Wednesday, October 14, 2015

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.

50 comments:

Anonymous said...

Message received. You & Dampier & Zippy are just morally better than us nasty racists.

I'm sure your sincere & noble universalist sentiments will never be exploited by any cunning elites to push actions on you that harm your interests or those of your descendants.

Anonymous said...

There's more than a little straw-manning going on in this posts & the ones you are fawning over.

I don't know of any white nationalists who are of the opinion that all white people are perfect & an all-white society would be an immediate paradise.

Not to speak for anyone but myself, but this hateful racialist merely believes that:

1) A racially homogenous nation lacks a very potent and visible source of division within that nation. That doesn't mean that the populace would not divide itself along religious or political or psychological or linguistic or sporting-team preference lines. But that one extremely basic divider would not be an issue.

2) Racial groups have well-documented differences, including cognitive abilities, time preference, predisposition to violence, clannishness, etc... Sure, overlap occurs, and on the individual level we can all judge people on their merits for the purposes of hiring, befriending, mating, etc... But in the aggregate, a society can and should judge population groups that want to be a part of it as a whole. If the majority of a group are below the average of the existing population in a desirable trait, the existence of a few exceptional outliers doesn't justify the inclusion of that entire group into the society.

Even at their dildofied, rabbitted, liberalized worst, white & East Asian societies can at least function normally. Godless, fagged-out Sweden still is a safer and better place to live than any African, Latin American or Middle Eastern nation you can name.

3) An all-white nation would not be paradise. But it would definitely be better than the multi-culti nightmare that America and Europe are at present. And leagues better than the swarthy vision of the future that is being imposed on us.

Further, any improvements that you might wish to make to society, like an embrace of the True Church and a society return to righteousness are infinitely more likely to take root in a racially homogenous nation than one riven by ethnic and racial faults.

So for all its shortcomings, a deliberately white nation would be merely a helpful first step, not the entire journey.

When you and your moralizing cohorts disparage these practical advantages as merely "materialistic" and beneath your consideration you signal that you are not interested in actually effecting changes in the world.

I suppose that you are interested in the metaphysical & theological realms, and can't bring yourself to endorse visions that contradict perfect Christian morality. Even as a kind of stepping stone or bridge to a situation where your vision would be more likely to become reality.

Obviously, it is your right to be idealistic. And it doesn't make you wrong. Only irrelevant to those of us who want to make positive changes.

Hoyos said...

Look here is what it is to me; if a man acts like a gentleman and a woman acts like a lady, what the hell does their ethnicity matter to me?

Oh and a word on IQ studies; we thought Ashkenazi Jews were retarded when they tested for the Army in World War I. Clearly they're not, they just didn't grasp the language or point of the test adequately at the time. I dare say Africans raised in intact literate Christian homes "miraculously" have higher IQs, better impulse control, etc.

Now, should we prioritize immigration for those most likely to integrate well? Clearly yes.

To Anonymous 1, we're not signaling anything to the left, they hate us like poison and have since 1789. We're signaling that we think White Nationalism is wrong, as in untrue.

To Anonymous 2, well put argument, truly. Again, I think you're leaving stuff out that's essential. That being said thanks for not spewing invective and having a thoughtful reply.

To SP, please keep it up. Gavin McInnes wrote an article about the Muslim invasion of Europe last week and the comments still spun it into a Jewish conspiracy. WN's have some overlap on a few issues with us, but they seem to be hijacking everything into a strange and harmful direction.

etype said...

You explore some interesting dilemmas, but your arguments go no further then, than the 'strawman' arguments you blame on those you criticize.

How can you be a traitor to your genes if your genes determine if you're a traitor or not?

This is rhetoric, it has no meaning, is in fact an insult to meaning and language if constructed by an adult and produced as an argument for other adults.

An adult argument is what you have not done. Instead you produce arguments plucked from the wispy mindscape of a child, promoting nouns to verbs, asking "How can we be a thing to another thing, if that other thing determines if we are that thing or not?"

Congratulations, your latest piece of immense brainwork has proved you are an innocent child peacefully contemplating nasty, bad people. All in all, I think most would vote your superior reasoning's to have earned your 'morally superior' (to bad white people) white-persons badge.

Please make your next article on bad white people more lyric so we can singalong and hold hands.





The Social Pathologist said...

@Anon 11:49

You & Dampier & Zippy are just morally better than us nasty racists

I can't speak for the others but, yeah.


@Anon 12:50

When you and your moralizing cohorts disparage these practical advantages as merely "materialistic" and beneath your consideration you signal that you are not interested in actually effecting changes in the world.

It's not beneath my consideration. I regard multiculturalism as a failure but it's a failure pushed by whites primarily. White's aren't under attack as much as they are willing their own destruction. The problem is intrinsic rather than extrinsic which is why White Nationalists get it so wrong.Multiculturalism is going to have to be addressed and I fully agree with you that large distinct ethnic groups in a society are not a good thing but the question is how to resolve the problem, and the past examples of solutions to the problem have not tended to be humane. Social Darwinism feeds the the bloodlust. A white nationalism that didn't hate other people but regarded them as fellow human beings would be far less ideologically toxic and perhaps there'd be far more traction for the idea if instead of pushing the idea of "racial pollution" we pushed the idea of "loss of identity".

