[Discussion] "It's Easier to Destroy Something Someone Else Built than to Build Something New"

"If you are not sure you are doing the right thing, ask a simple question: am I building something? Whether it be a structure, an institution, or simply a positive idea, proposal, or method."

In the warped minds of cancel culture enthusiasts they are building something: Utopia. But according to them an oppressive Establishment supported by deplorable sub-humans stands in the way of their beautiful vision. So guess what? Gotta destroy absolutely everything (and anyone arbitrarily deemed impure) first whether it's fair or foul or whether anyone wants it or not. You might as well try to persuade the Terminator not to kill Sarah Conner.

Socialism doesn't make things, it just takes the things you made at gunpoint.

Let's take another example, Daryl Davis has spent most of his life combatting racism through kindness. He deradicalizes people by basically asking them "Why do you hate me because I'm black?" opening up a dialog and being persistent in building a relationship to where the other party can see "my views are probably wrong because this guy has been very kind, so I'm going to attempt to change my ways."

On the other hand, most on Twitter would have you believe the only option for dealing with racists is punching them in the face.

Speaking of Daryl, the Woke have been shitting on him.

This was posted to KiA a week or so ago, but it got removed by the mods.

It's just easier to hate. I have a very leftie co-worker who, in almost every cultural discussion, tells us the negatives of it. Did you know women weren't allowed to have bank accounts before 1960? Every historical point is marred by a restrictive context. There were no good times because before desegregation blah blah blah.

It’s all virtue signaling. It’s easier to make people think you are virtuous by condemning something perceived as not so than to act virtuously.

Most textbooks covering early 20th century anarchism claim that anarchists used terrorism because they were too weak to successfully overthrow the government. They rely on an obsolete understanding of conflict found in political science that considers the tactics of an organization to exclusively reflect its capacity to project power. In other words, tactics exist in a linear scale from terrorism to ABC weapons, and an organization will always use the strongest tactic within its means in order to achieve its goal.

In reading Mikhail Bakunin, however, the Father of Anarchism actually makes a principled case for the inherent value of terrorism to the anarchist cause. Bakunin teaches that one of the greatest barriers to the abolition of the state is the belief that one can be assured of a reasonably good life by following the rules, living morally, and respecting authority. Anarchist bomb-throwing is not just a tactic of last resort, but an [im]moral message to the citizens of a nation that this belief is untrue. Bakunin tells us that the purpose of terrorism is in its randomness. By throwing bombs into train stations and theaters, it demonstrates that everyone is equally subject to violent death, whether they lived an upright and moral life, or whether they are a homeless beggar. Ultimately, according to Bakunin, there is no value in taking the high road, abiding by the restrictions of society, and respecting the authorities because these things will not assure you of a good life or safety from anarchist attacks.

While there was nothing one could do to ensure one’s safety, there was certainly something that would assuredly lead to a swift death, and that was openly opposing Bakunin’s anarchists. Random bombings must be paired with the tactic of targeted assassinations of police leadership and politicians in order to intimidate those who might step up and protect society from anarchist violence. While the bombings illustrated the principle that ordinary people could not make themselves safe by cooperating with the government, the assassinations proved that nobody was beyond the power of the anarchist movement and open opposition to the anarchists would be repaid with a bullet or a car bomb. In this way, according to Bakunin, society could be cleanly decapitated of its leadership and the people left huddling in fear, afraid to engage and therefore stripping the government of their collective support, preparing the way for the Revolution.

The anarchist movement was defeated throughout the West by the actions of law enforcement and nascent national security agencies, but their tactics did not die. Islamic terrorism is inspired by Bakunin’s work. More importantly, however, Bakunin passed into the modern radical Left through the Frankfurt School, undergoing the same social transformation that turned Orthodox Marxism into so-called ‘Cultural Marxism.’ The latest manifestation of Bakuninist terrorism in American politics has been the #MeToo movement, which takes Bakunin’s basic approach and transforms its symbols into the culture war manifestations most famously described by Herbert Marcuse.

