Saturday, September 19, 2015

Brown noses and Brownshirts.

I've noted that that the racist right has been cheering Victor Orban and his actions in stopping the Muslim invasion of Europe. It's true, Viktor Orban is  the Right's man of the moment and his closing of the borders is to be lauded.  His assertion and defence of both an ethnic Hungarian identity and European one is at odds with that of the Euro-weenies of Brussels who have given Orban the predictable sobriquet of racist.  It's no surprise then that the cognitive misers of the Right, looking for  a legitimate champion of "white identity" would choose to see him as their a fellow traveler in spirit.  However,  it must of been a bit of a surprise to these intellectual giants that when they chose to have a conference on his turf he banned them on the grounds that they were racists. You see, Orban is a proud Hungarian Nationalist but he is not one of them. The racialists had committed an intellectual error. They assumed that just because Orban was implementing the same policies they were advocating, Orban was doing it for the same reasons they were doing so.  They were wrong.

Where Orban and the racialists is differ is with respect to their metaphysics. Orban is a Christian and his worldview is made from this perspective.  Unlike the materialistic HBD crowd, there is only one class of human beings and membership of it is not contingent on genetic rank.  Membership of the human race is recognised as being of the fact that man is the image of God. This being an article of faith. From this flows the notion that all men should be treated with dignity and humanity.

Christianity does not deny the existence of races, or of their differences, rather it insists that human dignity--and the duties thereby owed--is not contingent upon genetic structure or phenotype. This differs from the racialists who infer the quality of man is based upon his genetic structure. Whiteness is not just a marker of identity for these men but is also a marker of "distinguishing quality". Furthermore, many of the racialists embrace a materialistic metaphysic which reduces man to a simple material substance.

One of the real world problems with the strictly biological understandings of the human person is that the dangers of racial supremacism and Darwinian competition are always lurking to rear their ugly head. The manifestly obvious fact, of the association between "Whiteness" and technological and cultural achievement,  puts forth a justifiably assertive claim for the superiority of the White people over all the other races. The argument for the superiority of Whites is so easily made and so easily grasped that it's only a small, and cognitively easy step, to start thinking in terms of Unter and Ubermensch and of "practical" solutions to intractable social problems.

This is why racialists have always been hostile to Christianity, since it puts a brake on this these final steps.  Asserting, contrary to apparent fact, that no matter how savage, offensive or ignorant a man is, of whatever race,  he is still to be treated like a equal human being. It's this insistence of treating the other as human that stops a Christian from turning into an arsehole. Christianity asserts that there are certain minimal standards we owe everybody. Orban belongs to this view and rejects the notion that some men are better than others because of their genetics.

What surprises me is just how many Christians--especially in NRx--have given a sympathetic ear to the racialists when the their underlying metaphysic is hostile to Christianity itself. It's a sort of pact with the Devil which a bit of sober reflection shows will not end well. The last time Christians formally did this they got right and royally screwed.  But then again that's the nature of the Christian Right, it's pretty dumb.

Perhaps one of the reasons why the Christian right is so easily seduced by racialists is because Christianity itself lacks a "theology of the flesh".  I've argued before on this blog, that the "decarnalisation" of the human person has led to cultural fault lines which have been exploited by different kinds of diabolical error. Chivalric love is a love without reference to Eros, and the current embrace of multiculturalism is an attempt to build society without reference to human homphily. The Christian conception of man seems to be one without reference to his flesh.

The Christian Left, on the other hand, seems to operate with the blessing of the Church, at least with regard to mutliculturalism since it's theology is in many ways in synch with Marxist ideology which teaches that race,  (i.e. flesh) does not matter.

The thing for the intelligent Christian is that he has to walk a fine line between those who think that the flesh doesn't matter and those who think it is all that there is. He has to walk a fine line between the brown-noses and the brown shirts.

53 comments:

Cecil Henry said...


Seriously?? You use a term like 'racist' that only serves do deny the right of Whites around the globe to prevent their own Genocide and destruction.

Laughable. And complicit with evil. You lose any credibility right there. Why do you accept a fundamentally anti-white presumption from the beginning???

You imagine there is something wrong with racial inequality-- but all that really means ultimately is that any differences and the importance they have to people's identity will be denied and attacked. Differences do imply superior and inferior-- and anyone free will recognize the right to choose what they value. ITs not a horrible thing--- its freedom.

Why do you want to deny people the right to their own homelands?

Why is this assimilation (I.e. turning into a brown mixture of this and that) in ALL White countries and ONLY White countries so important to you?

Why do you anti-Whites never talk about flooding Africa with millions of non-Blacks and assimilating them into the Black population to "end hate", or to "make it more diverse", or to "end racism", or to "have a perfect harmony", or some other lame excuse?

The Social Pathologist said...

Why do you want to deny people the right to their own homelands?

Why is this assimilation (I.e. turning into a brown mixture of this and that) in ALL White countries and ONLY White countries so important to you?

Why do you anti-Whites never talk about flooding Africa with millions of non-Blacks and assimilating them into the Black population to "end hate", or to "make it more diverse", or to "end racism", or to "have a perfect harmony", or some other lame excuse?


Sorry Cecil, must of missed something. Can you quote me from my previous two posts where I have advocated:

1) Denial of white homelands.
2) Forced assimilation.
3) Flooding of Europe with anyone other than Europeans.

There is a cognitive space between Racism and multiculturalism. Orban and I fit in that space. You do not.

Anonymous said...

Though historical "what ifs" are useless, I imagine that in light of current events that Hungary would give that nationalist conference a different reception today than last October. Orban began his career as mainstream globalist & has been continuously traveling rightward since. After the abuse he has received for his commonsense protection of his borders, he might have a new appreciation for potential allies. But I guess we won't know until someone else tries to meet there again.

You say:

"Christianity does not deny the existence of races, or of their differences, rather it insists that human dignity--and the duties thereby owed--is not contingent upon genetic structure or phenotype."

So, what do you consider your "owed" duties to be, especially to black & Arabs & Latino men?

Be aware that the Progressive consensus concludes that it is racist to extend anything less than:

Unfettered & permanent entry into your nation
Free food & housing indefinitely
Change your society's norms to suit new arrivals
Affirmatively prefer new arrivals to natives in employment
Portray new arrivals positively in all speech & media
Encourage your daughters to mate with new arrivals

Anything less that that & you are considered racist by the Western world, no matter how neatly you think you are walking some metaphysical line.

In short, you are a Brownshirt, pal. Whether you want to be or not. You think you're better than the rest of them, but you're the only one who thinks that. And the rest of us don't appreciate hearing the Left's favorite insults coming at us from you.

Hoyos said...

Again, we can't surrender words to the Left. They holler racist just to denote something they don't like. The idea that just because someone considers me a racist, I may as well go full retard is insane.

We owe all men a measure of dignity and justice. All men owe us the same, to each their due. This means that the migrants have every right to try to save their own lives by fleeing the war, this doesn't give them the right to enter another country without security checks, etc. the same way that if I ever had to migrate to save my life it would be incumbent on me to be a good guest (eg, if I flee to Chile or something, it would be my responsibility, to learn Spanish, obey the laws, not interfere with local customs etc.).

Actual racism is applying a different standard of moral and legal behavior to someone based purely on race and nothing else. Right now my Christian brothers and sisters are fleeing terrible persecution, as they have for years, and shouting "send them back!", just because they are less white than myself would be evil. For goodness sake, this isn't rocket science. Just apply the same moral standard to someone else as you would apply to yourself.

Cecil Henry said...


There is nothing contradictory or UnChristian about racial differences including the question of inferiority with respect to the goals and values of a group. The greatest injustice is to make unequal things equal.


The false guilt over racial differences and believing that all groups have equal inherent abilities creates a worse error when they also believe that the actual inferiority of blacks (for example, but take any group you like including whites if applicable) in almost every area of accomplishment and behavior must be caused by something bad that the whites are invidiously doing to blacks, or by something good that whites are selfishly refusing to do for blacks. However expressed, it all comes down to the idea that black failure is caused by white racism—the transcendent sin of the modern world. If differences (envious or problematic ones only) continue the conclusion is that white racism is continuing, and is even getting worse.

The result of this thinking is the paralyzing racial guilt which makes whites feel that they have no right to defend and preserve their civilization, no right to defend and preserve themselves, but that they must instead self-sacrificially open themselves to and empower, not only blacks, but all nonwhites.


This self-sacrifice takes numerous forms, including denial of the truth of black anti-white violence, denial of the tyrannical and murderous reality of Islam, and unquestioning acceptance of the mass Third-World immigration that is steadily turning America into a non-European country in which whites and their civilization will be steadily weakened, dispossessed, and destroyed.

That is a crime of grossly UnChristian proportions.

Which is why I say: Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White countries for Everyone is White Genocide.

Period.

Anonymous said...

So you are different from our progressive overlords because you are willing to flood our functional (aka white) societies with dysfunctional & unassimilatable immigrants for CHRISTIAN reasons?

I'm glad that makes you feel superior to the nasty racists, but the end result is the same for the societies.

Anonymous said...

I am reminded of the Apartheid-era British white South Africans. Benefiting mightily from apartheid, supporting it with their every action, secretly agreeing to its wisdom, enjoying the functional white space it allowed --- all the while publicly disparaging the Afrikaners for their boorish racist unchristian brutality.

I get it. You want to live in a functional society. You understand that means a majority white society with a European culture. You just don't have the steel to make the harsh & uncharitable choices to protect a society like that.

That's fine. Simply step aside. And keep your mouth shut & stop backstabbing the people who are willing to play rough for you.

Hoyos said...

Look, no one is saying flood anything. There seems to be a lot of conflation of concepts here.

Migration wouldn't be bad, IF migrants were routinely held to sane standards that apply to native populations. If I showed up in another country and declared myself an enemy of the local inhabitants, I SHOULD be expelled. It's just that we all know that isn't what happens. Forcibly expelling outside enemies is "steely" enough for most functioning societies. The problem with many of the migrants is not that they are migrants, but that they are hostile. If 10,000 Mennonites showed up in Hungary, I don't think the Hungarians would care. They wouldn't riot, they wouldn't steal, they wouldn't assault policemen.

It's only backstabbing if I'm behind you, which I'm not. And what playing rough? Nobody is playing rough for anybody, we're just arguing on the Internet.

Regarding South Africa, that's part of the problem. The apartheid system treated a European language speaking, educated, practicing Christian as though he was the same as an illiterate, animist barbarian potential guerrilla, just on race alone. That's insane. They alienated potential allies. For a counter example, Rhodesia had loads of native Africans fighting the communists.

And let's not get on our high horse about being white. The Germanic and Celtic tribes from which I am descended, and presumably you, were as horrifyingly barbaric as any in Africa, prior to a Christianization process that took centuries, was bloody, and had loads of stops and starts. Cannibalism, ritual rape, human sacrifice, a culture that revolved around plundering your neighbor more than building anything worthwhile. Worshipping stocks and stones in the forest, not building Cathedrals and Universities. "White" accomplishments for Northern Europeans are Christian accomplishments.

Look, it all boils down to what you care about more. For me, race is way, way, way, down the list far past behavior, culture and character. There are loads of black, brown, East Asian, etc. people who have "played rough" on my behalf in the latest war, and loads more at home who campaign for freedom and justice. They are actually on my side. A Syrian Muslim who openly supports ISIS is not. That's the meaningful distinction not race. How can you not see that?

Anonymous said...

Here's how I can not see that. I believe that Northwestern Europeans have some pretty unique inherited traits clustered around IQ, altruism, religious it's & out-group trust. This makes them pretty much the only people capable of creating a stable, prosperous, free, technologically-advanced civilization.

Yes, there are right-side-of-the-bell-curve outliers from other races that can function & contribute to those civilizations. But so what? They aren't worth the culture & relatives they drag with them.

I've seen what high-minded ly dropping racial preferences & prejudices altogether inevitably leads to: Europe & Southern California.

I would gladly take the risk of missing out on receiving the Mexican Elon Musk if I could live in a 1950s-demographics Los Angeles.

And nobody wants to deny anyone rights. We just don't want them to live in our state. Living with us is not a right.

Australia, huh? It sure must be nice to live on a nice safe island, kept white by two centuries of genocide & openly race-based immigration policy so I could tut-tut about nazis on the Internet.

Anonymous said...

You are no different from a leftist, at all.

Lecturing us that "we" must do something that is at best neutral to our interests & at worst dangerous because of "our" --- really meaning "your" morality.

And that if we disagree it is because we are stupid, cruel, hateful, racist, etc...

No different at all.

Anonymous said...

You had me convinced with the early part of the essay.

I was nodding in agreement for most of the post.

Then you wrote:



Perhaps one of the reasons why the Christian right is so easily seduced by racialists is because Christianity itself lacks a "theology of the flesh". I've argued before on this blog, that the "decarnalisation" of the human person has led to cultural fault lines which have been exploited by different kinds of diabolical error. Chivalric love is a love without reference to Eros,



I think I disagree with this theory, but I don't have the scholarly references on hand. I am pretty sure Pope John Paul II had all this figured out.

Then again, you have probably already read JP2 and his theories, so possibly you have an argument about this and I'm not clear on your argument.

Robert Brockman II said...

Some thoughts:

Virtues like intelligence, beauty, kindness, decency, etc. are real, and some virtues are measurable. Individuals and groups with more of a measurable virtue are by definition *better*. They are more valuable and useful and less expendable. They have more Goodness in them and are thus more Divine. (with one VITALLY IMPORTANT CAVEAT, see below.)

Indicators of all sorts which have known correlations with the possession of virtues convey valuable information -- this is true even if the relationship between the indicators and the virtues is not causal. Use of these indicators to determine the probability that a given individual has virtues and acting accordingly is an *essential* survival strategy -- we call this strategy "discrimination." Discrimination for and against individuals and groups on the basis of whatever indicators we can lay our hands on is one of the basic pillars of sanity.

Racists are no more and no less than people who are using a particular set of indicators in their evaluation of probable virtue, and the sanity and goodness of individual racists is essentially a function of whether they assign a weight to racial indicators of virtue that is in proper alignment with the true correlations. The morality of racism is thus fundamentally a *scientific* question, especially to the extent to which particular virtues and their correlations with known indicators can be measured.

Now for the VITALLY IMPORTANT CAVEAT:

Superior people, those who are fundamentally better than others, are superior by some *finite* factor: one could imagine a saintly individual whose life was worth more than those of 1000 normal people combined, as well as a despicable wretch whose life was worth marginally more than an insect. However, there is no way to become purely Divine by simply acquiring more virtue. (Hat tip: Christians.) As Master Sagan has said, a googleplex is precisely as far from infinity as the number 1.

From the mortal material perspective, the obvious superiority of various individuals and groups has tremendous practical significance. From the perspective of the Source of All Goodness, however, such differences are much less important: a hyper-intelligent post-Singularity AI-Cyborg-saint and a 60 IQ serial rapist/murderer in prison are fundamentally both finite mortal beings. They both are limited in time, space, and virtue. It is in this sense that "we are all equal in the eyes of God."

Failure to understand this VITALLY IMPORTANT CAVEAT is the basis for a very destructive form of spiritual pride. Detecting such a failure is relatively straightforward: people lacking this flaw will be interested in *practical* ways to help inferior people improve, while those who manifest the flaw will seek to have the inferior people *crushed*.

Robert Brockman II said...

A simple example will perhaps help:

Hitler: "German citizens who are Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs are inferior and therefore must be exterminated."
Not Hitler: "German citizens who are Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs are inferior and therefore should focus on improving. Here are some sound ways in which I can personally help them do this."

----

Side note: leftists, SJWs, etc. suffer from a different form of spiritual pride: they want to *be seen to be caring* about other people in order to seem more important in the eyes of others (and themselves). Their plans are destructive because of willful blindness to aspects of reality, either by denying that certain virtues exist or by denying that the virtues have non-uniform distributions. This denial of reality can usually only be maintained by treating the people/groups they supposedly care about as *abstractions* and having as little direct contact with them as possible. In contrast, people who actually care about other people seek to have as accurate a picture of their situation as possible. (Hat Tip: Moldbug)

We can debate about which of the two groups (Hitlerites or far-Leftists) are more dangerous and destructive (my money is on the far-Leftists) but forming tactical alliances with either group is quite dangerous for reasons which at this point are hopefully quite obvious.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Cecil.

The problem is not racial differences but the catergorisation of some people as subhuman because of them.


@Anon @2:41.

So you are different from our progressive overlords because you are willing to flood our functional (aka white) societies with dysfunctional & unassimilatable immigrants for CHRISTIAN reasons?


Can you quote me where I said we should flood society with people of different races for Christian readers? Honestly, I'd like to know. Immigration is a prudential issue, racism is a metaphysical one.

@Anon @2:59

That's fine. Simply step aside. And keep your mouth shut & stop backstabbing the people who are willing to play rough for you.

Seriously dude, protecting the borders is not a "roughness" issue. It's a legitimate action of government. That's not the problem, it's the antiChristian sentiment in HBD that is.

@Hoyos

If 10,000 Mennonites showed up in Hungary, I don't think the Hungarians would care. They wouldn't riot, they wouldn't steal, they wouldn't assault policemen.

Not so sure about the, Europeans have a long track record of being pretty particular with regard to national identity. These was a lot of ethnic cleansing amongst whites after WW2.

And let's not get on our high horse about being white. The Germanic and Celtic tribes from which I am descended, and presumably you, were as horrifyingly barbaric as any in Africa, prior to a Christianization process that took centuries, was bloody, and had loads of stops and starts. Cannibalism, ritual rape, human sacrifice, a culture that revolved around plundering your neighbor more than building anything worthwhile. Worshipping stocks and stones in the forest, not building Cathedrals and Universities. "White" accomplishments for Northern Europeans are Christian accomplishments.

Yep, that gets down to a lot of it. This idea of the inherent goodness of Whitishness seems at odds with historical fact. This does not mean that all the other races were somehow unsullied and pure. It simple means that genetics do not confer moral worth.

@Anon

Here's how I can not see that. I believe that Northwestern Europeans have some pretty unique inherited traits clustered around IQ, altruism, religious it's & out-group trust. This makes them pretty much the only people capable of creating a stable, prosperous, free, technologically-advanced civilization.

Japan?

@Anon @11:46

I think I disagree with this theory, but I don't have the scholarly references on hand. I am pretty sure Pope John Paul II had all this figured out.

No, he didn't, though he attempted to formulate a solution because he recognised that traditional Christianity had a problem with the flesh." He deserves a good mark for recognising the problem in the first place. He saw that there was a division between body and spirit which he wanted to reconcile but I don't think he recognised that there was not only a division but an actual denigration of the body. Benedict in Deus Caritas Est put up a defence of Christianity with regard to this, especially with his reply to Nietzsche, but I felt his defence was unconvincing.

@Robert

We can debate about which of the two groups (Hitlerites or far-Leftists) are more dangerous and destructive (my money is on the far-Leftists)


They're cut from the same cloth.

mdavid said...

Personally, I find the whole discussion amusing.

Roman Empire? Great Wall of China? Native Americans? People cannot (over time) prevent immigration. Put up walls, fences, whatever. It may work for this generation but not over time.

If you don't want to be overrun, BREED. The rest is details.

SP, There is a cognitive space between Racism and multiculturalism. Orban and I fit in that space.

There might be cognitive space, but there is no physical space! Breeders will bury you. If your moral superiority does not include fulfilling God's command to populate the earth...well, Faith without Works is dead.

Note Orban is Reformed Calvinist but he did marry a Roman Catholic and thus now has five children. So his "cognitive space" has indeed turned into physical space. But if his own family remains divided on doctrine, it's a short trip to secularism for his progeny. E-X-T-N-C-T. The Reformation = genetic extinction for Europe. QED.

Anonymous said...

I thought about Japan too. Before WW2 I'm not sure that a Western European or American living in Japan would think of it as particularly "free". After WW2 it's been using the liberal democratic constitution that the U.S. imposed on it.

In any event, I would be much more comfortable with an immigration of Japanese than the mix we are looking at today.

Anonymous said...

White accomplishments in Europe are really Christian accomplishments? Oh really?

Then please, back up your statements with empirical evidence. There are hundreds of millions of nonwhite Christians in the world. Please show one example of a nonwhite Christian civilization achieving half as much as Europe did in its glory days.

There have been Christians in Africa since Biblical times and the conversion of that Ethopian eunuch. Please demonstrate the truth of your theory by showing us what *grand* accomplishments the Ethopian church has done in all that time. Show us, say, a quarter of the order, the high culture, the wealth, and sheer grandeur of comparable white accomplishments in Europe.

*crickets*

Hoyos said...

@Anonymous

I said Northern Europe. If we want to talk about Greece and Rome, we're talking about something really, really different from Northern Europe. Christianity isn't a necessary condition for civilization, but it appears to be help.

You're measuring the wrong thing. Compare, over time, Christian Ethiopia with it's Muslim neighbours. Compare Amerindian Catholics with their animist neighbours. Compare Lebanese and Assyrian Christians with their neighbours and we generally see greater wealth, education, accomplishment etc.

All of that being said, and hopefully I've been polite, however...

Look at your reasoning. I gave you reasoning and evidence that NORTHERN European accomplishments correlate with Christianization in my previous post. If no nonwhite Christian accomplishments existed at all, it wouldn't alter my point or my reasoning one bit. Just because you use words like "empirical" and "theory" doesn't make up for poor reading skills. This is the second time, assuming you're the same Anonymous, where your counterargument was actually addressed in the same post you were attacking.

Race is interesting in general, but we don't deal with humanity in general we deal with individuals. Are you really telling me you don't prefer Thomas Sowell to Harry Reid? Or Allen West to Bowe Bergdahl? And if you do, then let's measure individuals, not ethnic background. Hell's bells, I'm just saying make policy decisions based on personal character (intelligence, criminal background, the needs of the host country etc.). "White" doesn't tell me squat on an individual basis.

Anonymous said...

Uh, no. Either:

A) The glories of European civilization were caused by Christianity, with whiteness being an incidental or secondary factor.

or

B) The glories of European civilization were caused by the inherent traits of its white people, with Christianity being an incidental or secondary factor.

If A, comparable accomplishments should be noted in nonwhite Christian populations. If B, then whiteness is the primary factor in Europe's accomplishments. In which case letting in any significant number of nonwhite migrants, no matter their religion, is insane, and tantamount to civilization-scale murder. Yet for some reason, so many Christians seem determined to erase the boundaries of nations to build a new, multicultural Tower of Babel. I can't say I understand what the hell is going through your brains.

And of course I'd rather deal with Sowell than Reid. An honest rival is worth a hundred pathetic, cuckolded traitors. But that doesn't mean Sowell is my friend. At most, we can be acquaintances and trade partners from a healthy distance. In that ideal world, Reid gets a bullet between the eyes for treason and is unceremoniously dumped in a ditch.

Anonymous said...

Every other ethnicity in the world, since the beginning of time, has preferred its own members to outsiders.

Without guilt, without shame, without even hating the other or even really thinking about it. Regardless of how talented or intelligent or decent the other group member was, he was from another group & got second-rank status. Period.

If you believe your religion should erase that preference, bully for you. But don't expect others to share that belief. And don't ask others to risk damage to our society by doing what your beliefs require.

Anonymous said...

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing the last couple of days by just saying "As someone who exactly fits the description of a cuckservative, I really hate that word."

Anonymous said...

Some betray their own group in favor of the outsider because they are afraid of being called a bad name.
Some do it because they have been taught to hate their own group.
Some do it because they don't think betraying their group is that big a deal.
Some do it because they don't want to be rude.
Some do it because they are true progressive believers in equality.
Some do it because they think that's what the constitution tells them to do.
Some do it becuase they think that makes them look holy.
Some do it because they think that's what Jesus would want them to do.
The result is the same.
A cuck is a cuck is a cuck.

Anonymous said...

I notice you never responded to the jab about benefitting from Australia's past racism, but wanting to be above that nastiness yourself.

So you grew up in a nice white functional Anglo society but you want to deny that experience to your descendants because you are so much more enlightened than those good christian men who came before you.

Cuck.

Anonymous said...

So you don't mind prepping a big black cock to penetrate your wife & give her nice brown babies. As long as that big black bull beast is intelligent and decent, and most of all CHRISTIAN.

Cuck.

Anonymous said...

"Asserting, contrary to apparent fact, that no matter how savage, offensive or ignorant a man is, of whatever race, he is still to be treated like a equal human being."

This is the weakness in your entire argument. St. Peter admonishes us to be as "innocent as doves; as wise as serpents". There is not Catholic teaching I know of that requires us to take in, say, Muslim migrants in quantities that change our Christian society.

Northy said...

Listen, 80% of the so-called """refugees""" are males. In any other age, a group of males crossing an international border into another nation would be considered an invasion - an act of war. This current crisis is no different. The Central Europeans are being far too kind to the invaders.

How is it any Central European nation's fault that a bunch of brown people can't create a stable civilization? Why should a Hungarian farmer have to worry about the safety of his family (especially his daughters) because of something that happened two thousand miles away? Why should a Czech shopkeeper have to suffer more shrinkage because blacks think they can just take what they want?

WE know why the hordes are coming here.
-welfare (gib me dats).
-unguarded White pussy (thank you feminism).
-territorial expansion (that's what islam does).
-cowards unwilling to fight for their country.
-remittances.
-terrorism.

We have all of the above issues but you are worried about being called a WORD.

Maybe the reason you and some of your commenters have such a wide gulf in views is down the different age/generation? As millennials, we don't things seriously that you may take seriously. Call me a Nazi? okay, great, whatever. Anti-Semite? cool, do you have an actual rebuttal? "Racist" is the same thing - just let it slide like water off a duck's back. Don't give their language any power.

These """migrants""" are not our problem. We only make up 8-9% of the world population and we can't afford to be bringing in more foreigners when we really should be physically removing the ones already here.


Anonymous said...

"The problem is not racial differences but the catergorisation of some people as subhuman because of them"

Talk about straw-Nazi-manning! Very few of even the brownest of brownshirts deny anyone's humanity. We just want to be able to live and work with humans more like us, and not be forced to live and work with humans less like us, We also want to stop other humans not like us from poisoning our values and cultures for their narrow tribal interests.

It's possible to recognize someone's humanity without accepting them into our in-group.

The Social Pathologist said...

A lot of anonymous commentators.

Lets go through some of the more intelligent replies.

White accomplishments in Europe are really Christian accomplishments? Oh really?

That's a reframe. I didn't say that genetics didn't matter, I said that Genetics weren't enough. You guys are pretty much the flip side of the blank slatists. Form them genetics don't matter, for you guys genetics are everything. See European civilisation peaked whilst it still remained Christian, since it ditched Christianity it has maintained an impressive technological culture but its social culture is decaying. The people running the show are still majority white. Whiteness seems to have provided no protection against self destruction.

And of course I'd rather deal with Sowell than Reid

But Sowell is black and Reid has all that white goodness genetically front loaded onto him?

Every other ethnicity in the world, since the beginning of time, has preferred its own members to outsiders.

That is correct and that is human nature.

If you believe your religion should erase that preference, bully for you. But don't expect others to share that belief.

I don't expect my religion to erase those preferences but because a person is not ingroup it doesn't flow that outgroup people have to be treated like shit or assumed to be inferior.

I notice you never responded to the jab about benefiting from Australia's past racism, but wanting to be above that nastiness yourself.

By and large, the founding fathers of Australia weren't racist in the same sense the HBD types are. They acknowledged the existence of Race and wanted to preserve their own, a legitimate goal in my opinion. But their exclusion of Asians and Blacks were made on different grounds. Firstly, they saw the disaster that Slavery had caused in the U.S. and did not want to repeat that same mistake here. (There was, at the time, a strong economic argument to import Kanak (Dark Pacific Islanders into the country.) They thought that the Asians were superior workers to the Whites and did not want to put them in unfair competition. The Asians that ended up as naturalised Australians were accorded the same rights before the Law, unlike in the U.S. where there was active discrimination against them.

Maybe the reason you and some of your commenters have such a wide gulf in views is down the different age/generation?

No, it a metaphysical conflict. There is a difference between wanting to maintain your identity and assuming you're superior because it. Orban can make this distinction I'm surprised so many others can't. Orban realises that the HBD types are foreigners to the European tradition.

It's possible to recognize someone's humanity without accepting them into our in-group.

Yes, I agree. But where exactly did I say that we should accept them into our ingroup? No seriously, I'd be quite appreciative if all the anonymous commentators who derived that I was a supporter for open borders, multiculturalism, cuckoldry etc, could quote me where I have actually advocated these things. The lying bastards can't because I haven't.

What I'm trying to point out is that Orban is excluding the immigrants on different groundsto that of the HBDers. Hungarian identity is more than just genetics.

Anonymous said...

What a neat trick it must be to mind-read Orban and know that he in no way considers himself & his Hungarian compatriots SUPERIOR to the swarthy horde at his doorstep, merely of a DIFFERENT IDENTITY.

In any event, Hungary's justifications for excluding refugees cannot be used by every nation-state facing pressure to open the floodgates, or in the case of the United States, keep them open.

It is a relatively homogenous population, linguistically, religiously and genetically, with a distinct and ancient lineage. They can say "No refugees, because they aren't like us."

In the US, we can't say that. There is no longer a homogenous "us" to point to. Not anymore. And anyway, 50 years of propaganda have convinced many Americans that "unlike us" is a good thing to be & makes the immigrants twice as welcome. So at least here in America we need a logical reason to give to keep Arabs and Africans out. And HBD provides one. That they tend (with exceptions) to not have what it takes to make Western societies work well. And that reason just so happens to be true to boot. Just not politically or (says you) spiritually correct to say out loud.

The set of circumstances in the US also makes anyone let into this country automatically part of our in-group, whether we want them to be or not. They vote, they live nextdoor to us, on our welfare payments, their children go to our schools, their sons date our daughters, their cultural sensitivities become landmines for native whites to avoid, their spokespeople petition for ever-greater payments and privileges. So, yeah, in the US at least there is no option of admitting immigrants to our territory, but not our society, unless they happen to be Amish. It seems like the UK has a similar issue.

Maybe you Aussies have figured out a way to let people enter your territory but keep them at arms length once there. If so, feel free to send that out into the world, instead of additional backpackers.

Long story short. Many of us you call brownshirts live places where the immigration and diversity experiment has been conducted for some time now. You live someplace where for various (but not racist, never racist) reasons it has not.

We've watched our nations & societies go to ruin as a result, while people justified the process using arguments exactly like yours. Sometimes cynically, sometimes sincerely. Theologically valid or not, we know what these high-minded principles lead to: East Los Angeles, Detroit & Rotherham. We have no time or respect for them anymore.

Elspeth said...

I'm going to do myself the favor of skipping the comment threads on this one, but wanted to say that this is the best, most balanced and intelligent piece of writing I've read on this subject in quite a long while.

Anonymous said...

That's a reframe. I didn't say that genetics didn't matter, I said that Genetics weren't enough. You guys are pretty much the flip side of the blank slatists. Form them genetics don't matter, for you guys genetics are everything. See European civilisation peaked whilst it still remained Christian, since it ditched Christianity it has maintained an impressive technological culture but its social culture is decaying. The people running the show are still majority white. Whiteness seems to have provided no protection against self destruction.

Your argument might hold weight, if not for the fact that absent Christianity whites *still* build orderly, peaceful, functional communities with high standards of living. Sweden would be quite nice if traitorous scum hadn't invited wave after wave of foreign parasites to loot the place.

Also, it has perhaps escaped your notice that the mainstream Christian church, including your oh-so-precious Catholic Church, is among the biggest supporters of the invasion. It wasn't so long ago that your "infallible" Pope called on every parish in Europe to host a Syrian refugee. So, what are you waiting for? They are your brothers in Christ after all. And whatsoever you do to the least of these, you have also done to me. So invite them in, lest ye be condemned.

Alternatively, you can persuade your fellows that nationalism, pride in your heritage, isn't some horrible evil. We aren't out to destroy you, but to unashamedly reclaim our homelands. Anti-Christian sentiment among our number comes from the fact that Christians are actively supporting the rape, murder, and demographic destruction of our children! Merkel's party is the Christian Democratic Union, for God's sake!

But Sowell is black and Reid has all that white goodness genetically front loaded onto him?

And all of civilization since the very beginning has upheld one universal law: death to traitors. That doesn't make Sowell a friend.

Dystopia Max said...

The way Viktor Orban is behaving now and the way Viktor Orban was behaving a year ago seem rather different in inspiration. Perhaps Viktor was only doing the first lockdown for a political show, when it was necessary to ingratiate themselves with the EU. Now it seems that good relations with the EU are not nearly as beneficial as they were previously. Not all that complicated, certainly not strong enough evidence that it's his CHRISTIAN VALUES that motivated him to take ineffectual and in the long run beneficial action against a group of Unacceptable Individuals.

It's either this or Viktor Orban has personally repented of his previous position upon seeing 500,000 reasons against it in the flesh. I'm sure that the Christian reactionaries forgive him, given their familiarity with the very dark, duplicitous, and nasty powers and principalities behind democratic politics as it currently exists.

As far as reducing things to biology, it's simple enough: Christianity as inspiration for Europeans enabled them create a state and society that selected against the type of social preferences that the past European and the present African barbarians will always prefer over cooperation. The humanizing Christian social order ensured that the genetic lines of the tempermentally atavistic were cut off, and that the remnant who remained fit the new idea of Man as Christ better. But as it turns out, just because atavism wasn't needed all the time doesn't mean it was useless.

If you want an example of where that social order can lead without Christ, and very possibly an over-extreme example in the other direction, look at Japan, and to a lesser extent Singapore, which was inspired by Lee Kuan Yew's vision of Japanese troops. The failure to explicitly Christianize that social order can be counted as among the greatest Christian failures of the 20th century, next to losing Hollywood to Jew/Communist influence.

Robert Brockman II said...

At this point I think we need to look at the strongest version of the Hitlerite/Stalinite argument, which goes something as follows:

The planet currently has finite resources for supporting life, prosperity, art, culture, science, and other virtues. This resource constraint may be improved with time, but right now the "life boat" which floats on the limitless sea of Void is only so big. "There is no life in the Void, only Death." -- Sauron.

Exponential reproduction runs into this hard limit sooner rather than later. When this happens notions like "the brotherhood of man" or "equality in the eyes of God" no longer mask the hard reality that there simply isn't enough to go around. Those with power must decide which people will get access to resources and which will not. Some mechanism must exist to sort humans according to worthiness.

People who are actively drilling holes in the bottom of the lifeboat obviously have to go overboard first -- they are reducing the capacity of the lifeboat and making the next round of agonizing decisions of who is worthy harder. Likewise, those who maintain the integrity of the lifeboat or increase its capacity -- the Sons of Martha -- must be kept alive and looked after at all costs.

Beyond that, we can quibble over the specific criteria of who makes the "cut" -- but there will be a cut. Those who do not make the cut will at a minimum have to be kept from breeding, otherwise progressively more nasty measures will be necessary to keep them from compromising the integrity of the lifeboat: forced abortion, concentration camps, and ultimately extermination will be required. If no Man of Steel / Supreme Leader makes these hard decisions, the inevitable result is breakdown of civil order, war, famine, and a dramatic decrease in the capacity of the lifeboat.

The Anonymouses are essentially looking at the above reasoning from the point of view of a Grand Administrator responsible for the functional integrity of Europe (instead of the world). They look at groups that are encouraging bringing undisciplined people with power drills onto Lifeboat Europe and conclude they are serious threats. The next logical step is to silence these threats by whatever means necessary to avoid doom.

See how easy it is to get to this mindset? People opposed to the Hitlerite position, especially Christians, need to explain clearly where the flaws in the above reasoning are.

george strong said...

Why would you think racists are automatically of low intelligence? It seems to be more rational than the way you think. Just observed the world around you. Why wouldn't any white person be racist? It's just common sense.

The Social Pathologist said...

@George Strong.

Define racist, since the term seems bandied around without much precision. I define Racist as someone who believes that human dignity and rights are contingent on genetic traits.

@Robert Brockman

Beyond that, we can quibble over the specific criteria of who makes the "cut" -- but there will be a cut. Those who do not make the cut will at a minimum have to be kept from breeding, otherwise progressively more nasty measures will be necessary to keep them from compromising the integrity of the lifeboat: forced abortion, concentration camps, and ultimately extermination will be required. If no Man of Steel / Supreme Leader makes these hard decisions, the inevitable result is breakdown of civil order, war, famine, and a dramatic decrease in the capacity of the lifeboat.

Yep. The atheistic HBD approach eventually reaches this end. No one starts off with these ends but that's where it ends. It's interesting to see that contrary to the opinions of many Jewish scholars, that the Nazi's had no plan of extermination from the outset, but as things progressed the final solution became a necessary step from the "racial perspective". Had the Germans won, The General Plan for the East would have dwarfed the Holocaust and Holodomor. Superior races always have the right to abuse the lesser ones.

I think Christianity is at serious disadvantage in defending itself against racism since it see's beyond race when it considers the human being. The problem is that human nature doesn't. Societies built on Christian principals which don't acknowledge the reality of race or of the human propensity for homophily are prone to racist infiltration.

@Anon

They are your brothers in Christ after all. And whatsoever you do to the least of these, you have also done to me. So invite them in, lest ye be condemned.

You can lecture me on Christianity when you start practicing it.

@ Northy

Where did I say that we should allow widespread foreign immigration from different races. Quote me or bugger off.

Robert Brockman II said...

Even if one chooses not to use race as an indicator for virtue, the hard problem of sorting out who gets to live / breed and who goes over the side of the lifeboat remains. Stalin, for example, did not prioritize race in his evaluations and the scale of the extermination was the same order of magnitude as Hitler.

The fundamental unpleasantness in the Nazi/Stalinist/Maoist/White Nationalist position follows from the understanding that there isn't enough to go around. People who favor their own group, racial or otherwise, are basically saying "better them than us" for some version of "them" and "us."

I don't really see how the Christian position gets to be fundamentally different -- and in practice, it hasn't been. Certainly Christians would favor the kindest means of imposing selection (human dignity and civil rights), but in the end, weeded out is weeded out.

Christians need a positive answer to the How Shall We Distribute The Wealth question, including the unfortunate corollary of How Shall We Escort Those Who Were Not Chosen Into The Grave With A Minimum of Fuss.

(Side note: the Nazi assignment of virtue to race, although not in any way scientific, was not entirely self-serving. For example, the Nazis determined that the Norwegians were racially *superior* to ethnic Germans and acted accordingly by engaging in breeding programs in Norway. A very strange form of idealism, to be sure.)

Ingemar said...

>Christians need a positive answer to the How Shall We Distribute The Wealth question, including the unfortunate corollary of How Shall We Escort Those Who Were Not Chosen Into The Grave With A Minimum of Fuss.

Matthew 19:21.

Anonymous said...

> he banned them on the grounds that they were racists. You see, Orban is a proud Hungarian Nationalist but he is not one of them.

This is an insufficient understanding of the situation and realpolitik. Orban is, and has always been under a lot of pressure by the usual suspects to step back in line, and he has very little room to maneuver. He simply didn't need the additional heat allowing a racist conference would have created. This is no indication of whether he agrees with them or not.

Robert Brockman II said...

Matthew 19:21 does a fine job of curing our excessive attachment to material things. It doesn't solve the problem I'm talking about. Worse, people have misused Matthew 19:21 to load down on the spiritual pride: "I've given away all my stuff, therefore I'm a good person." (Jesus covers this later, actually.)

In practice, if one gives all one's stuff to poor people (as the Europeans are doing) then the stuff gets consumed / destroyed and the poor people simply become more numerous and miserable. The root of the problem (why the people are poor) is not solved by giving them stuff.

Ingemar said...

>The root of the problem (why the people are poor) is not solved by giving them stuff.

You're trying to say that their inborn deficiencies are the root of their problem without really saying it. "Someone!" has to make a cut and race may be but totally isn't one of the criteria.
As for your previous post, "distributing the wealth" is a clumsy sleight of hand for your more sinister agenda of "escorting people to the grave." What kind of fucked up thinking is that?


The point socialpathologist made is flying way past your head.

The Social Pathologist said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Social Pathologist said...

There is no indication whatsoever that Orban takes the racialist/HBD view of the human person.

His view of identity is suprabiological.

He repeatedly emphaises Hungary's Christian past. Not only that, his idea of "European-ness resolves around Christianity, not biology. His enemy are the socialists, the "white" enemy within.

Here is a link from one his left wing Critics, who is just...wow.....horrified...that he takes this Christian stuff seriously.

http://hungarianspectrum.org/2015/09/22/viktor-orban-and-the-christian-national-idea/

Start your path to Enlightenment with these words;

"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, creator of Heaven and Earth......"

Belloc understood it well. The Faith is Europe and Europe is the Faith. Seek this first and all things will be given to you.

Anonymous said...

You can lecture me on Christianity when you start practicing it.

You can lecture me on white nationalism when you start practicing it.

In the meantime, the fact that your religion demands we white folk meekly accept our displacement and eventual extinction so that you can earn some nice brownie points will invariably bring us into conflict. And you can insist it doesn't all you want, but everyone of any significance in the religion - from the Pope to Protestants - says it does. The pontiff just recently argued the US should throw open its borders and accept even more of Mexico's population, in the name of Christian charity. I doubt it will escalate beyond mere words though. You're obliged to turn the other cheek and all.

All I and my compatriots want are our homelands. You and your ideological fellows wish to see us drowned in poor, brown "brothers in Christ" so that you don't feel mean. Much as you deny it, you make your position plain by vigorously attacking only those who wish to defend our people and heritage. If I were you, and I truly cared about the "poor refugees", I'd throw all my weight behind border walls, razor wire, and vigorous deportation now. Because currently we'd be perfectly fine with just sending them home to do as they please. If the flood continues, future movements will almost certainly be considerably more vicious.

Of course, if you're like the SJWs and only care about moral preening, feel free to continue on your present course. It won't end well for anyone, but you'll probably avoid the dreaded feelbads in the meantime. But I have hope you're better than that.

Anonymous said...

Belloc understood it well. The Faith is Europe and Europe is the Faith. Seek this first and all things will be given to you.

Europe is the blood and spirit of its people. That existed long before Christianity. And African Christians aren't European. Nor are Chinese Christians, nor Brazilian Christians. There are plenty of those, but European they are not and never will be. In better days, the Faith was part of Europe. It seems to have forgotten that now. Once its knights fought bravely to repel Muslim invaders and reconquer European soil - now it gladly invites them in, and the Pope washes their feet.

Mark Citadel said...

I think you raise some valid points here, though I may have worded it differently.

I don't think the Christian sees the races as equal. In fact to be different is by definition to be unequal. He just does not envision a moral hierarchy of races that entails healthy subjugation or extermination. These are the 'racists' I converse with, and I count myself among them. I want a homeland for Occidental Christians.That is my primary focus. I harbor no ill will towards the people of Zambia, I wish them all the best, but I want my own homeland, under Christian monarchy.

Robert Brockman II said...

Their deficiencies may or may not be inborn. What matters here is that giving them stuff is unlikely to help the overall situation: we simply do not know how to give them stuff in such a way that they would be able to pull their weight.

Obviously if the new arrivals could be refit with the tools, training, and desire to add more in lifeboat maintenance than they incurred in support costs, that would be great. Unfortunately many of the new arrivals seem to lack even the desire to be orderly and constructive.

Robert Brockman II said...

SP, one of the critical issues here is that the Pope has been corrupted: he cares about *appearing* pious much more than actually solving problems. He's "holier than Jesus" -- the number of times he even mentioned Jesus in his speeches at the UN and Congress: zero. (This is a big topic all on its own.)

The Pope really DOES seem to want to see Anonymous "drowned in poor, brown "brothers in Christ" so that he doesn't feel mean." This is a recipe for disaster on all levels. I don't buy that the Pope has Caritas as all.

If there was a believable plan for upgrading the refugees so that they could integrate into a new society in a net positive way (and thus kick the can of Malthusian doom down the road) then that would be great. Unfortunately, feels and compassion doesn't get you that plan: sound leadership backed by good economics is necessary, as is proper cultural / religious indoctrination of the refugees. Nobody has the testicular/ovarian fortitude for that right now, certainly not the Pope.

tonsplace said...

The moral high ground is where ever you put your artillery

Posts like this only proves why we can not trust Catholics and most other Christians and serve no real.world purpose other then go make the author feel good, better then us brutes. But you win war a with brutes not feelz goods

The Social Pathologist said...

Posts like this only proves why we can not trust Catholics and most other Christians and serve no real.world purpose other then go make the author feel good, better then us brutes.

Yep, it's always race before Christ. I think you've proved my point.

The Social Pathologist said...

The Pope really DOES seem to want to see Anonymous "drowned in poor, brown "brothers in Christ" so that he doesn't feel mean.

The Pope's jurisdiction extends to personal morality not public policy: Soul's, not countries, get saved.

But I think the current Pope has been great overall for the Christian Right, particularly the traditionalist faction. It's funny to see these guys, who always insisted on obedience to the Pope on the basis of his authority trying to subvert him now because they don't like what he is saying. They're the opposite pole of cafeteria catholics. The Church seems also trapped in its own Overton window.

Robert Brockman II said...

SP, the Pope has authority with Christians because of who he supposedly works for.

Read the Pope's speeches for the politicians this last week:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/09/23/pope-franciss-prepared-remarks-at-the-white-house/
http://www.vox.com/2015/9/24/9391549/pope-remarks-full-text
http://time.com/4049905/pope-francis-us-visit-united-nations-speech-transcript/

Do a search for "Jesus" or "Mary" in these documents. Not so much of that there. Actually none. Plenty of stuff about global warming, the "environment", other progressive issues. Not so much about abortion, gay marriage, etc. Francis doesn't seem like a big supporter of Austrian economics, either.

The problem is that Pope Francis doesn't work for Jesus anymore. Jim Donald's right about him: he's now "holier than Jesus", "holier than God", serving "Jesus the community organizer" rather than Christ the Redeemer.

This is why I liked Benedict: he was an ex-Nazi who looked like Emperor Palpatine. Because of this, nobody ever expected him to be holier than Jesus, most especially himself. The importance of this cannot be underestimated.

"We were looking for a 'good shepherd', and instead we got a German shepherd." - Pope Benedict XVI

Now we're stuck with this Francis guy. I'm sure schism will help the situation as well as it did the last 67 times it's been tried. Really someone needs to go talk some sense into him.

Anonymous said...

Yep, it's always race before Christ. I think you've proved my point.

You prove mine with every post you've made. You, like all progressives, care only about what makes you feel moral and righteous at any given moment. The actual results of your actions and policies are immaterial to you. The fact that mass immigration will ultimately make the world worse for both white and brown people doesn't matter, only that advocating holy antiracism makes you feel superior to us evil nationalists. We're evil Nazis, and you're the oh-so-holy Enlightened One who casts down scorn on our lowly ranks.

Tell me, do you have children? Actual, biological children. Do you care what kind of future they have?

And since you are commanded to love your neighbor as yourself, why are you insisting on destroying said neighbor in the name of charity?

Gabe Ruth said...

Wow... first time I've been able to give the relatively formal name of the phenomenon above since I learned its name: Bulverism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism), text book case.