White women are a very difficult and intractable problem for our side. Here we have an account of White women, all of whom are undoubtedly wonderfully liberal and virtuous, accepting that they are in fact horribly racist when told that they are racist by a Black woman and a child of Indian immigrants who have made a business out of such accusations. It’s a deep problem that even having a non-White “partner” and mixed-race children can’t erase. It’s in the DNA of all White women.
And the reality is that such mindless conformity to what is presented as virtuous is indeed influenced by the DNA of White people. Unlike the rest of the world where groups are based on kinship and morality is defined by what is good for the ingroup of kin (e.g., “what’s good for the Jews”), Western individualist culture is based on reputation in a moral community. In traditional Western societies, these moral communities were defined mainly by the Christian religion, but in the modern West, they are defined by elites in the media and academia.
It’s difficult to imagine White men in a similar situation be so unanimous in accepting that they are racist even if they have a long track record of voting Democrat, reading The New York Times and The Guardian, and contributing to NPR. I doubt they would be so conformist and self-abnegating (unless perhaps they are thinking of transitioning to being a woman). It’s more of a problem for White women than men, but unfortunately both sexes are prone to it. Here I’ll focus on the sex difference, based on material in my book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, with most citations removed.
First, personality. In conformity with the evolutionary theory of sex, sociopathic traits are higher in men, while empathy and wanting to be loved are higher in women: On average, women are more altruistic and empathic than men, and they place more value on close relationships. For example, eighteenth- and nineteenth-century abolitionists often had strong religious beliefs and appealed to the empathic tendencies of their audience by graphically depicting the suffering of slaves conceptualized in a Christian religious context—a phenomenon that is quite apparent in contemporary society. Even though both sexes were responsive to these messages, women were more responsive than men:
“In Britain, the campaign to abolish slavery, like the other reform movements, was motivated not by ‘rational will’ but by humanitarian zeal, by compassion rather than reason.” [1] The movement realized that “the way to stir men and women to action is not by biblical argument, but through the vivid, unforgettable description of acts of great injustice done to their fellow human beings [i.e., in a “very lively manner” as Adam Smith noted]. The abolitionists placed their hope not in sacred texts, but in human empathy.” [2]
Empathy is strongly linked to Love/Nurturance, a trait that on average women are substantially higher than men. This implies that women will be more prone to being motivated by empathy for the suffering of others and pathological forms of altruism, particularly if these others are not seen as outgroup members but as members of a common humanity, which of course is bedrock ideology in the contemporary West—”there is only one race, the human race.” In turn, this has important ramifications in the contemporary world saturated with images of suffering refugees, immigrants, and “oppressed” non-Whites. Love/Nurturance involves the tendency to provide aid for those needing help, including children and people who are ill. This trait is strongly associated with measures of femininity as well as with warm, empathic personal relationships and psychological dependence on others.
People who are low on Love/Nurturance are prone to psychopathic personality—exploitative interpersonal relationships, lack of warmth, love, and empathy, an inability to form long term pair bonds and close, confiding relationships, and lack of guilt or remorse for violating others’ rights (i.e., your average successful Western politician). The finding that males in the general population are three times as likely as females to be categorized with Antisocial Personality Disorder fits with the robust sex differences in this system. Psychopathic personality, which is characterized by lack of empathy and social bonds, is associated with having many sexual partners, an uncommitted approach to mating, sexual coercion, many short-term sexual relationships, sexual promiscuity, and lack of nurturance of children.
Because the anti-White left dominates the moral high ground, expressing empathy for Whites makes anyone with such ideas into a moral pariah, as would advocating for their interests, with likely negative effects on career prospects. On the other hand, expressing hostility toward White identity and interests is a mark of virtue. Indeed, expressions of White identity and especially having a sense of White interests have been condemned by establishment media and academic figures as illustrating the lowest form of moral depravity, while anti-White hatred is increasingly prominent in the elite media and among politicians.
Of course, the motives involved in such cases may involve more than empathy for suffering others. While these elite Whites may feel genuine empathy for suffering others in foreign lands to the point of wanting to inundate the West with them, they are also in effect buttressing their status in the morally defined ingroup. They may even be attempting to be “more moral than thou”—competitive virtue signaling—by out-empathizing others in the group. And whether consciously or unconsciously, they may be aware of severe costs if they fail to conform to the norms of their moral community—as well as the benefits of conforming.
As expected given the above-noted sex differences in empathy, women are more prone to pathological altruism than men—the prototype being the long-suffering wife who continues to nurture an abusive, alcoholic husband. Pathologically altruistic people and even people within the normal range of empathy respond very strongly to images of suffering refugees, immigrants, and other non-Whites. And as noted regarding empathy, there are specific brain regions that are activated when a subject feels sympathy for others. Indeed, Williams Syndrome, a genetic disorder, is characterized by being overly trusting and sympathetic.
