Magnissimum Mysterium: Pondering a Huge but Hidden Factor in Politics and White Nationalism

The most important thing in the universe can’t be seen, touched, tasted, smelt or heard. No scientific instrument can detect it or measure it. Indeed, everything that science knows and understands about it could be written on the full stop at the end of this sentence. Then again, from the scientific point of view there is no reason whatsoever for it to exist. The universe could — and for billions of years seemingly did — get along perfectly well without it.

Conquering infinity

What is it? It’s consciousness, of course. Without it, you have nothing. With it, you have everything — the myriad sights, sounds, scents, sensations of human existence. All the thoughts and emotions. And the ability to transcend the material. Consider this example of simple logic: If A = B and B = C, then A = C. Such logic applies throughout space and time, although its enactment within your brain occupies a mere speck of space and blink of time. When you understand and accept the truth of that reasoning, electro-chemical activity occurs in your brain. And for present-day science, that’s all there is: electro-chemistry.

But truth and reason don’t exist in matter: they exist in consciousness. They transcend the material universe, as you can also see in an equation like 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16… = 1. It takes infinitely long for that equation to become true, but we can recognize its truth in a flash of finite time. Reason can conquer infinity and rampage throughout space and time. And all of that takes place not within matter, as science presently understands it, but within consciousness, as science patently and persistently fails to understand it.

“Reality is inside the skull”

When I say that, I’m not denying the importance of matter. Still less am I denying the existence of objective reality. There are two opposite and perhaps equal errors you can fall into about consciousness. One is the error of scientism, where you ignore the importance of consciousness. The other is the error of leftism, where you exaggerate the power of consciousness. As so often with a leftist error, one can illustrate it by quoting from Orwell:

For a moment Winston ignored the dial. He made a violent effort to raise himself into a sitting position, and merely succeeded in wrenching his body painfully.

“But how can you control matter?” he burst out. “You don’t even control the climate or the law of gravity. And there are disease, pain, death——”

O’Brien silenced him by a movement of his hand. “We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull. You will learn by degrees, Winston. There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation — anything. I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wish to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it. You must get rid of those nineteenth-century ideas about the laws of Nature. We make the laws of Nature.” (Nineteen Eighty-Four, Part 3, chapter 3)

No, O’Brien is wrong. Consciousness is not all-powerful, as the error of leftism states. But I do insist that Consciousness is King. Without it, nothing matters and matter nothings, one could say. For all its power, however, it’s a crippled king. I can be certain of its existence in only one tiny place within a huge universe: myself. I can only deduce its existence in others by their behavior. But none of us can be certain of its existence in others. All of us can say: “It’s possible that I’m the only human being — the only entity in the universe — that has ever been conscious and ever will be.” That’s an absurd idea and I don’t believe it, but I can’t prove that it’s false.

Seven simple words

Nor can anyone else, because no-one can provide an objective test for consciousness. All we’ve got is the subjective test, the proof from me: “I know it exists because I’ve got it.” Some of the world’s greatest intellects (and not so-great, like Daniel Dennett) have puzzled over consciousness and tried to explain how it arises from seemingly inert matter. They’ve failed completely. All of millions of words written about the origins of consciousness, the scientific conferences centered on it and the technical journals devoted to it, have been as much use as a chocolate teapot. You can sum up most of the science and philosophy of consciousness in seven simple words: “It’s there but we don’t understand how.” Consciousness is not merely a magnum mysterium — a great mystery — but a magnissimum mysterium — a greatest mystery. Perhaps the greatest possible mystery and perhaps an insoluble one.

We shall see. In the meantime, I want to discuss a neglected aspect of consciousness: its role in politics and its relevance to White nationalism. Indeed, consciousness has always been neglected by the humans who possess it. Although it is not merely the most important aspect of human existence but literally a sine qua non of human existence, we don’t even have good words to refer to it, whatever our mother-tongue. The word “consciousness” is clumsy and imprecise, an uncomfortable and ill-sounding combination of Latin and English. It would be good to have a short, narrowly defined and purely native word for the concept. For example, we could call consciousness brainth, in acknowledgement of the undoubted and intimate connexion between consciousness and the material brain.

