Saturday, September 26, 2015

Compromised



Long time readers of this blog will acknowledge that I have sparred with Zippy Catholic on the many theological issues that divide us. However I've got to commend him for two posts that he put up;

How "no enemies to the Right" perpetuates the mind trap.

and,

HBD on its own really is Nazi.

Some explanatory comments, since many readers seem to engage in Serial Associative Cognition and impute to me positions that I don't hold.

Firstly,  It's a mistake to assume that ontological axis has, as it's opposite poles, right and left. It needs to be stressed that the ontological axis is ordered towards right and wrong and error can exist to the right and left of it and a man can stray of the narrow path in both directions.  The Master alludes to this when he says;

Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat.

If you're like me, and believe in the existence of the Devil then you'll realise he doesn't care if you enter Hell through the Liberal door on the left or the Nazi door on the right, the only thing that matters to him is that you get there, preferably without any warning.  Indeed, one of the best ways to ignore your own errors is to be so focused on the errors of your target that situational awareness becomes lost.

I'm quite worried that this is happening to NRx at the moment. NRx is, quite rightly, hostile to the ideas of the multiculturalism, but it I don't think it has taken a critical enough stance with regard to the entryist racial supremacists who have assumed greater prominence and who hide under the moniker of HBD and identitarianism. In its battle against the left, at least on the issue of multiculturalism NRx seems to think that there are no enemies to the right.

I differ from Zippy in that I think that HBD, on its own, is morally neutral. But just as the Left engage in the semantic shifting of words, some of the more malignant Right do the same, and when they use HBD it comes with associated  metaphysical baggage as well.

Words are meant to convey a particular semantic meaning. This is recognised by the intelligent but amongst cognitive misers they words trigger an association response, much like the ringing of Pavlov's bell, and term HBD amongst this latter class of individuals is an implicit association of ideas which are linked by the focal point of race. Amongst the idiotic left, the word race triggers associations of concentration camps, discrimination and evil white men. Amongst the idiotic right, it triggers ideas of  Nordicism, racial purity, supremacism and the Darwinian struggle.

The fact that words can be used in this bimodal manner gives the Darwinian Supremacists the opportunity for plausible deniability and thus quasi respectability. When challenged about their racial supremacist stance the word is used in its semantically specific manner but when used amongst friends it is used in its associative manner.*

As I said before, HBD when used in its specific sense is metaphysically neutral and therefore not a problem for NRx. It's not even a problem, when used in this sense, for Christianity. Christianity has long acknowledged the difference between peoples whilst maintaining that they are all "one in Christ". It's current promotion of multiculturalism is due to an almost criminal lack of prudence, not a desire to eliminate differences.

Until the arrival of these entryists NRx seemed fairly agnostic on the subject of religion. However, with their arrival there's been a definite shift which I feel is going to precipitate a split. The real problem for NRx is the metaphysical one, it's about how NRx understands reality, and the entryists have shifted the balance in favour of the Modernists Darwinians. The beast now lodges in our home and NRx is being undermined from the inside.

I want to stress again that the problem is not in the recognition of the differences between races rather the associated metaphysical baggage they bring.

The problem is that metaphysics of Darwin are incompatible with the metaphysics of Christianity.  Darwinian metaphysics views man simply in material terms whilst Christian metaphysics is rooted in the hyelomorphic conception of man. The problem of Evil in Darwinian metaphysics is a material one, in Christianity a spiritual one.   From these two views come different solutions to societal problems and how to best tackle them. Zippy spells it out.
The fact that there are basic and intractable differences between the races is as obvious as it is politically incorrect.  One only has to look at the ethnic makeup of a professional sports team and a successful technology company to get the point.  The notion that these differences only exist because of oppression by evil white racists, and that the terrible affront of substantive racial differences can be remedied if we get even more aggressive with even more comprehensive programs of mandatory tolerance, is well past its sell-by date.

Liberalism only functions at all because it implicitly divides humanity into the übermensch and the üntermensch: the free and equal superman, self-created through reason and will, and the subhuman oppressor that is interfering with the emergence of the free and equal new man.  The free and equal new man is supposed to be politically emancipated from the chains of history, tradition, aristocracy, hierarchy, unchosen obligations, nature, and nature’s God.  But things keep getting in his way, and that requires a Solution.