The conviction of self-righteousness characteristic of pathologically altruistic people need not be rational:
What feels like a conscious life-affirming moral choice—my life will have meaning if I help others—will be greatly influenced by the strength of an unconscious and involuntary mental sensation that tells me that this decision is “correct.” It will be this same feeling that will tell you the “rightness” of giving food to starving children in Somalia, doing every medical test imaginable on a clearly terminal patient … . It helps to see this feeling of knowing as analogous to other bodily sensations over which we have no direct control. [3]
In other words, the sensations of rightness and nobility act as psychological reflexes, and they are so pleasurable that people are inclined to seek them in their own right and without regard to facts or the long-run consequences to themselves.
Feelings of moral righteousness may thus be pleasurable and lead to addiction. “Sanctimony, or a sense of righteous outrage, can feel so intense and delicious that many people actively seek to return to it, again and again.”
The pleasure of knowing, with subjective certainty, that you are right and your opponents are deeply, despicably wrong. Or, that your method of helping others is so purely motivated and correct that all criticism can be dismissed with a shrug, along with any contradicting evidence. [4]
This type of sanctimoniousness is, of course, particularly common among the people labeled “Social Justice Warriors.” These are the people screaming “racist,” “misogynist,” “white supremacist,” etc. at any seeming violation of the norms of the moral communities of the left. And, because of the cultural hegemony of the left, such people can often be seen on social media (and in op-eds in the mainstream media) expressing their moral righteousness—a moral righteousness that fits with or extends the boundaries of the cultural left.
Another aspect of this is competitive altruism or competitive virtue signaling—a phenomenon on display in the White women in Tucker’s presentation. Given that expressions of moral righteousness are typically communicated in a social setting and are aimed at solidifying or enhancing one’s reputation within a group, there may be competition for ever more extreme expressions of self-righteousness—even among people who are not biologically inclined to be high on the Love/Nurturance system. Extreme expressions of moral righteousness are not only addicting, they may also raise one’s status in a social group, just as it’s common for religious people to express “holier than thou” sentiments. Strongly religious people compete to be most virtuous in their local church. On the left, we see vegan fanatics shunning vegans who even talk to people who eat meat or eat in restaurants where meat is served—even family members. I imagine there is a dynamic within antifa groups—the shock troops of the establishment’s views on race and migration—where people who do not condone violence or are unwilling to crack heads themselves are ostracized or at least have much less status.
Another personality system with strong sex differences is the fear system, with women being more prone to fear. This is an important reason why males with high social status are much sought after by females as mates because they would be better able to protect them. Being high on fear leads to conformity because in the contemporary West there is much to fear if one fails to conform to the attitudes of the mainstream moral community—loss of job, loss of friends and family, and general ostracism. It’s much safer to remain within the confines of the moral community.
Another factor is cognitive dissonance, for both men and women. Cognitive dissonance research has shown that people with strong beliefs, especially beliefs tied up with their personal identity, often do not change them when confronted by conflicting evidence. Fundamentally, the brain wants to avoid conflicting ideas and often uses illogical reasoning and other mechanisms to retain a sense of psychological comfort. For example, when presented with contradictory evidence (such as data showing genetically based race differences in intelligence), people may ignore the data in order to retain a self-image as a morally righteous person. Moreover, people tend to forget evidence that conflicts with their beliefs, and they tend to accept weak arguments that fit with their world view while rejecting strong arguments and data that conflict with it. They may focus their attention not on the evidence itself but on the person presenting the evidence, impugning their motives and accepting guilt-by-association arguments. Clearly, the mind is designed to go to great lengths to avoid psychological discomfort.
* * *
Tucker [00:00:00] So here’s a bio that came across our desk the other day that seemed worth sharing. It’s from a woman called Siara Rao, and she’s got a business called Race2Dinner. This is how she describes herself. Listen, Siara (Not Sarah) Rao grew up in Richmond, Virginia, the daughter of Indian immigrants. For 40 years, she wasted her precious time aspiring to be white and accepted by dominant white society. A futile task for anyone not born with white skin. Several years ago, Siara began the painful process of dismantling her own internalized oppression. Very oppressed. Siara is a lawyer by training, a congressional candidate, a published novelist and an entrepreneur. So leaving aside the fact the lawyer, congressional candidate, published novelists probably aren’t oppressed. How is she an entrepreneur? What is she doing for a living? Well, she’s making a ton of money capitalizing on white self-hatred. And of course, there’s a bottomless well of that in the United States. There’s a new documentary about Siara Rao and her partner. It’s called Deconstructing Karen, and it’s about Siara and her partner, Regina Jackson, and their new company, Race to Dinner. So these two essentially host dinners for liberal wine moms all over the country. Here’s how it works. A group of affluent white women pool $5,000 to hire these two, Jackson and Rao, to come to their home for a dinner party. And then over the course of the night, they demean and degrade them and call them racist. They’re paid to do that. It’s a weird masochism ritual. So the point is for these damaged women to spend their husbands’ money to come to grips with their own suppressed white supremacy. This goes on for two hours from the appetizers to the dessert. There’s a whole film on this and we watched the whole thing and suffered as we did it. To bring you the highlights. Here’s how the typical dinner goes. So the night begins with the white ladies introducing themselves and conceding that they are the worst people in the world because they are white. Watch.