Godless, fagged-out Sweden still is a safer and better place to live than any African, Latin American or Middle Eastern nation you can name.

Yeh, for how long and how many men are there in Sweden? They seem to be happy being cucked and happy lecturing the world how its the right thing to do. Don't see any towlheads bragging about foreigners coming to sleep with his women. They've traded their masculinity for safety. Sweden is a dying society and it's no model to emulate. Sweden isn't being turned to shit by the Arabs, it's being turned to shit by Swedes keeping the door open. Living in a "peaceful" white society is no comfort if that society wants to immolate itself.

As for idealism it has nothing to do with it. Do really want your country run by these guys?

The Social Pathologist said...

@Hoyos


Gavin McInnes wrote an article about the Muslim invasion of Europe last week and the comments still spun it into a Jewish conspiracy. WN's have some overlap on a few issues with us, but they seem to be hijacking everything into a strange and harmful direction.

Yep, they're taking infiltrating NRx. These guys are trying to morph it into natsoc lite.


Gabe Ruth said...

"the WN peacenik tendency" - what is this referring to? I assume it is related to this:

"What I would say is that Europe needs war among Europeans more than it needs peace among Europeans. Competition between governments in the form of warfare would quickly put an end to all the forcible self-liquidation of the West pretty rapidly. Whether or not it would lead to its total destruction is an open question."

Which is a little nutty. Yes, the EU is an abomination, and whiteness is a dishonest abstraction, but let's not get carried away. Speaking of the non-homogeneity of Europe, this post was interesting:
http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2015/09/from-europes-ancient-divide-tensions.html
As a bonus the comments include the host getting medieval on a prominent intellectual striver in those spheres.

Steve Sailer is a treasure and deserves alot of credit for bringing people to a better understanding of the world, but it's becoming apparent that one large aspect of his advocacy regarding immigration is at best a red herring, and probably counter-productive: the lower average IQ of the current wave of immigrants. While I'm agnostic about the veracity of the claim, it is much less concerning than the dilution of the low end labor pool's already low stake in society. That is the problem, the difficulty in assimilation is a secondary and much less important problem (to the extent that not assimilating to sociopathic American norms is even a problem).

Anonymous said...

The "problems" white people have --- high trust, non-judgmentalism, meekness, altruism, egalitarianism, idealism, openness, tolerance, generosity, moralism, etc... --- aren't really problems in all-white societies where everyone else has those qualities. They are the attributes that allow large numbers of unrelated individuals to live together in relative peace & liberty. If you don't believe that I invite you to go live someplace where they are rare (for me it was the Middle East) & experience life in their absence.

These attributes only become a problem when they are used by other, free-riding, groups to obtain benefits from trusting, idealistic, generous whites that they do not reciprocate. Or worse yet used by cunning elites, often of a different tribal affiliation, to morally compel whites into all manner of self-harm. Again, pozzed-out Sweden exemplifies this. They could have cruised along indefinitely as a pathetic but safe & prosperous fagtopia if they had stayed white. Spineless, dickless & nutless, but functional & nonviolent. But the addition of clannish non- reciprocators into their warren of altruism has been their disaster.

Remove the non-whites & anti-white elites from the society & white people's altruism & idealism becomes an asset rather than a liability again. Conflicts over status & power would continue, surely, but without opportunistic others lurking within the society, would not be existentially fatal.

As for those skinheads that frighten & disgust you: They are masculine, aggressive, fit, & loyal to their tribe. A properly functioning society would recognize them as the valuable soldiers they should be & put their warrior spirit to productive use. They might not be worthy of leadership in their teens, but with years of experience, education & service they would be better leaders than the left currently throws up.

What is it about those clean-cut young men that instinctively repulses you? Their lack of education & social refinement? Their willingness to use violence to defend their interests? Their loyalty to kith & kin over abstract ideologies? Be careful... Your rabbit core is starting to show.

For someone who doesn't like the end goals of leftists, it is odd that you share all their likes & dislikes, their philosophies & beliefs, their instincts & fears.

Asher said...

The problem with "free will" is that it is analytically useless. Are all human actions the product of free will? If so, we are incapable of analyzing human actions rationally because reason's only domain is the world of cause and effect. If only some, then you need a demarcating criterion by which to distinguish which actions are the product of free will and which are not. Otherwise, you are simply arbitrarily picking and choosing when to and when not to apply free will.

Is there a difference between denying free will and denying its applicability? Not sure, but I lean toward the position that advocates of free will hold it as a "noble myth" in order to make room for God in a universe of cause and effect. As someone who tries to live his life by Biblical teachings I simply don't have a position on free will one way or the other and I think "free will" is superfluous rhetorical baggage.

Ingemar said...

All I'm saying is, if Europeans were so amazing, they wouldn't have vaporized their own continent--twice--over petty bullshit.

The Social Pathologist said...

@GABE

"the WN peacenik tendency" - what is this referring to?

That idea that differences between whites don't matter. That "whiteness" per se is the defining attribute to which all else is subordinated.

@ Anon.

What is it about those clean-cut young men that instinctively repulses you?

