The Moral High Ground, Part I
Posted on: 01/02/2019 04:24 AM

by John Young

In seeing the recent travesty of justice that is the James Fields verdict, and reading about Fourth Generation Warfare, the importance of taking and holding the moral high ground comes into stark relief.

When I speak of the moral high ground, I am not referring to claiming some sort of empty moral victory by adherence to an abstract principle, while simultaneously suffering successive real-world defeats. (Though the right IS quite good at that.) Nor am I referring to adhering to a specific set of religious values, especially to the point of becoming soon-to-be-forgotten martyrs. Rather, I am referring to being seen by the general populace, or at least the portion of it we seek to help, as being “the good guys,” and therefore deserving of aid and comfort.

Being seen as “the good guys” certainly implies moral values, but it also implies being seen, meaning that it is more a matter of perception than reality. People react to what they believe to be true rather than what is actually true. Though, when the two are synchronized, their best interests are served. We are, after all, already the good guys in terms of our moral position. It is not WE who are executing a genocide. It is not WE who are railroading innocent people into jails to serve a political agenda. It is not WE who engineer a trail of endless lies and machinations to enslave millions to an agenda that serves a handful of people. It is we who stand for freedom and justice. We are already the good guys.

But like I said, belief counts more than reality in terms of behavior. And if people believe we are the bad guys? Reality doesn’t matter in terms of the outcome, save that people acting on the basis of faulty belief always act against themselves in the long-run. But that is small comfort to those harmed in the short term. Our goal is to bring belief into coherence with reality among those we seek to help. And if their beliefs conform to reality, then their actions will follow.

It is difficult to seize the moral high ground when unethical enemies hold Non-Governmental Organizations, substantial influence within law enforcement, all major media organs , corrupted religious institutions and an unlimited source of funding. Under such conditions, your enemies define us in whatever terms they choose, no matter what the facts might be. It is a fact of reality that what people believe has more of an effect on their actions than what is true. And if we are portrayed as sufficiently evil, most people will never even give us a chance to straighten out the record.
And this is no mistake. Holding the moral high ground in the eyes of our constituency is a critical aspect of success in any type of war, but especially in a cultural war when simply nuking the enemy is not an option. Our enemies know this, and as a result they make every conceivable effort to make sure this critical piece of territory is denied to us.

In recent times, corporate actors ranging from social media companies to credit card processors have engaged in what is really an unprecedented level of un-personing – denying service to people on the basis of what they believe, or what they are merely purported to believe, or what they say, or with whom they associate. Because these are large companies who could not withstand substantial public backlash, the only reason they can do such things is because those they have un-personed have been sufficiently smeared in advance that the average person on the street sees the targets of these actions as subhumans who don’t deserve to live, and who are therefore unworthy of any defense.



In addition, because we are a social species, our enemies make liberal use of guilt by association, as their actions against Gab for merely supporting “free speech for all” demonstrate. Because of this, people who, on the basis of principle, might want to support our right to speak – even though they might disagree with what we say – will keep quiet for fear of suffering the same penalties of guilt by association. This is why, a few hundred years ago, most people accused of witchcraft had nobody speak in their defense.

Thus there is minimal backlash against companies who deny presence on social media, deny the ability to undertake financial transactions, and even deny infrastructure services such as domain registration or Internet service. There is no backlash at all against companies who fire people for speaking their minds, even on their own time outside of work. Until fairly recently, pretty much anyone could take for granted that no matter their opinions, they would have access to gainful employment, a roof over their head, access to the banking system or the ability to register a web domain. Not anymore.

Think about that.

Now, think about the smearing. Are those who have been un-personed being accused of an infamous crime such as burglary, car-jacking, home invasion, assault, rape, child molesting or murder? In most cases, no. In general, they are accused of the rather nebulous charge of “hate.” Hate is an emotion. Yet as illogical as such accusations are, they are no more illogical than accusing someone of signing a pact with the devil, and they carry more weight in terms of rendering a person unsympathetic than actual convictions for heinous felonies. Nobody has denied convicted felons access to do fundraising via Patreon or GoFundme, or to accept Paypal for their services. Likely, if this were to happen, there would indeed be an immediate backlash because it would offend people’s sense of fairness.

As a matter of fact, there is a website called “Funded Justice” that facilitates the crowdfunding for people being sued, or who have been convicted of crimes including murder. But guess who they had to kick off their site or else Mastercard would shut them down? Richard Spencer.

After all, someone who has provably raped and murdered someone and has “paid their debt to society” or is even merely filing a frivolous appeal, has a right to be heard (and increasingly, the right to vote), whereas someone who believes European-Americans merely have a right to exist that is equal to that of any other group is considered so horrible that their right to be heard, or even to sustenance, can be legitimately denied.

Just look at the travesty of justice in the recent prosecutions pertaining to various public protests. In these events, leftists organized and planned violence in advance. They perpetrated all manner of assaults and batteries, including bashing people’s heads with bike locks and batons, and in one case even used an improvised flame thrower. And not a single one of these people has been prosecuted. Yet, those associated with the right, even when there has been video evidence showing they were acting in self-defense, have been put in jail for years.

Where are the protests? Crickets. Nobody will defend them, nobody will note the outrageous double standards, nobody will provide aid and comfort.

And how many dozens if not hundreds of us have permanently lost the ability to earn a living? Just for being associated with the belief we have a right to exist? Is there any protest? None. And believe me, if someone were fired for being a Black nationalist, the company who did it would quickly reverse their position in the face of public outrage.

So when I say that practically anything can be done to us, no matter how outrageous, and that nobody will raise their voice in our defense, I mean it. James Fields, who panicked to escape a mob that was attacking him and accidentally hit a pedestrian, has been convicted of 1st Degree Murder for that and now faces death in his upcoming Federal hate crime trials. Even when death is imposed in a clearly unjust situation, if the victim believes that European Americans have a right to exist, no protest is registered.

And that is what it means when the moral high ground has been denied to us. It means that practically ANYTHING can be done to us, and nobody will come to our defense. This is the practical outcome of not holding the moral high ground. Holding the moral high ground is not a mere luxury – it is a matter of life and death.

So now that we have identified the problem and its consequences, what are we going to do about it?

Stay tuned for the next articles in this series.



Printed from Western Voices World News (http://www.wvwnews.net/content/index.php?/news_story/the_moral_high_groundpart_i.html)