As a Westerner whose state is right next to the Amerikaners and consisting of very similar stock (albeit frontier-cowboy sorts), I found this talk very enjoyable. Many of these moments hit my ear much like Robert Frost's "The Mending Wall" poem where two worldviews clash. Though Frost is much more generous to the narrator, I find myself more and more relating to the maxim-enjoyer who deserves an articulate advocate too. I am glad Kahl was such an advocate.
There were a couple points in this that highlighted the difference of perspective that are worthwhile to note:
Elite (Im)moral License: Kahl asserts his irritation about the elites and their puppets being incredibly immoral, particularly sexually but otherwise treating others (namely his own) with an ignorant kind of contempt that we, in turn, scoff at in our own way. To this Bismarck asserted that elites - whom he defines largely by IQ and personality-potential - should be given more license to be promiscuous and exploratory and yet still accepted by their heartland peers due to how much more economically successful they can make them.
It was glazed over, but Kahl had an answer to this. Essentially, while we can acknowledge their faults, we quietly expect them not to embarrass our support of them by them flaunting their licentiousness in our faces. While we would prefer our leaders to be rulers in every sense of it, a best-example of ourselves that we would have ourselves modeled against and represented by, we handle their excesses by ignoring it publicly and trying to subtly correct them personally. To urbanites this would be pretty much useless in most cases since humans are plentiful and if one doesn't suit you, you can discard them and associate with others.
And why we are harsh with our leaders and their personal morality, we understand (im)morality to be infectious, especially from influential sorts. A crooked ruler will draw a crooked line. If promiscuity is deemed "wrong", then it applies to all of us - especially the elite, whom we don't often recognize very strongly as something different than us. Midwesterners and most Westerners have a very flat kind of social organization. We might feel nervous about talking to people sitting in high seats in a council hall, but we don't fall on our knees for God-Kings or even rightly believe they exist. We're those sorts of Greeks who refused to bow to Xerxes because we just don't bow to any man - especially foreigners, whom we view with our own brand of suspicion and contempt for their strange, grating ways.
Disposable People: Underlying much of the difference of perspective was this urbanite-vs-ruralite conception of the worth of relationships. As the narrator says to Tyler Durden, "You're the most interesting single-serving friend I've met." To which Tyler says, "I get it. Very clever. How's that working out for you?"
Here's a scope perspective: Omaha, Nebraska - a place Bismarck considered to be provincial, is gigantic by Kahl and our standards. Montana's largest city for instance is barely over 100k in population, and most of us consider its dwellers unpleasantly urbanite in their manners and conduct. We'd probably find the people of Omaha unpleasant from being TOO urbanized!
If you imagine living in towns regularly between 5k - 20k in population, or the urban bustle of a oh-so-huge 100k, you can easily imagine that the people you would encounter would be people you would encounter again, and again, and again whether you liked it or not as you went about your business. Each person has more impact on the levers that control your environment and life than those you'd encounter in a real modern city of hundreds of thousands or even millions of souls. We don't get one-serving friends here usually, and so many of the ways we deal with people-in-general likely stem from the necessities of the kinds of places we live.
This difference likely underlies what may seem like exaggerated social-reactions to the improprieties of individuals for diverge from the norm, the shunning and shaming and silence which constitute basically the only tools of social regulation we normally exercise to maintain the social order. Those who don't respond to the subtle regulation tricks we have, well, we don't really have a good answer to it and often get bullied around by such people until either they stop, go away, or are made to go away.
Working with "outsiders" generally comes with compromising to outsiders, which is irritating and undesirable in most cases. Bismarck even said at one point during his foray into Omaha that he was trying to control his impulse to come in and "shape up" those provincials, and had aspirations of basically coming to rule over these directionless little hobbits. We can sense that attitude a mile away, and suffer all the time from outsiders coming in and imposing their standards and demands on us.
Overall a very enjoyable discussion, and I believe more discussions like this will do much to hone in on where agreements and mutual assistance can come into play between divergent mindsets among our people.
>we quietly expect them not to embarrass our support of them by them flaunting their licentiousness in our faces
Fair enough on some level, I don't need to talk about my exploits when speaking to you or Kahl. But you also have to realize that
A) Among urban men this is sort of a socially healthy mannerbund bonding ritual (and is actually right wing coded these days--liberal men won't talk about their conquests bc it's unfeminist but "barstool conservative" type guys do all the time and are much trashier than me about it lol). It's not "flaunting", it's literally how we bond with other guys. My trainer is always trying to show me pictures of his Tinder hookups.
B) When people talk about coastal elite degeneracy I feel like heartlanders are too willing to lump Comet Pizza / trans / pride parade shit in with normal guys who simply date women with septum piercings and get laid occasionally. You can think what I'm doing is unproductive according to some trad worldview but these are already very experienced women who would just sleep with some other guy if not me. I am not corrupting / ruining anyone. Why can't normal guys be left alone?
C) One of my biggest social worries right now is that zoomer guys are too soft and unwilling to pursue women with gusto, so I am trying to talk in a way that normalizes chasing girls and banishes sex negativity in the minds of young men. Men being unwilling to chase (or even go outside!) is clearly a much larger social problem than promiscuity.
A) Sexual exploits is a bit of a messy example since it is a point of pride for people. Better to say the "licentiousness" in unsavory things like gambling, drug addiction, domestic violence, or even just being foul-mouthed.
Here's a good dissection: You may recall "Lets Go Brandon" being a thing delighted normies would chant, secretly knowing they were saying "Fuck Joe Biden". The social reason why swaths of these sorts will enjoy saying that is because they can scream it from the rooftops without risking their sense of social decorum while still letting everyone know how much they loathe Biden's administration and its cultural poisoners. Many of these same people would cringe and be embarrassed to say the actual meaning in public in a sort of moral panic, but get a giddy delight saying the "secret code" of it because it saves face and decorum.
Another recent example was how Judd Blevins in Oklahoma was challenged by the cancellation-squads from his meager political seat. Notably the people who were supportive of Blevins, local churches etc, were granted enough "cover" to support him by his refusal to confess his "sins" to the blue-hairs. This allowed the church members enough plausible deniability to safely notch their support for him in which any social backlash of, "How could you support that NAZI!?" would be responded with, "He never said he was, and I think he's fine." They need that kind of cover in order to not scatter and capitulate out of a sense of being in some kind of morally-compromised state otherwise.
I think that sense is more widespread than just midwesterners, but it's psychologically saliant to consider: If a guy flaunts his "sinful nature" or even confesses to it as a sin, it makes it hard for those who might otherwise want to support him to do so for fear that their support will be seen as support for such behavior. The alternative is just provide enough positive reason for people to support them, and they will rationalize themselves past the inhibition - but only if the social pressure and personal contradiction is overcome by the strength of that positive sense. It's best to improve both sides of it at once by not forcing things they don't like into the fore.
B) A very real phenomena with transplants from these coastal urban centers, especially California, is that they will come in because they love the place, and then immediately begin to try to change it to reflect their sensibilities - the same sort of sensibilities that ruined their previous home. What's the common refrain? "Oh this place is so nice - low crime, clean streets, friendly people. It's just... ugh, I mean, it's just so WHITE. We need more diversity!"
Even those who would be considered hard conservative-sorts in their urban spawning grounds come here and are, by our standards, infested with liberal sentiments and desires. And instead of approaching their hosts with a mind to learn and ears to listen, they insist on busy-bodying their way into making changes themselves. It doesn't help that the personality differences in politeness cause interpersonal problems before even the politics arise.
I suppose it is hard to adopt a "When in Rome" attitude when one believes THEY are from Rome themselves!
C) Sure, sexual dysfunction of guys checking out and being too scared / disinterested from trying to pursue women at all is awful. Still, the attitude about sex as being a casual kind of passtime rather than the life-affirming, long-term relationship-making, and life-giving delight it is presents a major problem too.
The statistics are pretty clear on the matter that men are resilient to having lots of sexual partners, but women are devastated by it. It's always been, and always will be, that there will be horny men and women out there that will have promiscuous sexual patterns. Oh well. But there's a gulf of difference between saying that's there and that it is mildly undesirable as a social norm and saying that one should encourage crushing as much pussy as possible for personal affirmation.
That may be one of the different considerations too of note: Midwesterners often entwine closer to broader society-wide considerations in their moral reasoning, even if they can't rightly articulate it. The man rebuilding the wall in The Mending Wall just keeps saying, "Good fences make good neighbors," in a sort of personally-blind way. It doesn't really matter that, individually, their enterprises didn't conflict and there presumably was no reason to maintain that ancient wall. But the rebuilder continues doing it not out of any complex reasoning, but simply that his society has always done this. The saying his father told him makes enough sense to him in that societal-thinking way, and therefore he will play his part in a sort of low-introspective fashion. Like a faith automation that preserves his limited attentions and powers of discernment for tasks he's more interested / suited in than societal philosophy.
It's undoubtedly frustrating to someone who comes at life from a far more individually-focused perspective as well as from an introspective one. You can search your own mind and experiences and come up with no reasons why others should reject pussy-pounding parades. Because you find life to be a thing where you, individually, strive ahead and carve out what you can from its fabric yourself, the tranquil minds of these wall-menders building barriers in your way just seem irritating and nonsensical. And it would be, when viewed from that individual level. But our limited intellect and experience might make us not realize the possible implications of going against a social norm for which those walls were built in the first place, social institutions that had their repair encoded into the social conscience in such a way that even thoughtless sorts could and would replicate the maintenance behavior.
But my conception of a good American society is a walled garden, whose high stone walls have plenty of little nooks and holes for the enterprising and freedom-loving to wriggle out of and explore the horizons, but which keeps the rest safe from the chaos of the wilderness and the burdens of actual personal liberty. I neither want the truly liberated to be trapped in a stultifying nursery, nor do I want the nursery led astray by licentious impulses mistaken for freedom. And for our race at least, we need to accommodate both modes of being in order to reach our fullest potential as a people.
I pretty much never agree with Walt's ideas but Gordon is putting the cart before the horse; it's impossible to have any sort of anti-woke activism which wouldn't be instantly shut down, by the bugshevik system. That's why I encourage quasi-secret societies as the only route to fight this struggle, here's my post explaining it: https://theuniversalrecusant.substack.com/p/rightist-secret-societies-and-the
I disagree strongly in regards to Jews. To just assume they can assimilate and will be pro European, when history, including the subversive nature of Christianity, shows the complete opposite. This also tends to get even more ridiculous when certain orbiters, of particular influencers (not you) start to claim that Jews or atleast Ashkenazis are "white" but Iberians, Italians, Greeks, Balkaners etc. aren't. I think as a general rule, there is overwhelming evidence that they will always work against the interest of our civilization and promoting toxic destructive ideas.
As a Westerner whose state is right next to the Amerikaners and consisting of very similar stock (albeit frontier-cowboy sorts), I found this talk very enjoyable. Many of these moments hit my ear much like Robert Frost's "The Mending Wall" poem where two worldviews clash. Though Frost is much more generous to the narrator, I find myself more and more relating to the maxim-enjoyer who deserves an articulate advocate too. I am glad Kahl was such an advocate.
There were a couple points in this that highlighted the difference of perspective that are worthwhile to note:
Elite (Im)moral License: Kahl asserts his irritation about the elites and their puppets being incredibly immoral, particularly sexually but otherwise treating others (namely his own) with an ignorant kind of contempt that we, in turn, scoff at in our own way. To this Bismarck asserted that elites - whom he defines largely by IQ and personality-potential - should be given more license to be promiscuous and exploratory and yet still accepted by their heartland peers due to how much more economically successful they can make them.
It was glazed over, but Kahl had an answer to this. Essentially, while we can acknowledge their faults, we quietly expect them not to embarrass our support of them by them flaunting their licentiousness in our faces. While we would prefer our leaders to be rulers in every sense of it, a best-example of ourselves that we would have ourselves modeled against and represented by, we handle their excesses by ignoring it publicly and trying to subtly correct them personally. To urbanites this would be pretty much useless in most cases since humans are plentiful and if one doesn't suit you, you can discard them and associate with others.
And why we are harsh with our leaders and their personal morality, we understand (im)morality to be infectious, especially from influential sorts. A crooked ruler will draw a crooked line. If promiscuity is deemed "wrong", then it applies to all of us - especially the elite, whom we don't often recognize very strongly as something different than us. Midwesterners and most Westerners have a very flat kind of social organization. We might feel nervous about talking to people sitting in high seats in a council hall, but we don't fall on our knees for God-Kings or even rightly believe they exist. We're those sorts of Greeks who refused to bow to Xerxes because we just don't bow to any man - especially foreigners, whom we view with our own brand of suspicion and contempt for their strange, grating ways.
Disposable People: Underlying much of the difference of perspective was this urbanite-vs-ruralite conception of the worth of relationships. As the narrator says to Tyler Durden, "You're the most interesting single-serving friend I've met." To which Tyler says, "I get it. Very clever. How's that working out for you?"
Here's a scope perspective: Omaha, Nebraska - a place Bismarck considered to be provincial, is gigantic by Kahl and our standards. Montana's largest city for instance is barely over 100k in population, and most of us consider its dwellers unpleasantly urbanite in their manners and conduct. We'd probably find the people of Omaha unpleasant from being TOO urbanized!
If you imagine living in towns regularly between 5k - 20k in population, or the urban bustle of a oh-so-huge 100k, you can easily imagine that the people you would encounter would be people you would encounter again, and again, and again whether you liked it or not as you went about your business. Each person has more impact on the levers that control your environment and life than those you'd encounter in a real modern city of hundreds of thousands or even millions of souls. We don't get one-serving friends here usually, and so many of the ways we deal with people-in-general likely stem from the necessities of the kinds of places we live.
This difference likely underlies what may seem like exaggerated social-reactions to the improprieties of individuals for diverge from the norm, the shunning and shaming and silence which constitute basically the only tools of social regulation we normally exercise to maintain the social order. Those who don't respond to the subtle regulation tricks we have, well, we don't really have a good answer to it and often get bullied around by such people until either they stop, go away, or are made to go away.
Working with "outsiders" generally comes with compromising to outsiders, which is irritating and undesirable in most cases. Bismarck even said at one point during his foray into Omaha that he was trying to control his impulse to come in and "shape up" those provincials, and had aspirations of basically coming to rule over these directionless little hobbits. We can sense that attitude a mile away, and suffer all the time from outsiders coming in and imposing their standards and demands on us.
Overall a very enjoyable discussion, and I believe more discussions like this will do much to hone in on where agreements and mutual assistance can come into play between divergent mindsets among our people.
Interesting comment! Wanted to focus in on this:
>we quietly expect them not to embarrass our support of them by them flaunting their licentiousness in our faces
Fair enough on some level, I don't need to talk about my exploits when speaking to you or Kahl. But you also have to realize that
A) Among urban men this is sort of a socially healthy mannerbund bonding ritual (and is actually right wing coded these days--liberal men won't talk about their conquests bc it's unfeminist but "barstool conservative" type guys do all the time and are much trashier than me about it lol). It's not "flaunting", it's literally how we bond with other guys. My trainer is always trying to show me pictures of his Tinder hookups.
B) When people talk about coastal elite degeneracy I feel like heartlanders are too willing to lump Comet Pizza / trans / pride parade shit in with normal guys who simply date women with septum piercings and get laid occasionally. You can think what I'm doing is unproductive according to some trad worldview but these are already very experienced women who would just sleep with some other guy if not me. I am not corrupting / ruining anyone. Why can't normal guys be left alone?
C) One of my biggest social worries right now is that zoomer guys are too soft and unwilling to pursue women with gusto, so I am trying to talk in a way that normalizes chasing girls and banishes sex negativity in the minds of young men. Men being unwilling to chase (or even go outside!) is clearly a much larger social problem than promiscuity.
A) Sexual exploits is a bit of a messy example since it is a point of pride for people. Better to say the "licentiousness" in unsavory things like gambling, drug addiction, domestic violence, or even just being foul-mouthed.
Here's a good dissection: You may recall "Lets Go Brandon" being a thing delighted normies would chant, secretly knowing they were saying "Fuck Joe Biden". The social reason why swaths of these sorts will enjoy saying that is because they can scream it from the rooftops without risking their sense of social decorum while still letting everyone know how much they loathe Biden's administration and its cultural poisoners. Many of these same people would cringe and be embarrassed to say the actual meaning in public in a sort of moral panic, but get a giddy delight saying the "secret code" of it because it saves face and decorum.
Another recent example was how Judd Blevins in Oklahoma was challenged by the cancellation-squads from his meager political seat. Notably the people who were supportive of Blevins, local churches etc, were granted enough "cover" to support him by his refusal to confess his "sins" to the blue-hairs. This allowed the church members enough plausible deniability to safely notch their support for him in which any social backlash of, "How could you support that NAZI!?" would be responded with, "He never said he was, and I think he's fine." They need that kind of cover in order to not scatter and capitulate out of a sense of being in some kind of morally-compromised state otherwise.
I think that sense is more widespread than just midwesterners, but it's psychologically saliant to consider: If a guy flaunts his "sinful nature" or even confesses to it as a sin, it makes it hard for those who might otherwise want to support him to do so for fear that their support will be seen as support for such behavior. The alternative is just provide enough positive reason for people to support them, and they will rationalize themselves past the inhibition - but only if the social pressure and personal contradiction is overcome by the strength of that positive sense. It's best to improve both sides of it at once by not forcing things they don't like into the fore.
B) A very real phenomena with transplants from these coastal urban centers, especially California, is that they will come in because they love the place, and then immediately begin to try to change it to reflect their sensibilities - the same sort of sensibilities that ruined their previous home. What's the common refrain? "Oh this place is so nice - low crime, clean streets, friendly people. It's just... ugh, I mean, it's just so WHITE. We need more diversity!"
Even those who would be considered hard conservative-sorts in their urban spawning grounds come here and are, by our standards, infested with liberal sentiments and desires. And instead of approaching their hosts with a mind to learn and ears to listen, they insist on busy-bodying their way into making changes themselves. It doesn't help that the personality differences in politeness cause interpersonal problems before even the politics arise.
I suppose it is hard to adopt a "When in Rome" attitude when one believes THEY are from Rome themselves!
C) Sure, sexual dysfunction of guys checking out and being too scared / disinterested from trying to pursue women at all is awful. Still, the attitude about sex as being a casual kind of passtime rather than the life-affirming, long-term relationship-making, and life-giving delight it is presents a major problem too.
The statistics are pretty clear on the matter that men are resilient to having lots of sexual partners, but women are devastated by it. It's always been, and always will be, that there will be horny men and women out there that will have promiscuous sexual patterns. Oh well. But there's a gulf of difference between saying that's there and that it is mildly undesirable as a social norm and saying that one should encourage crushing as much pussy as possible for personal affirmation.
That may be one of the different considerations too of note: Midwesterners often entwine closer to broader society-wide considerations in their moral reasoning, even if they can't rightly articulate it. The man rebuilding the wall in The Mending Wall just keeps saying, "Good fences make good neighbors," in a sort of personally-blind way. It doesn't really matter that, individually, their enterprises didn't conflict and there presumably was no reason to maintain that ancient wall. But the rebuilder continues doing it not out of any complex reasoning, but simply that his society has always done this. The saying his father told him makes enough sense to him in that societal-thinking way, and therefore he will play his part in a sort of low-introspective fashion. Like a faith automation that preserves his limited attentions and powers of discernment for tasks he's more interested / suited in than societal philosophy.
It's undoubtedly frustrating to someone who comes at life from a far more individually-focused perspective as well as from an introspective one. You can search your own mind and experiences and come up with no reasons why others should reject pussy-pounding parades. Because you find life to be a thing where you, individually, strive ahead and carve out what you can from its fabric yourself, the tranquil minds of these wall-menders building barriers in your way just seem irritating and nonsensical. And it would be, when viewed from that individual level. But our limited intellect and experience might make us not realize the possible implications of going against a social norm for which those walls were built in the first place, social institutions that had their repair encoded into the social conscience in such a way that even thoughtless sorts could and would replicate the maintenance behavior.
But my conception of a good American society is a walled garden, whose high stone walls have plenty of little nooks and holes for the enterprising and freedom-loving to wriggle out of and explore the horizons, but which keeps the rest safe from the chaos of the wilderness and the burdens of actual personal liberty. I neither want the truly liberated to be trapped in a stultifying nursery, nor do I want the nursery led astray by licentious impulses mistaken for freedom. And for our race at least, we need to accommodate both modes of being in order to reach our fullest potential as a people.
Why can’t guys just be left alone? Because we live in a society and for it to work we need standards.
I pretty much never agree with Walt's ideas but Gordon is putting the cart before the horse; it's impossible to have any sort of anti-woke activism which wouldn't be instantly shut down, by the bugshevik system. That's why I encourage quasi-secret societies as the only route to fight this struggle, here's my post explaining it: https://theuniversalrecusant.substack.com/p/rightist-secret-societies-and-the
I disagree strongly in regards to Jews. To just assume they can assimilate and will be pro European, when history, including the subversive nature of Christianity, shows the complete opposite. This also tends to get even more ridiculous when certain orbiters, of particular influencers (not you) start to claim that Jews or atleast Ashkenazis are "white" but Iberians, Italians, Greeks, Balkaners etc. aren't. I think as a general rule, there is overwhelming evidence that they will always work against the interest of our civilization and promoting toxic destructive ideas.
I forgot, to add, as always, I could be wrong.
I appreciate your work.