The thing that happens after society's brakes come off. I think they'd give ISIL a run for their money in terms of savagery.

These attributes only become a problem when they are used by other, free-riding, groups to obtain benefits from trusting, idealistic, generous whites that they do not reciprocate.

So who's a good white and who is a bad white?


Or worse yet used by cunning elites, often of a different tribal affiliation, to morally compel whites into all manner of self-harm.

How do they compel them? Mind control? Aren't Hi IQ whites able to see past this?

Remove the non-whites & anti-white elites from the society..

What type of "solution" are you proposing?


What is it about those clean-cut young men that instinctively repulses you? Their lack of education & social refinement?

The voice of egalitarianism is strong in you. Yes, their savagery is what frightens me, they are but one pole of the devolution of man. On one extreme you have the Swedish fag and on the other pole you have what looks like a typical soccer yob. Their clannish primitivism is not different from that of some Afghan warlord. On the steppe they don't look that much different. I guess I've got a preference for peaceful civilisation instead of wishing for a future rule by hypertestosteronised beer swilling yobs. Call it a fault of mine. Many people share my preferences.

I'm sorry I can't provide you with a reference for this but during the 50's the U.S. Army commissioned a study with regard to the bravery of men in combat. They found it was the children of the petit bourgeois who were most likely to stand their ground their in battle. Some bright general thought suggested that they use some of the "Clean cut" types you're praising here. When the shit hit the fan they ran away.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Asher

The problem with "free will" is that it is analytically useless.

The problem with free will is that it is free and therefore it gives the finger to genetic Calvinism.


Not sure, but I lean toward the position that advocates of free will hold it as a "noble myth" in order to make room for God in a universe of cause and effect.

See, I base it on empirical observation. People are always doing what the shouldn't be doing. The best genes, education and wealth still produces a suprising amount of bastards and poverty and bad lack a surprising amount of noble men. This blog rejects the materialist reductionism. I'm a Jesus people.

@ingemar

All I'm saying is, if Europeans were so amazing, they wouldn't have vaporized their own continent--twice--over petty bullshit.

That's the thing I like about Europe the fight to death over principle. The reason why Europe doesn't look like some back bit of China is because men fought and died over points regarding the truth. I think it was Juvenal who said, for life's sake do not lose your reason to live.

War is an evil, though it is not the ultimate one.

Asher said...

See, I base it on empirical observation. People are always doing what the shouldn't be doing.

Sorry, but people are not *always* doing what they ought not to do. Let's take three widely different phenomena A) marriage and family formation B) the Holocaust C) theft

Over the past several decades the average age of first marriage has risen steadily until the point that they occur well into the decline of female fertility. Everything I've seen indicates that people are not avoiding sex until then but are occupied in placeholder relationships. Are you saying that people have been choosing to delay marriage simply for reasons of free will? I simply cannot see any reason why freely chosen misbehavior should evince any pattern, at all. If misbehavior were truly chosen freely then they should exhibit no patterns, as patterns indicate causes

Secondly, serious discussions of the Holocaust usually include factors that led to it. If it were the product of freely chosen evil then causal factors are irrelevant. Further, lots of leftists argue that Western societies are always just around the corner for producing another Holocaust and use free will arguments to ignore the evidence that the Holocaust was caused by an array of specific factors that simply do not exist today. True, they don't use the term "free will" because of its religious connotations but that is what they are in all but name only.

The late Larry Auster used to point out that leftist thought divided the world into three peoples: white leftists who have made a free choice for good, white non-leftists who have made a free choice for evil and non-whites who lack all moral agency. This goes back to my original point that any practical application of free will is going to end up being nothing more than arbitrarily picking what is and is not caused.

You can have free will or you can have cause and effect. You can't have both. In fact, the very term "pathology" indicates causality and in a world governed by free will such a term is meaningless if you apply it to agents with free will

As for theft, I'd point out that its occurance is not racially evenly distributed. This goes back to the point about patterns in marriage and family formation. That theft evinces a pattern indicates that we are seeing a phenomenon with caused origins, something that should not exist with free will (again, I'm talking practical application not metaphysical discussion). Anything free should exhibit no patterns at all.

Anonymous said...

Hypertestosteronized is a word exclusively used by the hypotestosteronized.

The Social Pathologist said...

You can have free will or you can have cause and effect. You can't have both. In fact, the very term "pathology" indicates causality and in a world governed by free will such a term is meaningless if you apply it to agents with free will

False dichotomy. Mechanistic things are causal, souls are not. That's why human beings are so interesting and it's also why economic modelling gets it so wrong. People do what they do until they don't.

Peery Misty said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

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?

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you really that stupid? Whiteness does not determine if you're a traitor, it entitles you to membership in a group. You betray this group like you would any other, by acting against its interests and in favor of those of its enemies. In this case, you betray it by inviting inbred foreign barbarians in to rape and pillage. This makes you a race traitor, and even the Muzzies know that traitors need to be exterminated with extreme prejudice.

Asher said...

False dichotomy. Mechanistic things are causal, souls are not.

Fine. Then you need to demarcate between human behaviors caused by the soul and behaviors caused by cause and effect. Simply saying "souls" doesn't make the dichotomy go away it just pushes it to another realm. I'm not saying that human beings don't have souls, but that the portion of behavior governed by the soul is beyond rational analysis.

