Abraham Lincoln Invented White Privilege

The term “white privilege” is pretty recent and associated with ideologues like Tim Wise. Wikipedia gives the idea, if not the phase, as coming from W.E.B. DuBois in 1935.

White privilege is not so much about the idea that whites are privileged, though, as that they deserve to be de-privileged. Advocates quickly and impatiently pass over the proof of the concept- as being so obvious that only bad faith could cause disagreement- to the consequence, which is how whites should be punished for this.

We know from the deep thinker William Munny that deserve has nothing to do with it, but what do whites deserve and why?

The idea of whites “deserving” stuff goes back even farther. Northern reaction to the Nat Turner “rebellion” was that, well, Southern whites had it coming to them because of oppressing blacks. What about poor whites, who did not own slaves? Turner killed indiscriminately, men, women, children, slaveowner or not, anybody white he killed. This was justified by the Atlantic in that he only did this to instill terror to quickly put an end to resistance. So terrorism is OK!

John Locke formally conceived the right of revolution, in that people had the right to overthrow governments they didn’t like. Which may include killing people who get in the way. State on state warfare has moral justifications and limits going back to Thomas Aquinas, which focus on combatants. Revolution doesn’t have combatants, it only has people who may or may not have the levers of power. Turner felt anybody white had the levers of power, and in Boston that was OK. If you were poor white trash in Virginia, too bad for you.

It’s easy to not care about the lives of people who are far away and not like you. It’s a little harder to deal with a lot of death and destruction of people close to you, even if they are just workers or yeomen. That death and destruction did come, with the American Civil War. How was the Northern political class going to process that?

Usually people justify war deaths by the noble cause. Supposedly the Northern cause was just and noble, and Union soldiers died to free blacks and end slavery. The Puritans didn’t see it that way, though, and they didn’t want to give credit to humble men whom they loathed and despised. The common man of the North had waited too long to take arms against slavery, and his commitment to not just the political integrity of the USA as established by the Constitution but to the cause of racial equality was highly suspect. The common man of the North was to blame for slavery as well, not in quite the same way as a Southern plantation owner, but to blame nonetheless.

Lincoln was reelected in 1864, because Northern voters saw he was succeeding and the Civil War would be won by the North. It seems logical he would have congratulated them on their commitment to the cause and assured them their sacrifices were not in vain, the deaths of their young men, along with many more maimed for life were for a good purpose and their commitment was commendable.

Lincoln is thought of by most as a pragmatic politician who navigated the politically possible to keep the United States together; Southern partisans see him as a vengeful abolitionist. While the former is partly true, the second is certainly true also.

Lincoln in the Second Inaugural Address speaks of conciliation, but he does so by placing the blame for slavery on both North and South. Not on the abolitionists of Boston, of course; they had been fighting the good fight for decades! (After a couple of centuries of making good money directly and indirectly from slavery, of course.) No, the blame was for the common man of the North, fighting, but too late, and not for black equality but for free soil.

To a progressive, nothing you do counts. You aren’t the right kind of person, and you did it for the wrong reason. William Lloyd Garrison was a pacifist, and he and most of his family sat out the war (paying the money to avoid the draft, which the common man couldn’t afford.) But the Union soldiers dying on the field- they were guilty.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

The Red Pill Isn’t All That Red

The idea of the “red pill” seems to come first from the “Manosphere” and represents in theory a radical new way of relating to the opposite sex, without normal social rules and assumptions, cribbing the term from the sci-fi film “The Matrix”.

This view contrasts the old way of dealing with women, with courtesy and respect based on social rules and customs, with a new way, of using sociobiology to behave in a way women find instinctually attractive. The first way is said to be “beta”, and for losers, and the second way “alpha”, for real men and winners.

“Neo-reaction” (the word is sort of an accepted usage, but so lame I feel I need to start with it in quotes) uses the red pill concept as rejecting constitutional democratic politics, with the similar idea that the old system is a foolish illusion.

The trouble in both cases is the movement isn’t as far away as it seems. In the manosphere, the “alpha” man with his manly swagger and good humor is only acting the way a normal, average guy did in the 1950s, and he will still exhibit most of the behaviors defined as “beta”, that is having a good job, having good manners and not yelling at or hitting women.

Likewise with neo-reaction, the followers are using a classic modern model of political action of engaging in an intellectual debate, forming ideas and plans of action, then presenting these to the public and acquiring power and influence. People have been doing this in the West for four hundred or five hundred years.

Sex and politics are closely related; but how do these things relate to each other? In the first case, the idea is that it is stupid to follow rules other people don’t. And this is true- to an extent. In game theory this is called “defection” and is a reasonable strategy under some conditions.

Society must assume some people will not follow the rules and punish those who don’t. This will not be perfect, and some people will get away with stuff. If too many people get away with stuff, people become demoralized and more and more people defect, and the system collapses. People defecting will likely perceive that they are only following a new, superior set of rules, but justifications for violating certain rules have to be seen as mere sophistry.

