AGAINST THE NATURALISTIC FALLACY



It is a good and necessary thing to take the red pill: to start seeing things as they really are, not as the delusional ruling ideology of a corrupted civilisation tells you they must be. But the red pill, in itself, is not a sufficient condition for true understanding.

Perhaps we can grasp this point by taking a second look at the iconic scene from The Matrix that inspired the ‘red pill’ metaphor. In this scene, Neo takes a red pill and wakes up from his simulated reality, to find himself in the real world: an ugly and dystopian future, ruled by intelligent machines, in which he has been serving all his life as one of countless human batteries in a huge electrical system called the Matrix. Weak from muscular atrophy, he is flushed out of the Matrix into an underground sewer, in which he flounders helplessly until a flying craft winches him out and takes him to safety. From this point, he is brought into the community of free humans, who teach him both the nature of the real world and how to act and fight within it. 


It is interesting to consider how this scene might play out in a case of half-measures. What if Neo – or anyone else who chose the red pill – woke up from the Matrix and got flushed into the sewer, but no flying craft came to winch him out? Or what if he slipped away from his would-be rescuers, assuming that they were hostile machines coming to plug him back into the Matrix? Presumably he would have no choice but to continue floundering in the sewer, which is at least a small part of the real world; and perhaps he would come to identify the entirety of the ‘real world’ with the hostile citadel of the Matrix and the safe refuge of the sewer, rejecting everything else as an illusion of his old simulated reality. Needless to say, he would live an utterly miserable existence, and one that would be of no use whatsoever to the cause of human resistance against the machines.

Here we have a useful metaphor for the intellectual pathologies into which ‘red-pillers’ can sometimes fall, by refusing to go beyond a set of cramped halfway-houses on their personal quests for the truth. If taking the red pill on women means divesting oneself of illusions about female nature, then floundering in the sewer means allowing this disillusionment to fester into hatred instead of leading to cold equanimity. Similarly, if taking the red pill on politics means waking up to the reality of Jewish power, then floundering in the sewer means focusing on this factor to the point of monomania and rejecting any reference to broader historical processes. 

Congrats, you're awake; so now what?
In this context, we can introduce the concept of the naturalistic fallacy – more correctly, but rather more awkwardly, known as the ‘appeal to nature fallacy’. If taking the red pill on human nature means knowing the truth about it and acting in that context, floundering in the sewer means making fallacious appeals to nature without reference to moral values.

Now, perhaps a short disclaimer is in order: by making use of the ‘naturalistic fallacy’ concept, I do not endorse the views of classical liberals and other blue-pillers who routinely hurl it at the Alt-Right, usually after failing to controvert the hard facts backing up our worldview. Truths about human nature and society do have ramifications upon morality, and if the outrageously wrong liberal-progressive tradition could be preserved intact simply by separating the factual and moral realms, then the proponents of ‘blank slates’ and ‘social contracts’ would not have bothered spinning such elaborate webs of delusion stretching back at least as far as the Enlightenment.

That said, there is a reasonably clear difference between description and prescription here, which justifies the limited use of the term ‘naturalistic fallacy’. We can see both truth and fallacy on display in this infamous video, in which Dr. Jordan Peterson is challenged to explain a reference to lobsters in his book. The red pill on human nature is dispensed when Dr. Peterson states that lobsters and humans share a common ancestor, that “lobsters exist in hierarchies”, and that “the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with socio-cultural construction”. We then get a sharp whiff of the sewer, i.e. the naturalistic fallacy, when the witless goose interviewing him responds: “You’re saying that we should organise our societies along the lines of the lobsters?”

Dr. Peterson, of course, declines to take the bait and jump from is to ought – but I only wish the same could be said of many people on the Alt-Right. It is true that almost no-one in our circles is channelling Ragnar Redbeard, flexing his sword-arm and grunting “might is right”, in the present day – but that is largely because everyone has woken up to the fact that this is an individualist fantasy. Swap Redbeard’s egoism for an emphasis on the collective, and many of us will happily accept the proposition that ‘nature red in tooth and claw’ – perhaps garlanded with a few neo-pagan fig-leaves, but otherwise stripped of moral accoutrements – would be sufficient not only to regulate our behaviour but also to rescue our people from doom.