Woman [00:02:12] I am a liberal white woman. We are absolutely the most dangerous women out there. We are the most dangerous women that exist because we’re going to love a little more, because we’re good frickin people. No, we are erasing their experiences. We are erasing their lives. We are erasing the danger that they’re in.
Woman [00:02:33] I’m an artist. I’m a barista. And I learned about this through Saira, through your Facebook. The reason I’m here is because I’ve always thought of myself as being kind of woke. I mean, my best friend is Mexican. My partner is biracial. We have these conversations all the time. But then through following your posts and interacting on your posts, I realized. I’m not doing that great. And I feel like there’s a racist white man living in my brain. And it’s my dad’s voice.
Tucker [00:03:06] “I hate my dad.” Of course, that’s what it’s all about on some level. But the best is white women: we’re the most dangerous people in the world. So of course, that’s not true. The silliest people in the world, for sure. The most dangerous. Hardly. But you’ll notice that’s not really self-abnegation. That’s not self criticism. It’s really bragging. “We’re so dangerous!” We’re so bad!” meaning we’re so strong and so powerful and so important, so significant in world history. So as the rich white ladies attack themselves, the instructors join in. You think you’re bad? You’re even worse than that. Watch.
Instructors [00:03:48] You know what I expect of white women? Not a damn thing. Nothing. I expect nothing of you. Because you have never given me anything. I can’t trust you. You guys need to pull your heads out of your asses. Acknowledge your own racism. Make it right. Stop caping four white dudes. Join us. And let’s overthrow the patriarchy. You walk through the world with a different experience because you are a white woman. White women feel the desperate need to be nice. It’s white women’s niceness that is killing us all. At these dinners, we see white women behaving badly. White Democratic women are attacking white Republican women and vice versa. And you both are taking the moral high ground and you’re all the same. Before the dinners, white women respond much better to other white women than they would with us. And that, in a nutshell, is white supremacy. I have this discussion with people that I know, friends, lawyers, everybody. And they’ll say, well, Regina, you know, there are some good white people. And I go, Well, what have the good white people been doing for the last 450 years?
Tucker [00:04:59] Of course, the white people just paid you $5,000 to yell at them over dinner. So funny. And of course, the Indian lady is a single what is person [sic] at the dinner. But “let’s overthrow the patriarchy.” Of course they already overthrew the patriarchy. That’s why they’re so desperately unhappy. So the dinner goes on like this for two hours, and at one point, finally, two white women speak up to say, actually, we don’t really think we’re that racist. That’s why we’re paying you $5,000 to show that we’re not. Ooh, I shouldn’t have said that. The instructors give them a public thrashing in front of the other ladies. Watch.
Woman [00:05:36] I have two young children and it’s important for me that they grow up colorblind, right?
Instructor [00:05:45] So I’ve heard this a couple times already. Colorblind. And you don’t see color. And I’m just going to drop the bomb here. That’s white supremacy.
Woman [00:05:54] My kids are biracial, so my husband is Hispanic and white, and I don’t see color. I’m blinded to color like it doesn’t faze me at all.
Instructor [00:06:04] You’ve mentioned it and you’ve mentioned it. Being married to a black person or brown person. Having brown or black children does not make you impervious to racism. You cannot, frankly, fuck your way out of racism.
Tucker [00:06:21] You can marry a black dude, but you’re still racist because it’s blood guilt. Of course it’s inherent. You’re born with it. It’s in your DNA. Well, that’s just kind of Rwanda stuff at that point. But they keep going. At the end of the dinner. The instructors ask for a show of hands of who at the table can now admit that they’re racist. And of course, every single white woman, because they’re all sheep, raises her hand and the group cheers in celebration.
Instructor [00:06:50] So who in this room…raise your hand if you’re a racist. Woo. We did it. Thank you. Thanks, guys.
Tucker [00:07:05] So it feels like we’re watching something culturally significant. The fever’s probably already broken. That already looks a little bit antique watching it even now. But in ten years, we’re going to be living in a completely different country with a white minority, by the way, that will look even older and stranger. And what will we make of it? What should we make of it? What does that tell us about the people who run our country? Just to be clear, most people would never participate in something like that on either end of it, either as a host or one of the hapless, high paying guests. But the people who do stuff like that and improve it are the ones who are in charge of everything in America.
Uncensored: The Racist Dinner Ladies (tuckercarlson.com)
References
[1] In Gertrude Himmelfarb, Roads to Modernity: The British, French, and American Enlightenments (New York: Vintage reprint; orig. published 2004), 131.
[2] Christopher Leslie Brown, Moral Capital (Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina Press, 2006), 161.
[3] Robert A. Burton, “Pathological Certitude,” in Barbara Oakley, Ariel Knafo, Guruprasad Madhavan, and David Sloan Wilson (eds.), Pathological Altruism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012): 131–37, 135.
[4] David Brin, “Self-addiction and Self-righteousness,” in Barbara Oakley, Ariel Knafo, Guruprasad Madhavan, and David Sloan Wilson (eds.), Pathological Altruism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012): 77–84, 80.
From an email list:
