I am in the rather odd position of trying to rebut comments made in the article by Richard Spencer that I posted. But it’s a good opportunity to clarify my ideas.
Richard has two objections to my theory that individualism has something to do with the attraction of CPAC conservatives to the universalist rhetoric of rights.
First, the Japanese have excelled in the abstract logic required in advanced electronics and industrial engineering, and their economy is geared towards exporting to global markets; yet, judging by their national consensus on immigration restriction, they have little compunction in fighting for their genetic interests.
When I mentioned an attraction to abstractions, I meant moral abstractions as a component of Western individualism, not abstractions in general. Otherwise Jews would be the ultimate moral universalists. Moral idealism is a powerful tendency in European culture, apparent, for example, in the German idealist philosophers and the American transcendentalists. (Writing a foreword for a forthcoming English translation of Vladimir Avdeyev’s Raciology [Russian edition reviewed in TOO by Dan Michaels] made me realize that idealism was a trait commonly ascribed to Nordics by racial scientists in a very influential intellectual tradition from the late 19th century until its demise with the defeat of National Socialism.) Universalist moral ideals are erected and then steps are taken to achieve the moral vision by changing the world, often accompanied by a great deal of moral fervor, as among the opponents of slavery in America and during the French Revolution (see below).
Universalist moral thinking is intimately bound up with the individualism/collectivist dimension in psychology. In my writing (following the prominent racial scientist Fritz Lenz), I have linked this tendency ultimately to the Western tendency toward individualism resulting from prolonged evolution under adverse ecological conditions. Individualist cultures frame moral issues in universal terms. Morality is defined not as what is good for the individual or the group, but as an abstract moral ideal — e.g., Kant’s moral imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” (Revealingly, the “convoluted essay written by a neoconservative academic” referenced by Richard is titled, “Reading Kant and Debating White Nationalists.“) This occurs because individualism implies an equality of interest—that everyone has interests but no one has a privileged moral position—philosopher John Rawls’ “veil of ignorance.” Arguments on morality therefore must necessarily seek an abstract sense of morality, independent of the interests of any particular individual, and groups have no privileged moral standing at all. Pro-slavery arguments that slavery is good for Whites and that do not attach any moral significance to Blacks as an outgroup therefore fall on deaf ears.
On the other hand, collectivist cultures such as Judaism have a highly elaborated moral code that privileges ingroup membership. Slavery is not an evil in itself because of what it does to individuals. Rather, there are different ethical codes on how slaves may be treated depending on whether the slave is a fellow Jew, and the same for criminal offenses (see A People that Shall Dwell Alone, Ch. 6). In collectivist cultures, group membership, typically the kinship group, is critical to moral evaluation.
Richard continues:
Secondly, though today’s self-styled “conservatives” think in terms of America as a “Proposition Nation,” the puritanical WASPs, deist intellectuals, and yeoman Calvinists who founded the country engaged in brutal wars for territory with the Indians, restricted immigration to “free, white persons,” and maintained (disastrously, for future White generations) African slavery. The Left is certainly correct when it asserts that from its inception to the Franklin Roosevelt’s administration, America was a downright racist — even White supremacist — place. Perhaps innate Anglo-Saxon inclinations did evolve into “anti-racism,” but for many generations, this was hardly a foregone conclusion.
Europeans are on the individualist side of the individualism/collectivist dimension, but they don’t completely lack mechanisms of ethnic cohesion. White people still have mechanisms of attraction to our own kind and we have ingroup/outgroup mechanisms that make us devalue others. We see manifestations of this all the time, but in 21st-century America, these preferences are implicit rather than explicit—Implicit Whiteness. (See “Psychology and White Ethnocentrism.”
And early in the 20th century a great many of the Anglo American elite intellectuals did ultimately reject universalism as they led the movement to restrict immigration culminating in the 1924 law—a movement that was explicitly racialist. As with many traits showing individual and group differences, the trait can be expressed more in some situations than others. Collectivist mechanisms tend to be recruited more in times of perceived threat. This applied to the Anglo elites in 1920s America, and it may account for some of the trends we see now among the Tea Partiers, etc.
And some White sub-groups seem to be more inclined to moral universalism than others. In particular, we can’t ignore the liberal tradition stemming from the powerful Puritan influence on American culture and its close ties with individualism. (The Quakers were even more inclined to moral universalism but were far less influential; the other British-derived groups, according to David Hackett Fischer, were much less prone to moral universalism.) During the 19th century it was common to view individualism as an ethnic trait of the Germanic peoples. In my view, this tendency toward moral universalism was then exploited by Jewish intellectuals to further their (particularist) aims by ending the influence of Darwin and Galton that recognized race and race differences as critical. These influences loomed large early in the 20th century. See my review of Eric Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo America. We Europeans are definitely capable of organizing ourselves to protect our race. Indeed, I think that if we could somehow break through the barriers erected against our ideas by the mainstream media, we would make very rapid progress. All the implicit Whiteness would be quickly unleashed into a very powerful movement.
As things stand however, there is a nice confluence between self-interest and principle for the CPAC rent seekers who doubtless see a huge downside to explicitly advocating White interests.
I just read Lothrop Stoddard’s book The French Revolution in San Domingo where he depicts the same dynamic as in America. (Stoddard was a prominent member of the Anglo elite intellectuals in the early 20th century who opposed immigration and understood the importance of race and race differences.) On one hand there were planters who were very racialist: Advocating White supremacy, White superiority, and slavery. But on the other hand, there were the Jacobins who not only mouthed slogans about human equality but also vigorously opposed San Domingo as a White-dominated slave society. (The defeat of the Whites so ardently desired by the Jacobins meant that San Domingo became the famously dysfunctional Black-ruled Haiti that we see today.) White colonists returning from San Domingo experienced intense hatred from their own co-ethnics in France because of how they viewed Africans and how they treated them. Does any other society condemn its own people to the point of siding against people like themselves on behalf of ethnic outsiders because such action conforms to a moral principle?
Notice it’s not Protestantism here (as Paul Gottfried claims), because France was Catholic. It’s about Europeans, and especially northern Europeans. As now, in addition to genuine idealists, there were also plenty of opportunists who saw economic and social benefits from espousing principles of human rights in opposition to their White racialist brethren.
In short, we have two problems. We have to somehow break the wall against the legitimization of our ideas in the media. (This is well-exemplified by the hysteria surrounding the fact that CNN interviewed Peter Brimelow and James Edwards on the reactions to the decline of Whites. My guess is that CNN will not repeat this, and other mainstream media outlets will learn from their “mistake”. (See Ellison Lodge, “Are Whites Racially Oppressed? The Question Media Matters Doesn’t Want Asked.” VDARE.com)
Secondly, the system where all the economic and social status benefits accrue to those to oppose explicit assertions of White identity and interests has to end. We have to be able to provide careers to people who are on page with our ideas.