When I said you can have either free will or causality but not both I was referring to specific behaviors and not to all of reality.

So, basically, it's the same question: what is your demarcating criterion between behaviors caused by souls and behaviors caused by other things.

That's why human beings are so interesting and it's also why economic modelling gets it so wrong. People do what they do until they don't.

My undergrad was in econ. Actually, the problem with econ is that economic models are not separate from what they are trying to model. Once an economic model enters the field it immediately becomes a new piece of information and, thus, changes the behaviors of the actors it is trying to model.

Physics doesn't suffer from this problem, since human knowledge of particles isn't used by those particles in behaving as they do.

Economic modeling works so poorly because it too often solely looks at humans as economic actors and as nothing else.

Asher Jacobson said...

Let's be clear: all I'm saying is that "souls" and "free will" put behavior outside the realm of rational analysis. If you want to claim that humans have souls/free will and that human behavior is capable of being analyzed rationally then you need a demarcating criterion between behavior that can be rationally analyzed and those which cannot.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Anon

Whiteness does not determine if you're a traitor, it entitles you to membership in a group.

So whiteness does not confer virtue then? In terms of goodness/badness it's no different to being black?

Anonymous said...

So whiteness does not confer virtue then? In terms of goodness/badness it's no different to being black?

One can be white and good, or white and bad. No WN that I've ever heard of contests this. Indeed, the vast majority would like to put the traitorous white elites to the guillotine, effective immediately.

But no, it isn't the same as being black. Whatever theological beliefs you may cherish, cold, hard reality says that being black makes you vastly more likely to be: a) stupid b) impulsive c) violent. Blacks are transparently morally inferior. You can debate the reasons all you like, but the fact of the matter is that life in the most leftwing white dystopia in the world, Sweden, is vastly better for everyone than the most Christian part of Africa.

You are much less likely to be the victim of crime in Sweden than in Christian Africa, despite the former's atheism and disgusting progressive rot. And what crime there is is almost the exclusive domain of foreign scum that people like you imported. Whites are, for whatever reason, vastly more inclined towards morality and decency than blacks, whatever their religion.

You can babble about philosophy and theology and free will all you want, but until I see you abandoning cozy white Australia for Zambia (97.6% Christian) I know you really don't believe a word. Blacks are less inclined towards peace and morality than whites, and so it shall continue to be.

Prove me wrong, if you can. And do use actual data, not anecdotes and strawmen. But of course, there isn't any, because if there were the media would shove it in our faces day and night.

Dystopia Max said...

Though I might be inclined to join in the very well-deserved shellacking our humble host is currently receiving, I would offer that one of the reasons white atheist liberals are more tolerable and workable than almost any black Africans is due to the fact that you'd never have atheist liberals in the first place had you not created a Christian society by the point of the sword and developed its genetic line via the enforcement of Christianity's philosophical and legal advancements. No Christianity and Christian societies informed by Christian principles, no atheists, universalists, or liberals of any notable influence. The devolution has limits recognizable within one's own generation, one can recognize one's own fellow men within a familiar rather than alien tradition.

Trump and the Internet White Nationalist Brigade are simply picking up the people the mainstream Cathedral discarded or threw off during its latest holiness spiral, where both liberals and evangelicals signal status by the diversity of genetic bricks in their increasingly ineffective and artificial-seeming social structures, whether they be the latest converts or the latest diversity hires.

I did also see the Akinokure link, but I think the Akinokure link you'll find most valuable going forward will be this one:

"When a society is heterogeneous to the naked eye, it winds up stunting their moral sense, or corrupting it if it was already developed. There is simply too strong of a temptation to equate all that's going wrong in the world with the people who don't look like us. They clearly have some kind of inner, essential difference -- and maybe that's also causing them to be so screwed up. It's the same way we distinguish a poisonous from an edible species of plant.

We see this most depressingly in racially diverse countries, where people of one group complain about the other groups, whether justifiably or not. That removes the impetus to examine your own group and your own self, which is the basis for the concept of sin and redemption. For those concepts to take root, it needs to be an ethnically homogeneous group that nevertheless shows a range of behavior across individuals, from helpful to harmful."

I'm also offering you this section as a rhetorical out for the mess that you've stepped into, and do suggest that you make use of it:

"To end with an example not at the level of race or ethnicity, just look at what's happened between economic classes, with the erosion of fellow-feeling under a tide of antipathy. That's happened in all civilizations before, but this time it's even nastier because class differences are visible to the naked eye -- namely how fat or lean people are.

So, just as alcoholism and the crack epidemic have been mostly lower-class afflictions, so has the obesity epidemic. Now it's not so hard for upper and lower-class people to tell who's who, even from far away. This stark difference in average appearance once more leads us to equate degeneracy with some out-group, like poor fat hicks. As with the Chinese viewing the Mongols, or whites viewing blacks, it's not that this equation doesn't have a strong basis. Lower-class people do have poorer impulse control and are fatter.