White brainth is distinct

And what about the experience and concept of being conscious of being conscious, or brainth of brainth? At present, “mindfulness” is the best we can do. I suggest “imbrainth” as another possibility, although “mindfulness” does have the advantage of being both easy to understand and purely English: mind-full-ness. Using pure English for brainth (as a phenomenon) would be a way of stressing or asserting that brainth is bred — that is, that consciousness is intimately connected not merely with the material brain, but with the racial nature of that material brain. White brainth, “White consciousness” in the neurological, non-political sense, is distinct from Black brainth or Jewish brainth or Chinese brainth (and, in a narrower sense, English brainth is distinct from Irish or German or French brainth). Just as consciousness is the most important thing about being human, so White brainth is most important thing about being White.

A small thought-experiment can prove the supreme importance of White brainth. Suppose that it became possible for a group of technologically skilled and racially conscious Whites to colonize a second and presently uninhabited Earth in a distant galaxy, where those Whites can build a civilization entirely and permanently free of Blacks, Jews, Muslims and other alien and harmful groups. But there is one condition on the colony: those star-spanning Whites and their descendants will be what modern philosophy calls zombies, that is, they’ll be people who look and behave normally but have no interior mental life. The White colonists will never be conscious, will never have brainth, even as they build an interstellar White civilization to surpass all White achievements on the current Earth. And the new civilization will remain for ever unknown and inaccessible to any conscious being, human or alien.

A hidden premise within leftism

Would there be any value to the existence and endeavours of that hypothetical White colony in a distant galaxy? No, none whatsoever. “Without brainth, we ain’t-th,” you could say. It is only if the colony is conscious, if the colonists have brainth, that the new White civilization could have any value. A universe without brainth, one that never contains consciousness and never impinges on consciousness, is ontologically indistinguishable from nothingness. “No brainth, no being,” as you could further say. But it’s difficult to say short things about brainth, because the topic of consciousness is both complex and elusive. When we talk about brainth, are we always talking about brains? Is every statement about consciousness translatable into a statement about brain-states and electro-chemistry? Perhaps it is, but that wouldn’t mean that any conscious experience might just as well be unconscious and remain in mindless matter. Brainth might be bound to brain, but brain and brainth are distinct in more than just the easy accessibility of brain and the elusiveness of brainth.

Nevertheless, I want to argue that the elusiveness of brainth is very politically important. For example, I think consciousness is a hidden premise in the cult of egalitarianism, which insists that all human groups are essentially equal and interchangeable: men and women, Blacks and Whites, Christians and Muslims. It’s very difficult or impossible to argue that men and women or different races are equal in quantifiable ways — by athletic prowess or civilizational achievement, for example. But consciousness isn’t quantifiable or indeed measurable in any simple way. All human beings possess it, so how can we say (leftism implicitly claims) that the consciousness of one human is superior or inferior to the consciousness of another?

Valorizing victimhood

And if human consciousness is special and, as it appears, somehow floats free of matter, how can we deny the equal potential of all human groups? Egalitarian leftism says that Newton, Beethoven and Michelangelo could just as easily have been Black or Aborigine, because how can you distinguish between one instantiation of human consciousness and another? Well, as a racist wrong-thinker, I hold that you can both distinguish and rank instantiations of consciousness, or brainths, as we might call them. Leftism denies that this is possible, at least at the beginning of its implicit reliance on consciousness as a premise of equality. But of course the egalitarianism of modern leftism is not sincere. As Orwell put it: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” And although the apparent or alleged incommensurability of consciousness is, I would argue, a hidden premise in leftist egalitarianism, leftists contradict themselves with a later hidden premise: that some forms of consciousness are superior to others — in particular, leftist brainths are morally superior to those of non-leftists. There are brainths that are better and brainths that are worse.

When leftism “valorizes” victimhood, it is elevating the consciousness of victims over that of their oppressors. Powerless victims are in pain, which entitles them, by the alchemy of leftism, to exercise power over their oppressors. As the late, great Joseph Sobran said of one particular example of this alchemy: “Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you.” Indeed, Britain’s late Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks explicitly stated that the cult of victimhood was Jewish in origin:

Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain’s top Jewish official warned in extracts from [a recently published] book. … Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm Britain’s diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in his book, The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society, he said the movement had run its course. “Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation,” Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the Times of London.

