It is written all over your face

September 25, 2015 § 36 Comments

Liberalism’s attempt to reduce ethnicity to a meaningless decorative accessory tends to drive reactionaries into an obsessive overemphasis of race and ethnicity. An obsessive overemphasis of race and ethnicity, often including magical beliefs about how huge an improvement it would be if (e.g.) the Jews would just disappear, are signs of being “stuck” in the outer crust of modernity.  Reactionary views are frequently bolstered with sciency-sounding terminology like “human biodiversity” instead of backward terms like “racial differences”, to make it clear that, even though they reject equality (kind of), they still have the credibility and authority of the materialist gods behind them.

The attempt by late stage liberalism to reduce ethnicity, sex , and other important human goods to nothing but a decorative accessory has ironic consequences.  Even ‘decorative’ symbols cannot be emptied of all meaning. Being born a white man is, to the modern Social Justice Warrior, like being born with a tattoo of the Confederate flag on your face.  It takes constant obsequious pieties recited aloud to the equality god to make up for the offensiveness of being a white man — to reassure yourself and everyone around you that your whiteness and maleness are merely decorations about which you had no choice, shameful signs of the oppressive backwardness of your racist sexist homophobic untermensch ancestors. You were so congenitally lucky, and that makes you evil. As a descendent of Low Men, who has unfairly benefited from their long history of robbery and oppression, you must engage in a life of constant penance: you must remain forever prostrate before the altar, lighting pinches of incense to the gods.

At least a white woman has high status qua woman, and can make up for her whiteness by sleeping with a black man, who has high status because of his blackness. (You know who is high status based upon who you are not permitted to criticize without bringing down thunderous condemnation and ruin upon yourself). Women have a bit more racial fungibility than men, because they can use their bodies to join themselves to an approved race. Plus they can sacrifice their babies on the altar of emancipation.

But perhaps that provides a way forward.  If you are a white man and you get tired of being on your knees all the time, you could try mutilating your body and changing your name to Caitlyn.  Maybe that will satisfy the gods.

Another view though is that attempts to destroy important human realities and reduce them to fashion accessories don’t work. Perhaps making war on nature and nature’s God in the name of emancipation simply leads to self destruction. Perhaps attempts to destroy natural hierarchies of human goods has the effect of driving them underground and expressing themselves sociopathically.

§ 36 Responses to It is written all over your face

  • Svar says:

    “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” – Voltaire.

    I too thought Jews were like blacks, a small group without power, until I heard of the Rick Sanchez ideal where a small mild criticism of Jon Stewart led to Sanchez’s immediate firing. Then I did some research and saw that yes, Jews control the media, Hollywood, and finance.

    Do you honestly think that if we (not as in the American masses but the minority of the population that leans this far to the right) were to control those things, the country wouldn’t improve?

    Reactionaries in general are not too focused on race, but they, like most groups throughout history have loathed the Jews. You see this in traditionalists, reactionaries, revolutionary nationalists, and even traditional leftists like George Bernard Shaw and Classical Liberals like Voltaire.

    As for race in general, I would take the Chronicles line: no more mass immigration, no more “diversity” or multiculti, and no more denigration of the WASP founding stock that built this country.

    As for you Zippy, you seem too reactionary, almost like an extreme Spenglerite (Spengler was very reactionary but not too focused on race)

  • Zippy says:

    Svar:

    Do you honestly think that if we (not as in the American masses but the minority of the population that leans this far to the right) were to control those things, the country wouldn’t improve?

    You are begging the question. “If the right people were in charge things would be better” is a tautology.

    If all of the Jews in media and finance were kidnapped and taken away by space aliens tomorrow, that would change not a single tiny thing. The gentiles in finance and media who would move into the relatively small number of vacated positions think pretty much exactly the same way.

  • Svar says:

    “The gentiles in finance and media who would move into the relatively small number of vacated positions think pretty much exactly the same way.”

    This ignores the stark difference in gentile and Jewish ways of thinking. There is a deep gulf psychologically between the two which imo is due to a different brain structure.

    Even amongst liberals, Jewish liberals and gentile liberals are extremely different. Jews are not “Just Another Type of Liberal”

  • Zippy says:

    Svar:

    This ignores the stark difference in gentile and Jewish ways of thinking. There is a deep gulf psychologically between the two which imo is due to a different brain structure.

    That sounds very sciency.

  • Svar says:

    Nothing wrong with science. Gregory Mendel was a Catholic priest.

    But you don’t need science to know that things would be much better if Nazi UFOs took away the Jews.

    Just ask Fr. Torquemada. Was Spain better off before the expulsion of the Jews or after?

  • Zippy says:

    Svar:

    Nothing wrong with science.

    That’s true, but pieties wrapped up in sciency-sounding language aren’t science.

    But you don’t need science to know that things would be much better if Nazi UFOs took away the Jews.

    That’s pretty much enough of that. I think I’ve permitted enough of it to go on to demonstrate my point.

  • Mike T says:

    that would change not a single tiny thing

    I think you would be surprised. The clannishness of most Jews is a powerful thing that helps reinforce the existing power structure there. Without them, I don’t think their gentile counterparts would be as cohesive.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:

    The clannishness of most Jews is a powerful thing …

    The clannishness of human beings is a powerful thing.

    I think folks who believe that the small population of Jews qua Jews are superspecialpowerful in this way would be surprised at how cohesive and tribal big business, finance, the tech industry, etc are in general. There is a reason why conservakin are always shocked that big business is not really their friend, doesn’t think like them, and despises them. The cartoon picture of the upper echelons of business in the conservakin’s mind bears no greater resemblance to the reality than the liberalkin’s cartoon picture of the evil capitalist feudal overlord.

  • Scott W. says:

    But perhaps that provides a way forward. If you are a white man and you get tired of being on your knees all the time, you could try mutilating your body and changing your name to Caitlyn. Maybe that will satisfy the gods.

    I’ve thought on this that LGBT universalizes self-loathing so that even white males can participate. A white male declaring solidarity with blacks is not taken seriously, but declaring as a gay ally is. The call went out when that guy berating the cashier at Chik-fila cried out as he drove away: “I’m totally heterosexual.. not a gay [unintelligible] in me!”

    There was a great parody of this in the blog, Stuff White People Like, but that has gone defunct ever since they published a book. There is a replacement more up-to-date however: Everything’s A Problem.

  • Zippy says:

    Scott W:

    A white male declaring solidarity with blacks is not taken seriously …

    What do you mean, yo?

  • Svar says:

    “The clannishness of human beings is a powerful thing.”

    But are all groups of people equally clannish?

  • Zippy says:

    I wrote:

    The cartoon picture of the upper echelons of business in the conservakin’s mind bears no greater resemblance to the reality than the liberalkin’s cartoon picture of the evil capitalist feudal overlord.

    Or, I would add, the modernist-reactionary’s cartoon picture of the tribal Jewish cabal that runs everything and ruins everything for the poor oppressed white victim class.

  • Svar says:

    “Or, I would add, the modernist-reactionary’s cartoon picture of the tribal Jewish cabal that runs everything and ruins everything for the poor oppressed white victim class.”

    This description is a cartoon in it of itself. Complete strawman.

    Just tell me this, what did Christ and the Church Father’s say about the Jews? What did famous conservatives and reactionaries (like G.K. Chesterton, Belloc, Henry Ford, Fr. Coughlin, or Joseph de Maistre) have to say about the Jews?

    Are you more right than those men?

    As for my view of Jews, it’s much more Culture of Critique than Protocols of Learned Elders of Zion.

  • Zippy says:

    Svar:

    You still don’t get it, which is at least mildly surprising, because you usually aren’t this dense. Or it would be surprising if it weren’t simply an example of precisely the phenomena I talk about in the last couple of posts.

    The following are two entirely distinct questions:

    1) What influences has [insert some tribe] had historically?

    2) What difference would it make if all of the members of [that same tribe] disappeared right now [under various possible circumstances]?

    Invoking Church Fathers, Chesterton, etc doesn’t help you in the slightest. You only think that invoking them helps, because you keep trying to pretend that what is in dispute is the first question not the second.

  • Zippy says:

    Example:

    1) What influence has [Anglicanism] had historically?

    2) What would happen if all [present-day Anglicans] simply disappeared today?

    Two different questions. Two entirely different answers.

    Because we are all Anglicans, in the pertinent sense, now.

  • Svar says:

    “Example:

    1) What influence has [Anglicanism] had historically?

    2) What would happen if all [present-day Anglicans] simply disappeared today?

    Two different questions. Two entirely different answers.

    Because we are all Anglicans, in the pertinent sense, now.”

    I see. The question is different because Anglicans are a religious group and just like Catholics, their nature has changed significantly in a short period of time. With Jews, an ethnic group, not so much.

    The main issue is that Jews have is the “Holocaust Shield” that prevents people from being able to criticize their bad behavior. Would gentile liberals have such an ability? What would shield them from the consequences of their actions?

    Things would change significantly. Number one, we won’t have to have these expensive adventures in the Middle East that do nothing but harm America, we would no longer have to put up with Cultural Marxist Leftist causes (because Gentile Cultural Marxists will not be as tolerated as the Jews are), no more mass immigration, and no more financial treachery like the 2008 ordeal.

  • Zippy says:

    Svar:

    Things would change significantly. Number one, we won’t have to have these expensive adventures in the Middle East that do nothing but harm America, we would no longer have to put up with Cultural Marxist Leftist causes (because Gentile Cultural Marxists will not be as tolerated as the Jews are), no more mass immigration, and no more financial treachery like the 2008 ordeal.

    If nothing else the reactakin utopian delusion has been expressed clearly: if only we could get rid of the untermensch, most of what is wrong with the world politically would correct itself.

  • Svar says:

    “if only we could get rid of the untermensch, most of what is wrong with the world politically would correct itself.”

    Do you have an argument that can prove otherwise?

    I don’t think that getting the Jews out of our hair would take us back to the Garden of Eden (which is what you seem to think I think), but we will have a cohesive nation which is the first step to building a moral consensus (i.e. repentance).

  • Zippy says:

    Svar,

    It isn’t as much that you are deluded about the Jews (though there is that) as that you are deluded about everyone else, if you think that mass immigration would end, radical leftist causes would be severely curtailed, and financial crises like 2008 would disappear with the disappearance of the Jews.

    The thing you are even more seriously deceiving yourself about — the thing people with a naturally conservative disposition always deceive themselves about — is your picture of everyone else, who you seem to think are on your side or are persuadable to your side. That is just wishful thinking crazy-thought.

    Your ‘best’ angle is when you invoke the Middle East, since the disappearance of the Jews and thus the state of Israel would actually have some kind of (unknowable) geopolitical effect there. But even if it did result in less American involvement there, it isn’t clear to me that an advanced liberalism undistracted by foreign policy adventures and able to focus its efforts relentlessly at home would have the purely salutary effects you seem to assume.

  • Aethelfrith says:

    I’m finding talking with NRx’s as tiresome and futile as talking with Gamers. They both made their minds up long ago and are grasping at any straws that agree with their prejudices.

  • Svar says:

    Hey, Aethelfrith, I resent that. I am not an NRxer because I do not consider myself a reactionary.

  • Svar says:

    Especially not a “neo-reactionary” which is a movement full of Jews who like to blame Protestants (especially Calvinists) for liberalism (which is ridiculous).

    Reactionaries are far better than NRxer types but ultimately Reaction failed.

  • Svar says:

    “The thing you are even more seriously deceiving yourself about — the thing people with a naturally conservative disposition always deceive themselves about — is your picture of everyone else, who you seem to think are on your side or are persuadable to your side. That is just wishful thinking crazy-thought.”

    I suppose I would be right if this was an earlier time, I concede your point there.

    At the same time, you don’t need the vast majority, it is the will of a few that determines the fate of the majority. Just like with how gay rights became so popular in such a short time, nationalism and populism could easily resurge and unlike the former, the latter two are based in natural impulses.

    The question of the Jews is irrelevant at this point. Can you not see that the winds are changing?

  • Zippy says:

    Svar:

    Just like with how gay rights became so popular in such a short time …

    Is that your impression? I remember when being gay was considered “cool” and the Village People were popular in the late 1970’s, before the big AIDS scare.

    My impression is that a ‘right to sodomy’ has been inevitable since at least the 1920’s. Acceptance of contraception made it inevitable, and the adoption of no-fault divorce made it inevitable that some sodomite parings would eventually be labeled ‘marriage’ officially.

    Can you not see that the winds are changing?

    I’ve been alive half a century, people have often said that for as long as I have been breathing and longer; and it has never meant anything good. I rather doubt that a populist nationalism of any note is around the corner. We are far, far too comfortable for that to be very likely.

    But even if it is, it is virtually certain to manifest itself as some new twist on the tendency for liberalism to spin off things like Naziism and Stalinism. And who in their right mind would find that hopeful?

  • Senghendrake says:

    Blaming modern post-scholastic philosophy and the related Protestantism is not even close to being ridiculous, nor is it specifically an NRx thing.

    Its good that we can put aside the idea that you are in any way reactionary, and drop the “no enemies to the right” nonsense.

  • Svar says:

    “Blaming modern post-scholastic philosophy and the related Protestantism is not even close to being ridiculous, nor is it specifically an NRx thing.”

    Protestantism was started by Luther in response to the excesses of the RCC, it started as a Reformist movement not a separatist one. Notice how the EO or the other Catholic churches in the East haven’t had a successful separatist movement.

    “Its good that we can put aside the idea that you are in any way reactionary, and drop the “no enemies to the right” nonsense.”

    You sound like you should write for NRO, you’re no reactionary. What, do you think you’re some sort of Joseph de Maistre or Charles Maurras?

    They wouldn’t bat an eye at criticizing the Jews, what makes you think that you follow their footsteps?

    But keep focusing on those on the RIght instead of the Left, you’ll be just as successful at stopping and reversing the Left as the Republicans have for the last 50 years.

    I respect reactionaries. Neoreactionaries on the other hand are a bunch of LARPers. They see this as more of a game instead of a serious battle for the heart and soul of the nation.

  • Zippy says:

    Svar:

    Protestantism was started by Luther in response to the excesses of the RCC, it started as a Reformist movement not a separatist one.

    An alternate view is that protestantism started a couple of centuries before Luther, and it was a political movement to take influence and property away from the Church by attempting to disconnect sacramental theology from Apostolic succession and the Pope of Rome; and that it was significantly influenced by Mohammedan culture and theology.

  • Svar says:

    Which view do you subscribe to? My view that it was taken advantage of by many of the kings of Europe as a way to break away from the Church meddling in their national affairs.

    It reminds me of Pope Francis and the way he brow-beats independent formerly Christian nations to take in Islamic immigrants. I wonder how he thinks that would serve Christ.

  • William Luse says:

    I’ve been alive half a century

    You seemed younger than that when we met.

  • Zippy says:

    I am sometimes accused of looking (and acting, for that matter) younger than my actual age.

  • […] that white people are no longer high status, but have become the new Low Man, some modern Jews are starting to realize that they don’t […]

  • […] as they find themselves disgusted with the intolerant earlier versions of themselves and try to scrub away the despicable remnants of their own origins.  Out, vile […]

  • […] calls for a Solution.  And if these troublemakers cannot become surgically transubstantiated into free and equal supermen along with all of the other unique and special liberals, that Solution […]

  • […] and emancipated man, politically released from the chains of history, tradition, religion, and even biology. The other side of the coin though is that to liberalism, anyone who is intransigently in the way […]

  • […] only as long as that race is the bad race, that is, white people, or white hispanics, and anyway I AM NOT WHITE!!!  Whites are the Low Man! Anti-racism means importing large numbers of pliable brown skinned […]

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

What’s this?

You are currently reading It is written all over your face at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: