places we have visited. For I am with my daughter and her family. One of the conversations we had last night was about fear: when you head count your children at an event and one of them is not there, and trying to fund your kid. This happens: even with security protocols the kids slip away.
Even in spaces designed to be safe. Where the kids can run around. We visited a Pumpkin Patch over the weekend where they could do that, and it was good. And a lot of products push fear: of illness, or disaster. Half the prep movement are driven by this.
I am not saying we should not be prudent — though this is difficult when many policies, such as girls in the scouts, increase risk — but that fear should not drive us. For we will be threatened. By those who should indeed fear justice.
24“A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master; 25it is enough for the disciple to be like the teacher, and the slave like the master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household!
26“So have no fear of them; for nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known. 27What I say to you in the dark, tell in the light; and what you hear whispered, proclaim from the housetops. 28Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. 30And even the hairs of your head are all counted. 31So do not be afraid; you are of more value than many sparrows.
32“Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; 33but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven.”
If we are not to fear those who can kill us then we should fear not at all those who can merely ban us on social media. We probably spend too much time on it already It does not in general make for as good friendships as talking face to face or emails. This is why we visit. And those who go through our words and judge them one by one we should fear not at all: they cannot stop our projects, but only point and shriek.
An example from books for kids, which is long converged.
An author writes an anti nativist novel with a local (American) protagonist who falls for an immigrant (Muslim, Iranina). She does her research. She tries not to be racist. She was a fool: she should have written something more truthful, for everything is offensive.
None of this, as it turns out, was enough to protect American Heart from becoming the subject of the latest skirmish in the increasingly contentious battle over representation and diversity in the world of YA literature. American Heart won’t be published until January, but it has already attracted the ire of the fierce group of online YA readers that journalist Kat Rosenfield has referred to as “culture cops.” To them, it was an irredeemable problem that Moriarty’s novel, which was inspired in part by Huckleberry Finn, centers on a white teenager who gradually—too gradually—comes to terms with the racism around her. On Goodreads, the book’s top “community review,” posted in September, begins, “fuck your white savior narratives”; other early commenters on Goodreads accused Moriarty of “profiting off people’s pain” and said “a white writer should not have tackled this story, and neither should a white character be the center of it.”
The backlash escalated last week, when Kirkus Reviews gave American Heart a coveted “starred review,” which influences purchases by bookstores and libraries. Kirkus’ anonymous reviewer called the book “by turns terrifying, suspenseful, thought-provoking, and touching,” and praised its “frighteningly believable setting of fear and violent nativism gone awry.” The book’s critics were not pleased with the commendation. “Kirkus Reviews of books reinforce white supremacy,” author and activist Justina Ireland, who had posted a critical review of the book on Medium, wrote on Twitter. “I’m sick to my stomach over this, and I’m so sorry Muslim folks have to contend with one more reminder that their humanity is negotiable.”
The left fears these small things. They know little, They should fear he who can destroy their soul: and they forget that the pendulum of politics swings back. The author knows this, and wrote a novel in warning for her allies (which they rejected). She should fear the time when justice again rolls like a river.
I will lay some groundwork for the implementation, based on the Nuremberg trials. Nuremberg was a clear example of victor’s justice, but it was measured and didn’t cause blowback, thus it provides a good basis for victor’s justice. Beyond the principles of international law it established (I will note here, international law is a farce as the international community is not sovereign), the trials worked based on two interrelated assertions:
That some crimes are so great that they can be prosecuted retroactively even if they do not violate the existent law at the time of the offence.
In such cases, only the offenders and major offenders were subjected to trials and potential jail or execution, while lesser offenders and followers were merely probated or restricted.
The first assertion is a secularized version of aspects of divine/natural law; God’s law is higher than man’s law, takes precedence, and is always applicable even if man’s law disagrees. Because of this, we can easily adopt the original version within our own ideologies. Part of the second assertion has already been raised by Moldbug; we retire and bar the whole of the present regime from public service, and furthered by me, where we execute some of the most criminal. It strikes a good balance between the practical and humane and the need for justice to be done.
These assertions are already fairly well accepted as legitimate, and so will be relatively easy to sell to all sides of the reactionary bargain. They also solve two legal problems we will face during the restoration: Most of the major crimes being committed (abortion, cultural genocide, the destruction of communities and the family, usury, inflation, etc…) are legal and most people are involved in them to some degree. By adopting the necessity of the application of divine law but restricting it to only the major offenders we can ensure justice is done, without going beyond justice.
Too much of the narrative of this time is about getting us to fear that which we cannot control. So we ignore what we can do.
Too much of the discourse is about us being careful about words and not considering how we act in oppression
Do not be signals of virtue. Do what is righteous. And expect the politically correct to continue on their narrative of convergence and compulsion.
But we do not need to like them be.