If you take liberalism and force it to acknowledge the truth that racial differences are real and intractable, the Solution necessarily takes on a racial dimension.  It has to be a eugenic Solution; a Final Solution.
Anybody who has studied the Third Reich will see that the Germans did not start out wanting to liquidate the Jews, simply to rid themselves of them,  but the metaphysics of the Darwin and circumstances, forced a "logic onto them" which led to the inevitable conclusion. Behind all the smoke and mirrors class enemies and the untermensch are really just the same thing and the material concept of man leads to the same conclusion.  These entryists, whilst clothed in the language of the Right are advocating the metaphysics of Leftism.  They are nothing more than Stalin in drag.

NRx is compromised.



*Stanovich's book IS important.

54 comments:

Nick B Steves said...

If you ban talk of humane solutions to the problems of modernity, people will only be talking about inhumane ones.

If NRx is compromised, you'd better start naming names.

Anonymous said...

That's lovely. Like I said, though, if you truly care about the refugees you'll support those nasty racists and their walls and deportations now. Because the longer it takes to arrive at a solution, the more vicious said solution will be.

Diversity + Proximity = War. Always.

Senghendrake said...

I dont think this article advocated for open borders. It's just that single-issue obsession with race and Darwinian metaphysics (or lack thereof) is a symptom of modernity. The cliché responses so far do little to counter this assertion.

Anonymous said...

I dont think this article advocated for open borders. It's just that single-issue obsession with race and Darwinian metaphysics (or lack thereof) is a symptom of modernity. The cliché responses so far do little to counter this assertion.

I know you enlightened folks may not care, but for us vile reactionary racists the genetic future of our nations and the ability of our daughters to walk down the street without being gang-raped by half a dozen illiterate Afghan Muslims is kind of important. Being that said future is under severe and immediate threat, we don't have the luxury of sitting around and contemplating philosophically on the righteousness of any individual solution.

And, as always, I notice that philosophizing is being done from the safety of a majority-white country with strong controls on immigration. All established by those vile, racist old white men in ye olde bad days of yore. I notice that Australia's founders didn't see a contradiction between being Christian and enforcing strict racially-based immigration controls. What changed, I wonder?

Senghendrake said...

You do realise that I *am* a vile reactionary racist living in a super multicultural area? You fool. Nobody's advocating unrestricted immigration here. You have utterly failed to begin to understand what the author, Zippy and I are even saying.

Anonymous said...

You do realise that I *am* a vile reactionary racist living in a super multicultural area? You fool. Nobody's advocating unrestricted immigration here. You have utterly failed to begin to understand what the author, Zippy and I are even saying.

A man is defined as much by what he doesn't say as what he does. And one can also tell a great deal by the enemies he chooses to make. I notice that he isn't saying one word to call out the fact that Germany is experiencing a rape epidemic because of the poor refugees, but he seems to have quite a lot of vitriol for those of us who want to do something about it, now.

We're not intrinsically hostile to you. Indeed, many amongst our number have strong affiliations to national churches, and that does not bother us one bit. If Christians understand the importance of the nation and maintaining its integrity, then there is no conflict between us. I have no wish to burn down your cathedrals, but you seem to have a serious wish to stop my nation from defending itself. If you didn't, you would prioritize 11 year old German girls being raped by migrants over mean words said on the Internet.

Senghendrake said...

Who do you even think you're talking to? I'm utterly in favour of doing what Christendom did for more than a thousand years. The issue is adopting Darwinistic metaphysical baggage and putting it above salvation, that's all. At this point, its clear that you're not getting this, and that you think you're talking to cucks. I give up.

Anonymous said...

Who do you even think you're talking to? I'm utterly in favour of doing what Christendom did for more than a thousand years. The issue is adopting Darwinistic metaphysical baggage and putting it above salvation, that's all. At this point, its clear that you're not getting this, and that you think you're talking to cucks. I give up.

