Trying to cure stupid

Of the great twentieth-century dystopian novels, Michael Young’s The Rise of the Meritocracy: 1870-2023 has certainly proved the most prescient.  Probably the best measure that a dystopia has come to pass is that readers start having trouble understanding why the author disapproved of his imagined society; we’re not far enough gone for readers to stop finding the future in Brave New World unattractive, but “meritocracy” has come to be regarded by most as something to which we should aspire.  After all, isn’t having the most able people in the top positions a good thing?  Michael Young was a socialist who, like Hillaire Belloc, had the insight that egalitarian programs might have extremely inegalitarian results.  Before uniform mass education, end of hereditary privilege, equality of opportunity, and the like, smart and enterprising people could be found in all social classes.  In the “fair” meritocratic system, high IQ people will all migrate to the upper classes and intermarry.  Since intelligence is largely heritable, this new merit-based upper class will soon form a closed caste in a society more stratified than the old feudal one.  The new aristocracy will feel confident that they have “merited” their privileged place.  The more objective the exams, the more inequality will be legitimized.  Nor could one hope that the lower orders might effectively organize in their own collective interests like the labour movement of old; anyone with the cleverness and organizational skill to lead such a movement will have been whisked into the upper class while still a child.

Recently, Michael Young’s son, Toby Young, has produced a remarkable essay on the meritocratic ideal.  (My thanks to Isegoria for linking it.)  The son openly rejects his father’s socialism and therefore embraces the meritocratic ideal for the same reasons that his father rejected it.  Because inequality is inevitable, it should be both legitimated and made as effective as possible.  Having accepted meritocracy in such an admirably clear-headed way, Toby Young goes on to make a few interesting points.  First, low social mobility is not a sign that we’re still far from the meritocratic ideal–little mobility is expected in an established meritocratic state, because IQ is somewhat heritable.  We may actually be somewhat close already.  Second, feminism has worked against egalitarianism (something his father failed to grasp) by pairing high IQ men and women, which promotes cognitive stratification.  Third, one can accept meritocracy and the genetic basis of IQ while remaining committed to redistribution of resources to the lower classes.  One may easily agree with John Rawls that one’s mental qualities like intelligence and conscientiousness are gifts, not things one has done anything to deserve, and that their fruits rightly belong in part to the community.

Then the essay takes a dark turn.  Young considers the possibility of eugenically raising the IQ of one’s offspring through in vitro fertilization.  The idea is to fertilize a hundred of the mother’s eggs with the father’s sperm, ascertain which has the highest genotype IQ (something Young thinks will soon become possible), implant that one, and murder the rest.  Young tells us that a Chinese biotechnical institute is already working to make this ghastly procedure possible, and surprisingly his only concern is whether its expense will limit its availability to the current cognitive elite.  If this happens, the cognitive gap between classes could widen dramatically.  The solution, Young suggests, is basically to subsidize its use by low IQ/low class families.  Such “genetic egalitarianism” would supposedly solve the main problem of meritocracy, its tendency to ossify into closed castes, because high IQ children would be genetically engineered to regularly appear from low IQ parents.

Except that I don’t think that’s the main problem with meritocracy identified by Toby’s father Michael.  It’s been years since I read Rise of the Meritocracy, but here’s what I recall.  Shortly before being murdered in a revolutionary uprising, the smug sociologist narrator describes a dissident movement growing around him.  The narrator sneeringly dismisses their complaints about the need to dignify other, nonintellectual gifts and not tie social status to a single measure of intellectual merit, no matter how objectively and fairly assessed.  I always assumed that this was Michael Young revealing to us his deepest reservations about the coming meritocracy.  They are similar to those of that other independent-minded socialist, Christopher Lasch, who always emphasized that social mobility for the cleverest is no substitute for dignified labor for the majority.  One might call it the fundamental truth of socialism that if your system involves one man with mastery and ninety-nine in degradation, choosing that one man very wisely does very little to make that system a good system.  Especially, I would add, if your system involves murdering the ninety nine at the embryonic stage.

But then, being low IQ, I would think that, wouldn’t I?  Setting aside my moral scruples, will genetic egalitarianism work as advertised to create a dynamic but stable meritocracy?  I doubt it.  Suppose we succeeded in producing a generation where all the people who would have had IQ < 100 have IQ around 120, while the high-IQ segment gains nothing.  The bell curve is squeezed, but will society itself be more egalitarian?  What are all these high IQ people going to do?  Will they all become professors and engineers?  Won’t somebody still have to sweep the floors?  If the Chinese do this, won’t they soon have a population with hundreds of millions of under-employed, frustrated, high IQ discontents?  “Stable” may not be the best word for such a situation.

To conclude, the meritocracy is indeed coming into being, and society becomes more and more IQ obsessed.  (Few are as IQ obsessed as those who deny the reality of IQ.  This allows them to avoid admitting that the society they favor is rigged to reward one particular innate quality.  It lets the high IQ off the hook to imagine that they somehow earned their good fortune.  And it admits that their version of human equality doesn’t include the low intelligent, so that they must deny such people exists to continue claiming to believe in human equality at all.)  Michael Young was right–this is not an unmixed blessing.

95 thoughts on “Trying to cure stupid

  1. @Bonald – I think it is pretty clear that we are now in a much less meritocratic society than in 1958 when Young published – indeed, how could it be otherwise when nowadays organizations are not even trying to appoint the best people, and advertise and celebrate the fact that they do not; and when, indeed, anti-meritocratic selection/ promotion/ rewards is imposed by government and the courts?

    The Rise of the Meritocracy was written at the cusp between the ‘equal opportunities’ Old Left (which was meritocratic – nearly all the best and most influential early IQ researchers were socialists, and were also eugenicists, often members of the Eugenics society) – with a focus on class, economics, state ownership, planning etc…

    …and the ‘equal outcomes’ New Left aka Political Correctness/ SJWs – with a focus on identity politics, feminism, racism, and so on.

    So, the early IQ researchers used the tests to find the minority of very bright people among the working classes and rural populations, in order to give them scholarships and encouragement. This was almost-completely effective, and by the 1960s there is essentially zero evidence that class of birth made any difference to economic outcomes, if IQ is controlled.

    Since the 1960s the meritocracy has been progressively dismantled – mostly by greater and greater use of group preferences and quotas – until now it seems quite reasonable (and is indeed almost universal) for institutions – including colleges – to regard ‘diversity’ as their priority, or at least a very major priority. This is not compatible with meritocracy.

    The process is quite explicit, although at the same time dishonestly denied! For example, it is explicitly stated that ‘we want a woman’ for a job, and such quota-based appointments are advertised and publicly celebrated – but without acknowledging that this is necessarily anti-meritocratic.

    Having said all this, a regard the era of meritocracy as a brief transitional phase, and unsustainable – and indeed wicked if thoroughly pursued over the long term. I now think it is wrong to argue for meritocracy as a priority.

    In other words, the Left are correct that what they would call ideology is indeed more important than meritocracy, and merit must be evaluated within ‘ideological limits’.

    The problem with the left is not that they are ideological, but that their ideology is evil – it is actively destructive of The Good.

    The proper, overall, social ideology should be religious, not political – indeed it should be Christian. Christianity comes first, of course! – then merit.

    (This does not mean excluding non-Christians! Far from it. But that all decisions should be made within that context. This was how all traditional societies were and are conducted – it is what comes naturally and spontaneously to humans. Meritocracy is and always has been an elite activity of unofficial ‘invisible colleges’ such as small groups of real scientists actively working on a problem.)

    • I don’t know about Britain, but in the US there is no question that social stratification is far more based on IQ today than it was in 1958. At least where I live, almost nobody expects to live in the town of their birth as an adult. They will be sorted by an IQ test called the SAT and spat out to various colleges, many having already met their spouses. Sure some not as bright blacks will be sent to Harvard, but a) they won’t mate with the Harvard whites and b) they won’t mate with non-Harvard blacks.

