White Pathology/Guilt

Sleepwalking into a Non-White Future

“About six-in-ten White adults of all ages say the declining share of White people in the population is neither good nor bad for society.”
Pew Research Center, August 23 2021

I was fascinated and frustrated by a recent series of polls conducted by the Pew Research Center on attitudes toward America’s declining White population. While there are several interesting layers to Pew’s findings, the key message is that a significant majority of White respondents indicated that they feel the declining share of White people in the population is neither good nor bad for society. In other words, they feel that nothing will fundamentally change for them or their children despite their slide into minority status. Pew point out that “the 2020 census showed the U.S. had a shrinking non-Hispanic White population … down 3% – or about 5.1 million people – from 2010 to 2020. The decline was widespread geographically, with 35 states seeing drops in their non-Hispanic White populations.” Pew contextualize this both in terms of immigration and natural increase among non-White populations, but also in terms of a rise in interracial marriages and the growing number of multiracial or multiethnic babies. While Whites retain the largest share of the American population among single-ethnic groups, Pew are clear that they are on an inexorable downward trajectory. The “non-Hispanic White population in the U.S. that identifies with a single race” is expected to fall below 50% by 2045.

H.L. Mencken once described faith as “an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.” Intended primarily as a barb against the religious, I couldn’t help but find it appropriate to the 61% of White adults who told Pew that the momentous changes outlined above will have absolutely no effect on American society and culture. This is to say nothing of the 15% of respondents who told Pew that such a transformation is “good for society” or “very good.” I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this last figure was dominated by Jews in Whiteface (see Kevin MacDonald’s comments on Jennifer Rubin’s unmitigated joy at White decline), but the general picture of this survey is undeniably of a White population sleepwalking into a future that has every indication of being very bad indeed.

Who are the sleepwalkers? Pew stress that “differences by age are especially pronounced.” Among respondents aged between 18 and 29, 29% say White demographic decline is good for society, compared with 13% who say it is bad. By contrast, “32% of Americans ages 65 and older say this demographic shift is bad for society and only 6% say it is good.” While there are some predictable differences between Republican and Democratic voters on whether the transformation of America will be good or bad, almost identical percentages of respondents from each party commented that it would bring about no meaningful social change and was neither good nor bad (61% of Republicans vs. 62% Democrats). Education does not appear to have had a dramatic effect on responses. Among those with postgraduate degrees, 14% replied that White demographic decline would be “somewhat bad” or “very bad,” while 18% responded that it would be “somewhat good” or “very good.” The largest percentage, in keeping with responses broken down by age and politics, was the 69% of postgrad degree holders who asserted that the transformation of America would be neither good nor bad.

“Neither Good nor Bad”

At the risk of over-analyzing a seemingly straightforward statement, I think it’s worth reflecting on the mental processes and cultural messaging that might produce the sleepwalking response highlighted by Pew. The results themselves, one might argue, could be interpreted in a “glass half full/glass half empty” kind of way, and there’s an element of truth to this argument. After all, more than 80% of White respondents to Pew refused to describe White demographic decline in America as a good thing. In the context of the demonization of White history and culture on a mass scale, and the intensification of social pressure against any form of White self-assertion, such a result could be seen as a Pyrrhic victory. Kevin MacDonald, along with several other writers at this site, have shown that there is systemic incentivization for accelerating the decline of White influence and demography, from diversity promotion in industry and business to discrimination against Whites in education and employment. The overwhelming message of modern multicultural society is that White majorities anywhere, and in any walk of life, are inherently bad, and that the easiest and most conclusive method of achieving a better, more vibrant, and more just society involves reducing White representation and flooding every historically White nation or institution with an ethnic panoply. Despite my own deeply pessimistic nature, I must confess to a level of astonishment that in the midst of such a hostile cultural context only 1 in 5 agreed that White demographic decline would be good.

But how to explain the hesitancy to describe it as bad? Isn’t it one of the most human instincts to regret loss of any kind? Each and every day, human beings regret the loss of loved ones, of wealth, of status, of youthful looks, of health, and of cherished possessions. White demographic decline, despite all propaganda, is clearly a harbinger of loss, indeed, massive loss. In simple terms, it marks a break in a chain of successive possession. You inherit land or possessions from an ancestor, and you pass it to a descendent, becoming in the course of that process an ancestor yourself. The United States of America has been a White project of successive possession since the days of the earliest colonies, and that project will come to an end on the day and hour that Whites cease to be capable of determining the direction of the nation. I say “capable of determining” rather than simply “determining” because there are clearly already hostile influential elites directing the course of contemporary America in ways antithetical to White interests. But a White majority at least entails the promise of hope that this situation can be rectified. The loss of the White majority is a loss of hope in recapturing the machinery and assets of the original project. After that Rubicon has been crossed, the only option will be to commence a new project that must have, at its heart, the recapturing of majority status.

Losing demographic control of White nations will resemble losing control of a car, since the consequences of being displaced on one’s own territory have been shown in the vast course of human history to be catastrophic, invariably being accompanied by a rise in violence, political subjugation, social ostracism, and dehumanization. Everything our “woke” critics wish to say about historical White imperialism or dominance are simply truisms of the human animal wherever it is found. What they now decry, they will soon prescribe. The dominant will dominate, and being a minority, especially when you are not historically adapted and tactically equipped for that position (unlike the Jews who are extremely well adapted to it), is a position of vulnerability to be avoided at all costs. Those who point to the protected status of minorities across contemporary Western nations forget that this is a side-effect of a particularly nasty White political hallucination that will evaporate as soon as Whites fall into minority status themselves. Whites who believe they will be granted, in an inter-ethnic quid pro quo, legal privileges, preferential paths to employment, and outsized representation in everything from TV ads to government have clearly not been reading between the lines of the hostile mass propaganda. They are living in a fool’s paradise. Where sleepwalking Whites expect reciprocity, they will find only revenge.

In less materialistic terms, White demographic decline is also a harbinger of profound cultural loss. The signs are already here. When was the last time you saw a media depiction of a normal, ethnically homogenous White community or even just a normal White family? White demographic decline means Whites will see less of themselves, or nothing at all, in the products of the culture they inhabit. The surrounding culture will, at best, become unrelatable and meaningless, and, at worst, incredibly hostile or dangerous.  If culture is the method by which a people speaks to itself about itself and its aspirations, then Whites can expect to become culturally muted, hearing only the browbeating messages of foreigners and losing all natural sense of direction as a consequence. White culture will either be forced to develop on the small-scale, in isolated pockets of ethnic homogeneity, or it will atrophy and stagnate. Faced with the demonization of historical White culture, in which it is regarded and presented as having the potential to inspire future White “wrongs,” White culture will also be subject to ever more aggressive erasure by the new dominant powers.

Liars, Cowards, and Gamblers

Faced with such potential losses, how and why have so many sleepwalkers conjured up a neutral, non-committal response? The first possibility, of course, is that deep down they hold more pessimistic views but are afraid to express them. All commentary on White Flight suggests that Whites abandon any area as soon as they become a minority, or even shrinking majority, in it. So how can people have neutral feelings for a process of decline on a national scale when they can’t even stomach it on Main Street? Is it possible that the results from Pew merely reflect apprehension and anxiety on the part of Whites to express their true feelings on diversity? While interesting, I don’t derive any comfort from this possibility. If there is so strong a sense of social fear that even an anonymous poll prompts evasion and disavowals of one’s own interests then the level of cowardice would be such that all is lost anyway.

I believe, however, that the poll results are at least in some way accurate in reflecting the true, though confused, feelings of the White population. The overwhelming majority of answers are reflective of inertia — of an inability to decide. I believe that the majority of these answers arise from a place in the White mind that is only too aware that diversity isn’t good, but also from a place that simply hasn’t been culturally equipped to see a little further down the road. I believe most Whites have an instinctual apprehension that White decline will be bad for society, but that they are so bombarded with contrary messaging that they struggle to conceptualize in what ways that society will be bad. And, unlike White flight, if the entire nation tips non-White, where is there to go? White Flight will itself become redundant. Whites will be locked in with diversity. Is the only option then, from a psychological standpoint, to simply engage in denial and hope for the best? The Pew results suggest so.

Contemporary mass culture is also a psychological trap in the sense that the White multiculturalist becomes little more than a gambler. The man in a casino mindlessly inserting cash into a fruit machine does so in an entirely artificial environment. He feels comfortable even as he loses money. He loses sense of time, and he continues to insert cash and pull the lever because lights flash, wheels spin, and there is an occasional but dramatic clang of coins into a shiny steel pocket. These are his meagre rewards. He feels good when they happen, but eventually the rewards stop and he has nothing left to give. The thought that the system was against him all along, and that his losses were preordained and predictable may not even occur to him as he walks away semi-dazed and uncomfortable with himself. The White multiculturalist is aware, consciously or not, that if he makes certain affirming noises about diversity, then he will receive the social equivalent of the flashing lights, spinning wheels, and clanging coins. He’ll attract many “likes,” for example, or if he really hits the jackpot he might get a grant or a promotion. He continues to insert the required price of the machine—support for diversity, but he’s ignorant, like the gambler, of the fact his environment is false and the system is designed for his bankruptcy. White demographic decline is the slowly emptying pocket of the gambler. Like all gamblers, the closer they get to the empty pocket, the more reckless and dramatic become the delusions of sudden winnings. For this reason, I expect that as White America’s decline accelerates, we can expect a superficially contradictory state of affairs in which swathes of Whites really do convince themselves that it’s for the best, and that society will be about to turn some magical Utopian corner. The gambler resists the thought that he was utterly stupid to ever have played the game. The multiculturalist will deny the suggestion that he contributes to his own downfall.

Fundamentally, this is what bothers me most about the Pew findings, and why I refuse the “glass half full” interpretation of them. Anyone suggesting that the dramatic changes in demography, power, and influence currently underway will be “neither good nor bad,” is living in an artificial environment in the national casino. Anyone who cannot see the stark and imminent losses on the horizon is living in an eternal present, divorced from the past and unable to conceptualize the future. They have no idea that the hour is getting late.

“A Kind of Triumph”

Inertia among normal Whites is in stark contrast to the palpable increase in joy and excited anticipation of opposing factions (see Kevin MacDonald’s latest piece examining the worst that Twitter has to offer). For the latter, there is no question of White decline being “neither bad nor good.” White demographic decline is instead a massive victory. It’s something so worthy of celebration, in fact, that they are counting down to it. Brookings Institute demographer William H. Frey, of unknown ethnic provenance, has opined in his 2018 Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics are Remaking America that “these changes are a good-news story for America.”[1] I find it endlessly fascinating that this prophet of good news gave his first major speech on the issue to, of all possible places, the American Jewish Committee at Houston’s Beth Yeshurun synagogue.

The remark that White America’s decline was a “good news story” reminded me of the British Jewish journalist Jonathan Freedland’s comments following the 2011 UK census. Freedland first pointed out that “the country is now less white and less Christian. In 2001, white people accounted for 91% of the total population. In the latest census, that figure is down five points to 86%.” For Freedland, 1948 was a pivotal year in British history because it “saw the arrival of the Windrush, the ship bearing the Caribbean migrants who would change the face of Britain.” He cajoled his readers into the belief that he is a jolly old Anglo-Saxon with clever references to “we” and “us,” arguing that “we should love the country we have become — informal, mixed, quirky — rather than the one we used to be.” Freedland then reported gleefully that “White Britons have become a minority in London, accounting for only 45% of the city’s population,” and ended his article with the astonishing remark that “the main story is surely that this country has undergone a radical transformation in this last decade and the ones before — and it has done so with relative peace and relative calm. No one will hand out any gold medals for that, but it’s a kind of triumph all the same.” Britain, like America, is undergoing its changes “with relative peace and relative calm” because it is also home to sleepwalkers, liars, cowards, and gamblers.


This is an unapologetically pessimistic essay, to the extent that its intention is not to demoralize but to assist with sharpening our vision of the problem at hand. This problem involves an artificial environment, a rigged system of temporary reward, and an ever-diminishing return for any Whites playing the dangerous game of diversity. In life you either gain or lose. There is no room for stasis. The idea that massive demographic change will be “neither good nor bad” is nothing more than an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable. The Pew findings indicate that any kind of White awakening to a full realization of the true nature of White decline will be a mammoth task.

[1] W. H. Frey, Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics are Remaking America (Washington D.C.: Brookings Institute, 2018).

“Thieves of Virtue”: A Confucian View of White Social Justice Moralism

“Your good, careful people of the villages are the thieves of virtue.
Confucius, The Analects, 17.

“They agree with the current customs. They consent with an impure age. Their principles only appear to be right-heartedness and truth. Their conduct only appears to be disinterestedness and purity. All men are pleased with them, and they deem themselves to be right. But one cannot proceed with them to the principles of [the moral exemplars]. For this reason they are called “The thieves of virtue.”
D.C. Lau, Mencius (1970)[1]

One of the surest hallmarks of a cultural death spiral is omnipresent anomie and the universal deadening of the capacity to experience shock. Everything in culture becomes repetitive and suffocatingly numb. I was reminded of this back in June when a friend sent me a video from Wi Spa, a Korean spa in Los Angeles that played host to a controversy when a Black female customer complained without success that customers, including children, were being exposed to the penis of a naked transsexual in a female changing area. While some left-wing sources are now claiming that the Black woman was a Christian conservative who fabricated the complaint, the truth of the matter remains unclear. In any case, the footage was, to me, not remarkable for the allegations (now becoming all too real and predictable regardless of what really happened at Wi Spa), nor the attitude of the Black woman, or even the robotic and dismissive attitude of the staff, but rather for the intervention of a White Beta male who played the role of the quintessential Social Justice Warrior. This man insisted to the Black complainant that females could have a penis, showed total disregard for the children involved in the complaint, and did his utmost to rhetorically strut and preen in the manner of some kind of moralistic human peacock; maintaining one eye on the Black female while employing the other to scan the watching crowd for admiring gazes. The spectacle, sickening for so very many reasons, was all the more perverse for this sideshow.

The Woke ‘Hero’ of Wi Spa

The reasons behind behavior like this are not mysterious. There is a strong element of self-interest and a flow of social incentives for ‘woke’ behavior. A lot of people engage in ‘social justice’ interventions, both online and “in the real world,” because they hope for social, financial, and professional rewards. In the same way that very many people in the age of the smartphone now fear being recorded and made viral as a new racist “Karen,” there are a great many people who want to go viral as an anti-racist social hero.

While punishment for racism is permanent and perpetual, however, the rewards of anti-racism are merely fleeting and superfluous. The System expects everyone to be anti-racist and open to sexual deviance, and so the greatest reward it bestows is not to share its riches or status, reserved only for the elites and a handful of celebrity anti-racists, but instead to offer the common compliant man only the quiet relief of not being seen as antithetical to the hegemonic values of multiculturalism. In this sense, we deal not so much with the carrot and the stick, as the idea that the “carrot” is nothing more than a temporary and conditional avoidance of the stick.

To put it another way, one is anti-racist and woke purely and simply in order to avoid being categorized by the System as racist and bigoted. Among yet others (the “vicar’s daughters-types” once described so vividly by Jonathan Bowden), there is an element of pathological altruism. In these cases, we confront the dim-witted and naive, the prototypes of Dostoevsky’s The Idiot, but without that novel’s protagonist’s charm and redeeming qualities. Combined, these various types of White social justice moralist (the career climber, the fashion follower, the socially anxious, and the painfully naive) are fatal to all right-thinking, and are a major accelerator of decline.

So much, then, for explaining why people behave this way. But what are the moral mechanics at work, and how does this behavior impact matters on a wider social level? During some recent reading of Eastern philosophy, I encountered an interesting concept that might deserve at least some attention — the Confucian idea of the “thieves of virtue” or fake moralists. Confucius (551–479 BC) is an interesting figure for the consideration of White moral social justice trends because he was a traditionalist of his era and because he had a particular interest in the search for moral values in a rapidly changing social context. As such, he made a valuable contribution to developing a distinction between what could be seen as merely popularly moral and what was genuinely moral and sincere.

Confucius and Social Virtue

It’s worth briefly explaining who this ancient Chinese philosopher was, before suggesting why he might have some ideas even remotely applicable to contemporary Whites. Confucius was known in his lifetime as Kong Fuzi, or Master Kong. He was a court scholar who occupied, through a relatively novel meritocratic process, a position not unlike modern civil servants. Confucius sought to integrate the new meritocratic developments of ancient China into old ideals and traditions, and this effort to synthesize the old and the new led to his quest to develop a new moral philosophy with direct social implications. Despite the introduction of meritocracy and the partial replacement of aristocracy, Confucius was opposed to egalitarianism and upheld a strong belief in hierarchy and an innate inequality between men. Deep nobility (junzi) and virtue (de) could, however, be found throughout the hierarchy. If a lowly peasant understood and fully embraced his role within it, for example, he was no less virtuous and valuable than the man at top of the social pyramid. Everyone in the folk community had an important role to play. In this sense, his philosophy is a kind of national socialism, which stressed the ultimate importance of the community over social class. The social pyramid itself was made cohesive and coherent through the Five Constant Relationships: Sovereign-Subject; Parent-Child; Husband-Wife; Elder Sibling-Younger Sibling; and Friend-Friend. It should be pointed out, if it isn’t already obvious, that there is no room for the stranger or the foreigner in this scheme of social obligation and ritual.

Social obligation was itself made manifest through demonstrations of Li, which could be roughly translated as ‘justice,’ but could be more accurately described as ritual propriety. One encountered Li in ancestor worship, at weddings, at funerals, when giving or receiving gifts, and in everyday gestures of politeness such as bowing and using the correct mode of dress. These outwards signs were intended to reflected inner virtue, but only truly did so when performed with sincerity. It was sincerity, along with faithfulness and self-reflection, that really pointed to the genuinely moral and virtuous man.

Thieves of Virtue

The opinions of Confucius on those who merely perform Li without possessing inner virtue are found in the Analects, a collection of fragments of his writings and sayings compiled by his disciples. The Analects together comprise a predominantly political treatise, but the collection is also made up of aphorisms and anecdotes. In section 17 of the Analects, Confucius refers to “village worthies (xiang yuan 鄉愿)” and compares their empty moralism to “assuming a severe expression while being weak inside” and breaking into a home and committing burglary. The “worthy” exterior of the village moralists is thus stolen or unmerited. They are in fact hypocrites who, while critiquing all that is “bad,” are themselves utterly devoid of virtue.

If Confucius’s critique of these “village worthies” was solely limited to their hypocrisy then there would be limited value in applying his critique to contemporary White social justice moralists. We know full well that the majority of White self-styled anti-racists and woke activists are hypocrites. We know that most wealthy White multiculturalists do their very best to have their children educated in predominantly White schools, and to raise their families in predominantly White neighborhoods. The vast majority of people outwardly saying they’re fine with gay marriage and the widespread acceptance of transsexualism secretly hope their children don’t turn out that way. In an era in which pro-diversity propaganda is peaking—with no mainstream dissent, the fact remains that Whites are continuing to quietly self-segregate as much as their resources will allow. We live in an age where everyone proclaims the benefits of diversity while doing their very best to avoid it. Hypocrisy is endemic, and it is obvious.

But Confucius goes deeper than hypocrisy in his criticism of the village worthies, the ‘woke’ types of his era, stressing their role in the development of a kind of moral-social cancer that is catastrophic to national culture. In fact, Confucius’s most pointed critique isn’t that the village worthies wear masks, but that there is nothing to mask. They lack all sense of identity, possess no ideology, and are nothing more than chameleons who take on whatever face is considered attractive or laudable by the elites they want to appeal to.[2] In this sense, when considering our contemporary White social justice moralists (the career climber, the fashion follower, the socially anxious, and the painfully naive), all can be subsumed under the title of “village worthies” who are “thieves of virtue.” All of them are fundamentally empty persons without authentic identity. A similar contemporary pop culture reference point would be the NPC (Non-Playable Character) meme developed by gamers to describe those who, like the background figures in video games, possess no agency or capacity for independent thought. Winnie Sung, commenting on this element of the Analects, writes:

The appearance-only hypocrite, such as Confucius’ village worthies, puts us in a special predicament. For someone who does not wear a mask cannot be unmasked. … There is nothing that we can expose when it comes to the village worthies because there is nothing underneath.[3]

This is particularly egregious for Confucius because identity is a foundation of integrity. The person of integrity is someone who preserves a sense of what identifies the person as essentially the person they are. Or, to put it another way, you need to understand yourself and who you are before you can claim that “you” stand for anything, let alone something as lofty as moral values. Someone who denies their own heritage, ethnic origins, and identity cannot sincerely proclaim any moral values because these values are not rooted in their own identity and are therefore both artificial and adopted. Sung writes:

Assuming that having identifications is necessary for having an identity, since the village worthies do not have their own identifications, we cannot say what kind of person they really are. They do not have anything that they actually identify with, and hence do not have what is truly theirs. We cannot in their case say that there is any break between their practices and their true identity. The village worthies lack integrity not in the sense where one’s identity is corrupted or concealed but because they do not even have their own identifications.[4]

Popular Moralism as Social Cancer

Accompanying instinctive self-segregation, there is an almost contradictory rise in culturally deracinated Whites keen to outwardly disavow the White past and condemn the White present. While the animosities of non-White ethnic groups can be easily understood in the context of inter-ethnic competition and their construction of past suffering at the hands of Whites (e.g., the lachrymose view of Jewish history common among Jews), White complicity in this process remains one of the strongest barriers to mounting a successful challenge against multiculturalism and multiracialism in the West. For Confucius, one of the most galling aspects of this behavior would be the tendency among some Whites to proclaim their status as a “White anti-racist” dedicated to spreading their ideology among other Whites. Confucius would object to such a self-designation, pointing out that such people are already devoid of any sense of White identity or what it means to be White, and that their interventions are thus inherently lacking in integrity and are essentially meaningless. There is thus no real “White anti-racism” but instead a phenomenon wherein empty persons mimic foreign ideas.

Because it is unnatural to loathe one’s own group and identity, when Whites adopt anti-White or anti-racist positions, they are simply reflecting the values of others, particularly oppositional elites. Unfortunately, such behavior can become endemic because “village worthies,” “thieves of virtue,” or NPCs have an endless capacity to mimic fashion. Sung comments:

At a larger scale, Confucius thinks that the presence of people who have no identity of their own, and merely reflect others’ values, is a threat to the moral system. Mencius quotes Confucius as saying: ‘Confucius said, “I detest what is specious. I detest the foxtail for fear it should pass for seedlings. I detest flattery for fear it should pass for what is right. I detest glibness for fear it should pass for the truthful. … I detest purple for fear it should pass for vermilion. I detest the village worthy for fear he should pass for the virtuous.” Just like the color purple (which closely resembles vermillion) easily confuses people and misleads people in their choice, the village worthies, who look just like the virtuous people according to our current conceptions and appear attractive to the audience, easily confuse their audience and mislead the audience to think that they have the more attractive character than the genuinely virtuous people. The village worthies will pretend to have moral qualities that appeal to their audience, and will not pretend to have moral qualities that do not appeal to their audience. Hence, the village worthies will never fail a moral test from the perspective of their audience. Although a small group of genuinely virtuous people might be able to detect the village worthies’ hypocrisy, they will not be able to convince the village worthies’ audience that these seemingly gracious and attractive people are not what they appear.

Social Justice versus Authentic Justice

A formidable obstacle to forming a challenge to the multicultural status quo is the idea that such a challenge is inherently immoral. This is an idea that began with ethnically alien intellectuals and activists who have an obvious self-interest in promoting it. Then, gradually, and with increasing frequency following World War II, the idea was seeded among leading White “village worthies” (politicians, academics, cultural figures) until it reached critical cultural saturation. Accompanying ideas were then also inserted into social fashion, including the notion that any defense of White ethnic interests is immoral. The result has been exactly as Confucius predicted — a wholesale threat to the true moral order. Today, only a dwindling number of representatives of junzi remain in the West, the “small group of genuinely virtuous people” capable of detecting the hypocrisy and false moralism of the age. This is the group which roots its integrity in its identity, and doesn’t feel the need to conceal the fact that its values are based in ethnic self-interest. Like the junzi of Confucius’s time, this small core of authentically moral people are unable to convince the masses that the village worthies—these “seemingly gracious and attractive people” with their allegedly impeccable morals—are not what they appear.

And yet our morality is evidently both genuine and of an especially high type. One of the most important aspects of Li is a sense of what we in the West call “equity.” This is the idea that we should not necessarily follow the letter of the law, but the spirit of it. We don’t automatically reach for the punishment for theft, but try at least to take into consideration why the theft took place when considering the sentence. Inherent in equity is a sense of the dualism of man — the idea the Man is never entirely good, nor entirely bad. A good judge, aware of his own failings as a human, will seek the most humane punishment or resolution to a legal case. In the Western tradition, equity begins in antiquity with the writings of Aristotle (epieikeia) and with Roman law (aequitas), and it is also a strong element (if not the strongest) in Christianity, which critiques Man as a sinner but rejects the rule of Mosaic law (despite the baffling claim of Matthew 5:17) and proclaims the possibility of Man’s capacity for Good and his ultimate redemption. Equity is also strongly evident in the ancient writings of the Chinese, and in the dualist religions of the Indian sub-Continent and the Far East, especially Buddhism. All such instances contrast with the Judaic/Islamic worldview, which lacks equity and sees law (Torah-Shariah) as an end in itself. It should be noted that the Judaic worldview, which makes categorical moral demands, is especially conducive to the development of “village worthies” and “thieves of virtue.”

White social justice moralists lack equity and deny their own dual natures. One would think, given their many lofty proclamations, that one is dealing with saints. And yet it is commonplace to discover that this or that anti-racist politician or activist is corrupt, a pervert, a child abuser, a slanderer, or some other form of human pond scum. These people, riddled with all kinds of neuroses and obsessions, cling to anti-racism like a life raft, finding in it at least one meagre chance of passing themselves off as “good people.”

Anti-racism, it might be said, is the moral band-aid of our age, covering a multitude of sins. Confucius, on the other hand, would see “racism,” or the seeking of one’s own ethnic interests, as moral to the extent that it proceeds from tradition, from identity, and from the integrity bestowed by both. For Confucius, a war of conquest contains an honesty that a professed moral crusade does not. He would have little patience for contemporary hand-wringing about past European conquests or enslaving Africans. How can one proclaim selflessness when proclaiming selflessness brings one social rewards that benefit the self? Confucius compared this delusion of morality to banging a drum in search of a fugitive—those most loudly bleating about moral matters will always find that true morality eludes them. The man who seeks after his community’s material interests, on the other hand, will be sated by securing them and will not entertain self-delusion. His desires are universal, predicable, and capable of satisfaction. The posturing moralist, or “thief of virtue,” on the other hand, is a true annihilator, since he will not rest until his fashionable worldview, in all its banality, is universally imposed. In this view, Genghis Khan is the moral superior to Moses, and infinitely less dangerous to social order.


Confucius’s perspective on community morality offers a nuanced and interesting perspective on some of the troubling issues confronting Western societies today, especially the total dominance of multiculturalism and Leftism in moral discourse. One of the major problems confronting movements for the defense of White interests is the culturally ubiquitous idea that such a defense is intrinsically immoral, and this idea has advanced to such a degree that several forms of defending White interests have been criminalized. Confucius’s concept of the “thieves of virtue” undermines the claims of this mass false morality and points out that fashion and conformity can smother authentic virtue and morals. We live in an age when most Whites lack identity, and thus integrity, and we have witnessed a kind of mass chameleon effect where the goals of foreign elites are mimicked and parroted for short-term personal relief or reward. This is a threat to the authentic moral system—a system which derives its morality from tradition and identity. It is moral and a demonstration of virtue and nobility to defend and expand upon one’s ethnic interests. The man who claims instead to be a world citizen, or to love everyone, is a liar. Such a man is a thief of virtue.

[1] Lau, D.C. trans. 2003 [1970]. Mencius. London: Penguin Books.

[2] Sung, W. (2020). Confucius’s village worthies : hypocrites as thieves of virtue. Alston, C., Carpenter, A. & Wiseman. Rachael (Eds.), Portraits of Integrity: 26 Case Studies from History, Literature and Philosophy Bloomsbury Academic.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

Inducing White Guilt

“Group-based guilt is debilitating because it may undermine internal attributions for in-group success and may threaten the in-group’s identity as moral and good.”
    Iyer et al. “White Guilt and Racial Compensation,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2003.[1]

“We’re not sorry! And we’ve stepped over the prospect of being sorry.”
   Jonathan Bowden

I am frequently bemused by the mystery of the failure of our ideas to win over those White masses sleepwalking into permanent displacement from their own lands. That which seems self-evident — the demographic projections, the crime figures, the well-documented plans and trends, the bold intentionality of it all — is yet insufficient to break through into the deeper instinctual consciousness. Why? In a recent conversion I had with Kevin MacDonald, it was mentioned that when White people are told they are being slowly replaced, they get angry. And yet it appears a gentle and transient anger, incapable of translation into clear political trajectories and easily muzzled by the poisonous triad of media, entrenched government, and the academy. My recent reading of Ed Dutton’s Race Differences in Ethnocentrism answered some questions, but provoked more. The text is primarily concerned with what might be termed “hard biological” explanations for low ethnocentrism among Europeans, possibly at the cost of placing too little emphasis on cultural and socio-ecological factors. In particular, I felt the text understated the case that present-day low ethnocentrism is something that has been deliberately cultivated over time, and that part of that cultivation has been the widespread dissemination of shaming propaganda carefully designed to threaten and undermine White in-group identity. I am thinking, of course, about the concept of White Guilt.

Discussions about White Guilt are becoming increasingly common on both the Left and Right, and basic distinctions can be made between explanatory theories. One set of theories ascribes to White Guilt a “dishonest and evasive” character, in which White Guilt is on some level a self-serving and self-satisfying charade that enables Whites to continue to patronise and dominate minorities. These theories emanate from the harder, old-school Marxist Left. Another set of theories ascribes to White Guilt an “honest and spontaneous,” character, in which it arises as genuine feelings of regret at alleged historical wrongs or at the holding of a privileged position in society. These theories emanate most commonly from the center-Left of the ideological spectrum. Another set of theories, ascribes to White Guilt an “honest but cultivated” character, in which White Guilt arises as genuine feelings of regret and discomfort at alleged past and present wrongs, and is the product of a debilitating and ceaseless social critique designed to undermine the ability of Whites to see their interests as legitimate and thus the ability to defend and protect those interests. These theories emanate almost exclusively from the dissident Right. The centre-Right appears to stand alone as advancing no position on the matter, much as it has forfeited taking any positions on mass migration or issues of ethnic identity. Read more

Thoughts on “Decolonization” as an Anti-White Discourse

Take up the White Man’s burden
And reap his old reward,
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard

Rudyard Kipling, The White Man’s Burden

Along with ‘Whiteness Studies’ and ‘Black Lives Matter,’ the concept of ‘decolonization’ is currently rampant in Western institutions of higher education. In the most recent example, academics at England’s University of Cambridge are considering how to implement a call from a small group of Black and leftist undergraduates to “decolonize” its English literature syllabus by taking in more Black and ethnic minority writers and bringing ‘post-colonial thought’ (a branch of critical theory) to its existing curriculum. Seen in the context of similar agitation at Yale last year, ongoing “Rhodes Must Fall” agitation in South Africa, the removal of portraits of White founders from King’s College London, and attacks on statues of prominent White historical figures in the United States, the ‘decolonization’ effort is clearly part of an escalating craze for removing White presence and reducing White space throughout the West. This reduction of White space is occurring in demographic, cultural, and even historical areas; the latter involving a ludicrous ‘Blackwashing’ of periods of European history which were overwhelmingly monocultural, with gross exaggerations of non-White presence in places like Roman Britain.

Today, White nations are being demonstrably colonized by non-Whites, White culture is increasingly marginalized (or dismissed as non-existent), and White history is being rewritten to support and advance the agenda of contemporary multiculturalism. Whites are thus abused as colonizers while simultaneously being subjected to an unprecedented and multifaceted colonization. This jarring incongruence between rhetoric and reality requires an interrogation of what is meant by terms like “colonize,” “empire,” and even “genocide,” particularly in regard to the political uses they have come to acquire, and also an interrogation of what we understand by historical processes of colonization. It is argued here that the growing clamor for ‘decolonization,’ like Whiteness studies, exists only to encourage and facilitate an aggressive anti-White discourse.

Several years ago I had the opportunity to attend a conference on ‘genocide studies,’ during which I was introduced to the work of the leading academic in this field, the Australian scholar A. Dirk Moses. Despite his last name (which apparently is also English and Welsh as well as Jewish), Moses evidences no discernible Jewish ancestry, his father John Moses being a notable Anglican priest and his mother Ingrid a full-blooded German from Lower Saxony. Moses has built his career around broad explorations of the themes of colonialism and genocide, and the relationship between the two. Although he wasn’t present at this particular conference, I was very much interested in those presentations concerning his work, which I have since come to regard as being generally of a very high quality and, most importantly, wide-ranging and devoid of the mawkish (not to mention mendacious) moralism that often saturates Jewish academic treatments of these themes. To my mind Moses remains one of the most essential writers on colonialism, conquest and genocide as perennial features of the human existence, and I would have a difficult time engaging in discussion on these subjects with someone unfamiliar with his work. Importantly, Moses argues that terms like “colonization” have fluid rather than fixed definitions, especially in their discursive usage, and stresses that the meaning of such terms as “colonization” and “imperialism” have rather been adapted in recent decades in order to facilitate a political agenda — to condemn European nations and to question Western moral legitimacy. Read more

The tyranny of the courts: The case of Omar Khadr

Trump supporters are still reeling from the ability of the courts to paralyze his presidency. This is due to a thoroughly biased courts and legal system, filled with liberal lawyers and judges — churned out by ideologically corrupt law schools and universities — who arrogantly impose their tyranny. They sanctimoniously trot out the holy Constitution to say that Trumps’ executive orders are ‘”unconstitutional,” which simply means that liberals disagree with them. They invoke the Constitution as though it were a law of physics: unambiguous, objectively and eternally true. Any reader will know that the constitution is a joke, whose interpretation can change radically depending on who sits on the bench or who tilts the ideological balance of the Supreme Court.

A recent story from Canada puts this in its plainest terms. It is the case of Omar Khadr, a former Al Qaeda fighter who sued the Canadian government for “conspiring with the U.S. in abusing his rights.” The Canadian government recently decided to settle with Khadr for over 10 million Canadian dollars (over 8 million U.S. dollars), although it is entirely mysterious what the responsibility of the Canadian government actually is.

‘Canadian’ Omar Khadr was captured in Afghanistan in 2002 while fighting with the Taliban. (source: Wikipedia)

Here is the story: Khadr is a Canadian citizen and Al Qaeda fighter who was captured in Afghanistan in 2002 during a firefight in which U.S. troops were injured and killed. He was then detained in Guantanamo for about ten years and pleaded guilty, among other things, to “murder in violation of the laws of war.” During that time, he was interrogated on a number of occasions by Canadian intelligence officers doing a normal job of collecting information on one of their citizens accused of terrorism, especially given the fact that he would eventually be transferred back to Canada.