I think you're someone who's picking an unnecessary fight with people with whom you should share very important objectives. I'm perfectly willing to set aside my misgivings with many of the inherently leftist parts of mainstream Christian theology in order to secure the future of my children and nation. Why cannot the same courtesy extend to me? We don't have to like each other to work together and settle our differences once the invasion has been dealt with. Yet I see this blog author and many commentators turning all guns against my ideological fellows in the middle of an already tough fight. This distresses me.

Anonymous said...

If "Diversity + Proximity = War. Always." then, how do you explain Korea? War has very little to do with "Diversity" (Skin color) but has quite a bit to do with incongruent values.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Nick

If you ban talk of humane solutions to the problems of modernity, people will only be talking about inhumane ones.

Where have I banned talk?

If NRx is compromised, you'd better start naming names.

You can start with these guys

August said...

While I don't think any identity politics are good, I can't help but feel this smacks a bit of 'the sky is falling' type of talk. Is anyone really going beyond mere white nationalism? If we suddenly find ourselves rulers of the universe, can we not just hand them Connecticut and let them find out just how bright and shiny their white nation could be?

Ok, sure, they- and a lot of other disgruntled white people- may put Trump in the White House. This is not good, but better candidates are not available, but that's the cucks fault.

The next eugenics program will be administered by young women: one of the few parts of Gattica that was prophetic- the place the girls brought samples to to check on a prospective mate's dna.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Senghendrake

Who do you even think you're talking to? I'm utterly in favour of doing what Christendom did for more than a thousand years. The issue is adopting Darwinistic metaphysical baggage and putting it above salvation, that's all. At this point, its clear that you're not getting this, and that you think you're talking to cucks. I give up.

Bingo. That's my point exactly!

@Anon

We don't have to like each other to work together and settle our differences once the invasion has been dealt with.

We tried that before. When "we" win you slit our throats.

The Social Pathologist said...

@ August

Identity politics are important but like constitutions, identity politics needs its checks and balances.

Anonymous said...

We tried that before. When "we" win you slit our throats.

And when, pray tell, has that ever happened? The entire system goes out of its way to make certain that no one with a hint of racial awareness ever gains power. When have modern Christians ever done anything but make excuses for the poor invaders and offer them our money in the name of charity?

Anti-Christian sentiment exists because you choose to be hostile to us and our future. Not the other way around.

Robert Brockman II said...

Let's assume for a moment that Group A really is "superior" in some important sense relative to Group B. Members of Group A would have no intrinsic reason to make trouble for Group B. If members of Group A had Caritas they would probably try and help Group B improve. (Even if Group B's deficiencies are "innate" clever scientists might still be able to change or route around the issue.) Nazis and Stalinists are not known for Caritas, so the pogroms, the concentration camps, and the gas chambers come out sooner rather than later.

In order to get the general population of Group A behind putting the boots to Group B, its usually necessary to terrify Group A into believing that Group B is really out to steal Group A's stuff and women and generally trash the place.

This propaganda job is made much easier if big chunks of Group B really ARE showing up to make trouble. Now the burden is on Team Caritas to show how to manage Group A constructively.

Anonymous said...

So the difference between SP and your standard-issue SJW white privilege shrieker is this: When SP calls HBD adherents "evil" he means it THEOLOGICALLY, not just as a piece of overheated rhetoric.

Anonymous said...

Having read Moldbug, I'm not surprised to find a Christian who is filled with that burning equalist spirit. After all, according to MM, Christianity is the headwaters from which the mighty progressive equalist river originally sprang.

I guess my surprise is to find one who claims to be on the Right.

Seriously, Doctor, wouldn't you be more comfortable on the other side? You could rail against darwinist baggage, evil Nazis, and just how much it chaps your ass to see people who want to deny the humanity of non-whites, by not letting them into white countries. You would get lots of agreement there.

Julian O'Dea said...

Nice thoughtful article.

Thanks.

zippycatholic said...

Anonymous writes:
...according to MM, Christianity is the headwaters from which the mighty progressive equalist river originally sprang.

People who believe that are just signaling the metaphysical baggage they themselves bring to the discussion.

Seriously, Doctor, wouldn't you be more comfortable on the other side? You could rail against darwinist baggage, evil Nazis, and just how much it chaps your ass to see people who want to deny the humanity of non-whites, by not letting them into white countries. You would get lots of agreement there.

Which side is that? The side that believes in false dichotomies, or the one that doesn't? "If you aren't a follower of Imbecile One, you must be a follower of Imbecile Two!"

armenia4ever said...

"The problem is that metaphysics of Darwin are incompatible with the metaphysics of Christianity. "

Precisely.

These actual White Supremacists - a term I don't use lightly since it's been tossed around with ease by the social justice left - are actual social Darwinists.

When we think about the implications of Social Darwinism in combination with a racial superiority worldview at the core, it has a scary and sad conclusion.

I am somewhat sympathetic to some of these people, as I think the vicious racial politics of the left have created a backlash which has resulted in much of the infiltration we are seeing on both the Alt-right as well as NRx. This atmosphere has been created by the left and it was only a matter of time before some white folks essentially say, "Well the hell with you as well." I suggest this will only get worse as racial politics to continue polarize the West.

(I wouldnt consider myself NRx.)

Racial differences are there - or more specifically ethnic and tribal differences. There is a reason several of the world's fastest runners come from one area in Kenya.

What puzzles me is how some of these HBD White supremacist types can emphasize race over "tribe" similarities in culture, community, and worldview. I'm half/white and half/middle-eastern, and I'm very proud and aware of both sides of my heritage. I agree with so much from these HBD types. I'm not just an "ally", I'm a member of their tribe when it comes to values, culture, and not being ashamed of being white.

It's unfortunate they don't realize that.


armenia4ever said...

@anonymous

"And when, pray tell, has that ever happened? The entire system goes out of its way to make certain that no one with a hint of racial awareness ever gains power. When have modern Christians ever done anything but make excuses for the poor invaders and offer them our money in the name of charity?

Anti-Christian sentiment exists because you choose to be hostile to us and our future. Not the other way around."

Valid points.

Consider what has happened to Christianity after World War 1. Much of it's teeth has been removed. Assimilation with the culture and the people giving one shelter has been replaced with absolute multi-culturalism and many other principles of "social justice"

At some point, there will be another Charles Martel, a Jean Parisot de Valette of the Knights of Malta, and a Jan Sobieski to charge into the Turkish army. It's one thing to accept and help foreigners and the poor. It's quite another to let them destroy your people, your communities, and your own culture.

This is why organizations like AMREN and the idea of white pride are absolutely necessary to white culture - admittedly that varies - as well as a sense of pride in what the "terrible" whites have done to build up the Western World into what is was.

mdavid said...

Zippy, If you take liberalism and force it to acknowledge the truth that racial differences are real and intractable, the Solution necessarily takes on a racial dimension. It has to be a eugenic Solution; a Final Solution.

SP, I differ from Zippy in that I think that HBD, on its own, is morally neutral.

I agree with you. But Zippy isn't really saying HBD alone. He twists it into HBD + liberalism. Rhetoric not dialectic. Meant to incite not articulate.

zippycatholic said...


I wasn't going to quibble in this moment of happy agreement (for which I tip my hat to our blog host).

But since you brought it up, in fact there are two propositions, typically unspoken and often not even considered, which are in contention. Some folks believe one or both of them to be true. I believe both of them to be false, and have written quite a bit about why -- about why metaphysical neutrality is impossible, and even if it were granted to be possible in principle (which it isn't) it is not possible in practice.

The propositions in contention are:

1) It is possible for HBD and things like HBD to be metaphysically neutral; and

2) HBD is in fact itself metaphysically neutral.

And as I've pointed out, the reason certain people use the term "human biodiversity" instead of the term "racial differences" is precisely because they carry different metaphysical baggage.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Anon

"And when, pray tell, has that ever happened?"

Get an education.

A quote from one of practical practitioners of your philosophy.

"Himmler saw the main task of his Schutzstaffel (SS) organisation to be that of "acting as the vanguard in overcoming Christianity and restoring a 'Germanic' way of living" in order to prepare for the coming conflict between "humans and subhumans"

Himmler was a feature, not a bug of your system.

Whether it's Communism, Aryanism or even Secular Humanism, You guys never,ever, leave us alone.

Bonus reading for you.

The Social Pathologist said...

@August

The metaphysics of HBD (or lack thereof) does in real world applications lead to idea of "better and worse" racial types. Once you start setting up a value system based on variations in human genetics, utilitarian ethics leads directly towards "materialistic solutions".

@Armenia4ever

I am somewhat sympathetic to some of these people, as I think the vicious racial politics of the left have created a backlash which has resulted in much of the infiltration we are seeing on both the Alt-right as well as NRx

Yep. It's a lose/lose situation for the intelligent right. Two choices that seem to be on offer are either insane multiculturalism or rabid racism. Both groups peddle the same liberal poison, except that it comes in different "flavours".

As mainstream "Conservatism" is dead, the only hope for the right will be the development of a healthy version of it in the Alt-right sphere. This were going along splendidly till these clowns showed up. What's more worrying is the lack of critical pushback amongst other bloggers who should know better.

This is why organizations like AMREN and the idea of white pride are absolutely necessary to white culture - admittedly that varies - as well as a sense of pride in what the "terrible" whites have done to build up the Western World into what is was.

I disagree. We need a philosophy of identiarianism that doesn't rubbish everyone else.
Briefly, the the logical end point of multiculturalism is monoculturalism: the lack of diversity of identity. We need a "Theology of the Body" which recognsises genetic differences and asserts that they are good.

@Mdavid
But Zippy isn't really saying HBD alone. He twists it into HBD + liberalism

I don't want to argue the point on this post. HBD is used precisely because it is more "politically correct" than "racial differences". I think it's important that the Christian Alt Right unite and pushback against the atheistic metaphysic that is encroaching. The influx of these guys is causing the alt-Right to rot on the inside.

Anonymous said...

SP calls me a Nazi for daring to want a white homeland for my children like the one he is safely nestled in. Oh shock and alarm. I cannot tell you how badly this hurts my poor little feelings.

Seriously though, are you sure you wouldn't be happier working openly for the left? You sound just like the standard point and shriek SJW, and your arguement is the same. Racially Aware = Nazi = EEEEEEVIL!

Australia's founder saw no contradiction between wanting a white homeland and being Christian. What's changed?

mdavid said...

SP, HBD is used precisely because it is more "politically correct" than "racial differences".

No. It's used because "race" is too fuzzy a term with today's mobile populations plus our new detailed knowledge of genetics (the human genome was only broken 20 years ago or so). "Race" is gonna get a lot more complex soon enough.

Examples: "blacks" in Africa, America, and Mexico have large genetic differences due to inbreeding with Natives and Whites. Historic Celts, Jews, and Germanics have large genetic differences that matter (e.g. IQ gaps over a SD) but are "white" because they are interbreeding so fast it's less accurate to use the term race among most of them. Hence, HBD, which acknowledges genetic differences in humans without specifying and thus getting tangled in details. Human genetics aren't taught much in school so even educated people are quite ignorant about how genetics and race interface. HBD allows for broad type discussions without getting mired into the (very complex) specifics.

I think it's important that the Christian Alt Right unite and pushback against the atheistic metaphysic that is encroaching. The influx of these guys is causing the alt-Right to rot on the inside.

There is complete disunity among Christians, period. Christian Alt Right? That's just a figment of somebody's imagination. Nobody is going to unite and fight over being Alt Right. So there is nothing to "encroach" upon. It's going to be a dark age for Christians soon enough; political boundaries of today simply aren't worth defending. Rather than fighting transient politics? Christians should just start following Genesis 1:28 again so the lions don't starve.

Asher said...

So, zippycatholic talks about getting outside that shell. This is simple - just leave. Of course, you'll be leaving alone and making no impact on anything else about which you care but, hey, you'll be outside the shell.

One leaves the shell by adopting asceticism, by no other means is exit possible. If one is talking about leaving the shell then that is a sure sign one remains securely ensconced within that soft center.

zippycatholic clearly wants to break the Overton Window as evidenced by his talk of leaving it. However, since leaving it is as easy as snapping one's fingers this is also evidence that he has no idea on how to break the Overton Window. If he did have an idea of how to do this it would have likely shown up by now in his writing. Since he has no idea of how to achieve his objective he is stuck doing a rhetorical straddle of pretending that leaving the shell is akin to breaking the Overton Window.

zippycatholic said...

Asher:
Since he has no idea of how to achieve his objective he is stuck doing a rhetorical straddle of pretending that leaving the shell is akin to breaking the Overton Window.

Where have I actually written any of that? I don't recognize this 'zippycatholic' character with which you are shadow-boxing. I know that it isn't me.

It is true enough that I don't have a technology capable of breaking the Overton window. The NRx kids who think that they do have such a technology are almost cute in their self-delusion.

Western society already tried the route of going full Nazi and the route of going full Stalinist. How did that work out for everyone? Is the Overton window broken?

Asher said...

zippycatholic

I have passing familiarity with the sorts at Radix. They aren't anything close to Nazis. I'm sorry but you haven't even come close to making the case that they are and, further, they are much closer to strategies breaking the Overton Windown than are you.

Asher said...

"No enemies on the right" may be a flawed strategy but it's better than no strategy at all.

Asher said...

See, the Overton Window is completely controlled by the left, as long as it exists they get to decide what is acceptable and what is excluded. Breaking the Overton Windown puts *everything* on the table, a tabula rasa.

If you wish to break the Overton Windown you have to accept that *everything* is going to be on the table. If you don't accept the latter you won't get the former.

Anonymous said...

It's funny watching two Catholics insisting that their spiritually-based antiracism does not mean they support open borders & multiculturalism. Meanwhile, the infallible head of their church is currently touring America vociferously advocating for exactly those things, to rapturous applause.

Anonymous said...

At this point, its clear that you're not getting this, and that you think you're talking to cucks

We think that because we are hearing the exact same words from you as cucks say. Only your stated reasoning is different.

Anonymous said...

Which side is that? The side that believes in false dichotomies, or the one that doesn't? "If you aren't a follower of Imbecile One, you must be a follower of Imbecile Two!"

It's true, I had forgotten about your side: The side that benefits from & supports the actions of Imbecile One, while mouthing the morally superior platitudes of Imbecile Two.

Anonymous said...

In this world, dichotomies are often very real. Yes or no. Live or die. Stay or go. A flipped coin rarely lands on its edge.

Theoretical possibilities aside, White nations are better places for White people to live than non-White nations. Either your beliefs & actions defend these White nations from becoming non-white or they don't.

Your theological quibbling is irrelevant. Pick a side.

Asher said...

zippy and Sp,

The bottom line is that if you want to break the Overton Window you're going to have to deal with the reality that everything will be on the table.

Anonymous said...

Cucktholic

zippycatholic said...

I had forgotten about your side: The side that benefits from & supports the actions of Imbecile One, while mouthing the morally superior platitudes of Imbecile Two.

Mr Moderator, I yield the rest of my time to the genius who goes by the handle "Anonymous".

Anonymous said...

"Anybody who has studied the Third Reich will see that the Germans did not start out wanting to liquidate the Jews, simply to rid themselves of them, but the metaphysics of the Darwin and circumstances, forced a "logic onto them" which led to the inevitable conclusion."

I think this is not quite so; the Nazis plan was to confiscate the assets of the Jew to pay for their programs and in this they were very successful. If you ever get a chance go through some of the wiedermachtgut files in the German state archives...

Anonymous said...

"Anybody who has studied the Third Reich will see that the Germans did not start out wanting to liquidate the Jews, simply to rid themselves of them, but the metaphysics of the Darwin and circumstances, forced a "logic onto them" which led to the inevitable conclusion."

I think this is not quite so; the Nazis plan was to confiscate the assets of the Jew to pay for their programs and in this they were very successful. If you ever get a chance go through some of the wiedermachtgut files in the German state archives...

The Social Pathologist said...

I think this is not quite so; the Nazis plan was to confiscate the assets of the Jew to pay for their programs and in this they were very successful.

There is a subtle difference between confiscating assets and gassing people.

@Zippy
Mr Moderator, I yield the rest of my time to the genius who goes by the handle "Anonymous".

Sometimes I just let them rant, the weakness of their argument becomes self evident.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the reed warbler congratulates itself for not being racist while it feeds the interloper cuckoo that invaded its nest and killed its offspring.

zippycatholic said...

https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2015/09/28/the-overton-window-cannot-be-broken/

Mark Citadel said...

While I understand your critique here, and indeed it can be leveled at the broad Reactosphere, not just Nrx (and let's be honest, MOST of these guys are not identifying as Nrx), I must take issue with terminology here.

Right and left are in fact the politically synonymous terms for right and wrong. In the correct understanding of right vs. left, we see a battle of Tradition vs. Modernity. Modernity is inherently evil. Tradition is inherently good. Obviously both have varying degrees of rightism and leftism within them. Lenin's left is not the same as Obama's left. Hammurabi's right is not the same as Charlemagne's right. To categorize Darwinian Racialists as being rightists in any real sense of the word is incorrect. They remain Modernists, and so are at least in some ways left.

Now, take me for example. I subscribe to the spiritual race theory embraced by Evola and Spann. While I agree with HBD to a large extent, I think biological components of race are nowhere near as important or problematic in terms of interracial proximity as the core spiritual component, they are just more easily manifest, measured, and visible. I want races to be separate. Blacks should not live with whites. Hispanics should not live with Asians. There should be a secure future for Occidental Christians, be they Serbs or Danes, and their futures should be exclusively Serbian and Danish. While I have no love for the profoundly materialist, anti-Christian Adolf Hitler, I have the highest admiration for the Romanian Corneliu Codreanu who also had an understandable disdain for Jews. I'd hope such views don't make me anathema to you.

I guess I have always pursued the line of dialogue. The guys at AMREN are not knuckle-heads. They are intellectual and willing to discuss ideas with those who disagree, so I'm not in favor of freezing out these kinds of groups. They may have Modernist baggage, but they could be 'redpilled' with a good enough argument.

Anyway, back to Nrx, I want to make a quick point in their defense, they actually froze out a glut of people precisely for the reason you cite, so while your concern is in some sense well-founded, to level it specifically at Nrx seems off.

Asher said...

Looks like zippy is a coward.

The Social Pathologist said...

@

Right and left are in fact the politically synonymous terms for right and wrong.

Disagree. They're polarities based on temperamental approaches. Nazi, for example, is temperamentally right wing, yet it is metaphysically left. I think we've got to get beyond right and left and start thinking in terms of right and wrong.

In the correct understanding of right vs. left, we see a battle of Tradition vs. Modernity.

New truths are preferable to old errors. The reason why Modernity has traction is because it got some things right.

I'd hope such views don't make me anathema to you.

Not at all.

to level it specifically at Nrx seems off.

I think, within a deeper level, there's going to be a split in NRx, between Christian and atheist NRx, simply because the two views are incompatible.

If you are atheistic NRx-> racial "solutions" are pretty obvious. Not only that, the stratification--in terms of value--is pretty self evident. There's no "equality of man" by any secular empiricist evaluation of the races. In fact, the idea of the equality of man is an act of faith. Something which atheistic types are going to find it hard to swallow.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Asher

In what way?

Gabe Ruth said...

A little more historical data for the thesis of the original post:

https://exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2015/05/19/not-wholly-vain/

I love when I find whole new areas of Chesterton I haven't read before (like the anecdote you shared about Belloc crashing Henry James' visit, thank you).

Comments are valuable (not mine, obviously). Because of the path we've taken since the destruction of Europe, it's easy to miss the inclination of the elite across Europe at that point in time.

Asher said...

AC,

Zippy wrote a post directly addressing my earlier comment. When I went over there to address his response he began to refuse to approve my comments, comments directly responding to stuff he wrote.

Absolutely pathetic.

Asher said...

Further he kept changing his position, without acknowledgment - after pointing this out he refused to approve any more of my comments.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Asher

Zippy and I have differences, including debating rules. I'm sympathetic.

@Gabe

All intelligent comments are valuable.

Asher said...

I've seen zippy shut down comments simply out of embarrassment. That's not a rule.

Alcestis Eshtemoa said...

Good post, particularly on the aspect that the metaphysics of Darwin/Modernity are incompatible with the metaphysics of Christianity.