      Preferences and quotas matter somewhat, but Cravath, Swaine, and Moore will have a substantial portion of black partners essentially never. At most, they will maintain a special section that deals with “Civil Rights” cases or something, just like Universities will maintain separate sections to house their pet diversentities. None of this is to say that we systematically organize society more based on “merit” than we did in the 1950s, but rather that the system has been acting for longer to dissolve any natural resistance to this completely unnatural system. What are people going to stay home and run the family farm? Start a business in their town? Marry their high school sweetheart?

      • I think you are right, Josh. However, what you don’t speak to and what Bonald doesn’t speak to (and what Charlton alludes to) is the future evolution of the system. It’s today’s 20-year-olds who are exposed to today’s system. Today’s 60-year-olds were exposed to a different system (the maximally “meritocratic” one). Because of regression to the mean (and autism and psychiatry), the children of today’s cognitive elite will not be remotely as elite as their parents (on average under conditions of “meritocracy”). Their parents don’t like this. And, as a result, “meritocracy” is being dismantled de facto though not de jure.

        This dynamic is pretty easily visible. For example, does it seem to you that Tori Spelling possesses any sort of talent at all? John Podhoretz? Jesse Jackson Jr?

        Obviously these are illustrations rather than proofs, but the system of college admissions is going this way, too. The SAT is not an IQ test any longer. Neither is the GRE. Neither has been acceptable to Mensa, for example, for many years. Admissions to elite institutions have progressively de-emphasized even the watered-down SAT (notice without de-emphasizing legacies or you-pay-you-enter) in favor of “wholistic” criteria. These “wholistic” reviews privilege children whose parents know or can afford to hire people who know which collection of confabulations is most likely to generate the coveted thick envelope. Or, less cynically, which set of paint-by-numbers “community service” activities will do the trick. This obviously privileges the current elite’s children.

        I’m not against a non-meritocratic elite, per se. In fact, I’m in favor of it. The awful, awful elite we have right now was selected meritocratically. What could be a better argument against meritocracy? The HBD types essentially liberal, modernist character is revealed in the way they relate to the failure of meritocracy: WE DIDN”T DO IT HARD ENOUGH!

      • The awful, awful elite we have right now was selected meritocratically. What could be a better argument against meritocracy? The HBD types essentially liberal, modernist character is revealed in the way they relate to the failure of meritocracy: WE DIDN”T DO IT HARD ENOUGH!

        Gold.

      • Dr. Bill…

        The “evolution” is a “default elite.” To this “goal,” a mass of self-annihilators is required. This requirement has been met most self-evidently by the modern “Christian’s” state of total deracination, ie., embrace of radical sexual autonomy/homo-sexuality/”right” to “love” whomever/positive miscegenation/anti-Creation.

  2. Pingback: Trying to cure stupid | Reaction Times

  3. I have a suspicion that high IQ veers perilously close to insanity. I draw this conclusion solely from my observations of our European elites who follow feminist and deviant-inspired policies of child-murder and barrenness in the face of hordes of lower IQ, but rapidly reproducing, populations that are more than eager to replace us. Simultaneously, these geniuses are borrowing from future generations of their own progeny who will not exist in order to provide the wealth to run their excessively egalitarian welfare states, or else they are deluded enough to think that the progeny of the Arabs and Africans will foot their bill. Of course, I wouldn’t be too bright and have probably got this all wrong.

  4. Clearly university humanities departments are not recruiting on the basis of IQ nor have they been for decades; they are recruiting, at both the student-body level and the faculty level, according to criteria of ideological conformity, which they call diversity. The result has been the driving-down of institutional IQ and the industrial mass-production of meaningless unreadable tracts, the only possible future of which is to be pulped and burned in some near-future “Green Energy” complex, probably leased to us by the Chinese.

  5. IQ is only one measure of intelligence. There are, by current theories, many types of intelligence, though there is no agreed upon list. Emotional intelligence may be more important than IQ for worldly success, and moral intelligence may be the most valuable of all in the eternal scheme. The evil genius is a cliche, but a real danger. To echo Bruce, morality first (and Christian morality is implied here), then other merits.

    Brave New World is looking less like fiction, but other dystopias are looking more possible, too.

  6. It’s not just an IQ problem it’s a lack or foresight and common sense problem. You see the latter two in white blue collar workers much more than the Harvard types. We’re paid to clean up the messes they have no idea they even made.

  7. dvdix,

    If I understand your meaning, I disagree. A lot of blue collar workers have a lot of common sense. They know their jobs, and they are street smart. There are situations where I would rather have them at my side or watching my back than someone from the ivory tower.

  8. The conceptual understanding of “equality” must be changed to anti-Supremacy in general and anti-white Supremacy in particular. The blunt equation of a white male who embraces “equality” is his own self-annihilation. The reality is that with an increase in white male’s IQ is a decrease in the certainty of his existence. And not an uncertainty limited to illusion versus concrete reality, but one simply and silently granting his “mother” “white executioner privilege.”

    The fundamental pathology of the high IQ cabal of jewhites is the unconscious, subconscious and conscious BELIEF in their “mothers'” “fundamental right” to kill them in utero. In fact, the higher the IQ of the pathological jewhite, the more certain he is of this dyke dogma.

    The question for these high IQ self-annihilating jewhites is not just how to perpetuate, but also how to maintain “elite” status WHEN there is no real desire to procreate high IQ progeny in the first place?

    Of course, the simple solution is just relentless propagation of self-annihilating memes aimed squarely at old stock white males (the viable vessels of white Supremacy). In a nutshell, all self-aware white males up to at least 42 have been entirely immersed in a radically autonomous society (absolutely desirous of Final Liberation) where a “mother” has an AMERICAN RIGHT to kill the seedline of the original “colonizers” through the Founders. This is the nature and essence of modern “equality” in MRKA. A “Matriarch’s “right” to murder future Patriarchs. A total perversion of “Might makes Right.” The fundamental pathology of that class of “white” males who should be vying for public influence with sound mind and a certainty about a white man’s right to exist and strive towards Supremacy. ANYTHING LESS is pathology. “Equality” IS A SICKNESS when found in the white male.

  9. Orthosphereans who believe Christianity to be higher than white Christianity are viewing matters absolutely to the exciusion of relationships. There is an implicit claim that a Christianity shared amongst real strangers is somehow equal to or greater than a Christianity shared amongst real brothers. Who can make this case with truthful appeal? Firstly, Christianity is the assertion of empirical Perfection. This claim is what sets Christianity apart from all other religion and ideologies. Progressively, the most intelligent whites should be Christians due an instinctual belief in objective Supremacy. Clearly, this is not the case. And clearly, this is a case of deracinated “Christianity.” In other words, a liberal social construction where mainstream “Christians” are anti-Perfection… Anti-objective Supremacy… Anti-Perfect white man… Racial “equalists.” RADICAL LIBERALS! Believers in a deracinated “Christianity” just as strong amongst strangers as between a white family in an existential crisis. Believers in total nonsense never known to be experienced in the real BECAUSE it just cannot happen.

    • We get it, Thordaddy – you’re a big fan of the Supremes. I also like Diana Ross, a beautiful woman in her prime, but empirically imperfect, as everything empirical apart from the Christic Incarnation must be. Except for that one instance, perfection lies beyond the empirical realm; it has its being in the intelligible realm and no immanentizing of the eschaton will ever alter that.

      I have always found Judge Ginsberg’s work with the Supremes, while Ross was in “rehab” for alcohol and drug issues, to be one of the biggest miscalculations ever made by the otherwise canny Motown producers. “Bad, Badder, Baddest” was a semi-“hit” in the very early years of MTV, it’s true, but whereas the vocals were passable, good enough for an audio track, the “moves” were ridiculous, making it a total disaster for a video.

      • Dr. Bertonneau…

        No… I don’t think you get it? There is no such thing as a deracinated “Christian” and so many Orthosphereans FALSELY believe themselves to be Christians when they are in fact deracinated liberals. You, specifically, also seem to identify as a deracinated “Christian?” You apparently hold a view of Christianity that not only disassociates your origin from your embrace of the Christian Assertion, but also wildly exaggerates a Christian “brotherhood” supposedly crossing racial and ethnic lines! How you manage to do this is something I would like read you elaborate on?

      • Dr. Bertonneau…

        You write interesting things on “scapegoats,” but perhaps you are too intellectual to write of those of us looked upon as “beasts of burden?” When you look for those that can “carry the Cross,” do you inexplicably discount the physically strong from consideration? You can provide the intellectual goods, yet, how much capacity do you possess to carry on those intellectual goods with necessitated force? Who looks to you “to lay down the law?” By your own account, you teach largely spiritual and intellectual degenerates. But even worse, you teach physical degenerates unable to carry forward even the most basic of knowledge with a necessary FORCE? And “we” all agree that “we” are losing for the very fact that “we” cannot carry “our” beliefs forward WITH FORCE.

      • Dr. Bertonneau…

        Where in the world are Christians slaying evil? Is it a mark of intelligence to rhetorically “transcend” the dirty work of slaying evil? Is there such a thing as a Christian soldier? Where are they? Are they “black?” How have you been able to disassociate your origin from your Christian end? Are you not, yourself, a Supremacist IN THE LEAST?

        Thordaddy: The word “jewhite,” which you flippantly use, is not a vocable of any Christian discourse; it is not a vocable of any civilized discourse or indeed of any moral discourse. It is a degenerate, low-IQ vocable. (TFB)

      • Dr. Bertonneau…

        Jewhite, just like white Supremacist, SPEAKS EXACTLY to the white Christian not yet deracinated OR seeking to undo his lifelong deracination.

        Your assertion on the other hand is simply coming from left field seemingly out of nowhere?

      • I don’t know if you get it, Thordaddy, but Bertonneau’s reply means that he thinks you’re a troll who’s pretending that white supremacy is something other than what it really means. For that matter, show us where “white Christianity” is superior to Christianity, preferably somewhere in the canon of Christian literature. Biblical, Patristic and traditional sources are all welcome. Any sources linking some unsubstantiated NRx claim or your own fevered imagination will not be accepted.

        Nice avatar, BTW. If I were a lady I’m sure I’d be wet just looking at it.

      • Aethelfrith…

        Very well… But false. One CANNOT disassociate his origin from his end.

        Simply ask yourself a simple question…

        Can a deracinated “Christian” actually exist as a Christian?

      • That’s a non-sequitur, Thordaddy.

        “Can a deracinated ‘Christian’ exist as a Christian?”

        The answer is yes, because the adjective is a red herring. You can replace “deracinated” with “idiot,” “weak,” “effeminate,” “sinful,” “lying,” “black,” “Asian,” “racist,” “liberal,” “conservative,” “neoreactionary” and any other pejorative because all of these things (and your example) are not impediments to “existing” as a Christian. The Church is full of imperfect people, but some are are working out their salvation in fear and trembling. But we’re not talking about working out salvation, we’re talking about “existing.” If you can play mental-linguistic gymnastics to justify your views, so can I in putting them down.

        And since you didn’t reply to my last question, I’m going to assume you’re full of the brown stuff.

      • Aethelfrith…

        I thought the FACT of Creation negated the ability to sever origin from end?

        Christianity IS AN ASSERTION OF FACT. To be a Christian in the minimalist sense would simply be the acceptance of the Christian Assertion. And one is accepting that The Perfect Man walked earth as empirical fact. That’s as blunt and straightforward rendition of the Christian Assertion that I can muster. The first question that instantly pops out of the mind of the modern is WHY must I disassociate my spiritual and physical origin from my purported end TO BELIEVE in the Christian Assertion and thus BE a Christian in the most fundamental sense?

        Again, I am forced to reiterate…

        A white Supremacist = white Christian…

        This is a factual statement. This is two ways of saying the EXACT SAME THING in the form of an “equation.” Equations are the tools of Equalists… The anti-Supremacists.

        The ORIGINS of your Christianity are absolutely full of meaning.

        When you AS A SUPPOSED Christian DENY the veracity of the above equation THEN you DENY being a Christian. In other words, you assert yourself a radical liberal.

        IN THE MINIMUM, as a self-avowed Christian, *you* are a Supremacist… A believer in objective Supremacy… A believer in Perfection. Your subsequent FAILURE to recognize the validity of this line of equivalence is just more evidence of your radical liberalism.

        All the language has been liberated. How does one put it back to normal in the minds of the masses?

        IF *you* ONLY KNOW this equation to be true:

        White Supremacist = white degenerate…

        THEN *you* are a radical liberal. Period.

      • Thordaddy,

        Your sustained inability to answer a simple question is conclusive evidence that you are, indeed, full of the brown stuff.

        Furthermore, you simply assumed that I equate white supremacism with white degeneracy. Where did I say that? Did you assume it because you just don’t like me? I concede you could be a white supremacist without being a white degenerate (Rudyard Kipling), a white degenerate without being a white supremacist (Bill Clinton), but neither term is mutually exclusive. You sir, are a perfect example of being a white supremacist AND a white degenerate.

      • Aethelfrith…

        Are you actually trying to make a point? Could you ask your question again in the following form:

        (space)
        Here is my question?
        (space)
        What is blah blah blah?
        (space)

        And again, a white Supremacist cannot be a white degenerate in any orderly arrangement not already perverted by radical liberalism.

        There was a time when “progressive leftism” was about “perfecting man.” “We” NOW KNOW this to be such a fabulously destructive deception that nary a single individual notices “progressive leftism’s” devolution into Neo’s Reaction AND modern Christianity.

        You’re not a fighter and so you erroneously believe this to be a mark of your civility. But Christianity NEEDS NOW MORE THAN EVER fighters for the Christian AssertIon. And you are not only not it… You are actively dissuading those so inclined. It is amazingly pathological.

      • Aethelfrith…

        I obviously disagree with the notion that a deracinated individual can exist as a Christian. To be deracinated is to deny Perfection in the sense that one embraces radical sexual autonomy rooted in a belief in the ultimate meaninglessness of one’s physical race/lineage. This mindset is anti-Creation… This deracinated mindset is radically liberal… This mindset is decidedly anti-Christian… This mindset is unequivocally anti-Supremacy… This mindset is entirely pathological. It is not Christianity that is dying. It is REALLY only white Christians dying out without any fanfare or handwringing.

  10. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/09/13) | The Reactivity Place

  11. “One may easily agree with John Rawls that one’s mental qualities like intelligence and conscientiousness are gifts, not things one has done anything to deserve, and that their fruits rightly belong in part to the community.”

    Concede this and you’re basically a socialist; in fact if not in name. I-didn’t-chose-my-parents-so-I-really-didn’t-earn-anything and thus the “community” deserves its share. Really? How is that different from Leftism? Kristor made this same Communitarian argument on Auster’s blog years ago and it was accepted. Which is why I could never be a Trad.

    This whole blog post is confused. As an economic libertarian (even though I am a race realist), “meritocracy” exists in a context of liberty which is the more fundamental concept. It is true today that in our semi-socialist welfare state high IQ people are being funneled into what amounts to a religious caste via the essentially socialist educational system; ie the caste of the Left.

    But under economic liberty, high IQ individuals would be the most productive citizens in every field (although I would wager that IQ is not enough for success and exceptional mid IQ people could compensate with good character in many fields). This is a good thing as they would be engines of productivity that generate wealth and raise the standard of living for everyone. Economies are built on increasing capital goods and technological innovations. The more capital accumulated the more wealth in the economy, the higher standard of living for everyone.

    Bonald has accepted a bad view of human social dynamics, one of inherent conflict. This sadly is almost as pronounced amongst Traditionalists as it amongst Leftists. Under economic liberty there is no conflict amongst IQ class as there is no conflict among social class. Let the smartest rise. Their a societies human intellectual capital. The important part is what the capital is directed towards; today it is ideological egalitarianism as in Leftism. In the semi-socialist world of today governed by Cultural Marxists, you are getting class conflict and genetic dystopia (for all the reasons someone like Roissy has indicated). But that just tells us something we should already know; ie that redistributionist politics don’t work. Well it seems that many Traditionalist still believe in Distributivism and its ilk. Aren’t any of you for free markets? Or is that too “liberal”?

    • Traditionalists reject a so-called free market – as, for example, in the cases of prostitution, pornography, and pernicious narcotics. We judge that the market should be closed to the entrepreneurs of those traffickings. We judge likewise that it should be closed to cheap foreign goods and illegal foreign labor that drives down wages that might otherwise be earned by willing people in the community. Nothing is “free” in economics. The least “free” thing of all is the lowest possible price for item “X.” The cost of the lowest possible price for item “X” is the sovereignty and commonweal of the nation – i.e., freedom – i.e., the highest price imaginable. It is perfectly Christian, furthermore, and not at all socialist, to conclude that a gift-from-God, like high intelligence, solicits a reciprocal gesture. All gifts solicit reciprocity, as Marcel Mauss brilliantly demonstrated in The Gift (1925). Charity is reciprocation. Socialism, of course, abolishes charity, which is why it is quite as pernicious as any hardcore contraband.

    • Concede this and you’re basically a socialist;

      Dude, that makes pretty much every human who has ever lived “a socialist” and therefore a hate object for your ilk. Hatred of humans and the societies they build is a pretty good characterization of what libertarianism actually is, though, so please keep it up.

  12. I see no evidence that the meritocracy is efficient in identifying and selecting its potential members.
    It also goes against the oft-repeated complaints that the system is now discrimnating against suitable candidates by employing affirmative selection of low-IQ. In any case, the high-IQ people are also humans with all the liablities and weaknesses that brings.

    • Many here mistake high IQ with intellectual force. Almost no one in our “default elite” shows any evidence of intellectual force. If one doesn’t physically appear able to back his intellect with sheer knuckles then only an absolute foolishness has the degenerate masses actually listening and pondering the musings of the high IQ.

      When attempting to convert brutes, one must be able to speak with fists of fury when necessary.

  13. A – I’m not convinced on whether ‘IQ’ is necessarily a good measure of intelligence to start with.

    B – I am concerned by even some on the right who have no faith in the organic state of things, and this typically comes from the ‘atheist right’. What possible reason could there be to pursue stratification where there is naturally stratification? It is akin to the eugenic quest to rid the world of genetic deformities which threaten races, even though no such threat exists. If it did, nature would allow no genetic deformity to occur at all, but instead a certain amount of variation is tolerated because in an organic society, it does little ill. Pursuing such aims however, through artificial means, can create great ill.

    Note that this synthetic children garbage is what has allowed perverts to have children with the DNA of two men. This is abomination. The upper bound range of intelligence is where it is because of nature (God if you want to go further). Why are people sure that we stand to gain in terms of civilization, from pushing this bracket? And subsidizing everyone to have high intelligence?! That is a recipe for DISASTER. Societies need high and low intelligence individuals in order to function correctly.

    I return to the organic state, lauded by the founders and luminaries of our political movement. Speaking of genetic tampering to make a superman is engaging in another expedition for utopia using means that are far more potentially devastating than even the Liberal political method. The message of Reaction should always be the same, do not tamper with the organic state of man. The systems he is naturally gravitated towards, authoritarian, theonomic, patriarchal civilization, is there to account for man’s fallen nature and allow him to survive and flourish despite his flaws.

    To have faith in God, you must also have faith in His ordained systems. Do not play God and think you can do better.That is my message to the new eugenicists.

    • Mr. Citadel…

      The best “we” can ascertain from a high IQ individual is that one is in all likelihood an anti-procreation/self-annihilator. “Our” high IQ “default elite” is very much responsible for the state of affairs that has the masses questioning their very justification to exist. High IQ equals existential pathology in general.

    • There is a role reversal… Where once society asked “why do nerds exist,” it is now the war nerds asking “why does humanity exist?”

  14. I’m fairly sure that “IQ” is a modern invention. Did it exist before 1920? Did Greeks or Romans worry about “IQ”? Did a fellow need to pass an “IQ Test” to enter a monastery under the Benedictine Order? Supposing that all the self-congratulating “high-IQ” people in the contemporary “high-IQ” institutions are really the non-plus-ultra of intelligence, then I have no notion what intelligence is, except a supremely enthusiastic suicide-pact. An encyclopedia claims to be a summation of knowledge, but it is also a radically exclusionary and prejudicial filter of knowledge. An encyclopedia is the original form of political correctness. We should seriously entertain the hypothesis that “IQ” is like the encyclopedia – utterly political from its beginning, inhuman, un-Christian, and, only in the most charitable assessment, a tool of the bureaucratic (the real word for the “meritocratic”) society.

    • Great summary. Typical of the phenomenon are the self-appointed “brights” such as Dawkins and Dennett who consider themselves superior to everybody else on the basis that since they know little or nothing of metaphysics, theology or philosophy such matters are not worth knowing. However, if the demographers are right, the future is going to belong to those regarded as being of lower IQ. Sorry Thordaddy, the outlook is not good for the white man. How does 6 million Italians, for example, compared to 4.4 billion (latest UN figure) Africans in the year 2100 look like it’s going to play out?

      • mickvet…

        I’m not sure why you are apologizing to me… I’m not a fan of the self-annihilating high IQ “white”male. His ONLY OPTION is conversion to white Supremacy — a racially-intacted Christianity — or total annihilation. Amongst the high IQ “white” males are those that absolutely understand this equation. They also understand another equation:

        Mass of self-annihilators = default elite…

        It’s so diabolically simple. Have your rivals off themselves, assume default “elite” status and never get your hands bloody.

        And because white Supremacy is the ONLY WAY to transcend this diabolical scheme, a “default elite” IT IS!

      • ^^^ His ONLY OPTION is conversion to white Supremacy — a racially-[intact] Christianity — or total annihilation.

    • Dr. Bertonneau…

      We seem to be in agreement (high IQ = self-annihilator) and thank the Lord that I do not suffer from a high IQ!

  15. I see the Tower of Babel. I see forbidden knowledge.

    One of the ways I comfort myself about the impending end of our civilization is to try to see the benefits. We are the Tower of Babel. We are willing to eat the forbidden fruit. But God won’t let us. He will strike us down. I hope it will be an end to gay marriage, legalized abortion, human cloning, selling baby parts, etc.

    • One way to invalidate Christianity would be to find the body of Jesus. Is there another way – to so radically transform humanity, or to attain absolute power over the human condition, or to create sentient lifeforms in a laboratory?

      H0 god ;
      H1 sexbots
      ?

      • Earl, finding the (fake) body of Jesus and chaos ensuing is pretty much the plot of a late 19th century novel called “When It Was Dark.” It acutally used to be quite famous apparently.

        As far as civilization collapsing anytime soon, I think we have at least a century or two left from inertia alone, so I guess we’re going to have to dig in for a while, though it’s going to get real bad real soon. The Supreme Court has de iure declared that Christianity is completely incompatible with The Constitution and therefore the United States too. I don’t think people quite grasp yet how huge this is. We’re at the very very very least in for mass civil disobedience on a scale larger than ever before. I don’t think a Christian in good conscience can ever work for the United States government again, not to mention most Western European states, even as a law enforcement officer or a member of the military.

        I think a massive federal tax strike is next. Hopefully that will do something, but I’m not very hopeful.

      • Earl…

        The resistance is more primitively abstract. The enemy rejects The Perfect (white) Man in mere concept… The “argument” over Jesus Christ’s Supremacy amongst men is utilized as smokescreen for this more salient fact. The enemy outright rejects the empirical possibility of a perfect (white) man, ie., a (white) man who will do all right. Ergo, he is de facto fatalistic… A self-annihilator.

