Nazism, because nonwhites are screwing up liberal tolerance

Given that white supremacy is already our actual situation, and that the political philosophy of the white race is liberalism, it becomes easier to see where things like Nazism and Stalinism come from.

What nonwhites, tribal Jews, aristocrats, unwanted pregnancies, and Christians who take their faith seriously tend to do – when they are not being used as cultural, economic, or literal cannon fodder by white liberals – is screw up liberalism.

This 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 must be Final.

White supremacy as suicidal liberalism

The liberal narrative is that the white race is the traditional reactionary authoritarian anti-liberal oppressor-untermensch, standing in the way of the emergence of the free and equal new man, a new man emancipated from the tyrannical political chains of unfair history and arbitrary nature.

This is almost exactly the opposite of the truth.  The actual reality is that white flesh encloses vastly more militantly tolerant political liberalism than all other races of flesh combined.  Other races make great cultural, economic, and actual cannon fodder for white liberals.  But the white race just is, congenitally as a matter of physical descent as well as cultural allegiance, the homogenized European melting pot descendants of liberals from disparate European ethnicities.

As the saying goes, guns don’t kill people: people kill people. Immigration (or pick your own favorite area of suicidal liberal policy insanity) doesn’t kill white liberal societies of generically European descent.  White liberal societies of generically European descent kill white liberal societies of generically European descent.

That is part of what makes “white supremacy” so ironic: the white race already rules supreme; and its ruling philosophy is liberalism.

We are Cthulu

The current incarnation of right liberalism always has a different policy agenda, in the sense of favoring different tactics and metrics, than the current incarnation of left liberalism. But they have always and still do agree when it comes to their basic view of what politics is about and what justifies the exercise of political authority. Indeed that is precisely why the left (new) generation of liberalism always turns on the right (older) generation of liberalism.

(What takes the whole thing through the looking glass is that the principles upon which all liberals agree – that the primary purpose and justification of politics is to secure freedom and equal rights – are incoherent; so, by the principle of explosion, they logically imply everything and its opposite all at once, although in practice this is constrained by the reality in which we are situated).

The nature of the liberal insect hivemind is such that the offspring always devour the parents.  Then the offspring become surprised after time passes, when they find themselves old and surrounded by larvae with knives.

So there really isn’t a stable ‘right liberalism’ and a stable ‘left liberalism’, let alone a categorically different ‘liberalism’ and ‘leftism’. There is a current ascendant liberalism, its immediate predecessor, and then prior generations before that. It is a mistake to view the little wasp nest we saw in 1776 or 1789 as something different from the monstrous hive we see today.

And even this generational model projects a discreteness onto what is really a continuous process. The march leftward takes place inside individual persons as time goes on, 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 spot!

The exceptions are sociopaths.

Why do white people see themselves as ethnically illegitimate?

In a thread at Bonald’s, Josh writes:

The Polish never lacked in morale to the extent that they were/are Polish and not white. Nobody is going to fight and die in order to be a white guy, but the ethnics held out against the worlds largest social engineering project long enough that people in the 70s were reading about the “Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics”.

As I mention in the comment thread, I am beginning to suspect that white is to ethnicity/tribe as right-liberal conservatism is to metaphysically realist traditionalism.  That is to say, in the domain of race and ethnicity ‘whiteness’ is very much like ‘conservative’ in the domain of politics.  The function of political conservatism is to preserve enough unprincipled exceptions to keep everything from going off the rails, without actually challenging liberalism itself.  And the point of whiteness is to preserve enough racial and ethnic identity to keep mother nature at bay, and give conservatives something to complain about, without actually challenging liberalism.

The white race, then, just is the racial embodiment of liberalism.  It is the embodied melting pot of interbred liberals. Like liberalism itself it is ultimately self-hating and suicidal.  Like liberalism it has to authoritatively discriminate while incoherently denying that it is doing so. Like liberalism it has to hold supreme authority while pretending that authority is illegitimate.  Like liberalism it fails to recognize that today’s liberal is tomorrow’s oppressor, fails to see that the gun it is holding is pointed at its own feet.

Whiteness is right-liberalism incarnate, the matter into which the soul of liberalism is infused.

Thoughts?

Ode to imaginary wealth

Roses are red

Violets are blue

I’m no poet

But I’ll inflict this on you.

 

They confuse us about usury

by treating a personal guarantee

as if it were their property

and charging us a rental fee

now this is modern slavery

which rests on unreality

that banks turn into currency

for paying your transaction fee

or taxes on your property

 

Those Vogons have got nothing on me.  I blame this on Bonald.

 

 

Optimization is irrational sentimentalism

[36] For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul? [37] Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?  — Mark 8:36-37

I’ve written before that optimization of our actions in pursuit of some proximate material goal is inherently evil, because the set of all good and evil options includes all of the good options, plus the evil ones to boot. Morality constrains action: the man willing to do both good and evil has more options than the man only willing to do good.

In the comments below Mike T observes:

I can imagine most of our domestic torture apologists condemning the Russians stridently, which would be ironic since by our own apologists’ logic what the Russians did was sound. In fact, by their logic the Russians actually have the moral high ground because in one act of torture they permanently convinced Hezbollah to check passports for Russian nationality before kidnapping.

…

… but what I find interesting about the Russians versus our own apologists is the fact that the Russians, in their total lack of sentimentality about what they are doing, actually ended up using far less evil to accomplish their goals. Still gravely evil, but by going forth and sinning boldly they finished in one act what takes us possibly hundreds of acts of brutality.

Hrodgar replies with one of those comments I find that I wish I had written myself:

If they actually had a total lack of sentimentality, then reason would teach them that no temporal benefit, however great, is worth any eternal loss, however small. Immorality is not an indicator of a LACK of sentimentality. Rather the reverse if anything.

Holiness, as it turns out, is the only thing objectively worth optimizing.  Evil is always insane. Longer time preferences and greater objectivity seem less sentimental than shorter time preferences and lesser objectivity.  They still terminate in Hell though.  The most rational time preference is eternal, and the most objective frame of reference is the Good, the True, and the Beautiful.

Communion and the dishonor system

[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] — 1 Corinthians 11:26-30

Right now, receiving Communion at Mass is de facto on what is colloquially referred to as the honor system.  There are no bouncers or turnstiles, but you are only supposed to receive the Eucharist if you are a Catholic in good standing who has not committed any mortal sin since your last Confession. Whether you do or do not actually follow this is, with extremely rare and universally unenforced exceptions, between you and God. Failing to do so can incur the consequence of eternal hellfire, but it won’t get you tossed out into the alley by Bruno and Charlie.

So I suppose we can think of proposals to change this as the dishonor system.

The year of mercy for torture, usury, and unjust war apologists

Pope Francis says:

“Before the problems of the church it is not useful to search for solutions in conservatism or fundamentalism, in the restoration of obsolete conduct and forms that no longer have the capacity of being significant culturally,” the pontiff said at one point during his remarks.

“Christian doctrine is not a closed system incapable of generating questions, doubts, interrogatives — but is alive, knows being unsettled, enlivened,” said the pope. “It has a face that is not rigid, it has a body that moves and grows, it has a soft flesh: it is called Jesus Christ.”

“The reform of the church then, and the church is semper reformanda  … does not end in the umpteenth plan to change structures,” he continued. “It means instead grafting yourself to and rooting yourself in Christ, leaving yourself to be guided by the Spirit — so that all will be possible with genius and creativity.”

This of course can be interpreted in a way which is perfectly orthodox, depending upon the listener; but the overall thrust of Francis’ preaching is unmistakable.  If I am interpreting him correctly, and I am pretty sure that I am, Pope Francis is telling us that intellectualism and hidebound rule-following is disconnected from real life and unmerciful; and that being a stickler for doctrine in the face of real pastoral situations in the peripheries is not walking with Jesus Christ.

Well, I have to say, he’s got my number. This blog is basically all about hidebound doctrinal rule-following, and justifying it intellectually. Probably the most prominent intellectualist doctrinal rule-following I am guilty of on this blog involves my condemnations of usury and torture.  Close behind that is the way I am such a stickler for the just war doctrine, and how I don’t give people a break for voting for Republican candidates who stump for torture and unjust wars. I’ve been mean and judgmental toward poor beta men on the peripheries of culturally significant sexual life, by calling into question the practice of lying to get women to have sex with them.  And I’ve even been known to criticize priests, on an intellectual technicality, for failing to follow the rules.

So maybe we should give unrepentant torture apologists, usury apologists, and unjust warmongerers tickets for Holy Communion, so they can get past the turnstiles and bouncers.  If the Pope says that doctrine has to take a back seat to pastoral mercy, well, who am I to judge?

How ‘live and let live’ becomes ‘die, foul oppressor!’

If you don’t like usurious loans, don’t make one.

If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.

If you don’t like gay marriage, marry someone of the opposite sex.

If you don’t like divorce, stay married.

If you don’t like contraception, don’t use it.

If you don’t like the comprehensively liberal choices on the ballot, you are equally free to support your own candidate.

If you don’t like liberal democracy, move to a monarchy.

If you don’t like slutty women, find a nice chaste girl.

If you don’t like peter pan manboys, Eat Pray Love and “marry” a hunky millionaire handyman. Or get cats.

If you don’t like poverty, give to the poor yourself but keep your hands out of my pockets.

If you don’t like exploiting labor, pay your employees a good wage.

If you don’t like genocide by immigration, live in a better neighborhood with the other racists.

If you don’t like public school indoctrination, homeschool.

If you don’t like comprehensive moral permissiveness all the way from the center to the peripheries, well, you are destined for Hell you self-absorbed rule-obsessed promethean neopelagian.

Paper wealth, or, we’re going to Disneyland

People find paper or electronically recorded securities counterintuitive.  Why the heck does anyone value pieces of paper with ink on them, or numbers in computer memory?  Why the heck is anyone willing to trade a real working car in exchange for numeric balances stored by software in a data center somewhere?

In the Zombie Apocalypse legal title isn’t worth the paper upon which it is written, or the bits in which it is recorded. But short of the Zombie Apocalypse, securities have value because under the laws of the sovereign they entitle you – the owner or bearer of the security – to something other than the security itself.

The title to your car entitles you to your car.

The title to your house entitles you to your house.

Bank deposits entitle you to cash on demand up to the deposit amount through liquidation of some of the property on the bank’s balance sheet.

Exxon stock entitles you to proportional profits and residual liquidation value in Exxon.

A non-usurious note or interest-bearing bond entitles you to census payments against property and liquidation value of that property up to the principal amount of the note.

A usurious note entitles[1] you to the enslavement of the person making the personal guarantee until the principal and interest demands of the note are satisfied.

Self-referential securities entitle you to run around in circles looking for the thing of value to which you think you are entitled.  It must be somewhere!

And a sovereign dollar entitles you to make a transaction, in the sovereign’s marketplaces, for which the tax is one sovereign dollar.

It is manifest (whether folks like it or not, because nature doesn’t reconfigure itself based on what people don’t like) that the sovereign ‘owns’ various marketplaces, because he makes and enforces the rules for transacting – for bartering property and labor – in those marketplaces which fall under his sovereignty. Just as Exxon owns its capital infrastructure, the sovereign owns the outer capital infrastructure in which Exxon operates and transacts.  Economic reality is not reducible to nothing but private property.

If you go to Disneyland, you have to follow the rules of Disneyland.  If the rules say you have to pay ten Mouse Groats for every transaction in Disneyland, you’ll need Mouse Groats if you want to transact in Disneyland.  If the tax rules are more complicated than that you’ll still need Mouse Groats based on the transacting you want to do, the tax rules, and the supply of Mouse Groats. Mouse Groats are a securitization of Disney’s ownership of the marketplace in which you are transacting.

And it is all fun and games until the zombies come.

---

[1] Of course, as an intrinsically immoral case of usury this entitlement may be enforced by the positive law, but it is not a genuine moral entitlement.