If you judge others?

There are a few weeks, a piece ROK emphasized that the social laxity has
encouraged bad behavior and extreme individualism. It related to
intelligent products psychologist, Theodore Dalrymple, who showed how the
commitment not to judge others amounted to a refusal to learn from the
experience and have caused criminal negligence cases.
Indeed, rotating a blind eye to crime and criminality have allowed
criminals to rape and kill freely & # 8212; For a two year old child killed
by his father dark triad Dalrymple mentions what happened in Rotherham.
These cases could have been easily avoided if only the authorities were
allowed to do their job and if common sense could prevail without constant
interference leftist.
However, although the lack of judgment is a real problem, it is only one
side of the larger trend. Many leftists judge. They had no problem sliding
the hippie attitude nonjudgmental alleged 60s to a severely coercive
behavior.
"Do not be racist! "
"Do not be right! "
"Follow fashion! "
"You are privileged! Accept whatever groups "minority" professional cast
you and shut up! "
Behind the hysteria that stinks "f *** ing white men! "Is a very judgment
will apply for a hostile notion of" social justice. " SJWs are willing to
judge people and shame. They do feel bad & # 8212; & # 8212 not full of
remorse, when they see their tactics fail. Even those who protest shaming
fat have no problem expressing dark judgments against those they
call "fascist" or something like that.
Here I would like to clarify some of the general disorder commitment has
helped create a nonjudgmental sort of philosophical approach.
Basic questions

The philosophy, or at least a way to do this is to formalize and abstract
general questions. Particular cases always involve a variety of factors and
it is easy to get stuck inside a subjective point of view too. When a
question is considered abstractly and concepts, and when specific cases are
used as examples rather than in the center, it becomes much easier to ask
seriously and consider possible responses.
In the case of judgment, I would say that the questions are:

What is deemed, both positively and negatively?
Who judge?
Is it possible not to judge?
In that case, is it good or better not?

The last question is the most complex of all and therefore comes after them
in logical order. It also seems most makes sense that it is closer to the
practice: if I judge that the expired food should not be consumed, the
judgment is obviously useful to protect me against the health consequences
in danger.
On the other hand, one could say that if I go beyond the judgment, without
rejecting it completely, I could eat expired food in order to experience
its effects, to see if they are really harmful, slightly uncomfortable or
quite negligible.
When extended to the social sphere, the judgment may be a conservative or
function "progressive", regardless of the exact nature of which is to
retain or promote. Edmund Burke urged philosophers to be respectful of the
wisdom, although they did not understand its reasonableness or legitimacy
to judge. (((Jonah Goldberg))) hiding behind a mask Burkean when he argued
that "the nature of training institutions [should] gently coerce (persuade)
children & # 8212; and remind adults and # 8212; to worship our open, free
and tolerant culture on the other ".
Of course, the same "judgmentalism" can be found in popular wisdom can also
be used by engineers or social interest groups to change what is generally
regarded as common sense, and that Goldberg defends a cultural identity
worthy looks more like the absence of real identity. In all cases the shame
can be understood as a tool with a social purpose.
Entangled problems mentioned above is related field: responsibility. Can we
at least nominally be held responsible for his actions or the state, and if
so, should we be? Depending on the answer to this question is the ability
of shame or not.
Leftists are misleading distinction between being a whale earth and is
ashamed to be a blob self wasted. They also confuse their own categories
with external reality to engrave first in the second: when a libtard
said, "we have the right to make you feel that you are a racist if you
behave like a racist," it means " let you lock in our anti-white,
mutilating anthropology, narrative reality denies, and submit to our
categories and judgment, freethinker without value ".
If you accept the implied assertions and shame behind their use of the word
r as legitimate, you open the way to be judged and humiliated by their
story and value judgments & # 8212; regardless of their truth or the real
utility. However, if you answer something like "no, whites have the right
to exist and you are responsible to shame in self-defense and
self-preservation, you liberal manipulative" challenge you validity of
their endpoint.
A social mess
"This is perfectly normal, and Muslims bombings are OK, but the far right
is intolerable! "
It all seems simple enough as long as we consider the concepts, phrases and
simplistic situations. Philosophy can acquire mastery over the fundamental
ideas and questions. Make raises awareness of its own implicit beliefs and
not that obvious. Anyone who wishes to be decently informed about relevant
life issues should, I think, better read Aristotle's ethics that feed
exclusively on self-improvement sites. But when you begin to apply the
philosophy in the real world, you can see how chaotic is & # 8212; and here
the common sense quickly that philosophy could tediously half-do.
The red pill in itself implies an almost philosophical question when you
start to notice how the "normal" is not normal at all and why it is so.
Like Plato, Aristotle and later say, philosophy begins with wonder, when
the world seems normal or common we live shows us a strange inconsistency.
Before we met on the Internet, many of us have had experiences red pill.
Our consciousness drifting of the story and we began to see through taboos,
countless rules and all the things that structures the narrative & # 8212;
normies and want to continue to take for granted.
Perhaps the greatest power of all is the possibility of imposing his story
on the minds of others. Without constraint, without violence,
epistemologically one dominates others by the values ​​and the "facts" they
take for granted. The greatest power is to determine what is "normal."
cultural struggle is one of the highest political struggles. (Source)
We support with the Liberals to enforce different versions of normality. We
know this is not normal in the absolute, non-relative or transient sense
that transsexuals are celebrated, that criminals are constantly excused as
irresponsible sluts are constantly saved from the consequences of their own
behavior, that threats death are celebrated if done by
individuals "minority" against whites. The current year 'normality' is a
hopeless nightmare, an endless stream of injustice and ugliness that drowns
confidence left and outright killing whites.
Julius Evola Riding the Tiger, which makes a similar diagnosis when
Freudo-Marxist assault 60s, advised its readers to withdraw to their inner
citadel. It is good to do so because as long as the withdrawal is temporary
and used to gain a critical advantage & # 8212; not when it becomes
synonymous with backup down or autism. Just as philosophy was on public
forums before it is led by academics in their ivory tower, a fair
conscience, should be balanced basis for recasting the disorder rather than
ignore it.
The left has worked hard to inject the "racism" and "xenophobia" in the
usual speech and thought. He did everything possible to direct people by
blocking the normal means of thought. Similarly, we need to turn the mess
on himself by deconstructing the leftists categories of thought, setting
out or laughing out, trolling by libtards and everything else.
Even then, what we do may seem messy analytical point of view of philosophy
as well. Alt sphere has no rigid system of thought. We act rather by a
sense of things and a willingness to do normal normal again as very formal
principles. It is therefore difficult to propose ready-made answers to the
questions above: they are more a reflection of support for an absolute
basis, and the answers may look different from person to person. The
diversity of ideas in the Alt sphere can be our strength as long as the
internal disagreements remain on the side.
Are we more or less judgment that leftists? The question may seem
irrelevant when we criticize their alleged commitment not to judge, is in
fact misplaced. For just as the judges left X harder than Y, or in judging
refrain Y or having a bias against Y, we do the same thing but with
different Xs and Ys.
I think I can rightly say that we want a healthy ability to judge fatties,
social parasites of various types, the attackers wellness,
family-destroyers, criminals in general ... as we find the unjustified
smear rich people as rich, or against contractors or against masculinity.

When the white baby boomers laugh with (((D))) because they find that their
peers are committing suicide is funny, they feel normal and be a laugh. We
find just as outrageous and want greater solidarity and respect. Everyone
judge, all the time. Everybody must & # 8212; even considering the most
insignificant things, as possible path is better to go home after work.
The virtue of fair trial

As for today, we could say that people have red pilled take control of the
company howling destroyers and the blue earth pilled in general. In the
longer term, the distinctions and the traditional roles will reassert
itself.
Not because of wanting to "supremacy" as followers of power left want to
believe, but because it makes for a balanced, stable world, healthy and
rewarding goodness, and because goddamit! our civilization was essentially
ours before (((little gray men))) began to tear the turning of society into
hostile groups.
Those most had no particular right to do so: they acted "force is just"
fashion, although more subtly than by the use of open force. The standards
and handling of common sense is more legitimate in itself than hitting your
neighbor because you think its ugly clothes.
In the short term, good judgment follows the decision pilled red
consciousness, no matter who does it. In the long run, finer and more
orderly distinctions will reassert itself. Just be careful that
neomasculinity not be taken hostage, for example, by thugs who take over
the name of their own notion of manhood.
Knowing how to judge when to express his judgment, how, what not to judge
and adjust its judgment to the specific circumstances of a stay in a real
virtue. There is a capacity of a Hönes day after day, time after time, for
years and # 8212; even decades.
It may be too harsh, say, criticize or exaggerating too small details, as
they may be too complacent ignoring important issues or complaining of
problems while staying warm words about their causes. I remember a baby
boomer who could ignore bullies & # 8212; in children, it was supposed to
care about & # 8212; but I do fuss about bread crumbs on the uncleaned
common table.
This kind of blatant misjudgment is painful to the child who feels
misplaced, unfair, and it is hypocritical. Fortunately, we are not children
and I know that many millennials whose judgment seems much better than the
baby boomers.

Aristotle was right about the golden ratio, the Stoics were right To have
high standards, those granted unconditional "rights" of all that was wrong
and cunning crybully most if not all of the last century idols mainstream
were wrong. Is his judgment? It is. Yet there is more judgment than average
hamstering your SJW, and contrary to this, it is (in) right.
Read more: It's in our nature to judge others