In 2010, Canada’s Supreme Court ruled that these interrogations “offended the most basic Canadian standards of the treatment of detained youth suspects” and that the involvement of Canadian officials in the interrogations violated his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This Charter is holy scripture in Canada, comparable to the U.S. Constitution or the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is relentlessly invoked by Canadian liberal activists to justify their endless demands when it comes to protected groups like racial minorities or homosexuals.

This ruling is ludicrous: Khadr was detained by U.S. military authorities in Guantanamo and it is therefore very hard to blame the Canadian government for that. Moreover, videos of these interrogations exist and were even featured in a propaganda film made by human rights activists—called You Don’t Like the Truth: Four Days Inside Guantanamo—in 2010. This film contains nothing convincing: some of those boring and uneventful interrogations interspersed with interviews of Khadr’s lawyer, cellmates, relatives, and human rights activists complaining (sometimes rightfully) about the conditions of his detention in Guantanamo by U.S. military authorities. But the case for implicating the Canadian government and forcing taxpayers to make a multimillionaire of Khadr is as flimsy as it can be. The legal argument presented by Khadr’s lawyers is twisted and circumlocutory to an extent that only a member of a fashionable minority benefitting from the full support of the politically correct press, activist lawyers and biased courts could possibly sell it. Only the most conspiratorial liberal mind could see a responsibility lying with the Canadian government. Read more

What’s wrong with the Swedes — and so many other Whites?

Another in the unending list of suicidal behavior by Swedes, this one by Cecilia Wilkström, a Member of the European Parliament for the center-right (!) Liberal Party, who is concerned about the recent drownings in the Mediterranean of Africans attempting to invade Europe. Note that, once again, the Holocaust is front and center stage as a paradigm requiring Westerners to engage in pathological altruism and embrace diversity and their own dispossession.

A Swedish MEP is stepping up a pan-European cross-party campaign for “legal and safe routes to Europe” for migrants in the wake of the latest Mediterranean boat disaster. Cecilia Wikström, has told The Local that EU member states are currently doing so little to help guarantee safe passage that future generations will compare their actions to Sweden “turning a blind eye” to the Holocaust.

The MEP – who is a long-time advocate of safer passage for refugees seeking safety in Europe – made headlines on Monday after she initially told Swedish television network SVT that future generations would liken the approach of EU governments to the policy of appeasement during the Second World War.

Speaking to The Local after the broadcast, the centre-right Liberal Party politician said: “I stand by what I was saying …. I think that my children and grandchildren are going to ask why more wasn’t done to help people running away from Isis, or violence in Eritrea or wherever, when we knew that people were dying in their thousands. [On the contrary, your children and grandchildren are going to wonder how you could be so naive and morally bankrupt as to make them a resented minority in an area that their people had dominated for thousands of years.] People will ask the same question they did after the war, ‘if you were aware, why didn’t you do something?’. In Sweden we allowed our railroads to be used to transfer Jews to Nazi death camps.” …

Some 11,000 migrants have been rescued since the middle of last week and current trends suggest last year’s total of 170,000 landing in Italy is likely to be exceeded in 2015.

Many travel onwards to other countries including Sweden, which takes in more asylum seekers per capita than any other EU nation.

Never mind the obvious point that the vast majority of Africans would love to live in Europe and that helping them enter will ensure that more come. Since the population of Africa is now over 1 billion and is projected to be 4.2 billion by the end of the century, tiny Sweden and the rest of Europe will have their hands full, particularly given that there is absolutely no foreseeable end to the poverty, oppression, and warfare that is endemic to the continent.

Read more

What to read? (Part 6): A White Character Survey; Envy in Literature and Politics (Part 2)


Carlo Saraceni (“The Fall of Icarus”) 1606, oil

Physical blindness and the verdict of ignorance, meted out to envious politicians in Dante’s epic poem, can often be bliss.  Eyelessness can have advantages, as demonstrated by the blind, poor, uneducated, self-effacing, albeit very intelligent seer, Tiresias, who is brought to the court of King Oedipus, only to announce to him his eyeless future of blind destiny (vv 364-377).

For that matter willful ignorance and dismissal of the brainwashing curriculum in the modern educational system in the US and EU can be a sign of a healthy state of mind. What on earth is to be seen in the political process in multicultural America and Europe today? What good can be learned in multiracial colleges in Europe, whose program consists of lessons on White man’s guilt? For centuries, in order to avoid envy-inducing temptations, high-IQ young introspective White European males opted for monastic life. The harmful side of monasticism was that it prevented good genes to be passed on to future offspring, thus leaving the political arena open to an array of genetic and character misfits: the bad, the ugly and the envious.

Lengthy is the list of authors, usually associated with the heritage of cultural conservatism, who have prodded into the roots of envy-driven politicians. Highly envious politicians are usually very cunning individuals, with above average IQ, possessing, in addition, good skills at camouflaging their moral sleaziness with an aura of tearful humanitarian palaver. They also excel at expressions of sympathy for the plight of their future prey.

This brings to mind is the huge literature on so-called Jewish social mimicry, aka “trickster-do-good-Jews” (“Mauscheljuden”), popularized in National Socialist Germany by the works of Theodor Fritsch and Arthur Trebitsch, and scores of other writers. Read more