Excerpt from “Human Sin or Social Sin”

Below is an excerpt from my book Human Sin or Social Sin. It will be of interest to those concerned with the intersections of politics, immigration, and ethnicity. The book is endorsed by Paul Gottfried and Tom Sunic. See the Amazon page for more information regarding endorsements.

During the nineteenth century, sex and the body were viewed as evil, but notions of race, class, gender, or “society” were viewed as good and legitimate. With sexual liberation, we displaced evil to the public sphere. With the displacement or socialization of evil, now the body is viewed as legitimate, even glorious, but race, class, gender, and “society” are viewed as evil, illegitimate and to be purged. As “society” during the nineteenth century was viewed as glorious, and the body as sinful, now the body is viewed as glorious and society as sinful. As the evils of the body were to be purged, now the evils of “society” or the social body are to be purged. As the individual was viewed as potentially sinful or “hegemonic,” so we now view the social body that way. Specifically, the resistance to race science, or any other “hegemonic discourse,” results, it is shown, from the perception that it is socially hubristic or evil.

This perception in turn resulted from the fact that the traditional Seven Deadly Sins were, with sexual liberation, displaced from the body to the social sphere, thereby creating the pathological Seven Deadly Social Sins, which need to be purged through social and political action. These deadly social sins are (1) Pride, which became Racism; (2) Covetousness: Class Elitism; (3) Lust: “Sexism” and “Gender” existing “Out There”; (4) Gluttony: Consumer Fetishism; (5) Vanity: Media Images of Beauty; (6) Envy: National Honor and Expansionism, the National Socialists’ irredentist impulses being notorious; and (7) Sloth: the Lack of Social Action: “Are you fighting for diversity?” As it was once imperative to purge the sins from our body, so it is now imperative to purge the sins from the social body.

As the Devil was the epitome of evil, now Hitler is the epitome of evil. As we were frightened by the Devil, now we are frightened by Hitler. As the Devil made our blood boil, now Hitler makes our blood boil. As we once could agree on little else besides the complete depravity of the Devil, now we can agree on little else besides the complete depravity of Hitler. As the Devil once had a lurid and educational presence in our lives, now Hitler has a lurid and educational presence in our lives. As it was viewed as savvy to have a disgusted awareness of the Devil, the serpent, now it is viewed as savvy to have a disgusted awareness of Hitler. As knowledge of the Devil and his minions was viewed as intellectually relevant, now knowledge of Hitler and his minions is viewed as intellectually relevant. As we could not learn too many moral lessons from that wily Devil, now we cannot learn too many moral lessons from that wily Hitler. The Salvation Army was founded during the nineteenth century, is still with us today, and has clearly moved its headquarters to the universities.

As our corrupt bodies were thrust upon us during the expulsion from Paradise, now “society” — our corrupt social bodies — are thrust upon us, inspiring purging social and political rebellion and socially redemptive love for the Blacks and other ethnic groups. But an essential category here is groups, which are a unified and compelling moral vision for Western identity. And today, as in the past, there are those who are “enlightened” and “progressive” and then there’s “the benighted, hopelessly lost to sin.” Whites are still the fulcrum and they remain morally stratified: as in the nineteenth century, women today are the moral avant-garde and badger men with ideals and stories of moral uplift.

This huge moral agenda is so imposing for people that the motto was and remains, “See no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil.” People no longer “see” race, gender, class, etc., and instead see menacing, “hegemonic” society or the social body. This is what people fear and attack. Mentioning the biological basis of “differences” raises eyebrows, since it evokes suspicions of hubris, or the sin of social pride, or a hegemonic discourse. Recall that pride was considered the root of all evil and a terrible temptation. As people once didn’t talk about sex except to contemn it, now people don’t talk about race, gender, or class — “society” — except to condemn it. So it’s not a coincidence that during the 1920s we jettisoned both the old puritanism and bio-determinism in the social sciences.

This schema of sin and redemptive love defines the culture’s ideals, philosophies, and visions of the sinful or righteous history, present and future. Hence, the common rewriting of history to get it in line with multi-cultural priorities and Whites’ social sins, and the new visions of the future with everyone together, defining “the rapture,” or the complete union and triumph of love. It was and is a commonplace in popular Christian culture that an individual must overcome pride with love. As for Plato, love was Jesus’ central teaching and doctrine. So what for an individual was a moral problem is for us today a “social” problem that implies different strategies of redemption politics than that of the nineteenth century. Non-Whites have a similar moral and educational role and seek to help benighted White males through militant “activism” or by setting a good example. Hence, the inspiration for groups like Black Lives Matter and their “relevant” social activism to raise our consciousness of our social sins. So today Whites have to heroically overcome the old social pride of racism with cross-group love.

As Whites were once above the body, and felt superior to it, now they are above the social body, or race, class, and gender, feel superior to it, and fear debasement. This is the new “cool” or dismissive attitude. This desire for transcendence is what drives a lot of the bizarre statements, like one from Derrida that culture should not be identical with itself.[1] A documentary film on Foucault is entitled “Foucault against Himself”; it quotes him as saying, “Don’t ask me who I am, and don’t tell me to remain the same.” Social self-effacement or the new social modesty—the more extravagantly promoted the better—is the only thing that counts today as moral and intellectual insight. So science, with its “hegemonic” principles and differences, be damned.

As Jesus was both pivot and purpose of this moral and historical drama, the Blacks today, as Christ-types, are viewed as central — or so the sociologists intone, “They suffer for our social sins,” sufferings like poverty. So Whites yearn for redemption and pay for redemption, and desperately desire loving attachment with Blacks. On Taylor Swift’s two-hour music film 1989 World Tour, which is available on iTunes, the symbolic intersections of sex, race, and morals are clear; this is the norm in music videos; White musicians bend over backward to show how loving they are. Taylor Swift and her fans sometimes use their fingers to make a heart shape.

In the Justin Bieber music video Baby (Bonus Video), with the exception of two or three Whites, all of the extras are non-White. In the film Ghost (1990), the ghost of Patrick Swayze is resurrected in the body of Whoopi Goldberg to realize a relationship of love — with both Goldberg and his girlfriend. So, as we were to love one another in Jesus, now it is essential that Whites love one another in the Blacks, and this goal and unity for Whites defines redemption culture and politics — “Celebrate Diversity!” The Gwen Stefani music video, conveniently titled Hollaback Girl (Super Clean Version), available on iTunes, portrays her with her arm around a Black man as she points to him with a smile. And as in the Bieber video, the majority of the cast is non-White. So as loving Jesus cleaned our sins, now loving the Blacks cleanses our sins.

If this appears unlikely, its origins are clear in a quote from the Oxford Dictionary of Art about the Isenheim Altarpiece:

The hospital at Isenheim cared particularly for plague victims, and the concentration of Christ’s appalling physical agonies, his body gruesomely mangled and torn, must have bolstered the faith of the sick by reminding them that he too had suffered horribly before triumphing over death. In the Resurrection, Christ displays his nail and lance wounds, but the lacerations that cover his body in the Crucifixion have disappeared, affirming that the patients at the hospital could be cleansed of their diseases and sins.[2]

In the central image of the Crucifixion in the Altarpiece, St. John points to Jesus, just as Stefani points to the Black man, to remind us of our moral duty and benefits.

In the Taylor Swift film, her band is composed of White males, but her singers and dancers are almost all either Black or have a tan or at least are not pure White. Swift is the only visibly very White person who is regularly on stage. This is the state of popular culture, and so is very important. This is what the largely White market expects. To do otherwise would apparently raise moral suspicions. Thirty years ago, tokenism was common, like having one crucifix on a wall, but today this impulse has reached manic levels.

To get a sense of how unrealistic this ethnic representation is, Blacks are 13% of the American population, Hispanics are 17%, Asians are 5%, and Euro-Whites are 62%. So if a music video has twenty people, thirteen should be White, two should be Black, four should be Hispanic, and one should be Asian. So thirteen Whites and seven non-Whites, but this is clearly not what is going on. Non-Whites have a special status, whose origins and nature this study will address.

In the film Bruce Almighty (2003), a Black man, Morgan Freeman, plays “God.” During the 2012 Democratic national convention, a group distributed literature describing Barack Obama as Christ; and on the cover of Newsweek magazine, Obama was portrayed as an Indian god, with a caption that read, “God of All Things.” If a White does not love the Blacks, or even presents scientific evidence that reflects negatively on them, he will be an outcast in most “proper” social circles as a threat to their moral fiber and salvation. Whites know who their moral leaders are today, and before whom to smile and defer on the critical moral issues facing “society.” Of course, the moral of the story is always that Whites are collectively guilty. It doesn’t make much difference what you say, so long as your heart is in the right place. This is a good example of Plato’s noble lie: running starry-eyed on this moral treadmill of ideals is what defines most of the activities of the “proper” social sciences. Heretics are not welcome.