Of these, the first is more critical because if we had a powerful mainstream media presence, a powerful infrastructure for the racialist right would not be far behind.
Facing the Future as a Minority
KM wrote: “And early in the 20th century a great many of the Anglo American elite intellectuals did ultimately reject universalism as they led the movement to restrict immigration culminating in the 1924 law—a movement that was explicitly racialist.”
Objectively, there was no such rejection of universal moral principles so long as one understands that universals reference the abstract nature of man and not his discrete properties. As such, no one is under any moral compulsion to invite strangers into one’s homeland.
The Anti-Immigration movement of the early 20th century is thus properly seen as an explicitly racialist and an implicitly or explicitly particularist movement – in point of fact necessarily implicit due to the confusion regarding the proper realm of the abstract and the proper realm of the discrete.
This unwarranted conflation of essence with incidence, the abstract with the discrete, substance with accident, identity with difference is the hallmark of Leftist thinking – hence the Left’s preoccupation with absolute equality in all aspects of human life and the desire to obliterate all human individuality.
It would seem that Leftist epistemology has affected a great many conservative intellectuals over the last hundred years.
Kant is not the paradigmatic example of a universalist moral philosopher, or rather Kantianism at least leaves some room for a morality with boundaries (group boundaries or even race boundaries) in a way that for example consequentialism doesn’t.
As a matter of fact I’m working on a paper along those lines right now, and even though the aim is to answer a completely different question I also like to think that I’m writing a Kantianism for White Nationalists (the only way I can think of to give some meaning to my effort these days).
MJ, please read my comment below about Kant and see what you think. BN
I have a problem accepting the idea of a genetic white morality about race for this reason: I was literally full grown before I ever heard one white in personal conversation say any other race or culture was even equal to whites, much less superior. So from my viewpoint it’s just another learned behavior. Obviously I can’t rule out a latent genetic component, but it seems to me it would have to be something like that.
I don’t rule it out. It would have made sense for communities composed of multiple tribes and led by a single chief. Essentially, Germanic peoples in this scenario would have evolved to be able to live together under a single banner, much like multi-culturalism. Except in that case, all of the people would share the same tendency.
Of course, chiefs would summarily declare war on peoples who did not integrate. But I think it is pretty obvious from today’s situation that if the chief never stood up for his people, the people might not stand up for themselves!
Naturally, that chief who so explicitly stood up for his people is the most demonized character in Western history, precisely because he perfectly embodies what is most dangerous to Jewish control.
KMD:
“Secondly, the system where all the economic and social status benefits accrue to those to oppose explicit assertions of White identity and interests has to end.”
It depends on what you consider a “White identity”.
The EU puts much effort into constructing some kind of a supranational pan-European identity.
You have organizations like JEF…
http://www.jef.eu/
…and they are leftists.
I like this post a lot. The Western Tendency to Moral Universalism certainly explains a lot. Bearing such a tendency in mind makes for a more understanding attitude to – and more effective communication to – racially naive whites . As it is a theoretical advance of the first order and takes some time to grasp I find posts like this are always useful.
I have some doubts about whether the origin of the white mentality was entirely stone age though. Prolonged evolution under adverse ecological conditions was surely very important but as the section on the Puritans in PTSDA points out, the English who immigrated to American and became the ancestors of the transcendentalists were largely skilled people.
According to Gregory Clark the middle classes became the majority of the English population by a process of natural selection for economic success (children of the feckless or merely poor tended to die off). I think that some of the idealism shown by Puritans and their WASP descendants might have come from the characteristics that were selected for by the economic system.
By that I don’t mean greed and craftiness but the exact opposite. Economic activity rewards those who deliver quality goods and services ( which requires hard work) and play by the rules to earn themselves a reputation for trustworthiness (which requires that they be trusting).
Middle class values have evolved in an economic environment and they mitigate against being racially aware. Über- liberals and Leftists tend not to come from the working class and I don’t think that is just because “economic and social status benefits accrue to those to oppose explicit assertions of White identity” . I think there is an incompatibility between racial awareness and the genetic endowment that brings economic success hence people from upper-middle class backgrounds are very rarely able to see things in racial terms, for all their intellectual advantages.
Great post about Greggory Clark’s work. I would recommend an interesting talk he gave on youtube covering the issues he discussed in the book. He has moved closer to believing that much of the change that took place in Britain was genetic. Actually the first talk I link is shorter and earlier, and the second video is much longer and done later.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwCfoECh2f4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYspzYiX_kg
That’s an interesting idea that the very traits that allowed people to rise to the upper economic classes also may have made them less racially aware. Perhaps a preoccupation with production dialed back their ethnic concerns in some way.
On the other hand, there have been many pro-White wealthy men in the past (not these days, sadly). Many Texas oil millionaire types were generally pro-White and very patriotic. Upper class country clubs often excluded non-Whites from joining. And of course, there was Henry Ford.
But without a doubt most upper class Whites have always been uncomfortable with expressions of bigotry, which is fine, except that that same mechanism can be exploited to take advantage of Whites.
@ MOD
Sorry about this but I have just inadvertently submitted a comment which contains an unclosed code for italics.
Good article, Kevin!
Someday,
you can’t manipulate this website’s comments just by forgeting a forward
slash. Think how easy it would be for the anti-White racists to sabotage TOO,
if you could? Your code only work locally, within your own comments. Only the
admin of the TOO website has control over the source code, and that’s where
you’d have to get access. And he aint gonna give out his access codes.You can
look at the code – the design of the site, but you can’t alter it.
Kevin must have issued the command, accidentally.
Just to test my theory (because I’m not completely sure) I emphasized
my TT and left it open, so it should embolden all comments below me. If it
does, then that’s a good discovery, Someday, it will let the TOO coders fix
their security flaw. And if it doesn’t, then I’m right in thinking only the
admins at TOO have that kind of power.
TT
It’s actually a bit more complicated than that. For some reason, WordPress can handle every tag situation except for <i /> as an attempt to close an italicized comment. I’m trying to truly fix the problem, among some other projects this weekend. I am pretty sure this has nothing to do with a backdoor.
Hey Matt,
when I use the P attribute, even tho they’re in there required positions, they render some of my sentences incorrectly. Why is that? I coded in the idoc file so it wouldn’t render in “quirks mode” but it still mangled my post!
I think if you write your comment in notepad and copy & paste it into TOO’s comment box, this is what mangles the sentences? Is that right?