But now we've shifted focus away from our own addictions, like being plugged into one glowing box or another all day long for no good reason, just to feed our brain a steady flow of informational morphine. I mean, hey, no need to turn our lives around even a little bit -- it's not like we're poor fat hicks or anything.
"

Will is freest when it is most freely informed!

The Social Pathologist said...

@Anon

Blacks are transparently morally inferior.

We have reached an impasse. You see, I'm fully cognizant of black societal dysfunction which may or may not have a strong genetic cause, but as I'm a Jesus person I'm under orders from the boss who tells me that all lives matter. It's an article of faith.

This is where the rubber hits the road. Under your schema there is no room for my faith, you are at war with my God.

And everyone loses against Him in the end.

@Dystopia Max

you'd never have atheist liberals in the first place had you not created a Christian society

Educate yourself

It took about 10 seconds on Google.

Robert Brockman II said...

How is there an impasse here? Groups and individuals can be morally inferior and their lives can still matter. Jesus was surrounded by morally inferior people -- so he started DOING something to fix the problems. You are under orders from the Man to help with this mission.

Moral inferiority transmitted genetically is nothing new in Christianity -- sins of the Father visited unto the seventh generation, curse of Eve, etc. The issues Anon, etc. bring up are just another special case of this.

The basic argument seems to be that these moral inferiority issues need to be *recognized* and *diagnosed* squarely before they can be *treated*. Treatment may involve quarantine to prevent others from being affected by the disease.

What really seems to be bugging the shellacking crew here is the perception that you are caught in a holiness spiral -- and at this point I agree with them. It doesn't matter if the racists are "vulgar", what matters is whether or not they are correct.

Think about this from a medical perspective: what if the claimed low-IQ, high violence/impulsivity of a particular group has a genetic basis that is exacerbated by an environmental influence. Imagine, for example, that too much melanin at too high a latitude causes Vitamin D deficiency during development and resulting brain disfunction. Such a problem would be trivial to address from a public health standpoint, *but only if the underlying symptoms could be discussed openly.*

The work-around the the problems Anon & company are discussing may be just that simple, but we will never know because such investigations are prohibited. Your misguided interpretation of "all souls are equal" may be a part of the problem.

Robert Brockman II said...

Hindu athiesm is very likely a parallel case of the same phenomenon Max is discussing: cultural stability brought about by 8000 years of religious tradition allows atheism to develop.

Medical equivalent: I can disbelieve that antibiotics are needed to treat TB if the incidence of TB has been brought to a low enough level by widespread use of antibiotics.

Anonymous said...

We have reached an impasse. You see, I'm fully cognizant of black societal dysfunction which may or may not have a strong genetic cause, but as I'm a Jesus person I'm under orders from the boss who tells me that all lives matter. It's an article of faith.

This is where the rubber hits the road. Under your schema there is no room for my faith, you are at war with my God.

And everyone loses against Him in the end.


No, I'm not. I'm at war with you, and anyone else assisting in destroying the future of my children for the sake of feelgoods. Your Christianity has nothing to do with it, except insofar as you perceive it as being a reason to oppose us evil nationalists.

It may surprise you to learn to learn that among our number are some very devout orthodox believers, who haven't forgotten that once upon being Christian meant riding valiantly to Europe's defense against the Islamic invaders. The last thing I wish to do is demean their faith. It's the behavior of Christians that I have a problem with, not the faith itself.

And even you are forced to admit the reality the blacks, as a group, are simply born far dysfunctional than whites. I wish to live in society without that dysfunction around. If and when that happens and sanity is restoring, then we can see about what might be possible to help other peoples. But fixing up the home front is job number one.

Gabe Ruth said...

D. Max, thanks for the quotes, but I am at a loss to understand how those conflict with anything SP said.

Does P-man know you're linking your name to MPC? Maybe you should have someone intelligent over there vet your posts before doing that.

RB, I missed the part where Jesus recommended quarantining the righteous from the sinners to avoid contagion.

Robert Brockman II said...

The truly righteous can probably interact with really broken people / groups with relative (spiritual) safety, hence deployment of priests / missionaries / Jesus to high concentrations of such people to help them. Normal people with average-above average levels of discipline would be foolish to hang out around serious "sinners" and expect to avoid being corrupted. "A man's got to know his limitations."

The medical analogy continues: we isolate the seriously mentally ill to keep them from spreading chaos, then we send the sanest, best trained people in to deal with them. What we don't do is invite them into our homes, this is not constructive.

Robert What? said...

I do understand where the white racialists are coming from: every group is allowed to prefer their own, except whites. However there are a lot of RP black mwn. They are more natural allies to RP white men than simple skin color affinity would suggest. In fact the 'Sphere is by far the most truly diverse community that I have every come across: White, Black, American Indian, straight, gay, Christian, Pagan, what have you.

Asher Jacobson said...

@ SP

I am quit disappointed that you are not offering a demarcating criterion between actions that are freely chosen and those that are determined.

Rhetocrates said...

I've thought for a while that White Nationalism is just another way to be a Progressive. I'll delineate why below:

1) Reducing people to replacable ciphers: check
2) Believing in the progress of society and the attainment of a Heaven on Earth: check (usually)
3) Advocating an abstract political formula to the expense of all else: check
4) Virtue signalling to the expense of virtue attainment: check
5) Associative thinking rather than logical thinking: check (see: you disagree with me so you're a nasty prog bastard)

Further, I have a few simple problems with the central conceit. Foremost, there is no such thing as a White person or White people. That itself is a progressive reductivist over-simplification for the purpose of reducing people to interchangeable ciphers; see point one. There are Englishmen, there are Scotch, there are Welsh, there are Provencal, there are Vaudois, there are Catalan, there are Aragonese, there are Umbrians, there are Firenzi, there are Prussians, there are Bavarians, there are Alsatians, etc. etc. and each of these peoples are genetically distinguishable. Furthermore, there used to be more/different groups, which have faded or failed with the passage of time, or are still partially distinguishable. Treating all these people as though they are the same is bound to lead to civil unrest, just like American immigration during the Carnegie era led to explosive riots and just like shoving various Sub-Saharan Africans together ends in bloodshed.

In the final analysis, the White Nationalists are wrong about what people are. The better kind have gotten 'White' and 'can trace itself back to pre-Reformation Catholicism' mixed up. Yes, genetics inform culture rather heavily. But then, culture informs genetics rather heavily right back. To say one is the cause and one is the effect is wrong.

That said, they have their uses. Foremost is that they're willing to explode some of the myths of our Progressive overlords and they don't mind looking unfashionable while doing it, like the myth that all people are created equal. And they make a really good shit-test for any left entryists who try to join Reaction, because if you can stomach outright vitriolic racism, well, you're automatically thrown out of the company of right-thinking people.

chris said...

"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."


It is called being a free-rider. All biological systems have them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem


It

The Social Pathologist said...

@ Chris

It is called being a free-rider. All biological systems have them

What percentage of whites are free riders? Empirical data please.


@Rhetocractes

I've thought for a while that White Nationalism is just another way to be a Progressive>

@Asher

I am quit disappointed that you are not offering a demarcating criterion between actions that are freely chosen and those that are determined.

I've been busy but I also want to keep the comments section on topic.

Disagree, I don't progressive as much as it is a public voice to an increasing sense of alienation wrought about because of multiculturalism. People are natural homophiles and prefer to be around people of their own kind. It's part of human nature. Multiculturalism, like the fat acceptance movement feels "wrong" to many people and its wrongness of it is proportional to how much it deviates from the natural human ideal. The rise of "racism" in Europe is directly as a result of the non European immigrant influx.

White Nationalism is the mob voice expressing its displeasure, and like most mob actions the idea is formless and poorly thought out except for the underlying motivating factor which is the revulsion to multiculturalism.

As for "whiteness" it's a legitimate taxonomic category. The problem comes with imputing moral virtue to melanin content.

Greg said...

"If White= Good and Black= Bad, how to explain the above?"

Perhaps like "degrees of infinity"? Or how about: "white" AND {set of other traits}?

I mean, I always assumed that anyone who considered themselves a "white nationalist" (or "black nationalist", etc), had accompanying (unique-ish) views - e.g. WN and Anglo-American views on liberty (I guess that's possible(?)).

Greg said...

"Supremacists tend to see social pathology as a problem of racial contamination."

To add to my previous comment, I have to admit I'm always extremely surprised that the white nationalist/white supremacist/etc side has not simply espoused Anglo-American values (or something like it) without apology, instead of focusing on skin color (which in my experience seems to be a less successful selector than the former, given the WS/WN goals).

Greg said...

By the way, what are your thoughts on the Canadian federal election, and the announcement of 250,000 refugees (or "refugees", as the case may be) being taken in over the next few years?

Desiderius said...

"I'm always extremely surprised that the white nationalist/white supremacist/etc side has not simply espoused Anglo-American values"

They don't have any more confidence in their capacity to enunciate them persuasively than anyone else does.

Asher Jacobson said...

To him who knows the good he ought to do and does not do it, for him it is sin, James 4:17. Clearly, differing rates of behavior indicates different knowledge of good between groups, no? Different groups produce different moralities.

Different population clusters aren't morally inferior/superior, just morally different. The problem comes from expecting similar behavior from all groups.

The problem with solely focusing on spiritual degeneracy is that one can always remove themselves from this worldliness by focusing on one's own walk with God. If that's the route one advocates then there's simply no reason to concern oneself with secular politics at all - all politics is inherently secular, as it concerns the here and now. There is a good case to be made that followers of Jesus should avoid politics altogether, one I dispute.

Anyways, the "bad" white people are simply the imperial ruling class and their attendants/retainers who are simply doing what all imperial ruling classes in history have done. A better approach to current politics isn't to go the racial nationalist route but to advocate anti-imperialism.

tonsplace said...

You are nm other morally superior; you are a moral coward afraid to take the hard stand and afraid of White men like me

For generations now dumbasses have tried to take the moral high ground when combating the left and they have failed at every turn because they are to ignorant to understand the moral high ground is where ever you place your artillery

Also immigration is always bad for native born citizens and culture always bad always bad, which is why the second version of the Klan was so mm popular up nortb

Anonymous said...

So, SP, you can't even find it in you to reply to me after I extended that courtesy to you. Very well then.