        Self-annihilators are AUTOMATICALLY DISQUALIFIED from any seat at the Table of Civilization. Yet, they feast nonetheless.

      • I would start with the truism expressed by Augustine: “That which today is called the Christian religion existed among the Ancients, and has never ceased to exist from the origin of the human race, until the time when Christ himself came, and men began to call Christian the true religion which already existed beforehand.”

        Neither the opinions of empirical science (inductive reasoning) or of history (abductive reasoning) can prove or disprove metaphysical or religious revelation. Now, “[since] mind (Nous, Logos) is become teacher and saviour, nurse, guardian and leader, speaking the truth in silence, unfolding and giving forth the divine law” (Porphyry), I would hold that the only way to invalidate Christianity would be to show that Jesus was not an incarnation of the Eternal Logos.

  16. Thordaddy, the problem with you entire conception of Christianity is that it’s so idosyncratic that it might as well be a personal delusion of yours.

    I’m not going to reject the biological fact that there are different racial groups, which should more-or-less be kept separate (if only to ease conflict) in their own self-governing communities. Christianity is best when its practices within an organic community, as it has been throughout history. But I don’t think any Christian should subvert Christianity to racialism.

    I think atomization is the main problem here. Everyone one thinks that ideas exist in vacuums with little regard for practical affairs. Hence the racial and nation confusion of most Christian communities, especially Evangelicals, in the U.S. (the problem is much smaller in Europe, where there are national churches, but America’s been exporting its brand of Evangelicalism for years now).

    • Jim…

      I have no such concept of Christianity.

      The Christian Assertion is straightforward…

      Jesus Christ walked earth AS The Perfect Man thus revealing His Divine Status and giving proof to God the Creator.

      The enemy rejects this in totality… BUT he rejects some parts “more equally” than others…

      The fundamental dispute is a head divided. Perfection versus radical autonomy. The way of Christ or the way of progressive man?

      White Supremacy is not a subversion of Perfection to race. It is an acknowledgement that origin cannot be severed from end in CreatIon.

      • Jim…

        I should have said you practice your Christianity as racially constituted… You cannot sever your racial origin from your belief in Christianity. White Christianity IS A MORE PARTICULAR “thing” than Christianity. Agree or disagree?

  17. I may regret this, but what do you think “Christianity as constituted” means?

    I think I’ve already made it clear that love of kindred, which includes race and nation, is part of the natural order of any healthy society. A community should actually be a community, and your first loyalty is owed to those closest to you. It’s always been the church that has fostered healthy autonomous communities, and ironically it’s African Christians who have been most vocal about improving Africa, creating an authentic African Christianity, and letting the Europeans mind their own affairs.

    It’s unhealthy to practice pathological “charity” towards invaders and foreigners at the expense of your neighbors. Too many people today are overly generous with other people’s land and wealth, especially if those peoples’ ancestors come from Europe. This would probably make me an evil bigot and a White Supremicist in the eyes of left-wing nut jobs, but White Supremacy, as it has historically been defined, really has little to do with Christianity, since it severs the natural order from the supernatural and places that which belongs below over that which belongs above.

    I know that it’s been white people who have suffered from the forced “diversity” that the elites love so much, but that’s no reason to get your basic categories confused. Salvation isn’t dependent on whiteness.

    This is a pretty big hypothetical, but Christ would still be perfect even if there were no white people (which hopefully will never happen).

    Honestly, your arguments really make little sense, and I think I’m not alone in this.

    • Jim says,

      This would probably make me an evil bigot and a White Supremicist in the eyes of left-wing nut jobs, but White Supremacy, as it has historically been defined, really has little to do with Christianity, since it severs the natural order from the supernatural and places that which belongs below over that which belongs above.

      As “historically been defined” = “progressively”-defined = pervertedly understood… It is deracinated “Christianity” that prevails and denies the legitimacy of white Supremacy, ie., white men who strive towards Supremacy. It is a racially-intact Christianity that can only survive as a viable community or nation. Where do Christians exist freely in diversity?

      • Are you even reading my posts? I’m convinced you’re either a troll or a crazy person or both. I think this has run its course.

      • Yes Jim… You basically told me that you where a white Supremacist, but because the enemy has successfully perverted the phrase in the mind of the masses then you are not, in fact, a white Supremacist.

        PS No one trolls for over ten years and for free.

      • Dictionaries, like this one, tend to define white supremacist like this:

        a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races

        This definition seems like a mess to me. In terms of “inherent superiority” among humans the hierarchy I believe in goes: Our Lord, His Mother, priests, everyone else. So, a black priest is inherently superior to, say, my white ass.

        Questions about who, exactly, should have temporal rule and under what institutional setup strike me as prudential questions which admit only to contingent answers. That being said, I think any country with a non-trivial number of white Christians in it should be ruled by a white, Christian, propertied father and that this set-up should be mandated. Who should rule places like Congo is less clear. Leaving them to their own devices seems, at least on the surface, to be a significant failure of charity. We get to have self-righteous preening, and they get to have fistulas.

        White supremacist or not?

      • Josh:

        Are you [thordaddy] suggesting that there was a time when “white supremacist” meant what you use it to mean and not what everyone else uses it to mean?

        I confess that I don’t read a lot of thordaddy’s comments, but that is the impression that I have too. Basically he is doing the nominalist/NRX/postmodern thing of attempting to take the insults hurled at us (which do in fact characterize something real and morally dubious, but more often in context are just reflections of the prejudices and incapacities of the speaker) and turn them into positives through sheer bullheadedness.

        Assert that “white supremacy” isn’t just the label of a good thing, but is a label encompassing all of the most important good things, enough times — do that, and we can disarm and ‘win’ against the progressives who see every traditionalist reactionary as a white supremacist. A “milder” form of this is when folks attempt to take insults hurled at us and claim that they are anti-concepts (e.g. ‘racism’), denying that it is even possible for the term to refer to something that actually happens and is actually bad.

        thordaddy, I think you mean well and (from the bits I’ve read of your comments) are probably ultimately on the side of the angels, but for what it is worth I’m on the list of folks who think you might want to consider a fundamental change in your approach.

        I am always initially kind of surprised at how easily many reactionaries get bogged down in postmodern quicksand, until I reflect upon the fact that all of us (including myself) are really modern people. It is just that the level of self-awareness varies rather widely, and we are all in different stages of pulling out the weeds in the gardens of our minds.

      • Alright, crazy person then.

        “Christianity=White Supremacy because Origins=Ends or Jesus=Perfect ergo White must strive for Perfect without being deracinated because Jewhites so Supremacy must be strived for to be doubleplus True Christian as WhiteJesusChrist, and if you don’t think so and don’t change your definitions of words and phrases to ones I’ve pulled out of my ass and accept my weird logic jumps as universal truth, then you’re on the enemies’ side” is not a good argument.

        How many people here have you convinced of anything over the last ten years? Or have most responses been similar to mine? Think about this, please.

        If I feel like being generous, I’d say that your writing is muddled, confused, juvenile, poorly and idiosyncratically defined, and unclear, but if I’m being honest, it reads like something that you’d find on a schizophrenic’s padded cell. You’re just not helping your own cause (which apparently is White Nationalism or Supremacy, but I’m really not even sure about that).

        Seriously, I’m not even sure that you’re a native English speaker. If you aren’t, I’m forced to say that you don’t speak the language as well as you think you do and may want to brush up.

      • Zippy…

        It’s far more simple than that…

        The BEST AND GREATEST of white Christians JUST ARE white Supremacists. It’s self-evident. It’s equally self-evident that the most degenerate of whites CANNOT BE genuine white Supremacists. Most Orthosphereans and assorted “white” males are jostling somewhere in between.

        That you WILL STILL pay homage to the MODERN conception of “white supremacy” tells us that Zippy is a deracinated “Christian.” Zippy is a Catholic who thinks his race/origin has nothing to do with his Catholic belief (his end)? How he came to this conclusion in any way other manner than an embrace of radical liberalism is unknown?

        So you are not about to claim that you can MERELY call the best and greatest white Christians JUST Christians, are you? Would you not be suffering from “acute equalitis” knowing what “we” know about the state of Western Christianity?

        PS I am no part of Neo’s reaction… I have relentlessly criticized that blob of anti-white Supremacy for its desire of de facto homo lifestyle (wifeless, childless, full of pleasure).

      • Jim…

        Simply define objective Supremacy and then to the best of your ability create a label for a white man who believes in objective Supremacy?

        What do you come up with?

      • To Jim, josh and Zippy…

        First note that *you* as individuals DO NOT WANT TO BE genuine white Supremacists.

        This understanding lay at the heart of your inability to understand.

        BUT ALSO NOTE that this rejection is a rejection of your Christianity. This is the aspect that you cannot assimilate as of yet.

      • There’s an entry on TV Tropes that is dedicated to thordaddy’s style of conversation. It’s called “Insane Troll Logic.”

      • “Jim…

        Simply define objective Supremacy and then to the best of your ability create a label for a white man who believes in objective Supremacy?

        What do you come up with?”

        I’ve come up with…..ThorDaddy!…LOL…but seriously get some help, dude.

  18. Criticizing the modern quantification of intelligence is not the same as abolishing the idea of intelligence; it only means that the concept “intelligence” returns to the realm of the qualitative, where it belongs. The notions of stupidity and intelligence are necessary in the disestablishment of the modern notion – which the critique recognizes precisely as stupid and stupefying. Other things that are stupid are not thereby promoted to the status of intelligent. Wisdom is probably more important – in the sustenance of culture and for the good of society – than intelligence. The unwise nevertheless still outnumber the wise. What is crass remains crass. Men still make their own misery.

    Let all public offices be filled, with strict term-limitation, by lottery, with compulsory service and sufficient pay to make the burden of it bearable. It is the opposite of meritocracy. We shall not be more badly governed than we are now.

    Jim: Thordaddy never listens or attends. In this he is exactly like “amorphous,” who likewise learns nothing and endlessly recites his worry-beads. “Amorphous” lower-cases. Thordaddy capitalizes. The typographic quirks are the minimal difference.

    • I’ve been saying this for years. I think the problem is that we need to figure out a way to keep intelligent people in their local communities.

      But the real brain-drain, and what’s creating the most damage, is that it’s the moderately intelligent people who are the most likely to leave, thus robbing entire towns of their stability. People with slightly above-average intelligence traditionally have fulfilled the role of organizers and community pillars in small towns.

      I’ve found that extremely intelligent people are almost as likely to found at the bottom of society as at the top. This is anecdotal, but I’ve had a friend who works in prisons confirm this: he’s daily surprised by how intelligent, creative, and well-read many prisoners are, especially those convicted of murder.

      I suppose it’s because smart people, if they really are smart, care very little about empty-status whoring. Academia is rewarding for some, but it skews so far left, and, let’s be honest, abhores creativity. The arts are all but dead in the West. Only a psychopath would really want to enter national politics. Bright, creative young people, especially men, are left with few outlets, and a rage is slowly building in them.

      What you’re left with is entire towns with the jobs gone, economies broken, and a rising influx of drugs, exclusively populated by the tail ends of the Bell Curve. Not a good situation for health and stability.

      And you’re absolutely right about intelligence being qualitative. Mensa and other high IQ societies exist just so idiots can pay money so they carry around a card proving how smart they are.

      • I spent the day with my friend DF, a college-dropout who worked for Oswego, New York, city-government for decades and is now retired. DF, being self-educated, is better-read than nine-tenths of humanities professors, has a better grasp of common sense, and is probably wise. He has lived in his community for his entire life, knows everyone, and gives everyone his due. Our outing involved a trip from Oswego to Webster, where we patronized an antiquarian bookstore run by a young man, hardly thirty, who, after earning a baccalaureate in philosophy at Nazareth College in Rochester, immediately started his book business. I am regrettably a vagabond, but I have been a summer resident in Oswego for thirty years (almost) and a permanent resident for fifteen years. I am trying to merge with the community because it strikes me as being as close to a genuine polis (population 16,000) as one is likely to find in North America. By the community I do not mean the college where I teach, but the actual people of Oswego. The city of Oswego ought to be an independent and sovereign polity, sharing Lake Ontario with other such, small polities. Webster might be one. Kingston, Ontario might be one. Our so-called republic of 300 Million people is a monstrous sham.

      • “People with slightly above-average intelligence traditionally have fulfilled the role of organizers and community pillars in small towns.”

        Also, importantly, women were always the primary social organizers in a town. Now they have “jobs” and facebook groups.

      • Good point, Josh. And also (and this is obviously controversial), there tend to be a lot more women who fit this profile than men, since, as I have experienced and most intelligence studies have confirmed, women cluster very close to average and men tend to be either very smart or very dumb with few members actually in the mean. Career girls have given up their roles as care-givers of the community to work some unfulfilling office job. Of course their instincts can only be supressed so much (which gender is it that always organizes banal work parties to celebrate the Birthday of Debbie from accounting, or some other person whom you don’t know, don’t care about, and really would never want to see outside of work?)

        To TB: Glad you’ve found a genuinely nice place where you can do your thing and contribute some good. Sounds great. I can empathize with having to live all over the place because how scarce university jobs are, since I’m on the cusp of that right now.

        I think the main problem in the future will be fostering these communities while maintaining a high standard of living. 16,000 people just isn’t self-sufficient enough by modern standards. We need to find a way to distribute goods and services on a large scale without moving people around so much. But I guess this is something for the future.

    • That’s silly talk., Dr. Bertonneau. I read far more here than I comment… There really isn’t much more to say to deracinated “Christians” other than compel them to reject their deracination without qualification. Or in your case, highlight your inexplicable bias towards a black ancestor that has you knee-jerk to a phrase that an English professor might be compelled to interpret LITERALLY INSTEAD of liberally.

  19. As thordaddy is ever at pains to point out, the critical issue facing the West at this juncture of history is the all-important need to reassert white supremacy. So long as we fail to commit ourselves to that crucial and necessary task, we cannot realistically hope to revive our decaying traditions, including our Christian religious and philosophical traditions–since our racial and religious being as Westerners, as whites, are inseparably intertwined. The restoration of white supremacy–the explicit or implicit operating basis of the United States from at least the time of the founding (in both north and south) right on through to the 1960s–would begin to resolve well-nigh all of the problems about which the denizens of this website incessantly complain. There is no factor more responsible for the problems that beset the U.S. and the West generally, then the decline of white racial consciousness–the consciousness of white supremacy.

    I too thank the good Lord that I don’t suffer from a high IQ. I may not have a Ph.D, but that doesn’t prevent me from comprehending that a country settled by western European whites–mostly British–that is at present preoccupying itself with the needs and claims of niggers, Jews, spics, fags, Musselmen and women, to the detriment of white men who alone are capable of “keeping a republic”, is headed for history’s proverbial ash-heap and deservedly so.

    So what advice do we get here from those of a more rarefied intelligence? Well, one tells us that our imperative need is to read Harry Potter and convert to Mormonism. He is treated with sycophantic respect in these precincts. Another implies that the answer is to teach our young sons to wear bow ties. Yet another suggests that his town upstate is an incipient Athens, Sparta or Rome.

    On the other hand, thordaddy tells us that our historical mission is forcefully to confront our wicked and perverse enemies and to reassert our control over them–nothing more, nothing less, will do. Far easier to sit back and dream dreams of Harry Potter, bow ties and antiquity, than to confront the difficult truth that we’ll never come close to restoring our Christian traditions until we’re willing to contemplate harming our enemies.

    • We know that the demonic and the barbarian mirror each other: the demonic in the Imaginal realm from which it attacks us by means of the passions, and the barbarian in the Empirical realm from which it attacks our bodies and physical artifacts. But we seem to dismiss Paul’s pointed observation of whence our warfare must begin:

      “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” — Ephesians ^:12

      Before we can ever hope to vanquish the enemy without, we must vanquish the enemy within. This can only be done with education, true education:

      “Moreover, is not every emotion of the soul most hostile to its safety? And is not want of education the mother of all the passions? Now education does not consist in the absorption of a large amount of knowledge, but in casting off the affections of the soul. Now the passions are the beginning of diseases. And vice is the disease of the soul; and every vice is disgraceful. And the disgraceful is opposed to the good. Now since the divine nature is good, it is impossible for it to consort with vice, since Plato says it is unlawful for the impure to approach the pure. Wherefore even now we need to purge away all our passions, and the sins that spring therefrom.” – Porphyry’s Letter to Marcella

      Before we can ever hope to establish civilization, which is the conformity of earthly society to its divine paradigm (Platonic Justice, the New Jerusalem: vide Exodus 25:9), we must become righteous men as commanded by Christ: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect – Matthew 5:48. The only way to do this, I hold, must be to follow the path laid out by Damascius in his Commentary on the Phaedo:

      “The same relation that exists between education and life in society (the function of education being to quiet down the wild turmoil of birth and to make the soul fit to attain complete harmony), exists also between the life of purification and the life of contemplation: purification checks the downward trend to prepare us for the effort of ascension, and this is also the aim of the purifying ceremonies that precede sacred rites. If one is to be united with the higher powers, it is necessary to detach oneself from lower influences first.

      Any disposition on our part inevitably assimilates us to one particular category of beings in the universe. If we are pure, we join the pure, if impure, the impure, i.e. matter-bound demons in the latter case, the Gods in the former, or, if our condition is intermediate, the intermediate kinds. In each case similarity is the binding force that unites things of one kind to form a continuous whole, as water does with water and air with air. Therefore, when approaching God, we should strengthen our likeness to him, as far as it lies in our power, through purity; for, as Plato says, ‘it is unlawful to touch the Pure without being pure’. It is called ‘unlawful’, because God must not be soiled by an impure contact; at the same time it is impossible, since darkness can never approach light.

      Purity is threefold: of the soul, of the body, of external things. We must strive for all of these, so that everything, not only ourselves, but our tools also, may be flooded by divine illumination, that no demoniac darkness may settle on our soiled tools, turning away our sight from the Gods, and that our soul may travel lighter on her way to the divine and, so far from being burdened by those tools, may derive strength from them for the upward journey, since she is still tied to them as far as natural life is concerned. If, on the other hand, we come to God with an impure mind, though pure externally, we lose our pains; for then the soul by her way of life remains chained to the evil genii she resembles.”

    • Is that even what he’s saying? Speaking of Antiquity, you could interpret the oracle at Delphi if you can see any rational points in that dude’s ramblings. I’ll just answer you I guess.

      I don’t think anyone here, from what I can gather, would disagree that our side is going to have to resort to physical violence to defend ourselves at some point or other. I won’t argue with you there. I also don’t deny the need to get rid of Cultural Marxist categories.

      But what you call White Supremacy isn’t going to work for long and isn’t going to convert people in large numbers. First off, whiteness as a description is really only useful in the United States and other former British colonies; it’s only become a thing in other countries recently because of massive non-white invasion. In Italy, for example, you itraditionally identified with your region. That’s not to say that Europeans aren’t a more-or-less biologically unified entity, but it’s just too much of a catch-all to be a truly useful category (much like religion). Few people have ever been inspired by some abstract loyalty to the white race. Their true loyalty, as far as patriotism goes, extends to their nation at the furthest reaches (and is more appropriately expressed toward their family and local community).

      White Supremacy also gets its categories confused. Whiteness isn’t the ultimate expression of a man’s being, though some seem to think so. It’s a bank-rupt ideology ultimately grounded in Marxist notions of Structure/Super-Structure. You’re putting physical realities above supernatural realities, which is the chief sickness of Modernism. The race, for lack of a better word, should be a spiritual reality before a physical one, and they should be so inter-twined that there’s scarcely any difference between them. I don’t care for his perennialism, but all White Nationalists should read Evola, a man who truly succeeded in overcoming Modernist thinking.

      We need a return to the Faith first before we can do anything else. As Belloc said “Europe is the Faith and the Faith is Europe.” The Church is what inspired men to fight and die against every invasion of Turks, Moors, Mongols, and Saracens for centuries, not whiteness. And orthodox Christianity (notice the small “o” please) is what’s going to defeat the current muslim invasion.

      Also, “deracinated” doesn’t mean “to lose your race” like Thordaddy seems to think it means, but literally “to be uprooted.” Everyone I know, especially in the US, is deracinated to one degree or another, as in to be cut off from their origins and culture without any sense of place or owing any loyalty to non-abstract things. To be loyal to “the white race” instead of “democracy” or “the constitution” or whatever is to replace one vapid abstraction for another. Transience is the rule of the day, so the answer to the question “can a deracinated person be a Christian?” is that not only can he but that he is forced to do so nowadays.

      And yeah, the catering to all the spooks, spics, kikes, and gooks is getting a little old. I’m all out of white guilt at this point.

      Oh, and on the lighter side, to all my black friends who may be reading: if a white person ever tells you they’ve never said “nigger,” they’re lying through their teeth.

      • Yet another of my comment threads ruined by thordaddy.

        Look, TD, you’ve made your case for your idiosyncratic use of the words “white supremacy”. You’ve explained it at length in multiple discussions, to each of which it was entirely irrelevant. No one is convinced. You should just let it go. You are welcome to participate in future discussions as long as you remain on topic–on topic as determined by me, and I guarantee the topic is NEVER “white supremacy”.

      • Jim: I find it a bit ironic that you accuse thordaddy of “rambling”, when your own comment isn’t a bad instance of a ramble itself. You more or less identify yourself as a white supremacist and as a Christian “supremacist”, but then you turn around and reproach us for our explicit advocacy of white Christian supremacy.

        Well, I suspect that we’re pretty much on the same page. No one is talking about a devotion to a vapid abstraction of “the white race” worldwide (though such a notion, were it realistic, strikes me as perfectly desirable). But cultural restoration in the United States just isn’t going to come about through preservation of specific bloodlines and kindreds–like the Scots-Irish, or the WASPs, or the Dutch, etc. We’re too mixed for that. It will have to take the form of a “white” consciousness, and thus white supremacy.

        I foresee both North America and Europe balkanizing into regions, and the loyalty of the “whites” in those regions will be to their specific locales and the fellow countrymen of their region. That balkanization will necessarily include the expulsion of all nonwhites and non-Christians, or else their relegation to a second-class status–i.e., white supremacy, the explicit or implicit basis upon which the entire United States, both north and south, operated from at least the Revolutionary era all the way until the 1960s. There’s nothing strange or repellent about “white supremacy”–it was the normal character of the old America that we can all agree was infinitely superior to the New America in which we presently sojourn.

        While there’s an interesting “circular” dialectic that holds between the need to vanquish the inner enemy as well as the outer, between the need for a sociopolitical revival on the one hand and a religiophilosophical cum spiritual revival on the other, I’m afraid I do take the position that it is imperative today that we first conquer our external enemies and revive our sociopolitical position, before we begin to purify ourselves internally and restore Christianity to its place of honor. The chosen people of God first conquered a homeland for themselves, with God’s help–then Christ came and taught them in their age-old fatherland. First the flesh, then the spirit. Let everything be done decently and in order.

        So I’m afraid that I am a proponent of what Bruce Charlton has called “fascism with divine backup”–because I think it’s rather obvious that if a sincere Christian faith, widely held, were sufficient to deliver us from our present plight, then we wouldn’t be in this plight to begin with, since the Western world used to be more thoroughly and sincerely Christian than we men of today can even imagine–and it was all compatible with white supremacy.

        Like you, Jim, I want us to return to that state of affairs where the variegated European peoples are living in their respective (regional) homelands, practicing their respective (regional) Christianities, yet vaguely united by an awareness of racial similarity and a common worship of the One True God. The white race, as I conceive the notion, is no more or less a vapid abstraction than is “Christianity” conceived apart from all particularity of expression.

        We appear to disagree–slightly, it seems to me–about the best way to get to a future that is both robustly Christian and Western. If your way will get us there, no one will be happier than I.

      • Nonsense, Bonald… If you talk about Christianity then you are talking the language of Supremacy… And talking AS a white man about Supremacy.

        So I am always on topic.

    • “Yet another suggests that his town upstate is an incipient Athens, Sparta or Rome.”

      Jim is right. Wade pays no attention. He imagines what other people write and responds to that. Wade, Thordaddy, and “amorphous” should establish their own website. They have much more in common with one another than they do with any of the Orthosphere’s core contributors.

      • Yeah I can see that now, but I’m new to the site so didn’t know. Haven’t ran into amorphous yet, but I’ll take your advice to ignore him too. Shouldn’t be too hard.

      • Look, Tom, I’m perfectly sympathetic to your rejection of a 300 million population “republic” and your preference for sovereignties that occur at the level of the polis. The only question is, how do we get from here to there? Present-day Oswego is certainly far from being anything like an ancient polis, lacking as it does its own cohort of citizen-warriors who owe their allegiance to nothing but the city. So “getting from here to there” in this case will necessitate going from a country where the average man is an effeminate cad to a country where average men pledge their lives and honor to their fatherland. How do you propose we do that? It seems to me that white supremacy, with its implication of the necessity for violence and the cultivation of the martial virtues, would advance us in that direction.

        Maybe you’re thinking of New York city. (TFB)

      • Not sure what you mean, Tom. It sounds as if you’re alluding to my characterization of the average American man as “an effeminate cad” and suggesting that the average Oswegian man is otherwise. That doesn’t seem plausible to me–I doubt that Oswegians in the mass are essentially different from other Americans–but let me cede the point for the sake of argument.

        One thing’s for certain–the average Oswegian man isn’t someone who pledges, or is even willing to pledge, his life and honor to his Oswegian fatherland. Again, the relevant question is: how do you propose to advance toward such a man? You obviously think that white supremacy or fascism are not options to be entertained. So what do you propose in their stead to produce the modern equivalent of a patriotic Oswegian hoplite or citizen-warrior?

  20. If you’re just going to call my posts rambling and then somehow are able to understand them perfectly and respond point by point, I don’t really see a point in talking, but I’ll try.

    I didn’t reproach you at all. I said Thordaddy’s post make no friggin’ sense and I’ll stand by that.

    Was there really anything you didn’t understand? Or do you just disagree? If the latter, you owe me an apology.

    You want European people to rule other races because you think they’re biologically superior; I want Europe to defend itself against invasion by those who hate it and then leave them to their own designs, hopefully having joined the Church. I’d really prefer that the Congo be ruled by people in the Congo, and so would they. If post-colonialism has proven anything, it’s that people would rather be ruled by mental and moral midgets of their own race than by the most sagacious administrators of an alien race.

    By advocating that the smartest or most accomplished race should just rule over the others is exactly the sort of meritocratic thinking that this article is arguing against.

    We’re really just arguing semantics, which is always boring and pointless.

    And if you think Christianity is merely an abstraction, I would question your sincerity as a Christian. Christianity isn’t a means to end; in your case I guess the end is white purity, but there are plenty of other examples.

    • Jim, I won’t respond point by point to your comment–it’s a bit too rambling for that–but I’ll reply to one issue you raise.

      I don’t care how the Congo is ruled–whether by a bunch of voodoo savages or a noble cadre of proud white conquerors who lord it over the sambos with terror and cruelty. Who cares?

      • I tried to have a conversation and find some common ground. I now see this was a mistake. You honestly should be embarrassed to have the icon you have. Have fun saluting the nazi flag and having a circle jerk with a bunch of other skinheads on the DL.

        A noble cadre of proud white conquerors? Are you even serious? You’re living in a comic book.

      • Jim, I myself tried to find some common ground with you in my reply to the original comment you directed at me. I repeatedly said that I didn’t think you and I were that far apart from one another and I closed by saying that “If your way will get us there, no one will be happier than I.” You responded by demanding an apology.

        And yes, my last comment directed at you was, shall we say, a “gag”.

        I still think you and I aren’t that far apart. I don’t think I’m all that far apart from well-nigh anyone here. But, like thordaddy, I believe that a full-throated embrace of white supremacy gives us our best–nay, our only–chance to revive our historic Western traditions. Again, white supremacy was the norm in the United States, both north and south, in one way or another, for nearly the entire course of U.S. history until the 1960s. Why is everyone so nervous about returning to our historic norm?

  21. ALLELUIA! I repent and see the error of my ways! Christianity=White Supremacy!! But of course not the White Supremacy as people have understood it for the past few centuries, but how Wade and TD define it!! There’s just no way words and phrases have varied definitions and subtle shades of meaning in different contexts. How could I have been so blind?!!!

    How could all of those non-Aryans actually think they were real, live Christians?

    Please, oh please enlighten me about how 8 foot tall, blond haired, blue eyed Aryan Jesus ™ came to show us the way to best rule the little brown people of the world!

    My fellow white superheroes, let’s all ride friggin’ magical unicorns into the darkest depths of Black Africa and slaughter the mongrel hordes with our flaming swords of fire!!!!!!!

    And here we were all discussing reality, when we could have been living in our own heads.

    After all, origins=ends!!! I mean duh, TD’s only been explaining it for ten freaking years.

    As for the rest of you, do you even lift bros? DO YOU?!!!!!!!

    Sorry, but couldn’t help myself.

    Josh, Zippy, Dr. Bertoneau, Earl, Mr. Prig etc. I’d be happy to continue the conversation with the rest of you.

      • Oh I wasn’t picking favorites or even listing everyone who has participated. Just trying to keep a relevant talk going.

        To stick to the topic of the article, and since you’ve experienced it a little in real life, how do you think Christians should best go about keeping their communities alive and prevent brain-drain and economic collapse?

        Though my hometown gets along pretty well since it’s a suburb between two big cities, so a lot of people stay there and commute, I’ve met countless people who are from places that are dying. Currently, I live in a small city where almost everyone is from somewhere else (really I don’t think I’ve actually met anyone who was born here). It’s safe, new, and nice, but has that dull austerity that comes with a place lacking any character or history. This probably isn’t the best way for human beings to actually live, since home should never be interchangable.

        I’ve heard of adopting Distributism as an economic policy being an answer, but I’m afraid I don’t know much about it other than a lot of famous Catholics advocated it for a while.

        PS Some people may interpret my sarcastic post above as blasphemy, though it should be pretty obvious that I don’t believe that AryanJesus ™ is real, it may be taking the Lord’s name in vain. Not sure, so I’ll leave it up to the admins on whether or not it should go.

    • Jim…

      You read like the most hysterical liberal.

      You do understand that Hitler was anti-white Supremacy IN THE ABSOLUTE sense?

    • Jim, in every one of my comments I have used the expression “white supremacy” in precisely the sense in which it is ordinarily meant.

      I think the strange hyperbole of your comment speaks for itself.

  22. I’ve said already that I don’t want to discuss silly new meanings of “white supremacy” in comments on my posts. This stupid diversion has derailed the conversation beyond repair. I’m trying to finish multiple projects and papers, teach a class, help a couple of my PhD students finish their dissertation work, and raise two children, so I don’t have time to screen comments as they arise. Therefore, I’m going to disable further comments.

Comments are closed.