Red pillers draw a lot of flak from modern fem-centric societies. And one of the common brickbats pounded on a red piller is that: red pillers are judgmental, racist, narcissistic misogynists.
The demand for refraining from judgment is commonplace today. It’s even elevated to a cardinal virtue, one of the few still remaining. As Aristotle said:
Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.
These things now feature centrally in today’s political rhetoric. This stifles debate, and demands us not to notice things that are bad for society, or especially do anything about them.
Social laxity encouraged misbehaving and extreme individualism. As psychologist Theodore Dalrymple showed, the commitment not to judge the others amounted to a refusal to learn from experience and had caused criminal cases of neglect.
Indeed, the turning of a blind eye to crime and criminal character have allowed criminals to kill and rape freely. Most cases could have been easily prevented if only authorities were allowed to do their job and if common sense could prevail without constant leftist interference.
Yet, and although the lack of judgment is a real problem, it is only a side of the wider trend. Leftists do judge a lot. They had no problem slipping from the purported nonjudgmental hippie attitude of the 60s to a harshly coercive behavior.
“Don’t be racist!”
“Don’t be right-wing!”
“Follow the fashion!”
“You’re privileged! Accept everything the professional ‘minority’ groups will throw at you and shut up!”
Behind the hysteria that reeks on “f***ing white males!” is a very judgmental will to enforce a hostile notion of “social justice.” SJWs are willing to judge and shame people. They only feel bad—not remorseful—when they see their tactics fail. The very ones who protest fat shaming have no problem expressing grim judgments against those they label “fascists” or anything like that.
Here I would like to clear a bit of the general mess the nonjudgmental commitment has contributed to create through a kind of philosophical approach.
The Basic Issues
Philosophy, or at least one manner to do it, consists in formalizing and abstracting general issues. Particular cases always imply a variety of factors and make it easy to remain trapped inside an all too subjective point of view. When a question is considered abstractly and through concepts, and when particular cases are used as examples instead of being at the center, it becomes much easier to ask it seriously and consider possible answers.
In the case of judgment, I would say the questions are:
- What is judged, both positively and negatively?
- Who judges who?
- Is it possible not to judge?
- If it is, is it good or better not to?
The last question is the most composed of all and consequently comes after them in the logical order. It also seems the most common-sensical as it is closer to practice: if I judge that expired food ought not to be consumed, judgment is obviously useful as to protect me from health-threatening consequences.
On the other hand, it could be argued that if I go beyond the judgment, without rejecting it altogether, I could consume expired food in order to experiment its effects, so to see if they are really deleterious, mildly uncomfortable or absolutely negligible.
When expanded to the social sphere, judgment can have a conservative or a “progressive” function, no matter the exact nature of what is to conserve or promote. Edmund Burke urged the philosophers to be respectful of popular wisdom, even if they failed to grasp its reasonableness or its legitimacy in judging. (((Jonah Goldberg))) was hiding behind a Burkean mask when he argued that “character-forming institutions [should] softly coerce (persuade) kids—and remind adults—to revere our open, free, and tolerant culture over others.”
Of course, the same “judgmentalism” one can find in popular wisdom can also be used by social engineers or interest groups to tweak what is usually considered common sense, and what Goldberg upholds as a worthy cultural identity seems more like the absence of actual identity. In all cases shame can be understood as a tool with a particular social use.
Embroiled with the aforementioned issues is a related one: accountability. Can one be at least nominally held responsible for one’s actions or condition, and if so, should one be? Depending on the answer to this question comes the ability to shame or not.
Leftists make a spurious distinction between being a land whale and getting shamed for being a self-wasted blob. They also confuse their own categories with external reality as to engrave the former into the latter: when a libtard says “we have a right to make you feel like you’re a racist if you’re behaving like a racist”, this means “let us lock you down in our anti-white, anthropology-mutilating, reality-denying narrative, and submit to our categories and judgment, you worthless freethinker.”
If you accept the implicit affirmations and shaming behind their use of the r-word as legitimate, you open the way to be judged and shamed according to their narrative and value-judgments—no matter their actual truthfulness or utility. In contrast, if you answer something like “no, whites have a right to exist and YOU are responsible for shaming self-defence and self-preservation, you manipulative liberal”, you contest the validity of their judgment criterion.
A Social Mess
All this seems pretty straightforward as long as we consider concepts, sentences and simplistic situations. Philosophy allows to gain mastery over fundamental ideas and questions. Doing some allows one to become aware of his own implicit and not-that-obvious beliefs. Anyone who wishes to be decently knowledgeable about life-relevant issues should, I think, better read Aristotle’s Ethics than feed exclusively on personal improvement websites. Still, when you start applying philosophy to the real world, you can see how messy and chaotic it is—and here common sense does quickly what philosophy could tediously half-do.
The red pill per se entails an almost philosophical interrogation when one starts to notice how the “normal” is not normal at all and why it is so. As Plato and later Aristotle would say, philosophy begins with astonishment, when the seemingly normal or common world we live in shows us a strange inconsistency. Before we gathered on the Internet, many of us had red-pilling experiences. Our consciousness drifted from the narrative and we started to see through the taboos, untold rules and all the stuff that structures the narrative—and that normies want to keep taking for granted.
Perhaps the greatest power of all is the ability to impose one’s narrative upon the minds of others.
Without coercion, without violence, one epistemologically dominates others through the values and “facts” that they takes for granted. The greatest power is to determine what is “normal.”
Cultural struggle is thus one of the highest political struggles. (Source)
We contend with liberals to uphold different versions of normalcy. We know it is not normal in the absolute, non-relative or transient sense, that trannies and fags are celebrated, that criminals are constantly excused, that irresponsible sluts are constantly saved from the consequences of their own behavior, that death threats are celebrated if made by “minority” individuals against whites. The Current Year “normalcy” is a hopeless nightmare, an endless stream of unfairness and ugliness that drowns any trust left and is downright killing whites.
Julius Evola’s Riding the Tiger, making a similar diagnosis during the Freudo-Marxist onslaught of the 60s, advised his readers to withdraw towards their inner citadel. It is good to do so indeed, as long as the withdrawal is temporary and used to gain a critical edge—not when it becomes synonymous with backing down or autism. Just as philosophy existed on public forums before it was taken away by ivory tower academics, a fair, balanced consciousness should be a basis for recasting the mess rather than ignoring it.
The left worked hard to inject “racism” or “xenophobia” into the usual discourse and thinking. It did everything it could to steer people by barring normal ways of thinking. Likewise, we have to turn the mess on itself by deconstructing leftist categories of thought, exposing them or laughing them out, by trolling libtards and everything else.
Even then, what we are doing may seem messy from the analytical point of view of philosophy as well. The Alt-sphere has no rigid system of thought. We act rather through a sense of things and a willingness to make the normal normal again than from exceedingly formal principles. Thus it is hard to suggest ready-made answers to the aforementioned questions: these are more of a support of reflection than an absolute basis, and the answers may seem different from person to person. Diversity of ideas in the Alt-sphere may be our strength as long as internal disagreements remain on the sideways.
Are we more or less judgmental than leftists? The question, which may seem relevant when we criticize their purported commitment not to judge, is actually misplaced. For just as the left judges X more harshly than Y, or abstains altogether from judging Y or having a prejudice against Y, we do the same, albeit with different Xs and Ys.
I think I can rightly say that we want a healthy ability to judge fatties, social parasites of various kinds, welfare abusers, family-destroyers, criminals in general… just as we find unjustified the smearing of wealthy people qua wealthy, or against entrepreneurs, or against masculinity.
When white boomers laugh along with a (((Democrat))) because they find that their peers killing themselves is funny, they judge so to be normal and a laughing matter. We rightly find it scandalous and wish for more solidarity and respect. Everyone judges, all the time. Everyone has to—even considering the most trivial matters such as what possible path is better to go back home after work.
The Virtue of Fair Judgment
“Few people have the wisdom to prefer the criticism would do them good, to the praise that deceives them.”
– François de La Rochefoucald
As for today, it could be said that red-pilled people must gain the upper hand over shrieking society-destroyers and over the blue-pilled mass in general. In the longer term, traditional distinctions and roles will have to reassert themselves.
Not because of wanting for “supremacy”, as Leftist power cultists want to believe, but because this makes for an equilibrated, stable, healthy, goodness-rewarding world, and because, goddamit! our civilization was basically ours before little grey men aka JEWS started tearing it apart by turning social categories into hostile groups.
Those who took over had no particular right to do so: they only acted in a “might is right” fashion, albeit more subtly than through the open use of force. Manipulating norms and common sense is no more legitimate per se than hitting your neighbour because you judge his clothes ugly.
Short-term, a good judgment follows the red-pilled awareness, no matter who does it. Long-term, finer and more orderly distinctions will reassert themselves. Just be careful that neomasculinity does not get hijacked, for example, by thugs taking over in the name of their own notion of virility.
Knowing how to judge, when to express one’s judgment, how, what not to judge and to adapt one’s judgment to the particular circumstances one dwell in is a true virtue. It is an ability one hones day after day, occasion after occasion, for years—even decades.
One can be too harsh by, say, over-criticizing or overemphasizing petty details, just as one can be too complacent by ignoring important issues or by complaining about said issues while remaining lukewarm about their causes. I remember a baby-boomer who could ignore bullies—among children he was supposed to care about—but would make fusses about uncleaned breadcrumbs over the common table.
This kind of blatant misjudgment is painful to the child who senses how misplaced, unfair, and hypocritical it is. Fortunately, we are no more children and I know many millennials whose judgment seems much better to me than boomers’.
Aristotle was right about the Golden Mean, the Stoics were right about holding oneself to high standards, those who bestowed unconditional “rights” on whatever crafty crybully were wrong and most if not all the mainstream idols from last century were wrong. Does that sound judgmental? It is. Yet it is no more judgmental than your average SJW’s hamstering, and in contrast with that, it is (on the) right.
Everyone Judges – to Judge is Natural
You bet it is. Everyone judges – right from the cradle to the grave. Every moment, every second that a human being spends in this earthly existence, is spent in judging life. Every act you take is an act of judgment, even if it is as inconspicuous as breathing.You are judging my article as you’re reading now, and will judge again after you’ve finished reading it. We are in fact all judging to live, and living to judge.
But what is judgment? Judgment is nothing but evaluation or discernment of evidence to make a decision. We judge or evaluate life experiences, situations, things, opinions, thoughts, and people based on the values, emotions and logic we adhere to. Nature has blessed humans with the faculties of sense, speech, hearing, taste, touch and intuition. What purpose do these faculties have? To help us evaluate. In other words, judge.
Why do we Seek Knowledge and Education? To Make Better Decisions (Judgments) Which Lead to a Better Life.
Evaluation is as necessary as oxygen is necessary for life. Our entire lives are spent in evaluating life and what it shows us. Life is in many ways, a journey in evaluation. As long as you have a brain, you will think. And to think is a judgmental decision. Not to think is also a judgmental decision. To act is a judgmental act. Not to act is also a judgmental act.
The problem in the modern feminist societies is that people have become so thin-skinned that everyone wants to avoid being judged (in other words, evaluated). Which eventually breeds intellectual decadence, and usually moral too.
Asking someone not to judge is one of the most unnatural things you could ask.What you’re essentially asking the person to do is to act brain-dead and abandon their natural human faculties, which is itself unnatural as long as the person is alive.
Even if the judgmental types don’t judge you, it is because they’ve judged you unfit to handle their judgment or because they’ve judged not to judge you. Either way, you’re still judged even if you haven’t been technically judged. Criticism of the judgmental types by the non-judgmental types is itself an hypocritical act of ‘judgment’ by the ‘non-judging’. Essentially proving the point that everyone judges – whether you accept it or not.
The Hatetrix Reloaded
The social conditioning an average man receives from the Matrix of modern society (what I prefer to call “the Hatetrix” for its hatred of red pill and reality) to be non-judgmental, is often significantly overwhelming.
It is only when people judge themselves and surroundings critically that they notice the flaws which need to be changed for improvement. How can you assess without judging? How do non-judges assess when assessment is itself an act of judgment? I’ve always wondered that.
What we fail to realize is the faculty of evaluation is an inherent natural and often involuntary function of the human brain. Being non-judgmental is to be stupidly non-evaluative–which itself is unnatural, and in some cases, tyrannical when forcibly imposed on others.
Maintaining a non-judgmental attitude is what corrodes rational thinking and replaces it with a collectivist mentality in society, which eventually leads to intellectual droning. Non-judgmental types typically deny the harsh realities of life to live a life of illusions, finding it difficult to awaken to see the real world.
The COLD Nature of Judgment
Judgment is blind, and often harsh. It is blind to emotions, illusions, feelings and prejudices. It only seeks logic, reality and solid proof as its base. Judgment rarely makes everyone happy because everyone is unique with unique ideologies. There’d always be haters around us. Thus, we can’t avoid making people unhappy when we judge. But that shouldn’t discourage us from judging itself.
People fear being judged because they fear being evaluated. Judgment is indigestible for the weak hearted, the irrational and the emotional types which are found aplenty in the modern world. Emotion and irrationality often trumps reason in modern-day interactions, thus leading to solipsism in society.
Since emotionalism is essentially a female trait, women and feminized men typically find it difficult to accept judgment. There are innumerable examples in real-life and fiction throughout history to explain this, but the fictional analogy found in the Judgment of Paris – which led to the Trojan War in Homer’s Iliad – explains this well aesthetically. Paris’s judgment to award the golden apple to Aphrodite caused Hera and Athena to simmer in hatred and envy (an inability to accept judgment), after all the three had tried to win by resorting to bribe Paris. Hypothetically, it could be debated that the war could’ve been averted had Paris chosen any of the other two. But what must not be forgotten is that the apple which was the prize was thrown by Eris herself, to sow eventual discord – irrespective of whoever won it.