I'll leave you with this thought: our time is coming. People are afraid, and people are angry. The traitors and their pawns have already begun to pay, and there will be far more before it is all over. You would do well to consider whose side you are on.

And, before you inevitably say it, "God's side" is not a meaningful statement in this context. Both sides claim support from God. It is open borders multiculturalists vs. we evil white racists. Pick your team, or be crushed by both.

"You may no be interested in war, but war is interested in you."

Greg said...

"I'll leave you with this thought: our time is coming. People are afraid, and people are angry. The traitors and their pawns have already begun to pay, and there will be far more before it is all over. You would do well to consider whose side you are on."

I sincerely doubt it. Only those who are publicly in support of the current mess in Europe are even going to risk reprisal. Sure, there's the occasional stabbing, bombing (attempt), or arson attack, but that's towards people who are (stridently) in favor of bringing in huge numbers of migrants/refugees/immigrants/invaders. And frankly, very few overall.

An anonymous person in Australia has no real need to fear. Some far-left politician in Europe? Yeah, I wouldn't want to be them (but they will, 99.9%, survive unscathed).

I think at some point the support for the migrants will break down, though - e.g.: female open borders advocates can only be raped so many times by migrants before they (and the males who orbit them) change their minds and go home.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Greg

I have to admit I'm always extremely surprised that the white nationalist/white supremacist/etc side has not simply espoused Anglo-American values

Well that really isn't a "white" position at all. The whole idea of "America" was that as long as you accepted American values you could be American, regardless of your race. Any WN movement, by definition, has to make reference to skin colour. The other big problem is, What exactly are Anglo-American values? I think you'll find a fair amount of disagreement among White Americans as to what they constitute.

@tonsplace

you are a moral coward afraid to take the hard stand and afraid of White men like me

A hard heart is of no value if it is controlled by a soft head. The White Nationalist movement has always been a magnet to thugs but its interesting to note that they have been even less effective than the people of the moral highground. I mean the Klan, when it wasn't putting the hurt on blacks, was pushing Prohibition. I mean how dumb was that? The only thing I fear from "hard men" like yourself is self destruction of any nascent renewal by their entryism.

I've followed some of your comments Ton and I don't think even you realise how much of a product of modernity you are. The contempt which the modern prole holds toward education, refinement and culture is really a type of institutionalised barbarism which the peasant classes of Europe never had. Sure, they may have despaired of their poverty and hated their masters but they never thought culture a bad thing. The Russian Commies, children of the Russian peasant class, always thought prole culture as something "declasse" and tried to educate their citizens in more civilised values. Hitting the books is just as important as hitting the gym.


@Anon.

So, SP, you can't even find it in you to reply to me after I extended that courtesy to you. Very well then.

You really do sound like a former commentator here, Hollenhund. Understand that I don't blog for a living and have other commitments. I get back to the comments when I can.

It is open borders multiculturalists vs. we evil white racists

No, there are other options.

@Greg

An anonymous person in Australia has no real need to fear.

Have any of you even been here in Australia. The PC is strong here.

Anonymous said...

You really do sound like a former commentator here, Hollenhund. Understand that I don't blog for a living and have other commitments. I get back to the comments when I can.

Can't say that name rings a bell. But I was commenting on your lack of response to my comment while simultaneously responding to others.

No, there are other options.

Either get rid of the refugees or watch white society cease to exist. Reality is not kind to those who dawdle.

And people won't. As a certain treasonous German mayor and some foreign invaders in Sweden found out this week, we are not so beaten as the propaganda portrays. Our time is coming, and the longer cucks and leftists try to delay it the more unpleasant it will be.

If you're going to pray, I suggest asking God for the process to come as swiftly as possible. That would certainly save lives, long term.

Greg said...

"The whole idea of "America" was that as long as you accepted American values you could be American, regardless of your race."

There are many people who come to the US who do not accept even some of those values (I refer, in part, to the American constitution).


"What exactly are Anglo-American values?"

Well, we can start with the legal system, belief in social hierarchy, individualism, free speech, and private property. I would repeat the gun rights one as an American value, since it is generally unique in the world (America having written its constitution to be deliberately anti-tyrannical).


"I think you'll find a fair amount of disagreement among White Americans as to what they constitute."

Yes, there's a fair amount of disagreement nowadays. I think an argument could be made that certain values have fallen to the wayside as a result of a cycle between demographic shifts and voting patterns (e.g. Democrats sign 1965 immigration bill -> lots of Mexicans arrive -> those vote for Democrats -> Democrats enact legislation that shifts the Overton window -> culture further changed (i.e. law guiding morality)).


"Any WN movement, by definition, has to make reference to skin colour."

Arguing for free speech and gun rights would alone filter out 90%+ of people whom WN/WS movements would not "like." Most immigrants to the US (for example) do not support gun rights or even free speech. What I am saying is that if a WN/WS movement wanted to go under the radar, they would be best to simply argue for things that could certainly be considered (at the very least) American values, knowing that the people they don't like (be they "race traitors" or non-whites) almost entirely do not support those values. Basically, using a set of values as a proxy for other criteria (e.g. skin color). I bring it up only because I'm surprised they haven't tried it.


"Have any of you even been here in Australia. The PC is strong here."

"An anonymous person in Australia has no real need to fear." - The context of the preceding sentence was the response to Anon's suggestion that you ("traitors and their pawns"?) would be attacked for not vocally(?) supporting WN/WS, nationalist, and/or anti-immigrant movements. At least, that was my reading of it.

Greg said...

On another note: I appreciate your book reviews, SP/Slumlord, and I do occasionally buy those books. Anyhow, would it be possible for you to make a "suggested reading" list? I see such lists throughout the Orthosphere, Manosphere, alt-right blogs, HBD blogs, etc, and would appreciate one from you. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how these kids are going to process this: http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.ca/2015/10/diversity-thursday_22.html

Mark Citadel said...

I have a problem with the transient nature of this word 'white' which seems to mean different things to different people. I was just listening to a white nationalist who declared that Poles are white, but Russians are not... How is that even possible when both are Slavs!

Race is so much more dynamic than mere biology. It is fundamentally a spiritual reality, as Evola said. It is often far more appropriate to talk about ethnicities in specific rather than in broad strokes, but I use 'Occident' to denote those people whose spiritual roots lie in the European continent reaching as far east as the Ural mountains, at which point we enter the 'orient'. These people have something in common, and that is that they were spiritually cleaved to the blood pact of Christendom, Orthodox or Catholic.

This is what I fight for. The only thing which makes 'whites' as a broad group of interest to me, outside of my own particular ethnicity, is our common ancient heritage in Christianity, which is likely related to a Hyperborean origin in our own case. I would gladly be party to the execution of white enemies of this spiritual destiny. Their flesh color grants them no privilege to stamp on the bones of our ancestors nor the future of Occidental Christian unborn children, be they Slavic, Magyar, Latin, or Germanic.I have zero tolerance for Liberals, so the so-called 'nationalists' special pleading for Swedish leftists should take heed. It would be worth the loss of 9/10ths of godless tolerance-loving Swedes to even preserve one Swedish Christian village. Africans don't factor into the equation. They can be deported without issue, so why is this even a debate? The question is not what should be done with non-Occidentals in the Occident, regardless of their religion. Everyone knows the answer to this. The question is what is to be done with the apostates, the traitors, the scoundrels?

Treason of all orders follows only from a treason of the spirit. To think in purely scientific and materialist terms is to commit a grave error of judgment.

Those who genuinely care about race, and I know 90% of the commenters here do, must think smart rather than bloviate. You must realize there is NO FUTURE for a secular or democratic ethnocentrism. It was attempted in the last century and failed. We will indeed enter a period of chaos, and it will make Wiemar look tame by comparison. What will emerge will be aristocratic, monarchical, and theonomic, thus organically 'kinist' as our ancestors were. Russia is already exemplifying a trend in this direction. It will not be a populist shitfest with a pogrom in the paki district.

I have a vision of the future where perhaps in... let's say Poland, fair-skinned Polish children look out from a rich field at harvest time to the distant edges of their family's farmland, to the little Polish town where the only non-Poles are a few traveling merchants from Hungary and Germany. There, hanging from disused telephone lines are the corpses of Poles who betrayed their nation and their religion. And as people pass, they make the sign of the cross and thank the merciful God that He did not put the Polish nation to the flame as He would no doubt have done to other nations who boasted in their 'Enlightenment' to the bitter end and thus pledged their allegiance to satanism.

I want to know why anyone who claims to care about the 'white race' is opposed to those of us who simply want Europe to look structurally similar to how it was prior to the dawn of mercantalism? That is with kings in power, priesthoods and lords governing locally, women in the home, and foreigners far away across oceans and out of mind.This is Reaction. This was De Maistre's last will and testament.

Greg said...

Seems like the main concern of the Left in Germany is that the Far-Right doesn't gain anymore power: https://archive.is/GiJOX

Sebastian said...

In your opinion, is nationalism inherently evil? People I know say that Catholics can't support it (because it is evil) - what are your thoughts on that? Thanks.

The Social Pathologist said...

Sorry for the late reply Sebastian but I've been away.

I'm suprised to hear that Nationalism is supposed to be an evil? I suspect that it's dependant on how you define Nationalism. If, by Nationalism, you mean love of your own country, I can't see anything wrong with it nor can I see a problem with it in Catholicism. On the other hand, if by Nationalism you mean hatred of other Nations well then, yeah, there is a problem with it and Catholicism.

I must admit, I'm a Nationalist, but it doesn't mean I hate other people. This does not mean I'm all kumbaya like. I oppose illegal immigration on nationalist grounds. Since I do believe that certain groups of immigrants would destroy the fundamental nature of the nation with the import of their culture. Each country is a sort of lifeboat and that means that we've got to make sure it doesn't sink.

@Greg
The idiotic Left has been the best thing for the popular Right. The more they push against human nature the more it rebels against them.

@Mark
Race is more phenoptyic than it is genetic. One of the funniest things in history is the fact that Nazi's paraded several individuals as prototypic Aryans only to find out later that they were mischlings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Goldberg

Theologically, all men are brothers in Christ, yet biologically i.e, our human nature, predisposes us to individuals of our own kind. Therefore I'm a big advocate for organising society along lines of "low cognitive entropy" , along human nature lines.