In an environment with widespread defection, some order can be maintained if some people still follow the rules, even if it is not particularly advantageous or somewhat disadvantageous. Jesus referred to the “salt of the earth”. In those times salt was a critical commodity not as a table flavoring, but to preserve meat. Salted meat could be kept a long time, unsalted meat not immediately consumed quickly rotted, became putrid and covered with maggots.

The concept of “never defect, ever” however has to be regarded with suspicion also. People against Christianity, or some other social system they don’t like, say those following rules that do not appear to directly benefit them are dupes. You have to limit how much people suffer for following the rules, or you don’t have a functioning society that serves people.

The would-be rakes of the manosphere are to some extent rebelling against rules nobody told them to follow. The “rules” of dealing with women only apply if women want to deal with you in the first place, so no if a young man is too shy, not well-dressed or well-groomed, and does not have any accomplishments being polite with women will do nothing for him. And yet if he is attractive in a personal and social sense, he must display good manners and good behavior. On the other hand, the feminist ideal of male behavior the younger generation seems to be exposed to is quite ridiculous, and ignoring it only makes sense.

If there is a sad aspect to the manosphere it is the idea manly excellence can be faked. Maybe it can be, for foolish women for short periods, but a man popular with women likely has other things going for him and is successful and well thought of in other ways. To tell a young man to be the best he can be is advice that will help in every way.

As for the neo-reactors- if something has worked in the past, you might well assume it will work now, except that for some things this is not true. The modern political model allowed some people to gradually increase their power and influence roughly from the time of the invention of the printing press to the invention of the radio. These media are one-way; you can get together with a group of like-minded people and talk about stuff and then go write and publish but TV and radio don’t work like this. The neo-reactors think they are meeting in a coffee house in London in 1700. Those guys were often forgotten crackpots, but some changed the world. The neo-reactors aren’t because the system developed immunity to their pill a long time ago.

Before you take a pill, ask yourself- is it good for me? Is it bad for me? Does it do anything at all?

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Pinball Wizards of the Apocalypse

Originally posted on Aryan Skynet:

"That deaf, dumb, and blind kid sure plays a mean pinball." “That deaf, dumb, and blind kid sure plays a mean pinball.”

“Sometimes I feel a bit like a reactionary hitchhiker,” writes B.W. Rabbit at Xenophobe.net.

Basically, when one increasingly finds he has very little common ground with mainstream political movements, his nostalgic trips down memory lane may eventually lead him to embark on a journey down “reactionary road.” This highway has many possible lanes and exits. He might find himself heading in the direction of the paleoconservatives’ front porch or the neoreactionaries’ castle, perhaps the libertarians’ weed farm, or the traditionalists’ homestead, the manosphere’s “No Ma’am” meet up, the radfem free bleeders’ pool party, or even the neo-nazis’ Antarctic base. Essentially, one metaphorically “hitchhikes” from one ideological group to the next, with each of them only willing to take him part of the way where he wants to go, and he never may never quite…

View original 1,475 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

“Hipster” Is A Code Word For “Racist”

Originally posted on Aryan Skynet:

hipster-kkk

It all started so innocently. A big fan of Kievsky’s blog, Mind Weapons In Ragnarok, I had commented a few times under a few handles. After reading about “hipster racism” I logged in under the handle “Hipster Racist” to post the latest side-splittingly funny outrage by The Usual Suspects about a new phenomenon: “hipster racism.”

That’s all it was supposed to be. But it just meta-sized from there. A handful of times I wanted to retire the handle, but people said, “don’t. It’s iconic.” So I started a blog and supplemented my drinking with diatribes, trolling, conspiracy theories, and dirty stories.

Well, “Hipster Racist” stuck, so now every few days I log on and search for “hipster racism” on Google News. Every time I think I was overstating the case, that “hipster” is a code word for “white liberal who is secretly racist,” I find something like Salon attacking a…

View original 1,320 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Struggle Sessions at Starbucks HQ

thrasymachus33308:

Reblogged from Aryan Skynet.

Originally posted on Aryan Skynet:

H/t to Spandrell, Starbucks founder Howard Schultz conducted some struggle sessions for his HQ employees.

It’s the usual suspects, saying the usual things. The one speaker who is not black, fat, or gay, a normal looking white woman, timidly suggests we should try to understand police officers too, with many qualifications of course. I wonder how much longer she has a job for.

View original

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

In Defense of Ethno-nationalism

The world of “neo-reaction”, which roughly consists of some blogs and writers who are against the current political system, and want some kind of non-democratic replacement, has come out against ethno-nationalism, or white nationalism, recently.

Neo-reactionaries tend to be inspired by Moldbug, or at least encouraged by him. Neo-reactionaries are anti-democratic, but if you examine closely not deeply in conflict with the system. They are race realists, but are not driven by any sense of racial pride or unity. They are mostly pro-business, pro-capitalism, and pro-technology. They are mostly against the destructive effects of political correctness, and the ridiculousness of multiculturalism and feminism.