TT
iboTTs,
The similarity to HTML markup is superficial. You can’t use <p> tags, <div> tags, <h1>, or just about anything other than:
<b>BOLD</b>
<i>italic</i>
<blockquote>
</blockquote>
<a href=”http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net”>The Occidental Observer</a>
I’m adding a “Preview Comment” function later tonight that ought to help with what you’re trying to accomplish there. I’m committed to making this commenting section an active and engaging place for lively debate.
I don’t believe I’m engaging in hyperbole when I contend that this site’s comment section may be the most challenging to administer on the entire bloody Internet. It’s high-volume, dabbles in several taboos, includes people from every part of the political and social spectrum, and definitely has people who make a hobby (perhaps a day job?) out of wreaking havoc.
Thanks for replying, Matt.
I just assumed I could use all the tags.
The behind the scenes stuff is interesting. You must be swarmed with anti-White hackers trying to badge the honour of hacking TOO.
Good stuff, Matt, thanks.
I don’t see Kant and Rawls as necessarily being universalist in the sense of their moral principles resulting in hyperindividualist white behavior. Kant’s moral imperative, as quoted by Prof. MacDonald, requires that a moral law be equally applicable to all. That is why group-centric Jewish “morality,” to use a term, can never be universalist or moral except accidentally (as opposed to by intent) and is only a reflection of group interests. To follow Kant and Rawls would first rather mean that Jews or any other group or individual would have to follow the same moral principle in a given situation that they expect from others and would have to allow others to follow the same principles they do. Much of the time they probably would not accept this kind of equality because they would lose wealth, power, and influence, suggesting their motives are not moral. Moral critique using this principle, however, does help create white consciousness because it exposes Jewish hypocrisy and double standards on ethnocultural lines.
Moreover, interests could be protected using Kant and are in fact a primary concern in Kant’s moral system (he calls them inclinations I believe). Kant’s principle only requires that interests contain a universally valid moral component via the form(ula) he laid out for determining morality in the practical field. If a Jewish organization, for example, wants to advance Jewish wealth and power, that would only be moral if it accords the same right to whites qua whites in deed (and actually motive also) and not merely through lip service. Although Kant’s system does refer only to individuals, I see no problem with it being used for group decision-making and interests. It is a principle that has widespread validity as far as it goes, and in fact could serve as part of the moral foundation of a United States organized as a federation of ethno/civilizational blocs.
That said, I think it is good KM is bringing out this issue because there is a tremendous amount of confusion in the West about what is legitimately moral. Jews and other minorities often play on the heart and promote sentiments related to pity and compassion for themselves as “victims,” but even those sentiments fail under an objective moral analysis like that provided by Kant. A main reason for this is that people usually choose favorites in sentiment-based politics (“one chooses one’s loves” if I remember Rawls right). The operative principle is liking and disliking, which is not necessarily moral and is better off in personal relationships than public policy.
A conservative critique, as in “Reading Kant and Debating White Nationalists” by Mary Grabar (the link is in the blog), is also however off the mark. Grabar rightfully advocates teaching students to think, in contrast to academics who would force neo-marxist and other ideas on students through the use of emotion-language and an uncritical acceptance of their ideas and uncritical rejection of other ideas. She fails, however, to grasp that the ideas of the very Kant she wants students to read could result in a healthy, moral white nationalism. She is incorrect to say that white nationalism itself is wrong. What is wrong is determined by motives and acts. If white nationalists follow a moral course they can be more moral than those conservatives who merely pursue individual interests within the framework of the Constitution, those minorities, liberals and leftists who follow a selective victimization/pity ethic, or those hardcore Hebrews who think it is moral to advance group interests and transfer wealth and power from others to themselves regardless of their effects on others and what they do to achieve that.
The real question in any moral analysis is whether an imperative that is sound regardless of content (eg group identity) is being applied. For that we have to refer to Kant’s formula for determining whether the principle in an act or policy claimed to be moral is applied universally and equally, by groups or by all individuals to others and themselves, as the case may be.
Interesting post. I don’t know if I’m competent to comment. Kantian morality is a large subject, and I only feel that I can speak about my own theses with any confidence.
It seams clear to me that you have correctly understood Kant’s main points. One thing to consider is the distinction between “duties of virtue” and “duties of justice”, or between the moral and the political realm. It seems to me that you are simply making a political philosophy out of Kant’s moral philosophy, and this may be the right way to go about it, but I don’t think Kant himself would have agreed.
@MOD
Italics seems to have become the default. My long post also all became italicized.
An economic system based on individual, municipal, state, and enterprise competition does however contribute to white hyperindividualism, making us highly vulnerable to cooperative if not organized non-white ethnocultural economic and other activities. Intra-white economic cooperation aimed will have to replace a lot of this in my opinion if whites are going to regain their proper, deserved wealth and position. I think this can be done while maintaining excellence.
It’s a weird situation. One aspect of the in group / out group is that whites recognize minorities as being part of a group while attacking the same behavior among their own. Try to explain to them that since you’re not an African American or Hispanic or Asian then you’re something else, right? They shake their head. It goes nowhere. Look , I say, if you’re not Jewish then you are an outsider among the Jewish group. They shake their head. I must be the victim propaganda. But don’t you see what whites are doing, they allow minorities to be a part of a group, but not their own, that in itself is a form of group behavior. Blank stare.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/kill_the_jews_save_the_world.html
Hey guys. I love the conversation. But could we all stop for a second to read this article, written by a Jew who somehow snuck into Liberty University? It seems we have some unlikely allies.
E.I.C.
I hope you don’t really think the discussion at your link means anything. It’s just the standard old jew tactic of cry, cry, cry, deny, deny, deny. That jews are still running things was just proven by the U.S. assault on Libya.
Don’t be such a bubble buster :/
KM wrote: “Otherwise Jews would be the ultimate moral universalists”. Now, that could be the joke of the year. Jews who believe in race (the Chosen People) and that the entire Goyim population is created to serve the Jews – and Jews living in the Ango-Saxon Europe never bothered to integrate with the Christian majority whom they hated on religious basis (Talmic teachings).
There is no universalim in both Judaism and Christianity. Someone has to find for me a Black Christian as head of Catholic or Protestant Church or any other Christian denomination (out of 73 of them) – though non-White make over 65% of world’s Christian population.
Even during western colonization of Africa, Asia, Americana and Middle East – White colonists kept themselves separated socially from their non-White subjects.
Last year, Canada’s oldest University of Toronto came under Jewish Lobby’s fire for awarding Master’s degree to a Jewish female student Jennifer Peto for her thesis on ‘Jewish racism against non-Jews’.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/u-of-t-under-fire-for-thesis-on-jewish-racism/
Aren’t there other sites for you to try and spread Moslem propaganda?
” I have linked this tendency ultimately to the Western tendency toward individualism resulting from prolonged evolution under adverse ecological conditions. Individualist cultures frame moral issues in universal terms. Morality is defined not as what is good for the individual or the group, but as an abstract moral ideal…This occurs because individualism implies an equality of interest….”
Is this another way of saying that European moral codes were/are predisposed to protecting the rights of the minority since the individual is the ultimate “minority”? And moral universalism is the method by which they accomplish this? I’m just trying to make sure I understand the motivations of ancient Europeans to have taken this path.
” We have to somehow break the wall against the legitimization of our ideas in the media.”
Universalist moral ideals and the media…
This all reminds me of the reaction of several white media correspondents shortly after the not guilty verdict was announced during the O.J. Simpson trial. They seemed to express genuine disbelief that the majority of black America would outwardly cheer for a black man who was getting away with the murder of two whites.
I remember thinking how naive these correspondents were…how disconnected from reality. How could they be so ignorant of black culture? Hadn’t they ever been to a black neighborhood before?
Keep in mind, these reporters were part of the media complex that expressed outrage at the videotaped police beating of career thug Rodney King, and even tried to “understand” of the riots that followed…the ultimate expression of “universalist moral ideals.” But it backfired on them.
It apparently hadn’t occurred to them that for universalist moral ideals to work, they must be accepted UNIVERSALLY.
White people are addicted to universal ideals, we just LOVE universalist stuff. The tool that breaks this infatuation and gets whites moving is anything that lets them see that their beloved universals are not being APPLIED universally.
White people HATE IT when their beloved universals aren’t being APPLIED universally. When they see that, and experience it clearly, they revolt.
On that point of universals not being applied universally, we can look to our friends in the African-American community as an example. Blacks are notorious for not treating their dogs well and this fact is noticed by the SWPL types, if only unconsciously. Blacks are often excluded from moral judgment in America because they are not considered moral agents, since they are supposed to have no power.
Yet, no one can deny that Blacks have the power to take care of their dogs, or at the very least, abstain from abusing them for sadistic pleasure. An overwhelming number of dog abuse cases involve Blacks, especially dog fighting. It’s hard to blame that on 400 years of slavery.
It’s a small point, but Whites should be reminded that most races do not treat our helpless helpmates with the same degree of care we do.
“They [the white liberal media] seemed to express genuine disbelief that the majority of black America would outwardly cheer for a black man who was getting away with the murder of two whites. ”
Not to mention that a black jury would acquit him.
“The EU puts much effort into constructing some kind of a supranational pan-European identity.”
Yes, a “pan-European identity” that includes non-whites and is openly hostile to European preservationism. Does in fact the EU actually promote a “pan-European” racial identity? No, do they do not. Stop lying,
“You have organizations like JEF…
http://www.jef.eu/
…and they are leftists.”
And then you have the American establishment, which accepts ethnic organizing, but becomes hysterical and repressive at any sign of a white identity.
Because they understand that “ethnonationalism’s” vision of a bunch of divided squabbling Euro ethnicities is harmless while a sense of real white identity would put an end to the multicultural experiment.
In other words, MacDonald’s vision of white identity is what the establishment fears, and “ethnonationalism’s” vision of atomized ethnic identities (already borderline absurd given extensive ethnic intermarriage among white Americans) is what the establishment accepts.
That’s all you need to know.
Carl:
“Does in fact the EU actually promote a “pan-European” racial identity?”
No. But neither does the African Union promote a Black racial identity (since they promote unity with the Arabs and Berbers from North Africa).
Carl:
“…a sense of real white identity would put an end to the multicultural experiment.”
A “white identity” is itself a multicultural concept, since all Europeans are not members of a single unified culture.
Carl:
“(the EU promotes) a “pan-European identity” that includes non-whites”
Of course. That is the “logical” result of pan-Europeism.
Acknowledging that all Europeans are a single group is just the first step in acknowledging that all human beings are a single group.
Pan-Europeism is a universalist movement.
..”.Notice it’s not Protestantism here (as Paul Gottfried claims), because France was Catholic. It’s about Europeans, and especially northern Europeans. ”
Yes, but in the one case it’s Puritans [thrown out of England, just as the Jews had been earlier] and in the other, Jacobins. Protestantism and the whole Enlightnment/Revolution/Individualism complex are rooted in the Judaic component of the Roman Church [the 'church' part rather than the 'Roman' part, as Evola would say].
When I look at the Greeks and Romans, I don’t really see ‘individualists’ [in Greek, idiotes]. The whole man vs. Caesar, the downtrodden are wonderful, hooray for slaves mentality seem derived from the Christers, not their genes.
Of course, Spengler did consider the Brits, as descended from Viking marauders, as being inclined to individualist economics, vs. Prussian Socialism.
Kant and Rawls are both interesting. Lots of people are interesting. Interesting is OK, but it’s not going to convince any ordinary person to change their thinking. If that is the case, what will?
Dr. MacDonald has come close when he writes, “We have to somehow break the wall against the legitimization of our ideas in the media.”
I like to think of that wall as a new kind of “Pale of the Settlement”, a wall that keeps us contained and unable to talk among or about ourselves in public. Maybe it’s payback from those who inhabited the “original” Pale of the Settlement! Who know, or cares.
While an eventual goal would be to have legitimate access for our ideas in the “regular” media, everyone knows that route is blocked for now. But we don’t need to wait for permission from the media!
We can USE them to get out our message. The message we use them to get out isn’t explicit pro-whiteness, it’s explicit destruction of their anti-White meme-set.
Kevin wrote a book called “The Culture of Critique”, and we all know how deadly that culture has been to our interests. Doesn’t anyone think we can use the SAME techniques of “Critique” to hammer down the “critiquers”? Sure we can. We can pick apart their paradigms just as well as they’ve picked apart ours.
But we don’t do this by critiquing any specific demographic. We do this by critiquing them inside their own moral territory, the territory of “Universalist Morality”. It’s not OK to be anti-jew/black/etc: that’s the MORAL LAW! OK, let’s just play on that “MORAL LAW” and critique them for being ….
ANTI WHITE.
Almost EVERY “Politically Correct” string of ideological wordings can be attacked as ANTI WHITE, if one knows how. We can do this, and do it brutally and mercilessly. This will have the effect of de-legitimizing the “messenger” who brings PC “Truth” to us in their attempt to genocide us. We don’t hammer on “jews”, etc., we hammer the perverted morality of the anti-Whites by USING that morality against them.
And we don’t need our own media to do this.
Every local newspaper has its online commenting stream. Every local newspaper has at least one PC editor who can’t help himself and always offers us one or another version of PC. It’s very easy to pin the Anti-White tail on these donkeys, and make it stick. This is done in the comments, under a pseudonym to protect the guilty. :) If other commenters swarm in to protect the PC editor, you pull them into the ring and punish them for their anti-white bigotry at the same time. The spectators will LOVE this. Everyone loves a public brawl, especially when blood is spilled. Circus Maximus et al …
We already have the tools. The enemy is paying for the transmission lines. We don’t need to speak about “pro-white” messages, we just need to deconstruct those meme-posts that constitute the “Pale of the Settlement of Palefaces” which has contained us.
Tear down that wall, I say! Once that’s gone, nobody will need to obsess about “White”.
|
Coming to America: Growing Israel-US Television Connection
“Another explanation for the close relationship between Hollywood and Israel is cultural and religious. Producers in both countries point to Judaism as a link between Israeli TV creators and prominent Hollywood executives.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704758904576188740968759616.html
|
“No. But neither does the African Union promote a Black racial identity (since they promote unity with the Arabs and Berbers from North Africa).”
The point is what? Racial nationalists promote a racial identity. Propositionists do not.
“A “white identity” is itself a multicultural concept, since all Europeans are not members of a single unified culture.”
There’s something called the “West” that perhaps you are unaware of.
“Of course. That is the “logical” result of pan-Europeism.
Acknowledging that all Europeans are a single group is just the first step in acknowledging that all human beings are a single group.”
The same thing can be said of any group of people. By the way, stop making straw man arguments, you mendacious troll. No one argues that all Europeans are identical, and form a single, homogenous group. Nevertheless, there are higher and lower orders of human organization. All Europeans, Westerners, despite their many real differences, form a group opposed to the rest of the world. They are relatively genetically similar, a share a core civilizational history. They are endangered by multiculturalism and immigration. In America, they have been inter-married to an extent that “ethnonationalism” is either a joke or an attempt to cause division; in Europe, they share a continent, and the fate of one ethnic group is linked to that of the others. Any one European nation could not survive long term if the entire continent is submerged into the Third World.
“Pan-Europeism is a universalist movement.”
No, it is not. Every group can define the parameters of its boundaries. A racialist pan-Europeanism has no inner imperative to be universalist. Is “ethnonationalism” better? Dutch “ethnonationalist” Wilders will accept any featherless biped as long as its not a radical Muslim. The English Defense League will accept non-Islamic non-whites. The IRA – good ethnonationalists they – make common cause with the Third World and are not racist.
Ah, but you say, any ethnonationalist who ignores blood is not really an ethnonationalist. Indeed. Any pan-European racial nationalist who ignores blood is not really a racial nationalist.
Propositionist pan-Europeanism is no more universalist than is propositionist ethnic nationalism.
Again:
And then you have the American establishment, which accepts ethnic organizing, but becomes hysterical and repressive at any sign of a white identity…Because they understand that “ethnonationalism’s” vision of a bunch of divided squabbling Euro ethnicities is harmless while a sense of real white identity would put an end to the multicultural experiment…In other words, MacDonald’s vision of white identity is what the establishment fears, and “ethnonationalism’s” vision of atomized ethnic identities (already borderline absurd given extensive ethnic intermarriage among white Americans) is what the establishment accepts.
The establishment, which is vehemently anti-white accepts with calm bemusement attempts by whites to organize on an ethnic basis. That’s no problem, and no threat. The problem always and ONLY occurs when whites attempt to organize on a racial basis. That is the threat. Why, then, does the establishment fear something that is so “wrong” and “impossible?” Because they know that if the repression relaxes, white Americans will naturally, over time, gravitate toward racial organization – made relevant by extensive ethnic intermarriage – and that this racial solidarity means the end of the multicultural experiment.
Indeed, one wonders. In addition to the more overt forms of repression, wouldn’t another technique be to invade pro-white forums and attempt division and delegitimization of a white racial identity? After all, anti-racists do that all the time – saying that there is “no white race” – just a motley collection of unrelated ethnic groups.
Interesting.
“Because they understand that “ethnonationalism’s” vision of a bunch of divided squabbling Euro ethnicities is harmless while a sense of real white identity would put an end to the multicultural experiment…In other words, MacDonald’s vision of white identity is what the establishment fears, and “ethnonationalism’s” vision of atomized ethnic identities (already borderline absurd given extensive ethnic intermarriage among white Americans) is what the establishment accepts.”
The concept of ‘whiteness’ makes sense in America, but not in Europe. One of the reasons is that the idea of a ‘white race’ in Europe is absurd as long as the racial differences remain so obvious within Europe. Northwestern Europeans look, think and behave differently from east or south Europeans.
Carl:
“…white Americans will naturally, over time, gravitate toward racial organization…”
It didn’t happen in other New World countries (Argentina, Paraguay, Australia, Ecuador, etc., etc.).
Why do you think it will happen in the USA?
I think that Dr. MacDonald has hit upon a key reason why whites feel their own dispossession is somehow justified. It’s a big leap to say that whites are, because of inherent traits, committing racial suicide. That’s the conclusion that people like Kaufmann, Gottfried, and Mercer give us. But then again, of course it follows their interest to blame it all on us rather than the Jewish ethnic group they belong to.
The big reason why it should be argued that our dispossession is not the result of inborn traits is that Western culture was moving in the direction of eugenics and towards an appreciation of the Nordic or Northwestern European peoples. It was the only the ‘culture of critique’ that destroyed this tendency. In this vein, people like Kaufmann, Gottfried, and Mercer are likewise part of the ‘culture of critique’. They want to blame it all on us.
The eugenicists destroyed themselves by their support of the idea that the Government should hold people down against their will and sterilize them.
Anybody who wasn’t an evil fool could’ve seen how that would’ve inevitably helped create a backlash, especially in a relatively liberty oriented country like America, but because the eugenicists were evil fools they went ahead with it anyway.
It was the only the ‘culture of critique’ that destroyed this tendency.
Eugenics became far more important in Germany than it ever was in America, and stayed a serious force to a far later date in time.
This created a close association in people’s minds between eugenics and Nazism.
The defeat of Germany in World War II by America therefore doomed whatever was left of that movement in the West.
The idea that it took Jews to get Americans to oppose eugenics, especially in the aftermath of the mass sterilizations carried out by eugenicists in Germany, is nothing less than insane.
William Jennings Bryan, for example, opposed eugenics just out of a basic sense of Christian morality.
In this vein, people like Kaufmann, Gottfried, and Mercer are likewise part of the ‘culture of critique’. They want to blame it all on us.
The fact that racialists of the past went too far and created a backlash among a massive number of non-Jewish whites cannot be denied.
The fact that this understandable backlash has itself gone too far is largely due to Jews steering it in that direction.
At the same time, the European tendency toward relatively high levels of individualism no doubt played a very important part.
It doesn’t actually take European type individualism to reject eugenicists; all it takes is a desire to preserve people as they are, and/or a basic sense of morality, etc., etc.