“Liberal democracy is in danger,” Sacks said, adding later: “The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear.” Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.” “A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said. In an interview with the Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be “politically incorrect in the highest order.” (Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy, The Jerusalem Post, 20th October 2007; emphasis added)

Nowadays one can add “the trans community” to the list of wailing victims who say they must wield power because they are powerless. Trannies are very good at being cry-bullies, that is, at demanding power and privilege under the guise of victimhood. Here is a transexual cry-bully arguing that, because she hurts his subjective feelings, the trans-skeptical feminist Julie Bindel should be censored and silenced:

I’m in an abusive relationship with Julie Bindel and I can’t escape. An abusive relationship in the multi-media world of the 21st Century does not need to have romantic or sexual connotations.

I come from an abusive family, I’ve worked for years with abuse survivors, I have an MA in Trauma Studies that focused on the consequences of abuse. I know what abuse looks like and feels like. It looks like this.

The cycle is familiar by now. It begins with Bindel and her enablers organising a talk that they know will have a negative impact on a minority — often that minority is trans people, as this seems to be her special interest, and I will focus on this, although her attitudes to sex work, bisexuality, mental health and Islam are equally questionable.

Her stated aim is to cast doubt on the validity of trans identities, which is appalling in itself, especially given the weight of scientific evidence and historical record that supports our identities. But her covert but equally apparent aim is even more pernicious — to whip up a storm that she can then claim to be a victim of, through which she achieves personal gain. …

Bindel says we cannot be traumatised by her, but we can and we are. I have seen it and felt it. My heart rate goes up when Bindel’s name is mentioned. My body tenses. I lose sleep. I have intrusive thoughts about the verbal abuse I’ve experienced from her friends and enablers in relation to previous events. I have internalised Bindel’s own cruel words and they continue to taunt me even in her absence. Most of all, I feel something is being forced onto me and that I am powerless and voiceless. (Julie Bindel’s transphobia is a constant source of trauma, Feminist Challenging Transphobia, 8th February 2008)

As Chief Rabbi Sacks might have said: trannies are “claiming that their pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others.” But Sacks was not the first to say that Jews began the cult of victimhood. Friedrich Nietzsche traced this aspect of leftism to Judaism and its offspring Christianity, which he said preaches a slave morality of resentment whereby the weak, unhealthy and inferior are elevated over the strong, fit and superior. On this Nietzschean reading, leftism seeks, like Christianity, to poison the joy and cripple the will of the superior. That is, leftism attacks the consciousness of its enemies: it wants to muddy and befoul the sparkling waters of White minds. And here we can see leftism contradicting itself, because it is implicitly acknowledging that one can distinguish between the consciousness of one human and another, of one group and another.

Guilt is golden

And that one can also say that some forms of consciousness are better than others. In typical fashion, however, leftism wants to promote thsae bad forms of consciousness and destroy the good forms. Leftism promotes hatred, resentment and envy among Blacks, for example, while promoting guilt, appeasement and a sense of worthlessness among Whites. “Guilt” is the mot juste, because it’s a characteristically White emotion, a self-blaming, an internal consciousness of wrongdoing that isn’t important in many or even all non-White cultures. That’s why anthropologists have distinguished between what they call “guilt cultures” and “shame cultures” (see Kevin MacDonald’s discussion at TOO). You could sum up the difference by saying that guilt resides in the individual, while shame relates to the collective. In other words, guilt is the pain of my self-awareness of my wrongdoing, while shame is the pain of my awareness of others’ awareness of my wrongdoing.

The distinction between guilt-cultures and shame-cultures is very important and almost certainly has genetic underpinnings. It also has very important political implications. Whites are rendered vulnerable by their propensity to feel guilt and their attachment to universalist and race-free concepts of morality. Kevin MacDonald and others have written about the fascinating phenomenon of altruistic punishment, whereby Whites are manipulated into punishing other Whites for racism, ethnocentrism and other sins against universalism. And Andrew Joyce has recently explained at the Occidental Observer how Jewish fraudsters who have preyed without conscience or pity on gentiles are able to find refuge in Israel, where no shame attaches to their crimes and they often become pillars of the community. Judaism has a communitarian shame-culture and shame doesn’t apply to crimes committed against those outside the community. The same can be said of Muslims, Gypsies and many other groups who leftist minority-worship insists are hugely valuable additions to the modern West.

Conquering the crooked king

They aren’t valuable, of course. They’re the opposite. Leftism is engaged in its usual inversion of good and bad, hailing those who are destroying the West as saviors of the West. And I think we can gain a better understanding of leftism by considering the hidden importance of consciousness in both explicit leftist calls for equality and implicit leftist reliance on hierarchy. If victims are superior to oppressors because victims feel pain, then Blacks are superior to Whites because Blacks are the greatest victims of all and Whites the supreme oppressors. It’s feelings — emotions experienced within consciousness — that make the leftist universe revolve.

And it’s feelings that justify the leftist campaign for power and revenge. I’ve said that Consciousness is King and also that consciousness is a crippled king. Well, within leftism, consciousness is a crooked king, one who calls for equality while organizing inequality. Leftism states that Whites and Blacks are entirely and absolutely equal, while acting on the premise that Blacks are entirely and absolutely superior to Whites. And it’s Black brainth, Black feelings of oppression and injustice that render Blacks so. That’s why we have to topple the crooked king of consciousness that rules leftism. Black brainth ain’t better than White brainth. And White brainth deserves its own kingdom, free of enemies and insinuators. It also deserves more attention and study. How could it not? It’s the most important thing in the universe for us Whites. Without it, we have nothing.

14 replies
  1. TJ
    TJ says:

    queen for a day- early tv show:

    “. . .The show opened with host Jack Bailey asking the audience—mostly women—”Would YOU like to be Queen for a day?” After this, the contestants were introduced and interviewed, one at a time, with commercials and fashion commentary interspersed in between.[citation needed]

    Each contestant was asked to talk about the recent financial and emotional hard times she had been through. The interview would climax with Bailey asking the contestant what she needed most and why she wanted to win the title of Queen for a Day.[3] Often the request was for medical care or therapeutic equipment to help a chronically ill child, or might be for a hearing aid, a new washing machine, or a refrigerator. Many women broke down sobbing as they described their plights.

    The winning contestant was selected by the audience using an applause meter; the harsher the contestant’s situation, the likelier the studio audience was to ring the applause meter’s highest level. The winner, to the musical accompaniment of “Pomp and Circumstance”, would be draped in a sable-trimmed red velvet robe, given a glittering jeweled crown to wear, placed on a velvet-upholstered throne, and handed a dozen long-stemmed roses to hold while her list of prizes was announced.

    The prizes began with the help the woman had requested, and included a variety of extras, many of which were donated by sponsoring companies, such as a vacation trip, a night on the town with her husband, silver-plated flatware, an array of kitchen appliances, or a selection of fashion clothing. The losing contestants were each given smaller prizes.

    Bailey’s trademark sign-off was: “This is Jack Bailey, wishing we could make every woman a queen, for every single day!”

      • Lord Snooty
        Lord Snooty says:

        “Approaches 1, perhaps like this: <1", is better as the sequence "1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16… " is coming up from below, as it were.

        Although the sequence never makes it all the way – unless you have eternity in which to twiddle your thumbs – mathematicians do use hocus-pocus language like "at the limit the function equals 1" and it's the "equals 1" bit that sticks in people's minds.

        = 1.

      • Sam J.
        Sam J. says:

        Related in a very abstract way to what you said is the fact that the Unibombers specialty in mathematics was “limits”.

        My math joke, “he got on the wrong side of the number line”.

  2. Lord Snooty
    Lord Snooty says:

    “How it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the djinn when Aladdin rubbed his lamp in the story.” ― Thomas Henry Huxley

  3. moneytalks
    moneytalks says:

    ” That’s why we have to topple the crooked king of consciousness that rules leftism.”

    Are you suggesting that we should depose

    The RCC Vatican Pope Francis ?

  4. Tom Verso
    Tom Verso says:

    You are not correct to say:
    1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16 = 1
    As your link to the equation states, the equation “Tends to 1” i.e not equal 1

  5. moneytalks
    moneytalks says:

    ” And White brainth deserves its own kingdom, free of enemies and insinuators.”

    Long live the WN ethnostate . Go Idaho and in due process expand contiguously from there .

Comments are closed.