One stock argument against this sort of thing is that all sorts of ideological constructs can be projected onto the facts about the natural world. A slightly more advanced one is that a yearning to ‘return to nature’ in the context of a late civilisation is a classic tell-tale sign of decadence, which resembles barbaric vigour only in the sense that senility resembles infanthood. But in the context of the Alt-Right and the Rightist tradition as a whole, the most important point to be made is that amorality and 'pure natural order' do not support our positions, and in many cases work against them.

Those who resort to the naturalistic fallacy are guilty of self-deception at best, and self-parody at worst. Both were true of Redbeard: pure ‘might’ lay not in his ideal of a strong and independent individual, but in the unreasoning mob stirred up by manipulative moralists, hence the fact that he had to write his screed under a pseudonym. The fact that he chose a Viking handle for this purpose only serves to highlight his distance from the Norse culture that produced stanzas like “a noble name will never die / if good renown one gets”. 

'Natural order' isn't too orderly.
It is no different when we move from individualist fantasies to collectivist ones. Alt-Righters are preoccupied with blunt and unvarnished truth, and assume that a ‘natural’ society is one in which everyone shares that preoccupation – but it is bullshit that is socially adaptive, and always has been, which is why the truth-teller Machiavelli got nowhere as a man of political action and had to make his name as a writer. Alt-Righters expend time and effort arguing for dominance hierarchies because they are ‘natural’ – but it is white men who have been thrust behind minorities and women in the dominance hierarchy of the modern West. The fact that we gained our erstwhile status through strength, hard work and intelligence, while the minorities and women gain theirs through weakness, laziness and stupidity, is of no interest at all to pure amoral nature.

When we turn to the dispossession of whites and the means of inspiring our people to fight against it, many Alt-Righters look upon universal concepts like justice only as obstacles standing in the way. They think that ‘ethnic genetic interests’, an extension of evolutionary kin altruism to the more distant kinship of the ethnic group, would motivate us to fight for our own side if only our heads were not so addled with unnatural moral ideals. However, leaving aside the question of whether ethnic genetic interests have any scientific merit whatsoever, it is obvious that our enemies can render them politically impotent simply by making life difficult for our immediate family when we come out as dissenters and activists.

Perhaps you disagree with this. Perhaps you have better arguments, backed up by harder facts, for nature red in tooth and claw. However, in argument as in war, it is not enough to avoid defeat – one must also take care to avoid Pyrrhic victory. Whenever we employ the naturalistic fallacy, or rail against morality in Ragnar Redbeard style, we allow the progressives to take up the moral high ground and pose as the defenders of human ideals against biological reductionism. On this unfavourable ground, we lose in practice every time without exception, no matter how many facts we marshall to our side and no matter how many technical victories we score over our opponents.

Fortunately, self-correction on this point is very easy, for all we have to do is to go back to the red pill and further cleanse it of impurities. In clearer language, we must stay on the firm ground of is, without wandering into the realm of ought. Our argument should not be “humans ought to live in tribal ingroups and dominance hierarchies because they are natural”, but “humans do live in tribal ingroups and dominance hierachies, full stop.”

Although this is a purely descriptive statement, it actually cuts the moral high ground out from under the progressives. If humans create tribal ingroups and dominance hierarchies by nature, then how can those humans who oppose this in theory be an exception to it in practice?

One of the basic entry-level red pills, which turn zombie conservatives into real dissenters, is the realisation that the managerial and plutocratic elites of the West are not beholden to “misguided good intentions”. The importation and legal privileging of foreign immigrants, and the resulting loss of status for native citizens, increases the political and economic power of the elites at home and legitimises the projection of that power abroad. The ‘liberation’ of women from husbands and fathers is simultaneously their subjection to government and corporate power; and the destruction of female sexual morality advantages rich and high-status men, by essentially turning all women into price-tagged prostitutes. The privileging of ill-behaved, sexually degenerate and unproductive people over everyone else also furthers elite power, as these people depend for their status on the ruling political coalition and support it with the greatest degree of loyalty.

