Comments on Dampier's Posts.

Henry Dampier put up two posts last week which I heartily endorse.

Vulgar Racialism.
Visit California and Enjoy White Power.

If you haven't had a chance to do so, I recommended reading them. Furthermore, there are quite a few "nuggets" in the comments section of both posts which are worth expanding on.

One of the problems with "White Nationalism" is with regard to its understanding of social pathology. Just as Socialists tend to blame everything on exploitation of it victim base, Supremacists tend to see social pathology as a problem of racial contamination. But then, how to explain this;

Blacks didn’t ban the confederate flag: white liberals did. This is the big confusion that undermines this project — suicidal white liberals outnumber the people who want to vote for collective interests by an order of magnitude. The prospective coalition contains people who consider white separatism the worst moral crime.

If White= Good and Black= Bad, how to explain the above?  Some commentators whom I have sparred with have suggested that the liberal whites are "race traitors", but this generates another problem: How can you be a traitor to your genes if your genes determine if you're a traitor or not? If White is good then how come there are "bad" whites. It's a logical contradiction, though cognitive misers wouldn't notice.

The smarter supremacists would perhaps put forth the argument that yes, there are many race traitors but just because look white they're not really "white". Perhaps they're some kind of mischling or the like.  "Whiteness" being whoever agrees with my definition of it. You can see where the logic of this goes-"Whiteness" becomes a conditional social construct. If you are white and agree with me- then you are white, if not, then even though you look white you are not really white. Whiteness becomes white people who agree with me and since "purity" is what we're striving for it means "ridding" ourselves from the impure.  The Germans were quite happy to bomb those pseudo whites in Rotterdam.

This is the problem with racial theories of goodness, they're front loaded with modernist metaphysics which deny human free will and reduce everything to mechanical determinism. Furthermore, they're a  rejection of nearly two millennia of European history and therefore profoundly ant-European.

Racialism and its relatively recent variant, White nationalism, tends to reduce all political matters of importance down to whether or not a government is racially exclusive. The definition of ‘race’ also tends to be dumbed-down and diluted to the point to which it really is a social construct — a political fiction — rather than something with real genetic, cultural, and political salience.

Racialism is a recent thing, the word only making it's appearance in English in the 1870's, curiously corresponding the emergence of vulgar mass-man (i.e. cognitive misers) onto the cultural and political scene. One of the "Whitest" of all Germans, Wilhelm Ropke understood where this idiotic sentiment came from. Speaking of the recent Nazi electoral victory;

Ropke finished his Frankfurt speech by declaring that the current regimen was, far from being a national rebirth, merely the latest manifestation of Ortega y Gasset's "revolt of the masses." Ropke saw the popular support for the Nazi movement as a spasm of resentment on the part of the the huddled millions who had been deprived of their traditional livelihoods, uprooted from the land, concentrated in cities and put to work in factories, subjected to the vagaries of invisible economic forces, then regaled from Left to Right with propaganda that attributed all their troubles to capitalism and conspiracy. The mass, he predicted, is about to trample down the garden of European civilization, ruthlessly and unomprehendingly

( Zmirak, Wilhelm Ropke: Swiss Localist, Global Economist)

And Ropke was right.  The mob is inherently racist and attributes virtue to themselves and vice to others, thus racist theories are always going to gain traction amongst the cognitive lite. It's an ideology that preys on human cognitive weakness. It is a vulgar political and cultural phenomenon.

Another Great comment;

What plagiarist WN propagandists usually do is take the products of Christian (often Catholic) and Greco-Roman civilizations, and then declare those to be “white” rather than the particular result of what they believed and fought for.

This given formation that we have in the US is a bit like the response of those kinds of prison gangs. “White” is in opposition to the other kinds of ethnic gangs, because the host civilization is now too weak and self-hating to exterminate all the brutes, which was our SOP until recently.

So all right-thinking Americans now believe that the bad White people are responsible for all of history being a march of evil actions, and the way to be a good White person is to campaign for the displacement and destruction of the bad palefaces.

The problem is much less the Africans and the Turks — it is the liberals who empower them and use them as proxies. And the bulk of those liberals are awfully pale. In that, the WN peacenik tendency and desire to seek out scapegoats for what is an internal problem is entirely counter-productive.

Correct. This is an internal problem. White genes have not stopped White people from embracing a path of self destruction. The problem is one of morals and metaphysics. The decline is correlated with an abandonment of God.

Facial Aesthetics: Implications for Art.

Now a break from battling Natsoc entryists.

An important scientific paper with regard to aesthetics was published the other day which received widespread mainstream press.

Individual Aesthetic Preferences for Faces are Shaped Mostly by Environments, Not Genes.

The media spin put on this paper was to the effect that the perceptions of attraction were largely an effect of the environment and not genetics. I thought the paper interesting and managed to find a free copy of it from one of the authors' website which appears to be publicly available. It's a very well constructed study, and certainly don't want to argue with the data obtained, though I feel that the authors may have erred on interpretation of the data.

I've reproduced one of the tables below (On fair use grounds) and want to delve into the data presented a bit further.

If we look at B and C we see that there is a remarkable consistency between men and women with regard to rating the attractiveness of faces.  Women who are rated a "5" on the scale by men are very likely to rate a "5" on the scale by other women. This finding confirms previous research--(Google Scholar is your friend)--and strongly suggests that there is a genetic mechanism which rates facial attractiveness in part.

The study showed that 48% of our assessment of facial attractiveness is under genetic control, the remain 52% being attributable-by the authors--to environment.  The authors therefore conclude, on the basis of mathematical weighting that the environment is a more important determinant in the assessment of attractiveness. Logically, that is a perfectly sensible conclusion and yet it is not.

The really interesting data from this study are represented by the graphs D and E which show the individual variations in the assessment of facial attractiveness compared to the mean. What's interesting here, is that even your typical low agreement participant demonstrates a rating schema that is reasonably correlated with the mean ratings. Whist the variation is large the direction is still the same. Attractive faces as still more likely to be rated attractively than unattractive ones regardless of environment consideration. (Table E) In other words, that 48% is exerting a lot of influence.

What appears to be happening is that genetics seem to automatically rank faces in terms of attractiveness and that environment-or other factors-shift people in either direction from that ranking. In other words, that 48% determines where you sit on the rankings in the first place with other factors modifying that initial assessment.  A face that has a mean rating of "1" is not going to be turned into a "7" even though environment has a greater "mathematical" influence.

What I find fascinating is the fact that the mind has a "hard wired" aesthetic response to facial stimulus. In other words, ideals of facial beauty are already hard coded into our DNA. And it appears that there other aesthetic preferences hard coded as well. The point of this is that these current findings point us towards looking at the subject of aesthetics from an empirical perspective as opposed to a philosophical one. What is beautiful becomes not a question of philosophical speculation but rather observing what the brain does in response to a stimulus. Beauty becomes a stimulus which is capable of exciting the appropriate neural circuitry.

One of the reasons why this shift in approach is important is because a large amount of modern artistic and architectural rubbish is justified on the assumption that beauty is purely subjective. What modern neuroaesthetics is discovering is that there is a fair amount of hard wired responses to visual stimuli and that these responses are objective.  The ugliness of most modern art is not a subjective experience but an observable physiological response.  Judging art by this metric changes the grounds of debate and undercuts many of the principals of modernism and modern art.