This is why our schools have turned into huge Christian love factories, but now directed to outgroup members instead of ingroup members, as in the nineteenth century. (Recall our traditional moral dilemma regarding pride.) If a White individual wants to have a good reputation around school or work, he or she should never miss an opportunity to befriend a Black, and should make sure everyone else knows about it. The title of a recent news story was: “Paul Ryan [the current Speaker of the House] doesn’t want us acting like ‘angry reactionaries.’” We absolutely have to love, and not “hate,” outgroup members. During a classical music concert, I described a composer as an enemy, and a young woman said, through her teeth, “There are no enemies.” So Donald Trump, during his 2016 presidential campaign, was often portrayed as just a red-faced, screaming monster at the bottom of the pit in Dante’s Inferno, and of course he is presented for the moral edification of the “enlightened” and as a warning to the benighted of what also awaits them down below. A recent article in Elle magazine described Trump as a snake.[3] There are rumors going around Berkeley that his supporters meet at night and eat human children. As supporters of the Anti-Christ were targeted, now supporters of the anti-Black are targeted. Newscaster Chris Mathews, and Noam Chomsky likened Trump to Hitler.[4] People who think like this are always looking for “signs” of the end-times, or when the Anti-Christ will come and we can finally have it out.

As we socialized the seven deadly sins, we also socialized the Christian virtues, which were Faith, Hope, and Charity. So you just have to have faith in the salvific power of the Blacks. But don’t worry, Hollywood is never short of new ways of feeding our addiction to fantasy (after all, this has always been its job). If you don’t have faith, then you are a morally suspect person and not fit for proper society. Regarding “hope,” this is the holiest posture a White can have; he just has to sit on the edge of his seat, waiting in anticipation of the visions and miracles that always come from the Blacks and their elite priests, conjurers, or representatives in the “best” schools—though what has to take the cake is clearly, and literarily, “charity.”

[1] Quoted here from Anthony Pagden, The Idea of Europe (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 12.

[2] Ian Chilvers, Oxford Dictionary of Art (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 317.

[3]Rachael Combe, “Cool Hand Maggie,” Elle, 32(11), July 2017, 94-142.

[4] http://www.catchnews.com/world-news/noam-chomsky-just-likened-donald-trump-to-adolf-hitler-says-current-social-atmosphere-in-us-worse-1456635103.html

20 replies
  1. ilena
    ilena says:

    I went to a Christian flick at the theater and was subjected to several commercials before the movie started, and all the commercials were bi-racial couples and one Christmas commercial with Muslims in it. No movie previews were shown. I went with some friends who were also disturbed by this. Social engineering and Psychological warfare…..very strong attacks. It would be easier to battle the enemy in an open physical fight than how they are doing it.

    • Fred Mertz
      Fred Mertz says:

      The problem is that you can’t complain except on a website like this. Or at least you may feel that way. If you complain you may find you are not alone and others will see that they are not alone either and the movement gathers steam. As things stand the taboos are the main source of the left’s power. It’s true that those who break them often take a hit — getting fired or ostracized or in Europe going to jail. But an America that just elected Trump should provide a sufficiently promising environment for OPEN dissent. It’s up to us ‘sheeple’.

    • Michael Adkins
      Michael Adkins says:

      As long as we allow hipsters, hennetasters and thralls to be authority figures they will do so. Our problem at the moment is that we always see giants, therefore we are looking through the eyes of a child.

  2. Hipster Racist
    Hipster Racist says:

    Richard Spencer, in an old speech titled “Why They Hate Us,” made similar points about “racism” replacing traditional notions of sin and specifically pointed out how “shame” and “guilt” are triggered in White people over race in the way that “shame” and “guilt” were once triggered in White people over sex in the Victorian era.

    In many American Evangelical Christian cultures, a typical way that a young person, even a child, is “saved” is by showing them images of Jesus being tortured on the cross, making the child feel that he or she is guilty of all sorts of heinous sins, and that it is his or her fault that Jesus was murdered. Often times the child will cry and then beg to be forgiven, as children are traumatized by the idea that they caused the torture and death of some innocent person they didn’t even know.

