Paleo-Libertarians - An Avenue for Good.

I'm starting to become turned off by the "You're miserable because you're free" and "freedom is for beasts" argumentation style. I'm guilty of doing the same thing too; Freedom isn't a net positive and has become a meaningless sacred cow. Most people that are symbols of freedom are degenerates given a reputable image via victor's justice. The modern, secular martyr's are mediocre at best. It's still bad strategy to prioritize condemning freedom as a means of advancing your main causes.

Libertarian's have a bad track record of taking any rejected cows from standard liberalism and making them sacred. While Liberals are busy turning poopdick into an identitarian cause, Libertarian's may focus on something absurd like polyamory. Instead of "democracy now!" it's "smash the state"! Every ideology comes with it's fair-share of neckbeards. In the libertarian sphere there are people that look at fascism as a good thing; There are racialists that care about whites; There are advocates of patriarchy; There are religious people (I was a religious an-cap). These people may not share our philosophical leanings, yet they care more about The West than most Fascists.

If they're so concerned about police brutality, then tell them to kick out the dalits. If some of them don't like it, then they aren't who we're looking for. If they dislike overly-buracratic institutions, then tell them to get rid of feminism/the subversive class. While you're at it, tell them about The Jewish Question. While frequenters of Mises.Org may not look at your positions properly a Paleo-Libertarian certainly will. Instead of going the esoteric-radical direction, it's important to go the moderate, practical direction.

Privilege: Hard Mode

An interesting modern analogy regarding privilege is that it's life on easy mode. Easy mode is a reference to the difficulty setting in a video game (plenty of videogames of many genres have this feature).

Easy Mode:
-Six Figure income (at least).
-White American
-Christian
-Straight
-Cis
-Suburbs

Hard Mode: Social Justice
- $50,000 in debt
-Mullatto/Mestizo
-Atheist/New-Ager
-Pansexual
-Trans
-Gentrified Inner-City

Devil May Cry Mode:
-5 cents
-Sub-Saharan-African
-Animism/Eat the poo-poo Islam

This is purely a class based analysis devoid of any caste. It's obvious that most of the hatred towards the yuppie lifestyle isn't because of it's emptiness, but rather the fact that it's milquetoast. Life under modernism is boring and the suburban lifestyle epitomizes it. The reaction lefties have to the privileged man is to favor degeneracy over the standard yuppie lifestyle.

This typically involves rejecting anything related to the privileged man. Christianity, Whiteness (especially the Anglo variety), and having a happy attitude. Thus "Hard Mode" thinkers tend to appropriate any perspective they think counteracts milquetoast modernism. The problem is that they reconstruct everything they appropriate to fit their needs and their needs only. This is why Social Justice types that typically see themselves in the hard-mode setting are heavily Americanized in their world views.

Now if you excuse me, I'll be replaying my life as a Sub-Suharan-African. Wish me luck.

Dissecting the WWE Hierarchy

With the unification of the world titles and the inevitable unification of the midcard titles, the WWE has less of an ambiguous card. It's easy to rank wrestlers based on where they belong or should belong.

World Title: John Cena, Randy Orton, Daniel Bryan, and CM Punk: These are your main guys at the moment. All are in their thirties and relatively healthy. Now that the WHC has been absorbed by the WWE title Del Rio, Big Show, and Sheamus are disqualified from this position; They're upper midcarders who can fight for the title, but won't hold it for long. If anyone wants to fight for this spot they're going to have to go through these four men.

Midcard Title: Dolph Ziggler, Damien Sandow, Miz, Kofi Kingston: This one is harder to define. So many wrestlers are slightly above/below this level. Christian can easily shoot for this scene or the world title if his injuries don't get the better of him. Kofi already exhausted all the possibilities he has with these four men. His recent feud with The Miz (not the 2012 feud) hurt both superstars and almost jeopardized his spot on this card. Big E Langston and Curtis Axel both hurt their chances with this title; Curtis Axel lost it by being boring, while Langston is utilized improperly by The WWE (he's a naturally funny character, not a serious one). After The Shield collapses the individual members may have a shot at one of these titles, but only against these guys.

Real main event: Brodus Clay, Fandango: Beware, Xavier Woods. Beware.

Why I'm Not a Reactionary

Reactionaries and I have so much in common: We both oppose the status quo, we both love patriarchy, we both love religion, and we both love political systems that manage the masses. Two important things separate me from the typical reactionary: 1. I don't mark any specific point in history as a metric unit for Western Civilization. 2. I don't use the truth that the masses are stupid as the main thesis for my arguments. The latter is much more significant as a point.

It's true that most people are in the left side of the bell curve. Cro-Mags rule in numbers. Politics is the art of curbing stupidity, but it's also the art of curbing corruption. If the latter is emphasized too much, then you may have honest people advocating for the centralization of the masses as a political force (Democracy) or them becoming individually autonomous (Anarchism). In this way the "people are stupid" argument does play a role.

Reactionaries (not all of them) unfortunately automatically assume the worst in the majority of people, which can cause them to undergo The Dunning Kruger effect. All of a sudden a political argument becomes "95% of people can't wipe their ass with the correct technique, therefore Democracy can't work". If they continue to polarize their viewpoints they may start assuming that 99% American's are Lady Gaga fans and that they make up the intellectual vanguard of their movement.

Most importantly, they may criticize useful movements/topics if they're not Reactionary enough. Evola himself has criticized fascism because of it's populistic nature. Movements that are attempting to protect The West may be deemed mediocre because they don't condemn the masses enough, or because they are appealing to the masses. Nazism sometimes gets heat because it sees The State as a means to an end for The Race, and not as The State itself.

A term like Paleoconservative or Traditionalist may describe me in a much better light. Despite that, I'm just a special snowflake; I don't use idealogical terms to identify myself. Why wouldn't I be a special snowflake? I'm sexy.