Testing Among the Far Right’s Theories

A guest post by commenter Bill:

Various strands of the far right are divided on both normative matters (what is the good) and positive matters (what is happening/ how does the world work). Consider specifically positive theories of US elite behavior. Why does our evil elite behave as it does?

Furthermore, consider not proximal, instrumental causes but distal, more final causes. Saying “people talk and do nonsense about gay marriage, sluts, secular materialism, etc because it is high status to do so” is true. But it’s like saying “that wall exists because a carpenter cut, positioned, and drove nails into two-by-fours in just such a way.” And, let us tease out predictions, so that one can test among theories.

The more respectable part of the far right sees its conflict with modernity as a conflict of ideas within an ethno-cultural space which is not essentially contested. Modernity is what HBD types might call a meme disease or mind virus. Bad ideas have leaked into the Western elite mind, taken it over, and ruthlessly replicated themselves. That these ideas have differential effects on different sub-populations is incidental. Interesting, perhaps; relevant, perhaps, but not central. The ideas are central.

The less respectable part of the far right sees its conflict with modernity as a conflict with people/cultures. The world is made up of ethno-cultural groupings who are inevitably in a struggle with one another. Modernity, meaning the ideas of modernity, is, for this strain of the right, just a weapon which the currently ascendant ethno-cultural group happens to be using to great effect against the currently subjugated ethno-cultural groups.

I can’t resist quoting the Illinois Nazis from the Blues Brothers: “The Jew is using the Black … against you!!” Not all people-centric rightists believe this exact thing, but this is the kind of thing they believe. Contrast this with the idea-centric rightist view that progressives are caught in a delusional thought-pattern called “liberal creationism.”

On to our prediction-generating question: Whither progressives’ solicitous attitudes towards blacks as progressives’ power continues to grow?

On the idea-centric view of progressivism, we should see these attitudes harden, expand, and be promoted more forcefully as progressives’ power waxes. These ideas are, evidently, central for them. Furthermore, the rebellion of non-elite whites has been the big impediment to their expression—the courts’ giving up on school busing, for example, was synchronous with Reagan’s victory in the early 80s. As non-elite whites lose power, so progressives gain the ability to put these ideas more into force.

On the people-centric view of progressivism, we should see these attitudes end. Blacks have been a useful hammer for destroying two rival ethno-cultural groupings: Southern whites and urban Catholics. As rigor mortis settles in to those groupings and as they additionally become irrelevant in electoral calculus, hitting them becomes pointless and costly. Even better, there is now a much more congenial brown hammer which can be deployed. So, the black hammer gets put down.

So, when the day comes when progressives are so powerful that they will never again need big black turnout to win in FL and the rust belt, we shall see which prediction is bourn out. What year? 2030 maybe? By 2050 for sure.

About these ads

90 thoughts on “Testing Among the Far Right’s Theories

  1. Of course it is trivially true that the great majority of Jews, the Cathedral Jews, progressive Jews, do not see themselves as white, and hate whites, and it is also trivially true that “the Jew is using the black against you”, in that the Cathedral organizes and mobilizes people to do its bidding on ethnic and cultural lines.

    But the Nazis are fundamentally wrong in that the Cathedral is primarily Christian descended, rather than Jew descended, that Jewish Cathedral members are conversos, who do not much like Israel and orthodox Jews, that the Cathedral is no more on the side of Israel that it is on the side of America.

    The problem is not Jews, any more than it is communists. If it was Jews, or communists, the problem would be easy. The problem is far bigger than that.

    As Jared Taylor said of the Jews:

    Jared Taylor on the Jews:

    “As far as the Jewish Question is concerned, I think that whites need to take responsibility for what they do themselves. I think that it’s not useful to blame our failure on the machinations of others. People who are constantly talking about and complaining about Jewish influence remind me of blacks who think everything that’s ever gone wrong for blacks in the past or ever will go wrong for blacks in the future is because of white racism. I think that blacks need to be responsible for their successes and their own failure, and I think that the whites have to as well. At the same time, I think that although many Jews are on the wrong side of questions of nationality and questions of race, I think that some Jews are on the right side. And I think that it would be wrong simply to exclude them from the efforts of any kind of racial sanity in this country simply because they’re Jews.”

    • It’s not important whether it is the Jews, simpliciter. It’s a cute pop culture quote only. It largely wasn’t the Jews using blacks to destroy urban Catholic America. Rather, it was Yankee WASPs. Jews were mostly in middle management of that effort. The most recent effort to destroy Southern culture was a joint effort of Jews and Yankee WASPs. However, present tense claims that our elite is still mostly Yankee WASPs are Whiskey-level delusional (or question-begging). Yankee WASPs are no longer a cohesive elite group. They are gone. The only important, cohesive elite group now are Jews.

      None of this answers the question, however. It’s all genetic fallacy. To get at the question of whether it’s people or ideas, you have to have experiments where the theories point in opposite directions.

      • Whiskey is a nutty commenter on Steve Sailer’s blog. He once claimed, for example, that Hollywood is run by WASPs.

      • > you have to have experiments where the theories point in opposite directions.

        I don’t see that our host’s experiment points in opposite directions. Seems to me you could get either outcome on either theory.

        Also, not much use proposing experiments that unroll in thirty years. Better to have experiments that already unrolled a hundred years ago.

      • Seems to me you could get either outcome on either theory.

        How? On your account, denial of HBD is a core idea of the left’s. And dropping that idea as their power waxes is a possible outcome of idea-centric theory?

      • Bill | May 29, 2013 at 12:14 am
        > On your account, denial of HBD is a core idea of the left’s. And dropping that idea as their power waxes is a possible outcome of idea-centric theory?

        Sure. They get outflanked on the left by people focused on sexual deviation, so sexual deviance trumps race. One always has to be lefter than thou. Everyone accepts Human biodiversity denial, or else they get Richwined, but not everyone accepts that people can have whatever sex they prefer.

    • Liberalism is not derived from Christianity.

      Utilitarian ethics arose with the atomist philosophers in Greece. Well before Christ.

      Mohism developed in China without the influence of Christianity.

      Liberalism is the working out of certain tendencies in human nature, not a historical contingency.

      • Historically, the female emancipation movement, and the anti slavery movement, had the same personnel and postal addresses as puritan descended religious movements.

      • Doesn’t it strike you as weird that that happened only _after_ the secularism of the Enlightenment?

      • Feminism and egalitarianism were alarmingly visible in Cromwell’s England, which predates the Enlightenment.

        The attack on marriage and Christmas started with Cromwell’s Puritans.

      • The attack on Christianity started with Cromwell’s Puritans (well, not really started, but it was a pithy comeback).

    • Jim, you are glomming onto irrelevancies, perhaps because you are having an emotional reaction. Blacks and voting blocks are just the natural experiment which allows us to see the causation. My reasoning above is not hard to follow. Try again.

      However, you’re right that we can also look backwards to test among theories, though this process is fraught—how do we know the theories were not created to fit the history. For example, there is 1968. Using the idea-centric view, 1968 is a strange event in the history of the left. From Marx to 1968, the left is all about nationalizing industries, raising worker wages, and whatnot. The use of blacks to ethnically cleanse America’s cities was a project of establishment capitalists—the left was not much enamored of it. From 1968 to the present, the left is all about “Cultural Marxism,” a set of ideas which isn’t Marxism at all. But the personnel of the left are only modestly changed.

      • The use of blacks to ethnically cleanse America’s cities was a project of establishment capitalists…

        We capitalists are good at what we do, but we aren’t *that* good.

        As with abolition, temperance, women’s suffrage, immigration, the Peace movement, feminism, environmentalism, gun control, and the anti-nuke movement, urban atomization was a project of the Boston Brahmins. It’s not a Christian thing, it’s a Unitarian/gnostic thing. It can infect the churches, and it can infect business enterprises, but it’s different.

      • > My reasoning above is not hard to follow

        I, however, do not follow it at all.

        If the problem is an idea, a memetic disease, will hate white males more and more as it goes ever leftwards. If the problem is Jews, Jews will crush whites worse and worse as Jews get ever more powerful.

        Or, alternately, one could equally argue that If the problem is an idea, a memetic disease, which mutates ever leftwards, can head in almost any direction. If the problem is a cohesive people, Jews, will pursue Jewish interests. What are Jewish interests? Clearly the destruction of Israel is Cathedral project, so if one can plausibly claim that the destruction of Israel reflects Jewish interests, one can claim that anything reflects Jewish interests.

        > Using the idea-centric view, 1968 is a strange event in the history of the left.

        Progressives were always women centered,(Jeremy Bentham), negro centered (William Wilberforce), and underclass centered (Beatrice Potter) They focused on workers merely because they were being attacked from the left by communists.

        The worker program was not going anywhere. As Lenin observed, trade union consciousness leads only to bourgeois consciousness.

        Workers were unresponsive, were diminishing in numbers, and viewed the Cathedral with hostility and derision.

        So, Alinksky tells his fellow commies, sign up with progressivism, adopt as mascots people that are dumber and more easily manipulated than the proletariat. Return to the roots of progressivism. The basic thesis of “Rules for Radicals” is “Here is how to keep the stupid sluts and even dumber niggers attacking the people we wealthy high IQ white males want attacked.” I would paraphrase a fair bit of his argument as “shouting down people and acting like a total jerk ass impresses the hell out of whores and sluts, and niggers cannot comprehend anything more complicated”

      • “The use of blacks to ethnically cleanse America’s cities was a project of establishment capitalists—the left was not much enamored of it.”

        Of course the left was enamored of it. If certain groups were not enamored of it, those groups (certain ethnic labor unions) ceased to be part of the left. They were never a part of the team anyway.

        Kristor, the Boston Brahmins needed the capitalist’s cash machine. It was a joint effort.

      • Like I said, the gnostic temptation can infect any human order. I don’t argue with the notion that there were and are capitalists who have been totally given over to utopian fantasies.

        But the suggestion was that the capitalists all got together and said, “let’s destroy the cities.” How that could possibly be good for them is not explained. But even if it were, I just don’t credit the capitalists with that much ability to cooperate with each other against the health and welfare of the markets they wanted to sell into. The whole theory makes no sense. Sure, capitalists were involved in the destruction of the city, but not qua capitalists. I.e., it wasn’t the capitalism that was the source of the defect, but the surrender on the part of *human beings* to the gnostic temptation.

      • I, however, do not follow it at all.

        If the problem is an idea, a memetic disease, will hate white males more and more as it goes ever leftwards. If the problem is Jews, Jews will crush whites worse and worse as Jews get ever more powerful.

        We agree that you do not follow it. The differing predictions are on the solicitude towards blacks. As you say above, though, and josh says below, the memetic disease theory does seem to suffer from the problem of unfalsifiability—at least it does as presented by its defenders. Any particular idea can magically be written into or out of the alleged idea-set which comprises the left. For example:

        Progressives were always . . . negro centered

        And yet, according to you above, the idea-centric theory can embrace writing negrocentricity right back out. Obviously, one can’t test a theory which isn’t a theory. That’s your position, then, that the idea-centric theory fails to be a theory? It’s just genetic fallacy and nothing else?

      • >And yet, according to you above, the idea-centric theory can embrace writing negrocentricity right back out

        The Jew centric description describes the goals, and not the process.

        The idea centric description describes the process, not the goals.

        Thus idea centric description can never be falsified by reference to goals, and Jew centric description never falsified by process, since the process is supposedly a fake, a pretense, secretly managed by Jews behind the scenes.

        The Jew Centric version is falsified by progressive treatment of the Jewish/Islamic conflict and the Crown Heights pogrom.

        The content of leftism, like fashion, is unpredictable, as each leftist claims to be and strives to be left of each of the others. Hence progressives can never turn around and accurately describe black character, the way that they demonize white male character, whereas a Jewish conspiracy could say anything that suits its interests, and blacks are a big problem for Jews, so a Jewish conspiracy could, and very likely would, introduce a Violence Against Whites Act paralleling the Violence Against Women Act. Just as the Violence Against Women act says that any conflict between a man and a woman is criminal and the man is always guilty, a Jewish conspiracy would quite naturally be inclined to introduce a Violence Against Whites Act, that declares that any conflict between a black and a nonblack is criminal and black is always guilty. Progressivism could never do this.

        Progressives could quietly forget about blacks as a move even further leftwards, (gays outranking blacks, and transexuals outranking gays) but not, however, as a pragmatic concession to reality, could never say that blacks tend to be criminal, because wicked. Jews could just turn around and say that blacks are a problem, because blacks are naturally bad, just as males a problem because males are naturally bad. Progressivism could never do that.

      • The Jew centric description describes the goals, and not the process.

        You would do better to resist your emotional reaction. It makes you stupid and dishonest.

        The idea centric description describes the process, not the goals.

        Case in point. If they don’t really believe the ideas, then the ideas are not central. The claim, dating back decades to John Lukacs at least, that the left’s process of enforcement is a minor adaptation of the process of enforcement used in Quaker meeting houses and similar non-confessional religious movements is part of the machinery of the people-centric view. If the ideas are not important, then the ideas are not important. They are sword not swordsman.

      • Capitalists wanted to destroy the ethnically cohesive labor unions. Capitalists wanted to import cheap labor, the only available source after 1923 being black sharecroppers. Capitalists believed their own bullshit and promoted the idea of limiting public discourse to treating people as individual consumers and producers. Capitalists wanted to use a national financial system to cartelize industries on a national level. Capitalists wanted us to be a captive and receptive audience to their advertisements. Capitalists wanted to redefine social order to be based on class rather than ethnos, so they created market segmentation in housing and ended restrictive covenants. Capitalists cooperated through a number of capitalist created institutions with special privileges from the government and by controlling the government itself. These institutions formed a tight interlocking network and funded just about everything that was an organ of official thought. They also set about destroying and discrediting all organs that were not official thought.

        Talking of whether the capitalists acted “qua capitalists” is naive, IMO. Capitalism is part of the larger enlightenment philosophical tradition and is associated with different ethnic groups and communities. The idea that you can separate capitalism from our particular version of gnosticism, at least as far as explaining the motivations of the actors of the past century, is foolish. Of course they were acting as capitalists. Gnosticism is a human temptation, like rage. When solving a murder, we don’t say, “rage is a human temptation, it could have been anybody” and leave it at that. We say, “so, in this particular case, who dunnit?” In our particular case, the answer is *largely* a bunch of capitalists. Sadly, this slaughtered our once decent cities. Happily, the capitalists (their institutions at least) seem to be doing quite well.

        Also, they didn’t say, “let’s destroy the cities”, they said “let’s engineer the cities”, but the result and the intent was the destruction of cities as they were for reasons political, “economic”, social, ethnic, ethical and religious without clear lines of distinction between these categories.

      • Also, they didn’t say, “let’s destroy the cities”, they said “let’s engineer the cities” …

        Yes. You make my argument.

        … but the … intent was the destruction of cities.

        So which is it? Did they intend to destroy the cities, so that when they said, “let’s engineer the cities” what they really meant, nudge nudge wink wink say no more, was, “let’s destroy the cities”? Or did they *unintentionally* destroy the cities, with the best of intentions with respect to “reasons political, “economic”, social, ethnic, ethical and religious without clear lines of distinction between these categories”?

        Think about it. A conspiracy of thousands of men all viciously competing with each other, that coordinates their activities over many decades? It’s too much of a stretch. Nobody is that talented. Well-intentioned foolishness is a better explanation, as being more parsimonious. This is not to say that everything capitalists do is blameless. It is only to say that crediting them, and them alone, with the destruction of our culture is too parsimonious by half.

      • josh commented:

        >”Capitalists wanted to destroy the ethnically cohesive labor unions.

        But what was destroyed was not the labor unions, which did fine until the last whites fled, but rather the City of Detroit.

        The problem was not that blacks were allowed to get jobs, but that blacks were encouraged to organize into gangs connected to the Democratic party through community organizers and ethnically cleanse whites without whites being allowed to fight back. High levels of racist anti white violence and arson should have led to blacks being restricted to ghettos away from white communities, but did not.

      • A conspiracy of thousands of men all viciously competing with each other, that coordinates their activities over many decades? It’s too much of a stretch. Nobody is that talented. Well-intentioned foolishness is a better explanation, as being more parsimonious.

        Those distinctions (malign/foolish and conspiracy/decentralized) are implausible. Human “foolishness” has a distinct tendency toward being self-serving (it’s even got a name in psychology), and groups with like interests routinely dream up or pay intellectuals to dream up stories for why their interests are the good.

        It’s remarkable how common the “conspiracy theory” defense mechanism is. It’s especially notable among people who recognize themselves as outsiders, given how obvious it is that the category “conspiracy theory” serves the interest of power.

      • Well, but it’s a truism that well-intentioned foolishness is malign in its effects, even if not in its intent; I mean, it’s the pavement of the road to Hell, right? Being a defect of the intellect, foolishness is malign in its effects ipso facto, unless the fool be rescued from disaster by happy accidents.

        Josh describes a situation in which a number of ill-defined groups or interests compete with each other for influence over the polis, and do their best to shape public opinion in their favor. It makes no sense to call that sort of situation a conspiracy. Factional politics, yes; conspiracy, no.

        Bottom line is that if you shot all the capitalists, the procedural problems Josh adduces, and the pernicious results thereof, would not change at all. The only thing that would change is the personnel at the top, and perhaps the name that everyone gave to their ilk. Ergo, capitalists are not the problem. It is not even clear that capitalism, properly speaking, is the problem.

      • Here is an example of what I am talking about:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_and_Peace_Studies

        From the CFR’s own website:

        The project became known as the War and Peace Studies. ”The matter is strictly confidential,” wrote Bowman, “because the whole plan would be ’ditched’ if it became generally known that the State Department is working in collaboration with any outside group.” The Rockefeller Foundation agreed to fund the project…

        ………………

        Once the United States entered the war, most of the guiding spirits of the War and Peace Studies accepted mobilization into government service, in uniform, in the State Department, or in the fledgling intelligence agency, the Office of Strategic Services. Allen Dulles, for instance, became a pivotal figure in the OSS from a clandestine base in neutral Switzerland, where he had an influential role in implementing the idea he had presented to the Council for an American occupation force in defeated Germany. His brother, John Foster, remained at his New York law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell, throughout the war, but he was active in assisting State Department planning for the future United Nations.

        ……………………..

        Such were the effects of the upheavals of war upon the habits of society. The primary function of the Council on Foreign Relations during World War II proceeded in rigid secrecy, remote from the slightest awareness of most of the Council’s 663 members, who were not themselves personally involved.

        This isn’t part of a capitalist conspiracy that attempted to plan the world with decades of foresight and the power to (mostly) implement it? Of course plans change and the groups adjust their aims and methods (as Bill points out, usually in their own interest).

      • Wait, the point that I am defending is that capitalists *did* conspire to create the modern nihilism, not that others could not have.

        However, I will say that I think without state-sponsored usury and a banking cartel, it would be hard for the current regime to perpetuate itself.

      • Josh, I feel sure that the CFR tried to steer things, and that their activities did indeed have an effect. But the notion that they steered the course of history is absurd. Just think how very difficult it is to control *yourself,* to steer *your own history,* and you’ll see what I mean.

        Again: shoot all the members of the CFR and their ilk, and you’ll find that almost nothing has substantively changed. Ergo, the problem is not the men of the CFR and their ilk.

      • Kristor, the problem as I see it is that the CFR is only part of a much larger network that never publicly disagrees with itself. The CFR was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation which owned a good chunk of Chase Manhattan bank. The Rockefeller Foundation’s impact on Academia is hard to overstate. In line with the movement to eliminate “wasteful competition” so popular among capitalists, the RF’s grants came with strings attached which led to the hyper-specialization of modern Academia (coincidentally this made research more responsive to its funding sources). The World Council of Churches was largely a Rockefeller project, as were population control, and birth control movements. But even the Rockefeller Foundation is not itself the conspiracy.

        The RF, the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Endowment, Harvard, the CFR, the State Department, the OSS, the New Deal alphabet agencies, the top think tanks were all interlocked. Top officials and executives move from one to the other. It’s not a coincidence that there is more intellectual diversity among Catholic priests than there is among all of the grant-writers, journalists, social scientists, State Department officials and even a certain class of capitalists. Now, aside from these places where does respectable opinion come from? Nowhere. This is why the Republican party’s platform is always “less of the same.” We live in a world with only one brain, at least as far as what is considered “acceptable” in public discourse.

        I’m not saying the Rockefellers started the conspiracy. They didn’t, nor were they even necessarily idea men. But they did epitomize it. You didn’t get rich/important by competing with the Rockefellers, you got rich/important by joining them.

      • “Again: shoot all the members of the CFR and their ilk, and you’ll find that almost nothing has substantively changed. ”

        If you could return to 1900 and shoot all of the CFR (I know it didn’t exist yet) members and (most importantly) *THEIR ILK*, I think you would find that *everything* has changed.

      • Nah. You’d have to go back much further for your shooting to really root out the problem. You’d have to shoot all the Puritans. You’d have to shoot Cromwell and all his men. You’d have to shoot Henry VIII. You’d have to shoot Erasmus. You’d have to shoot the Nominalists.

        You’d also have to cast your net lots wider, in whatever generation you were doing your shooting. You’d have to shoot the wrong sort of ilk, plus all the people who thought like them. The tally would run into the hundreds of millions.

        See the problem? “Their ilk” is just too broad and diffuse a category. Shooting that ilk was the policy of Pol Pot. How well did that turn out?

        If you think of history as an operation of a conspiracy, you end up diluting the concept of “conspiracy” to the point that what you mean by it is “the natural flux of politics, that always throws up some oligarchy or other.” Your description of the interlocking institutions at the pinnacles of our society, whose personnel move freely back and forth from one of them to another? That’s just the way oligarchy works.

        The problem is not that we have an oligarchy. We are *always* going to have some oligarchy or other. The problem is that we have an oligarchy whose fortunes are not directly tied to the true and proper flourishing of the polis and its denizens, and who are not therefore rewarded for paying close attention to the way things really work. As a result you get this public discourse that is more and more fantastic and irreal.

      • “Nah. You’d have to go back much further for your shooting to really root out the problem.”

        I agree with you that the problem is inherent in human nature and can take many forms, so I agree you wold not “root out the problem.” But, everything would be different, and I don’t just mean in a butterfly effect way. The particular way our problem has manifested itself matters and I don’t see why you are writing capitalists out of the history of the revolution.

        “See the problem? “Their ilk” is just too broad and diffuse a category. ”

        It was your word.

        The problem with what you are doing is that your concept of history wouldn’t recognize the communist party of the soviet union as a conspiracy.

        The conspiracy I am talking about has at various times passed through various bottlenecks and thus has been at times tightknit with a tendency to bloat as it has now. If you trace it back to the bottlenecks it makes for interesting history.

      • The particular way our problem has manifested itself matters and I don’t see why you are writing capitalists out of the history of the revolution.

        I don’t mean to suggest that certain men are not culpable for what has happened to our civilization. I object to three different propositions:

        1. That the culpable men in question are especially culpable on account of the fact that they happen to be businessmen, rather than politicians, soldiers, priests, or what have you. The RF had a lot of help. They were an organic development of the culture, not a subversive element foreign thereto.

        2. That the effects the culpable men had were in any meaningful sense under their control. Susceptible to their influence, certainly; to control, no. The best laid plans of mice and men …

        3. That the coalition of like-minded individuals you notice constitute a conspiracy in any meaningful sense of the term. Too many people – i.e., more than five or six – were involved over too long a period for “conspiracy” to be apt. Watergate was a conspiracy of only a few extremely intelligent, resourceful and committed men who were working for the most powerful single office on the planet. They quickly unravelled it. A conspiracy has to be secret, by definition. They almost never stay secret for long, and the instant they are made public, they cease to be conspiracies; and the greater the number of conspirators, the sooner is a conspiracy discovered.

        There are all sorts of terms for the nexus you adduce: faction, movement, school, party, etc. But when any of those terms are substituted in to your story of a conspiracy, it starts to look an awful lot like Machiavellian politics as usual. You provide your own reductio by suggesting that the Communist Party was a conspiracy. Millions of members, operating openly and freely proclaiming their purpose – how, again, is this a conspiracy? If the CP is indeed a conspiracy, then *every* human association is a conspiracy.

        “‘Their ilk’ is just too broad and diffuse a category. ”

        It was your word.

        Right. But you used it to indicate the same thing. So it became ours. Regardless, it’s the category of people one would need to shoot that is too broad and diffuse for any practical purposes, not the term by which we refer to it. If you have to kill millions in order to stop a historical development, it’s not a conspiracy you’re fighting, but a culture.

      • In other words, oligarchies tend to start as conspiracies as ours did. I never said *this* was*the* problem. The problem is as you say, that our current oligarchy is no good. I think it is useful to understand its history as something more than its ultimate origin in order t o learn about it.

      • The culture had (at different times) a singular vanguard; the vanguard was a genuine, bona fide conspiracy, any way you slice it. At one time, this vanguard was a (not particularly large) bunch of capitalists centered around a few offices, who used their vast resources and influence to have more control over social political and economic life of the United States than King Louis XIV had over France.

        The Nazis Bolshis and New Dealers all started out as what should properly be called a conspiracy. That this grew into an oligarchy does not change the fact.

      • But by that standard, every new association is a conspiracy. Even a marriage starts out as the private enterprise of two conspirators. Eventually it can grow in influence and power to become a social juggernaut, like the Achaemenids.

        You are using the word too indiscriminately. The plot to kill Hitler was a conspiracy. The invasion of Normandy was not.

        The culture had (at different times) a singular vanguard; the vanguard was a genuine, bona fide conspiracy, any way you slice it. At one time, this vanguard was a (not particularly large) bunch of capitalists centered around a few offices, who used their vast resources and influence to have more control over social political and economic life of the United States than King Louis XIV had over France.

        You are describing an oligarchy.

      • By your standards the Bavarian illuminati were not a conspiracy.

        Forget ilks, if you shot Frederick T. Gates history would be different.

      • Sure. Rockefeller would have hired someone else to listen to brokers’ pitches. You’d have had to kill him, too, plus all the brokers and the guys who would then have replaced them.

        Gates was a late example of the Boston do-gooder cleric. You’d have to go back and shoot Ward Beecher and all his crowd. And the guys who would then have stepped in to fill their pulpits. Etc.

        We’ll have to agree to disagree about “conspiracy.” The threshold between a conspiracy and something larger is fuzzy, of course. But you want it to cover movements as big and public as the CP of the USSR – in which case, by straightforward extension, why not such immense movements as Christianity and, say, the Roman Empire? The term begins then to mean, “human organizations.” I.e., it loses distinct meaning, and thus usefulness.

        I on the other hand would use it to mean what it is usually taken to mean.

      • Was Trotsky a conspirator or not? He had plenty of help. He was a product of his culture. If you shot Trotsky another guy would take his place. The same can be said of Buonarroti or Weishaupt. The result would still have been different if you shot them. You sound like a historical determinist.

        Gates wasn’t just a Boston do-gooder. He was a particular human being who created an unprecedented system of influence by coopting and growing existing institutions and creating new ones. Somebody else would have run the portfolios, but would somebody else have created the AHA, the college board, the Council of Learned Societies, etc. And would these societies have come to dominate the field of knowledge production and later become essentially a shadow government and even an official government with the advent of the New Deal?

        “I on the other hand would use it to mean what it is usually taken to mean.”

        We disagree on this. If you don’t think the communist party secretly coopting the governments and influential institutions of the world constitutes a conspiracy, I really don’t know what you think a conspiracy is.

      • Yes. We disagree. An organization that everyone knows about is not a conspiracy, even if some of its activities are secret. CIA is not a conspiracy.

        It’s not that I’m a determinist. History would of course have been different if this or that guy had been shot. But history is more than just guys, it’s also ideas. The only way to kill an idea by killing is to kill all the guys that have it, and also all the guys whose minds are ready and open to it. In the limit, you have to kill Adam and Eve the instant they Fell.

        The alternative is to vanquish an idea by showing that it is wrong. If enough people understand that an idea is wrong, or just doesn’t work very well, then eventually it will wither.

        You can’t defeat Islam, for example, by just killing Muslims. To really delete it from the future, you have to show people that it is false.

      • Okay, good talk. Can I say I’m pleased that neither of us resorted to Webster. Have a blessed weekend.

      • ” all viciously competing with each other”

        Seriously? The whole point is figuring out how *not* to viciously compete with one another. The answer, it turned out was to create cartels via industrial regulation (with the cartels themselves controlling the regulators) and finance (make industrial growth dependent on credit and create a state-sponsored cartel that control access to credit) and to buy up all the information organs to teach people why it was so awesome. Those who still insisted on competing could be punished. This happened. Of course it was a conspiracy. I mean, duh.

      • If you think that businessmen are not viciously competing with each other – or, rather (ahem), competing as honorably and excellently as they can, even within enterprises – you must not have much experience as a businessman.

        But let’s stipulate to your hypothesis, that hundreds of thousands of men conspired with each other knowingly over decades according to a grand strategy to deform the system in favor of those who would occupy their offices in the distant future: if these guys were that intelligent, talented, foresighted, and canny, and managed to prevail against all the other conspiracies out there that were competing with them to deform the society in other ways, then *aren’t we fortunate that they are the ones who are running things, rather than the rest of us nimrods?*

      • “that hundreds of thousands of men conspired with each other knowingly over decades according to a grand strategy to deform the system in favor of those who would occupy their offices in the distant future”

        This is not my hypothesis.

      • Well if that is not your hypothesis, why are you insisting with such scorn that it was obviously a conspiracy? Use words that say what you mean.

      • What happened in Detroit is perfectly transparent. Shortly before each election, the state, which is to say the Democrat party, encouraged blacks to ethnically cleanse whites in order to ensure that the next election gave the desired result. The Republican party pretended not to notice. Anyone who opposed the ethnic cleansing was some kind of horrible racist who could not possibly be allowed to remain in the Republican party.

        The democrats conspired, not to destroy Detroit in the next two decades, but to win Detroit in the next election. The Republicans, being a fake opposition, did not oppose the conspiracy.

      • Obviously, there was a conspiracy or rather there were several interlocked conspiracies. Some people were closer to the center of gravity than others. I would even say that some people were even aware of a decades long coordinated project (or rather several decade long coordinated projects). Obviously hundreds of thousands of people did not *knowingly* conspire in a single decades long project. It was still a conspiracy and its most influential members were the most influential capitalists..

        As for defeating competing conspiracies, the Rockefeller-oriented group defeated the Morgan-oriented group (which continued as a Jr. partner until being subsumed by the former.)

  2. “…that the Cathedral is no more on the side of Israel that it is on the side of America.”

    You went off the rails there.

    • The Cathedral funds Palestinian terror through the ngos, presses Israel to make concessions and the Palestinians to demand concessions, despite the fact that Israel was victorious, and normally the loser makes concessions to the winner, refuses to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and forced Israel to drag the settlers out of Gaza and give Hamas a state from which to launch rockets at Israel.

      A genuinely neutral policy would allow Israel to do to Palestinians what Egypt is allowed to do to Christians.

      • Israel certainly gets a better deal than Rhodesia or Boer South Africa got. IIRC, those countries never lost a significant military engagement with the other side in the 60s, 70s and 80s.

        Also, while Israel gets its own ethnostate and “racist” immigration policies, the American Empire
        is strongly opposed to any white ethnostate on European soil. Unlike with the Europeans, they really haven’t tried to impose PC, Muliculturalism and “diversity” ideology on the Israelis:

        http://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/capitalist-liberal-multicultacracy/

        The US Government views the future and the meaning of the very word “democracy” to mean a democracy on the modern liberal capitalist globalist United States model, i.e. mass democracy with an extremely multi-ethnic population. To that end, historical nations are merely administrative bodies with particular historical backgrounds. A Turkish German is German. A Muslim Frenchman is French. Anyone who says otherwise is evil and will not be tolerated. Moves by any European government to treat their citizens differently based on ethnicity are viewed by USG as the same a denying Blacks in the U.S. civil rights and sends them into a shrieking frenzy. Any political party that opposes this is “monitored” by the U.S. and U.S. political and diplomatic capital is spent to discredit them.

        In addition, the U.S. is fully committed to the proposition that the U.S. and Europe are Muslim as well as Christian and Jewish and Whatever entities. To that end, the U.S. has supported Albania and has created the new Muslim state of Kosovo. Kosovo and Albania are both led by criminals and murderers but in our ideological zeal this is not seen for what it is.

      • “Israel certainly gets a better deal than Rhodesia or Boer South Africa got. ”

        Faint praise indeed.

      • “Israel certainly gets a better deal than Rhodesia or Boer South Africa got. ”

        So does America.

  3. I like this post, and I hope the discussion catches on. The distinction between idea-centric and people-centric explanations of progressivism is useful. However, I would have drawn the opposite predictions. If progressivism is really based on ideas, then when ethnic whites are sufficiently crushed, it should lose interest in them and turn toward destroying black communities in the name of tolerance, diversity, etc. On the other hand, if progressivism is an expression of ethnic animus, attacks on whites will intensify as they become powerless to resist.

    • Haven’t we already seen the results? As Lawrence Auster observed with his First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in liberal society, “the more troublesome, hostile or dangerous a nonwhite or non-Western group becomes, the more lies we tell ourselves to cover up the negative facts about that group, in order to maintain the liberal belief that everyone is basically just like us.”

      As we move further and further left, as the white Christian culture of the West is further marginalized, it is blamed all the more for the shortcomings of minorities, women, etc.

      Now it’s largely a matter of determining the pecking order. It appears that those suffering from various disorders centering on sex are at the front of the line, to the occasional chagrin of blacks and other traditional grievance groups, but the scapegoats remain the same: us.

    • On the other hand, if progressivism is an expression of ethnic animus, attacks on whites will intensify as they become powerless to resist.

      I agree with this and said as much. Blacks just won’t be the hammer under the people-centric theory. i forecast browns, but it could be something else. It just won’t be blacks.

      If progressivism is really based on ideas, then when ethnic whites are sufficiently crushed, it should lose interest in them and turn toward destroying black communities in the name of tolerance, diversity, etc.

      In the idea-centric narrative, leftists are delusional. They don’t know that blacks tend to be insular, racist, homonormative, and etc. Or they conjure up unfalsifiable stories for how it’s really whitey’s fault and actually believe these stories. You seem to be adding to the usual narrative some kind of feedback mechanism from reality to the delusional worldview. Seems like an epicycle to me.

      • > If progressivism is really based on ideas, then when ethnic whites are sufficiently crushed, it should lose interest in

        Why? Whites will remain superior, no matter how crushed, so obviously further crushing is required. Similarly for males. The law and society have favored women over men since 1857, and yet it always has to favor women even more, and punish men even more.

  4. “People centric” is a kind way of characterizing the belief of many on the Right that liberals don’t really believe what they say they believe, but are just interested in power.

    Personally I think it gains its force from the fact that the folks who believe it still want to hang on to some aspect of liberalism or other (so-called free market economics, gun libertarianism, the cult of the American founding, legal positivism — you name it: the anchor points vary all over the place with the individual).

    So it becomes a form of blame-shifting, and a license to cling to core liberal beliefs.

    But it doesn’t reflect reality at all. For the most part people will tell you precisely what they believe, and they really do believe it. Even where there is real duplicity in political tactics the situation remains transparent: duplicity and conspiracy aren’t the sort of thing that can be sustained across and throughout literally millions of people and whole civilizations.

    “People centric”, then, is just another one of the pretty lies of modernity: one more reason not to actually and fully repent.

    • To be honest, there are a certain number of people who don’t have particularly strong convictions either way who will jump on the liberal bandwagon just because it is popular.

      • Sure, there are “bandwagon” effects with virtually any group of sufficient size. But the animating force of liberalism – or of any ideologically cohesive group – is the true believers, and they are animated by their true beliefs (not that what they believe is true: but they truly believe it).

  5. The “people-centric” idea is dumb. Leftists believe what they say. They really do. And it all follows logically from bedrock liberal principles; as Jim Kalb described in The Tyranny of Liberalism. There is no cabal of white Christian hating Jews or any other such silly thing secretly spreading lies to destroy America.

    Every current liberal principle can be derived from the Declaration of Independence.

    If this then why not that. If that then why not this other thing? It never ceases until the roots are destroyed.

  6. “Every current liberal principle can be derived from the Declaration of Independence.”

    Exactly so.

    And in the early nineteenth century, they were cooking up one hundred and one rationalizations for everything that is coming down the pipe today.

  7. One need not intend evil to bring it about. It is sufficient to have power and influence coupled with indifference to the people most affected. No elite has ever been perfect but an elite who view the majority of the people in the society as the other, takes far greater risks.

    One frequently sees commercials with inter-racial couples and lovely light brown children. Does it matter if the goal is to hit more demographics in one spot or to promote the demise white folks? The results seem to be the same. “By their fruits you shall know them.”

  8. Much as I love him, Steve Sailer is sometimes guilty of a kind of “people centric” reduction: liberalism is little more than a status game between different groups of white people.

  9. I wrote four comments in the following thread which might be relevant to your discussions (how and why elites use liberal ideology). I would only add that the same kind of elite attitude could be seen in former communist countries, e.g. in ex-Yugoslavia. There one minister made a vivid ideological mistake in his speech. A comrade later asked why did he do it, minister knows well what the politically correct view is. Minister replied that yes, he made the mistake on purpose, and does similar mistakes regularly. It reflects his ideological flexibility, and reveals those persons who are ideologically strict. Elites want to eliminate from power those people who are ideologically strict, because they are always one step away from becoming dissidents. Elites want to use ideology flexibly to suit their purposes, according to the needs of changing situations and requirements, using the ideology as a all purpose tool. Ideologically strict people easily drift into conflict with this flexibility, and thus cause various problems to the elites. Thus we can see here that ideology itself is relatively less important, a surface structure, a membrane between the elite or system and the people; what is important is the underlying elite’s power and the system they govern, and their requirements.

    http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6832901&postID=1785554993868188279

  10. Inherently, liberalism is about ideas and beliefs but it moves in different ways in different people. In the dystopian novel 1984 by George Orwell, it was shown that the inner party does truly believe what it believes and that the outer party is under their reign of terror.

    Yes, liberals are about ideas. That’s why they think that the American nation is an idea, an idea of freedom, consumerist capitalism and so on, that it’s a proposition nation.

    Consider specifically positive theories of US elite behavior. Why does our evil elite behave as it does?

    The American USA elite are doing and executing a top-low alliance against middle players (e.g. non-elite whites, certain Catholics). The highs are white liberals (ranging from UMC to upper class), Jews (e.g. George Soros) and a couple of Asians. The lows are the mestizos (illegal immigrants) and the blacks (most blacks).

    There is an unmentioned alliance between them against the “bad white people”, the eternal sacrifice for the “sin of racism” and American slavery.

    It’s hideous and I think the best resort is not to find “American black conservatives” or “conservative Mexicans”, because what animates the impulse in America is grievance, state welfare hand-outs and a cohesive “one drop rule” which places all minorities together against some bad white but strong ever becoming minority in their own countries.

    One moment they love those precious minorities, the other moment they practice eugenics, dysgenics and so on. It’s a weird attitude that showcases outward superficial extreme love coupled with deep inner hatred.

    In the end though, I think that their hatred of normal whites is so deep, that they will never let this top-low alliance against the middle go. In a way, the middle acts as a buffer between them and the minorities, but they also serve them and act as “welfare for the upper”.

    Without the middle, there would be little left. It would just be Brazilian style gated communities complete with heavy security and helicopters, surrounded by third world savages.

    That’s the racial story.

    The sexual story is that America is, in some respects, New England. It might have liberated itself from the British Empire, but it carried with it the legacy of Victorianism and Puritanism, and that women are better, purer and more moral than men as a whole. The Temperance movement (prohibition of alcohol) happened in the USA I think.

    Contrast this with the idea-centric rightist view that progressives are caught in a delusional thought-pattern called “liberal creationism.”

    This would be incorrect, at least in my viewpoint. They seem more British, they like Darwinian evolution and believe humans to be enlightened barbaric apes (progressive/evolving apes?). Most progressives are like two-faced creatures.

  11. I have an idea for some tired middle whites despised by their own countries:

    If the USA middle whites ever become sufficiently terrorized and anarcho-tyrannized by their elite, maybe they can all emigrate to a South American country like Brazil (weren’t there Italians, Portuguese, Germans, Poles, Ukrainians and Japanese who fled to Brazil after WWI and WWII? So this wouldn’t be new).

    Or maybe expatriation to Argentina or somewhere along those lines? How about going to various Central and South American countries instead?

    How about escaping to Eastern European countries and helping them out?

    Of course, this all sounds silly, because thanks to the twins evil of right-liberalism (e.g. big international, multinational corporations and consumerist capitalism) and left-liberalism (e.g. technocratic, bureaucratic, anarcho-tyrannical, centralized, collectivist government), there’s going to be some backlash against these themes and maybe it won’t pan out so well in real life.

    NGOs, some international organizations and non-profits are a huge pain.

    • > maybe they can all emigrate to a South American country like Brazil
      > (weren’t there Italians, Portuguese, Germans, Poles, Ukrainians and Japanese
      > who fled to Brazil after WWI and WWII? So this wouldn’t be new).

      Brazil is not a safe heaven anymore. Current rulers were communist terrorists in the 1970s and they are at full speed ahead with the complete liberal & marxist project.

      Just to start with, there are racial quotas for blacks and american indians in state owned universities in Brazil.

      > Or maybe expatriation to Argentina or somewhere along those lines?

      Argentina might be better racially but to compensate it has 20% inflation, a crazy populist left-wing government which uses voodoo 1980s economics … so summing up not a great choice.

      > How about going to various Central and South American countries instead?

      Study them in details and there are sadly no real options there. Marxism is spreading fast.

      > How about escaping to Eastern European countries and helping them out?

      Now you are closer to a solution. I live in Poland, but the best that I can say is that there is a very large stalemate here. The playing field is fairly even, although the Media is definetively pro-liberalism. At least there is a fair amount of right-wing media and christian conservative media. But liberalism is also very strong here … it is a stalemate really, and liberals just say every day how they hate us conservatives. And sadly it is probably the most conservative place in the white world… which just means that our situation is patetic.

      Going further east than that won’t help much IMHO … I was in Ucraine and it is pretty crappy. Very very poor, even more than Brazil! And there are also some africans. I was never in Russia so can’t comment there …

      Hungary is also ok … with the new christian constitution and stuff.

      The European Union is a big problem for far-right projects in EU countries, thats something to be aware of.

      Sincerely I don’t see any solution outside violence. Muslims use violence all the time and they get some victories against international liberalism. Lady Gaga wanted to go to Korea and Christians prayed that she won’t go. She just went anyway to show her arrogance, the power of satan and the powerlessness of christians. She next wanted to go to Indonesia. Islamist said they would fire bazookas directed at her show… she cancelled the show, because she is afraid of them and she knows they are serious. Where are the crusaders when we need them? =D

      • Just to start with, there are racial quotas for blacks and american indians in state owned universities in Brazil.

        How is this even possible? Aren’t Blacks are 7.5% and Native American Indians 0.5% of the population there? So, basically, over favoring 8% of the population? What about the white and mixed population?

        Or are the English speaking liberals trying to bring the “one-drop rule” and shouting about “self-hatred” to mixed people?

        And there are also some africans.

        Few of them there though. Most Africans are heading to, or are already in, Western Europe and Anglospherian countries such as the USA, the UK and Canada. I should know, because this is the typical trajectory I’ve seen of Africans.

        I don’t think East Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America (Central and South America) has much to fear. Most people aren’t emigrating to these places much because they are the 2nd world and they aren’t attractive as the 1st world to them.

      • The European Union is a big problem for far-right projects in EU countries, thats something to be aware of.

        Agreed.

        The EU is on the same level as the UN, NGOs, big MNCs, the American Empire and so forth. It’s a terrible nuisance and it utterly destroys any worthwhile attack against the current order. Or maybe it guards the current order?

        All I know, is that these large monsters need to be thrown out or made inactive. Preferably destroyed. Somehow. What’s the best option? Bankruptcy? Secret agent services?

        Sincerely I don’t see any solution outside violence. Muslims use violence all the time and they get some victories against international liberalism.

        I think Islamists are using the enemy’s tactics against them. Most leftists and liberals themselves are terrorists.

      • Aren’t Blacks are 7.5% and Native American Indians 0.5% of the population there? So, basically, over favoring 8% of the population? What about the white and mixed population?

        The mixed population counts as “black” for affirmative action purposes, so quotas may benefit up to about half the population. But since the mixed group has skin colors with varying shades of brown, this gives rise either to corruption (i.e. if the criterion is self-identification, anyone can claim to be “black” and benefit from the quotas) or racial identification panels. One famous (in Brazil) instance of the latter happened a few years ago at the University of Brasilia, which analysed a pair of identical mixed-race twins and decided one was “black” and eligible, and the other “white” and ineligible.

      • [I]How is this even possible? Aren’t Blacks are 7.5% and Native American Indians 0.5% of the population there?[/I]

        Yes, your numbers are correct. But does reality matter for leftists? They never let reality block their plans.

        [I]So, basically, over favoring 8% of the population? What about the white and mixed population?[/I]

        Yes, it is completely insane, and very unpopulair, but their enacted it anyway. It was a top-down imposition. It is also completely against Brazilian tradition. Mixed-race people are traditionally very well integrated, without grievance and they don’t consider themselves black at all, most consider themselves whites. Maybe this is related to the fact that they are overwhelmingly descendents of white males + african or indian females, as confirmed by genetic studies which show 98% european Y DNA in the Brazilian population.

        Hardcore marxist footsoldiers and some small black-power racist groups wanted the racial quotas. Marxists claim it is for “reparation for slavery” and “because they are poor”. But those groups are irrelevant. What matters is that the leftist elite wanted it. There were protests on both sides of the issue and many people upset, even among the soldiers of marxism. I remember that in 1998 Ciro Gomes from one of the many communist parties was a president candidate and said he was against racial quotas. The media immediately started to attack him as racist, so he quickly changed his mind. That’s how they keep their soldiers updated on the latest trends: Harsh punishment for heretics and lots of money rewards for loyals thorugh massive corruption. So they enacted it, as they have total power ever since this shithole of a thing called democracy came upon my once great country.

        I can’t really blame the population, there is no real opposition, people choose between ultra-hardcode marxists, middle-range-marxists and soft-marxists. Also, the topic was cleverly hidden from the political propaganda, Lula only talked about ending corruption, defending the national industry against chinese imports, creating jobs, housing for the poor. He never said he wanted to distribute gay propaganda in schools and enact racial quotas and be the most corrupt president ever.

        I would have loved to live in Brazil of the military regime before 1989, before democracy ruined my country.

        >Or are the English speaking liberals trying to bring the “one-drop rule”
        > and shouting about “self-hatred” to mixed people?

        That’s a big problem for them, but nothing which they can’t solve. They simply created racial tribunals. A tribunal of black-power activits determine if a person is black enough to have access to the quota. The quota is also claimed to be for “blacks, indians and browns”, so they can claim a large % for themselves. They never came up with a number of how black a person has to be. Maybe it will depend on the supply of candiates. From what I saw they surely want at least 50% blackness.

        I know it is completely insane, surreal, illegal (whatever happened to all citizens equal in the law??) and evil, but that’s reality. The constitution has a much value as toilet paper with marxists in command. They could demand everyone to use manchu-style hairs if they wanted it.

        > I don’t think East Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America (Central and South America)
        > has much to fear. Most people aren’t emigrating to these places much because they
        > are the 2nd world and they aren’t attractive as the 1st world to them.

        Well, for africans anything is better than the shitholes where they came from. The Brazilian government is recently allowing in many haitian illegal immigrants.

        Anyway, I guess that my points above are a short explanation of why I think that any amount of black people above 0% is a severe threat. We know that basically anywhere in the world marxism can take power, and when they take they like to enact laws which discriminate against other races in favor of blacks. So that’s why I think that the only safe state for not risking being discriminated is having zero% blacks (thought marxists can always import them if they are lacking!). My proposed solution is sending them back to africa, via ship or plane.

      • ” or racial identification panels. One famous (in Brazil) instance of the latter happened a few years ago at the University of Brasilia, which analysed a pair of identical mixed-race twins and decided one was “black” and eligible, and the other “white” and ineligible.”

        Hahaha, did they do the pencil test on one and one failed (though in this case, passed) and the other didn’t, Oakes?

  12. I see it as the revolution, the rest is details. You can pick your start date, 1789 works for me. The French Revolution and Mao’s Cultural Revolution are the same event. The ball started rolling in the U.S. in the 1960s when there was truly sexual and racial freedom. Destruction of the cities, breakdown of the family, this is all the extension of the revolution to its natural conclusion.

    The Founders tried to have a partial revolution and halt the rest of it, Bill Buckley tried to shout Stop, Adenauer tried No Experiments. The revolution rolls on. Today so many groups seem to realize the problem as they are cast aside in increasing numbers, but they’ve lost the connection to history. It’s a really huge example of “first they came for the Confederacy, and I said nothing because I believed in the revolution.Then they came for the Birchers, and I said nothing, because I believed in the revolution. Then they came for Catholics, and I said nothing, because I believed in the revolution. Then they came for the Boy Scouts, and I said nothing, because I believed in the revolution. Now they are coming for me, so I might as well become a reactionary.

  13. Apparently, I neglected to include the tagline mentioning that this was a guest post by commenter Bill. I’ve since added it. My apologies to him and anyone misled by that omission.

  14. Too much look thru to see if this experiment has already been proposed. If the Cathedral is committed to HBD-denial, it will drop it’s “born that way” apologetic for homosexuality. I predict within 20 years almost no one will “officially” remember the “born that way” apologetic.

    • That would be evidence in favor of the people-centric view. When the ideas are inconvenient to the program (like now), the ideas get tossed. As I mention above, a key problem for the idea-centric view is the remarkable instability of the left’s ideas in conjunction with the relative stability of the left’s personnel.

      • The instability to which you refer is the ever leftwards tendency, not whatever is in the interests of Jews.

        The reason that homosexuals are supposedly born that way is that that is a lefter position than that homosexuals are made, since if they are made, made by sexual molestation, a disturbed environment, pedophiles, etc. Further, if homosexuals are made, than can be unmade. We saw a lot of homosexuals unmade during the aids epidemic. Homos decided to abstain, after abstaining, started to notice that, strangely, girls looked hotter.

        Obviously, the proposition that homosexuality is frequently a choice, is right wing, for if it is a choice, it is a really bad choice.

        The theory that homosexuals are born is not in the interests of Jews. The theory that they are made is not in the interests of Jews.

        The theory that homosexuals are born is in the interests of being lefter than thou.

      • Jim I absolutely agree that the game is always lefter than thou. But “sexuality is a social construct” is actually lefter than “born that way”. We not only need to accept people just because they’re “born that way” (inevitably some are not… and that’s so heteronormativist either way)… but we must accept, nay “celebrate”, them because everyone has a right to choose their own sexual preference. I trust you’ve (all) seen Harald Eia’s made for Norwegian TV series “Brainwashed”.

        [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P0PnEEIehc?feature=player_detailpage&w=640&h=360%5D

        (link in case the embed didn’t work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P0PnEEIehc)

        It’s absolutely amazing how often the Cathedral “scientists” in Norway keep retreating into this deer-in-headlights look whilst uttering “It’s not an interesting question” (whether sex preference or gender identity or race are inborn or not). This happens every one of the seven episodes. It’s quite hilarious actually.

  15. Pingback: Most Brazilians Are Mixed/Brown or White | Alcestis Eshtemoa

  16. Pingback: Most Brazilians Are Mixed or Brown | Alcestis Eshtemoa

  17. The test is wrong. Progressives can be idea based yet distance themselves from blacks for similar reason they distanced themselves from the white factory workers they initially wooed: because they are a very masculine population, not really a good ally for feminism and gay rights.

    The same way as the white factory worker was first worshipped and now ridiculed as the woman-oppressing, fag-hating, gun-clinging, church-going Angry White Man, this could happen to blacks too.

    • You are just burying the equivocation in the phrase “idea-based.” Do the ideas rule or are they mere weapons? If the former, then how do seemingly central ideas suddenly become irrelevant? If the latter, what does rule?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s