Always betraying, and always betrayed

Observe that the Tea Party is on the brink of its first great achievement: Population replacement of whites by a voting majority of mestizos on welfare. (The two thousand page amnesty law, which we have to pass to learn what is in it, is being written by two Democratic Party immigration lawyers, and the usual government employees).

The psychological mechanism underlying this is that the overwhelming majority of politically active people are unwilling to  speak or think ill of those to the left of them, perhaps because the left rules, and have no hesitation in demonizing of anyone to the right of them, perhaps because the right is powerless and afraid. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say the non left, since no one wants to identify as right, and because there a thousand rights and only one left. The left is a thousand points of doctrine every single one of which must be affirmed, while whosoever disagrees on any one of these thousand points is deemed right wing, and deemed evil and hateful, not merely by the left, but by anyone less right wing than himself, and indeed by anyone who disagrees with the left on a different point of doctrine.

He who is subject to this mechanism, which is most of those in politics, has  no friends to the right, no enemies to the left, which means all his friends are his enemies, and all his enemies are his friends, which means that he is always betraying, and always betrayed.

See for example Bryan Caplan vomiting the most extraordinarily hateful bile, as if possessed by demons, at those who oppose the importation of mass of low IQ voters to live on welfare and crime, and at those who think that fatherless children are prone to moral defects. But he would never dream of drawing the glaringly obvious conclusions from the “10:10 no pressure video”, that those who composed it are monsters, or notice massive and systematic fraud and conspiracy revealed by the Climategate files.

Whosoever argues that those to the left of him are merely mistaken, not malicious, despite many cases where malice is obvious, will argue that those to the right of him are malicious, even when honesty and decency is obvious, thus no enemies to the left, no friends to the right, thus all his friends are his enemies, thus always betraying and always betrayed, thus utterly untrustworthy. Any organization that contains such people will be destroyed from within. If you give such a person any power within the group, he will conspire with that groups enemies and commit fraud, theft, and violence.

Thus, for example, in the American Revolution, the British general Lord Howe not merely supplied Washington with gunpowder, but arranged for his men to die, in order to advantage Washington. ( See Sydney George Fisher’s True History of the American Revolution.) He deliberately caused the deaths of those near to him to advantage those far from him, the classic alliance with far against near so characteristic of leftism.

Quite simply: Unreasonable willingness to trust the powerful is a very reliable indication that someone is dangerously untrustworthy. So someone who supposedly agrees with you 99%,  for example Bryan Caplan, except that he says that Obama is mistaken while he fails to notice that Obama hates America, Americans, and whites in particular, will stab you in the back, like Lord Howe, whereas someone who disagrees with you 100%, who thinks that Obama is the lightworker will merely stab you in the front.

We don’t need ideological purity.  We do, however, need to be pure from those who grovel to power.  Any organization that contains such people will move left, as the Tea Party did, regardless of what ideology they purport to have.  If someone cannot read fraud and conspiracy in the climategate files, cannot read hatred of America and whites in Obama’s history, cannot see monsters in those authoring public education videos such as “10:10 No Pressure”, he can be relied upon to knife you in the back.

If your comrade cannot see evil, because power obscures his vision, then when you expect him to stand with you against power, he will stab you in the back.

25 Responses to “Always betraying, and always betrayed”

  1. […] my post Always Betraying and Always Betrayed I point out how the conservative movement is always destroyed from within by betrayal, but leftists […]

  2. Jehu says:

    How can you vet anyone properly if you can’t openly answer that one fundamental question: What do you want?, without being read out of civilized society?
    You can’t trust anyone who isn’t a serious ‘racist’.

  3. Nergal says:

    In my opinion,you couldn’t really call this a “Tea Party” achievement. Sure,Rubio’s a Tea Party candidate,but to be fair, they didn’t really vet those guys too well,you know?

    Opposition to higher taxes is what they selected for. In hindsight,they should have been more introspective.

    I agree with you overall,though. And if the Tea Party doesn’t at least try to put a stop to this idiocy,then they should rightly bear the blame for it.

  4. Jehu says:

    Thales, the terribly cool thing about God is that he’s got a serious sense of humor. Check out some of the judges he gave them, like Samson. There’s a serious downward spiral going on throughout Judges, Kings, and Chronicles with the deliverers that God selects for the adulterous Jews. One might say that it ends for the Northern Kingdom with my namesake Jehu. I love that one, send your main prophet’s minion in to annoint Jehu king of Israel, and then run, and then get the popcorn and watch Jehu’s adventures. Jehu is, IMO, typical of the class that is the best the West can expect from God at this stage of our history.

  5. Jehu says:

    The Judges were selected by God essentially, a selectorate of 1. Sometimes he even gave them cool supernatural capabilities.

    Status within the church is supposed to be handed out based on service—he who wishes to be greatest must be the servant of all. Accordingly, in functional churches, that guy who changes the oil for other members of the congregation who are less handy—He gets status. That nice old widow lady who brings her best for snacks during church once a month…she too gets status. The couple that give money to help the kids in the church afford to go to holy camp…they too get status. The guy who volunteers to clean the church every week, fix the toilets, etc…he gets status. The couple that drive a holy Pius and adopt kids from the 3rd world…not so much. Service and the demonstration of genuine love to the body, that is what grants status.

    • Thales says:

      “The Judges were selected by God essentially, a selectorate of 1. Sometimes he even gave them cool supernatural capabilities.”


  6. Jehu says:

    Truly holy people rarely want to rule or seek to do so. They also rarely call themselves holy or make the argument that ‘you should grant me political power because I am more holy than +N sigmas of the population’. I’ve never seen a body of people more than 150 or so that actually selects for genuine holiness in its leadership.

    • jim says:

      Claiming authority to rule, or even status, on the basis of holiness is, of course, phariseeism. Therefore the claimant is unholy. Christians know this because the Son of God told them so, and atheists ought to know it by observation (but seldom do).

      The Hebrews had a pretty good run with leadership by judges, who were in large part selected on the basis of holiness. However the coercive authority of judges was very limited. Could not tax, conscript, etc. Could not themselves punish crimes, but rather gave arbitration in clan and family disputes, authorizing some parties to the dispute to themselves pursue justice and vengeance, and others to refrain. Could call out what Americans would call the militia, but did not have armies. Things go wrong when alleged holiness is used to obtain coercive authority.

  7. Alrenous says:

    Note it would actually be pretty rad to be ruled by someone holier. The progressive results prove it is all sophistry.

  8. Barnabas says:

    Off topic but I thought you might appreciate this…

    • jim says:


      Seems disturbingly equalist: Women are supposed to be chaste, men are not. It is reasonable to punish cuckolds and sluts. Not reasonable to punish people who get pregnant before marriage, especially not males who got their wives pregnant before marriage.

  9. Zach says:

    Good post.

    A change of mind is always slow going… but at least it’s a start.

  10. The Continental Op says:

    Well, you clarified things for me. It’s why we are always “infighting”. It’s not really “in”fighting, is it?

  11. Dr. Faust says:

    Obama = Keynesian.

    A look at the American electorate.

  12. Thales says:

    “The only way to win is not to play.”

    • jim says:

      Nah, the way to win is not to play with traitors within. Would have won if we had executed Lord Howe and William Wilberforce for murder and treason.

  13. Chevalier de Johnstone says:

    There is no “the” Tea Party. Tea Parties are all local groups with no national-level affiliation and usually only informal state-level contact. Certain Republican politicians and their moneyed backers like to style themselves as representative of “the” Tea Party, as opposed to the schmuck voters who vote for them. This is then reported in progressive news rags.

    Unless you live in a border state, your local Tea Party is likely to be discussing at their meetings the finer points of teacher performance pay and property tax increases, not immigration reform.

    • jim says:

      Unless you live in a border state, your local Tea Party is likely to be discussing at their meetings the finer points of teacher performance pay and property tax increases, not immigration reform.

      The Tea Party applies influence by punishing bad politicians and rewarding good ones. If they are not discussing immigration “reform”, right now they should be.

Leave a Reply