Anarchism changes from an attempt to destroy the institutions of government to one which attempts to destroy the principles of moral and social life. At its root has always been egalitarianism: the belief that every person was created equal, and therefore any authority of one person over another must be illegitimate. By changing the terrain of battle, this equality is now centered on social life. A moral person must be made equal to an immoral person, regardless of the real-world consequences of their actions. A person who made good choices in life must be made equal to one who made bad choices. If people are equal, then their choices must therefore also be equal, else one person has demonstrated an intolerable superiority by prospering while others failed. The success of the moderate, courageous, prudent, and just man is a stinging affront to the equality of the immoderate, cowardly, imprudent, and unjust person. Therefore, by transvaluing the principles of Western society, the cultural anarchist enforces equality between the moral and immoral person, bringing to life Bakunin’s famous quote that there is no sin except the belief in sin.

If the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings have demonstrated nothing else, it displayed the fact that living a clean life, following the rules, and acting in good faith will not protect a person from having their life destroyed on the basis of a baseless accusation. The tragedy of these hearings is that very few people have lived a life as morally faultless and personally honest as Kavanaugh. He has no string of mistresses, no history of crooked business dealings, and no vengeful ex-wives in his closet. Nonetheless, a lifetime of good behavior is worth nothing when he became the subject of a virulent politicized attack.

With President Donald Trump, it was expected that scurrilous claims about his sexual life would be a common occurrence throughout his term of office. Donald Trump lived a life embracing the pleasures available to a person of wealth and power. What is shocking and abhorrent about the Kavanaugh hearings is that the Judge is perhaps the closest thing one might find to an anti-Trump short of a monastery, and the Cathedral got away with treating him exactly the same way they treat Trump. If they can destroy Judge Kavanaugh, they can destroy anyone. Being MGTOW or volcel is no protection against the destructive power of modern feminism, as facts no longer have any relevance to the destruction of a man’s life. Indeed, rape is now a crime that is beyond the realm of facts, as #MeToo proudly proclaims that belief in the accuser is the fundamental test for determining guilt or innocence.

This, indeed, is the entire point of the #MeToo Movement. By embracing cultural anarchism, by throwing cultural bombs in crowded places and assassinating anyone who dares speak out against them, #MeToo manages to replicate the tactics of Bakunin’s terrorists transferred onto the new symbolic terrain of the culture wars.

In the battle to transvalue Western morals, there are few tools as powerfully destructive as the [im]moral terrorism of politicized rape allegations. It can now be said, with reasonable certainly, that there is no earthly reason to live a moral life, to respect women, or to deal with honesty with others, as such a person will be treated the same as if they had done all the opposite. Leftism has done the impossible: they made Thrasymachus’s argument the stronger, and Socrates’s the weaker. It is best to actually be perfectly unjust while appearing to be perfectly just. Thus, this state of moral anarchy paves the way for the Revolution to come.

What can be concluded from this analysis? Certainly, there can be no doubt that changing the American system from the inside is impossible. No amount of voting will prove capable of effecting change to the paradigm of American politics so long as anyone who threatens the status quo will have their life destroyed on the basis of false rape accusations. Nobody is going to stand up for a sex offender; so as long as everyone is subject to accusations of sex crimes at any moment regardless of their actual guilt or innocence, the Left has the ultimate weapon to strike down any reformer capable of saving the American system.

Secondly, it must be recognized that the ability to unperson an individual in this way is a projection of power. The Cathedral is playing power politics and questions of right, law, or ideology are irrelevant. As mentioned in a previous essay, deploying ideas against power is as absurd as arguing Just War Theory against a man with a rifle. So long as the victims of these allegations lack the ability to punch back twice as hard, there is nothing which can compel the Establishment to desist from these kinds of tactics. Power can only be checked by power, as Madison argued in the Federalist, therefore one can expect that these tactics will only amplify and escalate until someone appears who can apply disproportionate power against them.

Open resistance against the Cathedral’s power at this point is futile. This is why passivism remains the superior alternative in today’s world. Rather than putting oneself out there and running for office to become the next sex offender smeared or jailed over a fabricated story, now is the time to become worthy, to gather resources, become self-sufficient, and prepare communities of like-minded individuals who will protect each other from the assaults of the cultural anarchist regime. Like in the days of Red Terrorism, random bombs will still go off in train stations and theaters. Liars can be found in every Human Resources department in America. By living within intentional communities, however, we can rebuild a society where Thrasymachus is wrong and Socrates is right, where it is worthwhile to do the right thing, to respect authority, and to live faultless lives. Find your Mannerbund. Become Worthy. Rule.

The Rise Of Cultural Anarchism

Theres also spite/contempt as a motivator. They dont want to build, already having everything they want or content that Theirs is progressing along. However they can't stand that you exist and have your own things outside of theirs, and out of pure hatred for you want to destroy Yours. Building wouldnt let them indulge that desire to inflict pain on their enemies, to make them know they are subjugated.

I'm planning on doing a podcast eventually and it will focus around these topics.

You're onto something crucial that few people seem to understand.

Thank you for this post. It's absolutely correct and something everybody needs to spend more time thinking about.

In the end the war is not between "our" side and "their" side, but between people who want to build, and people who want to destroy.

Look at the meta-war - the series of -gates, politics, religion, etc - and you'll see the same thing every time. Sometimes "anti-sjws" are the ones destroying. Some folks on "our side" I find dangerous and I stay away from.

The battle between good and evil isn't between gamers and feminists (Christina Hoff Summers has been on our side) or any other order vs chaos, it's between construction and destruction.

We see this in the co-opting of already established and often respected franchises in media, in order to attempt to use the fanbase as a conduit to preach their progressivism. How many existing franchises have been touched by wokeness by this point? I can't even count them all.

I think the world would be a better place if we all tried to do the most amount of good for the greatest amount of people

Just on the Daryl Davis point there: specifically he asks them “how can you hate me when you don’t even know me?”, not “why do you hate me because I’m black?”

Which is PERFECT. It’s important to frame the question that way, because it throws away the groups and just makes it about individuals. Hate groups operate on “us and them”, and you break their power when you switch the conflict to “you and me”.

Creating is always harder than destroying, and these people have shown themselves to be nothing if not entitled and lazy.

Case in point, how after the "white male Patriarchy" is smashed, free stuff will just rain from the sky or something.

Purely anecdotal evidence that I believe is related to what you are saying. Like many others, I hate how Game of Thrones(the show) ended. I'd invested a good amount of my personal(precious) time into the show and felt cheated by the shoddy writing, etc. It stuck with me for several days and weeks afterwards and I bitched about it, loudly, to any friends or acquaintances willing to listen. I was then introduced to r/freefolk, a subreddit filled with like-minded individuals with a penchant for buggery memery. I felt, and still feel, that there really isn't anything constructive to do with my anger/feelings of betrayal, and so, I enjoy the tearing down of the goofs in charge of the show, and the show itself. It feels good to tear it down, and to an extent, I get why the folks on twitter and others continue to do so, but...actually, I'm not sure where I'm going with this.

tl;dr I understand the need to express your anger/disappointment/betrayal/etc but having an outlet that doesn't endanger a person's well-being(emotional, physical, professional) is important and necessary.

You're saying the charge is led by pathetic losers, with no skills or talents?

Imagine my shock

Exactly. I feel like what we are seeing is the vast display of beta traits. Betas choose to destroy people instead of competing.

This is pretty much the cornerstone of Atlas Shrugged. I'm not recommending Rand but she had a good eye for describing the symptoms, not least because she'd seen it all before when it really mattered.

On the other hand, most on Twitter would have you believe the only option for dealing with racists is punching them in the face.

Yeah, I press "X" to that pal, I very much doubt these bitch ass 1st world "progressives" will punch an actual fucking nazi, these twitter mobs types would probably shit themselves if they had to fight some motherfucker member of the aryan brotherhood or some shit like that.

She has credit for making games but not games that have mainstream appeal that she made herself.

She try to make the Chuck Tingle game on Kickstarter of course she can’t get that one off the ground or give any updates for that one.

But they do believe they're building something. How often do you hear things like "We're taking down this power structure and building a new, RADICAL something-or-other"?

While what you say may make sense, you have to first understand that the people you're talking about (ZQ et al) don't really subscribe to common sense and will always justify their actions with wordplay and semantics.

I would like to take a moment and point out that generally disagreeing with something, and/or criticizing something is not the same as cancel culture, despite what Twitter says.

You don't need to build something first to have a right to criticize. Saying you should change this art isn't the same as saying "this needs to be cancelled."