This is not some sort of bug, created in the process of transposing pure progressive ideology to the realm of ordinary mortals; it is a feature, which gives rise to progressive ideology and is reinforced by it in turn. The anti-elitist worldview of progressivism, in which the common people are seen as the real drivers of history and their leaders reduced to secondary importance, is pure poison to the legitimacy of an elite that ‘leads from the front’ such as the old European aristocracy. But for an elite that denies its own status as an elite, pretends to be a cipher of the people, and relies upon anonymity and hypocrisy, this worldview is an elixir of invisibility. It lends credence to the fiction that the people are ruling (and thus exploiting, and dispossessing) themselves; and the effect of this mass gaslighting is seen every time people in the West say things like “our country is going mad”. It also directs academic study to the task of furnishing management science with information about ordinary people, while discussion of elites comes to be associated with low-status cranks. 

Progressives are not as far 
from this as they like to think.
By performing the verbal and social rituals known to the people as ‘political correctness’, the members of this elite imagine that they have transcended the natural human behaviours of dominance hierarchy and tribe formation, and thus legitimised their own possession of wealth and power. But these rituals are not just ineffectual; they themselves represent hierarchical and tribe-forming behaviour, marking off the beneficiaries of progressive education and acculturation from the lower-class whites outside their coalition, just as the verbal and social rituals of the old aristocracy served to mark them off from the rest of the population and identify them as the ruling class. Although the progressives would like to think that the distinction is based on morality or enlightenment, in truth it has much to do with those old vulgar categories of wealth and power, albeit veiled by the typical elite behaviour of decorous counter-signalling. A positive attitude to multiculturalism and feminism is an oblique demonstration that you are the sort of high-status white person who employs or mobilises immigrants, not the low-status sort who competes with them for jobs, and that your wife is a ‘career woman’ by choice and not a ‘job lady’ forced into work by the abolition of family wages sexist pay discrimination.

But while the idea of ‘PC as the new RP‘ is one of those punchy little red pills that blows the mould off the brains of conservatives, the truth is that progressive hierarchical behaviour is far more pernicious. We might say that it is schizophrenic, in the sense that it can neither encompass the non-elite population nor leave it peacefully in a subordinate position. The constant proliferation of rituals and euphemisms that can hardly be kept up with by anyone outside the ‘right’ circles, as well as the increasing intolerance for any deviation from them, tends towards stratification and elitism; but the denial of elitism and the myth of universality demand that these rituals and euphemisms be imposed on the subordinate population as a moral imperative.

The result is that the same politically-correct rituals serve both as a means of status display for the ruling class that is concentrating its wealth and power, and as a weapon for aggressively humiliating the larger white population that suffers from that concentration of wealth and power. Those outside the ruling power structure cannot be simply given their due and left alone. They are viewed as dangerous moral subhumans, and must be converted to full and sincere progressivism, even though the roots of that doctrine in power and wealth differentiation makes this an impossible quest.

All of this is curiously primitive, like a caste system reduced to brahmins and untouchables. And the sheer volatility of it becomes even clearer when we move to the international stage, on which we see the tribe-forming behaviour of the Western ruling elite expressed as transnational progressivism. Again, we see the emptiness of progressive claims to have transcended the bigotries of the past: for example, a disproportionate element of the progressive ruling class is of Jewish extraction, so it predictably expresses a deranged hatred of Russia. And again, we see innovation, but in the direction of a new primitivism: no country can be allowed the independence, grudging respect and sphere of influence that would be possible in a order of nations, for all must submit entirely to the progressive secular religion and the power structure behind it.

By associating their own cause with ‘humanity’, transnational progressives are not moving towards an enlightened future by transcending natural tribalism. To say so would be to focus only on the progressive elites and their non-white political allies of the day, conveniently forgetting the populations that oppose or are opposed by this power coalition, and are thus logically relegated to ‘enemies of humanity’ or even ‘anti-humanity’. What the transnational progressives are really doing is coming perilously close to resurrecting the most primitive form of tribalism: the distinction between humans and non-humans, reflected in tribal names like Suomi, Inuit, Magyar, Goths and Alemanni, which all literally mean ‘men’ or ‘humans’.

The difference, of course, is that a primitive tribe regarding its neighbours as subhumans has no potential to start a nuclear war. Things are quite different when progressive elites, reacting to a political defeat by the white population in the United States, follow their natural tendency to lump ‘deplorables’ together and provoke a nuclear-armed state on the basis of a delusional projection of their own behaviour towards other nations. And this brings us to another dirty little secret of transnational progressivism. In the light of recent developments, it is probable that the Western elite’s rejection of the nation-state was not caused by moral revulsion for its violent and imperialist will-to-power, but by the realisation that the nation-state could no longer serve as a vehicle for the Western elite’s violent and imperialist will-to-power
The world-conquering aggression of China.
As the proliferation of nuclear weapons among the main powers set conventional expansion at odds with national interests, and the population of the Third World coalesced into nation-states that could no longer be colonised as terra nullis, the persistence of the old nation-state order threatened a lasting outbreak of peace. As this state of affairs presented the elite with little opportunity for expanding its power, it is now being duly destabilised by transnational progressivism, which of course blames the resulting international volatility on a resurgence of reactionary fascist nationalism. In the present day, independent nation-states like Russia and China are constantly accused of scheming to conquer the world; but their conservative attempts to preserve limited spheres of influence contrast sharply with the worldwide aggression, economic imperialism and rent-a-mob subversion carried out by the progressive West.

But I am digressing too far. To return to my subject: it is only after all of the above points have been made clear, and the conformity of progressivism to natural dominance hierarchies and tribe formation exposed, that we should step out of the realm of is to do battle with our opponents in the realm of ought. This time, however, we will be equipped to win – not just because we are defending hierarchies and tribes of greater antiquity, and doing so with more honesty, but more importantly because we will have shifted the progressives onto the unfavourable moral ground.

Just as arguing the case for nature red in tooth and claw can only produce defeat or Pyrrhic victory for us, arguing the case for the progressive elite as an elite can only produce defeat or Pyrrhic victory for our opponents. A ideal rhetorical strategy for us would be to proceed from is to ought in the way demonstrated; steer clear of all attempts to bog us down in prolonged skirmishes with protected classes like women, degenerates and minorities (yes, even the Jews); and keep pounding away at the focal point of the progressive elite until its advocates are forced to discredit it by defending it openly. At that point, we will have essentially won the rhetorical side of this metapolitical war.

However, in truth, what is required of us goes far beyond a shift in rhetoric. We need to understand that the Alt-Right is not the cause of brutish ‘natural’ immoralism, but the cause of truth and justice, and actually begin to act like it. It is true that progressivism is an evil cause swathed in nice and inoffensive words; thus, there may well be no contradiction in the fact that the just cause of the Alt-Right presently finds itself wrapped in harsh and vicious words. But we do not have forever to grow up. If we continue to fundamentally misunderstand the nature and destiny of our cause, our movement will fall into the hands of those who should properly be kept far from it, and its every accretion of power will corrupt it into a force that will only make the plight of Europe worse.

17 comments:

  1. Another outstanding article. I'm tempted to say (as an outsider looking in) that the alt right should have single leader after all, and it should be you. Two quibbles:

    "One of the basic entry-level red pills, which turn zombie conservatives into real dissenters, is the realisation that the managerial and plutocratic elites of the West are not beholden to “misguided good intentions”.

    But the higher level red pill is that they sort of are. In a system where membership of the elite and status within the elite is open to competition, the tendency is towards a system when the highest level of the elite consists entirely of highly intelligent true believers (ashkenazi Jews are, I believe, genetically predisposed to credulity) and psychopaths - whose behaviour would be indistinguishable. the feedback loop of power means that ideas favourable to power are promoted and that people who sincerely believe them are promoted. In short, there is no inner party. It's not exactly like that because there is still a fair degree of nepotism, which means there are still some non-psychopathic cynics hanging around, but that's the tendency.

    "In the present day, independent nation-states like Russia and China are constantly accused of scheming to conquer the world; but their conservative attempts to preserve limited spheres of influence contrast sharply with the worldwide aggression, economic imperialism and rent-a-mob subversion carried out by the progressive West."

    Well, yes and no. I'm not exactly sure what Putin's interest is in propping up Socialism in Venezuela after even the Obama era State Dept. got too embarrassed by it, nor have I found a Russophile who has been able to give me a sensible answer. No doubt the 'Hugo Chavez Peace Prize' looks good on Putin's mantelpiece, but it's certainly not *just* the West who seems to get off on spreading chaos on far away continents for no good reason.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I try not to speculate too far on the question of intentions. As you rightly say - and as the blogger Spandrell often points out - the majority of these people believe in the righteousness of their actions and will always believe so, for only a few highly intelligent psychopaths could believe otherwise and still pull off the required behaviour. But when conservatives come out with the trope of "misguided good intentions", they are assuming the disinterested good faith of progressives and relying on the logical weight of conservative arguments to change their behaviour, always to no avail because power speaks so much louder than logic.

      Similarly, although we should not be surprised at Putin grabbing for all the friends he can get, I am not trying to suggest that the intentions of these powers stop at their own national borders. China for one has been getting up to some pretty insidious stuff lately, and lubricating it with enough money to avoid serious outrage. But there is a limit to how far this sort of thing can go when a government's legitimacy is associated with a single nation - perhaps it is analogous to the limits on the expansion into society of a state that does not conflate itself with 'the people'. Outright racial supremacism might be one way of overstepping this limit, but we all know how that worked out last time.

      Delete
    2. The values and ideology of the elites converge to their interests. The elites are the main beneficiaries of the globalization and their financial interests have become transnational once (late 1980s-eraly 1990s) the "economies of scales" expanded sufficiently and pushed through the barriers of the nation-state.
      It is then all too normal that they support the dissolution of the national state and even of the "West" as a civilization, that they fight against "racism" and for "multiculturalism", etc.
      These attitudes/values are necessary to be considered morally good and respected if you want the globalism to continue.

      Samuel T. Francis explored this ideological mutation in his many essays on the "managerial elites".
      A shorter, simplified, but essentially similar explanation. can be read in Samuel P. Huntignton's essay "Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the
      American Elite"

      http://archive.wphna.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/04-03_The_National_Interest._Samuel_Huntington_Davos_Man.pdf

      Delete
    3. "But there is a limit to how far this sort of thing can go when a government's legitimacy is associated with a single nation - perhaps it is analogous to the limits on the expansion into society of a state that does not conflate itself with 'the people'."

      That may be true, but at the moment the effective limit on Russian and Chinese expansionism is America. I suspect, for example, that absent American opposition, Russia would simply conquer Syria and then rule it through a minority coalition regime not dissimilar to that of Assad, but with more privileges for Christians and (probably) less general crumminess, in return for permanent military and naval bases. Historical reality is that countries expand and contract. The concept of states staying within fixed borders is itself a product of the Wilsonian world order. One of the odder features of post WW2 ideology is that borders are considered immovable to a historically unprecedented degree, while also being considered porous to an unprecedented degree. That's probably not random. What won't bend will break.

      "Outright racial supremacism might be one way of overstepping this limit, but we all know how that worked out last time."

      That's actually a serious potential weakness to a nationalist world order. Strong states must expand, but they also must have a reason to expand. Outright racial supremacism is the most obvious nationalist solution, not least because some races actually are superior to others by commonly accepted metrics and they are the ones with the means to expand.

      Delete
    4. State expansion, territorial grab and actual rule, empire proper, has become nearly impossible in the modern times not because ideology ("wilsonianism" ) but precisely because nationalism has spread everywhere. It is impossible to rule a population which has developed national consciousness and it will put up resistance. That's why decolonization became unavoidable at the middle of the 20th century. Great Britan's rule of India was doomed once Gandhi took the path of arousing Hindu nationalism.

      Delete
    5. "It is impossible to rule a population which has developed national consciousness and it will put up resistance."

      Most popular man in Germany 1944: Hitler
      Most hated man in Germany 1948: Hitler

      Power creates culture. If an imperial power suddenly finds it impossible to rule over a country they comfortably subdued with a few thousand officials for over a century because a group of LSE trained intellectuals and a crazy man in a dress stirred up 'national consciousness' ... well there is no 'if' because that can't actually happen. If a narrative is too silly to be plausible, it's not actually true.

      Delete
    6. Hitler wasn't most hated man in Germany in 1948. It took decades of control and indoctrination to have the present docile German people, and even now it can not be taken for granted. We see now in Germany a gradual 'awakening' because of the (foreign) Muslim presence. It was easy to be a non-German German only as long as there were only Germans around.

      Once nationalism was unleashed by the French revolution the era of empires proper was over. Nobody will try occupy and rule directly a nation these days, it is doomed to failure.
      You could in the past rule royally over a mass of illiterate peasants of many ethnic origins but today you will have to deal with nationally conscious groups which will fight you to the point of making rule impossible.

      Neither is possible for "power" to artificially build a meta-identity, an imperial identity, for its subjects. Soviet Union tried that, to construe the 'soviet man', but in the end it proved to be vacuous, when USSR fell it broke along ethnic-national lines and the rulers were wise enough not to oppose the break-up and thus to avoid generalized bloodshed.

      Delete
    7. "Hitler wasn't most hated man in Germany in 1948.It took decades of control and indoctrination to have the present docile German people"

      In the election of 1949, the only Right Wing party got a whopping 4% of the vote. If a free election had been held in 1944, the Nazis would probably have got about 60%.

      "It was easy to be a non-German German only as long as there were only Germans around."

      What is your point, exactly? A minority of Germans are just about able to rouse themselves to defend their 90% Americanised culture from Islamisation and their right not to be run over by trucks by crazed Muslims. Not exactly a confirmation of your primordial nationalism ready to burst out.

      "Once nationalism was unleashed by the French revolution the era of empires proper was over."

      The concept of nationalism as a force that an be *unleashed* is just mysticism, which is what all liberal-derived theories of history inevitably resort to.

      "Nobody will try occupy and rule directly a nation these days, it is doomed to failure."

      It is doomed because more powerful outside actors stop it happening, partly by funding nationalist movements. Even so, if a country is powerful and ruthless enough it works just fine, see Tibet.

      "Neither is possible for "power" to artificially build a meta-identity, an imperial identity, for its subjects. Soviet Union tried that, to construe the 'soviet man', but in the end it proved to be vacuous, when USSR fell it broke along ethnic-national lines and the rulers were wise enough not to oppose the break-up and thus to avoid generalized bloodshed."

      The Soviet Union was caught in a cleft stick because it had to promote ethnic minority consciousness in order to unite its minority-coalition elite while at the same time resisting ethnic minority separatism. This, along with it's cack economy, was the central problem with Leninism. But the Soviet Union was hardly the best example of what a power can do if it is run by competent people.

      Delete
    8. Yeah, Germany 1949, a literally ruined and occupied country. You seem to believe that you can vote your way out of a lost war.

      My point exactly is that nationalism is driven by the awareness of difference, by having to deal with different national groups on the daily basis. That's why in general the minorities are always more "identity-aware", more politically mobilized and cohesive : because they have to deal with the "others" all the time. They don't have the comfort of the majorities to deal with "others" (minorities) only rarely.
      The drift toward "racialization" of the American politics is unstoppable and due precisely to the fact that the whites are losing fast their majority status in US and thus they can no longer avoid dealing with "diversity". The Germans have been shielded up to now, they have been the solid majority of their country. Now that is changing and the tribal in-group/out-group morality and dynamics is returning in Germany too...and in whole Europe, just as during the post French-revolution period, when one European-national group mobilizes politically the other follow up soon as in a domino, and it spreads fast across Europe.

      Delete
    9. 'State expansion, territorial grab and actual rule, empire proper, has become nearly impossible in the modern times not because ideology ("wilsonianism" ) but precisely because nationalism has spread everywhere. It is impossible to rule a population which has developed national consciousness and it will put up resistance.'

      'Yeah, Germany 1949, a literally ruined and occupied country. You seem to believe that you can vote your way out of a lost war.'

      So not so impossible then.

      Delete
    10. You don't get it. Germany did not become part of some Anglo empire, and the Allies did not even try so such thing, they realized that it was impossible. But maybe they would have tried it had they had dozens of millions of Anglos to spare and settle in Germany. Something like China did/does by flooding Tibet with millions of Han-Chines, and thus "rule" Tibet.
      Germany returned to self-rule gradually in the 1950s and by then it was clear to everybody, save some die hard nazi lunatics, that expansionist nationalism was longer a viable idea.

      Delete
    11. "You don't get it. Germany did not become part of some Anglo empire."

      Yes it did, but now we are into 'is the sky blue?' territory, so perhaps we should leave it there.

      Delete
    12. Your definition of 'empire' is so shifting and elastic that you can argue for anything being part of an empire. US-style culture is present today everywhere not only in Germany, even Russia is well "americanized". In general the post WW2 "americanization" of Europe, and other non-european countries, is not an argument for 'empire'.

      Delete
    13. I haven't attempted to provide a definition of empire. You claim that the government of one country occupying and ruling another is impossible because of nationalism, which you seem to conceptualize as some of of energy that can be 'unleashed', but not leashed.

      But actually nationalism is just a set of beliefs. If the population of a given country is convinced that a given government is illegitimate then the government can't rule, but if a government (in the broader sense) is resolute, competent and united it can just change the opinions of the population.

      The principle of national self-determination is the ideological basis of the American empire. No other country can conquer another country because that violates national self-determination, but the State Dept. can rule every country because that is what self-determination means. If a government rules contrary to the will of the State Dept., then the nation is not truly self determining. Now, of course, the the American empire is also systematically violating the principle of national self determination by mandating immigration flows that destroy all nations. That seems like a problem, but, then again, maybe it's not. The whole thing is made up anyway.

      Delete
  2. This article made me recall what Steve Sailer calls "the French theory" of political correctness

    "French elites have convinced themselves that their social supremacy rests not on their economic might but on their common decency. Doing so allows them to “present the losers of globalization as embittered people who have problems with diversity,” says Guilluy. It’s not our privilege that the French deplorables resent, the elites claim; it’s the color of some of our employees’ skin. French elites have a thesaurus full of colorful vocabulary for those who resist the open society: repli (“reaction”), crispation identitaire (“ethnic tension”), and populisme (an accusation equivalent to fascism, which somehow does not require an equivalent level of proof). One need not say anything racist or hateful to be denounced as a member of “white, xenophobic France,” or even as a “fascist.” To express mere discontent with the political system is dangerous enough. It is to faire le jeu de (“play the game of”) the National Front. …

    In France, political correctness is more than a ridiculous set of opinions; it’s also—and primarily—a tool of government coercion. Not only does it tilt any political discussion in favor of one set of arguments; it also gives the ruling class a doubt-expelling myth that provides a constant boost to morale and esprit de corps, much as class systems did in the days before democracy. "

    see :

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/chris-caldwell-on-a-new-french-theory-of-political-correctness/

    ReplyDelete
  3. yes, That's some Type 1, Grade A,Prime Propaganda.

    that and a couple of other things in this otherwise informative article-I i pretend to be blind. How many fingers are you holding up" alt "Right"?



    ReplyDelete
  4. Exemption from the natural fallacy: "What do I feel". Application: do I feel like enjoying being around niggers? Answer: no -> result: political will to race-segregate (actually: self-segregate).

    So why is this interesting? Because it brings up a category, a paradigm, that is not popular with the Right... and that is undervalued at Whites in general: FEELING ! YES you heard that right: you do not have to PROVE that niggers are bad, you don´t need a allegedly air-tight case that is safe like an armour: it is OK to just resort to what you feel!!

    So do I need all my huge big brain and apparatus of our yuuge White science to justify that I don´t want to be around niggers hell no I do NOT need that, all I need is honesty and the ability to get aware of what I FEEL !

    So I don´t need to resort to some biologistic argumentation, to nature, to might-is-right; I don´t need traditionalism, I don´t need a religion, I don´t need no fucking super big brain White superior apparatus to say: I don´t want niggers in my group. And why is this feelings-based approach superior to the big-brain-based approaches? BECAUSE IT IS TRUE! The reason we don´t want to be around niggers is BECAUSE WE JUST DON´T WANT TO BE ! It is: instinctive. Everybody knows it! Any "reason" given (good schools, neighborhoods, intelligence blah blah) is just a post-hoc justification ! The REAL reason is: BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT !

    So get the eff rid of your measly attempts to create the yuuge invincible armour-apparatus that will prove once and for all that the nigger is bad: YOU DON´T WANT THE NIGGER and that is all we need to know!

    On that basis, we can go on and build our cause.
    For various reasons, it is almost impossible for a White to say: I don´t want a nigger. But it is the truth, and only when we are fully aware of this truth, can we become successful in our cause.

    ReplyDelete

FAUXCAHONTAS STRIKES BACK

by Hewitt E. Moore @hewittemoore Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a potential 2020 presidential candidate, addressed her claims o...