Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
NARRATOR: Profile picture
@CodyLibolt
Aug 18 • 12 tweets • 1 min read • Read on X
Race and Common Sense—Twelve Points

1. The moral attainment of people in every genetic group in the world is not currently equal.
2. The people of all genetic groups should be treated as potential moral equals and they should be evaluated as individuals.
3. It is not good to prejudge individual people based on skin color, genes, or what group you perceive them to be part of.
4. Race and culture are not the same thing.
5. Cultures do exist, and they can be judged on aggregate (in at least some context).
6. All cultures can (and do) raise or lower their moral stature over time, so cultures are not morally equal.
7. Everyone should seek to better himself and to better his own culture—or to find a new one and assimilate into it.
8. Everyone should reject social determinism and genetic determinism.
9. In some situations it is prudent to maximize your personal safety by using your knowledge about statistical patterns pertaining to cultures. This does not entail being a racist.
10. Immigration policy is a separate matter from the question of racism.
11. It is not good to stoke animosity between people of different races.
12. It is not good to divide people by race and treat your race, ancestry, or color as a core part of your identity.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with NARRATOR:

NARRATOR: Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @CodyLibolt

NARRATOR: Profile picture
Aug 11
Can you be a Christian and also believe in individualism? Image
(And be right?)

Yes.

Why is individualism condemned by cultural elites, including Christians?

Though many agree that America’s unique heritage is connected with its individualism, it is now common to conflate individualism with a lone-wolf mentality, consumerism, crass materialism, and narcissism.

This ends up undermining the legitimate, pro-individual values which have made America a land of freedom and opportunity.

Christians are especially vocal against individualism. Let’s look at why this is the case, what it means, and what to do about it.
Start with a question:

Doesn’t the Bible emphasize community and the collective as good? After all, the church is unified as the body of Christ. Shouldn’t we advocate collectivism, not individualism?

Three foundational points for understanding this issue:

1. Yes, the church is a collective.

Metaphorically, the church is a temple of living stones, a body of many members, and a single bride.

2. Also, the individual soul matters.

Scripture places importance on the individual soul. One’s own soul is one’s primary realm of responsibility and concern (1 Corinthians 9:24–27). The plurality of men matters because the primary unit, the individual, matters.

3. Scripture plainly calls people to seek their own benefit by following God.

As Christians, we work for individual blessing and reward. Even when the work itself often consists in serving others, the command to serve is framed within the promise of reward (Matthew 10:42).

We are individuals; and we are part of a collective.
Read 9 tweets
NARRATOR: Profile picture
Nov 25, 2024
Online Rules of Order

Note from Cody: The following was once published by a man who is now a leading voice in the Christian Nationalist movement. I am sharing it now to remind these people who they used to be.

The words I share below were not written by me.
At the request of my brothers in the battle, I have listed the following twelve rules of engagement. 

I encourage my brothers to use these rules to contend for biblical Christianity, especially in the current battle against the so-called social justice movement that seeks to call partiality and theft “justice” (Exodus 20:15, Leviticus 19:15).
These rules require prudence in application. 
They are general guidelines. Gauge the context of each situation. Seek to imitate the commands and the models shown in Scripture (1 Corinthians 4:16).

You may ask what makes me an authority on public, Christian engagement. I have no particular authority other than to speak the truth revealed by God. 

Many of my supporters and opponents alike have commented about the fairness I display in my online interactions. I believe I am doing something right in this regard, and I seek to model it for you, my brothers (Proverbs 14:29, Proverbs 15:1, Proverbs 29:11, Titus 3:2, Colossians 3:8).
Read 18 tweets
NARRATOR: Profile picture
Aug 20, 2024
I saw this analysis from the “What If Alt History” YouTube channel, and I think it is interesting.

@whatifalthist



Here is what he says:

**

We are in a reality war. The Left and Right are fundamentally different religions with different views of reality.

The Left
1. Humans are perfectible
2. Good people in power can save the world
3. The future is all progress
4. The only real things are materially what you see
5. Inequality comes from oppression
6. Everyone is a blank slate which are socialized
7. Cultural differences are arbitrary and can easily be transcended
8. Tradition holds us back
9. Its wrong to judge someone by their results
10. You have loyalty to all humanity, not your people

The Right
1. Humans are inherently flawed
2. Power corrupts
3. It's possible to degrade back into barbarism
4. There is a God
5. Inequality is normal
6. Races, classes and the sexes are genetically different
7. Cultural differences are important
8. Tradition is valuable even if we don't understand why
9. You can assess things by competency
10. You have loyalty to your group over others

**

For the most part (with some quibbles) I would say this is an accurate summary of what the self-identified Left and Right assume on these fundamental issues.

Also, the Left’s assumptions are all either wrong or mostly wrong, and the Right’s assumptions are all right (at least if you understand them in a reasonable way).

But here is what I find most interesting about this chart: It is mainly taking about reality (the metaphysical situation), not about how knowledge works or what is moral or what each person owes his society.

It is is talking about what we think is actually the case, not what we want to be the case.

The list captures foundational assumptions/beliefs on which the rest of your belief system will be developed.

Leftists who are committed to the Leftist foundations are willing to change their understanding of morality and even epistemology in order to hold onto their metaphysical beliefs.

This is why they are often willing embrace horrible arguments about how knowledge works.

They don’t care about how knowledge works.

They have a pre-rational commitment to the foundations in that list.

I think it is possible and necessary to avoid pre-rational commitments (turning an “I wish” or an “I feel” into an “it is.”)

And if you do that, you can then look at reality more honestly.

And that is what the Right (on this list) is doing.

They are attempting to see the world honestly and then to come to decisions on the basis of what is real.

I appreciate that the list above states the Right’s positions in a way that is open-ended.

1/4Image
The list leaves much open to interpretation.

There are people on the right who agree with the above and understand it in ways that are more or less reasonable.

The Christian Nationalism (CN) discussion (and the broader discussion about Classical Liberalism vs postliberalism or the New Right) revolve around differences of opinion about how to interpret the ideas on this list.

Classical Liberalism is not necessarily disagreeable with the ideas listed under “The Right.”

But it is not necessarily disagreeable with the ideas listed under “The Left” either.

Classical Liberalism is a fairly large umbrella, and it has more to do with ideas about limited government than ideas about reality on the whole.

But the postliberals would see it differently.

Postliberals often accuse Classical Liberals of not understanding the claims listed under “The Right.”

And they often accuse them of affirming the claims listed under “The Left.”

By definition, Classical Liberalism is actually not a position about these issues, but only a position about the need for limited government.

The postliberals are making a category error.

We should point that out when it happens.

But also, we should be able to state a specific interpretation of what we agree with in the ideas listed under “The Right,” and we should be able to explain what we disagree with in the ideas listed under “The Left.”

This is fairly easy to do.

The motte and bailey of the CNs right now is as follows:

The radical “bailey” CNs affirm the ideas of “The Right,” but they stretch them in unreasonable ways. (See Stephen Wolfe.)

The moderate “motte” CNs spend their time criticizing Classical Liberals by falsely accusing them of being on board with the ideas of “The Left.” (See William Wolfe.)

The answer to both of these types of people is to explain how we do in fact agree with “The Right,” but not in a Wolfian way, and how we do in fact disagree with “The Left,” about metaphysics, but at the same time we do still embrace the vision that Classical Liberals have held since the time of the Founding Fathers.

We see reality as “The Right” does; and yet we still see a vision for maintaining equal rights, and we do believe this contributes toward human progress.

As a result, none of the standard postliberal bludgeons are effective.

We do agree with them about the foundations, at least in a basic way.

What we disagree about is an understanding of what laws and government are moral and prudent, given the facts.

2/4
Above, I mentioned that we should state a specific interpretation of what we agree with in the ideas listed under “The Right,” and we should explain what we disagree with in the ideas listed under “The Left.”

In what follows I will offer one way of doing this. I believe this to be an objective approach.

The Left

1 - Humans are perfectible

No. People are improvable, but not perfectable in this world.

2 - Good people in power can save the world

No. On average, across time, the world will be better off when good people are in power. People can only ever have a limited ability to change the situation of other people. No person can assure a desirable global outcome.

3 - The future is all progress

No. No comments here.

4 - The only real things are materially what you see

No. The spiritual also exists. God exists.

5 - Inequality comes from oppression

Not necessarily. It can. But each person has agency. In any group, some people will choose agency, and others will drift. Aggregate outcomes of groups often reflect patterns of drift, and those patterns can be influenced by oppression or other social factors. This does not imply social determinism. It also does not imply that any injustice has taken place when groups have differences in outcomes.

6 - Everyone is a blank slate which are socialized

We are all affected by nature and nurture, but we also have agency. Individual choices have greater determining power in our lives than other factors, such as nature and nurture.

7 - Cultural differences are arbitrary and can easily be transcended

No. Cultural differences often reflect moral values, and moral values are either right or wrong. For many types of cultural differences, the difference makes one culture superior and the other inferior in that specific aspect.

8 - Tradition holds us back

No. Tradition is useful in many ways. The automatic rejection of tradition and the automatic acceptance of tradition are both errors.

9 - Its wrong to judge someone by their results

No. No comments are needed.

10 - You have loyalty to all humanity, not your people

It is rational to value your own life and the lives of the people closest to you, then those who are less close, then those who are distant in a hierarchical order. We should have some degree of love for strangers.

3/4
Read 4 tweets
NARRATOR: Profile picture
Jun 25, 2024
Morpheus Files Presents:

~New Right Circles~ Image
1. @TheJollyBrawler
@TheJollyBrawler 2. @BonifaceOption
Read 84 tweets
NARRATOR: Profile picture
Jun 3, 2024
Woke Rhetoric and the Constitution
Well, She Might Not Be DEAD—But She’s Dead To Me

What follows is an assessment of the state of the political discourse within the American church.

I will connect some dots between what you are seeing from Christian Nationalists and the Dissident Right.

I will show the relevance of some names that might be well known to you if you have followed my posts about the Woke Right.

Particularly relevant:

@ClaremontInst
@AmReformer
@NateAFischer
@TheWorthyHouse
@JonHarris1989
@Contramordor
@douglaswils
@CanonPress
@wadestotts
@perfinjust
@William_E_Wolfe
@BaptistLeaders
@tlloydclineImage
You might have seen the recent video from @wadestotts explaining why he thinks "The Constitution is dead."

If not, please check out this thread with the video plus my comments:

@wadestotts That is one piece of context for what I'm about to share here.

For some more context, see @Janet_Mefferd's excellent article describing the meaning of Woke Right:

Read 143 tweets
NARRATOR: Profile picture
May 17, 2024
Q: I have been wondering, what is the point of posting people's twitter circles?

🧵 Thread:
…Sure, it gets the bees swarming, but you seem a long game guy.

Is it so that a Thomas Achord (@TuliusAadland) situation can't really happen again under an excuse of ignorance?
…Is it related to the eugenic/jew hating garbage certain anon accounts have been spitting out, and highlighting what circles they are in?
Read 24 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(