    When they “accept responsibility for their sins” by “accepting Jesus into their heart” they are then “forgiven” provided that they are constantly on guard against committing any more “sins.” This is, of course, textbook child abuse, a form of causing emotional trauma that without the cover of religion would never be acceptable.

    The “anti-racist” religion works in precisely the same way. I recall in high school, in a mixed class of whites and blacks, being shown pictures of lynchings and slaves being whipped, and all the white kids were told that this was “our fault.” The black kids were of course humiliated and angry, and the teachers were quite explicit that the black kids had the “right” to be angry at the white kids, and the white kids had the duty to feel guilt and shame.

    The way the white kids could be “forgiven” for their “sin” of “racism?” Why, to become anti-white and to constantly be on guard against the “sin” of “racism” in their daily life.

    Without the veneer of “anti-racist” religion, this sort of “anti-racist awareness training” would be considered nothing but child abuse and the purposeful abuse of children leading to emotional trauma.

    • Fred Mertz
      Fred Mertz says:

      Sounds to me like the school was teaching collective guilt, which ought to be very controversial. How does that fit in with their mission of inculcating “self-esteem”? How does it fit in with due process of law? This is another example of Jews using blacks as a weapon against gentiles. Fostering race hate is supposed to be a horrible thing that whites do to blacks and Jews, and yet here we see Jews doing it (the educational establishment is 99% Jewish.)

  3. Andrea Ostrov Letania
    Andrea Ostrov Letania says:

    Though ‘democracy’ is pegged as a quintessential ‘Western Value’, the fact is most of Western History hasn’t been marked by democracy or even republican forms of government. Most Greek city-states were not democratic in the manner of Athens, and even Athens underwent profoundly alternated among forms of governance. Roman Republic soon gave way to imperial rule, and the long stretch of Western European history from the Fall of Rome to the early 20th century was characterized by feudalism, aristocracy, theocracy, and monarchy than by ‘democracy’.

    Does this mean that most of Western History was not ‘western’ since it wasn’t ‘democratic’? Furthermore, Byzantine and Russian Europe hardly experienced any democracy at all except in the late modern period. And a huge chunk of what was once Byzantium came under Turkish, Kurdish, or Arab rule where democracy is either non-existent or practiced differently from ‘Western’ standards. Also, the historical lessonof democracy has been as much about failure as success, doom as well as hope. Democracy, by its ruthless autistic-logic, almost invariably leads to rootlessness, confusion, decadence, and demise.

    For democracy to survive, it must be fascist. This is why the fascist-democracies of Iran, Israel, and Turkey face more secure futures that the decadent-democracies of the West that says stuff like “there is no such thing as French Culture” or “Great Britain has always been a ‘nation of immigrants’.” America’s rise to prominence owed to its being a fascist-democracy, a land of liberty and freedom that was nevertheless bound by powerful sense of racial identity, cultural heritage, and core moral values. Democracy without fascist themes to keep it bound to a people and culture will become like a hot air balloon that euphorically lifts into the air only to run out of gas and then come down crashing like the one in the opening scene of ANDREI RUBLEV.

    Just imagine the future of Israel if Jews were to adopt the autistic-logic of abstract democracy over the current fascist-democracy. Israeli democracy would go from freedom & liberty for Jews in a Jewish State to ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ to any bunch of mobs who want to invade Israel to enjoy ‘universal rights’. Since the Iron Law of Human Organismic Behavior is “poorer folks move to richer folks”, Israel will soon be swamped by Africans and Arabs from less developed parts of the world.

    That is precisely what is happening to the decadent-democracies of Europe, and if left unchecked, it will mean their doom and downfall. A fascist-democracy uses freedom and liberty to protect and strengthen the people of a particular nation. A decadent-democracy offers freedom and liberty to foreign invaders to take over and destroy the native population deracinated by PC.

    Deracinators or Deracists are the biggest danger to the Advanced World.

    • ariadnatheo
      ariadnatheo says:

      1. The third worlders hitting Europe in tsunami waves do not represent any kind of “organismic” (sic) phenomenon. This is an organized and well-funded onslaught, long in the planning by the global Jewish elite and enabled by the Jewish-suborned governments (a la Merkel). The “refugees”‘ itinerary is not a chaotic, directionless swarming but a targeted attack on Western Europe. Never heard of Barbara Specter? Never heard of Soros?
      2. I can think of no more wrong-headed, left-handed and insulting support for white nationalism/racialism than the urge to emulate Israel/zionism.
      White nationalism is grounded in patriotism, in the defense of one’s own culture, traditions and land, all of which are real, not a scaffolding of ideology pasted together with myths that a confrerie of rootless fanatics uses to lay claim to a stolen land. The Jews are not racialists, they are racists, despite not being a race.
      They are the “deracinators” who are “the biggest danger to the Advanced World.”