Moldbug wanted- I speak of him in the past tense, since while the man behind him is still around, he seems to have wrapped up his blogging- only to replace the system with control based on the capitalist principle of ownership. This would seem to describe “techno-capitalism”, and “anarcho-capitalism” would seem only to spread the control around, but not so much as to result in actual chaos, or pardon me, anarchy.

Progressive capitalists don’t really have a problem with this. They control a great deal through what they own, and they would be happy to control everything by owning everything. Capitalism is inherently progressive, which is the defect of all capitalist or business-based conservatism.

This is why the man behind Moldbug has not been defenestrated, or why Justine Tunney promotes this sort of thing openly, without a pseudonym and while remaining a Google employee. Fundamentally, these people are as opposed to non-elite ethnic loyalty as the current rulers are, although they don’t have the visceral hatred they do for it.

Neo-reaction has been described as having the three branches of ethno-nationalism, traditionalism, and techno-capitalism. With this break, I think that can’t be said to be true any more. I was never a neo-reactionary, and traditionalism can’t tolerate techno-capitalism. So what the ne0-reactionaries call neo-reaction is just techno-capitalism, and they are just techno-capitalists.

So, this is the divide. What problems do techno-capitalists have with ethno-nationalism? One that it is anti-capitalist, two that it is democratic, three that it is socialist, and four that it is traditionalist in a way that suits the needs of non-elite whites.

Techno-capitalism claims to be capitalistic, but it isn’t really this either. Techno-capitalists come from tech businesses, which did not spring fully formed like Venus from the seashell, but were the product of heavy subsidy and investment from the US government. The Internet, microprocessors, GPS, cellular telephony- all dependent on government research, investment, and franchises. This was true of the original Industrial Revolution as well, and anywhere you find large sums of business or capitalist cash, you find the state right behind it. The state behind modern technology is mostly the US Department of Defense, a product of the pseudo-nationalist New Deal state, formed to control the excesses of communism- itself a product of progressive capitalism- like a wildland firefighter watching a back burn, and to control non-elite whites and keep them from turning to fascism.

Ethno-nationalism is against capitalism, when capitalism is defined as letting businessmen do whatever they want because they are Promethean heroes, which they are not.

The criticism that ethno-nationalists are democratic and socialist can be addressed together. Techno-capitalists dislike both democracy and socialism, neglecting to realize that democracy and socialism actually work pretty well, when they are confined to white people. Seriously, Norway is going to be Norway, and Nigeria will be Nigeria, capitalist, communist, democratic or authoritarian, or any combination. Ethno-nationalism is for democracy and socialism, when they are defined as white people participating in their government and having some insurance against illness and hardship.

Theoretically techno-capitalism can be allied with traditionalism. Techno-capitalists are pretty traditional people socially and sexually. Mark Zuckerberg’s marriage to his pre-Facebook college girlfriend is only the reflection of how people have mated from the beginning of time. An early match with another young person of your social class takes care of all legitimate human needs and these people are too busy doing business to be having lots of sex and romance. Traditionalists are fine with a monarchical state- monarchical in its literal sense as a non-democratic concentration of power in one entity- so there is no obvious conflict with techno-capitalists.

The trouble is in traditional traditional societies, businessmen and capitalists have never had anything like the power they do now, and in a re-established traditional society they could not, since their interests are in too great a variance with society at large.

Actual traditionalism- the kind that sustains people, and thus is of interest to non-elite whites- depends on traditional sex roles, traditional relationships between employers, traditional family relationships, and traditional patterns of consumption. When techno-capitalists say they like “tradition”, I think they mean the religious tradition of England and Italy, where religion is pretty but doesn’t cramp anybody’s style too much.

Techno-capitalism is both a system already in power, and one impractical to establish. Ethno-nationalism is both a system impractical to implement, and yet at the same time already in power. Everything that moves and sustains life is ethno-nationalism. Reality is ethno-nationalism, and you can’t get any more powerful than that.

Posted in Uncategorized | 15 Comments

Sivilizin’ the Folks……..

I was in coal country just now, and my employer, apparently put off by the outrageous cost of a Holiday Inn Express (best free breakfast of any national chain) put me up at a dingy “resort” or conference center.

Some kind of meeting of social workers and similar professions was being held. The people in the restaurant had that vibe about them……. A little above average intelligence, well-fed and satisfied with themselves. I picked up some local business magazine and it’s all about “developing” the area. Lots of stuff about law firms, agencies, NGOs, quangos.

I don’t know what’s to be done for the hill people. But I can see it’s a big business pretending to do something for them, while doing nothing for them. I think Wheeler deals with these people all the time, not just the church folks, and I can sense the reason for his overwhelming disgust.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments