hypocrisy and a moral society

_{Note: in this blog post I use “Right” and “Left” here to mean pro- and anti-white, pro- and anti-European civilisation, pro- and anti- healthy societal norms; I tried to come up with better terms but felt that in 2026 the two map fairly well onto the broader concepts. But obviously, Ben Shapiro doesn’t fit into this definition of “Right-wing”, and I doubt some 1930s Welsh miner would have fit into this definition of “Left-wing”.}

Even before I had any real political opinions I held Tolkien in high esteem, most likely because my character was already broadly Right-wing (preference for old buildings, the countryside, lack of trust in human nature). By contrast, I watched but didn’t particularly care for Star Trek, as I had no interest in technology or the future. A sword is obviously better than zhoop zhoop phasers that don’t even look like weapons, stalking through graveyards dressed like a Black Metal guitarist

is obviously better than creeping about schools in Star Trek paedogarb, and so on. The future is gay. Now about 40 years since I read The Hobbit, it’s interesting to see that Tolkien is popular among the Right, and Star Trek among the Left and paedophiles: we on the Right tend to envisage the past as the Shire, a kind of jolly ale-quaffing paradise of rolling hills & muttonchop-whiskered farmers; photos I took from near my hometown in 2015:

while for Leftists everything before their birth was as dark as a Ridley Scott film: a miserable existence, with mud-encrusted peasants oppressed & routinely slaughtered by snickering priests and syphilitic nobles. For the Leftist, all the old moral values were just a means of controlling the rabble: every marriage was unhappy, every Christian a hypocrite, and the more people talked of decency, virtue, goodness, the worse they actually were.

It’s true that Victorian London or Vienna were two-faced cities, on the surface all strict decorum & Christian virtue, perversely complemented with what tourist guides might call a thriving underground scene (of prostitution). The Leftist would argue that all our pasts were such — that no one was ever truly moral, because all morality was just a ruse to gull the proles. Joyce’s Dubliners stories would thus be taken as wholly representative accounts of life in a religious society: tales of squalid lust, stinking hypocrisy, all the vice & Irish depravity you could want.

Leftists are peculiarly reluctant to credit tales of non-Communist virtue, I think because they themselves are inveterate hypocrites & liars; many of us regular human beings have had the experience of chatting with Leftists, zir is burbling happily away about fairness and kindness and peace and love and tolerance and respect and humanity, then suddenly reveals a savage glee in Ann Widdecombe’s murder, or priests being tortured to death in the Spanish Civil War; or zir says we have to house infinity Bomalians, at first because they are poor stray puppies fleeing persecution and then So what if they rape and murder us, we deserve it for colonialism, the whole white race should be raped and murdered, that’s why we need open borders, to end the white race, which doesn’t even exist, by the way, diversity is our strength, I love a good curry and kebab, even better if a working class white girl was fed into the meat grinder and I’m now eating chunks of her flesh, I love a good balti, me. No wonder that Leftists assume any tale of virtue is a lie, for their whole identity is founded on lies and hypocrisy.

If the people of the lie are to be trounced & pelted with rotting turnips as they merit, if we are to avoid or even slow our terminal decline, we must restore much that was lost. Fortunately, a lot survives in living memory. I could imagine, for example, the bloated universities being reduced to their 1960s numbers, and the curricula and methodology restored from memory by elderly dons (in tweed); or retired coppers being brought back to restore the police force. But we also need to have some faith in the idea of the past — that people were genuinely more moral, that it wasn’t all just a wicked Capitalist lie.

Just from this life, my own sense is that people were generally better in the 80s and 90s than today. I say generally because there are things I definitely don’t miss, e.g. casual street violence; this seems now the work of our recent vibrant arrivals, where in the 80s it was more a habit of the white working class (and even so, I’d take 1986 England in a heartbeat over 2026 Yookay). Regardless, in the 80s and even 90s there was more of a sense that morality was real, that there was a standard above mercantile self-interest. Up until the late 90s most people seemed to have some residual belief in the Christian God; it might only come out in moments of crisis, but we grew up in a still somewhat religious atmosphere, and perhaps as young people today vaguely believe in climate change, so we half-believed in the Christian God, and Christian morality. I say this as a polytheist, a “neo-pagan” who is sympathetic to Christianity.

If there is to be a real standard, most people will be inadequate; but that does not invalidate the standard, it merely highlights human frailty. The dissident Right is full of childless men calling for white fertility & stable families, decrying degeneracy, etc. I won’t go into details, except to say that if you uphold a high standard you will probably fall short; and there are some, e.g. The Golden One, who seem to live that which they preach.

We should see societal morality as a spectrum, ranging from the minor & almost inevitable falling-short, to rampant & despicable hypocrisy. When I lived in an old Benedictine monastery, I was kind of relieved to find the monks human, all-too human: at least two were clearly veteran drinkers (I used to exchange knowing glances with one, when we were both in our cups), most were obviously homosexual, and the usual human pettiness abounded. This need not invalidate their religion or way of life, it merely provided a very human context.

Our reality will bear no absolute impress; we should not expect absolute compliance, for we are not robots. As an anonymous Zen master said, Smack the Robot, if you meet it on the road. The point of the moral standard is to drag things in a better direction; that e.g. a man will be less likely to steal or whore about, more likely to tell the truth. He will not be perfect, he will often fall from the standard, but he will be better, even if only a little. On the individual level this may seem very minor; but on a societal level such mass-distributed, tiny nudges can yield large effects. There is a huge difference between a society where e.g. putting small boys in drag is not merely acceptable but lauded, and a society where any degeneracy was rigorously excluded from the public sphere. What is public is normative, it is taken as the standard. In our society, the norm is a step away from open paedophilia.

We should not therefore be too quick to suppose our ancestors were pusillanimous and self-interested, or that tales of virtue are mere fables, or that people have always been the same. A moral order may seem absurd, it may rankle, it may birth vast hypocrisies, but it may simultaneously keep an entire society from the abyss.