      • Fred Mertz
        Fred Mertz says:

        It might be helpful to note the various ways people on the right castrate their own positions to make them seem more ‘universal’ or defensible within canons of argument laid down by the left. Richard Spencer himself uses the Israel example to defend identitarianism. I agree it has a downside. But since the white race has produced its share of jerks, I prefer to think of white identity as primarily cultural, with race a contributing factor. An article I recommend to all is Renan’s What Is a Nation?

        • ariadnatheo
          ariadnatheo says:

          I see only downsides. Nothing counters universalism more trenchantly than the tribal globalism of the Jews: truly Athens versus Jerusalem.
          Irrespective of the number of “jerks” the white race produced, white identity is inextricably bound with race and it is expressed in its culture and ethos.
          Renan’s definition of a nation is false but turns out to be very useful to zionists. He claims that differences in race, language, religion and geography do not matter if people who have a strong bond “wish to become a nation.”
          He claims that “people, unified by joy, grief, national ( a little legerdemain here since before being nation they can’t have anything “national”) sacrifices, triumphs and travails in the past” can “bond and advance together as an entity.” And more explicitly in Soman’s rendition: “An example can be seen with the Jewish people. The memory of the Holocaust is shared by all Jews, and it unites them for a common goal of national existence. The result is just as Renan’s argument predicted—the founding of the state of Israel.”
          Nice try but no cigar and not even close. A nation is defined by people having
          — a common history (Jews do not any more than say, dwarfs or hunchbacks all over the word being shunned or persecuted in various societies across the ages)
          — a continuous existence on contiguos territory for centuries (hence the bond to their land)
          — a common language (not a revived, dead ancient language being taught to all joiners)
          — a common culture (an ideology does not a culture make)
          — a majority common religion (perhaps Jews have that, in fact more than one: the Holocaust? Judaism? Atheism?)
          — a body of traditions passed down through generations in the form of literature (oral and written) and arts that embody the national spirit and ethos

      • Anthony Clifton
        Anthony Clifton says:

        when did the first Jesus hating “Jew” show up in the

        Old Testament…?


        where specifically does one find a “Jew” hating Jesus
        with a copy of the Talmud in Hosea 1:11…?

        the LANGUAGE must become “Pure” to properly
        dispose of malicious “JEW” contrived stupidity
        which is the religion of the braindeadgoy –
        Zephaniah 3:9….

        how many generations of sodomites would there be on a deserted island…

  4. JustAThought
    JustAThought says:

    People often describe the left as religious-like, but, in my opinion, they usually stop short of describing matters in more satisfying detail.

    I agree that the left is essentially a religion. But what are the elements of the religion? Other than doing crazy things, how is it religious-like?

    Religion offers hope for the future. Christian heaven, for example, is a very robust hope for the future. But what if one can’t accept that? A much thinner gruel, but nonetheless still at least a gruel of sorts, is the idea that the individual is connected to the future of humanity. But this connection would only instill hope inside oneself if the future of humanity was not random and definitely not likely to lead to war/massive destruction. Basically, if one puts one’s hope in humanity then simultaneously one must insist that humanity is on an up-up-and-away trajectory.

    What ensures such a trajectory? Or, looked at another way, what would ensure the opposite of that trajectory–and hence despair? If conflicts were limited to the individual–if there existed no group-level conflicts–then one could be much more hopeful that the future of humanity would be bright. Group level (or identity-level) conflicts are unresolvable, typically. Members of each side block-vote for their side. Self-reflection and self-criticism on a group level is rare. If group level conflicts existed, one could kiss goodbye to the idea of a bright future.

    Hence, the left is an anti identity generalization league (anti “social sin,” as the author of this article might say). Try to generalize in a negative way about any identity group, and the left simply will not accept what one says. Because they can’t and maintain their religious allegiance to a bright future–the thin gruel that displaced an actual heaven and an eternal life in heaven for all believers.

    Conservatives do see group level conflicts, however. I think this partly explains why the academy is so leftist in orientation. If you see deep, unresolvable conflicts, bringing up the truth about those conflicts doesn’t really get one much on a social level. In fact, one is almost certain to be despised by the Other for criticizing them. (Although there are individual Others who do self reflect, the overall tenor of a group of Others is to not reflect in the face of deep, baked-in-the-cake criticism.)

    Leftists typically believe they dominate in the academy because 1) they’re the smart ones and 2) are more oriented toward truth more than conservatives. But in reality, all (at least most) people are oriented toward status, respect, and esteem. The leftist, believing that fundamentally there are no deep-level conflicts, can criticize society and still believe that at the end of the day (at some point in the distant future) people will respect him, esteem him, and love him for bringing up the criticism (which, needless to say, will never involve congenital criticism of identity groups).

    The conservative can’t do this (even if they only realize this on the subconscious level). Thus for the conservative there’s a certain futility to being in the academy. Humans are creatures who evolved not to seek truth but to fix practical problems related to survival (which, obviously, is a prerequisite for reproduction). So what if truth, instead of fixing a problem, leads to an even bigger problem–an endless conflict? What’s the point, then, of bringing up truth? There’s not much of a point. Hence, conservative go into jobs that for them are more practically oriented: business, medicine, etc.

    I’m not on the alt right or the left, by the way. I’d like to see America go back to start of the eighties in terms of how different ethnic groups related to one another. Society didn’t seem as radicalized then as it does now, but perhaps that’s stemming from where I was at the time.

  5. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    You characterise contemporary ‘wisdom’ so accurately that I am close to screaming in fear and frustration. Only yesterday, I watched a video that showed a panel of ‘trans’ oddballs addressing a university audience. One, a heinously charmless allegedly-female person, began her lecture with the ‘aside’ that she would like to see marriage banned for everyone. That provoked laughter and clapping. Then she declared sonorously that sex is real but gender is ideological. That was received with prolonged clapping. Of course, her message was that we are not assigned our sex identity at birth; we chose it. The audience oozed unstinting approval of this ugly freak of a woman’s burbling. (Conversely, Germaine Greer is attacked visciously for daring to say that a surgically mutilated man is not ipso facto a woman.)

    For heaven’s sake! Are even university students susceptible to this kind of shabby, shoddy ‘reasoning’? Then again, I suppose that these days there are univerities and there are ‘universities’. But even so, how can the a-rational have gained so much ground among young people, and how has the freak/wierdo attained the status of the savant/saint?

  6. Mr Curious
    Mr Curious says:

    ARSES show not one White Man in NHS & Teacher Training CultMarx diarrhoea. NICE look like ARSE gatgoyles. Ugly diversitoid ratfaces like (((Heather Rabbats))) cucking hard.

  7. Sir Charles Pipkins
    Sir Charles Pipkins says:

    Teenage girls are the main audience for pop music. They know how suggestible and gullible White gurls are, so they bombard music videos of ‘cool blacks’ with the sort of White girl who would never give them a second look IRL.

    This is also why they push feminism and female pols so hard. I’ve almost never seen a female politician who wasn’t an unconscious Frankfurt School Marxist (even nominally right wing ones who would never ID as such).

    • Trenchant
      Trenchant says:

      (Mod. Note: Thanks, Trenchant. Since I’ve not viewed or seen the title of that film, I’ve referred this matter to the “research department” for advice.)

  8. Jett Rucker
    Jett Rucker says:

    I’m envious of your Amazon listing. Last March, Amazon delisted over 100 of our titles concerning Holocaust history CORRECTION. They disagreed with the writ issued by Yad Vashem, so Amazon took them all down, after having carried most of them for years on end. Now you can only get them at http://www.holocausthandbooks.com.

  9. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    While generally agreeing with the article, I believe there are some points that need to be recognized.
    – Lust not sex was evil. Sexual intercourse was and is natural between consenting adults, and particularly so between a husband and wife. What was evil was wanton/lustful intercourse particularly with multiple partners or outside a marital relationship.
    – All of the examples given are true, to varying degrees. The question that needs to be answered is how did this happen? In my view, it has been the corruption of our language.

    Here are a few examples.
    – Co-incidentally, my Oxford Dictionary “Word of the Day” is: discrimen, n.
    [‘A distinction or difference; (also) something that enables a distinction to be made.’]
    It attaches neither good nor bad connotation, and the word is the basis of discrimination – the act. Until “New” or “Modern” concise dictionary was published in 1998, the primary definition of discrimination referred to recognition of differences, or the ability to recognize differences. The primary definition now is:
    “The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.”
    As a background to this, to the best of my knowledge. all “human rights” type legislation in the English speaking world has always prohibited “unfair discrimination” or “unjust discrimination”. In today’s world the adjectives have been added to the definition.
    Our language is now full of words with altered meanings. Is there any wonder that our society is breaking down? It’s not just a generation gap with our young White population, old farts like me don’t even speak the same language.

  10. JRM
    JRM says:

    Brilliant article. This is a potent area for diagnosing our current cultural ills.

    For example, it is only as a “faith” that racial equality can be maintained as a tenet. Why are the races equal? Because it wouldn’t be fair if they weren’t. I challenge anyone to find a coherent *positive* argument for racial equality of intelligence (or other valuable characteristics); all arguments for racial “equality” are based on the evil of viewing the races as unequal.

    They will throw around words like “pseudo-science” to attack race-realist thinking; if that doesn’t scare off the holdouts, they will proceed directly to analogies of Hitler and the Holohoax to silence dissenters. “You shouldn’t think that way” becomes “It is too dangerous to allow you to think that way”. Just as atheists always represented a challenge to Christian communities, some thoughts are dangerous because “who knows what they might lead to?”.

    Why can’t racial equality be defended scientifically, with no ad hominem arguments or moral scare tactics?

    One problem is that the Left holds little faith in ideas like equality or even reason. All morality (and meaning) is relative and situational, and in this time and place, love of minorities is a social good, paying attention to racial tendencies in any way that might lead to criticism of a minority group is a social evil.

    This argument: “all races are equal” is always, ergo, substantiated via 1. FAITH (it wouldn’t be fair if the races weren’t equal, therefore they are equal), or 2. simple situational PRAGMATISM (I will get in trouble if I say black and White brains function differently, so I will refrain from mentioning it), or 3. broader social MORALITY (thinking any group is inferior leads to genocide of that group).

    Of course this is extended to a taboo against criticism of Muslim social adaptations, Jewish group survival strategies, et al. The only group that can be attacked is Whites, and as the religious tests for true believers become ever more stringent, males are singled out as the primary problem.

    White females, while hated at a level that would shock them were they to learn of it, are seen as torch-bearers for sacrifice to out-groups, and are tolerated. The extent to which a White person (almost always female) can be “saved” or “redeemed” is gauged by the degree to which they hold POCs sacred.

    The call for death as the final solution to the White Male Problem is being heard more often these days. If all White males were eliminated, those left on earth might just find that paradise of equality they seek. This isn’t science, or rationality, this is religious millennial fervor, and we’d best face up to it.

  11. inspector general
    inspector general says:

    “Vanity” was not on of the “Seven Deadly Sins”. Wrath was, and is missing on this new list.

  12. Vigilant Guardian
    Vigilant Guardian says:

    This article tells some truths, althouh in a very distorting way.

    A few examples.

    “This is why our schools have turned into huge Christian love factories,”

    This is a lie, even with the explanation I didnt quote. This is anti-christian, if anything. The author brilliantly describes this phenomenon, only to make it go awry at the end. But maybe that was his goal all along, seeing that sunic and gottfried endorsed his book.

    Back when Christianity was real, it made sense. It was working. there was a functioning society, that was nationalist, “racist”, “anti-semitic” (in today’s words). And it was GOOD.

    The author makes it look like that it was one arbitrary concept (Christiniaty) replaced by another (political correctness, that is what he describes, although he doesnt use this word).

    Political correctness, or whatever phrase you want to describe it with, is a fake religion. It is not real.

    Christianity is a true religion in every sense of the word. PC (Political Correctness) is a quasi-religion, like a mimic mimicking another animal. Parasites too, can employ mimicry. PC is a parasite, that kills you, long-term.

    The author does a good job in explaning the phenomenon – PC replacing Christianity, and the analogies between the two – but fails at recognizing the two of them for what they are.

    The intrusion of PC into christianity is called Liberation theology.

    It was widely condemned by popes (especially Ratzinger), until the latest one, who is a liberation theologist communist himself.

    In the Christian framework, this is anti-Christ. This is against Christ. This is satanic, demonic, comes from the Devil.

    The author portrays Christianity vs PC as a false dilemma. It is anything but.

Comments are closed.