People who have a lot of children in a setting of abundance will become dominant over time

Questionis when we'll return to Malthusian conditions which are less forgiving

@Fighting Gold Globalism's aim is a global neo-liberal tyranny. That's worse than occasional wars. Besides, major wars like WWII are impossible now due to nuclear weapons. The trade off is worse. Also, I agree with Jonathan Bowden that multiculturalism has only moved the conflicts from being between nations to within nations. So interstate wars are less likely, but civil wars are far more likely.

Tradition is life affirming for people. It provides them with a higher meaning. The nation is part of that. It creates a more fulfilling life. Plus, tradition has proven a very effective way of running society. It might be motivated by something irrational, but it does yield empirically good results.

But most people that make these arguments are classic liberals of the Mill variety. They too have an irrational belief in a tradition of egalitarianism (as I described in my new video). It's just as religious as any other belief. The difference is that rather than truth, goodness, and beauty, liberalism creates nihilism, atomization, and ugliness.

I acknowledge that both liberalism and neo-reaction required irrational religiosity. The difference is that man's nature isn't liberal. Reactionary rule is more in line with the natural order and creates a more fulfilling life for people.

@Endeavour Appeal to tradition is often thrown in the category of a logical fallacy, or at least I’ve been told this in academia. Would explaining that tradition yields good results in the long run be a good way of advocating for it?

@ItzMidrex The question should be, does it work? If tradition works than it should be used. That's usually just a disingenuous way to discredit an argument without actually proving it wrong.

@Endeavour did you know that the link to your Bitchute in your video descriptions is broken? Goes here: ```https://www.bitchute.com/channel/ende/```

@Charlemagne Thanks. I'll fix it.

very vague question so people can brainstorm:
what's something the online dissident right needs that is completely new (i.e. not "more" of something that already exists)
or what are some problems that need to be solved

@Pseudo-Analysist I think I can say a couple things that are new that we need:
1 Elites: right now we don’t have any elites that don’t support us we need an or group of elites that can be used to fund our goals whatever those might be to help us with potential legal troubles and can be used to bring our talking points and ideas into the mainstream etc
2. We need PROPER activism: activism is something that the right doesn’t really do a lot of and this can be broken down into a number of things like protesting, writing an email to your congressman etc @clossington had a really good video come out recently that covered how the left has organized protests and activism organizations and the right specifically the dissident right doesn’t really have an equivalent and although I don’t like what the lefties stood for I can say at the very least their organizational skills and what they were able to accomplish was impressive we need that
3. STOP THE INFIGHTING: right now the right fights itself probably just as much it fights the left and there can be a few ways this can be accomplished: by establishing common goals, talking about points we agree on or perhaps focusing on short term goals that we can agree on etc. that’s not to say that the right shouldn’t have these conversations but the infighting is partially the reason why we have been losing the last 100 years or so

4. Art: we don’t really have that much of an artistic circle and we need that to bring out our ideas this can be music, movies, paintings/drawings etc. Art can be used to draw in a larger audience that might be susceptible to our ideas
5. Vetting: this one is much harder to set up and is more vague or harder to describe but we need a way to vet people that is coming into our movement too many times has this happened that people of poor character comes in gets traction and turns out that they have serious flaws (thinking about heimbach) that at the very least makes us look bad and at worse can lead to the demise of a movement especially if it’s a central figure

Just a couple points that came to me just now there are more but these I just thought of off the top of my head

Pseudo-Pilled introduced me to The Decentralized Left on his server @EYEFORKNOWLEDGE156

Cool

can we have a new rule to ban anything jreg related

I support this endeavor

@Skellington I agree. Anything Jreg related is hereby banned.

I support this Endeavour ^

@Narmer you heard the boss

Noted

based monarch

@Kermit

Based endeavour

lmao based monarch dabbing on rebels

#3 I would say applies only to our brothers and sisters in Christ

Pagans/Atheists BTFO

Then you might as well not be against infighting in general

Says the heathen

I'd rather not have infighting in general. It's not productive.

There are more pressing matters at hand.

Like fighting heathens

Bruh

I somehow doubt that a movement consisting solely of radical christians who want to remove nonbelievers from society is going to go that far

Call me crazy

You forgot iconoclasm.

Best thing is to just stay as a cohesive unit and have the line of "religion is good for society but let's not get into details"

Even atheists can agree to it

Open question, but would like to hear from @Endeavour and @Charlemagne in particular: would you rather live in a Machiavellian principality or in a Hobbesian commonwealth?

Why?

Instinctually I suppose Machiavellian since it would likely be more of a formalist systems.

Huh

What do you mean