But when it comes to those cases where the backlash against the eugenicist types has gone too far, it’s easy to think that even with strong Jewish influence a more tribalistic race would never have taken things so far as the great majority of European have.
It’s a question of a tendency, that’s what Kevin MacDonald is writing about.
Excellent point, you will often see alleged Whites, arguing that the Elohim crowd is not the problem it is Whitey himself. Not true, Whites being the open people we are, were ripe for the Masters of Deceit to manipulate. Up against an enemy of some 3,000 years standing, really didn’t have a chance thanks to the media owners being of the Elohim crowd.
Reginald,
You’ve missed the forest for the trees. My point was that Western Man had an appreciation of his heritage and race until very recently. Eugenics and Nordicism were examples of that. I really don’t care to debate the straw-man eugenics arguments except to say that I find them unconvincing. If sterilizing adults for eugenic reasons is so evil and against basic human morality then how could the ancients have committed widespread infanticide? How can cultures around the world continue the practice of genital mutilation on children even though it’s worse than sterilization of mentally defective adults? At least the latter can be rationalized, right?
Sam,
Eugenics did NOT show Western Man having an appreciation of his heritage and race. In fact, it showed some portion of Western Man feeling a deep dissatisfaction and lack of appreciation for his heritage and race.
You don’t try to start a process which if continued would profoundly alter your race is you actually appreciate it in any real way.
What you’re doing here is like what liberals do when they say their support of transforming America is driven by their deep love of America.
It’s actually driven by their hatred of America, and in the same way the eugenicists were driven by their hatred and dissatisfaction with the hereditary qualities of their race as it actually existed.
The natural expression of eugenics is some homosexual in San Francisco saying that he wants to transform Europeans into another species.
At least all the liberals want to do is transform us racially, NOT on a species level!
I give the liberals credit for that much.
I really don’t care to debate the straw-man eugenics arguments except to say that I find them unconvincing.
It’s not a strawman argument because the eugenicists you alluded to overwhelmingly endorsed giving the State the power to sterilize people against their will.
Giving the state that kind of awesome power is both wrong and, if allowed to continue over the long term, just the sort of thing which would inevitably lead to fundamental transformations in a race which would go against every principle of racial preservation.
And in the long term it even goes against every principle of speciesal preservation
If sterilizing adults for eugenic reasons is so evil and against basic human morality then how could the ancients have committed widespread infanticide?
There’s a difference between wiping out bloodlines through forced sterilization and someone sacrificing one member of his immediate family to improve the survival chances of that family.
What you’re doing here would be like if someone noted that an ethnic group sacrifices the lives of a certain portion of its young in warfare, so that makes it okay for foreigners to come in and kill members of that ethnic group out of a general hostility toward it.
There’s a big difference.
If a family is attacked by the state or eugenicists by having a member of that family targeted for sterilization, they have every right to defend themselves through violence if necessary.
This is especially the case if it’s an adult member of the family. Almost every adult represents a tremendous sacrifice of resources on the part of its parent(s) and/or extended family.
These adults deserve the payoff from their sacrifice of having the possibility of their bloodline being kept alive into future generations.
Sometimes it’s true that an adult spends a lot of time and effort on raising a child who turns out to sterile, so there’s no possibility of the adult getting that payoff from his sacrifice.
But by the same token sometimes it’s true that an adult spends a lot of time and effort on raising a child who turns out to be killed young when a rock accidentally falls on his head, so there’s no possibility of the adult getting that payoff from his sacrifice.
But having your child killed in an accident is different than if your child was murdered by another human being who did it on purpose, obviously.
In the same way having your child born sterile due to an accident of nature is different than if your child was sterilized by another human being who did it on purpose, obviously.
There’s a difference between accidental death and murder, and in the same way there’s a difference between accidentally being born sterile and having your fertility murdered.
It is true that in ancient times slaves were sometimes castrated, but this was a barbaric and wrong practice which all Europeans rejected thousands of years ago (if indeed it was ever practiced in Europe).
How can cultures around the world continue the practice of genital mutilation on children even though it’s worse than sterilization of mentally defective adults?
It’s not worse than genital mutilation. Genital mutilation is done to reduce the pleasure females get from sexual intercourse, not to rob them of the ability to ever become mothers.
It is true that the genital mutilation of females is more painful than more modern forms of female sterilization, but that doesn’t change the fact that sterilizing a female is infinitely crueler.
Even with females who end up not wanting children, the knowledge that the choice was ripped out of their hands by another human being would more often than not haunt them far more than even the loss of a clitoris and the memory of a painful surgery would.
Infertility can be extremely painful even when it occurs naturally. I’d certainly never want to impose that kind of pain on another human being.
I do tend to think that the West should start forcing people in the third world to stand on their own two feet by cutting off charity to them.
But if they can survive and increase their population without our charity, more power to them. I just wish they were kept out of European countries and countries with majority European descended populations.
At least the latter can be rationalized, right?
Female genital mutilation can be rationalized as well. It’s done to reduce female sexual desire, presumably making a female who underwent the procedure more desirable as a wife to the highly cuckoldry averse men who tend to be found in some of the most traditional surviving societies.
I still don’t approve of it because I think it’s too barbaric, even though I consider it much less barbaric than forcibly sterilizing people, and I certainly don’t support importing it to the West.
I don’t think eugenics necessily means forced sterilization. That is an extreme. Eugenics could, in present society, simply mean not giving welfare to African women to raise children that they could not otherwise care for. This is also eugenics. Let that sink in before you judge the entire field of science, which includes artifical plant breeding.
Hasn’t Eugenics been practiced since the beginning of time? Technically, the formal science and practice of eugenics is a recent development, but something similar to it has always been around. Eugenics just takes what is done unconsciously and makes it more explicit.
Every time a woman prefers a tall, handsome man to a short dumpy one, that’s a kind of eugenics that has a genetic impact on the future of the species. When a man goes for the prettiest girl he can get, that’s eugenics (choosing a high health and fertility woman). Now, it’s not that men or women KNOW why they prefer one over the other- they don’t – or haven’t until very recently. They simply know what they like, and that has been programmed into their instincts.
If the warriors of one tribe are stronger and conquer another, killing all the males and taking the women, that has an effect on future populations. Or, if the high IQ men get to outbreed the dumb ones, we get a smarter society, if the opposite happens, we get Idiocracy.
So, I can’t see anything wrong with being more informed about what we’ve always done anyway. I don’t mean to support state-enforced eugenics. That is a totally different issue. But making wise choices based on our knowledge of genetics just seems smart.
“I don’t mean to support state-enforced eugenics. That is a totally different issue. But making wise choices based on our knowledge of genetics just seems smart.”
I am making the wise choice of remaining abstinent. Actually, the one foray I took out into the realm of non-abstinence was the first driving factor in my turning towards the truth. You notice that something isn’t quite right when you get your heart torn to shreds. Univerally speaking, it just seems wrong . I still feel sad about it, and it has been years. :/
I had all these notions in mind like love, honor, and family. The other had ideas like gratification, amusement, and selfish advancement. Oh youth.
Joseph Campbell noted during one of his lectures, that the very concept of the individual is a European thing.
Of course at that time of our history geographical isolation protected us.
Life is struggle, & those who do not struggle are unfit to live.
The Hero of the Twentieth Century
I agree. I think the Jewish relativity concept is the concept found in ALL other civilizations. Basically, Jews responded to our attempts to define natural law by claiming that such a thing does not exist and instead whatever is best for Jews is objectively/subjectively best.
If we could find another people who independently practice universalism, though, that would be extremely helpful in understanding its evolution, I think.
Mac,
your review of Kaufmann’s Rise & Fall of Anglo-America is fascinating. Kaufmann’s claim that they gave up their right to be master in their own nation by their love of Enlightenment ideals makes no sense whatsoever. Your proposal that they didn’t give it up but were forced out by Jewish intellectual movements makes much more sense. If Kaufmann was right, then those who are “enlightened” truly are the world’s greatest fools.
Kevin, you said: “I will show where Kaufmann goes wrong — mainly by committing sins of omission in ignoring the Jewish role in the decline of Anglo-America.”
It’s quite something that this cultural historian (or whatever he is) can just ignore all the work done by you and others. But that’s what I expect from Jewish “intellectuals.” I expect nothing from them but lies – and they always deliver.
TT
Re KM’s position vs. Richard’s, I did not understand Richard’s objection to the KM argument…but now I do, and I have a simple answer to the question as to whether Whites, and Whites only go in for Universalisms with regard to human nature and so on.
when I was on the democratic left (yes there was such, for example, Harrington’s democratic socialists….let’s see…sounds like a goy name.)
OK , here is the answer to the Great Riddle: Whites invented Liberalism and NO other race, culture, study group, or salon. Liberalism is in our bones, and I am the perfect example of that (also Nordic).
The idea of no human nature is a left idea, a natural development of tabula rasa. When I first discovered leftish folks making this claim back in the 60s , I laughed in their faces….this was about the time that RNA and DNA were being discovered, about 1964…Crick and Watson was it?.
That sane people could come up with such an absurdity, can only be explained by, 1, college liberal arts majors. 2, LIberalism-in-the-bones of Whites. 3, Jews. 4, the pronounced individualism of Whites that urges all to bootstrap themselves , (Horatio Alger). 5, more White Mother-Principle that resists rank, and cheerleads for all, like , for example, the Special Olympics.
Now which race invented the Special Olympics? Which race freed their women (and the only race to have done so yet), which race abolished slavery ( and is more or less the only race to have done so still ??), which race saves the Whales and baby Harp seals, promotes Animal rights, animal sanctuaries, saves the forests, and all the little bugs and varmints? The Chinese eat all of them, as well as slaughter rhinos and bears, etc. for their horn and claws to peter away on their limp teeny-weenies.
Whites are the only race to have done all of these things, and they are all Good except maybe for the freeing of our women thing.
Whites are saints compared to everybody else….like camp of the saints. (Is that a biblical reference, or what?
So what we need to do is to start roaring, and stop being Good. JOe
Jason,
I don’t think you are right about that. If you think about it a lot of the very high intelligent people are not great looking specimens of Homo Sapians. They are kind of nerdy looking. Eugenics isn’t about bagging the most attractive types, it’s about breeding those who excel and are successful.
There’s always the exception tho… I, for instance, combine both characteristics of blinding beauty and high IQ. Unfortunately tho, I have to tone down my genius so I don’t make others feel inadequate. :)
TT
Quite a burden that high IQ and physical beauty thing! No, you are right, high IQ and looks don’t necessarily go hand in hand, although I think intelligence and overall health as well as facial symmetry are positively correlated. But not always (see Alan Greenspan).
I just mean that in the past there has been a generally untutored approach to reproduction and I don’t see anything wrong with being fully informed. If you a woman has a kids with a glib sociopath … well those genes get carried on. If she wants high IQ kids, she needs to think about that when picking a mate. And same thing with guys. Always going for the hot girl regardless of her brains may not be smart if you want your kids to do well.
In the Beginning, so it goes…lots of folks started with earth, air, water, and fire to try to figure out the physical universe. As White guys kept thinking about it, they got to LaPlace, the French mathmatician and astronomer who was another more or less universalist Encyclopedist, who said ” I have no need for God in my hypothesus.” Let this stand as the the paradigmatic example of thinking past earth, air, fire and water.
I personally do not exclude God in my hypotheses, but if God exists, He can best be read in Nature, or , the empirical.
Take today, where the greatest Question of the Day, greater even than the Jewish Question, is…Race. Everybody knows it exists but few are willing to admit it. Getting back to God, from a psychological angle, God can be seen as the Great Unknown, and thusly a problem for folks who try to understand God, and go on to write thousands of books wherein is registered nonsense and emotionalism, but also pretty rational thinking, especially in the Catholic tradition. With the Catholic Church, it is about as rational as it can get.
Leaving aside those who earnestly strive to understand God, most folks , at least nowadays, could not be bothered with doctrine, analysis, study, and the like. What one usually hears is stuff, like “I am spiritual but not religious.”
When asked about their spirituality it is usually a jumble of very irrational notions, and is very narcissistic in character.. .. Me, me, and me and God. God becomes not only everything they do not understand, and are unwilling to try to understand, but it becomes just an “is”, without possibility or motivation to think about.
Now, one might say that is not a bad solution to the problem. However, what it betokens is a refusal to think about something that one putatively “believes in.” If God is denied, in our context of the willingness to think, fine. One thought about it and came to conclusions which they can articulate.
Otoh, most folks allow God to subsume many things that can be thought about with empirical evidence. But inasmuch as thinking is difficult and does not pay, most folks don’t do it. What they do do is adopt the illusions currently in vogue, particularly if they are emotionally warm and fuzzy.
Universals do exist, but they are limited. The physical world offers up some universals, but when interrogated, usually demand rigorous discriminations and minute qualifiers by the dozens. “We are all equal human beings with little but superficial differerences”, goes the liberal mantra. In politics one often hears things like, “it is all about money.” “it is all about oil.”, “it is all about the Bilderburgers,” even “it is all abut the Jews.” (the latter has some objective and empirical metrics that sustain the claim…to a limited extent.)
In defense of universals, they can help thinking because the are given the job of organization and classification of data and things. Plato says a table has 4 legs and a flat surface to set things on. That is OK, but how much it tells us is scant. “Elephant” describes a whole class of more or less undifferentiated particular elephants. The only sub-classses are Asian and African, and maybe a couple more that I am unaware of.
Now, we can abstract and visualize the elephant into its various bodily parts. But we can get into troubled waters because of the parable of the Five Blind Men and the Elephant, each of which (the blind men) can only feel only one part, like the leg, or the trunk, and consequently describe the elephant as tree-like, or snake-like.
So universals are not simple. They exist, but are very limited, and we are very limited in our sight.
Geting back to God and very social, herdlike, humans who mostly live in a mental trance of “getting along and going along, ” Difficult problems are usually left to God or the politicians, or the therapists. Mostly they are left to God, and God does not lend Himself to thinking about him, or so we think. So, any matter that is (especially) unpleasant is filed under “God,” along with benign phenomena like water, until of course it morphs into a tsunami and becomes an “Act of God,” and those who survive the tidal wave, thank god for their special survival, god loves them… the ‘universal’ narcissism of our species. What a piece of work is Man.
After that introduction, let me state my thesis: “Culture is now God.” LIberals go on and on about culture without any understanding of what they are talking about, but they can talk and talk about this culture and that culture, and anthopology classes that prove we are all the same under the skin, and so on. The great God of the Universe (as the “Universe” fades in physics), so difficult for us secular folks who have a much more enlightened view of what God is, per the Unitarian-Universalists, and a thousand atheistic books, has returned as “Culture.” Every paragraph in “thinking about the social and political” contains the word ‘culture’. It has replaced the ‘God’ of the texts from just a century or two ago. Unfortunately, ‘Culture’ has not given us a Ten Commandments. But it has slyly suggested to us that everything is relative, everything is permitted that liberal law does not forbid, and that our own law is merely a cultural artefact among other artefacts that can be changed when relativity changes. This is especially true of sex. Different Strokes for Different Folks.
That this is a psychological swerve, a reaction-formation against the science of race and genetics, is obvious to any thinking person. The Universal Rainbow of Human Beings, All God’s Children, is sweet, warm, and fuzzy. Love is all you need, imagine no possessions, black and white together-we shall overcome, have been the liberal mantras for decades now in Europe and the U.S. (but they of course have been answered with Blue-eyed devils, kill Whitey, and so on. I leave that aside).
Universals with regard to race, are the pseudo-intellectual cop-outs of LIberalism, which cops-out of almost all real Problems by declaring…Declarations of the Rights of Man, and the whole series of non-negotiable demands for Human Dignity, Human Equality, and the like. “Culture” has become the universal solvent of rational discussion. All particulars are washed away by ‘Culture.’ If there is a Difference, it will be overcome by Culture, or , if not overcome, then Culture will make for Difference without a difference, rap is equal to Bach fugues, etc. There is nothing that cannot be smoothed over by Universal Human Rights. And best of all, if someone questions universal human rights, one has resigned from the Human Race, and will be barred from returning.
‘Culture’ thus becomes God, the answer to all questions, the great Solvent that melts all Particulars into the General. “Humanity” becomes the catechism of LIberals, with various lists to be memorized and regurgitated at social and intellectual gatherings, papers, speeches, and on and on.
Just as a small thinking exercise: think “United Nations.” Yup, there is a big Modernist klunk (Internatonal style more or less communist) of a building in New York City, with all God’s children in it trying to do right.
Wrong. No nations are united, thank god, and nothing but dreams and wasted money is the U.N. “Universal Culture” is the totalitarian mumbo-jumbo of Liberalism. It will bring “world peace.” All of these warm and fuzzy words are meaningless except as mind-states, fixations, feel-goodisms, trances, defenses against Reality. “Universal Feel Goodisms” might be a good candidate for a genuinely universal psychological principle for us befuddled humans, especially liberals and women. We sleepwalk with such notions as Universal Human Rights, Culture as the Explanation for bad things-change the culture and we will all be above average. ‘Culture’ is a swamp of refusal to think, to discriminate, to judge, to rank. ‘Culture’ is Female, it is Mother-Right, it is Oceanic, Formless, LIfe and Death and the Big All, the Cosmic Everything. It is unarguable, intractable, Beyond judgment. The swamp is level and the dissolution of everything that is High and Particular and Thinkable.
In short, words like Culture and Universalism, have become totalitarian blinders, like those used on horses to keep them looking straight ahead, to prevent thinking which needs to meander a bit, circle around, stop, go back, rest, and resume. The East (Japan?) says that Evil travels in a straight line. Blinders, Universalist Absolutes…these are the strait-jackets of the Present LIberal Order which now put us (in Europe and Canada) in jail for Thinking about God, or Nature, as opposed to saluting every piece of utopian nonsense that comes our way from Jewish and LIberal books, and media.
Joe
Another tragic example of delusional ideas about “justice” in modern Western society. A typical scenario: beautiful European white woman (Martine Magnussen) killed and raped by non-white boyfriend…and what does the victim’s grieving father do?
(from Newsweek):
“Since Yemen holds no extradition agreement with Great Britain, Magnussen’s father, Odd Petter Magnussen, tried diplomatic channels but with little luck. Meetings with the Norwegian foreign ministry and high-level British politicians brought promises but no results. Meanwhile, the Yemeni government offered to try Abdulhaq in country. The nation’s brutal and corrupt legal system, based on Sharia, punishes rape and murder with death; the convict is usually shot in the back of the head while laying facedown on the ground, and Magnussen’s father felt that neither that nor the unsolicited offer he got from strangers who suggested they’d fly to Yemen and kill Abdulhaq themselves would offer real justice for his daughter. What he wanted was for Abdulhaq to stand trial in Britain. “It is the only way to honor my daughter’s memory,” he told NEWSWEEK.”
So, he has the opportunity to have his daughter’s rapist and murderer legally executed by the Yemeni government, but no…that’s not “civilized.”
Is it any wonder that the world no longer respects the white race?
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/03/20/some-justice-for-martine.html
“I was literally full grown before I ever heard one white in personal conversation say any other race or culture was even equal to whites”
It’s not actual equality it’s moral equality.
Do unto others as you would be done by. Universal.
Rather than, Do unto others as you would be done by – as long as they’re IQ 100+.
Or, Do Unto others as you would be done by – as long as they’re White / Jewish / Belgian / Cute.
Also i think the trait exists along a spectrum so some white people are much more strongly effected than others and also people who have lived a long time with diversity are partially inoculated against the trait for empirical reasons.
“I don’t think eugenics necessily means forced sterilization”
Personally i wouldn’t want to stop anyone having a child and passing on their genes so eugenics for me would take the form of a set of policies that went from an enforced one-child policy at one end of the spectrum to a welfare subsidized six-child policy at the other with a range in between. In time that would solve what i’d want to solve.