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.

Can you be a Christian and also believe in individualism? (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.

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).

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.

1/4 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

Morpheus Files Presents:

~New Right Circles~ 1. @TheJollyBrawler

https://twitter.com/CodyLibolt/status/1757238902468043110

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
@tlloydcline 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:

https://x.com/CodyLibolt/status/1794456138496508219

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?

The Global Conspiracy — And What You Can Actually Do

“In a nutshell, this is Neo-Integralism. It is a system that both the progressive left and the cringe right aspire to replace our constitutional republic with.”

-Michael O’Fallon (@SovMichael)

🧵 Thread: Q: I get that the World Economic Forum and other global elites are powerful and pernicious.

But what are they after?

What is their philosophy and goal?

The Woke Religionists Were All Wrong on Individual Rights

(You cannot “love your neighbor” by using the government to do to him the things God forbids.)

Thread 🧵 Leaders of the major world religions seem to agree that individual rights are not absolute.

For instance, consider Pope Francis:

Some Twitter Circles worth knowing about:

@TheJollyBrawler
@BonifaceOption
@SamuelHolden_
@noah_jesusfreak
@DeutschAnglican
@contramordor
@SeanRussellbook
@NateAFischer
@JohnMoo26668690
@BenZeisloft
@TheDailyGenevan
@RettCopple
@Tcox1646
@DissidentSouth
@KrashOmnis
@PhilipDerrida
@ADRoblesMedia
@jonharris1989
@mallardreborn
@smashbaals
@taxslavedave @TheJollyBrawler

Circle 1
•1. @PerfInjust
•2. @merelyjwright
•3. @TaxSlaveDave
•4. @BonifaceOption
•5. @SamuelHolden_
•6. @DustyDeevers
•7. @noah_jesusfreak
•8. @TanneriteCortez
Circle 2
•9. @DoctrinesofRad
•10. @jchasedavis
•11. @IanGehris
•12. @DeutschAnglican
•13. @contramordor
•14. @nikthestorm
•15. @JohnMoo26668690
•16. @SeanRussellbook
•17. @William_E_Wolfe
•18. @unnamed_sourc3s
•19. @bendellwerry
•20. @NateAFischer
•21. @J_ODochartaigh
•22. @clbolt
•23. @BenZeisloft
•24. @jetbrane59
Circle 3
•25. @prageru
•26. @MSArmadiloTamer
•27. @TheDailyGenevan
•28. @gadfly_biting
•29. @RettCopple
•30. @jtdxn_
•31. @WBS_Meme_King
•32. @ADRoblesMedia
•33. @adamtheduell
•34. @TomBuck
•35. @Ma11Williams
•36. @Tcox1646
•37. @WesternVerve
•38. @Bearfoot_Co
•39. @NeilShenvi
•40. @ConceptualJames
•41. @StowenAchan
•42. @TBush1689
•43. @ChristOverChaos
•44. @SEBTS
•45. @DannyAkin

Thread 🧵 1/5

I saw this analysis from the “What If Alt History” YouTube channel, and I think it is interesting.



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 2/5

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.

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. (See below.)

95 Red Flags—
The Dangerous and Destructive Legacy of Timothy Keller

🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩

1/95 2/

Selections from Proverbs 19:

Selections from Proverbs 18:

Selections from Proverbs 17:

To be a National Conservative (more broadly, a tradcon or a “common good” conservative, as we see in the work of Yoram Hazony) is to call for the same things the people of Israel called for when they rejected God as their king.

🧵 1/10 It is to call for a man with the power to direct the economy and tax the people and make them into slaves so that he can fight the battles God intended *you* to fight.

2/10

A pastor should have a “heresy fund.”

🧵 1/6 If his church will not accept sound teaching, he should have means to provide for his family while he finds new work.

2/6

I have lived a very happy life.

I have been greatly blessed through my years as a young person.

As a parent, now my attention is on how to leave a legacy—to my kids to future Christians.

Here is the legacy I want to leave them:

1/6 —To live a value-oriented life.

2/6

If your every word choice seems calculated to position you and to control your image, people notice.

It is, ironically, a bad look.

But the opposite is also true.

1/4 When you say and do what you think is right and needed (even if sometimes it will make you appear unpopular), the right people will eventually appreciate you for it.

2/4

Two instances of the “Drunken Master,” approach to social media: 1 -

I called out Andrew Torba’s anti-semitic comments—but intentionally used leftist sources, which I accurately predicted would lead to people ridiculing me.

Why?

I will explain.

Q: What’s wrong with racism? (I’m not saying it’s not wrong but I need help articulating it).

A: It is a form of unreasonable partiality (or even bigotry) that is race-based.

Let’s look at what that means.

🧵 1/21 Partiality means “unfair bias in favor of one thing or person compared with another; favoritism.”

It is fine (usually good) to love your family more than other people. But it is not good to judge in a biased way.

2/21